Click here to view CMI's position on climate change.
Also Available in:
This article is from
Creation 41(1):44–46, January 2019

Browse our latest digital issue Subscribe

The myth of ape-to-human evolution

Being popular doesn’t make an idea scientifically plausible


ape-to-human-myth©123rf.com/anolis01, ©123rf.com/theartofphoto

The public is frequently led to think that the evidence of humans evolving from an apelike common ancestor with chimps is simply overwhelming. The claim is often made in bombastic, even intimidating terms, such as in this example of ‘elephant hurling’ tactics by a prominent evolutionist:

“There are now tens of thousands of hominid fossils in museums around the world supporting our current knowledge of human evolution. The pattern that emerges from this vast body of hard evidence is consistent across thousands of investigations. All models, all myths involving singular, instantaneous creation of modern humans fail in the face of this evidence.” 1

However, when one starts to critically analyze these claims, things rapidly fall apart. For most categories of ‘hominid’ claimed, there are usually even evolutionist experts who themselves will point out something that seriously questions, if not disqualifies, the idea that the fossils concerned are ‘in-between’ apes and humans. For example:

Australopithecines (like ‘Lucy’): there are distinguished evolutionists who admit that these extinct primates were not anatomically intermediate between apes and humans.

Neandertals: probably most evolutionist paleoanthropologists now say that, although being robust in their anatomy, these are fully human.

Homo erectus and Homo heidelbergensis: some evolutionists classify them as ‘early’ and/or ‘archaic’ Homo sapiens. They had robust anatomy, as did the Neandertals, and like these there is no reason to believe that they were not fully human either.2

Homo habilis: whilst evolutionists generally regard these specimens as hominids (ape-men), when scrutinized this species appears to consist of specimens that should be grouped with the australopithecines, or other extinct apes, apart from a few that are likely Homo erectus.2 Even some prominent evolutionists, whilst still saying they were hominids, have suggested most of the specimens in Homo habilis should be re-assigned to the genus Australopithecus. Hence, Homo habilis is a false category. Terms such as ‘wastebasket’, ‘grab bag’ and ‘garbage bag’ have been used by evolutionists to describe it.

Remove all those from the hugely impressive-sounding number of fossils in the above quote, and we’re left with a mere handful. Among these are the more recently discovered Homo florensiensis (aka ‘The Hobbit’) specimens. Here, too, leading evolutionists have pointed out that their features would be consistent with humans deformed by cretinism, from congenital iodine deficiency. Moreover, this magazine has highlighted the evidence that cretinism is also a likely cause of the puzzling (to evolutionists) features of the even more recently discovered Homo naledi fossils.3

Is human evolution even possible?

In any case, however, there are substantial biological reasons why ‘ape-men’ could never even have existed. A major one of these reasons is the so-called ‘waiting time problem’. No-one disagrees that to cause all of the anatomical changes required to transform an ape-like creature (the supposed common ancestor of chimps and humans) into a human would take millions of DNA mutations. This is because there are millions of nucleotide (‘DNA letter’) differences between chimps and humans. And in the evolutionary timeline, this is supposed to have happened in six to seven million years. The problem in a nutshell is that calculations show that it would take way too long for these specific mutations to arise and become established within a so-called ‘hominin’ population.4

For example, even for one point mutation (one letter change) to become fixed (established), the waiting time is a minimum of 1.5 million years.4 The number of nucleotides that can be selected for simultaneously is believed to be small, as it interferes with the selection of other nucleotides (called selection interference). It has been estimated that at most 1,000 beneficial mutations could become fixed in six million years—and using seven million, the upper end of the range, makes no practical difference.5

But this is only a minuscule fraction of the information needed to turn an ape into a human.

Note that this is only for independent, unlinked mutations, as according to John Sanford, an expert in this area (emphasis in original): “Selection for 1,000 specific and adjacent mutations (to create a 1,000-letter string) could not happen in 6 million years because that specific sequence of adjacent mutations would never arise, not even after trillions of years.” 6

Even if the genome (DNA) difference between chimps and humans were as little as 1%, as used to be widely touted, this still represents around 30 million nucleotide differences. And hence in the evolving hominid line, around 15 million nucleotide changes would need to take place (see box) compared to the 1,000 changes at most that could have happened in that time.

The hurdle multiplied

In short, even with the false idea of just 1% difference, the transition is impossible for mutations to achieve in the time available. But the problem for evolution is compounded because the chimp-human difference is now known to be not 1%, but likely at least 5% different and probably more.7

So the hurdle for evolution is even more insurmountable. A five-fold increase in the difference now means some 75 million nucleotide changes since the imagined common ancestor!

The problem is worse still, as in addition to this, the human genome is deteriorating, on a downward spiral towards ‘mutational meltdown’. This is due to the accumulation of genetic mutations, at a rate of some 100 point mutations per person per generation, with natural selection powerless to stop it.8

Making matters even worse for evolution theory, the amount of ‘junk’ DNA believed to be in the genome has shrunk considerably of late. The proportion evolutionists think is functional has now increased from about 3% to 80% or more. This is a problem, because it makes it far more likely for any mutation to be harmful, not neutral.9

Rising concerns

All of this has raised alarm amongst some evolutionists. For example, Graur claims that for human population levels to be sustainable (to negate the effects of harmful mutations) no more than 25% of the human genome can be functional.10

But the estimate of the renowned ENCODE project is that at least 80% of our DNA is functional.10 So that means that humans should be extinct, because fertility is too low to compensate for the amount of deleterious mutations. But they are not, so therefore either

  1. the ENCODE estimate is totally wrong (highly unlikely) or
  2. the alleged ‘hominins’ (including modern-type humans) have not existed for the millions of years believed by evolutionists and the whole ape-to-human evolution story is false.

The problem of accumulating harmful mutations is even more serious than portrayed by evolutionists. Even if only 10% of the genome were functional, “extinction of all hominid lineages” would happen long before even the first waited-for beneficial mutation could be established in a ‘hominin’ population.11

So not only is evolution unable to explain the arrival of information to turn apes into humans, it cannot even explain the preservation of existing information over timespans of millions of years.

The idea of human evolution means there was no original couple, no “first Adam” who fell into sin—and hence no logical reason for the sacrificial death of “the last Adam”, Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:45). Many believers, even entire institutions of Christian higher learning, have been intimidated and/or indoctrinated into thinking they have to accept this notion. It is particularly ironic that this is happening right when the biological evidence is so strongly in favour of biblical creation.

Ape-to-human belief—clarifying terms and issues


In evolutionary theory, both humans and chimpanzees are believed to have originated from the same apelike creature, or ‘last common ancestor’ (LCA), about 6 Ma (million years ago), and thereafter were on separate ‘evolving’ lineages to ultimately become today’s humans and chimps. Hominids (or hominins) is the name evolutionists usually apply to all individuals (whether apes, ‘ape-men’ or humans) on the imagined lineage from the LCA to modern humans.

So why does the argument in the main text focus on the DNA difference between chimps and humans today, when the issue is the difference between the LCA and humans today? Because they are directly related in evolutionary theory. As each lineage accumulates mutations, the DNA differences between them become greater. So the greater the difference between chimps (Cs) and humans (Hs) today, the greater the difference between humans today and the supposed LCA.

For example, if the human (H) and chimp (C) lineages changed at roughly the same rate, which most evolutionists assume, then a difference of 1% (= about 30 million nucleotide differences) between Hs and Cs today would mean that both differ by about 15 million nucleotides from the LCA. But if the H–C difference is 5% then that means a difference of about 75 million nucleotides between humans and the LCA, an even more impossible hurdle (see main text).

Even if the rates were different between the lineages of Hs and Cs it makes little practical difference, unless it is suggested that the human lineage rate was almost static (In fact, if anything, evolutionists would believe the human lineage changed the most, accumulating more differences from the LCA than the chimp lineage). But that would mean chimps derived from modern humans—who then must have lived 6 Ma, which would also falsify human evolution theory. And then you have the problem of explaining how chimps could establish double the number of nucleotide differences in 6 million years (if previously it was 75 million, it’s now 150 million)!

References and notes

  1. White, T.D., Human evolution: The evidence; in: Brockman, J. (Ed.), Intelligent Thought: Science Versus The Intelligent Design Movement, Vintage Books, New York, pp. 79–80, 2006. Return to text.
  2. See: Line, P., Explaining robust humans, J. Creation 27(3):64–71, 2013; creation.com/explaining-robust-humans. In an upcoming book I have detailed chapters on Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo habilis. Return to text.
  3. Line, P., Making sense of ‘Homo naledi’, Creation 40(4):36–38, 2018. Return to text.
  4. Sanford, J. et al., The waiting time problem in a model hominin population, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, 12:18, 2015 | doi:10.1186/s12976-015-0016-z. Return to text.
  5. Sanford, J.C., Genetic Entropy, 4th ed., FMS Publications, pp. 137–138, 2014. Return to text.
  6. Sanford, ref. 5, p. 137–138. Return to text.
  7. Buggs, R., How similar are human and chimpanzee genomes? 14 July 2018. richardbuggs.com/index.php/2018/07/14/how-similar-are-human-and-chimpanzee-genomes/#more-265. Return to text.
  8. Sanford, ref. 5, pp. 44–49, 85, 127, 131. Return to text.
  9. Sanford, ref. 5, pp. 21–22, 184. Return to text.
  10. Graur, D., An upper limit on the functional fraction of the human genome, Genome Biol. Evol. 9(7):1880–1885 | doi:10.1093/gbe/evx121, 2017. Return to text.
  11. Rupe, C. and Sanford, J., Contested Bones, FMS Publications, pp. 292–295, 2017. Return to text.

Readers’ comments

D R L.
I find it difficult to understand why people who claim to follow Him Who said, "I am the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life" are so eager to propagate so many falsehoods and misinformation. There are so many in your article that one doesn't know where to start. I suggest your readers read a real book on science in order to understand where scientists are coming from, instead of depending on the straw men you present here.
Don Batten
Wow! So many informal fallacies in so few sentences: Ad hominem (attack the person), argumentum ad lapidem, elephant hurling, appeal to authority, and no true Scotsman.
The author is every bit a scientist as anyone you would like to name, as are many others who contribute to creation.com. I suggest that you begin engaging with the arguments, rather than trying to side-step them. You have not demonstrated any deceit or misinformation.
William R T.
Don Batten. You blame Von Daniken for the Ancient Aliens movement, and he does deserves some credit, but most of the contributors to the movement, many of whom are seen on the Ancient Aliens TV series, are Zecharia Sitchin disciples. Perhaps you are not aware of him? He was a linguist, who could read many ancient languages, because when he was learning Hebrew, he learned Elohim was plural, but was being translated as "God". When he researched that one issue, it led him to the ancient "gods", and what he believed, was the true history of Earth. Whether you want to blame Von Daniken or Sitchin, the genie is out of the bottle, and Christianity must learn to deal with it. Christianity, and all the ancient religions, need to realize why the ancient "gods" created religion. Religion was meant to civilize mankind, as part of the new civilizations being created, like the Sumerian. That was a good thing, wasn't it?
Don Batten
This getting rather off topic. We are well aware of Sitchin, and his claims are as bogus as Von Daniken's. See for example: Will Nibiru collide with Earth?
David M.
"It has been estimated that at most 1,000 beneficial mutations could become fixed in six million years" How is this estimation established?
Don Batten
The source of this is given in the article (references 5 and 6). Also, the related article listed on Haldane's Dilemma shows that the evolutionist JBS Haldane calculated a similar figure.
Richard D.
First- thank you for all your hard work. Second- a totally off topic suggestion/comment- I wonder has anyone done a comparison between information found in the bible being similar in design to information in DNA.? How both are designed, Both, have a similar way to be read---- Both have a similar theme and give the understanding of that theme.- Both are Life giving Life sustaining.. How prophetic sections are set up to occur at a specific times (like all the prophesies regarding Christ's first coming. The virgin birth, where born, the crucifixion etc, etc,)... ? How one section of scripture has current application and parts of it- set up for future prophetic purposes- yet to be, similar to how different sections DNA come into play at different stages of an organisms life (fetal development, infancy, childhood, adolescence etc.)?
Regarding similarities in the way the bible is set up to be read and play out in history and the way DNA is read and plays out in an organism's life span, could easily be a strong case for common design points to common designer.- Please dig down deep and see how many similarities you can find. How the books, the Torah, Psalms, the Gospels etc., similar to chromosomes....are interrelated interdependent.... one theme, Life. Hopefully this doesn't sound too much like loose associations.....but he LORD"S fingerprints are all over DNA! Thanks again for all your work and labor in and for His cause.
"And this is eternal life, that they may know Him the only true God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent." Thank you so much for taking the stand you do.
Don Batten
There are many parellels because God's mind is behind it all, but it would not be possible to take it beyond what you have suggested.
Carol M.
Thank you for sharing this important information. It is just one more nail in the coffin of evolutionary theory. So many other things can't be explained without God--the origin of life, how there came to be two sexes, the presence of emotions and rational thought, etc. Keep up this wonderful ministry and may the Lord grant more and more fruit from your sharing of the truth.
David G.
Thanks for the article. The problem here mentioned of the time required for genetic transformation is THE problem for modern evolutionary 'theory'. It is insurmountable: there has not been enough time for evolution to occur even on the materialist basis, along with there is no explanation for the spontaneous appearance of life. Looks like a no-win for modern evolutionary ideas.
Frank N.
Not mentioned in this discussion, is the Ancient Astronaut writings in all religions and stories of ancient civilizations. It is ET mating with Homo sapiens and formed the modern sapiens sapiens. Modern humans have some 232 genes as recorded in the International gene depositary that are found in no other species. Most of ancient rulers were either full or hybrids of these Ancient Aliens. Jesus and his mother were hybrids. There were not one but some seven Adams and Eves. It took many matings to get the new breed right.
Don Batten
The ancient astronaut idea is not mentioned because it has no basis in fact. Please see Who's transforming society? and
Dennis S.
My comment is very simple. I humanity came from monkeys and /or apes, why are there still an ever abundant number of monkeys and apes? Did those who continue to be born as monkeys or apes, do something wrong? Why does "evolution" hold them back while it has permitted others to be promoted up into humanity?
William R T.
There are some ancient texts that claim that man was created circa 250,000 years ago, with genetic engineering. Would that timeline allow for the number of mutations science is finding in our DNA?
Don Batten
There are no such genuine ancient texts. Please see Who is transforming society?
Furthermore, all the variety we see today fits nicely into the Biblical timeframe of ~6,000 years. See this informative documentary on the evidence that human genetic evidence fits the biblical time frame (and not an extended one of ca 250,000 years or more): DNA Battles
C Robert F.
You take thousands of words to defend the creation model, but it only takes a few.

All hominids (our supposed predecessors) have 24 pairs of chromosomes (48). All humans have 23 pairs (46).

Since the parents pass along half of their chromosomes to their young, half of 48 (hominid) is 24, and half of 46 (human) is 23. This gives the young (half human) a total of 47 chromosomes, or 23 1/2 chromosomes. Genetic law states that the young must have an even number of chromosomes in order to reproduce.

So, even if a normal hominid and a hominid who somehow miraculously, through a series of mutations, was born with the human genome of 46 chromosomes, the offspring would have 23 1/2 chromosomes, and would be born sterile.

Here's proof: The mule is always a product of crossing a horse (64) with a donkey (62). Half of 64 is 32, and half of 62 is 31. This gives the newborn mule 63 chromosomes. Since he/she can't pass along an even number of chromosomes, the offspring is always sterile.

This same thing would be true of hominid breeding with another hominid who had a human genome structure.

God made it this way. This is why 16 times in Genesis, God states "after its own kind".
Don Batten
It is correct that God made things "after their kind" (10 times in Genesis chapter 1), and one created kind cannot change into a different created kind by natural processes.
However, chromosome numbers are not a knockout argument for proving that one kind is different to another. It is clear that different species derived from the original created kinds can indeed have different chromosome numbers. Please see: Changing chromosome numbers.
Arby A.
I was very pleased to read this argument, as it's one I independently thought of a little while ago and as a layman, it's good to know it holds water among qualified scientists such as those CMI employs. I especially like that one can ask an evolutionist to do their own maths and their own research for time frame, DNA similarity and mutation rates. Even if they cherry-pick unrealistically high mutation rates and incorrectly high DNA similarity (i.e. 99%) they still can’t achieve the observed chimp/human DNA differences in the time allowed by their theory. So even if they dismiss your sources as being biased, they’ll arrive at more or less the same result using their own (biased) sources.

In response to Jim B, this argument is straightforward:
Evolutionary theory claims that over the last 6-7 million years, humans & chimps descended from a common ancestor.
Even the most generous scientific estimates of mutation rates show that today’s observed genetic differences could not have arisen in that time frame.
Therefore, the theory is implausible.
God’s existence simply doesn’t come into it, so Jim’s comment is irrelevant to the argument.
Gerrie M.
In my mind there is no doubt that the evolutionists have to keep the story alive as their career (bread and butter) depends on it. Someone once said you cannot convince someone of the truth if their bread and butter depends on not knowing the truth. Imagine if they have to acknowledge today it is false teaching - how many would be unemployed over the world? And sadly, there are many in ministry who do exactly the same.
Jim B.
Just one fact you overlooked
God doesn’t exist
Besides that it was a very funny article
Don Batten
The Bible says that you are without excuse because there is abundant evidence that God exists (Romans 1:19,20). You must be one of those people who believes in magic (things just happen without any sufficient cause); please see Five atheist miracles.
Don M.
I believe It is easier to believe the miraculous, than the ridiculous.I believe the Bible record of creation, it is the only answer that makes sense.
Paul M.
To believe in evolution, is like believing a cyclone could hit a scrap metal yard, and the end result is a Boeing 747.
Dean R.
Elephant hurling and apes hurdling and the many things we are called upon to accept by faith in secular education, sports carnivals and all. Design, limited function & limited kinds far outweigh the unlimited super-nature of Darwinian belief. Many thanks again for the dedicated scientific work of CMI that points to a creator God and mankind therefore being more than or greater than just another animal.
Jaroslav L.
Thank you for interesting article ... but in case Adam was the first man then he was who? Neanderthal? If Neanderthals were before Adam then they are apes because animals were created before man, if they were after Adam then Adam was pre-Neanderthal species of man.
Btw, if God created everything in six days than It must be impossible for dating to date various species with million years differences ...
Don Batten
If you read the first article in Related Articles at the end of the article, you will have answers to these questions: Making sense of 'apeman' claims and there is much more in the first recommended link in Further Reading:
And yes, the dating of fossils is based on assumptions which are clearly wrong. See, for example: How dating methods work and much more at Radiometric dating Q&A.
Paul S.
Dr Stephen Meyers remarkable book ‘Darwin’s Doubt’ exposes the falsified claims of evolutionary biologists at a Macro and Micro level.
Not once have they shown any hard evidence that natural selection by random mutation works at a molecular level.
That applies to any creature, even the simplest forms of life, let alone man and apes.
This is why in Genesis creation account God used the term ‘after its kind’ to make clear the distinction between all living things he made in the beginning and is still creating today. Variation in species is everywhere, but not once does the Earth show one species evolve into another over extremely long time spans.
Furthermore, the fully formed fossils we see in thousands of highly developed extinct sea creatures in The Cambrian Explosion reveal no evidence such creatures ever had a common ancestor.
Don Batten
And here are two great resources to add: Evolution's Achilles' Heels book and DVD pack.
Please don't equate species with kinds. There can be multiple species deriving from an original created kind, in which case one species can give rise to another. Please see: Speciation Q&A. 'No new species' is one of our recommended 'Don't use arguments': Arguments we think creationists should not use.
Chris R.
Neutral theory allows about 30 million neutral mutations to be fixed in the supposed time since chimps and humans separated. The supply for this comes from about 100 new mutations per person per generation that we all have. This is in contrast to the 1,000 to 2,000 beneficial mutations that ReMine calculated based on cost theory. Can you comment on the differences between these numbers?
Don Batten
There are huge problems with this 'neutral theory' (see a couple in my response to Thomas R.).
ReMine was building on the work of the famous evolutionary population geneticist JBS Haldane, who showed that even with the best possible assumptions, mutations and natural selection could account for less than 2,000 differences between chimps and humans. ReMine showed that Haldane was essentially correct using cost theory (the cost of substitution).
If the neutral theory (in theory!) could account for 30 million random mutations, the fundamental problem is that the differences between chimps and humans are not random differences. There are many genes peculiar to either. See the waiting time problem discussed in the article.
A paper published recently showed how the neutral theory fails to account: https://elifesciences.org/articles/36317 (https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.36317.001) A conclusion from this work was that "less than 5 percent of the human genome is found to evolve by chance." That is the maximum scope for the neutral theory for the entire duration of the human genome (not just since the supposed split from the apes). Back to Haldane and ReMine!
Kimura, the originator of the neutral idea, did not make his hypothesis quantitative, so it has been for a long time untestable. He did acknowledge that probably 90% of mutations are deleterious. Evos got away with this for a long time with the evidence-free claim that 98% of the human DNA was junk (functionless). This then meant that of the 100 mutations per person added each generation, that less than two mattered (90% of 98% of 100). Then they could argue that 'by chance' some children would be born in each generation (assuming a normal family size of 6-10 children before modern birth control) that had no extra harmful mutations and therefore error catastrophe would not happen, in spite of their millions of years of mythological time. All that has unravelled with the discovery that nearly all the human DNA is functional. And so we have the very real problem of genetic entropy, which further undoes the evolutionary story (including the neutral theory). This is discussed in the article. See also the Related Media at the end of the article.
Thomas R.
One of the more profound problems here, as I understand it, is the allele argument posed by evolutionists.

Their claim is that changes are accumulated in alleles that sit dormant until needed.

Then, through some chance mutation, become active and manifest the new trait, feature, information, etc physiologically.

Am I correct in this assessment?

If so, and if that were true, then a new question emerges.

Why can’t we simply sequence the alleles and compare them to the functional version of that same gene?
And if we can, then are they truly different enough to validate the claim?

It seems that if we are billions of years into this thing called evolution, then our present generation should be loaded with too many “latent variations” of alleles (with so called genetic drift) to count that are radically different than their functional counterpart.

Don Batten
Yes, it is called the neutral theory of evolution, that a gene can be duplicated by accident and then can randomly mutate (since it is supposedly also inactivated at the same time) until 'one day' it achieves a functional sequence and 'hey presto!' it is switched back on again and does something new and useful.
There are huge problems with this idea. One problem you have identified; there should be lots of such duplicated and modifying genes, which are not found. Evos insisted that 98% or so of the human DNA was 'junk'. There are several reasons why they need all this junk, and one is to have room for neutral evolution to tinker and create new functions (the probabilities are so low that this will happen that lots of experimentation is necessary to make it remotely believable). Of course they were dead wrong about the 98% junk; see: Dazzling DNA
Another problem is that hundreds of 'gene families' have now been recognized in humans. Genes from two different gene families are so different that there could be no route from one gene family to another via some random changes (neutral evolution).
David W.
belief in evolution makes monkeys out of men!
Tony S.
Why is this article, this information not front page news throughout the world?

You can't tell me there is nothing that can be done about that! As corrupt as the media is there must be a way to shine this light on the subject that will reach more than just the choir you are preaching to.
Don Batten
You could begin by sharing it with all your friends, who could share it with their friends... and presto! the corrupt media are bypassed! Use your email, social media, etc., to spread the word.
Bill P.
The father of all lies is still good at fooling mankind. First he fools man into believing that man can be as God, and now he is fooling many into believing we came from monkeys.
"Man oh man," we really messed things up in "The Garden" when we would not obey just one command, (I say we because I know I had the ability to do what Adam did) and it took The Creator of heaven and earth Himself to come down and heal those who trust Him.
I have no doubt Adam lived for over 900 yrs full of regret but what is worse is there will be an eternity of regret that believe these lies the world claims are true. The Lord has been more than fair, to bad many won't listen to what He says. Please return soon Lord.
David B.
Did I hear somewhere that apes have a penis bone whereas humans have a hydraulic system? If this is so, then, as this is essential to the reproductive process how could the one have changed to the other? The two systems are exclusive to each other.
Don Batten
What you say is correct. The baculum (penile bone, or os penis) is absent from the human penis, but present in the penises of other primates, such as the gorilla and chimpanzee. This is one of the many profound differences between apes and humans.
Rooy S.
Powerful explanation.
Thank you creation.com
Ollitapio P.
Martin Luther believed that God can change ape to human (Letter to Roman chapter 3.). So what is to real problem in ape to human evolution?
Don Batten
We are not aware of Luther having said any such thing and can find no evidence for your claim. But even if Luther said this, how would this validate the evolution of an ape into a human by purely natural processes? Yes, God could change an ape into a human, but natural processes (evolution) could never do it. However, the Bible clearly says that God took dust and made a man, and when Adam (the man) sinned, he was condemned to return to the dust. So 'dust' cannot be metaphorical for an ape, as some theistic evolutionists have tried to push.
Malcolm H.
If there really was a time gap of millions of years in the process of evolution of ape to man, there should be an enormous number of intermediate skeletal remains of apes to man. Where are they?
Furthermore, as both apes and man are alive today, why aren’t the intermediates still alive?
Don Batten
Of course the evolutionists would say that man evolved from a common ancestor with apes, not apes as we see them today. Nevertheless, you are right that it is rather strange that none of the supposed intermediates were fit to survive; all of them became extinct (there are oodles of living creatures that can be found as fossils, even much, much older than any 'ape-man' according to evolutionary dating). See also: Living fossils: a powerful argument for creation. Of course no living creature would qualify as an intermediate; it is only when the evidence is fragmentary and story telling is possible that 'ape-men' can be imagined. The coelacanth is an example where the discovery of the living creature put paid to evolutionary fantasizing.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.