Evolution and Creationism and Homo Sapiens

by chumchingee

When I was growing up and taking basic science in high school, we all had 48 chromosomes.

Then something dramatic happened that has embarrassed evolution theory ever since. That something was the discovery that we have two less chromosomes than the common ape.

Every known species of gorilla and ape on the planet has 48 chromosomes. We have 46 chromosomes. Now how do you explain that, evolutionists?

Well, commonly, they try to ignore it. It doesn’t fit into their neat little system of evolution.

It was a simple problem. You see two of those chromosomes are double the size of all the rest. The only solution to such a problem is somewhere, somehow, our chromosomes were altered and the result was tragic. We are the only known animal species on the planet with over 400 genetic diseases. We are the only species that requires surgery to give birth about half the time. Before the surgery, women died. The head is really too large for the birth canal. Too many children are brain-damaged from going through that canal. You would think, that women with large birth canals would have been the survivors and thus small birth canals would have been rare. It is not so. This does not fit survival of the fittest theory of evolution. It is embarrassing.

The question I have not had an answer to is: Are Neanderthals 48 chromosomes or 46? Is the alteration present or not? You see if they are 48 I have an explanation for their demise as a species. The same goes for other human-like species in the evolutionary chain. Is it Before Change or After Change in the progression of evolution?

Closely related critters in the evolutionary chain cannot mate successfully. Especially if there is no match between the number of chromosomes. For instance, Donkeys and horses can mate. But the offspring is almost always sterile. These are called Mules. Donkeys have one number of chromosomes and horses are a distant cousin with a different number. It works for one generation.

I suggest that Neanderthals conquered their human relatives early on in our history. The women were attractive to them. So they mated with them and had children. There was never a second generation. The mules were highly intelligent. Probably multiple talented individuals. They probably dominated the mating game. So by the second generation out, the population was decimated. It never recovered.

Of course the source of human children was probably somewhere in Africa. I suggest they were beach apes. These apes found hiding in the shallow waters of an inland sea promoted survival. This would explain no hair on the body. The feet are designed to run on sand. But by using breathing tubes from the reeds, it was entirely possible for mankind to survive large predatory animals. The only problem being large ocean-going animals such as alligators or other land/water creatures of a predatory nature.

Eventually several species moved back inland as the large predators disappeared. I suggest by then we were fairly hairless except in the pubic area and the head.

If somewhere in that passage, we became slaves to a more dominant intelligent species, then alteration becomes a real possibility. If they were closely related to us, like cousins, then it is entirely possible that someone altered the species separation part of our nature so that we could be bred by them just as we breed cats and dogs today. The result would have been a creature outside of the evolutionary path.

The most dominant necessary programming would be speech. No other creature that I know of has our speech capability. Without understanding language, we would not dominate the environment as we do. I think small stature was also necessary. Because if I am right, we were designed to mine metals underground. Small means getting into areas where large mines are impractical. It so happens such a mine does exist in South Africa. It has been determined that the mine is ancient. It is also very deep. Without training and communication none of this would be practical.

The question arises then, which creature in our past was altered to become us. I have no idea. But there had to be one somewhere.

So, in conclusion, I think the evolutionists are barking up the wrong family tree. I think they need to determine BC or AC. Before Change or After Change when it comes to human evolution.

Another problem is new world relatives vs old world relatives. Most of the ape family in the new world are smaller like squirrel monkeys. What is different is the number of teeth. The new world monkeys have 36. Most of the old world monkeys have 32 teeth. Yet you see no 36 teeth humans. No evolutionary track with parallel evolution sourced say from South America rather than South Africa. But it is a logical conclusion that there should have been a parallel development in the New World as well as the old. Do all of the new world monkey population have 48 chromosomes? I do not know.