~~~~ THE DOUBTING THOMAS LOOKS AT EVOLUTION ~~~~

Pub. Apr. 7, 1998
rev. Dec. 5, 2001
last rev. Apr. 2, 2004
Tech rev. Dec. 12, 2005

PREFACE
In recent years there has been increasing interest in the relationship of our closest "relatives" - the other primates - to man. A number of articles and books have been written on the subject. Cell biologists have "discovered" that there is only a 2% difference** between chimp and human DNA, often implying a similarity such as perhaps, a 2% difference between automobiles. Some, scientists and lay alike, believe that animals can "think". Most ideas of this type have their basis in Darwin's writings on the theory of evolution. Darwin's book "Origins" * attempts to show the mechanism by which development of all living things occurred through a mechanism which he terms "natural selection". His later book "Descent of Man" * extrapolates this process to the development of Homo sapiens from the primates.

This page looks at that latter conclusion plus some other ideas of Darwin's and points out that he ignored some very evident phenomena in the process, often using vague assumptions, circular reasoning and other logical errors, no less significant than those which were the basis for his book "Origins". It is suggested that the nearly universal credence given to this idea, just as to his concept of "natural selection", must be due to the nature of his conclusions, rather than to the methodology of reaching such conclusions..
* see references below

SYNOPSIS
Darwin's theory of evolution, as expressed in his "Origins" book, has been faulted for many shortcomings, not the least of which is the well recognized fact it is tautological. But it is his failure to recognize the capability of conceptual thought as being distinct and unique to mankind, which is chiefly discussed here. Because the idea is part of the aura of the Darwinian mystique it is rarely questioned. The ideas of Alfred Russel Wallace^(a), a friend of Darwin, who published the theory of evolution jointly with Darwin, are also discussed.

Wallace disagreed with Darwin throughout his life on the issue of man's nature, and clearly believed man to be unique in possessing a conceptual ability, yet this fact is never mentioned in writings on the subject in biology, as one might expect from the fact that Wallace was the "cofounder" of the theory. A portion of Wallace's rarely seen arguments are presented in a quotation.

Because there seems to be increasing belief that chimps and other primates have some ability of conceptual thought, a pathetically simple but irrefutable argument, well within the grasp of grade school mentality, is presented which shows the contrary. That Darwin did not understand this concept is shown by his conclusions. Speculation is also made about Darwin's failure to understand this concept.

MAN THE ANIMAL The paradigm according to Darwin.
Darwin's theory, as well as a multitude of other theories which discuss various aspects of life makes no essential distinction between man and any other type of animal. In this scenario, humans differ from animals such as dogs, cats, and chimps in features such as size, shape, physical characteristics and "intelligence", the latter difference which is usually explained by the larger brain of the human. Virtually all who do not believe in a unique conceptual ability of man express this belief. (Needless to say there is never any dissension from this line of thought in the thousands of animal shows on TV or at the theater, much less has any biology book or text known to this writer ever expressed a contrary view of the paradigm according to Darwin; note that the writings of both Marx and Freud, whose concepts have been discarded, were of the same belief, as mentioned on the Index page).

For example, in an analysis of primate fossils, brain case size is the major factor used to distinguish human from non-human species. Darwin made much of brain case size in an effort to back his theory. In his book, Descent, he quotes Dr. J. Barnard Davis' careful measurements which show that the mean internal capacity of the skull in Europeans is 92.3 cubic inches, in Americans 87.5, and in Australians only 81.9 cubic inches. He further states that the mean capacity of the skull of the ancient troglodytes of Lozere (cavemen) is greater than that of "modern" Frenchmen. But then Darwin was British, and nobility at that.

However, it should be pointed out that this conclusion is typical of a Darwinian "scientific" conclusion. Throughout his book, The Descent of Man, he discusses mainly the various physical similarities and dissimilarities between man and the other animals, virtually omitting reference to the intellectual side of man. An absolutely astounding statement, also contained in his book, was made by Darwin when comparing the brain of man and the brain of an orang. He acknowledged that they don't agree (in certain characteristics), but states:

".....nor could perfect agreement be expected, for otherwise their mental powers would have been the same". (emphasis added)

So typically Darwinian, this assumption, stated as fact without supporting argument, should get the medal as the most rash statement in all of his writings. In as much as even today, a century and a half away from his time, there is very little understanding and agreement about how the brain really "works", it may one of the most rash statements in science. In my opinion, the statement makes an absolute mockery of intelligence of any sort and to have it go unchallenged, by scientists and those in Academia is (or should be) cause for great alarm. But the statement proves conclusively, if more proof is needed, that Darwin understands no fundamental difference between the mind of the human and the "mind" of the remainder of the animal kingdom.

There is such a remarkable clue in the above statement, which clearly points to Darwin's pattern of thought, that it should not be overlooked and simply disregarded. If this statement were true, then the remainder of the argument presented by his Descent book is absolutely unnecessary. The facts which should point to the truth of that statement would carry the day. All that is needed is the set of premises together with some proof for them, and a logical conclusion which flows from those premises and it provides conclusive evidence, that man has descended from the line of primates and further, that evolution is a fact. All other arguments he uses would be, by comparison, superfluous. In typical Darwinian fashion, he furnishes none. Don't look for it, or even a criticism of his thought process, in your local biology book.

Also in typical Darwinian fashion, THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT HE IS TRYING TO PROVE in the book. Thus the statement is circular reasoning ^(b), which is fatal to his argument, as it essentially assumes the conclusion. It is not a new tactic, because for example, he likewise "assumes" infinite variability in species in his "Origins" book, as below, which assumption guarantees that there will be "evolution".

Many arguments both by Darwin and others, are used to prove similarity between man and the animals, one of the more important being that animals use tools. Animals use tools of course, but more importantly, and to the point being discussed here, it is generally agreed they have no understanding of tools. Simple experiments have proven over and over again, that animals develop the use of tools through trial and error or by mimicry and example, and not by the cognitive process as does man. It seems highly irregular that evolutionists can easily understand that trial and error will produce an incredibly complex object such as a living cell, and yet be unable to understand that during (an assumed) 20 M year period in the wild, chimps would not learn to use some simple "tools" by that very same trial and error process. At best this belief in tool use is wishful thinking; and the paucity of evidence supporting the idea creates the inference that it is, at worst, an article of "scientific" Faith.

But probably the best of Darwin's many arguments to show similarity between man and the animals is the fact that animals (mainly dogs) quiver, grimace, and move their feet and limbs while they sleep. He interprets this as being the result of "imagination" at work, in dreaming. (This appallingly simplistic conclusion is once again not worthy of the consideration of being "science", and it is easy to see how even a 5th grade essay containing this conclusion, might be returned to the pupil with a note to that effect). Yet many similar statements are accepted by scientists as valid proof of the ability to "think". It makes one wonder whether Darwin, with his supposed grasp of animal characteristics, had ever even seen a decapitated chicken run around the barnyard.

MAN THE HUMAN - A completely different vision
In fact one has, for all practical purposes, to leave the field of biology, anthropology, evolution, etc. (science) altogether, to find references which indicate a belief in an essential difference between humans and the remainder of the animal kingdom. Virtually all religions, and many governments (now) recognize that man is fundamentally different from all other animals. (It should be noted that the system of government known as "Communism", now almost defunct, did not recognize this feature of mankind).

This recognition takes the form of an acknowledgement that man's mental abilities are not only different in quantity but also in kind from the rest of the animals. The evidence of this recognition is a document such as the U.S. Constitution, which clearly sets out this proposition and enumerates the reasons why various rights thereby accrue to man. Animals are not even mentioned in these documents, and thus the inference is made that they are different " in kind ". (To say that "government" makes this determination, of course, is to use a figure of speech. In a democratic republic, such as the U.S., citizen acceptance determines the existence of such a document and it is obviously this will and understanding which produces this recognition).

With this understanding in mind, a more proper conclusion about "Our closest relative" is that the chimp (and of course all the other primates) are really and truly more kindred with their fleas than with any human being. And while this statement may cause apoplexy among evolutionists, a very simple argument will be presented which illustrates that animals completely lack a conceptual ability, so characteristic of homo sapiens . While the evolutionists are saying, as above, that the chimpanzee's genetic makeup is only 2% different from that of a human, implying in this as meaning the sole difference between humans and the chimps, they are speaking of a similarity only in the physical characteristics between the two, ignoring the conceptual ability of man.

WHAT DARWIN MISSED: THE DUALITY OF MAN
Because man is required to engage in animal behavior as a simple matter of existence, his animal nature is evident. In many respects this behavior is little different than that of "our closest relatives", the other primates. If an argument is made that man behaves, in this mode, with something like 98% similarly to the other primates, it would not be worth anyone's time to refute the claim.

But what of the actions of man when he is behaving in a manner unique to his species? Here we find an altogether different set of characteristics not possessed by any other living thing. Man has the unique ability of conceptual thought, whereby he can understand his surroundings, and create methods to control many of the influences in the world to which animals can only react. Thus, he can build a house to suit his individual liking, plant food, capture, and tame animals. He can investigate and understand various relationships in the world around him and put to work various effects which he discovers such as heat, electricity, physical properties etc. Man can invent a specific method of communication both in writing, and speech which will allow the transfer of conceptual thought from one being to another, from one generation to the next.

Likewise he can create things for his own amusement such as games, music, arts. He can appreciate the beauty of sights, sounds, taste, and touch, and manipulate the world around him in such a way as to accumulate these features. The list is endless of course. Where however, is there any evidence that other animals possess even the slightest of these abilities? If the most highly developed of the primates is the chimpanzee, a most cursory look at it's environment shows it to be incapable of any of the above actions. Animals are at the complete mercy of the environment for their existence. No animal species has so much as invented the simplest of competitive games to amuse themselves.

The following simple argument mentioned above is all that is required to prove that animals possess none of these human capabilities whatsoever. It is the result of common sense (deductive) logic, using the following facts which are available to all:

1. The animal closest to humans is the chimpanzee. ( 2% difference genetically accepted for purpose of argument, but see ** below.)
2. Chimps have been around for supposedly 20M years.*
3. One of the highest, or perhaps the highest concern of any animal must be the preservation of its own individual existence.
4. There is not a shred of evidence either in the past or today that any chimp has made any improvement whatsoever in its surroundings or environment to further the above concern.
* with apologies to new world Creationists, as it would be more proper to say that it appears to some that they have been around for 20M years.

In sharp contrast, the very earliest history of man, regardless of which version you choose to believe, shows intimate involvement of humans in modification of the environment in order to enhance their own and the collective well being. If this one fact alone does not indicate a fundamental difference between humans and all other animals, it once again requires explanation that has not yet been expressed by those who hold a contrary view. Yet those who have made it their lifelong vocation to study the mental facilities of man and animals inexplicably fail to either acknowledge this simple proposition, or to provide an explanation which explains away the inevitable conclusion , namely, animals have no ability for conceptual thought. Once again, this is a very simple concept which would be easily explainable to, and understood by, grade school students.

DARWIN AND WALLACE -- 2 OPPOSING VIEWS
Alfred Russel Wallace was a compatriot of Darwin's who independently developed the theory of evolution, and was the first to publish the theory as it is known today. The theories of Darwin and Wallace are so similar that they were published simultaneously in the same journal in 1859, and read together at the same inaugural presentation. Wallace eventually wrote a book entitled "Darwinism"* in which he explains and elaborates on Darwin's theory. However his views differ sharply from Darwin's on the true origins of living matter, as he was what today would be called a "creationist". He was convinced that intervention was required at least three times in the change from inanimate matter to the human being, and states that changes from non-living to living matter are:

"beyond all possibility of explanation by matter, its laws and forces ".

So clear are his ideas on the origin of all living things that it is felt appropriate to quote a portion of his conclusions here, regarding the characteristics of man, as follows:

"It will, no doubt, be urged that the admitted continuity of man's progress from the brute does not admit of the introduction of new causes, and that we have no evidence of the sudden change of nature which such introduction would bring about. The fallacy as to new causes involving any breach of continuity, or any sudden or abrupt change, in the effects, has already been shown; (in preceding unquoted arguments - DT) but we will further point out that there are at least three stages in the development of the organic world when some new cause or power must necessarily have come into action.

"The third stage is, as we have seen, the existence in man of a number of his most characteristic and noblest faculties, those which raise him furthest above the brutes and open up possibilities of almost indefinite advancement. These faculties could not possibly have been developed by means of the same laws which have determined the progressive development of the organic world in general, and also of man's physical organism.

So it can be seen that Wallace agrees with Darwin on many things but not his views on the origin of life or particularly the origin of mankind. Wallace further presents compelling arguments that man's capabilities such as mathematics, arts, and humor, could not have been caused by "natural selection". He concludes:

"The special facilities we have been discussing clearly point to the existence in man of something which he has not derived from his animal progenitors------". He calls this a "spiritual nature". ("Darwinism" p. 474)

Without naming it as such, he is discussing some of the features resulting from the conceptual ability of man. Virtually all humans who have considered man's abilities understand this proposition. Darwin and many in the field of biology and other sciences, along with those who are firm believers in Darwin, do not. Worse, they have, over time, obfuscated these differences, presenting the appearance of complete agreement between the two men, on these fundamental issues which concern much more than the simple concept of evolution.

What Wallace is saying is that during the Darwin era, there was no evidence of continuity between the development of animal species and man. (In current day jargon, the rise of an entirely new feature such as conceptual thought is properly termed a "singularity" which event is unable to be studied by science). The arguments he presented are as valid today as they were in the 1870's when they were made, and have been ignored by those who believe differently. Wallace himself until recently, has been virtually ignored for his input into Darwin's theory, most probably because of the above opinions which don't "square" with the Darwinian Paradigm as currently taught. (This is unbiased scientific presentation invariably demanded by Darwinian believers?)

However, it is a fact that there is not even a plausible hypothetical scenario for the appearance of even the simplest of cells (stage one), not a shred of evidence that plants somehow "evolved" into animals (stage two), and current research into the human mind has failed to identify even a vague notion of what "thought" is, how it originates, or how a human who uses it can be manipulated by an such ethereal concept as "natural selection" (stage three). These are all Wallacean concepts, radically different from Darwinian views. Darwin himself left no record of answering these objections. In fact, he apparently feared the latter idea and once even went so far as to caution Wallace in a letter, that his position on "man and natural selection" was dangerous to the entire theory of evolution:

"I hope you have not murdered too completely your own and my child", ⁽¹⁾ , Darwin wrote Wallace.

MAN AND THE OTHER ANIMALS - AN INFINITY OF DIFFERENCE
The gulf of difference between humans and animals is so wide that it is extremely difficult to describe it using mere words. One reason for this is that no one really understands conceptual thought, much less the workings of the mind. The current trend has been to compare a computer to a human mind, but those who understand computers know this comparison is grossly incorrect. Computers execute tasks by manipulating discrete bits of data; the human mind appears to be able to manipulate huge amounts of information simultaneously. There is really no comparison between the two methods of operation.

On the other hand those who maintain that animals have the same mental ability as man but in some reduced form, would have the obligation to explain the similarities by virtue of either a complete explanation of both systems, or alternately by describing the effects of similar actions of both of the systems. So far as the former is concerned, the information is not presently known; as regards the latter, the simple argument stated above will first have to be disproved.

Currently, millions of dollars have been and are being spent in an attempt to do so, but to no avail. The chimp has never built a house, owns no property or tools, does nothing to enhance the availability or taste of it's food, and has no knowledge of, or the ability to, maintain it's own or any other chimps health. When the weather is cold, the chimp is cold; when it is wet, the chimp is wet. When a grown chimp falls from a tree and is injured so that it cannot climb, it is food for the hyenas. It cannot communicate by a means other than grunts and shrieks, the same method as used by any group of social animals. Even though it has been subject to predation from other animals throughout it's existence, it has developed no method of defense, such as an army or force of any kind with weapons, rather it lives in trees as it has done since the beginning. This is a purely thoughtless animal existence, and the burden of proof of any conceptual ability in the chimp is on those who maintain the idea.

But Darwin was not the only person who "missed" the boat on this one. Virtually all of the prominent evolutionists, psychologists, etc. as above, together with the mass Media, hold the belief that humans differ only in degree from the remainder of the animal kingdom. The unfortunate aspect of it all is that those who believe this way, ironically, shape our views on this subject. Nowhere is this more clearly shown than in the taxonomic classification of man.

THE CLASSIFICATION OF MAN
Man is classed along with the rest of the animals in the taxonomic hierarchy under the following: Order: Primates, Family: Hominidae, Genus: homo, Species: homo, there being only one genus in the family, hominidae. From this system comes the oft cited statement that man's "closest relative" is one of the primates, the chimpanzee (bonobo if you will). There are good reasons for this classification and it is doubtless correct when considering only the animal nature of man. So far so good.

The problem arises of course, when this classification is considered as the complete description of man; all biology books and most biologists accept this description in this manner. Whether or not you agree that man has a dual nature, you are bound to agree that man's conceptual ability is a far more significant feature, to the point that it completely overshadows his animal nature, which is almost trivial by comparison if you think about it. A cursory look at the world shows clearly that many individuals, nearly completely lacking in animal abilities, are held to be superb members of the human race, Stephen Hawking *, being but one current example.

Thus it must be concluded that the taxonomic description of man is at best a deceptive, partial truth. In every way it is comparable to describing a geometric figure, say a "square", as a simple "quadrilateral " (a four sided figure) and omitting the unique characteristic of a square, that of the interior angles being equal, from the description. No responsible teacher or text would use this tactic; yet it is done universally in the field of biology. Darwin's writings as well as the writings many others support this tactic explicitly as well as by default in that no disclaimer to the classification system is ever made regarding the characteristics or dual nature, of man. According to some of the "great thinkers" of the past, Darwin, Marx, Freud, etc. 'Man is but an animal'. Is it any wonder that there are serious objections to the teaching of Darwin's theory in school.

SOME SPECULATION ABOUT DARWIN
It is very hard to resist the temptation not to attempt an explanation of his inability to understand conceptual ability. But it is also evident that a reading of many of the statements in his book "Descent" should leave one absolutely aghast at conclusions found there. For example take the following quote:

"We must also admit that there is a much wider interval in mental power between one of the lowest fishes, as a lamprey or lancelet, and one of the higher apes, than between an ape and man; yet this interval is filled up by numberless gradations."

And yet he is revered by many as the greatest man of his century, and some say of all time. The reverence must certainly be a result of the nature of his conclusions, rather than to the methodology of reaching the same.

SOME CONSEQUENCES
At least one comment on the consequences of these beliefs of Darwin and others, should be made even though the topic has been addressed at book length elsewhere. So it should be said that the failure of science (and consequently our culture) to distinguish a fundamental difference between man and the other animals has established a set of beliefs which inevitably opens the path for many divisions which are so evident in our society including, but not limited to, racial and ethnic stereotypes. After all, according to latest scientific theories, the relationship between the various races is somewhat similar to that between the human and other animals. Instead of all humans being united by the uniquely magnificent ability of conceptual thought, they are as different as the rest of the animal species are from one another. Some conclusion. Ideas do have consequences.

The fact that the scientific community is, by and large, reluctant to ascribe fundamental differences to mankind is puzzling to say the least. This is not to say that the study of evolutionary biology, for example, should dwell on these fundamental differences, but they should not be ignored and yet, in fact, they are not only ignored, these differences are almost universally denied. Darwin and his followers have created another great error of perception in omitting from consideration the most magnificent feature in the entire universe: The conceptual ability of Man. of Man.

^(a) Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913). He was contemporary with Darwin, a self-taught biologist who spent most of his life as a collector of biological species which he sold to museums. His theory of evolution is similar in a number of respects with Darwin's. He was the first to publish on the current theory, and together they published what is known today as "Darwin's" theory. There is some evidence that Darwin received major help from Wallace in development of the theory. This brilliant man has essentially been lost to the history of biology.

^(b) Circular Reasoning: an assumption made in an argument that contains the acceptance as fact, of an element which needs to be proved for the argument to be valid. Here he assumes that it is brain size (plus some other unspecified characteristics) which account for the differences in mental ability. Thus, he can't be wrong. For another example, in his book "Origins" Darwin has assumed that a species (or variety) possesses sufficient genetic variability such that it either has within itself, or can develop, the characteristics of a new species. He spends one whole chapter in discussion of problems with his theory and glosses over this assumption as if it were fact; since it must be fact for his theory to be viable, and instead has been assumed, it is circular reasoning. In this case, Darwin is asking you to believe that his assumption is correct, simply because it is evident that species are different. (Also called "Begging the Question")

^(**) Since human DNA (the code for reproduction of cells) consists of about 2 billion instructions, we are talking about a change of some 40,000,000 instructions. It is important to know that a change in just one instruction out of the 2 billion can make the difference between a normal human, and one with say, Sickle Cell Anemia, a fatal disease. If one were to argue that there are some 40,000,000 differences between the primates and man, one would get no argument from this quarter.

But there is another most important difference which is always omitted from the 2% argument: the other primates have 48 chromosomes as opposed to the 46 chromosomes in a human. This in itself is more than a 4% difference in genetic makeup. The real significance of this information however, is that it could possibly mean a complete reorganization in all the chromosomes in order for this to have happened; no one really knows. Those who use the 2% argument should be aware that they are presenting a partial truth in an effort to suggest a close similarity between the 2 species; this tactic should be considered nothing other than pure proselytization. Also, those who are familiar with "Haldane's Dilemma" would realize that his objection (basically that TIME is against the proposition of 40,000,000 meaningful changes occurring) is only the tip of the iceberg. And also, according to Darwinian theory, one might also conclude that the primates are really a more highly developed species than the human, with a larger number of chromosomes; it would therefore be a requirement that they "evolved" later than humans. But this possibility is in a gray area of knowledge at present but does illustrate that Darwinists are willing to grasp at straws to prove a point.

Practically speaking, it should really be an indication that there is no provable connection between the two species (really genera) and furthermore that science has no creditable knowledge of their origin. With somewhere between 5 and 15 million species on the planet, the possibility that the similarity is only another coincidence should be the guiding conclusion. The "2% argument" should be considered more in the realm of hope than science.

As a note of interest to those unfamiliar with cell biology, and as an indication of the complexity of the entire subject, each and every one of the 100 trillion cells which makes up a human, contains the entire genetic code of 2 billion instructions.