Why Evolution Doesn't Work
(By James Stephen, Last Updated 08/06/01)
If you have not ever been exposed to the following material,
just familiarize yourself with the new paradigms that this information presents.
Then research and apply discernment to each topic. I personally took a couple of
years before I really started to truly understand and believe the bulk of these
new ways of thinking. Plain and simple, a lot of these concepts are totally
contrary to much of what the world has taught most people, (or that others have
deceived or kept you ignorant of). When you are all done, ask yourself and
truthfully answer the following questions:
Does evolution or creationism best fit observations, facts, and science? Why
have I not been exposed to discern for myself the alternative model of
creationism? What aspects of evolution have truly been scientifically proven?
- Evolution has yet to uncover any of the transitional forms / intermediate
steps for one kind changing into another. I use the word "kind" vs.
species because two different "kinds" tend to be more clear cut than
two different species; e.g. are some dogs different species even though some
small and large dogs can not naturally mate. Cats and dogs are obviously two
different "kinds".
- No different kinds have appeared since man appeared on the scene, (after six
days of creation, God rested).
- No mutations have been observed to produce new organs.
- The interactions between active genes, the rest of the DNA, proteins, and
other substances present are incredibly complex. To think that these
interactions could progressively modify into a new kind without destroying the
delicate balances that exist takes a real stretch of the imagination.
- Many of the differences between kinds are of the irreducible complexity.
Irreducible complexity is that the biochemistry behind a particular function
has to be based on a minimum number of steps; e.g. eye sight, hearing. Any
fewer, and the function would not even be partially present. A simple
mechanical example of something with irreducible complexity is a mouse trap.
Leave out any of the basic parts, the mouse trap will not work.
The probability of several mutations occurring at one time to create an
irreducible complexity is zero, therefore the irreducible complexity must have
been created. This is not only true for aggregate functions like eyesight, but
also for the creation of a new protein with several changes in the molecular
structure, (vs. just one). Keep in mind that proteins are manufactured from
DNA, with the average length in the smallest known living thing being at least
400 amino acid links, containing more than 7000 atoms.
- Just because two species have similar DNA does not imply evolution. In fact,
a better explanation of similar DNA is a creator making changes to a base
design; e.g. apes and humans, (are not most of are organs and physical
features basically the same). Also, most of a DNA is non-functioning; e.g.
only 1.5% of human DNA is composed of functioning genes. That means that the
DNA of humans and other mammals could exactly be the same for 98.5% of the DNA
that is non-functional. The differences in the active 1.5%, (which still is
likely similar), is what makes all the difference.
- Beneficial mutational changes of DNA for relatively small populations with
moderately long generation times, take too long to create a difference to
generate different kinds; e.g. over 100 million years would be needed to
create the differences in DNA between apes and humans, vs. the 5 million years
ago that evolutionists say over which the difference occurred.
- The progressive step by step DNA mutations over a long period of time
required of evolution necessitates that transitional species would be
present, for which there are no examples of.
- Greatly complicating the long amounts of time needed for beneficial
mutations to lead to different kinds, are all of the mass extinctions
paleontologists think they are finding in the fossil record.
- Not only are the times needed much too large, there is quite a bit
evidence that the universe, our planet, and the existence of life is 100,000
years or shorter:
- The recent Mt. St. Helens eruption created a 1/40th scale
Grand Canyon in just one day, complete with geologic strata and layers.
- There are many examples of animals and plants found fossilized
vertically through rock layers that are suppose to take millions of years
to form, (polystrate fossils); e.g. a whale. These facts do not fit the
theory that geologic strata took millions of years to form.
- The velocity of light has been slowing down, (read "
The
Slowing Down of Light"). This
provides a strong basis to explain why the universe may appear old yet be
young.
Just like a car all crunched up from hitting a wall is evidence of a
high velocity impact, what do you think mountains are!
