The Ape to man image.
Everyone has seen it on a TV show, a tee-shirt you name it.
The most iconic evolutionary image known is a fraud.
This week on Creation Magazine LIVE!
Welcome to Creation Magazine LIVE!
My name is Richard Fangrad. and I'm Calvin Smith.
Now our topic this week on Creation Magazine LIVE has to do with probably the most popular and
iconic evolutionary image that people know. You know this one. Its
the famous 'ape to man' series of drawings that we commonly see.
We're going to review one of the most published modern pictorial icons of evolution and show
that it is fraudulent, based on known inaccuracies and false information.
Yes I mean we see this all the time right? More and more.
T-shirts, coffee mugs, kids shows.
It's so iconic now that it's used for comedic purposes, like the famous one showing
the last guy hunched over his computer, like that's the latest stage of evolution.
You can find a picture like that pretty well promoting any sport or activity, like the
last guy or gal in the picture will be playing golf, or cricket or whatever someone is trying
to promote it as the best or most evolved.
Yes, now many people don't seem to understand that this popular image has racist roots and
its really an extension of the once common, often distorted comparisons found in both scientific
publications and popular literature of apes and African and Caucasian heads.
That's right.
This idea got started when Darwin suggested an unbroken evolutionary chain of life from
simple molecules to humans.
And so this chain analogy gave birth to the idea of supposed missing links in the chain, an analogy
still used today.
Unfortunately for evolutionists, instead of a chain, what the fossil record actually shows is many
groups of life-forms with large gaps or holes in the supposed chain between them.
Right and
regardless, the so-called "great chain of being" is still presented as fact and evolutionists
still believe, that given enough time, more fossil discoveries are all that is needed
to locate the many 'missing links', so called, that they think must exist.
Now we did a show on the so called transitional fossils or missing links way back in Season
2 episode 22, and for those of you that want an in-depth look at the variety of so-called missing
links, but what we want to concentrate on today is the so called chain from ape to man
that is so often portrayed in that famous image.
So missing link claims have come and gone but the idea seems to be well 'They're there, or
were there, and we just need to look through some more rocks, we're going to find evidence of them'.
Now as prize 'missing links' like Lucy or Tiktaalik come along with a big bunch of
hype and then they quietly fall off the wagon as even evolutionists abandon them, every now
and then, a new "missing link" discovery claim is made, and of course this just reinforces this belief.
Right.
Now this progression chain, as we've said, seen everywhere from book covers to magazine
articles to cartoons—is a drawing depicting part of this chain, namely human evolution
from a primitive, stooping ape-like creature progressing to a modern human.
The progression is usually pictured in four to six steps, but sometimes as many as 30
are shown!
But you might be wondering where did the picture idea come from originally? Let's talk about that.
Well one of the earliest examples of the chain was completed by Brooklyn College paleontologist
Eric Schlaikjer.
His rendition shows 30 links from fish to amphibians, reptiles, mammals, primates, and,
at the top of the evolutionary progression, modern humans, and you can see that diagram
on your screen there.
Well the scenario pictured is a little different from what is proposed today, but it does include
some animals still touted as evolutionary links, such as Seymouria, that lizard looking
thing there in the diagram.
It's also notable that the common ancestor of humans is a modern ape, not an 'ape like
ancestor', and the first human looks pretty much like a modern man.
A clear gap is shown to exist between apes and humans.
And really, you could line up today's living animals and produce a diagram very close to
this one.
That's right.
So, when we get back we're going to reveal where the 'ape to man' image first appeared and go into more details. We'll be right back...
Every time I hear of Neandertal man, I can't help but feel sorry for the poor guy.
Initially reconstructed to look like some apish brute, it took 44 years before a reanalysis
of the fossils revealed that Neandertal man's anatomy was very similar to yours and mine.
Neandertals buried their dead—which isn't the sort of behaviour you'd expect from
an animal.
What's more, discoveries of ornaments, tools and stone-tipped spears reveal a high level
of sophistication.
Neandertals made their own superglue from pitch and flute-like structures found with
their remains suggest they enjoyed music.
But what did Neandertal man really look like?
In recent years researchers have answered this question by using computerised reconstructions,
commonly used in forensic science.
