The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved in 50 ArgumentsWilliams, William A. (William Asbury)
Religion
The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved in 50 Arguments
Williams, William A. (William Asbury)
Evolution
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.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account