Email dated 16/03/04

I suggest that you do research using sources other than those published by creationists.

Richard Forrest

richard@plesiosaur.com

www.plesiosaur.com


The Theory of Evolution DISPROVED
Most people today have heard of the "theory of evolution" at some point during their grade school years, and assume this theory is fact.
If this is the case, they've been badly taught. The facts are out there in the real world. The theory explains them. This is the nature of theories in science.
Though most people do not know the story behind the theory of evolution, who created the theory, why it is called a "theory", and how this theory is simply that, a THEORY,
See my note on the nature of theories in science above. There is a theory of gravity. That doesn't mean that gravity is simply a THEORY.
which does NOT hold water.
The overwhelmingly vast majority of people who have studied the natural world would disagree with you.
Below is some information we gathered from different sources on the subject which we feel are true.
All I can see below is misleading or downright false information from creationist web sites.
At the bottom of the page is also a link to quotes from Charles Darwin, the creator of the theory of evolution.
Charles Darwin did not 'create the theory of evolution'. He developed the theory of natural selection to explain the overwhelming evidence for evolution in the natural world, and proposed a mechanism which drives it.
His own quotes state that his theory contains "few facts", is purely "hypothetical", is "beyond the bounds of true science", and is "impossible to prove". These quotes alone make the theory of evolution look foolish.
These quotes make the author of this web site look dishonest. They are taken out of context to pretend that Darwin was saying something he did not.
Looking at the rest of the facts below makes it a no-brainer to show that the theory of evolution holds no water. You be the judge!
Before making a judgement, get hold of some facts from non-creationist sources, and read about the scientific explanation for those facts.
The Problem
Throughout the centuries scientists have always argued where life on earth came from. "Creationists" are people who believe we were created by God. People who do not believe there is a God find the idea of life being created by a superior being unthinkable.
Many early (and for that matter, many contemporary) geologists and palaeontologists had a strong belief in God, and were inspired by their faith to explore the natural world as the work of God.
So these people have been forced to try and think of other possible ways how life could exist on earth in so many different forms (from a single cell all the way up to complex life forms called Homo Sapiens or human beings).
The evidence of the natural world is so overwhelmingly strong that the existence of evolution cannot be denied by anyone who has seriously studied the world. This in no way prevents people from believing in God.
The Theory
In the mid 1800's scientists normally examined rocks and fossils (or the "fossil record") to determine what life forms existed during different periods in history.
This started in the middle of the 1700's.
At that time a man named Charles Darwin noticed that in some cases plants and animals showed an ascent of increasing complexity in strata (layers of rock and dirt).
Whoever wrote this has obviously never read much about Darwin. He was a naturalist, not a geologist.
So Charles Darwin assumed the forms higher in the strata physically evolved from the forms lower in the strata.
He based the theory of evolution by natural selection almost entirely on his exhaustive studies of living plants and animals.
In other words, Darwin was saying that over many many years, small living organisms must have evolved into more complex creatures, which evolved into fish, which evolved into birds, which eventually evolved into larger animals, then into people, all by themselves. Charles Darwin then devised a theory in 1859 which stated that there is always a "struggle for existence" among living creatures and that only the fittest survive.
He made the observation, and backed it up with a large amount of evidence.
In addition he stated that nature, over long periods of time, gradually selects and promotes features of increasing complexity and usefulness for survival. He called this built in feature "natural selection".
It's not a 'built-in feature'. It's a consequence of the existence of variation, and selection acting on that variation.
Scientists who did not believe in the creationist point of view (that we were created by God),
Belief in God had nothing to do with it. Evidence of the natural world made the Biblical account of creation impossible to support by anyone with a knowledge of the subject and honesty.
were quick to adopt this new "theory of evolution" (having nothing else to go on at the time),
Several earlier workers had proposed theoretical models of evolution. None of them stood up to rigorous scrutiny as did Darwin's theory.
and a battle between the "Creationists" and "Evolutionists" was born. By the year 1900, this new theory was well accepted by a large number of scientists and the battle between both sides was still ongoing.
By 1900 there were no creationists within the scientific community. There still aren't.
What the Fossil Records Show
Throughout the 1900's scientists continually studied the fossil records to try and determine if the theory of evolution was really the "fact of evolution".
Not at all. Evolution is an observable fact.