These studies show that Neandertal Man looked remarkably similar to you and me.
If he was dressed in a suit and walked past you in the street, you probably wouldn't
notice him.
To find out more from Creation Ministries International visit our website Creation.com.
If you've just tuned in, this week we are talking about why the 'Ape to man image' that
you see everywhere, the most iconic evolutionary image is false.
Right, now the modern-ape-to-man, human progression called the "ascent of man" was first illustrated
in a best-selling book titled 'Early Man', written by University of California, Berkeley
Professor F. Clark Howell.
And the progression was printed in a 91-cm foldout on pages 41 to 45 in the 1965 edition and
reprinted in both the 1968 and 1973 editions.
So the original chart included 15 pictures that traced human evolution from Pliopithecus to
Ramapithecus to Homo erectus, all the way to Cro-Magnon and ending with Homo sapiens.
OK, now, and this 'parade' of human evolution really captured people's imaginations.
It was a very simple pictorial 'snapshot' type of image that quickly communicated the
evolutionary concept. It was great in that sense for evolutionists.
And like they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. Right?
Creationist human origins researcher Marvin Lubenow, author of the book 'Bones of Contention',
concluded that the human progression image "… has been one of the most successful
tools ever used to promote human evolution.
It constituted powerful visual 'proof' for human evolution that even a small child
could grasp.
It was a masterpiece of Madison Avenue promotion." That's the way he put it. Interesting way to put it. So
this parade has been prominently displayed in social science classes, biology classrooms,
school bulletin boards for decades now.
Because of its graphic power it's been kind of etched into the minds of billions of people worldwide.
Ironically, the progression was known to be fake when it was first published.
The book that included it, after noting only that fragmentary fossil evidence existed for
human evolution, openly admitted that the progression was drawn from largely manufactured
or distorted evidence.
Oh dear, Okay.
In the author's own words, "Many of the figures shown here have been built up" from a few
fragments, "a jaw, some teeth perhaps … and thus are products of educated guessing."
The author added that "even if later finds should dictate changes", that is, even if the
drawings are wrong, "these reconstructions serve a purpose in showing how these creatures
might have looked", and the term 'might' is in the original text by the way.
Which just emphasizes again that the origins debate is historical science, it's not operational science.
No scientist today has ever observed these creatures, these are guesses about what 'might'
have been in the past according to an atheistic, evolutionary philosophical idea, not repeatable
operational science done according to the scientific method.
Now below each of the 15 illustrations here in this book was a discussion of each picture—something
that is rarely ever included today when the progression is shown because of how popular it's become.
But note right away in the diagram that from A. africanus the main change, aside from the
poor posture, is really only the head.
And there are huge problems here.
Neandertals, even in 1970, weren't considered part of our evolutionary linage, but actually
another branch of the human family tree.
Both modern humans and Neandertals are today assumed to have evolved from Homo erectus.
Lubenow stresses that, "not that more recent fossil discoveries have revealed that
the progression was inaccurate.
No, the truth is far worse."
Now what he's pointing out here is these were false depictions and were known to be fraudulent. They were were known to be fraudulent at the time.
Yes, a few of these "far worse" examples he mentioned include the fact that the proto-apes
pictured weren't bipedal, yet are shown in the illustrations as being expertly bipedal.
The bipedal apes shown in the evolutionary progression are thought to have lived long
before evolutionists believe bipedalism had even evolved!
So the Howell text openly acknowledges this, admitting "although proto-apes and apes
were quadripedal, all are shown here standing for purposes of comparison."
So they are showing stuff that they know isn't true.
Well even that admission isn't accurate.
Some of the creatures shown in the parade weren't even actually able to physically
stand erect.
Furthermore, although the text describes them as "standing", they are in fact drawn walking.
Some of them have one foot in the air, balancing on the other foot as they walk across the page!
This gives them a far more human-like appearance than if they were just standing.
Accurate comparisons would require showing their actual normal quadripedal, or "knuckle-walking"
gait. On fours not two.
So this is the thing that many people don't understand when they see these so called scientific images in textbooks. They look so official and so on but anyway...
That's not all, we'll have to wait until we get back from our break to see even more.
The Genesis Account is the "Rolls Royce" of creation books.
It's a thorough, verse-by-verse analysis of the first 11 chapters of Genesis, revealing
what the text means.
Unlike most commentaries it includes the additional step of providing cutting-edge scientific
support for the history recorded in Genesis because its author, Dr Jonathan Sarfati, is
a PhD scientist.
Since science confirms the truths in God's Word, if both are properly interpreted, this
nearly 800-page book makes a fantastic reference tool for pastors or anyone wanting to know
what Genesis really means.
Order your copy at creation.com.
OK our subject this week is why the 'Ape to man image' you know that classic ape to man image you see everywhere is false.
And the fact that it was known to be false when it was first made. And of course the point we were making at the end of the last segment was, people need to discern these things.
When they see these images in books and so on and they think well they wouldn't have just put it in here if it wasn't true, they're scientists they must know these things. Oh yes they do!
Read some of the fine print because you find out some interesting things.
And the history of the image like we're talking about on today's show. It's a little hard, maybe, to get at some of that information.
Continuing on, in the list of errors in the original 'ape to man' depiction, another
problem is that the size of the illustrations were greatly distorted.
They show the first link in the progression as a very small animal and with only two exceptions,
Dryopithecus and Solo man, each progressive link is drawn larger and taller and progressively
standing up straighter and straighter the more we move toward modern man.
Now this isn't because of fossil or other empirical data, but rather it's the result of
artistic license that allows the artist to distort the picture to conform to evolutionary
theory. That's where they were going with that.
And you can see here that they also become progressively less hairy, which is also clearly a result of artistic
license and not fact. There's
no method that exists that allows anthropologists to determine the amount of body hair for these
fossil bones—except modern humans of course. And
they were clothed in flesh and hair by the artist.
Furthermore, Howell openly admitted that the first link, Pliopithecus, was not even considered
to be an evolutionary link to humans in 1965 when the book was first published, but rather
"is now classed as an ancestor of the Gibbon line".
So they just threw that in knowing full well it was false.
And not only that, the second step, Proconsul, even though it's drawn to look more like
a modern human, the picture caption admits that "proconsul is considered to be a very
early ape, the ancestor of the chimpanzees and perhaps of the gorilla."
Well why include it then?
Well to make it look like there's lots of evidence for evolution by making the diagram
appear robust and full.
For Dryopithecus, the text acknowledges that the entire animal, although also appearing
very human-like but stooped, is known only from "a few jaws and teeth".
And about the fourth step, Oreopithecus, the text actually states it is a "likely side branch
on man's family tree" and not a human evolutionary ancestor.
The text also notes that the next picture, Ramapithecus, is "now thought by some experts
to be the oldest of man's ancestors in a direct line." Oreopithecus. Oreopithicus. Very good. Pretty cool.
So then the progression should have begun with Ramapithecus but they needed filler.
So soon after the Time-Life book was published in 1965, Elwyn Simons of Yale found a more
complete skull of Ramapithecus and convinced evolutionists that Ramapithecus had no part
in human evolution.
Yet page 37 of the 1970 edition of the Time-Life book Early Man shows a broken palate that
included Ramapithecus in both the first step in the human "jaw evolution" parade and
in the human evolution parade.
These pictures should have been revised in the new edition to reflect Simon's findings,
but weren't. But they weren't.
And also, Solo man on the chart there was known only by "two shin bones and some fragments
of skull", so pretty sketchy to be shown so factually.
Today it and robustus are now interpreted as "an evolutionary dead end in man's ancestry."
Also of note is the fact that from africanus to modern man, the bodies look remarkably similar.
Only the heads, most of which seem kind of out of place if you look at the pictures here on the bodies, they are very different—more
ape-like as we move backward in time away from modern humans.
Now some people might argue that the text does openly point out many of the inaccuracies
in the drawings so it's not fraudulent.
But then why include them?
Well many casual readers would have just have gotten the seemingly solid scientific impression, even
if they just glanced at the pictures in the book.
So this visual image has effectively sold the concept of human evolution even though
the book revealed that this parade was fictitious. That's right.
So we're going to look more into this when we come back in just one moment…and see you then...
