An Ex-Evolutionist Looks at Darwin

For a Current View of this Site Please Go To: http://www.evillusion.net/

Humans, and all animal species, are incredibly engineered machines; thousands of times more complex and better engineered than any device on the planet. We have servo-motors (muscles) that move rods (ligaments) that in turn move ball and socket joints (hip, mandible). We have an incredibly complex and efficient pump (heart), a pair of digital cameras that produce 3D (eyes), miniature sound speakers (ears); and on and on. The one thing that makes us different from an incredibly engineered robot is LIFE; that we are alive. Life separates us from robots. And, life is the one thing that separates evolutionists from being able to see intelligence in the universe. NOT religion, but intelligence; there is a big difference here. If we were functioning and not “alive”, and were constructed of plastic and metal, and an “evolutionist” could observe us, he would have to admit that we are the result of an intelligence beyond imagination. And the amazing thing is that evolutionists have absolutely no idea how life formed, and they are completely unable to duplicate life in the laboratory.

Just a Note for Evolutionists that May Read this Blog: The earth and solar system, by all good scientific evidence, appear to be 4.5 billion years old. The biological time-line given by biologists for the appearance of species certainly looks scientifically accurate. There appears to have been some minor evolution that has taken (takes) place. I have absolutely no idea how species came into existence, and I don’t promote any solution to that great and fascinating puzzle. This blog is only interested in scientific and objective discourse. Origins of species is an incredible subject, but it is also a useless science. No cures for disease or mechanical marvels will be produced by it. In reality, few people spend much time thinking about it. I am one of the few who do. I find it immensely fascinating, thought provoking, and fun. I am bothered that evolution is taught in schools as if it is a lock, that pseudo-intellectual evolutionists treat those that are not believers condescendingly, that if a person is a non-believer in the TOE most evolutionists think that person must believe in Adam and Eve, and that evidence is bent to make TOE look like real science. That is why I am writing this log. I am starting with this note so that any evolutionists that may read this blog will know where I am coming from, and if they comment, hopefully will keep this in mind.

If evolution can come up with real instead of imaginary evidence, I will be the first to step up and be a full supporter like I was a few years ago. What I do think is that nature is unbelievably intelligent. There is no scientific evidence for the source of that intelligence, so my thinking goes no farther. Please keep your comments within the scope of this blog. If you want to challenge my thinking or any section, please feel free. If you do challenge, please place your comment below the page you are challenging, and note the paragraph. I don’t want to debate about Creationism, ID, if there is a God, invisible guys in the sky, any religious beliefs, or angels or fairies. So please leave those off of your comment list. Also, I promote independent thinking. I have seen and read most pro-evolution sites, and many anti-evolution sites, and I pretty much know what they say. So, please do your own thinking and challenging, and don’t forward any links. Thanks

The pages of this blog are placed in chronological order, and are composed of my thoughts and experiences with evolutionists as they come, so no need to read in any particular order.

Since I graduated from USC in 1967, I had been a firm believer in Darwinian evolution. I thought anyone who did not was a sucker, or really naive. It seemed like such a logical way that we humans, and all other species had arrived on earth. I have always been fascinated with the subject, and study and think about it often. I was so comfortable with TOE as the only logical explanation for how we got here. I was in awe of the genius of Charles Darwin. When visiting my son who was studying medicine at Chicago Medical School in 2004, I visited the Field Museum and saw Sue, their T. Rex fossil. What a great experience. But a puzzle came to mind. Why didn't T Rex's arms (or any other part of T Rex) evolve in the twenty million years that it roamed the earth?

Wouldn't natural selection and mutations have evolved longer arms for T. Rex, since that would have been a huge advantage in fighting and seeking food? For this species, there was virtually no evolution for twenty million years, ten times longer than it took hominid to evolve into man. The more I looked at other exhibits in the museum, I noted that other species for which there were fossils over millions of years showed virtually no evolutionary changes. Centipedes have roamed the earth for 400 million years showing only miniscule changes. Trilobytes showed little change over a 250 million year period, more than 100 times longer that it took man to evolve from hominid species. Massive changes would have to show in the fossil record for Darwin's theory to be correct. Where were they? Fossil history should look something like the growth of a fetus, spread over millions of years. The growth of fingers, limbs, eye sockets and ear canals in skulls, should be the norm. Were evolutionary changes specific to only fossils that haven't been found? I started reading and studying to update myself on the subject, as it is a subject that I am obviously fascinated with.

The Coelacanth is a living fish which first appeared 410 million years ago. (Fossil above left) It was thought extinct, but recently has been found live in many locations throughout the world. (Above right) Coelacanth shows absolutely no sign of evolution since it first appeared, 200 times longer ago than it supposedly took man to evolve from hominids. Why didn’t it grow arms, or something? The explanation on an evolution website: “This situation is still under investigation by scientists.” I'm certain that scientists are working around the clock trying to figure this one out! Actually, what's to figure? There was absolutely no evolution with Coelacanth. Nothing to "investigate" here. What truly objective scientists should say is, “This certainly is additional proof that Darwinian evolution may not have occurred at all.” In Darwin's own words: "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)
It is truly a strange experience realizing that something that I believed and defended vociferously for over forty years was completely a hoax. For me, when Darwin started going over the falls, the fall was fast. Suddenly, I started seeing, in every corner that I looked, a huge hoax perpetrated by the brainwashed, wishful thinking "scientists", writers, and professors, and avid anti-religionists. It was a real shock. This website will pretty much log my thoughts and readings about evolution since my visit to the Field Museum.
Current fossil records show the appearance and extinction of millions of different species over several billion years. There does not, at this time, appear to be any morphing of one specie into another through generations. Bird fossils appear, with no precursor with gradually growing wings. There are no animals showing gradually extending limbs. The fossil record looks like the evolution of the automobile. The Model T preceded the 1955 Fairlaine, which preceded the modern Explorer. The model T itself did not morph into the model A. To many, this may seem like a silly scenario, but this is the closest model that can be made with the current inventory of fossils. What does this do to any scientific explanation of how species did go about "appearing"? There is no current objective and scientific answer.

For those of you who are evolution believers, I have a fun game for you: try to look at the fossil record, current biology, major organ, and specie evidence and pretend that there are absolutely no theories in existence. Your job is to make one. Do an "Einsteinien" mind experiment, and see what you can come up with.

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. Six examples are:

1. Sexual Reproduction
   
2. Flight
3. Birds and Eggs.
4. Eyes and Hearts
5. Maxillary jaw teeth forming and articulating perfectly with concurrently forming mandibular jaw teeth.
6. Survival of the fittest eliminating all weather skin/fur from human beings
   

