4b: Ten Impossibilities of Evolution (con’t)
The URL for my book is www.Evo-illusion.com.
The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at Amazon. The page begins below.
(5) Maxillary and mandibular teeth: It is also not even imaginable that maxillary teeth could form through mutations and natural selection, and articulate like perfect puzzle pieces with mandibular jaw teeth. The maxillary teeth mutations would have to know what the mandiblular teeth mutations were doing to an exact degree. That would require intelligence, and evolutionists say there is no intelligence.
You would have to believe in miracles to go for this one, which would make evolution no more than a religion. Add to that the fact that humans have primary teeth, an entire separate set that fit the mouth size of the juveniles of our species, also with perfect matching of the anatomy of th
e maxillary teeth with the mandibular, and you have a nightmare for evolutionists.
Below is a video I made on YouTube about the evolution of teeth. Click on the lower left arrow if you want to stay in the blog.
One of my favorite rebuttals from evolutionauts is that I should read a “peer reviewed paper” on the subject. That will “teach” me how evolution formed teeth. What a laugh. So, here is the abstract of a well known peer reviewed paper on the subject. Feel free to spend (waste) your time reading the entire paper. You will not find one sentence on how teeth actually evolved. As you can see, it is full of “teeth got more complex, teeth have diseases, teeth….blah blah blah”. Not even one sentence on how teeth were invented, how they evolved, how ameloblasts formed (cells that knit enamel), how odontoblasts formed (cells that knit dentin), how these cells placed themselves in the jaws, how they know exactly how and when to start and stop knitting so that a perfectly sculptured tooth will be the result……and on and on. Nothing. And every other peer reviewed paper is just like this one. The writers have absolutely no idea how teeth evolved. None. But, they are peer reviewed, and accepted as top notch science in the evolution community. Why don’t these people realize they are writing NOTHING? They are certainly intelligent. Why don’t the peer reviewers realize they are writing NOTHING? That they are wasting their time? That this isn’t evolution science? It is science, but not the science of evolution. I never cease to be astounded.
Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5:226-243 ©Ivyspring International Publisher
A Curriculum Vitae of Teeth: Evolution, Generation, Regeneration
Despina S. Koussoulakou, Lukas H. Margaritis, Stauros L. Koussoulakos✉
University of Athens, Faculty of Biology, Department of Cell Biology and Biophysics, Athens, Greece
The ancestor of recent vertebrate teeth was a tooth-like structure on the outer body surface of jawless fishes. Over the course of 500,000,000 years of evolution, many of those structures migrated into the mouth cavity. In addition, the total number of teeth per dentition generally decreased and teeth morphological complexity increased. Teeth form mainly on the jaws within the mouth cavity through mutual, delicate interactions between dental epithelium and oral ectomesenchyme. These interactions involve spatially restricted expression of several, teeth-related genes and the secretion of various transcription and signaling factors. Congenital disturbances in tooth formation, acquired dental diseases and odontogenic tumors affect millions of people and rank human oral pathology as the second most frequent clinical problem. On the basis of substantial experimental evidence and advances in bioengineering, many scientists strongly believe that a deep knowledge of the evolutionary relationships and the cellular and molecular mechanisms regulating the morphogenesis of a given tooth in its natural position, in vivo, will be useful in the near future to prevent and treat teeth pathologies and malformations and for in vitro and in vivo teeth tissue regeneration.
(6) The Krebs Citric Acid Cycle is a series of enzyme-catalyzed chemical reactions of major importance in all living cells that use oxygen as part of cellular respiration. To see an animation of how the Krebs Cycle works, go to http://www.science.smith.edu/departments/Biology/Bio231/krebs.html. In aerobic organisms, the citric acid cycle is part of a metabolic pathway involved in the chemical conversion of carbohydrates, fats and proteins into carbon dioxide and water to generate a form of usable energy. The steps of the citric acid cycle are pictured above, and will enlarge by clicking on the diagram. Each and every step of the citric acid cycle is critical for the release of energy, and to allow the chemicals to recycle inasmuch as citric acid is both the first reagent and the final reactant, being regenerated at the finish of one complete cycle. For this incredibly important cycle to function, each and every step, of course, must be taken. No step can be missed or the entire cycle will collapse and life will not survive. Since that is the case, how could this cycle evolve in small steps? The early evolution of the cycle would most certainly be missing steps until the full cycle is reached. The cycle certainly could not go from one to two to three steps because without all of the steps present, the cycle dies. To even think of the Krebs cycle evolving in tiny steps is unimaginable. Ev-illusionists make up how earlier steps “could have possibly” evolved into the full cycle, but again, they are made up, as is the case with most “evidence”.
Here is a fun thought. Evolutionists teach that all steps of eye evolution are represented in species today, proving that eyes evolved. Of course, even the “simplest” eyes are incredibly complex, and that fact is not noted. And, proof of evolution from “nothing” to “simple eyes”, is nowhere to be found. However, if the Krebs citric acid cycle evolved, shouldn’t all of the “steps”, or “simple” cycles be present in nature today also?
(7) All weather covering: All primates are/were animals capable of living and surviving in nature in immense variations of weather. Primates, of course, and all animals, have the skin and fur to do so. Humans are the only animal species who ever existed on the planet Earth who cannot. What transition could have possibly taken place that removed the fur and all-weather skin from humans? Since animals with fur and weather-resistant skin would survive far better than humans, why didn’t “survival of the fittest” allow humans to keep their outer covering? They would be able to survive far better than they are capable of today. Humans are currently the weakest species on earth, and for the entire multi-billion year history of biology, as far as all-weather survivability goes. They can survive unprotected only in a very narrow temperature range. Did humans evolve the ability to make clothing and blankets because they were gradually getting less able to withstand cold? This is a completely impossible scenario. An evolutionist may answer that humans didn’t “need” fur in the equatorial regions where they evolved, and so they dis-evolved their all-weather coats. The question would then arise: Why did primates evolve fur in the first place if they didn’t “need” it, and why do equatorial apes of today still have their heavy outer coating? When humans migrated to the northern cold climates they should have re-evolved fur. They didn’t. Of course the “evolving fur, then dis-evolving fur, then not re-evolving fur” scenario isn’t plausible. Could clothes gradually appear? How would the lady above do if she were dressed that way and had to survive for a year in the wilderness anywhere in North America? Just give food to a dog tied up outdoors, and it would do fine in almost any weather conditions.
On Tuesday, August 26, 2008, the History Channel aired their program “Evolve”. This particular show was on skin, and how it evolved. Of course I couldn’t miss this one. I always think maybe I will find some fantastic new information about evolution that will change my mind, and embarrass me into removing my blog. But that never happens. What usually shows in these programs is that evidence is always bent to fit the theory. An this was a perfect example. Dan Leiberman, an evolution biologist at Harvard had been running experiments to show that skin evolved from furry species so that humans could run! And chase animals! Animals that couldn’t sweat through their tongues while running, because for some reason, they had to run with their mouths closed. And if the humans could chase them for ten or fifteen minutes, the animal would become hyperthermic, and die. Making a good meal for the human! Nina Jablonski Phd. also described how humans dis-evolved their fur so they could stay cool in the hot Africa equatorial areas. And that sweat would help keep our brains cool. So we evolve larger and more intelligent brains, so we dis-evolve all of our all weather coverings? It seems quite strange that no humans today have furry outer coats. If this scenario were true, wouldn’t it be logical that at least some human groups would have kept their covering, and not needed clothing? Also, I was trying to imagine the number of species that we humans could run down. In reality, we can’t run down rabbits. The only ones I could think of were barnyard animals. And running ten to fifteen minutes? It turns out that there is a group of African natives who do chase down a particular animal that does become hyperthermic and die. Is this the type of minor event one that would cause the incredibly major shift in traits that would remove all weather coverings from humans? We are way low on Mt. Improbable here.
(8.) Hemoglobin: According to Richard Dawkins, hemoglobin, the body’s oxygen carrying biochemical in the blood, is made up over 140 amino acids that must link in a perfect sequence. Amino acids do not have a large affinity for each other, which makes their linking more difficult. Dawkins, in his book “The Blind Watchmaker” discusses the “hemoglobin number” which is a 1 to 1 with 192 zeros after it. That is the odds of all 140+ amino acids connecting in just the correct sequence to produce hemoglobin. Dawkins made a computer program which randomly connected “digital amino acids”, and when the correct connection was made, computer “natural selection” would keep that link, and go on to the next. That way, he was able to reduce the hemoglobin number to 42 steps, which he felt made the evolution of hemoglobin tenable. By any reasonable thinking, either way is still not in the range of possibility. And of course, I would put this one in the category of “how did evolution know” it was making hemoglobin. And, by the way, mutations in the genes for the hemoglobin protein in humans result in a group of hereditary diseases termed the hemoglobinopathies, the best known of which is sickle-cell disease.
One simple problem is the fact that randomly-forming amino acids will be an equal mixture of left-handed and right-handed molecules, but 99.999% of amino acids used in living things today are left-handed. Right-handed amino acids do not work in the bodies of living things. This chirality cannot be the product of natural random processes.
A second chemical problem is that of reactivity. Proteins are formed from a very specific sequence of many amino acids (all of which must be left-handed, of course), but these sequences do not correspond at all to the reactivity of the amino acids with each other. In a randomly-forming protein, the most reactive amino acids will bind together first, and then less reactive ones later. Also, there are many different orders of the same amino acids due to the way they could bind to either end of the chain. Producing a specific protein for a specific function randomly is mathematically and chemically impossible even without the chirality problem.
(9) Insects and arachnids: Another impossible “mind experiment” regarding Darwinian evolution: the evolution of insects. Life formed in the oceans and waterways of the early earth. Water-based organisms eventually evolved into the many thousands (millions?) of species that represent early underwater fauna. Some of these early animals supposedly had need to leave their watery environment, and try their luck and health on land, so they evolved legs. They eventually became land-based animals. Try to imagine how these early amphibious animals eventually evolved into ants, fleas, tics, mosquitoes, daddy long legs, etc. I am sorry, but this represents just another impossibility of evolution. It could not have happened. Most insects float on the surface as they are unable to sink due to their lack of enough weight or specific gravity, or because they can’t break the surface tension of water.
Try visualizing the evolution of spiders and their webs. A spider, or spider precursor, had to fully evolve a fully functioning fully web-making organ before the first string of the first web could be constructed. How would evolution “know” that by evolving a web-making organ, millions of years later webs would result for the trapping of insects? Webs are not evolvable either. Try the same mind experiment with butterfly cocoons, or bee hives, or…………
There are actually thousands of items in nature that could not possibly evolve in generational micro-steps, due to their complexity, and the fact that most or all parts must be present initially for them to function at all. These items are said to have “irreducible complexity”. Evolutionists diminish IC, and act like they can show that IC is not a factor in disproving evolution. Their problem is that virtually every man made electro-mechanical device on earth is “irreducibly complex”. Try working your stereo with 30% of the key parts missing. Will you get 30% of the music? Try to drive a car with 70% of the key parts (wheels, motor, crank shaft, steering wheel, etc.) not present. Evolutionists say that all biological electro-mechanical devices are not irreducibly complex, and that there is some use for each of the thousands of steps required during their evolutionary formation. It’s one thing to say there are uses, but to list these uses is not possible. Which of the parts of your eye would you like to live without to test the theory? The retina? Optic nerve? Cornea? Also, try to imagine the hundreds of thousands of steps required to evolve each of the various biological E-M devices, plus blood, biochemicals, biochemical cycles, coverings, filters, tubes, nerve connections, and on and on, and there would have to be billions of “useful intermediate steps” that need to be accounted for for evolution to be real. Evolutionists have come up with outlandish tales of how these E-M parts evolved, but the tales are nothing more than the figments of their imaginations, and not proven at all in the fossil record.
Irreducible complexity is actually pretty correct but difficult to defend with some of the silly attacks that evolutionists come up with. There are many things that IC really does work for, for example, the Krebs citric acid cycle would not function without every step being in place. The heart-lung-brain-nerve-vessel system could not function at all without all parts being present. Blood clotting mechanisms couldn’t either.
In reality, a far better term for irreducible complexity would be essential irreducible complexity. One problem with IC is that it works backward. That is, it takes a complete and functioning organ and, by removing any part, supposedly the organ would be rendered useless. When an organ evolves, it goes from nothing to the functioning organ. The parts are gradually evolving and being added to the organ or organ system from nothing, rather than the organ parts being reduced from a fully functioning organ. Also organs can function with parts missing. Eyes could still provide vision without the iris, just not very well in bright light. A liver can function without a large portion of its cells missing. IC should look at evolving organs from nothing to a semi or full functioning organ, rather than taking parts away from a fully functioning organ.
With essential irreducible complexity, an organ would be simplified down to its bare “essentials”. That is, the non-essential parts would be discounted, so that the parts left would be the ones that the organ or organ system could not possibly function without. In the case of the vision system, the retina, optic nerve, thalamus, visual cortex, and visual code together would be essentially irreducibly complex. There would be absolutely no vision if any one of these parts was removed or not functionally evolved. Translated, that means evolution in microsteps could not possibly put together a vision system. The evolving system would be useless until all of the above parts were present and evolved enough to provide some function. There would be no “advantage” to the individual during the process from nothing to partial function.
(10) The Disappearance of Bird Teeth
According to http://www.aquatic.uoguelph.ca/birds/morphevol/main.htmbird the first birds such as the Archeopteryx had teeth. Bird teeth then disappeared (dis-evolved?) because birds simply didn’t need them. Amazing that evolution would spend millions of years evolving teeth, then do a 180 and dis-evolve teeth:
The website says, “Because flight requires a highly centralized body mass with light extremities, a bird’s head must be very light. Teeth, and the jaws that hold them, are cumbersome and, for birds, no longer necessary. (I wonder if we (humans) will evolve beaks since the invention of the blender makes chewing unnecessary?? Further, why would Archeopteryx evolve teeth in the first place, since they are deleterious to flight?) Instead of using teeth to tear food into pieces, birds use one of two strategies; they will either eat only food items of a size they can swallow whole, or, as in raptors, they will have a beak adapted for tearing food. In general, a bird’s beak is adapted to the kinds of food it eats.”
(Does anybody believe this one? The teeth of birds just disappeared? Are there fossils showing the disappearance of bird teeth? Did the teeth get smaller and smaller with each generation and finally vanish, or did they disappear one by one? Of course, evolution scientists have found fossils that show boney jaws morphing into bird beaks. Of course.)
There is a more thorough discussion of IC on: http://evillusion.wordpress.com/irreducible-complexity-revisited/
DARWIN’S 100% PROBLEM: EVERY ONE OF THE ITEMS DISCUSSED HERE, as well as thousands of others that I haven’t mentioned, would ALL have to be evolvable for the theory to be functional. In other words, IF ONLY ONE ITEM WAS NOT EVOLVABLE, THE ENTIRE THEORY IS OUT THE WINDOW. That makes Darwin’s theory weaker than a spider web.