Evolution revisited

Evolution may be one of the most hotly debated theories. It originated around 550 BC when Greek philosopher Anaximander suggested that life originated in the sea and was modified to become all the creatures we see today. Throughout history some type of "evolution" was a part of some schools of scientific thought although Darwin, in the 1800's was the first to attempt to formalize the theory in his famous book "THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES"

I have researched this on and off for 31 years since I first read the issue of Scientific American which was dedicated to Evolution after which I became aware of the fact that the theory of evolution has some rather serious flaws.

Asking scientists who believed in and taught evolution has been of little help. 

* Confront a scientist with these problems about evolution and their answer is "Well we know it has many problems but it's the best we have to explain nature!"

This seems a bit confusing to me, though to teach a theory as scientific fact to our children in school about which even the most ardent believers admit has serious (and some fatal) flaws!

First of all, the theory of "Natural Selection" is known as "macroevolution" and opines that mutations happened by chance in species, making the species more likely to survive and thus to bear more young and eventually "evolve" into a new species.

Darwin formulated this theory from what is known as "Micro-evolution" i.e. the fact that humans can breed different types of cows or dogs. He had never observed "Macro-evolution" and forgot that in "Microevolution" changes in species are NOT evolving by chance but by the intervention of a human being! Therefore, micro-evolution is somewhat engineered!

Darwin first postulated his theory around 1850, in the middle of the so called "Age of Enlightenment" and it was hailed by those who wanted to cut out the need for God in creation. Thomas Huxley, an ardent follower of Darwin, wrote "in the evolutionary pattern of thought, there is no longer a need or room for the supernatural!"

"The Enlightenment was an idea that we will replace these religions with science... they needed a creation story... and Darwin's theory fitted into that intellectual program." (Phillip Johnson)

Is there any evidence of the theory that animals actually "evolved" from simplier creatures to more complex creatures?  In a word, NO.

*  Since the 1920's, geneticists have bred quadrillions of generations of fruit flies, their favorite experimentation media.  However in all these generations, although some structural changes were observed (fruit flies born without wings etc), the fruit fly never "evolved" into another species.  Surely in all those generations, we should have seen the fruit fly "evolve" to something different, shouldn't we have? Especially when geneticists were very much trying TO EVOLVE a new species by changing conditions etc?

* There are several species (according to the fossil record) which have virtually remained the same for millions of years including the cockroach. Again, why didn't these "evolve"?

* The fossil record reveals NO transitional species - if whole new species evolved over thousands of years, there would be many transitional species but there is a problem with this because evolution postulates infinitessimal changes by "natural selection" - the transitional species would be less efficient (and likely LESS likely to produce) than the original species which would pose a problem to the theory of how evolution developed a new species!

* They now can calculate the probability of a mutation which is advantageous and happens by chance. The probability that a mutation will be either deleterious (harmful) or insignificant is 99.99999999999999999999 percent. At those odds, it would have taken longer for a new species to have "evolved" than the known age of the universe - about twice as long as the universe has existed and of course, several times longer than animals have existed on earth!

* it is agreed by scientists that most of the animals appeared during the Cambrian Era and reasonably suddenly. In one of HIS honest moments Richard Dawkins admits "it was as though they were just planted there without any evolutionary history!"

* Darwin predicted that the extinction of a species would be even slower than the evolution of a species... but again the fossil record disproves this totally. In one of HIS honest moments, Gould calls these "anomalous and threatening" (threatening to what - his evolutionary atheistic beliefs?)

* The Sept 1978 Scientific American was dedicated to evolution. One interesting point which was made was that they had never found the link between a polymer (complex protein molecule) and the simplest form of life, which is now considered to be the bacterium. Note: It was this issue of Scientific American which really rattled my "belief" in evolution! I was appalled at the flaws in the theory - the lack of evidence and/or logic.

* It should be noted that the "simplest form of life" the bacterium, is ANYTHING but simple. In fact, In fact, it's a highly complex creature that comes in many varieties. It can even sense when it needs a certain trait and receive the necessary DNA for that trait from another bacterium, living or dead! Bacteria are also involved in supporting many types of more complex life including humans." The way some bacteria propel themselves, the flagellum, is a feature of complex design. A very strong point can be made that even this most simple type of life, some of the the complexities of which continue remained unexplained, could have NEVER "just happened" - it would have HAD to be cleverly engineered!

* Darwin stated that "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly be formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down". Back when he formulated his theory medicine did not know much about the organs and virtually nothing about the cellular, molecular level - they do now and the complexity of such is so great, the idea that all this "evolved" by random mutation is just too much of a leap of faith. Phillip Johnson remarked "if you want to know about the complexity of a single cell, think of NY city" Dawkins admitted in another "honest moment" that "the nucleus of each cell contains more info than all the encyclopedia Britannica volumes". Darwin didn't even know the nucleus of a cell EXISTED when he formulated his theory!

* In a course I took, the text book stated that scientists had never been able to re-create any of the DNA building blocks, "nucleotides" - even though they had totally synthesized the so called "primordial soup" conditions and had worked on this for years. I went to the local university to ask the best scientists we have here, if this statement in the book was true.  The scientists I asked about this told me the statement in the book was true and they had not been able to recreate the simplest building block of life as yet.

* National Geographic Magazine observed, in an issue about Australia that animals seemed to have developed there in a different sequence from other places with some of the more complex species appearing BEFORE the simpler ones!  (Australia is isolated so a good chance to observe "evolution" if it indeed exists).

* Finally, no one has been able to finding "the missing link" to modern man or "homo sapiens" ("wise man"). Early species of man are known to be dead ends, physically too different from homo sapiens (what we are) to be a link and besides, there is some evidence that some of these species may have existed concurrently with homo sapiens. Also, what paleontologists find are fragments of bones so they have to re-construct large parts of the body from theory - paleontology is NOT an "exact" science.  To illustrate this, one smart aleck buried a carefully prepared ape skull and then announced, an amazing "find" of "the missing link".  The scientific community was really excited about it and the find was headlined in the New York Times as "Piltdown man - Evolution proven true". The scientific community was defrauded for the following 30 years until some sharp shooter pointed out that this was a classic ape skull!