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 specie? What microsteps to sexual reproduction could possibly have occurred? Any explanation of gradually evolving sexuality would be preposterous. The same would be true with flight. Evolutionists 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 an insect grow appendages over the millennia that eventually flapped up and down, causing the insect, or 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 insect or bird flight that would include evolution. Birds and eggs cannot have possibly originated through the “wonders” of evolution. Not much explanation is required here. Do your own mental experiment and, of course, you will see. Eyes and hearts 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 the eye/heart challenge, however they never answer it with more than fairy tales. Essentially, if hearts and eyes evolved, the pre-functioning organ would be no more than a useless tumor. Species would have to carry around these useless tumors for hundreds of thousands 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 hearts and eyes? 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. It is also not even imaginable that maxillary teeth could form through survival of the fittest and natural selection, and articulate like a perfect puzzle pieces with mandibular jaw teeth. You would have to believe in miracles to go for this one, which would make evolution no more than a religion. Add to that the fact that humans have primary teeth, an entire separate set, also with perfect matching of the anatomy of the maxillary teeth with the mandibular, and you have a nightmare for evolutionists.
There are actually thousands of items in nature that could not possibly evolve in slow steps, due to their complexity, and the fact that all parts must be present initially for them to function at all. These items are said to have "irreducible complexity". Evolutionists diminish IC, and act like they can prove that IC is not a factor in disproving evolution. They have come up with outlandish tales (see below) of how these items evolved, but the tales are nothing more than the figments of their imaginations, and not proven at all in the fossil record.
Thinking about how Homo Sapiens "evolved" from Primates: Primates, of course, are/were animals, all of which are capable of living and surviving in nature in the immense variations of weather. Primates, of course, and all animals, have the skin and fur to do so. Humans are the only animals on the planet who cannot. What transition could have possibly taken place that removed the fur and all-weather skin from humans? Since animals with fur and weather-resistant skin would survive far better than humans, why didn't "survival of the fittest" allow humans to keep their outer covering? They would be able to survive far better than they are capable of today. Humans, in reality, are extremely weak as far as all-weather survivability goes, and can survive unprotected only in a very narrow temperature range. Did humans evolve the ability to make clothing and blankets because they were gradually getting less able to withstand cold? Is this scenario gradually taking place imaginable? Could clothes gradually appear?
The fact that any one of these items above could not possibly "evolve" destroys the entire foundation for the TOE.

I started thinking about how evolution must have taken place. I did mind experiments on how organs like the heart and eye could have evolved. I couldn't come up with any possibilities at all. None. So I did some research on the scientific evolution websites hoping they would have some answers for me; fascinating reading. The foundation of TOE is replete with "may haves", "might haves", "possible scenarios are"..........Actually the Dark Ages of the origin of species is here now, founded by Charles Darwin, a guy who didn't know much more than Moses about cell biology, dominated by people who promote religion-like magic and who mock anyone who might not believe Darwin Dogma. TOE discourages open minded thought as to how species really did appear on earth.
The following is text from scientific evolution websites http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/features/0400_feature1.html regarding heart and eye evolution: (My comments in italics.)
Quote: They’ve also discovered that the change from simple tube to complex, chambered organ may have happened in an evolutionary flash. (Discovered that it may have?? Then they didn't discover.)
The first foreshadowings of the heart reach back to at least 800 million years ago, when the first known multicellular fossils formed.
Genes also provide a hint as to where that first protoheart might have come from: the throat. (What is a protoheart? Please include a drawing. And, the throat?? Great guess!)
So here’s a possible scenario for how the first heart evolved. Every now and then during cell division and reproduction, one gene (or, rarely, a group of genes) is accidentally duplicated. Perhaps this happened to the genes that induced throat formation in a lineage of primitive animals. At first, the second set of throat genes may have kept on doing their original job of helping to build the throat. Then, thanks to a mutation, (WOW! That must have been some mutation!) the genes started switching on in cells in a different part of the animal’s body. Instead of making a muscular tube that pumped food, (perhaps) these genes began to make a muscular tube that pumped blood. (I wonder where they got the blood to pump.....from the Red Cross?)
Keeping hard-working hearts supplied with oxygen may have been the initial pressure behind the evolution of lungs 400 million years ago. (Double WOW!) Unquote.

From: http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=310
Quote: Darwin proposed that complex eyes could have been formed with a succession of photosensitive organs, each a bit more complex than its predecessor and each favored by natural selection because of the advantages that the possessor received. (What advantages are there in a blind eye?) Visualizing such a process would be easiest if steps in this sequence were preserved in closely related living organisms; but no such sequence exists*** (See *** below. Who is lying?) for eyes because the intermediate stages have been lost through extinction. Unquote.
(A sorry excuse. No wonder creationists out debate the evolutionists. The intermediate stages don't exist as fossils because they never existed as animals. The stages of eye evolution should show up as indents in the skulls of fossils which gradually grow into eye sockets over hundreds of thousands of years. Of course this evidence, which should be plentiful, is non-existent.)


http://library.thinkquest.org/C003758/Development/heart_evolution.htm explains heart evolution by describing hearts that already function, but are "simpler". What about the steps from nothing to a functioning heart? What did they look like, and why did they even occur since a "proto-heart" would be useless? Evolutionists usually ignore this part of the evolution of the heart, and start their explanation with single-chambered hearts. This is an embarrassment to real science. The next part had something to do with flying reindeer and Santa Claus. "The reindeer sprouted wings and off they flew.................." No matter what the subject is in Darwinian evolution, assumptions are piled upon figments of imagination, until a whole fake science has been established, and believed by enough people to make it seem real. Then evolution "scientists" all pat each other on the back and agree that it is real, and anyone who questions is a fool. A great example of group psychology.
I have since found that creationists (again, this site has nothing to do with creationism) have the same challenge for Darwinism: that hearts and other organs cannot possibly evolve, because there are no possible intermediate steps to that evolution. What I thought about independently had already been on the books.
Try http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html for a real visit to Alice in Wonderland.
Quote: Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot (What exactly is a "light-sensitive spot"?) on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, (What advantage, since it would still be totally blind?) perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created
(Watch out! "Created" is a bad word for evolutionists!) a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera. (Wow! Now this is real scientific imagining!)

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. (What change could possibly be an advantage, since a "proto-eye" would be something like a tumor?) Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, (Wow again!) the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. (Triple WOW!) It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species.*** (Complete poppycock. The eyes of some species are "simpler", but still extremely complex, with nerve connection to a brain. Limpet, and Murex are examples. Also, see *** above for a major contradiction. ) The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch. Unquote
(Could I please see his calculations? I bet they would really be interesting and scientific!)

This is my scenario for how the TOE evolved a the heart and eye:

3500-2800 mya: One celled animals float in the oceans.
1500-600 mya: Two cells stick together, and become the king of the beasts, easily dominating the one celled animals.
1500-600 mya: Three cells stick together, and dominate one and two celled animals.
600 mya On and on until thousands of cells stick together and eat up on littler weaker less-fit animals with less cells.
595 mya: Multi-thousand celled animals start having trouble with their inner cells dying for lack of oxygen. Some sort of pump must evolve to get oxygen to the inner cells!
592 mya: The throat gene duplicates itself, mutates and two little tube/sacs form from mesoderm cells. The cells don't know what a pump is, but survival of the fittest and mutations can figure that out. Natural selection and adaption helps out too! What an evolutionary team!
591 mya: For some unknown reason, life with tube/sacs eats up on life without a tube/sacs (survival of the fittest).
580 mya: The tube/sacs grow bigger over millions of years, of course.
578 mya: The tube/sacs begin to close so someday they can pump blood. The tube/sacs grow muscle in the walls by mutations or natural selection.
575 mya: When the tube/sacs are nearly closed, valves evolve by survival of the fittest, which open and close to let blood in and out. Oops, there is no blood!
571 mya: Blood evolves with RBC's that can suck up oxygen, and platelets too! Natural selection adds WBC's to help fend off bad one celled animals and viruses.
569 mya: Oops, there is no way to get the blood to the inner cells of the animal. Blood vessels evolve.
568 mya: Now there is no way to get oxygen to the blood. Lungs evolve by mutation and survival of the fittest.
562 mya: A nerve evolves to the brain so the brain can cause the heart to pump blood with perfect timing, one beat per second. (Oops, there is no second because there are no clocks.) Survival of the fittest decides to wait and let future generations evolve clocks. It will just estimate. "One one-thousand, two one-thousand...."
561 mya: The heart nerve tries to find the brain, but, it can't. Damn, there is no brain. Mutations evolves a brain to operate the pump and move the blood in pump-like fashion. See how mutations and survival of the fittest work together?
559 mya: The animal species now has a complete heart-lung system, and it now will eat up on all the life that doesn't.
555 mya: The new king of the beasts has light sensitive cells! Little cups form around the light-sensitive cells. Now it can really survive, and find food. The little cups start enlarging!
551 mya: The cups grow around and seal to pinholes. Hey, it's a pinhole camera! There is now an image on the retina (evolved by mutations, of course). Might as well also mutate a nerve to the new brain. Might be able to see something. The animal doesn't know what "seeing" is, but, who knows, it might be fun!
550 mya: Animals are so excited because they can see images! The first animal that sees go nuts with excitement. Next, evolution invents an adjustable lens so it can see far and near! WOW! It can now find meals, and can run or fly away from predators. Except...............

