In the December 2002 edition of Scientific American magazine, appearing under the headline “Food for Thought,” by William R. Leonard the article spoke of man being a so-called evolved species of animal and attempted to form a link between his nutritional needs and traditions on the one hand and evolution on the other. By means of this article, which was based solely on the speculation of evolutionist scientists and offered no scientific evidence whatsoever, there was an attempt to place the suggestion that man was a species of animal which had come about by chance into the reader”s subconscious.
This article in Scientific American magazine contains deceptions ill-befitting a serious scientific journal. When we look at the kind of exposition prevailing in the article and the pictures offered alongside the text, the similarity to the fantastical style employed by the tabloid press is striking. The illustrations, which take several quite a place in the article, play an important role. In one of the pictures is depicted an ape-man and his family moving through an area covered in trees. Despite their hairy bodies, the figures are portrayed as having a human posture and appearance, although this is nothing more than a work of imagination. The magazine Scientific American is employing a familiar tactic of evolutionist propaganda; filling the gaps left by lack of evidence with pictures.
The article claims that by studying the methods employed by living things to find and use energy we can understand how the evolutionary changes of natural selection came about. It then moves on to such elements of the imaginary evolutionist scenario as the transition to standing on two legs, the increasing growth in the size of the brain and Homo Erectus” departure from Africa once he had completed his evolution.
What people need to be aware of is that, contrary to what is maintained above, natural selection has no evolutionary effect. This matter has already been explained in detail in the works of Harun Yahya, so we shall not repeat ourselves here. (See Harun Yahya, The Evolution Deceit, Darwinism Refuted, The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution, at www.harunyahya.com)
The Claim That Nutrition Played an Evolutionary Role is Fictitious
The claim is put forward in the Scientific American magazine that “our ancestors”” progress in increasing the energy obtained from food and raising its nutritional quality was one of the main features in mankind”s evolution and splitting away from the other primates. Yet from the scientific point of view this claim is totally without foundation. Better-nourished living things may have stronger bodies, and may be healthier and live-longer. However, improved nutrition cannot cause them to turn into another species.
That is because there is no connection between nutrition and man”s genetic make-up. In order for a “species change” to happen, the genetic structure needs to change to a considerable extent and to be redesigned. Such a thing has never, ever been observed in nature, and nutrition cannot affect genetic structure.
We can see this for ourselves: A cheetah community living in an area where prey is plentiful and which therefore has no need to compete with other predators may grow stronger because it consumes more meat. Yet it is impossible for these cheetahs to evolve into lions. That is because the DNA”s of cheetah and lion are different and there is no relation between food intake and DNA structure. DNA base pairs are set out in strings in a particular sequence in all living species. That specific sequence gives rise to the living thing”s genetic code, which is handed down unchanged from generation to generation. It is therefore impossible for nutrition to have played any role in mankind”s so-called evolution. Claiming that nutrition can influence genetics and bring about “evolution” is no less of a superstition than Lamarck”s thesis of “the inheritance of acquired characteristics.”
The Transition to Bipedalism is an Imaginary Scenario
The article describs how apes quadrupedal locomotion on four legs gradually came to walk on two and then considers the conditions that might have caused this so-called change. The best-known of the Australopithecus fossils that were put forward as the first species capable of bipedal walking were found in 1974 in a 40% complete skeleton, is the Australopithecus afarensis known as Lucy.” By looking at some of these bones, evolutionists claim that this species walked on two legs, for which reason it must have been the ancestor of man. The fact is, however, that much research into Australopithecus has revealed it was a species of ape which did not walk in the same way as man at all:
1) Despite being a supporter of the theory of evolution, Lord Zuckerman arrived at the conclusion that Australopithecus was an ordinary species of ape, one that very definitely did not walk erect. (1)
2) Another evolutionist anatomist, Charles E. Oxnard, well-known for his studies in this area, arrived at the conclusion that the Australopithecus skeleton resembles those of present-day orangutans. (2)
3) In 1994, Fred Spoor of Liverpool University and his team carried out a wide-ranging study to arrive at a definitive conclusion regarding the Australopithecus skeleton. The study was based around an organ known as the “cochlea,” which determines the position of the skeleton relative to the ground. Spoor”s conclusion was that Australopithecus” mode of walking did not resemble that of man. (3)
4) In 2000, a study by the scientists B.G. Richmond and D.S. Strait published in Nature magazine looked at Australopithecus” forearms. Comparative anatomical analyses showed that the species had just the same forearm anatomy as modern apes which do quadrupedal walking. (4)
These research reveal that Australopithecus, which evolutionists put forward as an intermediate species, is actually an extinct species of ape.
Chimpanzees Which Walk on Two Legs Invalidate the Evolutionists” Claims
As well as this research into Australopithecus, there is another discovery which has overturned the claim that walking on two legs was an evolutionary phase. Certain apes in our own time are capable of walking upright. According to a study by Dr. Robin Crompton of Liverpool University, published in The Scotsman under the title “Chimps on Two Legs Run Through Darwin”s Theory,” chimpanzees living in the Bwindi region of Uganda also possess the ability to stand on two legs. Dr. Crompton states that this opposes the evolutionists” assumptions:
This means that the accepted idea of apes on the ground gradually evolving to an upright stance from a crouched position is wrong. (5)
Walking Upright and Other Humanoid Characteristics: A Morass of Prejudice and Speculation
The Scientific American magazine contains considerable speculation regarding the advantages that an adaptation such as walking on two legs might have brought with it. Yet for some reason this claim consists of speculation rather than hard evidence. The paleontologist Pat Shipman has this to say on the mater in a paper in American Scientist magazine:
There is no shortage of ideas about the essential nature of human species and the basic adaptations of our kind. Some say hominids are fundamentally thinkers; others favor tool-makers or talkers; still others argue that hunting, savenging or bipedal walking made hominids special. Knowing what the First Hominid looked like would add some meat to a soup flavored with speculation and prejudice. (6)
The Increasing Brain Volume Diagram is a Deception Formed by Prejudice
Scientific American magazine carried a large plan showing the development of the brain which took place during the course of man”s so-called evolution. This table is the work of evolutionist prejudice designed to deceive by placing the fossil skulls of extinct species of apes on the lower rungs and human skulls on the upper.
In fact, a great number of findings, for instance the skulls discovered in the Dmanisi excavation area in Georgia, totally invalidate this plan. It was reported on MSNBC.com on July 4, 2002, under the headline “Fossil Discovery Overturns Theories of the Origin of Man,” that this fossil has a smaller brain volume than scientists had expected. Despite being 1.7 million years old, the fact that the Dmanisi Skulls have a brain volume of 600 and 800 cc. fails to fit the evolutionist picture. The archaeologist Reid Ferring of Texas University makes this comment:
This was completely unexpected because until now, prevailing scientific views placed habilis, ergaster and erectus into an evolutionary sequence. (7)
Another Deceptive Illustration
In one of the photographs published by Scientific American, skulls belonging to Homo erectus and the species Australopithecus boisei are compared. The anatomical differences between the two are then put down to nutritional habits.
The Australopithecus boisei skull shown on the left of the picture can clearly be seen to bear a close similarity to present-day chimpanzee skulls. The sagital crest which holds the former”s powerful chewing muscles, alleged to have evolved from eating tough, fibrous plants, is also found in modern apes. The fossil shown as Homo erectus is actually human, and it is therefore natural that it should not possess a sagital crest and powerful jaw structure. What has been done here is to put two skulls, one ape and one human, side by side and then engage in pro-evolutionist speculation on the basis of the differences between them. Those who lack sufficient information in this area may well be taken in by these claims made by evolutionists because of their scientific careers.
The fossil order and the scenarios regarding the transition to bipedalism that appeared in Scientific American are totally fictitious. Modern scientific discoveries are piling blow on blow on Darwinism. That is why scenarios regarding the evolution of man are no longer tenable. This article in Scientific American is nothing more than a new version, decorated with new illustrations, of the outdated claims designed to keep the theory of evolution on its feet.
1 Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower, New York: Toplinger Publications, 1970, p. 75-94
2 Charles E. Oxnard, “The Place of Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt”, Nature, vol. 258, p. 389
3 Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood, Frans Zonneveld, “Implication of Early Hominid Labryntine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion”, Nature, vol. 369, June 23, 1994, pp. 645-648.
4 Richmond, B.G. and Strait, D.S., Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor, Nature 404(6776): 382, 2000.
5 The Scotsman.com: “Chimps on two legs run through Darwin”s theory” http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1016102002
6 “Hunting the First Hominid”, Pat Shipman, American Scientist, January-February 2002, p. 25
7 MSNBC.com: “Fossil Discovery Upsets Theories on Human Origins,” July 4, 2002