Why Are Men And Apes Physically
Similar?
ANTHROPOLOGY is the field of study concerned with man's origin. Anthropologists, the people engaged in such study, tell us that when we look in a mirror and see ourselves, what we see is an ape after several million years of evolution.1 Does that bother you? It does some and yet others are less concerned. The basic idea is that through the course of time, evolution gradually changed wild beasts into human beings. It's like replacing successive slices of salami with baloney. Gradually over the course of time the apes (salami) change into men (baloney). The question I'd like to explore from a scientific point of view is this: Did such a transition occur? We need to realize that many intelligent people believe abundant evidence exists proving that man came from the ape.2 We need to look at this evidence from a scientific perspective and with an open mind.
History is replete with ideas that once were believed true but today are known to be false.3 In the case being considered, the evidence is so poor that two published papers suggest that apes actually evolved from man.4 The basis of this argument is that all known fossils are ancestral to, or precede, chimpanzees, gorillas, and man. If these three species split apart from one another in the distant past, the fossils cannot tell us when it occurred. Instead, we need to study genetic material for the answer.
Genetic dating and serological (serum) techniques indicate that it could not have happened prior to 5 million years ago,5 a time when the fossil record teaches that the ancestor "common" to the three species resembles man more than ape. Others have published a number of reasons why they believe that if man evolved, it's more logical that he came from the sea.6
Page 103
One of their arguments is that man's salt intake is independent of his body's salt requirement; another argument is that human babies are "plump." They also note that the human nose has muscles and that on occasion "webbing" appears between fingers or toes. These ideas are not cited here because they make sense, but rather to illustrate that the idea that man evolved from apes is not as clear cut as some would suppose.7 It's important to realize that the people who propose other ideas on man's origin are quite intelligent and well aware of many of the facts that are available on this question, perhaps even more aware than those who believe man came from apes. Yet these people reject the theory of human evolution. Why? How can intelligent scientists reject what everyone "knows" is true? The answer is that the case for man's evolution is not based on hard facts, but on a surprising number of assumptions.
Common Parts
It's obvious that at a distance men and apes look alike. So do typewriters and computers. Does this mean that computers evolved from typewriters? We might say yes if we include their common designer, but typewriters don't evolve, they wear out. A typewriter can't produce a computer any more than a light bulb can make a star. On the contrary, machines rust and light bulbs burn out. Where then does the notion come from that man evolved from apes? We know that they share common features. Both have eyes, ears, arms, and legs, but so do countless other life forms. They both have a nose, mouth, and stomach, but does this mean that any one of them was produced from the other? If every part of our makeup is simply an advanced version of an ape's, and if the ape itself comes from some other animal, either living or dead, then how different can we be from all the other life forms in the world? The question is really, is there anything truly distinctive about mankind as compared to the many hundreds of thousands of species that exist on the planet earth?
A common belief as to why man differs from the other primates on earth is that he has great reasoning powers that enable him to enjoy life at a higher level of existence. Basically this idea holds that man is simply another animal at a much more advanced stage, which evolved from apes after the apes evolved from something lower. If this is true, we are animals that differ from other animals in degree but not in kind. There is no absolute disunion between us and the animal world. They are what we once were, and we are what they will become.
Page 104
How true then is the claim that we came from apes?10 Where does honest inquiry lead us in this matter?
Taken at face value, it would almost seem evident that man is simply another form of animal life. For example, man has two eyes just like a horse, a dog, and even a rat. Likewise, man has a heart that pumps blood just like so many of the animals that we see around us. A cat has a nose and a man has a nose, each with two nostrils. Rabbits and people both have two ears and animals have mouths with tongues and teeth similar to man's. Moreover, both have lungs which breathe oxygen and both would die if all of the oxygen were to disappear from our planet. We have reproductive organs and so do they. Man has two front limbs and so do animals; muscles and a skeleton and so do animals. They eat food and digest it with their digestive organs, as does man. The similarities are endless, and when expressed in this way make it seem that man must be just another animal, at a higher level of existence. Clearly, this would seem to be the case when viewed in the way that we have expressed it. But, it is precisely here that we must stop and take a closer look at what we have stated.
For example, one question that might be asked is, do we have any indication that man is intrinsically different than the animals? Is there anything that we can point to that shows a fundamental separation between man and the animal kingdom? One thing we might observe is that whereas man lands on the moon, monkeys land in trees. Whereas chimps use their arms to travel from tree to tree, man uses his jets to travel from continent to continent. And whereas apes beat their chests to send noise through the jungle, man orbits satellites to send radio signals through space. There are many more examples that one could note, but the main thing this all suggests is that man is not just another animal on a higher plane, but rather a separate level far above the animals.
There is a grand and regal distinction about human life which transcends the instincts by which animals are bound. There is within man a self-evincing majesty, reaching out for purpose and meaning in the hope of immortality. Whereas animals seem consumed with the natural impulse for their next meal, we find that, as the Bible and five thousand years of human records confirm, within the heart of man lies eternity.11 This is why there are so many religions all over the world today.12
If this be so, then what of the anatomical similarities between man and animals? What of the two eyes, the two ears, the tongues and teeth? What of the common physical structures found in the lungs and the reproductive organs, the muscles and skeletons? Isn't this sufficient proof that man is simply another animal, but at a higher level of existence? The answer, of course, is yes, if the sum total of man's existence is the same as that of an animal. If a man is nothing but his body, then the anatomical and physiological
Page 105
similarities such as the lever arm in a frog, a bat, and a man might be considered evidence that man is nothing more than an animal at an elevated plane. This kind of argument, however, is analogous to saying that an airplane is merely an automobile at a higher level, because they both have wheels and engines; or that a television set is simply a radio at a higher level, because they both use the same transistors and speakers and operate by electricity. The point is that both human and animal life do share a common existence regarding physical things, such as running and seeing and hearing and breathing. But that's where the similarity ends.
A lever arm performs the same function in a frog, a bat, and a man. So do the heart, lungs, and muscles. Each of these organs are structures that express themselves under the constraint of physical laws. What's important is to realize that whenever one needs to do something in the physical world, there is always a best way to achieve the desired result. There is always an optimum design that best delivers the outcome needed. Pumping blood, breathing, or moving are functions, and these organs are designed to function in the best way possible.
Scientists and engineers have a special phrase to describe this optimum or best way of doing things. All physical systems exhibit an "optimum gain band width product." This is true in mechanical systems, optical systems, electronic systems, and in the body itself. For example, were we to go around the world and inspect the way engineers design radio receivers, we would find that virtually all of them "mix" the incoming signal with another signal that's generated within the radio. This produces a "difference signal" which, when amplified, gives the highest signal for the least noise. There are other ways to design radio receivers, but this is the best way if the desired result is maximum signal with minimum noise.
Likewise, think of the automobile made in Europe, Japan, Australia, and America. All have four wheels. But must they? Obviously not. We could make a car with three, or five. If that's true, why do most have four wheels? Because that is the best way to produce the desired function we want. Also, look around the world and you will find, for the most part, that airplanes have one wing. They don't have two or three. Many years ago they had two, but we soon learned that it wasn't the best way to build aircraft for the function we wanted.
Another example of optimum design is found in television. Virtually every TV receiver throughout the world produces a picture through a device known as a cathode ray tube, or CRT. Is this the only way we can make a television picture? No. There are several ways of doing it. But the CRT is the best way, so in virtually every country where television sets are made, they are built this way. Recently, the need for a very tiny television picture has developed. The device to be used to make that very small picture will probably not be a CRT; another mechanism appears to be better suited. The point is that there's a best way to design physical things. The reason apes
Page 106
and men have parts designed the same way is because each of the designs is the best way to do the jobs they perform.
Interim Summary
In summary, the first thing we noted is that throughout the world today there is an idea that man is nothing more than an animal living at a higher level of existence than the animals around him. This idea holds that man evolved from an ape and that when you examine an ape's body and a human body, the similarities are so strong that you are tempted to believe man is just a more advanced "animal" on the evolutionary ladder. We pursued this theory by surmising that, by the same token, an airplane is nothing more than an automobile at a higher level because they both have wheels and engines. We could have added that they are both made from metal, use glass windows and hinged doors, and have people at the controls.
However, although an airplane and an automobile share these similarities, it's clear that their differences are what's important. Although an automobile must travel on the ground, an airplane is free to do otherwise. A plane can travel on the ground like an automobile, but the automobile cannot travel in the air like a plane. It's the same with the television set and the radio. Both have speakers and transistors and operate by electricity, but although the television set can make sound like the radio, the radio cannot produce a picture like a television set. In all these examples, there are both similarities and differences. Again, the important thing is the differences, not the similarities. The similarities exist at the same functional level, whereas the differences introduce a completely new dimension.
Let's apply these identical considerations to animals and human beings. Animals eat food and people eat food; animals walk on the ground and people walk on the ground. People can do most everything that animals can do, but people are not in bondage to such behavior. Let's look at the belief held by so many people that man is nothing more than a social animal, with behavior that manifests itself at a higher level of existence. We see that, although man's body has many parts that function or operate in ways similar to those of an animal, that does not mean that man himself is an animal any more than a television set is a radio or an airplane is an automobile.
Optimum Design
It is true that man has limbs for motion, eyes for seeing, and ears for hearing, as do animals, but this is because the function which each of these performs in the physical world is the same.
Since there is always an optimum way to design things to obtain a desired result, we find that the physical structure that performs a given function in animals is similar to the structure that performs the same function in humans. If you take any of the earlier examples, such as digestion, you find that the
Page 107
structure that performs these functions in an animal can be virtually the same in a human being.
Take the stomach, for example. We can find this thing called a stomach in monkeys, in dogs, and in man. If you are going to operate an oxygen-burning, organic machine through chemical energy stored in such things as proteins and sugar, the best way to do it is to get it into a storage sack of some kind, where digestion can take place, where food can be converted into a form suitable for the body to process, regardless of whether the body belongs to an animal or a man. Therefore, all of these physical structures we see in common in animals and man can be understood as optimally designed structures by which their function is best achieved. In a sense, it is like looking at different paintings of the same artist. These paintings are functional masterpieces that perform wondrous tasks, and in ways we cannot improve upon.
For example, consider the various organs of the body. Few understand the intricacies of these organs; those familiar with them have only first-level understanding. We cannot duplicate them, and our comprehension of what they do is at best quite limited.
Thus, it is quite easy for someone unfamiliar with these things to believe that they just evolved. After all, why not? Such a belief isn't based on detailed, sober inquiry into the mechanistic details that produced the organizational marvel before us. Rather, it is based on one's ignorance of the degree of the miracle necessary to produce the structure in question. An engineer, for example, would never say that an internal combustion engine materialized of its own accord. Yet the heart — a wonder whose mechanical cycle dwarfs the thermodynamic internal combustion counterpart, which on average reliably pumps about two thousand gallons of blood daily over a period of seventy-two years — is glibly said to have "just happened."
What has been done to improve the structures procreated every time a newborn baby comes into the world? Has man made a camera better than the human eye for the function it performs? The eye can look at something very close and then almost immediately focus on a far object. In both cases, the object seen remains in focus. Why? Because the eye is a self-focusing camera. Furthermore, it has virtually no spherical aberration or astigmatism, and it has a color spectral bandwidth second to none.
Consider the ear. Many years ago a scientific paper described an experiment in which scientists carefully recorded both the size and location of all the tiny bones in the human inner ear. They then put this distribution of bone structures into a computer and scanned one side of the filter they had modeled with all the acoustic frequencies normal to human hearing. They reported that the human ear is the worlds' most perfect mechanical frequency discriminator, of all those they investigated, doing its function with virtually no attenuation or phase distortion. The ear is an optimally designed structure that performs a function unique to human communication better than any
Page 108
other structure known. Our ability to discriminate frequencies enables speech between humans, yet this miraculous structure was given to us free of charge at the time we were born.