An objective look at the timeline for the appearance of species must be included in any discussion of evolution. The timeline of species shows that very early one-celled plants and animals preceded more complex versions, which eventually preceded humans. Carbon dating and layer dating make the given ages for the appearance and extinction of species look pretty accurate and acceptable. My beef is not with the biological timelines, but with the explanation of those timelines. Most will contain utterly astounding entries, like "410 MYA: evolution of hearing". Just like that, hearing evolved. How? Not a clue can be given. It's just as if saying it makes it true.

Evolutionists say that only 1 in 1,000 species that inhabited the earth have been found as fossils. They use this for an excuse that the fossil record shows no Darwinian evolution. (The ones that haven't been found have the proof of evolution!) The question here is, how do they know how many haven't been found since the fossils haven't been found? To establish any number for anything that has never been found is impossible, but somehow evolutionists can do it.

There is no doubt that species are related biochemically, and genetically to various degrees. Vestigial organs are further proof of some sort of past relationships of different species. Five digit hands and paws, two eyes, two ears, etc. are the norm. Of course, some species are far more closely related than others. Humans are 99% similar to chimpanzees when looking at the DNA of both. Human DNA is 30% similar to flower DNA. This fact certainly shows a deep biological connection between all species.

Another piece of evidence that favors evolution is the fact that on each continent a different set of fauna and flora exist. Giraffes and lions are solely African, coyotes and grizzly bears North American, penguins Antarctic, etc. How could this be the case if evolution did not occur? Due to differing environmental conditions, minor evolutionary changes most likely occurred in the fauna and flora on different continents. These changes show up in closely related multi-continent species. These changes would involve for the most part coloring, size, and habits. Size modification refers to animal size and/or body part size. African lions, California mountain lions, and Bengal tigers are all very similar, and differ mainly in size, color, and habits. The same is true with grizzly bears, polar bears and pandas. This type of evolution, is "micro-evolution”. The evidence for micro-evolution is certainly strong. This is the evolution that Darwin saw in the Galapagos. Individual bird species (finches) that he observed on different islands had different colorations, beak sizes, and living habits. Single bird species had to be broken up into sub-species or new species to account for these differences. Darwin then tried to use micro-evolution to explain the entire origin of all species and their body parts, including hearts and eyes. In reality, micro-evolution is not even one trillionth of what would be necessary to form hearts and eyes. Also, there are no precursor fossils to giraffes, lions, and penguins, which makes the "origin of species" puzzle even more puzzling. There are no early giraffe fossils that show species with gradually lengthening necks. Just when something makes sense, there is also a reason that it makes absolutely no sense.

Evolutionists cite changes that occurred in the color of a peppered moth population as a current proof of evolution. Today a battle rages between evolutionists and creationists/anti-evolutionists over whether the peppered moth really did evolve and change colors due to environmental conditions. This is really nothing more than the perfect example of a tempest in a teapot. It is insignificant, no matter who wins the battle. According to evolutionists, lichens on the trees that the moths frequented changed color from light to dark, due to smoke coming from local factories. The moth majority also changed from light to dark coloring, due to the fact that birds ate the white ones, as they were "easier to see". Anti-evolutionists have evidence that the change in coloring didn't happen. In reality, it doesn’t really matter at all who is correct. Because, even if the peppered moth did permanently “evolve” into a different color, this is not even remotely close to the kind of evolution that would be needed to produce sight, hearing, and beating four-chambered hearts. Nor is the increasing resistance of bacteria to an antibiotic a proof of evolution, as is cited by evolutionists. The least resistant die, the more resistant live and reproduce. Both of these "proofs" are explained by simple mathematics, and in no way prove that species, eyes, and hearts formed from natural selection.

If Darwinian evolution indeed did take place, where is the evidence for this? Where are the fossils that show the growth of limbs and bird wings; gradual evolution of eyes and hearts? None exists at all. And until these fossils are found, TOE will remain a figment of Darwin's imagination, added onto by enormous layers of wishful evidence, cartoon drawings of morphing species, a plethora of pseudo-scientists, and supported by a massive amount of group psychology.

A great way to test the TOE is to think backwards. Do a mental experiment and objectively imagine what the fossil record would look like if Darwinian evolution indeed did bring about the species that appear on earth today. If you do that, you will soon note that the fossil record does not at all back up Darwinian evolution. There should be fish with gradually protruding arms and legs, preparing for a land invasion, over hundreds of thousands of years. There should be skulls with small dents that grew larger and larger to accommodate the evolution of the eye. There should be skulls that show gradually enlarging ear canals. There should be birds that show gradually lengthening wings. There should be a plethora of fossils that show these changes. We should be able go to the Field Museum in Chicago and view samples of all of these fossils that clearly show the steps to evolution. Then, evolution could be called a real science. But, in reality, Darwinian evolution takes fossils that do not at all show the changes that are required for proof, and pretends that they do.

I just finished watching a National Geographic Special, "Was Darwin Wrong?" (National Geographics 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 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 a Tictolic (sp?). Tictolic had short "arms and legs". 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 "fishopod", or that the fishopod morphed into another specie. Why would it take 170 years since Darwin hatched his ideas to find one fossil that supposedly displayed fish-land animal evolution? 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. This scientist found a new specie, 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! 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.
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 with 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.
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".

Current fossil records show the appearance and extinction of millions of different species over several billion years. There does not, at this time, appear to be any morphing of one specie into another through generations. Bird fossils appear, with no precursor with gradually growing wings. There are no animals showing gradually extending limbs. The fossil record looks like the evolution of the automobile. The Model T preceded the 1955 Fairlaine, which preceded the modern Explorer. The model T itself did not morph into the model A. To many, this may seem like a silly scenario, but this is the closest model that can be made with the current inventory of fossils. What does this do to any scientific explanation of how species did go about "appearing"? There is no current objective and scientific answer.

If Darwin's theory is true science, why are there no samples of ongoing evolution today? And, please don't bring up the change in color of a species, bacteria becoming resistant to an antibiotic, or fleas that won't mate with other fleas as an example. That is not the kind of evolution that would bring about sight, hearing, or pumping blood. Of the trillions of fish in the ocean, aren't there any that would like to move to land to avoid man's hooks and larger predators? Where are the fish with gradually growing legs today, or animals with hemi-ping-pong ball eyes? Why is it that evolution only happens when no one is looking? Why are all fossils that would prove evolution in the "not found yet" category? For evolution to be true, we should be living in a world prolific with examples. We should see an ongoing miraculous overwhelming biological phenomena, prevalent everywhere. It isn't.

