A Look at Evolution
Pt. 1
I have looked at and studied the scientific theory of evolution, and have found it in wanting. As genetics it is a well defended scientific process, I am not attacking this part of the evolutionary theory. What I am attacking is the connection between genetics and the theory of evolution as a theory of origins. I outright reject the idea that all life evolved from a common ancestor, which evolved from relatively nothing. In this first part of my looks at evolution, I will give an example as to how evolutionists have defended evolution with outdated or outright wrong evidence. The second part will look at science that is diametrically opposed to evolution, and the third part will look at the consequences this theory has upon our culture if we take evolution seriously.
First of all, I would like to point out discrepancies in the fossil record in relationship to the search for missing links. mainly that there should be hundreds if not thousands of them and we know exactly where they should be if they were there. In the Pre-Cambrian layer. For the very reason we call it the Cambrian explosion, no such missing links have been found. (Something Darwin predicted as pivotal for his theory to succeed.) Evolution cannot explain the Cambrian explosion. What arguably can be called missing links are so few in numbers and so controversial within themselves that they are almost not worth mentioning.
Yet we have constantly heard from the media, the scientists, the professors, and the text books, that the fossil record clearly shows evolution to be the true course history took. For me this falls on deaf ears. Show me the evidence. I say, and sometimes they do, but every time I dig deeper, their argument falls apart. Whether it be a reconstruction of a fossil that looks promising as a missing link until you find that it was reconstructed by two small vertebrate links and half of a finger.
Faith in good science would allow me to say, well they are scientists out for truth, surely they truly believe this to be an accurate reconstruction. Perhaps we really do have the technology to do something like that. But I have heard the boy who cried “wolf!” one too many times to trust grandiose claims when it comes to missing links. The perfect example to show what I mean by this is the “missing links” between man and ape.
Rampithecus, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Java Man, Neanderthals, Australopithecus Afarensis (Lucy). All of these have been hoisted up as great evidence for evolution as links between man and apes. All of these have been realized as fakes or rejected as evolutionary links. Rampithecus was with further testing found to be a modern orangutang. Piltdown man was the jaw bone of a modern ape, a few teeth and a human skull treated with chemicals to age it then purposefully buried to be “discovered”. Nebraska man was a pig’s tooth, Java man was nothing but a very large Gibbon, Neanderthals are fully human, and Lucy did not walk upright as was claimed and are not anywhere near a link between man and ape. My faith is about run dry after all of these. It would not bother me if they were claims that were rescinded once they were found to be false, but these are names that have lingered long after they have been found lacking.
Many other examples of how evolutionists have fabricated or used outdated evidence to support evolution exist, not exclusive to, but including: Haegel’s embryos, Stanley Millers experiment, homology, four-winged fruit fly, Vestigial organs, Junk DNA/RNA, and embryonic recapitulation.
Jared Williams
First of all, I would like to point out discrepancies in the fossil record in relationship to the search for missing links. mainly that there should be hundreds if not thousands of them and we know exactly where they should be if they were there. In the Pre-Cambrian layer. For the very reason we call it the Cambrian explosion, no such missing links have been found. (Something Darwin predicted as pivotal for his theory to succeed.) Evolution cannot explain the Cambrian explosion. What arguably can be called missing links are so few in numbers and so controversial within themselves that they are almost not worth mentioning.
Yet we have constantly heard from the media, the scientists, the professors, and the text books, that the fossil record clearly shows evolution to be the true course history took. For me this falls on deaf ears. Show me the evidence. I say, and sometimes they do, but every time I dig deeper, their argument falls apart. Whether it be a reconstruction of a fossil that looks promising as a missing link until you find that it was reconstructed by two small vertebrate links and half of a finger.
Faith in good science would allow me to say, well they are scientists out for truth, surely they truly believe this to be an accurate reconstruction. Perhaps we really do have the technology to do something like that. But I have heard the boy who cried “wolf!” one too many times to trust grandiose claims when it comes to missing links. The perfect example to show what I mean by this is the “missing links” between man and ape.
Rampithecus, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Java Man, Neanderthals, Australopithecus Afarensis (Lucy). All of these have been hoisted up as great evidence for evolution as links between man and apes. All of these have been realized as fakes or rejected as evolutionary links. Rampithecus was with further testing found to be a modern orangutang. Piltdown man was the jaw bone of a modern ape, a few teeth and a human skull treated with chemicals to age it then purposefully buried to be “discovered”. Nebraska man was a pig’s tooth, Java man was nothing but a very large Gibbon, Neanderthals are fully human, and Lucy did not walk upright as was claimed and are not anywhere near a link between man and ape. My faith is about run dry after all of these. It would not bother me if they were claims that were rescinded once they were found to be false, but these are names that have lingered long after they have been found lacking.
Many other examples of how evolutionists have fabricated or used outdated evidence to support evolution exist, not exclusive to, but including: Haegel’s embryos, Stanley Millers experiment, homology, four-winged fruit fly, Vestigial organs, Junk DNA/RNA, and embryonic recapitulation.
Jared Williams
