How Evolution Works

Despite all the hype there is universal ignorance about how Evolution operates. So let’s stop and think through the mechanism to better appreciate this amazing and highly acclaimed phenomenon.

The Miracle of Progress

We are told that Evolution created for us all life-forms, including humanity. All the complexity, intricacy, ever-so-clever innovations, amazing functionality and profound capabilities developed, so we are told, from an accidental process which has proven wonderfully lucky for us.

We will not consider here the number of miracles required for the evolutionary process to move forward. We will not consider the statistical impossibility of the process. The scientific community has schooled us to ignore those realities and accept, as a matter of faith, that Evolution did happen. And that is that!

Defining Evolution

Let us contain ourselves to the simplest definition of Evolution. Working up from there we should have no problem explaining the process.

At its simplest level, Evolution is “change”. When we say that our skills have evolved we do not mean that they have stayed the same. They have changed, hopefully for the better, over time.

So, the simplest definition for evolution probably should be “change”, or maybe “change over time”. We could even call evolution by other names, such as “morphing” or “biological transformation”.

Evolution is change. If nothing has changed then nothing has evolved.

But, we should note, not all change is evolution. When a bucket rusts we don’t call that evolution. That’s simple degeneration, even though it is “change”. When one gene is switched on and another switched off, that is not change in the inherent nature of the thing, although it might represent a striking visual difference.

A Change Agent

Now, for evolution to occur, so that “change” can take place, there must be a change agent. There must be some process causing change. If there is no process of change, there is no evolution.

Evolution assures us that “change” has taken place. So the theorists must come up with a change agent. They need to show the method by which organisms make those millions of miniature “morphs” that transform simple things into the incredibly complex creatures living on the planet.

Crossing Boundaries

Now I pointed out that some changes are not evolutionary. Rust and decay are not evolution. And the kinds of visible changes which occur in the breeding of animals and plants are also not evolution, because the essence of the creature has not changed.

For evolution to become what evolutionists mean it to be the change process must be able to cross boundaries. Amazingly, from an evolutionary point of view, created things are contained within their own biological set. These types, kinds or species are able to interbreed, but not mix across the biological boundary.

Dogs can be crossed with wolves, but not with foxes. While the diversity of types of dog suggest that just about anything is possible, there is an invisible biological boundary around the “dog” species. The boundary includes the wolf, suggesting that all the dogs we know today were bred from an original wolf family.

Evolution must be able to empower a fox to cross with a wolf. It must provide change ACROSS the boundaries. That kind of “species to species” change is biologically impossible today. So, how did it happen in the past?

Paper or Plastic?

But evolution requires a secondary process to its ability to create “change”. Evolution also involves choosing the best new alternative.

We frequently face many choices, such as, “Do you want fries with that?” or, “Do you want that in a paper or plastic bag?” Likewise, evolution is forced to make millions of choices to get to a good outcome.

You see, not every change is a good one. A mindless change process (assuming there is a change process at all) produces random outcomes. Considering the delicate and intricate balance required for just about every important biological process, there must have been billions of negative changes before the best ones came along.

Evolution, as a completely mindless process, could not know which changes to choose. So there had to be a mechanism that would successfully make the right choices. That process also had to be completely random, yet successful.

The Fitness Test

Evolution gained its greatest advancement under the notions put forward by Charles Darwin. He proposed what we could call the “Fitness Test” concept. His idea of the “Survival of the Fittest” caught the popular imagination. This concept seemed to give scientific validity to the ideas that had already been discussed, of life developing without a divine creator.

Charles-Darwin-31

As the millions of changes took place, all non-beneficial changes would be displaced by failing the fitness test. If changes made the organism weaker it would die. If a change made an organism more viable than its parent, then the new would displace the parent generation, in due course.

Change and Discrimination

Evolution needs to produce millions of changes and then discriminate between them to pick the best ones. If there is no change then there is no evolution. If there is no discrimination then harmful changes will outweigh the beneficial ones and destroy the existing life.

Survival of the Fittest became the rallying point for evolutionists. To this day many people think of “Survival of the Fittest” as synonymous with evolution.

