User:Jzyehoshua/Evidence Against Evolution
I will be keeping a list of what I consider the strongest evidences against evolution here:
"People like to point out natural selection and the resulting speciation as evidence of evolution, because there’s a mountain of data to support both of those as testable, observable science. But don’t forget: we define what a species is, and no amount of ash on trees has ever changed a moth, dark or light, into a bee or a bird. They also like to point at bacterial mutation as evidence of evolution, but I have an issue with that, too. We’ve been watching those little guys since the invention of the microscope over 300 years ago, and while they’ve changed genetically and adapted as bacteria, they’ve never evolved into a new, higher form of life. Think about this: if a bacterial generation is 20 minutes, and a human generation is 20 years, then they should be evolving 525,000 times faster than we are. And if it took 3.2 million years for Lucy, the alleged missing link, to become modern man, we should expect to see similar evolutionary advancements in bacteria in a period of just six years. [Whistles]. Wow. And I’m talking about real evolution. Not just slight alterations to DNA, or building up immunities to this or that, but transforming, actually evolving into something more complex – a brand new form of life. A higher form of life. They ought to have their own little civilization, and have bacto-mobiles, and at least be insects by now. I dunno."While evolutionists might quibble over whether "moths into bees or birds" is an ideal analogy, the core point remains that while we see adaptation within parent species, we do NOT see it between the core parent species God created. Given how rapidly bacteria evolve, they should have become a new, higher form of life by now if macroevolution is indeed possible.
New hominin discoveries
A number of new discoveries since 2000 are contrary to conventional evolutionary theory. Ardipithecus ramidus, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, and Orrorin tugenesis, three of the oldest hominids discovered, all show unusual complexity and bipedality. Evolutionists want to say humans evolved much later from a common ancestor with apes, even though such hominids are far more similar to humans than the later alleged missing links. Furthermore, many of the hominids who were supposed to be human ancestors coexisted with one another, and thus could not be evolved from another, most notably Erectus and Habilis, and Afarensis and Ramidus. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, Ar. kaddaba and Ar. ramidus coexisted; A. afarensis, K. platyops, A. bahrelgazali, and A. africanus all coexisted; P. aethiopicus, A. africanus, A. garhi, H. habilis, and H. rudolfensis all coexisted; and A. sediba, P. boisei, H. rudolfensis, and H. habilis all coexisted as well. Thus, many of those previously shown in textbooks in linear ape to human models are now known to have coexisted at the same time and sometimes even in the same place, making it impossible they could be descended from each other.
- (See Punctuated equilibrium)
"To extract ourselves from this dilemma, we must bring in a more adequate theory: it will not arise from facts collected in the old way". (pg. 86)
- (See Climategate emails)
Many of the emails reveal serious weaknesses in the multi-proxy dating methodologies such as Dendrochronology (tree rings), ice cores, and coral. Essentially, evolutionists want to say if three very poor methods are "reconstructed" through bias and horrid methodology to achieve similar results at any time, this is a "proof" for evolution. But the same scientists behind Climategate were the same ones behind these alleged sciences, and their emails to one another show they were distorting the evidence to reach the conclusions they wanted while covering up evidence of what they were doing from the public and seeking to stifle dissent through crooked tactics.
Sterility in interspeciary breeding
- (See Darwin#Weaknesses)
Darwin cited this as one of the four major weaknesses in his proposed theory of evolution, and dedicated a whole chapter to it in "On the Origin of Species". If evolution is true, and all came from a common ancestor, then there should not be checks and balances between parent species preventing them from intermingling, yet this is exactly what we see. Breeding between clearly different parent species (bears and horses) is impossible, and even between more similar species like lions and tigers (ligers) or donkeys and horses (mules) the result is sterility. This remains as strong a proof for created species as it was in Darwin's day. At the time, interspeciary breeding in plants was more common than in animals, so Darwin in his book focused more on it, yet Genesis 1:11-12 says there were only a few core types of plants created, but many types of animals - thus breeding in plants should be easier. Interspeciary breeding in animals should not be disallowed outside core species preventing macroevolution according to Darwin's original theory, and the fact that it does is a strong evidence Darwin was wrong and the Bible correct.
Ancient parent species
The farther back we go in the fossil record, the more amazing it is that species fall into the same categories the Bible talks about. Genesis 1 records the creation of core groups of animals, small swarming creatures (v. 20, Heb. sherets), birds (v. 20, Heb. 'owph), dinosaurs (v. 21, Heb. tanniyn), mammals (v. 24, Heb. b@hemah), and reptiles (v. 24, Heb. remes). However, ancient life is even more specific, simply larger forms of what we see today. We can see ancient elephants (mammoths), ancient tigers (sabertoothed), ancient sloths, and ancient sharks. Even creatures as specific as ancient pangolins can be seen. The question is, why can we go so far back in the record and still see the same kind of categorization that we see today? According to evolutionary theory they should have been transitioning and mixing together all over the place, not staying in these very specific categories, parent species, seen in the Bible. If all came from a common ancestor, it should be chaotic assemblages, and not the distinct taxonomic groupings we see today, sharks should not be recognizable as sharks, elephants as elephants, and sloths as sloths the farther back we go. There should be new assemblages, mixed categories, not clear parent species categorized similar to the Bible suggestive God kept adaptation within core created species.
Rapid microevolutionary rates
If the earth is as old as is claimed, we should see microevolution today occurring on a slow, gradual scale. However, rates are far faster, on the scale of decades and tens of meters, consistent with a far younger earth. That microevolution occurs so fast is a clue the vast ages derived by evolutionsts are drastically off, and the geologic record was built in far less time. Furthermore, if one acknowledges microevolution can occur so rapidly, there is no longer necessity for inferring the vast ages evolutionists have been trying to prove since the time of Darwin. It also raises the serious question of why, since microevolution can occur so fast, have we not seen any evidence of macroevolution yet if macroevolution is indeed possible? Why is it, as Richard Dawkins put it, that "evolution hasn't been observed while it's happening"? If microevolution can occur so fast, why can't we witness any evidence of macro occurring?
Canopy theory proven
Canopy theory, once ridiculed as a Creationist myth, is now considered established fact by the scientific community, just like Catastrophism. The recent discovery of fossilized raindrops proved Earth's atmosphere was once thicker than it is today. We also know that oxygen levels were 50% higher than today resulting in giant insects, a strong evidence that Creationists are correct a huge canopy just resulted in gigantism and longevity among humans and other life forms. Logically, life just grew smaller, including humans, after the Flood, and alleged hominid transitions really just show this post-Flood alteration. It is possible the dinosaurs may have grown smaller, like much other life, after the Flood and loss of the canopy, and are just some of the reptiles we see today.
- (See Catastrophism)
Like Canopy theory, Catastrophism was for decades ridiculed as evidence of the crazy Creationists. Now it's accepted as undisputed scientific fact after the scientific community abandoned it for roughly a century in favor of Uniformitarianism. Scientists no longer attempt to deny the clear evidence in the geologic record for a catastrophe, but attempt to claim that many such catastrophes occurred over a long period, rather than a single massive Flood, preferring to believe that life on earth was extinguished numerous times, making miraculous recoveries over and over, rather than a single, God-preserved instance. Nevertheless, the assumptions of Evolution and Uniformitarianism depend on the concept that only gradual naturalistic processes were at work, separate from such earth-shattering catastrophes which would throw off rates of decay and microevolution in incalculable ways, while having other far-reaching effects. Evolutionists want to believe such unprecedented yet now clearly-evidenced indication of Catastrophism would not have affected their isotopic theorizing, so they can hold to their personal belief systems attempting to deny a Creator.
Many of the great men and women who started science on its present road to enlightenment were Bible-believing Creationists such as Newton, Pascal, Pasteur, Tesla, Kepler, and Lord Kelvin. However, now that evolution is government-funded and propped up in the U.S. education system, Evolutionists scoff at the same Creationists who brought science to its present status as ignorant buffoons.
Evolutionists like to claim vestigial traits are evidence of evolution when in point of fact these are circumstantial evidence, and circumstantial evidence as pointed out by the Brothers Winn is open to interpretation. What they view as evidence for evolution, in other words, a Creationist can see a Biblically-compatible explanation for. The appendix has been claimed as vestigial, but we have now discovered it does serve a purpose in preventing disease. Evolutionists claim human tails support evolution even though they're not true tails, lacking vertebrate. Furthermore, other abnormalities like children being born with 8 limbs can occur, and these are not claimed as evidence of vestigiality. This is obviously cherry-picking of evidence to try and support evolution that is not necessarily conclusive.
Evolutionists claim genetics show a common ancestor. Trouble is, if you actually look into it, it doesn't. They claim because the human genome, with 23 pairs of chromosomes (46), shows signs of a fused chromosome, that humans came from apes. What they fail to mention is that (1) not all apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes (48), the capuchin monkey has 54, the red titi monkey has 46, and the rhesus monkey has 42, and (2) apes aren't the only species with 48 chromosomes, beavers, deer mice, hares, potatoes, and tobacco also have 48. They will also claim a high degree of similarity exists between ape and human DNA. See for example this guide by Mark Pallen claiming BLAST searches of the FOX_P2 protein show evidence of similarity. Well, I ran a thorough analysis looking at the BLAST searches for myself (results of specific BLAST results now expired but I can run them again if anyone wants the links) and concluded that cattle, rats, rodents, birds, and marsupials all showed more genetic similarity to apes regarding the protein than humans did. Evolutionists are selectively examining only what they want, apes and humans, without performing honest analysis of other genera. The fact of the matter is that there's more genetic similarity between humans and rodents than there is between apes, but it doesn't look so good for their theory to mention this, so you rarely hear about it.
The trial never consisted of proving Evolution in any way, shape, or form. The prosecutor, William Jennings Bryan, generously allowed Darrow to cross-examine him under the impression the defending lawyer, Darrow, would allow him and the theory of Evolution to likewise be examined. The entire trial consisted only of Darrow mocking Bryan's belief in the Bible and the supernatural, after which Darrow pleaded guilty so Evolution could not be scrutinized or publicly examined as Creationism had been. Even then, Bryan generously offered to pay Darrow's fine for him - something that was completely distorted by the Hollywood movie, "Inherit the Wind," which concocted a number of falsehoods about what actually happened.
Unlike other Creationists, I do not argue from a standpoint of trying to disprove Evolution, merely to show that it is not the ironclad and conclusive principle its adherents would have us believe, but a religious theory held through faith in a small clique with esoteric knowledge which has been minimally dispersed. While microevolution and natural selection are undeniable fact, they do not require the conclusion evolutionists have drawn of a common ancestor and vast ages to life on earth, indeed evidence increasingly appears to be pointing the other way. Evolution is a theory based on a number of presumptions that were once excused by Darwin and others as incompleteness of knowledge about the fossil record and other subjects, but have not been honestly re-examined by the scientific community in light of new findings, and are instead constantly viewed by a presumptiveness that evolution must be true no matter what. In many ways, evolutionists treat their theory as much like a religion as they accuse Creationists of doing.
While I believe there is strong evidence for Creationism, I am not convinced there is evidence to decisively prove one theory or the other correct. All of it, on both sides, is circumstantial rather than conclusive. The best I can do is show that many of the evidences they claim are not conclusive like they appear, but highly questionable, and that a number of evidences exist for Creationism that do in my mind strongly point towards a creation as mentioned in the book of Genesis.
I do not like how evolutionists try to paint their theory as conclusive when it is not, and want Creationist theories to receive equal consideration alongside Evolutionist ones - including in the classroom. Either evolution should be removed from the classroom, or creationist theories like catastrophism, canopy theory, post-Flood alteration, and core created species should be presented as well; alternatively both could be presented elsewhere like philosophy classrooms. Creationism is being ridiculed even though the scientific community is quietly revising their beliefs to include previously Creationist theories like catastrophism and canopy theory, while reluctantly acknowledging the human evolutionary tree now looks like a messy bush with many branches and conventional gradualistic evolution as proposed by Darwin is indefensible from the fossil record.
Furthermore, American taxpayers should not be expected to prop up the religious establishment that evolutionary theory has become, when the majority agree more with Creationism than Evolution (Gallup, 2007, June 1-3 poll). If one side is allowed to receive funding, so should the other. If Evolutionist organizations are allowed to receive taxpayer funding via government, so too should Creationist ones as well. Evolution has, essentially, turned into a state-run church persecuting other religious beliefs in the same way that Jefferson and Madison fought to prevent with the 1st amendment and separation of church and state.
It is, as Jefferson once said, sinful and tyrannical to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves - the theory of evolution has become a tyrannical dictatorship oppressing the majority of Americans who hold other beliefs. The ACLU and other evolutionist organizations are nothing more than oppressive dictators seeking to uphold their own views as the rule of law at the expense of the majority of people who disagree. --Jzyehoshua 10:47, 6 September 2012 (PDT)