Each of the animals also has ears suited to its needs. Does this mean that a human being is an animal at a higher level of existence? Of course not. Did a radio evolve of its own accord into a television set? Did an automobile change by itself into an airplane? Yet, this is precisely where our conclusions would lead us, were we to use the logic of anthropologists in a fossilized electronic junkyard. Common structures represent optimum designs. The structures that perform these functions are essentially the same in an animal and a human because man and animals share common functions in the physical world. We know, however, because human experience bears witness to the fact, that man exists as an entirely different dimension of being than does an animal. Common parts between man and apes do not identify one with the other; rather they show that the two are correlated.
Animal Usage
Consider the functions animals perform. They walk, see, hear, smell, eat and so on. Each of these functions is merely part of a list of things necessary for animals to survive. What then is the purpose behind an animal's survival? What functions do animals perform beyond merely breathing air in order to live? We immediately recognize at least three things they do. The amazing thing is that in each of the three cases, what they do is related to, and necessary for, the survival of human life.
First, animals are food for other animals, which in turn are food for humans. Thus, one thing animals do is provide food for human life. Second, they provide clothing for humans, not only from their hides but also, in some cases, from their fur. Third, animals provide humans with a source of convenient and inexpensive labor. When we examine the five-thousand-year record of advance of human civilization, we quickly recognize that beasts of burden have played an important role in tilling the soil and in moving and positioning heavy objects so man could produce food and create shelter to live in safety from wild animals and the elements.
But what conceivable purpose is there for human life in the world? One thing seems clear. We know that the function we perform is not that of providing skins for clothing to a higher form of life. We also know that humans are not Sunday dinner for a Superior Intelligence. Nor do we see higher life forms tying man to a wagon or plow to exploit muscle power. If there exists a purpose for human existence, it is not to provide food or labor for a higher Intelligence. These three principle functions are performed by animals, not man.
Is there a purpose for man's existence? Or are we the result of a cosmic accident? Did an Intelligence design the vastly complex yet intricately harmonious genetic structure that perpetuates our existence from generation to
Page 109
generation? Or did such machinery just happen by chance? Are we a statistical bad joke, or the loving expressing of Deity? There's quite a difference.
Consider this. If man's existence was not brought into being by Someone or Something, then how is it that the animals function so perfectly to meet man's needs? Why does plant life function as a food source for the animals? Viewed in its entirety, planet earth, with its seas and its atmosphere, harmoniously functions to sustain about 11 million species of life. Was it intended to function this way? Are we missing something when it comes to the purpose of human life? Is there something with respect to the presence of man on earth that transcends anything that we have thus far considered? Can it be that human life has within its fabric a distinctive imprint that goes beyond the physical existence by which animals are bound? If we are to answer these questions, it is necessary to take a step back to see things from a different perspective.
Chapter Fifteen || Table of Contents
1. Rensberger B. Science 84 (1984) :29 Apr.
2. Cronin J. et.al. Nature (1981) 292:113 Jul 9.
3. Gardner M. Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science (1957) Dover.
4. Cherfas J. New Sci. (1981) 91:518. Gribbin J. New Sci. (1981 91:592.
5. Lewin R. Science (1984) 226:1179 Dec 7.
6. Morgan E. The Aquatic Ape (1982) Sourcebook Project, Glenarm, Md.
7. The term apes is commonly used to denote pongids and their presumed Miocene ancestors. For ease of writing we will refer to human evolution as man coming from apes — meaning Miocene apes, the surmised progenitors of both pongids and hominids.8 Recent work has dethroned Ramapithicus in favor of chimpanzees and gorillas; other conjecture puts man on yet another line.9
8. Sibley C. & Alquist J. Jour. Mol. Evol. (1984) 20:2.
9. Templeton A. Evolution (1983) 37:221.
10. Ciochon R. & Corruccini R. eds. New Interpretations of Ape and Human History (1983) Plenum Press, NY.
11. Ecclesiastes 3:11
12. Parrinder G. World Religions from Ancient History to the Present (1983) Facts on File Publ., NY.
