Evolutionists claim that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor and that during that imaginary process his brain also grew and developed. According to this view, the growth of the brain is a so-called evolutionary adaptation. Again according to this claim, random mutations and natural selection, bereft of any aim or purpose, are responsible for the alleged evolution of the brain. That which Darwinists most frequently resort to support these claims—based on their own prejudices—is the diagram of the skulls which they set out in order from small to large. A number of scientific sources frequently set this claim and these plans before us. However, the propaganda concerning the evolution of the brain is invalid. The skulls included in the imaginary human evolutionary tree actually reveal no such ordered development of the kind being portrayed. On the contrary, there is a large difference in volume between the human skull and that of the Australopthecines, who are suggested to have been man’s ancestor, and this difference reveals that man and ape emerged separately, in other words that they were created. Furthermore, the functioning capacity in the human brain is very high, and its design is exceedingly complex. These features in the brain are used as models by computer engineers as they produce new designs. The claim that such an organ developed and evolved with random mutations is totally nonsensical.
It first of all needs to be made clear that there is no direct relation between brain size and functionality. The well-known linguist David Bickerton explains the situation:
The average human brain size is between 1,400 and 1,500 cubic centimeters, representing a range of roughly 1,000 to 2,000 cubic centimeters. This wide variation seems not to correlate with any differences in intelligence. There are people with brains of 2,000 cubic centimeters, like Oliver Cromwell, and there are people with brains of 1,000 cubic centimeters, like Anatole France. Was Oliver twice as smart as Anatole? The question doesn"t make sense. Those at the lower end of the scale have as great a command of language and the same kind of mind and consciousness and intelligence as anyone else. (Derek Bickerton, Language and Human Behavior, University of Washington Press, Seattle, 1995, p. 45)
Since there is no direct relation between brain size and intelligence, a conception of “evolution” based on brain dimensions is meaningless. This demonstrates that the adaptation claim that the brain grew in size in order to respond to needs during the imaginary process of evolution is based not on any scientific observation or evidence, but on blindly supported Darwinism.
Therefore, evolutionist scenarios based on brain size are self-contradictory. One important inconsistency in these scenarios is that so-called primitive human beings have rather large brains as opposed to the ape-men role ascribed to them. According to the scenario, living things which lived pretty much identically to apes possessed large brains, in a manner totally contrary to the logic of evolution. It was Charles Darwin himself who first noticed this discrepancy.
The natural scientist Alfred R. Wallace, who developed the theory of natural selection with Darwin, wrote to Darwin in 1869, stating his fear that the human brain could not be accounted for in terms of natural selection. Wallace said, "Natural selection could only have endowed the savage [so-called savage people] with a brain a little superior to that of the ape whereas he possesses one very little inferior to that of an average member of our learned society." Darwin immediately recognised the danger this posed to the theory. That was because the brains of races he had branded as “primitive” were much larger that that of “primitive man” as foreseen by his own theory. In his reply, Darwin warned Wallace:
I hope you have not murdered completely your own and my child. (R.M. Restak, The Brain the Last Frontier, Doubleday and Company, Inc., Garden City, New York, 1979, pp. 58-59)
Ever since that time the fossil findings obtained have done nothing to allay Darwin’s fears. It is for that reason that the evolutionist palaeantrophologist Richard Leakey replied that he did not have the slightest idea when asked how and why such a complex organ had developed in so-called primitive man. (Anthony Smith, Intimate Universe: The Human Body, Discovery Books, April 1999)
The Darwinists who so blindly defend the idea of the evolution of the human brain are unable to offer any scientific evidence for their skull plans. In fact, there is no scientifically proven evolutionary link among the skulls. Such a link exists solely in the minds of the evolutionists who arrange the skulls. One authority to openly state this is Colin Patterson, chief paleontologist at Britain’s Natural History Museum. Patterson has frequently stated why he does not support the philosophy of Darwinism. In one interview, Patterson said that the series which people like to talk about as if they had really existed do not exist in the fossil record. Patterson went on to say:
If you ask, “What is the evidence for continuity?” you would have to say, There isn"t any in the fossils of animals and man. The connection between them is in the mind. (Sunderland L.D., Darwin"s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, revised edition, 1988, p. 90)
In the same interview Patterson said that the theory of evolution was a philosophical problem and that the evidence found reflected peoples’ own prejudices.
Even the plan which evolutionists have constructed, based entirely on preconception, fails to show the continuity on which the theory of evolution rests. There is a huge gulf between the average brain volumes of the genus Homo, to which human beings belong, and Australopithecus, for many years proposed as an ancestor of man. Although Australopithecines possessed a brain volume equivalent to that of a modern chimpanzee (450 cc), Homo erectus, whose evolutionary ancestors they are claimed to have been, possessed a brain volume of between 900 and 1,100 cc.
Furthermore, the volumes of Australopithecus skulls, which evolutionists include in their illusory family tree, reveal them to have shown them as greater than normal in order to adapt them to the evolutionary scenario. Professor of physical anthropology Glenn C. Conroy and his colleagues examined an Australopithecus skull maintained to have a volume of 600 cc (Stw 505) using computed tomography. The average Australopithecus skull volume had been used by some researchers as evidence of evolution since it was greater than 600 cc. yet Conroy and his team, using the latest technology, declared that the volume of the skull was actually 515 cc. At the end of their article in Science, the researchers stated that there was no question of any Australopithecine being anywhere near 600 cc, let alone surpassing it, and wrote, “… several key early hominid endocranial estimates may be inflated [my emphasis]…” ( G. C. Conroy, G. W. Weber, H. Seidler, P. V. Tobias, A. Kane, and B. Brunsden, "Endocranial Capacity in an Early Hominid Cranium from Sterkfontein, South Africa," Science, 280 (1998), pp. 1730 - 1731)
Two prominent brain experts, Dean Falk (D. Falk, "Hominid Brain Evolution: Looks Can Be Deceiving," Science, 280 (1998), p 1714) of New York State University, and Ralph Holloway (R. L. Holloway, "Hominid Brain Volume," Science, 283 (1999), p. 34) of Columbia University, commented on Conroy’s results in two separate papers, writing that they had also realized earlier that the Australopithecine skull volumes had been portrayed as greater than they really were. Finally, at the 1999 annual meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropology, it was announced that some Australopithecus africanus fossils which had previously been declared to have a volume of 500 cc had been measured again, and in fact had a volume of only 450 cc. (Elizabeth Culotta, "Anthropologists Probe Bones, Stones and Molecules," Science, 284 (1999), pp. 110-111)
As we have seen, evolutionist preconceptions play a major role in the volumes of the skulls propagandized and installed in the illusory family tree, yet that does not change the fact that the brain volume of the Australopithecines, put forward as the so-called ancestor of man, is that of a chimpanzee. That volume is half of the H. erectus brain, the oldest group with a human skeleton, in other words the oldest human being. This situation reveals a great anatomical gulf between man and his so-called ancestors, and certainly represents a deadly blow to the theory of evolution.
The inconsistencies in the illusory family tree also appear in the mechanism suggested for the so-called evolution of such a vital and complex organ as the brain. The meaninglessness of maintaining that such a complex organ as the brain could have developed with the blind mechanism in question, in other words with random mutations, is obvious. Radiation and mutation expert James F. Crow says:
A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is certain to impair—just as a random interchange of connections [wires] in a television set is not likely to improve the picture. ("Genetic Effects of Radiation" Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Vol. 14, p. 19-20)
The human brain has a much more complex design than present-day advanced technology. World-famous computer companies are trying to encourage their engineers to take the brain as a model in their new designs by holding seminars on the organisation in the brain for them. (*) The well-known biochemist and science writer Isaac Asimov says this about the brain:
And in Man is a three-pound brain, which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe. (Isaac Asimov, In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even, Smithsonian, August 1970, p. 1)
Bearing in mind the perfection of this design in the brain, the nonsensical nature of the claim that the brain is the product of blind coincidences is obvious. In fact, no evolutionist who has ever abandoned defending this as a dogma and asked himself “how” it could have happened has ever been able to provide a logical answer, and they have all admitted the theory is untenable.
For example, speaking in 1929 at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Henry Fairfield Osborn, when understanding of the brain could not be compared with the level it has reached now, felt the need to say the following: “To my mind, the human brain is the most mysterious and mysterious object in the whole universe and no geologic period seems too long to allow for its natural evolution.” (Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention, New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1987, p. 57)
The famous biologist Jean Rostand says that he is unable to bring himself to believe in the scenario that the human brain emerged with evolution, no matter how long the time scale involved:
No, decidedly, I cannot make myself think that these “slips” of heredity have been able, even with the cooperation of natural selection, even with the advantage of the immense periods of time in which evolution works on life, to build the entire world, with its structural prodigality and refinements, its astounding "adaptations,... I cannot persuade myself to think that the eye, the ear, the human brain have been formed in this way. (Jean Rostand, The Orion Book of Evolution, The Orion Press, New York, 1960, p. 17)
The evolutionist anthropologist Lyall Watson admits that he knows nothing about how a large-brained human being could have emerged from a gradual process: Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans--of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings--is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter. (Lyall Watson “The Water People,” Science Digest, Vol. 90, May 1982, p. 44)
All these facts show that claims that the human brain emerged with evolution rest on no scientific evidence whatsoever. They are merely imaginary scenarios stemming from philosophical prejudices. To claim that the human brain, with its design that technology has come nowhere near being able to achieve, emerged as the work of chance is the same as claiming that the computers in the world came about not as the result of work by engineers, but as the result of chance, by plastics and metals haphazardly coming together. The only consistent idea is to accept that in the same way that computers have a designer, so the brain with its vastly superior design was also designed. The clear and manifest truth is that the design in the brain is the work of God’s creation.