There is a wealth of information on the fallibility of radioactive
dating techniques, along with the geologic time scale. These are whole
discussions in and of themselves. All one has to do is study either a
little and good discernment will uncover major potential pitfalls in the
assumptions and measurement error.
The rate of detrimental mutational changes making their way into a
population overwhelm beneficial mutational changes, specially when you realize
that most detrimental mutational changes are regressive vs. dominant. This
means that bad genes get progressively passed on without the bad gene showing
up due to their regressive nature, until to DNA gets so degraded with life
threatening regressive genes, that a "kind" has a hard time
producing viable offspring. Human DNA shows this degradation, but has a ways
to go before becoming threatening to the existence of our species.
Objective moral values exist in every culture; i.e. there are several things
that most everyone will agree are bad, and others that are good. Example are
cannibalism, thievery, and rape vs. commitment and love. In that several of
these moral values are contrary to progression of the fittest and most
fertile, they must have been created.
One of strongest reasons that one should be skeptical of evolution is that
an incredibly large number of the foundational examples for evolution, have
turned out to be fraudulent. These intentional accounts of deception should
give anyone pause to think.
- Peppered moth evolutionary example (an example which doesn't even lead to
a new function in a species), was a poorly conducted scientific analysis
with some fraudulent aspects; e.g. the pictures of the peppered moths
against tree trunks were set up by gluing the moths to trees. Peppered moths
don't naturally land on trees. Many studies have been conducted on peppered
months over time and there is a poor correlation between the concentration
of dark vs. light peppered moths, and how well they might camouflage on
trees. A much better correlation exists with the amount of SO2 in
the air, but other unknown factors are also at work.
- Embryo recapitulation, (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny), is a theory
that a developing fetus will progress through the different stages of that
creature's evolutionary history. This theory was advanced by Ernst Haeckel
who fraudulized drawings of developing embryos to support the theory. This
theory has also been scientifically rebuked.
- Nebraska Man, (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii), referred to in the Scopes
Trial was based on a single pig's tooth.
- Java Man, (Pithecanthropus erectus, later Homo erectus), was another
outright fraud. Eugene Dubois, the discoverer, combined a dug up human leg
bone (found 50 feet from the skullcap), a human tooth, two orangutan teeth,
and the skullcap of a gibbon to produce this fraud. Dubois also concealed
for 26 years, that he found two human skulls in similar rock strata near to
his "discovery".
- Dawn Man or Piltdown Man, (Eoanthropus dawsoni), turned out to be a
composite of recent bones, stained to make them look old, and filed down
orangutan teeth. The deception was not discovered for over 40 years.
- Peking Man, (Sinanthropus, later Homo Erectus), was originally based on an
old tooth, found conveniently by Davidson Black just as he was about to run
out of funds for his evolutionary explorations. His find was rewarded by the
Rockefeller Foundation with more funding. Subsequent skulls have been proven
to be apes hunted and killed by men.
- Detailed studies of Lucy, (Australopithecus afarensis), have shown that
the inner ear, skull, and bones are not part-human transitions, but are more
similar to pygmy chimpanzee or bonobo.
- Ramapithecus was built entirely from only a few teeth and jaw fragments.
The teeth and jaw fragments were similar, in every way to living baboons in
Ethiopia.
- Cro-Magnon Man, Neanderthals, Heidelburg Man. Detailed studies of all of
this point to that these were humans. Heidelburg Man was based on single
jawbone, (similar to human jawbones).
- Several skeletons of Neanderthals have been proven to have been
intentionally manipulated to make them look more ape like. No solid evidence
has been uncovered to show that Neanderthals are nothing more than early
man, and that much of which explains their differences from modern man is a
slower maturing rate and the ability to live hundreds of years. Read
"
Buried
Alive" which is short but extremely
fascinating. Also read "The
Ape-Human Connection" and "Neanderthal
DNA Soup" for semi-technical DNA
discussions.
