PEPPERED MOTHS LIE: In the early part of the 19th century woodland areas in England became heavily darkened due to industrial pollution. There were dark-colored (melanic) and light-colored (normal) varieties of peppered moths existing together. Before the pollution, there were more normal than melanic because the light lichen on trees made them less susceptible to be eaten by birds. After the pollution had darkened the lichen the light ones became more vulnerable than the dark, so the proportions inverted. After pollution laws were passed, the lichen on the trees became normal again. The proportions--more normal (light-colored) than melanic(dark-colored)--reverted back to what they were before the Industrial Revolutions pollution. The light-colored moths didn’t "acquire" dark melanin. The dark ones didn’t replace the light ones as best suited to survive in their environment, so the neo-Darwinist re-definition of Natural Selection as random mutation never took place. The next issue is, in the 1950's Bernard Kettlewell decided he was going to prove this occurrence was Natural Selection with an experiment. He marked and released equal proportions of the moths during the day, into a polluted woodland in England. As would be expected, on pollution darkened lichen tree bark, the results were the birds favored the light ones. The problem with that is, in the wild, peppered moths don't expose themselves during the day. They stay hidden beneath tree branches, to avoid predators, during the day and come out at night. To make matters worse, he glued dead moths onto pollution covered trees, again during the day, and took photo's for "evidence" of Natural Selection due to random mutation.(1) These fraudulent photos can still be found in some text books and viewed in Google images. The "greatest observed evidence" for Natural Selection was based on a proportional fluctuation in moths caused by man made pollution, a flawed experiment and staged photographs. Well respected evolutionary biologist Dr. Jerry Coyne was "embarrassed", when he learned the peppered moth story he had been teaching for years was a myth. "My own reaction," he wrote, "resembles the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of six, that is was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve." (1)www.theguardian.com/books/2002/may/11/scienceandnature.highereducation
WALKING WHALES LIE; Pakicetus was a wolf like mammal. It had a bone in it's inner ear called an "involucrum" that resembled something found in whales. It was fully terrestrial (lived it's entire life on land) and looked nothing like a whale but neo-Darwinist, desperate for a whale ancestor, tagged it Pakicetus or "Pakistani whale". Ambulocetus, Maiacetus, Kuchicetus and Rodhocetus were extinct variations of sea lions or otters. They were amphibious (lived part of their lives on land and part in the water). They used their hind legs and tail for swimming and their four limbs for walking on land. Basilosaurus and Dorudon were extinct whales that were fully aquatic ( lived their entire lives in the water). Land and amphibious mammals have nostrils for breathing on the front of their heads. Whales have a blowhole on the top of their bodies to breath. The blowhole of a whale is surrounded by thick muscular “lips” that keep the hole tightly closed except when the animal makes a deliberate effort to open it at the surface. Total submersion thus takes less effort for whales than for animals that must actively exclude water from their air passages. Coming onto land is not a natural act for a whale; beached whales die if they're not quickly helped back in the water. Land and amphibious mammals use four legs-tail assisted for amphibians while in water-to move around in their environment. Whales use a fluke to move around in their environment. Land and amphibian mammals can survive without the tip of their tail. Whales can't survive without it. Flukes are flat horizontal lobes at the ends of their tails. Fluke movements are coordinated by a complex system of long, powerful tendons connecting them to specialized muscles in the tail. These are a few of the myriad of changes they would have to undergo. For neo-Darwinist it would take hundreds of millions of random mutations (random variations for traditional Darwinist), to compel a fully terrestrial mammal to turn into a fully aquatic mammal. The biggest problem for the "walking whales" is the empirical evidence--Darwinist refuse to acknowledge--of the fossil record. It's all but complete. Paleontologist have not discovered the fossils of innumerable transitional intermediates, falling between and linking land mammals and aquatic mammals. There are six in the Smithsonian. All the natural history museums in the world should be overflowing with them. With enough imagination anyone can invent a story about how land mammals evolved into whales. But an imaginative story isn't empirical science.
