The scientists assure us that Darwin is correct even in the face of mounting evidence that he may not be correct or at best not 100% correct. Once again scientists have found what is believed to be a new Dinosaur which they label a transitional fossil between a herbivore and carnivore. Heady stuff for the world of Paleontology but before we pop those champagne corks and toast Darwin, perhaps we should look a little closer. This claim is actually based on some teeth which are normally found in herbivores on a skeleton that appears to be a carnivore. Hmmm – is it possible that this was an omnivore? Is it possible that like all of those cuddly Grizzly Bears we see in Yellowstone that this particular Dinosaur was not really a transitional fossil but simply another Dinosaur? Plus if this is a “transitional” fossil what was this Dinosaur transitioning from and changing into? It seems once again that the term Evolution has once again been applied to a classic case of adaptation because at the end of the day – this new fossil was a Dinosaur, his predecessors were Dinosaurs, and presumably any further change would have resulted in a herbivore Dinosaur – not a new species, or at least there is no proof that it was a new species. But this does open some questions.
We are assured by the Bible that God created man. The reason for this is not known but possibly as a joke. Then the Evolutionists assure us than man was not divinely created but evolved from some hominid that was the root stock of both Homo sapiens and Apes. These early Hominids were small apelike creatures with small brains who were covered in hair and lived in Equatorial Africa. They went through a series of evolutionary improvements and grew taller, stronger, and smarter (uncertain about the British Aristocracy), but remained hairy – although less so. These early precursors of man migrated North to Europe, Eastward to Asia and eventually covered the globe except for North America and South America which were settled by Homo Sapiens. This hierarchy of development can be seen in virtually every museum and every textbook but the examples always show these early men as white. Why is that?
Were early men like Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal white? Were the first men Caucasian even though they developed in Equatorial Africa? Were the Hominids that remained in Africa black and remained black, while those that migrated North evolved into whites? If we are to believe that mankind evolved into the five races of man, then how did this happen and why? First, it seems obvious that the division of Homo sapiens into five races was not an example of evolution but just an example of adaptation since the races are not separate species. But then how and why did the different races develop since their various characteristics don’t seem to fit their indigenous environments. For example the white race seems to be indigenous to the North, which tends to be cold and not overly sunny, but why are they white and not black? After all black tends to absorb more heat and it would seem this would be a desirable characteristic while you are slogging through a snow bank. On the other hand the white race seems to be more hairy and thus a hair covering would be useful in the North. But whites also tend to be bald and we are told that you lose a great deal of heat through your head so you should wear a hat in the cold weather. So baldness doesn’t seem like a desirable adaptation.
Then of course we have the Negroes who have black skin, not prone to baldness, have little body hair, and what hair they do have tends to be “wooly”. Blacks are indigenous to Africa which tends to be pretty hot so why is their skin black and why are they not bald? Did the early Hominids have wooly hair or straight? If straight why did they develop wooly hair? If wooly why did the other races lose this characteristic? It would seem that if you lose heat through your head that baldness would be an evolutionary advantage just as a lighter skin would be in the Equatorial Heat. Does the black color give them an advantage in the jungles of Africa since they would blend with the shadows? What about the broad nose and thick lips that are present in Negroes but not in other races? What evolutionary advantage did they bring? But then we have the Northern Negroes – the Ethiopians who have black skins but Caucasoid features. Do they represent a transition between Negroes and Caucasians?
What about Orientals? They have sallow (yellow) skin and almond shaped eyes with very little body hair. The males do not have heavy beards and what beards they do have tend to be wispy. Why is that? What evolutionary advantage does a lack of hair provide? What advantage is brought by the shape of the eyes and what condition prevails in China that is unique to China that would account for the adaptation?
Obviously the list of questions goes on and on. We have the Red race unique to North America but who are not indigenous. The common belief is that they migrated from Asia across the land bridge to Alaska. This certainly seems possible and the Eskimo’s (Aleuts) show definite signs of being Oriental in origin but they are quite distinct from the Indians who are in turn quite different – even visually – from the Brown race that inhabits Latin America. Where did these people come from? They certainly didn’t evolve where they are found.
Steven Gould (alarm bell) of Harvard has postulated “Punctuated Equilibrium” meaning rapid evolution – to account for the lack of transitional fossils. Even if we accept this rather labored theory it opens even further questions regarding man. Hominids are found in Africa and nowhere else but Neanderthals are found in Europe and nowhere else, although there is Peking Man in China. Given that the Hominids are in fact early men and given that Gould’s theory is logical, and given that the various races evolved in some place other than Africa, and given that their distinct racial characteristics provide some survival advantage as yet unknown, then why after three million years and extensive evolutionary changes did all of these variations remain Homo Sapiens instead of adapting into different species like their brother apes did?
It seems that science may not have all of the answers and we are once again left with Faith Based science or the very difficult alternative that God for some unknown reason made Man into different colors with different characteristics but he made them all the same. Except of course the Cave Men, Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon who we are assured were white. Where the others came from God only knows.