Charles Darwin wrong: Modern scientists debunk Darwin’s ‘Tree of Life’ diagram

72

The tree of life is a metaphor used to describe the relationships between organisms, both living and extinct. Its use dates back to at least the early 1800s. It was employed by Charles Darwin to express the concept of the branching divergence of varieties and then species in a process of common descent from ancestors.

The great naturalist first sketched how species might evolve along branches of an imaginary tree in 1837, an idea that quickly came to symbolize the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Modern scientists and geneticists are now saying that representing evolutionary history as a tree is misleading. A more realistic way to represent the origins and inter-relatedness of species would be an “impenetrable thicket.”

Darwin himself also wrote about evolution and ecosystems as a “tangled bank.”

“We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,” Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, told New Scientist magazine.

Read the rest at Examiner

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • Good and Godless

    Eric’s quote from 1999 is an clarification on the utilization of the “tree of life” diagram to represent the inter-exchange of genetic material between species throughout the evolutionary process.

    • HappyClinger

      Genetic material cannot be exchanged between species. If you knew anything about DNA, you would know that.

      • Yes, genetic material can be exchanged between species. Quote from the Examiner article: Genetic tests on bacteria, plants and animals increasingly reveal that different species crossbreed and form hybrids more than originally thought, meaning that instead of genes simply being passed down individual branches of the tree of life, they are also transferred between species on different evolutionary paths. The result is a messier and more tangled “web of life.”

      • Good and Godless

        It is called “Horizontal Gene Transfer” and it has been known about for ages. You’ve got junk DNA from dozens of species idle in your cells. 8% of your unused DNA has been shown to be formed by retrotransposons of Human Endogenous Retroviruses (HERVs), although as much as 25% is recognisably formed of retrotransposons.

        Samples From Wikipedia:
        Analysis of DNA sequences suggests that horizontal gene transfer has also occurred within eukaryotes from the chloroplast and mitochondrial genomes to the nuclear genome. As stated in the endosymbiotic theory, chloroplasts and mitochondria probably originated as bacterial endosymbionts of a progenitor to the eukaryotic cell.[32]
        Horizontal transfer of genes from bacteria to some fungi, especially the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, has been well documented.[33]
        There is also recent evidence that the adzuki bean beetle has somehow acquired genetic material from its (non-beneficial) endosymbiont Wolbachia.[34] New examples have recently been reported demonstrating that Wolbachia bacteria represent an important potential source of genetic material in arthropods and filarial nematodes.[35]
        There is also evidence for horizontal transfer of mitochondrial genes to parasites of the Rafflesiaceae plant family from their hosts (also plants),[36][37] from chloroplasts of a not-yet-identified plant to the mitochondria of the bean Phaseolus,[38] and from a heterokont alga to its predator, the sea slug Elysia chlorotica.[39]
        Striga hermonthica, a eudicot, has undergone a horizontal gene transfer from sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) to its nuclear genome.[40] The gene is of unknown functionality.
        Researchers at the University of Arizona have found that the genome of pea aphids (Acyrthosiphon pisum) contains multiple genes that were horizontally transferred from fungi.[41][42] Plants, fungi, and microorganisms can synthesize carotenoids, but torulene made by pea aphids is the only carotenoid known to be synthesized by an organism in the animal kingdom.[41]
        It was recently suggested that the malaria causing pathogen Plasmodium vivax has horizontally acquired from humans genetic material that might help facilitate its long stay in the body.[43]
        A 2012 paper proposes a novel bacteriophage-mediated mechanism of horizontal gene transfer between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. The authors show the widespread presence of nuclear localization signals in bacteriophage terminal proteins (TP), which prime DNA replication and become covalently linked to the viral genome. Taking into account the known role of virus and bacteriophages in HGT in bacteria, the authors propose that TP-containing genomes could be a vehicle of inter-kingdom genetic information transference all throughout evolution.[44]
        The HhMAN1 is a gene in the genome of the coffee borer beetle (Hypothenemus hampei) that resembles bacterial genes, and is thought to be transferred from bacteria in the beetle’s gut.[45][46]

        • Kenneth

          “Good and Godless”, if evolution was true, there would thousands, if not millions of transitional forms in the fossil record. Yet, there are none. NONE dude. In fact,the fossil record reveals that species emerged
          suddenly, and with totally different structures, and remained
          exactly the same over the longest geological periods. Jay Gould, a Harvard University paleontologist and well-known
          evolutionist, admitted this fact first in the late 70s:

          The history of most fossil
          species include two features particularly inconsistent with
          gradualism: 1) Stasis – most species exhibit no directional
          change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the
          fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear;
          morphological change is usually limited and directionless;
          2) Sudden appearance – in any local area, a species does
          not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its
          ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed’.

