The Theory of Evolution Appears to be Wrong
--
Evolution is a topic that people often disagree on. Some think it is a proven scientific truth that should be taught in schools. Others believe it is an unscientific concept that goes against religious convictions and should not be taught in school.
To be scientific, an idea must be capable of being tested through observation and experimentation. It must also be able to be disproved. On the surface, it appears the theory of evolution meets these criteria. It is based on the observations of biologists and other scientists who have studied living things for many years. However, when you dig deeper, it appears to be based on faulty evidence.
What is the theory of evolution?
The theory of evolution is the belief that species change over time and that the descendants of one species can become new species. This process is thought to be driven by natural selection, which is the idea that some traits are more advantageous than others in a given environment. Over time, advantageous traits will become more common in a population, while those that are disadvantageous will become less common. This can eventually lead to the formation of new species.
There are two main types of evidence that have been used to support the theory of evolution. The first is the fossil record. This is the collection of bones and other remains that have been found in rocks around the world. The second is the study of living things, including their anatomy, physiology, and genetics.
The fossil record is the main source of evidence for the theory of evolution. Darwin himself conceded that it was a weak argument.
He said, “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.” [1]
The fossil record does show some evidence of change over time. However, it is minimal. It does not lead to the gradual development of one species into another. Instead, it shows sudden appearances of new types of creatures followed by long periods of stasis or no change.
One example of faulty evidence for the theory of evolution is Ardi (ARA-VP-6/500), which is the designation of the fossilized skeletal remains of an Ardipithecus ramidus. Ardi was presented to the world in 2009 as the missing link between apes and humans. [2] The fossil was dated to 4.4 million years ago, which would make it the oldest hominid fossil ever found. The problem is that it has since been proven to be a fraud. It was not 4.4 million years old, but only about 600,000 years old. It was not a missing link but an extinct species of ape.
Another example is Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis). She was presented as the missing link between apes and humans. However, she was later found to be an extinct species of ape. The supposed human features resulted from a deceptive reconstruction of the bones. Scientists exaggerated how many bones they found. They also put bones in the wrong places and gave her a human-like posture that she could not have had. [3]
Scientists also show Lucy with eye whites. But apes do not have eye whites. They only have yellow or brown pigmentation around their eyes — the artist who made the reconstruction put in eye whites to make her look more human.
The theory is full of gaps
There are no fossils that show the gradual development of one species into another. The sudden appearance of new species is not evidence of evolution.
Darwin said, “As by this theory, inumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” [4]
The answer is that they don’t exist. There are no transitional forms in the fossil record. This is strong evidence against the theory of evolution. The fossil record does not show any new body parts or new functions appearing. This is strong evidence against the theory of evolution.
Grasping the whole: Are we really 98% similar to chimps?
Let’s examine the theory of evolution as a whole. Once we view something from the correct perspective, we can then identify the right questions to ask to get more specific.
Scientists say that the similarities between humans (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzees, or chimps (Pan troglodytes), prove that we branched from them. They claim that we are 98% similar to chimps. This falsity has been quoted so often that most people accept it as proof of evolution.
But are we 98% similar to chimps? No.
When you take a closer look at the evidence, it becomes clear that this figure is misleading and that there are quite a few differences between humans and chimps.
The human genome consists of approximately 3,054,815,472 (3.05 billion) base pairs. The chimp genome consists of roughly 3.8 billion base pairs. The chimp genome has around 750 million more base pairs than the human genome. [5]
To get the 98%, researchers used selective analysis and preselected data to make the comparison. Jeffrey P. Tomkins found that when we use the discarded data the similarity is not greater than 80–87%. [6] The same flawed analysis shows we are 90% similar to a cat and 85% similar to a mouse. So, did we also evolve from a cat or a mouse?
The theory of evolution does not have the evidence to support it. There are no transitional forms in the fossil record, and the fossil record does not show any new body parts or new functions appearing. The only evidence for evolution is the similarity between humans and other animals, but we can cherry-pick quite a few animals and say we are similar to them.
The theory of evolution appears to lack credible evidence to support it, and the only evidence for it is misleading. It’s like putting together a puzzle without all of the pieces. You might be able to find a few pieces that fit together, but you’ll never be able to see the whole picture. The same is true for the theory of evolution. There are a few pieces of evidence that seem to fit together, but when you examine the evidence as a whole, it is clear that it is incomplete and does not support the theory.
[1] Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. Variorum, 189. Retrieved from http://darwin-online.org.uk/Variorum/1860/1860-189-c-1859.
[2] Berkeley News. (2009, December 17). New fossil find may be oldest human ancestor yet discovered. Retrieved from https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/12/17_breakthrough_2009.shtml
[3] News article: How Ardi puts the brakes on human evolution. (2010, November). Nature, 467(7316), 801–802. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2010.267.html
[4] Charles Darwin. (2008). On the origin of species. Gillian Beer (Ed.). Oxford, OUP. p.130.
[5] The website http://www.genomesize.com/search.php provides information on the genome sizes of various animals.
[6] Tomkins, J. P. (2014). How genomes are sequenced and why it matters: Implications for studies in comparative genomics of humans and chimpanzees. Creation Research Society Quarterly, 51(1), 1–7.
