Log in to become a member of Josh Greenberger's Fan Club!
Is Evolution An Outdated Theory?
The question used to be, "Can evolution be proven?" Today, a more appropriate question is, "Is evolution science?"
PRIMITIVE TWENTIETH CENTURY
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.
THE TASADAY TRIBESMEN
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.
THE EVOLUTION OF EVOLUTION
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.
BORN OF IGNORANCE
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:
THE WORM-TRAIN THEORY
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.
THE COMEDY OF SCIENCE
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.
EVOLUTION: A GENETIC IMPOSSIBILITY
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.
A MISCONCEPTION ABOUT 'COULD'VE' AND 'DID'
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.
A MORE SERIOUS PROBLEM
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:
RANDOM MUTATION
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.
'INTELLIGENT MUTATION'
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?"
A LUDICROUS COMPARISON
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.
LUDICROUS EVEN WITHOUT COMPARISON
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:
SOURCES OF RANDOM MUTATIONS
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.
LET'S TAKE RADIOACTIVITY
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.
THE COMMON DENOMINATOR
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:
IMMEDIATE DAMAGE
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.
LONG-TERM DAMAGE
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.
THE BENEFICIAL CHANGES
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.
BASELESS THEORETICS
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.
A MATHEMATICAL IMPROBABILITY
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.
EVOLUTION OF ART
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
MODERN SCIENCE
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.
SCIENCE FICTION
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
from shopndrop.com
Josh Greenberger: As a computer consultant for over two decades, has developed software for NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, AT&T, Charles Schwab, Bell Laboratories and Chase Manhattan Bank. Has appeared, in the form of letters and articles, in The New York Post, New York Daily News, New York Times, Village Voice, Jewish Press, Hamodia and others. http://joshgreenberger.com Articles have ranged from humor to scientific to current events. Wrote a book disproving the theory of evolution (Human Intelligence Gone Ape a.k.a. http://wholettheapesout.com/mainline.php Who Let The Apes Out), available in stores and online. Has written several screenplays. http://innocenttarget.com/di_screenplay.php
This article seems to be based on a severe misunderstanding of evolution.
Transitional fossils have been found, indeed almost all fossils are transitional (the only exceptions being fossils of organisms that did not have any descendants).
Evolution is not random - mutations are random (with respect to adaptation of the species), but natural selection is not, and it is the *non-random cumulative selection* of randomly varying genes that drives evolution.
You say evolution is not a "run of the mill scientific theory", but you are wrong - it is. Not one respectable scientific institution exists that does not accept evolution.
Your entire premise is destroyed by the fact that speciation has been observed. Many times. Under test conditions.
Evolution is fact, and that the mechanism for evolution is primarily natural selection (including sexual selection) is supported by such strong evidence, from many different fields, that it is accepted by the scientific community as being beyond reasonable doubt.
Your response seems to be based on a total misrepresentation of facts and on a severe misunderstanding of this article.
"almost all fossils are transitional" - absolute nonsense.
"Not one respectable scientific institution exists that does not accept
evolution." - There are thousands of respectable scientists who do not
believe in evolution.
"Your entire premise is destroyed by the fact that speciation has been
observed." - The fact that the entire animal kingdom is here, it
obviously did happen. Duh! The question is how. The article flew right
over you.
"Evolution is fact" - get your head out of the sand.
Was this article helpful to you? Leave a Public Comment or
Question:
This Article has been viewed 326
times.
Article added to SearchWarp.com on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 View other articles written by Josh Greenberger(1,038)
If you found this article interesting, you may want to check out:
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
