WELL, IT WAS JUST A THEORY, AFTER ALL.
SCIENTISTS HAVE HAD YEARS TO PROVE IT, BUT SIMPLY CANNOT.
AND, A LOT OF THOSE WHO ONCE HELD STOCK IN EVOLUTION ARE SELLING OUT AND LEARNING TO APPLY TRUTH AND REASON THAT THEY HAVE FOUND WORKS MUCH BETTER THAN "THEORY"!
SO, LET'S LOOK AT WHY EVOLUTION IS STILL NOTHING BUT A THEORY.
1~ THE MYTH OF "MACRO-EVOLUTION"
Until I was a freshman college student, I, too, fell for the "Theory of Evolution".
Then I got access to some really good microscopes and chose genetics as a field of study.
Even back in the late 1960s, scientists across the globe had started to see what I saw.... that there is a BIG difference between simple VARIATION (micro-evolution) within species, and ALL NEW AND IMPROVED, ADDED GENETIC CODES (macro-evolution)!
NO, "VIRGINIA", WE DID NOT SEE EVEN ONE SPECIES OF BACTERIA, ALGAE, FRUIT FLIES, OR FROGS BECOMING SOMETHING NEW!
THEY WERE THE SAME AS THE EARLIEST ONES EVER KNOWN!
HERE'S HOW EVOLUTIONIST USE TRICKS TO KEEP FROM ADMITTING FAILURE OF THE THEORY:
Every breeder of plants or animals knows that there are absolute lines drawn in how FAR we can push variation by "selective breeding", that if you try to push beyond those lines , those natural limits, you will wind up with STERILE LINES that fizzle out completely.
Evolutionists want you to ignore this!
They want you to believe that, since the beginning of time, all species have engaged in selective breeding to create NEW LIFE FORMS, something far removed from the original parents.
That does NOT happen in breeding anything that can be fertile and continue its line.
For example, The types of bird beaks, the colors of butterfly wings, leg sizes of cats, etc. are all naturally occurring, encoded variations.
ALL these are programmed by ANCIENT codes within the gene pools and "adaptive mechanisms" of organisms!
Might a finch that moves to a new location eventually reproduce until its offspring 100 years down the line develop a longer or shorter beak for whatever reason?
SURE!
Does that finch EVER become a crocodile?
NO!
Does that finch EVER become anything BUT a FINCH, even after 10,000 years?
NO!
But, the trick used by evolutionists to get us to fall for that theory of a fish becoming a human goes like this:Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens so slowly, over thousands of generations, maybe even tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands.
WHY WOULD IT TAKE THAT LONG?
A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood.
They say it took "countless" thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds to MAYBE thousands of "candidates that could, possibly, maybe produce a human as we know humans today.
REALLY?
Then how to explain why something with as SHORT a "generational span" as, say, BACTERIA, have NOT changed into something HIGHER on the evolutionary ladder?
A bacteria species with a lifespan of as little as 12 minutes to a day or two SHOULD be able to pull off becoming at least a cockroach in a million years, right?
Even in a 100,000 years, or a thousand years, IF WE GO BY THE FALSE REASONING OF THE THEORISTS, in the time it took HUMANS to evolve, the bacteria of the world should have evolved into WHAT?
ANYTHING?
SOMETHING ELSE?
BUT THEY HAVE NOT!
Nor have fruit flies, such as are found in ancient pieces of amber, evolved into anything new!
A fruit fly may live 9 days, if it's lucky, so again comparing that generational span to humans, fruit flies SHOULD have become , oh, maybe BIRDS by now, yes?
NO, no, fruit flies are STILL fruit flies!
And great apes are still great apes, and monkeys are still monkeys.
In spite of diligently searching, neither I nor you, after many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world, will be able to show that evolution is happening today.
IF IT HAPPENED IN OUR PAST AND ONLY TOOK A FEW THOUSAND GENERATIONS TO MAKE MAN FROM PROTOZOA, WHERE THE HELL ARE THE BIRDS FROM FRUIT FLIES, OR COCKROACHES FROM BACTERIA?
THEY SHOULD HAVE SHOWED UP BY NOW!
Natural selection SHOULD have selected something of a higher order for bacteria by NOW!
Shouldn't fish have groen legs and walked upright by NOW?
Let's just face the facts, shall we?
There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc.
There is MUCH variation in bacteria.
There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones!)
But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria.
Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition.
There is much variation in fruit flies.
There are many mutations.
But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies.
I must reiterate: Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is just NOT happening today.
YES, species are full of variations, mutations, but that is what is called "micro-evolution".
NO, macro-evolution, old species turning into NEW species has NEVER been demonstrated.
The genetic encoding is just not available!
SCIENCE ITSELF ADMITS THIS!
FROM Reznick, David N., Robert E. Ricklefs. 12 February 2009. Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842.:
"Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature. Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities. One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved."-
BECAUSE THEY DID NOT "EVOLVE"!
But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria.
Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition.
There is much variation in fruit flies.
There are many mutations.
But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies.
I must reiterate: Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is just NOT happening today.
YES, species are full of variations, mutations, but that is what is called "micro-evolution".
NO, macro-evolution, old species turning into NEW species has NEVER been demonstrated.
The genetic encoding is just not available!
SCIENCE ITSELF ADMITS THIS!
FROM Reznick, David N., Robert E. Ricklefs. 12 February 2009. Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842.:
"Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature. Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities. One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved."-
BECAUSE THEY DID NOT "EVOLVE"!
This old trick might work if it took JUST ONE GENE to make and control one "NEW" part.
IT JUST DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!
EACH PART of living creatures is constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, and EACH of the simplest parts are controlled by MANY genes that have to act in the PROPER SEQUENCE.
Natural selection would not, COULD NOT, choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work otherwise!
To fall for this trick used by evolutionists, ALL the right constructive mutations (and NONE, NOT EVEN ONE of the destructive ones) must happen AT THE EXACT SAME TIME AND COMPLETELY BY CHANCE.
That is physically impossible.
THAT IS LIKE ASKING US TO BELIEVE THAT IF WE TOSS ALL THE INGREDIENTS FOR A CHOCOLATE CAKE INTO AN OVEN, IN A PAN, WE JUST MAY WIND UP WITH A POT ROAST!
HEY! MUTATIONS HAPPEN!
To illustrate just how hopeless it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years.
The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation/natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone CREATE AN ENTIRELY NEW CREATURE FROM ANCIENT GENETIC CODES.
Only mutations in the reproductive (germ) cells of an animal or plant would be passed on.
Mutations in the eye or skin of an animal would not matter.
Mutations in DNA happen fairly often, but most are repaired or destroyed by mechanisms in animals and plants.
Here's another thing science knows:
All KNOWN mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal.
But evolutionists, if not honest, are perhaps eternally optimistic.
They believe that the necessary MILLIONS of PURELY BENEFICIAL mutations DID take place and created every type of creature that ever existed.
HOWEVER, they cannot explain why that ceased, why it is NOT happening NOW.
TO SEE HOW THEIR OWN EXPERIMENTS FAILED TO CONVINCE EVOLUTIONISTS THAT SUCH AN UNIMAGINABLE NUMBER OF MUTATIONS WOULD (A) HAVE TO TAKE PLACE, AND (B) REMAIN FIXED AND ALSO SPREAD ("SWEEP") THROUGH AN ENTIRE POPULATION OF A SPECIES, READ:
Hernandez, Ryan D., Joanna L. Kelley, Eyal Elyashiv, S. Cord Melton, Adam Auton, Gilean McVean, 1000 Genomes Project, Guy Sella, Molly Przeworski. 18 February 2011. Classic Selective Sweeps Were Rare in Recent Human Evolution. Science, Vol. 331, no. 6019, pp. 920-924.
WHAT DID EVOLUTIONISTS THEMSELVES FIND?"In contrast to expectation," their test detected nothing, but they could not quite bring themselves to say it.
Sweeps, THEY WROTE INSTEAD, "were too infrequent within the past 250,000 years to have had discernible effects on genomic diversity."
REALLY?
YES, REALLY!
ANOTHER 35-year-long experiment by evolutionists shows how things really work.
[SEE Burke, Molly K., Joseph P. Dunham, Parvin Shahrestani, Kevin R. Thornton, Michael R. Rose, Anthony D. Long. 30 September 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment withDrosophila. Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 587-590.]
THIS TIME, Instead of waiting for natural selection, researchers FORCED selection on hundreds of generations of fruit flies.
They used variation to breed fruit flies that develop from egg to adult 20% faster than normal.
But, as usual when breeding plants and animals, there was a down side.
In this case the fruit flies weighed less, lived shorter lives, and were less resistant to starvation. There were many mutations, but none caught on, and the experiment ran into the limits of variation.
They again did not want to face facts and so wrote that "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles."
"The probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments."
You may have heard of the famous Lenski experiment.
Dr. Richard E. Lenski is an evolutionary biologist who began a long-term experiment on February 24, 1988 that continues today.
It looks for genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of Escherichia coli bacteria that have been adapting to conditions in their flasks for over 60,000 generations.
60,000 generations!
The findings so far?"Mutations that result in a gain of novel information have NOT been observed."
A NOBEL PRIZE-WINNER TELLS US A TRUTH:Francois Jacob won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1965, along with two others, for discoveries concerning genetic control of enzyme and virus synthesis. The work of Francois Jacob dealt mainly with the genetic mechanisms existing in bacteria and bacteriophages, and with the biochemical effects of mutations.
He wrote, "Evolution does NOT produce novelties from scratch. It works on what ALREADY EXISTS, either transforming a system to give it new functions or combining several systems to produce a more elaborate one."
"But these were merely variations on previous themes. A sequence of a thousand nucleotides codes for a medium-sized protein.
The probability that a functional protein would appear de novo by random association of amino acids is practically zero.
In organisms as complex and integrated as those that were already living a long time ago, creation of entirely new nucleotide sequences could not be of any importance in the production of new information."
3~ THE ORIGIN OF LIFE ... WHO KNOWS?
Evolutionists don't like to talk about "origin of life" research because it has been such a dead-end, but if chemicals never assembled themselves into the first living thing, evolution could never get started.
So to keep hope alive, every once in a while over the last 60 years they have announced discoveries that supposedly bring us closer to "understanding how life on Earth began".
However, the main lesson scientists have learned over those decades is that the long molecules (polymers) that allow biological creatures to work must be isolated in PURE concentrations for there to be any chance of success.
Unfortunately, that can only happen in biochemistry labs, computer simulations, and living cells.
In all other settings, the products are unusable due to contamination, unwanted reactions with other chemicals, and minuscule concentrations that quickly fall apart.
OOPS!
Biochemist David Deamer, in 2005, poured a concoction of organic chemicals into a pool of hot water.
He was just trying to make the walls of a cell, like the plastic case of a phone without the electronics inside.
JUST THE WALLS OF A CELL, A CELL WITHOUT FUNCTION.
Did it work? "
NO!
AND NO SAID HIS COLLEAGUES, OTHER BIOCHEMISTS!
"The answer was a resounding no." said another origin-of-life researcher. "The clays and metal ions present in the Siberian pool blocked the chemical interactions."
"Deamer's demonstration that we cannot translate lab results to natural settings is valuable."
"This provocative insight explains why the origin-of-life field has been short on progress over the past half-century".
[SEE--Shapiro, Robert. 4 August 2011. Life's beginnings. Nature, Vol. 476, pp. 30-31.]
SCIENCE SLOGS ON...
However, the main lesson scientists have learned over those decades is that the long molecules (polymers) that allow biological creatures to work must be isolated in PURE concentrations for there to be any chance of success.
Unfortunately, that can only happen in biochemistry labs, computer simulations, and living cells.
In all other settings, the products are unusable due to contamination, unwanted reactions with other chemicals, and minuscule concentrations that quickly fall apart.
OOPS!
Biochemist David Deamer, in 2005, poured a concoction of organic chemicals into a pool of hot water.
He was just trying to make the walls of a cell, like the plastic case of a phone without the electronics inside.
JUST THE WALLS OF A CELL, A CELL WITHOUT FUNCTION.
Did it work? "
NO!
AND NO SAID HIS COLLEAGUES, OTHER BIOCHEMISTS!
"The answer was a resounding no." said another origin-of-life researcher. "The clays and metal ions present in the Siberian pool blocked the chemical interactions."
"Deamer's demonstration that we cannot translate lab results to natural settings is valuable."
"This provocative insight explains why the origin-of-life field has been short on progress over the past half-century".
[SEE--Shapiro, Robert. 4 August 2011. Life's beginnings. Nature, Vol. 476, pp. 30-31.]
SCIENCE SLOGS ON...
An interview with Steven A. Benner, Ph.D. Chemistry, Harvard, prominent origin-of-life researcher and creator of the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, was posted on Huffington Post on December 6, 2013.
In it he said, "We have failed in any continuous way to provide a recipe that gets from the simple molecules that we know were present on early Earth to RNA."
"The first paradox is the tendency of organic matter to devolve and to give tar. If you can avoid that, you can start to try to assemble things that are not tarry, but then you encounter the water problem, which is related to the fact that every interesting bond that you want to make is unstable, thermodynamically, with respect to water.
If you can solve that problem, you have the problem of entropy, that any of the building blocks are going to be present in a low concentration; therefore, to assemble a large number of those building blocks, you get a gene-like RNA -- 100 nucleotides long -- that FIGHTS entropy.
And the fourth problem is that even if you can solve the entropy problem, you have a paradox that RNA enzymes, which are maybe catalytically active, are more likely to be active in the sense that destroys RNA rather than creates RNA."
FAIL!
And the fourth problem is that even if you can solve the entropy problem, you have a paradox that RNA enzymes, which are maybe catalytically active, are more likely to be active in the sense that destroys RNA rather than creates RNA."
FAIL!
FAIL!
ANOTHER FAIL!
Two other prominent "origin-of-life" researchers have laid out their vision of how life arose from chemicals in an 8-steps experiment.
THEY ARE STILL TRYING TO CREATE THE FIRST TWO NECESSARY STEPS:
THEY ARE STILL TRYING TO CREATE THE FIRST TWO NECESSARY STEPS:
1. Start with a molecule capable of copying itself. "The first protocells contained RNA (or something similar to it) and little else".
2. A fatty acid bubble forms around the self-copying molecule, which then makes a copy of itself with nucleotides that filter through the bubble. "Molecules as large as nucleotides can in fact easily slip across membranes as long as both nucleotides and membranes are simpler, more 'primitive' versions of their modern counterparts."
[SEE Ricardo, Alonso, Jack W. Szostak. September 2009. Life on Earth. Scientific American, pp. 54-61.]
FAIL, FAIL, ANOTHER FAIL!
SO HOW AND WHEN AND WHERE DID THE BASIC BUILDING BLOCKS OF LIFE ORIGINATE ?
SCIENCE CANNOT FIND THOSE ANSWERS!
THEY JUST DO NOT KNOW!
AND THEY CANNOT DUPLICATE THE PROCESS, THAT IS TO SAY, THEY CANNOT "MAKE THEIR OWN FERTILE DIRT".
4~ GO TO "LEAPS AND BOUNDS"?
[SEE Ricardo, Alonso, Jack W. Szostak. September 2009. Life on Earth. Scientific American, pp. 54-61.]
FAIL, FAIL, ANOTHER FAIL!
SO HOW AND WHEN AND WHERE DID THE BASIC BUILDING BLOCKS OF LIFE ORIGINATE ?
SCIENCE CANNOT FIND THOSE ANSWERS!
THEY JUST DO NOT KNOW!
AND THEY CANNOT DUPLICATE THE PROCESS, THAT IS TO SAY, THEY CANNOT "MAKE THEIR OWN FERTILE DIRT".
4~ GO TO "LEAPS AND BOUNDS"?
There are two versions of evolution theory.
The main version proposes that many tiny changes over millions of years made new creatures.
It is called the Modern Synthesis or Neo-Darwinian evolution.
The main version proposes that many tiny changes over millions of years made new creatures.
It is called the Modern Synthesis or Neo-Darwinian evolution.
But "major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity."
"The principal 'types' seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate 'grades' or intermediate forms between different types are detectable."
"The principal 'types' seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate 'grades' or intermediate forms between different types are detectable."
Since the fossil record does NOT show long series of tiny changes between one type of creature and another, some evolutionists, GRASPING AT A FINAL STRAW, proposed a "modification" to evolution theory.
It says that change occurred by occasional LEAPS (punctuated equilibrium), not gradually.
However, each hypothetical beneficial mutation could only make a slight change. Any more than that would be so disruptive as to cause death.
So punctuated equilibrium is NOT REALLY about big leaps.
NO!
It envisions a lot of slight changes over thousands of years, then NOTHING HAPPENS FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS!
Evolutionists say with a straight face that no fossils have been found from a leap because thousands of years is too fast in the billions of years of "geologic time" to leave any.
Yet without fossils there is no evidence that any leaps ever happened, and of course there is no evidence that leaps or gradual changes beyond variation are happening today in any of the millions of species that still exist.
IS THIS SCIENTIFIC "DOUBLE-SPEAK?
WHY, YES, YES IT IS!
All fossils are of COMPLETE animals and plants, not works in progress, NOT "under construction".
If evolution's continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion.
WE HAVE NEVER FOUND SUCH FOSSIL EVIDENCE!
For every successful change there SHOULD be many more that lead to nothing.
The whole process is random trial and error, without direction.
So every plant and animal, living or fossil, should be covered inside and out with useless growths and have parts SHOWING they were, at that time, UNIQUE FROM ALL OTHERS, "under construction", EVOLVING.
THAT IS NOT FOUND IN THE FOSSIL RECORD!
IT SIMPLY IS NOT THERE!
Even Charles Darwin had a glimpse of the problem in his day. He wrote in his book 'On the Origin of Species':
"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
WHERE ARE THE FLAGELLATED BACTERIA WITHOUT FLAGELLA?
WHERE ARE THE FLAGELLATED BACTERIA WITH STUBS OF "EMERGING" FLAGELLA?
NOWHERE!
THEY NEVER EXISTED!
WHERE ARE THE FRUIT FLIES WITHOUT COMPLEX, COMPLETELY FUNCTIONAL EYES?
WHERE ARE THE "EVOLVING SPECIES" OF MAMMALS BEFORE THEY "EVOLVED" A METHOD FOR CLOTTING BLOOD?
THERE ARE NONE!
The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found.
There should have been MILLIONS, BILLIONS of transitional creatures if evolution were true.
IF IT WERE TRUE...IF...
In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges), and what evolutionists claim were the first vertebrates, fish.
It says that change occurred by occasional LEAPS (punctuated equilibrium), not gradually.
However, each hypothetical beneficial mutation could only make a slight change. Any more than that would be so disruptive as to cause death.
So punctuated equilibrium is NOT REALLY about big leaps.
NO!
It envisions a lot of slight changes over thousands of years, then NOTHING HAPPENS FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS!
Evolutionists say with a straight face that no fossils have been found from a leap because thousands of years is too fast in the billions of years of "geologic time" to leave any.
Yet without fossils there is no evidence that any leaps ever happened, and of course there is no evidence that leaps or gradual changes beyond variation are happening today in any of the millions of species that still exist.
IS THIS SCIENTIFIC "DOUBLE-SPEAK?
WHY, YES, YES IT IS!
All fossils are of COMPLETE animals and plants, not works in progress, NOT "under construction".
If evolution's continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion.
WE HAVE NEVER FOUND SUCH FOSSIL EVIDENCE!
For every successful change there SHOULD be many more that lead to nothing.
The whole process is random trial and error, without direction.
So every plant and animal, living or fossil, should be covered inside and out with useless growths and have parts SHOWING they were, at that time, UNIQUE FROM ALL OTHERS, "under construction", EVOLVING.
THAT IS NOT FOUND IN THE FOSSIL RECORD!
IT SIMPLY IS NOT THERE!
Even Charles Darwin had a glimpse of the problem in his day. He wrote in his book 'On the Origin of Species':
"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
WHERE ARE THE FLAGELLATED BACTERIA WITHOUT FLAGELLA?
WHERE ARE THE FLAGELLATED BACTERIA WITH STUBS OF "EMERGING" FLAGELLA?
NOWHERE!
THEY NEVER EXISTED!
WHERE ARE THE FRUIT FLIES WITHOUT COMPLEX, COMPLETELY FUNCTIONAL EYES?
WHERE ARE THE "EVOLVING SPECIES" OF MAMMALS BEFORE THEY "EVOLVED" A METHOD FOR CLOTTING BLOOD?
THERE ARE NONE!
The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found.
There should have been MILLIONS, BILLIONS of transitional creatures if evolution were true.
IF IT WERE TRUE...IF...
In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges), and what evolutionists claim were the first vertebrates, fish.
In fact, there are NO FOSSIL ANCESTORS AT ALL, NOT ONE, for complex invertebrates or fish.
That alone is fatal to the theory of evolution.
The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.
DARWIN ALL BUT SAID SO HIMSELF!
ALMOST, HE RECANTED HIS "THEORY".
"Darwin argued that the incompleteness of the fossil record gives the illusion of an explosive event, but with the eventual discovery of older and better-preserved rocks, the ancestors of these Cambrian taxa would be found. Studies of Ediacaran and Cambrian fossils continue to expand the morphologic variety of clades, but the appearance of the remains and traces of bilaterian animals in the Cambrian remains abrupt."
AS DARWIN FEARED, there are no fossils for any of these.
HOW TO EXPLAIN "DE-EVOLUTION"?
WHAT ABOUT CREATURES FROM 500 MILLION YEARS AGO THAT APPEAR MORE COMPLEX THAN THEIR MODERN-DAY COUNTERPARTS?
HOW TO EXPLAIN "DE-EVOLUTION"?
WHAT ABOUT CREATURES FROM 500 MILLION YEARS AGO THAT APPEAR MORE COMPLEX THAN THEIR MODERN-DAY COUNTERPARTS?
Fossil compound eyes from the Lower Cambrian, where the first complex creatures suddenly appear in the fossil record, have been found in the Emu Bay Shale of South Australia.
These fossils are supposedly about 515 million years old.
They may be corneas of Anomalocaris that were shed during moulting.
The lenses are packed tighter than Lower Cambrian trilobite eyes, "which are often assumed to be the most powerful visual organs of their time."
"Each eye has over 3,000 large ommatidial lenses".
"The arrangement and size-gradient of lenses creates a distinct [forward] 'bright zone'... where the visual field is sampled with higher light sensitivity (due to larger ommatidia) and possibly higher accuity".
"The arrangement and size-gradient of lenses creates a distinct [forward] 'bright zone'... where the visual field is sampled with higher light sensitivity (due to larger ommatidia) and possibly higher accuity".
This indicates "that these eyes belonged to an active predator that was capable of seeing in low light."
HERE'S WHERE THINGS GET "UNEXPLAINABLE FOR EVOLUTIONISTS"
"The eyes are more complex than those known from contemporaneous trilobites and are as advanced as those of many living forms" today, such as the fly in this picture, "revealing that some of the earliest arthropods possessed highly advanced compound eyes".
When the earliest form is the most complex, there is no evolution!
Coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record with the last of the dinosaurs. That was supposedly 65 million years ago.
In the early 1900s, evolutionists touted it as the first walking fish, the transition between fish and tetrapods. "The eyes are more complex than those known from contemporaneous trilobites and are as advanced as those of many living forms" today, such as the fly in this picture, "revealing that some of the earliest arthropods possessed highly advanced compound eyes".
When the earliest form is the most complex, there is no evolution!
Coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record with the last of the dinosaurs. That was supposedly 65 million years ago.
That is, until 1938 when one was found ALIVE AND UNABLE TO WALK!
Evolution theory says that pressures from competition and the environment force changes over time. In chapter 9 of his book, Darwin wrote of ancestor species in general: "If, moreover, they had been the progenitors of these orders, they would almost certainly have been long ago supplanted and exterminated by their numerous and improved descendants."
Yet we find a coelacanth today, alive and unchanged like many "living fossils".
Where is the evolution?
Evolutionists tell us a certain dragonfly has not shown up in the fossil record for 250-300 million years!
But DOZENS of the "Ancient Greenling Damselfly" live near Melbourne, Australia.
"The damselfly, part of the dragonfly group Odonata, is the only living representative of the family Hemiphlebiidae. Its ancient predecessors are found solely in 250-300 million-year-old fossil records from Brazil to Russia."
[SEE: Smith, Bridie. January 5, 2010. Found: fossil-linked, listed damselfly. www.theage.com.au (newspaper website)]
UNCHANGED IN 250 MILLION YEARS!
DECLARED EXTINCT?
How about the Platypus?
Only the wizards of evolution could call it a "transitional creature", between ducks and mammals.
The furry platypus has a duck-like bill, swims with webbed feet, and lays eggs.
IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN JUST A PLATYPUS!
Evolutionists always point to Archaeopteryx as the great example of a transitional creature, appearing to be part dinosaur and part bird.
However, it is a fully formed, complete animal with no half-finished components or useless growths.
Most people know "the stereotypical ideal of Archaeopteryx as a physiologically modern bird with a long tail and teeth".
Research now "shows incontrovertibly that these animals were very primitive".
"Archaeopteryx was simply a feathered and presumably volant [flying] dinosaur. Theories regarding the subsequent steps that led to the modern avian condition need to be reevaluated."
[SEE: Erickson, Gregory, et al. October 2009. Was Dinosaurian Physiology Inherited by Birds? Reconciling Slow Growth in Archaeopteryx. PLoS ONE, Vol. 4, Issue 10, e7390.]
OOPS!
The "Tree of Life" is falling down!
New discoveries are bringing down the whole notion of a "tree of life", as passages from an article in the mainstream magazine New Scientist show:
"The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking, equal in importance to natural selection, according to biologist W. Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened." "For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree.
'For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life,' says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France.
"A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach."
"But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.
'We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,' says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change."
"The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes".
"As more and more genes were sequenced, it became clear that the patterns of relatedness could only be explained if bacteria and archaea were routinely swapping genetic material with other species - often across huge taxonomic distances".
" 'There's promiscuous exchange of genetic information across diverse groups,' says Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine." "As early as 1993, some were proposing that for bacteria and archaea the tree of life was more like a web.
In 1999, Doolittle made the provocative claim that 'the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree'.
'The tree of life is not something that exists in nature, it's a way that humans classify nature,' he says."
"Recent research suggests that the evolution of animals and plants isn't exactly tree-like either."
"A team at the University of Texas at Arlington found a peculiar chunk of DNA in the genomes of eight animals - the mouse, rat, bushbaby, little brown bat, tenrec, opossum, anole lizard and African clawed frog - but NOT in 25 others, including humans, elephants, chickens and fish.
This patchy distribution suggests that the sequence must have entered each genome independently by horizontal transfer."
"HGT [horizontal gene transfer] has been documented in insects, fish and plants, and a few years ago a piece of snake DNA was found in cows."
"Biologist Michael Syvanen of the University of California, Davis, compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes.
In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals.
He failed."
HOW MANY MORE FAILS BEFORE DARWIN ROLLS OVER IN HIS GRAVE AND SCIENCE SAYS, "ENOUGH OF THAT ILL-FOUNDED MALARKEY!"?
THE TRICKS, MANIPULATIONS, ERRORS IN LOGIC, OUTRIGHT FALLACIES AND DEDICATED "BAIT-AND-SWITCH" THAT EVOLUTIONISTS HAVE USED FOR DECADES ARE ALL CRUMBLING AROUND THEM.
IF I, AS A LOWLY COLLEGE FRESHMAN, COULD LOOK AT THE DATA, PEER INTO A MICROSCOPE AND SEE THE LIE OF IT, WHAT HOLDS THE EVOLUTIONISTS TOGETHER?
Violating the lawThe theory of Evolution violates two laws of science.
1~ The Second Law of Thermodynamics (law of increasing entropy) says that things which start out concentrated together spread out over time.
If you heat one room in a house, then open the door to that room, eventually the temperature in the whole house evens out (reaches equilibrium).
Knowing how far this evening-out has progressed at any point in time tells you the entropy. Entropy can measure the loss of a system's ability to do work.
Entropy is also a measure of disorder, and that is where evolution theory hits an impenetrable wall.
Natural processes proceed in only one direction, toward equilibrium and disorder. Things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized. We can overcome this by making a machine and adding energy, but the Second Law prevents such a machine from assembling spontaneously from raw materials.
When confronted with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, evolutionists usually use two tricks to try to escape.
The first is to state that "it only applies to closed systems, and biological creatures are open systems, so it doesn't affect evolution" (they actually intend to say isolated, not closed, but we know what they mean).
The fact is that the Second Law applies to all systems, open or closed, and to all actions and chemical reactions, from molecules to galaxies. The words "except for..." are not in this universal law.
A thermodynamics system is simply any part of the universe we want to study. If we are doing an experiment in a bottle, the inside of the bottle is our system and the bottle itself is the "walls" of the system. There are only 3 kinds of systems: (1)if no energy or matter can pass through the walls, it is an isolated system; (2) if energy can pass through but matter cannot, it is a closed system; (3) if both energy and matter can pass through the walls, it is an open system.
YOU AND I ARE OPEN SYSTEMS.
You eat food (which comes from outside yourself) and your body survives and grows.
You eat food (which comes from outside yourself) and your body survives and grows.
Evolutionists believe that all we need is an open system with sufficient energy flowing into it for evolution to succeed.
If that were so, you could just stand right behind a jet engine as the aircraft prepares for takeoff, absorb that blast of energy, and evolve to a higher life form.
In reality, of course, you would be incinerated because absorbing energy without a mechanism to convert it to a useful form and employ it is destructive or useless.
The mechanism must be very specific.
Sticking food in your ear will not work; it must go into your mouth and through the digestive system.
And the mechanism must be in place and functioning first, before energy is added, or the energy is wasted.
The "closed system" ploy is just an attempt to avoid dealing with the Second Law because the Law prohibits any functioning biological mechanism from falling together by pure chance, without assistance or plan, using only the properties of matter.
2~The second trick they use is to say that "when you freeze water, the disordered molecules become beautifully ordered ice crystals or snowflakes. If water can bypass the Second Law and organize its molecules by a natural process, why not the chemicals of life?" At room temperature, water molecules are bouncing off each other and you have water. When you take away heat and they freeze, water molecules stick to each other with weak molecular bonds, forming ice crystals and snowflakes because of the shape of the H2O molecule. The same thing happens if you put a bunch of weak magnets in a jar and shake it. The magnets bounce around. When you stop, the magnets stick together. They are at a lower energy level. There is order, yet no complexity - just a simple repetitive structure that does not do anything. The Second Law is not bypassed or violated.
But guess what. Amino acid molecules that form proteins, and nucleotide molecules that form DNA and RNA resist combining at any temperature.
To combine, they need the help of mechanisms in a living cell or a biochemist in an organic chemistry laboratory.
It means that nothing happens in the primeval soup, the pond of chemicals where evolutionists believe life began.
DNA is made of only right-handed versions of nucleotides, while proteins are made of only left-handed versions of amino acids. Yet any random chemical reaction that produced nucleotides or amino acids would make an equal mix of left and right-handed versions of each.
Even if the thousands of nucleotides needed to form a DNA molecule, or the hundreds of amino acids needed to form a protein molecule were able to combine from the mix, they would be a jumble of left and right-handed versions that could not function at all.
This is the problem of "chirality", and evolutionists have never been able to solve it.
PROTEINS CLINCH IT!
Making and folding proteins goes on continuously throughout the body.
Misfolding can lead to more than proteins that don't work.
In humans, bunches of them (aggregates) can lead to diseases such as Alzheimer's, Huntington's, or sickle cell.
"Proteins are so precisely built that the change of even a few atoms in one amino acid can sometimes disrupt the structure of the whole molecule so severely that all function is lost."1
All proteins stick (bind) to other molecules. But each can bind to only a few of the thousands it encounters.
"An average protein in a human cell may interact with somewhere between 5 and 15 different partners."
Their shapes fit each other like a hand in a glove.
"Proteins can form enormously sophisticated chemical devices."
"The most impressive tasks are carried out by large protein assemblies formed from many protein molecules."
"Each of the central processes in a cell... is catalyzed by a highly coordinated, linked set of 10 or more proteins."1
The parts of a cell where proteins are made (ribosomes) are themselves made of many different proteins.
"The complexity of living organisms is staggering."
In the face of this breathtaking complexity, evolutionists have tried to find the basic things necessary for a cell to function.
So far they have found 17 general categories1:
- Replication, recombination, and repair
- Transcription
- Cell cycle control, mitosis, and meiosis
- Defense mechanisms
- Cell wall/membrane biogenesis
- Signal transduction mechanisms
- Intracellular trafficking and secretion
- Translation
- Post-translational modification, protein turnover, chaperones
- Energy production and conversion
- Carbohydrate transport and metabolism
- Amino acid transport and metabolism
- Nucleotide transport and metabolism
- Coenzyme transport and metabolism
- Lipid transport and metabolism
- Inorganic ion transport and metabolism
- Secondary metabolite biosynthesis, transport, and catabolism
Each category requires many proteins.
All have to be in place and working together or the cell is wrecked.
So evolutionists have to believe that for each protein, PURE BLIND CHANCE laid out long strings of amino acids that fold themselves into the exact shapes needed to interact with other specialized proteins and, where needed, get help from chaperone proteins which themselves appeared by chance.
The necessary proteins cannot be invented one at a time. Either they are all there, ready to work together, or nothing happens and they disintegrate. Yet even if it could design proteins, mutation-natural selection would only work on one at a time sporadically over many years.
Considering just the complexity of proteins, the notion of creating them with mutation-natural selection is as silly as asking someone to build a television set with a spoon and a toothbrush.
If Darwin had known what we have learned about proteins, he probably would have abandoned the theory of evolution.
Darwin himself wrote in chapter 6 of On the Origin of Species that "natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being... If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
OH, IT'S BROKEN DOWN ALRIGHT!
BUT BROKEN AS IT IS, SOME WILL CLING TO THIS MAD-HATTER'S THEORY UNTIL THEY DIE.
NEW FACTS, OLD PROOF, NOTHUNG WILL DETER THESE DEDICATED EVOLUTIONISTS.
THERE ARE INNUMERABLE RESOURCES FOR YOU TO READ AND EXPLORE FOR YOURSELVES TO SEE WHY WE SHOULD FINALLY DISCARD EVOLUTION AND GET TO THE FACTS.
I LIST MANY BELOW.
READ, LEARN.
MY FINAL QUOTE IS FROM A MAN I MET AND WHOM I ADMIRED ALL MY LIFE.. HE WAS THE GUIDING FORCE IN AMERICA'S SPACE PROGRAM.
"To be forced to believe only one conclusion -- that everything in the universe happened by chance -- would violate the very objectivity of science itself.
Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?
Some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence of a Designer... They challenge science to prove the existence of God.
But, must we really light a candle to see the sun?"
--Wernher von Braun 1912 - 1977
Posted in accordance with Title 17, Section 107, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes..
OTHER SOURCES NOT CITED ABOVE:
1. Alberts, Bruce, Alexander Johnson, Julian Lewis, Martin Raff, Keith Roberts, Peter Walter. 2008. Molecular Biology of The Cell, 5th edition. Garland Science, New York.
2. Anderson, G. M. 1996. Thermodynamics of Natural Systems. John Wiley & Sons, Toronto.
3. Baker, Monya. 10 February 2011. Genomes in Three Dimensions. Nature, Vol. 470, pp. 289-294.
4. Balleza, Enrique, Elena R. Alvarez-Buylla, Alvaro Chaos, Stuart Kauffman, Ilya Shmulevich, Maximino Aldana. June 2008. Critical Dynamics in Genetic Regulatory Networks: Examples from Four Kingdoms. PLoS ONE, Vol. 3, No. 6, pp. 1-10.
5. Bergman, Jerry. August 2000. Do any vestigial organs exist in humans? Technical Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 95-98.
6. Brandman, Onn, Tobias Meyer. 17 October 2008. Feedback Loops Shape Cellular Signals in Space and Time. Science, Vol. 322, No. 5900, pp. 390-395.
7. Carninci, Piero, Jun Yasuda, Yoshihide Hayashizaki. 2008. Multifaceted mammalian transcriptome. Current opinion in Cell Biology, Vol. 20, pp. 274-280.
8. Cemic, Ladislav. 2005. Thermodynamics in Mineral Sciences. Springer, New York.
9. Coates, Michael I. 26 March 2009. Beyond the Age of Fishes. Nature, Vol. 458. pp. 413-414.
10. Dagan T., W. Martin. 2006. The tree of one percent. Genome Biology, Vol. 7, No. 10, pp. 118.
11. Dekker, Job. 28 March 2008. Gene Regulation in the Third Dimension. Science, Vol. 319, pp. 1793-1794.
12. Doolittle, W. Ford, Eric Bapteste. February 13, 2007. Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 104, No. 7, pp. 2043-2049.
13. Doolittle, W. Ford. 25 June 1999. Phylogenetic Classification and the Universal Tree. Science, Vol. 284, No. 5423, pp. 2124-2128.
14. Duke University Medical Center. "Evolution Of The Human Appendix: A Biological 'Remnant' No More." ScienceDaily 21 August 2009. Retrieved 12 September 2009 <http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2009/08/090820175901.htm>.
15. Fahraeus, Robin, Marc Blondel. 2008. Editorial: RNA-assisted protein folding. Biotechnology Journal, Vol. 3, pp. 967-969.
16. Franze, Kristian, Jens Grosche, Serguei N. Skatchkov, Stefan Schinkinger, Christian Foja, Detlev Schild, Ortrud Uckermann, Kort Travis, Andreas Reichenbach, Jochen Guck. May 15, 2007. Muller cells are living optical fibers in the vertebrate retina. PNAS Vol. 104, No. 20, pp. 8287-8292. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0611180104
17. Gillooly, James F., Andrew P. Allen, Geoffrey B. West, James H. Brown. January 4, 2005. The rate of DNA evolution: Effects of body size and temperature on the molecular clock. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 102, No. 1, pp. 140-145.
18. Gish, Duane T., PhD. Biochemistry. January 2007. A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible. Impact #403, Acts and Facts, Institute for Creation Research.
19. Glass, John I., Nacyra Assad-Garcia, Nina Alperovich, Shibu Yooseph, Matthew R. Lewis, Mahir Maruf, Clyde A. Hutchison III, Hamilton O. Smith, J. Craig Venter. January 10, 2006. Essential genes of a minimal bacterium. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 103, No. 2, pp. 425-430.
20. Jacob, Francois. June 10 1977. Evolution and Tinkering. Science, New Series, Vol. 196, Issue 4295, pp. 1161-1166.
21. Khalturin K, Anton-Erxleben F, Sassmann S, Wittlieb J, Hemmrich G, et al. 2008. A novel gene family controls species-specific morphological traits in Hydra. PLoS Biol 6(11): e278. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060278
22. Koonin, Eugene V. 12 February 2009. Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics. Nucleic Acids Research, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 1011-1034.
23. Koonin, Eugene V. 20 August 2007. The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution. Biology Direct, Vol. 2:21, pp. 1-17.
24. Labin, A.M., E. N. Ribak. 16 April 2010. Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity. Physical Review Letters, Vol. 104, No. 15, pp. 158102-1 to 4. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.158102
25. Labin, Amichai M., Shadi K. Safuri, Erez N. Ribak, Ido Perlman. 8 July 2014. Muller cells separate between wavelengths to improve day vision with minimal effect upon night vision. Nature Communications, Vol. 5, No. 4319, pp. 1-9. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms5319
26. Lawton, Graham. 21 January 2009. Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life. New Scientist Magazine, issue 2692.
27. Lee, Michael S.Y., James B. Jago, Diego C. Garcia-Bellido, Gregory D. Edgecombe, James G. Gehling, John R. Paterson. 30 June 2011. Modern optics in exceptionally preserved eyes of Early Cambrian arthropods from Australia. Nature, Vol. 474, pp. 631-634.
28. Lewis Julian. 17 October 2008. From Signals to Patterns: Space, Time, and Mathematics in Developmental Biology. Science, Vol. 322, pp. 399-403.
29. Lowe, Craig B., Gill Bejerano, David Haussler. May 8, 2007. Thousands of human mobile element fragments undergo strong purifying selection near developmental genes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 104, No. 19, pp. 8005-8010.
30. Lunyak, Victoria V., Gratien G. Prefontaine, Esperanza Nunez, Thorsten Cramer, Bong-Gun Ju, Kenneth A. Ohgi, Kasey Hutt, Rosa Roy, Angel Garcia-Diaz, Xiaoyan Zhu, Yun Yung, Lluis Montoliu, Christopher K. Glass, Michael G. Rosenfeld. July 13, 2007. Developmentally Regulated Activation of a SINE B2 Repeat as a Domain Boundary in Organogenesis. Science, Vol. 317, No. 5835, pp. 248-251.
31. Makalowski, Wojciech. May 23, 2003. Not Junk After All. Science, Vol. 300, No. 5623, pp. 1246-1247.
32. Makeyev, Eugene V., Tom Maniatis. 28 March 2008. Multilevel Regulation of Gene Expression by MicroRNAs. Science, Vol. 319, pp. 1789-1790.
34. Pace, John K. II, Clement Gilbert, Marlena S. Clark, Cedric Feschotte. November 4, 2008. Repeated horizontal transfer of a DNA transposon in mammals and other tetrapods. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 105, No. 44, pp. 17023-17028.
35. Pilcher, Helen. 19 January 2013. Genes from nowhere: Orphans with a surprising story. New Scientist, No. 2900, pp. 38-41.
36. Prigogine, Ilya, Gregoire Nicolis, Agnes Babloyants. 1972. Thermodynamics of Evolution. Physics Today, Vol. 25, No. 11, pp. 23-44.
37. Reichenbach, Andreas, Andreas Bringmann. May 2013. New functions of Muller cells. Glia, Vol. 61, No. 5, pp. 651-678. DOI: 10.1002/glia.22477
38. Richardson, Michael K., James Hanken, Mayoni L. Gooneratne, Claude Pieau, Albert Raynaud, Lynne Selwood, Glenda M. Wright. July 1997. There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: implications for current theories of evolution and development. Anatomy and Embryology, Vol. 196, No. 2, pp. 91-106.
39. Shu, D.-G., S. Conway Morris, J. Han, Z.-F. Zhang, K. Yasui, P. Janvier, L. Chen, X.-L. Zhang, J.-N. Liu, Y. Li, H.-Q. Liu. 30 January 2003. Head and backbone of the Early Cambrian vertebrate Haikouichthys. Nature, Vol. 421, pp. 526-529.
40. Smith, H.F., R.E. Fisher, M.L. Everett, A.D. Thomas, R. Randal Bollinger, W. Parker. October 2009. Comparative anatomy and phylogenetic distribution of the mammalian cecal appendix. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 22, No. 10, pp. 1984-1999. doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01809.x
41. Smith, Heather F., William Parker, Sanet H. Kotze, Michel Laurin. 2013. Multiple independent appearances of the cecal appendix in mammalian evolution and an investigation of related ecological and anatomical factors. Comptes Rendus Palevol, 16 pages. doi:10.1016/j.crpv.2012.12.001
42. Szell, Marta, Zsuzsanna Bata-Csorgo, Lajos Kemeny. 2008. The enigmatic world of mRNA-like ncRNAs: Their role in human evolution and in human diseases. Seminars in Cancer Biology, Vol. 18, pp. 141-148.
43. van Steensel, Bas, Job Dekker. October 2010. Genomics tools for unraveling chromosome architecture. Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 28, No. 10, pp. 1089-1093.
44. Weaver, Robert F. 2008. Molecular Biology, Fourth Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York. pp. 660-680.
45. Wissler, Lothar, Jurgen Gadau, Daniel F. Simola, Martin Helmkampf, Erich Bornberg-Bauer. January 24, 2013. Mechanisms and dynamics of orphan gene emergence in insect genomes. Genome Biology and Evolution Advance Access. doi:10.1093/gbe/evt009
46. Wood, Richard D., Michael Mitchell, John Sgouros, Tomas Lindahl. 16 February 2001. Human DNA Repair Genes. Science, Vol. 291, No. 5507, pp. 1284-1289.
47. Wu D-D, Irwin DM, Zhang Y-P. 2011. De Novo Origin of Human Protein-Coding Genes. PLoS Genet 7(11): e1002379. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1002379
48. Zhu, Min, Wenjin Zhao, Liantao Jia, Jing Lu, Tuo Qiao, Qingming Qu. 26 March 2009. The oldest articulated osteichthyan reveals mosaic gnathostome characters. Nature, Vol. 458, pp. 469-474.
AND THE INVALUABLE RESOURCE OF Debunking Evolution:Problems between the theory and reality
John Michael Fischer
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
AND The Scientific Case Against Evolution