Evolution and the Ape Man to Human lie.
Evolution and the Ape Man to Human lie.
Embryology disproves the facile unscientific notion, that a chimp became the champ. And then we have Haeckel's embryo fraud.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” Albert Einstein
Monkeying around
Monkeys to Men, in just 5 or 6 million years! Apes supposedly ‘evolved’ some 40 million years ago from the magic lab of ‘Evolution’. About 5-6 million years ago a fork from the ape genus developed and eventually ‘evolved’ to become the distinct Homo Sapiens species some 100.000 to 200.000 years ago. ‘Settled science’, everyone knows, teacher say, BBC say.
The difference between Humans and apes or chimps, or between wolves which pace ‘The Science’ apparently ‘evolved’ into whales, runs into the many billions of DNA letters. This simplistic view of massive complexity and design is astounding. There is no direct path from the simple to the complex.
In science the opposite is true. There is route of decomposition from the complex to the simple, as organisms decay and entropy or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics takes hold. Simple parts do not unite through a materialist process, to form the complex whole. There is no evidence that this can happen with individuals or species, nor within components of individuals. A bacterium’s flagella for example, or the human brain, are not formed in pieces, parts or over time. It is all or nothing.
Amazon.com arrived by random mutations….
A technological example to illustrate how divorced evolution is from reality, would be to take Amazon.com. An evolutionist would no doubt describe this designed complexity to have ‘evolved’ through 'mutations' and random chance, from a ‘simple’ one-page HTML site. This site was built by a 17 year old who then forgot about it and left it alone. Pace ‘evolution’ this is how Amazon.com arrived to be the fittest:
Due to environmental pressures the original simple HTML page went through a process of ‘natural selection’, ‘striving’ for ‘competitive advantage’, achieved through code or ‘allele shuffling’, which led to ‘genetic or code variations’ and the accretion of some 5 million lines of integrated functional intelligence including a database cluster storage or ‘memory’ and presto! Amazon.com thus ‘evolved’ into what we see today.
‘Experts’ confirm that Amazon.com is still self-forming, self-maintaining and constantly ‘competing’ to self-improve its interface and systems. Genes or code will ‘shuffle’ around in endless experimentation looking to achieve a ‘competitive advantage’, the ‘experts’ confirm. The massive complexity of code and functionality is simply an outgrowth of this coding experimentation. ‘Changes’ with the best functionality are ‘selected’ and bugs or software issues, culled and deleted, as proven by over 1000 studies by ‘experts’ in the field.
‘Experts’ are however, somewhat surprised by the speed of the ‘evolution’ from the simple HTML page to the complex system we now see in just 20 years. They attribute such rapidity to the ‘punctuated equilibrium’ of ‘variational functionality’ which has been confirmed and proven elsewhere by ‘experts’. It is thus not a surprise and completely validates the expectations of the ‘evolutionary’ model these same ‘experts’ confirm.
Easy stuff. Happens everyday. How much more complex is a Human compared to Amazon.com?
Dissimilarity
Contrary to mainstream mendacity there is little genomic similarity between apes and Humans. The lie that 96-99% of chromosomal material is the same between the two, was based on one study, which covered only 4% of the entire genome of the 2 species. The real similarity in genetic information systems is probably less than 80% and likely closer to 60%. We simply don't know. Apparently Humans also share 50% DNA similarity with bananas. Some Humans [the Marxists, Eco-Communists, Corona Medical Nazis etc.] are quite insane. But that does not make them ‘Humanas’ or Human-bananas. DNA is only part of the complexity.
Consider the Law of Embryology. This law directly contradicts "ape to human evolution." One reason is that genes work together in teams to form body parts during embryonic development. This makes it impossible to add genes to any genome because there is no way to introduce, align and coordinate new genes with existing genes.
Software Design
"Ape to Human evolution" requires apes and Humans to be able to add genes or change the embryological software design. For example, the chimpanzee Y chromosome has 37 genes and the Human Y chromosome has at least 78 genes. How did the Human receive 41 more genes on the Y chromosome than the ape? When did that happen and was it all at once or in phases? What scientifically proven process, within an embryo's development, can achieve gene addition? None has ever been identified or is known.
