4a. Ten Impossibilities of 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.
There are so many items in nature that cannot possibly evolve in small steps. The list would be enormous. If any one of these items could not possibly come into existence through the TOE (Theory of Evolution), then the TOE is not a possible scenario for how species came into existence. Ten examples are:
- Sexual Reproduction and Mitosis
- Birds and Eggs and Bird Nests
- Eyes and Hearts
- Maxillary jaw teeth forming and articulating perfectly with concurrently forming mandibular jaw teeth.
- The Kreb’s Citric Acid Cycle
- Survival of the fittest eliminating all weather skin/fur from human beings
- Insects, spiders, and their webs
- Bird teeth and boney jaws evolving then dis-evolving, forming beaks
(1) Sexual reproduction is an all or none event. Would an evolutionist say that one multi-cellular animal grew an appendage after millions of years, then decided to insert it into a fold in another multi-cellular animal that didn’t possess the appendage just to see what would happen? How could perfectly matched male and female sexual organs evolve in separate individuals of a species? What microsteps to sexual reproduction could possibly have occurred? Any explanation of gradually evolving sexuality would be preposterous. The mutations and NS of one gender would have to “know” what mutations and NS were taking place for the other gender. And since there is no intelligence involved, according to evolutionists, this scenario is not possible.
On March 13, 2008 I attended a lecture on Darwin and the TOE at the Ayn Rand institute in Costa Mesa, California. The lecturer discussed how Darwin was concerned that it may have been impossible for two separate vertebrate sexual beings to evolve, since one set of mutations would have to know what the other was forming,which would require intelligence. In the ensuing years a great deal of study was done on barnacles. It was found that the male barnacle was flea sized and attached itself to the large female, and somehow that explained the M and NS of vertebrate sexuality. I don’t get it, but that was the explanation. More ev-illusion.
The same is true with cell mitosis (cell splitting for reproduction). Mitosis is an all or none event. Cells cannot split .00001, then .00002…….Mitosis cannot evolve in small steps. Period. It’s a split or no split deal. The other major problem is the fact that for evolution to occur, cells must go through mitosis so that traits and mutations can be passed on the future generations and be improved upon. In other words, mitosis can’t evolve unless there is mitosis!
The fertilization of the female egg by a sperm is also all-or-none. So is copulation.
Below is a video that I made on the subject of sexual reproduction. To watch, press the lower left arrow so you won’t leave the page.
(2) Birds and Flight: Evo-illusionists explain flight by saying that insects were the first to fly. Somehow because insects are small, evolutionists think that they will provide an acceptable explanation for the beginnings of flight evolution. However big or small a species might be, evolution cannot in any way explain flight.
Did a bird grow appendages over the millennia that eventually flapped up and down, causing the bird, to fly? Just think what a heckuva surprise that must have been for the first individual that flew! There simply is no possible scenario that would explain the origins of bird flight that would include mutations and natural selection. Of course, there are absolutely no fossils that help evolution along here, as usual. The beginnings of insect flight also remain obscure, since the earliest winged insects currently known appear to have been capable fliers. And there is no known imaginable and reasonable path to flight that could be developed by random mutations and natural selection.
A Nova program on this fascinating species “The Four Winged Dinosaur” (Feb. 6, 2008 PBS) was dedicated to the remarkable discovery of A. Microraptor, pictured at left, a newly found dinosaur flier. A large portion of the program was devoted to the evolution of flight. This was certainly another in the amazing list of evolution science programs which try to make the absolutely impossible seem like it could be possible. The part on the evolution of bird flight was nothing short of unbelievable. According to the program, “The origin of flight in birds is a puzzle that seems to defy solution. The fossil record provides few clues as to how it happened. The aerial skills of modern fliers evolved in small steps over millions of years.” (How do they know, since there is absolutely zero fossil evidence showing how it happened?) They then went on to describe the three most accepted theories of how it did happen, all equally impossible but believed by many in the world of evolution:
(A) Flight started from the “ground up”. The running leaps of dinosaurs evolved into the powered flight of birds. Nova explains that this theory “works” against gravity, and therefore is the most difficult of the three theories and very unlikely. A video cartoon of a running raptor was shown. With every few steps, the raptor would leap forward. The raptor gradually got smaller and smaller, and it began sprouting wings! (Why would it get smaller? So it can be more easily digested by its predators?) And, bingo, it evolved into a bird and flew off! (I wonder if the offspring of an animal today, who ran from predators and leaped, would sprout wings and fly. Oh, I forgot, that only happened “a long long time ago” when nobody could view the process.)
