Thursday, December 07, 2006


How I Came to the Conclusion that Darwin was Dreaming

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.

I think you might have misinterpreted TOE. Does this theory say that anything and everything *must* evolve? The way I see it, and I could be wrong, it says that extreme circumstances have been overcome by a "cousin" species so-to-speak. Are you saying that *any* species must necessarily die and its mutants live as another species? That's an odd interpretation in my opinion and possibly a straw-man argument.

I will admit that *many* of evolution's proponents take absurdly dogmatic views (Dawkins for instance) and can really confuse whatever propositions can possibly be called science in it (as opposed to dogma). Hence your reasoning throughout on this page.

I see nothing but straw-men in your critique. For every one you've given here, you'd be well to ask yourself, "Is this what TOE says"?

Not to belabor the point, but later on your board you assert something about *gradual* changes being necessary. Why should that be? Who's to say that a seemingly trivial mutation doesn't give you a radically different species? I would think the latter myself. You've interpreted a gradual change in genome as requiring by necessity a gradual change in species. That might or might *not* be the case.

You're arguing against the dogmatic views propounded and not TOE itself IMO.
Hi Piblake
You can see a more detailed version of this site at
Regarding your comment:
Here is DARWIN’S 100% PROBLEM: EVERY ONE OF THE ITEMS DISCUSSED HERE, as well as thousands of others that I haven’t mentioned, would ALL have to be evolvable for the theory to be functional. In other words, IF ONLY ONE ITEM WAS NOT EVOLVABLE, THE ENTIRE THEORY IS OUT THE WINDOW. A specie cannot evolve and an organ (heart, eye, eg.) arrive some other way. That makes Darwin’s theory weaker than a spider web.
Regarding the term "straw-man". That term is used commonly by ev believers, and is a great way of getting out of "answering" a question that can't be answered. All evolutionists must read the same pamphlet.
T-Rex was a very powerful beast and had everything it needed to survive. It had no need for longer arms, because it had such powerful jaws. Would longer arms had been beneficial? Probably, but they were not necessary for its survival. Animals evolve out of necessity, not just for the heck of it. I think you are losing track of what evolution really is.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?