On April 9, 2003, National Geographic TV aired a documentary by the name of "The Birth of Human Mind". The film engaged in suggestion with stories about human evolution and showed pictures of ape-men in costumes climbing trees or looking nervously around as they walked through fields covered in tall grass. Some of them made muttering noises while others scavenged on the corpses of dead animals. In recounting its tall tales of evolution National Geographic made the maximum use of all methods of misleading its audience. This imaginary biological process, "evolution" in other words, devoid of any scientific validity, was proposed in a manner which was itself a complete violation of science.
This article sets out the scientific facts which National Geographic has rejected by closing its eyes and ears to them.
The Scientific Invalidity of the Ape-Man Idea
National Geographic TV commences its account with Australopithecines, regarded even by most evolutionists as a simple species of ape (throughout the commentary to the film the word is mispronounced as "Astropodicus" as opposed to the correct pronunciation Australopithecus.
The best-known Australopithicine fossil is that of Australopithecus afarensis, which was discovered with 40% of its skeleton still intact in 1974 and is generally referred to as Lucy. Looking at certain bones in the skeleton, evolutionists maintained that this species was capable of walking upright, for which reason it was probably an evolutionary ancestor of man. The fact is, however, that a number of studies of Australopithecus have revealed that these creatures were not two-legged but rather moved in the same manner as present-day monkeys and were actually a non-walking species of ape:
1. Despite being an evolutionist himself, Lord Zuckerman concluded that Australopithecus was merely an ordinary species of monkey and very definitely did not walk upright. (1)
2. Charles E. Oxnard, another evolutionist anatomist well-known for his research in this field, concluded that the structure of the Australopithecus skeleton resembled that of present-day orang-utans. (2)
3. In 1994, Fred Spoor from Liverpool University and his team carried out a wide-ranging study of the Australopithecus skeleton in order to arrive at a definitive conclusion. Research was carried pout into an organ in the skeleton known as the “cochlea,” which identifies the body’s position in relation to the ground. Spoor’s conclusion was that Australopithecus did not possess the same way of moving as that of human beings. (3)
4. A 2000 study carried out by B. G. Richmond and D. S. Strait and published in Nature magazine looked Australopithecus’ fore-arms. Comparative anatomical studies revealed that this species possessed exactly the same fore-arm anatomy as apes which walk on four legs in the present day. (4)
Australopithecines had the same brain volume, long arms and short legs as chimpanzees. There were protrusions on their hands and feet to help them cling to branches. In short, the claim that the genus Australopithecus was an intermediate form is nothing but a myth.
The actors who portrayed the Australopithecines on National Geographic TV failed to go to the bother of stooping, presumably having been told not to do so, and walked upright just like ordinary human beings! The TV channel thus interpreted the existing Australopithecus bones in the light of its own imagination and turned them into upright-walking ape-men. The aim behind producing an ape-men from ape bones is simply to mislead society and indoctrinate people in Darwinist fantasies. Earnst A. Hooten from Harvard University describes the position thus:
To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous undertaking. The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal tip leave no clues on the underlying bony parts. You can with equal facility model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher. These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public … So put not your trust in reconstructions. (5)
Tales Within Tales
National Geographic TV has resort to the views of evolutionist scientists. Ian Tattersall, head of the Anthropology Department at the American Natural History Museum in New York, portrays peoples" bad backs and knee dislocations as the work of the transition from walking on four legs to walking on two. "We actually possess a four-footed system," he says. Tattersall then continues with this story by saying that with the skeletal structure, the thinking structure also started to develop. This claim is based solely on prejudice, because it is impossible to offer the slightest shred of evidence how animal without the power of thought came to turn into a conscious human being. The imaginary development of the skeleton is offered as evidence here. The claim that skeletal structure influenced the capacity to think is nothing more than a deception.
A similar deception came from the mouth of another scientist:
Some of our basic features have allowed us to be very different to all other species. Our distant ancestors Australopithecus and other advanced apes also possessed these features. We were the first species to look at the world on two legs. For the first time we saw objects in three dimensions and considered how to use them. Seeing the world from a perspective from which no animal had ever seen it before, we sought to rule it.
What connection could there be between one"s angle of looking at the world and a wish to rule it? How can a human being"s angle of vision make him superior to an eagle or a giraffe? If a chimpanzee which normally walks on four legs occasionally gets up and stands on two, is its capacity for thought improved at such moments?
Naturally the scientists who make such claims have no answers to these questions. In all probability they too are aware of the inconsistency of their claims. They gloss over the fact that they are unable to account for man"s being a conscious being with tales along the lines of "in time, our skeletal structure, and dependent on that our structure of thought changed; when we moved to two legs we tried to rule the world." These people, who have conditioned themselves into a blind devotion to Darwinism, are deceiving viewers, despite being well aware of the inconsistency of their claims.
