Our Real Ancestors

Iris Yousaf

     “Who are our (human beings) real ancestors?”, “Are they Adam and Eve?”, “Are they some primitive ape-like men?” are the question each one of us would have asked ourselves once in a while. The answers to these questions lie in our perceptions, our beliefs and our paradigms which in turn depend on the facts we are fed with and we accept. One such fact or rather a dogma is “Darwinism” which candidly suggests that human beings are descendants of apes. This theory has revolutionized the evolution of mankind. Ever since this claim was made, researchers have worked day in and out to find the truth of this claim, but at the end of the day Darwin’s claim about evolution of human beings is faulty and based merely on assumptions.

     In his book called “the origin of species by natural selection” or “the preservation of favored species in the struggle for life” published in 1859, Charles Darwin for the first time put forward his theory of evolution which involves mutation and natural selection constituting a phenomenon which Darwin calls “the survival of the fittest”. According to Darwin mutations or variations (as he calls them) can be brought under domestication or nature, and these variations however minute they might be constantly undergo a process of selection where variations which are favorable for an individual’s survival are retained while those which are unfavorable are diminished. Explaining this Darwin says in his book “the origin of species by natural selection, “This preservation of favorable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural selection. Variations neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection, and would be left a fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in the species called polymorphic.” (pg: 131) The favorable variations are then inherited from generation to generation and these variations are so minute that no one takes notice until the varied form is compare with their primitive ancestors. This is the way Darwin’s evolution works.

     If we look deeper into what mutations actually are and how they operate, we find that since our phenotype (physical appearance) is controlled by our genotype (genetic makeup), thus any change in physical appearance is a consequence of some change in the genetic makeup. The environmental conditions, however, may affect the physical appearance but when we talk about Darwinism and evolution it’s the genetic influences that are taken into account. So, mutations are basically changes in the gene sequence or chromosome number.

     Gene mutations are characterized by alteration in gene sequence in a DNA molecule. Now according to Darwin these mutations cause evolution of new species. However, research shows that these mutations are harmful to an individual. Christine Birkett in her book “heredity, development and evolution” says, “Mutations are random in their occurrence and effect and, since it is rare that a gene’s delicately-balanced function is improved by such a change, most mutations are deleterious.” (pg: 56-57) So, if mutations are mostly deleterious then there it is very likely that any gene mutation will be eradicated or eliminated by natural selection and thus will not be able retain. Talking about apes and humans there are a lot of mutations which would need to take place for an ape to transform into a human being, so even if one successful mutation did take place it could not have been enough to change an ape into a human.

     Similarly, chromosomal mutations which are characterized by changes in whole or part chromosomes have lethal effects on an organism. So first off, the whole concept of natural selection and in turn evolution comes down to ashes as chromosomal mutations are unlikely to provide favorable variations. Secondly, even if they do there is no chance that these variations will be transferred to the next generation because these individuals are either partially or fully sterile. Christine Birkett while talking about triploidy (a chromosomal mutation) says, “The plant may grow successfully and propagate vegetatively, but sexual preproduction is not possible because the chromosomes cannot all pair during meiosis.” Since mutations are possible only via changes in genes or chromosomes, thus it is impossible that apes underwent mutations which were favorable enough to be selected and transferred to the next generation and in turn produce human beings.

     Darwin goes on in his book to say, “….that with animals and plants a cross between different varieties, or between individuals of the same variety but of different strains, gives vigor and fertility to offspring; and on the other hand, that close interbreeding diminishes vigor and fertility……” (pg: 143) Here, Darwin talks about how close interbreeding don’t work for evolution because if same species and variety interbreed their offspring are likely to remain same and not undergo mutations. The sexual behavior of apes suggests that they choose mates from their own clan so there is very little a chance that apes unique to parents could be formed. Geoffery H. Bourne wrote, “There are something like 25 species of Lemurs now living in Madagascar. Some of them have changed so little in the 50,000,000 or 60,000,000 years that they have been isolated there that they are like living fossil.” Even if a hybrid was produced, the mutant gene is very unlikely to be dominant and will thus show no physical variations. Furthermore, if the hybrid crosses with either of the parent-type there is one out of four chances that the physical affect of the genes could be seen. So, basically, it is near to impossible that mutations occurred in apes which led to formation of humans.

