The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved in 50 Arguments Part 2

This same Professor Conklin says that our race began 2,000,000 years ago (60,000 generations). How is it possible that we must go back sixty thousand generations for a common ancestor, when thirty-two generations will suffice for the English, and about 200 generations since Noah, for the whole race? If we, by the laws of biometry, can find a common ancestor in Noah, we can not possibly go back 2,000,000 years to find one. Professor Conklin's admission refutes his claim of 2,000,000 years for man. Biometry proves that age absolutely impossible.

If the progeny of this ape-like ancestor inter-bred for many generations,--as certainly would have been the case--then we are not only descended from all the monkey family, the baboon, gorilla, ape, chimpanzee, orang-utang lemur (H. G. Wells' ancestor), mongoose, etc., but are also related to all their progeny. Glorious ancestors! In our veins runs the blood of them all, as well as the blood of the most disgusting reptiles. And yet Professor H. H. Newman, an eminent evolutionist, in a letter to the writer, says, "The evolution idea is an enn.o.bling one."! But biometry saves us from such repulsive forbears, by proving it could not be so.

Biometrists find that there is a Law of Filial Regression, or a tendency to the normal in every species, checking the acc.u.mulation of departures from the average, and forbidding the formation of new species by inheritance of peculiarities. The whole tendency of the laws of nature is against the formation of new species, so essential to evolution. The species brings forth still "after its kind." "On the average, extreme peculiarities of parents are less extreme in children." "The stature of adult offspring must, on the whole, be more mediocre than the stature of the parents." Gifted parents rarely have children as highly gifted as themselves.

The tendency is to revert to the normal in body and mind. Nature discourages the formation of new species, evolutionists to the contrary notwithstanding. "Like produces like" is a universal and unchangeable law. G.o.d has forbidden species to pa.s.s their boundaries; and, if any individual seems to threaten to do so, by possessing abnormal peculiarities, these are soon corrected, often in the next generation. Even Professor H. H. Newman says, "On the whole, the contributions of biometry to our understanding of the causes of evolution are rather disappointing." A science that upsets evolution is certainly disappointing to evolutionists.

8. NO NEW SPECIES NOW

They tell us that 3,000,000 species of plants and animals developed from one primordial germ, in 60,000,000 years. How many new species should have arisen in the last 6,000 years? Now 20 doublings of the first species of animals would make 1,048,576 species, since 2 raised to the 20th power becomes 1,048,576. Again we will favor the evolutionists, by omitting from the calculation all species of animals in excess of 1,048,576. Therefore, on an average, each of the 20 doublings would take 1/20 of 60,000,000 years, or 3,000,000 years; and, therefore, 1/2 of the entire 1,048,576 species, or 524,288 species, must have originated within the last 3,000,000 years. Can that be the case? Certainly not.

And since the number of species must have increased in a geometrical ratio, 2097 species must have arisen or matured within the last 6000 years--an average of one new species of animals every 3 years. How many species actually have arisen within the last 6000 years? 2000?

200? or 2? It is not proven that _a single new species has arisen in that time_. Not one can be named. If approximately 2000 new species have not arisen in the last 6000 years, the evolution of species can not possibly be true. Even Darwin says: "In spite of all the efforts of trained observers, not one change of species into another is on record." Sir William Dawson, the great Canadian geologist, says: "_No case is certainly known in human experience_ where any species of animal or plant has been so changed as to a.s.sume all the characteristics of a new species."

Indeed, a high authority says: "Though, since the human race began, all sorts of artificial agencies have been employed, and though there has been the closest scrutiny, yet _not a distinctively new type of plant or animal_, on what is called broad lines, has come into existence."

Not a single new species has arisen in the last 6000 years when the theory requires over 2000. Evolutionists admit this. Prof. Vernon Kellogg, of Leland Stanford University, in his "Darwinism of Today,"

p. 18, says:--"Speaking by and large, we only tell the general truth when we declare that no indubitable cases of species forming, or transforming, that is, of descent, have been observed.... For my part, it seems better to go back to the old and safe _ignoramus standpoint_."

Prof. H. H. Newman, of Chicago University, in answer to the writer's question, "How many new species have arisen in the last 6000 years?"

wrote this evasive reply: "I do not know how to answer your questions.... None of us know just what a species is. [If so, how could 3,000,000 species be counted, the number, he says, exists?].... It is difficult to say just when a new species has arisen from an old." He does not seem to know of a single new species within the last 6,000 years.