Yet Survival of the Fittest only addresses the second stage of the process. If the fitness test takes place at all, it only serves to remove the non-viable outcomes of the change process. Survival of the Fittest says nothing about the change process itself. And at heart, Evolution is Change!

Now You Have It

Got that? Evolution is change over time, with the ability to pick the good changes. Evolution is “Change” with “Discrimination”. Oh, and that change must not just be window dressing. It MUST be able to cross over the biological boundaries.

Survival of the Fittest is the supposed “Discrimination” mechanism. Now all we have to do is find the “Change” agent that can jump biological boundaries.

If there is a viable Change agent and a viable Discrimination agent we are a long way toward discovering evolution.

However ….

Owning a rifle doesn’t make you a killer. Owning a typewriter doesn’t make you an author. Owning a guitar doesn’t make you a musician.

So, even if we could discover very viable Change agents and Discrimination agents, we have not proven evolution. Even if the ability to jump the biological boundaries is provided, we still have not proven evolution. While evolution must produce its viable mechanisms it must also produce its evidence that those mechanisms created what we see around us today.

And that, my friends, is an impossibility. You cannot prove the past. Even if evolution were occurring today, that cannot PROVE that it ever happened in the past.

So, our dear friends who have taken evolution to heart have a long way to go to have a viable case. Sadly, most have resorted to asserting evolution as a “fact”, rather than admitting what the existing evidence declares. Change between species did not happen. Change between species does not happen now. Change between species is a myth, supporting a pseudo-science.

In a future post I’ll take you for a waltz through the topic of “Change” and see what we come up with.

Genesis Challenged

Christianity faced troubled times at the close of the nineteenth century. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution fed scientific scepticism about the Genesis account of creation by providing what seemed to be a viable alternative. At the same time, clay tablets from the ruins of the ancient city of Nineveh provided alternative accounts of the Flood and Creation, in clearly mythical form, suggesting that the Genesis record was similarly a mere myth.

Foundations Shaken

Creationist Ken Ham points out that Christianity has been distracted with taking pot shots at issues while its detractors have been aiming their weapons at Christianity’s foundations. If the Book of Genesis can be discredited then all that follows in the Bible can be brought into question.

During the nineteenth century (the 1800’s) assault on the Book of Genesis was vigorously pursued by some, based on emerging scientific hypotheses and on archaeological discoveries.

Charles Lyell, who lived from 1797 to 1875, proposed a non-catastrophic view of geography, despite the abundant evidence for upheaval in the geological record. His propositions of uniformity allowed for extended periods of time in the earth’s history. That extension of historical time was required by the proponents of gradual change over time (evolution).

The emerging notion of evolution was given seeming scientific status by Charles Darwin with his 1959 “Origin of Species” with its account of exotic creatures in the mysterious and remote Galapagos Islands. The notions of “survival of the fittest”, “natural selection” and “missing links” created a new scientific myth which had everything but substance and common sense.

Within days of the release of Darwin’s book, Thomas Henry Huxley, eventually dubbing himself “Darwin’s Bulldog“, began vigorously promoting the scientific worth of evolution over the religious notions carried in the Book of Genesis.

Enter Archaeology

As the battle for Genesis gained intensity, a new dimension emerged to give impetus to detractors. A pile of rubble in ancient mounds in the Near East yielded documents which dated back almost 1,000 years before Christ. Included in that rubble were ancient mythologies of events similar to those described in Genesis.

The city of Nineveh was a sprawling metropolis at its height. Successive rulers moved their principal residence to different parts of the city and so several palace buildings were established over time. Add to that the fact that Nineveh housed the world’s greatest library collection of its time, and you have the creation of a treasure trove of antiquity.

The ancient palaces and libraries of Assyria began to be excavated in the 1840’s, leading to the discovery of a vast collection of ancient documents on clay tablets. In 1850 English archaeologist Henry Layard uncovered the palace of the Assyrian King Sennacherib at tell Kouyunjik (one of the three principal palace locations in Nineveh – Kouyunjik, Khorsabad, and Nimrud).

In 1853 Layard’s former assistant, Hormuzd Rassam, found the famous library of the Assyrian King Ashur-bani-pal, in a different part of the Nineveh ruins. 26,000 of the original 100,000 clay tablets survived with decipherable text. Many were taken to the British Museum for translation.

Among those tablets were found Assyrian myths about creation and a fiction story which featured a great flood. When they were finally translated by George Smith he published them under the title “Chaldean Account of Genesis” in 1876 under the auspices of the British Museum of Oriental Antiquities. The very title suggests a direct link between the tablets and Genesis and those discoveries fuelled the accusation that Moses’ Genesis document was a mere evolution of earlier mythological writings. Note that George Smith died that same year, on his way back from his third visit to the ruins of Nineveh.

Assyrian Flood Story

In December 1872 George Smith published his translation of the oldest known literary work in human history. Smith was the first person to read the story in 2,000 years. But the Epic of Gilgamesh was not made famous for its literary worth, but for its reference to a great flood.

George Smith is an interesting character in that he was not a great scholar and came from a working class background. But he was fascinated with antiquities and taught himself to decipher ancient cuneiform inscriptions. He soon became more knowledgeable and skilled in the task than the staff at the British Museum where he pored over antiquities. Consequently Henry Rawlinson, the great Assyriologist of the day, arranged for Smith to be employed in the Assyriology Department to work on translating the thousands of clay tablets from Nineveh.

Smith translated several tablets in the fictional story of a man named Gilgamesh, who travelled the world facing various adventures. He came to a blank in the story, where a missing tablet was needed to continue the adventure. Smith then ventured to Mesopotamia to attack the pile of rubble left by Layard and Rassam, and, against all odds, found the missing tablet.

It told of a great flood, and of a boat and animals. It even mentioned birds being released at the end of the flood. This bore striking resemblance to the Genesis record of Noah’s Flood.

Assyrian Creation Story

Following Smith’s translation of the Epic of Gilgamesh he then came across another set of clay tablets telling a story which led to the creation of man. The series of seven tablets is known as the Enuma Elish.

While some tablets were broken and accurate translation is impossible, the general text of the story has been translated several times by different scholars. It was first titled “The Chaldean Genesis” by Smith. LW King’s 1902 translation was titled “The Seven Tablets of Creation“. EA Speiser’s translation was published in a 1969 book titled “Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament“. It is obvious that scholars readily link the Enuma Elish with the book of Genesis.

Mounting Evidence

When Smith followed his Assyrian Flood translation with the Assyrian Creation story in 1876 there seemed to be growing proof that the Bible was merely another expression of ancient mythological writings.

Combine that with the pseudo-scientific crusading of Huxley and other evolutionists and you can see that Genesis was under solid attack by the end of the 1800’s. That assault has played a large part in the increased secularisation of western society during the twentieth century.

Clay Tablets are No Threat

Despite the perception that the clay tablets from antiquity have demolished the Bible, the truth is quite the opposite. The abiding impact of archaeology at Nineveh is to confirm the first-hand authenticity of the Bible accounts. The clay tablets confirmed details, customs, language and similar details provided in the Bible, which had previously not been corroborated.

Further to that, the seeming case against the Bible crumbled on closer investigation. The Assyrian stories are vastly different to the Bible account and the differences set the Bible apart, rather than put it down.

Ignorance and Assumption

People who are ignorant are prone to making assumptions. This tendency can be exploited by those who wish to deceive or who make suggestions which are misleading.

When the public is told that the Assyrian stories of the flood and creation match the Bible, many people will gullibly assume that the parallels are striking and that the Bible’s authority has been damaged. Few are likely to read the source documents and remove their ignorance.

In a follow up post I will explain some of the glaring contrasts between the Assyrian and Biblical accounts which people have been led to believe are closely related.

The Truth About Natural Selection

When Charles Darwin observed Natural Selection and proposed that it was the alternative to divine creation, the world stood in awe of his amazing insight. But I am here today to show that Darwin’s guess was completely the reverse of reality. Darwin was a good observer, but a failed prognosticator. He failed to interpret reality and he distracted, fooled or misled generations of the most brilliant minds.

So it is time to take stock of the truth about natural selection.