The Scopes Trial was actually a quite rationally discussed trail which was
won by mainstream creationists. John Scopes was a substitute teacher with no
degree in science, and was recruited by the ACLU to contest a state law
prohibiting the teaching of evolution. For his conviction, Scopes faced up
to a $500 fine, but was only required to pay $100. Scopes later confessed in
his autobiography that he wasn't even sure that he had taught evolution.
A meteor found in SW France, (the Orgueil Fall), that had biological
material within it. This meteor was conveniently discovered just 5 weeks
after Louis Pasteur proved that spontaneous generation could not occur. Over
100 years after the discovery of the meteor, holes were found to have been
drilled into it to inject biological material, and then sealed.
One of the holy grails of evolution has been to find a transitional form
of a reptile starting to evolve into a bird. Over the years many fossils
have been put forth, but all have been proven to be a bird or a reptile, or
in many cases a reptile forged to also appear birdlike. One example of
forgery is Archaeopteryx, which was found to have chicken feathers
imprinted. Also note that the fossils were sold for a lot of money. Even
without the imprinted feathers, Archaeopteryx has been analyzed to be a
bird.
Also the hypothesis that reptilian scales evolved into feathers has been
disproved in that the genes for scales and for feathers are located in
different sections of DNA.
The infamous horse evolution exhibit is still on display even though the
evolution it seeks to demonstrate has been disproved.
Only 1 in 40,000 fossils are of vertebrates that consist of more than a
single bone. Most ancient species are hypothesized from just a couple of
bones, which are often guessed to be from the same creature. The potential
for error is huge.
- Hypothesizing the nature of the fossil is also made difficult by the
diversity of creatures; e.g. even a complete skull of a camel would lead
most to think the skull belonged to a meat-eater, of which the camel is
not.
A religion is an institutionalized system of beliefs, chief among which are
those that explain how things came to be. Evolution is a religion, and most
decisively not scientific fact. Increasingly, the beliefs upon which it is
based do not match up with observations and are increasingly scientifically
improbable. Indeed, evolution is based on numerous successive slight
modifications leading to new kinds, (per Darwin). Irreversible complexity that
exists at the biomolecular level has conclusively proven that can not be the
cause for how many biomolecular mechanism came to exist. Evolution most
definitely does not meet the requirements of science which are that a theory
must be observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable. In that no strong
evidence supports evolution, evolution is in reality based on faith.
Good rational discussion of the facts, assumptions, and analysis is suppose
to be the pillar of modern science. Then why is the discussion of scientific
creationism suppressed in our schools, (scientific creationism is how a
scientist would teach creationism vs. a preacher who would teach Biblical
creationism). Darwin advocated that both evolution and creationism be taught
side by side, and for the facts to speak for themselves. So did Clarence
Darrow, the ACLU / evolutionist lawyer of the Scopes Trial. 86% of Americans
believe both should be taught. Unfortunately, creationism is not being taught
just because of the dogmatic attitude of those in power to exclude any aspect
of Christianity from our schools.
Evolution was not quickly embraced for its scientific eloquence and
soundness. Per the first who promoted evolution, they stated they embraced
evolution because it provided a means to rationalize God out of existence, and
thus provide a way to remove the moral codes established by God and allow
sexual and other perversions.
Evolution is the basis needed by Karl Marx for Godless Communism, (Marx
wanted to dedicate his books to Darwin), by Hitler for the supremacy of the
Arian race, by Musuli and ruthless businesses for survival of the fittest, by
eugenics for advocating sterilization of those who are inferior, by Sigmund
Freud for modern psychology based on mental disorders stemming from prior
evolutionary ancestral behavior (which has done little to actually help
improve the mental health of sinners), for leading to the separation of church
and state within the United States in the 1960's, by pro abortion advocates of
why a unborn baby isn't quite human yet. Why are the fruits of this theory so
consistently of horrific consequences.
Evolution is accepted by most non Christian religions. Modern liberal
Christianity came into existence with the theory of evolution.
For further study, please check out the following web sites,
or enter "creationism vs. evolution", "evolution frauds", or
similar into an internet search engine.
|
