MONKEY INTELLIGENCE
National Geographic TV broadcast two documentaries in April 2003 in its Europe edition. Called A Tale of Three Chimps and My Favorite Monkey, these documentaries bore clear similarities in terms of the message they sought to give. The consecutive broadcasting of these documentaries by National Geographic TV, their subject matter, and their timing indicated that deliberate evolutionist propaganda was going on. This channel, which in March 2003 brought us the fairy tales of "the dog that entered the sea and became a whale" and "the fish that left the sea and grew legs" in its Great Transformations, this time offered us another story and tried to inculcate the suggestion of the alleged evolution of man.
The documentary "A Tale of Three Chimps" dealt with chimpanzees working in a circus, and "My Favorite Monkey" was about the tailed macaque. Throughout both of these films frequent examples were given of what appeared to be intelligent behavior in monkeys, and the impression was given that since monkeys are so-called close relatives of man, their intelligence is correspondingly high. The aim of this article is to reveal the twisted Darwinist interpretations given in both documentaries.
Claims That Chimpanzees and Man
are Brothers or Genetic Relatives are Untrue
Right at the beginning of the film there is talk of chimpanzees' being a "brother species" to man and it was said that scientists realized the similarities between the two species before their genetic proximity was confirmed.
National Geographic TV's view of monkeys as a "brother species" to man is nothing more than Darwinist prejudice and rests on no scientific findings. There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that man and apes evolved from a common ancestor. In the face of the picture presented by the fossil record, evolutionist paleontologists admit that they have abandoned hope of finding a missing link between man and the chimpanzee.
The claim that a "genetic proximity" between man and ape has been confirmed is a deception, pure and simple. Genetic proximity is a scenario produced as the result of a distortion of data regarding human and chimpanzee DNA with the aim of supporting Darwinism. However, this scenario is rotten to the core, because it claims that DNA emerged by means of so-called random evolutionary mutations. The fact is, however, that the effects of mutations on organisms are inevitably harmful, and may even have fatal results. DNA contains meaningful information recorded in a special encoding system. Random mutations in genes cannot possibly add new information to the DNA of the organism and turn it into a new species. All experiments and observations on mutations demonstrate this.
Moreover, the invalidity of the figures put forward in this genetic proximity propaganda has also emerged in new scientific discoveries in recent months. The findings of a California Institute of Technology geneticist have revealed that the genetic difference between man and chimpanzee was three times greater than had been claimed.1 It was revealed that there is absolutely no scientific proof of a point that is so frequently stressed in evolutionist propaganda. (For more details about the scientific discoveries which have undermined the scenario of human evolution, see Darwinism Refuted, by Harun Yahya at www.harunyahya.com under the subtopic "Refutation of Darwinism.")
The National Geographic TV documentary, "My Favorite Monkey," states that man and apes possess a similar physiology, and this is portrayed as evidence of evolution. Space is devoted to the comments of a veterinarian regarding a monkey which was brought to him for treatment. The veterinarian states that some of the medicines he used for the monkey were actually human medicines, and cites this as evidence that the two species are related.
The fact, however, that medicines can prove to be effective in both species provides no evidence for the theory of evolution whatsoever. The comparison is merely one made in line with Darwinist prejudices. It is quite natural that similar chemicals should benefit both man and apes. Both species share the same biosphere and the same carbon-based organic molecules. This common structure applies not just to man and apes, but to the whole of nature. For instance, human beings produce medicine from the blood of the horseshoe crab. Yet this does not mean that man and the horseshoe crab are related. On the other hand, kidney transplants carried out from chimpanzees to human beings represent a serious blow to the claims of similar physiology. Dr. Keith Reemtsma of Tulane University carried out more than a dozen such transplants from chimpanzees to human beings in 1963, but all the patients died.2 That is because the chimpanzee metabolism worked faster, for which reason the cells in the tissue of the chimpanzee kidney rapidly consumed the water in the bodies of the human recipients.
National Geographic TV's Propaganda Tactics
The propaganda tactic so often resorted to in documentaries on National Geographic TV consists of showing examples of intelligent behavior by apes and then drawing comparisons between them and human beings. This tactic can be seen in expressions like "they are intelligent animals," "their needs closely resemble those of human beings," and "like us, they feel the need for personal bonds and interpersonal relationships."
The commentary in My Favorite Monkey mentions that apes produce creative solutions in the face of problems in nature and that they are intelligent problem-solvers. It says the line between human and ape behavior may be very unclear.