Diversity Observed

Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace both published their concepts of evolution in the same year. They had both travelled to strange and exotic places and observed creatures which were new to their audiences. The mystique of their amazing travels and the authority which they could purvey on the basis of their experiences outside those of other men, gave their ideas an undeserved level of credibility.

What Charles Darwin observed on his six year voyage as naturalist aboard the HMS Beagle was ‘diversity’. He observed the same process which breeders had known for centuries.

The Bible records the selective breeding activities of Jacob, grandson of Abraham, almost 4,000 years ago. So the creation or refinement of diversity through breeding activities is nothing new.

Darwin observed finches and tortoises on the Galapagos Islands, as if he was discovering something profound and new. He certainly was observing diversity and the results of selective breeding by the natural isolation of animal communities. In this work he was not remiss.

Natural Selection

Rather than selection by human agency, such as animal and plant breeders would do, Darwin celebrated nature’s ability to provide the selection process. Here, without human intelligence, the process took place regardless.

Darwin’s religious perspective (seeking to prove creation without a creator) prompted him to an interpretation that misled generations of the world’s best minds. Darwin, happy to find an alternative to the reality and presence of an all-knowing and holy God, postulated that ignorant and mindless ‘nature’ could take a hand in the selection process. This allowed room for something other than an intelligent and divine creator.

Here Darwin stopped being an observer and became an interpreter. But every interpreter is influenced by his underlying premises. No scientist operates in a vacuum, but in the context of his or her frame of reference. Darwin’s frame of reference was antithetical to true science. His religious notions, when woven with his scientific observations, took on a scientific significance that has beguiled the world ever since.

Now We Know

Darwin was blind to many realities which we now know. He considered the cell to be a very simple entity. We now know that the simplest cell is more complex than a modern highly integrated city. Darwin imagined that the fossil record held evidence it did not contain. Darwin imagined that such processes as sexual relations contributed to the process of transformation of the physiology of a creature (sexually transmitted physiology into adult organisms).

Charles Darwin was patently wrong on these and many other accounts. As a prognosticator he was a miserable failure. As a hypothesiser he was a miserable failure. As a theorist he was a miserable failure. He was a good observer and there he should have stopped.

The Underlying DNA

What Darwin did not know is that the underlying DNA code does not just describe the organism as it is observed and as it currently functions, but that DNA also contains a much more vast scope of possibilities for the organism.

From an evolutionary point of view each new and discreet function is seen as advancement. It is seen as the ‘emergence’ of something new.

And there evolution is patently deceptive and patently wrong.

Evolution seeks to explain the creation of new features. But that creation happened only once, by a supernatural act of a supreme intelligence. No evolution has happened in the beginning or since. No evolution will ever happen. It is a fool’s notion.

What is really happening is that no new features are created, but the features which have already been gifted into the organism’s DNA are able to be activated or deactivated by the breeding process.

Each new and discreet function within an organism is not a creative process but a process of activation or switching, so that previously unseen features are now displayed. However, there is no new information within the organism. Nothing new has been created.

That is why the evolutionists are at a complete loss to explain the ongoing creative process. There is no such process! Evolutionists point to natural selection, as Darwin did, with the religious conviction that such an invocation will bring along a favourable fairy to solve their problem. But they are empty handed.

Of Breeds and Breeding

Any breeder knows that while you may be able to cross come creatures sexually the new animal may be sterile. This sterility factor is the means by which scientists are able to identify the genetic relationship between apparently similar kinds.

The mule is an example of a cross that creates a sterile animal. Dog breeders have proven the wolf as the ancestor to the modern dog breeds by this sterility factor.

“A wild wolf is genetically little more distant from the domesticated dog than a wild mustang is to a quarter horse. (That wolf and dog can be hybridized, while a fox and dog cannot, points to the genetic and ancestral affinities of wolf and dog.)….”In actuality, a poodle, like any purebred dog, already has innumerable wolf genes since they share a close common ancestry.” Dr. Michael W. Fox, D.V.M., Ph.D., D.Sc., Vice President, Bioethics, Humane Society of the United States. Affidavit.

Note in the quote from Dr Fox that the wolf and dog can be successfully bred together (hybridised) but the fox and dog cannot. There is an underlying DNA connection between the wolf and all the varieties of dog. There is no underlying DNA connection between the fox and dog. By this it can be determined that the dog was not bred from the fox, but from the wolf.

