Is evolution an outdated theory?
The question used to be, "Can evolution be proven?" Today a more appropriate question is: "Is the science of evolution?"
EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY
For most people, science is seen as "today", modern, up to date, and perhaps even the promise of futuristic marvels. A generation that has supersonic aircraft, ballistic missile Intercontinental (ICBM), space shuttles and sophisticated equipment can hardly be called primitive. Or
In the midst of all this the state of technology advanced a theory seems to be quite primitive, but increasingly lost credibility even among those who have joined him for a long time, still has many convinced that it is based on science. This theory has proved one thing beyond a shadow of doubt: although modern technology is about Star Wars sophistication modern man's thinking is still capable of some embarrassingly primitive.
To understand how this theory could have won any support at all have to look back on the reasoning that prevailed in the days of sorcery and witchcraft. These ideas were certainly not the result of hard evidence. Obviously, the human mind is very susceptible to super-human distortions and misrepresentations. Although it sorcery and witchcraft have gone the way of the horse and buggy, the kind of images facilitates the acceptance of irrational views of reality apparently has not done so. I'm talking about the "scientific" theory of evolution. If this theory is not honest misinterpretation, may very well be the most sophisticated fraud ever perpetrated on mankind.
LA Tasaday NATIVE
If you think a deception such a large scale is not possible, consider the following:
On August 14, 1986, ABC-TV program 20/20 aired a segment of the Tasaday tribe in the jungles of the Philippines, exposing a fraud of monumental proportions.
In early 1970, a tribe are in the jungles of the Philippines "live" in the most primitive conditions. The Tasaday tribe, as he became known, seemed "out of civilization modern. "Their lifestyle resembled the image of modern man cavemen: they hunted for food, wore clothes made of leaves, and lived in caves. Nothing could be more exciting – and more compelling.
The discovery of a "prehistoric" tribe in modern times was so fascinating that I have worldwide front cover, a book was written in the discovery, and the pages of "history" is added to some encyclopedias.
They spent twelve o'clock years before it was discovered that the world had been misled by a sinister joke. In mid-1980 in an attempt to follow up earlier suspicions, media communication learned that these tribes "were actually natives of the Philippines today – who usually wore jeans and sweatshirts, cigarettes, etc had been put up to this farce by an official of the Philippines, which led them to believe they would receive financial assistance or other if "were bad" for cameras. In the end, they received no assistance, were abandoned by the officers of the Philippines, and the farce is over.
And so, a "significant find anthropological "enjoyed over a decade of" historical significance "before becoming a" historical fraud. "And if there were no been for diligent examination of the media, this deception might well have been anthropological "find of the twentieth century the century" in books history.
THE EVOLUTION OF EVOLUTION
Since Charles Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species "in 1859, theory of the evolution of life has changed, updates and "progress" – and the theory is still "evolution." By the time scientists through this theory, if anything, the "Origin of Species" may have more versions of the species. This can make the "natural selection" (Single version) extremely difficult.
The scientific concept of the origin of life on earth begins with the premise that life first appeared After billions of years ago with the formation of microscopic organisms from inanimate matter. In the billions of years that followed, small organisms developed into larger and more complex forms of life, and one species evolved into another. The chain of events leading from the first single-celled organism to complex organ, the human brain, was initially believed to have been a slow and gradual.
But archaeologists have carried out many blades trying to discover developments relevant evidence. At last count, there were enough bones to make friends with all the dogs in Chicago and fossils enough to open fossil business by mail. But there is no evidence. No set of fossil bones show distinct sets of intermediate species. If one species evolved into another, " linking "species should have existed in large quantities at various points in Earth's history. But profuse quantities of sections could be called" evidence irrefutable "have never been found.
This leads to a new version of evolution called "punctuated equilibrium." This version of the evolution is carried out by many scientists who oppose the slow and gradual "release." punctuated equilibrium ", says the species are quickly and retain their basic shapes until they are extinguished. Now that sounds much better. It conveniently eliminates the need to find the missing links. What wrong with that? If you can not find the murder weapon, to convince the jury of the defendant shoot bullets through your ears!
And the theory goes on and on circling each discrepancy and contradiction.