In another narration, it is stated that they resemble us physically; we use them in space and medical research. Also, they resemble us socially, but we keep that to ourselves. Family life is very important among members of the macaque species and we are so closely related that …
Yet the inconsistency of constructing an evolutionary link between man and ape in respect of intelligence and interpersonal relationships is quite evident. There are other animals far superior to apes when it comes to intelligence and relationships. Bees, for instance, are able to employ the kind of architecture in building their combs that only a mathematician's calculations could match.3 A geometrical plan can be seen in the comb, one that allows the least possible material to be used in the construction but the greatest possible amount of area for storage. (In the identification of such an "optimal" design the area and circumferences of different geometrical shapes need to be calculated, and the geometric shape with the highest area/circumference ratio should be selected.)
In the same way, beavers are able to build their nests against the current in the middle of rivers, employing the kind of engineering abilities used by man in constructing dams.4 Termites build magnificent towers capable of comparison with our own skyscrapers, and set up air-conditioning systems, special storage chambers and agricultural areas inside them. The fact, of course, that they display a visibly sensitive mathematical and geometrical knowledge in their buildings and use engineering techniques does not imply that we are related to bees, beavers, or termites.
Neither is the fact that monkeys feel the need for interpersonal bonds and relationships evidence for evolution. Creatures that have no possible relation to human beings also enjoy similar bonds and relationships. Penguins, for example, raise families full of love and loyalty. Dogs are much more faithful and friendly in the relationships they establish with human beings. Doves enjoy close relations with their mates. Budgerigars exhibit enormous interest and devotion to one another, and also to human beings. Yet these features do not make penguins, doves, budgerigars, and dogs our relatives.
On the other hand, these animals do reveal the invalidity of the theory of evolution's claims regarding the origin of their intelligence and behavior. Despite the fact that the creatures we have just listed are located on branches of the imaginary evolutionary tree far more distant from man than are chimpanzees, they are still able to display behavior much closer to human intelligence than that of chimpanzees.
Honeybees reveal yet another contradiction which the theory of evolution is quite incapable of accounting for. The theory seeks to account for level of intelligence by the development of the nervous system. For instance, it links the fact that man is the most highly developed living thing to his having the highest brain/body ratio. According to this logic, chimpanzees, with a much more complex nervous system than that of bees, should be far superior to them. Yet the truth is actually the exact opposite. The fact that a creature much further away from man on the imaginary evolutionary tree than the chimpanzee is able to display the kind of complex behavior seen in man, despite its being a simple organism, – the way it calculates the surface area and circumference of the hexagon and measures internal angles, for instance – definitively invalidates the evolutionist claims with regard to ape intelligence.
Beware the Monkey Culture Distortion
In the documentary My Favorite Monkey it is suggested that the tailed monkey known as the macaque possesses the ability to develop complex behaviors, and to teach them to individuals and so hand them on to subsequent generations. This is described as a kind of "monkey culture," on the grounds that such learned behavior falls within the meaning of culture.
It may be suggested that the behavior models peculiar to one living species are an indication of "culture." However, as we have stated above, "human-type" behavior or the demonstration of a "human-type" culture in certain aspects by a living being is again no evidence for the theory of evolution.
National Geographic TV engages in two major distortions here. First, the example is given of a macaque washing the sand off a potato in the sea before eating it. Second, an adult macaque is shown forcibly taking the stones a younger monkey is playing with out of its hand.
It is stated that the washing of the potato in water is behavior that was first developed by one macaque in the group and then taught to the others. This is taken to be a sign of culture. The taking away by the adult of the stone the younger macaques are playing with is compared to the way that children playing in a nursery take each other's toys. It is suggested here that the way the adult engages in a display of strength by taking it away from the younger animal shows that macaques imbue the stone with a kind of social significance.
The fact that a monkey engages in "humane" cleaning and displays a "toy" culture cannot be put forward as evidence for evolution. Evolutionists persistently fixate on monkey culture, and are accustomed to portray this as a whole entity, based on particular communication between monkeys. The aim here is to install the idea in people's minds that human culture is a phenomenon which emerged with evolution, and that among animals the nearest level to human culture is that exhibited by monkeys.
