Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 19
November 16, 1967
NUMBER 28, PAGE 10-11a

Evolution Examined - 5

Harry E. Ozment

Evolutionists through the years have offered to the public various "evidences" which supposedly prove the evolutionary theory. From the very beginning of the theory, these "evidences" have been a hoax. In this article and the next one, we want to consider the five main "proofs" of evolution and see how ridiculous each one really is.

The first "proof" of evolution is called comparative anatomy. When bodies of different animals are compared, similarities between these animals are sometimes found. These similarities are said to prove that the animals resembling each other descended from a common ancestor. This evidence has been used in the past to prove that, because of the similarities between the ape and man, man descended from an ape. Now, however, evolutionists have changed their theory somewhat, and every time someone says, "Evolution teaches that man descended from an ape," evolutionists "holler" with all of their might saying, "That isn't so — evolution doesn't teach that! Evolution teaches that man and the ape descended from a common ancestor!" This so-called "change" is utter folly! The evolutionist didn't gain one advantage by "changing" his theory — he is still stewing in his own pot! Why? Because he can't prove either statement. Notice the following diagram:

As you can see from the above diagram, the evolutionist' proof is missing in both theories. Oh, don't misunderstand me — the evolutionist has tried to prove that there was a "common ancestor." For example, the "Java Man" has been heralded by some as an important step in proving that man and the ape descended from a "common ancestor." The Java Man is composed of skull fragments from four skulls — that's all! And from these "colossal finds," notice what science has concluded about the Java Man: He was erect-walking, had a tail, and was ape-like. Can you beat that? From fragments of different skulls, evolutionists know all of this about the Java Man!

That surely must have taken a pretty good Sherlock Holmes! (Or, on the other hand, did it take a pretty good imagination?) By the way, another fossil was found in the same area a bit later. It was first thought to be related to the Java Man. This fossil was later exposed to be the knee-bone of an elephant! The Piltdown Man was first thought to be the fossil of a human. It was later proven to be a hoax — the "finds" were really those of modern animals deliberately altered to resemble a fossil. The "Nebraska Man" consisted of one single tooth — and that was later discovered to be the tooth of a pig! And evolutionists have the unmitigated gall to call their theory "science"! No, they don't like to be reminded of their famous deceptions, but they shall be as long as there are faithful Christians who are willing to stand up, even in the classroom, and expose the theory as error! However, not only are the "deductions" of comparative anatomy erroneous, but the whole concept of comparative anatomy as an evidence for evolution is faulty:

(1) It is assumed that similarities between the animals prove descent from a common ancestry. Similarities in different animals could be used, for example, by the Christian to prove that all things were created by God, and this pattern in certain animals proves creation by Intelligence and not by chance.

(2) Many similarities are completely ignored by evolutionists because they prove the wrong relationship. To illustrate, both the duck and the platypus have a bill. In biological classification, however, the two animals are not related. Why not, if comparative anatomy proves descent from a common ancestor?

A second "evidence" of evolution is called comparative biochemistry, or blood similarity. When animals are found to have similar characteristics in their respective blood streams, this supposedly proves that these animals evolved from a common ancestor. The "scientific" process to prove blood similarities between different animals is somewhat complicated, but here is a simplified explanation: Human blood, for example is injected into an experimental animal (such as a guinea pig). Of course, the blood of this guinea pig develops antibodies in its blood to counteract the human blood in its system. The blood of this guinea pig (which has now developed antibodies to human blood) is then "processed" and an "anti- human serum" is produced. This "anti-human serum" is then injected into, for example, an ape. The ape shows a great reaction to this "anti-human serum." Therefore, this supposedly proves that apes are "pro-human" (if you'll pardon that crude phrase) and that humans and apes are related by means of a common ape-like ancestor. Of course, there are several faults to be found with this "evidence":

(1) Once again, it is assumed that similarities prove descent from a common ancestor.

(2) "Blood serum" is used in these tests — not actual blood. Read what Dr. Arthur Brown says about this: "Their so-called blood tests involve nothing but 'serum', a small part of the blood. If blood cells are taken out of the blood, we have withdrawn an important group of chemicals, in the absence of which we are not testing blood at all." In other words, if humans and apes are as related as the evolutionists say they are, why isn't the actual blood of a human injected into the bloodstream of an ape?

(3) Once again, many similarities are ignored by evolutionists because they prove the wrong relationship. For example, tetanus strikes almost exclusively the blood streams of the horse, cattle, sheep, and man. Does this prove descent from a common ancestor? It does if blood similarity is an evidence for evolution!

A third "evidence" of evolution is called proof by vestigial organs. This theory states that animals and man have organs which are useless today but once were used in their evolutionary development. There are so many "loopholes" in this "evidence" that even the evolutionists are ashamed they thought of it:

(1) The foundation of this "evidence" (i.e., these organs have deteriorated through disuse) rests upon the already-discarded theories of Lamarckianism (refer to article I.)

(2) Supposedly vestigial organs (especially in man) have been discovered to be useful today. Some examples are the:

(a) Appendix. According to evolutionists, this structure was needed to help in the digestion of coarse foods eaten by man when he was in the primitive ape-like stage. Through time, man has refined his diet and the appendix is no longer needed. Scientists, however, have found that the appendix has lymphoid tissue which prevents infection in the child and the young adult.

(b) Coccyx (tip of spine.) Evolutionists believe that this structure is evidence that man once had a tail, and through disuse, it has withered into the tiny tip end of the backbone. However, it has been discovered that the coccyx is necessary to provide comfort while sitting.

(c) Tonsils. This part of the body was once thought to be useless to the modern man. However, scientists have found tonsils manufacture a form of white blood cells (which are useful in combating infection.) Therefore, our ignorance of the use of some organs should not be used to try to prove their uselessness.

In the article, we shall study the remaining two "evidences" of evolution.

-501 Sexton Court, Campbellsville, Ky. 42718