Hambo Dismisses the New-Found Upright Ape

A few days ago we posted Oook, Oook! A New Human Ancestor Found, about a newly found fossil ape in southern Germany dating back 11.6 million years that walked upright. We said: “How will creationists react to this? The hard-core types, like ol’ Hambo, won’t like it one bit.”

To no one’s surprise, that prediction turns out to be true. We now have the reaction from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. Look what he just posted at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: Missing Link? Scientists Claim Newly Discovered Fossil Ape Was Bipedal. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

They’ve found a missing link! . . . at least that’s what the headlines (once again) will tell you! A recent study [Ancient ape offers clues to evolution of two-legged walking] trumpeted the discovery of a supposedly 11.6-million-year-old ape from what is now Germany. Danuvius guggenmosi allegedly had “long arms suited to hanging in trees, [and] features of its legs and spine suggest it might also have been able to move around on its hind feet.” It’s now being hailed as the earliest evidence of bipedalism (habitual walking on two legs) and now upends the evolutionary timetable for bipedal evolution. So, did they find a missing link? Well, not so fast.

Yeah — not so fast! Hambo says:

Dr. David Menton, an anatomist and former professor at Washington University School of Medicine at St. Louis [now one of AIG’s creation scientists], took a look at the study and the reports about this new find. His conclusion? Much ado about nothing — or at least very little.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Hambo then gives us several paragraphs of Menton’s “analysis,” which you are free to read at Hambo’s site if you wish. We’re skipping it. After all that, Hambo tells us:

Dr. Menton concluded by telling me, “How does one disagree with mere speculation? It’s like disagreeing with a novel.” With the handful of bones they found, the claim that this ape was bipedal is speculation. It’s an interpretation of the fossils. Unsurprisingly, other scientists disagree with the conclusion made by the study authors regarding D. guggenmosi, saying the evidence is too fragmentary to make such a conclusion possible.

We haven’t yet encountered that reaction from other scientists — except for creation scientists like Mention. Hambo continues:

Evolutionists will continue to search for a missing link to fill in the gaps in their story. But they won’t find them because they don’t exist. [Hee hee!] God’s Word gives us the true history of the world. And it says God created humans unique from the animals, in his very image (Genesis 1:27).

The end of Hambo’s post is very clever:

Maybe they should rename this creature Danuvius desperanti to illustrate how desperate evolutionists are to find their non-existent missing link!

You didn’t know ol’ Hambo had such a great sense of humor, did you?

Copyright © 2019. 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

14 responses to “Hambo Dismisses the New-Found Upright Ape

  1. Who ya gonna believe, Hambo or yer lyin eyes ’bout that fossil.

  2. There is a minor, and completely incidental aspect to this: Ham is arguing that this is not evidence for upright walking. So he is not arguing that the evidence does not exist, only about its interpretation. To concede even that it exists at all is a step forward from the usual creationist position: “There is no evidence. I don’t believe it. It doesn’t exist.”

    But that’s only what he’s arguing here. What’s his take on the Australopithecines? The same, that is, the interpretation is wrong, and they didn’t walk upright? That would be a very hard case to make, because the evidence is unequivocal: the Australopithecines were perfectly bipedal. What does he say about them? Nothing? “It’s all lies from Satan”? What?

  3. “Maybe they should rename this creature Danuvius desperanti”.
    I propose that the next creature they find with long arms and low brain capacity should be named Kenuvius Hamimosi in honour of AIG’s director.

  4. Charles Deetz ;)

    In well done internet disputes, each word is hyperlinked to a supporting source … “Unsurprisingly, other scientists disagree”. They could even hyperlink to a hand waving emoji.

  5. “Dr. David Menton, …. His conclusion?”
    was predetermined.

    “You didn’t know ol’ Hambo had such a great sense of humor, did you?”
    Our Hero for Christ truly is a Homo Creaversalis.

  6. @DaveL: “completely incidental aspect ”
    Good catch.

    “It’s not evidence for evolution! And if it is it’s not evidence for bidpedality! Goddiddid!”

    @CharlesD: who the heck needs verifiable sources if you have the Holy Bible and Ol’Hambo explaining what it says?

  7. chris schilling

    @DaveL:
    The official YEC position on Australopithecines is they’re just extinct apes. Anything in the genus homo is considered “human.” (This is undermined by their lack of unanimous agreement on which is which. Bipedalism would blur the issue, of course — exactly what we’d expect from intermediate forms — so creationists must perforce reject bipedalism in Australopithecines).

    “Missing link” is tabloid journalism. I’m always surprised if reputable scientists use it. Creationists love to use it, if only to pooh-pooh it.

    Michael F pointed out recently, I think, why there’s no reason bipedalism shouldn’t evolve more than once in primates, in multiple places.

  8. Christine Marie Janis

    Menton claims that, while many animals are bipedal (kangaroos, therapod dinosaurs, etc.) evolutionists do not try to make any of those human ancestors. Whyever not, one wonders?

  9. @ChrisS: “lack of unanimous agreement on which is which”
    Many years ago I found a nice scheme representing this total lack of agreement on internet. Unfortunately I can’t refind it.

    “I’m always surprised if reputable scientists use it.”
    Yeah, sometimes their slopiness is annoying or at least unhelpful.

    @ChristineMJ: nice example of asking the question equals answering it.

  10. chris schilling

    @FrankB
    I’m not very good at doing links, but I think you might be referring to Jim Foley’s table of Comparison of Creationist Opinions on some of the major hominin skulls, at TalkOrigins. It should still be there.

    It includes some comical disagreements between Gish, Lubenow and others about how to classify hominins.

  11. Read anything by the Hambone..the opposite is true!

  12. @ chris schilling: “creationists must perforce reject bipedalism in Australopithecines”.

    I can see how they must, but the anatomy would insist that they can’t. That is, “a bicondylar angle, an anteriorly placed foramen magnum, laterally flaring iliac blades, longer femoral necks and heads, and the presence of a lumbar curve” would seem to be pretty conclusive evidence for bipedalism. I wonder what Dr Menton would say about those features.

  13. @ChrisS: fortunately I’m pretty good at googling and you provided more than enough info to make this job easy for me:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

    So thanks. It’s good to restudy this triumph of bariminology.

  14. Ol sour Ham says “With the handful of bones they found,” After reviewing the research article, it is pretty clear that the researchers are working with a lot more than a mere handful of bones. Liars. So predictable.