Continuing with this part #2 (see previous part #1) of my series on a book, "The Coming of Man: Was It Accident or Design?" (1933) by South African medical doctor, paleontologist and paleoanthropologist Robert Broom (1866-1951).
[Above: Comparison of the skeletons of a crossopterygian lobe-finned fish and an early amphibian, M.J. Farabee, Estrella Mountain Community College, Arizona]
Here again is my last quote of Broom in part #1, that "the evolution of man up from the fishes ... looks like a succession of very fortunate accidents" such that "it can hardly be wondered at if doubts arise as to their being accidents at all" (my emphasis):
"WE have traced the evolution of man up from the fishes, and have seen that it has been a very slow, steady progress, with never any going back and with rarely any specialisation till we come to the last stage, when man gets his large brain. The history has been a most remarkable one. It looks like a succession of very fortunate accidents; but as the apparent accidents have always given rise to higher and higher types of organisation, it can hardly be wondered at if doubts arise as to their being accidents at all." (Broom, R., "The Coming of Man: Was it Accident or Design?," H.F. & G. Witherby: London, 1933, p.212).
Broom then continued with the first stage of that "evolution" (so-called) "of man up from the fishes," that of the lobe-finned fishes (class Sarcopterygii or Crossopterygii), which from a basic Osteichthyes (bony fish) body plan, "At a very early stage fishes developed anterior and posterior lateral fins", i.e. not one but two pairs of fins, which contained the beginnings of the arm and leg bones,
that " later on four limbs would be required to support a land vertebrate":
"At a very early stage fishes developed anterior and posterior lateral fins. We can see how they probably arose, but there does not seem to have been any very great necessity at all for a pair of lateral fins. The most pelagic of all marine vertebrates, the whales, once had four limbs but have now only the anterior pair of flippers. Even many fishes have lost their pelvic fins, and many others have the pelvic fins shifted forward into the pectoral region. Perhaps four lateral fins were evolved, because later on four limbs would be required to support a land vertebrate. Then the strange skeletal support of the lobe-finned fishes looks as if it had been evolved, not specially to benefit the fishes, but because it would presently be required to support a crawling vertebrate." (Broom, Ibid, pp.212-213).
As Broom noted above, "the strange skeletal support of the lobe-finned fishes looks as if it had been evolved not specially to benefit the fishes, but because it would presently be required to support a crawling vertebrate" (my emphasis)!
In which case this "modification in a species ... for the good of another species" would "annihilate" Darwin's theory, were it not for his dishonest "exclusively," which he would have known turned his proposed test of his theory into a non-test because how could any critic prove that a "modification" was "exclusively for the good of another species"? (my emphasis):
"Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in a species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of and profits by, the structures of others. But natural selection can and does often produce structures for the direct injury of other animals, as we see in the fang of the adder, and in the ovipositor of the ichneumon, by which its eggs are deposited in the living bodies of other insects. If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection. " (Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection," Sixth Edition, 1872, Senate: London, Facsimile Edition, 1994, p.162)
Because as Broom pointed out, "The lobe-fin is about the poorest fin that has ever been evolved ... But had it not been for the skeleton of the lobe-fin it would in all probability have been impossible for a crawling or walking limb ever to have been developed" (my emphasis):
"The lobe-fin is about the poorest fin that has ever been evolved. It was too poor for marine fishes, and seems to have been only evolved in some fresh-water types. But had it not been for the skeleton of the lobe-fin it would in all probability have been impossible for a crawling or walking limb ever to have been developed. A few of the higher fishes have taken to crawling at times, such as the gurnards, and the climbing perches, and the Indian siluroid fish Clarias, which, when the rivers dry up, crawls for long distances over the dried mud in search of water-holes, but none of these fishes has ever succeeded in evolving limbs. And the crawling limb was evolved in a type of fish that had a better brain, a higher evolved heart than the other fishes, and most probably it had lungs. The coincidences seem far too remarkable to have been due to accident." (Broom, Ibid, p.213).
And, as Broom further points out, "the crawling limb was evolved in a type of fish that had a better brain, a higher evolved heart than the other fishes, and most probably it had lungs. The coincidences seem far too remarkable to have been due to accident" (my emphasis).
So if by "evolution" is meant "the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process'" (my emphasis):
"Facing such a reality, perhaps we should not be surprised at the results of a 2001 Gallup poll confirming that 45 percent of Americans believe `God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so'; 37 percent prefer a blended belief that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process'; and a paltry 12 percent accept the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.'" (Shermer, M.B., "The Gradual Illumination of the Mind," Scientific American, February 2002. My emphasis)
and if there were "miraculous additions at any one stage of descent" then it "was not evolution at all":
"Darwin ... wrote in a letter to Sir Charles Lyell, the leading geologist of his day: `If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish...I would give nothing for the theory of Natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.' [Darwin, C.R., Letter to C. Lyell, October 11, 1859, in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," , Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II., 1959, reprint, pp.6-7]. This is no petty matter. In Darwin's view, the whole point of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a non-miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations. For what it is worth, it is also the whole point of this book. For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all." (Dawkins, R., "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design," W.W Norton & Co: New York NY, 1986, pp.248-249. Emphasis original)
but rather "divine creation", i.e. "God ... influencing key moments in evolutionary history (especially, of course, human evolutionary history)" (my emphasis):
"At first sight there is an important distinction to be made between what might be called 'instantaneous creation' and 'guided evolution'. Modern theologians of any sophistication have given up believing in instantaneous creation. ... many theologians ... smuggle God in by the back door: they allow him some sort of supervisory role over the course that evolution has taken, either influencing key moments in evolutionary history (especially, of course, human evolutionary history), or even meddling more comprehensively in the day-to-day events that add up to evolutionary change. ... In short, divine creation, whether instantaneous or in the form of guided evolution, joins the list of other theories we have considered in this chapter." (Dawkins, 1986, pp.316-317)
then who says God does not have a sense of humour?!
In fact the Bible says that God "laughs" at the combined efforts of the "rulers" of this world, to rebel against Him and "against his Anointed One" [Heb. "Messiah" (or "Christ" in the ancient Greek Old Testament)!] (my emphasis):
Psalm 2:1-12. 1Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? 2The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One. 3"Let us break their chains," they say, "and throw off their fetters." 4The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them. 5Then he rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying, 6"I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill." 7I will proclaim the decree of the LORD : He said to me, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father. 8Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. 9You will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery." 10Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth. 11Serve the LORD with fear and rejoice with trembling. 12Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
The laugh is on the evolutionists because what they are studying and calling "evolution," is in fact (and always has been), "not evolution at all" but rather "divine creation"!!
To be continued in part #3.
Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
Exodus 7:7-13. 7Moses was eighty years old and Aaron eighty-three when they spoke to Pharaoh. Aaron's Staff Becomes a Snake 8The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 9"When Pharaoh says to you, 'Perform a miracle,' then say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and throw it down before Pharaoh,' and it will become a snake." 10So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the LORD commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. 11Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: 12Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs. 13Yet Pharaoh's heart became hard and he would not listen to them, just as the LORD had said.