On 7 October 2008, a report was carried in various well-known Darwinist publications. Titled “Human evolution has finally stopped,” the report contained speculation about the supposed evolutionary future of man by the British geneticist Steve Jones. According to Jones, who suggests that human evolution has now come to an end, if humanity survives, human beings in 100 million years’ time will look little different to people today.
Of course if humanity survives people in 100 million years’ time will not look much different to how they do today. However, the reason for this is not that human evolution has stopped, but that no such evolution ever happened in the first place. Evolutionist scenarios about the origin of man consist of tall tales produced by adapting the assumptions of materialism to their own existence. Based solely on preconception and imagination, there is absolutely no evidence to make these scenarios at all scientifically valid.
In her book The First Human, Ann Gibbons, a Science magazine writer who has penned countless articles on the subject of supposed human evolution, describes that lack of any fossil record supporting evolution:
It had also been obvious for some time that there was not just one missing link between humans and the ancestor of apes over the course of the human history – there were many missing links on the one true line to humans over millions of years. And they were not perfect intermediates that looked half ape and half human. The term “missing link” fell into disfavor.1
Gibbons also sets out the impossibility of such an illusory evolution in molecular terms:
At the time as new fossils were making their appearance, there was a revolution in the field of molecular biology. The molecular evolutionists had suggested in the 1960s that the earliest players in the human story had yet to be found. Most anthropologists had not believed those findings. By the mid-1990s, the molecular evidence was so strong that it was clear that the fist chapter – the genesis of humankind – was missing entirely. Biochemists had identified chimpanzees as the closest living relative of humans by comparing the DNA of humans and other apes. When they lined up the same stretches of DNA from humans and chimpanzees, they consistently found too many differences – or mutations – to have accumulated in. . . about 3.8 million years ago.2
Although there are no fossils to point to a common evolutionary history between human beings and apes, evolutionists dogmatically assume that the similarities between them are the product of evolution and come up with tall tales regarding this. The idea that over the course of millions of years an ape-like creature lacking the power of speech gradually began standing on two legs, shed its fur, lost the curvature in its hands and feet, tripled the size of its brain, learned to speak and turned into an expert geneticist declaring that human beings would evolve no further is a myth based solely on preconception and speculation.
It must not be forgotten that the theory of evolution suggests that the anatomical changes necessary for the imaginary transition from an ape-like creature to human beings – of which there is in fact in any case no trace, as outlined above – took place during a process relying on chance-based mutations and blind, natural events devoid of any consciousness. Mutations are copying errors similar to those in a printing machine running off documents, and are inevitably destructive whenever they impact on genetic data. Decades of experiments conducted in the hope that mutations would turn living things into other life forms have always totally disappointed evolutionists, and mutations have never bestowed new organs or systems on any living things, nor even added a single new protein. (You can find detailed information as to why mutation has no an evolutionary power here.)
Despite this, these certain Darwinist publications reporting the subject have acted ideologically and continue in their blind dissemination of Darwinist propaganda. In their latest such report, these publications describe Jones as “one of the world’s greatest experts on genetics” and seek to give the impression that these accounts are true publishing “the expert view”. However, the fact that Jones is an expert geneticist who has adopted Darwinism as a belief and ideology does not make his claims in favor of Darwinism in the least bit scientific.
The fundamental criteria that separate scientific claims from unscientific ones are repeatability and testability. For example, a scientist embarking on experiments concerning gravity may observe in the laboratory environment what kind of correlation there is between objects’ mass and gravity. Using modifications during his experiment he may be able to determine those factors that affect the speed at which objects fall to earth.
He may thus be able to establish to what extent his hypotheses approach the truth. As a result, other scientists will be able to repeat his findings under the same experimental conditions. However, the idea that ape-like entities descended from the trees and soon turned into human beings capable of founding civilizations, hospitals, states, universities, libraries, labor unions and space stations is neither repeatable nor testable. But even more importantly, Darwinists lack even the infrastructure on which such a claim could be based, in other words the intermediate fossils needed to support these claims. Indeed, in making these claims Jones is basing himself not on evidence scientifically obtained, but on a worldview he has adopted as an ideology. Since materialism seeks to deny the involvement of a Creator when it comes to the origin of life and the universe and regards nature as a closed system, his materialist beliefs lead Jones to produce fairy tales about how everything evolved spontaneously and by chance. Since the publishing organs reporting on the issue share that same worldview, they deceive the public by imparting a scientific guise to myths based on Jones’ philosophy.
What is more, one of these publishing organs Daily Vatan carrying this report is even inconsistent with itself. For example, in another report dated 1 February, 2006, and titled “Will humanity’s physical change last?” the paper told its readers the following:
Will the development of humanity, which is divided into tens of different races and has established hundreds of cultures, continue in the globalizing 21st century? The one-word answer to that question is, yes… The evolution of living things is not a process, but an adaptation to nature and living conditions. In other words, change anywhere in the body or in a single gene is a system that increases the organism’s chances of survival. (our emphasis)
As we have seen, there is an inconsistency between Vatan saying, not so very long ago, that “human evolution is continuing” and its announcement today that “human evolution has finally stopped.” The fact is that both are mere speculation. Darwinist publications generally report at once and in terms favoring Darwinism whenever an evolutionist scientist stands up and says “human evolution is continuing,” but also employ the exact same method when another evolutionist scientist declares that “human evolution has finally stopped.” It is obvious that the determining factor for these publications is not the extent to which this is supported by the evidence, but whether the claims are made for the sake of Darwinism. And that is obviously not news reporting, but rather blind propaganda.
Claims such as “evolution has accelerated,” “evolution has slowed down,” “evolution is continuing” or “evolution has finally stopped,” which appear from time to time in the Darwinist media, show that Darwinism is a mass of totally unscientific conjecture. This strategy, aimed at making propaganda by using scientists and the concepts of “science” and “evolution” alongside one another on a variety of pretexts, is doomed to collapse in the face of the scientific facts. The idea of a transition between species is a totally unscientific claim that has never been observed and one to which the criteria of repeatability and testability cannot be applied. Natural selection and mutation have no evolutionary power, and the human fossil record shows no passage from ape-like forebears. We advise those organs reporting on the subject to put an end to their unscientific propaganda on behalf of Darwinism. Otherwise, they will inevitably continue to contradict themselves.
You can obtain detailed information about the invalidity of the concept of human evolution on http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man.html
1 Ann Gibbons, The First Human, Doubleday, Random House Inc., 2006, p. 6
2 Ann Gibbons, The First Human, Doubleday, Random House Inc., 2006, p. 6