This article sets out the errors in the msnbc.com report and shows the scientific groundlessness of claims concerning the evolution of bipedalism.
Details of the study and the complex nature of bipedalism
In the study considered by msnbc.com researchers led by Michael D. Sockol, a California University anthropologist, tested five chimpanzees and four adult human beings on a treadmill (1). They attached electrodes to the subjects” bodies and measured the amount of energy consumed by walking on two legs (bipedal) or four (quadripedal). The measurements performed revealed that the amount of energy consumed by human beings walking on two legs was only a quarter of that consumed by chimpanzees walking either on two legs or on four. To put it another way, these findings revealed that human movement is 75% more efficient in terms of energy consumption than that of chimpanzees. Bipedalism, which has thus once again been demonstrated to be highly efficient in terms of energy consumption, is based on an extraordinarily complex system.
To summarize, the human backbone is made up of 33 vertebrae with a very sensitive, 3D design. There are discs of cartilage between the vertebrae which act as shock absorbers. The "S" shape of the spine plays a crucial role in reducing the resistance transmitted to the body during walking. The arms are attached to the shoulders and the thighs to the pelvis at an angle that makes it possible to stand on two legs. The way the legs descend from the pelvis towards the knees at a specific angle is another factor making walking on two legs possible. The ankle bone has a special shape that bears the weight in the region of the knee. Similar curvatures exist in the bones of the feet and serves the purpose of distributing the weight of the body. A special system in the joints prevents bone wear. In addition to all this, the brain, nervous and muscle systems co-ordinate walking movements in a flawless manner with the assistance of the balance mechanism in the inner ear.
All these components comprise an integrated system like that in clock mechanism and, with the hierarchic organization they exhibit, constitute clear evidence of creation. This latest study demonstrates the efficiency of the system, thus providing new evidence on the subject.
MSNBC.com”s error regarding efficiency and origin
The msnbc.com report states:
"Chimpanzees scampering on a treadmill have provided support for the notion that ancient human ancestors began walking on two legs because it used less energy than quadrupedal knuckle-walking, scientists said."
The "notion" described here actually consists of a "Darwinist myth" based on no scientific evidence whatsoever. Darwinists identifying any advantage from a particular structure or organ immediately come up with stories based on the logic of "so it must have evolved for that purpose." Yet they are unable to produce any evidence or observations to back up these tales.
The notion that "walking on two legs is more efficient so that is why we evolved and became bipedal" similarly constitutes no evidence for evolution. It is obvious that a system being advantageous or efficient does not show that it emerged as the result of evolution. The advantages of a car having four-wheel drive, for instance, do not show that it emerged as the result of a random process.
The fact that a living thing walks on two legs does not show that it is related to human beings
Yet another classic evolutionist error regarding bipedalism appears in the msnbc.com report, which suggests that "Bipedalism is a defining characteristic of the human lineage and marked an important [supposed evolutionary] divergence from other apes."
However, this is a totally unfounded and dogmatic claim. The fact that any characteristic is unique to any one life form does not reveal a difference based on evolution. One electronic product, for example, may have a feature not found in any other, but this does not show that the product in question was not designed.
The claim that chimpanzees are the genetic cousins of human beings is simply a preconception
This claim contained in the article is the product of a dogmatic perspective that regards similarities as the product of evolution right from the outset. Human beings and chimpanzees share the same atmosphere and eat similar foods. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for their biochemistries to function along similar principles and for them to have various enzymes in common. These common structures do not, however, make the chimpanzee man”s "cousin."
The supposed reality in David Raichlen”s dreams
The California University anthropologist David A. Raichlen, a member of the research team, misleads the reader by referring to evolutionist speculation for which there is no scientific evidence as "fact:"
"This paper provides strong support for the fact that energy savings played a role in the evolution of bipedalism."The truth is, however, that other evolutionist admissions on the subject show that they accept the dilemmas involved with the supposed evolution of bipedalism.
"Four of the most outstanding mysteries about humans are: 1) why do they walk on two legs? 2) why have they lost their fur? 3) why have they developed such large brains? 4) why did they learn to speak? The orthodox answers to these questions are: 1) we do not yet know, 2) we do not yet know 3) we do not yet know 4) we do not yet know. The list of questions could be considerably lengthened without affecting the monotony of the answers." (4)
The fossil-based scenario of human evolution is collapsing
We are also told in the msnbc.com report that the researchers investigated fossil records attributed to human beings and identified anatomical features in human fossil history that provided greater efficiency in energy terms.
The idea that bipedalism evolved through random mutations is irrational and unscientific
As was made clear at the beginning of this article, the biomechanical systems that make it possible for human beings to walk on two legs contain a large number of sub-systems and are the result of other functionally interconnected systems. According to the theory of evolution, these systems, which are directed by highly complex genetic networks, must have come about through natural selection and random mutations with no consciousness or objective. However, as countless experiments and observations have shown, the effects of mutations are inevitably destructive.
To believe that the shoulders of a monkey adapted to living in trees will be displaced backwards when it begins living on the ground, that its trunk will grow progressively thinner, that its arms will become shorter and its legs longer, that its hands will become more prehensile, that the arrangement of its toes will change, that there will be changes in the organization of its knee and shoulder joints, that it will lose its fur, that its brain will grow three-fold, that it will learn to speak, and that it will turn into human beings able to make technological inventions, to develop a moral framework, to establish universities, hospitals, libraries and states, into scientists able to venture into space and examine their own descent, into people capable of taking pleasure from art and music, and that all this happened with no blueprint or purpose through the chance-based effects of destructive random mutations is a violation of reason and logic, for which there is not the slightest scientific evidence.
In the words of Professor Marcel-Paul Schützenberger, a Paris University mathematician and doctor: "Gradualists and saltationists alike are completely incapable of giving a convincing explanation of the quasi-simultaneous emergence of a number of biological systems that distinguish human beings from the higher primates." (6)
In believing in this transition, in the absence of any relevant mechanism of regular fossil series, evolutionists are acting totally unscientifically. They produce imaginary causes of this hypothesis they regard as the truth, come up with hypotheses such as bipedalism evolving because it reduced energy consumption, and thus take yet one more step away from scientific validity.
The unscientific nature of speculative approaches suggesting propulsive forces for the supposed evolution of man is described as follows by Henry Gee, one of the editors of Nature magazine:
"For example, the evolution of man is said to have been driven by improvements in posture, brain size, and the coordination between hand and eye, which led to technological achievements such as fire, the manufacture of tools, and the use of language. But such scenarios are subjective. They can never be tested by experiment, and so they are unscientific. They rely for their currency not on scientific test but on assertion and the authority of their presentation." (7)
Even if Darwinists continue to insist that science is impossible without the theory of evolution, the studies they publish will continue to prove the opposite. This latest study has once again revealed that evolutionists regard their own dogmas as being superior to science. They have again chosen to relate their own dogmatic fairy tales, ignoring the way that findings regarding the efficiency of bipedalism actually point to the fact of creation.
Our advice to msnbc.com and to all other evolutionists is that they should accept that the theory of evolution has by now totally collapsed and the truth of creation supported by the scientific evidence.
(2) Michael D. Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman, "One Giant Step For Mankind," Time, 23 July 2001
(3) The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005. "Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome," Nature 437:69-87.
For a comprehensive evaluation, see "The Widening Genetic Gap," http://www.darwinism-watch.com/widening_genetic_gap_2005.php
(4) Elaine Morgan, The Scars of Evolution, Oxford University Press, New York, 1994, p. 5
(5) See. The Origin of Man
(6) Schutzenberger M-P., in "The Miracles of Darwinism: An Interview with Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger," Origins & Design, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1996, pp. 10-15
(7) Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to A New History of Life, The Free Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1999, p. 5