Why did Communists promote Evolution?

[Nishant Xavier]

Lol, look at Evolutionists try to run away from the fact that the lack of a sufficient number of intermediate forms in the Fossil Record absolutely is a problem for evolution. Why, Charles Darwin himself recognized this:

1. "Charles Darwin raised a lack of transitional fossils as a possible objection to his own theory: “Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?”2 Later in this chapter of his landmark book, he expressed hope that future discoveries would be made of transitional forms, or of creatures that showed some transitional structure—perhaps a half-scale/half-feather ...

The first supposed transitional form offered in the report is Sahelanthropus. This 2001 discovery was first hailed as a transitional form in the ape-to-human line, but controversy over its transitional status immediately ensued. Brigitte Senut of the Natural History Museum in Paris was skeptical, saying that its skull features, “especially the [canine teeth],”3 were characteristic of female gorillas, not human-like gorillas. Senut and her colleagues also disputed that Sahelanthropus was even in the ancestry of humans at all: “To represent a valid clade, hominids must share unique defining features, and Sahelanthropus does not appear to have been an obligate biped [creature that walked on two feet].”4 In other words, Sahelanthropus is at best a highly disputed fossil of an extinct ape, having no clear transitional features." https://www.icr.org/article/a-150-years-...lp-darwin/

2. Angrboda, you either don't understand Rev. Williams argument - which btw turned to be prescient and absolutely accurate 25 years in advance; and it's preposterous for Evolutionists to claim all Evolutionists accepted it was a fake at that time, otherwise why was he even controverting it? A small minority did, yes, but 250 publications treated it as a fact, as documented earlier, over 40 years. It was claimed to be the Missing Link. It was used as evidence against Christianity in a Legal Trial. It was universally accepted as a hoax only in 1953 - or are deliberately strawmaning it.

Here, let me break it down for you in a series of logical steps: (1) if apes and humans descended from an alleged missing link common ancestor, these presumed ape-men would have existed for millions of years. (2) we have plenty of fossils of apes who were apes and plenty of fossils of humans who were humans (3) If any intermediate ape-men ever existed for millions of years, they would leave fossil remains in numbers comparable to that of fossil remains of actual humans and actual apes (4) if therefore we do not have a comparably sufficient number of the alleged intermediate ape-men species, whether that that was so-called Lucy, or the Piltdown Man Hoax, or Sahelanthropus, that then is Solid Mathematic/Scientific Reason to be extremely cautious/skeptical of AHE, at the least. 

Again, if Evolutionists were True Lovers of Science for Science's sake, they would be saying things like: "We have to acknowledge Rev. Williams got this one RIGHT, while many of his contemporaries were totally WRONG. His reasoning was solid and his conclusion was right". Instead, Liberal Evolutionists don't do that, and continue to play their word games and liberal sophisms.

3. There's no point beating around the bush: if these presumed ape-men were apes in some sense, and they are ultimately the ancestors of modern humans, as your theory claims, then it's absolutely true that apes ultimately gave birth to us - per your theory - absurd as that sounds. And if they did, then, in principle, we could give birth to apes or ape-like creatures one day, perhaps with some slight variations from the alleged ape-like ancestors we allegedly have; as our ancestors were, so can our descendants be. But if the latter is not true, the former is not true either. 

Actually, human beings only came from other human beings. The first human beings - Y Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve - came not from any apes but by the Special Creation of Almighty God. Evolutionists were saying some time ago such sophisms as this Adam never met Eve. Well, a few decades later, they changed that sophism of theirs, and admitted Adam and Eve may indeed have lived together after all.

Here is the Nature Journal: "The Book of Genesis puts Adam and Eve together in the Garden of Eden, but geneticists’ version of the duo — the ancestors to whom the Y chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA of today’s humans can be traced — were thought to have lived tens of thousands of years apart. Now, two major studies of modern humans’ Y chromosomes suggest that ‘Y-chromosome Adam’ and ‘mitochondrial Eve’ may have lived around the same time after all1,2." https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2013.13478

Evolutionists still deny these were the First Couple of course, but at least they admitted they lived around the same time. Maybe in 25 more years they'll get it right, who knows. In the meanwhile, Rev. Williams was right on Piltdown Man 25 years before most Evolutionists, and we are right today.