Man? Ape? Or Yes?

Posted by Worldview Warriors On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 0 comments

So God created man in his own image,
In the image of God he created him;
Male and female he created them.
-Genesis 1:27

A new species of human…er, ape…er, something has been discovered. It is being described as having both apelike and humanoid features. It is called A. (Australopithecine) Sediba.

There are two particular features of the specimens that make them somewhat peculiar. The upper half of the creatures look incredibly well adapted for climbing and have features that are perceivably more apelike. Despite the “primitive” appearance of their arms, the hands look a little more sophisticated. The lower half displays a more advanced type of ankle structure that appears more human. Because of this seemingly bizarre combination evolutionists have concluded that these creatures are part human and part ape. They think that it might be a transitional form of some sort, but is it possible that they are entirely mistaken?

They have never stopped to consider the possibility that they could be entirely human or entirely ape. According to scientists, this specimen is too old and too apelike to be human. Given their abnormal combination of traits why would it be wrong to call these specimens “missing links” or transitional forms?

For the sake of clarity, my job here is not to determine what these creatures are, I don’t know and do not have enough information to take any guesses. Instead of taking stabs in the dark without sufficient information, let’s use logic in connection with information we do know to give us a better understanding of the possibilities and to help us understand evolutionary philosophy. Ready?

Exhibit A: Albertosaurus.

Do you know what albertosaurus is? Let me help: you know what a tyrannosaurus rex is correct? They are actually the exact same thing, except the albertosaurus is smaller and its proportions are slightly different from that of T-Rex. In other words the difference between a T-Rex and an albertosaurus is about the same as what the difference is between a tall person and a short person. But evolutionary scientists have chosen to classify them as two different species of dinosaurs. Weird, huh?

Exhibit B: Common physical deformities.

Even healthy human skeletons have minor differences in size, proportions, and even shape in some cases but there are instances where the anatomy of the human skeleton is drastically different from the average person. Such differences are typically the result of disease or deficiency. People who are affected by Down’s syndrome, arthritis, and rickets often have anatomical features that are significantly different from the common person. The first Neanderthal ever discovered, for instance, was hunched over. As a result the person who made the discovery concluded that all Neanderthals were essentially hunchbacks. After many years the skeleton was reexamined and it was discovered that this hunched over Neanderthal had actually suffered from a nasty case of arthritis in his back.

(Marvin L. Lubenow, Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1992), 26.)

Exhibit C: Extreme abnormalities.

There are certain abnormalities that make the ones listed above look normal. Take for instance the Ostrich People of Africa. They have only two toes on each foot that are shaped and proportioned in such a way that it appears as though they have ostrich feet! These people have isolated themselves and have been inbreeding for so long that their ostrich feet have become a normal trait among them. Now, imagine if a scientist dug up the bones or fossils of an ostrich person without any prior knowledge of their existence. What sort of conclusions do you think he or she would have drawn?

We have outlined three possibilities in exhibits a-c. Is it possible that the differences in these specimens and either apes or humans are so minute that there truly is no difference? Could the specimens have suffered from some sort of minor genetic defect that slightly altered certain characteristics? Could they have suffered from a serious genetic defect that makes them almost unrecognizable? Is it possible that they are missing links? Is it possible that the whole thing is just a hoax? Unfortunately the team of scientists already made up their minds what these creatures are. even The sad thing is that they probably never considered the possibilities outside of their evolutionary biases. Let us not make the same mistake. (If you want any pictures of the specimens being discussed, check out Wikipedia; they provide a very easy to understand diagram to help you understand what has been discovered and what has not. Just type in A. Sediba.) (I based this post on