Full Genetic Complement

Note also that the fully hybridised dog variety still contains “innumerable wolf genes”. Hybridisation does not even have to involve the “loss of information” which many creationists refer to. It is possible to have remarkable hybridisation of a species and yet to have the entire underlying DNA intact. The function is not necessarily the addition or removal of DNA elements but the activity of “gene expressors” which effectively flick the switch to turn on or turn off certain genes.

Thus Brisbin notes that there is no discernible DNA distinction between dog breeds, despite the obvious physiological distinctions which we readily recognise.

“….Breeds of dogs can not be distinguished from each other by any known anatomical attribute or even biochemical genetic test, including DNA fingerprinting. Since a given breed of dog can not be defined by any scientific means currently known, our contention is that it is not possible to write any ordinance or law that would single them out for special treatment since they cannot be so defined in a legal sense. … there is no biochemical genetic test that can even distinguish wolves from domestic dogs. I. Lehr Brisbin, Jr., Research Professor, Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, The University of Georgia. Letter, 30, Jan. 1990

The Truth About Natural Selection

Natural Selection is just a fancy term for breeding that takes place without human involvement. The truth about natural selection is that it is not in any way related to the mythical concept of evolution. Natural Selection, as is the case with all breeding and cross-breeding, involves activation and deactivation of the pre-existing, and continuing DNA information contained within the organism since the entire genus was created.

There is no new information. Darwin and all who follow after cannot postulate a valid scientific process for the creation of new information, because there is no such process. There never has been such a process. There is no need for such a process.

God created the vast library of genetic options into the various kinds when He created them and we have had much amazement ever since as we have explored the limits of that genetic variety.

Modern science attests to this reality. The DNA of dogs and the DNA of the Galapagos Tortoise are all evidence for initial creation.

For more information about the failure of evolution and for evidence for special creation go to: http://creationontheweb.com

Despite Diversity Dogs Defy Definition

OK, so it’s a silly title, but I just like the alliteration. So, what is this all about? It’s about the fact that there is no way to distinguish a poodle from a wolf!

I’m Not Joking

This is not a joke. What we all take for granted as enormous physiological distinctions, clearly visible to our eyes, are almost non-existent! There is just about no way to distinguish between the myriad breeds of dog scientifically.

Isn’t that amazing? I am really stunned by that fact.

I have always assumed that a visible distinction would be clearly discernible in the DNA of a creature and that these very obvious features would have equally obvious genetic descriptors. It is not so!

What the Experts Say

I know you won’t believe me, so let me quote from an authority on the subject.

Here is a published quote based on a letter written by a Research Professor on Jan 30, 1990.

“….Breeds of dogs can not be distinguished from each other by any known anatomical attribute or even biochemical genetic test, including DNA fingerprinting. Since a given breed of dog can not be defined by any scientific means currently known, our contention is that it is not possible to write any ordinance or law that would single them out for special treatment since they cannot be so defined in a legal sense. “Recently I attended a canine genetics workshop at Texas A & M University in which it was further emphasized that there is no biochemical genetic test that can even distinguish wolves from domestic dogs. “….I would taxonomically identify all wolves, wolf hybrids and domestic dogs as the species Canis lupus. Technically, the domestic dog and wolf hybrids should be designated as the sub-species “domesticus”. I. Lehr Brisbin, Jr., Research Professor, Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, The University of Georgia. Letter, 30, Jan. 1990

Those Distracting Physical Distinctions

If dogs that are as diverse as the Chihuahua, the Great Dane and the Poodle can defy definition despite diversity (just to use my alliteration again) then we see the opposite of evolution before our eyes.

What the diversity of dogs does is do a deadly duel with dilly-dallying dodos ……

Oops… Sorry about that.

Evolutionary thought starts with observation of diversity and superiority of function and tries to imagine how these things emerged from nothing. Evolution must justify distinctions that facilitate the survival of the fittest, allowing for natural selection. It must then imagine how the very physical feature itself could have developed through progressive stages.

