The Bones, Fossils, and Dating Methods of Evolution


The Bones, Fossils, and Dating Methods of Evolution from

What methods are used by evolutionists to date an archeological find? And do these methods actually support evolution?

Radiocarbon dating is a commonly used method to determine the age of archaeological finds. The process, sometimes referred to as “radiocarbon reading,” involves measuring carbon decay.

Radiocarbon dating is basically this: a radioactive isotope of carbon, C-14, is formed in the atmosphere by cosmic rays. As a result, all living organisms absorb an equilibrium concentration of radioactive carbon. When organisms die, C-14 decays and is not replaced. Since we know the concentration of radioactive carbon the organism had when it was alive, and we also know that it takes about 5,600 years for half of that C-14 to decay, and another 5,600 years for half of what’s left to decay, and so on, by measuring the remaining concentration of radiocarbon we can tell how long ago an organism died.

One obvious flaw in this technique is that we don’t really know the level of radiocarbon concentration acquired by an organism which lived before such recorded history. Scientists make a bold assumption that the atmospheric concentration of the radioactive material — carbon or any other element — being measured has not changed since the organism’s death. In addition, scientists make the assumption that the element’s rate of decay has not changed since that time. Are these valid assumptions?

After everything scientists have told us, how can they make such assumptions? On one hand, we’re being told that the universe has undergone drastic changes since its formation. One moment before the big bang, the universe was nothing like one moment after the big bang. Gas clouds in space have condensed and turned into stars and planets. Moons have formed around some planets. Some planets have undergone evolutionary changes even after formation. Some stars have collapsed into neutron stars, others into black holes. Our universe has seen more changes in those past alleged ten billion years than the fitting room of a busy tailor.

Now, on the other hand, we’re being told, in effect, “Sure everything changed, but not radioactive bombardment and its rate of decay — they have remained at the same level for billions of years.” It’s almost as if nature knew that some day archaeologists would have to find fossils which appear to be billions of years old to stay in business.

How does one explain the notion that everything in the universe has undergone drastic changes for billions of years except earth’s radioactive bombardment levels and rate of decay, which happen to be crucial and integral parts of any attempt to substantiate evolution? “Nature” owed Charles Darwin a favor?


The fact is, radiocarbon concentrations have been proven to fluctuate. One of the oldest known living things on earth today is Methuselah, a bristlecone pine tree in California estimated to be about 4,600 years old. Another bristlecone pine believed to be older than Methuselah was cut down for scientific research. Comparing radiocarbon readings with the natural time clock of the tree’s year by year rings, showed the radiocarbon dating system to be inaccurate. This inaccuracy showed up in a time period which, by astronomical standards, was only yesterday. Simply extrapolating this known range of inaccuracy over billions of years will show radiocarbon reading to be far less reliable than what scientists would like to believe. Then, taking into consideration that radiocarbon inconsistencies have shown up in such a relatively short period of time, who’s to say that the rate of today’s radioactive bombardment is not totally out of whack with what it was billions, millions, or even thousands of years ago.

Consequently, a fossil which an archeologist finds to be billions of years old by radioactive dating may in fact be no more than several thousand years old. What’s more, an organism could conceivably seem to be, by today’s assumptions of yesteryear’s radioactive bombardment levels and rate of decay, thousands or even millions of years old only days or months after its death.


There is another scientific dating system besides the radioactive method. This one analyzes the structural changes in a body’s amino acids after death. The same human fossils were analyzed using this method and also using the radioactive method. The two dating systems showed discrepancies between 39,000 and 59,000 years. The proponents of each of the two dating methods argued that the other one was wrong. Obviously, one of these “scientific” methods must be wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. And the other one? The other one doesn’t exactly sound right beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, to find out how long ago an organism died, you might be better off using an old and far more reliable dating method — a seance in which you conjure up an organism’s spirit and simply request the precise date of demise. This may not sound terribly scientific, but you meet some very interesting (living) people at seances.


Materials dated in support of evolution quite often turn out to be a bigger farce than the dating methods themselves. Bone and fossil records maintained by paleontologists contain so many gaps and discrepancies that they suggest a history of evolution in much the same way that a worm’s cell suggests the early stages of a train window, suggesting that trains evolved from worms?

The only way bones and fossils could be taken seriously is if profuse quantities of intermediate species linking various species in an evolutionary chain were found. That is, not just many members of one intermediate species — that would only indicate that a species existed which was similar to two other species. And not just isolated members of several intermediate species — that would only indicate that some species occasionally produced deformed members. But many intermediate species and many of their members, showing an unmistakable transformation of one species into another. (And, as shown in the chapter of “Genetics” at, you’d also have to find an enormous amount of diseased and deformed bones and/or fossils to show that random mutation was at work. Without this, there’s nothing random evolution.)

As it stands, however, not only are there no profuse quantities of many intermediate species, but there are no profuse quantities of even one intermediate species. What archaeologists have are the kinds of isolated samples of bones and fossils which must be interpreted and “given meaning;” the findings by no means speak for themselves.

The “scientific” method of interpreting bones and fossils appears to be somewhat similar to interpreting the ink blots of psychologists, in the sense that what you see depends a great deal on who you are and the particular inclination of your imaginative faculties. Along these lines, if you discovered a thin string buried together with some old chicken bones, for example, you could, if you tried hard enough, interpret it to mean that prehistoric chickens had teeth because they obviously used dental floss. The fact that no teeth were found would only mean that a “minor” missing link still remained to be found in this otherwise solid theory.

What the “science” of interpreting bones and fossils pretty much boils down to is a game in which any interpretation is correct as long as it cannot be disproven. Proving the interpretation doesn’t seem to be part of the game. And for very good reason. The interpretation cannot be proven for the same reason that it cannot be disproven — bone and fossil records are grossly deficient of cold, hard facts.


The above two topics — dating methods and archaeological records — have one thing in common: as they stand, neither one proves or disproves the theory of evolution. And, as limited as these branches of science seem to be in their ability to uncover strong leads in reconstructing past events, I find it unlikely that either one will change drastically as relates to evolution in the foreseeable future.

Ironically, when it comes to trying to substantiate evolution, it is archaeological discoveries which evolutionists harp on the most. Perhaps they do this for the same reason that I cover it only briefly in my book at — because it leads nowhere, pro or con. And if you’re trying to avoid being disproven, what safer ground is there to tread upon?

Furthermore, even if profuse quantities of many intermediate species did exist, which of course they do not, they still could not stand up in face of the case built against evolution in the chapters on genetics and space exploration ( The genetic impossibility of evolution and the fact that there is no extraterrestrial life would necessitate another interpretation of such archaeological findings. Such findings could by no means prove that evolution is genetically possible, when modern science shows it is not. And such findings could not suggest that there must be life elsewhere in space, when space exploration shows there is none. i.e. Even if such archaeological discoveries did exist, they still would not come close to being a “formidable opponent” of the cases made against evolution by genetics and space exploration. Needless to say, as far as present archaeological findings go, with regards to evolution, they couldn’t be worse off if they were still buried deep in the ground.

by Josh Greenberger This has been an excerpt from his free book on evolution at

What the Tsunami Disaster Leads Us to Consider

evolution hawaii
Harun Yahya asked:

The South Asian earthquake of 26 December 2004, the largest in the last 40 years and fifth largest since 1900, registering 9 on the Richter scale, and the tsunami that followed it, caused a disaster leading to the deaths of more than 220,000 people. 1,000 square-kilometre faults that appeared as the result of the movement of great underground plates and the enormous energy created by land masses changing place combined with the great energy occurring in the oceans to create tsunamis. The tsunamis struck the South Asian countries of Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, Malaysia, Thailand, Bangladesh, Myanmar, the Maldives and the Seychelles, and even the coast of the African country of Somalia, some 5,000 kilometres away.

The word “tsunami,” meaning harbour wave in Japanese, became part of the languages of the world in the aftermath of the 15 June, 1896, Great Meiji Tsunami that hit Japan and in which 21,000 people lost their lives.

In order to understand the tsunami, it is most important to distinguish the tsunami from tides and waves formed by the wind. Winds blowing over the surface of the ocean set up a current limited to the upper layer of the sea by raising relatively small waves. For example; divers with air-bottles can easily dive down and reach still water. There may be waves of 30 metres or more in violent storms, but these do not set the deep waters in motion. In addition, the speed of a normal wind wave is up to 20 km/hour, while one feature of the tsunami wave is that it travels at 750-800 km/hour. The tides move over the Earth twice in the course of a day and, just like tsunamis, can produce currents that reach down to the sea bed. In contrast to genuine tidal waves, however, the source of tsunamis is not the gravitational force of the Moon and Sun.

The tsunami represents a long-period sea wave that forms due to energy passing into the sea because of earthquakes, volcanic explosions and strata collapses connected to these in the ocean or sea bed, tectonic events such as underwater plate slides, or meteor effects. When the ocean floor changes place at high speed, the whole mass of water above it is affected. What happens in the sea floor is reflected on the surface of the water, and the whole mass of water, down to a depth of 5,000-6,000 metres, joins in the wave motion. Consecutive swelling and falling may cover an area of up to 10,000 square kilometres.

Tsunamis Have No Effect in Open Seas

In the open ocean, tsunamis are not the enormous walls of water that most people would imagine; they are generally less than 1 metre high, with a wave length of around 1,000 kilometres. As can be seen from this, the wave surface is very slightly inclined (1 cm in 1 km). In deep and open ocean regions, these waves go unperceived, despite moving at the high speed of 500 to 800 km/hour, since they are masked by normal surface waves. In order to better comprehend the speed of the wave, we may say that it could compete with that of a Boeing 747 jet. A tsunami that takes place in the open sea will not even be felt by any vessels.

Tsunamis Depositing 100,000 Tons of Water on Land

Research has shown that rather than consisting of a single wave, tsunamis actually consist of a series of waves with a single centre, like a stone thrown into a swimming pool. The distance between two consecutive waves may be 500-650 kilometres. This means the tsunami can cross the ocean in a matter of hours. The tsunami only reveals its enormous energy when it approaches the shore. Energy distributed in a thick column of water becomes concentrated as that column increasingly contracts and a rapid increase in the height of the surface wave can be observed. Waves less than 60 cm high in open ocean waters lose speed as they approach shallow waters, the distance between the waves decreases, and waves piling on top of others create the tsunami by forming a wall of water. These giant waves, that are generally 15 metres high and rarely exceed 30 metres, use enormous force against the shore they strike with great speed, inflict serious damage, and cause considerable loss of life.

The tsunami deposits more than 100,000 tons of water for every metre of shoreline, with a hard-to-imagine destructive force. (The tsunami that struck Japan in July, 1993, the largest known tsunami ever, rose 30 metres above sea level.) The first sign that a tsunami is approaching is usually not a wall of water, but the sudden retreat of the sea.

Major Tsunamis in History

The greatest recorded giant sea waves caused by earthquakes are listed as follows:

The oldest known giant marine earthquake wave, called “tsunami” by the Japanese and “hungtao” by the Chinese, is that which took place in the eastern Mediterranean on 21 July, 365 AD and killed thousands of people in the Egyptian city of Alexandria.

The Portuguese capital was destroyed in the Great Lisbon Earthquake of 1 November, 1775. The Atlantic ocean wave, 6 metres high, devastated the Portuguese, Spanish and Moroccan coasts.

27 August 1883: The Indonesian volcano Krakatoa erupted, and the tsunami that washed over the Javan and Sumatran coasts killed 36,000 people. The volcanic eruption was so powerful that for many nights the sky shone with red lava dust.

15 June 1896: The “Sanriku Tsunami” struck Japan. The 23 metre high giant tsunami that swept over masses of people gathered together for a religious festival cost the lives of 26,000 people.

17 December 1896: A tsunami destroyed part of the embankment of Santa Barbara in California, USA, and the main boulevard was flooded.

31 January 1906: The Pacific Ocean earthquake wave destroyed part of the city of Tumaco in Colombia, as well as all the houses on the coast between Rioverde in Ecuador and Micay in Colombia; 1,500 people died.

1 April 1946: The tsunami that destroyed the Aleutian Scotch Cap Lighthouse with its crew of five, proceeded to Hilo in Hawaii, killing 159 people.

22 May 1960: An 11-metre high tsunami killed 1,000 people in Chile and 61 in Hawaii. The giant wave crossed to the opposite shore of the Pacific Ocean and rocked the Philippines and the Japanese island of Okinawa.

28 March 1964: The Alaskan “Good Friday” tsunami wiped three villages off the map with 107 people dead, and 15 in Oregon and California.

16 August 1976: A Pacific tsunami cost the lives of 5,000 people in the Moro Gulf in the Philippines.

17 July 1998: A tremor wave occurring in northern Papua New Guinea killed 2,313 people, destroyed 7 villages and left thousands homeless.

26 December 2004: The 8.9 earthquake and giant wave that struck six countries in South-east Asia killed more than 156,000 people.

Factors Increasing the Violence of Tsunamis

According to information provided by Dr. Walter C. Dudley, a professor of oceanography and the cofounder of the Pacific Tsunami Museum, no matter what the force of the earthquake, movement on the sea floor is necessary for a tsunami to appear. In other words, the greater the dislocation in the sea floor, the greater the mass of water it will set in motion, and this will increase the violence of the tsunami. Another factor increasing tsunami force is the structure of the coast it strikes: In addition to factors such as that coast being a gulf or cape, flat or inclined, the structure of that part of the coast that remains under water may increase the violence of killer waves.

In another statement, in which he made it clear that the precautions taken could not represent a definitive solution, Dudley said that America and Japan had established very advanced monitoring systems in the Pacific Ocean, but that all these systems had a false alarm rate of fifty percent!

Signs of the End Times

Natural disasters, which cannot be prevented even with technological means or precautionary measures, show just how helpless mankind truly is.

From the 20th century, characterised as the “century of disasters,” up to the present, there have been catastrophes such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tornados, storms, typhoons, whirlwinds and floods, in addition to tsunamis, and these have inflicted terrible damage and cost the lives of millions of people. When one thinks about these extraordinary phenomena, it can clearly be seen that they bear a close similarity to the natural phenomena revealed as indicating the first period of the End Times.

According to what is revealed in the hadiths, the End Times is a period that will come about close to doomsday, and when the moral values of the Qur’an will be widespread among people. The first period of the End Times will be one when people will draw away from religious moral values, when wars will increase, and extraordinary natural phenomena will be experienced.

Indeed, in the hadiths eradicated cities and peoples wiped from the pages of history are reported as signs of the End Times. In those hadiths dealing with the matter, our Prophet states:

“The Hour (Last Day) will not be established until … earthquakes will be very frequent.” (Bukhari)

“Big phenomena will happen in his time.” (Ibn Hajar Haytahami, Al-Qawl al-Mukhtasar fi’alamat al-Mahdi al-Muntazar, p. 27)

There are two great hadiths before the day of Judgment … and then years of earthquakes. (Narrated by Umm Salama (r.a.))

“So many appalling incidents will occur in his time.” (Imam Rabbani, Letters of Rabbani, 2/258)

In the second period of the End Times, God will free people from degeneration and war by means of the Mahdi. At this time, known as the Golden Age, war and conflict will come to an end, the world will be filled with plenty, abundance and justice, and Islamic moral values will prevail on Earth and will be widely practiced. No such period has ever taken place before but, by God’s leave, one will be experienced before doomsday. It is now awaiting the time appointed by God.

Everything is under the control of God. Believers who know this truth and who have sincere faith in God submit to our Lord in the knowledge that they are following their destiny. God has flawlessly arranged everything, down to the very finest detail, from the creation of the Earth up to the Day of Judgment. Everything is recorded in the book “Lawh-i Mahfuz.” Everything has already taken place in a single instant in the sight of God, Who is not bound by time or space, and the time and place of every event has been determined. This fact is expressed thus in a verse: “Every communication has its time, and you will certainly come to know.” (Qur’an, 6:67)

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

Is Evolution An Outdated Theory?

Josh Greenberger asked:

The question used to be, “Can evolution be proven?” Today, a more appropriate question is, “Is evolution science?”


To most people, science is seen as “today,” modern, up-to- date, and perhaps even the promise of futuristic wonders. A generation which possesses supersonic jets, Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM’s), space shuttles and sophisticated computers can hardly be called primitive. Or can it

In the midst of all of this state-of-the-art technology, there seems to be a rather primitive theory which, although steadily losing credibility even among those who have adhered to it for a long time, still has many convinced that it is based on science. This theory has proven one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt: although modern technology is nearing Star Wars sophistication, modern man is still capable of some embarrassingly primitive thinking.

To understand how such a theory could have gained any support at all, one must look back at the reasoning which prevailed in the days of sorcery and witchcraft. These notions were certainly not the result of tangible evidence. Obviously, the human mind is highly susceptible to super-human distortions and misinterpretations. Although sorcery and witchcraft per se have gone the way of the horse and buggy, the kind of imagery which facilitates the acceptance of irrational views of reality apparently has not. I’m talking about the “scientific” theory of evolution. If this theory is not honest misinterpretation, it may very well be the most sophisticated hoax ever perpetrated on the human race.


If you think a hoax on such a large scale is not possible, consider this:

On August 14, 1986, ABC-TV’s news program 20/20 aired a segment on the Tasaday tribesmen in the Philippine jungles, uncovering a hoax of monumental proportions.

In the early 1970’s, a tribe was found in the Philippine jungles “living” under the most primitive conditions. The Tasaday tribesmen, as they became known, seemed “untouched by modern civilization.” Their mode of life resembled modern man’s image of cavemen: they hunted for food, wore clothes made of leaves, and lived in caves. Nothing could be more exciting — and more convincing.

The discovery of a “prehistoric” tribe in modern times was so fascinating that it got front-page coverage worldwide, a book was written on the discovery, and pages of “history” were added to some encyclopedias.

Twelve years passed before it was uncovered that the world had been taken in by a sinister hoax. By the mid 1980’s, in attempts to follow up on earlier suspicions, the news media learned that these “tribesmen” were in fact modern-day Philippine natives — they ordinarily wore blue jeans and sweat shirts, smoked cigarettes, etc. They had been put up to this charade by a Philippine official who led them to believe that they would receive financial or other assistance if they “looked poor” for the cameras. In the end, they received no assistance, were abandoned by the Philippine official, and the charade was over.

And so, a “major anthropological find” enjoyed over a decade of “historical significance” before turning into a “major historical fraud.” And had it not been for diligent investigation by the news media, this hoax could very well have remained the “anthropological find of the twentieth century” in history books.


Ever since Charles Darwin published his book “On The Origin Of Species” in 1859, the theory of the evolution of life has undergone changes, updates, and “advances” — and the theory is still “evolving.” By the time scientists are through with this theory, if ever, the “origin of species” may have more versions than species. This may make “natural selection” (of one version) extremely difficult.

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, and one species evolved into another. The chain of events leading from the first single-celled organism to the most complex organ, the human brain, was at first believed to have been a slow and gradual process.

But archaeologists have worn out many shovels trying to uncover evidence supporting evolution. At last count, they had enough bones to make friends with every dog in Chicago and enough fossils to open a mail-order fossil business. But no evidence. No series of fossils or sets of bones show unmistakable intermediate species. If one species evolved into another, “linking” species would have to have existed in profuse quantities at various points in earth’s history. But profuse quantities of missing links which could be termed “indisputable evidence” have never been found.

This brings us to a new version of evolution called “punctuated equilibrium.” This version of evolution is held by many scientists who oppose the “slow and gradual” version. “Punctuated equilibrium” says that species appear more suddenly and retain their basic forms until they become extinct. Now that sounds a whole lot better. It conveniently does away with the need to find missing links. What’s wrong with that? If you can’t find the murder weapon, convince the jury the accused shoots bullets through his ears!

And the theory goes on and on, twisting and turning around every discrepancy and contradiction.

If the logic and mechanics of the theory of evolution make much sense to you, you probably haven’t scrutinized it too objectively. Hopefully this book, and particularly this chapter, will help you towards that end.


For one species to have evolved into another, massive genetic changes would have to have occurred throughout earth’s history. Probably the strongest thing going for evolution at the time of its inception, over a hundred years ago, was that virtually nothing was known about genetics in that era. Even today, the vast majority of the public, although somewhat familiar with terms like “genetic engineering” and “random mutation,” are still pretty much in the dark with respect to this modern branch of science. And with constant exposure to the purported mechanics of evolution, it’s no wonder that a theory with so little substance has been able to grab such a strong foothold on society — the average person simply does not know enough to say why evolution does not work.

I am convinced that if the public had had a decent understanding of genetics, and random mutation in particular, before being presented with the theory of evolution, the theory could never have been taken seriously and certainly could never have been accepted as legitimate science.

Furthermore, another thing going for evolution is simply the constant exposure of its ill-founded concepts to the general public. I think it is human nature to become accustomed to an idea after repeated exposure no matter how insane the idea may be. And in the case of evolution, its constant exposure coupled with the general public’s lack of understanding of the mechanics of certain genetic properties is what has helped perpetuate this theory.

Here’s a rough idea of what a theory might sound like for the first time when you know quite well that the mechanics don’t work:


Scientists took a worm crawling in a railroad yard and put it under a powerful electron microscope. They discovered that a worm’s cell magnified three billion times has an uncanny resemblance to a train window. They concluded that if you incubate three dozen worms in a solution of amino acids and carbon compounds for approximately one and a half million years they will eventually evolve into the Long Island Railroad.


Of course, the above was only a tongue-in-cheek version of a “theory.” However, in the following pages I hope to demonstrate how the theory of evolution is not that far removed from such a comical scenario.


Genetic engineering, or “gene splicing,” is probably the hottest and most fascinating subject in modern medicine. It seems to hold answers to questions raised by some of the most baffling diseases. And it looks more promising every day.

Genetic engineering is the business of altering genes. Found by the hundreds, sometimes by the thousands, within the nucleus of every cell, genes cause the development of characteristics such as hair color, height, the shape of some living organisms, etc. Altered genes can cause an organism or its offspring to take on new dimensions — its physical characteristics may literally change. Sometimes these changes may be for the good. At other times, these altered genes, generally referred to as mutations, may cause genetic diseases which can destroy the organism. Although the potential of genetic engineering and the extent of its impact on biological systems are far from fully realized at this point in time, science has made great advances in the field.


It is human nature to sometimes see the possibility of an event as synonymous with the actuality of an event. This couldn’t be more misleading when dealing with the subject of how genetic breakthroughs relate to the theory of evolution.

Many people, evolutionists and laymen alike, are exposed to media coverage on the progress of genetic engineering. However, by not putting the facts into proper perspective, it is easy for one to misinterpret “what is possible” as “what actually happened.” That is, the idea that genetic research could confirm some arguments in support of evolution, is one misinterpretation one could easily make if not aware of the ill-founded logic involved. The logic may go something like: if scientists could change the makeup of a species to a considerable degree or change one species into another through genetic mutation in the lab, it could verify evolutionists’ arguments that this could have happened naturally in the past.

Not quite.

A faulty logic we must rid ourselves of is: if you could prove that John Doe is the greatest artist that ever lived that would prove that he painted the Mona Lisa. To prove that John Doe painted the Mona Lisa, you’d have to do just that. Merely proving that he is capable of it does not prove that he actually did it. Elephants can shoot water through their trunks, but that doesn’t prove African elephants have their own fire department.

No matter what scientists do in the lab in relation to biotechnology, it has little or no bearing on what actually happened in earth’s past. Recent biotechnology has produced mixed-breed animals which doubtless never existed in earth’s history. Thus, what is produced in the lab says nothing more than that it is possible in the lab. What earth produced in its past is a different story.


But the fact that capability does not prove actuality is the least of evolutionists’ problems. What modern man has learned thus far about genetic mutation does not only not support evolution but actually deals the theory a devastating and embarrassing blow.

To begin with, it is important that we differentiate between mutations affected by two different means:


One, random mutation. This type of mutation comes about in a random fashion, without any preconceived design or plan on the genetic level. According to evolutionists, random mutation is purportedly what brought life from the one celled stage to its present complexity. That is, through a series of beneficial accidents of random mutations, they claim, simple organisms evolved over billions of years into new and more complex species.


Two, a process we can label “intelligent mutation.” Tinkering and tampering with genes in a laboratory would come under this heading. Genes are “recombined” or “spliced” with the intent of affecting a change in the organism or its offspring.

Intelligent mutation has been responsible for two impressive genetic breakthroughs. First, scientists bred red-eyed fruit flies from brown-eyed parents. Second, by combining growth genes from rats with genes in mice, scientists caused some mice to be born twice their normal size.

To one not too familiar with medicine or biology, such insignificant changes may seem hardly worth noting. Therefore, it is necessary to emphasize that it took sophisticated twentieth-century science to affect such seemingly trivial changes. They are nothing short of stupendous achievements.

Again, these are the kinds of genetic manipulations one might wish to point out in support of evolution: “If we can do it in the lab, why couldn’t nature have done it by accident on a grand scale in the last three and a half billion years?”


To begin with, comparing intelligent mutation to random mutation is analogous to comparing the skillful incision of a surgeon to the random slashing of a mugger. There is not one recorded case of a mugging victim walking away from his assailant with a successful appendectomy or the successful removal of cataracts. It doesn’t take a doctor or a scientist to know that an accident of random cutting will almost invariably leave behind chaos and destruction and never result in any sophisticated surgery.

Consequently, bringing intelligent mutation as an indication that nature could have produced complex species from one celled organisms through a long series of accidents of random mutations is mixing “apples and oranges.” Intelligent design is normally the result of intelligence and design. And when the design is of a highly complex nature, as many life forms are, it indicates intelligence of a highly complex nature. Randomness, on the other hand, will generally not produce intelligent or sophisticated structures. Believing that nature accidentally produced complex life forms, in any period of time, no matter how long, is roughly equivalent to believing that the New York World Trade Center was built by a pack of wild mules who kicked an assortment of building material into the right places.


However, the genetic implausibility of evolution comes from elsewhere and has far stronger arguments. And without a solid genetic basis for biological organisms evolving into higher forms of life, the theory of evolution simply disappears into thin air.

So, here’s how genetics — the most crucial aspect of evolution — does not only not support the theory but actually contradicts it:


Modern man has been acquainted with and directly affected by random mutations long before he ever took intelligent mutation seriously. Some sources of random mutations have been around even before we knew how they caused genetic effects. What are they? Carcinogenic chemicals. Cosmic rays. Sources of radioactivity such as nuclear weapons, nuclear reactors, nuclear waste, and medical X-rays.


X-rays were discovered by the German scientist Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen, making headlines on January 6, 1896. As innocent a discovery as it was at the time, man had unwittingly taken control of a highly potent force — radiation. These rays would some day become a source of medical cures and also disease and destruction.

It wasn’t until about a half century later that man realized the awesome potential of this “invisible light.” On July 16, 1945, in a desert in Alamogordo, New Mexico, the United States detonated the first nuclear bomb in the world as a test. The destructive potential of this new weapon was horrifying. It could not only destroy life and an environment in a conventional explosion, but it could also accomplish the same with just its intense heat and radiation. In addition, it could render an environment uninhabitable for years, decades, or even centuries to come.

In that same year, 1945, the United States dropped atomic bombs on two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These two bombs alone — as weak and as primitive as they were by today’s standards — killed over 190,000 people. It became obvious that we had taken control of a power so ferocious that the meaning of the word “war” would never be the same.

Then, as late as April of 1986, the core meltdown at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor finally made man acutely aware of the destructive powers of radiation even for peaceful purposes. This accident in the U.S.S.R. spread radiation panic throughout a large portion of the world’s population. Once more, man was forced to deal with a nuclear-related situation hitherto unencountered.


What the above historical events have in common is an introduction of a facet of radiation to modern man. The most destructive aspect of radiation is its ability to cause random changes on the genetic, molecular, and atomic levels, partially or entirely destroying a recipient organism.

Here’s an idea of what radiation does:


Exposure of high doses of radiation to limited parts of the body can cause severe tissue damage and eventual necrosis.

Exposure of the entire body to a few hundred “rem” (rem is a unit used for measuring radiation effectiveness) can initially cause nausea. Then, in about a month, the person might begin suffering hemorrhages, anemia, tiredness, weakness, and an increased risk of infection. Although some may survive, others will die as a result of these maladies.

At about 1,000 rem, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may develop within hours of exposure. As these symptoms become worse, they are followed by fever, loss of fluids, severe infections, and finally death.

At about 10,000 rem, the dose to which a worker might be exposed during a nuclear reactor accident, vomiting and diarrhea would occur within an hour, followed by reduced blood pressure, convulsions, and unconsciousness. Death would come within one to three days.


The fact that radiation can induce mutations and cause genetic effects has been known for at least fifty years. Studies show that radiation can cause not just one, but a variety of different types of mutations. One of the effects of these aberrations is cancer. The cancer can show up years or even decades after the organism’s exposure to radiation. If the organism does not show any signs of cancer, there is still the possibility that cancer may show up in future generations.

Some other disorders or genetic diseases which may show up in later generations as a result of random mutations are: hemophilia, congenital cataract, spontaneous abortions, cystic fibrosis, color-blindness, and muscular dystrophy.

Still other diseases such as diabetes, heart disorders, asthma, and schizophrenia could manifest themselves in later generations as a result of random mutations combined with environmental factors.


We’ve just gotten a glimpse of the severe effects of random microscopic changes on biological life. And it seems that no matter at what level these changes occur — genetic, molecular, or atomic — the result is almost always the same: deterioration, destruction, and, in many cases, death.

Does this coincide with what evolutionists have been chewing our ears off with for years?

For years we’ve been hearing stories about how biological life underwent billions of years of random genetic changes. We’ve been hearing how by accident some of these changes resulted in beneficial mutations. We’ve been hearing how these beneficial mutations eventually resulted in new and more complex species. Yet, when we look at what random genetic changes — or any other random changes, for that matter — actually do to biological life, we find nothing but disease and death. Where are all those beneficial mutations evolutionists have been talking about? Not one patient has ever developed or passed on to future generations better biceps, for example, as a result of radiotherapy. Not one of the thousands of surviving bomb victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has developed a more evolved brain, for example, as a result of exposure to radioactivity. Not one person involved in a nuclear reactor accident has developed a more sophisticated skin, for instance, which is tougher and more durable than average. In virtually every case, random mutations have resulted in havoc and destruction.

Is it possible that modern technology has actually disproven evolution rather than helped it?

Evolutionists in the past have hidden behind the “it took billions of years” routine. Before the nuclear age it may have been necessary to get into a time machine to verify whether, given enough time, random mutations would cause life to evolve. However, with the advent of modern technology’s ability to affect massive random mutations relatively quickly, there is no longer a need to dig into the past to see the contrived fallacies supporting the evolutionary powers of random mutation. The answer is right in front of us. Random mutations result in quite the opposite of what we’ve been led to believe. They result in nothing but illness and fatalities — not improvements. What’s more, the more massive and prolonged the occurrences of these mutations, the greater the havoc and destruction. So what do you suppose would happen to a planet subjected to random mutations for billions of years? Total annihilation!

When you take what we know as fact today about random mutation and try to reconstruct a scenario of those alleged billions of years of earth’s history, instead of the fairy tale story of evolution, you come up with a picture which more and more resembles a horrible scene out of a “post-nuke” movie:

Even if earth had already been as populated in that alleged period of three and a half billion years ago as it is today, and had since been affected by billions and billions of random mutations, according to what we know today about random mutation, by now life would probably have been virtually wiped out. With random mutation being the highly destructive force that it apparently is, the process which was supposed to have caused life to evolve is precisely what would have caused, in all probability, such genetic havoc that few organisms would have survived the ordeal. Furthermore, under such circumstances, “survival of the fittest” is a totally ludicrous concept. The word “fit” would have described largely those organisms which were less disease ridden than the rest, a far cry from the “better species” of evolution. And of those “fit” survivors, many would have passed on genetic diseases to their offspring. Even if the “fit” had not been wiped out by the random mutations, their offspring still would have stood a chance of being wiped out by hereditary genetic diseases. Then, any disease-free offspring would again be threatened with annihilation when this entire mutation cycle started over again.

Thus, after billions and billions of years of random mutations, even in the unlikely event that some genes mutated in a way that might have ultimately produced some beneficial changes to an organism, an already populated planet would have been reduced to a few diseased life forms, at best. Those few beneficial genes, if they could even have existed, would have been so overwhelmed by the staggeringly high number of diseased genes necessary to produce just a few beneficial accidents, that they could never have borne any fruit. An organism would have been wiped out long before it had an iota of a chance to change or improve. In a sense, earth would have resembled a planet after a nuclear holocaust.

Now, if a planet began with relatively few life forms, as earth allegedly did, how far would life have gotten? I don’t mean how far would evolution have gotten. I mean, how far would those few organisms have gotten before being wiped out by the destructive powers of random mutation? According to what we’ve actually seen random mutations do in modern times, life never would have gotten off the ground, let alone proliferated into highly complex and healthy species. In all likelihood, earth would have turned into a desolate planet long ago.

Even the mice mentioned earlier who were born twice their normal size as a result of intelligent mutation had a high mortality rate. That is, not only does random mutation produce diseased life forms, but even beneficial mutations can have fatal side effects. So how do you suppose billions of years of random mutations would effect life — even if they accidentally produced a few beneficial mutations along the way? Start a process of evolution? Destruction sounds more like it.


There is no question that intelligent mutation can effect certain beneficial changes in an organism or its offspring. There is no question that natural hereditary effects can cause a member of a species to be born “bigger and stronger” than the rest — not as a result of random mutation, but by the manifestation of traits which may have been dormant for generations. There is no question that biological systems can adapt to their environment on a macro level. But to say that adaptation to an environment or any other natural phenomena can result in random mutations which will eventually produce new or more complex species is totally baseless. To say that life started with few life forms and evolved into today’s profuse, complex, and generally healthy life forms is contrary to everything twentieth-century science has learned thus far about random mutation. To say that a one celled organism evolved even into a one inch fish is an unrealistic stretch of the imagination which requires a lot of dishonest and twisted reasoning. To say that a human being is the result of an accidental evolutionary process is sheer lunacy.

The very fact that there are billions upon billions of healthy life forms in existence today actually proves the precise opposite of what evolutionists believe — that life on earth could not possibly have gone through any massive random genetic changes. And without genetic changes, evolution is as dead as a fossil.

Furthermore, if genetic engineering proves anything, it proves that it takes a high degree of intelligence and sophistication to do nothing more than just tamper with existing forms of life. Consequently, creating or even significantly improving a species, requires intelligence and sophistication of an even higher degree. The notion that any random genetic process can create new or more complex species is not science, logic, or even a theory — it is purely a product of the imagination.


Even without genetic considerations, the ludicrousness of evolution can be expressed in terms of simple mathematical probabilities. If, for the sake of argument, a process — random mutation — will develop life in billions of years and the same process will destroy life within a human lifetime, which will happen first? The destruction? No, it will not happen first — it’s the only thing that’ll happen. In the time that life is suppose to develop, it will be destroyed literally millions of times over — nothing can ever get to the point of developing.

Even the question “Given billions of tries, can a spilled bottle of ink ever fall into the words of Shakespeare?” has become obsolete as a result of modern man’s understanding of random mutation. Till now, this question pointed out odds so astronomical that it rendered the event a virtual impossibility. Now, it’s not even a question of beating ridiculous odds. Now we’re shooting dice which deteriorate with each throw and eventually self destruct. That is, we’re shooting dice (genetic “messages”) which deteriorate (cause genetic diseases) with each throw (of random mutation) and eventually self destruct (the host organism). Thus, instead of, “Can you beat such ridiculous odds?” the question now becomes, “After relatively few tries, will you have any ink, paper, or dice left with which to try again?” Since the very life that is supposed to evolve will be destroyed in the process, it is impossible for the process to even go on for any required length of time. This makes it highly questionable, to say the least, that a trial-and-error method of genetic mutations could beat even realistic odds — forget about the preposterous odds proposed by evolutionists. Therefore, whether life could develop in an environment (of genetic mutations) where even fully developed biological systems cannot survive is really no more a question of odds than whether a cow could survive underwater long enough to conceive and give birth — it’s simply impossible.


The insanity of evolution is also apparent in the more aesthetic aspects of man. How could qualities such as artistry, abstract thinking, and appreciation of music have become traits common to an entire species? According to the mechanics (or imagery) of evolution, it would have been a great wonder if such qualities, so meaningless to the survival of purely physical and biological systems, would have evolved in only a minute fraction of a species. Yet, to be present — to one degree or another — in virtually every human being? How? This should never have happened.

The existence of such aesthetic human qualities as emotion, humor, and intellect cannot be explained biologically, no matter how ridiculous you want to get. Why, for example, did nature give us a sense of humor? How did nature even know what a sense of humor was? And how did a sense of humor render humans more “fit to survive?” There are millions of plants and animals without a sense of humor which have obviously survived. There are even humans without a sense of humor who seem to survive. How did such a quality ever evolve


Evolution is certainly not the run-of-the-mill theory. For an unproven and outdated theory, it is taken rather seriously by a great number of people. Those who see through its faulty reasoning, biases, misinterpreted findings, and obvious defiance of common sense and logic, see it as just another feeble attempt to undermine and tarnish the rational person’s ideals. It should be placed in the same category as sorcery and witchcraft. Such notions have one thing in common — bereft of any plausible logic, they are “understood” only by those determined to believe in them. The most significant difference is that no one ever had the gall to call sorcery and witchcraft science.

It’s ironic how, in a nuclear age, some of the same people who live with the constant fear of life on earth being catapulted into oblivion by a nuclear holocaust, can still believe that an aspect of this highly destructive nuclear force — random mutation — is the mechanism which brought us here. In Darwin’s days they new nothing about genetics, and certainly nothing about the unimaginably destructive nature of random mutation. But what about today? A theory which originated over a hundred years ago — in times of relative scientific ignorance — should have been abandoned by now. Instead, it seems that, the stronger the evidence against evolution becomes, the more determined are some individuals to believe in it.


At this point, it should be at least somewhat obvious, even to those who have taken evolution seriously at some point, that the scenario proposed by this insane theory does not work and certainly could never have occurred. One may even find it puzzling how a concoction such as evolution could ever have been accepted as science in the first place. I think that if evolution can be called science, there should be several other equally qualified scientific topics included in science text books — the physics behind Superman’s X-ray vision, the story of how the power of speech evolved in Mickey Mouse, and the chemical composition of Batman’s Shark Repellent Spray. If we’re going to have fun theories, let’s really make them fun.

by Josh Greenberger Get his free book on evolution at

Imbalance of Ecosystems and Its Effect on Public and Livestock Health

evolution hawaii
Dr.Kedar Karki asked:

Imbalance of Ecosystems and Its effect on Public and Livestock health

Dr.Kedar Karki M.V.St. (Preventive veterinary Medicine)

Central Veterinary Laboratory Tripureshwor

The health of humans, like all living organisms, is dependent on an ecosystem that sustains life. Healthy ecosystems are the sine qua non for healthy organisms. Yet there is abundant evidence that many life-support systems are far from healthy, placing an increased burden on human health. In some areas of the world, gains in life expectancy and quality of life made during the twentieth century are at risk of being reversed in the twenty-first century. The consequences of ecosystem degradation to human health are numerous, and include health risks from unsafe drinking water, polluted air, climate change, emerging new diseases, and the resurgence of old diseases owing to ecological imbalances. Reversing this damage is possible in some cases, but not in others. Prevention of ecological damage is by far the most efficient strategy.


An ecological system may be defined as a community of plants and animals interacting with each other and their abiotic, or natural, environment. Typically, ecosystems are differentiated on the basis of dominant vegetation, topography, climate, or some other criteria. Boreal forests, for example, are characterized by the predominance of coniferous trees; prairies are characterized by the predominance of grasses; the Arctic tundra is determined partly by the harsh climatic zone. In most areas of the world, the human community is an important and often dominant component of the ecosystem. Ecosystems include not only natural areas (e.g., forests, lakes, marine coastal systems) but also human-constructed systems (e.g., urban ecosystems, agro-ecosystems, impoundments). Human populations are increasingly concentrated in urban ecosystems, and it is estimated that, by the year 2010, 50 percent of the world’s population will be living in urban areas.

A landscape comprises a mosaic of ecosystems, including towns, rivers, lakes, agricultural systems, and so on. Precise boundaries between ecosystems are often difficult to establish. Often regions slide into one another gradually, over a protracted “transition” zone, as for example between the boreal forest and the Taiga regions of Canada.


It is important to recognize the inherent difficulties in defining “health,” whether at the level of the individual, population, or ecosystem. The concept of health is somewhat of an enigma, being easier to define in its absence (sickness) than in its presence. Perhaps partially for that reason, ecologists have resisted applying the notion of “health” to ecosystems. Yet, ecosystems can become dysfunctional, particularly under chronic stress from human activity.Example for this can be cited the discharge of nutrients from sewage, industrial waste, or agricultural runoff into lakes or rivers affects the normal functioning of the ecosystem, and can result in severe impairment. Excessive nutrient inputs from human activity was one of the major factors that severely compromised the health of the lower Laurentian Great Lakes (Lake Erie and Lake Ontario) and regions of the upper Great Lakes (Lake Michigan). Unfortunately, degraded ecosystems are becoming more the rule than the exception.

The study of the features of degraded systems, and comparisons with systems that have not been altered by human activity, makes it possible to identify the characteristics of healthy ecosystems. Healthy ecosystems may be characterized not only by the absence of signs of pathology, but also by signs of health, including measures of vigor (productivity), organization, and resilience.

Vigor can be assessed in terms of the metabolism (activity and productivity) of the system. Ecosystems differ greatly in their normal ranges of productivity. Estuaries are far more productive than open oceans, and marshes have higher productivity than deserts. Health is not evaluated by applying one standard to all systems. Organization can be assessed by the structure of the biotic community that forms an ecosystem and by the nature of the interactions between the species (both plants and animals). Invariably, healthy ecosystems have more diversity of biota than ecologically compromised systems. Resilience is the capacity of an ecosystem to maintain its structure and functions in the face of natural disturbances. Systems with a history of chronic stress are less likely to recover from normal perturbations such as drought than those systems that have been relatively less stressed.

Healthy ecosystems can also be characterized in economic, social, and human health terms. Healthy ecosystems support a certain level of economic activity. This is not to say that the ecosystem is necessarily self-sufficient, but rather that it supports economic productivity to enable the human community to meet reasonable needs. Inevitably, ecosystem degradation impinges on the long-term sustainability of the human economy that is associated with it, although in the short-term this may not be evident, as natural capital (e.g., soils, renewable resources) may be overexploited and temporarily enhance economic returns. Similarly, with respect to social well-being, healthy ecosystems provide a basis for and encourage community integration. Historically, for example, native Hawaiian groups managed their ecosystem through a well-developed social cohesiveness that provided a high degree of cooperation in fishing and farming activity.

Another reflection of ecosystem health lies directly in the public health domain. In spring 2000, a deadly strain of the bacterium E-coli (0157:H7) entered the public water supply in Walkerton, Ontario, Canada, causing seven deaths and making thousands sick. This small town, with a population of five thousand, is in a farming community. Inadequate manure management from cattle operations was the likely source of this tragedy.


Stress from human activity is a major factor in transforming healthy ecosystems to sick ecosystems. Chronic stress from human activity differs from natural disturbances. Natural disturbances (fires, floods, periodic insect infestations) are part of the dynamics of most ecosystems. These processes help to “reset” ecosystems by recycling nutrients and clearing space for recolonization by biota that may be better adapted to changing environments. Thus, natural perturbations help keep ecosystems healthy. In contrast, chronic and acute stress on ecosystems resulting from human activity (e.g., construction of large dams, release of nutrients and toxic substances into the air, water, and land) generally results in long-term ecological dysfunction.

Five major sources of human-induced (anthropogenic) stresses have been identified by D. J. Rapport and A. M. Friend (1979): physical restructuring, overharvesting, waste residuals, introduction of exotic species, and global change.

Physical Restructuring. Activities such as wetland drainage, removal of shoals in lakes, damming of rivers, and road construction fragment the landscape and alter and damage critical habitat. These activities also disrupt nutrient cycling, and cause the loss of biodiversity.

Overharvesting. Overexploitation is commonplace when it comes to harvesting of wildlife, fisheries, and forests. Over long periods of time, stocks of preferred species are reduced. For example, the giant redwoods that once thrived along the California coast now exist only in remnant patches because of overharvesting. When dominant species like the giant redwoods (arguably the world’s tallest tree—one specimen was recorded at 110 meters tall with a circumference of 13.4 meters) are lost, the entire ecosystem becomes transformed. Overharvesting often results in reduced biodiversity of endemic species, while facilitating the invasion of opportunistic species.

Waste Residuals. Discharges from municipal, industrial, and agricultural sources into the air, water, and land have severely compromised many of the earth’s ecosystems. The effects are particularly apparent in aquatic ecosystems. In some lakes that lack a natural buffering capacity, acid precipitation has eliminated most of the fish and other organisms. While the visual effect appears beneficial (water clarity goes up) the impact on ecosystem health is devastating. Systems that once contained a variety of organisms and were highly productive (biologically) become devoid of most lifeforms except for a few acid-tolerant bacteria and sediment-dwelling organisms.

Introduction of Exotic Species. The spread of exotics has become a problem in almost every ecosystem of the world. Transporting species from their native habitat to entirely new ecosystems can wreck havoc, as the new environments are often without natural checks and balances for the new species. In the Great Lakes Basin, the accidental introduction of two small pelagic fishes, the alewife and the rainbow smelt, combined with the simultaneous overharvesting of natural predators, such as the lake trout, led to a significant decline in native fish species. The introduction of the sea lamprey, an eel-like predacious fish that attacks larger fish, into Lake Erie and the upper Great Lakes further destabilized the native fish community. The sea lamprey contributed to the demise of the deepwater benthic fish community by preying on lake trout, whitefish, and burbot. This contributed to a shift in the fish community from one that had been dominated by large benthics to one dominated by small pelagics (fish found in the upper layers of the lake profile). This shift from bottom-dwelling fish (benthic) to surface-dwelling fish (pelagic) has now been partially reversed by yet another accidental introduction of an exotic: the zebra mussel. As the zebra mussel is a highly efficient filter of both phtyoplankton and zooplankton, its presence has reduced the available food in the surface waters for pelagic fish. However, while the benthic fish community has gained back its dominance, the preferred benthic fish species have not yet recovered owing to the degree of initial degradation. Overall, the increasing dominance by exotics not only altered the ecology, but also reduced significantly the commercial value of the fisheries.

Global Change. Rapid climate change (or climate warming) is an emerging potential global stress on all of the earth’s ecosystems. In evolutionary time, there have of course been large fluctuations in climate. However, for the most part these fluctuations have occurred gradually over long periods of time. Rapid climate change is an entirely different matter. By altering both averages and extremes in precipitation, temperature, and storm events, and by destabilizing the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which controls weather patterns over much of the southern Pacific region, many ecosystem processes can become significantly altered. Excessive periods of drought or unusually heavy rains and flooding will exceed the tolerance for many species, thus changing the biotic composition. Flooding and unusually high winds contribute to soil erosion, and at the same time add to nutrient load in rivers and coastal waters.

These anthropogenic stresses have compromised ecosystem function in most regions of the world, resulting in ecosystem distress syndrome (EDS). EDS is characterized by a group of signs, including abnormalities in nutrient cycling, productivity, species diversity and richness, biotic structure, disease prevalence, soil fertility, and so on. The consequences of these changes for human health are not inconsiderable. Impoverished biotic communities are natural harbors for pathogens that affect humans and other species.


An important aspect of ecosystem degradation is the associated increased risk to human health. Traditionally, the concern has been with contaminants, particularly industrial chemicals that can have adverse impacts on human development, neurological functions, reproductive functions, and that appear to be causative agents in a variety of carcinomas. In addition to these serious environmental concerns (where the remedies are often technological, including engineering solutions to reduce the release of contaminants), there are a large number of other risks to human health stemming from ecological imbalance.

Ecosystem distress syndrome results in the loss of valued ecosystem services, including flood control, water quality, air quality, fish and wildlife diversity, and recreation. One of the major signs of EDS is increased disease incidence, both in humans and other species. Human population health should thus be viewed within an ecological context as an expression of the integrity and health of the life-supporting capacity of the environment.

Ecological imbalances triggered by global climate change and other causes are responsible for increased human health risks.

Climate Change and Vector-Borne Diseases. The global infectious disease burden is on the order of several hundred million cases per year. Many vector-borne diseases are climate sensitive. Malaria, dengue fever, hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, and various forms of viral encephalitis are all in this category. All these diseases are the result of arthropod-borne viruses (arboviruses) which are transmitted to humans as a result of bites from blood-sucking arthropods.

Global climate change—particularly as it impacts both temperatures and precipitation—is highly correlated with the prevalence of vector-borne diseases. For example, viruses carried by mosquitoes, ticks, and other blood-sucking arthropods generally have increased transmission rates with rising temperatures. St. Louis encephalitis (SLE) serves as an example. The mosquito Culex tarsalis carries this virus. The percentage of bites that results in transmission of SLE is dependent on temperature, with greater transmission at higher temperatures.

The temperature dependence of vector-borne diseases is also well illustrated with malaria. Malaria is endemic throughout the tropics, with a high prevalence in Africa, the Indian subcontinent, Southeast Asia, and parts of South and Central America and Mexico. Approximately 2.4 billion people live in areas of risk, with some 350 million new infections occurring annually, resulting in approximately 2 million deaths, predominantly in young children. Untreated malaria can become a life-long affliction—general symptoms include fever, headache, and malaise.

The climate sensitivity of malaria arises owing to the nature of the interactions of parasites, vectors, and hosts, all of which impact the ultimate transmission rates to humans. The gestation time required for the parasite to become fully developed within the mosquito host (a process termed sporogony) is from eight to thirty-five days. When temperatures are in the range of 20°C to 27°C, the gestation time is reduced. Rainfall and humidity also have an influence. Both drought and heavy rains tend to reduce the population of mosquitoes that serve as vectors for malaria. In drier regions of the tropics, low rainfall and humidity restricts the survival of mosquitoes. Severe flooding can result in scouring of rivers and destruction of the breeding habitats for the mosquito vector, while intermediate rainfall enhances vector production.

Ecological Imbalances. Cholera is a serious and potentially fatal disease that is caused by the bacterium Vibrio cholerae. While not nearly so prevalent as malaria, cases are nonetheless numerous. In 1993, there were 296,206 new cases of cholera reported in South America; 9,280 cases were reported in Mexico; 62,964 cases in Africa; and 64,599 cases in Asia. Most outbreaks in Asia, Africa, and South America have originated in coastal areas. Symptoms of cholera include explosive watery diarrhea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. The most recent pandemic of cholera involved more regions than at any previous time in the twentieth century. The disease remains endemic in India, Bangladesh, and Africa. Vibrio cholerae has also been found in the United States—in the Gulf Coast region of Texas, Louisiana, and Florida; the Chesapeake Bay area; and the California coast.

The increase in prevalence of V. cholerae has been strongly linked to degraded coastal marine environments. Nutrient-enriched warmer coastal waters, resulting from a combination of climate change and the use of fertilizers, provides an ideal environment for reproduction and dissemination of V. cholerae. Recent outbreaks of cholera in Bangladesh, for example, are closely correlated with higher sea surface temperatures. V. cholerae attach to the surface of both freshwater and marine copepods (crustaceans), as well as to roots and exposed surfaces of macrophytes (aquatic plants) such as the water hyacinth, the most abundant aquatic plant in Bangladesh. Nutrient enrichment and warmer temperatures give rise to algae blooms and an abundance of macrophytes. The algae blooms provide abundant food for copepods, and the increasing copepod and macrophyte populations provide V. cholerae with habitat. Subsequent dispersal of V. cholerae into estuaries and fresh water bodies allows contact with humans who use these waters for drinking and bathing. Global distribution of marine pathogens such as V. cholerae is further facilitated by ballast water discharged from vessels. Ballast water contains a virtual cocktail of pathogens, including V. cholerae.

Two other examples of how ecological imbalances lead to human health burdens concern the increased prevalence of Lyme disease and hantavirus pulmonary disease. Lyme disease, sonamed because it was first positively identified in Lyme, Connecticut, is a crippling arthritic-type disease that is transmitted by spirochete-infected Ixodes ticks (deer ticks). Ticks acquire the infection from rodents, and spend part of their life cycle on deer. Three factors have combined to increase the risk to humans of contracting Lyme disease, particularly in North America: (1) the elimination of natural deer predators, particularly wolves; (2) reforestation of abandoned farmland has created more favorable habitat for deer; and (3) the creation of suburban estates, which the deer find ideal habitat for browsing. The net result is a rising deer population, which increases the chances of humans coming into more contact with ticks.

By 1995, in the southwestern United States, hantavirus infection was confirmed in ninety-four persons in twenty states, with 48 percent mortality. Variants of the strain that causes hantavirus pulmonary syndrome have also been found in other areas of the country, as well as in Asia and Europe. The virus is apparently asymptomatic in rodents, and it is transmitted in their saliva and excreta. In humans it has a flu-like presentation, which is followed by acute respiratory distress syndrome. The primary reservoir in the Four Corners area of the southwestern United States is the deer mouse. Climatic disturbances, which in recent years are thought to be exacerbated by human activity (e.g., global warming), appear to set up conditions that trigger outbreaks. In the early 1990s, ENSO events initially caused drought conditions to develop in the southwestern United States. This led to a decline in plant and animal populations, including natural predators of the deer mouse. Heavy rains followed the drought in 1993, resulting in a bumper crop of piñon nuts, a major food supply for the deer mouse. Subsequently the deer mouse population greatly increased, bringing about increased contact with humans and triggering the outbreak of hantavirus.

Antibiotic Resistance and Agricultural Practice Antibiotic resistance is a growing threat to public health. Antibiotic resistant strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae, a common bacterial pathogen in humans and a leading cause of many infections, including chronic bronchitis, pneumonia, and meningitis, have greatly increased in prevalence since the mid-1970s. In some regions of the world, up to 70 percent of bacterial isolates taken from patients proved resistant to penicillin and other b-lactam antibiotics. The use of large quantities of antibiotics in agriculture and aquaculture appears to have been a key factor in the development of antibiotic resistance by pathogens in farm animals that subsequently may also infect humans. One of the most serious risks to human health from such practices is vancomycin-resistant enterococci. The use of avoparcin, an animal growth promoter, appears to have compromised the utility of vancomycin, the last antibiotic effective against multi-drug-resistant bacteria. In areas where avoparcin has been used, such as on farms in Denmark and Germany, vancomycin-resistant bacteria have been detected in meat sold in supermarkets. Avoparcin was subsequently banned by the European Union. Another example is the use of ofloxacin to protect chickens from infection and thereby enhance their growth. This drug is closely related to ciprofloxacin, one of the most widely used antibiotics in the year 2000. There have been cases of resistance to ciprofloxacin directly related to its veterinary use. In the United Kingdom, ciprofloxacin resistance developed in strains of campylobacter, a common cause of diarrhea. Multi-drug-resistant strains of salmonella have been traced to European egg production.

Food and Water Security. Agricultural practices are also responsible for a growing number of threats to public health. Some of these are related to inadequate waste management, which has resulted in parasites and bacteria entering water supplies. Others are of entirely different origins and involve apparent transfer across species of pathogens that affect both animals and humans. The most recent and spectacular example is mad cow disease, known as variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans, a neuro-degenerative condition that, in humans, is ultimately fatal. The first case of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), the animal form of the disease, was identified in Southern England in November 1981. By the fall of 2000, an outbreak had also occurred in France, and isolated cases appeared in Germany, Switzerland, and Spain. More than one hundred deaths in Europe were attributed to what has come to be commonly called mad cow disease.

Improper manure management was the likely source of the outbreak of E. coli 0157:H7 in Walkerton, Ontario, Canada. Other health risks associated with malfunctioning agroecosystems include periodic outbreaks of cryptosporidiosis, a parasitic disease that is spread by surface runoff contaminated by ***** of infected cattle. This parasite causes fever and diarrhea in immunocompetent individuals and severe diarrhea and even death in immunocompromised individuals.


Ecosystem pathology in some cases can be reversed simply by removing the source of stress. In cases, for example, where ecosystem degradation is the result of point-source additions of nutrients or toxic chemicals, removal of these stresses may result in considerable recovery of ecosystem health. A classic case is Lake Washington (near Seattle, Washington). This lake had become highly anoxic (oxygen-depleted) owing to a sewage outfall entering the lake. Redirecting the sewage outfall away from the lake reversed many of the signs of pathology.

In cases where it is not feasible to remove the source of stress, more innovative engineering solutions have been tried. For example, in the Kyrönjoki and Lestijoki Rivers in western Finland, spring and fall runoff leads to sharp pulses of acidity. Spring runoff from snowmelt, which releases acid from tilled or dug soils, has been particularly damaging to fish, during the critical time of year for spawning. Fish reproduction is severely curtailed, if not all together eliminated in highly acidic water. Further there have been massive fish kills resulting from the highly acidic waters. One possible remedy is to replace the original drains which take runoff from the land to the rivers with new limed drains that can neutralize the acidity. This solution has been implemented on an experimental basis and appears to substantially reduce acidic runoff.

More radical treatments for damaged ecosystems involve “ecosystem surgery.” In some cases, invading exotic vegetation (such as mangroves in Hawaii) have been removed from regions, and native vegetation has been replanted. In areas of North America where wetlands have been severely depleted owing to farming, urbanization, and industrial activity, efforts have been made to establish new wetlands.

More often than not, however, reversing ecosystem pathology is not possible. Efforts to restore the indigenous grasslands in the Jornada Experimental Range in the southwestern United States provide an example. Overgrazing by cattle has severely degraded the landscape and has lead to replacement of the native grasses by largely inedible shrubs, dominated by mesquite. Erosion by wind and episodic heavy rains have left areas between shrubs largely bare, and subsequently underlying sands have developed in dune-like fashion over a large part of the area. The resulting mesquite dunes have proven highly resistant to efforts to restore the native grasslands, although almost every intervention has been tried, including highly toxic defoliants (Agent Orange), fire, and bulldozing.

Even where it has been possible to restore some of the ecological functions of degraded ecosystems, and thus improve ecosystem health, the restoration seldom results in reestablishment of the pristine biotic community. The best that can be achieved in most cases is reestablishment of the key ecological functions that provide the required ecosystem services, such as the regulation of water, primary and secondary productivity, nutrient cycling, and pollination. In all such efforts, key indicators of ecosystem health (vigor, productivity, and resilience) are essential to monitor progress. Standard ecological indicators can be used for this purpose (e.g., measures of productivity, species composition, nutrient flows, soil fertility) along with socioeconomic and human health indicators.

Experience in efforts to restore highly damaged ecosystems suggests that ecosystem-health prevention is far more effective than restoration. For marine ecosystems, setting aside protective zones that afford a sanctuary for fish and wildlife has considerable promise. Many countries are adopting policies to establish such areas with the prospect that these healthy regions can serve as a reservoir for biota that have become depleted in the unprotected areas. Yet this remedy is not without its limits. Restoring ecosystem health is not simply a matter of replenishing lost or damaged biota. It is also a matter of reestablishing the complex interactions among ecosystem lifeforms. Having a ready source of healthy biota that could potentially recolonize damaged ecosystems is important, but it is only part of the solution.


Given the difficulties in reversing ecosystem degradation, and the many associated human health risks that arise with the loss of ecosystem health, the most effective approach is simply the prevention of ecosystem disruption. However, like many common-sense approaches, this is easier said than done. In both developed and developing countries there is a strong inclination to continue economic growth, even at the cost of severe environmental damage. Apart from selfish motivations, the argument is made that economic growth has many obvious health benefits, such as providing more efficient means of distributing food supplies, providing more plentiful food, and providing better health services and funding for research to improve standards of living. These are indeed benefits of economic development, and have led to substantial increases in health status worldwide.

However, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, the past is not necessarily the best guide to the future. The human population is at an all-time high, and associated pressures of human activity have led to increasing degradation of the earth’s ecosystems. As ultimately healthy ecosystems are essential for life of all biota, including humans, current global and regional trends are ominous. Under these circumstances, a tradeoff between immediate material gains and long-term sustainability of humans on the planet may be the only option. If so, the solution to sustaining human health and ecosystem health becomes one of devising a new politic that places sustaining life support systems as a precondition for betterment of the human condition.


Aldhous, P. (2000). “Inquiry Blames Missed Warnings for Scale of Britain’s BSE Crisis.” Nature 408:3–5.

Baquero, R., and Blazquez, J. (1997). “Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12:482–487.

Bright, C. (1998). Life Out of Bounds: Bioinvasion in a Borderless World. New York: W. W. Norton.

Colwell, R. R. (1996). “Global Climate and Infectious Disease: The Cholera Paradigm.” Science 274:2025–2031.

Colwell, R. R., and Patz, J. A. (1998). Climate, Infectious Disease and Health: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Washington, DC: American Academy of Microbiology.

Epstein, P. R. (1995). “Emerging Diseases and Ecosystem Instability: New Threats to Public Health.” American Journal of Public Health 85(2):168–172.

Huq, A., and Colwell, R. R. (1996). “Vibrios in the Marine and Estuarine Environment: Tracking Vibrio Cholerae.” Ecosystem Health 2:198–214.

Mageau, M. T.; Costanza, R.; and Ulanowicz, R. E. (1995). “The Development and Initial Testing of a Quantitative Assessment of Ecosystem Health.” Ecosystem Health 1:201–213.

Rapport, D. J. (1989). “What Constitutes Ecosystem Health?” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 33:120–132.

Rapport, D. J., and Friend, A. M. (1979). Towards a Comprehensive Framework for Environmental Statistics: A Stress-Response Approach. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

Rapport, D. J., and Regier, H. A. (1980). “An Ecological Approach to Environmental Information.” Ambio 9:22–27.

—— (1995). “Disturbance and Stress Effects on Ecological Systems.” In Complex Ecology: The Part-Whole Relation in Ecosystems, ed. B. C. Patten and S. E. Jorgensen. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Rapport, D. J.; Costanza, R.; and McMichael, A. J. (1998). “Assessing Ecosystem Health: Challenges at the Interface of Social, Natural, and Health Sciences.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13(10):397–401.

Rapport, D. J.; Christensen, N.; Karr, J. R.; and Patil, G. P. (1998). “The Centrality of Ecosystem Health in Achieving Sustainability in the Twenty-First Century: Concepts and Approaches to Environmental Management.” In Human Survivability in the Twenty-First Century, ed. D. M. Hayne. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Rapport, D. J.; Costanza, R.; Epstein, P. R.; Gaudet, R.; and Levins, R., eds. (1998). Ecosystem Health. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science.

Rapport, D. J., and Whitford, W. (1999). “How Ecosystems Respond to Stress: Common Properties of Arid and Aquatic Systems.” Bio Science 49(3):193–203.

Rapport, D. J.; Regier, H. A.; and Hutchinson, T. C. (1985). “Ecosystem Behavior under Stress.” American Naturalist 125:617–640.

Reeves, W. C.; Hardy, J. L.; Reisen, W. K.; and Milby, M. M. (1994). “The Potential Effect of Global Warming on Mosquito-Borne Arboviruses.” Journal of Medical Entomology 31(3):323–332.

Ruiz, G. M.; Rawlings, T. K.; Dobbs, F. C.; Drake, L. A.; Mullady, T.; Huq, A.; and Colwell, R. R.. (2000). “Global Spread of Microorganisms by Ships.” Nature 408:49–50.

Watson R. T.; Zinyowera, M. C.; and Moss, R. H., eds. (1996). Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

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?