JD Rucker: Lip-Smacking Sounds of Gelada Baboons Heralded as Missing Link

Christians often get accused of bending the truth and making stretches on observations to prove a point of creationism or Biblical accounts. Unfortunately, the same holds true in the world of science where stretching the imagination and abandoning common sense are often tools of the trade to prove that life on earth was an accident.

It’s front page news that Thore Bergman, a scientist from the University of Ann Arbor, thought that there were people behind him talking when he was working in the mountains of Ethiopia.

“It was unnerving to have primate vocalizations sound so much like human voices,” the scientist said in a press release.

The way that they make sounds, known as “wobbles”, is a rapid lip-smacking that generates noises unlike other primates. Here is a short sampling, the best we were able to find on YouTube:

Freaky? Absolutely. Resembling of human speech? It’s a slight stretch, but compared the shrieks, cries, and roars of other primates it’s definitely the closest to human sounds as possible, not so much because it sounds like the noises that humans normally make but because humans could make similar sounds. It’s definitely an interesting find, a curiosity that makes for a fun YouTube video and possibly even a need for further examination. It definitely does not warrant the attention it’s getting in mainstream media or claims being made by some publications.

Here’s the listing on Google News. It was listed as one of the top stories of the day:

This is so far from being a missing link that many scientists are even calling it a stretch, yet as part of our programming the find is being called a breakthrough in the quest to prove that we evolved from monkeys.

Even if you believe that the sounds could evolve into ancient human speech, there’s one thing that it simply cannot reconcile. The ability to speak has always been a major stumbling block for evolutionists because it requires a sudden jump. Communication from an evolutionary perspective is necessary for many animals. They warn each other of danger, announce moods, participate in mating rituals, and in the case of dolphins and a handful of other creatures, it allows for communication of individuality.

Complex speech cannot, based upon evolutionary standards, happen accidentally. It can and does evolve over time once the basic need to communicate through speech is established, but establishing the need for speech as part of communication is not possible without help. This is where scientific discovery works against itself. Many animals can be taught to communicate. Chimpanzees have famously been taught sign language and other types of complex communication techniques that demonstrate an aptitude, but they must be taught.

The best friend of scientific theories as they pertain to evolution and the formation of the universe is, of course, time. It is used by the vast majority of scientists as the driving force behind their theories in these regards. It makes it to where they don’t have to prove how an actual ability such as speech, flight, or even sight was able to evolve. They simply have to demonstrate that there was something there that could have evolved, then apply large numbers to their hypothesis to account for impossibilities. This is an example. Gelada baboons have the ability to make human-like noises, therefore given 2.5 million years they’ll be able to speak like humans because of evolution.

It doesn’t address the spark. It doesn’t address that for language to evolve, it must exist in the first place. Vocal communication is not speech. There is no evolutionary reason for animals to need to give names to anything in their surroundings such as trees or other animals. Therefore, the ability to speak cannot be born through evolution. Again, speech itself can evolve once established but it must be established first. This cannot happen over 2.5 million years.

Perhaps the easier way to demonstrate this is with sight. Here is how it was explained 7 years ago:

Scientists have traced the origin of eyes back to a transparent blob of living jelly floating in the sea about 600 million years ago.

That creature, the distant ancestor of a modern freshwater animal known as a hydra, could only distinguish light from dark.

But that simple trick was such an advantage that it was passed on from generation to generation of the hydra’s cousins and their myriad descendants. It was the precursor of the wildly different, ever more complex eyes of fish, ants, flies, giraffes and people.

Notice where the story of the evolution of sight starts – with a creature that could distinguish between light and dark. This is a problem for evolutionists because it still does not explain why the creature developed the ability to make that distinction in the first place. For evolution to work, a need must be filled. For a need to be filled, an observable stimulus must trigger the need. How can the ability to distinguish between light and dark come about if the predecessors had no way of known that there was light in the first place?

There are those who will debate it until they’re blue in the face but they cannot determine the sparking factor. The answer that is almost always attributed to the solution is random genetic mutation. Something happened randomly to one and then it grew to spread across entire species. As you walk along the path set before you by Yeshua, remember that there are two primary “reasonable explanations” that others will use to try to convince you of their falsehoods: long lengths of time and genetic mutations. They are the only things that can confuse the issue enough to suspend disbelief.

Unfortunately, they are powerful tools strong enough to keep many in the dark. This is just another example of the same concept. Just look at all of the coverage that this is getting. Don’t be fooled by the silliness of science designed to deceive.