          See this link:http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_04.html

          • Good and Godless

            “The early evolution of the artiodactyls is
            fairly well documented by both the dentition
            and the skeletal material and provides the
            basis for fairly detailed analysis of
            evolutionary patterns….the origin of nearly
            all the recognized families can be traced to
            the late Middle Eocene or the Upper
            Eocene…” (Carroll, 1988)
            Chriacus (early Paleocene) — A primitive
            oxyclaenid condylarth from the Lower
            Paleocene. Has many tooth features linking it
            to later Diacodexis ; but in all other ways,
            including the legs, it was an unspecialized
            condylarth.
            GAP: No artiodactyl fossils known from the
            late Paleocene. Similar late Paleocene gaps in
            rodents, lagomorphs, and perissodactyls are
            currently being filled with newly discovered
            Asian fossils, so apparently much late
            Paleocene herbivore evolution occurred in
            central Asia. Perhaps the new Asian
            expeditions will find Paleocene artiodactyl
            fossils too. At any rate, somewhere between
            Chriacus & Diacodexis, the hind leg changed,
            particularly the ankle, to allow smooth
            running.
            Diacodexis (early Eocene) — A rabbit-sized
            with longer limbs than the condylarths. The
            fibula was reduced to a splint, and in some
            (but not all!) individuals, fused partially to the
            tibia. Artiodactyl-like “double pulley” ankle
            (because of this feature, Diacodexis is
            automatically classified as the first
            artiodactyl). The feet were very elongated,
            and the 3rd and 4th toes bore the most
            weight. Many primitive, non-artiodactyl
            features retained: collarbone, unfused ulna,
            primitive femur, unfused foot bones with all 5
            toes, could still spread hind limb out to the
            side, very primitive skull & teeth (all teeth
            present, no gaps, simple cusps). In fact, in
            most ways, Diacodexis is just a leggy
            condylarth. Only the ankle shows that it was
            in fact the ancestor of all our modern cloven-
            hoofed animals (possible exception: the
            hippos & pigs may have split off earlier).
            There are abundant species-to- species
            transitions linking Diacodexis to various
            artiodactyl familes (see below).
            Hippos & pigs:
            Helohyus or a similar helohyid (mid-Eocene) —
            Primitive artiodactyl, larger than Diacodexis
            but with relatively shorter & stouter limbs,
            with bulbous cusps on the molars.
            Anthracotherium and later anthracotheriids
            (late Eocene) — A group of heavy artiodactyls
            that started out dog-size and increased to be
            hippo-size. Later species became amphibious
            with hippo-like teeth. Led to the modern
            hippos in the early Miocene, 18 Ma.
            Propalaeochoerus or a similar cebochoerid/
            choeropotamid (late Eocene) — Primitive
            piglike artiodactyls derived from the
            helohyids (see above).
            Perchoerus (early Oligocene) — The first
            known peccary.
            Paleochoerus (early Oligocene, 38 Ma) — First
            known true pig, apparently ancestral to all
            modern pigs. Pigs on the whole are still rather
            primitive artiodactyls; they lost the first toe
            on the forefoot and have long curving
            canines, but have very few other skeletal
            changes and still have low-cusped teeth. The
            main changes are a great lengthening of the
            skull & development of curving side tusks.
            These changes are seen Hyotherium (early
            Miocene), probably ancestral to the modern
            pig Sus and other genera.
            Camels:
            Diacodexis (early Eocene, see above)
            Homacodon & other dichobunids (mid-Eocene)
            — Similar to Diacodexis but with some
            advances; probably close to the ancestry of
            the rest of the artiodactyls.
            Poebrodon (late Eocene) — First primitive
            camelid. Like other late Eocene artiodactyls, it
            had developed crescent-shaped grinding
            ridges on the cheek teeth. A small, short-
            necked, four-toed animal with little hooves on
            each toe.
            Poebrotherium (mid-Oligocene) — A taller
            camelid with fused arm & leg bones, and
            missing toes 1, 4, and 5. Longer neck, though
            still much shorter than modern camels. Had
            hooves.
            From here the camel lineage developed pads
            in place of hooves on the feet, reverted to
            digitigrade posture, and began pacing instead
            of trotting, as shown by Miocene fossil
            footprints. This camel lineage goes through
            Protomeryx (early Miocene) and Procamelus
            (Miocene). The llamas split off here (Lama ).
            The main camel lineage continued through
            Pliauchenia (Pliocene) and finally, in the late
            Pliocene, Camelus , the modern camels.
            Ruminants: (see Scott & Janis, in Szalay et al.,
            1993, for details)
            It’s been very difficult to untangle the
            phylogeny of this fantastically huge, diverse,
            and successful group of herbivores. From the
            Eocene on, there are dozens of similar
            species, only some of them leading to modern
            lineages, with others in dozens of varied
            offshoot groups. Only recently have the main
            outlines become clear. The phylogeny listed
            below will probably change a bit as new
            information comes in.
            Diacodexis (early Eocene, see above)
            Homacodon & other dichobunids (mid-Eocene,
            see above)
            Mesomeryx (late Eocene) — A more advanced
            dichobunid; probably close to the ancestry of
            the rest of the artiodactyls.
            Hypertragulus , Indomeryx or a similar
            hypertragulid (late Eocene) — Primitive
            ruminants with a tendency toward crescent
            ridges on teeth, high-crowned teeth, and loss
            of one cusp on the upper molars. Long- legged
            runners and bounders, with many primitive
            features, but with telltale transitional signs:
            Still 5 toes on front and 4 behind, but the side
            toes are now smaller. Fibula still present
            (primitive), but now partially fused at the
            ends with the tibia. Upper incisors still
            present, but now smaller. Upper canine still
            pointed, but now the lower canine is like an
            incisor. Ulna and radius fused (new feature).
            Postorbital bar incomplete (primitive feature).
            Two ankle bones fused (new feature). Mastoid
            bone exposed on the surface of the skull
            (primitive feature).
            Hyemoschus or other tragulids (Oligocene) —
            Slightly more advanced ruminants called
            “tragulids” that have the above features plus
            loss of part of the first toe, some more bones
            fused, fibula shaft no longer ossifies. Too late
            to be actual ancestors; probably “cousins”.
            Some later tragulids are still alive and are
            considered the most primitive living
            ruminants.
            Archaeomeryx, Leptomeryx (mid-late Eocene)
            — Rabbit-sized ruminants. Still had small
            upper incisors. The mastoid bone becomes
            less and less exposed in these “leptomerycids”.
            Bachitherium (early Oligocene) — A later, more
            advanced leptomerycid.
            Lophiomeryx , Gelocus (late Eocene, early
            Oligocene) — The most advanced ruminants
            yet, called “gelocids”, with a more compact
            and efficient ankle, still smaller side toes,
            more complex premolars and an almost
            completely covered mastoid bone. A slightly
            different lineage split off from this gelocid
            family in the late Eocene or early Oligocene,
            eventually giving rise to these four families:
            1. Deer: Prodremotherium (late Eocene), a
            slightly deerlike ruminant, and Eumeryx
            (Oligocene), a more deer-like ruminant,
            Dicrocerus (early Miocene), with the first
            antlers (similar to living muntjacs),
            Acteocemas (Miocene), and then a shmoo of
            successful Miocene & Pliocene groups that
            survive today as modern deer — cervines,
            white- tails, moose, reindeer, etc.
            2. Giraffes: Branched off from the deer just after
            Eumeryx . The first giraffids were Climacoceras
            (very earliest Miocene) and then Canthumeryx
            (also very early Miocene), then Paleomeryx
            (early Miocene), then Palaeotragus (early
            Miocene) a short-necked giraffid complete
            with short skin-covered horns. From here the
            giraffe lineage goes through Samotherium (late
            Miocene), another short-necked giraffe, and
            then split into Okapia (one species is still
            alive, the okapi, essentially a living Miocene
            short-necked giraffe), and Giraffa (Pliocene),
            the modern long-necked giraffe.
            3. Pronghorns: Paracosoryx prodromus (early
            Miocene, 21 Ma) a primitive antilocaprid,
            probably derived from a North American
            branch of the bovid lineage. Next came
            Merycodus (Miocene), with branched
            permanent horns. Led to numerous
            antilocaprids in the Pliocene. Only the
            pronghorn is still alive.
            4. Bovids: known from isolated teeth in the late
            Oligocene, then from Eotragus , a primitive
            ancestral mid-Miocene bovid. Protragocerus
            (Miocene) soon followed. The first sheep
            (Oioceros ) and gazelles (Gazella ) are known
            from the mid-late Miocene (14 Ma), the first
            cattle (Leptobos, Parabos) from the early
            Pliocene (5 Ma).

          • John Stinnett

            You really believe all that non-sense. There is evidence of all kinds of transitional species in the rock record. Layers upon layers of evidence. Rather than researching the unbiased truth you look for your version of the truth that fits your agenda. You need to understand the difference.

  • dave_aka_lambsev

    The references to genetic transference seem to be a new way of explaining evolution rather than any movement toward creation science. The only genetic exchanges I know of were/are done by human experiment.

    • Good and Godless

      Google some more – and learn some more – Horizontal Gene Transfer has been occurring naturally since very nearly the beginning of evolution. 8% of your own DNA comes from other species.

      • dave_aka_lambsev

        the beginning of evolution? Define evolution and also tell when it began.

        • Good and Godless

          Evolution began to show tangible results on Earth about 3.6 billion years ago.

          Keep asking questions, it is a good step to becoming an Atheist.

          • dave_aka_lambsev

            And who from 3.6 billion years ago can verify that?

          • Good and Godless

            Their descendants.

          • dave_aka_lambsev

            Whose descendants?

          • Good and Godless

            Every RNA user is a descendant.

  • The examiner article does not really “debunk” Darwin. It more or less explains that the tree of life diagram is an oversimplification of the evolutionary process, and that the process is more complex then that because different species crossbreed with each other.

    If you mean to imply that the examiner article casts doubt on evolutionary theory, then you have not understood the article. It reinforces evolutionary theory.

    • DNA, Christina. Explain how it shows up in evolution, which has as its main component, randomness. Evolution is a joke which schools have taught as fact. Time to get educated, not schooled.

      • Good and Godless

        Spend some time on Wikipedia

        Horizontal gene transfer is the primary reason for bacterial antibiotic resistance,[1][2][3][4] and plays an important role in the evolution of bacteria that can degrade novel compounds such as human-created pesticides[5] and in the evolution, maintenance, and transmission of virulence

        • Explain how one bacterial cell could produce Eukaryotic cells? Its never happened, and that in itself debunks evolution. Prokaryotic cells can not form Eukaryotic cells.

          • Good and Godless

            Evidence supports the idea that eukaryotic cells are
            actually the descendents of separate prokaryotic cells
            that joined together in a symbiotic union. In fact, the
            mitochondrion itself seems to be the “great-great-great-
            great-great-great-great-great-great granddaughter” of a
            free-living bacterium that was engulfed by another cell,
            perhaps as a meal, and ended up staying as a sort of
            permanent houseguest. The host cell profited from the
            chemical energy the mitochondrion produced, and the
            mitochondrion benefited from the protected, nutrient-
            rich environment surrounding it. This kind of “internal”
            symbiosis — one organism taking up permanent
            residence inside another and eventually evolving into a
            single lineage — is called endosymbiosis.

          • Sons Thunder
    • tmunson15

      Christina…. if one relys on “science” for all the answers then one needs to either agree or disagree with them in that, scientifically, everything and everybody is in decay from the time manufactured or born … so it is impossible to progress if one is in decay.. and if you are in disagreement with that.. the scientific community, by and large, subscribe to the anthropic principle… which briefly says that everything in the universe has a design…. so logic, common sense and deductive reasoning tells me… if something has a design…. then it must have a designer..

      • Good and Godless

        I read back through your postings and I missed finding any discord against the building codes in San Fransisco as the Theory of Plate Tectonics is so much more recent of a theory than the Theory of evolution.

        The Scientific Method is not generous for the purposes of condoning theological mind closing, it is generous for the purposes of allowing scientific mind expanding.

        Your pretend dedication to science is the party line’s transparent attempt to further the absurd position at the expense of the legitimate tenets of the scientific method.

        • tmunson15

          reread again without… bias…………

          • Good and Godless

            Post again – without bias.

          • tmunson15

            well….. I reread your posts and other than they are lacking in facts… lacking in logic … lacking in common sense and lacking in deductive reasoning….. they are brilliant opinions

    • John Stinnett

      Of course it’s an oversimplification, its a small piece of paper on which he scribbled his ideas. It would take a powerful software platform to fully model all of the relationships, variations etc. etc. that have evolved over time in the animal kingdom. People shouldn’t throw out out evolution because Darwin didn’t fully illustrate it on a piece of paper.

  • TheSunDidIt

    Evolution theorists remind me of the global warming crowd. Interesting theories not based in provable hard science.

    • yon3ex

      Global warming has been proved through hard science. Carbon monoxide levels in the air, effects of global temperature increases, ozone layer depletion, polar ice caps melting, animal behaviors… The list goes on and on..

      • tmunson15

        depends on which “hard science” one subscribes to… some say it’s human manufactured….others say… it’s biggest contributor is animal excrements …. others say that samples from the south pole indicate the earth is in a cycle and still others say that the data we have is to current to pinpoint exactly what causes global warming…. so in a word… these and others agree to disagree…

      • mediamike

        1. All the planets are warming in this solar system. Yes, there is global warming. The question is “what is the REAL cause?”

        2. More carbon monoxide occurs from volcanic eruptions than from cars. It isn’t cars causing the problem.

        3. Planes have been spraying aluminum, barium, and other metals in the air over most of the northern hemisphere since before 1998.
        QUESTION: Where should you be spending your energy, chasing a red herring, or attacking the REAL cause of atmospheric manipulation and the deaths of unrevealed quantities of species both plant and animal lately?

        If the planet’s warming was caused by man, then why are all the planets brighter than they were 50 years ago? The stars all appear dimmer due to city lights, put the planets are brighter.

        Why is the sun whiter than it was 50 years ago? It was a more yellow star, and there was far less difference between the sun and shade temperatures on the skin. Why do you see the entire outline of the moon even during crescent and gibbous phases? Why are there always double rainbows now? These things were very rare 50 years ago.

        The SUN is changing, and humans had nothing to do with it. Now, I’m not arguing that humans aren’t polluting the air of this planet, they most certainly are, and I know that all of our cars could be running on water right now, because mine already does, and it’s a 64 Chevy.

        If you live in a city in the US, then you already know that most of your clouds are coming from airplanes. They don’t have sharp edges like real clouds. They SUCK UP real clouds and cause drought. If you want to save life on this planet, you’d best get on board this topic, because time is short. CHEMTRAILS (aka Operation Cloverleaf)

      • Iamawake

        God designed the earth to be self monitoring and to maintain itself.
        There is no such thing as Global warming. It is called summer. How stupid can you be? Why do you think God created the different seasons? It amazes me how some people can be so bone headed.

        • yon3ex

          Ok, first off let’s begin with some biblical etiquette. Matthew 5:22 describes that calling anyone a “fool” (or stupid in this case) is subject to the fires of hell. Mathew 10:16 tells us to be “wise as serpents but gentle as doves”. Now I ask, where does YOUR wisdom come on this fact. We have different seasons because of the angle of the earth and rotation of the planet based on our revolution around the sun. Not every Country has a summer. The equinox has a consistent temperature all year long based on the position it is in. I do believe God created our world, but I also believe it has been left in our care. Based on that, what is your evidence. Bring me scientific, hard facts that you have come up with, or someone that is reputable in their field on global temperatures and climate changes, and I will listen. I can come back to you and bring you different articles, countless studies done to show that this world is being over polluted by fossil fuels. We have gone up to upwards of a billion cars throughout the entire planet. Cars are terribly inefficient and produce greenhouse gases that are not only harmful to the planet, but to people. Pollution causes a myriad of health problems. I have asthma because of pollution. The planets are brighter because the sun is brighter, yes. The sun is producing more energy, but that has no relation to heat. If the sun truly heated up by a significant amount, our planet would be gone. We reflect sunlight, like the moon does, like the planets do. Also, do you have any scientific background and or training, are you a person that has devoted countless hours, study, classes on time to be an expert on world climates? If not, you need to trust the people that do put in the time, that have put in hours of education to become reputable scientists that strive to protect our planet.

          • mallen11

            It doesn’t matter what man does because man cannot destroy the earth. The Ozone layer is designed to take all of the pollution of the universe even volcanoes
            Volcanoes fill the earth with billions particles and have to go up and be sorted out. These particles are made up of S02 and C02 and have to be converted into 02 before they return to the earth. The ozone layer thickens or thins according to the conversion of these particles. They do not pollute the earth and they go up thousands of miles into space and change into oxygen.
            Then if anything gets through that system there is the van Allen radiation belt which handles the rest of it and man benefits from it.
            Man can’t squirt the earth and destroy it.
            Man trashes the earth but can’t destroy it or our solar system.
            That is reserved for Jesus Christ: 2 Peter 3:7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the Day of Judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
            NEHEMIAH 9:6 You, even you, are the LORD alone; you have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and you preserve them all; and the host of heaven worships you.
            Acts 17:24 The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things;

      • Its been debunked. The earth has not changed temperature in the last 20 years by even 1 degree.

        • yon3ex

          share your source as proof of information

          • I take that back, it was 15 years. Here is the article http://www.policymic.com/articles/3824/a-really-inconvenient-truth-global-warming-is-not-real 31000 scientist say it does not exist.

          • yon3ex
          • yon3ex

            I’m actually really enjoying this back and forth Justin. Here’s my retort, as well as adding more comments.

            http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2013/04/22/Earth-said-to-be-the-warmest-in-the-last-1400-years/UPI-43541366673801/

            Global cooling can actually be an effect to global warming. As the polar ice caps melt, more arctic water is released into global currents, that alone could assist in cooling the globe. But something that is certain, is that we need to fight against corporations from doing what they want. We need to fight for cleaner environments, energy efficiency. Not only are we protecting our planet, but our people. Pollution has long been attributed to health issues.

          • According to global warming scientists, cooling,heating, and everything in between counts as global warming. Funny since they include everything that can happen to climate as “global warming” then how do you have a case for global cooling if actual cooling is including in global warming.. Oh wait they wont allow that, because if they did, then they would be wrong.,
            Do you remember in the news where scientists who were studying global warming were actually caught falsifying evidence to make it look like there was warming? The earth goes through periods of warming and cooling naturally. Yet during dinosaur times, the earth was much warmer than it is today and will never see that warmth again.

            Of course telling that to a global warming nut job is like trying to tell Al Gore he is not the inventor of the internet.
            He still claims it to this day.
            Ironic really, the most notorious promoter of global warming actually is a major stake holder in oil. King hypocrite..

          • Daniel from TN

            Al Gore did not invent the internet: He simply does not have the knowledge needed for that feat. BUT, I will give him credit for one thing.
            Gore did make more people aware of the existence of the internet, thereby increasing its use and importance in our lives.

          • If global warming caused the ice caps to melt and that caused the earth to cool, then it would no longer be warming and the ice caps would stop melting. Sounds like a system that fixes itself. Simply put, if the earth is cooling, it can’t be warming. Nothing can get both warmer and colder at the same time.

          • Good and Godless
          • Bookthief

            Your site claims 31,000 scientists signed on to this lie, but I can’t find one signature. Perhaps you can?

      • Daniel from TN

        Global warming has been proven to be a fallacy.
        1. The scientists who first proposed it said they did so only because they were threatened with cutoff of funding. This has been reported in several scientific journals, websites, and major news outlets.
        2. The average global temperature has been DECREASING, not increasing, by ½° to 1° for the last few years, according to NOAA. However, that does NOT mean we will experience another Ice Age, except in movie theatres.
        3. If you are referring to the “hole” discovered in the ozone layer at the North Pole, that has recently been discovered to be an ANNUAL event based on the Earth’s proximity to the sun at that time. The hole is not present the rest of the year.
        4. The polar ice caps have been replenishing for several years. They are now around 90% of what they were originally.
        5. Zoologists believe changes in animal behavior are due to a combination of increasing animal populations and the reduction of animal habitats due to increased construction in those habitats.
        6. Heat waves, like the one in 2012, occur due to weather patterns which take several years to complete one cycle. The high, or heat, end of a cycle varies each time. That is why 2012 was so unusually hot. BTW – The hottest summer ever recorded in history occured during the 1920s. It created the Dust Bowl. It also affected other countries but we didn’t hear much about it because global communications were not instantaneous, as they are today.
        The increase in greenhouses gases is due to the decreased number of trees and other plants as a result of increased construction in forests. Remember, plants “inhale” carbon dioxide and “exhale” oxygen. Eliminate enough trees and other plant life and carbon dioxide levels will eventually increase, NATURALLY (Even those who live in RIO Linda understand that).The solution is NOT government regulations such as the idiotic “Cap and Trade” legislation: That is nothing but a power grab, the same as almost all other Liberal legislation.
        The solution to increased greenhouse gases is so simple that people deny it: PLANT MORE TREES, which government and private scientific agencies and organizations are now recommending.

        • John Stinnett

          Finally some sanity on this thread – thank you!!! But I wish people would stop saying “God created” or “The ozone was designed…” or “God designed the earth to be self monitoring and to maintain itself” give me an f’ing break. The earth is a natural phenomena that happens to have the right elements to support life. Humans are meerly opportunistic organisms that evolved from simpler forms of life. We’ve created “God” to serve as a security blanket. God is meerly a manifestation of our ignorance, our hopelessness and our dispair. Think about it.

      • Imfrzn

        Amazing how these comments always degrade into chaos after some pseudo intellectual wants to flex his brain power on us poor uninformed. Global warming = control and taxes. The “science” is funded primarily by government grant. If the conclusions do not net a “sky is falling” conclusion that can be converted into government regulation, then that “scientist’s” funding dries up faster then any parched desert. Follow the money, it fills in the blanks better.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

  • Show you that the lift really came from a Dad and Mom no other way than God Said let There be Light.

  • Three letters debunk Darwin’s theories: D.N.A.

    • Good and Godless

      The tiny fact that debunks creationism – there is no god.

      • John Harris

        Well, good and godless, explain to me how you are in existence? If you want to use evolution, then you are not accepting the LAWS of thermodynamics, you are accepting the THEORY of evolution. Fact is, the universe is going from a complex state to a simple state and has been doing so since creation. Essentially, as an evolutionist you are asking me to accept that, contrary to observed and established scientific fact that the universe is going from a simple state to complex one. Don’t believe me, go study some physics (as I did at university) and see for yourself. I would emphasize the study of Thermodynamics.
        For me, unless you come up with a third way to explain how life on this planet came to be, there is either creation as explained in the Bible, or Darwin’s theory. So far, what is in the Bible has time and again been found to be true, as I would expect from the Divinely inspired word of God. Evolution, on the other hand, does not have one shred of evidence in support of it. And please don’t come with the argument that there are many bones in museums that support evolution, because all are basically bits and pieces that have been supposed by fanciful people into what they would have us all believe shows the evolution of man. They are all just creations of imagination from men who should know better.
        One other thing… explain to me in this theory of evolution you seem to worship why there are fossil records of creatures going back to prehistoric times whose descendants are unchanged up to the present despite all those countless years that evolution seems to need to explain itself?

        • Good and Godless

          All of your questions you could easily find the answers to in a quick search without a page long inquiry to an anonymous internet poster. Your point is well taken – you are ignoring the presented proof in favor of muddying the discussion.

          I am done with the generosity already abused by using the scientific “theory” principles. From now on “evolution” is a fact, there is “no god” as a fact and let us manage the affairs of this country without bondage from mythological superstition.

          Life is not random – it is inevitable. The tenacity with which it rebuilt and recovered throughout Earth’s long existence as testament.

        • John Stinnett

          Christianity serves as conventional “wisdom” until science proves it wrong. You are an “earth is flat” fool who is unwilling to open your mind to the facts that science has proven. Evolution is as much a theory as gravity.

        • IntelligentAnimation

          You are wrong to claim that there are only 2 options: Biblical creation or Darwinism. Neither fits the scientific evidence and a wide range of options exist in between.
          Most people believe in evolution for very good scientific reasons and most people believe in intelligence as a role in causing life, again for very sound reasons.
          There is no realistic possibility that Darwinism could work, but to claim that the only possible intelligently caused life is biblical is closed-minded.

    • John Stinnett

      DNA supports Darwin you idiot. In fact they’ve used DNA to trace human populations and movement back to Africa.

      • IntelligentAnimation

        JS, resorting to insults shows your insecurity in your position. I strongly disagree that DNA supports Darwinism, but your explanation, albeit brief, does not lead one to Darwinism.
        First, proving evolution happened is not the same as proving Darwinism happened. Second, you foolishly chose an example that was human to human evolution, which is microevolution, and accepted by most creationists.
        Everything we know about biology and evolution debunks Darwin’s theories, including the encoded information on DNA and the way in which it edits information. There is absolutely nothing random about genetics, as the Neo-Darwinists once insisted.

  • Cheryn

    Darwin was disproven years ago by science and yet it continues to be taught in our schools as fact because they don’t want to believe there is a God who created it all. I am currently reading “Case for a Creator” by Lee Strobel. Awesome book on the subject. And it discredits many of the other evolutionist therories.

    • The movie “Expelled” is another great documentary to watch. It goes into how DNA debunks evolution and how Hitler based eugenics off of Darwin’s theory.

  • Sapere Vedere

    I was shocked when I saw the headline, “Darwin was wrong.” I mean, are there people out there that didn’t know that? I live in the 5th largest school district in the country and in the year 2000 they removed all evolution teaching from K-12 because of the presentations William Lane Craig (the evolutionists worst nightmare) did at the city and state council hearings. The fact that it was still being taught in 1999 was a frightening thought. What’s next, them teaching the theory before evolution about life forming from dirty underwear & wheat (not kidding – scientists thought that). Below are a few sensational documentaries on the proof of intelligent design. I highly recommend adding them to your favorites or bookmarking them. Also, have a notebook handy and be sure to pass them on. Evolution? Sheesh. Ridiculous.

    Mysterious Islands (team of scientists retrace Darwins voyage – point out errors)
    http://youtu.be/jZn5qo6Q6IY

    Case for a Creator (former Atheist turned Christian based on evidence)
    http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=FJ0J0JNU

    Privileged Planet
    http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=7GGGGGNX

  • classicsforever

    A leading evolutionist (don’t ask me who, you’ll have to look it up) of long ago once said that if he didn’t follow evolution he would have to believe the Bible. Of course, he rejected the Bible since it interfered with his manner of living. At least he was honest about it.

  • Has anyone given thought to why an evolutionist proponent would come on a site like this and attempt to antagonize Christians? What insecurity must they have to feel that need? If they are satisfied with their theory, why would they not just think us poor deluded souls…(or whatever they call us)…and carry on with their lives? With laws all over the country virtually making it illegal to even mention God or creation or for that matter any other possibility, they have no need to refute our religion to advance their own humanism. It seems to me there must be something missing in them, some internal need for the spiritual side that they have refused, that makes them come. My advice to others is treat them like erring brothers, showing them love, without accepting the error. Continue to preach Christ crucified and the plan of salvation. Perhaps the Spirit will speak to their spirit, where we cannot.

    • Sapere Vedere

      I’m on the exact same page as you David. I also invite you to go to YouTube and look up videos about creation/intelligent design and you’ll find those same people chiming in under the comment section hurling insults at both the viewers and the movie creators. I have a theory about some of them though. I believe some are agnostic “wonderers.” They know evolution has so many holes in it you could float a hundred aircraft carriers through them but they also love sin. They don’t want to be held accountable. There is an internal battle going on between their mind (intellect) & their soul (conscience). The word “conscience” means “con” (with) “science” (knowledge). it is their conscience that brings them to the movie/documentary and it is their intellect that makes them lash out.

  • Daniel from TN

    Are any of you aware that Reverend Darwin RENOUNCED his own theory of evolution before he died? That’s right folks, I said “Reverend” Darwin. His training was in theology, not science. He was an ordained minister: Presbyterian, if I remember correctly. He renounced the theory because he saw many people using it as justification for the mistreatment and abuse of specific groups, such as Margaret Sanger and The Eugenics Society of America. Sanger and the Eugenics Society were dedicated to the elimination of the Colored race because they considered Coloreds to be inferior. Their goal was eventually extended to those they referred to as “White Trash.” In case you didn’t know it, the Eugenics Society changed its name, but not its goals, in the 1930s. Today that organization is called Planned Parenthood. Do you actually believe it’s a coincidence that over 90% of their abortion clinics are located in Black and low income areas?
    We hear little about Darwin renouncing his theory for basically one reason. At that time it was totally unheard of for scientists to renounce their own theories. Even if a theory was proven to be false, the scientist who developed it stood by it until he/she died.

    • John Stinnett

      So you’re saying he “renounced” it because it was too easy for society to abuse, not because it was wrong? The reason we don’t hear much about this renouncement is because it didn’t happen. “Darwin fully supported evolution. He admitted the concept was distasteful to him and had brought him much dismay, but he still held it.”

  • Imfrzn

    Amazing how these comments always degrade into chaos after some pseudo intellectual wants to flex his brain power on us poor uninformed. Global warming = control and taxes. The “science” is funded primarily by government grant. If the conclusions do not net a “sky is falling” conclusion that can be converted into government regulation, then that “scientist’s” funding dries up faster then any parched desert. Follow the money, it fills in the blanks better.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

  • Kenneth

    Evolution Is Not Happening Now

    First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact
    that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process,
    evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many
    “transitional” forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of
    course, is an array of distinct “kinds” of plants and animals with many
    varieties within each kind, but with very clear and — apparently —
    unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are
    many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no “dats” or
    “cogs.” Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor
    horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes
    are not true “vertical” evolution.

    Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and
    other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping
    they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to
    accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let
    alone a new “basic kind.”

    A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of
    anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged
    that:

    . . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception
    of Dobzhansky’s claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of
    a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1

    The scientific method traditionally has required experimental
    observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct
    from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it
    from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living
    evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged
    that evolution is a “simple fact,” nevertheless agrees that it is an
    “historical science” for which “laws and experiments are inappropriate
    techniques”2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.

  • Kenneth

    Evolution Never Happened in the Past

    Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that
    evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to
    claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of
    the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not
    include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional
    structures in the process of evolving.

    Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state
    of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be
    rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the
    more evolved.3

    Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a
    considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct
    “kind” to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore,
    to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved
    in the fossils — after all, there are billions of non-transitional
    structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful
    creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged
    walking whales), they are not there.

    Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called
    missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation
    in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of
    transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4

    The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from
    non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the
    evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the
    links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the
    present world.

    With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this
    field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic
    acids could have arisen without the other, concludes:

    And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5

    Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept
    any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have
    come first, but then he still has to admit that:

    The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain
    unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence
    in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6

    Translation: “There is no known way by which life could have arisen
    naturalistically.” Unfortunately, two generations of students have been
    taught that Stanley Miller’s famous experiment on a gaseous mixture,
    practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so!

    Miller put the whole thing in a ball, gave it an electric charge, and
    waited. He found that amino acids and other fundamental complex
    molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the apparatus. His
    discovery gave a huge boost to the scientific investigation of the
    origin of life. Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in
    a test tube was within reach of experimental science. Unfortunately,
    such experiments have not progressed much further than the original
    prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.7

    Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the
    primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex
    multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic
    evolutionist Gould admits that:

    The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.8

    Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the
    ancient ocean, with all its “hard parts” on the outside, managed to
    evolve into the first vertebrate — that is, the first fish– with its
    hard parts all on the inside.

    Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first
    backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.9

    Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A
    very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles
    Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of
    evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain
    the same!

    It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a
    biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their
    durations. . . .10

    So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of oganisms which didn’t change during their durations?

    Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple
    evolutionary trees — fossils from key periods are often not
    intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many
    different groups. . . . Generally, it seems that major groups are not
    assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner — new features are
    often “cut and pasted” on different groups at different times.11

    As far as ape/human intermediates are concerned, the same is true,
    although anthropologists have been eagerly searching for them for many
    years. Many have been proposed, but each has been rejected in turn.

    All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of
    digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have
    used this assortment of jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, together
    with molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a line of
    human descent going back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans
    and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor.12

    Anthropologists supplemented their extremely fragmentary fossil
    evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic evidence from
    living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will
    fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn’t help much either, for it
    contradicts fossil evidence. Lewin notes that:

    The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no
    means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine
    dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular
    phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different
    stories.13

    Summarizing the genetic data from humans, another author concludes, rather pessimistically:

    Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the
    processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished
    past can be achieved only by creative imagination.14

    Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is
    occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to
    conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In
    fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon
    faith in universal naturalism.

    Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same
    time, strong positive evidences for special creation. They are, in
    fact, specific predictions based on the creation model of origins.

    Creationists would obviously predict ubiquitous gaps between created
    kinds, though with many varieties capable of arising within each kind,
    in order to enable each basic kind to cope with changing environments
    without becoming extinct. Creationists also would anticipate that any
    “vertical changes” in organized complexity would be downward, since the
    Creator (by definition) would create things correctly to begin with.
    Thus, arguments and evidences against evolution are, at the same time,
    positive evidences for creation.

  • Kenneth

    The Equivocal Evidence from Genetics

    Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for
    evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious
    circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other
    biochemical components of organisms as their “proof” that evolution is a
    scientific fact. A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA
    itself is evidence for evolution since it is common to all organisms.
    More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two
    different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry.

    Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the
    Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based
    on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent
    design and creation, not evolution.

    The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the
    human/chimpanzee “similarity,” noting that chimpanzees have more than
    90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however,
    considering the many physiological resemblances between people and
    chimpanzees. Why shouldn’t they have similar DNA structures in
    comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders?

    Similarities — whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or
    anything else — are better explained in terms of creation by a common
    Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences
    between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and
    evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to
    have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds
    ever arise at all, by any natural process?

    The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA
    obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies,
    intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and
    human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or
    observable sense.

    Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with
    the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous
    gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA
    and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution. However, as noted
    above by Roger Lewin, this is often inconsistent with, not only the
    fossil record, but also with the comparative morphology of the
    creatures. Lewin also mentions just a few typical contradictions yielded
    by this type of evidence in relation to more traditional Darwinian
    “proofs.”

    The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order
    insectivores . . . is in fact more closely related to . . . the true
    elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to
    horses. The duckbilled platypus . . . is on equal evolutionary footing
    with . . . kangaroos and koalas.

    There are many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this approach.

    The abundance of so-called “junk DNA” in the genetic code also has
    been offered as a special type of evidence for evolution, especially
    those genes which they think have experienced mutations, sometimes
    called “pseudogenes.”However, evidence is accumulating rapidly today that these supposedly useless genes do actually perform useful functions.

    Enough genes have already been uncovered in the genetic midden to
    show that what was once thought to be waste is definitely being
    transmitted into scientific code.

    It is thus wrong to decide that junk DNA, even the socalled
    “pseudogenes,” have no function. That is merely an admission of
    ignorance and an object for fruitful research. Like the socalled
    “vestigial organs” in man, once considered as evidence of evolution but
    now all known to have specific uses, so the junk DNA and pseudogenes
    most probably are specifically useful to the organism, whether or not
    those uses have yet been discovered by scientists.

    At the very best this type of evidence is strictly circumstantial and
    can be explained just as well in terms of primeval creation
    supplemented in some cases by later deterioration, just as expected in
    the creation model.

    The real issue is, as noted before, whether there is any observable
    evidence that evolution is occurring now or has ever occurred in the
    past. As we have seen, even evolutionists have to acknowledge that this
    type of real scientific evidence for evolution does not exist.

    A good question to ask is: Why are all observable evolutionary
    changes either horizontal and trivial (so-called microevolution) or
    downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer seems to be
    found in the universally applicable laws of the science of
    thermodynamics.

  • Kenneth

    Evolution Could Never Happen at All

    The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in
    either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of
    evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of
    nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy — also known as the
    second law of thermodynamics — stipulates that all systems in the real
    world tend to go “downhill,” as it were, toward disorganization and
    decreased complexity.

    This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal,
    bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical
    systems, but also in biological and geological systems — in fact, in
    all systems, without exception.

    No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever
    been found — not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the
    “first law”), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of
    details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of
    the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.

    The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he
    does point out that the second law is “independent of details of
    models.” Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are
    reductionists — that is, they insist that there are no “vitalist”
    forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are
    explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case,
    biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of
    thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.

    Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact
    anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an
    “open system,” with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain
    evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural
    tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is
    how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski’s
    impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what
    he thinks is “natural processes’ ability to increase complexity” by
    noting what he calls a “flaw” in “the arguments against evolution based
    on the second law of thermodynamics.” And what is this flaw?

    Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system
    cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even
    without the actions of an intelligent agent.

    This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary
    dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open
    system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does
    not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the
    energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is
    converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

    The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of
    thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will
    increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of
    decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a
    guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion
    mechanisms.

    Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not “organizing”
    mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are
    commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as
    far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot
    generate order, but can only “sieve out” the disorganizing mutations
    presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never
    generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that
    evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all
    systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to
    show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal
    tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide
    proof of evolution, past or present.

    From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have
    learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution.
    The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or
    downward) changes within strict limits.

  • Kenneth

    Evolution is Religion — Not Science

    In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the
    long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such
    evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil
    record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it
    impossible on any significant scale.

    Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they
    almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists.
    Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific
    debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

    Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more
    harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist
    message.

    The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist
    message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?

    The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want
    to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything
    without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic
    religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and “new age”
    evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but
    they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even
    pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active
    role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including
    man.

    The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism — the
    proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own
    internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance,
    and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is
    instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic
    movement debated as to which term more adequately described their
    position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and
    inseparable.

    Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any
    other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the
    universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing
    but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even
    doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism
    cannot be proved to be true.

    Of course we can’t prove that there isn’t a God.

    Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion.

    The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted
    upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for
    example, says that:

    Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.

    A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

    Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a
    hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.

    It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today
    that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward
    Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of
    Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic
    atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist
    Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

    Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science.
    Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a
    full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . .
    . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning,
    and it is true of evolution still today.

    Another way of saying “religion” is “worldview,” the whole of
    reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of
    life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic
    evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from
    experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of
    evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical
    speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable
    game.

    Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.

    They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the
    evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the
    following remarkable statement.

    We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity
    of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the
    scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . .
    we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an
    apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material
    explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying
    to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we
    cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

    The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard.
    Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its
    validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the
    textbooks. But that doesn’t make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a
    recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

    We cannot identify ancestors or “missing links,” and we
    cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of
    evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about
    how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed
    wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how
    humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by
    prejudices and preconceptions.

    A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the
    passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism.
    Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated
    college professors, he says:

    And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . .
    our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal —
    without demonstration — to evidence that supports our position. We only
    introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted
    theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.

    Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist
    professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement.
    Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism,
    as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another
    scientist who frankly acknowledges this.

    As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes
    atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible
    with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from
    atheism.

    Once again, we emphasize that evolution is not science,
    evolutionists’ tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview,
    nothing more.

    (Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that
    explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real
    explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that
    anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental
    evidence is minimal.

    Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence
    demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not “minimal.”
    It is nonexistent!

    The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God, I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very
    beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as
    well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others,
    as well as the “liberal” movements in even the creationist religions
    (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).

    As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading
    evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary
    architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a “religion
    without revelation” and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition,
    1957). In a later book, he said:

    Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.

    Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change “our
    pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an
    evolution-centered pattern.”34 Then he went on to say that:
    “The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden
    on our thought.” Therefore, he concluded that “we must construct
    something to take its place.” That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.

    In closing this survey of the scientific case against evolution (and,
    therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all
    quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible
    references are included, and no statements by creationists. The
    evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that
    evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.

  • IntelligentAnimation

    The article is correct to note that the “tree of life” is an “oversimplification”, but it should not be completely dismissed either.
    I am a virulent anti-Darwinist. His theory is garbage and an embarrassing disaster to life science. He got almost everything wrong and it still hurts us today.
    Still, while the tree of life is more web-like than we once knew, it also has some tree-like elements in metazoans, and his diagram was mostly correct.
    Both horizontal evolution and vertical evolution are factual, but nothing happened the way Darwin thought. Evolution is teleological like everything else about life.