Defining Human Evolution

We should start by first defining evolution. The encyclopedia Britannica has this definition of "human evolution:"

"The process by which human beings developed on Earth from now-extinct primates. The only extant members of the human tribe, Hominini, belong to the species Homo sapiens. The exact nature of the evolutionary relationships between modern humans and their ancestors remains the subject of debate."

A word needs to be added to this definition for it to be accurate, "non-human." The definition will then say, "The process by which human beings developed on Earth from now-extinct non-human primates." Now we have a definition that truly excludes God and Biblical creation, which ultimately is the purpose of evolution.

Do we see any evidence that human beings developed from now-extinct non-human primates? There is supposed to be a lot of evidence. A BBC Earth web page provides a good summary:

For scientists, evolution is a fact. We know that life evolved with the same certainty that we know the Earth is roughly spherical, that gravity keeps us on it, and that wasps at a picnic are annoying... Why are biologists so certain about this? What is the evidence? The short answer is that there is so much it's hard to know where to start.

If this is true there must be a lot of SOLID, FACTUAL evidence. On the other hand, does the evidence point to what we see on the our museum sign to the right? (Bottom of the page on a phone.) There are humans. And there are non-humans. With no evolution.

Let's find out what the BBC has to say. As illustrated by the picture below, it is all an illusion.

Note: For another perspective our Science Pastor web site addresses "proof" evolution happened as provided by the Smithsonian Institution. (Tap here for videos and web pages.)

The BBC Starts With Equivocation (tap here to see previous page on equivocation and speciation)

Just as we did, the BBC starts by defining and describing evolution.

"Breeders work just like Darwin imagined evolution worked. Suppose you want to breed chickens that lay more eggs. First you must find those hens that lay more eggs than the others. Then you must hatch their eggs, and ensure that the resulting chicks reproduce. These chicks should also lay more eggs. If you repeat the process with each generation, eventually you'll have hens that lay far more eggs than wild chickens do."

"'That's what evolution is,' says Steve Jones of University College London in the UK. 'It's a series of mistakes that build up.'"

That's their definition, and it is pure equivocation. What is described by the BBC is not evolution... a series of chickens laying eggs that produce something that is not a chicken. This definition does not even come close to the Britannica's definition, which requires human beings to develop from non-human primates. At best the BBC definition is speciation, which everyone accepts as happening. This is how evolution is "proven," by defining it as something it is not. That's not proof. That's called slight of hand, deception, trickery. Yes, you'll have chickens that lay more eggs (there is a limit, however), but they'll still be chickens. When the chicken eggs hatch there will always be a chicken inside. That is a fact of observational and repeatable science.

When a definition like the BBC definition is used, it is easy to see why a claim of lots of evidence supporting evolution can be made. It's evidence that supports something we all agree happens, but it does not actually address evolution... humans developing from non-human primates, for example.

Maybe We're Going To Get An Answer

The BBC page next talks about all the different forms of life we see in the fossil record. Then they ask:

"How do we really know that one species evolved into another?"

Good question! Here's their answer:

"The fossil record is only so much help here, because it is incomplete. 'If you look at most fossil records, what you actually see is one form that lasts quite a long time and then the next bunch of fossils that you've got is quite different from what you had before,' says Jones."

Sounds like he's describing Biblical creation and a global flood that created fossils based on how long animals could avoid being buried by sediment. Then the article states:

"It is also possible to observe the evolution of a new species as it happens. In 1981, a single medium ground finch arrived on an island called Daphne Major. He was unusually large and sang a somewhat different song to the local birds. He managed to breed, and his offspring inherited his unusual traits. After a few generations, they were reproductively isolated: they looked different from the other birds, and sang different songs, so could only breed among themselves. This little group of birds had formed a new species: they had "speciated".

They are back to speciation as a proof of evolution. The above example started with a finch and ended with a finch. It was a finch with some different characteristics, but it was still a finch. For evolution to be seen the finch must become something other than a finch. With the above statement about finches we're back to equivocation, not a true proof of evolution.

In the next example the article brings up an ongoing experiment conducted by Richard Lenski. He has been culturiung e-coli bacteria in a stressful environment since 1988. They have mutated. But what are they today? Still E-coli. This experiment does not show evolution. It's a grand demonstration that evolution does not happen, even under the most favorable of circumstances. After tens of thousands of generations under environmental pressure to mutate, the result is... e-coli are still e-coli.

Next: BBC Gets It Wrong   Go Deeper: Defining Evolution