The same question was asked of Dr. Osborn, of Columbia University, N. Y. The answer by R. C. Murphy, a.s.sistant, was equally indefinite. He wrote: "From every point of view, your short note of Aug. 22nd raises questions, which no scientific man can possibly answer. We have very little knowledge as to just when any particular species of animal arose." In a later letter, he says: "I have no idea whether the number of species which have arisen during the last 6000 years is 1 or 100,000."

Should those who "do not know" speak so confidently in favor of evolution, or take the "old and safe _ignoramus_" standpoint, as Prof. Kellogg suggests?

The number of existing species can not be explained upon the ground of evolution, but only upon the ground of the creation of numerous heads of animal and plant life, as the Scriptures declare.

We have a right to increase the pressure of the argument, by introducing into the calculation, the total of 3,000,000 species of plants and animals which would require 6355 new species within the last 6000 years, or an average of more than one new species a year!

And they can not point to one new species in 6000 years, as they confess. Dr. J. B. Warren, of the University of California, said recently: "If the theory of evolution be true, then, during many thousands of years, covered in whole or in part by present human knowledge, there would certainly be known at least a few instances of the evolution of one species from another. _No such instance is known._"

Prof. Owen declares, "No instance of change of one species into another has ever been recorded by man."

Prof. William Bateson, the distinguished English biologist, said, "It is impossible for scientists longer to agree with Darwin's theory of the origin of species. No explanation whatever has been offered to account for the fact that, after forty years, no evidence has been discovered to verify his genesis of species."

Although scientists have so largely discarded Darwin's theory, the utter lack of new species in historic time, when so many are required by _every_ theory of evolution, is a mathematical demonstration that the whole theory of evolution must be abandoned. Q. E. D. Why do they still insist it _may be true_?

9. MATHEMATICAL PROBABILITY

Mathematical Probability is a branch or division of mathematics by means of which the odds in favor or against the occurrence of any event may be definitely computed, and the measure of the probability or improbability exactly determined. Its conclusions approximate certainty and reveal how wild the guesses of evolutionists are.

The evolution of species violates the rule of mathematical probability. It is so improbable that one and only one species out of 3,000,000 should develop into man, that it certainly was not the case. All had the same start, many had similar environments. Yet witness the motly products of evolution: Man, ape, elephant, skunk, scorpion, lizard, lark, toad, lobster, louse, flea, amoeba, hookworm, and countless microscopic animals; also, the palm, lily, melon, maize, mushroom, thistle, cactus, microscopic bacilli, etc. All developed from one germ, all in some way related. Mark well the difference in size between the elephant, louse, and microscopic hookworm, and the difference in intellect between man and the lobster!

While all had the same start, only one species out of 3,000,000 reached the physical and intellectual and moral status of man. Why only one? Why do we not find beings equal or similar to man, developed from the cunning fox, the faithful dog, the innocent sheep, or the hog, one of the most social of all animals? Or still more from the many species of the talented monkey family? Out of 3,000,000 chances, is it not likely that more than one species would attain the status of man?

"Romanes, a disciple of Darwin, after collecting the manifestations of intelligent reasoning from every known species of the lower animals, found that they only equaled altogether the intelligence of a child 15 months old." Then man has easily 10,000,000 times as much power to reason as the animals, and easily 10,000,000,000 times as much conscience. Why have not many species filled the great gap between man and the brute? Out of 3,000,000 births, would we expect but one male?

Or one female? Out of 3,000,000 deaths, would we expect all to be males but one? To be sure, all the skeletons and bones found by evolutionists belong to males except one. Strange! If 3,000,000 pennies were tossed into the air, would we expect them all to fall with heads up, save one? The Revolutionary war, out of 3,000,000 people, developed one great military chieftain, but many more approximating his ability; one or more great statesmen with all gradations down to the mediocre; scholars and writers, with others little inferior; but there was no overtowering genius 10,000,000 or 10,000,000,000 times as great as any other. We would be astonished beyond measure, if any great genius should rise in any nation as far ahead of all others, as the species of mankind is ahead of all other species. It is unthinkable that one species and only one reached the measureless distance between the monkey and man. It violates mathematical probability.

We have a right to expect, in many species and in large numbers, all gradations of animals between the monkey and man in size, intellect, and spirituality. Where are the anthropoids and their descendants alleged to have lived during the 2,000,000 years of man's evolution?

They can not be found living or dead. They never existed. Creation alone explains the great gap. What signs have we that other species will ever approximate, equal or surpa.s.s man in attainments? Can we hope that, in the far distant future, a baboon will write an epic equal to Milton's Paradise Lost, or a bull-frog compose an oratorio surpa.s.sing Handel's Messiah?

We find all gradations of species in size from the largest to the smallest. Why not the same gradation in _intelligence, conscience and spirituality_? The difference in brain, capacity and intelligence between man and the ape is 50% greater than the difference in size between the elephant and the housefly. There are many thousands of species to fill the gap in size. Why not many thousands to fill the greater gap in intelligence? Evidently no species became human by growth. Many species like the amoeba, and the microscopic disease germs, have not developed at all but are the same as ever. Many other species of the lower forms of life have remained unchanged during the ages. If the tendency is to develop into the higher forms of life, why do we have so many of those lower forms which have remained stationary? Growth, development, evolution, is not, by any means, a universal rule.

Evolution is not universally true in any sense of the term. Why are not fishes _now_ changing into amphibians, amphibians into reptiles, reptiles into birds and mammals, and monkeys into man? If growth, development, evolution, were the rule, there would be no lower order of animals for all have had sufficient time to develop into the highest orders. Many have remained the same; some have deteriorated.

And now we have a new amendment to the theory of evolution: We are told that the huge Saurians (reptiles) overworked the development idea, and became too large and c.u.mbersome, and hence are now extinct. Prof. Cope says:--"Retrogression in nature is as well established as evolution." It seems that man also has, contrary to all former conceptions, reached the limit of his development, if he has not already gone too far.

Prof. R. S. Lull says, (Readings p. 95) "Man's physical evolution has virtually ceased, but in so far as any change is being effected, it is largely retrogressive. Such changes are: Reduction of hair and teeth, and of hand skill; and dulling of the senses of sight, smell and hearing upon which active creatures depend so largely for safety.

That sort of charity which fosters the physically, mentally and morally feeble, and is thus contrary to the law of natural selection, must also, in the long run, have an adverse effect upon the race." Too bad that Christian charity takes care of the feeble, endangering evolution, and the doctrine that the weak have no rights that the strong are bound to respect! We are not surprised that Nietzsche, whose insane philosophy that _might is right_, helped to bring on the world war, died in an insane asylum.

After all, evolution is not progress and development, but retrogression and deterioration as well.

But evolutionists, compelled by the requirements of their theory, have added another amendment, which will seem ridiculous to some:

Environment has had an evolution as well as plants and animals! Having denied the existence of G.o.d, or his active control and interference, they must account for environment by evolution. Listen:--"Henderson points out that environment, no less than organisms, has had an evolution. Water, for example, has a dozen unique properties that condition life. Carbon dioxide is absolutely necessary to life. The properties of the ocean are so beautifully adjusted to life that we marvel at the exactness of its fitness. [Yet no design!]. Finally, the chemical properties of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen are equally unique and unreplaceable. The evolution of environment and the evolution of organisms have gone hand in hand." And all by blind chance! Is it not a thousand times better to believe that all things were created by an all-wise and all powerful G.o.d? How could a lifeless environment come by evolution? If we would listen to them, we would be told that the ocean, the atmosphere, heat, light, electricity, all the elements, the starry heavens, and all the universe, and religion itself, came by evolution, some grudgingly granting that G.o.d _may_ have created matter in the beginning.

It is unreasonable to believe that one species and only one out of 3,000,000 by evolution should attain the status of mankind; and that one species and only one species of the primates should reach the heights of intelligence, reason, conscience and spirituality. Huxley says, "There is an enormous gulf, a divergence practically infinite, between the lowest man and the highest beast."

To declare that our species alone crossed this measureless gulf, while our nearest relatives have not even made a fair start, is an affront to the intelligence of the thoughtful student. It does fierce violence to the doctrine of mathematical probability. It could not have happened.

10. THE AGE OF THE EARTH

The estimates of the age of the world vary from 16,000,000 years to 100 times this number or 1,600,000,000 years. Even H.G. Wells admits these estimates "rest nearly always upon theoretical a.s.sumptions of the slenderest kind." This is undoubtedly true of the reckless estimates of evolutionists, whose theory requires such an enormous length of time that science can not concede it. Prof. H.H. Newman says, "The last decade has seen the demise (?) of the outworn (?) objection to evolution, based on the idea that there has not been time enough for the great changes that are believed by evolutionists to have occurred. Given 100,000,000 or 1,000,000,000 years since life began we can then allow 1,000,000 years for each important change to arise and establish itself."

An objection is not "outworn" until answered, and to speak of the demise of a generally accepted theory is hardly scientific. We will not allow the evolutionist to dismiss so weighty an objection with a wave of the hand. Prof. Newman, in his "Readings in Evolution,"

p. 68, gives 60,000,000 years as the probable time since life began.

The writer, having based arguments upon that a.s.sumption, was surprised to receive a private letter from him claiming that life has existed for 500,000,000 years. Indeed Prof. Russell, of Princeton, says, in his "Rice Lectures," that the earth is probably 4,000,000,000 years old, possibly 8,000,000,000! We can do nothing but gasp, while the bewildering guesses come in, and we wait for the next estimate. We note their utter abandon, as they make a raid on G.o.d's eternity to support a theory that would dethrone Him.

But these extravagantly long periods required by the theory, science cannot grant, for the following reasons:--

1. According to the nebular hypothesis, and Helmholtz's contraction theory, accounting for the regular supply of heat from the sun, the sun itself is not likely more than 20,000,000 years old, and, of course, the earth is much younger. Both of these theories are quite generally accepted by scientists, and have much to support them.

Prof. Young, of Princeton, in his Astronomy, p. 156, says, "The solar radiation can be accounted for on the hypothesis first proposed by Helmholtz, that the sun is shrinking slowly but continually. It is a matter of demonstration that an annual shrinkage of about 300 feet in the sun's diameter would liberate sufficient heat to keep up its radiation without any fall in its temperature".... The sun is not simply cooling, nor is its heat caused by combustion; for, "If the sun were a vast globe of solid anthracite, in less than 5,000 years, it would be burned to a cinder." We quote from Prof. Young's Astronomy: "We can only say that while no other theory yet proposed meets the conditions of the problem, this [contraction theory] appears to do so perfectly, and therefore has high probability in its favor." "No conclusion of Geometry," he continues, "is more certain than this,--that the shrinkage of the sun to its present dimensions, from a diameter larger than that of the orbit of Neptune, the remotest of the planets, _would generate about 18,000,000 times as much heat as the sun now radiates in a year_. Hence, if the sun's heat has been and still is wholly due to the contraction of its ma.s.s, it can not have been radiating heat at the present rate, on the shrinkage hypothesis, for more than 18,000,000 years; and on that hypothesis, the solar system in anything like its present condition, can not be much more than as old as that." If so, evolution, on account of lack of time, can not possibly be true. If we add many millions of years to this number, or double it more than once, the time is not yet sufficient. For if the sun is 25,000,000, or even 50,000,000 years old, by the time the planets are thrown off, in turn, from Neptune to the earth, and then the earth cooled sufficiently for animal life, only a few million years would be left for evolution, a mere fraction of the time required. This is a mathematical demonstration that evolution can not be true. The same calculations, 18,000,000 to 20,000,000 years, have been made by Lord Kelvin, Prof. Todd and other astronomers.

2. The thickness of the earth's crust is fatal to the theory of the great age of the earth, required by evolution. The temperature increases as we descend into the earth, about one degree for every 50 feet, or 100 degrees per mile. Therefore, at 2 mi., water would boil; at 18 mi., gla.s.s would melt (1850); at 28 mi., every known substance would melt (2700). Hence the crust is not likely more than 28 miles thick,--in many places less. Rev. O. Fisher has calculated that, if the thickness of the earth's crust is 17.5 mi., as indicated by the San Francisco earthquake, the earth is 5,262,170 years old. If the crust is 21.91 mi. thick, as others say, the age would be 8,248,380 years. Lord Kelvin, the well known scientist, who computed the sun's age at 20,000,000 years, computed the earth's age at 8,302,210 years. Subtract from these computations, the years that must have elapsed before the earth became cool enough for animal life, and the few millions of years left would be utterly insufficient to render evolution possible. Note how these figures agree with the age of the earth according to the Helmholtz contraction theory. The thinness of the earth's crust is also proven by the geysers, the volcanoes, and the 9000 tremors and earthquakes occurring annually in all parts of the world.

3. The surface marks on the earth point to much shorter periods of time since the earth was a sh.o.r.eless ocean than those required by evolutionists, who are so reckless in their guesses and estimates. They help themselves to eternity without stint. Charles Lyell, a geologist of Darwin's time, set the example when he said, "The lowest estimate of time required for the formation of the existing delta of the Mississippi is 100,000 years." According to careful examination made by gentlemen of the Coast Survey and other U.S. officers, the time was 4,400 years--a disinterested decision. In the face of these three arguments, it is a bit reckless to say the earth has existed, 1,600,000,000 years,--nearly 100 times as long as proven possible by mathematical calculation. And still more reckless is the estimate of Prof. Russell, 4,000,000,000 to 8,000,000,000 years, founded on the radio-activity theory. All these wild estimates are out of the question.

The recession of the Niagara Falls from Lake Ontario required only 7,000 to 11,000 years. It required only 8,000 years for the Mississippi River to excavate its course.