If the logic and mechanics of the theory of evolution makes sense to you, it probably would not have also analyzed objectively. I hope this book, and in particular this chapter will help towards that end.
Result of ignorance
For a species that has evolved to another, major genetic changes that have occurred throughout Earth's history. Probably the strongest thing going developments at the time of its inception, more than one hundred years ago, is that almost nothing was known about genetics at that time. Even today, the vast majority of public, although some familiarity with terms like "genetic engineering" and "random mutation," remain more or less on dark with respect to this modern branch of science. And with the constant exposure to mechanical course of evolution, it is not surprising that a theory with substance so little has been able to grab a strong foothold in society – The average person simply does not know enough to say why evolution does not work.
I am convinced that if the public had had a decent knowledge of genetics and random mutations, in particular, before being presented with the theory of evolution, theory was never taken seriously and certainly could never have been accepted as legitimate science.
On the other hand, another thing in its favor evolution is simply the constant exposure of its concepts as a basis for the general public. I think it's human nature to get used to the idea after repeated exposure no matter how crazy the idea may be. And in the case of evolution, along with the constant exposure of the general public lack of understanding of the mechanics of certain genetic properties is what has helped to perpetuate this theory.
Here's a rough idea of what a theory may sound like when you first well known that mechanics do not work:
THE WORM-TRAIN THEORY
Scientists took a worm in a rail yard and put it under a powerful electron microscope. They found that the cell of a worm is magnified three billion times has an uncanny resemblance to a train window. They concluded that if you incubate three dozen worms in a solution of amino acids and carbon compounds of about a million and a half years it will eventually become Long Island Railroad.
THE COMEDY OF SCIENCE
Of course, the above was just a tongue in cheek version of a "theory." However, in the following pages I hope to show how the theory of evolution is not so far from that stage comedian.
EVOLUTION: A failure GENETIC
Genetic engineering or genetic manipulation, is probably the hottest topic and most fascinating of Medicine modern. They seem to have the answers to the questions raised by some of the most perplexing diseases. And it looks more promising every day.
Engineering Genetics is the business of altered genes. Found by the hundreds, sometimes thousands, in the nucleus of every cell, genes cause the development of features such as hair color, height, shape of some living organisms, etc. altered genes can cause an organism or its offspring to acquire new dimensions – their characteristics physical, literally, can change. Sometimes these changes can be for good. At other times, these altered genes, generally known as mutations, may cause disease gene that can destroy the body. While the potential of genetic engineering and scope of its impact on biological systems are far from fully realized at this point in time, science has made great strides in the field.
A misconception about 'could have' and 'no'
What is human nature sometimes to see the possibility of an event as a synonym for the reality of an event. This could not be more misleading to discuss the issue of how genetic advances relate to the theory of evolution.
Many people, evolutionists and secular alike, are exposed to the media on the progress of genetic engineering. However, by not giving the facts in their proper perspective, it is easy for one to misinterpret "what is possible" as "what really happened." That is, the idea that genetic research may confirm some of the arguments in support of evolution is an interpretation could easily make the wrong if it is not aware of the issue based on bad logic. The logic may be something like: if scientists can change the composition of a species largely or change one species into another through genetic mutations in the laboratory, it could verify the arguments of evolutionists this could have occurred naturally in the past.
Not really.
Faulty logic that we should get rid of it: if you could prove that John Doe is the greatest artist who ever lived would show that painted the Mona Lisa. To prove that John Doe painted the Mona Lisa, you'd do just that. The simple to prove that it can not prove who actually did it. Elephants can shoot water through their trunks, but this does not prove that African elephants have his brigade fire.
No matter what scientists do in the laboratory in relation to biotechnology, which has little or no effect on what actually happened in the past of the earth. Recent animal biotechnology has produced mixed race, no doubt, that never existed on Earth history. Therefore, what occurs in the Lab says no more than that is possible in the laboratory. What the earth produces in its past is a different story.
A MORE SERIOUS PROBLEM
But the fact that the capacity does not show the reality is less than the problems of the evolutionist. What modern man has learned so far about the genetic mutation is not only is compatible with evolution, but actually took the theory of a devastating and embarrassing.