To get a real idea of how impossible it would be for evolution to have formed eyes and sight, it is necessary to look at what light and color really are. During its first 4+ billion years, the planet earth was completely devoid of light and color. It wasn't even black; it was completely and profoundly dark. No animal had any idea whatsoever what light and color were because virtually 100% of all animals had no eyes. Further, the sun does not give off light at all. The sun produces electromagnetic waves of certain specific wave lengths in the form of photons. These waves either directly or, after bouncing off of objects, enter our eyes through the cornea, lens, and iris. When they reach the retina in the back of the eye, electro-chemical signals are formed. These electro-chemical signals are transported to the brain via the optic nerve. The brain then interprets the signals and converts the signals into light and color. Light and color do not exist at all outside of a receptive brain. The brain "manufactures" the light that we see, as well as the odors that we smell, sound we hear, taste, and texture. Without a brain to interpret the signals it gets from the retina, the electromagnetic waves from the sun would only be useful in warming and energizing the planet earth, and for no other reason. How would evolution "know" that if it evolved this incredibly complex vision system, light, color, and incredible images would be at the finish line? This doesn't even qualify in the unimaginable range.
Further, a requirement of three dimensional vision is two eyes. Only one eye would provide flat vision. Before there were eyes and vision, evolution could not have known that there was such thing as "3D". Evolution provided one mouth, and one nose with two nostrils that are connected to one trachea. Why didn't one eye in the center of the forehead evolve first? How did evolution "know" that two eyes were required for 3D vision, or that there was 3D vision in the first place? Was 3D vision just a lucky byproduct of two eye evolution? If you answer that animals needed a second eye so they could see right to left for protection and hunting, why wasn't an eye or two evolved on the back of the head? This is where species are most vulnerable.
The same is true for our hearing systems. The earth before 500 million years ago was totally, and profoundly quiet. There was no sound at all, since there is also no sound outside of the head of a listener. A boulder falling off of a cliff makes waves in the air or water, not sound. The waves vibrate a receptor's eardrums, which creates a signal that the auditory nerve sends to the brain. The brain makes the sound, not the boulder. Sound does not exist outside of the brain of a capable receiver (observer).
It's not as if there was light and sound all over the early earth environment, and animals needed only to evolve systems to see and hear, much like we plug speakers into a stereo system or use binoculars. The earth before 500 million years ago was profoundly quiet and dark, and the knowledge that evolution would require to "realize" that electromagnetic and water or air waves could be utilized to make color, light and sound is unthinkable.
There is an excellent book written on this subject called "The Symbiotic Universe" (Quill, NY) by George Greenstein, an astronomer, and firm believer in evolution. I really like his thoughts on why we are here, but not his conclusion that there is no intelligence in the universe. He states that the universe "knows" that conscious observers are required for its existence, however there is no intelligence in the formation of those conscious observers. His book reeks of intelligence in the universe, but his conclusion is that there is none. The book is an excellent read, however.

I wrote an email to an evolution website that had amazingly condescending things to say about anyone who doubted evolution. My comment was that they shouldn't be so disdainful of people who don’t believe in Darwin's theory as the way species appeared on earth; that there were so many evidences that Darwin was wrong, which would make them (the website) wrong. Instead of intelligently responding to my remarks, the website answered my communication condescendingly and basically called me a fool. I got an unsolicited email from a frequent user of the site, Tom, and a staunch evolutionist who treated me in the same manner. I attempted to communicate with him on a respectful level. Actually, at the beginning of our discussion I was still a Darwin believer with doubts. I started communicating with him as a devil's advocate, as if I was a non-believer. The more we discussed, the more I realized what a hoax Darwin really was. By the end of our discussion over about a three month period, I became thoroughly convinced that Darwin's theory was a complete wrong. His communications were as disdainful as the website’s. This is a compendium of an ongoing debate that we had: (My comments are in italics.)

Me: Tom, why did you pick my entry to respond to?

Tom: I use the site frequently and read the feedback every month and pick a few of the more inane posts( no offence intended :-)) (I am offended.) from which to send an email. Your post was answered and the official reply was:
Dear Steve,
We don't need to make it look like everyone who attacks evolution is a fool.
They do a good job all by themselves.

(See what I mean about “condescending” and “name calling”?)
As you can see they give short shrift to persons such as yourself. (Condescending.)

Me: My biggest problem with your writings is that your simplistic "either-or" thinking kills any intelligent discussion of evolution.

Tom: That is probably because the discussion you want to have was settled over 150 years ago and repetitious arguments get old.

Me: You must know that nothing in science is "settled". As new evidence is discovered and tested, models and theories must be modified to fit new information. Try doing a mind experiment and see if you can come up with heart evolution. Draw the steps on a sheet of paper. In actuality, there are no possible intermediate evolutionary steps to a heart system; or eyes, or birds and eggs. A half heart would yield a dead (no) animal and no ev.

Tom: You are presenting Paley's arguments from incredulity. Just because you can't see how it can't happen doesn't mean that it didn't. (No one can figure out how it happened; not even a highly educated evolution scientist.) Evolution opponents assume that an organ today had the same functions millions of years ago as they do today and that is an erroneous assumption. (I wonder what other functions they can think of for hearts, eyes, lungs…….) I don't have long to educate you but the first site I hit in a search was this one: http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=310 You might want to increase your knowledge by researching this. (More condescension. Notice how the question is not answered? Tom spends so much time telling me what a fool I am, but he doesn’t have time to “educate” me on how organs evolved.)

Me: I will look at this site, but I have already searched many evolution sites
that try to explain heart and eye evolution. What a joke all of them are. They make cartoon drawings of hearts and eye chambers gradually closing through evolutionary micro-steps, and becoming functional organs. The evolution that they draw is impossible anyway. Why would this happen? Where is the evolutionary evidence for these drawings? There is absolutely none. These are no more than figments of someones imagination. If you are truly a scientist with an open mind, you would have to agree.

Tom: Are they a joke? If so perhaps you can suggest a way. The first thing that is required is the ability to distinguish between intelligent design and design which isn't intelligent.

Me: Doesn’t the word “design” just reek of intelligence? (Even dumb design requires intelligence.)

Tom: Only fifty years ago there were competing theories on the existence of
the universe. Today there is little opposition to the big bang theory. What happened to the
steady-state theory?

Me: No evidence to support it. The same with evolution.

Tom: That is why I made the comment to you, that if you had a scientific theory to supplant the TOE you need to present it. (THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD HAS NEVER REQUIRED OFFERING AN ALTERNATIVE THEORY IN ORDER TO FALSIFY AN EXISTING ONE. All that is required for falsification is the evidence that falsifies...nothing more! I've seen this attack used many times, and it is nothing more than a cheap shot.)

Me: Unlike evolution, the "steady state" theory was supplanted by the "big bang" because of overwhelming evidence and mathematical calculation. Astronomers determined that if the big bang truly occurred, there would be cosmic background radiation. It was found in 1989, further proof that the big bang was the beginning of the universe. With evolution, no fossil or lab evidence required for proof has been found, but it just keeps on rolling along as if there was. I do have a theory to supplant evolution. It's exactly the same as science's theory on what there was before the big bang. It's called, "We Simply Don't Know, but Here is
What We Have So Far".

Tom: ID must explain features which are poorly designed, such as the eye. ID can't do it, but evolution can. (Only an evolutionist would think that an organ as miraculous as the eye is poorly designed.) They aren't absolute. They do involve some speculation. It simply isn't known how many of the evolutionary processes of specific organs occurred. (Then why is this a science that is not to be doubted?) There is much evidence that evolution occurred without the specifics of the evolution of each specific organ. You argue against a strawman which you have constructed while ignoring the larger evidence that it did occur. As I like to tell my creationist buddies, once life on earth didn't exist. Today it does (And evolution can’t come close to explaining how life did get here. 100% of their lab tests have been failures..) and evolution explains that diversity and distribution of the flora and fauna on earth better than any other potential theory.

Me: That the universe has a purely scientific intelligence somewhere is probable, and I think necessary for development of species.

Tom: Probable under whose theories? (Can’t evolutionists come up with their own thinking without needing to refer to some one else’s thinking?) The new evidence from the last 150 years has supported the TOE. If the TOE were as fragile as you think, it would have collapsed years ago. There is no theory on the horizon to supplant the TOE but you are certainly encouraged to introduce the first. (TOE is correct because there is no other theory that they can think of? Sorry, but that’s not objective science.)

