Hello and happy Monday, dear ones! I hope this post finds you all doing well. As you know, we’re started a new series on the ancestry of mankind last Monday. Today we’re going to take down some of the myths that surround fossilized remains of ancient chimps and humans. Next week, Lord willing, we’ll go through what’s been found about those fossils considered to be the oldest in our family tree. After that we’ll follow the ages assumed by secular scientists until we come to modern man.
The first myth I’d like to address is the idea that human DNA only has a 1% difference from chimp DNA. This is one of those myths, like dating which we’ll talk about next, that everyone in the scientific community understands is incorrect but allows it anyway. This myth started in the 70’s before we had DNA sequencing, but has been so successful in perpetuating evolutionary story telling that its still quoted by ‘reputable’ scientific journals. In all actually geneticists have never started from ground zero with chimp DNA, preferring instead to line up sequences of human DNA and working from there. Why? Well because we came from a common ancestor of course! No need to put the foot work in when we can just make assumptions instead. Even with the clearly bias beginning stages of the chimp sequence, there’s somewhere between 20% to 30% difference in human to chimp comparisons. The only way you can get closer to a 1% difference is by tossing out all the DNA except that which codes for protein.
Let’s talk about the dating method, and the myth of their accuracy. When you research the ‘evolution’ of man you see a lot of dates and time frames which suggest hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. For the more honest publications they usually add words like ‘possibly’ or ‘might have’, ‘probably did’ and ‘most likely’. Everyone else just lists millions of years as if it were fact and moves on. There is something to this myth that geologists have known for a very long time, it’s not scientifically proven. Most of the time fossils are dated by the rock layers they’re found in, while the rock layers are being dated based on the fossils found in them. Carbon dating is another method, but it has a half life of a little over 5,000 years, which means it’s useless in the dating of anything suggested to be older than 40,000 years. Radioactive, or radiometric, dating starts with several assumptions, beginning with there being no contamination in the fossil itself. Another assumption is continuity, that the rate of decay has remained the same, which simply can’t be the case when radio-halos are considered. What scientists know is that no singular date prior to written history is fact, but rather a great deal of assumptions.
Another myth that seems to be pervasive in today’s educational system is that there is agreement within the scientific community about the ‘evolution’ of man. With each new discovery of human fossils the ‘story’ of man changes, and an ever increasing amount of disagreement follows. Many scientists now believe that, rather than there being a multitude of varying species of pre-man ancestors, they were really just one species found in different areas. See here.
Another myth that shows the lengths to which secularists are willing to go to push evolution is the sculptures. All throughout the world in museums, and photographed in every science book created, are images of mans ancestors. They are often depicted standing upright, slowly losing hair over time. It’s comical, honestly, when you research and find that they’ve put these images together with very few fragments of skeletons. Often times it’s clear that the fossils were knuckle walkers, yet they’ll still be shown standing upright in the evolution. Many of these have been found fossilized together, rather than evolving into one another as is commonly suggested. This is artistic license in a field that should never delve into story telling.
The last myth I want to discuss is that the evolution of man from a common chimp ancestor is a scientific fact. It’s simply not. For something to be considered scientifically accurate it must first be questioned, tested, measured, and the conclusions must be observable and repeatable. While this can be said for many aspects of evolution, it’s particularly clear in the case of mans ancestry. This is because, while we have fossils, we have nothing that can be tested, observed, or repeated. We see a great deal of variation in the skeletons of dogs today, imagine finding a fossilized chihuahua and Great Dane. Would anyone assume, without modern observations of dog breeds, that those two skeletons were the same species? That alone should cause skepticism when we find fossils, they don’t come with instruction manuals or information booklets.
What I’m suggesting in this installment of our series through Humanities Family Tree is that there is far more assumptions, opinions, and story telling being published as fact than should ever be acceptable to honest scientist. I hope this series blessing you, friends, and if you missed the introduction you can find it here. As always, beloved brethren, be good Berean’s and study to show yourselves approved.