Wednesday, June 28, 2006

The Truth about Evolution

"The more one studies the paleontological record, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." ~ Professor Louis T. More, University of Cincinnati

In my recent post wherein I addressed the myth of disappearing rain forests, I failed to mention that the "figures" on just how many acres of rain forests are disappearing and just how fast it is happening are apparently in doubt, because one only has to do a google search to see that every group, organization, and other apologists for these environmentalists whackos can't even agree on the "facts". Everyone of them has different figures. How can you rely on them to be telling the truth, when they themselves can't agree on lunch?

But wait. The comments section of that post degenerated into a discussion of whether the theory of evolution is true or not. Many of my current commenters are likely unaware that I have addressed the evolution myth before, oftentimes in passing, but at least once, I devoted an entire post to the question.

It is my conviction that it takes more faith to believe in Evolution than to believe in God. Evolution is the religion of the Liberals.

The fact is that evolution is unproved and unprovable.

Now, before you attack me for that statement, you should know that didn't come from me. It came from Sir Arthur Keith(1866-1955), a British anatomist and anthropologist who wrote 20 books in defense of evolution. He also said, "We believe it(evolution) because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable."

So if you want to dispute that point, take it up with the evolutionists, who clearly don't believe their own "fairy tale for grownups" either. By the way, that quote about evolution being a fairy tale is from Paul LeMoine, French evolutionist.

Ann Coulter, in her latest book, "Godless" addresses the subject at length, so I will attempt to cover some of her main points.

1. The truth about the entire fossil record, which shows a very non-Darwinian progression, noticeably lacking the vast number of transitional species we ought to see (if it were true)

This means that there are no fossils of things like a dog with antennae or a fish with hair. According to Darwin's supposed "survival of the fittest", if each one of the incremental mutations is more fit than what preceded it, which it has to be in order to survive, those transitional mutations should have stayed around long enough to appear in the fossil record, before mutating their way to something even better. But sadly, for the evolutionists, there are none.

2. The truth about the Cambrian explosion, in which virtually all the animal phyla suddenly appeared, with no Darwinian ancestors.

The Cambrian period was a relatively short period of time in which a vast quantity of plants and animals appeared on the scene in a blink of an evolutionary eye more than 500 million years ago. In a period of less than 10 million years, there is a sudden explosion of nearly all the animal phyla we have today. Leading Darwinist Richard Dawkins said, "It is as though they were just planted there, without evolutionary history."

3. The truth about the Galapagos Finch population changing not one bit since Darwin first observed them more than 170 years ago.

In a 1991 "Scientific American" article, Darwinist Peter Grant effused about the famous finches saying that if droughts came only once a decade, natural selection "would transform one species into another within 200 years." Well, it's been 170 years and we're still waiting.

4. The truth about the peppered moth experiment.

One of the major triumphs of the evolutionists was the "discovery" that peppered moths had the ability to change color according to their environment. They are photos of white peppered moths resting on black soot covered trees where they can easily be picked off by passing birds, and photos of them on white trees where they blend in, and likewise the black moths against white trees and black trees. The trouble is, Peppered moths are nocturnal (for the Liberals reading this, that means they only come out at night). Furthermore, they rest on the underside of branches, not on the outside of tree trunks. Subsequent studies showed that the moths that were supposed to have proven the "fact of evolution" had been dead, and pinned to the tree trunks by the "scientists" conducting the "study".

The Peppered moth "discovery" is still presented in biology textbooks as proof of evolution.

5. The truth about Haeckel's embryos being a fraud perpetrated by a leading German eugenicist.

Ernst Haeckel was a biologist and eugenicist who drew pictures of vertebrate embryos that purportedly demonstrated the amazing similarity of fish, chickens, and humans in the womb. Thus, proving that all vertebrates evolved from a similar looking organism 500 million years ago.

And then, in the 1990's British embryologist Michael Richardson was looking at vertebrate embryos through a microscope and noticed they look nothing like Haeckel's drawings. As it turns out, Haeckel was a fake. Richardson said, "It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in Biology."

Today, Biology textbooks are still displaying Haeckel's doctored drawings to prove the "fact" of Evolution to impressionable young minds, like commenter Jim's.

6. The truth about the Miller-Urey experiment being based on premises no longer accepted.

This was a famous experiment in 1953, which seemed to re-create the beginnings of life in a test tube. Scientist Stanley Miller and Harold Urey reconstructed what was thought to be earth's early atmosphere. They sent a spark of electricity through the primordial soup, and a single amino acid appeared.

The first problem to arise was that for the next twenty years, scientists couldn't get close to the next step, which was to produce proteins. Simple amino acids aren't proteins, much less life, so the bridge between nonlife and life remained elusive.

But the real fly in the primordial soup arose in the early seventies, when geochemists realized that the Earth's early atmosphere was probably nothing like the gases used in the Miller-Urey experiment. Creation of even simple amino acids would have been impossible in Earth's real environment.

The Miller-Urey experiment is still being taught in biology textbooks as proof of evolution.

7. The truth about the non-existence of computer simulations of the evolution of the eye.

There have long been bald assertions by Darwinists of the existence of a computer simulation of the evolution of the eye. David Berlinski tracked down the scientists alleged to have performed this wondrous feat, and discovered it doesn't exist.

In the end, the only evolutionists' argument is contempt. They know that if people are allowed to hear the arguments against evolution all will be lost. So they go to extreme ends to prevent any other possibilities from being taught in schools. Like Intelligent Design. So they demonize the people making the arguments. They say things like, "You're just saying that because you believe in God! You probably believe in a flat earth, too!" That's the kind of argument they usually revert to.

What all this boils down to is simply this:

Evolutionist are willing to believe anything, assume anything, and even lie to promote their belief that there is no God. They look at things they can't explain and say, "We can't explain it, but the one thing we do know is that there is no intelligence in the universe".

At least, there is no intelligence in evolutionists.


rusty shakelford said...

Awesome post, if evolution is science then why is it not re-creatable. If evolution is science then why can't we see a cause and effect? There is only one reason. Evolution is not science.

Old Soldier said...

Mark, no one has been able to satisfy my question of how different sexes evolved from either bisexual (meaning both sexes present - not swinging both ways) or non-sexual life forms. Too, once the evolution took place (into two distictly sexual life forms), how did they know to come together to procreate?

Evolution seems to "evolve" with each new theory that is added of modified by "scientists". Some theories contradict or are intented to replace (better explain?) prior theories. There is still one book that I can go to that has not and will not change. It gives a believable account of how the earth was created and all that is on it.

I guess I have just enough faith to be a Christian, but not enough to be an evolutionist.

Lone Ranger said...

I am only too happy to believe that liberals are descended from apes.

Jim said...

You're absolutely right. I'm convinced!


The truth about the Cambrian Explosion (from Wikipedia):

From the modern point of view, the apparently explosive radiation from obscure beginnings was partly an artefact of disregarding microfossils, which were scarcely detectable with 19th-century technology, and concentrating solely on the hard-shelled macrofossils that defined the phyla well established by 19th-century biologists, all of which were multiple-celled metazoa. Apparently abruptly, many kinds of fossils appearing in the Burgess Shale were seen showing obvious skeletal body features, whereas the traces of the hard-to-analyze "small shelly fauna" of Cambrian beginnings were ignored.

With time, advanced microscopy has gradually revealed the range of earlier microfossils. Prior to the discovery in 1909 of the Burgess Shale—incompletely published at the time and largely forced into existing categories as "precursors"— no fossilizations of early soft-bodied organisms had been published, and the vast reach of undiscovered earlier life was consigned to an enormous space of time— the "Pre-Cambrian" of old-fashioned schoolbooks.

More recent microfossil finds have shown "Pre-Cambrian" life consisting of more than single-celled organisms or simple diploblastic fauna. In 1994, phosphatized triploblastic embryos were discovered in rocks from southern China (Xiao et al. 1998). Evidence for Ediacaran triploblasts was available long before this discovery.

The truth about the Galapagos Finches (again from Wikipedia):

Peter and Rosemary Grant conducted extensive research in documenting evolutionary change among the finches. Beginning in 1973, the pair spent many years tracking thousands of individual finches across several generations, showing how individual species changed in response to environmental changes. The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner is a book on the subject and the Grants' research.

The birds are all about the same size (10–20 cm). The beaks' size and shape compose the largest differences between species, as the beak is highly adapted to food source. The birds are all brownish or black. Their behaviour differs and they have different song melodies.

If you are going to cite potential crap, don't you think you should do at least a little bit of research? I found these very quickly. They very easily refute Coulter's assertions.

Proving again that Coulter either doesn't have the faintest idea what she is talking about or she is a raving lunatic (or she is simply a liar).

Or all three.

Poison Pero said...

I have no problem with evolution......As long as it is part of creation.

I'm not a Christian, but I do believe in a higher power........A higher power which set things in motion which evolved into what we have today. And what will follow in the future.

Goat said...

Mark, if I came from primordial ooze, as I was raised of the dust of the earth, and evolved to be what I am or I was placed here imperfect by God. Whichever way I arrived here has little relevancy to how we live and leave here. I was created by God and I could care less how, creation is by God and I couls care less how long it took or the rythyms involved. I believe and that is what is important, not how we interpret ancient script, the same message is there.

Goat said...

Evolution is Creation in Action!

Goat said...

Are we to believe The Lord God meant earth to be stagnate?

Goat said...

We are still on Genesis in the Bible study if you wish to join us, Tim and Patti are welcome as well.

dreadnought said...

"The process of evolution can be seen in action today, for example in the development of resistance to antibiotics in disease-causing bacteria, of resistance to pesticides by insect pests, and the rapid evolution of viruses that are responsible for influenza and AIDS."
Statement by The Royal Society
April 11, 2006

Timothy said...

Excellent post. Of course the position of the evolutionist is clearly explained in Romans 1:18 and following. They refuse the truth to go after a lie, even though they study the truth that points them back to God.
Press on...

ELAshley said...

I would recommend The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel, Ex-Athiest-Journalist and Yale law graduate.

It's scientific. It's not dumbed down for any audience, and it's conclusions are inescapable-- There was/is very strong evidence for an intelligent designer.

The accepted beliefs surrounding the Cambrian Explosion is pretty much destroyed in the first 50 pages.

Is there such a thing as evolution? Not in the Macro-sense, but it is undeniable that germs, viruses, and bacteria do indeed mutate and "evolve" so to speak. The Darwinian model of evolution, according to the conclusions in Stobel's book and the many scientists he interviews, simply cannot be supported by modern science.

But don't take my word for it, read for yourself.

Toad734 said...

The truth about Creationism:

There is not one shred of proof or evidence what so ever. Not even missing links to be pieced together. No evidence of a "young earth", no evidence that the dinosaur bones were only put here by God to test our faith.

In fact there are even places in the Bible that talk about the "Sun standing still". Wouldn't a God who created the earth know that the Sun has always stood still?

Let the scientists who know science discuss this and let the people who think the world was created in 6 days and that man evolved from dust discuss fantasy.

Gayle said...

I agree with old soldier emphatically in that I have enough faith also to be a Christian but not an evolutionist.

I also agree with The Lone Ranger. Heh! Too funny!

Really good post, Mark. It's obvious that you put a lot of work into it. :)

Seamus said...

Good overview of evolution/Darwinism's factual deficiencies. It is very refreshing to see people thinking outside the Darwinist box. Two thumbs up. Plus, I'm glad you discussed Coulter's book which I was planning on reading.

For anyone interested, I post Creationist book reviews on:

Creationist Books

I'm always looking for people who would like to join the blog for posting (creationist discussion of any kind) or casual readers who would like to comment. If anyone is interested, you can contact me through my profile.

Goat said...

I noticed you did not post three of my comments that inspired this post . May I ask why? I don't care if I came from primordial soup or a creative zap . I know I am of the Lord and came from the Lord, how He put me here has yet to be decided and , I don't care. I do admit to loving the beauty of creation and the agility evolution has given it.

Lone Ranger said...

Getting facts from Wikipedia is like getting news from The Daily Show. We are not allowed to use it in our newsroom because it is so flawed.

Mark said...

JIm, what do you think that load of crap from Wikipedia proves? Show me one, just one example of any transitional species that have been found in the fossil record, anytime, anywhere. You can't. There is none. Don't you think that in 500 million years, at least one transitional species would become fossilized? There is no proof of evolution. No proof that one species ever evolved into another species. Where is the dog with webbed feet? Where is the bear that fell into the ocean and became a whale? Where are the fish with feet or the birds with scales?

And as for the finches you so proudly present as evidence of evolution: Over the last 170 yerars, there have been variations in the bills depending on long periods of drought or of rain. When there was a drought, their bills got longer. When there was not, they reeturned to their originbal size. That is only an adaptation, not proof of one species evolving into another species. They were finches then. They are finches now. They are not mammals or reptiles and they never were and they never will be.

Your Wikipedia information proves absolutely nothing. Nothing.

Daniel Levesque said...

I have a response to Jim,

"If you are going to cite potential crap, don't you think you should do at least a little bit of research? I found these very quickly. They very easily refute Coulter's assertions."

The fascinating thing is that you use the wikipedia information provided as means to try to disprove somepbasic known facts. 1: The discovery of the Microfossils in the Burges shale supports Coulter's assertion that there was not transitional life forms founds in any pre-Cambrian fosils. Therefore, the Cambrian explosion really is a sitiuation of suddenly going from simple soft bodoied organisms to every phyla known in all their complexity with absolutely no discernable evolutionary process in between.

Regarding the Darwin's Finches, a little more research on YOUR part woud have taight you the following:
1 -Specization is not happening among Darwin's Finches, rather, they are hypbridizing, the opposite of specization, proving that many of the so-called "species" of Darwin's Finches are actually the same exact species demonstration morphological differences less significant than the ones expressed in dogs or humanity.
2- Every instance of supposed evolutionary movement in Darwin's Fiches has reverted back to the original state.
3- The so-called "evolution" displayedin these finches is nothing more than beak size. So if we were to use beaks as a means of distinguishing species (as opposed to that oh-so unreliable genetic code) then we are forced to concluded that Caucasions, Blacks, Asians, and Arabs are all different species based upon the size of thier noses. Of course, we could also look at skin color, hair texture, and numerous other morphological diferences to support this wacko thoery. Genetic testing proves that no specization is occuring among Darwin's Finces.
4- No new species has been demostrated to evolve anywhere, ever. There is absolutely NO observable evidence of evolution in progress. It is nothing more than a theory based on flawed intereptations of information that has time and again been shown to be either flawed itself, outright false, or edited to favor evolution. When the full truth is examined everything that evolution depends on is nonexistent acording to the evidence we have.

