Site Seeing on Vacation

For many tourists who visit Hawaii on a beach vacation, site seeing is the most important part of their trip.  Luckily, Hawaii has plenty of attractions to satisfy even the pickiest traveler’s needs.  Because tourism is the largest economic driver in the state, there are several companies devoted to touring visitors around and pointing out some of Hawaii’s most unique, but often hidden, places to see.  Roberts Hawaii is one of the state’s oldest and largest tour companies.  Focused on streamlining the site seeing experience, Roberts Hawaii offers a number of fun activities and attractions that make site seeing a fun and enjoyable experience for the whole family.

On Oahu, the show Magic of Polynesia features John Hirokawa as master illusionist and takes guests on an epic ride through Hawaiian culture and magic.  Roberts Hawaii’s Stars and Strips Tour explores several local patriotic places, including Pearl Harbor, the USS Arizona Memorial, the Battleship Missouri Memorial, Historic Honolulu, and the Cemetery of the Pacific at Punchbowl.  The Alii Kai Catamaran Dinner Cruise is especially popular with its panoramic views of the Pacific Ocean and Waikiki, beautiful sunset view, and scrumptious local food.  On the island of Hawaii, Roberts offers an evening volcano special tour that winds its way through the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park in order to catch a glimpse of the red glow of fresh lava flowing into the ocean.


In biology, evolution is defined as the change in the genetic makeup of animals from one generation to the next. Although these changes are minute and often unnoticeable between a single generation, the effects evolution may have on a species over many generations, often over a span of thousands of years, are quite drastic and sometimes even result in the emergence of a new species. The term evolution often goes hand in hand with the famous phrase, “Survival of the fittest” because evolution is the process in which animals are able to adapt to the constantly changing environment and ecosystems in order to better suit them for their survival.

Evolution is based on the fact that genes are passed from one generation to the next. Although very little of the genetic makeup changes between a single generation, the process of genetic variation, mutations, and genetic recombinations over long periods of time is what results in the evolution of a species. Evolution is also greatly influenced by mechanisms known as genetic drift and natural selection, which result in animals with evolutionary traits that increase their chance of survival becoming more dominant than animals with evolutionary traits that do not increase the animal’s chance of survival. One of the most famous scientists to study evolution and even propose the theory of evolution is Charles Darwin, who published his findings in On the Origin of Species.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The Myth of Bird Evolution


Recently, a 140-million-year-old fossil called Shenzhouraptor sinensis was discovered in the Yixian region of China. According to the evolutionary paleontologist Ji Qiang, this fossil was a missing link twixt dinosaurs and birds. The fact is, however, that this fossil possesses features that clash with the evolutionists’ claims about the origin of birds. Not just this fossil, but also the whole body of paleontological data on the subject is at odds with the evolutionary theory. “The evolution of birds”, like other claims made by Darwinism, is no more scientific than a fairy tale.

Shenzhouraptor sinensis, The Impossible Transitional Form

Evolutionists suggest that Shenzhouraptor sinensis was a transitional form that was able to fly and possessed both bird and dinosaur characteristics. This is, however, is in contradiction to other evolutionist claims on the origin of birds.

Archaeopteryx, the oldest known bird, lived 150 million years ago and is in many respects no different from flying birds living today. Shenzhouraptor sinensis, however, lived 140 million years ago, making it younger than Archaeopteryx. For that reason, it is impossible for it to be a transitional form, because birds with perfect feathers and the necessary anatomical structure for flight were living before it.

Archaeopteryx: Recent work shows it to be

“much more birdlike than previously imagined”.

At this point, we need to make it clear that the evolutionist claims regarding Archaeopteryx, on of the principle icons of the theory of evolution for the last 100 years or so, have lost a great deal of their validity. It has been realized that this creature was a flying bird, possessing a flawless flight mechanism. Attempts to compare Archaeopteryx to a reptile have failed entirely.

As Alan Feduccia, one of the leading ornithologists in the world, has stated, “Most recent workers who have studied various anatomical features of Archaeopteryx have found the creature to be much more birdlike than previously imagined,” and “the resemblance of Archaeopteryx to theropod dinosaurs has been grossly overestimated.” (1)

Another problem regarding Archaeopteryx is that the theropod dinosaurs, which many evolutionists suggest were Archaeopteryx’ ancestors, actually emerge after it in the fossil record, not before it. This, of course, leaves no room for any “evolutionary family tree” to account for the origin of birds.

The Squabbling Evolutionists

The reason for the “dino-bird” and “feathered dinosaur” stories that frequently appear in the evolutionist press is simply an effort on their part to show that their claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs has been proven by fossil discoveries. The fact is, however, that none of these fossils has offered any scientific evidence at all for that claim. What is more, many evolutionists do not believe it either. For instance, renowned ornithologists Alan Feduccia and Larry Martin believe that it is totally an erroneous scenario. A college textbook, Developmental Biology reads:

Not all biologists believe that birds are dinosaurs. This group of scientists emphasize the differences between dinosaurs and birds, claiming that the differences are too great for the birds to have evolved from earlier dinosaurs. Alan Feduccia, and Larry Martin, for instance, contend that birds could not have evolved from any known group of dinosaurs. They argue against some of the most important cladistic data and support their claim from developmental biology and biomechanics. (2)

Feduccia has this to say regarding the thesis of reptile-bird evolution:

Well, I’ve studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don’t see any similarities whatsoever. I just don’t see it… The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century. (3)

Larry Martin, a specialist in ancient birds from the University of Kansas, also opposes the theory that birds are descended from dinosaurs. Discussing the contradiction that evolution falls into on the subject, he states:

To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with those characters, I’d be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it. (4)

The disagreement amongst evolutionists themselves stems from the fact that there is no evidence supporting an evolutionary origin for birds. They can only build up speculations, just-so stories which are imposed on the public, misleadingly, as “scientific theories”.

The Significant Structural Differences Between Birds And Dinosaurs

Most evolutionists hold that birds evolved from small theropod dinosaurs. However, a comparison between birds and such reptiles reveals that the two have very distinct features, making it unlikely that one evolved from the other.

There are various structural differences between birds and reptiles, one of which concerns bone structure. Due to their bulky natures, dinosaurs-the ancestors of birds according to evolutionists-had thick, solid bones. Birds, in contrast, whether living or extinct, have hollow bones that are very light, as they must be in order for flight to take place.

Another difference between reptiles and birds is their metabolic structure. Reptiles have the slowest metabolic structure in the animal kingdom. (The claim that dinosaurs had a warm-blooded fast metabolism remains a speculation.) Birds, on the other hand, are at the opposite end of the metabolic spectrum. For instance, the body temperature of a sparrow can rise to as much as 48°C (118°F) due to its fast metabolism. On the other hand, reptiles lack the ability to regulate their body temperature. Instead, they expose their bodies to sunlight in order to warm up. Put simply, reptiles consume the least energy of all animals and birds the most.

Yet, despite all the scientific findings, the groundless scenario of “dinosaur-bird evolution” is still insistently advocated. Popular publications are particularly fond of the scenario. Meanwhile, concepts which provide no backing for the scenario are presented as evidence for “dinosaur-bird evolution.”

In some popular evolutionist publications, for instance, emphasis is laid on the differences among dinosaur hip bones to support the thesis that birds are descended from dinosaurs. These differences exist between dinosaurs classified as Saurischian (reptile-like, hip-girdled dinosaurs) and Ornithischian (bird-like, hip-girdled dinosaurs). This concept of dinosaurs having hip girdles similar to those of birds is sometimes wrongly conceived as evidence for the alleged dinosaur-bird link. However, the difference in hip girdles is no evidence at all for the claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs. That is because, surprisingly for the evolutionist, Ornithischian dinosaurs do not resemble birds with respect to other anatomical features. For instance, Ankylosaurus is a dinosaur classified as Ornithischian, with short legs, a giant body, and skin covered with scales resembling armor. On the other hand, Struthiomimus, which resembles birds in some of its anatomical features (long legs, short forelegs, and thin structure), is actually a Saurischian. (5)

The Unique Structure of Avian Lungs

Another factor demonstrating the impossibility of the reptile-bird evolution scenario is the structure of avian lungs, which cannot be accounted for by evolution.

Land-dwelling creatures have lungs with a two-directional flow structure. Upon inhaling, the air travels through the passages in the lungs (bronchial tubes), ending in tiny air sacs (alveoli). The exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide takes place here. Then, upon exhaling, this used air makes its way back and finds its way out of the lung by the same route.

In birds however, air follows just one direction through the lungs. The entry and exit orifices are completely different, and thanks to special air sacs all along the passages between them, air always flows in one direction through the avian lung. In this way, birds are able to take in air nonstop. This satisfies birds’ high energy requirements. Michael Denton, an Australian biochemist and a well-known critic of Darwinism, explains the avian lung in this way:

This one-directional flow of air is maintained in breathing in and breathing out by a complex system of interconnected air sacs in the bird’s body, which expand and contract in such a way as to ensure a continuous delivery of air through the parabronchi… The structure of the lung in birds, and the overall functioning of the respiratory system, are quite unique. No lung in any other vertebrate species in any way approaches the avian system. Moreover, in its essential details it is identical in birds. (6)

The important thing is that the reptile lung, with its dual-direction air flow, could not have evolved into the bird lung with its single-direction flow, because it is not possible for there to have been an intermediate model between them. In order for a living thing to live, it has to keep breathing, and a reversal of the structure of its lungs with a change of design would inevitably end in death. According to evolution, this change must happen gradually over millions of years, whereas a creature whose lungs do not work will die within a few minutes.

