False Correlations of Darwinism

My favourite topic of enquiry regarding creation and the refutation of Darwinism is zoology. Though my studies within it, from a formal perspective, include only an unfinished diploma, I have spent many hours reading, researching and observing the wonder of living things.

One of the fallacies of Darwinism that is rarely mentioned is the supposed correlation between bipedalism and intelligence. In the conventional time-line of human evolution, from monkey to 'modern' man, the assumption is made that increased bipedalism be-gets increased intelligence or vice versa, increased intelligence be-gets increased bipedalism. "Why of course, all four-legged creatures are stupid and all two-legged creatures are smart!", I hear the intellectually neotanised Dawkinites murmur.

That is simply not true. Bears are smarter than kangaroos for one, but it is also not true in view of Darwinian human evolution theory. If the fallacious correlation presented in the pretty pictures of the text books was true then we would find that the more bipedal the ape, the more intelligent. Unfortunately fact, and namely fact by zoological observation, proves otherwise. The smartest ape is not the most bipedal, and the most bipedal is not the most intelligent. Darwinists say "d'oh!


The most intelligent ape, shown by several tests that have included the ability to learn sign language and the ability to grasp gift reciprocity, is the orang utan. The thing about the orang is that it is the most arboreal of the great apes - it spends more time in the trees and is less bipedal than all of the other great apes such as gorillas and chimps. The most bipedal ape is not even a 'great ape', it is the gibbon. The gibbon habitually walks upright when dancing across branches or when on the ground. God made it this way because its long arms that are used for 'brachiating' through the trees are not suitable for the knuckle or wrist walking of the other apes. The gibbon is certainly not the most intelligent ape.

So there we have it, there is no observable relation between bipedalism and intelligence in apes, so how can it be assumed that there was in the fictitious tree of human evolution? Easily, because evolutions are experts at drawing pretty pictures and telling you that something definitely happened, without explaining how. You cannot reasonably posit that Lucy was any more intelligent than her relatives that swung in the trees more than she did.

The other false correlation is brain size and intelligence - inevitably the drawings show the head size increasing from the small head of an ape-like creature to the larger size of homo sapiens. As Dr. Marvin Lubenow, author of Bones of Contention observed, if you blow up a gorilla's brain you simply have a huge gorilla brain - it is the wiring of the brain that matters. In fact, gorillas have larger brains than orangs, but do not display intelligence to the same level. It is nothing to do with their size - chimps are smaller than both but have a larger brain than an orang.

These are just two scientifically verifiable observations made amongst living creatures that we can observe, study and test, not dead bones shoe-horned into a pre-conceived world view - now that's science.