Evolution
(1) Other Evidences of Change
Anatomy refers to the structure of living things and to the branch of biology that studies this structure. From the forelimbs of vertebrate animals Weinberg draws resemblances from bone structures, comparison of brains and eyes, hearts and kidneys, and concludes that clearly they are remote cousins having the same common ancestor, whose descendants evolved along different lines to produce present day vertebrates.
Vestiges
There are certain omnivorous organs belonging to the human body whose specific functions are not known as yet. The appendix is one. Surgical removal of appendix in each generation of the same family for 20 generations (500 yrs.) would not produce 2 appendix-less offspring. Weisman cut off rat tails for 20 years but failed to produce a breed of tailless rats.
Vestiges, according to Weinberg, are useless organs which are in the process of disappearance, but have not completely vanished. Occasionally, (says Weinberg) babies are born with tails which the doctor clips off at birth.
The picture of the baby with the tail looks phony. Tails are a continuation of the tailbone, but in this photo the tail is attached to the center of the back. The could be a growth of some kind but certainly no tail. Century of Progress, 1933. No tails on embryos exhibited there. Jackalope: donkey + antelope. Barnam said that Americans like to be fooled, and offered as vast sum of money to anyone who could produce an ape man. Restorations are merely creatures of the imagination.
Being vertebrate is no proof of kinship. Fishes have no lungs, therefore no animal heat and very little blood. How could a fish with no eyelids give eyelids to man? Which has no ears give ears to man? Which has no hair give hair to man? Which has no lungs, hand, arms, feet, give them to man?
Man has no forerunner and no successor. If man was ever a creature of evolution, the processes were backwards and not forward. Man was full grown at the time of his advent into the world.
American Indians were artisans. Their tools show great evidence of craftsmanship. I have found bone tools, hematite tools, flint arrowheads, and stone hammers on the same campsite. Some were crude, and some were excellent, depending upon the material and ability of the craftsman. The Indians had a great system of irrigation, and a great culture.
The world’s earliest people were fashioned by and after the image of their creator. The creator would have been powerless indeed if He could not have created man complete in the beginning as easily as first creating 2 common ancestors and letting them evolve into man.
The missing links are still missing. The first missing link was built around 2 bones and 2 teeth. Dr. Dubois in 1891 found the bones of 27 animals on the Isle of Java. Movies show him finding a skull, thigh bone, 2 teeth, and the upper part of a skull. From these remains and a sufficient amount of plaster of Paris came the Java man, claimed to be 500,000 years old. It was later regarded as a hoax.
From several teeth and skull fragments, and portions of two lower jaws, which weren’t found all at once but over a period of seven years. Other bones were present. It was regarded as a missing link.
From Rhodesia came the “Old Man of Rhodesia”, given age of 300,000 years, which was formed from the skull of an extinct ape.
Piltdown man and turned out to be a lady and dated at 200,000 years of age. It was found with other bones over a period of 4 years in England.
Next came “Heidleberg “ man of Germany. It was a lower jaw which belonged to a large ape. All of these links were only wishful thinking, yet biology textbooks picture the descent of man as factual. Before accepting evolution as anything more than a theory, we should remember that to be an evolutionist does not require one to see things as they are, but to be able to imagine them as they might have been in prehistoric times.
To be able to reckon time by the age of the rocks which no two geologists will agree on.
Man was man’s first ancestor. According to the Bible, each form was complete at the time of its first appearance.
It is within man’s power to propagate new breeds and varieties among both plants and animals by interbreeding closely related species, but each and every species now in existence was created by the creator in the beginning. Creation could not have created itself. “Each species created after its kind”, according to the Bible.
1/10 of the claims of evolutionists are not found in observation and are wholly unsupported by facts.
Did the Horse Evolve?
It has been claimed that every good encyclopedia in the world has the evolution of the horse in it. But research books are the notions of men and not the words of divine authority. They have convinced in the past everything from the Piltdown Man hoax to the supposition that mice sprang into being spontaneously from piles of rotten rags. Unfortunately, there are very few scientists who agree among themselves.
Evolution cannot explain the origin of the universe, the origin of matter, the origin of life. The evolutionists admit that they have no proof for the origin of plants, insects, and mammals in the fossil record. In fact, they admit that the fossil record is weakest in the most crucial points.
The evolutionists take the example of the horse as tangible proof from the fossil record that evolution did occur, but will the idea of horse evolution stand up under the cold hard light of careful scrutiny?
For over 100 years paleontologists have been stockpiling evidence trying to patch together a genealogy for the horse. It really began in 1859, when Darwin published his book The Origin of the Species. Paleontologists rushed to the fields searching for fossils. With bones of many animals they began to construct various sequences endeavoring to show how a particular animal might have evolved from some other form.
Their greatest success came in pulling together sequences of bones to make up the evolution of the horse story. By 1900, the story was complete. This supposed horse sequence is still the best tool the evolutionists have to convince others that evolution is a fact. You can see it in your textbook and in museums.
You are told that fossils of an animal named Eohippus, gradually changed his teeth, lost 3 toes, and grew in stature to become the horse of today. You are told that this is an actual fact. You are not told to examine the evidence, but to accept what the paleontologists have put together in the last 100 years, for they could not be wrong. Or could they?
The theory of evolution was soon accepted by practically all scientists (after 1859). Paleontologists began to look for the ancestors of living animals.
Eohippus resembled a rabbit, weighed 8 or 9 pounds, about 10 inches high at the shoulder. Others were twice as large, but all had the same rabbit-like appearance. To call Eohippus a horse is absolutely ridiculous. It has no connection with the horse family. What kind of science is this?
Can paleontologists be wrong? Is it possible that facts have been misinterpreted? Where the facts have been gathered, you find that evolution is not proved anywhere. Some scientists doubt the neat picture of the horse story. The parts that supported the theory were chosen. The parts that did not support it were left out.
There was no constant increase in size. The feet did not change from 4 toes to three toes and then to one toe. Scientists picked out the parts that made the theory appear right, false conclusions accepted as truth.
If the theory of evolution is so logical, so capable of explaining everything, how did such mistakes occur? Evolutionists have no neatly linked transitions in creatures. If evolution was a fact, one should see a neat progression with all intermediate steps logically following one another, but such is not the case, even in the evolution of the horse.
When you take all the fossils into account, there is in fact no evidence for evolution. Paleontologists, in spite of their denials, still take the bones that seem to fit their theory. If a five toed animal is primitive, and a one toed horse is progressive, where does man fit? Man has 5 toes on each foot and not one. Is man progressive or primitive?
Before 1838 there were no known bones of Eohippus. In 1838 W. M. Colchester was digging in the clay banks of the Deben? River and dug out something resembling an old tooth. A year later another Englishman found a part of a skull on the coast of Kent. These became the first horse fossils found. The teeth were more like monkey teeth than horse teeth. The little skull looked like that of a rabbit. The paleontologists were calling a rabbit a horse. Instead of taking these bones as rabbit bones, Prof. Marsh interpreted the bones according to evolution and forced the facts to fit the theory. From 1839-1872 paleontologists regarded the bones as of a rabbit and not of a horse.
Why, then, were these rabbit bones dumped into the horse family?
Done in the Name of Science
An example of how scientists tried to make rabbit-like Eohippus look like a horse was not discovered until 1956. In the collection of the California Institute of Technology are a partial skull and nearly complete cranial skeleton from the old Gray Bull beds of the Big Horn Basin of Wyoming; yet the shoulder blades are more dog-like than horse-like. The neat artist concepts in textbooks are not accurate. They have been made to fit the theory. Poor Eohippus has been badly represented.
The horse ancestor was not a horse at all. The description fits the rabbits. Bot the modern hyrax and Eohippus fossils were rabbit-like. Both hunch up backs, both had dog-like pads on their feet. Eohippus should never have been called the ancestor of the horse.
As is abundantly clear, the strong proof of evolution, the horse, gives evolution the horse laugh.
Just because a theory is published in a textbook or expensive encyclopedia is no sign that it is so. It is time we began to think for ourselves.
If evolution can be proved, then man is not responsible for his sins?
If evolution can be proved then man is not responsible for his sins. Evolutionary theory holds no hope for life after death. Discredit the Genesis account of creation and the whole Bible will be discredited.
