Its time to admit evolution is a fraud

[Deanstar]

oh yeah! Lets burst that little bubble of delusion right here.

[EbbTide000]

DeanStar, thanx I Googled "The Atlas of Creation" talked about in those Youtubes. And Wow! I can read the whole book online for free, here: ★★★ Harun Yahya ★★★

[EbbTide000]

I have just read the Introduction and chapter1 - What is a fossil I was taught that if a plant or animal's "niche" is undisturbered then there is no pressure on it to evolve. That's why many plants and animals remain unchanged for millions of years. The polar bear has black hide. It was once a dark fured bear. But as ice advanced, dark fured bears starved, because prey animals could see them coming. But the "very rare" light fured bear, being more camouflaged, could merge with the white snow and catch something to eat. Isn't that a living example of an animal evolving?

[StephL]

Oh dear... I admit to having been deluded concerning my eventual having reached through to you a tiny little bit with my information. Ahm - nope - shame that. Are you going to put your announced rebuttal of my last before last post in kadie's god thread into this one? http://www.dreamviews.com/religion-s...god-you-5.html But good of you to transfer the matter into a thread of it's own - I guess, she is thankful for that! Concerning that first video: Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[19][20][21][22][23] In 1986, an amicus curiae brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism (which the brief described as embodying religious dogma).[3] This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point, providing the "clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced."[23] There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution.[36][37][38][39] The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.[22] The prestigious United States National Academy of Sciences, which provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and criticising creationism and intelligent design.[40][41] There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about a third (32%) of the public."[42] These are the relevant numbers - not that the Muslim world happily jumps on the Creation bandwagon and not that school children can be deceived with something impressive looking like that Atlas. That's why it's so important to teach them about reality, not phantasms, they're impressionable. Do you really believe that you are more intelligent and informed than 97% of US scientists incl. 72 US Nobel Prize winners? If you'd ask outside of the US - the numbers are even more devastating for Creationism - problem is the uninformed and badly lied to public.

[DeviantThinker]

Mr. Star, I would advise you to watch this entire video series from start to finish: This and plenty more reasons is why I do not even bother engaging in debates with creationists unless if they are genuinely interested in alternative points of view. The inferential gap is usually too large to bridge without effort from both parties and most people are comfortable with sticking to their beliefs.

[StephL]

Yepp Mr. Thinker - that would be a mighty good idea, if he watched them all! But lo and behold - one of Thunderf00t's series is a direct rebuttal of video two of the opening post - how practical! The worst is really how Wells says that all of the major animals would have appeared in the form they currently present in the Cambrian explosion and then showing some small critters, who were all water-dwelling and are all of them extinct today. I mean WTF?? How can he say that with a straight face? Not one land animal was there back then and what he shows has died out!? Besides - how does he time all this? His version does not even concur with Creationist doctrine of the earth being only 6000 years of age...

[Deanstar]

Oh dear... . StepL I don't see nobel prizes as any sort of measure of how true something is. You realize there is a known prejudice against women in these prizes? Obama also got the nobel peace prize before he even did anything. This shows how reliable 'prizes' are in the 21st century. I see a court case that rejects intelligent design as a mistrial, not something neutral. There is documentaries that look further into that. I did agree with an admin that I would no longer post in the other religious section. I'm sticking to a scientific position, without even preaching the gospel here. But you will still have problems because what you claim is science, isn't really science. It's time to just get the information out there, I don't think you are ready to accept this clarity or information, It's not a matter of 'proving evolution' it's a matter of accepting the work that shows it's a lie and illusion. In this technological age where the data has been collected we can easily see that evolutionists do have a religious belief, and that it is a cult with an agenda. They agressively push their agenda because without this false doctrine they are screwed including economically. Your only hope for this theory to survive is if people remain illiterate and willingly ignorant. Simple.... There's tones more articles and links I could add to this thread. I did give you an article StepL which was a good summary, which you really in essence did not end up facing in any responsible way (it was impossible cause it falsified the theory) You posted pseudoscientific concepts that do not make logical sense. Things from the internet that other evolutionist have tried to put together to pull the wool over other people's eyes. I guess the only thing to do is move on with showing the information that we have, and that sort of inaccuracy becomes clear in light of what we know. You did get your pat on the back and wonderment from atheists on the board. Though we know that sort of thing is just a popularity game, nothing to do with the material out there. I'm very comfortable with the information I have and confident in it's factual accuracy and reasoning. You havn't seen the end of this intellectual 'fight', and the fraudsters behind evolution are not about to just lay down and give up. People in my generation will continue to write books, and reference our material in support of creationism, and it will prevail because the truth will be known whether you like it or not. It doesn't matter how many institutions or lobbying for evolution that is attempted, it will collapse, that is it's fate.

[DeviantThinker]

It doesn't matter how many institutions or lobbying for evolution that is attempted, it will collapse, that is it's fate. Well seeing that in Britain it is now illegal to teach creationism in publically funded schools and evolution is now in the primary school curriculum, the evidence is not supporting that statement, just like much of what you say. America will likely follow suit or be left in the dust in terms of scientific accomplishments by other countries. Congratulations on dismissing StephL's posts as "pseudoscientific concepts" without a single specific point to make against them. If you want to convince people, rather than calling them fraudsters and cultists (a label that is woefully ironic for a fundamentalist Christian to use), why not debunk us directly. Don't post videos to us. If you are not bothered to view ours, then don't expect us to reciprocate. Post directly what your specific contentions against evolution are and not some vague rhetoric about brainwashing and agendas. Give us specific points on why creationism is more empirically valid over evolution and please don't use the bible as your only source. Assuming for the time being that the bible is the word of God and the bible points towards a creationist world view, is there any empirical pointers towards that in the natural world?

[StephL]

StepL I don't see nobel prizes as any sort of measure of how true something is. You realize there is a known prejudice against women in these prizes? Obama also got the nobel peace prize before he even did anything. This shows how reliable 'prizes' are in the 21st century. I see a court case that rejects intelligent design as a mistrial, not something neutral. There is documentaries that look further into that. I did agree with an admin that I would no longer post in the other religious section. I'm sticking to a scientific position, without even preaching the gospel here. But you will still have problems because what you claim is science, isn't really science. These 72 laureates give credibility, something for common sense to chew on. Most people would agree, that this "demographic" is over-proportionally intelligent and highly educated, whatever else they might be - or not be. They also tend to be male, and have a high percentage of Jews among them, but neither lessens the impact of the above mentioned criteria in any way. That's why it's okay that they probably didn't only count science laureate's signatures. And of course you didn't address the number of 97% of scientists, nor the list of scientific institutions having petitioned. Who do you think does the actual scientific discovering and technology inventing - the actual work? If you want to know about science and it's body of knowledge - ask scientists. Did you read the numbers? Which institutions have all partitioned? The scientific community has intervened by the millions in America alone - and the law decided in their favour. How can 97% of scientists be a cult? It's time to just get the information out there, I don't think you are ready to accept this clarity or information, It's not a matter of 'proving evolution' it's a matter of accepting the work that shows it's a lie and illusion. In this technological age where the data has been collected we can easily see that evolutionists do have a religious belief, and that it is a cult with an agenda. They agressively push their agenda because without this false doctrine they are screwed including economically. Your only hope for this theory to survive is if people remain illiterate and willingly ignorant. Simple.... There's tones more articles and links I could add to this thread. It's about trying to get it into one or the other Creationist head, be that you or somebody reading, that evolution has been proven zig thousand times already, and that zig different scientific disciplines are doing it! Once you start with the 6000 years you're so absolutely out of touch with this technological age you invoke - it's baffling. And yes - what is proven, that's the relevant thing. If you want me to simply "accept" something, because you and other Creationists say so and the bible says so, then you got the wrong person, I'm afraid. What I can do is provide you with the information, you claim would be missing, and rebut what your article says, as I already begun. That was up to now the one source of yours worthy of consideration and step by step rebuttal, because at least it sounds scientific and intelligent. So it's to be considered potentially harmful to impressionable minds. Being exasperated by the first two videos of this thread, I spare myself the rest. As Deviant says - I'd like to hear back from you on your source and my replies. But if you're not willing to consider evidence - you should stop to invoke science. That's completely the wrong playing field for you then. You could instead just say, god or Satan tried to lure people into falling from grace by making it all look and work as if evolution has been and is taking place. One of them buried the fossils, manipulated radioactive decay, made it snow in special divine/evil magic ways etc., but in truth, it's all only façade, you are supposed to witness evolution being actually and really proven, but decide to believe in Creation anyway. Funny how it could have been either one of these trying to test people's faith by Christian logic... Like this you would be all done with the pesky truth determination and could in peace say goodbye to scientific thinking and logic altogether. It's all about being afraid of hell and wanting to go to heaven in the end right? You're so deeply indoctrinated that you believe a little doubt, a little critical, skeptic thinking directed at your own faith will bring you damnation. I did give you an article StepL which was a good summary, which you really in essence did not end up facing in any responsible way (it was impossible cause it falsified the theory) You posted pseudoscientific concepts that do not make logical sense. Things from the internet that other evolutionist have tried to put together to pull the wool over other people's eyes. I guess the only thing to do is move on with showing the information that we have, and that sort of inaccuracy becomes clear in light of what we know. You did get your pat on the back and wonderment from atheists on the board. Though we know that sort of thing is just a popularity game, nothing to do with the material out there. I'm very comfortable with the information I have and confident in it's factual accuracy and reasoning. You havn't seen the end of this intellectual 'fight', and the fraudsters behind evolution are not about to just lay down and give up. People in my generation will continue to write books, and reference our material in support of creationism, and it will prevail because the truth will be known whether you like it or not. It doesn't matter how many institutions or lobbying for evolution that is attempted, it will collapse, that is it's fate. Oh - fine. It wasn't me leaving kadie's thread - I'll transfer what I had already written on that article in here and I'll go on to go through it - as said before - in my own time!

[Deanstar]

Well seeing that in Britain it is now illegal to teach creationism in publically funded schools and evolution is now in the primary school curriculum, the evidence is not supporting that statement, just like much of what you say. According to this logic, gay marriage is wrong because it's illegal in Australia. So this means you no longer support gay marriage? That's fine because I don't support it either haha. I do support intelligent design in schools because then we might actually get some intelligent education. Just because some laws change, that's not what determines truth. I hope you realize this atleast. I hope you realize that man made laws as the result of culture not science. Science does not deal in morality. Laws deal with morality. Congratulations on dismissing StephL's posts as "pseudoscientific concepts" without a single specific point to make against them. Not a single point except for hours of work and research that I have already posted on it (which you failed to address) I don't know if you notice this but I did reply to StephL, many times. It would be your issue that you cannot read properly. why not debunk us directly You don't know when you are debunked. The fact you are asking this question is evidence of this. Care for a game of online chess? We can see who wins and report the result back here. Just don't want you to start calling me intellectually inferior based on your own hypocrisy. Post directly what your specific contentions against evolution are If I was any more direct with my information, it would actually bite you on the butt and you wouldn't know it. Assuming for the time being that the bible is the word of God So you admit you need the bible for this discussion, I'm fine with that, I agree, but you might have to convince the mods that it's on topic.

[OpheliaBlue]

So you admit you need the bible for this discussion, I'm fine with that, I agree, but you might have to convince the mods that it's on topic. I checked. It's still on topic.

[DeviantThinker]

According to this logic, gay marriage is wrong because it's illegal in Australia. So this means you no longer support gay marriage? I never made any such claim. You said: It doesn't matter how many institutions or lobbying for evolution that is attempted, it will collapse, that is it's fate. I gave an example of where such lobbying in fact was successful. If you are unable to counter my real points, don't create fictitious ones to counter instead. Not a single point except for hours of work and research that I have already posted on it (which you failed to address) I don't know if you notice this but I did reply to StephL, many times. It would be your issue that you cannot read properly. Hmmm, let's see. StephL showed widespread consensus among scientists of all fields supporting the validity of evolution including nobel prize winners and you decided to nitpick by giving an example of Obama, who won a nobel prize for peace because hey, surely all nobel prize winners have equivilent scientific credibility. It could not be that Ms L was pointing out that most scientists, including the most acclaimed of our times support evolution, which may suggest that there is good reason to believe it once you have been educated to that level. No! It must be that to her, it's the shiny prize that is important. I'm sure that with those "hours of work and research" that you put in, you had unearthed countless examples of nobel laureates with unsavory deeds including Fritz Haber who won one in chemistry and had been instrumental in the development and proliferation of chemical warfare during World War 1. It was only once you were done with all that meticulous research that you decided that the most relevent prize would be that in the field of politics and who would be more deserving of being singled out than that bastard Obama. Henry Kissinger? Meh, he's a small fry! You are a highly dishonest debator who likes to use emotional manipulation and misdirection. I do not see any evidence of genuine research or response in your posts. You just rattle on and on like a broken recorder. The rare times you have a point that can in fact be falsified (as in a substantial one), it always turns out to be wrong and when we point that out, you seem to ignore it altogether or dismiss the rebuttal as "brainwashed" or fruadulent. You don't know when you are debunked. The fact you are asking this question is evidence of this. Care for a game of online chess? We can see who wins and report the result back here. Just don't want you to start calling me intellectually inferior based on your own hypocrisy. Yeah, the fact that you can beat me at online chess would somehow counteract your demonstrably huge ignorance of biology, physics, geology, maths (yes, I was reading that thread) and total lack of intellectual honesty. I never made a single insinuation about your intellect or lack of in a post before but if you are going to go there, I'm not going to feign humility for the sake of appeasing your huge ego. If I was any more direct with my information, it would actually bite you on the butt and you wouldn't know it. Well if your idea of being direct with information is directing it at someone's behind, that would explain a great deal. So you admit you need the bible for this discussion, I'm fine with that, I agree, but you might have to convince the mods that it's on topic. No, I just said that so we will leave theology out of this and discuss purely what the empirical observations suggest, as in not in a book but rather in nature. We are not discussing God here, just the natural world or rather we were. Now, I'm not so interested. I tried to give you a chance but I don't think you are really interested in a debate. You just want to toot your own horn. Well toot away but don't expect us to move that caravan forward.

[Deanstar]

Deviant I don't even know where to begin. Your post is so out of this world and ridiculiously wasteful that if I replied to such rhetoric I would become part of the nonsense. I think I'll just go back and consider StephL's post and work through those misconceptions when I get more time. where such lobbying in fact was successful *facepalm, don't you understand that lobbying is not based on science, it's a financial political practice that should be illegal.

[snoop]

I gave an example of where such lobbying in fact was successful. If you are unable to counter my real points, don't create fictitious ones to counter instead. This is his modus operandi, it's not going to change. It's literally the only way he can argue. Deanstar, seeing as how you posted all videos and actually stated nothing about evolution itself, and you failed to cite any kind of corroborating evidence (read: empirical data, specific examples, etc.) supporting your argument, this debate pretty much isn't even a thing. In order for a debate to work, you must present your side of the argument and give supporting evidence and references for your claims. Then the other side does the same. Then you rebuttal, then they rebuttal, etc. If you can't even do more than post a few videos of monologues and call evolution a delusion, then you do not have an argument. Simple as.

[Deanstar]

Then you rebuttal, then they rebuttal, etc. . I don't think you understand what's going on. The primary thing was my paper, StephL replied to that on another thread, I replied, gave information, and we are having an ongoing discussion about it.

[StephL]

If I was any more direct with my information, it would actually bite you on the butt and you wouldn't know it. Well if your idea of being direct with information is directing it at someone's behind, that would explain a great deal. spiltmydrinklaughing.jpg Made my day! Going to do the transferring tomorrow... Edit upon seeing posts: Yes we do have an ongoing conversation, Deanstar - but how about quoting my last before last post in the above linked through thread as an opening post? Or a compilation from that thread, say. That would have made it crystal clear, where we are coming from. As announced above - I'll do that in some way or another, so that it can be found by potential wavering Creationists in here.

[snoop]

I don't think you understand what's going on. The primary thing was my paper, StephL replied to that on another thread, I replied, gave information, and we are having an ongoing discussion about it. I watched the first 15 minutes of the DNA video and I've got to say I don't know if I've seen anybody use as many logical fallacies and misinformation to try and prove something ever. This guy truly takes the cake, I seriously couldn't force myself to watch the rest of the video because I felt like I was watching a satire. You're telling me and expecting me to believe, Deanstar, that you truly believe everything this man says? You don't disagree with a single point? If this is the case just go back to church with the rest of your people and get back to circle jerking. Leave the debating to the people who have sensible, rational, and credible arguments. Unless you really are a troll, you're just embarrassing yourself and discrediting the words of creationists capable of real debate everywhere. It's people like you and the DNA video guy that ruin it for them.

[EbbTide000]

DeanStar I'mnearly 55 and from infancy I have yearned ... umm ... well I have searched and researched for truth. NOT just intellectually. I have several belief systems. And since I am a fully diagnosed "multiple personality". (Discociative Disorder with imaginative reconstructive and boarderline personality) is my full diagnosis. I'm on the disability pension because of it. And, because of my many personalities I can easily believe all my different belief systems without discomfort. The best arguement for Creationism has not been mentioned in your links. So I spect U R saving that one for later (hahaha) Oh!!! I just caught up with this thread iust now when I came here to post the above. I don't think you understand what's going on. The primary thing was my paper, StephL replied to that on another thread, I replied, gave information, and we are having an ongoing discussion about it. DeanStare please link your paper in this thread ... Maybe that argumemt I was refering too is in the paper you wrote.

[Alric]

That first video is flat out lying propaganda. They are not even misrepresenting facts or misunderstanding the subject, they are flat out lying. There is overwhelming evidence that supports evolution, and none that supports creationism. No real scientist doubt evolution, and creationism is dropping in popularity all across the world because it is a stupid nonsensical belief. Believing in creationism instead of evolution is like believing the the earth is flat. You are totally wrong and the only way you could believe such a thing is if you ignore all the evidence all around you.

[Neo Neo]

Call me ignorant for not watching the aforementioned youtube videos, but I've got to side with Alric and other posters in this thread. Basically, science is the best way of testing and observing our world, and that includes evolution. And meaning "science" in a non-theological sense. To believe that evolution is false requires ignorance of the progression of nature. Animals have changed over time and have adopted traits (consciously and unconsciously) that best suite their adaptability to their environment and their success for reproduction. How can this be debated in a serious, academic setting? It's one thing to say that you believe evolution is some kind of delusion but there is no solid evidence against evolution. Anything that seems like it is again, logical fallacies and talking in circles. Probably brainwashing too, albeit largely unintentional I think, and I say this in the most non-offensive way I can. I don't think the Earth and all its life could get to this point without things like evolution. This is all a huge dynamic system and science is our go-to tool for making sense of it all. And science says evolution is part of the game. I don't know how else clear this can be.

[Descensus]

Yeah, no.

[EbbTide000]

Brilliant (!!!) BLUELINE I have bookmarked QualiaSoup There have been brilliant Bible believers even a couple of Saints from 400 years ago who agree (basically) will that Youtube 400 years a go a couple of Saints and hundreds of others said that there is a big gap between creation one and creation two in Genesis. They said that each created animal could change slightly over many generations. The many cats in the world came from just one originally created cat. The same with wolf, horse, dear, etc. I might not be able to find those two Saints but l will try. Yeah, no.

[Alric]

Evolution obviously happens. If animals didn't change over time, we wouldn't have dogs and farm animals like we do today. All dogs would look like wolves. They obviously don't. We know why they don't, because we selectively bred them to look different and for different purposes. Traits are clearly passed down from parents to child. I am not sure how anyone could deny this.

[Darkmatters]

Only fundamentalist ideology can make people so blind.

[StephL]

Great video BLUELINE!! Here's another one, which does a fine job of explaining matters in some detail: This is the multiply mentioned article: Spoiler for Creationist article: The Scientific Case Against Evolution by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all. Evolution Is Not Happening Now First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution. Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind." A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that: . . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1 The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action. Evolution Never Happened in the Past Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving. Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3 Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there. Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4 The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world. With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes: And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5 Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that: The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6 Translation: "There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically." Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught that Stanley Miller's famous experiment on a gaseous mixture, practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so! Miller put the whole thing in a ball, gave it an electric charge, and waited. He found that amino acids and other fundamental complex molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the apparatus. His discovery gave a huge boost to the scientific investigation of the origin of life. Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in a test tube was within reach of experimental science. Unfortunately, such experiments have not progressed much further than the original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.7 Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that: The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.8 Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate -- that is, the first fish-- with its hard parts all on the inside. Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.9 Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same! It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . .10 So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of oganisms which didn't change during their durations? Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees -- fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups. . . . Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner -- new features are often "cut and pasted" on different groups at different times.11 As far as ape/human intermediates are concerned, the same is true, although anthropologists have been eagerly searching for them for many years. Many have been proposed, but each has been rejected in turn. All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have used this assortment of jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, together with molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a line of human descent going back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor.12 Anthropologists supplemented their extremely fragmentary fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn't help much either, for it contradicts fossil evidence. Lewin notes that: The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.13 Summarizing the genetic data from humans, another author concludes, rather pessimistically: Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.14 Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism. Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time, strong positive evidences for special creation. They are, in fact, specific predictions based on the creation model of origins. Creationists would obviously predict ubiquitous gaps between created kinds, though with many varieties capable of arising within each kind, in order to enable each basic kind to cope with changing environments without becoming extinct. Creationists also would anticipate that any "vertical changes" in organized complexity would be downward, since the Creator (by definition) would create things correctly to begin with. Thus, arguments and evidences against evolution are, at the same time, positive evidences for creation. The Equivocal Evidence from Genetics Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their "proof" that evolution is a scientific fact. A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry. Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution. The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee "similarity," noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn't they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders? Similarities -- whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else -- are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process? The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense. Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution. However, as noted above by Roger Lewin, this is often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record, but also with the comparative morphology of the creatures. Lewin also mentions just a few typical contradictions yielded by this type of evidence in relation to more traditional Darwinian "proofs." The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order insectivores . . . is in fact more closely related to . . . the true elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to horses. The duckbilled platypus . . . is on equal evolutionary footing with . . . kangaroos and koalas.15 There are many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this approach. The abundance of so-called "junk DNA" in the genetic code also has been offered as a special type of evidence for evolution, especially those genes which they think have experienced mutations, sometimes called "pseudogenes."16 However, evidence is accumulating rapidly today that these supposedly useless genes do actually perform useful functions. Enough genes have already been uncovered in the genetic midden to show that what was once thought to be waste is definitely being transmitted into scientific code.17 It is thus wrong to decide that junk DNA, even the socalled "pseudogenes," have no function. That is merely an admission of ignorance and an object for fruitful research. Like the socalled "vestigial organs" in man, once considered as evidence of evolution but now all known to have specific uses, so the junk DNA and pseudogenes most probably are specifically useful to the organism, whether or not those uses have yet been discovered by scientists. At the very best this type of evidence is strictly circumstantial and can be explained just as well in terms of primeval creation supplemented in some cases by later deterioration, just as expected in the creation model. The real issue is, as noted before, whether there is any observable evidence that evolution is occurring now or has ever occurred in the past. As we have seen, even evolutionists have to acknowledge that this type of real scientific evidence for evolution does not exist. A good question to ask is: Why are all observable evolutionary changes either horizontal and trivial (so-called microevolution) or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer seems to be found in the universally applicable laws of the science of thermodynamics. Evolution Could Never Happen at All The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity. This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception. No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18 The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this. Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw? Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19 This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed. The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms. Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present. From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits. Evolution is Religion -- Not Science In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale. Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists. Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.20 The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism? The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and "new age" evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man. The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism -- the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.21 Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true. Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.22 Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion. The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that: Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.23 A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says: Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.24 It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion! Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.25 Another way of saying "religion" is "worldview," the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game. Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.26 They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.27 The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says: We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.28 A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says: And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal -- without demonstration -- to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.29 Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this. As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.30 Once again, we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists' tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more. (Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.31 Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not "minimal." It is nonexistent! The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,32 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the "liberal" movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam). As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said: Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.33 Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern."34 Then he went on to say that: "The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."35 That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today. In closing this survey of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism. References Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Sudden Origins (New York, John Wiley, 1999), p. 300. Ernst Mayr, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American (vol. 283, July 2000), p. 83. Jeffrey H. Schwartz, op. cit., p.89. Ibid. Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American (vol. 271, October 1994), p. 78. Ibid., p. 83. Massimo Pigliucci, "Where Do We Come From?" Skeptical Inquirer (vol. 23, September/October 1999), p. 24. Stephen Jay Gould, "The Evolution of Life," chapter 1 in Evolution: Facts and Fallacies, ed. by J. William Schopf (San Diego, CA., Academic Press, 1999), p. 9. J. O. Long, The Rise of Fishes (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1995), p. 30. Niles Eldredge, The Pattern of Evolution (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1998), p. 157. Neil Shubin, "Evolutionary Cut and Paste," Nature (vol. 349, July 2, 1998), p.12. Colin Tudge, "Human Origins Revisited," New Scientist (vol. 146, May 20, 1995), p. 24. Roger Lewin, "Family Feud," New Scientist (vol. 157, January 24, 1998), p. 39. N. A. Takahata, "Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans," Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics (vol. 26, 1995), p. 343. Lewin, op. cit., p. 36. Rachel Nowak, "Mining Treasures from `Junk DNA'," Science (vol. 263, February 4, 1994), p. 608. Ibid. E. H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, "A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics," Physics Today (vol. 53, April 2000), p. 32. Norman A. Johnson, "Design Flaw," American Scientist (vol. 88. May/June 2000), p. 274. Scott, Eugenie, "Fighting Talk," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p.47. Dr. Scott is director of the anti-creationist organization euphemistically named, The National Center for Science Education. Ericson, Edward L., "Reclaiming the Higher Ground," The Humanist (vol. 60, September/October 2000), p. 30. Dawkins, Richard, replying to a critique of his faith in the liberal journal, Science and Christian Belief (vol. 7, 1994), p. 47. Mayr, Ernst, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American (vol. 283, July 2000), p. 83. Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401, September 30, 1999), p. 423. Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism fron the Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3. Rifkin, Jeremy, "Reinventing Nature," The Humanist (vol. 58, March/April 1998), p. 24. Lewontin, Richard, Review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997. Bowler, Peter J., Review In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169. Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54. Provine, Will, "No Free Will," in Catching Up with the Vision, ed. by Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p. S123. Appleyard, Bryan, "You Asked for It," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p. 45. Henry M. Morris, The Long War Against God (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1989), 344 pp. Julian Huxley, Essays of a Humanist (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), p. 125. Ibid., p. 222. Ibid. And this is me transfer-quoting myself - I posted so much today - I'm exhausted and hope I don't need to edit too much - it's a hassle to transfer all the quoting/pics manually: The Scientific Case Against Evolution by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all. Evolution Is Not Happening Now First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution. Here a review of a Nature paper, which was a multi-national effort in order to show, how evolution/natural selection having it's way leads to better adapted micro-organisms Time In A Bottle: Scientists Watch Evolution Unfold -- ScienceDaily These E. coli gained new features while evolving over 20.000+ generations - this number gives you a hint, why you can't see it happening from your armchair - a lot of reproduction usually has to go down before something significantly changes. Then I have a really excellent source - bit more to read and preferably with switching on these grey cells: Observed Instances of Speciation One more: Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur – Observations of a Nerd Spoiler for Evolution is with us today - it's really happening and under our eyes!: We saw that the littlest differences can lead to dramatic variations when we looked at the wide variety in dogs. But despite their differences, all breeds of dogs are still the same species as each other and their ancestor. How do species split? What causes speciation? And what evidence do we have that speciation has ever occurred? Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that’s clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it’s also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day. Purple Salsify or Oyster Plant, Tragopogon porrifoliusFor example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers – the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) – were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren’t sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species – the classic definition of a new species. How did this happen? It turns out that the parental plants made mistakes when they created their gametes (analogous to our sperm and eggs). Instead of making gametes with only one copy of each chromosome, they created ones with two or more, a state called polyploidy. Two polyploid gametes from different species, each with double the genetic information they were supposed to have, fused, and created a tetraploid: an creature with 4 sets of chromosomes. Because of the difference in chromosome number, the tetrapoid couldn’t mate with either of its parent species, but it wasn’t prevented from reproducing with fellow accidents. This process, known as Hybrid Speciation, has been documented a number of times in different plants. But plants aren’t the only ones speciating through hybridization: Heliconius butterflies, too, have split in a similar way. It doesn’t take a mass of mutations accumulating over generations to create a different species – all it takes is some event that reproductively isolates one group of individuals from another. This can happen very rapidly, in cases like these of polyploidy. A single mutation can be enough. Or it can happen at a much, much slower pace. This is the speciation that evolution is known for – the gradual changes over time that separate species. But just because we can’t see all speciation events from start to finish doesn’t mean we can’t see species splitting. If the theory of evolution is true, we would expect to find species in various stages of separation all over the globe. There would be ones that have just begun to split, showing reproductive isolation, and those that might still look like one species but haven’t interbred for thousands of years. Indeed, that is exactly what we find. Rhagoletis pomonella, apple maggot flyThe apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella is a prime example of a species just beginning to diverge. These flies are native to the United States, and up until the discovery of the Americas by Europeans, fed solely on hawthorns. But with the arrival of new people came a new potential food source to its habitat: apples. At first, the flies ignored the tasty treats. But over time, some flies realized they could eat the apples, too, and began switching trees. While alone this doesn’t explain why the flies would speciate, a curious quirk of their biology does: apple maggot flies mate on the tree they’re born on. As a few flies jumped trees, they cut themselves off from the rest of their species, even though they were but a few feet away. When geneticists took a closer look in the late 20th century, they found that the two types – those that feed on apples and those that feed on hawthorns – have different allele frequencies. Indeed, right under our noses, Rhagoletis pomonella began the long journey of speciation. As we would expect, other animals are much further along in the process – although we don’t always realize it until we look at their genes. Orcas (Orcinus orca), better known as killer whales, all look fairly similar. They’re big dolphins with black and white patches that hunt in packs and perform neat tricks at Sea World. But for several decades now, marine mammalogists have thought that there was more to the story. Behavioral studies have revealed that different groups of orcas have different behavioral traits. They feed on different animals, act differently, and even talk differently. But without a way to follow the whales underwater to see who they mate with, the scientists couldn’t be sure if the different whale cultures were simply quirks passed on from generation to generation or a hint at much more. Orca (Killer Whale) Now, geneticists have done what the behavioral researchers could not. They looked at how the whales breed. When they looked at the entire mitochondrial genome from 139 different whales throughout the globe, they found dramatic differences. These data suggested there are indeed at least three different species of killer whale. Phylogenetic analysis indicated that the different species of orca have been separated for 150,000 to 700,000 years. Why did the orcas split? The truth is, we don’t know. Perhaps it was a side effect of modifications for hunting different prey sources, or perhaps there was some kind of physical barrier between populations that has since disappeared. All we know is that while we were busy painting cave walls, something caused groups of orcas to split, creating multiple species. There are many different reasons why species diverge. The easiest, and most obvious, is some kind of physical barrier – a phenomenon called Allopatric Speciation. If you look at fish species in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of California, you’ll find there are a lot of similarities between them. Indeed, some of the species look almost identical. Scientists have looked at their genes, and species on either side of that thin land bridge are more closely related to each other than they are to other species, even ones in their area. What happened is that a long time ago, the continents of North and South America were separated, and the oceans were connected. When the two land masses merged, populations of species were isolated on either side. Over time, these fish have diverged enough to be separate species. Species can split without such clear boundaries, too. When species diverge like the apple maggot flies – without a complete, physical barrier – it’s called Sympatric Speciation. Sympatric speciation can occur for all kinds of reasons. All it takes is something that makes one group have less sex with another. For one species of Monarch flycatchers (Monarcha castaneiventris), it was all about looks. These little insectivores live on Solomon Islands, east of Papua New Guinea. At some point, a small group of them developed a single amino acid mutation in the gene for a protein called melanin, which dictates the bird’s color pattern. i-8ef16e9a9524bbcfd13d3d4fb8a47283-monarcha_castaneiventris-thumb-250x126-47636.jpgSome flycatchers are all black, while others have chestnut colored bellies. Even though the two groups are perfectly capable of producing viable offspring, they don’t mix in the wild. Researchers found that the birds already see the other group as a different species. The males, which are fiercely territorial, don’t react when a differently colored male enters their turf. Like the apple maggot flies, the flycatchers are no longer interbreeding, and have thus taken the first step towards becoming two different species. These might seem like little changes, but remember, as we learned with dogs, little changes can add up. Because they’re not interbreeding, these different groups will accumulate even more differences over time. As they do, they will start to look less and less alike. The resultant animals will be like the species we clearly see today. Perhaps some will adapt to a lifestyle entirely different from their sister species – the orcas, for example, may diverge dramatically as small changes allow them to be better suited to their unique prey types. Others may stay fairly similar, even hard to tell apart, like various species of squirrels are today. The point is that all kinds of creatures, from the smallest insects to the largest mammals, are undergoing speciation right now. We have watched species split, and we continue to see them diverge. Speciation is occurring all around us. Evolution didn't just happen in the past; it’s happening right now, and will continue on long after we stop looking for it. By the way - is “micro-evolution” a Creationist term? I only heard it in that context and not in university. Anyway - seems my link on bacteria was convincing - I thought, that's what's meant with the term? The problem is one of perspective. As I described before, speciation happens primarily in bottle-neck situations or in other circumstances, where creatures are confronted with novel environments - not out of the blue. And it usually takes a lot of generations, when it happens. But it happens all the time - evolution is not "over" - it's an ongoing process. And I so happen to have something really interesting in terms of dogs and Creationism - Ken Ham had claimed, that the biblical story with Noah's flood would make for trees of biological variation just like science would find them to be the case for dogs. Not so – this video is very enlightening, I would say, for demonstrating, that Ken Ham wasn't shying back from complete quackery in order to make the myths seemingly reconcilable with evidence. But not only that - it explains genetic bottlenecks etc. very nicely - explains what the diagram Ham flashed on the screen actually says: Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind." It has – see above, and evolution has a tree-like structure, with the “basic kinds” coming first and then it`s diversification. A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that: . . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed. The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques" by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action. Well – this "recently" has meanwhile become the past and evolution is out of “historical science” times today. Besides this mentioned fruit-fly, which I didn't yet look up – there’s more - see spoiler and of course in the fast enough replicating micro-organisms. But even if it were only possible to show it once in multi-cellular organisms - like with that fly - it would be proof of watchability already! Evolution Never Happened in the Past Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving. Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved. Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there. Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species. There are transitional life forms and more and more are being found. The feathered dinosaurs are not controversial, neither the fact, that birds evolved from dinosaurs - you've been belittling that idea - but please re-check the National Geographic link on feather evolution, I provided - you find transitional stages of dinosaurs with "almost-feathers" in that matter as well. Feather Evolution - National Geographic Magazine Creationists had for ages been clamouring, why we wouldn't find a fish with feet - the "Darwin Fish". Well - we did find dozens of them. And not only that - evolutionary theory lead to scientists predicting, where exactly they might find it - and they did: Your Inner Fish: Book and PBS documentary on Tiktaalik and Neil Shubin. I really recommend giving it due consideration: We all know the Darwin fish, the car-bumper send-up of the Christian ichthys symbol, or Jesus fish. Unlike the Christian symbol, the Darwin fish has, you know, legs. But the Darwin fish isn't merely a clever joke; in effect, it contains a testable scientific prediction. If evolution is true, and if life on Earth originated in water, then there must have once been fish species possessing primitive limbs, which enabled them to spend some part of their lives on land. And these species, in turn, must be the ancestors of four-limbed, land-living vertebrates like us. Sure enough, in 2004, scientists found one of those transitional species: Tiktaalik roseae, a 375-million-year-old Devonian period specimen discovered in the Canadian Arctic by paleontologist Neil Shubin and his colleagues. Tiktaalik, explains Shubin on the latest episode of the Inquiring Minds podcast, is an "anatomical mix between fish and a land-living animal." "It has a neck," says Shubin, a professor at the University of Chicago. "No fish has a neck. And you know what? When you look inside the fin, and you take off those fin rays, you find an upper arm bone, a forearm, and a wrist." Tiktaalik, Shubin has observed, was a fish capable of doing a push-up. It had both lungs and gills. In sum, it's quite the transitional form. Shubin's best-selling book about his discovery, Your Inner Fish: A Journey Into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body, uses the example of Tiktaalik and other evolutionary evidence to trace how our own bodies share similar structures not only with close relatives like chimpanzees or orangutans, but indeed, with far more distant relatives like fish. Think of it as an extensive unpacking of a famous line by Charles Darwin from his book The Descent of Man: "Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin." "Many of the muscles and nerves and bones I'm using to talk to you with right now, and many of the muscles and nerves and bones you're using to hear me with right now, correspond to gill structures in fish," explained Shubin on Inquiring Minds. Indeed, despite having diverged from fish several hundred million of years ago, we still share more than half of our DNA with them. "The genetic toolkit that builds their fins is very similar to the genetic toolkit that builds our limbs," Shubin says. "And much of the evolution, we think, from fins to limbs, didn't involve a whole lot of new genes." Now, of course, none of this sits well with the young-Earth creationist crowd, who are continually trying to undermine science education and U.S. science literacy. What do creationists say about Shubin's research, and especially Tiktaalik? Turns out that creationist Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis has his answer ready to go: "There are no transitional forms that support evolution," he confidently declares in a minute-long audio track dedicated to debunking the Tiktaalik finding. Why? Because "the Bible says God made fish and land animals during the same week, not millions of years apart." That's just the beginning of the attempted takedowns that creationists have leveled against Shubin's work. Pictured near where it was found is a Tiktaalik roseae fossil — one of the most complete of the dozens of specimens discovered to date. Tiktaalik roseae, a 375-million-year-old Devonian period specimen discovered in the Canadian Arctic by paleontologist Neil Shubin and his colleagues. Photo courtesy PBS Creationists snipe, raise doubt, and deny almost everything that we know, but the reason that Tiktaalik is such a momentous find appears to be beyond them: Evolutionary theory (complemented by an extensive knowledge of geology) predicted not only that this fish would have existed, but also that its fossilized remains would probably be found within a specific part of the world, in geological layers of a particular age. Hence, Shubin's many trips with his team to the Canadian Arctic, where those rock layers could be found. "We designed this expedition with the goal of finding this exact fossil," explains Shubin. "And we used the tools of evolution and geology as discovery tools to make a prediction about where to look. And the prediction was confirmed." Tiktaalik isn't just proof of evolution; it's also proof that the scientific process works. Nevertheless, following the announcement of Tiktaalik's discovery in 2006, the creationists pounced. "My inbox is filled with some interesting emails," says Shubin. Over time, as the idea for Your Inner Fish began to gel, Shubin decided to seek out creationists, or less-than-evolution-friendly audiences, in person to try to explain the fossil and what it means. "I decided at that point, I'm going to go give talks in Alabama, in South Carolina, in Oklahoma, in Texas, and elsewhere, where I'll bring Tiktaalik with me, or the cast of Tiktaalik," says Shubin. "And I've done this every year." Having the fossil to show, says Shubin, changes the entire nature of the discussion. "It's about the data, it's about the evidence, it's about the discovery," he says. "It's about, 'How do you date those rocks, how do you compare that creature to another creature?' Well, if we do that, we kind of win, because what it means is it changes the conversation in a way where it's now about evidence," he continues. "You're not going to change everybody's mind, but you're going to affect a few, most definitely. And that's kind of my passion. That's what I think I can bring to the table." Yeah - well - I guess, this does speak for itself, esp. what I fattened. That you need not evolve a new toolkit for making limbs instead of fins is also interesting, you see, it's easier to evolve "new features", when you can build them from pre-existing mechanisms. That such things pre-exist also confines evolution to a degree - it doesn't start all over again from scratch, but further differentiates, what was there already in a more primitive form. Why not as many transitional forms as other fossils? Well - look back to that video which fact-checked Ken Ham. What you learn, is that speciation is usually happening in a bottleneck situation, when population sizes are thinned out, and then later the new species stabilizes and gets bigger and bigger. There simply were not as many of those there, also not "needed", which is logical, if you consider, how it comes to pass. There's development for so and so long, and then stability for much, much longer - equals more fossils - until the next major environmental upheavals. Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that: The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life. Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate -- that is, the first fish-- with its hard parts all on the inside. Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound. Here is a classical misconception. As I said before, the emergence of life from non-living chemistry is called abiogenesis, and has got nothing to do with evolution. Whatsoever. Evolution only starts, once you have a single-celled organism, but it does tell you nothing, not even hypotheses, as to how that life came into existence. We do have good hypotheses for that as well - but it's a different topic, and it gets always conflated with evolution by Creationists, because abiogenesis is indeed one of the phenomena, we're not able to definitively explain - we don't yet know enough. But seriously - it's just trying to distract people, if you throw that in under evolution. Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that: The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life. Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate -- that is, the first fish-- with its hard parts all on the inside. Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound. I didn't yet look that up - but the fact, that we can't properly reconstruct every single sequence of happenings just means that - we can't yet explain every single aspect of it - but with time more and more of these "mysteries" get resolved. Ah - but now I did look it up - and tadaa - the respective transitional form is called "Pikaia" - not a mystery at all (any more). This article practically has ten "missing links" with text and pictures - so it makes for a fine reply to this segment of the Morris article: 10 Missing Links in Vertebrate Evolution 10 Missing Links in Vertebrate Evolution As useful as it is, the phrase "missing link" is misleading in at least two ways. First, most of the transitional forms in vertebrate evolution aren't missing, but in fact have been conclusively identified in the fossil record. Second, it's impossible to pick out a single, definitive "missing link" from the broad continuum of evolution; for example, first there were theropod dinosaurs, then a large array of bird-like theropods, and only then what we consider true birds. With that said, here are 10 so-called missing links that help fill in the story of vertebrate evolution. 1. The Vertebrate Missing Link - Pikaia One of the most important events in the history of life was when vertebrates--animals with protected nerve cords running down the lengths of their backs--evolved from their invertebrate ancestors. The tiny, translucent, 500-million-year-old Pikaia possessed some crucial vertebrate characteristics: not only that essential spinal cord, but also bilateral symmetry, V-shaped muscles, and a head distinct from its tail, complete with forward-facing eyes. (Two other proto-fish of the Cambrian period, Haikouichthys and Myllokunmingia, also deserve "missing link" status, but Pikaia is the best-known representative of this group.) 2. The Tetrapod Missing Link - Tiktaalik - see above The 375-million-year-old Tiktaalik is what some paleontologists call a "fishapod," a transitional form perched midway between the prehistoric fish that preceded it and the first true tetrapods of the late Devonian period. Tiktaalik spent most, if not all, of its life in the water, but it boasted a wrist-like structure under its front fins, a flexible neck and primitive lungs, which may have allowed it to climb occasionally onto semi-dry land. Essentially, Tiktaalik blazed the prehistoric trail for its better-known tetrapod descendant of 10 million years later, Acanthostega. 3. The Amphibian Missing Link - Eucritta Not one of the better-known transitional forms in the fossil record, the full name of this "missing link"--Eucritta melanolimnetes--underlines its special status; it's Greek for "creature from the black lagoon." Eucritta, which lived about 350 million years ago, possessed a weird blend of tetrapod-like, amphibian-like and reptile-like characteristics, especially with regard to its head, eyes and palate. No one has yet identified what the direct successor of Eucritta was, though whatever the identity of this genuine missing link, it probably counted as one of the first true amphibians. 4. The Reptile Missing Link - Hylonomus About 320 million years ago, give or take a few million years, a population of prehistoric amphibians evolved into the first true reptiles--which, of course, themselves went on to spawn a mighty race of dinosaurs, crocodiles, pterosaurs and sleek, marine predators. To date, the North American Hylonomus is the best candidate for the first true reptile on earth, a tiny (about one foot long and one pound), skittering, insect-eating critter that laid its eggs on dry land rather than in the water. (The relative harmlessness of Hylonomus is best summed up by its name, Greek for "forest mouse."). ... 9. The Mammal Missing Link - Megazostrodon More so than with other such evolutionary transitions, it's difficult to pinpoint the exact moment when the most advanced therapsids, or "mammal-like reptiles," spawned the first true mammals--since the mouse-sized furballs of the late Triassic period are represented mainly by fossilized teeth! Even still, the African Megazostrodon is as good a candidate as any for a missing link: this tiny creature didn't possess a true mammalian placenta, but it still seems to have suckled its young after they hatched, a level of parental care that put it well toward the mammalian end of the evolutionary spectrum. 10. The Bird Missing Link - Archaeopteryx Not only does Archaeopteryx count as "a" missing link, but for many years in the 19th century it was "the" missing link, since its spectacularly preserved fossils were discovered only two years after Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species. Even today, paleontologists disagree about whether Archaeopteryx was mostly dinosaur or mostly bird, or whether it represented a "dead end" in evolution (it's possible that prehistoric birds evolved more than once during the Mesozoic Era, and that modern birds descend from the small, feathered dinosaurs of the late Cretaceous period rather than the Jurassic Archaeopteryx). So that should suffice to debunk this myth of missing links - they're all out there and abound - and they can all be googled individually. Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same! It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . . Ah - but there's nothing wrong with what he says, even if it's misleading to quote this snippet and then cut him off midsentence! I'm sure it would be interesting, what the content of the ". . . ." section is. Besides that - I checked my dictionary for "virtually" to be sure, it means "almost" and not "entirely". And I've also checked "biota": Biota are the total collection of organisms of a geographic region or a time period, from local geographic scales and instantaneous temporal scales all the way up to whole-planet and whole-timescale spatiotemporal scales. The biota, or biotic component of the Earth make up the biosphere. So it's important to know, what he actually meant. The way he put it, these biota have a "duration" - so I guess, he meant the term spatially, but it doesn't matter - what he said goes perfectly well with evolution. In stable conditions almost all critters in a geographic region/timescale will remain basically the same over the duration of this environment's stability. Changes up to actual speciation happen, when the environment changes. And if it stays stable - nothing much happens, "almost" nothing. I hope you can see how bringing along this crippled quote, not even bothering to quote the sentence as a whole, looks really weak from Morris. He wants to sell this mangled citation as a leading biologist disagreeing with evolution, which obviously it is not. Biologist Eldredge talks about punctuated equilibrium here - a classical evolutionary concept - and Morris claims it would contradict evolution. Morris must have known, must have, that he is wildly mis-representing here. What does that say about the validity of what he has to say? Nothing good. Can't you see the dishonesty with which these quotes are made? Anyway - without bothering to better this stuff - I throw it out, exhaustedly. Again - we could share take on the rest of the article in some organized fashion - or I'll go on in my own time. I'm all too aware, how I could have done better - but this must suffice now for today. Ah - but why not throw in this as well - the debate, where Ham brought his fraudulent claims about dogs etc.: Nye did a great job in my eyes - even Creationists agreed on it not having gone well for Ham (I could search for that - I read them lamenting about it somewhere).