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
- Flight
- 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
- Hemoglobin
- 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 evo-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 its anti-flight musculoskeletal characteristics.
Leave it to evo-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 birds 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 is 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 megapodes, 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 eggs hatch in seven weeks, and the hatchlings dig u
pward 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, and come up with. A step by step description of how arboreal branch bird nests came about:
1, Millions of years
ago, birds placed their eggs on the ground; on dirt and grasses.
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 the 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 thousands 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 splat
s.
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:
comedian. Chicken teeth are studied and written about by respected evolution scientists. So, as absurd as they are, I will try to address chicken teeth on a serious vein. 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 growing 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 evo-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 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 evo-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 your eyes see, not what someone tells you 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 evolve into the
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 the evolution of visual systems. Further, since it is single-celled, it is not comparable to a visual system that is COMPOSED of individual cells. It’s EMR sensitive spot is intracellular so it couldn’t be a building block.
Other factors:
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 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 a 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.
[YouTube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRDAY39Zd9M]
[YouTube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9KQecDfn_o&feature=channel_page]
Evolution: An Objective Look 
stevebee92653 said,
February 10, 2008 at 3:12 am
By piblake: Transferred from http://www.evillusion.blogspot.com:
I think you might have misinterpreted TOE. Does this theory say that anything and everything *must* evolve? The way I see it, and I could be wrong, it says that extreme circumstances have been overcome by a “cousin” species so-to-speak. Are you saying that *any* species must necessarily die and its mutants live as another species? That’s an odd interpretation in my opinion and possibly a straw-man argument.
I will admit that *many* of evolution’s proponents take absurdly dogmatic views (Dawkins for instance) and can really confuse whatever propositions can possibly be called science in it (as opposed to dogma). Hence your reasoning throughout on this page.
I see nothing but straw-men in your critique. For every one you’ve given here, you’d be well to ask yourself, “Is this what TOE says”?
Not to belabor the point, but later on your board you assert something about *gradual* changes being necessary. Why should that be? Who’s to say that a seemingly trivial mutation doesn’t give you a radically different species? I would think the latter myself. You’ve interpreted a gradual change in genome as requiring by necessity a gradual change in species. That might or might *not* be the case.
You’re arguing against the dogmatic views propounded and not TOE itself IMO.
# posted by Blogger plblake : 7:27 PM
My response:
Hi Piblake
You can see a more detailed version of this site at http://www.evillusion.net.
Regarding your comment:
Here is 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. A specie cannot evolve and an organ (heart, eye, eg.) arrive some other way. That makes Darwin’s theory weaker than a spider web.
A small mutation creating major changes in a species that results in a new specie is just a figment of your imagination and nothing more. No major evolutionist backs that idea, and it would certainly happen today if it happened long ago. Most sciences are constant, with the exception of evolution.
Regarding the term “straw-man”. That term is used commonly by ev believers, and is a great way of getting out of “answering” a question that can’t be answered. All evolutionists must read from the same pamphlet.
# posted by Blogger Stephen B.Thomas DDS : 2:53 PM
Post a Comment
Marie Devine said,
April 18, 2008 at 5:06 pm
That article was great. You have the details that can scientifically prove the theory of evolution is only something people who do not want to know the creator hang onto as an explanation of how we got here. In the Pearl of Great Price book Moses at scriptures.lds.org it records that many worlds were made this same way and this earth was created in the spiritual realm using materials there before it was presented here. That is why in the Bible Genesis account it speaks of two times being created, but it was unclear until this hidden part of Moses book came to light. This explains the apparent old age of the planet.
I agree that if you start from the first cell and try to construct a complex being, you will not get to three steps, let alone millions of steps to create this planet alone. God has the answers and more are coming out every day.
Go to Astronomy.com The sky this week shows the constellation Cygnus, it is obviously Jesus on the cross. Tonight begins Passover-Ressurection time. Perfect timeing. God said the sign of Jesus would be in the heavenlies during one of His special times. As you can see, I do not have memory access to specifics, but what is written reported to be from God, gets proven.
God bless you, Loved this article; see my simplistic agreement in my letter on Helium.com, The Theory of Evolution.
Demon38 said,
April 29, 2008 at 1:17 am
Just a bunch of worthless PRATTs, Points Refuted A Thousand Times. This author doesn’t understand Evolution or biology.
Stephanurus said,
April 29, 2008 at 2:36 am
Your site would be funny if it were not so sad.
stevebee92653 said,
April 29, 2008 at 4:30 am
When evillusionists can’t refute a point, they always go to the PRATT scenario. And demeaning. The answer never shows up, but we are told that it has been refuted a thousand times. So, pick one and refute Demon38 and Stephanurus. And if you can’t, then go somewhere else.
reluctantfundie said,
August 17, 2008 at 6:54 pm
He sure laid the smackdown on you.
reluctantfundie said,
August 17, 2008 at 10:32 pm
That Dawkins eye video is unbelievable. He just glibly glosses over the amazing chance mutations and selection that would have to take place to develop the eye. You can’t just say “let’s dig a deeper pit” or “let’s grow some skin over the eye” and expect everyone to just accept that it happened that way. I’m honestly incredulous about the science. Obviously, being a Christian automatically makes you a raging theocrat. But really, the science people! Oh the humanity!!!
reluctantfundie said,
August 17, 2008 at 10:33 pm
and I just love the delicious irony of his intelligently designed computer programme.
reluctantfundie said,
August 17, 2008 at 10:37 pm
As someone who is not a scientist can I ask you to do more videos on YouTube, such as this bait and switch special from Genie Scott and team
Thanks
stevebee92653 said,
August 19, 2008 at 2:03 am
I will take a look at the vid. Yea, I love the computer evolution BS. As soon as the computer keyboard it touched, or the computer is turned on, intelligence is injected into the mix, the anathema of evolutionists. But they are too brainwashed to see that one.
Bryan said,
August 21, 2008 at 12:05 am
i read an answers in genesis article about the eye evolution, that PBS presented, the most interesting part of the article to me was
“Darwin suggested that even ‘incomplete’ eyes might confer benefits (such as helping creatures orient toward light) and thereby survive for further evolutionary refinement.”
AIG responds: First, this overlooks the incredible complexity of even the simplest light-sensitive spot. Second, it’s fallacious to argue that 51 percent vision would necessarily have a strong enough selective advantage over 50 percent to overcome the effects of genetic drift’s tendency to eliminate even beneficial mutations
reluctantfundie said,
August 30, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Can I offer a PRATT scenario?
Non evo: The evolution of the eye is impossible.
Evo: IDiot!! You have been disproven over and over again
Non evo: OK, can you show me the evidence of eye evolution?
Evo: Well, we don’t exactly know that but science is working on it. At least we don’t use a God of the gaps, wave your magic wand, fairy tale because we’re too insecure to say we don’t know. IDiot!!
stevebee92653 said,
August 30, 2008 at 4:58 pm
You are right on the money. Sounds like a mini-play. Thanks for adding that to my blog!
Cheesothegreat said,
November 19, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Sexual selection for #7… nuff said. And also the fur is still there, why do we have hair on everything but our palms and the bottom of our feet just like that gorilla.
stevebee92653 said,
November 19, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Oh. Great answer. That’s why I call it ev-illusion!
Cheesothegreat said,
November 19, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Sexual selection does answer your question.
Cheesothegreat said,
November 19, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Does that mean you will remove question seven from this page?
stevebee92653 said,
November 19, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Gee, I wish I could have done that in school. Give the answer, then say that IS the answer? I wudda had all 100%! Clever!
Cheesothegreat said,
November 20, 2008 at 4:35 am
You’re demonstrating that you either didn’t take any ecology or evolution classes in college, or that you fell asleep during those classes.
As in question seven, Your responses indicate that your understanding of evolution does not go beyond natural selection. It is not my job to teach you about sexual selection, but if you’re the scientist that you claim you are, seek the answers and learn what sexual selection is.
There are many animals and plants (most male birds for example) that have phenotypic traits which either serve no purpose or even act as a disadvantage in terms of natural selection. But in the respects of sexual selection give an individual an advantage in propogating its genes.
stevebee92653 said,
November 20, 2008 at 8:00 am
As in question seven, your responses indicate that you recite dogma that someone taught you, and you, for some stupid reason, you believe it without the slightest bit of thought or skepticism. It is not my job to teach you about how absurd your answer is, but if you’re the scientist that you claim you are, seek the answers and learn what brainwashing is.
Cheesothegreat said,
November 21, 2008 at 3:30 am
Wow real objective right there!
Deleting my comments because you don’t know what sexual selection is.
stevebee92653 said,
November 21, 2008 at 3:46 am
You mean like your mom picked your dad and unfortunately had you? Are you such a zealot that that is all you can say + lots of typical evo demeaning and corny trite evo shibboleths? Don’t you have something better to do? You repeated yourself numerous times, and you expect those to stick? What was different about the tenth one from the second one. Go to Wiki….please. I left your earlier ones for some stupid reason.
Cheesothegreat said,
November 21, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Hah! Im not the one that can only explain evolution in terms of natural selection! It sounds like you really don’t know what evolution is. Birdnests don’t evolve you idiot….. what else do you think evolves…. cars, baseballs, rocks? Lets watch two nests mate and see what type of offspring are produced even thought they lack DNA and aren’t alive. Is that what they taught in biology classes back in the 50’s?
stevebee92653 said,
November 21, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Cheesbrain: Oh, so the first bird nest that ever existed was full and complete? Like, from no nests, then suddenly fully formed nests you idiot.. How could that be possible if nature evolved like you say it did. But nice try.
