Monkey Business with Tools, Bones, and Brains
Darwinians can be so intent on evolving men from
ape ancestors, they can make monkeys of themselves
Should it be surprising that humans and apes have similarities? We inhabit the same planet, have many of the same needs, and have to eat what the planet provides. This does not imply evolution any more than thinking that a tricycle evolved into a bicycle all by itself. Both imply intelligent design. Darwin’s theory, however, demands “the descent of man” by a series of accidental mutations mindlessly selected by the Stuff Happens Law. The belief sends Darwinists on quests that could be dubbed monkeyshines: evolutionists falling for their own pranks.
Surprising similarities in stone tools of early humans and monkeys (Max Planck Institute, 10 March 2023). This article is not about what the title seems to suggest. It is not claiming that humans got their tool-making skills from monkeys. On the contrary; it is worrying that evolutionary paleontologists have been misinterpreting evidence for years!
Accidentally produced stone fragments made by macaques resemble some of the earliest hominin stone artifacts.
Researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology have discovered artefacts produced by old world monkeys in Thailand that resemble stone tools, which historically have been identified as intentionally made by early hominins. Until now, sharp-edged stone tools were thought to represent the onset of intentional stone tool production, one of the defining and unique characteristics of hominin evolution. This new study challenges long held beliefs about the origins of intentional tool production in our own lineage.
Eager to find a sequence of simple tools to complex tools as humans evolved, Darwinian anthropologists have misinterpreted rocks produced accidentally by macaques as evidence of intentional tools made by “early hominins” (alleged human ancestors less evolved than Homo sapiens). Notice the distinction they make between accidental and intentional production of tools:
“The ability to intentionally make sharp stone flakes is seen as a crucial point in the evolution of hominins, and understanding how and when this occurred is a huge question that is typically investigated through the study of past artefacts and fossils. Our study shows that stone tool production is not unique to humans and our ancestors,” says lead author Tomos Proffitt, a researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. “The fact that these macaques use stone tools to process nuts is not surprising, as they also use tools to gain access to various shellfish as well. What is interesting is that, in doing so they accidently produce a substantial archaeological record of their own that is partly indistinguishable from some hominin artefacts.”
What this implies is that anthropologists could have been mistaking rocks that monkeys banged on nuts to crack them open for hominin meat-carving tools. So how to interpret this? The monkey “tools” produced accidentally as they cracked nuts with rocks “fall within the range of those commonly associated with early hominins.” Does this mean that monkeys make tools by intelligent design, or that early hominins invented toolmaking by accident? Did some random mutation make an early hominin evolve intentionality?
Study: Humans and monkeys coordinate conflicting interest to maximize their profits (German Primate Center via Phys.org, 16 Mar 2023). When there’s a conflict of interest between individuals on how to use a resource, humans and monkeys behave differently. What does this prove about evolution, if anything?
The research showed that both humans and rhesus monkeys follow the actions of their counterpart and include them in their decision. However, they use different strategies in doing so. Humans coordinate in a dynamic process and achieve a “fair” balance over time: “today” you get to choose, next week it’s my turn. In contrast, rhesus monkeys coordinate statically, which often means that one of the two players loses out over time.
The evolutionary anthropologists used game theory to analyze “rational decision making” in the monkeys, but rational typically implies reasoning ability. Instinctive behaviors stand in contrast to reasoning about justice and fairness, which are unique human concerns. Unsurprisingly, the monkeys acted statically and competitively. Only the humans attempted to play fair.
“The fact that rhesus monkeys did not dynamically take cooperative turns may be because they are cognitively limited in longer-term planning and taking the perspective of the opponent. Their static strategies require fewer cognitive resources and are easier to coordinate. But it is also likely that due to macaques’ competitive nature, less normative social influence, and higher subjective value of the rewards, they are driven by more selfish motives” says Igor Kagan, leader of the study.
“Dynamic face-to-face encounters are an integral part of primate social evolution. Understanding how the two species use the visibility of actions to achieve and maintain coordination sheds light on the evolution of cooperation and competition and sets the stage for studying the neural basis of dynamic interactions.”
But what they observed was a stark difference between the behavior of monkeys and people. The monkeys acted competitively like Malthusian animals, but the people strove for fairness like rational, moral beings. How does this support human evolution? Nothing evolved; the two groups acted the way they always do.
Further, these evolutionists need to explain how nature blindly selected mutations for understanding and studying. That’s something apes and monkeys don’t comprehend.
Extinct ‘monkey lemur’ shows similarities to human fossils (University of Otago via Phys.org, 22 Dec 2022). It’s a lemur, not a human. A skull studied at the University of Otago in New Zealand has nothing to do with human evolution, but the evolutionists were determined to find something Darwinian about it.
Analysis of teeth of extinct lemurs has revealed fascinating clues to the evolution of humans, a University of Otago study has found.
Lead author Dr. Ian Towle, of the Sir John Walsh Research Institute in the Faculty of Dentistry, says the “surprisingly large” monkey lemur, Archaeolemur, had novel anatomical features not seen in living lemurs, such as lacking a “tooth comb” in the front of the mouth for grooming.
“These extinct lemurs are so different to those alive today. They also show fascinating similarities to monkeys and apes, including humans,” he says.
He just called you an ape. Demand an apology.
Towle’s capacity for imagination can be seen in his explaining this by “convergent evolution” and by defending evolution because of “tooth chipping patterns” on the lemur teeth that he claims are similar to those of Neanderthals (who were fully human).
“Studying extinct primates not only provides crucial insight into their diet and behavior, but also elucidates our own evolutionary history.“
But nothing in the fossil suggests anything about human evolution. The tooth chipping patterns were admittedly not related to tool use. Towle also admits that this lemur stayed a lemur and only showed diversification on the island of Madagascar, not evolution from one creature into another kind of creature. As for it being a “brilliant example of convergent evolution,” is it not better described as a prop for storytelling?
Let them act like apes if they believe they that’s what they are. The rest of us will act like rational, moral beings accountable for telling the truth and seeking justice. We also believe in mercy, so give Towle a banana.