A SERIES OF BLUNDERS REGARDING MONKEY INTELLIGENCE
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
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
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,
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
The assumptions which evolutionists accept
without really thinking about them are actually based on very
weak foundations. Evolutionists feel enormous excitement at
ape behavior which is similar to that of humans, yet ignore
other creatures which display even more intelligent behavior
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 …
According to evolutionists' own logic,
it is possible to draw a comparison between bees, which build
combs that are architectural marvels, or beavers, which construct
dams, with civil engineers and say that they are our ancestors.
That claim is as nonsensical as saying we are descended from
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
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
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.
Due to the symbiosis of leaf cutter ants
and fungi, the ants obtain the protein they need for nutrition
from the mushroom buds they grow on leaves. Here we see a mushroom
garden tended by ants.
1) Inside the nest, slightly smaller workers chop leaves into
2)The next caste chews these bits into pulp and fertilizes them
with deposits of enzyme-rich fecal fluid.
3) Other ants apply the fertile leaf paste over a base of dried
leaves in new chambers.
4) Another caste hauls in bits of fungus from older chambers
and plants them in the leaf paste. Bits of fungus spread on
the leaf paste like frost.
5) A teeming caste of dwarfs cleans and weeds the garden, then
harvests the fungus for others to eat.
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
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,
Monkey Blunders from National
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
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.