(B) The “arboreal origin of flight”. Supposedly the dinosaur would climb a tree and fall/fly out, creating the birth of flight. The only problem with this scenario says Nova is that dinosaurs could not climb trees.
(C) A new theory was presented by Ken Dial, a well known dinosaur biologist. He says, “Birds tell us how they did it.” He used baby birds of a variety he called “chuckers” to show his thinking. When he put the baby chuckers on a very steep inclined plane, the birds would try to run up, and flap their not yet fully grown wings to help them get to the top. They would then power fly down, using their wings the whole way, with no gliding. Dial says this is the evidence of how bird evolution took place. (Only an evolution scientist would take a birdie exercise board and turn it into the solution for one of the most amazing puzzles in nature: the origin of flight! Most people would think the way the baby bird struggled up that board was just cute! Again, dinosaurs couldn’t climb. And, why would they have wings that were useless in the first place, which they were until they were formed enough so the dinosaur could fly? I know, I know; they mutated and were “selected.)
Another interesting feature of bird fliers is the fact that their bones are hollow, which reduces their weight. This, of course makes them more capable fliers. Were early fliers, which haven’t been found, capable of only getting a few feet off the ground until they evolved hollow bones?
The bottom line is that there is absolutely zero evidence for how birds evolved flight. Birds showed up in the fossil record suddenly, with no reasonable precursors in earlier strata. Ev-illusionists list theropod dinosaurs as precursors, but this is beyond preposterous. Bipedal dinosaurs with ultra-tiny arms, immense boney tails, a vicious set of teeth, and scales, had to dis-evolve those tails, dis-evolve the teeth then evolve beaks, get tiny and light, evolve large aerodynamic wings, evolve feathers, and learn flight. Ev-illusionists couldn’t have picked a more illogical and preposterous precursor than theropods. Why did they? Which animal would you pick from over 150 million years ago that was a bird precursor? The pickin’s are thin. There simply aren’t any animals to choose from other than dinosaurs. Remember, fish begat amphibians begat dinosaurs, which begat mammals. Where would birds fit in? Evo-illusionists HAD to select a dinosaur species as a bird precursor. That’s all there was, so they are stuck. They couldn’t pick fish, or frogs, or worms, or insects… Archeopteryx was supposedly the first true bird, but it also had a large boney tail, sharp teeth (no beak), and we don’t even know if it was capable of flight due to it’s anti-flight musculo-skeletal characteristics.
Leave it to ev-illusionists to make up three impossible scenarios for how flight “might” have evolved. The best scenario would be that flight could not and was not caused by naturally selected mutations, and we actually have no idea what did cause it.
Above are two of the earliest insects: the dragonfly, and palaeoptera
The oldest definitive insect fossil is the Devonian Rhyniognatha hirsti, estimated at 396-407 million years old.This species possessed dicondylic mandibles, a feature associated with winged insects, suggesting that wings were already present at this time. Ev-illusionists think the first insects probably appeared earlier, in the Silurian period. Of course there is no fossil evidence showing that fact, so they have to make it up to allow enough time for the thousands of microsteps to evolve insect flight.
The origin of insect flight remains obscure, since the earliest winged insects currently known appear to have been capable fliers. So where is the evolution? Evo-illusionists think the wings themselves are highly modified tracheal gills, since the tracheal gills of the mayfly nymph in many species “look like” wings, they therefore must have evolved into them. Evo-illusionists say that by comparing a well developed pair of gill blades in the naiads and a reduced pair of hind wings on the adults, “it is not hard to imagine that” the mayfly gills (tergaliae) and insect wings have a common origin. Actually it is not hard for any evo-illusionist to imagine anything as long as it fits the needs for their “proof”. And anything that looks the slightest bit like anything else must have evolved into it.
A note about Birds: Birds have completely unusual lung systems due to their high demand for oxygen during flight. They are made up of nine air sacks which fill with fresh air. The air goes into the lung from the sacks when birds exhale. These specialized lungs and their sacks need support from bird femurs, which are fixed. Bird knees are buried within the soft feather/skin covering of the bird and cannot be seen. What looks like their lower leg (tibia/fibula) is part of their foot. What looks like our knee joint is their ankle. Birds are “knee runners”. Below are the skeletons of two non-flying birds, an emu (left) and an ostrich. Even though they don’t fly, you can see how the femurs would be buried under their feather/skin.
