T H E   O R I G I N   O F   M A N

Dr. R. Gange

All over the world we find museums and textbooks that contain
models and pictures portraying a gradual line of development from
small animals up through monkeys and then to man. These very
colorful displays and pictorials are intended to show the viewer
that this is how humans originated. What young students and
uninformed adults do not realize, however, is that most of the
models and pictures that we see are the fabrication of human
minds bent on a materialistic philosophy* that presupposes the
absence of divine intelligence.

At first glance the sequence of change from small animals and
up through and including man appears reasonable because the
reconstructions are gradual, and the changes between adjacent
life forms are depicted as small. Moreover, if one believes that
nothing exists except physical matter and its motion, few
alternatives remain except to suppose that humans developed in
the way that we find portrayed in most text books and museums.
Thus given materialistic philosophy, the belief in man's gradual
ascent from monkeys or apes is embraced because there are no
other easy answers to how it could have happened based upon the
observed similarities in their anatomy. The conjecture seems even
more reasonable when we consider that various parts of the
sequences in the genetic code of ape and man also appear similar
to one another.

* Materialistic philosophy asserts all that exists is matter and
its motion.
 

The problem of course is that the reconstructions are just
that - reconstructions. They are produced by people who imagine
that it must have happened that way. What's true, however, is
that the fossil record is very incomplete, and the claim that man
came from ape actually consists of a pitifully small collection
of significant fossils relevant to the question under discussion.
This means that many of the models and pictures are based on bits
and pieces of skulls with a bone or two thrown in - perhaps with
some teeth. In fact, one anthropologist has been reported as
saying that to reconstruct man's origins from ape is the same as
to reconstruct the narration of "War and Peace" by randomly
selecting 13 pages from which to fabricate the story. On those
rare occassions when fairly complete fossil specimens are found,
they do not show that man came from ape. Rather they teach that
apes once walked the Earth.
 

Why Does Man Exist?

The belief that a human being is the "end" product of
evolutionary changes in apes is common. The confusion occurs
because of the many physical functions that are common to both
man and animals, and also because these functions are performed
by structures that are themselves common to animal and human
bodies. The reason these structures are common to both is that
they are optimally designed to perform the needed physical
functions in the best possible way - and no amount of human
ingenuity has ever improved upon them. What are these `common'
physical functions that both animals and humans perform? They
both walk, see, hear, smell, eat, and so forth. But when we
reflect on such functions, we realize that each of these is
merely part of a list of things which are necessary for both
animals and humans to survive. Thus, we might ask: What is the
purpose behind an animal's surviving? What function do animals
perform beyond that of breathing air in order to live?
 

We immediately recognize at least three things that animals
do. But the amazing thing is that in each of these three cases
which I am about to describe, the thing that 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
human beings. Thus one thing animals do is provide food for
human life. A second thing they do is provide clothing for human
beings; not only in the skins that they have but also - in some
cases like sheep - in the fur or growth on their skin. Finally,
animals provide human beings with a source of convenient and
inexpensive labor. When we examine the 5000 year advance of
human civilization, we quickly recognize and appreciate the role
these beasts of burden played in tilling the soil and in moving
and positioning so many heavy objects so that man could have food
from the ground to eat, and also shelter on the ground to live in
safety from wild animals and the elements.

But what conceivable purpose is there for human life within
the world? One thing seems clear: The function we perform is not
that of providing skin for clothing to a higher form of life - we
know that does not happen. We also know that humans are not the
Sunday dinner in an oven that cooks people as food for a Superior
Intelligence. That doesn't happen either. Nor do we see higher
life forms tying man to a wagon or a plow to exploit muscle power
as we do with domestic animals. Thus if there exists a purpose
for human existence - it's not to provide clothing, food and
physical labor to a higher intelligence. These 3 principle
functions are performed by animals - but not by man.

But is there a purpose for man's existence on planet Earth? Or
are we the result of a cosmic accident? Did an Intelligence
design the vastly complex yet intrically coherent genetic
structure that perpetuates our existence from generation to
generation? Or did such machinary just happen by chance? Are we
the bad joke of a statistical fluke? Or are we the loving
expression of Deity? There's quite a difference between these
two: The former implies: "Anything goes" - whereas the latter
demands accountability and Judgment.
 

The Mystery Of Harmony

There are many, today, who believe that life's only purpose is
for fun and games. This school of thought teaches that we should
eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we are going to die; and
that will be the end of it. They say that after death, there is
nothing; so enjoy yourself while you can. Look out for "Number
One" - because no one else will. Do your thing and do it while
you can; because once you die, that's it! They believe that once
dead and buried, you are gone forever.

Many go along with this idea, but go even further: They say:
"Life has no purpose at all - it's only a freak occurence in
which we just happen to have been caught and exist". They go on
to say: "All there is, is nothing, and everything is just an
illusion". What they're really saying is although we think
there's something; in fact, there is nothing. But an interesting
thing happens here. Such people, despite the beliefs they
profess, nontheless continue to eat and drink as though there
were something. In other words, they continue to satisfy their
appetites.

People who deny that life has a purpose are not merry because
there is nothing to be merry about; and unless effort is expended
to the contrary, their life styles eventually exemplify the
living dead - particularly as they approach the `Autumn' of their
life. We have eyes, yet can be blind to the green pastures and
the majestic sunsets. Robin redbreasts and starlit skies can be
taken for granted, and the newness of spring and the colors of
autumn lumped together with the flowers of summer and snow of
winter covered trees as all one happy accident of the cosmos.
These are things that many believe "just happened". But - are
they?

Consider this: If man's existence was not purposed by Someone
or Something - how is it that the animals function so perfectly
to meet man's need for food, clothing and labor? And why does
plant life interleave so harmoneously as a food source for the
animals? Viewed in its entirety, Planet earth - with its seas and
its atmosphere - organizationally functions to sustain about 11
million total species of life (1.5 million above the ground of
which one third are plants). The question is: Was it intended to
function this way?

A number of people will answer this question: "No." Yet in
doing so, they overlook something that strongly impacts the
related question: "Does human life have purpose on Earth?" We can
ask this another way: "Is there something with respect to the
presence of man on planet earth that transcends anything that we
have thus far considered?" i.e., "Can it be that human life has
within its fabric a distinctive imprint that goes beyond the
physical existence to which animals are in bondage?" If we are
to answer that kind of a question, it's necessary to take a step
back and see things from a broader perspective. We need to
appraise our physical world from a reference point that allows
its entire structure to come into our view.
 

Why Does It Terminate With Man?

When we do this, we find the general rule that every level of
organization in the universe depends for its existence on all of
the organizationally simpler structures below it. But the
structures of lesser organization below the level we may have
chosen to examine do not depend for their existence upon the
level at which we stopped. In other words, each higher structure
exists by virtue of the organizational properties of everything
beneath it, but not visa versa.

For example, organic molecules can exist without living cells,
but the higher living cells cannot exist without organic
molecules. Or consider something as familiar as simple plant
life in the sea. It doesn't need fish to exist; but the fish
need it for food. Or, go down one level, and consider the sea
water itself. Sea water doesn't need plant life to exist; but
the aquatic plant life, such as algae, needs the sea water.

Throughout the entire physical world we find a one-way
organizational street. The fancy word is anisotropy, and it
permeates the entire physical creation. It continues through the
plant life found on the land and on into the insects that exist
underground. And the organizational complexity continues to grow
from the insects and into the simple animals, and from them
through the more more complex life forms until it abruptly
terminates. Where does it stop? The answer is with man himself.
It ends with human life.

Man is at the top of the ladder. Human life depends for its
existence upon the organizational properties of everything below
it. But no known thing depends for its existence upon man.
Nothing needs him - yet he seems to need them all. Years ago I
use to challenge people with the following claim: "Show me any
scientific law governing the physical universe - and then assume
that it doesn't exist; the inevitable result will be consequences
that ultimately extinguish human life.

In the organizational hierarchy of things, everything below
man has an existence apart from human life. This one-way
organizational street, which began at the foundations of the
fabric of physical reality, extends all the way up to man
himself. Man depends upon everything else for his existence, but
there seems to be nothing else that depends upon man for its
existence. But why should the physical universe favor man in this
way? And why should physical reality terminate an organizational
structure that otherwise presents a continuum of organizational
ascendancy? Is there really nothing above man? If we stay just
with the physical, the answer is: "Yes". But if we include the
Bible into our equation, then the answer changes to: "No". The
Bible teaches that it doesn't end with man - but with God - and
that God is at the top. Like Genesis 1:1 that taught there was a
beginning, will this also prove right? All we've been discussing
is physical structure, but what role does "intellect" play?
 

Does Everything Exist For Us?

