- Would similarities between two creatures compel us to conclude they were related in the evolutionary chain?
- How truly similar are apes and humans?
As to the first question I would like to point out a few examples to show anatomical parallels do not necessitate evolutionary relatedness.
- Opossums and primates have an opposable thumb.
- Australian koalas have fingerprints almost indistinguishable from humans.
- Bats, whales, and shrews have similar sonar-like echolocation
- Among vertebrates, only mammals and certain salamanders and fish have non-nucleated red blood cells
- Marsupial and Placental mammals have many similarities but evolutionists believe the two separated 160 million years ago
Now moving onto the similarities and differences between apes and humans. It shows one’s biases and closed-mindedness when they only present the evidence in their favor but hide the evidence that could be counted against them. Who was so naïve to believe scientists were totally objective and unbiased?!?! Certainly, anyone could admit there are similarities between apes and humans but what does that actually mean? We’ve already shown above it doesn’t necessarily compel us to conclude they are related. For example, I could show you the similarities between my baby nephew’s play cell phone and my I-phone. But anyone with common sense would still conclude my I-phone did not evolve from his plastic toy because of how different they really are past their surface appearance. Therefore, now I would like to display the vast differences between apes and humans.
The average adult human brain is 1400 cm3 but can vary between 700 cm3 and 2000cm3. The size isn’t corollary to intelligence, rather to size of the human’s body. The brain of an ape varies between 300-500 cm3. Another significant difference in regard to the brain is the level of complexity. Just like my I-phone is far more complex than my nephews toy, while both are “phones”, so the human brain is far more complex in cognitive ability than an ape’s brain. I've never seen an ape blogging on the internet!!! Take that you primates.
The face of a human is almost vertical while the ape’s slopes forward. By examining the check bone a scientist with education in this area can tell the difference between the two. But a normal, non-scientific, person with common sense can look at a picture (I supplied one for you) and see a vast difference.
The human eye socket is wider than it is tall while the ape’s is taller than it is wider. Here is another picture.
Human nasal bones are distinct because they protrude from the face. If you want to feel your nasal bone simply put your finger across the top of your lip and press up on your nose. (I can’t believe you really just did that but it does work) Apes, on the other hand, have flat nasal bones. While looking at an ape that is alive, the nose they do have is made entirely of soft tissue and cannot be fractured like our noses can. See pictures above for examples.
Humans are the only living primates that habitually walk on two legs. This is why we always hear reports on the news of some evolutionist finding some leg bone supposedly showing some ancient ape-like creature walked on two legs. They are desperate to find a connection. But if you wait long enough we always find they recant their original findings after peer reviews show the original conclusions were a bit hasty and misleading. This blog post is not attempting to give great detail, so I will not spend the time attempting to break down the different features between pelvis and leg structures of apes vs. humans. Suffice it to say only the pygmy chimp is capable of walking on extended two legs for a short amount of time (25% of the time). The walking structure of non-human primates is entirely different from that of humans because of the structure of our legs.
The human hip (iliac blade) is curved forward while that of the ape is projected straight out to the side like handlebars of a scooter. The shape of the iliac blade of the hip will clearly tell you if a creature is able to walk on two legs or not. For example, there is a muscle called the gluteus medius. In humans, it runs down the side of the hip and connects to the femur but in the ape, it travels down the back to the femur. There is a lot more functional differences the gluteus medius shows between apes and humans. But to keep this brief, due to the shape of the pelvis and the gluteus medius muscles, humans can walk while basically keeping their hips parallel to the ground. Apes must swing their upper body from side to side in the familiar “ape walk” motion, in order to keep their weight over the planted foot so they do not lose balance.
******Ape Pelvis (Left)******Human Pelvis (Middle) ******View of Chimp Pelvis from above (Right)******
The human foot is uniquely designed for walking, while ape feet can be used for grasping items as well as walking. For example, human feet have complex arches, three distinct ones. They are specifically engineered to propel forward motion in two-legged walking creatures. All living apes are flat-footed and lack some of the complex arches of human feet.
These are just a few of the many anatomical differences between humans and apes. I have not detailed the forehead, the jaw and teeth, other aspects of the legs, the knees, hand bones, or shoulder blades to name a few more. I encourage you to look these up and study the differences on your own. My common-sense conclusions are this:
- Similarities do not necessitate evolutionary relatedness. I base this on many examples of creatures who have similarities but are not related in the evolutionary theory (A few examples can be seen above).
- The differences between humans and apes vastly outweigh the similarities. Just like the differences, especially in complexity, between my I-phone and my baby nephew’s play phone far outweigh the similarities.
Therefore, common sense should tell us, based on the evidence we have available to us, humans and apes are not related. This is probably why paleontologists haven’t found any transitional forms. Maybe it is time they stop trying to force the evidence into their preconceived conclusions and follow the evidence where it leads.