     Again and again, Darwin stresses on how minute and slight the mutations are which ultimately lead to the formation of new species. But Michael Behe’s concept of “irreducible complexity”, which is explained as “an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations.”, crushes down the concept of evolution of humans from apes. Apes and humans both have complex irreducibility of their own and slight modifications in them would not have been favorable in any way. Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” And Michael’s theory strongly shows that no organ or physiological process can exist in an amateur or intermediate form; it has to be complete and whole in order to function and even exist. There is no way that apes underwent gradual changes in their skull shape or size, in their spinal cord structure or amount of body hair and that didn’t have an adverse effect on them. So Mr. Darwin there you have it, the breakdown of your theory.

     Even if we start to believe that slight modifications are the cause of evolution then where are the intermediate forms between apes and humans? Where are the ape-men? Darwin himself didn’t know answers to these questions. He himself admitted, “The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, cannot be bridged over by an extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower animal.” (Descent. Chapter six) However, today the supporters of Darwinism claim that they have found fossil-evidence to the existence of ape-like man. But how true these claims actually are? One such ancestor was Piltdown man discovered by Charles Dawson in 1908. For decades scientists boasted over this great discovery, but in 1952 they found that it was just a forgery. It was a combination of ape’s jaw bone and human skull with human like teeth filed and fitted in the ape jaw. It’s amazing how this piece of art befooled scientists for such long a time. Another such fossil was Nebraska’s man’s tooth. This single tooth led artists to come up with marvelous sketches of our so-called ancestor. It became the glory of museums and textbooks, but at the end of the day further digging unraveled that it was a pig’s tooth. Funny as it sounds, it’s a shame to the evolutionists. However, today there are fossil records of Ramapithecus and Australopithecus etc (supposed ape-like man), but who knows tomorrow these may turn out to be a sham too. Since there is no evidence of the ape-like man, thus there is no point in believing what Darwin’s theory proposes.

     What Darwin’s theory basically refutes is that there is a creator who made Human beings, and in order to support this point Darwin puts forward a theory which is nothing more than an assumption. But is it possible that there is a supreme force that Darwin is compelled to believe in? The answer to this is yes. In his book Darwin says, “Man can act only on external and visible characters: nature cares nothing for appearances, except in so far as they may be useful to any being. She can act on every internal organ, on every shade of constitutional difference, on the whole machinery of life. Man selects only for his own good; Nature only for that of the being she tends.” (Origin of species. pg: 133) This passage clearly shows that Darwin believes in a force which has the ability to do whatever, wherever and however it wants. He calls it nature. We call it God. So when he believed that Nature can act on the whole machinery of life then why couldn’t he believe that Nature created human beings in a way that is inexplicable and non-understandable? Why couldn’t he see that there never was a link between humans and apes? Well! May be he did see for he never was able to prove any of his points and on top of that he told us that nature is far more powerful than we are and it can do things which are beyond our understanding.

     From all the above discussion, one can very easily deduce that even Charles Darwin was not sure himself what he was talking about when he proclaimed that humans are descendants of apes. He was never able to provide any solid evidence to support his point. Although, he gave us a very amazing philosophy to amuse our ideas about creation of human beings with, but only had he been able to prove his claims, he would have become the god father and “Origin of Species” the bible of Evolutionary Science.

Bibliography:

Primary sources

Birkett, Christine. Heredity Development and Evolution. Hong Kong: Macmillan Education Limited, 1979.

Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. New York: Avenel books, 1979.

Secondary Sources

D. Pitman, Sean. Early Man. October 2005. file:///E:/The%20Evolution%20of%20Early%20Man.htm

M. Foard, James ed. The Darwin Papers. Volume no: 1. James M. Foard, 1996. file:///E:/Apes%20and%20Humans.htm

Paterson, Alex. A critique of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Volume no: 1. 8^th March, 2008. file:///E:/A%20critique%20of%20Darwin's%20theory%20of%20evolution%20by%20Alex%20Paterson.htm