August 1, 2003, Vol.2, No.15.

Of Apes and Men 

Part 2

 Harry E. “Buddy” Payne, Jr.

via Preceptor magazine, September, 1988

The only direct evidence from nature with regard to the ancestry of men and apes is the remains of dead men, apes, or intermediates from the ancient past. If scientists could find, identify, and date a sequence of fossil skeletons showing the evolution of men and apes from a primitive ancestor, it would go a long way toward supporting the general theory of evolution. But such a sequence has not been found, nor in fact can it be. Certainly parts of fossil skeletons have been found and great claims have been made, but the fossil record of supposed human and primate evolution is (at the very best) sparse. Interpretations of the fossils that have been found do not agree. There are as many ape to man genealogies as there are experts. In spite of this, the National Academy of Sciences has put out the following statement on human evolution:

 Studies in evolutionary biology have led to the conclusion that mankind arose from ancestral primates...The 'missing links' that troubled Darwin and his followers are no longer missing. Today, not one but many such connecting links, intermediate between various branches of the primate family tree, have been found as fossils. These linking fossils are intermediate in form and occur in geological deposits of intermediate age. They thus document the time and rate at which primate and human evolution occurred.  (Science and Creationism, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1984)

Every one of the supposed “missing links” in the primate family tree has been seriously questioned and/or discarded from the human family tree. William R. Fix, in his book The Bone Peddlers, examines each of the major finds through 1979 and shows that all of them are beset with problems, disqualified by later finds or exposed as hoaxes. A sequence of fossils forming our ancient family tree cannot be found because there is no way to determine whether a given fossil is the ancestor of another fossil as required by the theory of evolution. Richard Lewontin of Harvard University made the following insightful observations:

 All the fossils which have been dug up and are claimed to be ancestors—we haven’t the faintest idea whether they are ancestors. Because... all you’ve got is Homo sapiens there, you’ve got that fossil there, you’ve got another fossil there...and it’s up to you to draw the lines. Because there are no lines. I don't think any one of them is likely to be the direct ancestor of the human species. But how would you know if it’s that one?

The only way you can know that some fossil is the direct ancestor is that it’s so human that it is human. There is a contradiction there. If it is different enough from humans to be interesting, then you don’t know whether it's an ancestor or not. And if it’s similar enough to be human, then it’s not interesting. (“Agnostic Evolutionists”, by Tom Bethell, Harper’s Magazine, February, 198 page 61) 

        The scanty fossil evidence with regard to apes and humans is more reasonably interpreted from the creationist viewpoint. All of the fossils proposed as “missing links” in the evolution of apes and men are in reality either apes or men. They do not fit somewhere between. Apes and humans existed in the past, as they do in the present, as separate types with a large but limited variation potential within each type. The similarities (such as the striking similarities in their skeletons) between apes and men, past and present, are better explained as the result of a basic plan used by the Creator to serve as a model for creating many different forms of life. What need was there for the Creator to start all over with a totally new plan for each new creation? Would you have done so?

              In addition to the fossil evidence there are a number of essential differences between men and apes which also testify that men and apes were separate creations.

                 1. Men have a unique ability to use language. Apes can communicate only in limited ways by using noises and gestures. One chimpanzee  named Washoe mastered 67 signs from the standard American sign language for the deaf, but there is no comparison between this learning  by imitation and rewards and man’s ability to learn an alphabet, spelling and writing. Man can use language to name, discuss, abstract and  symbolize. There is absolutely no evidence that man’s ability to use language evolved. The difference between men and apes in the use of  language is a difference in kind, not a difference in degree.

                 2. Man's unique ability to transmit knowledge from one generation to the next has led to tremendous progress in developing technology and civilization. While there are some animals that seem to have intricate social systems (e.g. ants, bees, baboons) these are all instinctive and remain the same from one generation to the next. In this, too, man is different in kind from all of the animals.

                3. Man is a moral, esthetic and religious being; apes and other animals are not. How can a random, impersonal, and nonmoral process like evolution produce human beings with moral principles, personal consciences, a deep appreciation for beauty, and a capacity to worship God? There is no evidence that the apes possess such abilities. Here too men and apes are different in kind, not just in degree.

        The evidence from God’s world convinces us that it is more reasonable to believe that men and apes were separate creations. They were designed by the Creator based on similar blueprints, but were made distinctly different with the capacity to vary within limits. This testimony agrees completely with the testimony of God’s Word.

         Let us all give praise to God!