If the theory of evolution were fact, then the fossil records would clearly show the gradual transformations over long periods of time that Darwin spoke of.
They do.
But despite intense research for over 100 years since the theory of evolution was proposed by Darwin,
It's nearly 150 years, by the way.
not a single instance of a transitional form has EVER been found in the fossil records.
Complete and utter bunkum. Museums are full of what any reasonable person would call 'transitional forms'.
What the fossil records do show is each life form suddenly appearing, full blown, without any apparent relationship to what went before it.
Completely untrue, as even a brief study of palaeontology will reveal. Try reading Jenny Clack's book, 'Gaining Ground'.
For example, if the theory of evolution were true, then the fossil records would show a smooth transition from one life form to another, such that it would be difficult to tell where invertebrates ended, and vertebrates began.
Which is what we find with conodonts and such like.
Though this is NOT the case.
It is.
Instead, fully formed life forms such as certain classifications of fish, and other life forms suddenly jump into the fossil record seemingly from nowhere,
Utterly untrue.
with illogical gaps before them where their ancestors should be. Evolutionists do not dispute this fact.
Yes they do, because it's not a fact. It's a lie.
Darwin's View On The Gaps In The Fossil Records
Darwin was aware of the gaps in the fossil records though he felt there was more to his theory which explained this. Since human beings can breed living things for special characteristics (i.e. breed sheep for heavier wool, breed horses for extra strength, and roses for color and size), Darwin reasoned that if man could bring about small improvements in living things in such a short period, then nature could surely bring about similar tiny improvements over millions of years in living cells, which could allow them to evolve all the way up to human beings given enough time. In other words, Darwin felt plants and animals could vary to an unlimited degree,
No he didn't! Read the book.
and given a time span of say, a hundred million years, it could close all of the gaps in the fossil records.
Try reading Darwin.
Breeding Limitations
While Darwin expressed plants and animals could vary to an unlimited degree,
He didn't.
breeders were discovering otherwise. They were discovering that even though it was possible to breed a sheep with shorter legs, it was NOT possible to breed a sheep with legs of a rat, or breed a plum the size of a watermelon, or breed a horse with tusks.
Nobody would expect them to! This is a complete misrepresentation.
Each living thing was found to have built in limitations which prevent it from moving too far from the norm.
No they don't
Excessive breeding for a characteristic was also found to result in a reverse back toward a given average, and also resulted in dead end species which were unable to reproduce (like the mule which is a cross between a horse and donkey).
And not the result of selection, natural or otherwise, but hybridisation.
Darwin had no answer for this limitation but continued to believe in his theory anyway.
Read the book
After all, he HAD to believe in something if he was not going to believe in the creationist view, since there were no other views.
There are plenty of other views. The theory of evolution by natural selection was the best explanation of the facts of the natural world.
If Breeding Is Not The Cause Of Evolution, Then Maybe Mutations Are?
A nonsensical question, showing that the author does not have a clear understanding of the theory he is attacking
Since breeding was found to have limitations, this put a road block in the way of the theory of evolution. Though Darwin also felt that if breeding were not the answer, then mutations might be.
Darwin knew nothing about mutations. That knowledge developed after Darwin's death.
In other words, he felt maybe it was possible for forms of life to inherit changes, which could explain changes from one form of life to another over long periods of time.
This is a description of Lamarckism, an earlier theory of evolutionary change which was largely discredited by Darwin's time
Mutations Are Harmful, and Extremely Rare
Creationists and even some evolutionists immediately pointed out that all observed mutations whether laboratory induced or occurring naturally have been harmful.
No they didn't! This is a complete fabrication.
Mutations are basically a copying error or mistake and put the living organism at a disadvantage.
Not necessarily
Disadvantages in mutations may cause things like disease or monstrosities and are never good.
Not so. Look at the role of sickle cell anaemia in preventing malaria.
In addition, mutations have been discovered to be an extremely rare event since genes have built in functions to stabilize and resist change.
Mutations are not rare. Every human carries a hundred or so. Most don't express themselves.
So in other words, mutations are rarely seen and when they do occur, they produce a negative outcome, which cannot be the cause for evolution into new, healthy, more complex living organisms.
Completely untrue
And we still have to take into consideration, why are there gaps in the fossil records?
There aren't
Some quotes regarding the mutation theory can be seen here.
If Evolution Didn't Occur Gradually, Maybe It Occurred Rapidly?
Another meaningless question
Another evolutionist from Harvard named Stephen Gould
It was Stephen J Gould and Nils Eldridge