National Geographic TV presents these lies as if they were scientific facts. The channel adopts an absolutely certain tone when giving information about the life and emergence of these so-called ape-men and employs the past tense. It speaks with total certainty of periods as old as 5 million years ago as if they had happened only yesterday and a huge body of information regarding them had come down to the present day. These mendacious reports are:
The tale of the evolution of the Australopithecus brain
On the screen can be seen a plaster brain modelled by examining the Australopithecus skull. One region in the brain is indicated and the following words are spoken:
This region slowly moved towards the rear and allowed room to appear at the front. The new regions in the parts which opened up led to new problems. The changes were reflected in the faces of the species. Behaviour began to become more complex. It was now easier to find sources of food and water wells. The new abilities assisted in adaptation.
To judge from what is being said here, one might imagine that there were two different Australopithecus brains and that it was known which region moved to which. The fact is that this account is full of deceptions. The brain does not fossilise because it consists of soft tissue. Speculation regarding a brain which has not come down to us rests solely upon the imagination.
The emergence of new regions of the brain and the claim that these divided into different areas of responsibility are products of the imagination. Looking at a skull and stating that the creature in question gained the ability to find sources of food and wells rests solely upon Darwinist preconception. National Geographic TV is engaging in Darwinist propaganda by portraying these wild dreams as if they had actually taken place.
The myth of genetic mutations
In describing the effects of climate change on imaginary species of ape-men, the documentary says that some species became extinct and spoke of other species which survived by undergoing mutations and were thus able to continue their evolution. After mentioning the harmful effects of climate change, the following expressions appear:
This was a very old danger: Evolve or die. For some reason a group of mutants emerged from amongst the monkeys. They had larger tongues and nails. They were able to eat walnuts and hard foodstuffs...
There is not one piece of scientific evidence that could be used to support this evolutionist tale, which rests not upon any fossil discovery or example of DNA, but simply and solely on Darwinist prejudice. (It is in any case accepted in the world of science that it is impossible for DNA to survive for millions of years without decomposing.) National Geographic first describes the difficult conditions relating to the climate, after which it immediately grasps onto an imaginary mutation. Yet this is to no avail, however, since genetics shows that it is impossible for mutations to add genetic information to DNA and turn it into the DNA of another species. For this reason, and in short, mutations have no capacity to make "man out apes." Mutation experiments show that when mutations do actually have an effect they always lead to the organism losing genetic information. No mutation has ever led to an organism coming to have an advantage over other members of the species.
The evolution of language myth
The documentary also suggested that Homo erectus might have used a proto-language, in other words a primitive tongue. Examples were shown of children communicating by means of simple words, and it was claimed that Homo erectus might have employed primitive sounds to establish communication when hunting. It thus seeks to give the viewer the impression that language evolved gradually over time. There is no doubt that this, like National Geographic"s other claims, is a tale built solely on Darwinist preconceptions with no evidence at all to support it. There is not the slightest evidence of how Homo erectus spoke.
However, the present structure of language does show that contrary to what National Geographic TV claims there is no "evolution of language." Language is a complex function requiring morphology, semantics and grammar, together with a special throat structure in which some 100 muscles are used in a synchronised manner. Even evolutionists admit that in the absence of any consistent theory of how language might have emerged by evolution it cannot have come about by stages. Derek Bickerton sums the situation up in the words and says that the investigated facts show language did not develop in stages and there could be no transitional forms. (6)
Modern science shows that the evolution of man is nothing but a fairy tale. The way that National Geographic TV ignores the scientific facts and misleads its viewers and repeatedly broadcasts an unrealistic claim which has been invalidated by science puts it in the position of defending a scientific lie. Our advice to the channel is to realise that ape-man costumes and fairy tales can never prevail against the truth and that it give up this propaganda so utterly devoid of any scientific or logical foundation.
(1) Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower, New York: Toplinger Publications, 1970, pp. 75-94
(2) Charles E. Oxnard, "The Place of Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt", Nature, vol. 258, p. 389.
(3) Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood, Frans Zonneveld, "Implication of Early Hominid Labryntine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion", Nature, vol. 369, June 23, 1994, pp. 645-648.
(4) Richmond BG & Strait DS. (2000), Nature 404:382-385.
(5) Earnest A. Hooton, Up From The Ape, McMillan, New York, 1931, p. 332.
(6) Derek Bickerton, Language and Species, The University of Chicago Press,1992, p.190