If human similarity to apes is evidence that an apelike creature evolved into man, why aren't the vast differences between man and ape accepted as evidence that man did not descend from apes? The human nose is totally different from that of primates; man's lips are formed differently; apes have thumbs on their feet, while men do not; man's head is located at a different postion on the spinal column; and human babies are far more dependent upon their mothers at birth than apes.
Even more physically perplexing is the fact that apes have a bone in the male's reproductive organ, while the human male makes use of an incredibly complicated hydraulic system. How could anyone reasonably conclude that the bone in an ape's reproductive organ slowly evolved into mankind's complex hormonal/hydraulic mechanism by some step-at-a-time mutational process? If the bone disappeared before the human system was completely in place, the apelike creature would not be able to reproduce and survive. Since apes have no difficulty reproducing, why would the human hydraulic reproductive system have ever evolved?
Dr. John C. Whitcomb observed that “While the physical differences between man and primates are quite great, the spiritual, mental, linguistical, and cultural differences are little short of infinite.” It is extremely poor and superficial science to conclude that some apelike creature evolved into mankind.
From A Closer Look at the Evidence by Kleiss, July 12.