Michael Denton also states that it is impossible to give an evolutionary account of the avian lung:

…In the case of birds, however, the major bronchi break down into tiny tubes which permeate the lung tissue. These so-called parabronchi eventually join up together again, forming a true circulatory system so that air flows in one direction through the lungs. …Just how such an utterly different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design is fantastically difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of an organism to the extent that the slightest malfunction leads to death within minutes. Just as the feather cannot function as an organ of flight until the hooks and barbules are co adapted to fit together perfectly, so the avian lung cannot function as an organ of respiration until the parabronchi system which permeates it and the air sac system which guarantees the parabronchi their air supply are both highly developed and able to function together in a perfectly integrated manner. (7)

In brief, the passage from a terrestrial lung to an avian lung is impossible, because an intermediate form would serve no purpose.

Reptiles (and mammals) breathe in and out from the same air vessel. In birds, while the air enters into the lung from the front, it goes out from the back. This distinct design is specially made for birds, which need great amounts of oxygen during flight. It is impossible for such a structure to evolve from the reptile lung.

Another point that needs to be mentioned here is that reptiles have a diaphragm-type respiratory system, whereas birds have an abdominal air sac system instead of a diaphragm. These different structures also make any evolution between the two lung types impossible, as John Ruben from Oregon State University, an acknowledged authority in the field of respiratory physiology, observes in the following passage:

The earliest stages in the derivation of the avian abdominal air sac system from a diaphragm-ventilating ancestor would have necessitated selection for a diaphragmatic hernia in taxa transitional between theropods and birds. Such a debilitating condition would have immediately compromised the entire pulmonary ventilatory apparatus and seems unlikely to have been of any selective advantage. (8)

Another interesting structural design of the avian lung which defies evolution is the fact that it is never empty of air, and thus never in danger of collapse. Michael Denton explains the situation:

Just how such a different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design without some sort of direction is, again, very difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of the organism. Moreover, the unique function and form of the avian lung necessitates a number of additional unique adaptations during avian development… because first, the avian lung is fixed rigidly to the body wall and cannot therefore expand in volume and, second, because of the small diameter of the lung capillaries and the resulting high surface tension of any liquid within them, the avian lung cannot be inflated out of a collapsed state as happens in all other vertebrates after birth. The air capillaries are never collapsed as are the alveoli of other vertebrate species; rather, as they grow into the lung tissue, the parabronchi are from the beginning open tubes filled with either air or fluid. (9)

In other words, the passages in birds’ lungs are so narrow that the air sacs inside their lungs cannot fill with air and empty again, as with land-dwelling creatures. If a bird lung ever completely deflated, the bird would never be able to re-inflate it, or would at the very least have great difficulty in doing so. For this reason, the air sacs situated all over the lung enable a constant passage of air to pass through, thus protecting the lungs from deflating.

Of course this system, which is completely different from the lungs of reptiles and other vertebrates, and is based on the most complex design, cannot have come about with random mutations, stage by stage, as evolution maintains. Thus, as Denton also mentions, the avian lung is enough to answer Darwin’s challenge:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (10)

Bird Feathers and Reptile Scales

Another impassable gap between birds and reptiles is feathers, which are peculiar to birds. Reptile bodies are covered with scales, a completely different structure. The hypothesis that bird feathers evolved from reptile scales is completely unfounded, and is indeed disproved by the fossil record, as the evolutionist paleontologist Barbara Stahl once admitted:

How [feathers] arose initially, presumably from reptiles scales, defies analysis… It seems, from the complex construction of feathers, that their evolution from reptilian scales would have required an immense period of time and involved a series of intermediate structures. So far, the fossil record does not bear out that supposition. (11)

A. H. Brush, a professor of physiology and neurobiology at the University of Connecticut, accepts this fact, although he is himself an evolutionist: “Every feature from gene structure and organization, to development, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different [in feathers and scales].” (12) Moreover, Professor Brush examines the protein structure of bird feathers and argues that it is “unique among vertebrates.” (13)

There is no fossil evidence to prove that bird feathers evolved from reptile scales. On the contrary, feathers appear suddenly in the fossil record, Professor Brush observes, as an “undeniably unique” character distinguishing birds. (14) Besides, in reptiles, no epidermal tissue has yet been detected that provides a starting point for bird feathers. (15)

Many fossils have so far been the subject of “feathered dinosaur” speculation, but detailed study has always disproved it. Alan Feduccia once wrote the following in an article called “On Why Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers”:

Feathers are features unique to birds, and there are no known intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers. Notwithstanding speculations on the nature of the elongated scales found on such forms as Longisquama (discovered 1969 Russia) … as being featherlike structures, there is simply no demonstrable evidence that they in fact are. (16)

More recently, Feduccia, quoting Brush, has the following passage on the origin of feathers:

Even birds’ most scalelike features-the leg scutes (scales), claws, and the epidermally derived beak-are formed from a single category of protein, the -keratins. As Alan Brush has written regarding feather development, “The genes that direct synthesis of the avian -keratins represent a significant divergence from those of their reptilian ancestor.”(17) (Note that the authors assume a reptilian ancestor for birds, but accept the genetic gap between these.)

National Geographic’s great hit, the perfect “dino-bird” Archaeoraptor soon turned out to be a hoax. All other “dino-bird” candidates remain as speculation.

All news about “dino-birds” is speculative. Many claims on the subject have turned out to false. For example, the “feathered dinosaur” claim that was put forward in 1996 with a great media fanfare was also disproved soon. A reptilian fossil called Sinosauropteryx was found in China, but paleontologists who examined the fossil said that it had bird feathers, unlike modern reptiles. Examinations conducted one year later, however, showed that the fossil actually had no structure similar to a bird’s feather. (18)

Every other fossil that has been put forward as “feathered dinosaur” in the last 10 years is debatable. Detailed studies have revealed that the structures suggested to have been “feathers” are actually collagen fibers.(19) The speculations in fact stems from evolutionist prejudice and wishful thinking. As Feduccia says, “Many dinosaurs have been portrayed with a coating of aerodynamic contour feathers with absolutely no documentation.”(20) (One of the “feathered dinosaurs” in question, namely Archaeoraptor, proved to be a fossil forgery). Feduccia sums the position up in these terms: “Finally, no feathered dinosaur has ever been found, although many dinosaur mummies with well-preserved skin are known from diverse localities.” (21)

The Design of Feathers

Another problem for the evolutionists is the fact that there is such a complex design in bird feathers that the phenomenon can never be accounted for without referring to intelligent design. As we all know, there is a long, stiff part that runs up the center of the feather. Attached to the shaft are the vanes. The vane is made up of small thread-like strands, called barbs. These barbs, of different lengths and rigidity, are what give the flying bird its aerodynamic nature. But what is even more interesting is that each barb has thousands of even smaller strands attached to them called barbules. The barbules are connected to barbicels, with tiny microscopic hooks, called hamuli. Each strand is hooked to an opposing strand, much like the hooks of a zipper.

On just one crane feather, there are up to 650 hairs on the central tube. Each one of these is covered with some 650 tinier hairs. And these tiny hairs are linked together by 350 hooks. The hooks come together like the two sides of a zipper. If the hooks come apart for any reason, it is sufficient for the bird to shake itself, or, in more serious cases, to straighten its feathers out with its beak, for the feathers to return to their previous positions.

To claim that the complex design in feathers could have come about by the evolution of reptile scales through chance mutations is quite simply a dogmatic belief with no scientific foundation. Even one of the doyens of Darwinism, Ernst Mayr, made this confession on the subject some years ago:

It is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations. (22)

The design of feathers also compelled Darwin to ponder them. Moreover, the perfect aesthetics of the peacock’s feathers had made him “sick” (his own words). In a letter he wrote to Asa Gray on April 3, 1860, he said, “I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of complaint…” And then continued: “… and now trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!” (23)

In short, the enormous structural differences between bird feathers and reptile scales, and the astonishingly complex-and beautiful-design of feathers, clearly demonstrate the invalidity of the claim that feathers evolved from scales through blind natural mechanisms.


The “dino-bird” stories that appear in the evolutionist press consist of biased analyses by evolutionist palaeontologists, and sometimes even of distortions of the truth. (In fact, one of the best-known “dino-bird” discoveries, the Archaeoraptor portrayed by National Geographic as incontrovertible proof of bird evolution, turned out to be a forgery produced by combining fossils of five separate specimens). The “dino-bird” fossils in question are either those of extinct species of bird or of dinosaurs, and not one of them represents a “missing link” between birds and dinosaurs. In fact, as we have seen above, it is impossible for dinosaurs to have evolved into birds and assumed bird characteristics by means of chance mutations.

Thus the “dino-bird” hype that rages through the media consists of nothing more than a last-ditch attempt to shore up the collapsed theory of evolution. However, science and reason will always prevail over such misconceptions.


Dr. Feduccia: His new study is enough to bury the ‘dino-bird” myth.

The latest blow to the “birds evolved from dinosaurs” theory came from a study made on the embryology of ostriches.

Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill studied a series of live ostrich eggs and, once again, concluded that, there can not be an evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs. EurekAlert, a scientific portal held by the American Association for the The Advancement of Science (AAAS), reports the following:

Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill… opened a series of live ostrich eggs at various stages of development and found what they believe is proof that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs”…

Whatever the ancestor of birds was, it must have had five fingers, not the three-fingered hand of theropod dinosaurs,” Feduccia said… “Scientists agree that dinosaurs developed ‘hands’ with digits one, two and three… Our studies of ostrich embryos, however, showed conclusively that in birds, only digits two, three and four, which correspond to the human index, middle and ring fingers, develop, and we have pictures to prove it,” said Feduccia, professor and former chair of biology at UNC. “This creates a new problem for those who insist that dinosaurs were ancestors of modern birds. How can a bird hand, for example, with digits two, three and four evolve from a dinosaur hand that has only digits one, two and three? That would be almost impossible.” (i)

In the same report, Dr. Freduccia also made important comments on the invalidity-and the shallowness-of the “birds evolved from dinosaurs” theory:

“There are insurmountable problems with that theory,” he [Dr. Feduccia] said. “Beyond what we have just reported, there is the time problem in that superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old.”

If one views a chicken skeleton and a dinosaur skeleton through binoculars they appear similar, but close and detailed examination reveals many differences, Feduccia said. Theropod dinosaurs, for example, had curved, serrated teeth, but the earliest birds had straight, unserrated peg-like teeth. They also had a different method of tooth implantation and replacement.” (ii)

This evidence once again reveals that the “dino-bird” hype is just another “icon” of Darwinism: A myth that is supported only for the sake of a dogmatic faith in the theory.

i – David Williamson, “Scientist Says Ostrich Study Confirms Bird ‘Hands’ Unlike Those Of Dinosaurs”, EurekAlert, 14-Aug-2002,

ii – David Williamson, “Scientist Says Ostrich Study Confirms Bird ‘Hands’ Unlike Those Of Dinosaurs”, EurekAlert, 14-Aug-2002,

Under the pen name of Harun Yahya, Adnan Oktar has written some 250 works. His books contain a total of 46,000 pages and 31,500 illustrations. Of these books, 7,000 pages and 6,000 illustrations deal with the collapse of the Theory of Evolution. You can read, free of charge, all the books Adnan Oktar has written under the pen name Harun Yahya on these websites

(1) Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University Press, 1999, p. 81

(2) Scott F. Gilbert, “Did Birds Evolve from the Dinosaurs?,” Developmental Biology, Sixth Edition, chapter 16.4 (

(3) Pat Shipman, “Birds Do It… Did Dinosaurs?,” New Scientist, February 1, 1997, p. 28

(4) Pat Shipman, “Birds Do It… Did Dinosaurs?,” New Scientist, February 1, 1997, p. 28

(5) Duane T. Gish, Dinosaurs by Design, Master Books, AR, 1996. pp. 65-66

(6) Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, London, Burnett Books Limited, 1985, p. 210-211.

(7) Michael Denton, A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler, 1986, pp. 210-212.

(8) J. A. Ruben, T. D. Jones, N. R. Geist, and W. J. Hillenius, “Lung Structure And Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds,” Science, vol. 278, p. 1267.

(9) Michael J. Denton, Nature’s Destiny, Free Press, New York, 1998, p. 361.

(10) Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189

(11) Barbara J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover, 1985, pp. 349-350.

(12) A. H. Brush, “On the Origin of Feathers,” Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 9, 1996, p.132.

(13) A. H. Brush, “On the Origin of Feathers,” Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 9, 1996, p.131.

(14) A. H. Brush, “On the Origin of Feathers,” Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 9, 1996, p.133.

(15) A. H. Brush, “On the Origin of Feathers,” Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 9, 1996, p.131.

(16) Alan Feduccia, “On Why Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers,” The Beginning of Birds, Eichstatt, West Germany: Jura Museum, 1985, p. 76.

(17) Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University Press, 1999, p. 128

(18) Ann Gibbons, “Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur,” Science, vol. 278, no. 5341, 14 November 1997, pp. 1229 – 1230

(19) Ann Gibbons, “Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur”, Science, volume 278, Number 5341 Issue of 14 Nov 1997, pp. 1229 – 1230

(20) Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University Press, 1999, p. 130

(21) Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University Press, 1999, p. 132

(22) Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species, Dove, New York, 1964, p. 296.

(23) Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Volume II, From Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, April 3rd, 1860

The Crumbling Facade of the Theory of Evolution


(March, 2008) The scientific concept of the origin of life on earth begins with the premise that life first appeared billions of years ago with the formation of microscopic organisms out of inanimate matter. In the billions of years which followed, small organisms evolved into higher and more complex forms of life through random mutations, and one species evolved into another.

Over the years, a process referred to as “natural selection” weeded out those mutations and organisms less fit to survive than others. Thus, it was mostly the more “fit” that passed on their genetic character traits to subsequent generations. And that’s how we and all other life forms got here.

On the surface, this sounds great. However, a deeper analysis of the underlying mechanism and the fossil record, leaves little doubt that mutations of a random nature could not possible have been the driving force behind the development of life on earth.

When it comes to a random process, there is always the question of whether it can produce organization. An analogy might be the old monkey on a typewriter: given enough time, can a monkey on a typewriter produce the works of Shakespeare purely by random keystrokes? Let’s assume for the purpose of this discussion that this is possible — and that random mutations, given enough time, can also eventually produce the most complex life forms.

Let’s begin by rolling a die (one “dice”). To get a “3,” for example, you’d have to roll the die an average of six times (there are six numbers, so to get any one of them would take an average of six rolls). Of course, you could get lucky and roll a 3 the first time. But as you keep rolling the die, you’ll find that the 3 will come up on average once every six rolls.

The same holds true for any random process. You’ll get a “Royal Flush” (the five highest cards, in the same suit) in a 5-card poker game on average roughly once every 650,000 hands. In other words, for every 650,00 hands of mostly meaningless arrangements of cards (and perhaps a few other poker hands), you’ll get only one Royal Flush.

Multi-million dollar lotteries are also based on this concept. If the odds against winning a big jackpot are millions to one, what will usually happen is that for every game where one person wins the big jackpot with the right combination of numbers, millions of people will not win the big jackpot because they picked millions of combinations of meaningless numbers. To my knowledge, there hasn’t been a multi-million dollar lottery yet where millions of people won the top prize and only a few won little or nothing. It’s always the other way around. And sometimes there isn’t even one big winner.

How does this relate to evolution?

Let’s take this well-understood concept about randomness and apply it the old story of a monkey on a typewriter. As mentioned earlier, for the purpose of this discussion, we’ll assume that if you allow a monkey to randomly hit keys on a typewriter long enough he could eventually turn out the works of Shakespeare. Of course, it would take a very long time, and he’d produce mountains and mountains of pages of meaningless garbage in the process, but eventually (we’ll assume) he could turn out the works of Shakespeare.

Now, let’s say, after putting a monkey in front of a typewriter to type out Shakespeare, you decide you also want a copy of the Encyclopedia of Britannica. So you put another monkey in front of another typewriter. Then, you put a third monkey in front of third typewriter, because you also want a copy of “War And Peace.” Now you shout, “Monkeys, type,” and they all start banging away on their typewriters.

You leave the room and have yourself cryogenically frozen so you can come back in a few million years to see the results. (The monkeys don’t have to be frozen. Let’s say they’re an advanced species; all they need to survive millions of years is fresh ink cartridges.)

You come back in a few million years and are shocked at what you see. What shocks you is not what you find, but what you don’t find. First, you do find that the monkeys have produced the works of Shakespeare, the Encyclopedia of Britannica and “War and Peace.” But all this you expected.

What shocks you is that you don’t see the mountains of papers of meaningless arrangement of letters that each monkey should have produced for each literary work. You do find a few mistyped pages here and there, but they do not nearly account for the millions of pages of “mistakes” you should have found.

And even if the monkeys happened to get them all right the first time, which is a pretty big stretch of the imagination, they still should’ve type out millions of meaningless pages in those millions of years. (Who told them to stop typing?) Either way, each random work of art should have produced millions upon millions of meaningless typed pages.

This is precisely what the problem is with the Darwinian theory of evolution.

A random process, as depicted by Darwinian evolution and accepted by many scientists, even if one claims it can produce the most complex forms of life, should have produced at least millions of dysfunctional organisms for every functional one. And with more complex organisms (like a “Royal Flush” as opposed to a number 3 on a die), an even greater number of dysfunctional “mistakes” should have been produced (as there are so many more possibilities of “mistakes” in a 52-card deck than a 6-sided die).

The fossil record should have been bursting with billions upon billions of completely dysfunctional-looking organisms at various stages of development for the evolution of every life form. And for each higher life form — human, monkey, chimpanzee, etc. — there should have been millions of even more “mistakes.”

Instead, of those fossils that are well-preserved, the fossil record shows an overwhelming number of fairly well-formed, functional-looking organisms, such as Trilobites. We haven’t found the plethora of “gradually improved” or intermediate species (sometimes referred to as “missing links”) that we should have, we haven’t even found the vast number of “mistakes” known beyond a shadow of a doubt to be produced by every random process.

We don’t need billions of years to duplicate a random process in a lab to show that it will produce chaos every time, regardless of whether or not it might eventually produce some “meaningful complexity.” To say that randomness can produce organization is one thing, but to say that it won’t even produce the chaos that randomness invariably produces is inconsistent with established fact.

A process that will produce organization without the chaos normally associated with randomness is the greatest proof that the process is not random.

The notion that the fossil record supports the Darwinian theory of evolution is as ludicrous as saying that a decomposed carcass proves an animal is still alive. It proves the precise opposite. The relative scarcity of deformed-looking creatures in the fossil record proves beyond a doubt that if one species spawned another (which in itself is far from an accepted fact and still seen by many as a theory) it could not possibly have been by a random process.

You may be tempted to explain that we don’t see many of the “mistakes” in the fossil record because the genetic code has a repair mechanism which is able to correct DNA damage and thereby prevent most abnormal organisms from ever coming into existence.

Aside from this not being the issue, this isn’t even entirely true. Although genetic code has the ability to repair or eliminate malfunctioning genes, many diseased genes fall through the cracks, despite this. There are a host of genetic diseases — hemophilia, various cancers, congenital cataract, spontaneous abortions, cystic fibrosis, color-blindness, and muscular dystrophy, to name just a few — that ravage organisms and get passed on to later generations, unhampered by the genetic repair mechanism. During earth’s history of robust speciation (species spawning new ones) through, allegedly, random mutation, far more genes should have fallen through the cracks.

And, as an aside, how did the genetic repair mechanism evolve before there was a genetic repair mechanism? And where are all those millions of deformed and diseased organisms that should’ve been produced before the genetic repair mechanism was fully functional?

But all this is besides the point. A more serious problem is the presumption that natural selection weeded out the vast majority, or all, of the “misfits.”

A genetic mutation that would have resulted in, let’s say, the first cow to be born with two legs instead of four, would not necessarily be recognized as dysfunctional by the genetic repair mechanism. (I’ll be using “cow” as an example throughout; but it applies to almost any organism.) From the genetic standpoint, as long as a gene is sound in its own right, there’s really no difference between a cow with four legs, two legs, or six tails and an ingrown milk container. It’s only after the cow is born that natural selection, on the macro level, eliminates it if it’s not fit to survive.

It’s these types of mutations, organisms unfit to survive on the macro level, yet genetically sound, that should have littered the planet by the billions.

Sure these deformed cows would have gotten wiped out quickly by natural selection, since they had no chance of surviving. But how many millions of dysfunctional cows alone, before you even get to the billions of other species in earth’s history, should have littered the planet and fossil record before the first stable, functioning cow made its debut? If you extrapolate the random combinations from a simple deck of cards to the far greater complexity of a cow, we’re probably talking about tens of millions of “mistakes” that should have cluttered planet earth for just the first functioning cow.

Where are all these relics of an evolutionary past?

Did nature miraculously get billions of species right the first time? Of the fossils well-preserved enough to study, most appear to be well-designed and functional-looking. With the low aberration ratio of fossils being no more significant, as far as speciation is concerned, than common birth deformities, there seems to have been nothing of a random nature in the development of life.

One absurd response I’ve gotten from a scientist as to why a plethora of deformed species never existed is: There is no such thing as speciation driven by deleterious mutation.

This is like asking, “How come everybody leaves the lecture hall through exit 5, but never through exit 4?” and getting a response, “Because people don’t leave the lecture hall through exit 4.” Wasn’t this the question?

What scientists have apparently done is look into the fossil record and found that new species tend to make their first appearance as well-formed, healthy-looking organisms. So instead of asking themselves how can a random series of accidents seldom, if ever, produce “accidents,” they’ve simply formulated a new rule in evolutionary biology: There is no such thing as speciation driven by deleterious mutation. This answer is about as scientific, logical and insightful as, “Because I said so.”

It’s one thing for the genetic code to spawn relatively flawless cows today, after years of stability. But before cows took root, a cow that might have struck us as deformed would have been no more or less “deleterious,” from the genetic standpoint, than a cow that we see as normal. The genetic repair mechanism may recognize “healthy” or “diseased” genetic code, but it can’t know how many legs or horns a completely new species should have, if we’re talking about a trial-and-error crapshoot. If the genetic repair mechanism could predict what a functioning species should eventually look like, years before natural selection on the macro level had a chance to weed out the unfit, we’d be talking about some pretty weird, prophetic science.

In a paper published in the February 21, 2002, issue of Nature, Biologists Matthew Ronshaugen, Nadine McGinnis, and William McGinnis described how they were able to suppress some limb development in fruit flies simply by activating certain genes and suppress all limb development in some cases with additional mutations during embryonic development.

In another widely publicized experiment, genetic damage caused fruit flies to grow legs on their heads: Mutations to homeobox genes of fruit flies can produce legs where the antennae should be.

These experiments showed how easy it is to make drastic changes to an organism through genetic mutations. Ironically, although the former experiment was touted as supporting evolution, they both actually do the opposite. The apparent ease with which organisms can change so dramatically and take on bizarre properties, drives home the point that bizarre creatures, and bizarre versions of known species, should have been mass produced by nature, had earth’s history consisted of billions of years of the development of life through random changes.

To claim that the random development of billions of life forms occurred, yet the massive aberrations didn’t, is an absurd contradiction to everything known about randomness.

Evolutionists tend to point out that the fossil record represents only a small fraction of biological history, and this is why we don’t find all the biological aberrations we should. But the issue here is not one of numbers but one of proportion.

For every fossil of a well-formed, viable-looking organism, we should have found an abundance of “strange” or deformed ones, regardless of the total number. What we’re finding, however, is the proportional opposite.

Evolution through a random series of events may have made some sense in Darwin’s days. But in the 21st century, random evolution appears to be little more than the figment of a brilliant imagination. Although this imaginative concept has, in the years since Darwin, amassed a fanatical cult-like following, science, it is not. Science still needs to be proven; you can’t just vote ideas into “fact.” And especially not when they contradict facts.

An article in a 2007 issue of Current Biology, also available on, reports that a multi-national team of biologists has concluded that developmental evolution is orderly and not random, based on a study of different species of roundworms. This is not the evolution of Darwin.

It’s ironic how evolutionists will fend off disproofs of Darwinian evolution, often calling them creationism, yet it is evolutionists’ dogmatic adherence to concepts that are more imagination than fact that smacks of a belief in mystical, supernatural powers. What evolutionists have done, in effect, is invented a new god-less religion and re-invented their own version of creation-by-supernatural-means. However, the mere elimination of God from the picture doesn’t exactly make it science.

So if the development of life was not an accident, how did life come about?

Well, pointing out a problem is not necessarily contingent upon whether or not a solution is presented. In this case, presenting an alternative may actually be counterproductive. Evolutionists often get so bogged down with trying to discredit a proposed alternative, frequently with nothing more than invectives, that they tend to walk away believing evolution must still work.

The objective here, therefore, is to point out that Darwinian evolution does not fall apart because a solution being presented says it happened differently. The objective here is to show that the mechanics of evolution are incompatible with empirical evidence, verifiable science and common sense, regardless of whatever else may or may not take its place.

For a true study of science, we need to put the theory of evolution to rest, as we’ve done with so many other primitive concepts born of ignorance. Science today is far beyond such notions as metals that turn into gold, brooms that fly, earth is flat, and mystical powers that accidentally create life. What all these foolish beliefs have in common is that they were popular in their own time, were never duplicated in a lab, and were never proven by any other means.

We’d be doing society a great service if we filled our science textbooks with verifiable facts that demonstrate how science works, instead of scintillating fabrications that demonstrate how imaginative and irrational some scientists can get.

by Josh Greenberger

Evolution of Supreme Mind


The evolution has so far been on the physical world. It was towards making random development of species and selecting best species. The species has been measured in term of speed, strength, survival techniques, and ability to adopt. The evolution has reached a crucial junction of time. One species has almost completely monopolized the world, and in the verge of exploring the universe.

Evolution is a natural force that can not be stopped. The evolution will continue to happen. Million years of evolution has achieved the perfection of development of mind. The mind is the key factor that made the human species the most successful species. The evolution has found its way towards the perfect species, THE MIND. Or we can say the brain.

The next evolution will not be in development in physical form, but in the brain. All human will continue to look the same but there will be separate species with variable degree of brain power. This aspect of evolution has been noticed from hundreds of years. There were sporadic attempts to segregate the species and allow the new supreme powerful species to evolve. The attempts were made in the form of religion and cast. The globalization has diluted this attempt.

The evolution is not in the mercy of human attempt and neither it can be stopped with global movement, it has rather accelerated.

Very soon there will be many human species will develop with supernatural power. Those human will look extremely ordinary human beings, but with highly evolved brain power. This has been already noticed in many part of the world. So far this has been occasional sporadic births and many time it goes un-noticed.

The normal education system may not able to spot the supreme minds, as the education system does not focus on discovering the power of the brain. And we don’t have the man power and understanding to spot the same. And the irony is if we spot it, we may not be able to stand it or feel threatened. The radical thought pattern that the brain will carry will be far beyond the understanding of the researcher.

However there is way to spot the supreme mind. The pattern must be observed to maximize the chances to spot the supreme minds. To understand this we need to understand the evolution itself. The focus of the evolution has been towards bigger, faster, better, happier existence. The trend has been so far to make a species with highest survival skills. The evolution so far has been focused on keeping the species alive, keeping the life form moving. That applied to human being too. But something has changed OR changing recently. The evolution is changing it course towards fuller expression of the existence. The evolution is focused towards emotional fulfillment. The emotion has taken the strong hold, and the emotion that is controlling the species now.

The fuller expression of the life form is focused towards happier existence, rather than a mere existence. The competition is in the sphere of mind. It is no longer material achievement that provides the safety and security but it is rather the understanding of the universe, the connection to the supreme consciousness is taking the center stage.