There is no dynamic natural process, which is known or can be shown, where the human’s software design template, statically set at the creation of the zygote cell and the related genetic code built on that design, can be updated in real time with dynamic schema alterations, changing that individual.
For example we can ask, how did the humble Human thumb ‘evolve’? Chimps don’t possess an opposable digit. The thumb is a unique human trait. Again what process created the genetic code and structure for the Human thumb? Did a magic fairy arrive during the embyological process and seed the genes necessary for a thumb? Or, pace evolution, did the thumb ‘evolve’ over eons of time? What is the benefit of half a thumb and again, where did that code come from?
Or we could inquire, what about our brain and its 80 billion neurons? Our brain is far more developed and networked than that of an ape’s. How did such a vast complication self-arrive?
And let’s not discuss our mind, our consciousness or concepts of innate morality. For Darwinian materialists there is no explanation for either. They just ‘are’ and they just ‘evolved’ due to genetic factors and survival. For example ‘morality’ is just a genetic coding response to ‘getting along’ with others. No proof is offered of course, just the word salads.
Grunting Apes
In a 2007 study by theological Evolutionists, R. Seyfarth and his wife D. Cheney, it was reconfirmed that apes and chimps are incredibly dim-witted. They share almost nothing in common with Humans. If you watch the Discovery or History Channels, you will see documentaries outlining the clever simians who dig out termites with sticks, or smash nuts with rocks. But anyone who has studied the animals in the wild, must be impressed by the low level of development, the atavistic world they live in, the simplistic, barbaric rituals and activities. Where is the evolution ?
Simians also grunt to each other which deeply impresses many observers; as must the polygamy, female control, and violence; all of which is rife. If such creatures have been around for 40 million years, and they are still so primitive, they logically by themselves disprove evolution. Would a supposed ‘relation’ to Humans really spend 40 million years doing the same inane process repeatedly, mired in his own faeces and not improve on it? Of course not. How then did the human brain ‘evolve’ to become so advanced compared to the chimp or ape for example? Why is the Human skeleton and genetic detail so different than an ape’s and how did such genomic advancement occur?
Consider that in '40 million years', simian creatures have no language, no syntax, no clear conception of abstract thoughts or ideas; nor even an awareness of others – outside of the very primitive 'social order' and hierarchy. The basic construction of ape-simian society is remarkably savage. Everything, including females, revolves around the alpha male, and women are clearly responsible for the young.
The ape brain compared to the Human is therefore in reality, small and limited. Where is the ‘evolution’ with the ape ? This is a valid question. Why did ‘evolution’ stop with apes? Surely a bigger brain, and more advance neural circuity would be an ‘evolutionary advantage’? Yet it was arrested with the ape. Darwinian theologians can’t explain this. The answer is simple - there never was an ‘evolution’ from pre-apes to apes. The apes are built from a set design and cannot change or ‘evolve’.
Stark Differences
There are huge differences between the Human and the lowly ape:
There are about 35 million single-letter DNA differences between chimps and humans, a huge number of short insertions and deletions, and thousands of genomic rearrangements. Darwin’s religion must account for these millions of differences which must be multiplied into the billions when one considers functionality and connectivity.
This massive ‘improvement’ must occur in a few hundred thousand generations, or roughly 7 million years at the most. No scientific proof has ever been offered of such coding improvements over generational time.
Code is not built nor formed by chance. Similar body parts between species indicates design choice and reusability. We do the same in software. We build code, then reuse it. It does not mean that program A using my software code, is the same as program B. Program B might take the same code and extend it and modify it. When you design complex systems, the principle of reuse is employed.
Homology or similar body plans, or in software terms a similar design based on reusable code, does not infer ‘evolution’. A VW shares similarity with a jet airliner in form, materials and even some motion, yet their functions, purpose and overall end designs are quite dissimilar. The VW did not ‘evolve’ into the plane. The plane and VW might share some basic reusability but that does not mean that one evolved or devolved into the other.
If the path from monkey to Michael is so straightforward where are all the missing links, trials, experiments, failures and modern successful proofs? We should see ‘planet of the apes’ in reality and we should see either historically, or in the world around us today, a vast array of Human and chimp body plans and ‘experiments’. We don’t.
We should see either in the historical record (skeletons, maybe fossils), Humans with 3-4 legs, 3-4 arms, 1, 3 or 4 eyes and ears and various combinations of these, as nature ‘selected’ traits deemed ‘competitive’. Remember it is all ‘random chance’ and ‘nature’ is selecting the ‘fittest’ from various experiments. We should also have visible proofs either in the historical record or in the world around us of apes walking and acting like Humans, or developing Human like traits if species development is simply ‘allele shuffling’ and ‘variations’ to breed an ‘advantage’. We don’t see any such evidence.
Question to ‘The Science’: Why don’t we see complex species experimentations within apes and chimps, or ‘evolutionary’ improvements after ‘40 million years’? How many generations does it take for an ape to become Abraham? Why did ‘evolution’ stop?
So again, the only peg to hang the hat of ‘evolution’ on is deep time, and that is also a chimera (more on this in another post).
Embryology
Human embryology disproves the ape to Adam myth. Consider a Human female who is pregnant. The child has 46 chromosomes, 23 each from both parents. During the embryonic process, this software template, which miraculously takes a zygote to ~70 trillion cells of complexity, is never changed or injected with new code. Never. It matters not if the 'environment' is cold, warm, wet, hot, freezing, mild or unpleasant. It matters not if the parent deeply wishes wings, fins, 4 eyes, blonde hair, nice teeth, or 6 ears for the newborn.
The code is the code, and it does not change within the embryonic process. Further, species in kind, only mate with their own kind. There is no evidence at all, that dogs will mate with cats, birds with squirrels, or bears with fish. Grolars or grizzly polar bear combinations are simply bears mating within their kind. This is true of coyote-wolf mixtures, or wild dogs mating with domesticated dogs. Far from proving evolution, these in-kind 'species' actually disprove it.
Fake it
Evolutionists can’t explain embryology. This by itself destroys evolution. Haeckel's fraud of 'Recapitulation', proven as a fake in 1874, purports to map out the embryological development of the Human fetus replicating its fish to reptile ancestry. This scam is not proof of evolution, but is certainly proof against it. 'Science' lying? Perish the thought...
The top of the below picture is Haeckel's fraud. At the bottom is what a real embryo looks like....
"To support his case he [Haeckel] began to fake evidence. Charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, he agreed that a small percentage of his embryonic drawings were forgeries; he was merely filling in and reconstructing the missing links when the evidence was thin, and he claimed unblushingly that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge."—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 120.
". . ontogeny recaptitulates phylogeny, meaning that in the course of its development [ontogeny] an embryo recapitulates [repeats] the evolutionary history of its species. This idea was fathered by Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist who was so convinced that he had solved the riddle of life's unfolding that he doctored and faked his drawings of embryonic stages to prove his point."—William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (1984), p. 285.
"[The German scientist, Wilhelm His] accused Haeckel of shocking dishonesty in repeating the same picture several times to show the similarity among vertebrates at early embryonic stages in several plates of [Haeckel's book]."- Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny (1977), p. 430.
The Religion of Evolution has a long history of fraud. It is no surprise that to overcome the overwhelming obstacle of embryology which destroys the ape to Human myth, they would lie.
Bottom Line
There is no mathematical or genetic possibility that the ape became you. Basic human embryology disproves evolution and Darwin’s ‘ascent’ from monkey to Homo Sapiens. No known method exists in nature to interject new species DNA or genetic material into the embryological process. This is why we don’t see thousands of failed or even successful ape and Human ‘experiments’. Our structure is our structure. You are your code and your software design. There are no ‘missing links’.
======
Some sources you shouldn’t read:
Ferrell, Vance, ‘Evolution handbook’
Bethell, Tom, ‘Darwin’s House of Cards’
Bergman, J. ‘The Three Pillars of Evolution Demolished’
Denton, M., ‘The miracle of Man’
Denton, M. ‘The miracle of the cell’
Behe, M. ‘Darwin Devolves’.
Milton, R. ‘Shattering the myths of Darwinism’
And dozens of others I could list.