|
|
In the "Frequently Asked Questions About Evolution" section of the pbs.org web site, the first question is: "Did we evolve from monkeys?"
Here is pbs.org's answer: "Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids." For those interested in evolution and human origins, some form of this has probably already been read or heard before. But here's a challenge for you: Modern Darwinists love to imply or actually state that those who question evolution by natural selection (macroevolution, or speciation) are merely mindless sheep who don't seem to be capable of critical thinking. What I propose to them is that it is actually they, not the skeptics, who are displaying sheep mentality by simply accepting an idea without closer examination. To illustrate this, I will provide the paragraph from pbs.org above broken down sentence by sentence in italics, with a critical observation immediately following each one. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. That statement sounds reasonable enough, however we have yet to see any factual support for or against. Let's continue reading. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Again, the statement sounds reasonable, but we still haven't seen any proof yet. Let's continue. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Another reasonable sounding idea, but now there have been three ideas stated as though they are facts, and nothing presented to support them. Let's continue, in the expectation that eventually these are more than just an opinion. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Here's where the Darwinist devolves from a critical thinker to a sheep. Notice the latest idea begins with "Scientists believe..." This presents the relevance of the following: 1) True or not, it is what scientists believe, not what they know for certain. 2) It implies all scientists, when in fact it is evolutionary biologists and other scientists friendly to the idea of speciation who believe it, not all scientists. There are many accomplished and intelligent scientists who question the premise, based on lack of physical evidence. 3) Where is the fossil evidence of this "common ancestor"? It does not exist, that's why scientists "believe" instead of know. At this point, we have heard the crucial "common ancestor" referred to twice. Surely the presumed ancestor will merit an identification further in the paragraph? Sadly, no. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. This is now the fourth statement that sounds like a fact, but instead is just an idea or theory based on looking at the present fossil evidence, and trying to make it fit the tree-of-life model evolutionary biologists can't seem to think beyond. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids. This is what the fossil record appears to indicate, but only if you assume speciation to have occurred. Now... if you take the time to think critically about information you encounter regarding evolution by natural selection, you will find that "believe," "think," "may have," "probably," "could have," "might have," and a host of other similar phrases and words are used to present the theory of how ultimately all life came from one single biological origin. This is because although Darwin's theory regarding the origin of species is now pounded in our faces as fact, it must constantly be massaged and finessed to continue fitting the mold that Darwin himself proposed. However, due to the refusal of evolutionary biologists to look critically at their own pet theory, anyone who disagrees with speciation is treated as a crazy person, or at least ignorant. Those familiar with academia will understand the pressure exerted on those who go against the flow. A remarkable twist of truth, as it applies to human experience. |