Many complex interactions exist within the "one way"
organizational ascendancies described above. Let's see what they
add to our `canvas' of physical reality. For instance, the oxygen
that animals need to live "just happens" to be given off by plant
life; and the carbon dioxide that plant life requires for its
life "just happens" to be given off by the animals. But isn't it
remarkable that the primates also have an affinity for a
particular substance (sugar) that "just happens" to be found in
the fruit that they eat, and which also "just happens" to
surround a pit (seed) that the animal's digestive tract "just
happens" to be designed not to digest? Isn't it also remarkable
that the design of this tract "just happens" to surround the pit
with nutrients conducive to good plant growth which it "just
happens" to pass along with the pit onto soil where the seed
(pit) can germinate? And furthermore, isn't it remarkable that
the plant "just happened" to grow into a structure that completes
the cycle by itself producing fruit that the animal can eat? And
isn't it even more remarkable that the root of the plant "just
happens" to stabilize the animal's habitat by binding the soil in
a way that retards its erosion? The question is: "How did such
intricate and yet intimate relationships coevolve between 2
entirely separate kingdoms of life?

The "just happens" or chance relationships that we noted above
exist throughout the vast numbers of complex structures found
everywhere our universe. They begin with nuclear particles,
extend through atoms and molecules, reach into living cells and
plants, permeate all facets of the animal kingdom - and then
abruptly stop in their embrace of man. At any level that we may
care to choose, regardless of where that level may be, we find
that everything below that level functions so as to enable the
chosen level of structure to exist. At the top of the
organizational ladder is man. He is king of the mountain.
Although it seems as if nothing needs man to exist, it appears
that man depends for his existence on virtually everything
organizationally below him. As noted above, so total and
complete is this dependence that if we were to open a physics or
chemistry book and hypothetically deny the existence of any
natural law, we would find that the ultimate denial of this
natural law leads to the destruction of man, himself.

All of physical reality seems constructed so that man can
exist. The question is why? Is there a purpose behind this vast
universal machinery? How is it that we find ourselves in a life
support system so delicately balanced that its intricate designs
perpetuate human consciousness through time? From whence did the
organizational code originate that enables us to breathe, eat,
reproduce, think and, yes, make moral decisions? And for what
reason are we in a world under circumstances of need and desire
and free will? You were conceived in a life and death race that
ended when the fastest of 500 million sperm cells from your
father's body reached an egg in your mother's womb. Is death the
final outcome? Or was your birth the first of 2 in a Master Plan
to bring you to eternal life?
 

Where Did The Body Originate?

One thing is clear: Each level of complexity is organized in a
way that calls into being the next higher level. This means that
every organizational level within the world can be interpreted as
having purpose in terms of the structural level just above it.
Stated differently:

There is no level of structure within the world
that cannot be perceived as having purpose by
virtue of its organizational coherence (harmony)
to the structural level above it.

But what's truly remarkable is that this organizational
ascendancy of patterns abruptly stops with human life. This is a
point that bears repeating: No level of structure exists anywhere
within the physical universe which cannot be perceived and
interpreted as having purpose in terms of the structural level
which lies just above it. None, that is, except human life. Man
alone is distinguished by an abrupt discontinuity - a chasm he
presents to the organizational hierarchy below him. Of all the
physical structures in the universe, the human body self-evinces
its own uniqueness as being the most sophisticated known object
within the entire physical creation. But why?

Man, alone, seems to carry within the fabric of his genetic
makeup informational specifications greater than anything else
known throughout physical reality; not in terms of the number of
chromosomes; nor in terms of the length of genes or the amount of
genetic material within DNA strands - but rather in terms of the
organizational complexity specifiable in the overall description
of his genetic information. In the hierarchy of organizational
ascendancy, the human body derives from the most complex
organizational specification uncovered within the universe. The
question is: Where did this blueprint originate?

Blind faith in unknown historical sequences of chemical motion
won't do. Recognizing this, some have said that we were planted
here by a super civilization whose home is somewhere among the
stars. Aside from there not being one shred of real evidence to
support such an assertion, the question might be asked: "From
where did they come?" Others prefer the: "I don't know" route.
That certainly seems more honest than pontificating that physical
laws orchestrated a magic dance of lifeless particles into what
is you and me. In this regard, all of us are free to worship
whatever we wish - including little warm ponds - but we ought not
confuse our faith in such things with knowledge that has been
experiemtally demonstated in various scientific disciplines. The
fact is:

The human body corresponds to a blueprint that
we have neither the capacity to comprehend nor
the power to duplicate; and whose origin has
yet to be rationally articulated.
 

Did Humans Descend From Apes?

If we ask: "What do the facts teach regarding human fossils?",
the answer is that they show man existing as man for about 40,000
years or so. The skulls and bones found in layers that are dated
much older than this are not human, but rather belong to
prehistoric creatures from whom man is presumed to have come. But
this presumption is authenticated neither by fossils nor by
protein studies (molecular phylogeny). It stems from assumptions
made by people whose hearts are bent on materialistic philosophy,
and for whom the known sequence of fossil change compels the
doctine of human ascent from apes. It's argued that human
evolution is a fact on the basis of both these changes, and the
biological structures that are common to a human and ape body.
The question is: "Are these arguments valid?"
 

Electronic Fossils

We can apply the same arguments to an electronic junk yard
that contains parts and fragments of radios and televisions. We
observe that radios and televisions both have transistors,
resitors, capacitors, inductors, a speaker, and that they run off
electricity. Furthermore some of the radios have a glass panel in
the front imprinted with numbers for tuning whereas television
sets have a big glass panel (the picture tube). Since both are
found in cabinets with knobs that are somewhat larger on the
television set, it could be said that natural processes and
environmental pressures operating over extended time periods
caused the radios to evolve into televisions sets.

Observing the smaller size of the glass panel on the radio, a
Darwinian student might attribute this size difference to
survival factors brought about by environmental interactions, and
argue that there must have been a gradual diminishing of
environmental light, so that the panel on the radio had to
enlarge into a television panel in order for the cabinet to
survive. As it did so, cross-coupling with the cabinet then
caused the knobs to enlarge.

This example is not as silly as it might appear. The reasons
given to defend the change of a radio into a television set are
not unlike those used to support the belief that man ascended
from apes. The fundamental basis for such belief is that each
displays parts that differ in their development, but yet are
common to both. However, a fallacy in the evolutionary argument
is the assumption that common subsystems e.g., speakers in radios
and television sets, logically evolved by natural processes from
one to the other i.e., that a more complex system evolved from a
simpler one by natural means. In the examples sited, this is
clearly not the case. Instead, intelligence rather than chaos was
the guiding light. Moreover as regards man's origin, the vastly
greater information content within the genetic code of humans
attests to a labor of intellect rather than primeval confusion.
 

Transportation Fossils

Let's extend the argument to a transportation junk yard
containing parts and fragments of automobiles and airplanes in
various stages of disarray. The logic goes something like this:
An automobile and an airplane both have tires, windows, doors, a
metal body and an engine that runs on liquid fuel. We also
observe that the shape of certain fenders give the appearance of
a transition into wings, and that the trunk hinges of the
automobiles allow big metal lids to swing open for later
evolution into the rudder of an airplane. In fact we see certain
cars with their trunks open, and note that their evolution into
the tail parts of an airplane has already begun.

Upon further research, we observe that the propeller in the
plane can be explained in terms of some of the automobiles
shedding their radiators in order to survive certain
environmental conditions, thereby leaving the fan exposed to wind
conditions that caused its evolution into a propeller. We also
notice that the rear tires on a number of automobiles are
missing, thereby evidencing an obvious transition into the 2
wheels commonly found in airplanes. Studying the matter further,
our discovery of opera windows in several of the automobiles
confirms our thesis. What more proof could one want for
evolutionary change into the increased numbers of windows that
are so prevalent along the length of an airplane?

These arguments may be nonsensical, but the logic employed to
support the thesis that airplanes are an advanced new species
that evolved from automobiles is parallel to that used to defend
the belief that man ascended from ape. One might argue that the
latter is a biological system where such change is possible, but
the arguement is a weak one: No biological mechanism has ever
been shown to systematically increase the complexity of a
physical system through natural processes, and the New
Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics rigorously teaches that
none can exist.

As regards inorganic things, we can draw upon any number of
natural forces to explain "change" in nonliving structures.
Statues, for example, could be said to be formed from very high
statistically distributed winds whose strength increases with
turbulence. Metal parts could likewise be said to have "evolved"
into different shapes under certain environmental interactions
that selectively accelerate corrosion by altering ambient
moisture levels due to residual electric charges concentrating in
regions of high metal curvature. Does this sound like twaddle?
The thing it teaches is that the human mind can intellectualize
nonsense into scientific story telling to rationalize anything
the heart is motivated to mechanistically explain. This is
precisely what occurs when natural selection is alleged to
"explain" the fossil record. The fact that new species of life
appear with the passage of time is not in question. But the mere
nonsense that natural selection "explains" their appearance is
trumpery of the worst kind. That issue isn't a change in hair
color or root length - but how a shrew became a whale -- how a
bush baby (Galago) became a man.
 

Are Human And Ape Genes Similar?

Some have wrongly believed that the evolution through natural
processes of one species from another has been proven by findings
in a field of science called "molecular phylogeny". The reason
why this is not so is given in the appendix, and readers with
technical backgrounds may find it of interest.

Ordinarily when we look at man and ape, the differences
between the two are enormous. We see man traveling through space
and apes jumping from trees. We find man sampling foods all
over the world as chimps grab the closest banana they can reach.
And whereas man builds thermonuclear power plants, monkeys run in
fear from fire. But why is there so vast a difference? What
truly divides man and ape? Is there an absolute distinctive that
sets human life apart from all other life? And if so, what is
it? (1)

The literature of Shakespeare, discoveries of Einstein and
music of Beethoven have no parallel in the animal world. Did
these things originate from a unique, unseen imperitive? Or did
they evolve from slime by chance as the theory of biological
evolution would have us believe? Some say it's a mystery whose
answer we may never know. Others say it is not a mystery but a
shadow of the deeper truth that the human body was actually
designed, and that man was created in the image of his Designer.
 

APPENDIX

Some have argued that the evolution through natural processes
of one species from another has been proven by data from a field
of science called "molecular phylogeny". Scientists who are
active in this field of study investigate the chemical history of
protein in the form of amino acid sequences (2). But their work
does not prove that natural processes create new species of life.
This false idea comes from a failure to distinguish between the
amino acid count along protein strands, and the information
content present in the actual sequence of the residues (3).
Differences in the average protein sequenced among different
species allow projections into the past of estimated times of
divergence among two or more species. But counting numbers of
residues hardly gives insight into the quality and magnitude of
the genetic blueprint that causes a cell to divide into an
ant or an elephant.

Counting amino acid residues does not disclose the information
content of DNA. When one considers that a typical human cell
contains almost 7 feet of DNA, and that its information continues
to be resolvable down to distances of well under 10 millionths of
an inch, one can readily understand why confusion exists
regarding superficial similarities between the protein of humans
and apes. For example, to assimilate all the information for
study requires a computer with a storage capcity in excess of 10
billion bits. Furthermore, if we attempt to examine the short and
long range interactions in and among the triplet centers
throughout each of the 20,000 DNA folds, we require a
computational capability that exceeds all of the computers that
exist on Earth now - or that we anticipate producing in the
foreseeable future. Thus the reason that the findings of
molecular phylogeny do not prove that one species evolved from
another through natural processes is because the techniques
deployed count protein residues; they do not measure information.

However the central point is that the theory of biological
evolution using natural processes fails to explain the systematic
production of information evidenced in the fossil record. As
originally envisioned by Darwin, natural selection could, in
principle, have done so. However natural selection is widely
recognized today as having no explanatory power whatsoever. The
reason is that it is a tautology in practice (4). Moreover, by
nature natural processes are informational eunuchs incapable of
systematically increasing the information (complexity) of
physical systems without violating the "New Generalized Second
Law of Thermodynamics" (5). However these considerations do not
necessarily falsify the evolutionary hypothesis that one species
of life issued from another. Despite the enormous magnitude of
information resident in the complexity of the biological
structures found in the fossil record, it is still possible that
one species evolved from another. If such is the case, then these
considerations teach that natural process could not have
systematically produced the vast magnitude of information that we
find in biological structures. In summary, if evolution is true,
natural processes are not the energizing agent.
 

REFERENCES

(1) Gange R. Origins & Destiny answers this question;
Word Books, 1986

(2) Yunis J. rp. Miller J. Science News (1982) 121 Mar 20

(3) Yockey H. J. theor. Biol. (1974) 46:369; 80:21

(4) Brady R. Biol. Jour. Linn. Soc (1982) 17(1):79
also Syst. Zool. (1979) 28:600

(5) Gange R. Ibid. discusses the New Generalized Second Law
(now called the First Law of Thermophysics)