Question 59 – Don't we share ancestry with the apes?

One of the assumptions of evolutionary theory is the notion that man originated, in the distant past, from an ancient proto-cell, which gradually evolved into a diverse array of creatures. Based on the observed natural world, scientists infer that we must have a common ancestor with apes. This is the direction in which their research and inquiry are headed. However, during Darwin's time (and when this hypothesis was formulated), there were essentially no strong pieces of evidence that could reasonably support it, even partially. Despite this, the hypothesis was formulated and gradually accepted as dogma, without concrete evidence. Science isn't much better off now. Evolutionary scientists propose and suggest numerous alleged ancestors of the human species, yet these are highly debatable, influenced by subjective worldviews, and many scientists meet them with varying degrees of skepticism. The saddening truth is that the public is often unaware of this. Let us now explore several methods and areas that evolutionary scientists often use to uphold their assumption.

1) The So-Called "Heritage" of Our Ancestors

In this area, we might include various so-called vestigial organs, such as the appendix, wisdom teeth, nasal and throat tonsils, or perhaps chronic back pain caused by our upright walking. As we partially outlined in Question No. 54, these arguments hold almost no current validity; rather, it turns out that these (allegedly vestigial) organs are functional. Back pain and similar issues are more attributable to our lifestyle rather than supposed evolutionary history.

2) DNA is Clear – We Share 99% of Our DNA with Chimps!

Everyone "knows" that humans and chimps had common ancestors. The DNA similarity proves it, doesn't it? Were you taught the same at school? Essentially, this was by far the strongest argument proponents of evolutionary theory had. However, science "debunked" this myth several years ago. But let's take it step by step. Numbers hovering around 95–99% were indeed temporary scientific findings. It was remarkably myopic and erroneous to present them as dogma, given that entire genomes were never truly compared; only randomly selected areas were examined, and even these were known to be similar. Therefore, this data was quite distorted [63].

Genetic research indicates that DNA doesn't support evolutionary assumptions; in fact, it often undermines them, or at least significantly challenges them. For example, epigenetic patterns of human DNA bear closer resemblance to those of gorillas and orangutans than to those of chimps, conflicting with the evolutionary model [64]. Finally, we arrive at one of the most important arguments – new and more direct comparative studies of chimp and human genomes reveal, for many, the shocking discovery that the human genome is not 98 or 99% similar to the chimp genome, as long touted, but perhaps only around 70% (or at most 80%) similar [63, 65]!

At this point, the statement by the well-known evolutionary biologist Steve Jones during his lecture about DNA sharing between humans and chimps sounds rather amusing:

"We also share about 50% of our DNA with bananas and that doesn't make us half bananas, either from the waist up or the waist down. " [66].

So much for this argument, which was one of the main pillars of belief in a common ancestor with apes. The evidence may be shattered, but the faith in a common ancestor is not. Since evolutionary theory bends with the grace of rubber, for many, this blow poses no great obstacle, proclaiming that evolution doesn't necessarily demand this similarity and that DNA may have lost certain similarity traits over time.

3) Fossils and Arbitrary Interpretations

Sometimes we encounter claims that human evolution is well-documented through fossil finds. This claim is actually far from the truth and somewhat laughable (or is it lamentable?). Judge for yourself – the so-called "facts" that scientists reported with utmost seriousness 40 years ago are entirely different from what we hear today. The ancient "ape-men" once presented as human ancestors were later found to be dead ends and suddenly dropped from the human "family tree." For example:

• Neanderthal Man
• Ramapithecus (a kind of orangutan)
• Piltdown Man (presented for forty years as a missing link, despite being a notorious fraud made up of a human skull and an orangutan jaw)
• Nebraska Man – reconstructed from a single (likely pig) tooth
• Java Man – now classified into a separate branch
• Peking Man, etc.

For instance, the bones of Piltdown Man were displayed creatively in prestigious museums, and no fewer than 500 doctoral theses were written on the topic over 40 years. Paleoanthropologist Roger Lewin wrote about this fraud: 

"Given all the many anatomical incongruities in the Piltdown remains, which of course are glaringly obvious from the vantage of the present, it is truly astonishing that the forgery was so eagerly embraced. Thus the real interest of Piltdown is 'how those who believed in the fossil saw in it what they wanted to see.' " [27].

Biology historian Jane Maienschein adds: 

"how easily susceptible researchers can be manipulated into believing that they have actually found just what it was they had been looking for." [27]

What are the current pieces of evidence supporting the evolutionary origin of humans? Are there any genuine fossils? Indeed, many fossils have been found that have both human features and ape traits. Even now, intense debates and arguments persist. Scientists possess a variety of skeletal and cranial remains, and several of them might convincingly argue they represent genuine evidence of a human evolutionary lineage. However, the various categories, such as Homo habilis, Homo erectus, etc., considered transitional forms, are very dubious, and many scientists lean towards the view that even these "evidences" are highly speculative and likely invalid as categories.

This issue is, however, very broad, and addressing each category (or specific finds) in detail would be necessary. Yet we lack space. Therefore, I will permit myself a summarizing conclusion: any evidence in this domain is highly debatable and often forcibly assigned to groups where they do not belong. What is the real challenge? The interpretation of skeletal finds (especially skulls) is exceptionally problematic. Numerous skulls alleged to be transitional forms differ little from those of present-day indigenous peoples in remote areas. These skulls and other parts of skeletons are highly varied, making it extremely difficult to ascertain their origin and classification for many reasons. Evolutionary scientists perform this task mostly intuitively, based on personal imagination (how they suppose it should be), not rooted in exact evidence. Imagination and visualization play a large role here.

What Face Shall You Give the Skull – Ape or Rather Human?

Who among us is not familiar with or hasn't seen countless depictions of the so-called prehistoric man, primitive cave dwellers clumsily living their lives? Unfortunately, essentially none of these drawings and images are based on direct scientific evidence! All the facial sketches and ancient life simulations are nothing more than speculations unleashed by the imaginations of their creators. Particularly in this research area – more than any other – evolutionary "evidence" is debatable and rich in imagination.

When paleoanthropologists Alan Walker and Richard Leakey, for instance, studied two parts of "Skull 1470," Alan said:

"You could hold the [upper jaw] forward, and give it a long face, or you could tuck it in, making the face short... How you held it really depended on your preconceptions. It was interesting watching what people did with it. " [27].

Furthermore: "Yes, if you held it one way, it looked like one thing; if you held it another, it looked like something else. " [27]

For example, a specimen previously posited as a transitional link between humans and ape-men (the so-called Nebraska Man) was constructed and effectively artistically promoted solely on the basis of finding a single tooth! Subsequently, it was discovered that this tooth most likely belonged to a pig! At other times, it often involves jaw or bone parts that offer unimaginable room for speculation, imagination, and the scientist's worldview. You are unlikely to be informed about this at school or in the media.

Biologist Jonathan Wells comments: 

"Interpretations of the fossil evidence for human evolution are heavily influenced by personal beliefs and prejudices. Experts in paleoanthropology — the study of human origins — acknowledge that their field is the most subjective and contentious in all of biology — hardly a firm foundation for the far-reaching claims some Darwinists want to make about human nature." [27]

To Whom Do the Fossils Belong?

Let us differentiate between two fundamental worldviews. The evolutionary one posits that man evolved and has numerous ape ancestors in his "genealogy." Since mainstream science deems this theory "indisputably proven," it rigorously attempts to speculate and categorize findings into possible human ancestral lines. The creationist view, on the other hand, states that no common ancestor exists, and God created all species independently according to their kinds (with possible deviations within their gene pool's variability).

What do we find in the field?

Fossils proposed by evolutionists as human ancestors actually belong to various human species or apes. Moreover, it also appears that these "intermediaries," which were supposed to gradually evolve into present-day humans, lived concurrently a short time ago (or perhaps still survive in isolated populations today).

For instance, Stephen Jay Gould, a renowned paleontologist from Harvard, once said: 

"What has become of our ladder if we must recognize three coexisting lineages of hominids (A. africanus, the robust australopithecines, and H. habilis), none clearly derived from another? Moreover, none of the three display any evolutionary trends during their tenure on earth: none become brainier or more erect as they approach the present day. " [28]

The Science of Human Origin

Evolutionary anthropology is among the most chaotic areas within the entire evolutionary theory, whose hypotheses change (with slight exaggeration) faster than the weather. However, the public is virtually unaware of the significant disagreements and disputes among scientists. Some scholars lament that no field of science has ever had so many theories based on so few facts as those concerning the origin of mankind. As far back as 1982, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall announced that it is a "myth that the evolutionary histories of living things are essentially a matter of discovery.' If this were really true, they wrote, 'one could confidently expect that as more hominid fossils were found the story of human evolution would become clearer. Whereas if anything, the opposite has occurred. " [27]

Evolutionary biologist and paleontologist Dr. Henry Gee, contributing to "Nature," claims that the conventional image of human evolution as a line of ancestors and descendants is 

"a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices.' " [27].

On this subject, he also adds: 

"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific. " [28]

So, What About The Real Similarity Between Humans and Primates?

Yes, humans do resemble some apes to a certain extent. This indeed fuels many efforts to seek out shared behaviors with them, to study their intelligence, and so on. These realities (and to a certain degree, appearance or intelligence resemblance) themselves lead scientists to conclude that they must be creatures with whom we share common ancestors. Why, then, did God create these creatures with a relatively closer resemblance to humans compared to other animals? The answer is – I do not know. However, I believe that here too the answer will pertain to our free will and the space for denying His existence. Consider the following – if God had created no creatures resembling humans, this theory likely could never have emerged, and people would essentially always be compelled to accept the sole possibility – that someone created us. Indeed, scientific evidence points in this direction, but they are not so strong that they cannot be challenged and God rejected.

Summation

Research in the area of human origin is perhaps the most debatable field of evolutionary theory, and within it lies an extremely vast space for scientists' imagination. A significant number of scientists declare that no clear evidence (that isn't speculative and merely hypothetical) exists to support the evolutionary theory in the realm of human origin. There is an extensive array of skeletal data arranged into the assumed evolutionary development puzzle. However, this arrangement is artificial, frequently changes, and is burdened with evolutionary assumptions. It exists solely because it is presumed that evolution is valid, not because the individual pieces of the puzzle hold strong scientific explanatory value.