Category Archives: Science

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

Fossils Vote on Evolution

Jerry Richard Boone asked:

According to Darwin, new species arise by gradual accumulation of incremental changes over long periods of time. That’s evolution in a nutshell. Can Darwin’s hypothesis be tested? To find out, we turn to the only real evidence we have of prehistoric life, our bone and shell guide to the past – the fossil record.

The critical question is: Does the fossil record support Darwin’s gradual change theory? What do you think would happen if we put evolution to a vote, allowing the fossils themselves to decide the outcome? Sounds fair, sounds reasonable; even sounds democratic, doesn’t it? Let’s give it a try. We can start with the oldest life form of all . . .

Bacteria: Taken from rocks dated 3,600 million years old, the oldest single-celled prokaryote is essentially the same as today’s variety. That is a remarkably long period of stability. They have not evolved. Bacteria vote no to evolution.

Peripatopsis: The South African “walking worm” genus of the Onychophora family. This creature has remained unchanged since the beginning of the Cambrian period. That is over 500 million years of stability. Consequently the peripatopsis votes no to evolution.

Lingula: Commonly called the lampshell due to it’s unusual shape, the Lingula is a genus of brachiopod. No fossils lead up to or away from the Lingula. This creature has remained unchanged since the Silurian period, 435 million years ago. The Lingula votes no to evolution.

Neopilina and Nucula: Two genera of marine animals both have retained the same forms their ancestors had over 400 million years ago. They too vote no to evolution.

Pyenogonum: A marine genus of fifty species which resemble spiders. They have not changed for 350 million years. These holdouts from the Devonian period vote no to evolution.

Hutchinsoniella: A marine bottom dwelling genus of the cephocardia family has remained constant for 340 million years. Another no vote for evolution.

Liphistius: Trap door spiders. Their ancestors are unknown. The first fossil remains were found in the Permian period 275 million years ago. Trapdoor spiders then were very similar to trapdoor spiders now. A wolf spider preserved in amber from the Eocene period, 55 million years ago, is identical to the modern day species. Again, we find creatures who appear suddenly in full form and stay the same to the present. Along with the bacteria, lampshells, and marine animals, spiders vote no to evolution.

Nautilus: A genus of mollusks which has defied evolution for 270 million years. One more no vote for evolution.

Anaspides: a Segmented genus of water bugs and Limulus: Horseshoe crabs both have fossil records extending back for 250 million years. Neither has changed over the centuries. Again, two more votes against evolution.

Latimeria chalumnae: A coelacanth, a species of tassel-finned fish has remained the same for 200 million years. No fossils lead up to or away from the Latimeria. This Triassic period survivor votes no to evolution.

Entemnotrochus: Another genus of marine animals having no known ancestors. It has a fossil record extending back 180 million years ago. They have not changed. Entemnotrochus votes no to evolution.

Ornithorhynchus anatinus: Duckbill platypus have stayed the same for 160 million years. They vote no to evolution.

Sphenodon punctatus: Usually called tuatara in English. This reptile has no known ancestors and no know descendants. And it has shown little change for 140 million years since the late Jurassic. It too votes no to evolution.

Leiopelma: An “archaic” frog genus in New Zealand. They are considered living fossils of the Cretaceous period. For 135 million years these frogs have resisted change. Once again, no evolution. Therefore, Leiopelma votes no to evolution.

Apteryx: Genus of kiwis, a flightless bird. Their fossils date back to the Cretaceous period 95 million years ago. The bird has not changed. Apteryx votes no to evolution.

Lepisosteus: Garfish; Lanthanotus boorneenish: A family of moderate sized lizards; and Didelphis: Opossums are all represented in the fossil record 70 million years ago. They have not evolved. Garfish, lizards, and possums all vote no to evolution.

Cheroptera: Bats. Once again, we see creatures make a sudden appearance in the shape we know them today. The oldest known bat, 50 million years old. is indistinguishable from modern bats. We have a continuous fossil record for these animals since the early Eocene period. No signs of evolving and their ancestors are unknown. Bats vote no to evolution.

Insects: Ants, mites, and plant lice were trapped together in oozing amber 35 million years ago. Their appearances have not changed. Insofar as evolution goes, all three insects have marked time since then. Where are the effects of mutations and natural selection? For 35 million years those forces have somehow bypassed ants, mites, and plant lice. instead of gradual change, we find three more indisputable examples of long-term stability. Ants, plant lice, and mites all vote no to evolution.

Tupaia: Treeshrews; Crytoprocta ferox: Mongoose; and Dicerorhinus sumatrensis: Rhinoceros all have fossil records for 30 million years. No noticeable changes have occurred. All three vote no to evolution.

Tipirus: Tapirs look the same as their 25 million year old ancestors. They too vote no to evolution.

These “living fossils” clearly demonstrate a fundamental flaw in naturalist theory. If impersonal, mechanistic evolutionary forces arbitrarily crank out a positive mutation for every 500 million or so individuals, then why have so many creatures in the fossil record remained unaffected by this process for such a very long time? Even more to the point, where are those creatures who do show a continuous series of positive mutations?

In his book, Adam and Evolution, Michael Pitman says that the ancestry of rodents, birds, reptiles, sheep, dogs, cats, cows, horses, sea cows, marsupials, sea lions, elephants, giraffes, whales, monkeys, apes, and man is uncertain. Consequently, they must abstain from voting on evolution.

Animal phyla, classes, orders, families and even most genera and species enter the fossil record like a bolt out of the blue. We see no obvious ancestors in underlying rock levels. Once established, they become stable and survive with little or no change for millions of generations. They don’t adapt; they don’t evolve. Many become rare and finally disappear. Others are still with us today in much the same unaltered form as when they first surfaced. This sequence is the rule, not the exception.

Plants and Paleontologists

Does the fossil record show gradual change over time in plants? Petrified plants do show different species at different times. Many are varieties of plants we have today. We see new species popping up and many going into extinction. But from their first appearances we can identify: algae, ferns, flowering plants, mosses, and pines in the fossil record. Furthermore, fungi, algae, mosses, ferns, peilopsids, horsetails, tree horsetails, club mosses, progymnosperms, seed ferns, ginkgo, cycads, conifers, and flowering plants each spring up with no known ancestor.

Angiopteris: A genus of Old World ferns has been found in the fossil record dating 180 million years old. They haven’t changed over this period.

Ginkgo biloba: The maidenhair tree has been in its present form for at least 160 million years.

Dipteris: A family of eight species of eastern Asian ferns have remained in the same form for 140 million years.

Matonia: A genus of terrestrial ferns has been found in the fossil record dating 140 million years. They too haven’t changed.

Araucaria: Tall evergreen tree genus native to the Southern Hemisphere which has been in its present form for 136 million years.

Cycas: Evergreen tree with pennate leaves which dates back 135 million years. Its the same today as it was in the Cretaceous period.

Sequoia: Tall deciduous evergreen genus native to North America. It hasn’t changed for 65 million years.

Stylites: Quillwort genus, an aquatic plant which has also persisted in the same form for 65 million years.

The plant kingdom like the animal kingdom, offers little or no support for Darwin’s theory.

Charles Darwin was aware of the problem. In the Origin of the Species, he wrote: “. . . intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of natural selection].”

David M Raup, former curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, wrote in the January 1979 edition of Field Museum Natural History Bulletin:

“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian [sic] change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information – what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic.”

Speaking at Hobart and Wilson Smith College in 1980, Stephen J. Gould, noted evolutionist writer and lecturer, remarked:

“Every paleontologist knows that most species don’t change. They get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that is stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don’t change it is not evolution so don’t talk about it.”

Professor Niles Eldridge of the Museum of Natural History also questions Darwinian evolution. In theory, natural selection produces a series of incremental changes slowly transforming one type of life into another. The problem has always been the fossil record. Intermediate fossils are missing. In the past, evolutionists simply dismissed the record saying it’s incomplete. That, points out Eldridge, is no longer the case.

Geologists have now studied rock layers representing the last five hundred million years, and the fossils remain the same. Those long sought transitional creatures are as illusive as ever. If the fossil record is not at fault, then it must be the theory.

Anyone can draw up an evolutionary chart; anyone can claim one life form evolved from another. But such stories are not science. There is no way to test or prove it. If fossils were allowed to vote, evolution would lose. Darwin could not count on a single vote.

Question to Consider: Scientists have now examined 100,000 specimen from around the world covering fauna from the past 3,500,000,000 years. Does this fossil record demonstrate evolution, or the stability of species?