Evolution’s starting point is those distracting physical distinctions. But we have seen that those wonderfully diverse and distinct evidences creating quite individual superiorities of function can be invisible in the genetic code.

Punctuated Equilibrium

The progressive evolutionary concept is so fraught with difficulties, such as degeneration of the existing structure in the process of moving toward a more suitable structure, that it simply defies all logical suggestion.

Thus some evolutionists have tried to conceive of a more miraculous (all evolution is a miracle) spontaneous transition process. Stephen Jay Gould proposed the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium, which recognises that transitional forms do not exist but that rapid transition is more supportable from evolutionary interpretation of fossil layers (note that Noah’s global flood gives another much more plausible explanation for the fossil layers – but that factor is not acceptable to atheistic scientists who must reject the evidence and the historical records to support their empty theories).

Punctuation, then, is the magical process by which a new expression of an animal species can suddenly appear as if from nowhere. Those who believe in Punctuated Equilibrium do so with sober expression on their faces and then expect the waiting world to accept such explanations as: “What Is The Mechanism Of Evolution In These Cases? The theory of Punctuated Equilibrium does not say, and it shouldn’t.”

It shouldn’t? I beg your pardon, sirs, but you MUST! Otherwise you are simply distracting the wonderful minds which God created into a backwater of vain speculation so they will commit intellectual suicide and throw their marvellous minds into the trash can of evolutionary delusion.

The Amazing Genetic Library

The scientific study of dogs, however, is not supportive of progressive evolutionary progress nor of punctuation. Instead it supports the concept of an amazing genetic library from which each species can draw to find its most suitable advantage in diverse settings.

Natural Selection is not a tool of evolution, but a servant of the created genetic code. Charles Darwin’s observations do not support the God-less ideas of the evolutionists but the very opposite. The concepts of natural selection and “survival of the fittest” fit the scientific evidence of a profound genetic pool for each species, from which diversity can spring, even in a punctuated expression, contrary to evolution.

Punctuation Is God’s Tool, not Evolution

Describing Punctuated Evolution it is said that, “The point of the theory is only that evolution is more likely to happen to small groups, isolated from the homogenizing effect of the larger main group.”

This is not a description of evolution at work, but of natural selection drawing particular gene expressions from the pre-existing genetic pool. An isolated small group will experience in-breeding and thus the accentuation of some genetic expressions. That smaller group will either be weakened or strengthened by the resultant manifestation of selected features. Survival of the fittest will allow the appropriate expressions to gain some ascendancy.

Voila! God’s amazing and loving provision for His creation is activated to positive effect. A new breed of dog emerges, better adapted to the situation.

No New Genetic Information

Yet, as we saw earlier, there is no discernible change in the genetic information. Scientists cannot take the gene and distinguish it from the gene of the parent community, or even the originating source community after thousands of years.

There is no new genetic information. There is simply a fresh genetic expression.

Gene expressors and selectors are probably the key elements here. But that is not good news for the evolutionists. Gene expressors are not part of the creation of new genetic code, but simply the switching from one piece of code to another.

It’s A Dog’s Day for Darwin

Dear Charles, Sir, you were wrong. You were desperately and deceptively wrong. You turned everyone’s attention to the visible, discernible qualities, such as those you observed at Galapagos, when all along it wasn’t about the physically discernible distinctions at all.

You distracted science from its core business of exploring the glory of God and had wonderful young men and women digging in the dirt for non-existent missing links and scouring the world for evidence of something that simply does not happen. You destroyed several generations of brilliant minds. Shame on you.

It is recorded that you loved dogs and had eight of them in your large household. You should have asked them about your theories – they have more to reveal about the things you questioned than your own books possess.

You should have talked with your dog.

For more information about the failure of evolution and for evidence for special creation go to: http://creationontheweb.com

Cave Man Proves to be Real Man

The term ‘cave-man’ is a cute little evolutionary trick to create in your mind the idea of some kind of human that was pre-human. The whole concept of a ‘cave man’ dates no earlier than the discovery of human fossils in the Neander Valley in Germany in 1857, a mere two years before Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” book was published. The discovery at Neander is where the term Neanderthal comes from.