To begin, it is important to differentiate between mutations affected by two different means:
RANDOM MUTATION
One random mutation. This type of mutation occurs at random, without any preconceived design or plan at the genetic level. According to evolutionists, random mutation is what supposedly brought life from the stage of a cell to its complexity Current. That is, through a series of beneficial accidents of random mutations, they say, simple organisms over millions of years evolved into new species and more complex.
"SMART MUTATION '
Two, a process that can be labeled "intelligent mutation." Investigating to and manipulation of genes in a laboratory come under this heading. The genes are recombined or "butt" with the intent to modify a change in the organism or its offspring.
Intelligent mutation was responsible for two impressive genetic progress. First, scientists bred red fruit fly eyes brown-eyed parents. Secondly, by combining growth genes of rats with genes in mice, the scientists caused some mice born twice its normal size.
In a not too familiar with medicine or biology, such as changes may seem insignificant not worth mentioning. Therefore, it is necessary to emphasize that took the sophisticated science of the twentieth century to affect such seemingly trivial changes. They are nothing less than great achievements.
Again, these are the types of genetic manipulations should choose the point in support of evolution: "If we can do in the laboratory, why has not the nature of large-scale accident in the last three and a half million years? "
A COMPARISON absurd
For starters, the comparison of the mutation of intelligence, random mutation is analogous to the comparison of the incision of a skilled surgeon the random slashing of an assailant. There is no recorded case of a victim of a robbery at the foot of her attacker with a successful appendectomy, unsuccessfully, for removal of cataracts. It does not take a doctor or a scientist to know that a random accident cut almost invariably leave behind the chaos and destruction and must not lead to an intervention sophisticated surgical.
Consequently, making intelligent mutation as an indication that nature could have produced a species complex unicellular organisms through a long series of accidents of random mutations is mixing apples and oranges. " Intelligent design is usually the result intelligence and design. And when the design is of a very complex, as are many forms of life, intelligence indicates a highly complex nature. Chance, however, usually do not produce intelligent or sophisticated structures. Believing that the accidental nature of complex life forms produced in any period of time, no matter how time is roughly equivalent to believing that the New York World Trade Center was built by a herd of wild mules kicked an assortment of building material in places incorrect.
Ridiculous AUN NO COMPARISON
However, the improbability of the genetic evolution comes from elsewhere and have long arguments stronger. And without a strong genetic basis for biological organisms evolved into higher forms of life, the theory of evolution simply disappears air.
So, here's how genetics – the most crucial aspect of evolution – not only do not support the theory, but contradicts it:
Sources of random mutations
Modern man is familiar with and directly affected by random mutations long before they ever had mutation Smart seriously. Some sources of random mutations have existed even before knowing how it came about genetic effects. What are they? Chemical carcinogens. The cosmic rays. Radioactive sources, like nuclear weapons, nuclear reactors, nuclear waste, and medical X-rays.
LET'S TAKE RADIOACTIVITY
X-rays were discovered by German scientist Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen, the headlines on January 6, 1896. As a discovery innocent as it was in the time, the man had taken unknowingly, the control of a potent force – the radiation. These rays someday become a source of medical cures and disease and destruction.
It was not until nearly a century and a half after the man realized the incredible potential of this light "invisible." On July 16, 1945, in a desert of Alamogordo, New Mexico, United States detonated the first nuclear bomb in the world as a test. The destructive potential of this new weapon was horrible. Not only could destroy the life and environment in a conventional explosion, but could also achieve the same thing only its intense heat and radiation. It could also make an environment uninhabitable for years, decades or even centuries to come.
That same year, 1945, the U.S. launched atomic bombs on two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These two bombs alone – as weak and as primitive as they were by today's standards – more than 190,000 killed people. It became evident that he had taken control of a power so fierce that the meaning of the word "war" would not be the same.
Then, as late as April 1986, the meltdown of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor by the man finally fully aware of the destructive powers of radiation, including for peaceful. The accident in the USSR panic radiation throughout much of the world population. Once again, the man was forced to deal with a situation so far in nuclear unencountered.
THE COMMON DENOMINATOR
Above what historical events have in common is an introduction to one facet of radiation for the modern man. The most destructive aspect of radiation is its ability to cause random changes in genetic level molecular and atomic partial or total destruction of a recipient organism.
Here's an idea of what radiation does:
Immediate damage
Exposure to high doses of radiation to a limited part of the body can cause severe tissue damage and necrosis final.
The exhibition of all the body a few hundred "real" (rem is a unit used to measure radiation efficiency), initially can cause nausea. Then, in about a month, the person may start suffering bleeding, anemia, fatigue, weakness, and increased risk of infection. Although some may survive or die as a result of these evils.
About 1,000 real, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea may develop within hours of exposure. As these symptoms make it worse, they are followed by fever, fluid loss, serious infections and ultimately death.
About 10,000 reals, the dose for which a worker may be exposed during a nuclear reactor accident, vomiting and diarrhea that occur within an hour, followed by blood pressure, seizures and loss of knowledge. Death come from one to three days.
LONG-TERM DAMAGE
The fact that radiation can cause genetic mutations and cause effects has been known for at least fifty years. Studies show that radiation can cause not just one but a variety of different types of mutations. A the effects of these aberrations is cancer. The cancer may occur years or even decades after the body's exposure to radiation. If the agency shows no sign of cancer, there remains the possibility that cancer could appear in future generations.
Some other conditions or diseases genes that may show in later generations as a result of random mutations include hemophilia, congenital cataract, spontaneous abortions, fibrosis cystic fibrosis, color blindness and muscular dystrophy.
Still other diseases like diabetes, heart disease, asthma, and schizophrenia may be manifested in later generations as a result of random mutations in combination with environmental factors.
LA Charity on
We obtained only a glimpse of the serious effects of random microscopic changes in biological life. And it seems that no matter what level changes – genetic, molecular, atomic or – the result is almost always the same: the deterioration, destruction, and in many cases, death.
Does this match what evolutionists have been chewing our ears off for years?
For years we have heard stories about how biological life underwent billions of years of random genetic changes. We've been hearing what happened to some of these changes resulted in beneficial mutations. We've been hearing how these mutations beneficial eventually resulted in new and more complex species. However, when we look at what random genetic changes – or any other random changes to the case – actually do to biological life, we find nothing but disease and death. Where are all beneficial mutations evolutionists have been talking about? Not a single patient has ever developed or passed on to future generations a better biceps, for example, as a result of radiotherapy. Not one of the thousands of survivors bomb victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has developed a more evolved brain, for example, as a result of exposure to radioactivity. Not one person involved in a nuclear reactor accident has developed a sophisticated skin, for example, that is stronger and more durable than average. In almost all cases, mutations random have resulted in chaos and destruction.
Is it possible that modern technology has refuted evolution rather than helped it?
Evolutionists in the past have hidden behind "took billions of years" routine. Before the nuclear age that it was necessary to enter a time machine to see if, given enough time, random mutations that cause life to evolve. However, with the advent of technology capability modern mass to affect the random mutations relatively quickly, there is no need to dig into the past to see the fallacies of artificial support for the evolutionary mutation powers at random. The answer is right in front of us. random mutations in the opposite result of what we believe. They result in nothing but disease and death – no improvement. Moreover, the more massive and prolonged occurrences of these mutations, the more chaos and destruction. So what do you think would happen to a planet subjected to random mutations over billions of years? total annihilation!
When you take what we know as today on a random mutation and try to reconstruct a scenario of those billions of years of supposed history of the earth, instead of the fairytale story of evolution, it comes with a image that increasingly resembles a horrible scene of a "post-nuke 'movie: The
Even if the earth had been populated as early as this period of alleged three and a half million years ago as it is today, and since then has been affected by billions and billions of random mutations, according to what we know today about random mutations, for now life would probably have been virtually destroyed. With random mutation being the most destructive force that seems to be, the process is supposed that have caused life to evolve is what would have resulted, in all likelihood, genetic damage, which few organisms that have survived the ordeal. Moreover, in such circumstances, the "survival of the fittest" concept is totally absurd. The word "set" would have described largely those organisms that were less disease ridden than the rest, far from the species 'best' of evolution. And of the "fit" the survivors, many have gone on genetic diseases to their offspring. Even if the "fit" had not been swept by random mutations, their descendants still have resisted the opportunity to be exterminated by inherited genetic diseases. Then all descendants disease free again be threatened with annihilation when everything started changing cycle again.
