Tall Tales Regarding Bipedalism

A report carried on the web site on 16 July, 2007, and headed "Chimps on treadmill offer human evolution insight" made dogmatic claims regarding the supposed evolution of bipedalism. The results of a study published by US researchers and revealing the superior nature, in terms of efficiency, of the way that human beings walk on two legs, were distorted in such a way as to give the impression that they actually supported evolution.
A report carried on the web site on 16 July, 2007, and headed "Chimps on treadmill offer human evolution insight" made dogmatic claims regarding the supposed evolution of bipedalism. The results of a study published by US researchers and revealing the superior nature, in terms of efficiency, of the way that human beings walk on two legs, were distorted in such a way as to give the impression that they actually supported evolution.

This article sets out the errors in the report and shows the scientific groundlessness of claims concerning the evolution of bipedalism.

Details of the study and the complex nature of bipedalism

In the study considered by researchers led by Michael D. Sockol, a California University anthropologist, tested five chimpanzees and four adult human beings on a treadmill (1). They attached electrodes to the subjects" bodies and measured the amount of energy consumed by walking on two legs (bipedal) or four (quadripedal). The measurements performed revealed that the amount of energy consumed by human beings walking on two legs was only a quarter of that consumed by chimpanzees walking either on two legs or on four. To put it another way, these findings revealed that human movement is 75% more efficient in terms of energy consumption than that of chimpanzees. Bipedalism, which has thus once again been demonstrated to be highly efficient in terms of energy consumption, is based on an extraordinarily complex system. 

To summarize, the human backbone is made up of 33 vertebrae with a very sensitive, 3D design. There are discs of cartilage between the vertebrae which act as shock absorbers. The "S" shape of the spine plays a crucial role in reducing the resistance transmitted to the body during walking. The arms are attached to the shoulders and the thighs to the pelvis at an angle that makes it possible to stand on two legs. The way the legs descend from the pelvis towards the knees at a specific angle is another factor making walking on two legs possible. The ankle bone has a special shape that bears the weight in the region of the knee. Similar curvatures exist in the bones of the feet and serves the purpose of distributing the weight of the body. A special system in the joints prevents bone wear. In addition to all this, the brain, nervous and muscle systems co-ordinate walking movements in a flawless manner with the assistance of the balance mechanism in the inner ear.

All these components comprise an integrated system like that in clock mechanism and, with the hierarchic organization they exhibit, constitute clear evidence of creation. This latest study demonstrates the efficiency of the system, thus providing new evidence on the subject.

However, when one looks at the evolutionist interpretations of these findings contained in the report it is clear that these manifest truths have been ignored in favor of dogmatic statements, with no supporting scientific evidence, regarding the supposed evolution of bipedalism. The errors showing just how dogmatic evolutionists are when it comes to interpreting the scientific facts, and the response to these, are as follows:"s error regarding efficiency and origin

The report states: 

"Chimpanzees scampering on a treadmill have provided support for the notion that ancient human ancestors began walking on two legs because it used less energy than quadrupedal knuckle-walking, scientists said."

The "notion" described here actually consists of a "Darwinist myth" based on no scientific evidence whatsoever. Darwinists identifying any advantage from a particular structure or organ immediately come up with stories based on the logic of "so it must have evolved for that purpose." Yet they are unable to produce any evidence or observations to back up these tales.

The notion that "walking on two legs is more efficient so that is why we evolved and became bipedal" similarly constitutes no evidence for evolution. It is obvious that a system being advantageous or efficient does not show that it emerged as the result of evolution. The advantages of a car having four-wheel drive, for instance, do not show that it emerged as the result of a random process. 

The fact that a living thing walks on two legs does not show that it is related to human beings

Yet another classic evolutionist error regarding bipedalism appears in the report, which suggests that "Bipedalism is a defining characteristic of the human lineage and marked an important [supposed evolutionary] divergence from other apes."

However, this is a totally unfounded and dogmatic claim. The fact that any characteristic is unique to any one life form does not reveal a difference based on evolution. One electronic product, for example, may have a feature not found in any other, but this does not show that the product in question was not designed.

However, monkeys such as chimpanzees are macaques are known to be able to walk on two legs, albeit not for long and not as efficiently as human beings. Yet this constitutes no evidence in favor of evolution. Darwinists have no evidence with which to back up their illusory claims. The technique employed is no different to the way that Darwinists resort to propaganda rather than submitting evidence. Birds have wings, but not everything with wings is a bird. (2) Similarly, not everything that walks on two legs is human.

The claim that chimpanzees are the genetic cousins of human beings is simply a preconception

This claim contained in the article is the product of a dogmatic perspective that regards similarities as the product of evolution right from the outset. Human beings and chimpanzees share the same atmosphere and eat similar foods. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for their biochemistries to function along similar principles and for them to have various enzymes in common. These common structures do not, however, make the chimpanzee man"s "cousin."

Moreover, the latest comparative analyses of the human and chimpanzee genomes have dealt a severe blow to the evolutionist concept of the "genetic cousin." Comparison of the chimpanzee genome with that of human beings revealed that the difference between them was four times greater than had previously been estimated. (3) 

The supposed reality in David Raichlen"s dreams

The California University anthropologist David A. Raichlen, a member of the research team, misleads the reader by referring to evolutionist speculation for which there is no scientific evidence as "fact:" 

"This paper provides strong support for the fact that energy savings played a role in the evolution of bipedalism."
The truth is, however, that other evolutionist admissions on the subject show that they accept the dilemmas involved with the supposed evolution of bipedalism. 
It is not only evolutionist claims regarding bipedalism that are shrouded in darkness, but all their claims regarding the supposed evolution of human beings. This is clear from the following words by the evolutionist science writer Elaine Morgan:
"Four of the most outstanding mysteries about humans are: 1) why do they walk on two legs? 2) why have they lost their fur? 3) why have they developed such large brains? 4) why did they learn to speak? The orthodox answers to these questions are: 1) we do not yet know, 2) we do not yet know 3) we do not yet know 4) we do not yet know. The list of questions could be considerably lengthened without affecting the monotony of the answers." (4)
Raichlen"s words are not therefore supported by any evidence, and what he calls "fact" is actually speculative preconceptions. 

The fossil-based scenario of human evolution is collapsing

We are also told in the report that the researchers investigated fossil records attributed to human beings and identified anatomical features in human fossil history that provided greater efficiency in energy terms.

Claims to the effect that Australopithecines, regarded by evolutions as forebears of modern man, walked on two legs have been discredited by studies performed by expert anatomists. And many evolutionists have now admitted that Australopithecus cannot be man"s ancestor. 

Anatomical comparisons have revealed that Homo habilis, one species in the fictitious human family tree and that was attempted to be "humanized" by way forcing the facts was actually a species of ape. (5)
Ancestral claims regarding this species have been discredited, and so the fact that this latest study has investigated it constitutes no evidence for the human evolution scenario and consists of a hollow endeavor. 

The idea that bipedalism evolved through random mutations is irrational and unscientific

As was made clear at the beginning of this article, the biomechanical systems that make it possible for human beings to walk on two legs contain a large number of sub-systems and are the result of other functionally interconnected systems. According to the theory of evolution, these systems, which are directed by highly complex genetic networks, must have come about through natural selection and random mutations with no consciousness or objective. However, as countless experiments and observations have shown, the effects of mutations are inevitably destructive.

To believe that the shoulders of a monkey adapted to living in trees will be displaced backwards when it begins living on the ground, that its trunk will grow progressively thinner, that its arms will become shorter and its legs longer, that its hands will become more prehensile, that the arrangement of its toes will change, that there will be changes in the organization of its knee and shoulder joints, that it will lose its fur, that its brain will grow three-fold, that it will learn to speak, and that it will turn into human beings able to make technological inventions, to develop a moral framework, to establish universities, hospitals, libraries and states, into scientists able to venture into space and examine their own descent, into people capable of taking pleasure from art and music, and that all this happened with no blueprint or purpose through the chance-based effects of destructive random mutations is a violation of reason and logic, for which there is not the slightest scientific evidence. 

In order for those legs to grow in length, there would have to be simultaneous and flawless mutational stages to repair the functional impairments taking place in the muscles, nerves, blood vessels and bones. In addition, this scenario, made up of a whole chain of impossibilities, would have to remain unaffected by and have no effect on the changes listed in the paragraph above. In the same way that it is impossible for random effects to turn a mechanical wristwatch into a flawlessly functioning electrical one, it is impossible for random mutations to turn a monkey into a human being without causing any physiological interruption or impairment.
In the words of Professor Marcel-Paul Schützenberger, a Paris University mathematician and doctor: 

"Gradualists and saltationists alike are completely incapable of giving a convincing explanation of the quasi-simultaneous emergence of a number of biological systems that distinguish human beings from the higher primates." (6)

In believing in this transition, in the absence of any relevant mechanism of regular fossil series, evolutionists are acting totally unscientifically. They produce imaginary causes of this hypothesis they regard as the truth, come up with hypotheses such as bipedalism evolving because it reduced energy consumption, and thus take yet one more step away from scientific validity.

The unscientific nature of speculative approaches suggesting propulsive forces for the supposed evolution of man is described as follows by Henry Gee, one of the editors of Nature magazine: 

"For example, the evolution of man is said to have been driven by improvements in posture, brain size, and the coordination between hand and eye, which led to technological achievements such as fire, the manufacture of tools, and the use of language. But such scenarios are subjective. They can never be tested by experiment, and so they are unscientific. They rely for their currency not on scientific test but on assertion and the authority of their presentation." (7)


Even if Darwinists continue to insist that science is impossible without the theory of evolution, the studies they publish will continue to prove the opposite. This latest study has once again revealed that evolutionists regard their own dogmas as being superior to science. They have again chosen to relate their own dogmatic fairy tales, ignoring the way that findings regarding the efficiency of bipedalism actually point to the fact of creation.

Our advice to and to all other evolutionists is that they should accept that the theory of evolution has by now totally collapsed and the truth of creation supported by the scientific evidence.

(1) Michael D. Sockol et al., Chimpanzee locomotor energetics and the origin of human bipedalism, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, published on the internet before publication on 16 July 2007,
(2) Michael D. Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman, "One Giant Step For Mankind," Time, 23 July 2001
(3) The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005. "Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome," Nature 437:69-87.
For a comprehensive evaluation, see "The Widening Genetic Gap,"
(4) Elaine Morgan, The Scars of Evolution, Oxford University Press, New York, 1994, p. 5
(5) See.
The Origin of Man
(6) Schutzenberger M-P., in "The Miracles of Darwinism: An Interview with Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger," Origins & Design, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1996, pp. 10-15
(7) Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to A New History of Life, The Free Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1999, p. 5
2007-06-16 00:00:00

Harun Yahya's Influences | Presentations | Audio Books | Interactive CDs | Conferences| About this site | Make your homepage | Add to favorites | RSS Feed
All materials can be copied, printed and distributed by referring to author “Mr. Adnan Oktar”.
(c) All publication rights of the personal photos of Mr. Adnan Oktar that are present in our website and in all other Harun Yahya works belong to Global Publication Ltd. Co. They cannot be used or published without prior consent even if used partially.
© 1994 Harun Yahya. -