Oh, and I am not just parroting Ann Coulter here. I am speaking from years of education in biology and paleontology, some schooled, some personal study, as well a great deal of research into evolution, some college education, a lot of personal study, no lab work personally.

Daniel Levesque said...

And one for Toad,

"No evidence of a "young earth", no evidence that the dinosaur bones were only put here by God to test our faith."

Perhaps you should visit and see what you think of the latest postthere if you honestly believe this is true.

Beyond that, consider this: What you are saying in your comment is that you choose to have faith in evolution because you do not want to believe in God. You freely acknowlegde the holes in evolutionary theory, which are demonstrating more and more that they will never be filled because they cannot be filled, and then you say that you still choose to believe evolution because the concept of a creator God is repugnant to you. Juat a tiny little thing that may lend some credence to the Bible to you, you know, that pesky little book that the story of Creation comes from. The Bible states that people wopuld adopt your attitude. It states that men would forsake God in favor of humanistic philosphies, and evolution is the cornerstone of Humanism. Just a thought.

Jim said...

Mark, I believe I can. From Wikipedia:

* Fish to Amphibians
o Tiktaalik roseae
o Osteolepis
o Eusthenopteron
o Panderichthys
o Elginerpeton
o Obruchevichthys
o Hynerpeton
o Tulerpeton
o Acanthostega
o Ichthyostega
o Pederpes finneyae
o Eryops
* Amphibians to Amniotes (early reptiles)
o Proterogyrinus
o Limnoscelis
o Tseajaia
o Solenodonsaurus
o Hylonomus
o Paleothyris
* Synapsid reptiles to mammals
o Protoclepsydrops
o Clepsydrops
o Dimetrodon
o Procynosuchus
* Diapsid reptiles to birds
o Compsognathus
o Protoavis ?
o Pedopenna
o Archeopteryx
o Changchengornis
o Confuciusornis
o Ichthyornis
* Evolution of whales
o Pakicetus
o Ambulocetus
o Artiocetus
o Dorudon
o Basilosaurus
o Eurhinodelphis
o Mammalodon
* Evolution of the horse
o Hyracotherium
o Mesohippus
o Parahippus
o Merychippus
o Pliohippus
o Equus
* Non-human apes to modern humans
o Ardipithecus
o Australopithecus
o Homo habilis
o Homo erectus

Incomplete list, sorry.

Goat said...

Some one mentioned no visible results of evolution. I will offer inbreeding and the effects it has on the genetic makeup of higher life forms.It has a negative affect as it was not meant to be, just as homosexuality is not meant to be. The ability to procreate strong decenendants is essential thus many of Darwin's theories hold up when looked at through the proper lense. I personally find no conflict in Darwinian theory and my relationship with the Lord. I believe Darwinian theory to be a viable attempt to understand creation, quite an undertaking. I also find no conflict in Darwinian theory and Genesis as Genesis explains man's thought, experience and acceptance of the Lord 5000+ years ago. Should we not accept the brilliance of His creation and not limit it to what we think we know as humans?

Goat said...

If anybody wishes to debate the Torah we are slowly working our way through it in an online Bible study. Tim, you inspired me when you shut down your site, we had a great discussion going and I wanted to continue it. Those who wish to participate can,

Goat said...

As a reborn Christian and a student of common sense I am not shy of debate. Tim, Patti, please stop in on occasion, I miss our conversation, you are more than welcome as is anyone else with an opinion.

Jim said...

Sensible posts, Goat.

Jason H. Bowden said...

I have to agree with Jim on the scientific status of evolution. Like astronomy, it isn't recreatable, but there are mountains of mountains of evidence supporting it. I'm a Republican, but I'm not stupid.

Half of the creationists I encounter online are Muslims living in the EU who believe in the inerrancy of the Koran. It must make you guess proud to see your ideas championed by such advanced peoples.

BRUISER said...

Wow as a DHL Rep are you qualified in making such statements as evolution cannot be proven?

I thought not.

How old is the Earth in your World Mark?

Your Friend here Rusty says evolution is not
re-creatable--- one flaw though>>>>>>>>>

There has been research in a lab that has created cells using conditions that would exist on earth in it's early years, these cells replicated and grew, the met the basic criteria for life, they didn't show inteligence of course, but neither do many Creationists.