Proof of God: Evolution is Impossible
The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution
According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away.
Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people—until it is examined quantitatively, that is!
For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.
Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.
But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."
The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.
All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!
Let's take a moment and consider the implications of assuming man's creation occurred by pure chance. If chance DNA errors were the source of life, it seems only logical that the more opportunities for favorable mutation the higher the statistical probability for further development. The larger the population and the greater the turnover, the larger the gene pool. Man is a slow producer with a relatively small population in comparison to most small animals. Were chance mutations responsible for development, shouldn't mice or fruit flies be running the world instead of man? (I thought that was so hilarious that I had to start with that).
Evolution has become a driving force in education and in our society. At this point some it seems that evolution can give you an answer for just about anything. From why some people are talented to why some are racist. Many people now assume that it is just a fact. For my part I consider it a religion.
Evolution took over the imagination of the scientific world from the outset even though it really didn’t have much evidence at the time going for it. Even Darwin was concerned about the lack of Fossil records at the time. So there were some deficiencies and yet it bulldozed its way through the scientific establishment. Why is that? Well one reason is because it was a good theory that made sense and it was groundbreaking and revolutionary. No one had thought of anything like it before. But there is another reason that can not be over looked and that was that it gave a way around a designer. A way for pure naturalistic explanations for everything and hence no need for a “God”. There’s no doubt in my mind that it has become a full on religion consider:
As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.
Provine, Will, "No Free Will," in Catching Up with the Vision, Ed. by Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p. S123.
And the zealousness of the Evolutionists is now stronger then the religious energy of most Christians. Consider the latest Evolutionary Missionary journey into the heart of Amish Land:
The idea was to bring key parts of the permanent installation in the nation’s capital to diverse communities, including ones that were rural, religious, remote. At least 10 of the 19 sites the Smithsonian visited were deemed “challenging” — places where the researchers suspected that evolution might still be a contentious subject, for religious or other reasons.
Also in the article notice this little gem:
“Acceptance is my goal,” says Jamie Jensen, an associate professor who teaches undergraduate biology at Brigham Young University. Nearly all Jensen’s students identify as Mormon.
She’s is teaching at the Mormon capitol of the Universe and the goal is not to get them to understand Evolution but to “Accept” it.
What we are seeing is a religious war between Christianity and Evolution. But the sad thing is that Christianity is barely in the fight and in many cases is giving in and going along. Most Christians don’t get that this is about getting rid of their religion not about teaching “Science” or “Facts”. Consider what is going on in the schools:
Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:
And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.
Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.
Does this sound like teaching “Science” or “Facts” or more like indoctrination? When Darwin first proposed his theory it was groundbreaking although it did not have the level of “facts” that he was comfortable with. He figured these would all be found later. Lets look at the 4 primary forms of evidence we can look at to see how Darwinism has come along since its introduction 150 years ago:
2. Anatomical comparisons
4. Molecular Clock Data.
I think that if you have an open mind you will find that Darwinism on these 4 methods can make a better case for evolution depending on how you intrepret the data. If you also take an open mind and look at the other side you will see a stong case. I think you will see that the ID side of the equation puts up just as strong of a case against it if not even stronger. But when it comes to mathematical possibility of creating new designs, functions, the math of population genetics and of course the problems of anatomical conversion from one body plan to another that's where everything falls apart. This is where the ID side completely destroys the Evolution side. This is why many evolutionists no longer want to debate publicly.
When I first began to have doubts about Atheism due to the science was I was looking into (Quantum Physics) I realized that I had to question everything. I realized that I needed to test everything. I knew at that point that there was more to the universe then an unguided very fortunate accident. But the idea that evolution itself may prove to have serious problems and doubts was more then I ever could have imagined. I like everyone else just accepted it as fact. There was no reason to peer in too closely or do much work I mean after all there were hundreds of thousands of very qualified people that had already done that and they all seemed to tell me it was a fact. And so maybe it was time to start asking some questions like:
Is it really a fact?
What do we know for sure?
What are the limits of evolution?
What is the probability of certain aspects of evolution even happening?
Has any attempts in the lab proven successful?
And of course other questions came to mind.
And down the rabbit hole I went and what I found wasn’t a rabbits hole anymore but a rats nest.
And so let us begin with something similar that happened to Anthony Flew:
(and to many scientists and learned people that have bothered to ask some questions and dig a little deeper then evolution can withstand)
In December 2004 it was announced that long time British Professor and Philosopher, Anthony Flew, regarded by many as “the world’s most acclaimed atheist”, had renounced his atheism in favour of theism…
This dramatic conversion has been likened by Astrophysicist and now one of the world’s leading Cosmologists, Dr Hugh Ross, as having the same impact on the academic world as an announcement that Billy Graham had renounced Christianity would have on the Church!
One of the reasons cited by Prof. Flew was “the evidence.” He admitted that for a long time the growing problem of Evolution’s inability to explain how life began, or for that matter, how anything began, led him to the inevitable conclusion that it was an inadequate answer in the face of the evidence. Then when the DNA Genome code was unraveled the evidence for Design became “undeniable”. These two pieces of evidence (1. the existence of life demanding a Life-Source, and 2. the scientific evidence of an extremely complex code in the make-up of that life- DNA) were enough for Prof. Flew to renounce atheism.
But the proof that evolution is completely false is way beyond those two points.
One thing to be noted is that a lot of reference will be done with the fantastic book “Darwin’s Doubt” I recommend it to everyone. Its a must buy and is converting scientists to the reality that evolution is false and that there must be an intelligent designer.
I will also reference a great article that can be found here and will be adding to this section from time to time:
Our very existence seems more an affront to a "Survival of the Fittest" evolutionary scenario. Man's unimpressive hair covering would have restricted early man to the warmest climes. Likewise, man's kidneys are relatively poor water conservers compared to most animals suggesting man was restricted to a warm and wet environment. Man's claws are unimpressive, and his running speed could hardly serve as an effective escape mechanism. Man's teeth aren't especially good at capturing or killing game. Relative to most animals, man's digestive ability is inefficient. Even man's greatest ability, his intellect, would not have done the earliest man a great deal of good in the harshest of survival conditions. How much good would your intellect do you in a tropical wilderness without food, clothing, shelter and specific training is survival? If survival of the fittest were the rule in the earliest days of man, how did we ever make it? (once again this guy knocks it out of the park)
These are some notes that really have to be worked on more but as you can see I have done a lot of work compiling the information against evolution. I have debated dozens of scientists and professors and authors so I know a bit about this. But I want to get this in here with serious page breaks and photos and diagrams and better thought out but here are just some of my notes that need to be placed:
Nij nstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…only additional evidence of the fixity of species. The extreme deviations obtained in domesticity are secured…at the expense of the typical characters and end usually in the production of sterile individuals. All such facts seem to show that the so-called varieties or breeds, far from indicating the beginning of new types, or the initiating of incipient species, only point out the range of flexibility in types which in their essence are invariable.17
Agassiz, L. 1896. A Journey in Brazil. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, 42.
Several features of the Cambrian explosion that are unexpected from a Darwinian point of view11 in particular: (1) the sudden appearance of Cambrian animal forms; (2) an absence of transitional intermediate fossils connecting the Cambrian animals to simpler Precambrian forms; (3) a startling array of completely novel animal forms with novel body plans; and (4) a pattern in which radical differences in form in the fossil record arise before more minor, small-scale diversification and variations. This pattern turns on its head the Darwinian expectation of small incremental change only gradually resulting in larger and larger differences in form.
Darwins Doubt PG 34
Failed Prediction … Top Down rather than Bottom Up
The founder of the modern phylogenetic classification, Willi Hennig, for example, noted that once particular groups arise, the range of allowable variability within those groups narrows. In his classic work Phylogenetic Systematics, Hennig quoted another paleontologist approvingly who observed: “The breadth of evolution of successive groups shows a distinct narrowing, since the basic divergences of organization became progressively smaller. The type of mammals is more uniform and closed than that of the reptiles, which in turn is unquestionably uniform compared to that of the Amphibia-Stegocephalia.” Hennig goes on to explain that “the same phenomenon is repeated in every systematic unit of higher or lower order.”22 Yet, on a Darwinian view, small-scale variations and differences should arise first, gradually giving rise to larger-scale differences in form—just the opposite of the pattern evident in the fossil record. Thus, the discovery, and later analysis, of the Burgess revealed another puzzling feature of the fossil record from a Darwinian point of view, regardless of which system of classification paleontologists prefer to use. Indeed, Walcott’s discovery turned Darwin’s anticipated bottom-up—or small changes first, big changes later—pattern on its head. See fig 2.12
Darwin’s Doubt PG43
Make this a quote as well
On the argument that the explosion is because before this time everything was soft-bodied or there was a geological problem.
Developmental biologist Eric Davidson, of California Institute of Technology, has suggested that the transitional forms leading to the Cambrian animals were “microscopic forms similar to modern marine larvae” and were thus too small to have been reliably fossilized.11 Other evolutionary scientists, such as Gregory Wray, Jeffrey Levinton, and Leo Shapiro, have suggested that the ancestors of the Cambrian animals were not preserved, because they lacked hard parts such as shells and exoskeletons.12 They argue that since soft-bodied animals are difficult to fossilize, we shouldn’t expect to find the remains of the supposedly soft-bodied ancestors of the Cambrian fauna in the Precambrian fossil record. University of California, Berkeley, paleontologist Charles R. Marshall summarizes these explanations: [I]t is important to remember that we see the Cambrian “explosion” through the windows permitted by the fossil and geological records. So when talking about the Cambrian “explosion,” we are typically referring to the appearance of large-body (can be seen by the naked eye) and preservable (and therefore largely skeletonized) forms. . . . If the stem lineages were both small and unskeletonized, then we would not expect to see them in the fossil record.13 Though intuitively plausible, several discoveries call into question both of these versions of the artifact hypothesis. As for the idea that the ancestors of the Cambrian animals were too small to be preserved, paleontologists have known for some time that the cells of filament-shaped microorganisms (probably cyanobacteria) have been preserved in ancient Precambrian rocks. Paleobiologist J. William Schopf, of the University of California, Los Angeles, has reported an extremely ancient example of these fossils in the Warrawoona Group strata of western Australia. These fossilized cyanobacteria are preserved in 3.465-billion-year-old bedded cherts (microcrystalline sedimentary rocks).14
These discoveries pose a problem for the idea that the Cambrian ancestors were too small to survive in the fossil record. The sedimentary rocks that preserve the fossilized cyanobacteria and single-celled algae are far older and, therefore, far more likely to have been destroyed by tectonic activity than those later sedimentary rocks that should have preserved the near-ancestors of the Cambrian animals. Yet these rocks, and the fossils they contain, have survived just fine. If paleontologists can find tiny fossilized cells in these far older and rarer formations, shouldn’t they also be able to find some ancestral forms of the Cambrian animals in younger and more abundant sedimentary rocks? Yet few such precursors have been found. There are also several reasons to question the second version of this hypothesis—the idea that the presumed Cambrian ancestors were too soft to be preserved. First, some paleontologists have questioned whether soft-bodied ancestral forms of the hard-bodied Cambrian animals would have even been anatomically viable.16 They argue that many animals representing phyla such as brachiopods and arthropods could not have evolved their soft parts first and then added shells later, since their survival depends upon their ability to protect their soft parts from hostile environmental forces. Instead, they argue that soft and hard parts had to arise together.17 As paleontologist James Valentine, of the University of California, Berkeley, has noted in the case of brachiopods, “The brachiopod Bauplan [body plan] cannot function without a durable skeleton.”18 Or as J. Y. Chen and his colleague Gui-Qing Zhou observe: “Animals such as brachiopods . . . cannot exist without a mineralized skeleton. Arthropods bear jointed appendages and likewise require a hard, organic or mineralized outer covering.”19
14. Schopf and Packer, “Early Archean (3.3-Billion to 3.5-Billion-Year-Old) Microfossils from Warrawoona Group, Australia,” 70; Schopf, “Microfossils of the Early Archean Apex Chert.” 15. Schopf and Packer, “Early Archean (3.3-Billion- to 3.5-Billion-Year-Old) Microfossils from Warrawoona Group, Australia,” 70; Hoffmann et al., “Origin of 3.45 Ga Coniform Stromatolites in Warrawoona Group, Western Australia.” 16. Jan Bergström states: “Animals such as arthropods and brachiopods cannot exist without hard parts. The absence of remains of skeletons and shells in the Precambrian therefore proves that the phyla came into being with the Cambrian, not before, even if the lineages leading to the phyla were separate before the Cambrian” (“Ideas on Early Animal Evolution,” 464). 17. Valentine and Erwin, “Interpreting Great Developmental Experiments.” 18. Valentine, “Fossil Record of the Origin of Bauplan and Its Implications,” especially 215. 19. Chen and Zhou, “Biology of the Chengjiang Fauna,” 21.
Darwin’s Doubt Pg57-58
Also interestingly 95% are soft-bodied??? Hahaha:
modern jellyfish;35 and the aforementioned, difficult to classify, Nectocaris.36 As Simon Conway Morris notes, “The existing [Burgess] collections represent approximately 70,000 specimens. Of these, about 95 percent are either soft-bodied or have thin skeletons.”3
Abrupt appearance of complete life forms requiring coridinated evolution or … a designer.
Moreover, the arthropod exoskeleton is part of a tightly integrated anatomical system. Specific muscles, tissues, tendons, sensory organs—and a special mediating structure between the soft tissue of the animal and the exoskeleton called the endophragmal system—are all integrated to support the process of molting and exoskeletal growth and maintenance that is integral to the arthropod mode of existence. A best-case Darwinian scenario for the origin of such a system would, therefore, envision the “co-evolution” of these separate anatomical subsystems in a coordinated fashion,
Darwin’s Doubt Pg60
As J. Y. Chen began to examine the sedimentary rocks that enclosed his fossilized sponge, he decided to look at them in a so-called thin section under a light microscope. Chen wondered whether smaller embryonic forms of these Precambrian animals might also have been preserved in these phosphorite rocks. Sure enough, under magnification he found little round balls that he and Paul Chien identified as sponge embryos. In 1999, at a major international conference about the Cambrian explosion held near Chengjiang, J. Y. Chen, Paul Chien, and three other colleagues presented their findings
This is important because it was found in the Precambrian era and these were embryos and all embryos are soft-bodied.
Contemporary paleontologists, such as Michael Foote at the University of Chicago, have come to a similar conclusion. Foote has shown, using statistical sampling analysis, that as more and more fossil discoveries fall within existing higher taxonomic groups (e.g., phyla, subphyla, and classes), and as they fail to document the rainbow of intermediate forms expected in the Darwinian view of the history of life, it grows ever more improbable that the absence of intermediate forms reflects a sampling bias—that is, an “artifact” of either incomplete sampling or preservation.
Darwin’s Doubt Pg69
He asks “whether we have a representative sample of morphological diversity and therefore can rely on patterns documented in the fossil record.” The answer, he says, is yes.55 By this affirmation, he doesn’t mean that there are no biological forms left to discover. He means, rather, that we have good reason to conclude that such discoveries will not alter the largely discontinuous pattern that has emerged. “Although we have much to learn about the evolution of form,” he writes, the statistical pattern created by our existing fossil data demonstrates that “in many respects our view of the history of biological diversity is mature.”56
55. Foote, “Sampling, Taxonomic Description, and Our Evolving Knowledge of Morphological Diversity,” 181. Another statistical paleontologist, Michael J. Benton, and his colleagues have reached a similar conclusion. They note that “if scaled to the . . . taxonomic level of the family [and above], the past 540 million years of the fossil record provide uniformly good documentation of the life of the past” (Benton, Wills, and Hitchin, “Quality of the Fossil Record Through Time,” 534). In another article Benton also writes: “It could be argued that there are fossils out there waiting to be found. It is easy to dismiss the fossil record as seriously, and unpredictably, incomplete. For example, certain groups of organisms are almost unknown as fossils. . . . This kind of argument cannot be answered conclusively. However, an argument based on effort can be made. Paleontologists have been searching for fossils for years and, remarkably, very little has changed since 1859, when Darwin proposed that the fossil record would show us the pattern of the history of life” (“Early Origins of Modern Birds and Mammals,” 1046). 56. Foote, “Sampling Taxonomic Description, and Our Evolving Knowledge of Morphological Diversity,” 181. I should note that there is one way in which my analogy to colored marbles in a barrel fails to capture the nature of the challenge of Cambrian fossil discontinuity. If after pulling samples from a barrel for a while you finally came up with a green and orange ball to go along with the piles of red, blue, and yellow balls, you still wouldn’t have much confidence that the barrel had a rainbow of ball colors finely grading from one to another. Yet you could at least say that the orange ball stands between the yellow and red ball, and the green ball stands between the blue and yellow balls (like the hybrid produced from two plants). But many of the new Cambrian animal forms that have been discovered since Darwin’s time aren’t seen as intermediates between the previously known animal forms representing known phyla. They aren’t evolutionary intermediates between one existing phylum and another. Instead, scientists consider them as existing out in morphological space all their own, standing not as intermediates but as phyla that themselves are in need of intermediate forms—almost as if, by stretching my analogy, some new primary color had been discovered.
Darwin’s Doubt Pg70
Two developments have led paleontologists and geochronologists to revise those estimates downward. First, in 1993, radiometric dating of zircon crystals from formations just above and below Cambrian strata in Siberia allowed for a precise redating of Cambrian strata. Radiometric analyses of these crystals fixed the start of the Cambrian period at 544 million years ago,58 and the beginning of the Cambrian explosion itself to about 530 million years ago (see Fig. 3.8). These studies also suggested that the explosion of the novel Cambrian animal forms occurred within a window of geologic time much shorter than previously believed, lasting no more than 10 million years, and the main “period of exponential increase of diversification” lasting only 5 to 6 million years.59
Geologically speaking, 5 million years represents a mere 1/10 of 1 percent (0.11 percent, to be precise) of earth’s history. J. Y. Chen explains that “compared with the 3-plus-billion-year history of life on earth, the period [of the explosion] can be likened to one minute in 24 hours of one day.”60
58. Bowring et al., “Calibrating Rates of Early Cambrian Evolution.” 59. Bowring et al., “Calibrating Rates of Early Cambrian Evolution,” 1297. 60. Lili, “Traditional Theory of Evolution Challenged,” 10.
Darwin’s Doubt g71
An analysis by MIT geochronologist Samuel Bowring has shown that the main pulse of Cambrian morphological innovation occurred in a sedimentary sequence spanning no more than 6 million years.62 Yet during this time representatives of at least sixteen completely novel phyla and about thirty classes first appeared in the rock record. In a more recent paper using a slightly different dating scheme, Douglas Erwin and colleagues similarly show that thirteen new phyla appear in a roughly 6-million-year window.63
62. Bowring et al., “Calibrating Rates of Early Cambrian Evolution,” 1297. See also McMenamin, The Emergence of Animals. 63. Erwin et al., “The Cambrian Conundrum: Early Divergence and Later Ecological Success in the Early History of Animals,” 1091–97.
Darwin’s Doubt Pg71
Evolutionists will sometimes bring up the Ediacaran fauna as ancestors to the Cambrian explosion but this is actually a bigger problem for evolution as the Ediacaran fauna were soft-bodied and preserved worldwide. They bore little resemblance if any to the explosion and here's the important part went extinct 13 million years before the explosion.
Also most paleontologists do not agree that these pre-cambrian animals were related to the Cambrian animals this theory is mostly been dismissed and even those that still think that way are in the minority so there is no point in spending much if any time on it.
Budd and Jensen, “A Critical Reappraisal of the Fossil Record of the Bilaterian Phyla,” 253–95; Budd and Jensen, “The Limitations of the Fossil Record and the Dating of the Origin of the Bilateria,” 166–89 (“The expected Darwinian pattern of a deep fossil history of the bilaterians, potentially showing their gradual development, stretching hundreds of millions of years into the Precambrian, has singularly failed to materialize . . . whatever the resolution of the misfit between the fossil record and molecular evidence for the origin of animals, it does not come about through a misunderstanding of the known fossil record . . . The known fossil record has not been misunderstood, and there are no convincing bilaterian candidates known from the fossil record until just before the beginning of the Cambrian (c. 543 Ma), even though there are plentiful sediments older than this that should reveal them”); Jensen et al., “Trace fossil preservation and the early evolution of animals,” 19–29 (“A literal reading of the body fossil record suggests that the diversification of bilaterian animals did not significantly precede the Neoproterozoic–Cambrian boundary (ca. 545 Ma) . . . Despite reports to the contrary, there is no widely accepted trace fossil record from sediments older than about 560–555 Ma. . . . The above conclusions place serious constraints on the time of appearance of bilaterian animals. For example, assuming that key bilaterian features could only have been acquired in moderately large benthic animals, the absence of an ancient trace fossil record suggests that the Cambrian ‘explosions’ are a reality in terms of the relatively rapid appearance and diversification of macroscopic bilaterians”); Conway Morris, “Darwin’s Dilemma: The Realities of the Cambrian ‘Explosion’,” 1069–83 (“The ‘ancient school’ argues that animals evolved long before the Cambrian and that the ‘explosion’ is simply an artefact, engendered by the breaching of taphonomic thresholds, such as the onset of biomineralization and/or a sudden increase in body size. The alternative ‘realist school’, to which I largely subscribe, proposes that while the fossil record is far from perfect and is inevitably skewed in significant ways, none is sufficient to destroy a strong historical signal”); Peterson et al., “MicroRNAs and Metazoan Macroevolution: Insights into Canalization, Complexity, and the Cambrian Explosion,” 736–47; Fortey, “The Cambrian Explosion Exploded?” 438–39; Wray et al., “Molecular Evidence for Deep Precambrian Divergences Among Metazoan Phyla,” 568–73 (“Darwin recognized that the sudden appearance of animal fossils in the Cambrian posed a problem for his theory of natural selection. He suggested that fossils might eventually be found documenting a protracted unfolding of Precambrian metazoan evolution. Many paleontologists today interpret the absence of Precambrian animal fossils that can be assigned to extant clades not as a preservational artifact, but as evidence of a Cambrian or late Vendian origin and divergence of metazoan phyla. This would make the Cambrian the greatest evolutionary cornucopia in the history of the earth. Definitive representatives of all readily fossilizable animal phyla (with the exception of bryozoans) have been found in Cambrian rocks, as have representatives of several soft-bodied phyla. Recent geochronological studies have reinforced the impression of a ‘big bang of animal evolution’ by narrowing the temporal window of apparent divergences to just a few million years”) (internal citations omitted); Erwin et al., “The Cambrian Conundrum: Early Divergence and Later Ecological Success in the Early History of Animals,” 1091–97 (“When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species (1), the sudden appearance of animal fossils in the rock record was one of the more troubling facts he was compelled to address.
the sudden appearance of animal fossils in the rock record was one of the more troubling facts he was compelled to address. He wrote: ‘There is another and allied difficulty, which is much graver. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group, suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks’ (306). Darwin argued that the incompleteness of the fossil record gives the illusion of an explosive event, but with the eventual discovery of older and better-preserved rocks, the ancestors of these Cambrian taxa would be found. Studies of Ediacaran and Cambrian fossils continue to expand the morphologic variety of clades, but the appearance of the remains and traces of bilaterian animals in the Cambrian remains abrupt.”).
Darwin’s Doubt Pg101
the results of different molecular studies have generated widely divergent results. Yet presumably there was only one common ancestor of all the Metazoa and only one ultimate divergence point. For example, comparing the Wray-led study and the Erwin-led study generates a difference of 400 million years. In the case of other studies, even greater differences emerge. Many other studies have thrown their own widely varying numbers into the ring, placing the common ancestor of animals anywhere between 100 million and 1.5 billion years before the Cambrian explosion (some molecular clock studies, oddly, even place the common ancestor of the animals after the Cambrian explosion).19 As Douglas Erwin, writing with fellow paleontologists James Valentine and David Jablonski, acknowledged in 1999: “Attempts to date those branching[s]” from a common Precambrian ancestor “by using molecular clocks have disagreed widely.”20
19. See, e.g., Xun, “Early Metazoan Divergence Was About 830 Million Years Ago”; Aris-Brosou and Yang, “Bayesian Models of Episodic Evolution Support a Late Precambrian Explosive Diversification of the Metazoa.” See also an early study by Bruce Runnegar in 1982, which measured the percent sequence difference between globin molecules in various animal phyla and, from this, postulated that “the initial radiation of the animal phyla occurred at least 900–1000 million years ago” (Runnegar, “A Molecular-Clock Date for the Origin of the Animal Phyla,” 199). For other examples, see Bronham et al., “Testing the Cambrian explosion hypothesis by using a molecular dating technique,” 12386–12389 (finding that mitochondrial DNA and 18S rRNA data yielded divergence dates that varied by more than 1 billion years); Xun, “Early Metazoan Divergence Was About 830 Million Years Ago,” 369–71 (suggesting “From a total of 22 nuclear genes, we estimate that the divergence time between Drosophila and vertebrates was about 830 million years ago (mya)”); Doolittle, “Determining Divergence Times of the Major Kingdoms of Living Organisms with a Protein Clock,” 470–77 (dating the protostome-deuterostome split at 670 million years ago); Nikoh et al., “An Estimate of Divergence Time of Parazoa and Eumetazoa and That of Cephalochordata and Vertebrata by Aldolase and Triose Phosphate Isomerase Clocks,” 97–106 (dating the split between eumetazoa and parazoa—animals with tissues from those without, like sponges—at 940 mya, and the split between vertebrates and amphioxus at 700 mya); Wang et al., “Divergence Time Estimates for the Early History of Animal Phyla and the Origin of Plants, Animals and Fungi,” 163–71 (suggesting “the basal animal phyla (Porifera, Cnidaria, Ctenophora) diverged between about 1200–1500 Ma” and “Nematodes were found to have diverged from the lineage leading to arthropods and chordates at 1177–79 Ma”). 20. Valentine, Jablonski, and Erwin, “Fossils, Molecules and Embryos,” 851.
Darwin’s Doubt Pg105
[We see over and over and over again conflicts even within the same types of studies but when we look at different types of studies say Phylogenetic vs Molecular vs genetic its all over the place. But don’t worry we KNOW it happened so trust us. What’s interesting is that any tiny discrepancies in the bible are pounced on even though it was written hundreds of years ago these studies done by evolutionists were done just years ago.]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=86&v=UI-crE7JJrY look it up its supposed to give an explanation to arthropods lol.
Fascinitating article. Well worth the read as well as the comments. The scientist’s who discovered that bacteria from 2billion years ago remained exactly the same were first worried because:
This posed a problem. As J. William Schopf, the leader of the study noted, if something has lived on this earth for half of the entire planet’s history without changing, the lack of evolution needs to have an explanation for evolution to remain a fact
Of course\evolution is not a fact. The fact that a scientist was worried after one discovery shows how fragile it is but the explanation is horrible:
While Darwin’s theory says organisms will evolve through natural selection in order to better survive and reproduce, they do so in order to better survive the environmental changes around them. The reason the bacteria haven’t evolved is because the environment they are found in today is essentially the exact same environment they lived in 2 billion years ago.
Now I get it so if something stays exactly the same for 2billion years that proves evolution and if it changes that proves evolution. Evolution is awesome. Now whats interesting is the theory is getting reworked right in front of our eyes. We are now told that natural selection and environment have everything to do with this. Before it was Random Mutation and Natural Selection. See how that worked. And dutifully the evolutionists take up the que like cultists without even realizing their doing it:
Evolution happens to make an individual more successful in their environment. If the environment doesn’t change then the species will reach a point where it is optimized for that environment, at which point any changes will make those individual LESS successful and the change will die out.
When the environement favors a particular trait, the organisms that have that trait will succeed, while those that do not will not. If there is an environmental change, then organisms that have traits that are better suited to the new environment will survive resulting in the evolution of the population over time. However, if there is NO change in the environment then there is NO change in the set of traits that are required for survival in that environment and therefore evolution will not necessarily occur. Please take the time to educate yourself on a topic before posting ignorant comments.
And on and on and on. You can read the rest its basically regurgitation's of stuff that was vomited in their beaks at colleges and from the article itself. But lets work through this a little bit:
Ok first off the scientist was “worried” hahaha. Until he came up with an excuse to explain no evolution in 2 billion years. That thing is exactly the same as something 2 billion years ago. But yet the oceans change dramatically over 2 billion years going from ice age to hot periods, changing acidity, salinity, volume, preasure, and then of course there are other life organisms changing that might affect our poor bacterium as it just tries to get by for 2 billion years. Are you telling me that bacteria is the best it could do? Why then ever evolve from bacteria. Oh I know because that bacteria was in a different location and so had different environmental presures that led it to climb the tree of life while the one that stayed the same did so because it was already perfect as it was.
Let me say that again. They are saying that a bacteria stayed a bacteria because it was perfect the way it was.
Should I say that again? Nah
So lets do a refresher. What do we have? We have bacteria that has stayed the same for over 2billion years and that is something they say they have proved. FACT. Then they have a theory as to how bacteria DID evolve in other parts but they have no evidence … that would be: THEORY.
Or maybe Sci-Fi
Michael Denton’s hunch that “functional proteins could well be exceedingly rare.”1 As quoted in chapter 3, Denton reckoned that accidental processes would be incapable of finding new functional proteins if their amino-acid sequences were more rare than about one in 10^40 (1 followed by 40 zeros). Having now completed the experiments I described to Alan Fersht and the graduate students in 2002, I was able to put a number on the actual rarity—a startling number. With only one good protein sequence for every 10^74 bad ones, I had found functional proteins to be roughly 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000– fold more rare than Denton’s criterion! Unless this number was overturned somehow, a decisive blow had been dealt to the idea that proteins arose from accidental causes.
1.Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985).
To explain how natural proteins, with their exquisite functions, could have appeared by accident is a monumental challenge. This challenge can be divided into a more extreme aspect and a less extreme aspect, both of which are proving to be major obstacles for evolutionary theory. The more extreme challenge is to explain how mutations and selection could have produced completely new structural themes for proteins, called folds (Figure 6.2). The less extreme challenge is to explain how mutations and selection could have produced functional variations on existing fold themes. My colleagues and I have studied both of these challenges. To focus on the less extreme one, biologist Ann Gauger and I chose to work with two strikingly similar yet functionally distinct natural enzymes, which we’ll call enzyme A and enzyme B (Figure 6.3). Our aim was to determine whether it would be possible for enzyme A to evolve the function of enzyme B within a time frame of billions of years. If natural selection really coaxed sponges into becoming orcas in less time, inventing many new proteins along the way, we figured it should have ample power for this small transformation. But after carefully testing the mutations most likely to cause this functional change, we concluded it probably isn’t feasible by Darwinian evolution.2 Additional work supports this conclusion. Mariclair Reeves—like Ann Gauger, a biologist at Biologic Institute—painstakingly tested millions upon millions of random mutations, searching for any evolutionary possibility that we may have overlooked in our first study. She found none.3
Doublas Axe “Undeniable” PG80
2.A. K. Gauger and D. D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, no. 1 (2011): 1–17.
3.M. A. Reeves, A. K. Gauger, and D. D. Axe, “Enzyme Families: Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design? A Study of the GABA-Aminotransferase Family,” BIO-Complexity, no. 4 (2014): 1–16.
It should be noted that I know of no one that disputes Doublas Axe’s brilliant work on this subject. It is peer reviewed and accepted. There are no other tests done that contradict anything he has done. So how is it that we are expected to believe that evolution was able to overcome this impossible lottery not once but millions of times just for the protein problem alone? How can you accept that it is impossible to start a car and yet think you will be traveling 100mph?
Sponges are nature’s glassworks. They are made of a soft and flexible lattice of cells from which protrude silica-encrusted “spicules.” Though sponges come in a variety of shapes and sizes, they are one of the simplest known forms of animal life, with between six and ten distinctive cell types. In comparison, the typical arthropod has between thirty-five and ninety cell types.
My notes: So mostly sponge type life before the Cambrian Explosion and then you get advanced life like the arthropod which would be many orders of magnitude more complicated.
“It is intuitively obvious to me that a mere collection of atoms cannot attain consciousness. It can never become aware of its own existence.”
...In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail -- no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honored idols have to be discarded in the process. pg8
...after all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end -- no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers... if in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside superintelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back. Pg 214-215
…every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary and it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong. pg209
...The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science. pg210
[I. L. Cohen mathematician, researcher and author Darwin was Wrong -- A Study in Probabilities, 1984]
Antony Flew, a British philosopher, Oxford professor and leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century, said it best:
"My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."
Well, at age 81, Flew honestly followed the evidence and renounced his atheism, concluding that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. He declared, "A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature."
I would say that was the same for me the more I looked the more it became obvious. If you want to look at pop science from Popular Science or Scientific American or any other mainstream established sources then it becomes a little more difficult to find the truth because the truth is often barried in their own pages. When you awake you become tuned to words like “appears” “looks like” “might be” “invisioned” and so on. When we look at hard data like lab work and math we see a different picture and that is what is making many of us former atheists leave the ship.
The late biologist Lynn Margulis, a well-respected member of the National Academy of Sciences until her death in 2011, once said "new mutations don't create new species; they create offspring that are impaired."44 She further explained in a 2011 interview:
[N]eo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change-led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.
Lynn Margulis quoted in "Lynn Margulis: Q + A," Discover Magazine, p. 68 (April, 2011).
How 'bout woodpeckers. Apparently, we're to believe that they evolved. They started out as regular birds, but they decided that they wanted to get their food by pecking holes in trees to get at grubs and bugs and such. But they did not have the specialized suspension systems in their heads to prevent their brains from being injured. So, for thousands of years, they tried to peck hole in trees. all that time they were lying around on the forest floor dazed with big headaches. Not only that, but they starved for all those thousands of years because they couldn't get any food. And that's why there are no woodpeckers today. What? Wait a minute! There are woodpeckers aren't there? Where'd they come from? Oh Yeah! They evolved! Yeah riiiiiiiight. Stupid theory. I don't care how long you spin it. It just doesn't make sense to anyone with a decent amount of brain cells.
You may have noticed that evolutionists often attack the scientific credentials of any scientist who rejects the theory of evolution. They have to do this because:
There is so little scientific evidence that supports evolution.
What little evidence they have is highly questionable.
Since they can’t refute the scientific evidence, they try to refute the scientist.
list of scientists that doubt evolution
List of scientists that doubt evolution
Might be resources