h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I have formulated my own theory on the evolution/creation of human beings which I have called “Man the Ultimate Machine but what is the Reason for Nose Hair ?”.

I have rejected the Darwinian theory of natural selection when applied to humans. It fits most other animal species but sadly cannot be applied to us. Consider natural selection when applied to say the hippopotamus, at some early period in its evolution an ancient ancestor of the hippopotamus found, by accident, that if it spent most of the day submerged in a muddy puddle eating vast quantities of greens very few other animals would bother it. Hence over great aeons of time the hippopotamus became large and fat and lazy but ultimately fairly successful, however, this process creates a species of animal where every member is much the same as any other i.e. if one was radically different and more successful why didn’t “natural selection” make all the others the same. Hence natural selection, when applied to animals, creates a species in which every member is much the same as any other. Now consider man, take two examples, DJ Slimbody Ba-Ba Blox the king of the transvestite London club scene, and Hamish McSock the 28 stone champion caber tosser and bare-knuckle fighter from Invergloken. It is quite obvious that these two human specimens, the very best of their particular field could never have evolved from a common ancestor.

Now consider the creationist argument that we were created by God in his own image. Again flawed for similar reasons, why don’t we all look the same, why are there men and women, why aren’t we all kind and considerate to each other ??

My theory is based on creationism but not by God in his own image, man was either designed by a god with a great sense of humour as an exercise to cheer himself up or by a committee who only very rarely managed to agree on anything or by a minor civil servant in the ministry of planet and species creation who was very bored by his job. How else do you explain the very poor design of man ? For instance who would combine the device for procreation of the species (and also the device for some occasional pleasure) with the waste disposal system. Also what is the purpose of hair ? I admit that it may have some protective properties on your head, but when you start needing it the most, when you are older and more frail, why does it disappear from your head and start sprouting out of every other orifice (nose, ears etc.), with no use at all ??

To be continued...

Well what about DOGS?...

The only reason Humans aren't perfectly homogeneous(pretty damn close though) is that they are so intelligent as to adapt their WORLD around THEMSELVES and not vice-versa. We had almost grown out of the nessicity for evolution nearly a million years ago(or 200,000 years ago, depending on your opinion.) By between 50,000 years ago and 30,000 years ago we had literally COVERED the entire planet, instead of pocketing different populations(as that might have led to different species) we diversified yet we maintained strong interbreeding migratory processes(ie one small group evolves defenses for a particular disease, more population=more migration.) Really we are all very close and not at all peculiar as a species, think about it there are more than 6 billion people out there and less than 6,000 generations between you and the last species;\. How many generations do you really believe are seperating you and let's say someone from New Guinea(who left the asian continent around 30,000 years ago?)

Ocellus
Qoud Erat Demonstradum

I think we should wait for some other vastly intelligent lifeform to aply us to the evolution theory. It's almost impossible for a species to create correct theories about itself with it being the subject of it's own pondering.

Evolution is a deceit.

The neo-Darwinist model, which we shall take as the "mainstream" theory of evolution today, argues that life has evolved through two naturalistic mechanisms: "natural selection" and "mutation". The basic assertion of the theory is as follows: Natural selection and mutation are two complementary mechanisms. The origin of evolutionary modifications is random mutations that take place in the genetic structure of living things. The traits brought about by the mutations are selected by the mechanism of natural selection and therefore the living things evolve.

When we further probe into this theory, we find that there is no such evolutionary mechanism at all, because neither natural selection nor mutations make any contribution to the claim that different species have evolved and transformed into one another.

Natural Selection
As process of nature, natural selection was familiar to biologists before Darwin, who defined it as a "mechanism that keeps species unchanging without being corrupted". Darwin was the first person to put forward the assertion that this process had evolutionary power and he then erected his entire theory on the foundation of this assertion. The name he gave to his book indicates that natural selection was the basis of Darwin’s theory: The Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection...