Yet the wild bee known as schwarzula or the leafcutter ant exhibit an even more complex culture – that of agriculture. Schwarzula engages in "livestock rearing" by making use of secretions from a species of larva it gathers up and collects in its nest. Leafcutter ants engage in "agriculture" by growing fungus.5 Another species of ant collects resin from trees and uses this as an antiseptic to purify its nest from germs. This is a sign of a "culture of medicine." The way that creatures which (according to evolutionists) are "simpler" than apes and much further removed from man than apes, are able to display such complex examples of culture is enough to invalidate the evolutionists' claims of a link between "monkey culture" and man.
As we have seen, National Geographic TV's distortions are insufficient to account, according to the theory of evolution, for behavior and culture among animals that are similar to those in man. Moreover, the examples we have cited of behavior and culture in bees, ants, beavers, dogs, and doves raise certain questions that can never be answered in terms of the theory of evolution: How did these creatures come by the necessary information to accomplish such complex behavior? How are they able to interpret such information? How is it that tiny insects are able to display more complex behavior than apes, alleged to be man's closest relatives?
You can ask these questions to the evolutionist of your choice. It is absolutely certain that the reply will demonstrate the total quandary they find themselves in. Those with rather more experience will try to gloss over the matter by saying such behavior depends on "instinct." Yet that fails to save the theory that is deadlocked. "Instinct" is nothing more than a name generated for this evolutionary quandary.
It is obvious that instinct does not stem from the living thing itself, but is inspired by a superior intelligence. It is God Who inspires the behavior in bees, beavers, dogs, doves, and chimpanzees. Every living thing displays the characteristics God set out for it. The fact that the chimpanzee is an animal, which man finds amusing and which is able to obey his commands, stems from the inspiration God places in it. The truth of this can be seen in the verse of the Qur'an; "Your Lord revealed to the bees…" (Qur'an, 16:48)
Monkey Blunders from National Geographic TV
The claims put forward in the comparisons between the tailed macaques and man in the documentary "My Favorite Monkey" are so utterly inconsistent that the film gives the impression of having been prepared as an entertainment for children. For instance:
The experimental monkeys sent into space are referred to as heroes, and we are told, had it not been for them man could never have taken the giant leap into space that he did. This is a totally baseless comment: The monkeys sent into space did not "succeed" in doing anything. The rockets they were placed into were controlled from earth, and the monkeys were just tightly strapped into the cabins and used as experimental subjects. Furthermore, even if we do allow a measure of heroism in the experimental animals used in space research, then rats and dogs must also be included, since these too were used in craft sent up into space.
It is also stated in My Favorite Monkey that apes have been of major use to man in the medical field. We are told how, as a result of research on rhesus monkeys, the Rh tests were developed. Obviously, though, the use of an animal in medical research does not make it a relative of man, in the same way that the use of bacteria in the development of antibiotics does not make them relatives of man.
In that same documentary, a comparison is made between the way that monkeys groom each other to remove fleas and parasites and the way that human beings go to the hairdresser, and it is suggested that going to the hairdresser is parallel social behavior to being groomed for fleas.
This claim must represent a "shining example" of the way in which National Geographic TV's Darwinist fantasies know no limits. Maybe in future programs this creative imagination could be used to engage in speculation regarding the origin of the human habit of going to the theatre by showing two groups of apes, the one watching the other group playing. That is, of course, if termites are not rediscovered with their construction abilities and put forward as man's nearest ancestors!
Macaques' jumping onto jet skis, skiing, or sitting and eating in restaurants with their owners does not make them relatives of man. It is clear that such behavior does not have its roots in ape etiquette or culture. Such behavior is the result of punishment and reward training, and has no more significance than a circus show. Indeed, dogs, birds, and dolphins are also used in such shows and demonstrate impressive abilities. National Geographic TV is using and distorting such images of monkeys to implant in people's minds the idea set out in evolution that the monkeys are man's closest relatives.
Conclusion
These documentaries broadcast on National Geographic TV once again show that the channel is a blind and dogmatic supporter of Darwinism. The claims put forward about animal behavior and intelligence make no scientific statement at all. This channel, which declares the apes sent into space to be heroes and tries to establish an evolutionary link between monkeys grooming each other and human beings going to the hairdresser, is trying to cover claims that even children would find laughable with a scientific veneer. We recommend that if the channel is to defend the theory of evolution, it should try to find more rational and logical arguments with which to do so.
1. "Chimps Humans only 95% Similar," http://www.cnn.com/2002/ TECH/science/09/24/humans.chimps.ap/index.html
2. Daniel Q. Haney, "Scientists choose a transplant donor that's smart, plentiful and kind of cute," Associated Press, 08.04.2001. http://www.boston.com/news/daily/04/pig_transplant.htm
3. The Miracle in the Honeybee, Audio Book: 3. http://www.harunyahya.com/m_audio.php#a8
4. Harun Yahya, For Men of Understanding, Ta-Ha Publishers, January 2001
5. Harun Yahya, The Miracle in the Ant, Goodword Books, 2001
THE SMUGGLING INCIDENT NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC TV DECLINED TO COVER
Two documentaries called Dinosaur Dealers have been broadcast on National Geographic TV. These dealt with the trade in fossils and fossil smuggling, and described the adventures of a paleontologist who followed in the tracks of a number of stolen fossils, or fossils smuggled out of Australia. The trail was followed detective-style, and the program showed the negotiations carried out in order to trap the smugglers. In this way, the impression wasgiven that National Geographic is an idealistic body, chasing hot on the heels of smugglers and striving with all its might to destroy this illegal trade. However, the TV channel failed to mention that just a few years ago it too was involved in smuggling an Archaeoraptor fossil (and the fraud that accompanied it). In fact, it said not a word about it.
Let us recall the details of that smuggling operation.
Archaeoraptor liaoningensis was a forged dino-bird fossil. The remains of the creature, alleged to be an evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds, had apparently been unearthed in the Liaoning area of China and were published in the November 1999 edition of National Geographic magazine.
Stephen Czerkas, an American museum administrator, had bought the fossil from the Chinese for $80,000, and then showed it to two scientists he had made contact with. Once the expected confirmation had been received, he wrote a report about the fossil. Yet Czerkas was no scientific researcher, nor did he hold a doctorate of any sort. He submitted his report to two famous scientific journals, Nature and Science, but they both declined to publish it unless it was first vetted by an independent commission of paleontologists.
Czerkas was determined to have this fantastical discovery published, and he next knocked at the door of National Geographic, known for its support of the theory of evolution.
Under Chinese law it was definitely forbidden to remove fossils unearthed within its borders from the country, and fossil-smuggling could be severely punished, even by death. Despite being well aware of this, National Geographic accepted this fossil which had been smuggled out of China. The fossil was presented to the media at a press conference staged in the National Geographic headquarters in October 1999. An illustrated seven-page article describing the dino-bird fairy tale formed the cover story in the November edition of National Geographic magazine. Moreover, the fossil was exhibited in the National Geographic museum, where it was presented to millions of people as definitive proof of the theory of evolution.
The truth emerged in March 2001: no such intermediate species as Achaeoraptor had ever existed. Computer tomography analyses of the fossil revealed that it consisted of parts of at least two different species. Archaeoraptor was thus dethroned, and took its place alongside all the other evolutionist frauds in history. Darwinism—whose claims have never been empirically verified in the past 150 years—was once more associated with specially manufactured fossil forgeries.
As we have seen, National Geographic was once party to that very fossil-smuggling which it now purports to oppose. Naturally, the fact that in its latest documentaries it devotes space to bringing fossil smuggling out into the open may be regarded as a positive sign that it will not tolerate similar abuses in the future. However, if the TV channel does oppose fossil-smuggling, then it must also deal with such well-known smuggling incidents as Archaeoraptor in its programs. No matter how much of a violation of its Darwinist broadcasting policy it might be, admitting its past mistakes and taking the side of the truth would be commendable behavior in the sight of all its viewers.
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC TV’S UNDERSEA FAIRY TALES
A documentary called Built for the Kill has been screened on National Geographic TV. Its aim was twofold. On the one hand, the program described some of the techniques used by sea creatures to hunt or evade capture. On the other, it sent out a Darwinist message by describing some creatures as "programmed to kill" or "ruthless killers."
The flawless design in the creatures described in the documentary were portrayed as mechanisms "developed for survival," although no evidence of this was offered. This is a technique frequently encountered in broadcasts by National Geographic TV and similar Darwinist institutions. However, it is obvious that these descriptions lack any scientific basis, since looking at the features possessed by the creatures and saying "they developed these in order to survive" or sticking an evolutionary label on the design in living things is itself of no scientific value.
For instance, attempting to account for the shiny skin on the underside of the blue shark and the dark skin on the top by means of evolution, while failing to provide any evidence, merely reveals National Geographic TV's prejudices. Another fish, looking down, cannot make out the shark against the dark tones of the sea bottom thanks to the dark color of the shark's skin. The shark will similarly be camouflaged against the brightness of the sea surface stemming from the rays of the sun. If this is to be explained by evolution, then it must also be explained how the information for this camouflage design emerged by chance in the creature's DNA, and scientific proof must be given. Maintaining that this information came about by natural selection and random mutations, in the absence of any scientific evidence whatsoever, is merely Darwinist dogma.
On the other hand, this feature of the shark can be perfectly convincingly accounted for by intelligent design: the information regarding which areas of the shark's skin are to be which colors is present in its DNA. It is utterly rational and scientific to maintain that the encoding of this information came about not by chance but by conscious intervention.
The fundamental factor, which reveals the invalidity of the evolutionist claims put forward in the film, is the exceedingly complex nature of the design in the creatures discussed. The dolphin sonar dealt with in the documentary is one instance of this. Dolphins possess a special organ in their heads that allows them to send out sound waves and sense the echoes that reflect from physical bodies. These sound waves can penetrate some 30 cm beneath the sand and can be picked up in an amazing way by the dolphins as the environment changes (from water to sand and back from sand to water). In this way the dolphin plots a sort of map of what lies beneath the sand.
Another aspect indicative of the perfection in dolphin sonar is the way the U.S. Navy has imitated it in its own development of sonar. Since existing forms of sonar were unable to locate mines buried in the sand during the Gulf War, the U.S. fleet lost a number of ships. It then set out to use the dolphin wave range in the research it supported and to employ the dolphin's sensory technique in its own vessels.
Whitlow Au, a researcher from the Hawaii Marine Biology Institute in Kailua, together with his colleagues, managed to come up with such a sonar system four years ago. A computerized sonar device which monitored and decoded the echoes of the waves it sent was added to this artificial dolphin sonar. This sonar, developed by scientists, was subjected to a number of tests and produced very positive results, registering a 90% success rate in locating mines buried 40 cm under the sand.1
As we can see, an advanced computer needs to be used in order to imitate the action of dolphin sonar. This animal's sonar faculty, which does what an advanced computer can do but in an even more efficient manner, and which is also far more compact than a computer, is a miracle of engineering. To maintain that such an organ emerged by mutations—which evolution depends on—is just as illogical as maintaining that a computer could emerge from the soil as a result of natural phenomena such as wind and rain. No rational person would obviously ever believe such a claim. Yet National Geographic TV glosses over this complex organ during its account of dolphin sonar by calling it "a product of evolution," without offering the slightest evidence.
Another creature whose complex design leaves the theory of evolution floundering is the angelfish. Thanks to its flat body, this animal buries itself in the sand to wait for its prey, and keeps a lookout with two eyes which protrude like periscopes. One of the creature's most astonishing aspects is that it can also detect the approach of prey thanks to an organ which senses electrical signals. When the moment comes, it suddenly lunges out of its hiding place and swallows its prey in a single gulp.
National Geographic TV employed the expression "it developed a sixth sense" during its description of this sense possessed by the creature. This sensory system contains a most complex design: the animal possesses an organ that perceives electrical impulses, nerves which carry the signals received by that organ, and, most important of all, a brain capable of transforming these signals into a meaningful map. Highly effective connections transmit the signals between the nerve cells. These connections have been designed to prevent the signals from being lost or diminished in any way. In short, there is a very detailed design and organization in the sensory system. Since even a simple ammeter for measuring electric currents requires a specific design, it is clear that this much more complex sensory system was also intelligently designed.
After describing all these complex systems, National Geographic TV claimed that they all emerged "by evolution," without feeling the need to offer any evidence for this. Yet again, this shows how dogmatically devoted National Geographic TV is to the theory of evolution. It feels no need to test the foundations of the theory. On the contrary, it seeks to account for the whole of nature in the light of the theory after having swallowed it verbatim.
Nor do the descriptions of some creatures in the program as "ruthless killers" actually reflect the truth. This expression is employed to impose the Darwinist dogma that there is a ruthless struggle for survival in nature and that living things are aggressive, selfish, and ruthless. Yet, the hunting that goes on among living things is not "ruthless killing." Animals kill only for food or self-defense. The method they employ is usually the swiftest, and thus the method that inflicts the least suffering. (For instance, a lion kills its prey by biting its throat.)
Scr 29