Me: It is completely obvious that there needs to be another scientific model
besides evolution to explain the appearance of species.

Tom: Obvious to whom? You? It isn't to me!

Me: The "we simply don't know yet but here is the evidence that we do
have" would be a far more defensible scientific model than evolution.
The problem with your thinking is that you can only accept theories that
have already been proposed and accepted by someone else. Is my choice
only model A or model B? Can I think on my own?

Tom: Sure, but you need to provide at least a small framework. Usually people who think evolution is a crock make themselves look like fools. (Uh-oh……calling me a fool again.)

Me: Thanks for the compliment. Try opening your mind. You too could look
like a fool. We both know that many famous inventors and scientists were
mocked as fools before they were taken seriously. Also, thanks again for
taking the time to communicate. I love the discussion, and am completely
interested in the subject. Actually I was a firm believer in evolution
for many years. Recently I started making it a study, and POOF! Evolution
became extinct (in my mind) as a possible theory for development of
species. When I saw how impossible evolution really is, I became even more
fascinated with the subject than I was before. How we got here is a
subject that I think about frequently, study a lot, and get very
frustrated by. It is a fun puzzle that will never be solved, but trying
is a kick. (I continue writing respectfully to Tom. Appeasement never works!)

Tom: I'll be honest with you Stephen, I don't believe that you ever understood evolution or that you even studied evolution. (I majored in Biology at USC.) The framework which you have used as your discussion indicates that you don't understand the basics of evolution, much less the details. (Oooh, more condescension!)

Me: Why didn't T Rex's arms (or any other part of T Rex) evolve in the twenty million years that it roamed the earth? Wouldn't NS and SOTF have evolved longer arms for T Rex, since that would have been a huge advantage in fighting and seeking food? For this species, there was virtually no evolution for twenty million years, ten times longer than it took hominid to evolve into man. The more I looked at other exhibits in the museum, (I visited the Field Natural History Museum in Chicago.) I noted that other species for which there were fossils over millions of years showed virtually no evolutionary changes.


Tom: Evolution isn't a directed process that must proceed in a certain direction
and in a certain time. (Tom knows this because he is actually God in disguise.) Did the arms of T Rex prevent him from functioning in his environment? Evidently it didn't because he existed quite well right up to his extinction. As to other species I would need to know what they were before commenting upon them. Cockroaches haven't evolved either. (Thanks! Another great example of non-evolution.)

Me: Massive changes would have to show in the fossil record for Darwin's theory to be correct. Where were they? Were evolutionary changes specific to only fossils that haven't been found? I started reading and studying to update myself on the subject, as it is a subject that I am obviously fascinated with. (Again I try respect.)

Tom: I would imagine you should be with a degree in biology. I do wonder what
course requirements you had at USC that you would be clueless about
evolution. (Fabulous condescension!)

Me: I HAVE spent a lot of time reading and on pro-evolution websites. I thought they would answer a lot of my questions, but they only created more. Some notes on
your reply: You say that TOE is the only theory on the horizon, so it must be true.
Sorry, that is not science, that is belief. Science simply cannot come up with a model
that really fits the fossil finds, and lab evidence, so evolution wins by
default, not by scientific proof. Plus, ev scientists have so completely
committed to ev that they cannot even entertain the obvious fact that it
is poppycock. They cannot back out of their huge over-commitment.

Tom: Of course you have mountains of evidence that the TOE is 'poppycock'

Me: Try to envision an eye evolving when all species on the earth were blind. How
did evolution know that if the pre-eye continued to evolve into a complete
camera system, there would be incredible images at the other end? How
did a heart evolve when there were absolutely no pumps in existence on
earth? Even if evolution were fact, intelligence still had to be part of
the puzzle. Evolution would have to also be an incredible inventor. In
my case, I absolutely accept the time line given by science for appearance
and disappearance of species, and the age of the earth and universe. That
the earth is billions of years old, as well as the universe, is proven
beyond doubt. Evidence for evolution, on the other hand, is non-existent.

Tom: Evolution doesn't envision anything. Natural selection selects the desirable traits and not all traits are desirable by all species. (Natural Selection sure is smart!) Again, I don't intend to engage you in a rehash of the evidence supporting the TOE because it is painfully evident that you haven't studied the TOE enough to formulate supported evidence for your position. Do me a favor Stephen. Instead of spouting such bullshit, go to the web sites of the journals Science or Nature or to Pub Med and do a search on 'evolution'. The enormous amount of information should keep you busy for the rest of your days. (Tom’s suggested sites:)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
http://www.karger.com/gazette/64/fernald/art_1_0.htm
http://www.embl.org/aboutus/news/press/2004/press28oct04.html
http://www.talkorigins.com

Me: The framework of your discussion shows that you believe evolution because
that is what you were taught, lots of people believe it, and it is the only thing "on the horizon". The really great thinkers were able to "think out of the box". You are locked in it. And, they would certainly feel like they were giving in to religion, because, like you, everyone seems to think the only choices are Adam and Eve or evolution. Can you imagine what an OOOPS that would be? The number of textbooks that would have to be dumped? It's far easier to continue with the TOEBS than trying to look elsewhere, and look foolish in doing so.

Tom: Textbooks are revised all of the time. I know when you were
studying biology they changed course textbooks frequently. I know that it seemed to me
like my textbooks were changed every quarter and I had to shell out big
bucks for new ones.

Me: Evolution theory in textbooks has not changed a lick since I was in
school. (I've seen my kids college texts: same as mine.) No new
information supports evolution, but evolution marches on with the same
BS just as if there was lots of proof. Like you, I sincerely thought people that didn't believe in evolution were either uneducated, or somewhat religio-nuts. (The people you think are my bedmates.)

Tom: Actually I am more concerned with the fundamentalists who believe that the
earth and universe are young. These people, the vast majority of whom are
religious fundamentalists, use biology to further their religious views
because biology is perhaps the least understood science by the general
public. If the creationists had their way in biology they would be turning
their attention to the other sciences. Any science that contradicts the
Genesis version of creation must be destroyed. By the time the public
realizes what happened we may be in the dark ages. You have heard of the
dark ages, haven't you Steve? It was the last time that religious fundies
ruled the Western world.

Tom explains evolution to me (at last!): Your vision of how evolution works is seriously flawed. The best analogy I can use is this. If you start with a series of organisms named AAAAA and went to ZZZZZ you would have a progression chart like this:
AAAAA, AAAAB, AAAAC, AAAAD........ZZZZX, ZZZZY, ZZZZZ.
Pretend (I love this word. It’s evolutionists motto! I had to highlight it, as it is the centerpiece for TOE.) that these are organisms and we see that AAAAB looks almost identical to AAAAA. AAABA would still look almost identical to AAAAA. When you get to ZZZZZ he looks almost totally different from AAAAA but there is a resemblance. At any point if you look into this progression you will find all of the organisms fully functional and like the immediate organisms around him. AAAAA is a fossil that we have found and ZZZZZ has been found.
There are many intermediates but many of them would not be immediately
recognized as AAAAA or ZZZZZ. MMMMM, if we were lucky enough to find him,
might be recognized as an intermediate. If we had a rich fossil record it
would still be difficult to recognize the changes because soft body parts
change more quickly than hard parts, thus it would be many generations
before we recognized what was happening. As it is we are lucky to have
fossils at all.

Me: (I finally get condescending back.): Wow! This is really scientific! This is the perfect example of the BS that evolution is based on. Did you make this up yourself?

Tom: The many examples of eyes in many species of today shows that there are
many variations of the eye and that they arise from the evolution of the eye,
especially for a person like you who believes that life began as a single
cell organism.

