Nexus - 1002 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

would expect of upright-walking apes. They are invariably closely linked to the primate line, we would have had our own described as having a robust, muscular body covered with hair, appellation long ago—and we'll surely have it once the truth is atop which sits a head with astonishingly ape-like features. In out from the Pandora's box of Darwinist deception. short, the living hominoids are described as having bodies we Relatively speaking, primate bones are much thicker and would expect to find wrapped around the bones found in the heavier than human bones. Primate muscles are five to 10 so-called "pre-human" fossil record. In addition, witnesses times stronger than ours. (Anyone who's dealt with monkeys describe what they see as having longer arms than human knows how amazingly strong they are for their size.) Primate arms, hanging down near their knees, which means those arms skin is covered with long, thick, visible hair. Ours is largely are approximately the length of their legs. Witnesses also con- invisible. Primate hair is thick on the back, thin on the front. tend that the creatures walk with a "gliding" kind of bent- Ours is switched the other way around. Primates have large, need stride that leaves tracks eerily reminiscent of the tracks round eyes capable of seeing at night. Compared to theirs, we eft at Laetoli 3.5 million years ago. have greatly reduced night vision. Primates have small, rela- Now we come to the crux for Darwinists, Creationists and tively "simple" brains compared to ours. They lack the ability Intelligent Designers. Evidence supporting the reality of | to modulate sound into speech. Primate sexuality is based on hominoids is overwhelming. Truly. And if they are real, it an oestrus cycle in females (though some, like bonobo chimps, means the "pre-human" fossil record is actually a record of have plenty of sex when not in oestrus). In human females, their ancestors, not ours. And if that's the case, then humans the effects of oestrus are greatly diminished. have no place on the flowchart of life on Earth. And if that's This list could go on to cite many more areas of difference, true, then it's equally clear that humans did not evolve and but all of them are overshadowed by the Big Kahuna of could not have evolved here the way Darwinists claim. And if primate/human difference: all primates have 48 chromosomes, we didn't evolve here, that opens the door to the Interventionist while humans have "only" 46 chromosomes. Two entire position that nothing evolved here: chromosomes represent a heck of a everything was brought or created lot of DNA removed from the y sentient off-world beings whom human genome, yet somehow that I call terraformers, whose means removal made us "superior" in and motivation will remain countless ways. It doesn't make unknown to us unless and until . sense. Nor does the fact that even they see fit to explain themselves. All primates have with two whole chromosomes I hope no one is holding their 48 chromosomes, while missing from our genome, we share breath. " " what is now believed to be 95% of The point is that the Miocene humans have only the chimp genome and around 90% epoch had the means to produce 46 chromosomes. of the gorilla genome. How can those numbers be made to reconcile? They can't. Something is wrong here. Someone has been cooking the genetic books. living hominoids—S50 or more different species (which almost certainly will be shaved down to perhaps a dozen as more complete bodies are found) as far back as 20 million years ago. It produced some with monkey-like arms better suited to an upright walker than THE STUFF OF LIFE a brachiating tree-dweller or knuckle walker. In the wild, plants and animals tend to breed remarkably true By the time it ended, 5.0 million years ago, a half-dozen or to their species. That's why stasis is the dominant characteris- more bipedal apes were on the Earth, which we know from the tic of life on Earth. Species appear and stay essentially the ape-like australopithecine and early Homo fossils. And we same (apart from the superficial changes of microevolution) know from Laetoli that they had a walking pattern distinct until they go extinct for whatever reason (catastrophe, inability from humans, which modern witnesses describe as still being to compete for resources effectively, etc.). When "faulty" the way hominoids walk. In short, they've followed the examples appear, they're nearly always unable to put the fault punctuated equilibrium pattern of long-term stasis. into their species’ collective gene pool. A negative mutation that daaon't Lill tha inlibaly ta ho 48 chromosomes, while humans have "only" AR LW THE STUFF OF LIFE In the wild, plants and animals tend to breed remarkably true to their species. That's why stasis is the dominant characteris- tic of life on Earth. Species appear and stay essentially the same (apart from the superficial changes of microevolution) until they go extinct for whatever reason (catastrophe, inability to compete for resources effectively, etc.). When "faulty" examples appear, they're nearly always unable to put the fault into their species' collective gene pool. A negative mutation that doesn't kill the individual it appears in is unlikely to be passed along to posterity, despite Darwinist assertions that this is precisely how evolution occurs. All genomes have hard- wired checks and balances against significant changes of any kind, which is why stasis has been the hallmark of all life since beginning here. Aberrant examples are efficiently weed- ed out, either early in the reproductive process or soon after reproduction (birth). Faulty copies are deleted. This deletion of faults holds true in the vast majority of species. Most genomes are—and stay—remarkably clear of gene-based defects. All species are susceptible to mistakes in the reproductive process, such as sperm/egg misconnections. In mammals, this produces spontaneous abortions, stillbirths or live-birth defects. However, there are precious few defects that swim in the gene pools of any "wild" or "natural" species. The only places we find significant, species-wide genetic defects are in domesticated plants and animals, and in those they can be—and often are—numerous. SO WHAT ABOUT HUMANS? Humans simply do not fit the pattern of primate development on Earth. Notice the word development instead of evolution. Species that appear here do undergo changes in morphology over time. It's called microevolution, because it describes changes in body parts. Darwinists use the undeniable reality of microevolution to extrapolate the reality of macroevolution, which is change at the species-into-more-advanced-species level. That is blatantly not evident in the fossil record, especially when it comes to human physiology. We have shown, I hope, that humans have been shoehorned by Darwinists into having a place in the fossil record that doesn't belong to them but to living hominoids (Bigfoot, etc.). Furthermore, humans have been shoehorned into being pri- mates, when there is little about them—certainly nothing of significance—that fits the classic primate pattern. In fact, if it weren't for the desperate need of Darwinists to keep humans NEXUS = 51 All primates have 46 chromosomes. FEBRUARY — MARCH 2003 www.nexusmagazine.com