|
It is
common logic that mankind had to have an origin. But
where did we come from? Were our ancestors monkeys
that swung from the trees or is it possible that
humans walked upright on the ground from the very
beginning? Who is the father of us all - a man or a
monkey?
Those who hold to an evolutionary worldview are
convinced that man has evolved from brute ape-like
creatures. From time to time, this lineage designed
by scientists with proper "scientific
credentials," is updated by some new discovery.
Someone, somewhere, discovers a newer and supposedly
older fossil that adds credibility to the idea that
monkeys and men are cousins.
An announcement of this nature was made July 2002.
One British newspaper reported: "Harvard
University expert Daniel Lieberman, one of the few
scientists to have seen the skull, said its
discovery would send shockwaves through the
scientific community, adding 'it'll have the impact
of a nuclear bomb.'" 1
Prof Michel Brunet of Poitiers University in France
was the man responsible for this new explosive
fossil find. He said in an interview: "It is a
lot of emotion to have in my hand - the beginning of
the human lineage. I have been looking for this for
so long." 2
Consider the significance of Prof Brunet's
statement. As a professor and practicing
paleontologist, Brunet had attained what all
evolutionary scientists dream of accomplishing - he
had searched for and then actually found the
"father of us all." Imagine the odds of
something like this actually happening?
The fossil skull named "Toumai," is
claimed to be one million years older than any other
human-like fossil ever found. Of course such a very
old fossil of an alleged ancestor of mankind is a
newsworthy item. When scientists find something so
important they immediately become very famous.
Time magazine ran a full feature article on
this amazing new discovery. The leading paragraph
stated: "This chimplike creature roamed the
woods of Central Africa 7 million years ago. Today
it's shaking up the human family tree." 3
While enthusiastic claims make it sound like this
fossil is one of the most important ever found and
has proven conclusively that man has ascended from
the apes, I am not quite so convinced. For example,
consider what the authors of the Time article
"Father of Us All?" stated:
"In life, the creature probably resembled a
chimpanzee more than anything else. This animal
probably shared the forest with apes and monkeys
and, like them, spent some time up in the trees. It
may have walked upright, which apes rarely do for
very long at a stretch. But at a casual glance, it
would have seemed to our eyes, like just another
chimp." 4
So what is there about this find that convinced Prof
Brunet and others that this skull belonged to an
ancestor of the human race? If the creature
"probably resembled a chimpanzee more than
anything else" or "at a casual glance, it
would have seemed to our eyes, like just another
chimp," would it be possible that it
"probably" was "just another
chimp"?
How
Old Is That Man?
According to evolutionary experts, the fossil skull
found in the African country of Chad added further
insight into the origin of man. "Toumai
man," claimed to be 7 million years old, is the
oldest member of the linage of man ever discovered.
But how did scientists actually determine the age of
this proposed human ancestor? Was there a tombstone
buried along with the fossil inscribed with the date
of death? Furthermore, what method was used to
date the fossil? Can the age be verified using
accepted documentation that is reliable and of
course scientific?
We can answer these questions by referring to the Time
article. We read: "Ideally, the
researchers would have preferred to find bones
sandwiched between layers of volcanic ash containing
potassium and argon, as these can be precisely dated
by tests involving radioactive decay. Unfortunately
the geology at Toros-Menalla did not cooperate. But
the scientists found something nearly as good. The
site was replete with fossils from all sorts of
other primitive animals, including fish, crocodiles,
rodents, elephants, giraffes, aardvarks and more -
42 types in all. Many were identical to specimens
that have been radiometrically dated with great
precision elsewhere. As a result, a team led by
Vignaud confidently pinpointed the skull's age
between 6 million and 7 million years, probably much
closer to the latter." 5
It is interesting to note that the age assigned to
the skull is based on "precision" dating
of fossils found at "another location."
Now think about this carefully. Is this science at
its best? Or is this an example of enthusiastic
speculation masquerading in the name of science?