Did you know that animals have genetic switches?
These are regulatory regions of DNA that control the genes.
Scientists have noticed that dramatic things can happen when a genetic switch is mutated.
For instance, a mutated genetic switch can dramatically alter the appearance of stickleback
fish, or generate a great variety of coat colours in animals.
Veterinary researcher Dr Jean Lightner has suggested that God may have created genetic
switches to facilitate variation, the switches having been created with a propensity to mutate
without negatively affecting other traits.
Modifications to genetic switches are not examples of 'evolution in action', even
though they often are spoken of in that manner.
Indeed, these changes don't involve new information—new genes—arising, and evolutionists
cannot explain the existence of the genetic switches in the first place!
The more we learn about the complexity of genomes, the more they point to a super-intelligent
master programmer.
To find out more from Creation Ministries International visit our website Creation.com.
Our subject this week is why the 'Ape to man image' you see everywhere is false.
Right, I mean this ape-to-man image idea has been copied and updated throughout the years as evolutionists
have tried to solidify their 'evidence' for human evolution.
National Geographic magazine produced one in November 1985 in a realistic set of well-done
drawings you can see there on your screen.
However rather than improving, this illustration in some ways is even less accurate.
Beginning with afarensis, the figures are not walking as they were in the Time-Life
book, but are shown as expert runners, progressively running faster and with more grace, with arms swinging
as the parade progresses toward the fully human variety there.
Right, now the first heads in the progression are very apelike, the later heads look very
Negroid, and the last head and body is that of a tanned Caucasian.
And so the major body differences are that the arms are comparatively shorter and the body is
progressively less hairy as the progression to modern humans moves forward.
The text does admit that the artist speculated on skin tone and the amount of body hair and
its texture and that the relationships between the fossils pictured are still not fully understood.
Right, now one of the main, but false, implications of these drawings of our supposed evolution
from ape-like ancestors called Pliopithecus, that looks a lot like a chimp, to modern humans
is that there is a very straightforward single line from ape to humans that's known.
Several of the most prominent modern paleontologists like Donald Johanson, Tim White, Richard Leakey,
Collin Groves and Bernard Wood for example have drastically different ideas about how our 'family tree', human family tree
supposedly goes. Right and
another important fact is that there is no evidence that any creature walked bent over,
as this progression shows.
When apes walk on all fours, they "knuckle walk" and only appear to be bent over when
compared to humans.
This is the reason it's been assumed that, as our common ancestor with apes evolved into
humans, their stoop became less pronounced.
However, no evidence exists of a creature "hovering between a two-legged and a four-legged
stance" as the progression shows.
Now in recent years the parade itself has evolved due to recent fossil finds, more detailed
study of the fossil record, and DNA analysis.
And fortunately, the "new view" refuting the parade is now being presented in some
mass media publications.
Yes for example a Newsweek article pictured the parade as the "old view" and, next
to it, showed the new view, a complex bush that is very different than the now famous progression.
And some criticisms from an evolutionary standpoint are more blunt, concluding that, "The gradual
progression from crouching to standing as shown in the series … is almost certainly wrong".
Now even if not presented exactly like the modern diagram, the progression of apes to
humans has been a common theme in evolutionary literature since about 1870, usually with
obvious racist implications. Absolutely.
The earliest evolutionary progression drawings usually showed evolution from the most primitive
to the most advanced animals starting with an amoeba, then a fish, then to a bird, then
a lizard, a monkey, an African or some other "primitive human", and if there was a
modern human depicted then in the last picture is a Caucasian.
Some examples of the evolutionary progression shows only the head profiles.
Common illustrations were an evolutionary progression from supposedly the most primitive
human, typically an aborigine or an African to the most advanced human, a Caucasian, often
appearing Nordic or Scandinavian, that type of look.
Examples showing profiles that stress the change in the facial angle from horizontal
to vertical were common, Africans are shown as being the most primitive and the Nordic
looking men as being the most advanced.
And even modern illustrations show evidence of this racism.
For example, many show the figures less hairy and the skin color getting lighter as evolution
progresses.
