[Notice the 'evolutionary' bird? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Okay, so someone morphed a dogbird! Well there IS a cat bird you know!]
EVOLUTION IS not a Theory. It's IMPOSSIBLE! Or is it?
The topic of evolution is interesting. The fundamental idea breaks Newton's second law of thermodynamics which basically states that all things deteriorate over time. Look in the mirror after 50 and you may notice. And yet radical evolutionists believe that life got better over time until 'us' evolved.
Of course there are some extreme animal-worshippers who seem to think that we are actually a step down in the chain and over time we will become extinct by natural selection. They believe this because 'animals are perfect and wonderful' and are 'never vicious nor wage wars'! Hah! They better look up the facts. Animals ARE CRUEL. They must eat to live and some must eat the ones that just ate to live! And what do you call of pack of wild dogs or wolves attacking their prey in order to eat? Tell the deer that there is no war. They really mean peace!
[More later about the illogical belief of evolution.] Oh it makes good sense. But it does not stand up to science fact and logic.
For now I will just list some thought-provokers.
This is an interesting website:
EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLEhttp://www.evolutionisimpossible.com/I quote from the site and offer these links from that site.
"Evolution has been proven impossible in the areas of biology, chemistry, mathematics
and physics. Please review the many questions that science can't answer."
Interesting thoughts.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society:
"The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do." "The first question that must be answered is how the first cell came about
[2]. Under a microscope the cell becomes a maze of magnificent complexity with amazing reproductive possibilities. Upon questioning, an evolutionary scientist will explain that the cell must have evolved from a simpler specimen to what it is today. There is no evidence supporting this “mini-cell” theory – no such thing has been found and there’s no proof that such a specimen could have survived. In
Darwin’s Black Box[3], written by Michael Behe, the question of the existence of a prototype cell was explored and debunked. Without the first cell the Darwinian evolutionary theory collapses." (Behe, 1998)
Richard Dawkins disagrees with Monod and says “This belief that Darwinian evolution is 'random,' is not merely false. It is the exact opposite of the truth.” If evolution is not random, it must be calculated or ordered somehow. What or who is in charge of the evolutionary process? The bigger question is: what caused the evolutionary process to stop in birds and lizards? Apparently all the fish got The Memo that the evolutionary process has been completed and evolution is no longer necessary. (Dawkins,
The Blind Watchmaker[5], 1996)
Darwin assumes the transformation of species from one to the other – fish to lizard, lizard to bird, eventually culminating with modern man. On its face, the argument looks and sounds like it would work. However, there are gaps in the graveyard. These gaps are unexplained and present major problems for the evolutionist community. Then there is the question of how the species evolved – was it random? Nobel Prize-winning chemist Jacques Monod said “Chance alone is at the source…of all creation in the biosphere.” If there is no order then what caused different species to evolve? Why did the fish become a lizard since fish, evidently, survive just fine in the water? If evolution is random then why are fish not turning into lizards or lizards turning to birds – why have they stopped evolving? If evolution is for survival, then would not fish want to continue to evolve into lizards and lizards into birds? (Monod,
Chance and Necessity: Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology[4], 1974)
"Questions That Science Can't Answer
Why are the Earth and its species beautiful?
The process of evolution begins with a single cell and works its way up to fish, lizards, etc. We have been told that the species decides which changes it wants to keep and which mutations to discard, so why would the first coral fish decide to stand out among the other fish?
Common sense says that the first multi-colored fish would be the easiest snack to spot among the predatory seaborne creatures, how would one bright fish survive among the other, dull-colored fish? The same hypothetical questions can be raised when discussing reptilian and mammalian species.
Deepak Chopra gracefully sums up the thought: "Beauty is everywhere in Nature, yet it serves no obvious purpose. Once a bird of paradise has evolved its incredibly gorgeous plumage, we can say that it is useful to attract mates. But doesn't it also attract predators, for we simultaneously say that camouflaged creatures like the chameleon survive by not being conspicuous. In other words, exact opposites are rationalized by the same logic. This is no logic at all. Non-beautiful creatures have survived for millions of years, so have gorgeous ones. The notion that this is random seems weak on the face of it."
You can read more of Deepak's "Gaps in Evolution" by going here.
How did the Earth come about?
Science has a theory known as the "Big Bang" theory and goes like this: there was matter compacted into a very condensed space and the "bang" was actually a rapid expansion of the matter over the span of the universe. Science tells us that the universe is still expanding; and the present expansion is proof that the Big Bang Theory is the cause of the earth.
Why is this theory invalid? First, one has to ask where the matter came from that expanded: was it created? How did the first bits of matter come into existence? Science can't answer this question - and never will because science demands a beginning and an end.
When did intelligence originate?
As one studies the evolution of species, a glaring gap screams out: when did intelligence originate? As the evolutionary process moved from amino acids to protein to cells to fish when did intelligence come into play? Are we to assume that intelligence came because of natural selection? It's hard to believe that the brain, the most advanced organism on earth, came about without a predecessor. Before the brain, what was there? What was the first specimen with intelligence?
If evolution is random, why is the fossil record lacking negative mutations? Shouldn’t mutations, if they are random, produce mutations that aren’t beneficial?
The fossil record, the only real "evidence" of evolution lays out the groundwork for the process of evolving from one species to the other. When studying the fossil record one question stands out: why do we not see any negative mutations in the fossil record? Shouldn't there be examples of negative mutations in the fossil record that show the "natural selection" process climbing the ladder towards the more evolved species; or are we to assume there were NO negative mutations throughout the entire process?
The word "mutation" in today's vocabulary carries a negative connotation because of the mutations we observe today: frogs with five legs, fruit flies with four sets of wings, etc. Biology tells us that mutants rarely live very long, and if they do survive long enough to reproduce their offspring rarely have the ability to procreate. Why are evolutionists overlooking the facts that biology has unearthed for us in regards to mutations?
Why are we no longer witnessing evolution?
Why do we not see half-lizard, half-bird creature walking around? Shouldn't we still be witnessing the process of evolution, if it is random? If evolution occurred wouldn't we see fish with legs?
Some species need multiple, spontaneous evolutions to survive - why have we never witnessed multiple mutations, much less a beneficial, spontaneous multi-mutation in any species?
There are many examples of species that would require multiple, simultaneous mutations to survive. The mutations that we have witnessed or reproduced are rarely translated as being beneficial to the specimen; the numbers of mutants that survive are much lower. We have never witnessed or reproduced multiple, simultaneous mutations – yet a gradual evolution from one specimen to another would require simultaneous mutations for the following specimens to survive.
The first animal that is a thorn in the evolutionists' side is the giraffe. We have provided a link so you can learn more about this creature and the problems it poses to the idea of gradual evolution: click here .
The second animal that leaves evolutionists scratching their head is the woodpecker – a common bird in the American Midwest. The skull of the woodpecker is the thickest skull in the animal kingdom relative to body weight. The tongue of the woodpecker “is in a class by itself. …Its tongue is long and slender… The tip is like a spearhead with a number of barbs or hairs pointing rearward. This facilitates securing the insect while transporting it to the beak. A sticky glue-like substance coats the tongue to aid in this process…" Another secretion is used to dissolve the glue so the woodpecker will not suffocate on its own tongue. The tongue of the woodpecker is like nothing else in the wild - its complexity astounds biologists and its length is unprecedented in the bird kingdom. The woodpecker begs the question: which tool came first: the thick skull, the long tongue, glue on the tongue or the secretion to line the throat to avoid suffocation?
Why did species (i.e.: fish) evolve if they can survive in their current state?
Why would fish evolve if they were comfortable in their surroundings? What made the first fish want to walk on land? Could that fish decide to grow a leg, or even a set of legs?
How did whole “branches” of the tree of life come into existence at once (i.e.: lizards to birds)?
Evolutionists like to wave the magic wand of time over the many gaps and scientific impossibilities in their theory. However, the fossil record is proving to be a huge thorn in their side. There is a period of time in the fossil record known as the Cambrian explosion. The following paragraph is quoting Wikipedia - you can read the entire article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
"The Cambrian Explosion generally refers to the geologically sudden appearance of a number of new complex organisms between 543 and 530 million years ago (mya). Prior to the discovery of the Burgess Shale, fossil finds showed life on Earth consisting only of single-celled organisms or simple diploblastic fauna (two-layers of cells, allowing every cell to be in contact with its watery mineral-rich environment). Abruptly, many kinds of fossils appearing in the Burgess Shale show skeletal body features, where none had yet been found in the earlier fossil record."
So now we know that most of the animals we see today suddenly appeared – no links, no explanation. We often hear the excuse “with enough time, anything can happen” from evolutionists. The Cambrian Explosion tosses that excuse into the trash and sheds light on the gaps in the evolutionary theory.
We witness cooperation and dependency between different species and between some species and flora – how does random mutation explain this?
Charles Darwin stated "If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." (Origin of Species, pg 164)
Symbiosis is defined as “a relationship of mutual benefit or dependence.” There are many examples of symbiosis in nature; any one of them could be used to disprove natural selection and random mutation. The first example of symbiosis in nature is the relationship of algae and the fungi of lichens. The fungi provide the algae their necessary protection and moisture while the algae provide the fungi with the photosynthesizing nourishment it requires to stay alive. Neither species would survive without the other, throwing a wrench into the mechanisms of natural selection and random mutation.
