Although I used the dog -- in my previous article -- as an example of how the function of animal brains differ from human brains, the evolutionists use primates to make their case. Primates, whether they are apes or chimpanzees, have DNA that is very close to human DNA (Chimpanzees have 55 different DNA sequences out of 986 DNA sequences for humans), and they have similar physical attributes. In my opinion the close DNA only indicates a common designer, and DNA has nothing to do with human emotions, thoughts and reason. On the other hand, an argument can be made for an animal with hands and arms.
Let's assume that a mutation occurred millions of years ago where a primate was born without bodily hair to keep it warm. Because of the instinct for self preservation, having arms and hands would be useful in separating animal skin from a dead carcass and using the skin as a blanket or a form of clothing. Perhaps other animals have had similar hairless or furless mutations, but because of not having hands and arms they were not able to survive, and thus became extinct. Now let's assume that a second similar mutation occurred in the same timeframe and location as the first but was a different gender. The two mutations then mated with each other and produced a new form of hairless primate family. Although this new form of primate had adapted to use animal skins for blankets and clothing, it's still an animal that lived in the same environment and ate the same foods as its predecessors. But, let's be generous and say that these animals evolved differently than their predecessors. For some reason, in order to keep warm, they discovered fire. Perhaps the initial use of fire came when lightning caused a forest fire and the primates had enough intelligence to maintain a continuous flame. Then as time went by they discovered that they could make their own fires. To protect themselves from rain and predatory animals they eventually began to live in caves. When their fire accidentally burned an animal, they discovered cooked meat. Because the primates had hands and arms, they learned that they could defend themselves by wielding a club. Eventually spears, replaced clubs and so on. If all of this is true, then what could have happened in this process that would cause their original animal brains to become human brains with human emotions? Could the driving force be the need to keep warm? After all, their original primate species continued as they were and did not develop human brains over the same millions of years timeframe. Also, their ancestors didn't use their hands and arms to develop and use clubs and spears, or even find a way to initiate and use fire.
Did the above mentioned hairless primate eventually become the Neanderthal who eventually became the predecessor for modern day humans? The probable answers to these questions are beyond the scope of this article. However, the above sequence of events for hairless primates would indicate that they did not become the Neanderthals - at least from an evolutionary standpoint. The Neanderthals, on the other hand, were most likely something very different, since some evidence suggests that Neanderthals had human-like vocal cords, lived in caves, created paintings and sculptures, made tools, played musical instruments, and ritualistically buried their dead. If they had these attributes then Neanderthals are probably not just predecessors to today's humans, they are probably the ancestors of today's humans who lived in caves.
The big question is, how and when did the Neanderthals come into being? Was it a slow process of evolution, like the above mentioned primates, or was it something else? Since radiocarbon dating is known to be accurate for only the past 3,500 years, were the Neanderthals humans and/or hybrid humans who lived in a time period before the flood? While you may think that I am just brushing off a serious scientific discussion, that favors human evolution, consider this. Yes, I am biased toward proving that humans are a special creation of God; but, do you believe that paleontologists, who make the study of human origins their life's work, are less biased in their quest to prove the premise of evolution without God? If not, check out the Piltdown man hoax that was contained in textbooks for more than forty years. Then check out Ramapithecus, Nebraska man, Java man, Peking man, Homo Habilis, and Australopithecines, that were eventually proven to be incorrect data interpretations. The point that I am trying to make is that everything that has been concluded about Neanderthals is surmised based upon the investigators premise and a desire to prove human evolution without God. Other interpretations and conclusions have been discarded by the currently ruling scientific community because of religious implications. Radiocarbon dating of bones, and mitochondrial extraction and interpretation of fossil DNA does not prove the existence of human emotions or the human soul. Cave paintings, stone tools, and musical instruments, while characteristically human, require proof that they were created in the same dated time period as the discovered bones, and ritualistic burials can only be an assumed human attribute. The assumption that a cave dwelling remained untouched for fifty thousand years, is a bit of a stretch. In any event, there are many ways to interpret fragmented data; and since we were not there, we can only surmise.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar