Jump to content

Theory of evolution


Mr H
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, ink said:

A copy and paste .... I wish to see the rebuttals?

 

~~~~

 

As a preface, I am not a follower of modern Abrahamic or monotheistic religion, just a believer or common law, virtue and free will. I am not trying to persuade you or change your perspective on anything but would like you to understand the lies involved to invoke their fanciful tales. I would like to bring your attention to the evolution lie as a whole, how it came to fruition, how it is still used widely and how it has been proven to be utter dross and drivel, numerous times.

The foundations of our modern nihilistic evolutionary world, were laid by Darwin and are propagated by NASA and the public education system. It explains how you are here now due to pure chance. Absolute nothing exploded to form matter and life; an explosion from nothing that created everything. Before the complexity of life, we had a nothingness explosion, this random explosion somehow created space, matter and all elements for no rhyme or reason. Then all the creationary explosive debris flying outwards at over 670 million miles per hour for 14 billion years culminated to create you!
 
16790

First came the creation of gaseous nothing forming suns and stars, then solid pieces of nothing formed moons and planets, then the nothing forming elements combined turning hydrogen and oxygen to water on our random chance globe earth. More random chance magic happened and single cell organisms emerged from nowhere and started to divide and multiple to mutate and grow, these single cell living organisms transformed to complex sea life which in turn evolved; replaced their gills with lungs, crawled from the deep on to land, lost their tails and fins, grew legs, arms and opposable thumbs. Some mutated and formed wings and some decided to stay on the water. Furthermore, according to the Le Chatelier Principle in chemistry, life could not have been formed in the sea as evolutionists allege anyway; since the peptide bond created by amino acid chains produces water molecules, it is not possible for such a reaction to take place in a hydrous environment.

Even through your hardest days, remember we are all made of stardust  Carl Sagan
 
16791

What a load of nonsense, the Darwinistic theory of evolution has been protected like a child by “modern science” for over 150 years, how can something that is based on absolute theory alone be so staunchly protected and unwittingly imposed on us? Scientists have failed to provide any evidence that the material world is a product of blind chance evolution. Big Bang evolution actually necessitates and pre-supposes many other claims which have already been proven false, such as the Plurality of Worlds, Newton’s theory of Gravity, Einstein’s theory of Relativity/Gravity, Stars being distant Suns, and Planets being Terra Firma.

“Evolutionary theory claims that life started with a cell that formed by chance. According to this scenario, four billion years ago various lifeless chemical compounds underwent a reaction in the primordial atmosphere on the earth in which the effects of thunderbolts and atmospheric pressure led to the formation of the first living cell. The first thing that must be said is that the claim that inanimate materials can come together to form life is an unscientific one that has not been verified by any experiment or observation. Life is only generated from life. Each living cell is formed by the replication of another cell. No one in the world has ever succeeded in forming a living cell by bringing inanimate materials together, not even in the most advanced laboratories. The theory of evolution faces no greater crisis than on the point of explaining the emergence of life. The reason is that organic molecules are so complex that their formation cannot possibly be explained as being coincidental and it is manifestly impossible for an organic cell to have been formed by chance.”
- Harun Yahya, “The Evolution Deceit” (128-130)
 
16792

How can all the connected and compartmentalised components of the cell like the cell membrane, the cell wall, proteins, mitochondria, DNA, RNA, lysosomes, ribosomes, vacuoles, cytoplasm and nucleus all combine to form the complexity of a cell, never mind complex life as a whole. Remember this is all supposedly coming from an explosion of nothingness. Just manufacturing one average-sized protein molecule is already composed of 288 amino acids of 12 varying types which can be combined 10300 power different ways! Of all those options, only one forms the desired protein molecule and there are over 600 types of proteins combined in the smallest bacteria ever discovered.

Astronomer Fred Hoyle compared the odds that all the multi-faceted and multi-functional parts of a cell could coincidentally come together and create life analogous to “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard and assembling a Boeing 747 from the materials therein!” Hoyle wrote that, “If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes (proteins produced by living cells) have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You will find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals.” Even if someone placed all aforementioned substances necessary to create life in the tank and waited for a billion years not a single cell would ever form.
 
16793

"The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 zeros after it … It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. The beginnings of life were not random; they must have been the product of purposeful intelligence. From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed. At the moment, I can’t find any rational argument to knock down the view which argues for conversion to God. We used to have an open mind; now we realize that the only logical answer to life is creation - and not accidental random shuffling.”
- Astrobiologist Chandra Wickramasinghe

“Scientific proofs from such branches of science as paleontology, microbiology and anatomy reveal evolution to be a bankrupt theory. It has been stressed that evolution is incompatible with scientific discoveries, reason and logic. Those who believe in the theory of evolution think that a few atoms and molecules thrown into a huge vat could produce thinking, reasoning, professors, university students, scientists, artists, antelopes, lemon trees and carnations. Moreover, the scientists and professors who believe in this nonsense are educated people. That is why it is quite justifiable to speak of the theory of evolution as ‘the most potent spell in history.’ Never before has any other belief or idea so taken away peoples’ powers of reason, refused to allow them to think intelligently and logically, and hidden the truth from them as if they had been blindfolded.”
- Harun Yahya, “The Evolution Deceit” (178-179)

Our beautiful world can’t be a product of pure chance, to pertain to consciousness and the mind when thinking about creation will help you drop any preconceived dogmatic ideas. If the likelihood of life forming from inanimate matter is 1 x 1040,000 power, then those are precisely the magnificent odds against which the universe could be unintelligently designed! Even the simple formation of DNA and RNA molecules are similarly beyond the reach of chance to come together, equivalent to 1 x 10600 power, or 10 with 600 zeros afterwards! Such a mathematical improbability actually so closely borders the impossible that the word “improbable” becomes misleading. Mathematicians who regularly work with these infinitesimally small numbers say anything beyond 1 x 1050 powers should be considered, for all intents and purposes, impossible.

Dr. Leslie Orgel, an associate of Francis Crick, the discoverer of DNA wrote, “It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.” Or as Turkish Evolutionist Professor Ali Demirsoy stated “the probability of the coincidental formation of cythochrome-C, just one of the essential proteins for life, is as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter without making any mistakes … Some metaphysical powers beyond our definition must have acted in its formation.”

“Let us suppose that millions of years ago a cell was formed which had acquired everything necessary for life, and that it duly ‘came to life.’ The theory of evolution again collapses at this point. For even if this cell had existed for a while, it would eventually have died and after its death, nothing would have remained, and everything would have reverted to where it had started. This is because this first living cell, lacking any genetic information, would not have been able to reproduce and start a new generation. Life would have ended with its death. The genetic system does not only consist of DNA. The following things must also exist in the same environment: enzymes to read the code on the DNA, messenger RNA to be produced after reading these codes, a ribosome to which messenger RNA will attach according to this code, transfer RNA to transfer the amino acids to the ribosome for use in production, and extremely complex enzymes to carry out numerous intermediary processes. Such an environment cannot exist anywhere apart from a totally isolated and completely controlled environment such as the cell, where all the essential raw materials and energy resources exist.”

- Harun Yahya, “The Evolution Deceit” (170)

Let’s look at how ridiculous their claims actually when looked with an inch of logic. What is the true nature of an explosion? To destroy, to break something, explosions do not create anything only bring chaos from order, never creation.