If I were a qualified paleontologist who claimed to
be open-minded, I would want to have my questions
about this find answered before I jumped on the
evolutionary band wagon. For example, how certain
are we that scientists can actually
"pinpoint" with "confidence" and
great "precision," the exact age of any
fossil?
Furthermore, we know that volcanic rocks deposited
in the last century and dated by potassium-argon
dating methods have given erroneous ages of
formation of millions of years. How reliable are
these so-called scientific dating methods that
seemed to be designed to support the evolutionary
time scale of millions of years? Better yet, how
reliable is the theory of evolution?
Our
Very First Steps
It is always an exciting moment. Every couple who
has had a child can recall the exact moment and the
exact location. It was the day their baby took his
or her first step. What excitement! For the first
time, a crawling creeping little bundle of joy
defied gravity, rising up from all fours to the
bipedal position - the term scientists use to
describe those who can walk on their own two feet.
According to evolutionists, there was a day when our
great-great-great-great grandfather (a monkey-like
creature on his way to becoming man) took his first
baby-step for mankind. I suppose to be fair and
gender correct, I should say it may have been our
great-great-great-great grandmother (Ms. Monkey) who
was on her way to becoming a human by making the
effort for slide down a tree, lose her tail and
begin to stand up. Whatever the case, according to
evolutionists, walking upright was a great day for
mankind.
Now, how and why this individual actually walked
upright, still remains a hotly discussed topic among
the faithful adherents of the evolutionary
worldview. It seems few who are certain what
triggered the emergence of the earliest bipeds.
While most agree walking upright was the key to
setting the monkey-to-man lineage in motion, there
are still a number of facts to be sorted out.
For example, consider how the Time article
attempted to resolve this important question of how
and why man began to walk. We read: "A decade
ago, the leading theory suggested that climate
change had dried Africa out, replacing the forests,
where apes thrived, with grasslands. A walking ape
would be better suited to this environment, since
tree climbing would be useless. Standing would give
a better view over the top of the grasses of
potential enemies. Also, a vertical position would
offer less exposure to the rays of the sun." 6
This idea was widely accepted as the explanation,
allowing natural selection to do its job. Walking
upright would produce better vision and less
sunburn, the story goes. However, a problem
developed as the result of new data emerging.
Scientists like Tim White, from University of
California, Berkeley, discovered that early ape-men
also lived in partly wooded areas and not just
grassland areas alone. Obviously this created
a major problem with the
"how-did-man-learn-to-walk-on-two-legs"
question. What other evolutionary forces were
important in forcing our ancestors to take their
first baby steps. If trees were around, then our
ancestors wouldn't have had to stand up to see -
they could still climb a tree.
The Time article provides insight to this
dilemma: We read: "An ape walking on two legs
could traverse these open expanses, much as the
earlier theory contended, to get to a safe habitat
in the next forest over. With its hands free, the
ape could carry extra food. The best male upright
walkers could bring back more food for the females
of the species, increasing their chances of winning
a mate and passing on their genes…" 7
Are you convinced with this new idea that is
supposed to explain why you and I walk on two legs?
If this is true, what will happen to our generation
who don't walk? Most men I know drive to the store
for groceries today. Does this mean their legs will
end up falling off or evolving into something else?
Evolutionists, convinced man has ascended from the
apes, refuse to look at all the evidence and even
reason logically. Why?
If man has always been man, then we have been
created. If we have been created, we are accountable
to a Creator. The Bible tells us the Creator is
Jesus Christ.
Those
who do not believe that God is the Creator will find
out that God created when they stand face-to-face
with God. For example, Charles Darwin, an
evolutionist here on earth,
upon his death would have discovered who the Creator
is and what He has done.
It seems to me that it
would be wise to consider the facts about the
ape-man lineage while one is still living. If you
have accepted that the "father of us all"
is a monkey, you may be deceived.
Footnotes:
1 Martin Newman, Metro, July 11, 2002, page 3
2 Ibid.
3 Michael Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman, "Father
of Us All," Time, July 22, 2002, page 41
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid. page 44
6 Ibid. page 47
7 Ibid.
|
