28. Trying to Prove the Theory Instead of Going Where the Evidence Takes You

The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at AmazonThe URL for my book is www.Evo-illusion.com.

The page begins below.


 Anything is evidence for evolution. If the evidence doesn’t fit, make new evidence! Because of this absurd research, the digit conundrum for birds and theropods has been declared solved. This article used crocodiles to prove that bird digits are REALLY the same as theropod digits because they show “HoxD-11 expression in crocodilians, the closest living relatives of birds”. 

Research Article

The Evolution of HoxD-11 Expression in the Bird Wing: Insights from Alligator mississippiensis

Alexander O. Vargas1¤a*, Tiana Kohlsdorf1¤b, John F. Fallon2, John VandenBrooks3¤c, Günter P. Wagner1

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America, 2 Department of Anatomy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America, 3 Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America



Comparative morphology identifies the digits of the wing of birds as 1,2 and 3, but they develop at embryological positions that become digits 2, 3 and 4 in other amniotes. A hypothesis to explain this is that a homeotic frame shift of digital identity occurred in the evolution of the bird wing, such that digits 1,2 and 3 are developing from embryological positions 2, 3 and 4. Digit 1 of the mouse is the only digit that shows no late expression of HoxD-11. This is also true for the anterior digit of the bird wing, suggesting this digit is actually a digit 1. If this is the case, we can expect closer relatives of birds to show no HoxD-11 expression only in digit 1. To test this prediction we investigate HoxD-11 expression in crocodilians, the closest living relatives of birds.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Using degenerate primers we cloned a 606 nucleotide fragment of exon 1 of the alligator HoxD-11 gene and used it for whole-mount in-situ detection in alligator embryos. We found that in the pentadactyl forelimbs of alligator, as in the mouse, late expression of HoxD-11 is absent only in digit 1.


The ancestral condition for amniotes is that late-phase HoxD-11 expression is absent only in digit 1. The biphalangeal morphology and lack of HoxD-11 expression of the anterior digit of the wing is like digit 1 of alligator and mouse, but its embryological position as digit 2 is derived. HoxD-11 expression in alligator is consistent with the hypothesis that both digit morphology as well as HoxD-11 expression are shifted towards posterior in the bird wing.

Check out this vid:

In this video Richard Dawkins cites his clade painting, a sort of branching timeline of animals, as evidence that these species, because they look so much alike, are for certain common ancestors. One evolved into the next which evolved into the next.  Dawkins claims that these are the “transitional species” that skeptics say there are none of. So, where does that take us with woodpeckers, bigfossilfishhummingbirds, and crocodiles? These have a common ancestor because they couldn’t possibly look any different? Isn’t it sweet to see that evidence against evolution and evidence for evolution are both evidence FOR evolution. Heads I win, tails I win! I would sure like to see evolution of the human and ape arm from a quadruped paw or hoof. Forget these silly fins that Richard shows so proudly.  Let’s see fingers form from species that formerly used the forepaws and forelegs to run. Or the foreleg of that quadruped at the bottom of the clade: let’s see that foreleg evolve into a fin. Or how about the transitional species that shows the evolution of the eyeball. Evolutionauts say soft tissues don’t show up in fossils. But, actually, they sure do.

Punctuated Equilibrium

The fossil record shows nothing like evolution would expect, if evolution were true. There should be a gradual transition from one species to the next. I emphasize GRADUAL. We should definitely see one species morphing into another, and that scenario should be all over the place in the fossil record. There should be millions of examples. But ev-illusionists have to make constant excuses for why their theory is not evidenced. The fossil record shows the rather sudden appearance of species, and the sudden extinction of most. In fact 99% of all species who have ever inhabited the earth have disappeared. This model doesn’t fit evolution’s model at all. Nor does it fit any scientific imaginable model.   No model in existence today can account for what the fossil record shows. Massive extinctions are in evidence, and for the most part we don’t know why. We search for a cause. And that, of course, is good. We look for meteor strikes and other catastrophic events that eliminated 100% of massive numbers of species.  When you think about it, why 100%? Why so perfect?  One would think that some pockets of dinosaurs would be left over from their extinction.  We are not lucky enough for that to have occurred. They are ALL gone. So, why doesn’t biological science face the evidence that is before them and deal with what is there?  Why not reload? Why not be honest and say the model doesn’t fit any scenario we now have and can currently come up with?  We should just admit that humans are not intelligent enough at this juncture to put together a scientific model that fits what the record shows. That would be real science.  Real science on the origin of species is not done today.  “Real science” wants to prove an outdated impossible theory put forth by a 19th century “scientist” who knew less about biology than our average sixth grader.

Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University) at least admitted that failure. He said, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology….to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.”  (3)  At least at that point Stephen was honest about evolutions failures.  Unfortunately, that is not how Stephen later dealt with the conundrum.  And how most ev-illusionists deal with evidence problems. A perfect example of the failure of evolution is how it deals with a fossil record that doesn’t back the theory at all. The sudden appearance and extinction of so many species is handled with the most absurd of explanations.  Ev-illusionists continue the illusion with the explanation that change occurred in short spurts, with long periods of stasis…..no change.  Of course this does not fit what  the evolutionary forces of mutations and natural selection should actually do to populations of species. Virtually no gradual change is observed, which is rather astounding. Even an anti-evolutionist like me would think that more change would be noticed.  It would be certainly plausible to find that environmental factors, mutations, and natural selection did produce noticeable change, but it just doesn’t seem to on the massive scale that evolution would predict. To combat this failure of evidence, Niles Eldredge (now curator of invertebrates at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City) and Stephen Gould did a great job of Monday morning quarterbacking. They know what did happen, what the score was.   It didn’t fit the theory that they so deeply believe in, so they coined an explanation and the term punctuated equilibrium.  And, disappointingly, Stephen went back on his admission of failure. Using a nonsensical explanation to explain why evidence doesn’t fit a scientific theory should quickly fall on it’s face. Other scientists in that field should attack and destroy bad explanations. But in this science, evolution scientists grabbed on to Eldredge and Gould’s explanation like it was a life boat, and they were drowning in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. You see, these other evo-scientists were stark bare naked as far as explaining why the fossil record didn’t match what their theory said it should.  And how could they deal with inquisitive students who questioned the complete lack of gradualness in the fossil record that they teach?  By giving this horrible explanation a scientific name, punctuated equilibrium (1), Gould and Eldridge’s excuse got wheels. I should say oars.  The technical description punctuated equilibrium seemed to give weight to the idea.  The term itself became evidence for the idea, and made it much more palatable for their evo-peers and new indoctrinates.  Much like the term natural selection gives credence to the act of animals selectively killing, eating, and reproducing with other animals.  If Darwin named his book Origin of Species Through Animals Selectively Killing and Consuming Other Animals,  and Selectively Procreating with Other Animals, his theory would have collapsed quickly.  Natural selection has such a scientific tone, the term itself becomes “evidence” for the “science”. The other evo-scientists grabbed the punctuated equilibrium oars, and started rapid-rowing to shore.  They now had an explanation for such immense failures demonstrated by the fossil record.  They were still in business.

Eldridge in particular worked very hard in trying to prove that species evolved slowly over time. The more he and his fellow paleontologists dug, the worse things looked. There just weren’t the fossils that prove the theory. Punctuated equilibrium just kept looking more and more solid. They added an additional caveat in that small isolated groups of larger populations mutated and “selected”.  These smaller groups were the ones that went through the morphing, and that is why fossils were not found. Of course that would mean that all evolution had to have happened in these small groups, since no morphing appeared in large group fossils. They said, “Since speciation occurs rapidly in small populations occupying small areas far form the center of ancestral abundance, we will rarely discover the actual event in the fossil record.”  Big words make bad excuses look good.  They defined rapidly as, “in a short period of time relative to the total duration of a species.”

Of course, a secondary line of defense for evolution is the notion that ALL fossils are transitional. All fossils are formed from some other common ancestors in the past, and are in a stage of morphing into a new species in the future.   ANY fossil will be a common ancestor for some future generation of species.  Ergo, all fossils are transitional, and by saying that, complaints that the fossil record doesn’t show the changes that would be predicted can be completely neutralized…….for people who accept that explanation.

(1-3) Eldredge, N. and Gould, S. J., 1972. ‘Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism’. Models in Paleobiology, T. J. M. Schopf (ed.), Freeman, Cooper and Co., San Francisco,  Eldredge, N. and Gould, S. J., 1972. ‘Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism’, Time Frames: the Rethinking of Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria, N. Eldredge, Heinernann, London, 1986

The examples just keep pouring in:

Evolution of Ear Is Noted in Fossil

Transitional Stage of Organ May Have Helped Ancient Fish Breathe

By David Brown

Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 19, 2006 Question: What do you do with half an ear?

Answer: You breathe through it.

That’s the conclusion reached by a pair of researchers who say they have found a fossil “snapshot” of the ear partway through its evolution to its current form.

The structure that became the sound-conducting middle ear of land animals began as a tube that permitted ancient shallow-water fish to take an occasional breath of air out of the top of their heads — at least according to Martin D. Brazeau and Per E. Ahlberg of Uppsala University, in Sweden.



  1. Natalicious0 said,

    If the thumb (digit 1) of both MICE and alligators is found inside of a narrow patch of tissue with hox-d11 being expressed, and bird thumbs are found in that zone, obviously that is evidence that Feduccia was wrong, and bird digits are numbered I-II-III. This is consistent with the number of phalangeal segments in bird digits, which correspond to the number of segments in other animals…whose digits are numbered…you guessed it…I-II-III.

