7. Evidence FOR Evolution
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.
Evo-illusionists like Richard Dawkins cite the recurrent laryngeal nerve as sure evidence that evolution is the source of all of living nature. The RL nerve takes a rather circuitous rout to get to the larynx. It branches off of the vagus nerve inferior (below) the aorta on the right, and inferior to the aortic arch on the left. Because it branches low off of the vagus nerve, and must take a pathway back up the the larynx, evo-illusionists cite this as sure evidence that a perfect creator wasn’t the source for all living things. They say that the branching should be right next to the larynx. I really don’t know why evo-illusionists find they need to go to such incredible lengths, and such obscure places to find imperfections. Why don’t they cite more obvious imperfections like schizophrenia, autism, paralysis, pathogens humans are susceptible to, blood diseases, Hitler, ALS, birth defects… as imperfections in human design. Humans have plenty of obvious imperfections that everyone is familiar with. Why go to such an obscure place like the recurrent laryngeal nerve, a nerve few people on Earth are aware of nor care about? Is “going obscure” just another part of the evo-illusion? A way of confusing people? What is completely illogical is that all imperfections in human design proves is that there was an imperfect but ingenious source for all of living nature. It’s a leap across the grand canyon to think imperfections prove evolution. This notion would be laughed out of a logic class quickly.
Richard Dawkins, the current number one evo-ilusionist said:
“If you think of it as the product of design, the recurrent laryngeal nerve is a disgrace. Helmholz would have had even more cause to send it back than the eye. ”
A disgrace? Does the routing of an incredibly well designed nerve make the entire nerve “a disgrace”. Gad, what a gross exaggeration. Beside grossly exaggerating, the other problem for Dawkins and evolution is the recurrent laryngeal nerve gives off numerous branches below the larynx. It HAS to split off from the vagus nerve below the the larynx to give off these branches. Didn’t Dawkins do his research before coming out with this flawed evidence? I think he might be able to do much better than using the RL nerve for his great evidence. Maybe I’ll send him a copy of Grant’s Atlas which has this to say about the RL nerve:
“As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorta, it gives off several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the esophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea; and some pharyngeal filaments to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior.”
If you look carefully at the drawing above, you will be able to see some of the branches. This seemingly good evidence for evolution turns out not to be, so let’s take a look at some of the more obvious evolution supporting evidence.
There is no doubt that evolution is an ongoing process. Natural selection and random mutations et al do and can act as herd/population strengtheners. That variations in gene pools produce changes in species over time is fact. There is no argument from me on that. My point isn’t that evolution doesn’t occur. My point is that it isn’t within light years of being powerful or intelligent enough to form living nature and all of it’s incredible species and biological systems. Not even close. An objective look at many of the excellent fossil specimens collected over the last 150 years shows species with little or no change over millions of years. I have listed many examples on the first few pages of this blog. Two are trilobites, that inhabited the earth for 300,000,000 years with very little change; coelacanth, a large fish, first appeared in the fossil record 410,000,000 years ago. Coelacanth still lives today, with nearly the exact same form as the ancient version. Would it seem that the minuscule amount of evolution displayed by the fossil record would be strong enough to invent, design, assemble, and sustain the numerous incredible biological systems of nature?
An objective look at the timeline for the appearance of species must be included in any discussion of evolution. The timeline of species shows that very early one-celled plants and animals preceded more complex versions, which eventually preceded humans. Carbon dating and layer dating make the given ages for the appearance and extinction of species look pretty accurate and acceptable. My beef is not with the biological timelines, but with the explanation of those timelines. Most will contain utterly astounding entries, like “410 MYA: evolution of hearing”. Just like that, hearing evolved. How? Not a clue can be given. It’s just as if saying it makes it true.
Many species have fossil representation over tens and hundreds of millions of years.The species themselves show no sign of the evolution Darwin envisioned. Evolutionauts excuse the fact by saying evolution occurred in rapid spurts, but for long periods of time things remained static. They even coined a term for this puzzling problem: punctuated equilibrium. Evolutionauts frequently coin a term that describes its failures, as if the term coined is a scientific explanation for that failure. It is a glaring failure, nothing less. Evolutionauts say that only 1 in 1,000 species that inhabited the earth have been found as fossils. They use this for an excuse that the fossil record shows no Darwinian evolution. (The ones that haven’t been found have the proof of evolution!) The question here is, how do they know how many haven’t been found since the fossils haven’t been found? To establish any number for anything that has never been found is impossible, but somehow evolutionauts can do it.
There is no doubt that species are related biochemically, and genetically to various degrees. Vestigial organs may be further proof of some sort of past relationships of different species. Five digit hands and paws, two eyes, two ears, etc. are the norm. Of course, some species are far more closely related than others. Humans are 98% similar to chimpanzees when looking at the DNA of both. Evolutionauts often tout this fact as sure evidence that humans branched off from an earlier common ancestor that we had with apes. The only hitch here is that human and mouse DNA is 99% similar. So what would that phylogenetic tree look like? Early primate to mouse to human? Human DNA is 30% similar to flower DNA. This fact certainly shows a deep biological connection between all species.
Another piece of evidence that favors evolution is the fact that on each continent a different set of fauna and flora exist. Giraffes and lions are solely African, coyotes and grizzly bears North American, penguins Antarctic, etc. How could this be the case if evolution did not occur? Due to differing environmental conditions, minor evolutionary changes most likely occurred in the fauna and flora on different continents. These changes show up in closely related multi-continent species, and would involve for the most part coloring, size, morphology and habits. Size modification refers to animal size and/or body part size. African lions, California mountain lions, and Bengal tigers are all very similar, and differ mainly in size, color, and habits. The same is true with grizzly bears, polar bears and pandas. It certainly is possible these species had common ancestors. This type of evolution is called “micro-evolution”. The evidence for micro-evolution is certainly strong. This is the evolution that Darwin saw in the Galapagos. Individual bird species (finches) that he observed on different islands had different colorations, beak sizes and shapes, and living habits. Single bird species had to be broken up into sub-species or new species to account for these differences. Darwin then tried to use micro-evolution to explain the entire origin of all species and their body parts, including hearts and eyes. In reality, micro-evolution is not even one trillionth of what would be necessary to form hearts and eyes. Also, there are no precursor fossils to giraffes, lions, and penguins, which makes the “origin of species” puzzle even more puzzling. There are no early giraffe fossils that show species with gradually lengthening necks. Just when something makes sense, there is also a reason that it makes absolutely no sense.
A strange conundrum for this evidence is the fact that the internal organs of all of these vastly geographically separated species is exactly the same. Hearts on the left, liver on the right above the stomach which is on the left, two kidneys, one pancreas…… Wouldn’t it be expected that the anatomy of different species separated by thousands of miles might just have some different type of internal anatomy, and function in different ways, and locate themselves in different positions? Why would all mammalian species have nearly identical internal designs? Species in Australia certainly have very different external body designs, but why not internal? I know that evolutionauts say the reason is common ancestry, but if that were the case, species should be much more identical externally as well. A species that is separated by vast seas and evolved very different external appearances, should also have evolved different internal appearances. But, sadly for evolution, this is not the case. The fact that nearly identical internal designs exist with completely different external designs on species that are vastly geographically separated just doesn’t make sense and isn’t explained by random mutations being selected for by natural selection.
Another problem for evolution is the species that are identical, and that showed up in different continents millions of years after the separation of Pangea, the master continent. One example is that of flightless birds. The ostrich inhabits Africa, the nearly identical emu inhabits Australia, the nearly identical rhea inhabits South America. These three birds first appeared millions of years after the split of land masses, and have been always separated by thousands of miles of ocean. Evolutionauts have tried to come up with plausible explanations for this conundrum. Floating logs with eggs traveling across the ocean was one absurd attempt. But any explanation they have come up with have been less than useless. So this conundrum has been ignored, and not addressed.
Evolutionauts cite changes that occurred in the color of a peppered moth population as a current proof of evolution. Today a battle rages between evolutionauts and creationists/anti-evolutionists over whether the peppered moth really did evolve and change colors due to environmental conditions. This is really nothing more than the perfect example of a tempest in a teapot. It is insignificant, no matter who wins the battle. According to evolutionauts, lichens on the trees that the moths frequented changed color from light to dark, due to smoke coming from local factories. The moth majority also changed from light to dark coloring, due to the fact that birds ate the white ones, as they were “easier to see”. Anti-evolutionists have evidence that the change in coloring didn’t happen. In reality, it doesn’t really matter at all who is correct. Because, even if the peppered moth did permanently “evolve” into a different color, this is not even remotely close to the kind of evolution that would be needed to produce sight, hearing, and beating four-chambered hearts. Nor is the increasing resistance of bacteria to an antibiotic a proof of evolution’s inventiveness, as is cited by evolutionauts. The least resistant die, the more resistant live and reproduce. Both of these “proofs” are explained by simple mathematics, and in no way prove that species, eyes, and hearts formed from natural selection.
ERV’s: Endogenous retroviruses have been celebrated as huge evidence for evolution. These retroviruses attach themselves to the genome of susceptible species. Because both chimps and humans had telltale markings at the same position on both genomes, it was surmised that they must have been marked millions of years ago when their common ancestor was infected. After the species split, the markings remained on both genomes, indicating that chimps and man had a common ancestor. But as usual there is always an OOOPS. There are many retroviruses that will infect multiple species. They are not species specific. But the retroviruses are genome-position specific. Which means, they infect at the exact same position on the genome of different species. So a modern retrovirus can infect both chimp and man at the same location on their respective genomes, which pulls the rug out from the miracle evidence that is so celebrated by evolutionauts. The astounding thing is the evidence for evolution is always invisible to most people on earth. Bacteria that change nutrition habits. Mosquitoes that change eating habits. Lizards that show up with cecal valves that they supposedly never had before. If evolution were how things came about, we should not need lab scientists to demonstrate microscopic changes. They should be all over for us to marvel at. The are not.
There is a strange mix of events that took place a half-billion years ago:
(1) New species and 70% of all body types and phyla showed up in the fossil record in a comparatively very short time during what is called the Cambrian Explosion. Neutral evidence for evolution.
(2) All species appeared suddenly without precursors. Trilobites being again an excellent example. Bad evidence for evolution.
(3) A strange gap exists between single celled organisms and the smallest multi-celled organisms which are composed of about 1,000 cells. Horrible evidence for evolution.
(3) More complex body types appear where earlier times had only single celled species. So complexity did increase in rather rapid fashion. Good evidence for evolution.
(4) Species with fossils over long periods during that time showed little or no change. Horrible evidence for evolution.
(5) Many bio-systems evolved around that time. Which means very little external evolution took place while tremendous changes and inventions were occurring internally. Organs were forming. Auditory and visual systems that should have shown up in the fossil record but did not were being invented and forming. Bad evidence for evolution.
There is no doubt that Darwinian evolution did and does take place on a constant basis; random mutations and natural selection as well.There is no argument from me on that fact. I am certain that Darwin was right in assessing the different shaped beaks of finches in the Galapagos Islands and concluding that evolution was the source of those beak shapes. If massive Darwinian evolution indeed did take place that was capable of inventing, designing, assembling, and sustaining complex bio-mechanical systems, where is the evidence for this? Where are the fossils that show the growth of limbs and bird wings; gradual evolution of eyes and hearts? None exists at all. Eye and ear evolution should certainly be prevalent in the fossil record. Eyes do show up in fossils, and the bony sockets that gradually formed should be commonly found fossil evidence. Until these fossils are found, TOE will remain a figment of Darwin’s imagination, added onto by enormous layers of wishful evidence, cartoon drawings of morphing species, a plethora of pseudo-scientists, and supported by a massive amount of group psychology.