Evolution is the biggest lie ever told !

Post Reply New Topic

THE IMAGES OF EVOLUTION

Image #1: The Tubes, Flasks, and Electrodes of the Stanley Miller Experiment

This was the most powerful picture of all-the laboratory apparatus that Stanley Miller, then a graduate student at the University of Chicago, used in 1953 to artificially produce the building blocks of life. By reproducing the atmosphere of the primitive earth and then shooting electric sparks through it to simulate lightning, Miller managed to produce a red goo containing amino acids.

The logical implication: There is no need for a deity if living organisms could emerge by themselves out of the primordial soup and then develop naturally over the eons into more and more complex creatures-a scenario that was illustrated by the next image of evolution.

Nobody knows for sure what the early atmosphere was like, but the consensus is that the atmosphere was not at all like the one Miller used. Miller chose a hydrogen-rich mixture of methane, ammonia, and water vapor, which was consistent with what many scientists thought back then. But scientists don't believe that anymore. As a geophysicist with the Carnegie Institution said in the 1960s, “What is the evidence for a primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere on earth?” The answer is that there is no evidence for it, but much against it.

"By the mid-1970s, Belgian biochemist Marcel Florkin was declaring that the concept behind Miller's theory of the early atmosphere `has been abandoned.' Two of the leading origin-of-life researchers, Klaus Dose and Sidney Fox, confirmed that Miller had used the wrong gas mixture. And Science magazine said in 1995 that experts now dismiss Miller's experiment because `the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey simulation.”
What's the current thinking of scientists concerning the gas content of the early earth?

The best hypothesis now is that there was very little hydrogen in the atmosphere because it would have escaped into space. Instead, the atmosphere probably consisted of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor. Textbooks still present the Miller experiment as though it reflected the earth's early environment, when most geochemists since the 1960s would say it was totally unlike Miller's.

What happens if you replay the experiment using an accurate atmosphere? You do not get amino acids, that's for sure. Some textbooks fudge by saying, well, even if you use a realistic atmosphere, you still get organic molecules, as if that solves the problem.

Organic molecules? Couldn't those be precursors to life?
That's what they sound like, but do you know what they are? Formaldehyde. Cyanide. They may be organic molecules, but you open the bottle and it fries proteins all over the place, just from the fumes. It kills embryos. The idea that using a realistic atmosphere gets you the first step in the origin of life is just laughable. Now, it's true that a good organic chemist can turn formaldehyde and cyanide into biological molecules. But to suggest that formaldehyde and cyanide give you the right substrate for the origin of life, well, it's just a joke. You know what you get? Embalming fluid.

The march of science has clearly left Miller's experiment in the dust, even if some textbooks haven't yet noticed. Let's say that a scientist someday actually manages to produce amino acids from a realistic atmosphere of the early earth, it's not chemically possible, but let's say it was. Or let's say amino acids came to earth in a comet or some other way. How far would that be from creating a living cell? Very far. Incredibly far. That would be the first step in an extremely complicated process. You would have to get the right number of the right kinds of amino acids to link up to create a protein molecule-and that would still be a long way from a living cell. Then you'd need dozens of protein molecules, again in the right sequence, to create a living cell. The odds against this are astonishing. The gap between nonliving chemicals and even the most primitive living organism is absolutely tremendous.

Put a sterile, balanced salt solution in a test tube. Then put in a single living cell and poke a hole in it so that its contents leak into the solution. Now the test tube has all the molecules you would need to create a living cell, right? You would already have accomplished far more than what the Miller experiment ever could - you've got all the components you need for life. The problem is you can't make a living cell. There's not even any point in trying. It would be like a physicist doing an experiment to see if he can get a rock to fall upwards all the way to the moon. No biologist in his right mind would think you can take a test tube with those molecules and turn them into a living cell. In other words, if you want to create life, on top of the challenge of somehow generating the cellular components out of nonliving chemicals, you would have an even bigger problem in trying to put the ingredients together in the right way. Even if you could accomplish the thousands of steps between the amino acids in the Miller tar - which probably didn't exist in the real world anyway - and the components you need for a living cell - all the enzymes, the DNA, and so forth - you're still immeasurably far from life.