Me: Tom, there are no examples of eye evolution today, or in past fossil
records. But, I am sure you will continue to play pretend, like all ev
"scientists" do. It's the only thing they have to do battle with religion.

Tom: It is ridiculous that someone with a four year degree in biology doesn't
have a clue abut the evolution of the eye!

Me: Here you are absolutely correct. It is hard to be an expert on something that cannot happen. No highly educated scientist has a clue either. They universally make up fairy tales as to how the eye evolved. Then they present their tales, and people like you agree and worshipfully accept them without question because they are so "educated” (by people that also believe evolution fairy tales). I do commend you on your self-initiated interest in a very fascinating field. However, advancement of science requires a completely open mind. Current models of any science need to be constantly tested and questioned, no matter how locked in they may seem. If this was not the case, scientists would be just as guilty of stifling scientific advancement as the religious zealots that you hate so much.

Tom: What more can I say Steve? You simply stick your head in the dirt and refuse to acknowledge anything which supports evolution. When the evidence supports a theory other than evolution, then you might have a case. Until then, you have absolutely nothing except your personal incredulity of evolution. There is so much wrong with the assumptions you make about biology that it isn't worth my time to refute them.
(Translation: Tom can’t answer them.)

Me: The trouble with your communication is that you are unable to refute what
I say, so you put the answers off to me sticking my head in the dirt. Or
you refer me to a website that has imaginary answers no better than your
lack of answers, or you don't have time to "educate me". My questions are
very reasonable, and a person not so locked into their belief system
would see that they are, and be able to discuss them reasonably.

Tom: No Steve, what you say is easily refutable. The problem is that you can't
recognize that it has been refuted.

Me: I am rather amazed that you picked my writing to respond to. There are so many more inane feedbacks than mine (your word), I really wonder why you chose mine. Do you respond to all? Here is my problem with so called evolution scientists: they are completely condescending, like yourself. They think they are so smart, and everyone else that doesn't believe is a fool. They and you suffer from severe tunnel vision, and to pin down any reasonable questions that any doubter has is like catching a greased pig. They, and you, completely skip over or ignore reasonable questions. Notice the response that I got from the TO site? No intelligent discussion, he simply calls me a fool. Like you, the replier must not have time to educate me either.

Me: (weeks later) Hi Tom
I hope all is well with you and your family. For the fun of it, I made a blog inspired by our debate. Since you were the inspiration I thought you might like to see how inane my thinking really is! Anyway, if you have time: http://evillusion.blogspot.com/
Either way, have a great holiday......
Steve

Tom:

I think you need to consult with your legal counsel. (Now that's real science!)

	Evolution is so much fun, because the proponents are so condescending to the non-believers, and they think they are so right. The proof of their fake science is nearly non-existent, but they act like there is bountiful proof. Thanks evolution for providing me with so much thoughtful fun. Whenever I think that I have no more to say about evolution, I read another evolution website, and, amazingly, there is more fodder to show how ridiculous TOE is. This is an excerpt (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/page02.html) about Richard Dawkins, famed evolution proponent, and writer of "The Blind Watchmaker", displaying his totally wishful thinking evidence for evolution: (My comments in italics.) One improvement at a time
	Quote: The pathway by which evolution can produce complex structures has been brilliantly (This is brilliant? See how one evolutionist pats the other on the back?) explained in The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins, a biologist at Oxford University. The essence of Dawkins’s explanation is simple. Given enough time (thousands of years) and material (millions of individuals in a species), many genetic changes will occur that result in slight improvements in a system or structure such as the eye. However slight that improvement, as long as it is genuine (Absolutely! It must be "genuine"!), natural selection will favor its spread throughout the species over several generations.
		Birds have highly developed eyes, in some ways even more so than humans.
	Little by little, one improvement at a time, the system becomes more and more complex, eventually resulting in the fully functioning, well-adapted organ that we call the eye. The retina and the lens did not have to evolve separately because they evolved together. (Huh? How does he know? Steps from eyeless species to the first usable eyes are skipped, and in place of any kind of logical explanation, "thousands of years and millions of little changes" is inserted. The god of evolution is millions of years. Who can argue with that, since "millions of years" cannot be replicated in the lab? It's the perfect proof for evolution, as it cannot be substantiated.)
	Evolution can be used as an explanation for complex structures if we can imagine (there we go again......."imagine" ) a series of small, intermediate steps leading from the simple to the complex. Further, because natural selection will act on every one of those intermediate steps, (Huh! How do they know?) no single one can be justified on the basis of the final structure toward which it may be leading. Each step must stand on its own (Absolutely!) as an improvement that confers an advantage on the organism that possesses it. Unquote (That's is an order! It's not that it "did stand", or "stood". But it "must stand". The underlying psychology here is that the writer doesn't believe that it happened, so he will order it, then it will be true. This is common evolutionary phraseology.)

Science classes are no place for religious, philosophical, or belief systems. That is why teachings from religious books should be left to parents, religion and philosophy classes, and churches. The same is true of Darwinian evolution, which is no more than a belief system. It is not objective science, and it should not be taught as such. The fossil record, current accepted biological timelines, the scientific origins of earth, solar system, and universe (Big Bang), the fact that species are truly related genetically and biologically are provable objective science with good back up evidence. Biological timelines should say when species “appeared” not that they “evolved” or were “created”. Figments of people’s imaginations, cartoon drawings showing speciation, and fake evidence should be expunged from science texts. Biological sciences need to become objective and purely scientific, which would, of course, be a giant leap. Real science should teach: “We cannot at this time discern why the Big Bang occurred, why it occurred when it did, how life began on earth, or how species happened to appear. But here is the evidence that we have so far:”
If biologists give up Darwin, the great concern is that Adam and Eve and a 4,000 year old earth will creep into science classrooms. Creationism and religious teachings should be absolutely banned from school teaching. Evolutionists are too focused on fighting Adam and Eve, and Darwin is their only weapon. They are desperate to keep Darwin going because if they lost evolution, they would have nothing to battle Biblical creation.

Evidence for intelligence in nature is overwhelming. Even the most radical evolutionist would have to admit that. Eyes, hearts, and lungs cannot be copied by the greatest engineering minds in the world. However, the source of this intelligence cannot be found scientifically, so ID should also not be taught in science classrooms. Both Darwin and ID would be good subjects for philosophy classes. The advantage of doing this would be not only to give students a real objective look at our origins, but also open the door to real scientific research that would give science a new look at other possibilities for the origin of species. It would also eliminate any more ridiculous court battles between evolutionists and creationist-ID’ers that are so costly, and provoke so much hatred.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_hypothesis

The watchmaker analogy consists of the comparison of some natural phenomenon to a watch. Typically, the analogy is presented as a prelude to the teleological argument and is generally presented as (my comments in parenthesis italics):

1. If you (an intelligent entity) look at a watch, you can easily tell that it was designed and built by an intelligent watchmaker.
2. Similarly, if you look at some natural phenomenon X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the entire universe) you can easily tell that it was designed and built by an intelligent creator/designer.

In this presentation, the watch analogy (step 1) does not function as a premise to an argument -- rather it functions as a rhetorical device and a preamble. Its purpose is to establish the plausibility of the general premise: you can tell, simply by looking at something, whether or not it was the product of intelligent design.

In most formulations of the argument, the characteristic that indicates intelligent design is left implicit. In some formulations, the characteristic is orderliness or complexity (which is a form of order). In other cases it is clearly being designed for a purpose.

Arguments that emphasize the appearance of purpose, often appeal to biological phenomena. It seems natural to say that the purpose of an eye is to enable an organism to gather information about its environment, the purpose of legs is to enable an organism to move about in its environment, and so on. Even for non-biological phenomena, scientific explanations in terms of purpose were accepted well into the 19th century. Natural phenomena were explained in terms of how they were designed for the benefit of humanity. It was held for instance, that the highest mountains on earth are located in the hottest climates by design -- so that the mountains might condense the rain and provide cool breezes where mankind needed them the most. (In reality, the entire earth, it's distance from the sun, the size and distance of the moon, the seas and amount of water, etc. etc. is set for the promotion of life.)

