The Tale Of The Evolution Of Endurance Running
Harun YahyaA study published in Nature magazine examined the anatomical marvels of the human body that make endurance running possible.1
The article, co-written by the Harvard University anthropologist Daniel Lieberman and the University of Utah biologist Dennis M. Bramble, noted that human beings" ability to run long distances was far superior to that which had previously been assumed. The researchers described how this ability was based on particular anatomical features and -gave information about the various functions undertaken by various organs, from the neck to the feet, from regulating and reducing the shock produced during running and the effect of heating to providing the necessary energy, long strides and speed required for running. The scientists, who accept evolution as dogma, then engaged in speculation as to how these structures in the human body might have allegedly evolved.
The point that needs to be emphasized here is that no primate possesses the ability of human beings to run long distances. In terms of their ability to run long distances, human beings exhibit clear differences from primates, their so-called evolutionary progenitors. Primates run very short distances, and these take the form of sudden attacks that quickly come to an end. Human beings are rather superior in this regard. A marathon runner can manage more than 40 km without stopping.
Nonetheless, this study contained totally groundless propaganda and the findings obtained were portrayed as supporting the theory of evolution. The British daily The Independent and the South African news portal Independent Online carried the myth, that the anatomical properties in question had come into being through evolution.2 According to this tall tale, during the so-called evolutionary process human beings must have developed the ability to run in order to flee from wild animals, travel long distances and find food, and the anatomy that made this possible evolved as a result of that need.
It should be realised that this propaganda is a false one, put forward in the light of a materialist world view to make people believe that they are the product of blind chance, and it possesses no scientific foundations whatsoever.
Our response to this claim consists of two sections. In the first, the false Nature of this propaganda will be revealed, and in the second we shall demonstrate the extent of evolutionists" blind belief on which the claims of the evolution of the human body rest.
I. Lieberman"s claim about evolution is a fairy tale
Lieberman, the proponent of the claim, points to no fossil record that might constitute a basis for it, and merely resorts to "conjecture." What the researcher does is just interpreting his findings in the light of his evolutionist preconceptions. This way of thinking may be summed up in these terms: "All living things emerged through evolution, so the anatomical features that allow human beings to run long distances must also have emerged through evolution." This is a way of thinking with no more scientific value than a fairy tale.
Relating this tale is like comparing a bicycle and a motor car and saying that the equipment in the latter necessary for long journeys also came into being through evolution.
The mutation impasse
These unique structures cannot be accounted for in terms of the mechanisms of random mutations and natural selection, on which Darwinism is based. (Mutations are changes that occur in nucleotide sequences in the genes.) It first needs to be made clear that mutations do not take place according to the needs of the organism. In other words, when a monkey needs to run in order to survive no mutations take place in the organs related to running. The well-known evolutionist Douglas Futuyma admits this:
"A species" need to adapt does not raise the possibility of a mutation in that species. Mutations are not aimed at the adaptation needs of that moment. There are certain reasons why mutations take place, but a species" need to adapt is not one of them." 3
More importantly, genetic observations over the past hundred years or so have revealed that when mutations do take place they give rise to outcomes that destroy genetic information and are harmful to the organism. Even prominent evolutionist scientists have admitted that Darwinism is a fantasy persisted in despite these scientific facts. Pierre-Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences, said this on the subject:
"The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur… There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it." 4
The evolutionist claim with regard to long distance running is indeed a fairy tale. In order for that claim to be true, randomly occurring mutations must take effect at the same time in a great many organs specifically concerned with running. Moreover, the mutation occurring in an organ must provide a benefit right at that very moment. There exists not the slightest scientific finding to indicate that mutations can change one organ into a more complex one. Even if we ignore that for one moment and assume that a mutation of a kind to improve an organ did take place, evolutionists still have no way out of their mutation dead-end. That is because that mutation on its own is not enough, but will need another mutation to improve it still further, and that mutation will require still another, and so on. The role of mutations makes such a scenario totally impossible. Yet the fairy tale that the ability to run long distances emerged through evolution goes even further and assumes that these impossibilities took place in a great many organs and simultaneously, an assumption the acceptance of which means dispensing with all reason and logic.
In short, the theory that the unique human anatomy evolved with simultaneous changes is not a claim based on scientific fact. The fact that this change cannot be explained in terms of imaginary evolutionary mechanisms represents, in the words of the mathematician and doctor of medicine Marcel-Paul Schützenberger, who was a professor at the University of Paris, the manifest "conceptual bankruptcy" of Darwinism:
"Gradualists and saltationists alike are completely incapable of giving a convincing explanation of the quasi-simultaneous emergence of a number of biological systems that distinguish human beings from the higher primates [through so-called evolution]: bipedalism, with the concomitant modification of the pelvis, and, without a doubt, the cerebellum, a much more dexterous hand, with fingerprints conferring an especially fine tactile sense; the modifications of the pharynx which permits phonation; the modification of the central nervous system, notably at the level of the temporal lobes, permitting the specific recognition of speech. From the point of view of embryogenesis, these anatomical systems are completely different from one another... Was it present in the first of the fish? The reality is that we are confronted with total conceptual bankruptcy." 5
II. Evolution: A Blind Belief
The human body, some of the marvels of which we touch on in this article, represents clear evidence of creation. At the root of the way that evolutionist scientists and media organs that support the Darwinist world view still persist in evolution lies their efforts to conceal the truth of creation. These efforts are evidently being kept up for the sake of a blindly held belief, and there is no need to be an expert scientist to see that. Any rational person who thinks a little about the detail of the body can see what a blind belief evolutionists are clinging to.
The human body is a marvel of design that reveals flawless planning in its every component. The following comparison is striking in terms of revealing the dimensions of the complexity of that design. Molecular biologist able to study the cell in all its details state that this structure is far more complex even than a major city. The human body is a system organised by trillions of cells in perfect harmony. When we remember this fact we will be better able to see how the complexity in question exceeds the bounds of human intellect.
Evolutionists, however, ignore the scientific facts that show that mutation and natural selection play no evolutionary role and claim that the human body is the product of coincidences that
- are unaware of themselves or their surroundings,
- cannot foresee the future, and
- • have no ability to reason or to make plans.
The fact is that it is evident that creation is the source of the design in the human body. That is because every design implies a designer. For example, the steel struts in the Eiffel Tower in Paris have been brought together to prevent pressure occurring at specific points, and it is thanks to this that such a tall and heavy tower is able to remain standing. It is evident that this tower did not come into being by chance, but was designed by an engineer.
It is very easy to see the design in the human body. For example, the weight of the femur, or thigh bone, is reduced by an internal empty space. Yet the bone is not completely hollow. The strength of the bone has been enhanced by means of struts called trabecular bone that joins the interior walls together, providing a strength capable of bearing a ton in weight. Indeed, the engineer who designed the Eiffel Tower which we have just cited as an example was inspired by the thigh bone in preparing that project.
The way that evolutionists maintain that such a design came into existence by chance is as nonsensical as suggesting that the Eiffel Tower was built not by an engineer but by piles of junk gradually coming together by chance.
Could it be that evolutionists are unaware of these designs when harbouring such a blind belief? Of course not. Evolutionist scientists possess a wealth of detailed information about the marvellous features of the human body, and openly state this from time to time. They sometimes admit this design in such striking terms that these words prove that they perceive the facts of creation but continue to blindly deny them. The following words for example, from the evolutionist scientists Randolph M. Nesse and George C. Williams, reveal the dimensions of evolutionists" blindly held belief:
"The body"s simplest structures reveal exquisite designs unmatched by any human creations. Take bones. Their tubular form maximizes strength and flexibility while minimizing weight. Pound for pound, they are stronger than solid steel bars. Specific bones are masterfully shaped to serve their functions--thick at the vulnerable ends, studded with surface protrusions where they increase muscle leverage, and grooved to provide safe pathways for delicate nerves and arteries. The thickness of individual bones increases wherever strength is needed. Wherever they bend, more bone is deposited. Even the hollow space inside the bones is useful: it provides a safe nursery for new blood cells.
Physiology is still more impressive. Consider the artificial kidney machine, bulky as a refrigerator yet still a poor substitute that performs only a few of the functions of its natural counterpart. Or take the best man-made heart valves. They last only a few years and crush some red blood cells with each closure, while natural valves gently open and close two and a half billion times over a lifetime.
Or consider our brains, with their capacity to encode the smallest details of life that, decades later, can be recalled in a fraction of a second. No computer can come close. The body"s regulatory systems are equally admirable. Take, for instance, the scores of hormones that coordinate every aspect of life, from appetite to childbirth. Controlled by level upon level of feedback loops, they are far more complex than any man-made chemical factory...
Bones, physiology, the nervous system-the body has thousands of consummate designs that elicit our wonder and admiration." 6
If after providing information about the features of a jet plane an aeronautical engineer were to maintain that all these designs had come into being by chance, he would be denying the science and technology and intelligent designers that are the true sources of that design. The designs in the human body are many times more complex than those in a plane, the product of the most advanced technology. Therefore, evolutionists who deny the fact of creation, even though they see the "thousands of consummate designs that elicit our wonder and admiration," are making an even more irrational denial than the engineer in the example of the jet plane.
Conclusion:
The scientists whom the media portray as the basis for these claims reject creation for ideological reasons. Dr. Michael Walker, a Sydney University anthropologist, accepted this important truth, one that the media that support these claims conceal from the general public, in the words: "One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator." 7
We call upon The Independent newspaper and the Independent Online news portal to cease "serving" Darwin"s hoary old myth, to abandon their propaganda in favour of this unscientific belief, and to accept the fact that the flawless design in the human body and in all living things was created by God.
1. Dennis M. Bramble and Daniel E. Lieberman, “Endurance running and the evolution of Homo,” Nature 432, 345 – 352, 18 November 2004
2. Steve Connor, “How learning to run put man one step ahead of the apes,” www.independent.co.uk , 18 November 2004; Patricia Reaney, “These bodies were made for running,” www.iol.co.za , 17 November 2004
3. Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (New York: Pantheon, 1983), pp. 137-138
4. Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, (New York: Academic Press, 1977), p. 103
5. Schützenberger M-P., in "The Miracles of Darwinism: Interview with Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger," Origins & Design, Vol. 17, No. 2, Spring 1996, pp. 10-15
6. R.M. Nesse & G.C. Williams, Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine, [1995], Vintage: New York NY, 1996, Reprint, pp. 3-5
7. Dr. Michael Walker, Quadrant, October 1982, p. 44
