by Bill Nugent
We’re in for another installment of the skull charade. An ancient apelike skull was recently found in Africa. It is being pushed as a “missing link.” This find, called “Sahelanthropus tchadenses,” was discovered in Chad in west central Africa. It has mostly chimplike features.
The article in the 7/22/02 issue of Time magazine presents very little evidence to support the allegation that this is a human ancestor. The Time article and other stories carried by national media are almost entirely speculative. It’s another case of educated men making educated guesses – and guessing wrong!
The Time article quotes eminent paleontologists telling stories about apes and monkeys in ancient forests and savannahs. The only real science is the assembly of the bone fragments and technical discussion of the size of the brain case and jawbone, etc. The rest is just artful storytelling.
I tremble when I think of the millions of people who will be deceived by Ph. D. scientists making fanciful claims based on skull fragments. Our society has such deep respect for science. Further study of the paleontological literature shows that the various teams of scientists criticize and contradict each other. This is what I call the battle of the skulls.
The many scientists who reject ape to human evolution contend that all of the skulls are either fully ape or fully human. They contend that no apemen skulls have been found. Their works can be read on the Institute for Creation Research’s website which iswww.ICR.org.
Rather than get into a “he said, she said” debate about skulls and stories lets look at other aspects of evolution that are open to rigorous analysis by objective science without speculative wiggle room. One such aspect is proto-evolution and another is genetic mutation.
Proto-evolution is the aspect of evolution that deals with how the earliest living organisms supposedly formed by random interaction of nonliving chemicals. A typical simple bacteria is composed of at least 239 different kinds of protein and each protein molecule averages 446 amino acids arranged in precise order. Proteins are complex bio-polymers that must be manufactured in the mitochondria of cells. Scientists have proven that proteins don’t just randomly form in nonliving primordial soup.
Many eminent scientists including illustrious names like Argyle, Crick (co-discoverer of DNA), Hoyle, Wickramasinghe, Schutzenberger, Morowitz, Schroeder, Miller and Kenyon have done rigorous laboratory experimentation and probability analyses that conclusively show the utter impossibility of life forming from nonliving chemicals. I’m not talking about subjective theorizing or storytelling like the ape skull crowd likes to employ.
These scientists have done experimentation and objective computer driven probability analysis and have disproven evolution at the molecular and microbial level. For instance Morowitz has calculated the probability of a cell forming randomly at one chance in ten to the 99,999,999,879th power and this is essentially a zero probability. Morowitz and the other scientists did not approach the evidence with any prejudice in favor of creationism to my knowledge.
Let’s take a brief look at genetics. Genetic mutation, the supposed means of change from one species to another, is yet another aspect of evolution that can be objectively analyzed. Genetic mutation has in fact been rigorously analyzed by geneticists, many of whom initially supported evolution. What they found was that genetic mutation only scrambles existing genetic information and virtually never adds new information to the genetic code.
The overwhelming majority of genetic mutations are unfavorable, neutral or fatal. Favorable mutations are extremely rare. Scales don’t just turn into feathers. A wide array of coincidental, favorable genetic mutations must occur and add information to the genes to cause scales to turn into feathers. Such a radical mutational change in the genes has been proven to be so utterly remote as to be impossible. Evolution therefore has no practical means of adding information to the genome that would cause the addition of new organs. Hence no uphill macro evolution can occur.
Yet in spite of the mountain of objective scientific research that effectively disproves evolution, paleontologists want us to believe that a few fragments of apelike skulls prove humans descended from beasts!!! The burden is on the evolutionists to first prove how life could have evolved from nonlife before we should even look at their ancient skulls.