A spectacular display of mutualism is the bond formed by the yucca moth and the yucca plant – neither can survive without the other. The yucca plant cannot pollinate itself to grow seeds; it depends on the yucca moth for the plants' survival. The yucca moth goes through a lengthy process to pollinate the plant and ensure both species' survival. First, the moth begins by landing on the stamens of a yucca plant and producing a sticky ball of pollen that it will carry under it's neck (in an appendage unique to this moth species) and transport the pollen to another plants' pistil. The moth lays its eggs inside the base of the pistil of the plant. To ensure the plants survival and cement the symbiotic relationship the moth carefully inserts the pollen inside the stigma's tube at the top, completing the pollination process. Once the moth larvae are hatched, they feed on the seeds of the plant – and in an amazingly display of intelligence among insects, the moth only lays enough eggs so the larvae eats some of the seeds, not all of them. If the moth didn't pollinate the plant, both species would die.
The last symbiotic relationship is found in the animal kingdom, more specifically in the ocean's depths. After a meal, sharks will have bacteria and parasites embedded in their teeth. If left alone, these parasites would produce disease and/or a build-up that would hinder eating and could result in an early death. The aptly named “cleaning fish” fearlessly swims into the mouths of the most feared underwater predators and makes a snack of the particles in the monster's teeth. How would a shark know that these fish aren't a tasty snack? Are the sharks aware that without these swimming toothbrushes their lives would be cut short by disease or starvation? Can this natural phenomenon dubbed “cleaning symbiosis” be described by random mutation?
What evolved first: the digestive system (intestines, esophagus, stomach, liver, etc), the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice?
If mutations are randomly brought about by a need for survival, what would come first: our digestive system needed to take in our food, our digestive juices to break down and process that food or the body's resistance to its own digestive juices? Did they all come at once? This question can't be answered because we don't have the ability to go back in time and watch the evolutionary process, but this question highlights the lunacy of the idea of random evolutionary processes. The only way for any digestive system would be for all three to come at once: a complete digestive system, the juices to break down that food and the body's resistance to the digestive juices.
If evolution is calculated or ordered, who or what controls it? Wouldn't order require a deity or higher power?
Richard Dawkins says "This belief that Darwinian evolution is 'random,' is not merely false. It is the exact opposite of the truth."[1] If evolution is not random, it must be calculated or ordered somehow. What or who is in charge of the evolutionary process? Is it scientific to have a higher power or deity? Dr. Arthur Koestler states "The educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection---quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection tautology."
Charles Darwin confesses "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible."
There are many organisms, specimens and mechanisms that are simply too complex to have come about by chance, there must be an order or method behind the process – but that begs the question of what is behind it? Does science allow for a deity or unseen order to explain the gradual evolution of species - is it scientific?
How the Laws of Mathematics Disprove the Theory of Evolution
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
- Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
All the universes’ specimens are highly complex systems – specimens and flora, breathing or photosynthesizing – what we describe as “life” requires structures that are so complex that our best scientists cannot replicate them. Evolutionists will tell you that these organisms and their methods came about by chance; but leading mathematicians have determined that the construction of these life forms by accident or by chance is impossible.
If you were to thoroughly shuffle ten flash cards numbered one-to-ten and laid them out, the odds of them lining up in order is one in 3,628,800. The probability rapidly decreases the more variables you add – if you were to have one hundred cards numbered in order and performed the same experiment the odds would be one in 10158!
Astronomers tell us there are no more than 1087 particles in the universe. Assuming the universe is no more than thirty billion years old (1018 seconds) and each particle can participate in a thousand billion (1012) different reactions every second, the maximum number of reactions occurring would be 10117. Using this equation we understand the probability of an event that requires more than 10117 events is zero – or impossible.
The cells that life builds upon are infinitely more complex[1] than a specimen with one hundred parts – thus we can logically conclude that life originating from chance is impossible. Marcel Golay[2] estimated that the chance of replicating the simplest protein molecule is one in 10450. Frank Salisbury[3] put the probability of a standard DNA strand to be one in 10600.
Like you cannot build a car from random parts, you cannot build a living organism from random particles. All living systems are bound by order and require intelligence to exist[4]. Order is defined by patterns and rules – thus the example of numbered flash cards.
Hubert Yockey, a PhD in Physics, says the following in his essay "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Bio-genesis by Information Theory[5]:"
“One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.”
Supporting Articles:
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/irreducible_complexity.html
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=155
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter10.asp
http://www.creationevolution.net/irreducible_complexity.htm
Supporting Books:
'Mathematics of Evolution' by Fred Hoyle
References:
[1] http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_02.html
[2] Marcel Golay, "Reflections of a Communications Engineer,"
Analytical Chemistry, V. 33, June 1961, p. 23.
[3] Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic
Theory of Evolution," American Biology Teacher ,
September 1971, p. 336.
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_systems_theory
[5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=198618&dopt=Citation