NEO-DARWINIAN IRRELEVANCE; Naturalist Charles Darwin said homology, (similarities in the forelimb bone structures of bats, dolphins and humans) was “evidence of common ancestry”. (1)Neo-Darwinist redefined homology to mean “due to common ancestry”, but still maintainDarwin’s evidence of. Once you interpret it as due to common ancestry you can’t use it as evidence of common ancestry. It becomes circular reasoning: How do we know that feature B is descended from feature A? Because B is homologous to A. How do we know that B is homologous to A? Because B descended from A. As nonsensical as it sounds, Darwin also believed similarities in vertebrate embryos was evidence of common ancestry. What the hell does embryos being similar have to do with every living thing having descended from a common ancestor? Darwin asserted that natural selection was change in species due to random variation. Because it was lacking a mechanism, neo-Darwinist redefined it to changes in species due to random mutation. A mutation has never produced a beneficial trait in a living thing. When a section of DNA code is altered it results in degradation, not improvement. It’s the same as when a section of computer code is altered. Remove one 0 or 1, the entire line of code becomes gibberish. Darwinian speciation (one distinct living, after going through innumerable transitional changes, becoming a completely different distinct living thing) by random variation or mutation has never been observed, so it could be tested repeatedly. A theory that fails the criterion of the scientific method-observing the concept taking place naturally (not manipulated by scientist in a lab) then taking the data learned and putting it through rigorous experimentation for validation-is rejected as not empirically factual. Moths turning into moths, flys turning into flys and bacteria turning into bacteria is not Darwinian speciation. Neo-Darwinist didn’t replace Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, like they claim. Re-defining two concepts of that ridiculous theory is categorically not replacing it with a an entirely new theory, that’s actually grounded by empirical factual science. (1)darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=F373&viewtype=text
HAECKEL'S EMBRYOS LIE; Charles Darwin believed similarities in early vertebrate embryos were-“by far the strongest single class of facts in favor” of his theory-and evidence for common descent from one ancestor saying; “A close similarity in the embryos of widely different animals in the same class...and this similarity reveals community of descent...It is highly probable that with many animals the embryonic or the larval stages show us, more or less completely, the state of the progenitor of the whole group in its adult condition”.(1) Embryologist Ernst Haeckel, a follower of Darwin, decided to provide evidence in the form of embryo drawings, to support the theory. The problem was he faked the drawings to make the embryos look almost identical.(2) Stephen Jay Gould said in Natural History that Haeckel, "exaggerated the similarities by idealization and omissions", and his drawings were characterized by "inaccuracies and outright falsification." The exaggerated pharyngeal folds in their neck regions are not “gill slits”. The resemblance is deceptively illusory. They’re simply clefts or pouches that develop into other structures entirely (such as the inner ear and parathyroid gland.) They’re not even gills in pharyngeal-stage fish embryos. They develop later into gills. Darwin credited Haeckel, in later editions of the Origin of Species, with validating his assumption saying, “He brought his great knowledge and abilities to bear on what he calls phylogeny, of all organic beings. In drawing up the several series he trusts chiefly to embryological characters.”(1) In 1997 embryologist Michael Richardson and an international team of biologist compared Haeckels drawings with photos of actual embryos.(3) They discovered major inconsistencies. Richardson also noted that, even though they still look nothing alike, Haeckel used embryos midway through development. By the logic of Darwin’s argument, the “early” stages should be the most similar, not the “midway” stage. In an interview for The journal Science, Richardson said, “It looks like it’s turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology.”(4) Haeckel’s faked drawings, along with Kettlewell's staged peppered moth photos, are still used in some textbooks and can still be viewed in Google images. (1) darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=F373&viewtype=text (2)upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Haeckel_drawings.jpg/250px-Haeckel_drawings.jpg (3) ncse.com/files/images/richardsonvhaeckel.img_assist_custom.jpg (4) science.sciencemag.org/content/277/5331/1435.1
TREE OF LIFE LIE; Darwin pictured the history of life as a tree, with the universal common ancestor as its root and every living.thing that has existed as its branches. He called this the “great Tree of Life”. Around 530 million years ago, the beginning of the Cambrian period, thousands of highly complex, fully developed animals appeared abruptly on the earth. The biological structure of a Cambrian trilobite was as complex and sophisticated as a modern crab. It's organs included a brain, gut, heart and compound eyes. each organ was constructed from specific types of cells. Each cell type was made from dozens of specialized protein molecules, and each protein was assembled from a 4 letter chemical code in a section of DNA called a gene. This was counter intuitive to Darwin’s “bottom up” scenario of how life started, but he acknowledged it anyway saying: "There is another and allied difficulty, which is much graver. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group, suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks (The Cambrian strata).(1) Zoologist Richard Dawkins on the Cambrian animals: “it is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.” Darwin believed progressive ancestors would be found in the pre-Cambrian strata saying it must have been “A world swarming with living creatures." (1) The only living creatures paleontologist have found in it, are exquisitely preserved (this refutes Darwinist claim that soft bodied fossils haven’t been preserved) strange single celled organisms that appear around 3.5 billion years ago and went extinct right before the Cambrian. Another guess was they would be found someplace deep beneath the oceans. In the 20th century new technologies led to empirical conclusions. The oil company’s started to drill offshores. They brought up what are called drill cores and inside the cores they found fossils from the Jurassic. That meant the oldest rocks on the sea floor only date back to the Jurassic period. They’re hundreds of millions of years younger than the rocks below the Cambrian strata. The Cambrian rock strata was moved above sea level by tectonic plates colliding together. The Cambrian event happened at six different places--Wales, Canada, Siberia, South Australia , Greenland and China--around the world at the same time. This fact destroys Darwin's proposition that life started with one progenitor, one time at one location on the earth. The empirical evidence of the fossil record doesn’t present a "tree" of life-A single simple common ancestor growing more complex and branching out with diversity. Instead it reveals life as a “lawn”-thousands of complex living things right from the start maintaining genetic stability through every geological period, with no intermediates falling between and linking any two. (1) darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=F373&viewtype=text
