Digging in to Darwinism


The purpose of this blog is to illustrate what happens when a theory (in this case Darwinism) is "put under the microscope of scrutiny". The point is not to prove that Darwin was completely wrong or to say that theses examples are sole evidence his theory.  This is merely to show that science makes mistakes.


Here are the original theories/discoveries:


In 1953 Stanley Miller of University of Chicago created a reproduction of the primitive earth and its atmosphere and with a little electricity emerged amino acids, the building blocks of life. This proved that that life could have spontaneously arisen in the chemical oceans of our ancient planet.


Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species" theory or tree of life accounts for the millions of species that came from this life over vast expansions of time. Organisms slowly change to become new specie.


Biologist Ernst Haeckel sketched embryos of a variety of different species and established that they all appear very similar in their earliest developmental stages.


A 150 million year old fossil called the archaeopteryx was discovered which resembled a lizard-like bird. This is known as the missing link between reptiles and today's birds.


Here is the investigation:


Lets go back to Stanley Miller. Nobody knows for certain what our ancient atmosphere looked like, but recent agreement in science shows it is nothing like the one Miller used. If he recreated the experiment in a more accurate atmosphere, the organic molecules created would not be amino acids, rather formaldehyde and cyanide, which would kill proteins and embryos. If amino acids were to form on the earth they would still be extremely far from producing a living cell.


Next is Darwin's tree of life where organisms change into new specie over time. Fossil records, however, show nothing even close to this. Something called the Cambrian explosion totally disproves it. The Cambrian explosion refers to the fossil record where arthropods, echinoderms, and chordates almost instantly appeared out of nowhere without any evolutionary history. It is often argued that pre-Cambrian fossil evidence of ancestry is non-existent due to animals with no shells or bones to fossilize, but that can't be valid because we have found soft bodied organisms from the pre-Cambrian era as well as from the Cambrian explosion itself and there are also many microfossils from before the Cambrian era. Millions of fossils have been dug up already and still no evidence of ancestry links.

Scientists today are focusing on molecules to find similar features and common ancestry. To do this, they take a molecule basic to life, like ribosomal RNA, and examine it two different animals to find an equivalent link. If there are similarities then theoretically they are common ancestors and you can form a 'tree'. But if you take another aspect of the animals, like anatomy, you get a completely different tree. There is no consistency. However textbooks still call Darwin's tree of life theory a fact when in reality it is not even a good hypothesis at today's level of knowledge.

Third is Haeckel's Embryo sketches. The similarities between the early embryo sketches look shockingly similar. As it turns out, these similarities were faked. Haeckel was so sure of his theory that he didn't bother to make separate drawings for some of the organisms. He also doctored other drawings to make them look more similar. This was discovered in the 1860's and is known to evolutionary specialists. Haeckel also "cherry-picked" his examples, picking the embryos that best supported his theory.  Haeckel's final flaw was that his sketches labeled as early embryos were actually mid stage, when in reality the early stage embryos look nothing like each other. One last point is that humans share 98-99% of their genes, which shows common ancestry.  Referring to Darwin's theory, the drastic differences in humans and apes are therefore due to the 2% of the genes, but this 2% is trivial genes that have almost nothing to do with anatomy.

Finally we have the archaeopteryx: half-bird/ half-reptile. Turns out that it is 100% bird. Birds differ greatly from reptiles. Their breeding system, bone structure, lungs, and weight and muscle distribution are totally different. In 1985 the archaeopteryx was classified officially as an extinct member of bird, not an ancestor of birds.  Another interesting part to the archaeopteryx story, involves a branch of evolutionary theory called cladistics. Cladistics is somewhat of an extreme form of Darwinian theory. Cladists define homology (physical similarities), as the result of common ancestry. Then they group animals in the evolutionary tree by their homologies. Looking back into fossil records, they figure birds come from reptiles by descent, and they search for reptiles that resemble a more bird-like skeletal structure. Where they found these bird-like reptile fossils were from tens of millions of years after the archaeopteryx. This means the missing link between reptiles and birds is still missing because it is not possible that these recent bird-like reptile fossils could have evolved into birds with such short notice.

The archaeopteryx







Leave a comment

Subscribe to receive notifications of follow up comments via email.
We are processing your request. If you don't see any confirmation within 30 seconds, please reload your page.

Search This Blog

Full Text  Tag

Recent Entries

My name is __ and I am an Addict
No matter how old I get I cannot stop the habit of biting my fingernails. I have tried everything…
Sleep is for the Weak
Over Thanksgiving break, I have been sleeping for almost 12 hours a night. I have actually done more sleeping than…
Dream Weaving
Dreams can be so puzzling sometimes. Why do we dream? Why are the dreams we have so vivid sometimes, and…

Old Contributions