The Second law of Thermodynamics – Entropy

A thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system. "the second law of thermodynamics says that entropy always increases with time"

Lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.

Things that are left to their own devices naturally over time become, disordered and deteriorate, all things whether living or not will eventually decay and die. Things don’t randomly come together in conjunction with other random things forming diverse and complex living life forms. The theory of evolution is in direct opposition to the law of entropy, evolution supposes things become more ordered, more structured and more complex over time, but from rust to mould to rotting corpses, nature is everywhere at odds with such a notion.
 
16795

“Organic matter can self-reproduce only if it exists as a fully developed cell with all its organelles and in an appropriate environment where it can survive, exchange materials, and get energy from its surroundings. This means that the first cell on earth was formed ‘all of a sudden’ together with its amazingly complex structure … What would you think if you went out hiking in the depths of a thick forest and ran across a brand-new car among the trees? Would you imagine that various elements in the forest had come together by chance over millions of years and produced such a vehicle? All the parts in the car are made of products such as iron, copper, and rubber - the raw ingredients for which are all found on the earth - but would this fact lead you to think that these materials had synthesized ‘by chance’ and then come together and manufactured such a car? There is no doubt that anyone with a sound mind would realize that the car was the product of an intelligent design - in other words, a factory - and wonder what it was doing there in the middle of the forest. The sudden emergence of a complex structure in a complete form, quite out of the blue, shows that this is the work of an intelligent agent.”
- Harun Yahya, “The Evolution Deceit” (170-171)

Everything in nature is simply to complex or perfect to have ever have been a coincidence of blind chance over billions of years. Let’s look at the eye, the eye is naturally spherical by nature. We don’t have an actual science behind visuals, we have a basic understanding or vanishing points and perspective but that doesn’t explain how our eye perceives light frequencies in certain orders to see certain objects. The eye is capable of producing the sharpest image you have ever seen, nothing man made has ever been able to replicate the eye, it produces the sharpest clearest 3-D colour images imaginable. Charles Darwin, the originator of the theory of evolution himself admitted that “the thought of the eye made him cold all over!” as he knew what an impassable obstacle the eye presented for his theory. For centuries man has worked trying to replicate the eye never coming close, this is also the same for the ear and recording equipment.
 
16796

“Look at the book you read, your hands with which you hold it, then lift your head and look around you. Have you ever seen such a sharp and distinct image as this one at any other place? Even the most developed television screen produced by the greatest television producer in the world cannot provide such a sharp image for you. This is a three-dimensional, colored, and extremely sharp image … No one would say that a HI-FI or a camera came into being as a result of chance. So how can it be claimed that the technologies that exist in the human body, which are superior even to these, could have come into being as a result of a chain of coincidences called evolution? It is evident that the eye, the ear, and indeed all the other parts of the human body are products of a very superior Creation.”
- Harun Yahya, “The Evolution Deceit” (175-178)

Charles Darwin, in his “Origin of Species,” the veritable Bible of atheist-materialists, stated that, “If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed … Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.” Darwin himself knew no such “transitional forms” had been discovered and hoped that they would be found in the future. He even admitted in his “Difficulties on Theory” chapter that these missing intermediate forms were the biggest stumbling-block for his theory. He called it “the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”

“According to the theory of evolution, every living species has emerged from a predecessor. One species which existed previously turned into something else over time and all species have come into being in this way. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years. If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring. For instance, there should have lived in the past some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits, they already possessed. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past as, ‘transitional forms.’ If such animals had really existed, there would have been millions, even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than that of present animal species and their remains should be found all over the world.”

- Harun Yahya, “The Evolution Deceit” (61)

Darwin had obviously hoped that transitional forms that gradually macro evolve would be discovered in the future, we are still waiting. To this day not a single transitional form has ever been found anywhere; micro-evolution of various traits and characteristics within a species has been confirmed and widely exists, but “macro-evolution,” the supposed transformation from one species into a completely different species has never been observed, and no evidence of such evolution exists anywhere.
 
16799

“No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question.”
- Colin Patterson, senior palaeontologist for the British Museum of Natural History (ardent evolutionist)

Even their own are having to admit it!


Their whole theory supposes that life originated from the sea until some aquatic animal, grew feet and lungs, decided to leave the sea and make a bid for dry land. Oh, then an apposing sex that has also mutated the same way decides to do exactly the same, to top it off their existence actually crosses paths and therefore start a whole new species of animal! Darwinists claim fish (creatures living only under water) turned into amphibians (creatures living on both land and water) and then amphibians evolved into reptiles (creatures living only on land). Then they propose some reptiles evolved wings and became birds while other reptiles evolved and became mammals. None of these transitional forms have ever been found, however, nor could they realistically exist either. For example, amphibian eggs develop only in water whereas amniotic eggs develop only on land, so some sort of gradual step-by-step evolution scenario is impossible since without perfect, complete eggs a species cannot survive. Reptiles allegedly evolving into mammals is another example of evolutionist wishful-thinking. Reptiles are cold-blooded, lay eggs, do not suckle their young, have one middle-ear bone, three mandible bones and bodies covered in scales, whereas mammals are warm-blooded, have live births, suckle their young, have three middle-ear bones, one mandible, and are covered in fur or hair - far too many distinct differences for “gradual evolution.” Reptiles evolving wings is another sheer impossibility, as the structure of land-dwelling reptiles and air-dwelling birds are far too different.
 
16800
“The common trait of the eyes and the wings is that they can only function if they are fully developed. In other words, a half-way developed eye cannot see; a bird with half-formed wings cannot fly. How these organs came into being has remained one of the mysteries of nature that needs to be enlightened.”
- Engin Korur, (Turkish evolutionist)

Malcolm Muggeridge, an atheist philosopher and supporter of evolution for 60 years finally admitted before his death that, “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious a hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”

Again, even their own are having to admit it!

One of the first frauds in the history of Darwinism, known as “recapitulation theory,” and heralded as undeniable “proof of evolution,” was an idea proposed and propagated by a racist eugenicist Professor named Ernst Haeckel in the late 19th century. A contemporary and friend of Charles Darwin and Thomas “Bulldog” Huxley, Haeckel postulated that human (and other animal) embryos experience a miniature form of the entire evolutionary impulse during their development in the womb, displaying first characteristics of fish, then reptile, and lastly mammalian or human. It has long been eliminated from scientific literature, but many people and popular sources still unknowingly quote and believe in Haeckel’s fraudulent work. Several popular magazines and school textbooks as recently as the 1990s, over a century after being exposed, were still publishing Haeckel’s hoaxed pictures and recapitulation theory as science fact!
 
16801

“It has since been proven that this theory is completely bogus. It is now known that the ‘gills’ that supposedly appear in the early stages of the human embryo are in fact the initial phases of the middle-ear canal, parathyroid, and thymus. The part of the embryo that was likened to the ‘egg yolk pouch’ turns out to be a pouch that produces blood for the infant. The part that had been identified as a ‘tail’ by Haeckel and his followers is in fact the backbone, which resembles a tail only because it takes shape before the legs do. Another interesting aspect of ‘recapitulation’ was Ernst Haeckel himself, a faker who falsified his drawings in order to support the theory he advanced. Haeckel’s forgeries purported to show that fish and human embryos resembled one another. When he was caught out, the only defense he offered was that other evolutionists had committed similar offences!”
- Harun Yahya, “The Evolution Deceit” (199-200)

Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena where he admitted that several of his drawings were forgeries, that he was merely filling in missing links where evidence was thin, and that hundreds of his contemporaries were guilty of the same charge! During the trial he said; “After this compromising confession of forgery I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoners’ dock hundreds of fellow culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of forgery, for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematized and constructed.”
 
16802

What an admission! Not only did Haeckel confess his own forgeries, but he admitted that there were hundreds of other scientific fraudsters similarly doctoring findings in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals (several of which will be examined in this chapter). As it turns out, Haeckel had simply copied and printed the same human embryo pictures several times over claiming each were various other animal embryos with exact parallels, when in fact the parallels do not exist, and the pictures were copies he knowingly and intentionally made to suit his recapitulation idea.

“To support his theory, Haeckel, whose knowledge of embryology was self-taught, faked some of his evidence. He not only altered his illustrations of embryos but also printed the same plate of an embryo three times, and labelled one a human, the second a dog and the third a rabbit ‘to show their similarity.’”
- Malcolm Bowden, “Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy?”

This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry … What Haeckel did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t … These are fakes.”
- Dr. Michael Richardson, The Times London, Aug. 11, 1997

For the past 150 years, evolutionist scientists have been working diligently to propagandise the public into believing that modern humans are descended from ancient apes. The final and most difficult theoretical leap for the theory of evolution is this supposed million-year transition from ape to human. The utter impossibility of “evolving” abilities like bipedality, erect spinal columns, and complex linguistic skills has been debated since the theory was first presented, but such obstacles will never stop die-hard evolutionists set on discovering (or inventing!) a believable monkey-man transitional species.

The first of these convenient evolutionary “discoveries” was the “Neanderthal Man” found in the Neander Valley of Germany in 1856, just in time for the release of Darwin’s Origin of Species. To this day, reconstructed drawings of hairy ape-like “Neanderthal” men are depicted in scholarly journals and school textbooks and claimed to be a missing evolutionary link. The fact is, however, that all so-called Neanderthal remains have never been shown to be any more different from modern humans than an Asian from a Caucasian, or an Inuit from an Aborigine. Also the skull size shows its brain was actually 13% larger than the average brain of modern man, making it impossible to be an intermediary between man and ape. Even Time magazine in 1971 proclaimed the primitiveness of Neanderthal to be unwarranted, that he could walk the street today unrecognized, one writer even commenting that historians of the future may “declare us all insane for not detecting and refuting this incredible blunder with adequate determination.”
 
16813

One of the main proponents pushing Neanderthal Man as an authentic species nowadays is Reiner Protsch, a German professor who dated the fossils at 36,000 years old allowing them to fit perfectly in the evolutionist’s timeline. In 2005, however, Protsch was forced to retire in disgrace by a panel of Frankfurt University heads who determined he had “fabricated data and plagiarized the work of his colleagues over the past 30 years.” The once-renowned “carbon-dating expert” has presently been completely ostracized from the scientific community. It has since been determined that all Neanderthal skeletal remains are no more than a few thousand years old, some only a few hundred! They have also found modern human DNA in the bones, that their brain capacity was 13% larger than the modern average, their height 5’9” comparable to our average, and they had advanced tools, buried their dead and enjoyed art!

University of Berlin Professor Rudolf Virchow, Ernst Haeckel’s former professor and the “father of modern pathology” back in 1872 concluded the original “Neanderthal” remains were simply that of an unfortunate homo sapiens who had suffered childhood rickets, adult arthritis, and was victim to several damaging blows to the head. Erik Trinkaus, a paleoanthropologist from New Mexico University concluded his examination stating, “Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans.”

In 1891-92, the next ape-man “discovery” was found in Java, Indonesia by Eugene Dubois, who “coincidentally” happened to be a student and apprentice of evolutionist hoaxster Ernst Haeckel! Dubois found a skullcap, a leg bone, a jaw fragment and three teeth, from which was reconstructed the ape-like “Java Man.” Within 10 years of its discovery, Java Man was the main subject of over 80 evolution books and articles. It was given the “scientific name,” of “Anthropopithecus erectus,” and later changed to “Pithecanthropus erectus” and finally “Homo erectus” undoubtedly for super-official pseudo-scientific reasons.
 
16814

“Java man was discovered by a Dutchman. I’m a little embarrassed by that because I’m a Dutchman myself. His name was Eugene Dubois. The bones were found in 1891-92 on the Indonesian Island of Java in Southeast Asia along the banks of the Solo River. And there was an interesting assortment. He found a leg bone, a skullcap, a jaw fragment and three teeth. And that’s what he concocted Java man from. Interestingly enough some of the teeth were old and some young. The bones belonged to ape, female and male. It was an interesting conglomeration and the reason that people didn’t catch on to it is because the find of Dubois was kept from scholars for about 30 years. He also withheld the discovery of modern human remains, which were found in the same stratum as Java man. Of course, that would have ruined his claims that Java man was the ancestor of modern day humans. Finally, enough pressure was placed on him that the actual bones were allowed to be examined and the discrepancies were found. And eventually, enlightened America as well as the world found out that this was a hoax. Unfortunately hoaxes die hard. [Recently] Time Magazine ran a cover story entitled “How Man Became Man” and starts off ridiculing Christians and Creationists then goes on to present Java man as though it were fact.”
- Hank Hanegraaff, “The Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution”

“Java Man’s” teeth were found to be of different ages and the bones a mixture of human and ape, with a giant gibbon skull! Rudolph Virchow, Haeckel’s own professor and the foremost pathology expert of his time stated, “In my opinion this creature was an animal, a giant gibbon, in fact. And the thigh bone has not the slightest connection with the skull.” He and many others have concluded the thigh bone is quite clearly human while the skullcap and teeth belonged to a primate.

In 1912 a doctor and paleo-anthropologist named Charles Dawson claimed to have found a jawbone and cranial fragment of an ape-man transitional form in a pit in Piltdown, England. It was alleged to be 500,000 years old and was displayed as absolute proof of human evolution in museums across the world. For the next 40 years, scores of “scientific” articles, artist reconstructions, and over 500 doctoral theses were written about “Piltdown man.” Objections and criticisms were raised immediately by contemporaries like Arthur Keith but managed to be mitigated by Dawson until 1953 when tests proved conclusively that the Piltdown skull was actually human and only a few hundred years old, while the lower protruding jaw was from a recently deceased Orangutan!
 
16815

Darwin's theory is a concept that concerns not only biology, chemistry, astronomy and metaphysics, but actually formed the basis for new political outlooks as well. Within a very short time, this new progressive political attitude was redefined as “Social Darwinism,” and as many historians have suggested, Social Darwinism became the ideological basis of fascism, communism, and eugenics. Darwin’s ideas of “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest” were central to the insane ideologies of many of the 20th century’s worst mass murderers including Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, and Pol Pot. Charles Darwin himself was a blatant racist who elucidated in his book “The Descent of Man” how blacks and aborigines, due to their inferiority to Caucasians would “be done away with by the civilized races in time.”

Investigators found that Dawson had artificially worn down the orangutan jaw, and that the “primitive tools” discovered alongside the fossils were imitations Dawson had sharpened with steel implements! Dawson also filled the molar surfaces of the teeth to more resemble those of man, and stained all the fossils with potassium dichromate to give them an antiquated appearance. The stains quickly disappeared when dipped in acid however. Wilfred Le Gros Clark, a member of Joseph Weiner’s team who uncovered the forgery, stated that, “the evidences of artificial abrasion immediately sprang to the eye. Indeed, so obvious did they seem it may well be asked, how was it that they had escaped notice before?” Within days, Piltdown man was removed from the British Museum where it had been on display for four decades.

Since conclusively being proven a hoax in 1953 many of Dawson’s other paleontological “finds” have also proven to be fakes or planted. In 2003, Dr. Miles Russell of Bournemouth University published the results of an investigation into Dawson’s antiquarian collection concluding that at least 38 specimens were clear fakes, noting that “Dawson’s entire academic career appears to have been built upon deceit, sleight of hand, fraud and deception, the ultimate gain being international recognition.”

The next fraudulent attempt at creating and propagating a supposed ape-man transitional form was carried out in 1922 by Henry Fairfield Osborn. Co-founder of the American Eugenics Society, President of the White Supremacist Pioneer Fund and director of the American Museum of Natural History, Osborn declared that he had been sent an anomalous tooth found in Snake Brook, Nebraska, which had characteristics of both ape and man! He determined that it came from the Pliocene period of ancient history, from the transitional species “Pithecanthropus erectus,” and affectionately labeled the tooth’s owner “Nebraska Man.”
 
16816

“Nebraska man was also immediately given a ‘scientific name,’ Hesperopithecus haroldcooki. Many authorities gave Osborn their support. Based on this single tooth, reconstructions of the Nebraska man’s head and body were drawn. Moreover, Nebraska man was even pictured along with his wife and children, as a whole family in a natural setting.”
- Harun Yahya, “The Evolution Deceit” (95)

Once “Nebraska Man” made the media rounds of popular publications and the pliable public was sufficiently propagandised, the story disappeared until 1928 when William Bryan and William Gregory had the opportunity to independently examine the tooth. Their investigations both conclusively found that the tooth did not belong to a man or ape, but was actually from an extinct species of wild American pig called Presthennops! After William Gregory published his article, “Hesperopithecus: Apparently Not an Ape Nor a Man,” in Science magazine all drawings and models of “Nebraska Man” and his “family” were quickly removed from evolutionist publications.
 
16817

Henry Osborn himself was forced to concede that Nebraska Man, “Hesperopithecus haroldcooki,” the supposed example of the “Pliocene Pithecanthropus erectus” and his whole imaginary family were completely fictional fabrications. He never admitted to intentional fraud (and why would he?), but as an ardent evolutionist, eugenicist and white supremacist, a level of confirmation bias was likely. Osborn was even such a sadistic racist that he was quoted during a national debate unabashedly saying of WWI Army intelligence tests that; “I believe those tests were worth what the war cost, even in human life … We have learned once and for all that the Negro is not like us.”

“After Darwin advanced the claim with his book The Descent of Man that man evolved from ape-like living beings, he started to seek fossils to support this contention. However, some evolutionists believed that ‘half-man half-ape’ creatures were to be found not only in the fossil record, but also alive in various parts of the world. In the early 20th century, these pursuits for ‘living transitional links’ led to unfortunate incidents, one of the cruelest of which is the story of a Pygmy by the name of Ota Benga. Ota Benga was captured in 1904 by an evolutionist researcher in the Congo. In his own tongue, his name meant ‘friend.’ He had a wife and two children. Chained and caged like an animal, he was taken to the USA where evolutionist scientists displayed him to the public in the St. Louis World Fair along with other ape species and introduced him as ‘the closest transitional link to man.’ Two years later they took him to the Bronx Zoo in New York and there they exhibited him under the denomination of ‘ancient ancestors of man’ along with a few chimpanzee, a gorilla named Dinah, and an orangutan called Dohung. Dr. William Hornaday, the zoo’s evolutionist director gave long speeches on how proud he was to have this exceptional ‘transitional form’ in his zoo and treated caged Ota Benga as if he were an ordinary animal. Unable to bear the treatment he was subjected to, Ota Benga eventually committed suicide. Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ota Benga… These scandals demonstrate that evolutionist scientists do not hesitate to employ any kind of unscientific method to prove their theories.”
- Harun Yahya, “The Evolution Deceit” (96-97)

In 1927 Davidson Black declared he had discovered five crushed skulls and several teeth near Beijing belonging to an ancient ape-man species now widely known as “Peking Man.” Somewhere between 1941-1945 all the original bones were mysteriously “lost,” however, leaving only a few plaster casts left to examine! At the same site where this supposed “missing link” was found, there were also found the remains of 10 fully human skeletons who quarried nearby limestone, built fires and left behind a variety of tools. Many scientists now believe the tools were used on the Peking Man rather than by them. The back of the skulls were all bashed in and in that part of the world, monkey brains are a delicacy, so it is likely that Peking Man were actually Peking apes, and they were man’s meal, not man’s ancient ancestor.
 
16818

In 1974 Donald Johansson discovered “Lucy” (Lucifer) a three-foot tall supposedly three-million year-old “Australopithicine” in Ethiopia. Widely publicized as our oldest direct human ancestor, Lucy made the usual rounds of scientific magazine journals and school textbooks. Don Johansson modestly claimed that Lucy was “the most important find made by anyone in the history of the entire human race,” and the media heralded him a hero. He was promoted from assistant professor to receiving his own Institute for Human Biology at Berkley. During all this time he never allowed scientists to examine Lucy’s bones until 1982, eight years later. Since then, and as more “Australopithecine” skeletons have been found and examined, however, many leading evolutionists agree that Lucy is simply an extinct type of ape, similar to modern pygmy chimpanzees and nothing more. They may have walked slightly more upright than most apes, but were not bipedal or erect, could not talk, spent most time in trees, and walked on all fours.
 
16819

Lord Solly Zuckerman and Professor Charles Oxnard did 15 years of research on Australopithecines along with a team of five specialists coming to the conclusion that all the various specimens of Australopithecus they examined were only an ordinary ape genus and definitely not bipedal. The French Science and Life magazine ran the cover story in May 1999 “Goodbye Lucy” writing about how “Lucy” the most famous fossil of Australopithecus was not the root of the human race and needs to be removed from our supposed family tree. However, even now in 2014 a movie named “Lucy” has just been released by Masonic “Universal Pictures” where the Lucy ape-woman fraud is still treated as scientific fact throughout the entire movie.

In 1982 a skull fragment found in the Spanish town of Orce was hailed to be the oldest fossilized human remain ever found in Eurasia! “Orce man” was supposedly a 17 year old ape-man who lived between 900,000 - 1,600,000 years ago, and was presented to the world with the usual reconstructed drawings showing a young, hairy man-ape teenager. In 1983, however, a team of scientists from France concluded that the skull fragment was actually from a four-month old donkey! A three-day scientific symposium had been scheduled so experts could examine and discuss the bone, but was immediately cancelled after the French investigation; embarrassed Spanish officials sent out 500 letters to the would-be attendees apologizing. After more conclusive tests The Daily Telegraph on May 14, 1984 carried the headline “Ass Taken For Man.”
 
16820

Later in 1984, Kemoya Kimeu in a team led by paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey, discovered “Turkana Boy,” at Nariokotome near Lake Turkana, Kenya. Turkana Boy was proclaimed to be a pre-teen boy from 1.5-1.6 million years ago and is now regarded as the most complete early human skeleton ever found. Much like Neanderthal Man, however, Turkana Boy or “Narikotome Homo erectus,” is no different from modern man. American paleoanthropologist Alan Walker said, “I doubt the average pathologist could tell the difference between the fossil skeleton and that of a modern human.” He wrote that he laughed upon first seeing it because “it looked so much like a Neanderthal.”
 
16821

Turkana Boy was bipedal, with arms and legs of human proportions, an upright skeletal structure, comparable in height, cranial size, and development rate of modern humans. Even the discovering team-leader Richard Leakey stated that the difference between this specimen of “Homo erectus” and modern man are no more pronounced than simple racial variances: “The shape of the skull, the degree of protrusion of the face, the robustness of the brows and so on… These differences are probably no more pronounced than we see today between the separate geographical races of modern humans. Such biological variation arises when populations are geographically separated from each other for significant lengths of time.”

So, when seen for what they really are, all the supposed ape-men discoveries and reconstructions are nothing but frauds and fantasies. Neanderthal Man was just an ordinary man, Java Man and Piltdown Man were composed of human and ape bones, Nebraska Man was actually a pig, Peking Man was actually a man’s meal, Lucy was just a monkey, Orce Man was a donkey, and Turkana Boy was just a boy!

“Reconstruction can be explained as drawing a picture or constructing a model of a living thing based on a single bone - sometimes only a fragment - that has been unearthed. The ‘ape-men’ we see in newspapers, magazines, or films are all reconstructions. The fossils that are claimed to be evidence for the human evolution scenario are in fact products of fraud. For more than 150 years, not even a single fossil to prove evolution has been found. As a matter of fact, the reconstructions (drawings or models) of the fossil remains made by the evolutionists are prepared speculatively precisely to validate the evolutionary thesis. David R. Pilbeam, an anthropologist from Harvard, stresses this fact when he says: ‘At least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data.’ Since people are highly effected by visual information, these reconstructions best serve the purpose of evolutionists, which is to convince people that these reconstructed creatures really existed in the past.”
- Harun Yahya, “The Evolution Deceit” (90)

All the many models, drawings, cartoons, mannequins, and movies made involving various “ape-men” are complete fiction and fabrication because no one can actually accurately determine the outward appearance of an animal based solely on bone structure. Soft tissue, which vanishes quickly after death and is responsible for the look of one’s eyes, ears, nose, lips, hair, eyebrows, skin etc., totally depends on the imagination of the person reconstructing them. Earnest A. Hooten of Harvard University stated, “To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous undertaking. The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal tip leave no clues on the underlying bony parts. You can with equal facility model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher. These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public… So put not your trust in reconstructions.”

“There is no concrete fossil evidence to support the ‘ape-man’ image, which is unceasingly promulgated by the media and evolutionist academic circles. With brushes in their hands, evolutionists produce imaginary creatures, nevertheless, the fact that these drawings correspond to no matching fossils constitutes a serious problem for them. One of the interesting methods they employ to overcome this problem is to ‘produce’ the fossils they cannot find. Piltdown Man, which may be the biggest scandal in the history of science, is a typical example of this method.”

- Harun Yahya, “The Evolution Deceit” (93)

The current evolutionist ape-to-human transitional theory goes “Australophithecus,” - “Homo habilis,” - “Homo erectus” - “Homo sapiens.” Australophithecus, which means “Southern Ape,” has been proven to be nothing but an extinct ape which closely resembles many modern chimpanzees in height, arm and leg length, skull shape, teeth, mandibular structure, and many other details. Homo habilis, a hypothetical classification created in the 1960s by Turkana Boy team-leader Richard Leakey was what evolutionists deemed necessary to exist between Australophithecus and Homo erectus, because the jump was far too drastic. There needed to be a species of ape-man with a larger cranial capacity that could walk upright and use tools.

Serendipitously for his career, fossils unearthed in the late 1980s were deemed Homo habilis, and Leakey was regarded a scientific genius! That is until his contemporaries Bernard Wood and C. Loring Brace determined the Homo habilis arms were too long, legs were too short, and skeletal structure too ape-like to be anything but an ape. Their fingers and toes were that of tree-climbers, and their jaws and cranial capacities were comparable to modern apes. American anthropologist Holly Smith in 1994 concluded Homo habilis was not Homo, or human, at all, but simply an ape just like Australopithecus. She stated that, “Restricting analysis of fossils to specimens satisfying these criteria, patterns of dental development of gracile australopithecines and Homo habilis remain classified with African apes. Those of Homo erectus and Neanderthals are classified with humans.”
 
16824

So Australopithecus and Homo habilis, the first two classifications, are both actually fully ape, while Homo erectus and Homo sapiens, the second two classifications, are in fact fully human and comparable to modern man, with variances no greater than the natural variances of race and genetics. So even after 150 years of “discoveries” evolutionists are no closer to finding a true “transitional species” existing between ape and man, and no closer to proving their theory. Nor can they answer, how could apes develop bipedality, human arm/leg length ratios, erect spinal columns and complex linguistic skills? If humans evolved from apes, why do apes still exist? Why don’t any of these supposed transitional forms still exist now, and where are true examples in the fossil record?

The fact of the matter is evolution is, was, and always has been a foregone conclusion by people looking for any answer other than a creator. When you exclude the existence of an intelligent creative consciousness behind the creation of the material world, the only answer left is random happenstance! Everything must be the result of coincidence, chance and circumstance once you have excluded the possibility of a supreme intelligent creator. But no matter how diligently it is denied, the truth remains: you simply are not some cosmic accident, not the result of random happenstance, chance or coincidence, your eyes, your ears, your feelings, your life and consciousness are all the result of the most supremely intelligent design!

I look forward to hearing what people have to say about the Dawinsim and what the repercussions have been off the back of it, we seem to have had our inception stripped away from us. Confusing the masses even more, our pasts have been amalgamated in to one big coincidence.

TH

 

 

Fuck. That's no small request. This is complex shit, if you really want to get into it properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DarianF said:

This is complex shit, if you really want to get into it properly.

 

Well mate .... that's what we are here for :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2022 at 2:56 AM, peter said:

With regards to humans I think it odd that we are able to find fossils of proto humans so to speak but are unable to find  the so called missing link.

I don't believe we evolved from apes, we obviously have shared DNA inherent in all mammal species but we certainly have had some of our DNA tweaked to produce a human, who,what or how that DNA was tweaked is still open to debate

 

I am certainly of the belief that scientists are unable to find any 'missing link' because there isn't one, and that us humans as we know ourselves didn't actually originate on this planet.

 

I'm also starting to consider the possibility that the 'evidence' showing 'early man' living like primitive cavemen hunter-gatherers is more likely from the result of a global cataclysm, forcing people to become 'survivors' after all the technology has been destroyed.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Grumpy Owl said:

 

I am certainly of the belief that scientists are unable to find any 'missing link' because there isn't one, and that us humans as we know ourselves didn't actually originate on this planet.

 

I'm also starting to consider the possibility that the 'evidence' showing 'early man' living like primitive cavemen hunter-gatherers is more likely from the result of a global cataclysm, forcing people to become 'survivors' after all the technology has been destroyed.

 

Missing links? What do you mean exactly?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DarianF said:

Show me the intermediate fossils!

 

 

Some more on transitional forms...

 

 

@kj35 @peter regarding your points above, check out these videos.

God.effort required. Ok I'll take a look and respond at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kj35 said:

God.effort required. Ok I'll take a look and respond at some point.

 

No probs. You might want to add these one to the list as well (regarding fossil record):

 

 

 

And here is one on the genetic side of things:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have a synopsis of any of these? Or is it hours of watching? Edit..sorry that sounds arsey, just wondering when to slot it in!!

Edited by kj35
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, DarianF said:

 

Yet what he says is supported by the evidence. If you don't like Dawkins, then read this instead: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/11876/chapter/3

 

One thing I have learned in he last few years is that "experts" can analyse 'evidence' and reach their own conclusions, then that becomes 'accepted fact', parotted by all and sundry.

 

Ever consider the possibility that these 'experts' may be wrong and are trying to push a false narrative?

 

Oh and by the way, you should know by now I am not some god-bothering flat earth acolyte, but I do like to think 'alternatively'. 😉

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Grumpy Owl said:

 

One thing I have learned in he last few years is that "experts" can analyse 'evidence' and reach their own conclusions, then that becomes 'accepted fact', parotted by all and sundry.

 

Ever consider the possibility that these 'experts' may be wrong and are trying to push a false narrative?

 

Oh and by the way, you should know by now I am not some god-bothering flat earth acolyte, but I do like to think 'alternatively'. 😉

 

Yes, absolutely, experts can be wrong. A good expert will acknowledge their hypothesis can be proven wrong. It must be falsifiable and subject to question. But at the moment, the best available evidence and weight of evidence demonstrates that evolutionary theory* ** provides the best model for explaining biological life. If there is a better model, supported by better evidence, so be it. That's fine by me.

 

* nb. What Do We Mean by “Theory” in Science? ( https://www.fieldmuseum.org/blog/what-do-we-mean-theory-science ).

** "For scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts." ( https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/what-is-a-theory ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2022 at 9:59 PM, Mr H said:

What do you guys make of the theory of evolution?

 

my present understanding is that

 

natural selection and microevolution
and
creationism (but not creation science)

 

can be simultaneously true and is the truthful model

 

-----

 

jesus wept! i hate to speculate! but here we go:

 

?? creation science >> to discredit creationism ?? 

 

disinformation:

  • misdirection
  • obfuscation

 

? knowledge of creationism >> oversoul connection >> god-mind awareness ?  (true spirituality)

 

-----

 

jesus wept! i hope i am not misdirecting you! the last thing i need more is negative karma!

 

-----

 

i am on a learning curve. i present hypotheses to confirm / reject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, kj35 said:

Do you have a synopsis of any of these? Or is it hours of watching? Edit..sorry that sounds arsey, just wondering when to slot it in!!

 

No of course, I understand. This stuff takes time. It's pretty hard to provide a summary, because the evidence is in the detail and discussion. And on top of that, the lecture is a summary in itself (a summary of books and published scientific papers). So a summary of a lecture is a summary of a summary (hard to do justice to the finer details). Perhaps I should give a link to each speaker and their work, which might help provide a context for the talks...

 

Jerry A. Coyne (bio): https://whyevolutionistrue.com/about/

 

Donald Prothero (bio): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Prothero

 

Sean B. Carroll (bio): https://www.hhmi.org/scientists/sean-b-carroll

 

Tim D. White (bio): https://www.britannica.com/biography/Tim-D-White

 

I own books by all these authors. Fascinating stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS. @kj35 'Endless Forms Most Beautiful' is a good introductory lecture, especially for younger people (as per the live audience). It is much less confrontational than someone like Richard Dawkins, for example. Carrol is a very good speaker. He also wrote a book of the exact same name. It's really fascinating, the book, if you ever get the chance to read it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, DarianF said:

Show me the intermediate fossils!

 

 

Some more on transitional forms...

 

 

@kj35 @peter regarding your points above, check out these videos.

 

Amongst evolutionists including Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne, the alleged whale fossil record is held up as one of the convincing examples of macroevolution. However, on closer inspection of what is being presented as proof from behind the glossy front, the evidence is decidedly unconvincing to me.

 

According to National Geographic's November 2001 issue, the transitional forms arose within the following order evolving from a four legged, land dwelling mammal around 50-55 million years ago:

  • Pakicetus (50 million years ago)
  • Ambulocetus (49 million years ago)
  • Rodhocetus (46.5 million years ago)
  • Procetus (45 million years ago)
  • Kutchicetus (43–46 million years ago)
  • Durodon (37 million years ago)
  • Basilosaurus (37 million years ago)
  • Aeticetus (24–26 million years ago)

This paper by Stephen Bartholomew Jr, albeit from a creationist standpoint, raises some fundamental flaws in the whale evolution narrative presented with Pakicetus - a dog-like land dwelling mammal - at the core of the rebuttal.

 

A central premise to evolution theory is that macroevolution takes place only by mutation which is the ultimate source of all genetic variation. Not only that, for evolution to take place, the mutations must be beneficial whereas even evolutionists apparently agree that the overwhelming majority of mutations are deleterious. Yet they claim that occasionally a beneficial mutation occurs and, if given enough time, enough advantageous mutations can take place to turn a four legged, small dog-like mammal (Pakicetus) into a whale. This requires that the beneficial mutations are precisely the ones that the process requires and that they take place in a very specific chronological order and against all odds especially considering the high infant mortality rate of wild animals and that, in respect of reproduction, the allele specifying the mutation must be dominant should the mutated creature not be rejected by potential mates. There are also extinction events to factor in and whether the whale's evolution would have taken place uninterrupted.

 

Bartholomew considers what mutations may have arisen in Pakicetus to start it on its way to evolving into a whale. Was it shorter legs (which is something that needed to occur at some point in the evolutionary chain as whales do not have legs)? But, if Pakicetus mutated shorter legs whilst still dwelling on the land, this would not have been to the advantage of its survival as surely it would have become harder to walk, run and hunt etc. So perhaps, instead, whale's earlier ancestor became aquatic whilst its legs were close to full length? But a fully aquatic creature does not need legs and certainly not long ones. So providing a reasonable explanation for the sequence in which a land based, four legged mammal evolved into a fully aquatic mammal with no legs presents a serious challenge to evolutionists.

 

He also points out the huge gulf of change that needed to be covered from Pakicetus to the whale which seems absurd when considering that evolution is supposed to occur via incremental steps.

 

Quote

As problematic as the story is when viewed from this perspective, when a more realistic understanding of beneficial mutations is taken into consideration, the credibility of the story plunges to zero. This is clearly demonstrated by looking at the amazing physical features of whales and comparing them with the features of its original ancestor. A partial list of these features is:

  • Enormous lung capacity with efficient oxygen exchange for long dives.
  • A powerful tail with large horizontal flukes enabling very strong swimming.
  • Eyes designed to see properly in water with its far higher refractive index and to withstand high pressure.
  • Ears designed differently from those of land mammals that pick up airborne sound waves and with the eardrum protected from high pressure.
  • Skin lacking hair and sweat glands but incorporating fibrous, fatty blubber.
  • Whale fins and tongues have counter-current heat exchangers to minimize heat loss.
  • Nostrils on the top of the head (blowholes).
  • Specially fitting mouth and nipples so the baby can be breast-fed underwater.
  • Baleen whales have sheets of baleen (whalebone) that hang from the roof of the mouth and filter plankton for food.
  • Many cetaceans find objects by echolocation. They have a sonar system which is so precise that it’s the envy of the US Navy. It can detect a fish the size of a golf ball 230 feet (70 m) away. It took an expert in chaos theory to show that the dolphin’s “click” pattern is mathematically designed to give the best information. (Sarfati 1999, 69–70)

These features are obviously highly developed and extraordinarily complex. However, none of them were inherent in Pakicetus or any of the other creatures that have been suggested as the whale’s original ancestor. Because mutations are the only source of genetic change, all of them, therefore, must be attributed to mutations. The creation of these entirely unique features, however, requires the introduction of new genetic information, and mutations are incapable of this.

 

It is my view that Bartholomew raises some very challenging questions which expose the unscientific dogma surrounding the (alleged) whale fossil record which is supposed to be one of the best examples of evolutionary transition. Evolutionists will need to respond convincingly to the issues raised before I can take their claims seriously.

 

Turning to the two videos quoted above, the Dawkins video is only two and a half minutes long and doesn't offer any analysis as to why the fossils presented are actually thought to be a sequence of transitional forms including what mutations are thought to have taken place and when and why these were considered beneficial.

 

Whereas Jerry Coyne's book 'Why Evolution is True', along with so called whale evolution, receives a dressing down in this video below by biologist Jonathan Wells.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Mitochondrial Eve said:

 

Amongst evolutionists including Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne, the alleged whale fossil record is held up as one of the convincing examples of macroevolution. However, on closer inspection of what is being presented as proof from behind the glossy front, the evidence is decidedly unconvincing to me.

 

According to National Geographic's November 2001 issue, the transitional forms arose within the following order evolving from a four legged, land dwelling mammal around 50-55 million years ago:

  • Pakicetus (50 million years ago)
  • Ambulocetus (49 million years ago)
  • Rodhocetus (46.5 million years ago)
  • Procetus (45 million years ago)
  • Kutchicetus (43–46 million years ago)
  • Durodon (37 million years ago)
  • Basilosaurus (37 million years ago)
  • Aeticetus (24–26 million years ago)

This paper by Stephen Bartholomew Jr, albeit from a creationist standpoint, raises some fundamental flaws in the whale evolution narrative presented with Pakicetus - a dog-like land dwelling mammal - at the core of the rebuttal.

 

A central premise to evolution theory is that macroevolution takes place only by mutation which is the ultimate source of all genetic variation. Not only that, for evolution to take place, the mutations must be beneficial whereas even evolutionists apparently agree that the overwhelming majority of mutations are deleterious. Yet they claim that occasionally a beneficial mutation occurs and, if given enough time, enough advantageous mutations can take place to turn a four legged, small dog-like mammal (Pakicetus) into a whale. This requires that the beneficial mutations are precisely the ones that the process requires and that they take place in a very specific chronological order and against all odds especially considering the high infant mortality rate of wild animals and that, in respect of reproduction, the allele specifying the mutation must be dominant should the mutated creature not be rejected by potential mates. There are also extinction events to factor in and whether the whale's evolution would have taken place uninterrupted.

 

Bartholomew considers what mutations may have arisen in Pakicetus to start it on its way to evolving into a whale. Was it shorter legs (which is something that needed to occur at some point in the evolutionary chain as whales do not have legs)? But, if Pakicetus mutated shorter legs whilst still dwelling on the land, this would not have been to the advantage of its survival as surely it would have become harder to walk, run and hunt etc. So perhaps, instead, whale's earlier ancestor became aquatic whilst its legs were close to full length? But a fully aquatic creature does not need legs and certainly not long ones. So providing a reasonable explanation for the sequence in which a land based, four legged mammal evolved into a fully aquatic mammal with no legs presents a serious challenge to evolutionists.

 

He also points out the huge gulf of change that needed to be covered from Pakicetus to the whale which seems absurd when considering that evolution is supposed to occur via incremental steps.

 

 

It is my view that Bartholomew raises some very challenging questions which expose the unscientific dogma surrounding the (alleged) whale fossil record which is supposed to be one of the best examples of evolutionary transition. Evolutionists will need to respond convincingly to the issues raised before I can take their claims seriously.

 

Turning to the two videos quoted above, the Dawkins video is only two and a half minutes long and doesn't offer any analysis as to why the fossils presented are actually thought to be a sequence of transitional forms including what mutations are thought to have taken place and when and why these were considered beneficial.

 

Whereas Jerry Coyne's book 'Why Evolution is True', along with so called whale evolution, receives a dressing down in this video below by biologist Jonathan Wells.

 

 

 

Whale Evolution Part 1

 

 

Whale Evolution Part 2

 

 

Whale Evolution Part 3

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mitochondrial Eve Check out some of Hans Thewissen's work on the evolution of whales:

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

This post should also provide some valuable supplementary reading on the subject:

 

https://evolutionforskeptics.wordpress.com/2014/05/18/transitional-fossils-3-through-11-from-land-mammals-to-the-ancestor-of-whales/

Edited by DarianF
Additional info
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DarianF said:

 

Whale Evolution Part 1

 

 

Whale Evolution Part 2

 

 

Whale Evolution Part 3

 

 

 

I have just watched these videos about whale evolution and Jon Peters has failed to win me over to the theory.

 

Much of what he puts forward could be deemed evidence of microevolution rather than macroevolution. For example, he talks about the tooth buds of baleen whales and how the blow hole has moved, but I don't see why this couldn't rather be due to changes within the species itself. Further, he admits that the whale's pelvis has a functional use today within the creature's aquatic form, but says we should still see this as evidence of its alleged land dwelling ancestry.

 

Regarding the DNA evidence - especially concerning the closer relationship whales have to the hippo - I still do not see this as evidence as to what actually caused the closer genetic relationship between the two species. It is perhaps evidence of some form of connection but not the cause of it. Could not intelligent design or intervention theories account for this? Also, is he just looking at the 2% of encoding DNA rather than accounting also for junk DNA?

 

Peters refers to the matter of beneficial mutation (as a criticism of evolutionary theory) right at the end of Part 3 - whereby a colossal amount of variation is needed quite possibly in too little time - and gives it very short shrift whilst admitting that evolutionists, due to the millions of years that have elapsed, will never be able to explain the details of how all the supposed incremental steps unfolded to produce a change in species. Rather than engaging with the point, he falls back on the "trust the science" maxim whilst encouraging us to disregard what our ears, eyes and intuition may be telling us. He uses an analogy of a crime scene and that, if returning home to find your house had been burgled, it would be evidence enough without a need to question further how it had taken place to confirm that it had. I find this analogy quite disingenous and is apparently common amongst evolutionists. To quote ForumLight from the YouTube comments from the Discovery Science video I posted above:

 

Quote

But what they ignore: the thing called a "crime" is already observable, repeatable, verifiable reality, so now we can look for forensic 'evidence' of some MORE possible crimes that no one is left alive to have observed it. By sharp contrast, what evolutionists do would be the same as giving 'evidence' for some strange new crime that's never been observed even once by the human race, and yet claim that's also an observation of this crime that never happens actually happening (for example: a "crime" of turning someone into a tree).

 

Just as an aside @DarianF, it would be helpful, if you're going to post videos, you provide a summary / analysis of their content and your thoughts in support of your argument. I don't say this to be picky, but I have limited time and need to prioritise what I watch and read. And, for the interests of discussion on these boards, rather than people just posting videos, it would be helpful to know their understanding of the content and how these contribute towards the discussion at hand.

 

I have given my feedback. What is your analysis and understanding of the Jon Peters videos you posted @DarianF?

Edited by Mitochondrial Eve
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry @Mitochondrial Eve , I had a browser timeout during this post. Hope the links all still work...

 

9 hours ago, Mitochondrial Eve said:

 

I have just watched these videos about whale evolution and Jon Peters has failed to win me over to the theory.

 

Much of what he puts forward could be deemed evidence of microevolution rather than macroevolution. For example, he talks about the tooth buds of baleen whales and how the blow hole has moved, but I don't see why this couldn't rather be due to changes within the species itself. Further, he admits that the whale's pelvis has a functional use today within the creature's aquatic form, but says we should still see this as evidence of its alleged land dwelling ancestry.

 

Regarding the DNA evidence - especially concerning the closer relationship whales have to the hippo - I still do not see this as evidence as to what actually caused the closer genetic relationship between the two species. It is perhaps evidence of some form of connection but not the cause of it. Could not intelligent design or intervention theories account for this? Also, is he just looking at the 2% of encoding DNA rather than accounting also for junk DNA?

 

Peters refers to the matter of beneficial mutation (as a criticism of evolutionary theory) right at the end of Part 3 - whereby a colossal amount of variation is needed quite possibly in too little time - and gives it very short shrift whilst admitting that evolutionists, due to the millions of years that have elapsed, will never be able to explain the details of how all the supposed incremental steps unfolded to produce a change in species. Rather than engaging with the point, he falls back on the "trust the science" maxim whilst encouraging us to disregard what our ears, eyes and intuition may be telling us. He uses an analogy of a crime scene and that, if returning home to find your house had been burgled, it would be evidence enough without a need to question further how it had taken place to confirm that it had. I find this analogy quite disingenous and is apparently common amongst evolutionists. To quote ForumLight from the YouTube comments from the Discovery Science video I posted above:

 

 

Just as an aside @DarianF, it would be helpful, if you're going to post videos, you provide a summary / analysis of their content and your thoughts in support of your argument. I don't say this to be picky, but I have limited time and need to prioritise what I watch and read. And, for the interests of discussion on these boards, rather than people just posting videos, it would be helpful to know their understanding of the content and how these contribute towards the discussion at hand.

 

I have given my feedback. What is your analysis and understanding of the Jon Peters videos you posted @DarianF?

 

First of all, 'macroevolution' ( defined here in more detail: https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/macroevolution-examples-from-the-primate-world-96679683/ and here: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/macroevolution/what-is-macroevolution/ ) is often used as a red herring by creationists. In reality, there is only microevolution, at the mechanistic level. What we can then observe on the broader scale is what could be called macro, because you're looking at a wider perspective ('zooming out', if you will). If you're expecting to see magical fast jumps from one species to another, you won't, and you wouldn't expect to. You have a lot of small changes over time that result - over a long period of time - in what observed as 'macro' if you want to call it that. It's a term often misused ( here is a discussion on the matter: https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-020-00124-w ).

 

As for the DNA evidence ( https://evolutionforskeptics.wordpress.com/2014/07/20/molecular-phylogenetics-whales-are-hoofed-mammals/comment-page-1/ ) I'm obviously not a DNA expert, but there are plenty of scientific papers now that confirm the link. These, if I'm not mistaken, have been building as a weight of evidence since the 1990s; or at least the late 1990s - example - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9159931/ - example: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-aug-31-mn-27505-story.html ).

 

There are of course, like there should be, debates within then peer reviewed process of all the finer details. The evidence is not 'perfect' but the overall evidence seems to strongly lean in that direction. In 2008, the National Academies wrote that:

 

"The fossil evidence accords with recent genetic findings that whales, dolphins and porpoises descended from a group of terrestrial mammals known as Artiodactyls." ( https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/11876/chapter/3?term=whales#32 ).

 

As far as I know, since 2008, this fact hasn't been disputed in the peer reviewed literature on a fundamental basis? Please correct me if I'm wrong and I'll be happy to retract that.

 

Now as for the embedded videos, I don't think a summary is the best idea. A list of time codes / time stamps is much better. Maybe next time I can do that for you, to save some time and aide in more specific discussion.

 

PS. Check out the book, Speciation by Jerry Coyne & Allen Orr ( https://www.nature.com/articles/431399a ). It's not specifically about whales, but a good overview nonetheless.

Edited by DarianF
Note to Eve
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2022 at 7:45 PM, ink said:

You may find this threads opening post of interest?

 

https://stolenhistory.net/threads/the-evolution-deception.744/

That's an excellent article Ink and I wholly agree with the content. I especially liked this part:

 

Astronomer Fred Hoyle compared the odds that all the multi-faceted and multi-functional parts of a cell could coincidentally come together and create life analogous to “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard and assembling a Boeing 747 from the materials therein!”

 

Hoyle wrote that, “If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes (proteins produced by living cells) have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You will find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals.” Even if someone placed all aforementioned substances necessary to create life in the tank and waited for a billion years not a single cell would ever form.

 

"The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 zeros after it … It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. The beginnings of life were not random; they must have been the product of purposeful intelligence.

 

From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed. At the moment, I can’t find any rational argument to knock down the view which argues for conversion to God. We used to have an open mind; now we realize that the only logical answer to life is creation - and not accidental random shuffling.”

- Astrobiologist Chandra Wickramasinghe

 

Edited by Morpheus
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Morpheus said:

That's an excellent article Ink and I wholly agree with the content. I especially liked this part:

 

Astronomer Fred Hoyle compared the odds that all the multi-faceted and multi-functional parts of a cell could coincidentally come together and create life analogous to “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard and assembling a Boeing 747 from the materials therein!”

 

Hoyle wrote that, “If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes (proteins produced by living cells) have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You will find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals.” Even if someone placed all aforementioned substances necessary to create life in the tank and waited for a billion years not a single cell would ever form.

 

"The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 zeros after it … It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. The beginnings of life were not random; they must have been the product of purposeful intelligence.

 

From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed. At the moment, I can’t find any rational argument to knock down the view which argues for conversion to God. We used to have an open mind; now we realize that the only logical answer to life is creation - and not accidental random shuffling.”

- Astrobiologist Chandra Wickramasinghe

 

 

I'm curious, why did you single out these parts as your favourites?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...