Cheesothegreat said,
November 21, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Because a nest isn’t living and therefore cannot evolve in the biological sense you tard.
Cheesothegreat said,
November 22, 2008 at 12:17 am
Since your so fond of Wikipedia, given it’s your only “academic” source, here is the first sentence for the definition of evolution:
In biology, evolution is the changes in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.
Go for it, keep defending that birdnests have evolved.
Cheesothegreat said,
November 22, 2008 at 12:26 am
Keep reading this article maybe you’ll learn a thing or two about evolution and how it doesn’t solely revolve around natural selection. Maybe then you will comprehend the validity that sexual selection will answer your questions regarding humans and fur. If the reading hurts maybe you should give up science and pick up something more to your speed, like why you like puppies.
stevebee92653 said,
November 22, 2008 at 2:03 am
Hey, cheese-brain. So non-living things can’t evolve? What a monumental conclusion you’ve come to there. WOW! Nobel prize for absolute sure! Because that conclusion just kills all current theories on abiogenesis. Ya know, when RNA that found it’s way inside lipid micelles. And those micelles had to evolve into more complex types before they could support life. But you say non-living things can’t evolve, so that’s it for all current abiogenesis thinking!
And, regarding the cheesothegreat bird nest theory: Did Mrs. Robin Redbreastasaurus decide one day to make a fully loaded, fully weaved nest to support her eggs because she was tired of them eggs falling out of trees? She must have been the Eli Whitney of birds? Please clear this up for me. I always thought that for evolution to be true, the nests had to evolve along with the bird species. Dumb me. Bird nests are an all or none!
Cheesothegreat said,
November 22, 2008 at 6:11 am
Evolution and and abiogenesis are two completely different theories.
Keep digging yourself into a deeper hole. You really have no idea what you’re talking about.
stevebee92653 said,
November 22, 2008 at 6:33 am
Nice try cheesebrain. You mean two completely different FANTASIES? Evolutionauts don’t want to touch ev-abiogenesis since there is no plausible explanation for how life did arise on earth. So they exfoliate the subject and turn it into “another science”. In reality, the simpler early micelles had to evolve into more complex cells that could support life. So the current ideas on ev-abiogenesis are completely dependent on evolution. The very beginning of ev-abiogenesis is the BIRTH of evolution, and they are intimately connected.
So you’re a bird-nest creationist, and a bird evolutionist? Do you have a name for that line of thinking? Evo-creationist?
BTW, ev-abiogenesis is a hypothesis, not a theory according to the top ev-abiobaloney scientists. Didn’t you know that? Keep digging yourself into a deeper hole. You really have no idea what you’re talking about.
Cheesothegreat said,
December 2, 2008 at 6:29 pm
That’s charming, once again we are talking about evolution not abiogenesis. Learn the definitions and stop speculating for your subjective ideas on evolution.
Alejandro said,
December 3, 2008 at 8:02 pm
I didn’t read the whole article, so in case you didn’t talk about it I suggest you another problem about eggs: the impossible transition from aquatic eggs (amphibians) to terrestrial eggs (reptiles). This kind of transition would cause the extinction of “proto” reptiles.
beeble said,
December 3, 2008 at 9:34 pm
In the hope that you have any inclination of actually learning let me discuss your points.
I’m going to start a little out of order because I notice quite a ways down you have section call “Other Factors” I’m going to discuss start with these “other factors” because by dealing with fundamental logical or understanding errors I can build up to explaining things.
Your “Mutation CPA’s” section is where your first fundamental misunderstanding lies. It’s true that of the many, many mutations that occur few are beneficial and many are harmful (a large majority are actually neutral for reasons that become readily apparent in any standard biology course…look at codon tables), but in your statement “the finish line would never be reached” you are overlooking the whole point of natural selection; the individuals with the harmful mutations don’t reproduce because they die so the mutation is removed from the gene pool. The second misunderstanding you seem to have is with bilateral symetry. Each eye is not encoded for separately, the two eyes are the same because the exact same genes code for both eyes. How does this happen? This is where a cursory look at embryological development is useful. Development in bilaterally symetrical multicellular organisms (ranging from people to fruit flies) is controlled by specific transcriptional activators and repressors that are called Hox genes. Basically hox genes are expressed during development at certain centers and form a gradient of the protein being highly concetrated close and less so the further away you get. Because of rules of affinity, that you’ll would learn about in biochemistry (if you were to take such a course), the Hox proteins activate different genes depending on their local concentration. And there are multiple hox genes expressed at different centers so overlapping concentration gradients come into play as well. This is the reason why most symetrical organisms are symetrical. In cases where symetry fails it’s usually a result of some external stimulus on the developing organism. And since the same genes are responsible for development of the the structure on both side of the organism, no further bookeeping is necessary. In other phases there become specialized centers that develop their contents slightly differently (which is why the insides of our guts are not symetrical: One heart, a liver on one side, a spleen and pancreas on the other)[It’s a little more complicated than this but I think I have given a good primer here]
Next is your “Mutation Location” section. This is another section where a slightly stronger background in development and genetics would help you. There are many checkpoints that have evolved which determine how a cell will develop. Because of this a single mutation could not cause retinal cells to spontaneously develop as cartilage, but what could happen is a mutation that blocks the signal that tells the future retinal cell to become a retinal cell. In that case, the cells would remain the same as the cells just under the retina, and what would be the outcome on the offspring with that mutation? Blindness. Now in our modern society blindness isn’t really a problem anymore so a person born with this sort of thing could survive but for a wild animal whose life depends upon an ability to hunt or avoid predators it would almost certainly mean death. Along the same lines we can lay your other projection the same way. Retinal cells developing in the knee is highly unlikely for the same reasons I outlined above but what if the cartilage just didn’t develop? For the reasons listed above this mutation wouldn’t be restricted to one leg, it would either be a problem with the developer proteins (both legs would be affected), or a global defect in chondrocyte formation (no cartilaginous tissue in the whole animal). In the case of it being restricted to the legs, I suppose a few things could happen, the bones could fuse together, the joint could just be not as flexible, or the joint could be extremely painful and/or arthritic. Again in people none of these is particularly dangerous but in a wild animal whose life depends on being able to stalk prey, or run away from predators it would be fatal (at least when taken in comparison with another of the same species that didn’t have this problem). In the other case (no cartilaginous tissue at all) there would severe developmental problems to the point that I doubt if the embryo would actually make it to birth.
Finally “One specie of Many:”. First off, species is the singular form of the word but that’s just a pet peave of mine. Again this section demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory (if you’re going to argue that something is not possible within the framework of evolution then you should at least get the framework correct, another pet peave). You also seem to be suggesting that animal can transfer genetic material horizontally, this (with rare occurances facilitated by certain viral events) doesn’t happen. An individual mutation arose that made the individual with the mutation more fit than its competition. That made it better stronger faster. So it mated and had offspring, those offspring were more fit than the offspring of other individuals so they had a better survival chance and mating chance. Their offspring, etc, etc, until after many generations the vast majority of the local population had the mutation and it became the norm. This happened again and again and again and again and again and again etc etc. Yes, that means that every animal with a heart can probably trace back its roots to a single mutant.
1. Sexual Reproduction: Sexual Reproduction as it currently is in higher order mammals isn’t the way it always was. How do I know this? Well let’s look to the “lower order” vertebrates such as fish and amphibians. The lock and key apendages (penis and vagina) that you talk about are completely absent in them. In fish the female exudes her eggs onto the sea/river floor and the male comes along and exudes his sperm onto them. The penis and vagina come along much later. So your first point is an entire non-starter since your entire concern seems to be reproductive organs.
Your claims about mitosis are indicative of a lack of understanding or stem from a misapplication of knowledge. While it’s true that current eukaryotic cells undergo mitosis, the same cannot be said of prokaryotes. Prokaryotes undergo a process called binary fission, that uses little of the machinery present in eukaryotes. And might I suggest a paper to you called “Mitosis, Not just Open or Closed” by De Souza, CPC, and Osmani, SA, published in Eukaryotic Cell 6:1521-1527 that discusses how not all eukaryotes undergo mitosis in the same way, suggesting that the process has changed. If you want to know how the original process of division occurred that should be pretty simple too. Because of the basic make up of biological mebranes they are fluid, they also have a size requirement and unless reinforced by a cell wall of some sort (cell walls on plant cells are different than walls on bacteria are different than cell walls on fungi/yeasts BTW) can lose integrity. Additionally, because the first cells would have had no cytoskeleton to reinforce the cells, incidences of torsional pressure and/or turgor/flaccor pressures would have facilitated pinching off of membranes into separate compartments, or it would rupture them. (This is all basic biochemsistry if you want to know how I know this)
2. I don’t think I can really improve on this section much because much of what I’d tell you, you already have down. But I will say that quite often the text you quote says things like “it isn’t hard to imagine” followed by “research has shown this to be true” which you almost uniformly reply with something like “there they go again imagining”, and by so doing completely ignore the part about the research that has been done to confirm it. That’s how science is done, you come up with an idea or hypothesis and then you test it. You focus only on the hypothesis stage and then discount the research that has confirmed these hypotheses. Another problem in your dissertation here is that you claim birds showed up suddenly in the fossil record without precursors, this is not true. More and more feathered beings that bridge the reptile-avian process emerge. (You cite wiki a lot look up extant birds). Also, latant genes in bird embryos can be reactivated, and active genes can be shut down that will give the birds toothed beaks and scales instead of feathers.
3. If you want to ask about the origin of bird eggs look at reptile eggs. Look at fossilized dinosaur eggs, they share most of the characteristics you attribute to bird eggs. If you want to know about precursors of dinosaur eggs look at lizard eggs the ones that have a softer shell. If you want to know about the precursors to lizard eggs look at amphibian eggs that have no shell and require fairly high ammounts of moisture as a result. A better way to think about that is the reverse, that with the evolution of the shell (albeit initially soft and thin) allowed for movement further away from the water, thereby increasing the amount of resource available to the organisms that got this.
4. The heart. Evolution of the Heart from Bacteria to Men. Bishopric, NH. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1047: 13-29
I’m tired now, I might get back to this and finish it up I might not, we’ll see. I guess it depends on how busy I am tomorrow.
stevebee92653 said,
December 5, 2008 at 4:52 am
Beeble:
You are apparently a very knowledgeable evolution believer. A great deal of knowledge, or a limited amount, makes no difference. TOE is so completely full of holes that discussions are not at all difficult. The thing that amazes me most is the fact that intelligent people such as yourself don’t spend a minute being skeptical about this so called science. Everything that any pro-ev says is like gospel truth, and you have no trouble relaying the most preposterous information to back up your belief. Amazing.
These are comments on your comments:
Para 3: What you are doing here is nothing more than playing Monday morning quarterback. You know that the biological items are here, and you plug evolution in as the producer of the items. How simple. And, there is absolutely no case where mutations have produced healthy tissues and placed them in just the correct position and amounts in the body so they can be utilized. Not any. None. Except in the imaginations of ev-illusionists. And of course some fantastic accounting had to take place. It’s unimaginable that just the right mutations could occur just as needed in the just the organs that were forming without an accounting. But I realize evolutionauts think anything Is possible , and that these mutations can form randomly and be selected so they are just what is needed and in just the correct position of whatever organ is evolving. Why do you believe that? That is the big question.
Para.4: “Would help me?” “Specie” may by your pet peeve, mine is that condescending phrase. Again, there is absolutely no case where mutations have produced healthy tissues and placed them in just the correct position in the body and in the correct amounts so they can be utilized. Not any. None. Except in the imaginations of ev-illusionists. And you have a good imagination here. So you are describing “science” that is completely imaginary.
Para 5: BTW, when you are telling someone about your pet spelling peeve, spell check it. You misspelled “peeve” and “occurrences” right after . Species was written 32 times on that page, and you found one “specie”. Pretty amazing. You seem like a smart guy. How did a new and wonderful trait make it from one species to another? Don’t forget, species can only procreate with their own. So, how did a new and fabulous trait that exists in one species make it other species? Geographic separation splitting a population could account for some spread, but not for the millions upon millions of traits and transfers that would be needed to account for all of nature.
Para 6: How did one species break up into two versions? How did the male which would be evolving its male organs know what the female was evolving so they could match? This scenario isn’t possible for RM and NS. How did sperm/egg fertilization evolve since it is an “all or none” event? Or copulation? I’m sure you have the answers, in some sort of fantasy form. Because these are not answerable.
Para 7. I don’t care who wrote what about cell division. Cell division isn’t possible through micro-steps, because it is another all or none event. Papers describing how an all or none event could evolve would be nothing more than imaginary. And I love your “pretty simple” remark. Are you kidding? Binary fission is complex beyond imagination, and mitosis is far more complex than that. “Simple” is not a word that anyone that knows these events well could possibly use.
Para 8“Another problem in your dissertation here is that you claim birds showed up suddenly in the fossil record without precursors.” Give NatGeo a call on this. I’m sure they will be happy with your information. Actually, there are no fossil precursors except in the imagination of ev-illusionists. It’s like “Pick an older species, and assign it to the job of being a bird precursor, even though it makes absolutely no sense, and isn’t even a close match.” And, that is your bird precursor
Para 9: Gawd, you run into the same old problem of the first egg, or which came first, and another “all or none” conundrum for evolution. A chick either did or didn’t come out of an egg. There are no half eggs, or quarter eggs, or partial hatchings. You mention eggs with no shell. They still have to be sealed to protect and feed the embryo. This is such an easy block, it’s not worth discussing.
Para 10: I am very familiar with evolutions excuses for heart evolution. Reading more imaginary material won’t help matters. Try my page on what evolution papers say about hearts. Again, a pump isn’t a pump until it is sealed and capable of pushing liquid. So, the intermediate stages are not possible. I could drone on here, but if you can’t see that with just a little independent thinking, I can’t help you. BTW, hearts arose from a world where there were no pumps at all. How was nature so able to invent hearts when there was no notion about pumps on the planet earth?
beeble said,
December 5, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Well, I sat down and tried to write out a nice instructive work, trying to point out areas where I thought a little more detailed or corrected background might help you correct some of your erroneous arguments and you threw it back at me and basically said, “No see here you’re the asshole.” Where I said things like “If you were to take a biochemistry course” I was actually assuming that you actually would want to learn something so I was pointing you to the types of classes you could take, condescension was not my intent. In some cases I was attempting to be humorous, perhaps you thought them antagonistic. You claim to seek civilized discourse and someone who can actually point out where you’re wrong and when that person shows up you turn into exactly what you accuse “evillusionists” of being. And perhaps my spelling sucks, I’m writing in notepad to ensure that there are no formatting problems, but there’s also no spell check. I wasn’t correcting your spelling I was pointing out the fact that you displayed your ignorance on the topic you’ve chosen to write about by using incorrect terms.
Also, I have to call foul on you calling that Pharyngula blog associated with University of Minnesota, after looking it up I found out that it’s associated with Scienceblogs not Univ or Minnesota. Dr. Meyers is a professor at Univ of Minnesota but the blog is neither hosted, sponsored, nor supported in any way by the University. Even calling it connected to the University is dubious. Now it would be perfectly reasonable to say something like “Run by Dr. PZ Meyers, a University of Minnesota Professor”
As for the rest of it, you’ve already made up your mind so I won’t bother trying to correct you anymore because it’s like banging my head into a brick. But I will say, I don’t just accept anything anyone tells me. I don’t accept evolution because some scientist told me it was correct. When I was a child I believed everything people told me which included creation. When I decided to stop just believing things and instead started investigating for myself to form my own conclusions, I accepted that Evolution, while not complete, as a general idea makes far more sense, and fits the available data far better than God creating the world in one fell swoop (among other things I don’t believe that God is deceitful). I have seen antibiotic resistance develop in bacteria and drug resistance develop in eukaryotes, I have seen a previously deadly viruses evolve into a harmless virus for use as a vaccine, I have seen bacteria that can digest nylon (a substance that wasn’t present on Earth until the 1930s), I have seen eukaryotes for which sexual reproduction is not, in fact, an all or nothing process but are quite capable of thriving, indefinitely, as haploid organisms (look up fungi), I have seen grass that spontaneously became tetraploid that as a result couldn’t produce offspring with its “relatives” anymore, I have seen the development of new structures in isolated populations of animals, and I’m not even 30, It excites me to think of what else I may see in this life time. I have problems with some models proposed but that doesn’t mean that the whole framework is incorrect, it means more research needs to be done. The models will almost certainly change, more and more fossils will be found, and better analysis will allow for improved understanding. Such is science and such is life. My hypothesis is that all new data will point to evolutionary theory getting stronger and stronger, and more correct. Now I’m off to test my hypothesis with the full knowledge that a single discovery alter my entire perception on how life works, and that excites me.
stevebee92653 said,
December 6, 2008 at 3:20 am
“I accepted that Evolution, while not complete, as a general idea makes far more sense, and fits the available data far better than God creating the world in one fell swoop.”
Here I would agree with you. Evolution make more sense than the Genesis that you and I were taught as kids, which is why I was a firm supporter of ev for many years. Only I went a step farther than you and started taking a good look at evolution. And I had the same very enlightened feeling when I realized what a sham evolution is as I did when I was finally able to toss my childhood religious beliefs. Your problem is that you think there are only two choices, religion or evolution. And your mind and way of thinking will not allow you to travel outside that two chambered box. The third choice is that neither are correct. While evolution is better than Genesis, it’s not even close to possible.
“I have seen antibiotic resistance develop in bacteria.” Do you have any idea how absurd these are as examples of evidence for evolution? Evolution says how complex visual systems, consciousness, hearts, livers, skeletons, muscles, etc. etc. formed. And you are letting someone convince you that bacteria that change in any way can equate to those? Why would you accept that without any skepticism whatsoever? The answer: You WANT that to be evidence for evolution. So bad. It is not. You have been had just as much by your ev-illusionists professors as your religious leaders had you when you were a kid.
I see you as an avid evolution believer who was brainwashed by his university professors into believing a science that is simply not a possible choice for the cause of the origin of species and their unbelievably complex organs. You cite examples that you think debunk my writing, all the while, not one of the examples has anything to do with the points I make. Just like all other evolutionauts, you gloss over the concrete points, and give back broad generalizations that you have been taught, and believe are evidence for evolution. When they are not close.
Beeble, as you are telling me you are not condescending, you are being condescending. If you can’t see that, take a good course in communication skills. And I don’t mean that in a condescending way. When somebody wants good intelligent discourse, the worst way to start is to tell them how smart you are and how wrong they are. That builds walls and bad attitudes quickly.
Your writing:
“…..corrected background might help you correct some of your erroneous arguments and you threw it back at me and basically said, “No see here you’re the asshole.”
“I was actually assuming that you actually would want to learn something so I was pointing you to the types of classes you could take…..”
“You claim to seek civilized discourse and someone who can actually point out where you’re wrong ….”
“I wasn’t correcting your spelling I was pointing out the fact that you displayed your ignorance on the topic you’ve chosen to write about by using incorrect terms.”
Pretty condescending. BTW, I have corrected one of the headlines on my blog. I originally thought the site was connected to the U of M. I corrected my text last year, but missed the page title. So you can congratulate yourself. You are the first person to get me to make a correction on my writing. And I always say, if a person can find a technical error, I will make corrections on that. So far, no one has. Or if someone can prove evolution is the correct Source, I will toss the whole blog. But, the more I learn, the worse evolution looks.
Paul Graham said,
January 1, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Awesome. I think this is something I should show to everyone who thinks evolution is fact
stevebee92653 said,
January 1, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Thanks! Nice to get a pro-comment.
FireCloud said,
January 15, 2009 at 12:50 pm
These are the most well-reasoned arguments against TOE that I’ve run across in my countless hours of studying the subject. Thank you for your efforts!
The absurdity of the theory of evolution becomes more and more apparent when one is honest with oneself and not agenda driven.
The older I get the more apparent it is how most people place undue trust in authority figures (professors, politicians, religionists, etc). One of the hardest things for an authority figure to admit is, “I don’t know.”
And this is the problem when ‘scientists’ look at life. The blatantly obvious answer to the question of how life originated and developed is “I don’t know.”
The TOE simply makes them look like wolves with an ulterior motive, or sheep with brains thoroughly washed of the ability to think critically and independently.
Thank you again for this resource.
stevebee92653 said,
January 15, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Thanks for the great comment. When I get a good one it’s like opening a present. A great feeling. I am so used to being attacked by the faithful.
jon perry said,
January 26, 2009 at 12:46 pm
I wonder if the whole lie that is evolution is in fact the “great delusion” spoken of in Jude.
for it is the first time that we have been able to destroy God with another religion is it not?
jon perry said,
January 26, 2009 at 12:51 pm
And i have to say, you so elequently put foward the idea of “how would a non thinking process know to move toward a finish line”. I have pondered that one for a while, that in all these things there appears to be a goal, at which point the process grinds to a halt, how and why would it unless it had acheived the unacheivable. Perfection.
stevebee92653 said,
January 27, 2009 at 4:21 am
Thanks for the great comments. I am not a Bilbical person, but I always get the most intelligent anti-ev comments from those who are. What really astounds me and is a stimulus for my writing is the fact that I was such a sucker for this supposed science. I REALLY wanted the evidence to fit the theory so I could be “comfortable”. And when I really took a look, I felt a betrayal, and embarrassment that I did step in line.
hooseyadaddy said,
January 31, 2009 at 11:16 pm
This is to the cheesehead above.
” Birdnests don’t evolve you idiot….. what else do you think evolves…. cars, baseballs, rocks”
Yeah they do. Take a look at the first baseballs, golfballs, baseball bats, cars etc. They are constantly changing. Oh but we humans are the designers and refiners of the first primitive/prototypes “designs”. Why cant this be the same in nature?
As far as abiogenesis and evolution, evolution is completely dependant on abiogenesis for validity. Im not saying evolution is wrong its just the evidence to date doesn’t support it. So until it does, I will question it. Afterall isnt that the point of science and experimentation.
Steevebee “So you’re a bird-nest creationist, and a bird evolutionist? Do you have a name for that line of thinking? Evo-creationist?” I love it!!! Excellent line
Oh cheesehead how do then explain how these birds know the right way to build the nest. Surely you would agree that learnt knowledge is not passed down to the next generation. My dad being an engineer doesn’t mean I will know how to build a bridge. Is it “natural instincts” Did a designer implant those or after millions of years they just know how to do it?
wunksta said,
February 16, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Hi, I just wanted to point some things out
@”In other words, IF ONLY ONE ITEM WAS NOT EVOLVABLE, THE ENTIRE THEORY IS OUT THE WINDOW. A specie cannot evolve and an organ (heart, eye, eg.) arrive some other way. ”
I believe this is incorrect. If one aspect is unable to explain it but able to explain other aspects, its possible that it just needs an adjustment. Furthermore, I REALLY dont know what you are proposing. Are you suggesting that evolution CAN explain other things but, in your opinion, cant explain these? Secondly, it appears you misunderstand the scientific process in the first place.
@”That makes Darwin’s theory weaker than a spider web.”
Spider webs are incredibly strong actually, 5 times more so than steel.
@”A small mutation creating major changes in a species that results in a new specie is just a figment of your imagination and nothing more.”
How so? Are you suggesting that changes in a populations dna has no impact on its actual genetics as a whole? If enough changes take place and they are not intergrated back into the population, then this leads to a division. If you disagree with this you have to propose an explanation for what stops this from happening.
@” All evolutionists must read from the same pamphlet.”
Its actually associated with logic, you did attend college correct?
@”came first, the chicken or the egg?”
Neither actually. They are actually a separated whole thats been evolved down the line. Chickens and eggs are not irreducibly complex. What came first would have been asexual organisms.
@”flight”
How are non bird creatures able to fly? Some dont “fly” at all really, but come close. From that point, it would only be a short step to actual flight.
@”Eyes… How did the mutations “know” where they were going? ”
This may be your problem with understanding the concept of evolution. The changes are intentional or trying to achieve anything. They occur and are useful, so are passed on. More changes that are useful are added and maintained. In this way, complexity can occur.
@”Did some place their cells on the back of the neck? After all, these are mutations! ”
Its possible, but if they didnt provide any useful advantage then they wouldnt really be passed on.
@”Would this fact fit in with the “survival of the fittest” model?”
Its all about costs and benefits. Raising children is risky as well but the benefits pay off. So with having exposed nerves such as eyes. They can be damaged but the benefits pay off
@”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?”
Who says they stopped? Who says they are perfect? They work and there isnt that much selective pressure to cause it to change significantly nor any widespread population separation. Even if mutations did occur they would be integrated back into the population.
stevebee92653 said,
February 17, 2009 at 4:26 am
#1: Evolution is simplistic, so please don’t insult me by telling me I “don’t understand” evolution. Obviously I do, and spent many years believing just like you do.
#2: Spider web: Don’t waste your and my time nitpicking. Take a baseball bat to a spider web. Get the idea?
#3:Read my page 7.
#4: They all repeat the same garbage (ad homenem, personal incredulity…..) ad nauseum.
#5Non-explanation.
#6: Only a short easy step? Laughable. Study bird flight and aerodynamics.
#7 Ref to #1.
#8: Excuse after the fact. It’s so easy to explain after an event happened or didn’t.
#9:See #8.
#10: See #8.
You are evo-dogmatic, and you don’t use your own cognitive skills. You are spouting what you were taught, without the slightest bit of skepticism. Why?
wunksta said,
February 28, 2009 at 4:34 pm
#1 i wasnt saying you misunderstand evolution (which you do) i was ACTUALLY saying you misunderstand the scientific process in general by implying that if a theory is unable to explain one aspect thats included in that theory then the whole theory is thrown out. this isnt what happens nor would it happen because evolution is already a fact and the theory of evolution already has substantial weight, therefore what would change is our understanding of how those “unexplainable processes” work if not by evolutionary changes.
#2 dont make analogies if they dont make sense
#3 yet you still are unable to explain what prevents changes from accumulating and changing the species descendents dramatically
#4 take a formal logic class, its good for you
#5 just because the answer doesnt fit your pre-existing paradigm doesnt mean its a “non-answer”
#6 using limbs or evolutionary features for more aerodynamic ability or gliding ability would lead to the ability of flight as i see it
#7 i dont think youve actually taken as much biology as youve claimed
#8 unnecessary mutations are a fact of life, yet they generally dont give a substantial advantage that allows the organism to outcompete others.
avoiding the issues and answers that are provided to you seems all too easy for you, youve already made up your mind so this blog is more for those that are still unsure. also, its not a matter of “spouting what ones taught” as it is understanding what it entails, which seems to be what someone has failed at doing.
stevebee92653 said,
February 28, 2009 at 4:45 pm
#1 If one part of a theory is not possible, the whole theory is not.
#2-5 Nonsense comments.
#6. You are dreaming.
#7. Another nonsense comment, distracting from the challenge I pose. You can’t answer, so you challenge my education. Pathetic and sad for you.
#8: Nonsense non-answer
“avoiding the issues and answers that are provided to you seems all too easy for you”
Not even a horrible try at an intelligent comment. You can’t respond to my challenges, so this is what you come up with? I am embarrassed for you. And your “science”.
jerry said,
May 9, 2009 at 5:48 am
i pasted some of your arguments onto richarddawkins.net forum, this is the response i got:
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=81464
if you would care to read it and provide some counter arguments, that would be good. evo’s use so much group psychology its unreal.
jerry said,
May 9, 2009 at 11:11 am
oh sorry, u have to have a login and username, u can use mine, evocritic, password is qwerty
stevebee92653 said,
May 9, 2009 at 5:52 pm
I tried registering on my own, and logging in with your stuff. No luck. I would like to read the responses. I will try later.
evocritic said,
May 10, 2009 at 2:55 am
Hi stevebee92653. I think ur awesome. I wish you could go to that Richard Dawkins forum and show all those evos how wrong they are.