Why Darwinian Evolution Is Flatly Impossible

[limited755]

ESSAY ON CARPENTER GENES Why Darwinian Evolution Is Flatly Impossible by Lloyd Pye This was in Australia's Exposure Magazine in November 1998. No matter how high evidence was stacked up against evolution in the past, Darwinists could always slip through the "...it COULD have happened..." loophole. As long as genetic mutations and slight physical changes (microevolution) were evident, interspecies transitions (macroevolution) had to be accepted as at least plausible. Not any more. In five brief pages, this article closes the Darwinian loophole, and evolutionary science will never be the same! -David Summers, Publisher/Editor Remembrance of Things Past 1999 will be the 140th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s On The Origin Of Species. In that landmark volume he postulated that life on Earth had developed into its millions of forms through a long, slow series of fundamental changes in the physical structure of all living things, plants and animals alike. Though small and gradual, these changes would be relatively constant. Bit by imperceptible bit, gills would turn into lungs, fins would turn into limbs, scales would turn into skin, bacteria would turn into us. The problem for Darwin, and for all Darwinists since, came when the mechanism behind those changes had to be explained. Because Darwin’s era was only beginning to understand cellular function (Gregor Mendel’s treatise on genetics did not appear until 1865), Darwin proposed a system of gradual physiological improvements due to small, discreet advantages that would accrue to the best-adapted progeny (his famous “survival of the fittest”) among all living things (a bit stronger, a bit swifter, a bit hardier), making them subtly different from their parents and producing offspring with similar advantages accruing in their physiological makeup. When enough small changes had compounded themselves through enough generations .... voila! A new species would have emerged, sexually incompatible with the original parent stock, yet inexorably linked to it by a common physiological heritage. Once cellular function came to be better understood, particularly the importance of DNA as the “engineer” driving the entire train of life, it was quickly embraced as the fundamental source of change in Darwin’s original model. Darwinian evolution, as it came to be called, was indisputably caused by mutations at the genetic level. Because such mutations were obvious to early geneticists, and could eventually be induced and manipulated in their laboratories, it seemed beyond doubt that positive mutations in DNA sequencing were the key to explaining evolution. That left neutral mutations exerting no effect, while negative mutations afflicted only the unlucky individuals who expressed them but had no lasting impact on a species’ collective gene pool. Darwin's Blackest Box In 1996 Michael Behe, a biochemistry professor at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pa., published a book called Darwin’s Black Box. He defined a “black box” as any device that functions perfectly well, but whose inner workings remain mysterious because they cannot be seen or understood. To Charles Darwin the living cell was an impenetrable black box whose inner workings he could not even imagine, much less understand. To scientists today the cell box is no longer quite as black, but it is still dark enough to leave them with only a faint understanding of how it works. They know its basic components and the functions of those components, but they still don’t know how all those pieces fit together to do what cells do--live. Life is still every bit the profound mystery it was in Darwin’s day. Many additional pieces of the puzzle have found their way onto the table since 1859, but scientists today are not much closer to seeing the whole picture than Darwin or his cronies. That is an ironic reality which few modern Darwinists will accept in their own hearts and minds, much less advertise to the world in general. So they supply the media with intellectual swill that the media, in turn, unknowingly palms off as truth, while the scientists edgily cross their fingers and hold their breath in the hope that someday, maybe even someday soon, but certainly before the great unwashed get wise to the scam, they will finally figure out the great secret...they will see into the heart of the universe’s blackest box...they will understand how life actually works, from the first moment of the first creation to evolution itself. Shall We Gather At The River? Darwinists teach and preach that life began spontaneously in a mass of molecules floating freely in the Earth’s earliest rivers and seas. Those molecular precursors somehow formed themselves into organic compounds that somehow formed themselves into the very first living organism. This incredible feat of immaculately choreographed bioengineering was, Darwinists insist, accomplished without the aid of any outside agency, such as a Prime Mover (what some would call “God”), and especially not anything extraterrestrial. It was done using only the materials at hand on the early Earth, and accomplished solely by the materials themselves, with a probable assist from a perfectly timed, perfectly aimed lightning bolt that, in the most serendipitous moment imaginable, swirled tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of inanimate molecules into a living entity. For as glibly as Darwinists have fashioned and promoted this scenario in schools to this day, the complexity of its mechanics might challenge the creative skills of a busload of Prime Movers. Countless lipids have to somehow be coaxed to form a membrane that somehow surrounds enough strands of DNA to create a cell that can manage life’s two most basic functions: it must absorb organic and inorganic compounds in its environment and turn them into proteins, which can then be converted into energy and excreta; and it must have the ability to reproduce itself ad infinitum. If all of those varied factors, each a bona fide miracle in itself, do not occur in the precise order demanded by all living cells for their tightly orchestrated, step-by-step development, then the entire process becomes laughably improbable. British astronomer Fred Hoyle has offered the classic analogy for this scenario, stating that its actual likelihood of being true and real equals “that of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and correctly assembling a Boeing 747.” It did not and could not happen then, just as it cannot be made to happen now. The very best our biochemists can do today is construct infinitesimal pieces of the puzzle, leaving them little nearer to seeing how life truly works than Darwin and his cohorts 140 years ago. But why? What’s the problem? Haven’t we cracked the atom? Haven’t we flown to the moon? Haven’t we mapped the ocean floors? Yes, yes, and yes. But those things were easy by comparison. Looking For Life In All The Wrong Places If the Darwinists are so wrong, where are they wrong? What is the fundamental mistake they are making? It has to do with where they are looking, which is the cell, inside the cell, and specifically at the functioning of DNA. Because the twisting double-helix of DNA contains the instructions for all of life’s processes, the assumption has always been that disruptions in the patterns of those instructions are the only logical explanation for how physiological changes at both the micro (small) and macro (large) level must be created and executed. In other words, changes in DNA (mutations) must be the engine driving all aspects of evolutionary change. Nothing else makes sense. Sensible or not, however, it is wrong. Why? Because in 1984 a group of British researchers decided to do an experiment utilizing what was then considered to be a universal truth about genes, handed down from Gregor Mendel himself: the idea that genes are sexless. Mendel had postulated that a gene from either parent, whether plant or animal, was equally useful and effective throughout the lifetime of the individual possessing it. This was taken as gospel until those British researchers tried to create mouse embryos carrying either two copies of “father” genes or two copies of “mother” genes. According to Mendel’s laws of inheritance, both male and female embryos should have developed normally. After all, they had a full complement of genes, and if genes were indeed sexless they had all they needed to gestate and thrive. The researchers were stunned when all of their carefully crafted embryos were dead within a few days of being transferred to a surrogate mother’s womb. How could it happen? What could have gone so wrong in a scenario that couldn’t go wrong? They were completely baffled. What they didn’t know, and what many refuse to accept even now, fourteen years later, is that they had unwittingly opened their own--and their icon’s--darkest, blackest box. They had ventured into a region of the cell, and of the functioning of DNA, that they hadn’t imagined was off-limits. By taking that inadvertent journey they ended up forging an entirely new understanding of Mendelian inheritance, while driving a stake through the already weakened heart of Darwinian evolution. A Time To Live And A Time To Die Normally, father genes or mother genes control the expression of their own activity. A father gene might give, for example, the signal for a crop of head hair to grow--to “express” itself--and to stop expressing when the follicles had been constructed in their proper places in the scalp. The cessation of the expressing process is called methylation, which is the surrounding of expressing genes with clusters of chemicals that shut them off (picture the cap being put back on a toothpaste tube). In the same way, a mother gene might express a pair of eyes and then, when they were completed, “methylate” the gene’s growth processes into inactivity. Until 1984, it was believed that all genetic function operated the same way. If a gene or suite of genes came from Dad’s side of the mating process, then those genes managed their own affairs from birth until death. And the same held true for genes coming from Mom’s side of the mating. But certain genes turned out to exhibit radical differences, depending on whose side of the mating process they came from. When the female mouse embryos died, it was found that genes vital to their growth had inexplicably never been turned on at all, while still others were never turned off (methylated) and spiraled unchecked into cancers. Even more baffling, the fatal processes in the all-male embryos were entirely different from those in the all-females. The embryos were dying for reasons that were clearly sex-biased. What could it possibly mean? Imprinted genes were found to be the culprit. Imprinted genes, it turned out, could be expressed by either parent and, incredibly, methylated by the other parent! Somehow, someway, by means not clearly imagined, much less understood, genes from one parent had the ability to independently begin or end processes that were critical to the lives of forming embryos. In the world of genetics as it had always been perceived, that was impossible. Only a localized (sexless) gene should be able to control its own destiny or purpose, not a separate gene from an entirely different parent. Cooperating genes broke all the rules of physical inheritance that had been written by Gregor Mendel. Yet imprinted genes do, in fact, disregard Mendel’s rules; and by doing so they provide the above mentioned stake that will inevitably be driven through the heart of classic Darwinian evolution. Life's Blueprint Writ Wrong So far geneticists have identified about 20 imprinted genes embedded within the 80,000 to 100,000 believed to comprise the entire human genome. New ones are discovered on a regular basis, with many geneticists predicting the final tally will reach hundreds, while others suspect the total might reach into the thousands. But whether hundreds or thousands, any imprinted genes at all means that classic Darwinism can no longer count on mutations in DNA as a plausible mechanism for fundamental physical change. For mutations to be acceptable as the engine of Darwinian change, they have to be able to occur in isolation and then, as stated earlier, pass themselves intact to succeeding generations. By definition that means they have to be able to regulate their own functions, both to express and to methylate their genetic processes. Whenever a trait mutates, whether a longer limb, a stronger muscle, or a more efficient organ, it should pass into the gene pool whole and complete, not half of it being expressed from the male side of a pairing and half from the female side. Why? Because both parents would have to mutate in complementary ways at the same time to the same degree...and then they would have to find each other and mate in order to have even a chance to pass the mutation on! Natural mutations, while statistically rare, are clearly documented. They can be neutral, negative, or positive. So when geneticists contend that isolated mutations in DNA can occur and be passed on to succeeding generations, they first assume the individual with the mutation has been fortunate enough to have the correct one out of the three possibilities. They further assume the individual survives the brutal winnowing process Darwin so correctly labeled “survival of the fittest.” But fittest or not, any fledgling animal or plant must contend with an infinite number of ways to miss the boat to maturity. Assuming that passage is safe, the lucky individual with the positive mutation has to get lucky several more times to produce enough offspring so that at least a few of them possess his or her positive mutation and also survive to maturity to pass it along. It is a series of events that, taken altogether, are extremely unlikely but at least they are feasible, and they do, in fact, happen. Imprinted genes, however, neatly sever those threads of feasibility by making it literally impossible for any mutation, positive or otherwise, to effect more than the individual expressing it. There is certainly no way for it to work its way into a gene pool regulated by imprinted genes. Why? For the reasons just stated above: for a mutation to be implemented, it must be beneficial and it must be paired with a similar change in a member of the opposite sex. Thus, if only a handful of genes are capable of being turned on and off by different parents, then Darwinian evolution has no place in the grand scheme of life on Earth. Imprinting shoves Darwinists well beyond any hope of feasibility, to a region of DNA where change is incapable of being positive. Timing Really Is Everything What we are really talking about with imprinting processes is timing, the most exquisite and incomprehensible faculty any gene possesses. By knowing when--and being able--to turn on and off the millions to billions of biological processes that create and sustain living organisms, genes control the switches that control life itself. In effect, whatever controls the timing switches controls the organism. If, for example, only one methyl group misses its turn-off signal on an expressing gene, the resultant non-stop expressing will lead to cellular overproduction and, ultimately, cancer. Conversely, if only one gene fails to express when it should, at the very least a seriously negative event has occurred, and at worst the organism has suffered a catastrophe that will terminate its life. More important than this, however, is that timing sequences cannot be altered in any way, shape, or form that will not be detrimental to offspring. In other words, the “evolution” of a timing sequence in the development of an embryo or a growing offspring simply cannot be favorable in the Darwinian sense. Why? Because in terms of results it is already perfect. And how do we know it is perfect? Because the parents both reached maturity. What is so special about their reaching maturity? It means their own timing sequences performed perfectly in their own embryos, with their initial sperm and egg differentiating in millions of ways to become their bodies. (In plants the same principle holds true). Then their growing period developed perfectly, with its millions of different timing events leading to their limbs and organs growing to their proper sizes and carrying on their proper functions. Any alteration of that perfection can be, and nearly always is, devastating. In golf a putt drops or it doesn’t. In timing sequences, they are started and stopped precisely, or not. There is no room for error or improvement (no third condition called “better”). Thus, no genetic alteration to timing can create the faster legs, larger horns, sharper teeth, etc., called for by Darwin’s theory of piecemeal change. This is why gills cannot become lungs, why fins cannot become limbs, why scales cannot become fur or skin. No single timing mechanism can “evolve” without altering the perfection that has been passed to offspring by parents through untold generations. A good analogy is the building of a house. We start with a blueprint. Analogize this with the genetic blueprint provided by DNA. The former outlines the physical materials that go into a house: wood, nails, sheetrock, doors, etc. The latter outlines the physical materials that go into creating a body: blood, bones, skin, hair, etc. Next, we bring in the carpenters who will build the house. It is they who, following our carefully drawn blueprint, will determine everything that will be done to create our house. More importantly, they will determine when all parts of the house will be built, when any particular process will start and when it will stop. They will build the floor before the walls, the walls before the roof, etc. Building our house is thus a two-part project: what to build, and how and when to build it. It is the same with living organisms, whose carpenter genes (the mysterious timing mechanisms that turn growth processes on and off) determine their success. Now it becomes easy to understand Darwin’s fundamental error. While examining the widely varied houses of living organisms, he saw no trace of the invisible carpenters who have the decisive hand in their creation. Therefore, his theory did not--and so far cannot--account for the fact that carpenter genes invariably prohibit alterations. If I Had A Hammer As with a house, DNA contains or provides everything necessary to create a particular organism, whether animal or plant. DNA has the further capacity to define and manufacture the physiological materials needed to create the entirety of the organism, precisely when they are needed and to the exact degree they are needed. And, perhaps most wondrous of all, DNA contains the ineffable carpenter genes that determine when each phase of the organism’s construction will begin and end. Any organism’s parents will have passed to it a set of DNA blueprints of what to build and how to build it, which are nearly always perfect with respect to timing, but allowing slight variations in what is built. On the occasions when faulty timing does lead to tragedy, the imperfections are due to sperm-egg misconnects, or molecular anomalies in DNA caused by radiation or chemicals. Where classic Darwinian evolution completely breaks down is in not allowing carpenter genes to exist separately from end results. Darwinism contends that when any aspect of an organism’s materials change (i.e., a mutation in some strand of DNA which changes some aspect of physical structure), that organism’s carpenter genes smoothly accommodate the change (alter the blueprint) by adjusting the timing sequences (beginning and end) of that structure’s development. This is not reality. A Watusi’s thighbone takes just as long to form as a Pygmy’s thighbone (about 18 years), so only the end results--their respective sizes--have changed, not their timing processes. This is one reason why all human beings can so easily interbreed, even the unlikely combination of Watusis and Pygmies. Our vast array of underlying genetic timing mechanisms, including our imprinted genes, have been handed down intact (unevolved!) since the beginning of our existence as a species. Thus, what is built can be slowly, gradually altered; how it is built cannot. This obvious fact...this undeniable truth...has the most profound implications: In the carpenter genes of successful organisms, no improvement is possible! And without improvement, via Darwinian change, how could they have evolved? Not just into something from nothing, but into millions of interlocking, tightly sequenced commands that smoothly mesh over extended periods as organisms develop from embryo to birth to sexual maturity? The short answer is, “They can’t.” What all this means, of course, is that everything we think we know about how life develops on Earth is flatly wrong. It means all of our “experts” are totally mistaken when they tell us that Darwin’s theory of gradual mutations has led to the development of all species of plants and animals on the planet. Nothing could be further from the truth. Darwinism cannot work now, it has never been able to work, and the time has come for its supporters to stop their intellectual posturing and admit they need to go back to their drawing boards to seek a more plausible explanation for what is surely life’s greatest single mystery. THE END © by: www.lloydpye.com

[limited755]

I'm sorry if this is long, but it is worth to read!

[Death-Wuad]

Strange... So carpenter genes control the timing of genetic developments? But he showed no evidence or theory that changing the timer wouldn't work, unless I missed that part. I don't believe in evolution because some people think DNA randomly mutates, I believe in it because we have fossils to show that some sort of change is taking place, and this is verified by carbon dating (which pretty much proves, in my opinion, that christianity is flat out wrong)

[imported_Berserk_Exodus]

It can be seen today, in all species. This is a VERY long process mind you. It's not like evolution is purposely peaking to a certain point, it's adaption, that's all. If the conditions remain the same, the organism will remain the same. Conditions change, some bigger, stronger survive and breed, making the species bigger and stronger. Genetic variations are the key to life's success. Even solar radiation can mutate genes. Of course, I know it's going to be said, as it is always said, "Were did it come from?" Well that's the question isn't it. You can't use something that isn't known to prove something that is. We know evolution is the process that brought us to this point, we don't know WHY. It MAY be God, or it MAY be chance. That's why we LIKE science, it can change, unlike the "good book".

[Neil]

That article by Lloyd Pye is sad pseudo-scientific nonsense. You can tell that he has chosen to discount modern genetics already before he even started "researching" it. Firstly, he doesn't accept that evolution is a process that is difficult to understand. Just because it is difficult to understand doesn't necessarily mean that it is an act of God. That is akin to a village of cavemen seeing a helicopter, trying to understand how it works, and then assuming it was made by God. In general, this article is full of silly, baseless assertions.

[gameover]

The evolution theroy explains how animals change and adapt, but it does not explain how animals seem to "jump" different species. Why are thier big genetic gaps between different species with no evidence of the between phase? At what point does it become the next species and suddenly have less chromosomes? The theory of evolution is full of holes.

[evangel]

Yep. I'll take the hand of a creator anyday over a random lightning bolt hitting a puddle of mud.

[Taosaur]

"Big genetic gaps?" Yes, our genome is quite a lot different from a goldfish, because if we had any common ancestors, they are far, far in the past. Look at some of our closer relatives, like the chimpanzee for instance, and less than 1% of our genes differ from theirs. One thing that's happened since 1984 is a hell of a lot of gene-mapping, and fossils aside, the genetic record shows pretty clearly who is related to whom and how far back. I like the assertion early in the article that scientists are trying to cover up that they haven't figured everything out yet Few practicing scientists anticipate having everything figured out, ever--if the data in the world isn't infinite, it is certainly less finite than we are, and there will always be more for us to learn. It's fun to watch fundamentalists squabble while those who actually practice their religion or philosophy couldn't care less about the fight.

[gameover]

Well, I dont believe in the hanbds of a creator... As for the genetic gaps I was reffering to, they do exist. We can find dinsaur fossils and and lots of old bones but cant find hundreds of thousnads of supposed connections that existed between species. There should be some evidence other than comparing how they look now. Thats all specualative.

[evangel]

Interesting article above... Yeah... no one can account for such huge gaps.. and what about dem ever-elusive transitionary fossils...? For those who may be interested... there are creationist scientists who are just as credible if not moreso (in regards to scientific method and research) than their secular counterparts in the area of evolution and creation... Here's a link to some articles on micro vs. macroevolution. http://www.icr.org/cgi-bin/search/search.c...=macroevolution

[imported_Berserk_Exodus]

The reason for these evidenciary gaps is because the fossil process is very much chance. Conditions have to be perfect for it to happen. There are millions of species unnaccounted for in the layers of strata. But again, from what can be demonstrated from animals in the present, it falls in to place with the past. I'd rather be a splash in the mud than by the hand of god. If god is dead then anything is possible. We are essentially masters of our own fate then, gods.

[bradybaker]

This thread makes me laugh. I'm not even going to bother getting involved in this one. I'll let Berserk_Exodus speak for me. It seems that we see eye to eye on topics such as these. He's the only sane one here.

[gameover]

Oh please Brady Baker. Enlighten us. Teach us. Show us our insanity. What we have are valid arguments with no explanation. These genetic gaps are ridiculosuly huge and so widescale that there is no reason to believe in the theory of evolution entirely. I'm not by any means a creationist, but I know somethings quite wrong Darwins theory. I've seen some ridiculopus drawings of animals that suppsoedly existed, even though we have no evidence int he sligtest. They all look like creative drawings with two animals combined. Its ridiculous.

[AcidBasick]

... You can see evolution and adaptation manifest within our lifetime. Take, for instance, virii and bactirium. The strains of each mutate and evolve in a matter of days depending on conditions. Have you heard of the fears of a super-virus? These are virii that have been pushed and attacked so much by modern medicine that they have become better able to ward off potential cures. Guppies change colours with each generation depending on predatation. Cockroaches resist pesticides. Humans have become taller and larger then in the past. Skeletons recovered from a few thousand years ago are much smaller then today's human. Some vestigal organs, those which have no apparent purpose in humans such as the appendix, are found functioning in other animals suggesting a common ancestry. Embryos of all vertebrates are very similar. Organs and bone configurations have similar structures in in animals of each type, suggesting a common ancestry. More recent lines of evidence in support of evolution All forms of life are made up of 20 amino acids. All forms of life are based on DNA (similar chemistry). Careful analysis of DNA sequences shows that chimp and gorilla sequences are 97.9% similar. Human and chimp DNA sequences are 98.4% similar. Sources: (1) Discover magazine, March 1988, and (2) National Geographic magazine November 1985. [/b] Contributions of Paleontology to Evolution Hypothesis: If evolution is true, we should see evidence of it in the fossil record. If it is false, we should see no changes. Fossil taxa (those within a particular group) appear and disappear in succession The pattern provides strong evidence for evolution . [/b] It's quite backwards to not agree with evolution - even if you are religious. Religion can live peacefully with science. The following is from this website on Evolution. For those who have difficulty in accepting evolution because of what they perceive as contradictions with their fundamental religious beliefs, it may be useful to distinguish the ultimate origin of life from its later evolution. *Many, if not most, biological scientists accept that primordial life on Earth began as a result of chance natural occurrences 3.5-4 billion years ago. *However, it is not necessary to believe in that view in order to accept that living creatures evolved by natural means after the origin of the first life. *Charles Darwin modified his religious beliefs, as did many others, as a result of the discovery of convincing proof of evolution. *Darwin's religious faith was also severely challenged by the death of his 10 year old daughter Annie in 1851. *Apparently, he came to believe that his God created the order of the universe including the rules of nature that result in biological evolution. *His famous book, On the Origin of Species, was not a denial of his God's existence. *However, he did reject a literal interpretation of the Judeo-Christian Bible.[/b] When scientists speak of evolution as a theory they do not mean that it is a mere speculation. *It is a theory in the same sense as the propositions that the Earth is round rather than flat or that our bodies are made of atoms are theories. *Most people would consider such fundamental theories to be sufficiently tested by empirical evidence to conclude that they are indeed facts.[/b] The evidence also shows that what have appeared to be gaps in the fossil record are due to incomplete data collection. *The more that we learn about the evolution of specific species lines, the more that these so-called gaps or \"missing links in the chain of evolution\" are filled with transitional fossil specimens.[/b] It's more then a bit humorous to hear folks argue about evolution. It would be the equivalent of arguing whether clouds are really made of water. You can't touch or feel them and the float around in the sky; you can't capture a cloud and take it to your labratory, but you can study the signs that point to what creates a cloud, such as rising water vapor and rain that collects then falls, reproduce the effect in a labratory, and make a logical conclusion regarding them.

[LewisM]

Bradybaker, I once read in one of your posts that you treat the philosophy forum as a place for discussion, and the reason you argue is because you like to challenge other's opinions. You said that you would like the same done for yourself, because it provokes thought. However, I am increasingly believing that you just like to fight.

[AcidBasick]

I read through some other articles on the writer's website. He has seven articles about a implied alien specimen found in Mexico, an article debating the claim that the Sasquatch doesn't exist, and several articles debating evolution. Seems more like a crackpot then a credible source.

[gameover]

I think the theory of evolution explains why animals adapt. I never argued that. Why does baceria get resistant to antibiotics? Of course Im not arguing that. The flaw here is the gap between species. When does one animal suddenly gain or lose chromosomes and become another species, and if its happened SO much in the past, why is there no evidence of it?

[limited755]

I hope someone can find this interesting: www.wasdarwinwrong.com Also, another article: Another Jolt For Evolution Theory He takes 10 so-called proofs of evolution offered in current textbooks and shows where not one of them is in a fact a proof of anything, and several are actually frauds. Ted Byfield (10-14-00) FROM THE EDMONTON SUN If parents check the science textbooks used in Canadian schools they'll see some familiar illustrations, familiar because much the same art appeared in their textbooks. There's the "evolution of man" illustration, starting with an ape-like creature on the left, then progressing to the slightly more erect figure with arms stretching to the ground, then to a less hairy individual, finally to a modern human. There's the upside-down tree illustration, beginning with the blob, the single cell, at the top and branching out like a tree as it descends downward to assortments of creeping and crawling things to reptiles, birds, fish, animals and humans. Or there's the fruit fly illustrations, showing how some fruit flies change to double-winged creatures under certain conditions or the speckled moth illustration showing how industrial conditions caused moths to change from white creatures to black. Note that there are three points being made here. One is that an amazing assortment of species have existed over time. The second is that the more elaborate species were the offspring after many generations of earlier less complex species. The third is that these changes occurred through natural circumstances. There was no "mind" or plan or design behind them, no God. It was all pure chance. When most scientists speak of "evolution" they do not mean the first, nor even the first and the second. They mean all three, that there was no designer, that change happens through "natural selection." Freak differences occurred in individual members of a species conferring a natural advantage on the offspring of those individuals. These went on living, where those without the advantage petered out, the "survival of the fittest." This fall there has appeared a scientifically authoritative book casting grave doubt on the whole basis of these confident illustrations. Dr. Jonathan Wells, a molecular and cell biologist from the University of California at Berkeley who is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, in his Icons of Evolution does more than cast doubt. He takes 10 so-called "proofs" of evolution offered in current textbooks and shows where not one of them is in a fact a proof of anything, and several are actually frauds. The speckled moths were actually pasted on the trees, not found there. And while there may be rare instances of species that seem part ape, part human, there is no evidence the one came from the other. Why, you wonder, do scientists ascribe credibility to these proofs? Because, says Dr. Wells, every scientist specializes. He may be aware the particular "proof" offered in his own area of expertise is fundamentally flawed, but he assumes those in all the other areas are not. In fact, he says, they all are. Wells's book is the second in two years to challenge the natural selection theory. The last one was Darwin's Black Box by the biochemist Michael Behe. He examines the blob atop the tree illustration. In Darwin's day the simple cell was a "black box" that could not be opened. Now, says Behe, we have opened the box; we can see how the cell is constructed. It's about as simple as a jet engine. It is a masterpiece of design. There is no possibility, none whatever, he says, that it could have come about by mere happenstance. Both these books follow an earlier one by Berkeley law professor Philip Johnson whose Darwin On Trial put the theory of natural selection before a make-believe jury, and gave the evidence for it as it would be presented in court. He shows how the supposed evidence, all of it, fails to vindicate the theory. Yet when the Kansas school system last year decided that evolution need no longer be taught as a scientific fact, but could be advanced as a theory with the students urged to argue the pros and cons, the response all over the continent was explosive. Papers like the Edmonton Journal and Globe and Mail denounced the Kansas board as perverted by superstition and religious bigotry. They made not a single reference to the scientific basis of the decision. Evolution by natural selection, says Johnson, is the "creation myth of the 20th Century." Wells agrees. Perhaps the 21st will get a better one.

[limited755]

Originally posted by evangel http://www.icr.org/cgi-bin/search/search.c...=macroevolution Interesting link, thank you! Guppies change colours with each generation depending on predatation. Cockroaches resist pesticides.[/b] Microevolution. Another interesting (short) article: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MACROEVOLUTION AND MICROEVOLUTION? - BTG No. 94b October 1996 by John D. Morris, Ph.D.* © Copyright 2004 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved. "And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." (II Timothy 4:4) There is much misinformation about these two words, and yet, understanding them is perhaps the crucial prerequisite for understanding the creation/evolution issue. Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types. Examples of this would be fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal. The evolutionary concept demands these bizarre changes. Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog. The small or microevolutionary changes occur by recombining existing genetic material within the group. As Gregor Mendel observed with his breeding studies on peas in the mid 1800's, there are natural limits to genetic change. A population of organisms can vary only so much. What causes macroevolutionary change? Genetic mutations produce new genetic material, but do these lead to macroevolution? No truly useful mutations have ever been observed. The one most cited is the disease sickle-cell anemia, which provides an enhanced resistance to malaria. How could the occasionally deadly disease of SSA ever produce big-scale change? Evolutionists assume that the small, horizontal microevolutionary changes (which are observed) lead to large, vertical macroevolutionary changes (which are never observed). This philosophical leap of faith lies at the eve of evolution thinking. A review of any biology textbook will include a discussion of microevolutionary changes. This list will include the variety of beak shape among the finches of the Galapagos Islands, Darwin's favorite example. Always mentioned is the peppered moth in England, a population of moths whose dominant color shifted during the Industrial Revolution, when soot covered the trees. Insect populations become resistant to DDT, and germs become resistant to antibiotics. While in each case, observed change was limited to microevolution, the inference is that these minor changes can be extrapolated over many generations to macroevolution. In 1980 about 150 of the world's leading evolutionary theorists gathered at the University of Chicago for a conference entitled "Macroevolution." Their task: "to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species" (Lewin, Science vol. 210, pp. 883-887). "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No." Thus the scientific observations support the creation tenet that each basic type is separate and distinct from all others, and that while variation is inevitable, macroevolution does not and did not happen. * Dr. John Morris is President of ICR.

[AcidBasick]

Answer me this, Limited; why do we have fossils of dinosaurs that are millions of years old and yet no evidence of those same species today? If they are not evolving, then why are they not still roaming about? If they were all rendered extinct, then why do we exist today? If we existed back in the age of dinosaurs, why were we not destroyed along with the extinction that plagued them? If there was no extinction, we are back to the question of why there are not dinosaurs here today. Your theory of no evolutionary change is debunked by fossil evidence. The reason for such large gaps in the changes between various evolutions of animals? As Berserk_Exodus says, fossils are hard to come by. The perfect conditions have to be set up in order to capture bones in the soil - and then more conditions have to be met in order to find those bones. Perhaps we arn't searching in the right places? Has much digging been done in Africa - most likely the home of the earliest humans and their evolutionary counterparts? Why is it that strong evidence suggest that birds have evolved from dinosaurs? Why is it that some birds been proven to have particular genes, such as a tail, within their DNA structure? We are quite sure of how old the earth is and how old those fossils are. Radio carbon dating is a very widely used and accurate method of testing such. Are you saying that humans haven't evolved for a few billion years? Are you implying we have only been created in the last few hundred thousand years? Your articles always seem to state the evolutionary theory is garbage, and point out the inconsistencies in that particular school of thought, but they never seem to explain the flaws in their theory; ones that are far more glaring and obtrusive then those of evolution. I wonder why.

[limited755]

Originally posted by AcidBasick Your articles always seem to state the evolutionary theory is garbage, and point out the inconsistencies in that particular school of thought, but they never seem to explain the flaws in their theory; ones that are far more glaring and obtrusive then those of evolution. Their theory? What theory? We just say that \"the evolutionary theory is garbage\" as you wrote, nothing else. Originally posted by AcidBasick why do we have fossils of dinosaurs that are millions of years old and yet no evidence of those same species today? As far as I've read, the dinosaurs got extinct in that era but some other species from that era survived. By the way, just a question, fish evolved into land creatures, is that correct, is that what the evoluton says?

[limited755]

Originally posted by AcidBasick Why is it that strong evidence suggest that birds have evolved from dinosaurs? Tons of dinosaur (pterodactil?) fossils and tons of bird fossils but not even a pound of a half pterodactil-half bird fossil.

[AcidBasick]

Their theory? What theory? We just say that \"the evolutionary theory is garbage\" as you wrote, nothing else. [/b] That's ridiculous. I could say that the Earth is not round. I could cook up a bunch of facts about why I think the Earth must not be round. For instance, I've never seen the Earth as a sphere, I only see flatness across the ground. Or, the Earth has a large body of water seperating me from the landmasses across it, how do I know anything is really over there? I've never been there myself. In the end, I'm not actually giving a alternate theory about what shape the earth really is, I'm just giving a bunch of useless information that does nothing to further my cause. In reality, everything that you are posting could lend credence to the idea that we really don't have a clue as to the exact workings of life on Earth. Personally, I enjoy logic and structure, and since the evidence in your defense isn't enough to sway me I'll stick with Darwin. As soon as something more logical with better support crops up, I'll drop evolution like soap in the shower.

[limited755]

I'm sorry if I was not clear. I was presenting articles which point out the holes and discrepancies in the Evolution theory, not presenting another theory. But I can do that as well, present a "theory". Here is how things really stand: a body never evolves. It is the soul within the body that evolves, transmigrates from one body to another. The Bhagavad Gita (Vedic texts) states: "As the embodied soul continually passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. The self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change."

[Death-Wuad]

I heard that humans got taller because we've been eating healthier in the past century (so basically we won't be getting taller anytime soon). There is another explanation for these missing links: We could have the proof and not know it. We could share a common ancestor with apes. As a stupid example, which there is evidence of: Let's say long ago, humans were like aardvarks, and then that species split off into apes and humans. Apes and humans are similar because they derive from the same species, but were located in different regions so they developed differently. It's like finding a common color between yellow and blue, the answer is green but you can't really tell because it doesn't look like either of them.