Is the “ape-man” evidence of evolution?

ape Man evolutionBut what about reports over the years that they have discovered fossils of ape-like men? Is not proof of transitions between apes and men?

If this were true, then why is now the family is still in existence “bottom” of monkey, but not one of the classes of “Ape-men” who were supposedly superior? Should not have survived the lower apes at least one of the upper classes? But today we see chimpanzees, baboons, orangutans, gorillas and even monkeys galore, but no “man-ape” superior.
From the standpoint of evolution, it is strange that every one of the “links” between apes and modern man is gone, but not the lower apes. However, there is nothing strange if you look at the record from the point of view of the Bible. The Bible shows the simple reason why there are no links at present, never existed.

Huge gap of Man and Ape compared to evolution

No one can deny that among the living things of note today a huge gap between mankind and all animals. In Populations, Species and Evolution, an evolutionist, Professor Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, states:
“You can make a more tragic mistake to regard man as’ a mere animal.” Man is unique, it differs from all other animals on many properties, such as speech, tradition, culture, and a period of growth and greatly extended parental care. ”

The uniqueness of man can not be explained by evolution, because that process would certainly have resulted in at least a few other living things have characteristics somewhat similar to humans. But that’s not the case. Of all the creatures on Earth, only humans are capable of abstract reasoning, using complex language, build and build on the knowledge and convey the improvements to their children. Only humans invent and improve tools. Only they appreciate the beauty, compose music and paint pictures.

Furthermore, in contrast to animals, only humans have an innate moral sense. It is true, can pervert or to go against him, but still have the power of consciousness. That’s why in all human societies, even in the atheist, there are laws that protect the moral, human life, property and other rights. But nowhere do we see that awareness among animals.
Yes, it is generally accepted that at present there is huge gap between humanity and animals. But was it always so? What about those “ape-men” who are supposed to have lived in the past?

Fossil  proof of  “Ape-Man”

Judging by all the stories that appear in newspapers, magazines and books, and exhibitions in museums, it seems that there is abundant evidence to show that modern humans evolved from ape-like creatures. That is what is generally believed the unsuspecting public. But is that really the case?

Richard Leakey, director of the National Museums of Kenya, who is well known in the field of anthropology, recently stated: “Those working in this field have so little evidence on which to base their findings support often have to change their conclusions . So it never seems to be no stability in the performances. ”

Despite the paucity of fossil evidence for evolution, evolutionists in recent years have generally agreed on an ascending line from ape to man. A vital link in the chain was the creature called Australopithecus, of which fossils are found in Africa. Had a small skull, a pronounced jaw, and was represented monkey hunched appearance.

The evolutionary Ruth Moore said of him: “According to all evidence the men had finally found his long unknown, primitive ancestors.” She said emphatically: “The evidence was overwhelming… the missing link had finally been found. “In 1971 the New York Times said:” It was Australopithecus… which eventually evolved into Homo sapiens, or modern man. ”

The evolutionary Stebbins also said: “The immediate ancestors of Homo [man] were the Australopithecus.” Most scientists in the field of evolution agreed. As noted by the Times in Los Angeles in 1972: “The current evolutionary theory holds that Homo sapiens, the modern man evolved within the last million years of Australopithecus, a fossil with characteristics of both monkey and man.”

But, because perhaps there is a similarity in bone structure between an ape-like creature and modern man, does that mean that they are related? It is as if one person today examines the bones of a chimpanzee and then a human, who died recently, and then concludes that one came straight from another. I could tell, but not true.

But any theory that is based on flimsy evidence and non-existent or superficial reasoning, sooner or later is reduced to nothing. Often been the case with many past examples of supposed “ape-men.” So, too, could happen now with Australopithecus, just a few years after it was stated dogmatically that was the most vital of all the missing links.
By the end of 1972, Richard Leakey and his team found in Africa, a skull and leg bones of a creature that lived at the same time says that Australopithecus. But he says that it has human characteristics!

Regarding the new discovery, the East African Standard of Nairobi, Kenya, said:
“Not only the size and shape of the brain of this new finding, but also the limb bones were found in archaeological sites that experts are now investigating in East Rudolf is notably similar to those of modern man.

“And it is these discoveries that have shed new light on the theory of human evolution that will require a complete reassessment and modification of the interpretation of the specimens of primitive man previously known.”

As a result of this discovery, Leakey told reporters that Australopithecus “may be excluded from our line of ancestors.” And the New York Daily News reported, “[Leakey] says that the discovery will be necessary to abandon the theory of evolution the man is now commonly accepted. “The conclusion was:” Homo sapiens [man] is not evolved from Australopithecus. ”

However, regardless of how old fossil is placed between the ancestors of man, not monkey, brutish and stupid expression? Does not this indicate an evolution from an ancestor like a monkey?

Admittedly, this is how they are described. But what is the basis for this? In The Biology of Race tells us: “The assumption of bestiality and low morals of different people it has become apparent in the efforts of paleontologists to reconstruct fossil men.” So states: “The flesh and hair these reconstructions have to be added using the imagination. ”
So bestial appearance that gives the above men is not based on facts but on the assumption that this must have seemed if they had descended from apes. Admittedly simian reconstruction is only the imagination, the fantasy of scientists who are determined to support the theory of evolution even if it means deceiving the public.

The truth is that it is impossible to determine the likeness of a person based on the skull or other bones. This is the case if the skeleton of a man has only four, or four thousand years old. The eyes, nose, skin, hair-in fact all the external features, not preserved in ancient fossils.

That is why the publication supracitada recognizes that with respect to these external features, “we know absolutely nothing of any prehistoric man.” Given this, how honest would you say are these reconstructions beastly?

However, because recent evidence shows that many early humans had a relatively high culture, are going some changes of opinion. As stated in The Biology of Race: “More recently, restaurateurs have begun to show a willingness to raise the shapes of the first men.” The New York Times said:
“Now it seems that men who lived in limestone caves scattered throughout Europe, from 32,000 BCE until about 10,000 years ago were innately very similar to us. In fact, some anthropologists argue that were taller than modern man and had larger brains. ”
So, a look true to record tells us this: the huge gap between man and beast that is so obvious now always existed. Any effort to make ape-like creatures in the line of man is a myth. As New Scientist said, there is “sufficient evidence of fossil fuels to get our theorizing in the region of fantasy.”

The truth is what the facts show that God created man separate and distinct from animals, and that man only reproduces after its kind. It does so now, and he always did in the past. Any apelike creature that lived in the past belonged to the genus of monkeys, not the human race. Fossils of the real men were simply varieties of mankind, as living today many varieties or breeds.

From what we have seen, the most recent research findings definitely do not support the teaching of evolution. The evolution has not faced the challenge that gave rise to these scientific findings, because it is not true.

But the challenge that faces the development is another aspect. For example, deserves careful attention the effect of changing the moral climate of the world. Also, what offers hope for the future evolution?

The answers have to do with you.

Incoming Search Terms:

  • ape man (250)
  • apeman (39)
  • ape men (13)
  • ape to man evolution (11)
  • monkey to man evolution (11)
  • what is the acending ape evolution called (1)
  • picture of evolution of man from ape (1)
  • if evolution true why no ape man fossils (1)
  • ape to men (time life) (1)
  • what is the gap in intellect between man and ape (1)

Related posts:

  1. A growing challenge on evolution Why evolution is being mentioned in the news lately? Among other things, the nature of the increasing scientific challenge against it. Not a matter of only a few ‘religious fanatics’ ignorant are rejecting the idea. Many trained people are very knowledgeable are challenging evolution. Scientists, educators and competent people in...
  2. How does evolution of cell work? Another problem that must be addressed is this: If evolution is true, how is done? What makes living things change as plants and animals are transformed into single-celled life forms ever higher? Evolutionists say that those responsible are changes within the cell nucleus. They believe the main mechanisms involved are...