But though the first cell was probably a lot more primitive than even the simplest single-cell organism today, still the point remains the same - the problem of assembling the right parts in the right way at the right time and at the right place, while keeping out the wrong material, is simply insurmountable.

Why do you think the Miller experiment is still published in textbooks? It's becoming clearer and clearer that this is materialistic philosophy masquerading as empirical science. The attitude is that life had to have developed this way because there's no other materialistic explanation. And if you try to invoke another explanation - for instance, intelligent design -then the evolutionists claim you're not a scientist.


Image #2: Darwin's "Tree of Life"

In Darwin's The Origin of Species, there was only one illustration: a sketch in which he depicted the development of life as a tree, starting with an ancient ancestor at the bottom and then blossoming upward into limbs, branches, and twigs as life evolved with increasing diversity and complexity.
As a recent textbook explained, Darwinism teaches that all life forms are "related through descent from some unknown prototype that lived in the remote past.”

It seemed obvious that there's such a phenomenon as microevolution, or variation within different kinds of animals. But the more ambitious claim is that of macroevolution - that natural selection acting on random variation can explain how primitive cells morphed over long periods of time into every species of creatures, including human beings - fish were transformed into amphibians, amphibians into reptiles, and reptiles into birds and mammals, with humans having the same ancestor as apes.

So while Miller seemed to establish that life could have arisen spontaneously in the chemical oceans of long-ago Earth, Darwin's theory accounted for how so many millions of species of organisms could slowly and gradually develop over huge expanses of time. His sketch of the evolutionary tree encapsulated why Darwinian evolution was so compelling: it seemed to explain everything in natural history. The question, though, is whether the tree represents reality. We now have more than a century of fossil discoveries since Darwin drew his picture. Has this evolutionary tree held up?
Absolutely not. As an illustration of the fossil record, the Tree of Life is a dismal failure. But it is a good representation of Darwin's theory.

He believed that if a population was exposed to one set of conditions, and another part of the population experienced other conditions, then natural selection could modify the two populations in different ways. Over time, one species could produce several varieties, and if these varieties continued to diverge, they would eventually become separate species. That's why his drawing was in the pattern of a branching tree. A key aspect of his theory was that natural selection would act, in his own words, slowly by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations' and that no great or sudden modifications' were possible."

Darwin knew the fossil record failed to support his tree. He acknowledged that major groups of animals - he calls them divisions, now they're called phyla - appear suddenly in the fossil record. That's not what his theory predicts. His theory predicts a long history of gradual divergence from a common ancestor, with the differences slowly becoming bigger and bigger until you get the major differences we have now. The fossil evidence, even in his day, showed the opposite: the rapid appearance of phylum-level differences in what's called the Cambrian explosion.'

"Darwin believed that future fossil discoveries would vindicate his theory - but that hasn't happened. Actually, fossil discoveries over the last hundred and fifty years have turned his tree upside down by showing the Cambrian explosion was even more abrupt and extensive than scientists once thought. The Cambrian was a geological period that we think began a little more than 540 million years ago. The Cambrian explosion has been called the `Biological Big Bang' because it gave rise to the sudden appearance of most of the major animal phyla that are still alive today, as well as some that are now extinct.

Here's what the record shows: there were some jellyfish, sponges, and worms prior to the Cambrian, although there's no evidence to support Darwin's theory of a long history of gradual divergence. Then at the beginning of the Cambrian - boom! - all of a sudden, we see representatives of the arthropods, modern representatives of which are insects, crabs, and the like; echinoderms, which include modern starfish and sea urchins; chordates, which include modern vertebrates; and so forth. Mammals came later, but the chordates - the major group to which they belong - were right there at the beginning of the Cambrian. This is absolutely contrary to Darwin's Tree of Life. These animals, which are so fundamentally different in their body plans, appear fully developed, all of a sudden, in what paleontologists have called the single most spectacular phenomenon of the fossil record. The Cambrian explosion has uprooted Darwin's tree.

One has to leave open the possibility that next year someone will discover a fossil bed in the Congo or somewhere that will suddenly fill in the gaps. But that hardly seems likely. It hasn't happened after all this time, and millions of fossils have already been dug up. There are certainly enough good sedimentary rocks from before the Cambrian era to have preserved ancestors if there were any. The Cambrian explosion is too big to be masked by flaws in the fossil record. As for the pre-Cambrian fossils being too tiny or soft to be preserved - well, we have microfossils of bacteria in rocks dating back more than three billion years. And there have been soft-bodied organisms from before the Cambrian that have been found in Australia. In fact, scientists have found soft-bodied animals in the Cambrian explosion itself.

Image #3: Ernst Haeckel's Drawings of Embryos

German biologist Ernst Haeckel, whose sketches of embryos could be found in virtually every evolution book, provided more evidence for all of life having the same ancient progenitor. By juxtaposing drawings of an embryonic fish, salamander, tortoise, chick, hog, calf, rabbit, and human, Haeckel graphically established that they all appeared strikingly similar in their earliest stages of development. It was only later that they became distinctly different.
Who could tell them apart? The human embryo could just as easily have been any one of the others. Obviously, Darwin was right when he said "we ought to frankly admit" universal common ancestry.

Like every young student of evolution, Wells had seen Ernst Haeckel's comparative drawings of embryos, often described as among the best evidence for Darwinism. But it wasn't until Wells was working on his doctorate in vertebrate embryology that he saw the sketches for what they really were.

Haeckel's most renowned images depict the embryos of a fish, salamander, tortoise, chicken, hog, calf, rabbit, and human side-by-side at three stages of development. The illustrations support Darwin's assertion that the striking similarities between early embryos is "by far the strongest single class of facts" in favor of his theory that all organisms share a universal ancestor.

The real explanation, as it turns out - compare actual photographs of embryos to what Haeckel had drawn. They don’t fit.

There are three problems with these drawings. The first is that the similarities in the early stages were faked. You can call them fudged, distorted, misleading, but the bottom line is that they were faked. Apparently in some cases Haeckel actually used the same woodcut to print embryos from different classes because he was so confident of his theory that he figured he didn't have to draw them separately. In other cases he doctored the drawings to make them look more similar than they really are. At any rate, his drawings misrepresent the embryos.

They were first exposed in the late 1860s, when his colleagues accused him of fraud.
These drawings are still being used, even in upper-division textbooks on evolutionary biology.
When some biologists exposed this in an article a few years ago, the evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard complained that this was nothing new. He had known about it for twenty years! It was no secret to the experts.
Then why was it still in textbooks? Even Gould said textbook writers should be ashamed of the way the drawings had been mindlessly recycled for over a century. At least he was honest enough to call it what it was: the academic equivalent of murder.'

The other two problems?

The minor problem is that Haeckel cherry-picked his examples. He only shows a few of the seven vertebrate classes. For example, his most famous rendition has eight columns. Four are mammals, but they're all placental mammals. There are two other kinds of mammals that he didn't show, which are different. The remaining four classes he showed - reptiles, birds, amphibians, and fish - happen to be more similar than the ones he omitted. He used a salamander to represent amphibians instead of a frog, which looks very different. So he stacked the deck by picking representatives that came closest to fitting his idea - and then he went further by faking the similarities.
If that's the minor problem, then what's the major one?

The most dramatic problem is that what Haeckel claimed is the early stage of development is nothing of the sort. It's actually the midpoint of development. If you go back to the earlier stages, the embryos look far more different from each other. But he deliberately omits the earlier stages altogether.

Remember Darwin claimed that because the embryos are most similar in their early stages, this is evidence of common ancestry. He thought that the early stage showed what the common ancestor looked like-sort of like a fish. But embryologists talk about the `developmental hourglass,' which refers to the shape of an hourglass, with its width representing the measure of difference. You see, vertebrate embryos start out looking very different in the early cell division stages. The cell divisions in a mammal, for example, are radically different from those in any of the other classes. There's no possible way you could mix them up. In fact, it's extremely different within classes. The patterns are all over the place.

Then at the midpoint - which is what Haeckel claimed in his drawings was the early stage-the embryos become more similar, though nowhere near as much as Haeckel claimed. Then they become very different again.

What a devastating critique! Haeckel's drawings, which had been published countless times over more than a century, had failed on three levels. If they're so misleading, then why did scientists continue to publish them for generation after generation of students?"

"One explanation that's often given is that although the drawings are false, they teach a concept that's basically true. Well, this is not true. Biologists know that embryos are not most similar in their earliest stages. Of course, some Darwinists try to get around Haeckel's problems by changing their tune. They use evolutionary theory to try to explain why the differences in the embryos are there. They can get quite elaborate," he said.

But that's doing the same thing that the theory-savers were doing with the Cambrian explosion. What was supposed to be primary evidence for Darwin's theory - the fossil or embryo evidence - turns out to be false, so they immediately say, well, we know the theory's true, so let's use the theory to explain why the evidence doesn't fit.
But then, where's the evidence for the theory?

Haekel's drawings weren't the only evidence about universal ancestry. All human embryos, so teachers said, go through a stage in which they actually develop gill-like structures on their necks. If you look at an embryo, it's doubled over. It has ridges in the neck. But it's just an anatomical feature that grows out of the fact that this is how vertebrate embryos develop.

They're not gills. Even fish don't have gills at that stage. In humans, the ridges become one thing; in fish, they become gills. They're not even gill slits. To call them gill-like structures is merely reading evolutionary theory back into the evidence.

It's interesting how these misconceptions continue to thrive. Evolutionists used to teach that famous phrase 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,' which is a fancy way of saying that embryos repeat their evolutionary history by passing through the adult forms of their ancestors as they develop.

But this theory has been widely dismissed for many decades, because it's empirically false. Even so, there are aspects of it that still come up. And gill slits' would be a prime example of that."

What about recent genetic studies that show humans and apes share ninety-eight or ninety-nine percent of their genes? Isn't that evidence that we share a common ancestor?

If you assume, as neo-Darwinism does, that we are products of our genes, then you're saying that the dramatic differences between us and chimpanzees are due to two percent of our genes. The problem is that the so-called body-building genes are in the ninety-eight percent. The two percent of genes that are different are really rather trivial genes that have little to do with anatomy. So the supposed similarity of human and chimpanzee DNA is a problem for neo-Darwinism right there.

Second, it's not surprising that when you look at two organisms that are similar anatomically, you often find they're similar genetically. Not always; there's a striking discordance with some organisms. But does this prove common ancestry? No, it's just as compatible with common design as it is with common ancestry. A designer might very well decide to use common building materials to create different organisms, just as builders use the same materials - steel girders, rivets, and so forth - to build different bridges that end up looking very dissimilar from one another.

Image #4: The Missing Link

The fossil is so astounding that one paleontologist called it "a holy relic of the past that has become a powerful symbol of the evolutionary process itself."' It's the most famous fossil in the world: the archaeopteryx, or "ancient wing," a creature dating back 150 million years. With the wings, feathers, and wishbone of a bird, but with a lizard-like tail and claws on its wings, it was hailed as the missing link between reptiles and modern birds.

One look at a picture of that fossil chased away any misgivings about whether the fossil record supported Darwin's theory. Here was a half-bird, half-reptile - one need look no further to believe that paleontology backed up Darwin. Indeed, the archaeopteryx, having been discovered in Germany immediately after The Origin of Species was published, helped enormously to establish the credibility of Darwinism and to discredit skeptics.

When Darwin's The Origin of Species was published in 1859, he conceded that "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory" was that the fossil record failed to back up his evolutionary hypothesis.

"Why," he asked, "if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?" He attributed the problem to the fossil record being incomplete and predicted that future discoveries would vindicate his theory.

As if on cue, two years later scientists unearthed the archaeopteryx (pronounced ar-key-OPT er-icks) in a German quarry. Darwin's supporters were thrilled - surely this missing link between reptiles and modern birds, unveiled so promptly after the appearance of Darwin's book, would just be the first of many future fossil discoveries that would validate Darwin's claims.

Since that time the fossil record has utterly let Darwin down. Michael Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, summarized the bleak situation this way:
... The universal experience of paleontology ... is that while the rocks have continually
yielded new and exciting and even bizarre forms of life...what they have never yielded is any of Darwin's myriads of transitional forms. Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin. The intermediates have remained as elusive as ever and their absence remains, a century later, one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record.

As a result, said Denton, the fossil record "provides a tremendous challenge to the notion of organic evolution." But what about the archaeopteryx? The fossils of this magnificent creature, its detailed image pressed into fine-grained limestone, still seemed to stand in stark contrast to this trend.

Doesn't archaeopteryx fill the gap between reptiles and modern birds?
Well, no. We would need more than an intermediate form to show that; we would need to know how you get from one to the other.

"The question is, do you get from a reptile to a bird - which is an astonishingly huge step-by some totally natural process or does this require the intervention of a designer? An archaeopteryx, as beautiful as it is, doesn't show us one way or the other. Besides, we see strange animals around today, like the duck-billed platypus, which nobody considers transitional but which has characteristics of different classes.
But the archaeopteryx is a half-bird, half-reptile, right?

No, not even close. It's a bird with modern feathers, and birds are very different from reptiles in many important ways - their breeding system, their bone structure, their lungs, their distribution of weight and muscles. It's a bird, that's clear - not part bird and part reptile.

But there are more interesting parts to the archaeopteryx story. The main one comes from a branch of evolutionary theory called cladistics. This takes Darwinian theory to the extreme. Cladists define homology, or physical similarities, as being due to common ancestry. Then they say, well, the main way we can group animals in the evolutionary tree is through homologies, which is already a bit of a circular argument. When they go back into the fossil record, they assume birds came from reptiles by descent, and they look for reptiles that are more bird-like in their skeletal structure. It turns out they find them millions of years after archaeopteryx! So here we have archaeopteryx, which is undeniably a bird, and yet the fossils that look most like the reptilian ancestors of birds occur tens of millions of years later in the fossil record. The missing link is still missing! Now evolutionists are stuck looking for another theoretical ancestor to try to fill the gaps, but it hasn't been found.

So the archaeopteryx is not an ancestor of modern birds. Paleontologists pretty much agree on that. There are too many structural differences. Larry Martin, a paleontologist from the University of Kansas, said clearly in 1985 that the archaeopteryx is not an ancestor of any modern birds; instead, it's a member of a totally extinct group of birds.
So much for the power of archaeopteryx to authenticate Darwin's claims. Even ardent evolutionist Pierre Lecomte du Nouy agrees: “We are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown.'

Yet even if archaeopteryx had turned out to be a transitional creature, it would have been but a whisper of protest to the fossil record's deafening roar against classical Darwinism.

FRAUDS AND TURKEYS

Paleontologists have been on a frenzy to try to locate an actual reptilian ancestor for birds. Driven by an all-consuming commitment to evolutionary theory, their zeal has resulted in some recent embarrassments for science.
A few years ago the National Geographic Society announced that a fossil had been purchased at an Arizona mineral show that turned out to be `the missing link between terrestrial dinosaurs and birds that could actually fly. It certainly looked that way. They called it the archaeoraptor, and it had the tail of a dinosaur and the forelimbs of a bird. National Geographic magazine published an article in 1999 that said there's now evidence that feathered dinosaurs were ancestors of the first bird.

Problem was it was a fake. A Chinese paleontologist proved that someone had glued a dinosaur tail to a primitive bird. He created it to resemble just what the scientists had been looking for. There was a firestorm of criticism - the curator of birds at the Smithsonian charged that the Society had become aligned with zealous scientists' who were highly biased proselytizers of the faith' that birds evolved from dinosaurs."

Fakes are coming out of these fossil beds all the time, because the fossil dealers know there's big money in it.
When a reporter for Discover magazine raised the archaeoraptor fraud, Alan Feduccia, an evolutionary biologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill said: “Archaeoraptor is just the tip of the iceberg. There are scores of fake fossils out there, and they have cast a dark shadow over the whole field. When you go to these fossil shows, it's difficult to tell which ones are faked and which ones are not. I have heard there is a fake-fossil factory in northeast China, in Liaoning Province, near the deposits where many of these recent alleged feathered dinosaurs were found.
Asked what would motivate such fraud, Fedducia replied: "Money. The Chinese fossil trade has become a big business. These fossil forgeries have been sold on the black market for years now, for huge sums of money. Anyone who can produce a good fake stands to
profit."

Other outlandish incidents occurred at about the same time the archaeoraptor fraud was coming to light. At a conference in Florida, the star of the show was a fossil called bambiraptor, a chicken-sized dinosaur with supposedly bird-like characteristics.

Again, paleontologists called it the missing link. And, sure enough, the reconstructed animal on display had feathers or feather-like structures on it. The problem was that no feathers were ever found with the fossil! But because scientists said they should be there, they were added. And the dinosaur looked even more like a bird because the guy who did the reconstruction used the same artificial eyes that taxidermists put in stuffed eagles. While there was a brief disclaimer, he added, it was rather cryptically written.

Then a group of molecular biologists at the conference reported finding bird DNA in dinosaur bones that were sixty-five million years old. Now, that would be pretty exciting! They suggested that this was genetic evidence that birds are closely related to dinosaurs.

The problem is that the bones from which the DNA was supposedly extracted are from a branch of dinosaurs that had nothing to do with bird ancestry. Furthermore, the DNA they found was not ninety or ninety-nine percent similar to birds - it was one-hundred-percent turkey DNA! Even chickens don't have DNA that's one hundred percent similar to turkey DNA. Only turkeys have one-hundred-percent turkey DNA.

So these people said they found turkey DNA in a dinosaur bone - and it actually got published in Science magazine! The headline in the magazine said with a straight face: 'Dinos and Turkeys: Connected by DNA?’

THE LEGEND OF JAVA MAN

One more icon related to the fossil evidence: the pictures of a parade of ape-like creatures that morph into modern human beings. In fact, this illustration is emblazoned across the cover of a 1998 edition of The Origin of Species. For many, this "ultimate icon" is not just a theory, but an established fact.

If you go back far enough, legendary newscaster Walter Cronkite intoned in a documentary on evolution, "we and the chimps share a common ancestor. My father's father's father's father, going back maybe a half-million generations - about five million years ago-was an ape."

That kind of certainty about human evolution was engendered in the World Book Encyclopedia entry "Prehistoric Man," the part-ape, part-human nicknamed "Java man." Said the author of a book on paleoanthropology: “Java man is like an old friend. We learned about him in grade school.... In fact, the vast majority of people who believe in human evolution were probably first sold on it by this convincing salesman. Not only is he the best-known human fossil, he is one of the only human fossils most people know.

World Book's two-page spread highlighted a parade of prehistoric men. Second in line was a lifelike bust of Java man from the American Museum of Natural History, accompanied by an outline showing his profile. With his sloping forehead, heavy brow, jutting jaw, receding chin and bemused expression, he was exactly what a blend of ape and man should look like. Studying his face and looking into his eyes helped cement the reality of human evolution.
The encyclopedia confidently described how Dutch scientist Eugene Dubois, excavating on an Indonesian Island in 1891 and 1892, "dug some bones from a riverbank." Java man, which he dated back half a million years, "represents a stage in the development of modern man from a smaller-brained ancestor." He was, according to Dubois, the missing link between apes and humans.

What is not so well known is that Java man consists of nothing more than a skullcap, a femur (thigh bone), three teeth, and a great deal of imagination," one author would later write. In other words, the lifelike depiction of Java man was little more than speculation fueled by evolutionary expectations of what he should have looked like if Darwinism were true.

Dubois' shoddy excavation would have disqualified the fossil from consideration by today's standards. The femur apparently didn't really belong with the skullcap. The skull cap, according to prominent Cambridge University anatomist Sir Arthur Keith, was distinctly human and reflected a brain capacity well within the range of humans living today. A 342-page scientific report from a fact-finding expedition of nineteen evolutionists demolished Dubois' claims and concluded that Java man played no part in human evolution.

In short, Java man was not an ape-man, but "a true member of the human family." This was a fact apparently lost on Time magazine, which as recently as 1994 treated Java man as a legitimate evolutionary ancestor.

THE NARRATIVE OF HUMAN EVOLUTION

One of the major problems with paleoanthropology is that compared to all the fossils we have, only a minuscule number are believed to be of creatures ancestral to humans," Wells said. "Often, it's just skull fragments or teeth. So this gives a lot of elasticity in reconstructing the specimens to fit evolutionary theory. For example, when National Geographic hired four artists to reconstruct a female figure from seven fossil bones found in Kenya, they came up with quite different interpretations. One looked like a modern African-American woman; another like a werewolf; another had a heavy, gorilla-like brow; and another had a missing forehead and jaws that looked a bit like a beaked dinosaur.
Of course, this lack of fossil evidence also makes it virtually impossible to reconstruct supposed relationships between ancestors and descendents. One anthropologist likened the task to trying to reconstruct the plot of War and Peace by using just thirteen random pages from the book.

In 1999, Henry Gee, the chief science writer for Nature wrote, `The intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.'
He called each fossil `an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps.' In fact, he said that all the fossil evidence for human evolution between ten and five million years ago-several thousand generations of living creatures - can be fitted into a small box.'

Consequently, he concluded that the conventional picture of human evolution is a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices.' Then he said quite bluntly: To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."'

In other words, you're not going to reconstruct human evolutionary history just based on examining the few fossils we have. The only reason anyone thinks the evidence supports human evolution is because Darwinism is assumed to be true on other grounds. If it is, then it makes perfect sense to extrapolate that to human history, which is what Darwin did in his book The Descent of Man.

But what if the other evidence for Darwinism is faulty - which, in fact, it is? There's no shortage of books debunking Darwin. And without any compelling evidence for Darwinism in these areas, the whole question of human evolution is up for grabs.

Instead, Darwinists assume the story of human life is an evolutionary one, and then they plug the fossils into a preexisting narrative where they seem to fit. The narrative can take several forms depending on one's biases. As one anthropologist said, the process is both political and subjective' to the point where he suggested that 'paleoanthropology has the form but not the substance of a science.'

In fact, a paleoanthropologist named Misia Landau wrote a book in which she talked about the similarities between the story of human evolution and old-fashioned folk tales. She concluded that many classic texts in the field were determined as much by traditional narrative frameworks as by material evidence' and that these themes far exceed what can be inferred from the study of fossils alone."'

"There is no encompassing theory of [human] evolution," conceded Berkeley evolutionary biologist F. Clark Howell. "Alas, there never really has been."


The case for Darwinian evolution is bankrupt. The evidence for Darwinism is not only grossly inadequate, it's systematically distorted. Twenty or thirty years from now people will look back in amazement and say, How could anyone have believed this?' Darwinism is merely materialistic philosophy masquerading as science, and people are recognizing it for what it is.


- Lee Strobel

I really thought this video was helpful, particularly the illustration and explanations on ribozymes:

Just imagine what the world will be like in another 300 million years. Humanity will be extinct. We killed ourselves with global warming. Instead, there will be a new sapient life from which evolved from rats.

They will look at neo-Pangaea and insist "The world has always been this way! God made it this way."

They will discover fossils of human beings and they will assume that we were just dumb beasts. They will frequently depict us fighting dinosaurs in their movies.

They will discover fossils of rats, and they will insist "I am not related to this filthy little mongrel."

They will find evidence of the mass extinction event that wiped out the humans, and they will willfully learn nothing from these geological records.

They will find geological evidence of the Panama canal, and they will insist that the canal must have been created by God, since no other earthly life form could have possibly been intelligent enough to create such a magnificent structure.

They will destroy the environment because "God gave it to us!" The rainforests of tropical Antarctica will be destroyed to make room for crops.

They will cause global warming again. Those who believe in ratfolk-caused global warming will be labeled "communists". "Those fiends are trying to unite the world under a world government! They're trying to create global justice! Business will never survive."

They'll cause another mass extinction. History will keep repeating itself until the sun dies.

Crocodiles will rule the earth afternoon we are gone.They survived the first big extinction so no reason they won't survive the upcoming one.Monitor lizards may survive,and they are intelligent.They will eat the squids and rats.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/ext ... crocs.html
Lizards will again rule the earth.