The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved | Page 9

had fallen to the
lowest depths, not when he had risen out of savagery to the heights. The assertion that
man was originally a brute, savage and uncivilized is pure fiction, unsupported by the
facts. The original civilization of mankind supports the Bible, and upsets evolution.

6. THE MENDELIAN INHERITANCE LAW
The unity of the human race is further established by Mendel's Inheritance Discovery on
which evolutionists so much rely. G. Mendel, an experimenter, found that when he
crossed a giant variety of peas with a dwarf variety, the off-spring were all tall. The
giants were called "dominant"; the disappearing dwarfs, "recessive". But among the
second generation of this giant offspring, giants and dwarfs appeared in the proportion of
3 to 1. But when these dwarfs were self-fertilized, successive generations were all dwarfs.
The recessive character was not lost, but appeared again. Experiments with flowers
likewise show that the recessive color will reappear.
Also experiments with the interbreeding of animals have shown similar results. The
recessive or disappearing characteristics, or the disappearing variety, will appear again, in
some subsequent generation, and sometimes becomes permanent. This law prevails
widely in nature, and the recessive traits appear with the dominant traits. "If rose-combed
fowl were mated with single-combed fowl, the offspring were all rose-combed, but when
these rose-combed fowl were mated, the offspring were again rose-combed and
single-combed.... If gray rabbits were mated with black rabbits, their hybrids were all
gray, the black seemingly disappearing, but when the second generation were mated, the
progeny were again grays and blacks."--God or Gorilla--p. 278. _The recessive character
always reappears._
Apply these widely prevalent laws to dominant man and his recessive alleged brute
ancestor. The simian characteristics would appear in some generations, if not in many.
We would expect many offspring _to have the recessive character of the ape_, and we
ought not to be surprised, if some recessive stock became permanent.
Following analogy, we ought to look for a tribe of human beings that had degenerated
into apes. That we find no such recessive characteristics even among the most degenerate
savages, and no such ape-like tribe of human beings, is a decisive proof that man never
descended from the brute. Else such recessive characteristics, according to the Mendelian
Law, would be sure to appear. We would also find monkeys and apes,--the recessive
species--descended from man.

7. BIOMETRY
Even new sciences, founded by evolutionists, bear witness against their theory. Mendel's
Inheritance Law is one, as we have seen; Biometry is another. It was proposed and
advocated by Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. He expected it to be a great
prop to evolution; on the other hand, it is another proof of the unity of our race in Noah's
day, and hence fatal to their theory. Biometry is defined to be the "statistical study of
variation and heredity." It bears heavily against the great age of man.

One of the leading exponents of Biometry, Dr. C.B. Davenport, Secretary of the Eugenics
section of the American Breeders' Association concludes that "No people of English
descent are more distantly related than thirtieth cousin, while most people are more
nearly related than that." Professor Conklin, of Princeton University, approves this
conclusion, and adds, "As a matter of fact most persons of the same race are much more
closely related than this, and certainly _we need not go back to Adam nor even to Shem,
Ham or Japheth to find our common ancestor_." Dr. Davenport, therefore, says that the
English may find a common ancestor thirty-two generations ago; Professor Conklin
admits that we need not go further back than Noah to find a common ancestor of all
mankind. Noah, therefore, must have been the head of the race. Evolutionists admit we
need go no farther back than Noah to find the head of the race, and the population, as we
have seen, proves the same thing, and disproves every guess they have made of the great
age of man. We have descended from Noah and not from the brute.
This same Professor Conklin says that our race began 2,000,000 years ago (60,000
generations). How is it possible that we must go back sixty thousand generations for a
common ancestor, when thirty-two generations will suffice for the English, and about 200
generations since Noah, for the whole race? If we, by the laws of biometry, can find a
common ancestor in Noah, we can not possibly go back 2,000,000 years to find one.
Professor Conklin's admission refutes his claim of 2,000,000 years for man. Biometry
proves that age absolutely impossible.
If the progeny of this ape-like ancestor inter-bred for many generations,--as certainly
would have been the case--then we are not only descended from all the monkey family,
the baboon, gorilla, ape, chimpanzee, orang-utang lemur (H. G. Wells'