Science » Planet Earth
Author`s name Dmitry Sudakov

What about monkeys that look Caucasian?

By Babu G. Ranganathan

What about monkeys that look Caucasian?. 44118.jpegRecently, a California Orange County Republican Party official sent an email of an image of President Obama's face superimposed on a chimpanzee. This is a horrible and offensive photo. We need to have a conversation on this topic now. Not long ago a team of psychologists from Stanford, Penn State, and UC Berkeley have reported that blacks are likely to be thought of by other races as being sub-human and associated with apes: Let's admit it! Many people, even blacks themselves, wonder whether black people are more closely related to apes because of certain facial features or other similarities. This issue needs to be dealt with in the open and honestly.

Well, let me ask this question. Are bull dogs more closely related to cats because they have flat faces and short legs? Obviously not! A bull dog can be crossed with other dogs but not a cat! Neither are blacks more closely related to apes! There are monkeys that have some very fine features resembling those of white people (Do an Image search of "monkeys" on Google and see for yourself). Does that mean whites are more closely related to these monkeys? Of course not!

Ultimately, all life forms on earth share varying similarities because of a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all of the various species and life forms on Earth.

Young people, and even adults, often wonder how all the varieties or "races" of people could come from the same original human ancestors. Well, in principle, that's no different than asking how children with different color hair (i.e., blond, brunette, brown, red) can come from the same parents who both have black hair.

Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendants with different color hair and eyes, humanity's first parents, Adam and Eve, possessed genes to produce all the variety and races of men. You and I today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but humanity's first parents did possess such genes.

All varieties of humans carry genes for the same basic traits, but not all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For example, one person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye color (i.e., brown, green, blue), but someone else may be carrying only one variation of the gene for eye color (i.e., brown). Thus, both will have different abilities to affect the eye color of their offspring.

Some parents with black hair, for example, are capable of producing children with blond hair, but their blond children (because they inherit only recessive genes) will not have the ability to produce children with black hair unless they mate with someone else who has black hair. If the blond descendants only mate with other blondes then the entire line and population will only be blond even though the original ancestor was black-haired.

In reality there is only one race - the human race - within which exists myriad variations and permutations. Just as you can get a pure bred from a mutt but not a mutt from a pure bred, so too all varieties of humans were able to come from Adam and Eve our first parents.

There are many genetic and biological similarities between various species. This does not necessarily mean that all life evolved from a common ancestor. A better explanation is that the similarities are due to a common Designer (God) who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information cannot happen by chance anymore than other forms of information can happen by chance. Science cannot prove it, but science does point to the Creator God as the first Genetic Engineer! It's only logical, dear Watson.

God created species as complete and fully functional from the very beginning. They couldn't survive any other way. A half-evolved dog, for example, wouldn't be able to survive. Darwinian evolutionary theory would have us believe that, by the random forces of nature, partially-evolved species came into existence along with partially-evolved skin, muscles, nerves, tissues, organs and then survived over millions of years as they eventually became complete. What utter nonsense!

What about natural selection? Natural selection is a passive process in nature. Natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. Natural selection itself does not produce biological traits or variations. The term "natural selection" is simply a figure of speech. Nature, of course, does not do any conscious or active selection. If a biological variation occurs which helps a member of a species to survive in its environment then that biological variation will be preserved and be passed on to future offspring. That is what we call natural selection.

Natural selection is just another way of saying "Survival of the Fittest." But, this is exactly the problem for Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory. How can a partially evolved species be fit for survival? A partially evolved trait or organ that is not completely one or the other will be a liability to a species, not a survival asset. How could species have survived if their vital organs were still evolving?

The only evolution in nature that is possible and that can really be called science is micro-evolution, which is variations within biological kinds such as varieties of dogs, cats, horses and cows. Only micro-evolution is observable and can be measured by the scientific method.

Macro-evolution, which teaches that variations in life can occur across biological kinds, is not science but faith.

The genes exist in all species for micro-evolution but not for macro-evolution, and there is no scientific evidence that random genetic mutations caused by natural forces such as radiation can or will generate entirely new genes for entirely new traits. Random forces in nature have no ability to perform genetic engineering so as to bring about entirely new genes.

Mutations produce only variations of already existing genes. They do not produce entirely new genes. For example, mutations in the gene(s) for human hair may change the gene(s) so that another type of human hair develops, but it'll still be human hair!

Random genetic mutations caused by environmental forces will not produce entirely new genes anymore than randomly changing the sequences of letters in a cookbook will change it into a book on astronomy.

Furthermore, because mutations are accidents in the genetic code caused by random environmental forces like radiation, almost all mutations are harmful or neutral. Most biological variations in nature are from new combinations of already existing genes and not from mutations.

What about "Junk DNA"? The latest science shows that "Junk DNA" isn't junk after all! It's we who were ignorant of how useful these segments of DNA really are. Recent scientific research published in scientific journals such as Nature has revealed that the "non-coding" segments of DNA are very useful, after all, and even essential in regulating gene expression and intracellular activities.

All varieties of humans belong to one natural species since all varieties of human beings are inter-fertile, and this is biological proof that we are all descendants of a common human ancestor. This is why the Bible says that God "hath made of one all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth ..." (Acts 17:26, KJV). The Bible clearly teaches that God created all human beings in His image. Therefore, as one of my former pastors, Dr. Carl E. Abrahamsen, Jr., so truthfully and eloquently stated, to hate a fellow human being who has been created in the image of God because of the way he or she looks is a great and serious sin and offense against God which needs to be confessed and repented of before the Almighty.

The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, has his bachelor's degree with concentrations in theology and biology and has been recognized for his writings on religion and science in the 24th edition of Marquis "Who's Who In The East". The author's articles may be accessed at