Meet Your Ancestor: It Was a ChimPigZee

Here’s the latest headline: “‘Humans evolved after a female chimpanzee mated with a pig,” the resultant ChimPigZee. The theory of evolution gets even more bizarre. Evolutionists can’t account for matter, organized information to make the matter walk, talk, think, invent, and love, but one leading geneticist offers the hypothesis that “the human species began as the hybrid offspring of a male pig and a female chimpanzee.” Rape made you and me. If rape was OK for the chimp and pig to move the evolution of our species forward, why isn’t it OK today?

There are a lot of unanswered questions.

What I want to know is how there was nothing, and then there was something, and then the chemical something became a living organism, that became a highly specialized species with self-contained and self-generating life systems. Evolutionists need to demonstrate scientifically how inorganic matter became pigs and chimpanzees in the first place. The steps needed to evolve these creatures are mathematically enormously impossible, and they know it. Evolutionary scientists have lots of theories, but not much real science showing how nothing became something and that something became us. It’s “blah, blah, science, blah, blah, evolution, blah, blah, you’re anti-science if you don’t believe and teach these fantastical stories.”

For decades we have been told that our closest animal relative is the chimpanzee. Supposedly there’s a 97 percent genetic match. One would think that with such a close DNA match that chimpanzees would have evolved beyond using rocks to break open the hard shells of nuts.

There’s a lawsuit being filed to designate chimpanzees as “persons.” Will chimps now be arrested if they commit a crime? Will we stop chimpanzees from killing and eating their fellow chimpanzees? You didn’t know they did that? They do. Will they get Second Amendment rights? Will there be chimp-human lip balm commercials:

But back to the chimp-pig sexual encounter. This is goofy, even for an evolutionist. But we shouldn’t be surprised since evolutionists believe in spontaneous generation — abiogenesis — the first thing a biology student is taught NOT to believe.

Even the scientific community is skeptical.

“Unsurprisingly, Dr [Eugene] McCarthy’s hypothesis has come in for substantial criticism from orthodox evolutionary biologists and their Creationist opponents alike.

“One important criticism . . . is that there is little chance that pigs and chimps could be interfertile. The two orders of creatures, according to evolutionary theory, diverged roughly 80million years ago, a ScienceBlogs post points out.

Here’s what I found most helpful from the evolutionary skeptics. Paul Zachary ‘PZ’ Myers, prominent evolutionist and anti-anything that is anti-evolution,  “suggests rather impudently that Dr McCarthy do the experimental work himself and try mating with a pig to see how far he gets.” I’d love to see that. On second thought, I wouldn’t.

Myers makes a great point. I would like to see evolutionists everywhere, including Myers, do the experimental work necessary to prove that life evolved from non-living matter, and from this demonstrate how the mind and morality formed. When they accomplish this, then show us how any descendant of a pig raped by a chimpanzee obligates any of their offspring (that’s us) to follow man-made conventional morality. If it was OK for chimps to rape pigs, why can’t we ChimPigZees rape today?

Long before the science of genetics and the discovery of DNA, Robert Lewis Dabney (1820–1898) saw the moral implications of molecule to amoeba and pigs and chimpanzees to humans:

“If mine is a pig’s destiny, why may I not hold this ‘pig philosophy’? Again, if I am but an animal refined by evolution, I am entitled to live an animal life. Why not? The leaders in this and the sensualistic philosophy may themselves be restrained by their habits of mental culture, social discretion and personal refinement (for which they are indebted to reflex Christian influences); but the herd of common mortals are not cultured and refined, and in them the doctrine will bear its deadly fruit.”1

As the theory of evolution becomes more consistent with its naturalistic and materialistic assumptions about human origins, there is no telling where it will take us.

  1. Robert L. Dabney, “The Influences of False Philosophies upon Character and Conduct,” in Discourses (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Pub., 1979), 4:574. []