The Cave Man Myth

With the push to sell evolution to the world the concept of a ‘cave man’ became a useful imagery. The idea that our original evolutionary ancestors lived a simpler and more primitive life seemed to make sense. Primitive tribes were still being discovered and new fossils finds were being recovered to feed the populist idea.

In the 1920’s the debate about origins reached ferment and cave man concepts and images filled the popular culture.

Such ideas fed the arrogance of the western mind, which ascribed to itself a place of evolutionary superiority over the more primitive and childlike peoples found in far-flung jungles. A patronising and self-serving approach could then justifiably be taken toward these ‘lesser’ peoples. The superior’ creature could dominate the inferior.

And so it was that Charles Darwin’s “Origin of Species” book legitimised murder, death camps, Marxist revolution and much more. The image of an idiot cave-man played wonderfully into the evolutionary notion and its implications.

Blame the Cave Man

Cave man imagery, including cartoons and jokes, suggested that male dominance of women was an evolutionary throwback, to the mythical time when a cave man dragged a woman to his den by her hair.

Cave man imagery legitimised nudity, suggesting that clothing is only an impost of recent invention, but is not part of the natural human condition.

And cave man legitimised man’s baser instincts as being somehow deeply embedded in the human psyche. Man’s lust for another man’s wife was not seen so much as sin, but as something from the stone-age.

Jack London’s award winning book, The Call of the Wild, concluded with the suggestion that every creature, including man and his dog, carries the wild instincts of his primitive past buried deep within him.

The Myth Crumbles

Like all the materials trotted out by evolutionists to legitimise their counter-science the cave man myth is crumbling too. Missing links, embryonic recapitulation and Piltdown man were compelling reasons to embrace evolution, but they were myths and frauds. So too is the “millions of years” chorus which still rings loud and clear in scientific corridors. So too is the peppered moth, evolutionary tree of the horse, vestigial organs and so much more.

The cave man mythology is hard to kill, because it has been celebrated in so many ways, including such popular television series as The Flintsones. Researchers have, however, continued to prove the sophistication of the cave man. The supposed ancient ancestor of humanity was not a childlike idiot with an animal-like lifestyle. He was remarkably capable and decidedly “human” in his existence, as best we can tell from the evidence.

Neanderthal Man

Neanderthal man is the title given to the fossil remains of an over-sized human population which has been discovered around the world. Neanderthal fossils have been uncovered widely, including at the Peking Man site in China, near the Paluxy River dinosaur and human footprint trails in Texas, USA and in various places around Europe.

Recent investigation on the island of Gibraltar reveal that Neanderthals were much more sophisticated than evolutionary textbooks once tried to make us believe.

BBC Report, September 23, 2008

Here is a quote from a BBC report on the findings at Gibraltar.

“The findings, reported in the journal PNAS, give the lie to the popular view that Neanderthals ate a diet utterly dominated by meat from land animals.

“This is yet another difference that had been proposed between Neanderthals and moderns which now disappears” Prof Chris Stringer, Natural History Museum, London.

It is one more example of the greater sophistication now being ascribed to Homo neanderthalensis; and further complicates the story of how modern humans (Homo sapiens) out-competed and out-lived their evolutionary cousins.”

Notice that Prof Stringer recognises that the differences between modern humans and the Neanderthals are only ‘proposed’. They are proposed, not from science and evidence, but from the promoted belief that man evolved. The cave-man notions imposed upon the bones are fictitious and fanciful, serving only to beguile the public, not present scientific evidence.

Notice the words in the report “greater sophistication now being ascribed” – which means that the lack of sophistication – the dumb, child-like expressions conceived by the artists and the simple cave accommodation – were ‘ascribed’. They were never science, just the imagination of men who wanted to believe in evolution. Yet they were presented to the world as scientific fact.

Science has long been abducted by those religious devotees of the cult of humanism.

Are You Duped?

This simple report further attests to the fact that we were being deceived by the evolutionary dogma on this topic. Many knew that the supposed science was biased and misleading – but only now is the admission being made.

This is typical of evolutionary assumptions being promulgated from a position of bias, only to be overturned by more complete scientific investigation.

This should sound a clear warning to all those who still hold to the remnants of evolutionary dogma, but it probably will not.