Sunday, May 26, 2013


Darwinian Evolution is based on the idea that one species changes into another by a series of small steps. After 150 years of research, the fossil record shows the opposite. It only shows distinct species. There are, for example, major differences between humans and apes. In our search for the missing link, the 'were-ape', all the bones and fossils have eventually been shown to be clearly ape or human. There are no intermediaries.

As regards the mechanism for evolution, natural selection only produces limited variability (as selective breeding by humans over long periods has shown - where are the new species?) And there is no evidence for mutations 'evolving' a species - if anything, the opposite, in that mutations are by and large deleterious.

Darwinian evolution requires vast time scales (because of its gradual, blind-chance mechanism). Fossils are understood to have been gradually laid down over tens of millions of years. But the sedimentation process by which rocks are said to be laid down cannot be observed today. And how could a fossil be laid down except in a sudden event? If it was a gradual event, it would get eaten or eroded away. Moreover, dating methods have a lot of issues. The earth may be a lot younger than we think.

And then the origin of life by chance from the primordial soup is so unlikely as to be impossible. Not only do you need complex proteins, but they have to be wrapped in a protective coating to survive as well as needing to be self-replicating.

Evolution has become a cornerstone of the way we think. It is one of our 2 Creation Myths (along with the Big Bang). Sooner or later it will be shown up for the half-baked theory that it is. We do not have a replacement theory.

I've got these ideas from a book by Richard Milton (who according to Prof Richard Dawkins "needs psychiatric help"), 'Shattering the Myths of Darwinism'.

And here's a link to Milton on youtube:

What I like about him is his use of reason and evidence. So much 'alternative' stuff around humanity being seeded from space etc (which of course is possible), or conspiracy theories, lacks this sort of integrity. So it's refreshing.


Unknown said...

I'll just deal with your first paragraph. Were you somehow expecting to find a fossil of something that isn't a species? Of course fossils are all species, what else could they be? As far as no intermediaries between apes and humans (or more correctly, between humans and their common ancestor with apes), of course all the fossils are either apes or human. Anthropologists look for certain traits and will classify a given fossil as an ape or human, depending on which traits he observes. There are no other choices! The key factor is that there are a number of fossils which different anthropologists classify differently, some say ape, some say human. That's pretty much the definition of "intermediate".

Barry Goddard said...

No, it's not that. With apes and humans, for example, the head is set at a very different angle on the neck. There are no fossil intermediaries, which you'd expect with gradual evolution.

Of course there will be differences of opinion, particularly with recent finds, but they all seem to come down eventually on one side or the other. And I'd imagine it's because fossils tend to be fragmentary, rather than because there is eg an intermediate positioning of the head on the neck, none of which seem to have been found so far.

Unknown said...

As I said, they will virtually all come down on one side or the other, that is inevitable. There are gaps in the fossil record (which is also expected) so any one trait might not show a continuous progression. But some traits might show a progression between some fossils and other traits would show it between other fossils. Taken together, they produce a fairly complete set even if not perfect. If there had been no evolution, you would not expect a progression of any trait at all.

Unknown said...

Interesting. Part of the problem is that evolution can be viewed as a slow process and one thing slowly moves to the next. Or, evolution can be viewed as a "jump" process in which no intermidiate steps are needed.
It is one of our current "creation" myhts. It works, but it is also partial.
Science still has much to learn and reveal.

Barry Goddard said...

The thing is there is no mechanism for the jump model, but the evidence points to it. As well as to some kind of design at work. The present understanding of blind chance seems to me ridiculous! DR

Unknown said...

I have never seen any evidence that called for a "jump" model. There is some evidence that evolutionary pressure can be very chaotic, leading to the theory of "punctuated equilibrium", where there are periods of relatively slow evolution and periods of rapid evolution. This is not universally accepted however and does not call for any "jump" model.

Anonymous said...

Evolution doesn't have any idea of superiority. It does not place humans on any pedestal whatsoever. In fact, that's one of the things I loved about it when I studied it in college. Everything alive has succeeded. All it does is merely observe that whatever is still alive has been successful! It could be less advanced or more advanced or unchanged. Whatever it is, the way it is has allowed it to survive. You might be surprised if you met some real Evolutionary biologists. They aren't proselytizing, they more confused about why it's such a big deal than being dogmatic about it.

Anonymous said...

"The thing is there is no mechanism for the jump model, but the evidence points to it."

The theory is called Puntuated Equilibrium and it's well known and taught alongside other theories of Evolution at the University level.

Onyxqueen said...