Evolution: Lucy, you got some ‘splainin’ to do

The battle between Evolution and Creation has raged since the late 1800s when Charles Darwin’s book took the world by storm. However, that debate has seen certain testimony that the public rarely hears.

Evolution and Abiogenesis

For instance, true Evolution requires that life somehow evolve from matter. In the centuries preceding Louis Pasteur’s experiments, people believed that life could spring up from inanimate objects. They actually believed that a bunch of rags left in a corner with some wheat berries would evolve into mice, or that maggots spontaneously generated from old meat. They called this theory, appropriately enough, spontaneous generation.

Modern research might lead you to believe that the idea of spontaneous generation came from Creationists. To the contrary! Francesco Redi in 1668, and then Louis Pasteur in 1859, dispelled that theory. Pasteur concluded, from his experiments, that life can only come from life. This conclusion presents a major obstacle for Evolutionists. They need some kind of generation to occur in order for life to spring from non-life.

Although it was proved invalid, many government school textbooks still contain the Miller-Urey Experiment. This experiment tried to simulate the conditions of the early Earth and prove that life could somehow come from non-life in this atmosphere. But the assumptions made within the experiment were incorrect. Even Carl Sagan, a popular evolutionist, tried to perfect the experiment – to no avail. He soon discarded it as implausible. However, the experiment remains in the textbooks today as evidence of Evolution, along with other disproven “proofs” such as Haeckel’s Embryos, Archaeopteryx, the Peppered Moth – etc, etc., etc.

Early hominids

In the absence of being able to prove life can somehow come from non-life, Evolutionists have managed to confine the argument to the ascent of man from an earlier form of life – usually some kind of ape-like creature. Hence the search for “the missing link” has taken center stage in the debate.

We are all familiar with the anthropological chart that illustrates man’s evolution from an ape. It starts with an ape walking on all fours, to an ape walking semi-upright, to a more human-looking type of ape walking like a man, to a man with ape-like features called “Neanderthal” and then finally to “Modern day” man, or Cro-Magnon. But this chart is only an artist’s rendition. The fossil record does not support its assumptions. Of course through the years there have been claims that these missing links between apes and modern man were found.

Two aspects of our ascent from an apelike creature are critical to the hypothesis. The first assumption (or prediction) made by this hypothesis was that man’s brain grew as he evolved. Unfortunately for those that held to this hypothesis, realized that Neanderthal Man, who was supposed to be our closest relative on the evolutionary scale, had a larger brain than ours. This fact was swept under the rug as they quickly discovered that Neanderthal not only had a larger brain but was probably stronger and lived longer than we do today. However, any student going through the government school system before that idea was aborted would have been taught that Neanderthal was a valid “missing link” and proof that Evolution was indeed true.

In the quest to prove Evolution true, many missing links have been touted as proof, only to eventually fall by the wayside. One such “proof” was Piltdown Man, who was discovered in the gravel pits of Piltdown, England in 1912. Piltdown Man displayed many half-man half-apelike facial features. In 1953, Piltdown Man was exposed as a hoax. Once again, anyone attending a government school from 1912 to 1953, (41 years!) was taught that we had the proof that man evolved from apes. However, hope springs eternal among Evolutionists and the search continued.

Lucy, real and imagined

Lucy, the most cherished modern icon of evolution

“Lucy” skeleton (AL 288-1) Australopithecus afarensis, cast from Museum national d’histoire naturelle, Paris. Photo: User ILovedOne/Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License.

In 1974, Donald Johanson, Mary Leakey and others embarked on a dig in Ethiopia and they discovered the fossil remains of an Australopithecus afarensis (a small ape), which is commonly referred to as Lucy. 40% of Lucy’s skeleton was found, but not her all-important feet. In the current hypothesis of Evolution where man evolves from an ape to a man, finding evidence that some kind of ancient ape walked on two feet is critical. It is referred to as bipedalism and bipedalism is the replacement criteria for brain size. This small glitch in their hypothesis did not stop Johanson or Leaky. When they found a human footprint in Ethiopia (yes, that’s another country), they claimed it was Lucy’s. Of course, the general public doesn’t know this. They are told that Johanson and Leakey found the “missing link.”

In 2006, a juvenile Australopithecus afarensis skeleton from Dikika, Ethiopia was found, which was quickly named “Lucy’s baby,” although according to Evolutionists, this fossil is considerably older than Lucy. It was also reported that the foot and other evidence from the lower limb provided clear evidence for bipedal locomotion, although the scapula and long and curved manual phalanges clearly showed that this child was a tree climber. In 2006, at the time the report was made, the foot had not been excavated. Since then, it has. It is now being reported that the foot was “capable” of walking upright. And that, my dear friends, is a significant difference from stating that this creature preferred walking on two feet – especially when everything else about it clearly indicated it was a tree climber.

This is just a small taste of the “missing links” that prove Evolution. Literally, books have been written about all the hoaxes and frauds masquerading as proof of Evolution. Unfortunately, every time one of these links is found, it makes the news but the general public never hears about the times these links are proven to be frauds or hoaxes. Please keep in mind that every time an Evolutionist tells you that there is plenty of proof of Evolution, this may just be the proof they are referring to.

Summing up

So, if Evolutionists haven’t been able to prove that life can come from non-life and they have exhausted the search for bipedalism and come up empty, and have abandoned the notion that brain size is an indication of evolution, what will they come up with next? Perhaps Mermaids. In a recent Discovery Channel the groundwork for such a claim has already been laid. In light of what you have just learned, the question is – will you buy it?

Why has this “theory” remained the “standard?” Perhaps because all contradictions are being censored. As a former court reporter, I can tell you that if juries only heard the prosecutor’s version of an event, juries would always convict the accused. The defendant’s version of an event may be just as compelling. It is why both sides of an event must always be told. It’s the only way to arrive at the truth. In most government schools around the country, this is not being done – censorship is strictly employed. The situation is worse at higher levels of education. Students are not only discouraged from discussing the problems with Evolution; they are humiliated and intimidated if they raise any questions to that effect. If Evolution is true, then I must ask, what are they so worried about? I’m not saying that government schools should teach Creationism; I am saying that they should revise their textbooks and eliminate the known hoaxes and frauds. They should also present the problems with the “theory” of Evolution. This logic is applied in the field of physics and great strides have been made as a result. We are drastically short-changing our students by not permitting honest discussion.

Duane Gish, creationist extraordinaire, once said:

It’s unbelievable what unbelievers have to believe to be unbelievers.

Reprinted from Conservative News and Views


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.