ICR Ain’t No Kin to Monkeys, However …

What a happy coincidence! First we have this from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. It’s titled Refuting Ape-Men Myths, written by Brian Thomas.

He’s described at the end of his articles as “Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.” Here’s ICR’s biographical information on him. We’ll give you a few excerpts from his brief post, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

I’m Brian Thomas, Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research. [Hi, Brian!] My wife and I have five college-age kids. We look forward to the day when we can take them and their friends who have heard about evolution their whole lives to the ICR Discovery Center. Powerful, Bible-confirming science will pack every room.

Ooooooooooooh! Bible-confirming science! Then he says:

Ape-men myths are one of the most persuasive icons of evolution. In the Discovery Center, we’ll highlight scientific evidence that shows we descended from Adam, not apes. Genetics confirms this, and all of the relevant fossils look like either apes or men, leaving no support for human evolution.

One more excerpt — a pitch for money:

Please support this project. Your gift will help make this unprecedented creation experience a reality.

But wait! Before you write that check, dear reader, take a look at what just popped up at PhysOrg: ‘Uniquely human’ muscles have been discovered in apes. They say, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Muscles once thought ‘uniquely human’ have been discovered in several ape species, challenging long-held theories on the origin and evolution of human soft tissues. The findings question the anthropocentric view that certain muscles evolved for the sole purpose of providing special adaptations for human traits, such as walking on two legs, tool use, vocal communication and facial expressions. Published in Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, the study highlights that thorough knowledge of ape anatomy is necessary for a better understanding of human evolution.

This is the paper they’re talking about: First Detailed Anatomical Study of Bonobos Reveals Intra-Specific Variations and Exposes Just-So Stories of Human Evolution, Bipedalism, and Tool Use. You can read it on-line without a subscription. PhysOrg tells us:

“This study contradicts key dogmas about human evolution and our distinct place on the ‘ladder of nature,'” says Rui Diogo, an Associate Professor in the Department of Anatomy at Howard University, Washington, USA. “Our detailed analysis shows that in fact, every muscle that has long-been accepted as ‘uniquely human’ and providing ‘crucial singular functional adaptations’ for our bipedalism, tool use and vocal and facial communications is actually present in the same or similar form in bonobos and other apes, such as common chimpanzees and gorillas.”

Egad — we really are kin to the monkeys! PhysOrg continues:

Long-standing evolutionary theories are largely based on the bone structures of prehistoric specimens — and, according to Diogo, also on the idea that humans are necessarily more special and complex than other animals. These theories suggest that certain muscles evolved in humans only, giving us our unique physical characteristics. However, verification of these theories has remained difficult due to scant descriptions of soft tissues in apes, which historically have mainly focused on only a few muscles in the head or limbs of a single specimen. Diogo explains, “There is an understandable difficulty in finding primate, and particularly ape, specimens to dissect as they are so rare both in the wild and museums.”

Skipping to the end, they quote Diogo one last time:

He concludes, “Most theories of human evolution give the impression that humans are markedly distinct from apes anatomically, but these are unverifiable ‘just-so stories’. The real evidence shows we are not so different overall. This study highlights that a thorough knowledge of ape anatomy is necessary for a better understanding of our own bodies and evolutionary history.

One question remains: Will ICR include this new data in their Discovery Center? Perhaps you should ask Brian, before you make that contribution.

Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

15 responses to “ICR Ain’t No Kin to Monkeys, However …

  1. This just demonstrates that there is one and only one designer!

  2. Ross Cameron

    Life among the Ignorami. They chatter to each other without going out and doing real science. Hypotheses about the origins of the human race can be challenged with structured replies, but voodoo doesn`t make the cut. No collection of ancient myths can seriously be used to refute proposals based on actual evidence.

  3. Charles Deetz ;)

    So what are all these different skull variations, ape or man, since there is no ape-man?

  4. Michael Fugate

    Do you think they dug up Adam and extracted his DNA – is this how they know we were all his ancestors?

  5. Michael, I was thinking the same thing, though I think you might mean descendants, rather than ancestors.

  6. Michael Fugate

    how true – proofreading is always a good skill.

  7. Dear SC, after all those years you should know better. According to creacrap thinking a couple of human muscles being similar to ape muscles no way proves evilution.

  8. thanks for this, SC; once again you draw attention to stuff I need to know about.

    FrankB: NOTHING disproves creationism. Why is blood red and grass green? The Designer made it so. Why is grass red and blood green? Same answer

  9. Eddie Janssen

    I don’t know Paul, but not-creating Eve after creating Adam comes close.

  10. I note that Mr. Thomas has degrees in biology and biotechnology, not anthropology; he’s not published any peer-reviewed papers in any journals other than creationist ones; and his only teaching experience has been at the high-school level.

    Not exactly stellar credentials for someone who claims to write authoritatively about dinosaurs or human evolution.


    .. creationists are having a hard time with this last paper of mine, of course, as humans are not special after all.. but as creationists often do, they can use scientific data to support their views.. one of them just wrote that this shows that there is only one designer.. so data showing differences humans-apes, creationists use them to prove that there is a missing link and that god exists (?!).. if data shows similarities humans-apes, creationists use them to prove that god exists (“This just demonstrates that there is one and only one designer!”)

    .. what a nice way of living, you can never be wrong! 🙂

    anyway, slowly the world changes, and you become obsolete, now most people accept, including you, that the earth does move, that hell does not physically exist, and so on.. even the pope recognized that biological evolution is a fact..

  12. @Paul Bratermann
    Yes, the creationists are free to say that any state of affairs is possible for God.
    When it demands credulity is when both X and not-X are evidence for God’s action. Not just consistent with, but prove it.
    But evolution is an exception. God wouldn’t create evolution. Or, more precisely, macro-evolution.

  13. Michael Fugate

    “bible-confirming science”
    One wouldn’t think that AiG, ICR, CMI etc would need science to confirm the Bible – isn’t faith enough? obviously not…

  14. @TomS “God wouldn’t create evolution.”
    Quite a spectacle, isn’t it, creationists telling their god what he would and what he wouldn’t.

  15. @Michael Fugate: Yes, it’s too bad no one has found Adam’s skeleton. On similar line, I’ve long thought it was too bad the Shroud of Turin was a fake. If the legends were true, we’d have half of the sky fairy’s DNA and could learn something about him/her/it.