Are Humans and Apes Cousins?
Do humans and apes have a common ancestor? And, an even broader question, “is there compelling evidence that species evolved from species? These questions are the topic for this article and are at the heart of the “Origin of the Species” by Charles Darwin, published in 1859.
The Science
Traditional evolutionists have leaned heavily on a fossil history to validate evolution of the species, the central theory in “Origin of the Species”. However, recent data and findings bring this theory into serious question among many rational thinking scientists.
Geologist, Dr. Casey Luskin, coauthor of science and human origins states, “The fossil evidence for human evolution is extremely weak. I would say that the case for human evolution is driven more by an undying belief in material ideology than it is actual hard evidence…. Hominid fossils generally fall into one of two main categories, and that is human-like fossils and ape-like fossils and there is a large distinct gap between those two groups.” He goes on further to state that Lucy, Ardi, Australopithecus Sediba, Homo Naledi, and Ida were mis-typed as hominids instead of apes. In fact, because of the excitement to find missing links, some fudging has occurred to make fossils fit into the family. Lucy for instance had pelvic bones trimmed so that she could stand erect. 1
The debate surrounding the theory of evolution has indeed shifted from simple anatomical comparisons to much more technical discussions involving genomics, population genetics, and the fossil record. While the majority of the scientific community views evolution as the foundational principle of biology, modern research has highlighted complexities that lead to significant debate—both within the scientific community (regarding the mechanisms of change) and from external critics.
So, if the fossil record is no longer a strong support of evolution, what are some modern arguments for the theory? The primary strength of evolutionary theory lies in its ability to unify disparate fields of science under one explanation. Here are the primary modern arguments:
With the advent of DNA sequencing, scientists found that all living things share the same genetic "alphabet" ($A, T, C, G$). The high degree of sequence similarity between species (e.g., humans and chimpanzees sharing approximately 96-98% of their coding DNA) is seen as a "smoking gun" for common ancestry.
Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) are "genetic scars" left by ancient viruses that inserted themselves into a host's DNA. When the exact same viral DNA is found in the exact same location in the genomes of two different species, it suggests they inherited that "scar" from a shared ancestor.
We can see evolution happening in real-time with organisms that have short lifespans. For example antibiotic resistance in bacteria and the rapid adaptation of finch beaks in the Galápagos during droughts. These prove that natural selection can physically change a population.
To a growing number of scientists, these arguments seem weak to base an entire theory on our origins. Critics and some "extended synthesis" biologists point to areas where the standard model (Neo-Darwinism) struggles to explain the data. Here are some key points:
The fossil record often shows the sudden appearance of complex body plans rather than a slow, gradual "tree" of life. For instance, in the Cambrian period (~541 million years ago), most major animal phyla appeared in a geological "blink of an eye" (roughly 10-20 million years) without clear, gradual ancestors in the layers below.
Genetic Entropy and Mutation Load is a major point in the field of population genetics and demography. 2 Most mutations are slightly deleterious (harmful), not neutral or beneficial. Critics argue that "Natural Selection" is not efficient enough to weed out these tiny "typos" fast enough. Over many generations, the "Mutation Load" should build up, leading to a decline in fitness rather than an increase in complexity.
Modern microbiology has revealed machines like the ATP Synthase and the Bacterial Flagellum now reveal a complexity that is out of the realm of probability to have evolved within the time history. These machines require dozens of specific protein parts to function at all. Critics argue that a "half-evolved" motor would provide no survival advantage, meaning it couldn't be built one tiny step at a time by natural selection.
The mathematics of how long it takes for a specific set of mutations to appear in a population now shows way too much time is required. 3 Using the known mutation rates and generation times of primates, some mathematicians argue there hasn't been enough time (6 million years) to fix the millions of genetic differences required to turn an ape-like ancestor into a human.
These arguments are not only compelling, but to many, tip the scales to look elsewhere for a theory of man’s origin. Below is a summary comparison of the leading arguments. The theory of evolution is not un-like other theories of science. As more data and facts are understood, the old theories need to be revised or tossed out altogether. Just like the Geocentric model (earth centric model), Spontaneous Generation, "Luminiferous Aether", The "Stagnant" Continents (Pre-Plate Tectonics), and "Junk DNA" Theory have been revised or thrown out, evolution of the species needs to be rethought too.
The Religion
What do Holy Writ, revelations, and LDS church leaders say about the creation of species? The most consistent phrase found in both the Bible and LDS scripture is that life was organized to reproduce "after its kind", or within species.
(Genesis 1:21, 24-25) "And God created... every living creature that moveth... after their kind... and every beast of the earth after his kind."
(Moses 2:24-25) "the living creature after his kind... cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind."
(Abraham 4:24-25) the Gods "prepared the earth to bring forth the living creature after his kind."
This is often interpreted as a biological boundary, suggesting that life forms were designed with specific identities and the capacity to reproduce within their own established groups.
A unique contribution of LDS scripture is the teaching that all things were created spiritually before they were created physically on the earth.
(Moses 3:5, 7) "For I, the Lord God, created all things... spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth... and I, the Lord God, formed man... and he became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also."
(Abraham 5:5) Clarifies that the physical creation was a "planting" of what had already been prepared in the spirit realm.
This strongly suggests that species were developed first spiritually in another realm and then brought to the earth, as opposed to bio-evolutionary means. (Will the die-hard evolutionists claim that evolution among species occurred spiritually?)
In all these scriptures, the creation of humanity is set apart from the creation of other animal species.
(Genesis 1:26-27) "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."
(Abraham 4:26-27) Emphasizes that the Gods took "counsel among themselves" before forming man, highlighting a deliberate and distinct act of creation compared to the other animals.
(Moses 6:8-10, 22) Refers to the "genealogy" of man, explicitly stating that we are the "sons of God," which suggests a direct parent-child relationship rather than a purely biological one.
These scriptural accounts distinguish the creation of man from the other plant and animal creations, clearly showing a separation of species.
The first presidency issued a statement in 1909 during the administration of President Joseph F. Smith, this is the most famous official declaration on the subject. It was prompted by "Darwin Day" celebrations (marking 100 years since his birth) and mounting questions at BYU.
"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declares that Adam was 'the first man of all men' (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race."
However, following the 1909 statement, questions persisted about whether the "bodies" of Adam and Eve could have evolved even if their spirits were divine. The First Presidency published a brief follow-up six months later in the Improvement Era. 3 It basically listed three possibilities for the origin of Adam's body, without choosing one as "official":
Evolved through natural processes under God's direction.
Transplanted from another sphere (world).
Born of a woman here on earth (referring to the biological process).
They stated that "the Church itself has no philosophy about the modus operandi [method of operation] employed by the Lord in His creation of the world…. "Whether the first man came of a resurrected body, or any other mortal body, it does not matter, the main point is, he was the child of God."
This 1910 "Hint to the Wise" is frequently cited by LDS scholars and scientists today as the foundational document that allows for a reconciliation between the biological theory of evolution and the scriptural account of the Creation. Below is a table of summary statements.
The Summary
Recent research and data seems to be challenging the theory of evolution and the origin of life. Life has never spontaneously been created, nor have transitional species evolving into more complex organisms been spontaneously verified in the lab. This is not for lack of trying or funding. Transitional fossils are few and far between and don’t account for species explosions.
However, what other serious scientific explanations are there? Alien population? There really are only two plausible theories put forward; 1) Evolution (by chance), or 2) Creationism, (by divine intervention). Some might point out that it could be both. Science prides itself on seeking the truth. However, in a lot of ways modern science pigeon-holes itself into accepting only verifiable non-faith based theories. Since Creationism is faith based, it cannot be regarded as scientific, even though it might be true. Perhaps modern science needs to broaden its premises.
It is interesting to look at what the public believes. Almost 90% of scientists still hold to evolution, although they would abandon this theory if a better verifiable one came along. Almost all geologists and paleontologists are evolutionists. Those scientists who seem to be the dissenters are mostly physicists.
Contrast this to only ¼ of the general population believe in evolution. These public views push Creationism (or theistic evolution) to be taught in public school as an alternate theory to evolution. A trendy middle of the road theory, Theistic Evolutionism, is increasing both among scientists and the public. This group believes that evolution occurred but was guided or set in motion by a higher power.
The LDS vantage point adds levels of complexities to the mix. It asks the question, “which dimension of creation are you talking about? Spiritual pre-earth, or physical mortality”? It holds invariant that we are spiritually the offspring of God, Adam was the first man on earth, and that species remain in the sphere in which they were created (Moses 3:9, 19). However, it leaves the door open as to how Adam’s body came into being. Was he a clay pile scooped from the ground into which God breathed life? Was he born biologically from a mother? Was there theistic evolution involved? Was Adam placed here from an alien existence? I believe that the answer is not here, but is forthcoming. Science and religion have only given us teasers, but not all of the facts.
Sanford, J. C. (2005). Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome. Ivan Press. (Note: Multiple updated editions exist, including 2008, 2014, and 2020).
Sanford, J., Brewer, W., Smith, F., & Baumgardner, J. (2015). The waiting time problem in a model hominin population. Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, 12(1), 18. doi:10.1186/s12976-015-0016-z
Smith, J. F., Winder, J. R., & Lund, A. H. (1910). "Editor’s Table: A Hint to the Wise." Improvement Era, Vol. 13, No. 6 (April 1910), p. 570.
Comments
Post a Comment