  2. Natalicious0 said,

    *not being expressed

  3. Alejandro said,

    They also use the 180º bent trachea to make birds and cocodriles close relatives.
    But in this case they WANT bird digits to be 1-2-3 and if they WANT bird digits to be 1-2-3 then that’s the way it’s gonna be.
    This is the way it works. Bending the evidence 180º just like the avian and cocodrilian bent trachea.

  4. stevebee92653 said,

    “Look alikes” don’t mean they morphed from the same ancestor, but they use that all the time on their clades, amazingly. But birds and crocs? Closely related? Just say it and it’s so. Also funny how they are presented with ten pieces of evidence that they can’t explain. So they make an attempt at explaining one using the “closely related crocodile and bird” (snicker), and they think they have done the job. Disproved all of your points. Sad for a science, but funny at the same time.

    • Alejandro said,

      Of course, “Look alikes” don’t mean they morphed from the same ancestor.
      What I mean is that the trachea issue is not as ridiculous as the finger issue.
      If common or similar traits are found in two species with close “evolutive pathways” they call it: “common ancestor”, otherwise if “evolutive pathways” are far they call it: “convergent evolution”.
      They’ll never think about a common designer, which could explain easily both cases.
      Why should a dolphin evolve the same dorsal fin of sharks? Wasn’t it a land vertebrate long ago?

  5. Alejandro said,

    A new theropod dinosaur was found in china named “Limusaurus inextricabilis”. Now evolutionists say that it “solves the mystery of dinosaur-bird finger evolution”.

  6. George Keith said,

    Unrecognized Assumptions of Evolutionists, to Assist the Theory

    1. Assumption: Abiogenesis is not central to the theory of evolution.

    Consequence: The Theory of Evolution (TOE) is at best half an explanation; punting on abiogenesis opens the door to the Divine Foot; if you are going to concede that cellular life was created, why not go all the way and concede all life was created?

    2. Assumption: Imagination is identical to evidence.

    Consequence: Lack of evidence; lack of motivation to provide evidence; wholesale swallowing of the argument that “If there is some organ for which one cannot imagine a sequence of steps by which it could evolve, then evolution is disproved.”; One can easily SAY that one could IMAGINE them, without having any idea. And when potential steps ARE imagined, there is no evidence available to demonstrate that they are indeed what happened. Also, they are never given in sufficient detail to establish credibility, nor could they be, given that this must be done at the level of microbiology. With evidence like that, who needs science?

    3. Assumption: Lack of imagination is identical to evidence.

    Consequence: Lack of evidence; lack of motivation to provide evidence; the belief that personal incredulity is an inadequate argument against evolution, that to make this charge is somehow a scientific argument, and that personal incredulity IS an adequate argument against design.

    4. Assumption: Filling in ALL the steps is unnecessary.

    Consequence: Lack of evidence; lack of motivation to provide evidence; all of the steps needed to demonstrate any aspect of evolution have never been provided, nor can they be. Indeed, we can’t even understand all aspects of any living entity, which is ample evidence that no evolutionist has any idea WHAT they are talking about. This is in direct contradiction to all of man’s experience in getting anything to work, which can never be accomplished without filling in all the necessary steps.

    5. Assumption: Random chance, where necessary, is a sufficient explanation.

    Consequence: Astronomical odds against any particular occurrence are simply ignored.

    6. Assumption: Existence is entirely material, and can be explained in terms of physical entities. This includes emotions and thought, which are viewed simply as chemical reactions.

    Consequence: Failure to recognize or understand that all knowledge, expressed in language, is independent of the physical entity used to represent it, and therefore, cannot in and of itself, be a physical entity. It is extremely important to refuse to believe this, because to admit it causes the entire house of cards to collapse. DNA has all the aspects of language, is evidence of knowledge independent of nature, and thus implies an intelligence. Oops. And that, by the way, is actual evidence.

    7. Assumption: Changing the subject is actually answering a question.

    Consequence: Not answering the question, which concedes the point.

    8. Assumption: Arguments from complexity are irrelevant, because complexity is an entirely subjective term. A jumble of sticks is complex, so what?

    Consequence: Wallowing in ignorance; inability to grasp basic concepts; complexity is easily defined as the number of components, sub-components, and methods of communication, in a given entity. One need only count. Higher numbers are more complex. A jumble of sticks has a complexity of one. It has one component – the sticks. The sticks have no relationship to one another, or means of communication, as implied by the term, jumble. To use this as an example of complexity is to demonstrate no idea whatsoever of the concept. It is essential to pretend that complexity does not exist, as a safeguard against arguments which demonstrate astronomical improbability.

    9. Assumption: Fossils which appear to follow a progression are evidence for evolution.

    Consequence: The belief that they therefore are good evidence. At best, such fossils don’t CONTRADICT evolution. However, they do not demonstrate how evolution could have occurred (that is, they don’t tells us what the steps were, or indeed, if there were any). And the lack of fossils demonstrating a progression would be telling evidence AGAINST evolution. In spite of the claims of evolutionists, and long lists of transitional fossils given on the web, there are many unexplained gaps. These provide direct evidence AGAINST evolution. For the devastating evolutionist response, see Assumption 2.

    10. Assumption: Attacking the perceived beliefs of the questioner (usually assumed to be a young earth creationist, or in league with them), is answering the question.

    Consequence. Not answering the question, which concedes the point.

    11. Assumption: Young earth creationists can’t be right, so evolution is the best available explanation.

    Consequence: Wasting time trying to defend or provide evidence for a theory (TOE) which has little to commend it. It would be more productive to concede that life was designed, and spend time on young earth creationist websites arguing against their assumptions, or evidence about the age of the earth. This may not help evolution, but it may be easier to debate.

    12. Assumption: Calling the questioner names is answering the question.
    Consequence: This is so sad. Not only does it concede the point, it concedes the set and the match. Anyone who does this knows they are in a hopeless position.

    13. Assumption: The many varieties of dogs and pigeons, bred by dog breeders and pigeon fanciers, are evidence that descent of all life from one (or a few) common ancestors is possible.

    Consequence: At best, this is evidence which does not contradict evolution. But is evolution the only explanation? No. It is quite possible that all the variations developed were present within the DNA already, and that nothing has been demonstrated that wasn’t present all along. Since Darwin didn’t know about DNA, we can give him a little break here, but not much. I suspect he would have given up the whole idea had he known about DNA. He may not have been right, but he was more willing to express doubt than many today, and that was based on the evidence available, which included the idea of the spontaneous generation of life. Louis Pasteur was a really big spoilsport about that one. He also produced actual evidence.

    14. Assumption: Almost all scientists subscribe to the Theory of Evolution.

    Consequence: Given that almost all scientists subscribe, no science is required to demonstrate it, and instead, Assumptions 1-13 qualify as “science”. Science is not a democracy.

    15. Assumption: “Who designed the designer?” is some kind of killer question for which there is no answer, and demonstrates the logical bankruptcy of those daring to challenge evolution.

    Consequence: Lack of imagination; closing one’s eyes to spirituality; pretending they never went to Sunday School or church and heard about God Everlasting; pretending that there really is an explanation for the existence of matter that science can provide; pretending that an infinite number of spontaneously occurring multiverses is that answer, in spite of zero evidence; pretending that all this is not too much to strain the personal credulity of most folks; or to put it in simpler terms, pretending that anything about evolution is believable.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      There are so many modern scientific hoaxes, it’s really unbelievable. One would think we modern humans would do nothing but REAL science, that we have passed over the awful ancient fables that haunted our thinking not too long ago. But that isn’t the case. Evolution proves that. As does global warming climate change. As you say, there must be more, but evolution keeps me busy enough. The fact that children are indoctrinated with this stuff is what really keeps me going. Thanks for the comment.

  7. trueskepticofall said,

    Love the blog Steeve. Found it in 07 I think. When the backround was royal blue haha. Few questions. Why doesn’t the scientific community tell the public we are in fact closer to mice than any primate? If so why are we considered primates? Also do you agree that the scientific community renamed Darwinism “Phyletic gradualism” so then they wouldn’t have to admit Darwin was wrong? Why do nature shows still push Darwin/PhyGrad? Is the scientific community that intellectually dishonest? I would love to know more of your theories on the conspiracy side of the huge push of this garbage. Hope to hear back this blog gives so much ammo to shut up pretentious evos. Take it easy

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Hi True
      Thanks for the revisit! The deeper I get into this scientific hoax, the more amazed I am. I’m writing another book on the subject. The first chapter is on the evo/genetics connection, and what a sham that is. I don’t have much on this blog or in my first book on human evolution. I did a great deal of research, and the results are far more astounding than I could ever imagine. I always hope that the “scientists” in charge of fooling the world must be innocently mistaken. But that’s just not the case. The “fooling” is so purposeful, obvious, unbelievable, and overwhelming, it’s mind boggling. Why do these charlatans have their bullshit firmly ensconced in science classrooms? I wish I knew. A combo of ignorant supporters and charlatans hard at work. The whole thing is one incredible puzzle.
      Anyway, again, thanks for the visit!

      • trueskepticofall said,

        It’s frustrating to say the least, especially when you consider it’s so easy to see the holes when you take off the cosmetics. I’d love to buy your first book where can I? Definitely looking forward to your next book.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        It’s on Amazon under Evo-Illusion.

      • trueskepticofall said,

        ok will buy it thanks

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: