Evolution: An Objective Look

8. National Geographics Special, “Was Darwin Wrong?

 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.

I just finished watching a National Geographic Special, “Was Darwin Wrong?” (National Geographic Channel, Dec. 2006). Early on the special showed how fossils are aged using carbon dating and layer dating. So far so good.

Next, the evolution scientists showed how a sea animal, a “sea squirt” with a single chambered heart, could have its DNA changed via an electrical shock at a specific location on the gene of a sea squirt embryo, which would cause the embryo to mature with a second functioning heart chamber. This is a rather astounding experiment which the scientists say proves that hearts actually did evolve. The scientists unanimously glowed with this “evidence” that Darwin was correct. They said that this is overwhelming proof for the TOE. Not one of them could look at this experiment with a truly objective scientist’s eye. The special did not address what happened between no hearts and fully functioning hearts, be they one, two, or four-chambered. Why? Because there is no possible explanation for that evolution. They called a single chambered heart “simple”. Sorry, but even a single-chambered heart is incredibly complex, requiring blood, vessels, an oxygenating system, nerves, a brain to operate it, etc. What could cause nothing to turn into an exceedingly complex pump system, which even a single chambered heart is? Again, a proto-heart in the process of evolving into a functioning heart would be nothing more than a tumor. Animals would have to carry gradually growing and useless proto-hearts for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years to allow the evolution of finally functioning hearts. This scenario is not even imaginable. Also ridiculous is the idea that an electrical shock of some kind (lightning?) could perfectly modify the DNA of an embryo. A shock of any kind would actually kill the embryo, and if it didn’t, it would cause catastrophic damage to the DNA which would certainly never lead to an additional perfectly formed heart chamber.
Further evidence for the TOE in the special was a four-legged animal that returned to the sea and became a whale! This is so preposterous that it is truly unbelievable that intelligent people can promote this inane scenario; comical to try to imagine.

The special then went to a recently discovered flat-skulled animal/fossil that was dug up in northern Canada by an evolution scientist. The researchers named it “tiktaalic”. (Above left) Tiktaalic had stubby little “fore-fins” . This was shown as proof that fish grew legs to become land animals. Again, there is absolutely no proof that earlier fish morphed into this “fish-o-pod“, or that the fish-o-pod morphed into another species. Why would it take 170 years since Darwin hatched his ideas to find one fossil that supposedly displayed fish-land animal evolution? Does the center photo, which is the fore-arm of tiktaalic, look anything like a foreleg of a quadruped? It would take an incredible amount of imagination to think so. Since there are and have been trillions of land animals over the eons, there should be a plethora of fish showing the growth of proto-limbs gradually morphing into full limbs. Again, there are none. Tiktaalic also had seven or eight “digits” (fingers) on the fore leg-fins. Did it “dis-evolve” three? Scientists have also determined that it’s “leg-fins” were too short to support it out of water. The tail end of the fossil has not been found, so evolutionists don’t even know if the species had any kind of hind-fins. Of course, pictures of “tiktaalic” are painted with two hind-fins so as to make it seem like this fossil is a pre-quadruped. Amazing that they say that they have found an incredible missing transitional fossil for quadrupeds when the whole rear end is missing, and they have no idea what it looks like! This scientist found a new species, not a transitional animal. These scientists get so excited over any interesting fossil that they find. They try to bend the fossil into a great “evolution proving” piece of evidence. They hopefully think they found the MISSING LINK! If these guys found a dead seal they would celebrate the find of a great new transitional fossil! Just think what this does for the scientists’ reputation in the world of evolution. With good reason they want it to be evidence so badly that they cannot look at it objectively and scientifically. The excitement of the find, group psychology, and the possibility of fame can overwhelm all objectivity. All science should be looked at with a critical and doubting eye. TOE is the one “science” that is not.

Then a big oops: Fully formed tetrapod tracks were found that predated Tiktaalik by millions of years. So, just when evolution is happy, the rug gets pulled out from under their stinky feet:

“The fish–tetrapod transition was thus seemingly quite well documented. There was a consensus that the divergence between some elpistostegalians (such as Tiktaalik or Panderichthys) and tetrapods might have occurred during the Givetian, 391–385 Myr ago. Coeval with the earliest fossil tetrapods, trackways dating to the Late Devonian were evidence for their ability to walk or crawl on shores.

Now, however, Niedźwiedzki et al. lob a grenade into that picture. They report the stunning discovery of tetrapod trackways with distinct digit imprints from Zachemie, Poland, that are unambiguously dated to the lowermost Eifelian (397 Myr ago). This site (an old quarry) has yielded a dozen trackways made by several individuals that ranged from about 0.5 to 2.5 metres in total length, and numerous isolated footprints found on fragments of scree. The tracks predate the oldest tetrapod skeletal remains by 18 Myr and, more surprisingly, the earliest elpistostegalian fishes by about 10 Myr.”

(Philippe Janvier & Gaël Clément, “Muddy tetrapod origins,” Nature Vol. 463:40-41 (January 7, 2010).)

Ping Pong Eyes:

Sectioned ping-pong balls are used in the special to prove that eyes could evolve. The “scientist” takes a flashlight and moves it around the ping-pong balls, showing how the light reflecting through the balls also moves! This is touted as an advantage which will cause further evolution to a complete eye. This is not science. This is damaging perfectly good ping-pong balls. Also, the scientists fill a “hollow” lens, constructed using polyethylene windows, with water. The windows bulge and focus well to show how a lens could evolve. These wouldn’t even qualify as junior high science projects. And, they are so ridiculous as examples of proof of Darwinian evolution that further discussion is useless. There is more discussion on the evolution of eyes at on page 4 and 10.

A quote from this NG special: “Fossil birds appear in the rocks out of nowhere.” In reality, all fossils appear out of nowhere. There are no bird fossils that show gradual growth of wings. Can’t the NG writer/scientists see that this fact alone is a Darwin killer? Answer: not even a thought. Another quote from this special: “If a single one of these (proofs for TOE) fails, the whole theory will come crashing down.” Virtually all of the “proofs” in this special, with the exception of dating of fossils, in reality, fail any objective test of evidence. NG wants Darwin to be right so badly that it can’t come close to an objective look at its own “evidence”.