However since Darwin’s time, there has not been a single shred of evidence put forward to show that natural selection causes living beings to evolve. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist of the Museum of Natural History in England, who is also a prominent evolutionist by the way, stresses that natural selection has never been observed to have the power to cause things to evolve:

No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question.

Natural selection holds that those living things that are more suited to the natural conditions of their habitats will prevail by having offspring that will survive, whereas those that are unfit will disappear. For example, in a deer herd under the threat of wild animals, naturally those that can run faster will survive. That is true. But no matter how long this process goes on, it will not transform those deer into another living species. The deer will always remain deer.

When we look at the few incidents the evolutionists have put forth as observed examples of natural selection, we see that these are nothing but a simple attempt to hoodwink.


"Industrial Melanism"
In 1986 Douglas Futuyma published a book, The Biology of Evolution, which is accepted as one of the sources explaining the theory of evolution by natural selection in the most explicit way. The most famous of his examples on this subject is about the colour of the moth population, which appeared to darken during the Industrial Revolution in England. It is possible to find the story of the Industrial Melanism in almost all evolutionist biology books, not just in Futuyma's book. The story is based on a series of experiments conducted by the British physicist and biologist Bernard Kettlewell in the 1950s, and can be summarised as follows:

According to the account, around the outset of the Industrial Revolution in England, the colour of the tree barks around Manchester was quite light. Because of this, dark-coloured (melanic) moths resting on those trees could easily be noticed by the birds that fed on them and therefore they had very little chance of survival. Fifty years later, in woodlands where industrial pollutionhas killedthe lichens, the barks of the trees had darkened, and this time the light-coloured moths became the most hunted. As a result, the number of light-coloured moths decreased whereas that of the dark-coloured ones increased since the latter were not easily noticed. Evolutionists use this as a great evidence to their theory. Evolutionists, on the other hand, take refuge and solace in window-dressing by showing how light-coloured moths "evolved" into dark-coloured ones.

However, it should be quite clear - although we believe that it is correct - that this situation can in no way be used as evidence for the theory of evolution, for natural selection did not give rise to a new form that had not existed before. Dark coloured moths existed in the moth population before the Industrial Revolution. Only the relative proportions of the existing moth varieties in the population changed. The moths had not acquired a new trait or an organ, which would cause a "speciation". In order to have a moth turn into another living species, a bird for example, new additions would have had to be made to the genes. That is, an entirely separate genetic program would have had to be loaded so as to include information about the physical traits of the bird.

This is the answer to be given to the evolutionist story of Industrial Melanism. However, there is a more interesting side to the story: Not just its interpretation, but the story itself is flawed. As molecular biologist Jonathan Wells explains in his book Icons of Evolution, the story of the peppered moths, which is included in every evolutionist biology book and has therefore, become an "icon" in this sense, does not reflect the truth. Wells discusses in his book how Bernard Kettlewell's experiment, which is known as the "experimental proof" of the story, is actually a scientific scandal. Some basic elements of this scandal are:


Many experiments conducted after Kettlewell revealed that only one type of these moths rested on tree trunks, and all other types preferred beneath small, horizontal branches. Since 1980 it has become clear that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks. In 25 years of fieldwork, many scientists such as Cyril Clarke and Rory Howlett, Michael Majerus, Tony Liebert, and Paul Brakefield concluded that "In Kettlewell's experiment, moths were forced to act atypically, therefore, the test results could not be accepted as scientific".

Scientists who tested Kettlewell's conclusions came up with an even more interesting result: As the number of light moths would be expected to be larger in the less polluted regions of England, the dark moths numbered four times as many as the light ones. This meant that there was no correlation between the moth population and the tree trunks as claimed by Kettlewell and repeated by almost all evolutionist sources.

As the research deepened, the scandal changed dimension: "The moths on tree trunks" photographed by Kettlewell, were actually dead moths. Kettlewell used dead specimens glued or pinned to tree trunks and then photographed them. In truth, there was little chance of taking such a picture as the moths rested not on tree trunks but underneath the leaves.
These facts were uncovered by the scientific community only in the late 1990s. The collapse of the myth of Industrial Melanism, which had been one of the most treasured subjects in "introduction to evolution" courses for decades, greatly disappointed evolutionists. One of them, Jerry Coyne, remarked:

My own reaction resembles the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of six, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve.

Thus, "the most famous example of natural selection" was relegated to the trash-heap of history as a scientific scandal.

And that was inevitable, because natural selection is not an "evolutionary mechanism," contrary to what evolutionists claim. It does not have the capability to add a new organ to a living organism, remove it, or transfer the organism into another species.

Can Natural Selection Explain Complexity?
There is nothing that natural selection contributes to the theory of evolution, because this mechanism can never increase or improve the genetic information of a species. Neither can it transform one species into another: a starfish into a fish, a fish into a frog, a frog into a crocodile, or a crocodile into a bird. The biggest defender of punctuated equilibrium, Gould, refers to this deadlock of natural selection as follows;

The essence of Darwism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.

Another of the misleading methods that evolutionists employ on the issue of natural selection is their effort to present this mechanism as a conscious designer. However, natural selection has no consciousness. It does not possess a will that can decide what is good and what is bad for living beings. As a result, natural selection cannot explain biological systems and organs that have the feature of "irreducible complexity". These systems and organs are composed of the co-operation of a great number of parts and they are of no use if even one of these parts is missing or defective. (For example, human eye does not function unless it exists with all its details). Therefore, the will that brings all these parts together should be able to figure the future in advance and aim directly for the benefit that is to be acquired at the last stage. Since natural mechanism has no consciousness or will, it can do no such thing. This fact which also demolishes the foundations of the theory of evolution, also worried Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Natural selection only selects out the disfigured, weak, or unfit individuals of a species. It cannot produce new species, new genetic information, or new organs. That is, it cannot make anything evolve. Darwin accepted this reality by saying: "Natural selection can do nothing until favourable variations chance to occur". This is why neo-Darwinism has had to elevate mutations next to natural selection as the "cause of beneficial changes". However as we shall see, mutations can only be "the cause for harmful changes".

IMAGINARY MECHANISMS OF EVOLUTION
Mutations
Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nucleus of the cell of a living organism and which holds all the genetic information. These breaks or replacements are the result of external effects such as radiation or chemical action. Every mutation is an "accident" and either damages the nucleotides making up the DNA or changes their locations. Most of the time, they cause so much damage and modification that the cell cannot repair them.

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by the people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature…

The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure and random effects can only cause harm to this structure. B.G. Ranganathan states:

Mutations are small, random, and harmful. They rarely occur and the best possibility is that they will be ineffectual. These four characteristics of mutations imply that mutations cannot lead to an evolutionary development. A random change in a highly specialised organism is either ineffectual or harmful. A random change in a watch cannot improve the watch. It will most probably harm it or at best be ineffectual. An earthquake does not improve the city, it brings destruction.

Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been observed so far. All mutations have proved to be harmful. The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that may have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War:

Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect - evolution to higher forms of life - results from mutations practically all of which are harmful?

Every effort put into "generating a useful mutation" has resulted in failure. For decades, evolutionists carried out many experiments to produce mutations in fruit flies as these insects reproduce very rapidly and so mutations would show up quickly. Generation upon generation of these flies were mutated, yet no useful mutation was ever observed. Evolutionist geneticist Gordon Taylor writes thus:

In all the thousands of fly-breeding experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years, a distinct new species has never been seen to emerge... or even a new enzyme.

Another researcher, Michael Pitman, comments on the failure of the experiments carried out on fruit flies:

Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type.

The same holds true for man. All mutations that have been observed in human beings have deleterious results. On this issue, evolutionists throw up a smokescreen and try to show even examples of such deleterious mutation as "evidence for evolution". All mutations that take place in humans result in physical deformities, in infirmities such as mongolism, Down syndrome, albinism, dwarfism or cancer. These mutations are presented in evolutionist textbooks as examples of "the evolutionary mechanism at work". Needless to say, a process that leaves people disabled or sick cannot be "an evolutionary mechanism"-evolution is supposed to produce better forms that are more fit to survive.

To summarise, there are three main reasons why mutations cannot be pressed into the service of supporting evolutionists' assertions:


l ) The direct effect of mutations is harmful: Since they occur randomly, they almost always damage the living organism that undergoes them. Reason tells us that unconscious intervention in a perfect and complex structure will not improve that structure but impair it. Indeed, no "useful mutation" has ever been observed.

2 ) Mutations add no new information to an organism's DNA: The particles making up the genetic information are either torn from their places, destroyed, or carried off to different places. Mutations cannot make a living thing acquire a new organ or a new trait. They only cause abnormalities like a leg sticking out of the back, or an ear from the abdomen.

3) In order for a mutation to be transferred to the subsequent generation, it has to have taken place in the reproductive cells of the organism: A random change that occurs in a casual cell or organ of the body cannot be transferred to the next generation. For example, a human eye altered by the effects of radiation or by other causes will not be passed on to subsequent generations.

Briefly, it is impossible for living beings to have evolved, because there exists no mechanism in nature that can cause them to evolve. This agrees with the evidence of the fossil record, which demonstrates that this scenario is far removed from reality.

Adib Qasim

oh come on, just because there isn't enough proof for something doesn't mean the whole theory is false.

This post has been removed.

And do you by any chance understand this yourself?

If so, you are one of those people who might have read origin of the species and figured that was all there was to evolution.
Be sure to check out the milions of pages of additional research in this area, or some summary literature if it gets a bit too technical for you.

Muzaakboy

Um I only scanned your lengthy entry, and I apologize for that. But I had a quick question. I saw a couple tenants of your argument
1) mutations are unhelpful
2) mutations provide nothing new

You use the example of the fruitfly, and although I have no personal knowledge of these experiments, for the sake of argument I'll accept them. But what about single celled bacterium? Did you mention this in your lengthy comment? It is very well established that these organisms do mutate and change, and that their mutations do lead to survival - for a good example, look at the way that "modern" antibiotics are now failing, because there are enough resistant strains of bacteria around now. Granted, these mutations might have exisited for a long time, and have been dormant, but now we've selected for them by using antibiotics, and now they are prominent feature.

How do you address this case of evolution?

This post has been removed.

Is there anyway the person who posted the response that got banned could re-post, trying to write it in such a way so that it doesn't get banned?

Will do

This post has been removed.

One quick question: Regardless of whether the bacteria transfer the resistant gene to one another or not:

How do you explain why certain bacteria have the resistant gene and others do not?

Couldn't they have gotten there in the first place as a result of a mututation, the advantage of which only appeared when the bacteria were exposed to anti-biotics?

Good question I will look in to it. But I do not think.
I need to do some more work on this.
Adib

If you're talking strictly about darwin in origin of the species, he does NOT mention bacteria or protein even once.

No we are not just talking about Darwin.
He did not mention it back then because things like that was not that well known back then was it.

Talk about skirting around the issues Qasim...

Qoud Erat Demonstradum

Well we can talk about bacteria.

Well we can talk about bacteria.

>If you're talking strictly about darwin in origin of the species, he
>does NOT mention bacteria or protein even once.

Then again, if you are talking about Darwin he didn't mention the term Evolution in "the Origin of Species" either until its 6th print. You have to remember that in Darwins time a lot less was know about evolution, bacteria and genetics (DNA was only discovered about 15 years after the first publication of Species, and wasn't know to do much until about 40 years later). So it's not entirely fair to use exactly what darwin said about evolution in the present day. (it would be like saying that everything Newton did is rubbish because Einstein showed it to be incomplete...)

Rod