Now the progression is widely recognized as a gross distortion by academics but it keeps
being perpetuated amongst the layperson. Yes, how is that even allowed in textbooks? In our politically correct society today how is that even allowed? Amazing.
What's the conclusion here?
Well Marvin Lubenow states, the parade; "is raw propaganda—brilliant propaganda,
but raw nonetheless", and this propaganda has no doubt influenced millions of people
to accept the Darwinian worldview of human evolution and is, by far, the most popular
icon of evolution that has ever been presented everywhere in the media for decades. Right, and
the fact is, that the once popular fresco showing a single file of marching hominids
becoming ever more vertical, tall, and hairless and pale is absolute fiction, and informed
evolutionists agree!
And we'll be back…
The reason that The Creation Answers Book is so popular is because covers a huge range
of topics and answers more than 60 of the most asked questions about Genesis and the
creation evolution issue.
Questions like: What is the evidence for God existence?
Could the days in Genesis 1 be long period of time?
How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?
Does radioisotope dating prove that that earth is very old?
Where do dinosaurs fit into the Bible? …and many more.
To order your copy visit Creation.com.
OK welcome back. We're going to wrap up this week's show with a news article. What's going on, there's always something happening regarding creation evolution.
So this is, the title of the article is 'Study finds aging starts before birth'
Amazing, so you age in your first nine months.
A new study, I'll just read the article or we'll read it here, a new study has found that aging may begin even before we are born, in the womb.
The University of Cambridge-led team made this determination by exposing rats to situations
similar to those faced by pregnant women.
They then examined the protective ends of chromosomes called telomeres which deteriorate
with age.
To simulate a reduction in oxygen available to the fetal baby due to a high altitude or
smoking mother, researchers placed gestating rats in an environment with seven percent
less oxygen. So that's what it says so far. Right. And of course we know that babies age when they're in the womb but what we are actually talking about here is
aging in the sense of degenerating. Right? That's what we're getting at. Right. so, and they continued;
Once these babies were born, they were found to have the aging indicators of shorter telomeres
and more blood vessel problems, which exposed them to an earlier risk of heart disease. Both groups of infants—with and without standard oxygen levels—benefitted
when the mother was given antioxidant supplements while pregnant. Health habits during gestation can also help to positively influence the child's "future heart health."
So just kind of an interesting article here showing that basically what we know with science what it shows now is basically we are programmed to die
in a sense. We're programmed to die. Its mutations, if you...mutations is what God uses to kill us. That's cheery. If you want to think of it in a morbid sense.
Yes well God's got to get us to heaven somehow and He's got a number, a variety of ways to do that, so, but mutations,
and it's just interesting, the mutational degradation starts the very first time, well, John Sanford...we did a show with some of his research there showing how humans are heading for extinction
because of mutations at a phenomenal rate, some of these mutations that occur in individuals are passed onto the next generation
so that every new generation of humans starts life off with more mutations than the previous generation and you can see that episode here at this link.
That's right, so far from the evolutionary concept that we're getting better and better over time...Because of mutations...because of mutations, what the show actually revealed is we're getting worse
and worse and worse over time, because that's why everybody dies. You know here they are talking about the fact that you start aging before you are actually born, well the reason everybody is going to
die as we mentioned is because of mutations, you've got about what, 60,000 new mutations in your body after you are forty years old. That's why you are going to get wrinkly and saggy and
you're eventually going to die. And that's what the scripture says that the wages of sin is death. We all know that we are sinners, we all know that we are going
to die and mutations are going to get rid of us. The average cell in a fifteen year old has six thousand mutations, the average cell. Some more some less.
The average skin cell in a sixty year old has forty thousand mutations. No amount of 'Oil of Delay' is going to stop that, you're not going to fix that. Its mutations that are driving us, your skin
and all of your vital organs, same thing is happening there. Its mutations that drive us to death and that was just an interesting study.
Get more of this information by looking at a free digital copy of Creation magazine
Go to: creation.com/free-mag And next week we're going to look at 'The flat earth myth and the Bible'. We'll see you next week...
For more infomation >> Can you have a "REAL" INFINITE WORLD in Minecraft? - Duration: 3:04. 
For more infomation >> Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions: Oral Argument - February 27, 2017 - Duration: 59:29. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét