If female apes happened to be born at some time in the past with little or no fur on their bodies I’m sure all the male apes would have found them really appealing. Any such naked females would have been reproducing endlessly because of all the attention. I’m kindly making that explanation available because evolutionists struggle to explain why losing fur was an evolutionary advantage.
To claim that anything like the above explains how apes (or some equivalent ancestor) evolved into man would only be playing with the subject. In my opinion evolutionists focus excessively on trivia because the really dramatic changes are too awkward to deal with. Charles Darwin was smart to put the focus on the origin of species because it is vastly more difficult to explain the origin of genera, classes, orders or phyla.
I am a creationist but not a “proper” one because I recognize that variations in living things could go beyond the limits set by species definitions in some situations, but I do not believe that evolutionists have succeeded in effectively explaining how the numerous major changes in plants and animals might have occurred. In this article I will only touch on the origin of life and the human brain.
Most people don’t believe that Jesus could turn water into wine in a few seconds but they do believe that some watery dirt turned into a living thing in the misty past. Moreover they believe these bits of living dirt developed into more and more complicated bits of dirt, climaxing eventually in the naked ape. Fred Hoyle famously likened the chances of life emerging through the random shuffling of molecules Synapse xt to the chances of a tornado hurtling through a junk yard and turning it into a Boeing 747.
A very complex thing called DNA (for short) was essential for the evolution of life. DNA contains the instructions needed for an organism to develop and reproduce. It directs the production of proteins. But, of course, DNA can’t do anything until it locates in a living cell that can carry out its instructions.
But haven’t scientists now created synthetic proteins? Sure, and they have created synthetic enzymes and many other synthetic products too. These are all great achievements. But they had at least two advantages over a bit of dirt turning itself into a protein by accident without any outside help. Firstly, they had the intelligence to be able to build (simplified) DNA from scratch; and, secondly, they had a living cell available into which they could insert their DNA. The DNA then provided the living cell with the directions for producing proteins.– and the applause hasn’t died down yet.
Creationists believe that God has the intelligence to be able to organize both DNA and cells to do His will. It is a vastly different proposition to say that these things could ever happen by accident without intellectual guidance. Evolutionists like to claim that the origin of life would have happened one small step at a time. It would be nice to hear from them about possible small steps in the accidental circumstance in which primitive DNA fortuitously evolved in close proximity to a lifelike cell capable of accepting its directions.