So, after billions and billions of years of random mutations, even in the unlikely event that some genes mutated in a way that could have produced some changes ultimately beneficial to the organism, a planet populated and would have been reduced to about few patients life forms, at best. Those few genes beneficial if it could have existed, would have been so overwhelmed by the surprisingly high number of disease genes necessary to produce only a few accidents beneficial, it could never bear any fruit. An organism that have gone long before he had an iota of a chance to change or improve. In a sense, it would land like a planet after a nuclear holocaust.
However, if a planet was started with the life forms are relatively few, like the land that supposedly did, to what extent life have been achieved? I do not mean to what extent have developments. I ie to what extent the few agencies have come before being annihilated by the destructive powers of random mutation? According to what we have actually seen mutations random do in modern times, life never would have come off the ground, let alone proliferated in species with complex and healthy. In all likelihood, the land would have become a desolate planet long ago.
Even the mice mentioned above who were born twice its normal size, as a result Intelligent mutation had a high mortality rate. That is, not only produce random mutations sick lifestyles, but even beneficial mutations may fatal side effects. So how do you think that billions of years of random mutations affect life – even if a few mutations accident beneficial in the way? Initiate a process of evolution? Destruction sounds more like it.
No theoretical framework,
There is no doubt that the Intelligent mutation may make some beneficial changes in the organism or its offspring. There is no doubt that natural hereditary effects can cause a member of a species born "bigger and stronger" than the rest – not as a result of random mutation, but by manifestation of the traits that may have been inactive for generations. There is no doubt that biological systems can adapt to their environment on a macro level. But to say that the adaptation to an environment or any other phenomena natural can lead to random mutations, which in turn produce new or more complex species is totally unfounded. To say that life began with a few forms of life and today became profuse, complex, and overall healthy lifestyles is contrary to everything the twentieth century science has learned so far about the random mutation. Say a one-celled organism evolved into a fish an inch is an unrealistic stretch of the imagination it requires a lot of dishonest and twisted reasoning. Say a human being is the result of an accidental evolutionary process is crazy.
The very fact that there are thousands of millions of healthy lifestyles that exist today actually shows the opposite of what evolutionists believe – that life on earth could not have undergone any massive random genetic changes. And genetic changes evolution is as dead as a fossil.
Moreover, if genetic engineering proves anything, proves that it has a high degree of intelligence and sophistication to do nothing but manipulate existing forms of life. Consequently, the creation or significant improvement, even a species, requires intelligence and sophistication of an even greater degree. The notion that any random genetic process can create new or more complex species is not science, logic, or even a theory – that is a pure figment of the imagination.
A MATHEMATICAL improbability
Even without genetic considerations, the absurdity of evolution may be expressed in terms of simple mathematical probabilities. If for the sake of argument, a process – random mutation – will develop life billions of years and the same process is going to destroy life in a human life, which will happen first? Destruction? No, it will happen first – the only thing that will happen. At the time that life is supposed to develop, will be destroyed, literally millions of times more – nothing can get to the point of development.
Yet the question: "Given account for billions of tries, could a spilled bottle of ink ever fall into the words of Shakespeare? "has become obsolete as a result of understanding modern man random mutation. So far, this issue likely said so astronomical that issued them a virtual impossibility. Now, even is likely to hit a ridiculous question. Now we're playing dice which deteriorate with each release and eventually self-destruct. So we are playing dice (Genetic "messages") that wear out (cause genetic diseases) with each release (random mutations) and eventually self-destruct (the body host). So, instead of, "Can you beat the odds ridiculous?" the question now is, "After this are relatively few, there will be some ink, paper, or dice to the left to try again? "As life itself is supposed to evolve are destroyed in the process, impossible for the process of going for any length of time required. This makes it very questionable, to say the least, a trial and error method of genetic mutations could overcome the odds even realistic – the odds Forgetting absurd proposal by evolutionists. Therefore, if life could develop in an environment (of genetic mutations) when fully developed yet biological systems can not survive is not really a matter of odds as if a cow could survive long enough under water to conceive and give birth – is simply impossible.
EVOLUTION OF ART
The insanity of evolution is also evident in the more aesthetic aspects of man. How could such qualities as art, abstract thinking, and appreciation of music have become on features common to an entire species? According to the mechanical (or pictures) of evolution, would have been a great wonder if these qualities, so it makes no sense for the survival of the purely physical and biological systems that have evolved in only a tiny fraction of a species. However, to be present – to one degree or another – in virtually all human beings? How? This never should have happened.
The existence of such human aesthetic qualities as emotion, humor and intelligence can not be explained biologically, no matter how ridiculous you want to get. Why, for example, nature gives us a sense of humor? How nature even know what a sense of humor was? And how human beings a sense of humor make it "fit to survive? "There are millions of plants and animals without a sense of humor obviously survived. There are even people without a sense of humor that seem to survive. How ever evolving quality
MODERN SCIENCE
Evolution is not the implementation of the theory of the pile. For an unproven theory and outdated is taken more seriously by a large number of people. Those who see through their faulty reasoning, prejudice, misinterpreted the results, and the real challenge common sense and logic, see it as a weak attempt to undermine and tarnish the ideal rational person. Should be placed in the same category as witchcraft and witchcraft. These ideas have one thing common – illogical plausible, they are "understood" only by those determined to believe in them. The difference more significant is that no one has had the gall to call the sorcery and witchcraft science.
It is ironic how, in a nuclear age, some of same people who live in constant fear of life on earth to be catapulted into oblivion by a nuclear holocaust, they may think that one aspect of this highly destructive nuclear force – Random mutation – is the mechanism that brought us here. In the days of Darwin's nothing new about genetics, and certainly nothing about the nature unimaginably destructive of random mutations. But what about today? A theory that originated over a hundred years ago – in times of relative scientific ignorance – should has been abandoned by now. Instead, it appears that the stronger the evidence against evolution, the more some people are determined to believe in it.
SCIENCE FICTION
At this point, there is at least obvious, even to those who have taken seriously the evolution at some point, the scenario proposed crazy by this theory does not work and certainly never have occurred. One even can be disconcerting to a mixture as the development could never have been accepted as science in the first place. I think that if evolution can be called a science, there should be many other equally qualified scientific topics included in science textbooks – The physics behind the vision of Superman X-ray, the story of how the power of speech developed in Mickey Mouse, and the chemical composition of shark Batman Spray repellent. If theories are going to have fun, let's make it really fun.
By Josh Greenberger Get your free book on evolution href = "http://EvolutionDead.com '> EvolutionDead.com
About the Author
Josh Greenberger: A computer consultant for over two decades, the author has developed software for such organizations as NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, AT&T, Charles Schwab, Bell Laboratories and Chase Manhattan Bank. Since 1984, the author’s literary works have appeared in such periodicals as The New York Post, The Daily News, The Village Voice, The Jewish Press, and others. His articles have ranged from humor to scientific to topical events. Visit his site: shopndrop.com
Water Tank Art
|
|
7 Ft Long – Gemmy Christmas Airblown Inflatable – Nativity Scene with 3 Wisemen $169.95 7 Ft long and 5 Ft tall… |
|
|
Fontanini 3 Kings Yard Art – 48 $119.99 169920 Brighten up your holiday season with this delightful yard art. A 2 piece set, this is a great addition for your holiday decor. Fontanini and Roman Lights bring you this 3 Kings Christmas yard art. The perfect alternative to strands and strands of lights throughout your front yard, this item lets you celebrate the holiday season with ease and style. Features: -Beautiful lighted display. -2 … |
|
|
Fontanini by Roman Holy Family Lighted Yard Art, 3-Piece, 48-Inch $119.98 This Holy Family is made from the art of the collectable nativity set of Fontanini. 3 piece set with 210 lights is beautifully painted. 48″ H. x 66″ D. 2D. Indoor outdoor use. Comes complete with ground stakes…. |