Below are two videos that I made on the evolution of flight. Press the lower left arrow to view so you won’t leave the page.
(3) Birds, eggs, and arboreal nests cannot have possibly originated through the “wonders” of evolution. Not much explanation is required here. Do your own mental experiment and you would have to come to the same conclusion. Of course there cannot be birds without eggs, or eggs without birds to hatch them.
In reality, the old adage about “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” has many more nuances than first meets the fully evolved eye. A chicken egg has over 10,000 pores that allow air into the egg. If there were no pores, the chick would suffocate before it could even get started. As the chick forms, it is nourished by the yolk. And, as the chick grows, it has to displace liquid that is present and forms in the egg. The pores act as miniature drains to eliminate the fluid. The chick attaches blood vessels to the thin membrane, that we are all familiar with, that forms just inside of the shell. This membrane helps to oxygenate the chick embryo. Other vessels attach to the yolk for nourishment. The small void that we see in the egg is actually an air pocket. When the chick is nearly ready to hatch, it needs an extra dose of air, and this small void gives it six hours of air so that it can begin the process of breaking out of the egg. The chick has a small tooth that forms on the outside of its beak. On the 19th day the chick breaks a hole in the shell to allow air in. It breathes through this hole for two days. On day 21 it completes the job of breaking the shell, and hatching occurs. So, the “Which came first…………” adage is far more complex than we could even imagine. The idea that mutations and natural selection brought about this process is unimaginable, and simply not possible.
And what scenario could there possibly be for arboreal “branch” bird nests to evolve? Or really any bird nest? Bird nests are beyond fascinating. They are feats of engineering beyond our own ability to construct. Try it yourself. See if you can weave those tiny twigs and straw into anything that looks nest-like; with your hands. You will fail quickly. Now try it with your teeth. Remember, birds weave their incredible artistry with their beaks! They have no fingers to help them along. There are an immense number of incredible designs for bird nests. Evo-illusionists say birds first made nests in tree-holes. Then the tree-hole nesting birds gradually move out to the branches. But if you compare the two pictures above, you will quickly see the differences in engineering required for both. Try to imagine the branch nest evolving from the tree hole nest. What adventurist bird had the “guts” to try moving its nest out to those thin branches, then laying eggs on the first prototype nest? Was that first prototype a few twigs with eggs? Did the eggs splat? Did the twigs fall? Were those first courageous inventive birds observed by other birds who tried to copy the nest building of the first few birds that gave branch nest building a try? If the eggs fell, why would an intelligent bird capable of thinking and copying, if there was such a bird, try to copy the first birds? Did a bird that saw the first few failures think it could make a better branch nest? Do birds think to that degree? Maybe millions of years ago there were highly intelligent “Sir Isaac Newton” birds that were thinkers. Actually, any scenario is ridiculous.
The Megapode bird of New Guinea, north of Australia, makes a 12-foot-high pile of vegetation. The bird is about a foot tall, so this is like a six-foot-tall person building a seventy foot tall building. A smaller megapode nest is at left. The mallee fowl, the best known of the group of mgapodes, is about two feet long and has white-spotted, light brown plumage. The male builds a mound of decaying vegetation, which may require 11 months to construct. The result is a low mound, about three feet in the ground and up to five feet across, made up of twigs and leaves soaked with rain and covered with a foot and half of sandy soil. When the heat of fermentation inside the mound reaches 91° F, the female lays the first of about 35 eggs in a central chamber. The male maintains a nest temperature amazingly close to 91° F even when there is daily and seasonal weather variation. Mallee ggs hatch in seven weeks, and the hatchlings dig upward through the mound and run off on their own. They can fly one or two days after hatching.
The South American ovenbird, which may take months to construct one nest from clay or mud mixed with bits of straw, hair, and fibers. The tropical sun bakes the walls and makes them hard as concrete. The American bald eagle uses sticks, some two inches thick and several feet long, to make nests strong enough to support a human adult. They may look like an unorganized mix of building materials, but the sticks are usually placed in layers, beginning with a triangle, followed by more rotated, triangular layers. Their nests are five feet in diameter.
Birds are capable of marvelous engineering feats. But they are not engineers; not in the way you might think anyway. They don’t train and study engineering or nest building. They don’t have teachers. Parents don’t teach them. They don’t even learn how to build by watching their parents or each other. Just as birds know how to fly, they know how to build a nest without the teaching and instruction from parent birds. Nest building is a matter of instinct, and not learned, according to scientists. “They are ‘hard-wired,’ Douglas Causey of Harvard University’s Museum of Comparative Zoology, says, “sort of like robots.” Birds construct their nests without consciously thinking about it. How then did some species of birds develop such well-engineered, elaborate nests? Books have been written on the subject without providing a single clue, says Jeremiah Trimble, an assistant in the Harvard museum’s bird department.
Here is a tongue in cheek example of what good science should try to determine, search out, andcome up with. A step by step description of how arboreal branch bird nests came about:
2. Eventually some birds found that a solid base on higher elevations was safer for their clutch. They began laying the eggs in small “caves” high on cliffs. That way fewer predators could eat their eggs and young.
3. Due to the lack of room and low number of small caves, some found holes in trees worked well. They laid their eggs on the solid “floor” of holes high up in trees. The hard surface caused the breakage of many eggs. The birds that lost their eggs had to start all over.
4. Some birds found it advantageous to add small straw and twig mats as cushions on the floor of the caves and holes. The cushions were selected for because eggs were far less likely to break. The cushions were embedded in the DNA of the birds that made the cushions. The idea spread to other birds. Their DNA was also altered to favor the cushions.
5. Some “cushion” birds began weaving the straw and twigs into more complex cushions which helped them stay together and give better cushioning.
6. The number of birds greatly exceeded the number of caves and tree holes. As a last resort, some birds had to lay eggs on the “Y” of tree branches. Many held, but many also fell and went “splat”. Birds with multiple-egg clutches lost many eggs.
7. Some bird mutations formed “super-glue” in their saliva. The glue was found to be an advantage, and was selected for, and coded in their DNA. The glue was used by the glue-birds to attach their eggs to a tree branch “Y” and prevented many splats.
8. Due to a low number of “Y” tree branches that were capable of holding eggs, and due to the great number of “splats”, some birds began moving their eggs farther out on the branches. But to their dismay, more eggs fell. Few eggs held on those round branches.
9. Some birds that had learned nest weaving on solid surfaces began weaving a few twigs and straws on a branch. Placing the eggs on these few straws and twigs caused many more splats, but at least they had a place to lay their eggs. Out of pure unadulterated luck, those early nests were able to hold SOME eggs.
10. Over time some birds began adding and weaving more and more straws and twigs, making larger and larger branch cushions. The large cushions were selected for because they were advantageous.
11. Over thousand of generations, just enough “branch cushion birds” were left to improve the cushions and form them into cupped nests. The cups were selected for because they held the eggs much more efficiently.
12. Some birds began weaving the cupped cushions right onto the tree branch, which made them very stable. Other birds saw, and followed suit. Bird nests became very stable and secure, greatly reducing the number of splats.
13. Some bird species did go extinct due to the large number of splats, but the smarter species did survive due to the fact that they were able to invent new and better ways to weave their nests into the tree branches. The birds whose nests didn’t cause the eggs to fall were selected for. The result of this trial and error nest invention saga is the wonderful bird nests we have today.
Does this sound like an absurd series of events? It is, of course. But it’s all I could come up with in trying my level best to help evolution along and figure out how bird nests came about. So, as silly as this story is, it’s told from the perspective of how an evolutionaut might see the formation of bird nests. Whatever story they might come up with would be so ridiculous that they really don’t want to think about it. So what they will do is preemptively demean the question and try (and fail) to make the questioner look as stupid and silly as they possibly can. That’s their best strategy for sure. Because any attempt they might make at explaining bird nests would look as silly as this scenario.
As always, evolutionauts never like to think about the reality of their scenario. No plausible evolution scenario can be penciled out. The details must be ignored, as with all the details of the evolution of all bio-systems. “They started simpler, then got more complex because that’s an advantage…..” And that’s it.
If we bring up arboreal bird nests, why not beaver dams? Did a beaver place a twig in a river/stream that slowed up some edible vegetation, which allowed for the vegetation to be caught by the beaver? Then, next generation two twigs? Why wouldn’t the first twigs get swept away? Were the first twig placing beavers so adept at placing twigs that they remained in place? Did the advantages of a few twigs slowing rivers and streams then spur the formation of larger and larger dams? Then, thousands of years later, finally, fully formed dams like the one at left? ? Is this scenario imaginable? Arboreal bird nests actually bring up all kinds of other “nesting/living/hunting” entities in nature that simply could not have come about if evolution was the source of all of nature.
An interesting note on beaver dams: Beavers are most famous, and infamous, for their dam-building. They maintain their pond-habitat by reacting quickly to the sound of running water, and damming it up with tree branches and mud. Early ecologists believed that this dam-building was an amazing feat of architectural planning, indicative of the beaver’s high intellect. This theory was questioned when a recording of running water was played in a field near a beaver pond. Despite the fact that it was on dry land, the beavers covered the tape player with branches and mud. The largest beaver dam is 2,790 ft (850 m) in length—more than half a mile long—and was discovered via satellite imagery in 2007.It is located on the southern edge of Wood Buffalo National Park in northern Alberta and is twice the width of the Hoover dam which spans 1,244 ft (379 m). (Wikipedia)
Chicken Teeth are the Whoopee Cushion of Evolution:
Working late in the developmental biology lab one night, Matthew Harris of the University of Wisconsin noticed that the beak of a mutant chicken embryo he was examining had fallen off. Harris closely examined the broken beak and found tiny bumps along its edge that looked like teeth. Harris thought they closely resembled alligator teeth. Upper left, encircled, are the chicken teeth that Harris discovered. Below left are alligator teeth. One wonders if Harris forgot his glasses that night. Do Harris’s “chicken teeth” look like alligator teeth? The skeptic in me wonders why alligators were the comparison in the first place when there are millions of toothed animal species on the planet. Anyway, Harris did think the “teeth” resembled alligator teeth. According to evolution science, the accidental discovery revealed that chickens retain the ability to grow teeth, even though birds lost this feature long ago.
Alligators have a unique set of teeth. Like human teeth, and unlike chicken “teeth”, alligators have teeth set in bony sockets. They are able to replace their teeth throughout their life. Wouldn’t it be nice if humans had the same talent? The ability of an alligator to replace their teeth deteriorates as they age. As young alligators grow in physical size, they can replace teeth with larger ones every thirty days or so. . After reaching adult size in a few years, however, tooth replacement rates can slow to several years and even longer. Very old members of some species have been seen in an almost toothless state, after teeth have been broken and replacement slowed or ceased. Alligators can go through over 3,000 teeth in their lifetime. Each tooth is hollow, and the new one is grows inside the old. When an old tooth breaks away, a new one is set to take its place. Interestingly, alligators don’t use their teeth to chew. They capture their prey with their teeth, swallow the prey whole. Alligator teeth have roots that hold them in the jawbone. They are covered by enamel much like human teeth. Their tooth body is made of dentin, just like in humans. Alligator teeth are not like chicken teeth. Or should I say chicken beak bumps.
My first question which evolutionauts never consider, is why did a predator with sharp vicious teeth get rid of those teeth, one of its main sources of predation and defense? And, of course why did the theropod that lead to chickens get rid of its claws so it could eventually develop useless wings that would never even give it the advantage of flight? What could be more awkward and defenseless than a chicken? The notion is absurd, and not at all what evolution describes. Survival of the fittest and selected advantage is what drives evolution. Did the pre-chicken eliminate its teeth and claws so it could eventually move to the bottom of the food chain, and be completely defenseless? So it could make eggs and meat for all of mankind? Is this evolution in action? The survival of the weakest?
The mutant chickens Harris studied bear a recessive trait dubbed talpid2. This trait is lethal, meaning that such mutants are never hatched. Some incubate for as long as 18 days inside of their eggs. But they all die before hatching. Evolution celebrated another great discovery that certainly piles more evidence on top of the “mountains of evidence” they already have. The bumps on the beak of a mutant chick embryo that can’t even hatch and are labeled chicken teeth is certainly a great example of how weak their mountain really is. The celebrations are still ongoing. Ev-illusionists take this information and run with it. To ev-illusionists, there is no doubt that those tiny spikes are teeth. Everything moves on as if they are teeth. There is no doubt. No ev-illusionist questions. All discussions and research are done with complete surety that Harris found chicken teeth and another cog in the wheel of evidence that proves ancestry to theropods. According to ev-illusionists, chicken teeth are a fact!
These chicken teeth have no enamel, no dentin, no root, pulp chamber, periodontal ligament, gingiva (gum tissue) surrounding them like alligator and human teeth do. To classify these mutant bumps as teeth, and then to go on to add them to evidence that shows theropods evolved into chickens is, well, more standup comedy material, nothing more.
The first thing that comes to mind is, if mutant chick beak bumps are really teeth, why don’t ev-illusionists discuss all of the possibilities for the existence of those teeth? Is the only possibility that chickens evolved from theropod dinosaurs? Other possibilities need to be examined and proffered. Here are some other possibilities that need to be addressed as possibilities:
If evolution is truly valid, chickens may be in the process of evolving teeth. Instead of chicken teeth being a remnant of a past ancestor, it may be a beginning. They may be getting rid of their beaks and substituting a set of a vicious teeth through the wonders of natural selection. After all, aren’t mutations such as these teeth the way evolution works? Chickens, could be in the process of evolving into predators again! Million of years from now who knows how dangerous they could become. If they are evolving new teeth, I certainly hope they get rid of the “buck buck buck”. Just doesn’t go with vicious teeth. Can you imagine a vicious predator attacking you whilst howling “buck buck buck”? What is truly amazing is that evolution is devoid of examples of biological systems evolving themselves into existence today. Why was the idea that chickens might be evolving instead of eliminating teeth not considered? They may have a plan for survival and revenge on humans (tic) for which they are now such an amazing food supply. Why would a species that so badly needs a defense mechanism to survive get rid of its greatest weapon for survival in the first place? So they could be food for humans? Did survival of the fittest work in reverse for chickens so they could be at the bottom of the food chain? Is this selected mutations in action? Chickens didn’t evolve the ability to fly, and they got rid of their teeth. My gawd, what on Earth was natural selection doing to the vicious theropods that supposedly caused them to become chickens? According to evolution, chickens went from a vicious predator, to the weakest of prey. Methinks natural selection goofed here.
Chicken teeth may be a constant. Chickens may have come from some scientifically unknown source, appeared in some unknown way, and the mutation that supposedly forms chicken teeth may be a constant in chickens. Ev-illusionists will decry the notion that chickens first appeared on Earth as they are as a complete absurdity. Their choice for you is to believe their own version of an absurdity: that chickens came from theropod dinosaurs. Which choice is more absurd? Neither choice seems scientifically possible. But one choice follows what the fossil record shows: the sudden appearance of species at very different times. To believe evolution, you must believe what your eyes they do not see. Evolutionauts have to believe and ev-illusionists must teach that species morphed into other species. But your eyes see the fossil record which shows the sudden appearance of species, not the gradual morphing. When your eyes see design, you must believe there is no design. Your eyes see species that appeared at very different times, remained rather constant, and then either became extinct, or still exist as modern species. That is what you should go with if you are truly interested in objective science. You should go with what you eyes see, not what someone tells your they should see.
(4) Eye and heart/lung systems are two excellent examples of organs that cannot have possibly evolved, as any pre-functioning steps to a fully functioning organ
would be completely useless. Evolutionists poo poo this eye/heart challenge, however they never answer it with more than made up fables. Essentially, if heart/lung and eye systems evolved, the pre-functioning organs would be no more than useless tumors.
Species would have to carry around these useless tumors for hundreds of thousands or millions of years before they would become functioning organs. What force would cause these useless tumors to continue to
incredibly complex organs represented by heart/lung and eye systems? In the case of the heart: over 800 million years ago there were no pumps on the entire earth of any kind. Evolution would have to start knitting a few cells together with each generation, with the end result, hundreds of thousands of years later, being a sealed pump and valve capable of moving blood. Of course, the blood couldn’t exist until there was a heart to pump it. Add to that, there were no lungs to oxygenate the blood, and no vessels to get oxygenated blood to the needy cells. It is not even imaginable that a heart and
all systems required to run it could be produced by mutations and natural selection. Evolutionists make note that there are “simple” and “complex” heart/lung systems in different species today. They ignore that fact that even “simple” heart/lung systems are immensely complex, and that any complexity of heart would be useless until it was evolved into a fully sealed pump.
I was debating website participants from Pharyngula, a University of Minnesota connected website. They wrote a paper describing the evolution of the vertebrate eyes, which they think happened like the drawing at left. I posed the challenge of how could hundreds of thousands of mutations form a binocular vision system when there was no model on the face of the earth. How did the mutations “know” where they were going? Stanton, a commenter there, angrily said that “didn’t I know that protozoans had opsins (vision biochemicals) to use as the model?” Biochemicals in a protozoan were models for a binocular vision system? Absurd. Stanton’s other problem was that admitting to the use of a model admits to intelligence, which copying a model would require.
Evolutionists use placoderms and flatworms as examples of steps in the evolution of eyes. They think that because there are some “simpler” eyes in existence today, that proves evolution. The only problem is placoderms had binocular and possibly color vision. They also had two bony eye sockets. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/basalfish/placodermi.html Flatworms have two eyespots that help them sense light. But this means that they must have optic nerves, and a visual cortex to translate a coded nerve signal into light and some sort of image. Both systems would be immensely complex, and not the simple vision systems required to prove Darwin. http://www.mcwdn.org/Animals/Flatworm.html Out of a billion species that have inhabited the earth, these examples are pathetic anyway. If binocular vision systems evolved by M and NS, there would be overwhelming evidence . And, of course, the question arises, why didn’t “simple eyed” creatures cited by evolutionauts fully evolve complex visual systems? Why are they here as “simple” eyes when they have had 2,000 times longer than evolutionauts say it took eyes to evolve in the first place? Euglena is a single celled species that evolutionauts cite as an example of “simple” visual systems. For one thing, euglena NEVER evolved into a multi -celled species. It’s light sensitive spot isn’t any kind of eye. It reacts to heat or electromagnetic waves, and makes no images. The spot isn’t “light sensitive”, and it never evolved into anything more than what it is. Euglena had 2,000 times longer than eyes supposedly took to evolve, but it did nothing. That is bent evidence. Euglena didn’t evolve into multi-celled, the spot didn’t, yet it is used as evidence for evolution of visual systems. Further, since it is single celled, it is not comparable to a visual systems that are COMPOSED of individual cells. It’s EMR sensitive spot is intracellular, so it couldn’t be a building block.
Mutation CPA’s: According to evolutionists, a huge majority of mutations are not “good”. Therefore each selected mutation would have to be accompanied by many “bad” mutations, which would mean one step forward and many steps back. The finish line would never be reached. Did a single mutation cause the same eye parts to form in the right and left eyes? If a mutation caused the formation of 100 retinal cells, did it perform the exact same feat bilaterally? If not, did a later mutation make the 100 retinal cells on one side after an earlier mutation made 100 on the other? Of course the number of cells would have to be exact on each side. What a “bookkeeping” job that must have been for natural selection!
Mutation Location: Why couldn’t a species mutate the wrong type of cells and place them where the retina should be? For example, could mutations have added cartilage cells to the iris, since mutations had no intelligence, which means anything could be possible? If mutations did that, does that mean the host would not have survived? Couldn’t retinal cells be just as easily added to the knee or stomach as to the eye? The complexities for M and NS are so astronomically enormous, logic should tell us they are beyond the world of possibility.
One Species or Many: Did eye and heart systems evolve in just one species, which then spread the miracles to other species? Or, did eye and heart/lung systems evolve in millions of species all in unison, at the same time, kind of like a huge choir singing? The thought that they evolved in only one animal population is unimaginable, since species can only procreate with their own kind. Even if the population with these organs as a trait was split by geological events numerous times over eons causing the formation of additional species, the result would be that few species today would have eye or heart/lung systems. The reason? Eye and heart/lung systems formed 3.4 billion years after the first living species, and 2.9 billion years after the oldest common ancestor of all of modern life. Between 2.9 BYA and 500 MYA millions of species had to have evolved. There would just be too many species that would not get eyes or hearts from the original single species that evolved them 500 MYA. That scenario just could not produce eye and heart/lung systems in the vast majority of all of modern species that have them today. Also, the thought that vision or heart/lung systems evolved in unison in millions of animals at the same time is completely preposterous.
Evolutionauts, when discussing eye evolution, say that seeing “light and dark” confers a survival/predatory advantage on the species that other species didn’t have. Therefore, it would be “selected for”. They isolate vision as if were the only “advantage” and that it should be considered isolated from other possible advantages. When they discuss vision, notice that other characteristics are never mentioned. In reality, many “advantages” were evolving, and the food chain would have been complex beyond imagination. Olfactory systems (smell), teeth, and hearing could well have trumped “light and dark” vision. If a toothless species moved toward a “dark” object, and that object turned out to be a species with teeth, the species with the early vision would be nothing more than a tasty treat for the toothed species. Or how about the case where a two pound eyed species ran into fifty pound blind species.The eyes wouldn’t trump the size. It’s pretty hard to imagine how most multicelled species with very modest size are all equipped with all five senses. One would think that if these senses came about by evolution, the picture wouldn’t be so neat. But it is.
Cornea Retina and Iris: Eyes are capable of auto-adjusting their “f-stops”. The iris consists of pigmented fibrovascular tissue known as a stroma. The stroma connects a sphincter muscle (sphincter pupillae), which contracts the pupil, and a set of dilator muscles (dilator pupillae) which open it. If the retina is overstimulated with too much light, it sends a signal to the brain which then sends a signal back to the muscles that control the iris. The f-stops are then auto-adjusted by the iris, and the light on the retina is reduced to a comfortable level. This all takes place because of an unbelievable series of biochemical reactions that simply could not be evolved in small steps.
The retina is composed of about 120 million cells. These cells combine to connect with the optic nerve which has about 1,200,000 neurons (nerve cells). The visual cortex has 538,000,000 cells. An astounding thought is how these all connect up. The varying numbers of cells of each part must have made an incredibly tough job for evolution. Think of trying to organize 120,000,000 cells to connect to 1,200,000 cells which then must connect to 538,000,000 cells. The dumb luck connections and trial and error must have been endless for the organisms that owned the trial visual systems until natural selection got it right. There must have been thousand of generations of nearly blind species until the trial and error ended. What a thought!
The cornea is the only living tissue in the body that doesn’t have blood supply. Think of what vision would be like if the cornea had bunches of blood vessels running through it. We would be nearly blind! Evolutionauts like to cite the fact that the optic nerve exits the retina toward the front, then makes a turn to go to the back of the eye and on to the visual cortex as horrible design. Since this design does little to affect our vision, I don’t think evolution has a case. And my bet is that there is some reason for that design that we are unaware of and cannot test. Of course scientists cannot take human eyes and redirect the nerve fibers without blinding the test victim. What evolutionauts don’t mention is the fact that of all of the tissues in the human body, the only one without blood supply is the cornea. The cornea receives its nourishment from tears and the aqueous humor. Just imagine if the cornea did have blood vessels and a blood supply. We humans would be blind. But somehow, in its immensely intelligent way, natural selection saw to it that there was one and only one tissue in the body without blood supply. The one we humans NEED to not have a blood supply.
This video shows how Richard Dawkins visualizes the evolution of the eye. This is nothing more than an amazing sham; another pseudo-scientific cartoon with no connection to reality at all. Dawkins doesn’t mention that (1) The “light sensitive cells” have no connection to the brain so the species would not be able to react to light, only the cells may. (2) How does the visual cortex evolve to translate the chemical signal received from the “light cells”. (3) What causes the “indentation”? Why would that occur? (4) How does the chemical signal that travels to the brain form. Is this something mutations can do? I think not. It’s no use even commenting farther on this sham. It’s interesting to read the comments on YouTube. The viewers are almost universally wowed by this Dawkins video.
Evolutionists say that eyes evolved using 100,000 to 500,000 mutations (generations). Since eyes have a small number of parts, let’s say thirty, the question here would be: How do the mutations divvy up among the eye parts. Did 20,000 mutations form the retina and it’s 130 million cells? Were the 20,000 mutations working like a team, each mutation knowing what its job was and what the last mutation accomplished in making retinal cells? What about the visual cortex and thalamus? How many mutations were required to evolve these, and did the mutation work like a team here also? How did the mutations “know” where the cells should be placed. Did some place their cells on the back of the neck? After all, these are mutations!
Evolution likes to claim that the optic nerve evolved from the more “simple” sensory neurons. The big problem here is the fact that the optic nerve is ensheathed in all three meningeal layers (dura, arachnoid, and pia mater) rather than the epineurium, perineurium, and endoneurium found in peripheral nerves. Which means the it could not have evolved from sensory nerves, unless an amazingly large change evolved. This is an important issue, as fiber tracks of the mammalian central nervous system (as opposed to the peripheral nervous system) are incapable of regeneration and hence optic nerve damage produces irreversible blindness. Would this fact fit in with the “survival of the fittest” model?
The really interesting thing about eye and heart evolution is the fact that it supposedly stopped when pretty good perfection was achieved. What would suddenly cause the cessation of mutations, whose frequency should be constant?
Below are three videos that I made on eye evolution. Press the lower left arrow to view so you won’t leave the page.