In arguments that emphasize on orderliness or complexity, the argument is often supplemented by a second argument that proceeds this way:

Phenomenon X (the structure of the solar system, DNA, etc.) must be the result of:

1. random chance, blind fate, etc.
2. natural causes, natural law
3. intelligent design

In the case of a watch, for example , neither (1) nor (2) is plausible. The complexity of a watch means that it could never have come about through random chance or through any natural process; it must have been designed by an intelligent watchmaker. Similarly (the argument continues), the complexity of X means that it could never have come about through random chance or through any natural process; it must have been designed by an intelligent designer.

This argument is basically a process of elimination: three possible explanations are offered. When the first two (random chance, natural causes) are ruled out, intelligent design is left standing as the only plausible explanation.

The Achilles heel of the argument is that it fails if there exists a plausible explanation of phenomenon X in terms of natural processes. (Incorrect logic. It doesn't fail if 1 and 2 are possible. 3 becomes one of three possibilities.) And this makes it vulnerable to advances in science, which has progressively found more and more naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena, and progressively abandoned explanations in terms of teleology. The location of mountains, for instance, is now explained in terms of plate tectonics. The structure of biological organisms is explained in terms of natural selection (Only problem: NS to produce species and organs is completely unproven. In fact, evidence shows that it had nothing to do with the origin of species and organs. NS had only to do with size, habit, and coloring changes in species.) The structure of the solar system is explained in terms of the nebular hypothesis and its refinements. And so on.
Evidence of intelligence is so overwhelming that it is completely overlooked by scientists. It's an amazing thought that the people who deny any type of intelligence in the universe are using proof of that intelligence to do the denying. Some "in your face" examples:
1. A clenching hand, with a thumb opposing four fingers showing perfect mechanical design.
2. Perfectly balanced opposing motors (muscles) and pull rods (ligaments) to cause opening and closing of joints.
3.Two eyes, perfectly separated, to allow three dimensional vision.
4.Teeth and jaws to chew food. The jaw is a perfectly designed class 3 lever. Teeth perfectly designed to incise and chew food. Question: How would teeth in the maxillary jaw evolve to perfectly match occlusion with mandibular teeth?
5. Multiple joints showing perfect mechanical design. Ball and socket joints, end to end joints.
6. Flexible rod (spine) showing perfect mechanical design.
The examples are endless, making 1 and 2 minuscule compared to 3.
Humans, and all animal species, are incredibly engineered machines; thousands of times more complex and better engineered than any device on the planet. We have servo-motors (muscles) that move rods (ligaments) that in turn move ball and socket joints (hip, mandible). We have an incredibly complex and efficient pump (heart), a pair of digital cameras that produce 3D (eyes), miniture sound speakers (ears); and on and on. The one thing that makes us different from an incredibly engineered robot is LIFE; that we are alive. Life separates us from robots. And, life is the one thing that separates evolutionists from being able to see intelligence in the universe. NOT religion, but intelligence; there is a big difference here. If we were functioning and not "alive", and were constructed of plastic and metal, and an "evolutionist" could observe us, he would have to admit that we are the result of an intelligence beyond imagination. And the amazing thing is that evolutionists have absolutely no idea how life formed, and they are completely unable to duplicate life in the laboratory.

According to http://www.aquatic.uoguelph.ca/birds/morphevol/main.htmbird the first birds such as the Archaeopteryx had teeth. Bird teeth then disappeared (dis-evolved?) because birds simply didn't need them. Amazing that evolution would spend millions of years evolving teeth, then do a 180 and dis-evolve teeth:
Quote: Because flight requires a highly centralized body mass with light extremities, a bird's head must be very light. Teeth, and the jaws that hold them, are cumbersome and, for birds, no longer necessary. (I wonder if we (humans) will evolve beaks since the invention of the blender makes chewing unnecessary?? Further, why would Archaeopteryx evolve teeth in the first place, since they are deleterious to flight?) Instead of using teeth to tear food into pieces, birds use one of two strategies; they will either eat only food items of a size they can swallow whole, or, as in raptors, they will have a beak adapted for tearing food. In general, a bird's beak is adapted to the kinds of food it eats. Unquote
(Does anybody believe this one? The teeth of birds just disappeared?? Are there fossils showing the disappearance of bird teeth? Did the teeth get smaller and smaller with each generation and finally vanish, or did they disappear one by one? Of course, evolution scientists have found fossils that show boney jaws morphing into bird beaks. Of course.)

Click on the graphs to enlarge.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=639
has a scientific, objective, and incredible discussion on the Cambrian Explosion which occurred 530 MYA. Of 37 phyla that have ever existed on earth, approximately 67% appeared in a 5 million year period, rather sudden for geologic time, with absolutely no finding of precursor phyla. Precambrian strata have been thoroughly searched, and no Precambrian precursors have been found, to the great disappointment of the Darwinian world. What does this do to the famous "tree of life" cartoon that is now in high school and college textbooks throughout the world? It should be drastically modified, or removed, just like the speciation cartoons should be. But, of course, "the tree" remains in place as more fake evidence of Darwinian evolution.

Another impossible "mind experiment" regarding Darwinian evolution: the evolution of insects. Life formed in the oceans and waterways of the early earth. Water-based organisms eventually evolved into the many thousands (millions?) of species that represent early underwater fauna. Some of these early animals supposedly had need to leave their watery environment, and try their luck and health on land, so they evolved legs. They eventually became land-based animals. Try to imagine how these early amphibious animals eventually evolved into ants, fleas, tics, mosquitoes, daddy long legs, etc. I am sorry, but this represents just another impossibility of evolution. It could not have happened.
Silly as it may seem, bird nests offer another item in nature that is not evolvable. It is not possible to imagine how bird evolution wound up with a tightly woven, perfectly engineered nest. Did one bird take two twigs and weave them together, then the next generation took four twigs, then the next five, and on and on for thousands of years until a full nest evolved? Try that thinking with spider webs. A spider, or spider precursor, had to fully evolve a functioning fully web-making organ before the first string of the first web could be constructed. How would evolution "know" that by evolving a web-making organ, millions of years later webs would result for the trapping of insects? Webs and birdnests are not evolvable either. Sorry Darwin. You are not at all a possible choice for how species formed.

Wickipedia:
Apart from some tantalizing Devonian fragments, insects first appear suddenly in the fossil record at the very beginning of the Late Carboniferous period, Early Bashkirian age, about 350 million years ago. Insect species were already diverse and highly specialized by this time, with fossil evidence reflecting the presence of more than half a dozen different orders. Thus, the first insects probably emerged earlier in the Carboniferous period, or even in the preceding Devonian. Some have even suggested they originated from a terrestrial ancestor not later than in the Late Silurian or the Earliest Devonian. Research to discover these earliest insect ancestors in the fossil record continues.
National Geographic 11/06:
"And yet, as he (Darwin) wrote to a friend in 1879, flowers were for him an "abonimable mystery". Darwin was referring the the sudden, unheralded emergence of flowers in the fossil record. Making the mystery all the more abonimable was the exquisite complexity of flowers.
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/features/0400_feature1.html regarding heart evolution:
They’ve also discovered that the change from simple tube to complex, chambered organ may have happened in an evolutionary flash.
"Fossil birds appear in the rocks out of nowhere." (National Geographic Special, Dec. 06)
This is only a short list of the species and organs that appear in the fossil record "in a flash"; not like Darwin had envisioned.
Was Darwin himself more honest than his worshipers today? In Darwin's own words:

"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." (Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1902 p. 341-342)

In answering the question: "Do you believe in God?", Albert Einstein's reply:
"I am not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."
Do you believe in immortality? "No, and one life is enough for me."
In a telegram, Einstein answered the question "Do you believe in God?" with: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."
From Time Magazine, April 16, 2007

I attended an evening lecture at UCI on Wednesday. The subject was how religion and evolution are compatible. It was a huge lecture hall, with about 300 in attendance. I sent an email to the lecturer, Dr. Francisco Ayala, who "wrote over 300 ariticles, 24 books, and is one of the leading evolution scientists in the world!" He is also good buddies with Peter Dawkins, the worlds smartest guy, and also the world's leading evolutionist.
My email:

Francisco:

I attended your lecture on Wednesday. You seem like a very bright and kind person, but not a scientist. Good science requires a skeptical eye, and you do not have the good skepticism of a good scientist. Your discussion about evolution/religion really was about convincing your listeners about evolution, and that it is an absolute fact. Religion was a sidebar in your talk, which was really fine with me, as I came to hear what new evidences for evolution there may be. Your evidence was in the pebble realm when Darwinian evolution really requires a Mt. Everest. You listed:

(1) Fish that show growing fins over millions of years. Of course there is no proof that the later fish were progeny of the earlier, or that fish fins went on to become limbs. And, your fish are a poor example anyway.

(2) A moth that changed colors. This proves that some animals can change colors, nothing more.

(3) Bacteria that become resistant to a chemical. Trillions die, but the remaining few, who are resistant by biochemical inheritance, produce progeny that are also resistant. This is simple mathematical biochemistry, not Darwin’s radical evolution.

(4) A biochemical DNA relationship between species, which demonstrates that all life is biochemically related; nothing more.

(5) Eyes of current species that show different levels of complexity. That is not evidence that eyes evolved from nothing to the complex eyes of today. It is only proof that there are different types of eyes of current species.

(6) Evolution of the jaw and teeth. I am a dentist, and I spent years studying and dealing with the incredible matching of the maxillary teeth with the mandibular. They fit like a perfect puzzle, the cusps of the maxillary teeth fit perfectly into the fossa’s of the mandibular. The anterior teeth allow for cutting, the bicuspids allow for shearing and cutting, and the molars are primarily for mashing, exactly as they should. If you can come up with any way Darwinian evolution could possibly evolve a lower set of teeth to match perfectly against the upper, then you would have something. But, there is absolutely no way that that could happen. To understand the occlusion of human teeth is to understand an engineering biological miracle. You mentioned the nerves in teeth that cause so much misery as evidence of the imperfection of nature versus the design of a perfect God. The pulp chamber of teeth is a necessary byproduct of the formation of the teeth. The odontoblasts that lay down the dentin of the body of the tooth would run out of blood supply if they continued until the tooth was solid. They must quit dentin formation before they finish the job, which is unfortunate for mankind, but necessary. The nerve/pulp chamber is simply a byproduct of tooth formation. The fact that many people do not have the room for all teeth is just evidence that nature is not perfect; but it is pretty damn close, considering that our bodies function like near perfect machines.

Evolution that produces change in size (your fish), abilities and habit (your bacteria), or color (your moth), the evidence that you used, is not even remotely close to the evolution that would be needed to produce hearts, eyes, lungs, and brains. You had pebbles when Mt. Everest is needed. And the Mt. Everest of evidence either does not exist, or it has not been found, either of which should place Darwin in the realm of very weak theories.

For Darwin to be correct, there would have to be tremendous changes in species for which there is a fossil history. Fossil history should look something like the growth of a fetus, spread over millions of years. The growth of fingers, limbs, eye sockets and ear canals in skulls, should be the norm. These are not the norm, not the exception, but non-existent. If you were a real scientist, you would see that. What you are is a real believer. If you would take a very critical and scientific look at Darwin and your lecture Wednesday, your next lecture would be very different. But, that takes a great deal of independence and courage to go against the norms. And most people don’t have that. Evidence shows that species did not arrive the way Darwin says. It’s time for a new look.

I wanted to enter your question session at the end of the lecture, but, obviously, I couldn’t express myself in a few sentences. And I hope you had time to read to here, and if you did, thanks!

Stephen Thomas DDS

Francisco responded:

Dear Dr. Thomas:

I did not intend to prove evolution (and other matters) in a one-hour lecture. You obviously are an educated person who knows that the evidence for evolution is in many books (including several of mine) and thousands of scholarly articles published in scores of peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Best wishes,
Francisco Ayala

Like Tom, Francisco doesn't have the time to list any of the more profound evidences, or put them in his lecture. He used weak ones on purpose.

WASHINGTON — Surprising fossils dug up in Africa are creating messy kinks in the iconic straight line of human evolution with its knuckle-dragging ape and briefcase-carrying man. The new research by famed paleontologist Meave Leakey in Kenya shows our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches. The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis evolved into Homo erectus, which then became us, Homo sapiens.

But those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years, Leakey and colleagues report in a paper published in Thursday's journal London. The two species lived near each other, but probably didn't interact with each other, each having their own "ecological niche," Spoor said.
Homo habilis was likely more vegetarian and Homo erectus ate some meat, he said. Like chimps and gorillas, "they'd just avoid each other, they don't feel comfortable in each other's company," he said. They have some still-undiscovered common ancestor that probably lived 2 million to 3 million years ago, a time that has not left much fossil record, Spoor said. Overall what it paints for human evolution is a "chaotic kind of looking evolutionary tree rather than this heroic march that you see with the cartoons of an early ancestor evolving into some intermediate and eventually unto us," Spoor said in a phone interview from a field office of the Koobi Fora Research Project in northern Kenya.
That old evolutionary cartoon, while popular with the general public, keeps getting proven wrong and too simple, said Bill Kimbel, who praised the latest findings.
He is science director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University and wasn't involved in the research team.

"The more we know, the more complex the story gets," he said. Scientists used to think H. sapiens evolved from Neanderthals, a closely related species, he said, but now know that both species lived during the same time period and that we did not come from Neanderthals. Now a similar discovery applies further back in time. Leakey's team spent seven years analyzing the fossils before announcing their findings that it was time to redraw the family tree — and rethink other ideas about human evolutionary history, especially about our most immediate ancestor, H. erectus. Because the H. erectus skull Leakey recovered was much smaller than others, scientists had to first prove that it was erectus and not another species nor a genetic freak. The jaw, probably from an 18- or 19-year-old female, was adult and showed no signs of any type of malformations or genetic mutations, Spoor said. The scientists also know it isn't H. habilis from several distinct features on the jaw. That caused researchers to re-examine the 30 other erectus skulls they have and the dozens of partial fossils. They realized that the females of that species are much smaller than the males — something different from modern man, but similar to other animals, said study co-author Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist. Scientists hadn't looked carefully enough before to see that there was a distinct difference in males and females. Difference in size between males and females seem to be related to monogamy, the researchers said. Primate species that have same-sized males and females, such as gibbons, tend to be more monogamous. Species that are not monogamous, such as gorillas and baboons, have much bigger males.

This suggests that our ancestor H. erectus reproduced with multiple partners. The H. habilis jaw was dated at 1.44 million years ago. That is the youngest ever found from a species that scientists originally figured died off somewhere between 1.7 and 2 million years ago, Spoor said. It enabled scientists to say that H. erectus and H. habilis lived at the same time. All the changes to human evolutionary thought should not be considered a weakness in the theory of evolution, Kimbel said. Rather, those are the predictable results of getting more evidence, asking smarter questions and forming better theories, he said. (Right! Just keep hoping that the evidence fits the theory. Why not just say it doesn't!)