next proposed a possibility on how evolution could be taking place which he felt may also explain the gaps in the fossil records. He proclaimed that maybe evolution does not occur gradually, but maybe rapidly. He proposed a scheme
A theory
called "punctuated equilibrium" where he mentioned
he proposed
that maybe it was possible that large populations of species live unchanged for millions of years, then for some unknown reason
For a known reason, such as geological changes
some of the species become isolated, and by unknown means
by natural selection
evolve into new species. Thus this new isolated species would appear suddenly in the fossil records, which would explain the gap before them.
None of which invalidates evolutionary theory in any way
Since there were no other explanations which could logically explain the gap in the fossil records,
The non-existent gap which doesn't need much explanation in any case
many evolutionists accepted the "punctuated equilibrium" theory initially.
Many still do. Others don't. That's the way science works
Punctuated Equilibrium Directly Opposes Laws Of Genetics
No it doesn't!
Notice that Gould's proposed "punctuated equilibrium" was filled with "what-if's" and was purely speculation.
It was an attempt to explain the evidence
Creationists immediately made it clear to all that no one had ever seen rapid evolvement of a species and there is no proof of such a thing ever occurring.
This is just another standard creationist lie which has been doing the rounds for decades. It has nothing to do with science.
In addition, "punctuated equilibrium" opposes all known rules of genetics.
No it doesn't
For example, the genetic apparatus of a lizard is devoted 100% to producing another lizard. The idea that such an indescribably complex, finely tuned, highly integrated, amazingly stable genetic apparatus involving hundreds of thousands of interdependent genes could be drastically altered and rapidly reintegrated in such a way that a new organism is actually an improvement over the preceding organism is contrary to all known laws of genetics and is pure speculation and groundless.
Which is why such an event is not proposed.
It's interesting to see that creationists have always stated that gaps in the fossil records are proof of special creation, and now the evolutionists, with the new "punctuated equilibrium" theory, were starting to say that gaps in the fossil records were evidence of evolution!
Balderdash! The gaps in the record have never been offered as 'proof' of evolution.
In a nutshell, up to this point there is no proof of gradual evolution
There is
(over long periods of time)
How can we observe something happening over long periods of time?
and rapid or sudden evolution is indistinguishable from special creation!
No it isn't.
"Natural Selection" Is a Mindless Process
As part of the theory of evolution, Darwin also stated that each time any organism evolves, every stage must be an immediate advantage to the species because "natural selection" is a mindless process with no idea where it is going, so it cannot plan on an end goal.
Yes
Creationists immediately argued that how could many organs of the human body, such as the incredibly complicated human eye, develop bit by bit by chance mutation, not knowing it was going to be an eye? Of what use would a half developed eye be? How could each step have been an advantage until the entire eye was complete?
Darwin provided an excellent explanation in the 'Origin'
How about other parts of a body such as a jaw or a wing? What good is a half of a jaw or half of a wing?
Study the evolutionary development of jaw mechanisms and you'll see.
Some quotes regarding the "natural selection" theory can be seen here.
Is Evolution Occurring Right Now?
Yes
Darwin had always stressed that "survival of the fittest" was an underlying component of his theory of evolution. Though evolutionists cannot identify which aspects are important for survival because survival cannot be seen or proved.
Of course survival can be seen! Are you seriously suggesting that biologists can't tell a live animal from a dead one?
No evolutionist really knows how "natural selection" really works, or if it is currently working.
Yes they do. They have observed it in the field and studied it in the laboratory,
Neither has a "struggle for existence" been found to exist among plants and animals.
If there wasn't a struggle for existence, we'd be buried under a vast heap of ants!
Yet evolutionists continue to preach
They don't preach. They offer it as the best explanation for the natural world
the theory of evolution without any proof of what they are claiming.
With a vast amount of evidence.
Other Claims By Evolutionists
There are several other claims by evolutionists over the past 140 years that have been used as arguments in favor of the theory of evolution. Here are a few of them and evidence that they are false:
Vestigial Organs - Organs such as tonsils and appendix were originally thought to be useless vestiges of organs once used by man's ancestors. At one time there were over 100 vestigial organs listed. All have now been shown to have useful functions.
Untrue.
Another interesting point to be made here is that evolution scientists claim that apes are our closest relatives and that man has vestigial organs that were used once, but are being phased out by evolution. If this is so, then scientists should be able to look at the ape (and other lesser animals) and determine how these vestigial organs were more fully functional.
They do.
But you'll notice no scientist will touch this!
Utter tosh. Try reading a bit of science.

Transitional Forms - Transitional forms have not been found.
For example. at one time the Archaeopteryx, a fossilized bird-like creature, was used as an example of transition from reptile to bird.
It still is
This has since been discredited since many other birds were since found in the same strata,
No they haven't.
many birds from that time were found to have teeth,
All birds from that time had teeth - unlike any modern bird
and many known birds existed at that time that could not fly.
No they didn't
This is one example.

Also see these quotes from others regarding transitional forms.

Neanderthal Man - When the first "Neanderthal Man" was discovered in about 1856, it was thought to be a true link from ape to man. Though well-known biologists such as Virchow and many other scientists and medical authorities since that time have all declared the Neanderthal skull shows signs of severe rickets (a deficiency disease characterized by defective bone growth) which explains why it's appearance is slightly different.
And such theories have been disproved by the evidence from later finds.
Other authorities have also claimed that there have been skulls of modern man found over the last century which look very similar to the Neanderthal Man skull.
Loads more Neandertal skulls have been found.
In addition, there have been instances where the supposed Neanderthal Man was put on display in museums and it was later discovered the bones were misplaced and arranged incorrectly which is what gave it the "hunched" appearance. When this incorrect arrangement was brought to light, it was still left on display as is!
Which is bad museum practice.
The Neanderthal Man was a product of someone's imagination
There are many specimens of Neandertal man. Many scientists have devoted their careers to the study of Neandertal Man.
and we know that man back then was almost indistinguishable from modern man.
Untrue
Quotes regarding Neanderthal Man can be seen here.
Piltdown Man - The "piltdown" skull first was "discovered" in England in 1912 by Charles Dawson. For Forty-one years it was the leading evidence for evolution
No it wasn't
until in 1953 it was discovered to be a forgery.
It's authenticity was questioned from soon after its discovery
It was actually found to be a recent human skull combined with a female orangutan jaw, and was dyed and slightly modified to give it the appearance of age. It's interesting to note how all textbooks before 1953 showed piltdown man in every human's family tree, then one day it was no longer "true". The British Museum has documented other discoveries by Dawson as forgeries as well.
So science makes mistakes and moves on. Sometimes people pursue their careers by dubious means. They are exposed by other scientists.
Java Man - When this was "discovered" in 1891 by Dr. Eugene Dubois, two other skulls were found in the same formation and of the same age which were no different from skulls of modern Australian aborigines.
This is a myth
Dubois formed Java man from a skullcap, thigh bone and teeth, all found within 50 feet of each other and he simply put them together, assuming they were from the same man. Java man was later discredited by the finder himself, Dr. Eugene Dubios,
Untrue.
yet Java man was left in many textbooks.
As a specimen of Homo erectus
As we can see, many scientists who claim "scientific evidence" are simply making guesses.
They are making informed guesses based on the evidence. That's the nature of science.
True science has no place for guessing.
Science couldn't accomplish anything without guessing!
Nebraska Man - In 1922 a tooth was discovered in Nebraska by Dr. Henry Fairfield Osborn
No it wasn't
who examined the tooth and claimed it had characteristics of a man, chimp and Java Man. Years later
Weeks later
it was determined the tooth was actually from an extinct pig.
Which proves what?
Why Have We All Been Taught the Theory Of Evolution as Fact?
Despite the fact that no facts have ever been produced making the "Theory of Evolution"
There is overwhelming evidence
the "Fact of Evolution", many people who simply refuse to believe that God created us,
Which is nothing to do with evolution
have no other choice than to believe the theory of evolution.
Most of the world's Christians have no such problem
It is the best and only thing they have to fall back on.
Nonsense.
Throughout the 1900's there have been numerous trials regarding teaching of evolution, creationism or both in the public schools. The Creationists have always fought to have the Theory of Evolution taught as THEORY, not fact, since it truly is only a theory to this day. The evolutionists on the other hand have always fought to have creationism NOT MENTIONED AT ALL in the schools.
Not mentioned in science classes because it is a theory with no scientific value
They have always refused to have creationism taught as an alternative to evolution.
It isn't
Since many people group creationism into a religious category,
Which it is
and religion was not to be taught in the public schools, evolution came out on top as what was to be taught to children in the public schools.
As it should be
The crime of the matter is that it is taught as FACT when it is ONLY a THEORY.
Should we not teach children about gravity because it is only a theory? Scientific theories are attempts to explain the evidence of observation and experiment.
In addition, the theory of evolution has been taught as fact in every other branch of knowledge
Every other branch of knowledge? Wow!
in the world, to the point where you may be laughed wherever you go in life if you do not believe in the theory.
You'll be laughed at if you expose your ignorance by demonstating that you don't have much understanding neither of the history of evolutionary theory nor of the theory itself in its modern form.
It's been over 140 years since the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted throughout the world, yet to this day we know no more about the origin of species then we did then,
Utter tosh. How about the development of genetics?
and all of the proofs mentioned above have been thrown out by evolutionists.
No proofs of anything have been offered above
And despite all of the facts against each evolutionist argument, the evolutionists continue to grasp at straws and blindly accept a theory which is CLEARLY not fact.
It is the best explanation of the natural world around us, and has proven to be a very robust theory - as robust as any other in science.
* Read quotes from Darwin himself shooting down his own theory here!

Conclusion
According to Sir Julian Huxley, an English biologist and author, he declared that "Darwin's real achievement was to remove the whole idea of God as creator from the sphere of rational discussion." What this means is, man, being descended from animals, is thus freed from being answerable for his own behavior.
No it doesn't, and this is not what Julian Huxley argued. Man is responsible for his own actions.
A few results of this are sexual license, the criminal as victim of society, and the Marxian belief that the end justifies and makes "moral" any means.
Complete and utter rubbish
As Dr. Duane Gish, a famous biochemist
He's only famous in creationist circles,
also points out, "the majority of scientists are atheists or agnostics, so evolution is an essential belief for many of them in that it provides a mechanical explanation of the universe without any spiritual principles."
There are many scientists who find no problem in reconciling their beliefs with the evidence from the natural world
As for creationism, what proof is there that we are created? Belief in creation stems from belief that there is a God. Belief in the existence of God stems from looking at the numerous proofs we see around us, as seen on our Don't Believe in God? page.
This argument is badly flawed. If you believe in God, you do so on the basis of faith, not of evidence. If you demand evidence, you don't have faith.

Comments:

Email exchange:

This site is run entirely in my own time and at my own expense. If you find it valuable, a small donation using PayPal will help me keep it going.
£: