Copy Link

Add to Bookmark

Report

The origins of life

@robot

Published in

Nature

· 2 years ago

critical study of evolutionary theories

Last revision: January 18, 2002

Evolution

Everyone is probably familiar with the term "theory of evolution". It is taught in school texts as an unequivocal fact; commentaries on documentaries, literature, cinema, television and newspapers are permeated by it.

In order to avoid confusion, it is good to distinguish between biological evolution and the theory of evolution. The term evolution generically defines the process - the variations in the genetic heritage of a population, which occurred over time - while the term evolutionism defines the "theory", or more correctly the ideology, according to which all living organisms derive by transformation from others of past ages.

Evolutionism is almost always presented as an exact science, widely supported by findings and research, and accepted by all scientists. In reality, biological evolution as an explanation of the origins of life is neither a theory nor a fact, but is a mere a priori assumption.

In nature, evolution takes place and ends in the same organism; it does not produce new characteristics, but consists in the manifestation or suppression of already existing characteristics. It is a natural phenomenon observed, measured and repeated, and therefore scientifically verified.

The artificial selection made by breeders is an example of such variations: the animals are selected on the basis of particular traits or characteristics, in order to produce a variation in the breed that can make it, for example, more useful or more aesthetically pleasing.

This does not mean that new traits are developed, only that genetic information is rearranged and the most useful traits are favored.

In essence, therefore, no new genetic information is produced; the pre-existing ones are simply "reorganized", forming new combinations, however limited, as predicted by Mendel's laws on genetics.

By extrapolation, evolutionists postulate the production of new traits in living organisms over very long periods of time, of new species, thanks to evolution. According to this theory, all forms of life would descend from common ancestors: the "bricks" of life would have arisen from the interaction of inert elements, and the first microorganism would have evolved over billions of years into increasingly complex life forms. - from amoeba to invertebrate, to amphibian, reptile, quadruped, monkey, and finally to man. In practice, it consists in assuming that evolution within the race is proof of the hypothetical evolution from one race to another. This type of evolution is called macroevolution.

Despite the fact that macroevolution has never been scientifically proven (for a theory to be considered scientifically valid, it must be observable, measurable, and repeatable; evolutionary theory does not meet any of these three requirements), and despite the fact that it does not there is no scientific basis to justify the extrapolation of macroevolution from the evolution observed in nature, even in the course of billions of years, this doctrine is quietly inculcated in a dogmatic way to students, and often violently defended, contesting and not infrequently censoring every voice "out of the chorus".

According to the evolutionary model, everything that can be observed today is the result of random events and very long periods of time. There is no other reality outside of nature; there is no purpose or creator in the universe, but everything originated from naturalistic and mechanistic processes typical of inanimate matter (philosophical materialism). The idea of a supernatural intervention is rejected a priori, as well as any explanation that points in the opposite direction to evolutionism. There are no "fixed" species; plants and animals (including man) descend from the same parent organism, which in turn originated by chance from the chemical elements present in the primordial atmosphere.

Undoubtedly, recognizing the evolutionary theory as false would mean having to consider the only other possibility: that of a creation that is not the result of chance, but produced and guided by an intelligent will for a specific purpose, together with all the laws that they rule the universe.

According to this model, life, in all its nuances and expressions, is not the result of naturalistic processes that occurred by chance. Plants, animals, and humans were created as distinct species, which are not related to each other by any kind of kinship.

Big Bang

To try to explain the origins of the entire universe, with everything it contains, and the laws that govern it, evolutionists have postulated an event known as the "Big Bang" (literally, "great explosion").

According to this theory - of which there are several variants - all the mass and all the energy of the universe were once located in the same point, reduced to an infinitesimally small volume; or, to use an evolutionist's definition: "the entire observable universe was smaller than a single atom" (Crowell).

This condition is called "singularity"; it would then explode giving rise to galaxies, individual stars and planets, and ultimately life. Furthermore, the explosion would have created time and space, which, according to this theory, did not exist before the Big Bang.

As can be seen, the Singularity condition requires - and yet does not satisfy - the notion of perfect order.

To try to justify the tremendous density of the mass, it was hypothesized that the latter existed in the form of extremely compressed hydrogen; this, of course, does not explain where and how the hydrogen appeared. It can be seen that, in fact, none of the many variations of the Big Bang theory explains how the Singularity originated, which constitutes a clear violation of the law of conservation of matter and energy (the first law of thermodynamics states that energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed: their state can change, but their total quantity in the universe is constant).

Then to affirm that the condition of Singularity occurred because space and time did not exist before the Big Bang is mere definitional tautology. The very idea that neither space nor time could have existed before the Big Bang implies a condition of stability; as there is no possibility of change, the Big Bang itself cannot have occurred.

If the expansion of the hypothetical Big Bang is ascribed to the formation of galaxies, stars, planets, and the creation of proteins, DNA, microorganisms capable of replicating, up to the forms of life that are known today, a continuous increase of organization and complexity of new information; this is in clear contradiction with the most elementary laws of science.

Beyond any other possible speculation, the fact remains that this theory cannot be confirmed or tested experimentally. The Big Bang is therefore nothing more than a speculation, hovering between science and philosophy, and contrary to some of the fundamental laws of science.

Background radiation and redshift

Supporters of the Big Bang theory often resort to two phenomena that should confirm it: the existence of the cosmic microwave background - hypothetically resulting from the "great explosion" - and the redshift - which should demonstrate the gradual recession of the stars, and then prove that the explosion actually occurred billions of years ago.

The cosmic microwave background actually appears to simply come from the stars and galaxies that surround us. It does not come from a single point - that is, from the alleged origin of the Big Bang - but is isotropic. It is also considerably weaker than predicted by theory, has a much lower temperature than predicted, and is excessively uniform.

According to William Corliss, "recent measurements of density fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background do not show fluctuations greater than 2.5 parts in 100,000. No galaxy could be born from such a small fluctuation - not even in 15 billion years."

The other phenomenon, the redshift, concerns the distancing motions of galaxies. Put simply, redshift is the phenomenon that makes objects that move away from the observer appear more red in color.

If the Doppler effect were the only cause of the spectral redshift - as evolutionists believe - this would show that the universe is expanding, due to the explosion of the Big Bang.

But there are two other causes of redshift confirmed by science, which are able to explain the phenomenon in a more convincing way: the gradual slowdown of light in traveling long distances, and the loss of energy by light when it passes in the vicinity of large gravitational fields such as those of stars.

The prediction that the light emitted by a source with a strong gravitational field should tend towards red was formulated by Albert Einstein, and experimentally verified by Walter Adams.

Moreover, the research on redshifts due to the Doppler effect has produced unbelievable results: applying this theory, the quasars would be excessively bright (according to the inverse square law), and more than 30 recently discovered quasars would move away from us at an impressive speed. up to eight times that of light.

Biogenesis: the birth of life

According to evolutionary scientists, the "recipe" for life is relatively simple: light, water, heat, atmosphere, and organic molecules.

In the particular conditions postulated by evolutionists, life would have arisen from the inert elements present on Earth following the Big Bang (abiogenesis).
This hypothesis is contrary to Pasteur's law of biogenesis, which proves that life can only arise from life - and not, therefore, from inert matter. Furthermore, the spontaneous generation of life from inorganic matter has never been observed, regardless of the conditions of the environment or the amount of time elapsed.

Some evolutionists, to circumvent the problems of abiogenesis, consider it an axiomatic fact that a form of life capable of replicating itself has existed in the past, but failing to explain its origin.

The very primordial atmosphere postulated by evolutionary theory presents problems.
If oxygen did not exist, then ozone (which is another molecular form of oxygen) could not have existed. In the absence of an ozone layer to protect the earth, the ultraviolet radiation produced by the sun would have destroyed primordial life forms.

If, on the other hand, oxygen existed in the atmosphere, the first amino acids could not have produced life, as they were destroyed by oxidation by the oxygen present in the atmosphere.

The theory of the so-called "primordial soup", developed in the first half of the 1900s, predicts the birth of life from organic molecules spontaneously produced in the atmosphere by the interaction of chemical elements with solar energy, and incubated by the oceans.

Numerous scientists have tried to test this theory in the laboratory - Robertson and Miller, Rebek, Lee, and the Nagaoka researchers - but none of these experiments have been able to produce concrete results that can explain the complexity and large amount of information of the polymers that constitute living organisms (for a discussion of these experiments consult the articles listed in the external links section).

The Miller-Urey experiment

Miller and Urey's experiment is perhaps the best known, and one of the first of its kind. The hypothesized primordial conditions were recreated in the laboratory: the atmosphere was simulated by gases such as methane, ammonia and hydrogen, while the ocean was simulated by water vapor. The gases were made to pass through by electrical discharges, and the production of some amino acids (organic compounds) resulted.

The emphasis is usually placed on the production of amino acids, but it is not emphasized that in this and other similar experiments racemic mixtures (in equal quantities) of right and left-handed amino acids were produced.

In nature, almost all the amino acids that make up proteins are left-handed, while the nucleic acids are exclusively right-handed. No life form can arise from any combination of both; even a single dextrorotatory amino acid, added to a chain of left-handed amino acids, can modify the protein making it inactive biologically.

To assert that the experiments have produced life is at least wrong: to produce proteins it is not at all sufficient to produce some amino acids, but long chains of amino acids are necessary, ordered in the correct way and in the exact form.

Beyond that, the experiments were conducted with unacceptable levels of human interference. For example, that same energy source used to make amino acids would have destroyed them if Miller hadn't artificially removed them.

Furthermore, the problem remains of explaining how the different elements could have been aggregated in nature in the same area and combined correctly into proteins, rather than simply producing isolated amino acids.

Some reflections on biogenesis

The condition required for amino acids to form proteins is a high concentration, while environments such as the ocean or the atmosphere, on the other hand, should cause dilution. Furthermore, amino acids do not have a natural tendency to form proteins, but on the contrary, proteins tend to "break down" into amino acids.

The same sources of energy that should have formed proteins (electrical discharges, terrestrial heat, solar radiation) would have destroyed life instead of creating it. Miller himself, who worked with energies of a level well below that of lightning, had to resort to the removal of the amino acids produced by a cold trap, in order to avoid their destruction.

Even assuming that the proteins could have been produced by random events, there is not the remotest possibility of believing that they could have formed living cells with a membrane, with their own metabolism, and able to reproduce themselves. No scientist has ever shown that this increase in complexity is possible and that it could have occurred, even assuming the presence of a number of proteins thousands of times higher than that proposed by evolutionists.

Natural selection

By natural selection we mean the fact that some varieties of living organisms are able to contribute more effectively than others to future generations through their offspring.

Natural selection operates on pre-existing characteristics, but cannot produce new ones. The very word "selection" implies a reduction, not an increase.

An example is the development of resistance by bacteria to antibiotics such as Streptomycin. Many mistakenly believe that this resistance is the result of the "evolution" of the bacterium in response to the antibiotic. This type of mutation consists of changes in the surface of the organism's ribosome, a loss of specificity that prevents the antibiotic molecule from "hooking" it and producing its effects. It is therefore not a question of "evolution", but of the loss of information.

Selection does not produce new functions, organs, or characteristics, nor is it able to justify the dizzying increase in information necessary for macroevolution, as it always implies a loss of information, and never a gain.

Mutations

Mutations are believed by evolutionists to be able to explain the common ancestry of all life forms from a single ancestor, through variations in the genetic makeup.

A mutation occurs when a cell fails to reproduce the genetic code. Although the cell is able to correct these errors in the copied genes, some of them may be incorrect.
The effect of mutations is random: they may have no effect, or produce imperceptible effects, or have significant effects on the organism.

However, these are genetic errors, random, unpredictable, unable to generate new characteristics.

A well-known example is Drosophila melanogaster (the common fruit fly), bred for decades by geneticists in order to study its mutations, and also subjected to experiments with ionizing radiation in order to produce large quantities of mutations. Thousands of mutations, useless or harmful, have been identified and observed, but none have produced "new" insects or new characteristics.

Sometimes mutations, together with natural selection, can produce useful effects for the survival of an organism; one example is the wingless insects observed on the island of Madeira. Being a windy region, the wings would have represented a disadvantage for the life of the insects. Probably, therefore, winged insects did not survive due to the wind and could not propagate their genes, while those without wings could contribute significantly with their genetic heritage to subsequent generations.

Natural selection, however, does not add new information to the genetic makeup, but inevitably removes it. In the absence of wind, those insects could not regain their lost function.

Complexity

Many molecules necessary for life, such as DNA, RNA, and proteins, are of such a high degree of complexity that it appears extremely unlikely that they could have been created by evolution. Furthermore, there is no experimental support for these claims.

Even assuming that billions of years have passed from the birth of life to the present, evolutionary theory is unable to explain how the impressive complexity of the human brain, with its over one hundred trillion connections, can be obtained through evolution, or that of the eye, the auditory system, or the heart.

The complexity of the organization of eukaryotic cells is so much greater than that of prokaryotes that it is rather difficult to imagine how evolution from bacterium to plants, animals and humans could have been possible (Hickman, Bergman, et al).

Furthermore, all known forms of life, from the simplest microorganism to the human being, use ATP, a molecule of irreducible complexity as it cannot function if simplified (Behe).

How even the simplest primordial life form could have survived without this molecule is another question that proponents of abiogenesis must answer.

DNA itself cannot function without at least 75 proteins (including 55 only for ribosomes), which are however produced only by DNA, as their genetic code is carried precisely by nucleic acid molecules (Dickerson, Scientific American, September 1978). One needs the other, yet one cannot have existed, or evolved, before the other.

Evolutionary theory, by rejecting the existence of a creator, does not provide an alternative answer to this question.

Research has shown that some RNA molecules have the ability to function as enzymes; however they are not able to replicate themselves, so it is not possible to use this argument in evolutionary research (Joyce, Orgel).

Classical thermodynamics: considerations

Ilya Prigogine, Nobel laureate in physics for his work on thermodynamics, stated that "... the probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules have assembled to give life to the extremely ordered structures and coordinated functions that characterize organisms living is practically nothing".

The first law of thermodynamics states that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Mass and energy can change, one can be converted into the other, but the total amount of mass and energy remains constant. It is therefore not possible that the universe, and life with it, "appeared" by chance.

On the basis of the second law of thermodynamics it is possible to affirm that there is a natural tendency in all observed systems left to themselves, to dissipate energy and organization, and therefore to pass from order to disorder.

Instead of tending towards the degree of organization and complexity of the earth, of the stars, and of every known form of life, everything therefore tends towards a gradual disorder.

The increase in information and organization postulated by evolutionists, as indispensable for the birth of the first form of life and its evolution from microorganism to ever more organized forms of life, is a clear violation of this law.

Neither natural selection, nor the reorganization of information in the genetic patrimony, nor the influence of factors of the external environment can produce an increase in information or organization; none of these factors is adequate to explain the diversity and complexity of existing life forms.

Evolutionists often object that the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed (isolated) systems, and that the Earth is instead an open system, since the sun is an external energy source.

In reality, an open system is not in itself a sufficient condition to maintain order; the energy received from the sun is uncontrolled, so instead of generating organization, it accelerates entropy (degradation). It is not enough that there is energy; it must be converted into usable energy, as is the case for plants, for example.

There are special cases - such as crystallization - in which the local order can increase; this happens, however, at the expense of other areas where it decreases. All systems, open or closed, therefore tend to deteriorate.

George Simpson, one of the most famous evolutionary scientists, has confirmed that "the simple supply of energy is not enough to develop and maintain order".

John Ross, an evolutionary researcher at Harvard University, wrote: "... there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. It is customary to apply the second law to isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems".

And, referring to the notion that the second law does not apply to open systems, he adds: "It is important to make sure that this mistake is not repeated" (Chemical and Engineering News, July 1980).

The intervention of an intelligence external to the system is therefore necessary in order to justify the creation of both inanimate matter and life, and the increase in information and order necessary to explain everything that can be observed in the universe.

Fossils and evolution

If life has continually evolved from one species to another, as evolutionists argue, billions of transitional fossils between all living species should have been found, that is, forms of life so to speak intermediate in which evolution can be ascertained. of a stroke (for example an organ or a limb) in another.

Although a very large number of fossils have been discovered up to now, however, the transitional forms necessary to validate the evolutionary theory have not been found; in particular the transitions from inorganic matter to metazoans, from metazoans to invertebrates, from invertebrates to fish, from fish to amphibians, from amphibians to reptiles, from reptiles to birds, from birds to quadrupeds, from quadrupeds to monkeys, and from monkeys to man.

The only changes that can be observed in fossils simply involve variations within the species under consideration.

However, there are several speculations on this: the sequences obtained by arranging fossils belonging to different species in an imaginary order are well known and considered scientific truths by eminent scientists, scientific journals and virtually all textbooks; in reality these are mere conjectures not supported by any factual data.

Patterson, an evolutionist, said: "It's easy to make up stories about how one form gave rise to another ... But such stories are not part of science, as there is no way to test them."

Darwin himself admitted: "... there must have been innumerable forms of transition, why don't we find them in very large quantities? ... why aren't all the layers and geological formations full of them? ... this is perhaps the objection most obvious and serious that can be done against the theory [of evolution]".

Darwin then believed that the lack of transitional forms was due to the insufficient number of fossils collected up to that point, and predicted that they would be found over time. 150 years since then, with over 200 million cataloged specimens belonging to about 250,000 fossil species, many evolutionary paleontologists, such as Stanley, believe that the number of fossils collected is sufficient (Bird).

According to Stanley, an established evolutionist, "the fossil record has not documented a single example of phylogenetic evolution resulting in a visible morphological transition, and therefore offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be held valid".

Another evolutionist, Kitts, echoes him: "the fossil records do not even provide evidence in support of Darwinian theory, except that in the weakest sense they are compatible with that theory, as well as with other evolutionary, revolutionary theories ... and even with those not historically compatible ".

Many other well-known evolutionary scientists - such as Simpson, Gould, Cutler, Ridley, Raup, Eldredge, West - have expressed their doubts on the gradualist model, asserting that there is no evidence of morphological transitions such as to confirm macroevolution, or simply by stating the lack of verifiable evidence.

"Contrary to what many scientists claim, fossils do not confirm the Darwinian theory of evolution, because this is the theory we use to interpret the collected fossils" (West).

But the transitional species are not the only "missing links" of evolutionism: for one species to have evolved into another, as hypothesized, it is necessary that the transitions have also affected the organs. Among the many observable species there are no examples of partially developed elements such as eyes, vital organs and internal or external systems. The survival of an organism under these conditions, both today and in the past, would be impossible (Szent-Gyorgyi, biochemist, twice Nobel Prize winner), and even if it had lived it would have died quickly, or isolated by natural selection, and therefore unable to transmit their genes to the new generations.

Punctuated balances

Gould, a well-known paleontologist and firm supporter of evolutionism, admitted the groundlessness of the gradual evolution postulated by Darwin, which he defined as "the result of the political and cultural prejudices of the nineteenth century".

Eldredge, an evolutionist and collaborator of Gould, claimed that it had become "abundantly clear" that the fossil record could not confirm Darwin's prediction, and that they simply proved that this prediction was wrong.

Eldredge admitted, "It is paleontologists - my own race - who are most responsible for letting ideas like these dominate reality ... We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation [gradual variations by adaptation] , even knowing that this is not the case ".

Gould and Eldredge then proposed an alternative theory, that of punctuated equilibria.
It basically consists in interpreting the fossil evidence in such a way as to demonstrate that the various species have existed for long periods without significant variations (phase of equilibrium). When a small group of individuals separated from the rest of their peers and moved to a new environment, the evolutionary change took place rapidly (point-out phase).

There are also other theories similar to that of punctuated equilibria - for example Simpson's quantum speciation - developed to justify the discontinuities recorded by the paleontological documentation.

In all of them, however, the same problem can still be found: the absence of forms of transition. Moreover, the long periods of stability presupposed imply a very abundant presence of transition fossils.

Transitional fossils: from ape to man?

The interpretation of the fossil record is invariably influenced by the assumptions of the examiners; in the case of evolutionists, the assumption is that evolutionism is a fact. Everything must then somehow be forced to be part of that predetermined pattern.

The so-called "Piltdown man" (eoanthropus), represented for decades in textbooks, turned out to be the joke of a natural history museum employee.

Lewin, an evolutionist, commented: "How can it happen that scientists, the greatest experts of their time, observe pieces of modern human bones - the fragments of the skull - and 'see' in them clear evidence of something ape; and Do they 'see' in the jaw of a monkey the irrefutable signs of the human being? The answer, inevitably, has to do with the expectations of scientists and their effect on the interpretation of the data.".

The success of this fraud, perpetrated for more than 40 years, despite the research of the greatest world authorities, led Zuckerman to say: "One wonders if there is something scientific in the search for human origins in fossils"; "... for a scientist whose imagination is fueled by a desire to find ancestors [of man], the variations between ape fossils are sufficient for him to choose features in an ape fossil and decide that they are 'pre-human' ".

Even the hesperopithecus, also called "Nebraska man", considered an "irrefutable proof of the animal origins of man", was reconstructed by the imagination of scientists based on the only remnant: a tooth, which turned out to be that of an extinct peccary (wild boar-like animal).

Richard Leakey - famous evolutionary anthropologist, and son of those same Leakeys who discovered the fragments of what was baptized "homo habilis" (which turned out to be an australopithecus) - some years ago stated: "To date, nothing has been discovered that really makes sense as a transitional species to humans, including 'Lucy', since 1470 [the skull of a homo sapiens discovered by Leakey] was the same age and probably even older. If I had to make a judgment, I would state that there is more evidence for the sudden appearance of man than for a gradual process of evolution. "

The find of another presumed human-ape intermediate, the ramapithecus, consisted of a few teeth and jaw fragments, put together by the researchers to have a shape resembling that of the human jaw. Fossil remains found in 1982 and 1988 showed that ramapithecus was only an extinct ancestor of the orangutan. In particular, a complete jaw of ramapithecus was found: the shape was not the presumed one (parabolic), but U-shaped, typical of monkeys.

David Pilbeam, a noted evolutionary paleontologist at Harvard University, wrote: "Many paleontologists believe that ramapithecus is our earliest ancestor. These conclusions were drawn from nothing more than a few jawbones and a few teeth. To be honest. , appears to be nothing more than a relative of the orangutan. " The same conclusions reached Leakey, Zilman and Lowenstein.

The skeleton of the well-known "Neanderthal man" (homo sapiens neanderthalensis) - the so-called "link between primates and man" - was long thought to be an ape-man, until later studies showed that his ability cerebral was even superior to that of modern man.

Recent research carried out with the aid of electron microscopy has revealed that it is simply the skeleton of a man with severe deformations of the bone system.

Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man are now considered by science to be human and non-intermediate (Straus, Cave, Rothschild, Thillaud).

The pithecanthropus erectus (homo erectus), or "man of Java", discovered by Eugene Dubois, was actually a gibbon, as Dubois himself admitted, after a few decades, also admitting that he had hidden four other monkey thighs found in the same area.

Evolutionists, however, refused to accept it, and still today believe that pithecanthropus is an "intermediate", despite the fact that modern scientists have refuted this claim.

The fossil remains of another homo erectus, the sinanthropus, or "Peking Man", consisted of fragments of skulls, teeth and jaws, also found very distant from each other.

The fossils were the subject of in-depth studies, including by international authorities such as Marcellin Boule, who concluded that the sinanthropus was an animal - probably a great ape or a baboon - that they ate humans.

Among other things, it is interesting to note that De Chardin, already implicated in the fraud of the man from Piltdown, had taken care of the financing of the project.

Among the other examples of presumed human-ape intermediates, always based on few remains, it is possible to mention the pliopithecus and the proconsul, inexplicably considered hominids because they looked like crosses between two species of apes; dryopithecus, based on jaw fragments that were later recognized as belonging to an extinct ape; oreopithecus, based on the remains of teeth and the pelvic area.

In addition, the various australopithecines, studied for 15 years by a team of scientists who concluded that they have no human characteristics. Zuckerman - one of the leading scholars of this fossil - claimed that it was a monkey, "... to the point that only a thorough and thorough examination can reveal any slightest difference between modern apes and australopithecus".

To the australopithecus belong, in particular: the australopithecus africanus (the skull of a monkey in which the characteristics were not completely evident due to the very young age), the australopithecus robustus and the australopithecus boisei (skulls that presented characteristics typical of monkeys but not human beings) and australopithecus afarensis (based only on a few fragments found in different places, and of which Johanson, its discoverer, initially wrote that he had no doubt that it was not a human being: "simply, not she was; she was too small; her brain was too small, and the shape of her jaw was not suitable ").

Recent research on dentition and locomotion, carried out by Jungers, Bromage, Smith, Vannier, and Conroy, has refuted the widespread opinion that they are "ancestors" of man. Regarding this research, Dean Falk commented: "Although there are still some who persist in believing australopithecus pseudo-humans, their opinion no longer represents the majority."

From the analysis of the characteristics of homo ergaster, homo erectus, homo heidelbergensis, and homo neanderthalensis, it can be concluded that these are only racial variants of modern man, while it has been shown that homo rudolfensis and homo habilis were varieties of australopithecus.

Transitional fossils: birds, reptiles, amphibians

The most famous discovery of a hypothetical transitional form is perhaps Archeopteryx, the so-called "missing link between reptiles and birds". It has some characteristics common to both species: the teeth, typical of reptiles, and wings, typical of birds.

The most recent studies in biology have shown that birds also have embryonic abilities to develop teeth. Furthermore, various extinct birds had teeth, while various reptiles did not, and in Archeopteryx not only the mandible but also the maxilla was mobile, as in birds. Finally, the wings were fully developed.

Alan Feduccia - evolutionist, one of the leading ornithological experts - said: "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archeopteryx into a walking feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It's a bird. And no amount of chatter can change that fact." ... "It is biophysically impossible for the mechanism of flight to evolve from such large bipeds [reptiles and dinosaurs] with shortened forelimbs and heavy tails used for balance; exactly the wrong anatomy for flight" ... "In Ultimately, I find the whole dinosaur-bird thing to be a complete fraud.".

The claim that Archeopteryx is a bird and not a reptile is also corroborated by other evolutionary scientists such as Rayner, Olson, Whetstone, Tordoff, Walker, Martin, Chatterjee, and Benton. The latter concluded that "[some] details of the cranium and associated bones on the back of the skull seem to suggest that Archeopteryx is not the ancestral bird, but an ancient ancestor of the avian family."

Another presumed transitional fossil is the archeoraptor, of which Xing himself (one of the paleontologists who first examined the fossil) recently raised the question that it is a mere mosaic "consisting of a dromaeosaurus tail and the body of a bird ". Responding to Xing, National Geographic confirmed that Xing's claims were corroborated by extensive research by several scientists (National Geographic, March 2000).

Derstler, a paleontologist, noted that China's thriving market for bird fossils (such as archeoraptor and sinosauropteryx) has led local farmers to produce realistic fossils that he himself describes as "simple to make and very difficult to recognize. ", as other paleontologists also confirm.

Martin, referring to "mosaics" such as the archeoraptor, commented: "I don't trust these samples until I see them on X-rays." Indeed, the accommodated joints, not visible on the surface, can be revealed by X-rays. Martin adds that "the entire commercial fossil market is riddled with counterfeits."

Until recently it was believed that mammalian embryos possessed "gill slits", as, according to the theory of evolution, mammals evolved from amphibians.
Crack-like embryonic tissue actually has nothing to do with breathing; that is, it is not a question of gills or cracks. This tissue develops in parts of the face, bones of the inner ear, and endocrine glands.

The similarities between some embryos and the adult forms of simpler animals are no longer considered by embryologists as proof of evolution. This method was devised and spread by Ernst Haeckel, who deliberately falsified his schemes; they still appear in modern textbooks today, spreading a false idea of evolution.

Another type of transition that presents many problems is that from amphibians to reptiles. There are great differences between their internal organs, which concern in particular the circulatory and reproductive systems.

The remains of the pakicetus, described as "the oldest known fossil whale", consist of nothing more than a few teeth, two jaw fragments, and part of a mammal's skull. It is therefore the umpteenth speculative reconstruction based on few elements, taken up by the authors of the textbooks that present with drawings of unlikely complete reconstructions of this and other fossils.

The auditory mechanism of the pakicetus was not that of an aquatic animal at all, but was rather that of a terrestrial mammal. It should also be noted that the entire lumbar, pelvic and caudal part were arbitrarily reconstructed starting from a lumbar vertebra, a femur (both found distant from the other fossil remains), a small piece of tibia, and some bones of the foot and toes. . Therefore, the elements of the skeleton necessary to confirm the presumed transition from terrestrial mammal to whale are missing; therefore, it is not possible to critically evaluate the transition hypothesis.
Finally, according to the dating methods used by evolutionists, the pakicetus dates back to a later age than that of some whales, thus further reducing the possibility that it could be an ancestor of them.

Basilosaurus is another fossil believed to be a transitional form between mammals and whales. It is an aquatic mammal, about 25 meters long, with a shape similar to that of a snake, and equipped with small hind limbs that were probably supportive in mating. This creature, however, was completely aquatic, and the shape of its body shows that it was no older than the whales that exist today, so it cannot represent a transitional form.

The hypothesized evolution of the horse is also the result of the interpretation of the data, as demonstrated in detail by Walter Barnhart.

The increase in the number of ribs, often used to demonstrate the evolution of the horse, is actually subject to variation within the species: the ehoippus possessed 18 pairs, the drohippus only 15, in the pliohippus they reached 19 pairs, to then go down to 18 in the equus scotti.

George Simpson, a famous evolutionary scientist, wrote: "The uniform and continuous transformation of hyracotherium into equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook authors, never occurred in nature."

Residual organs

Evolutionists believe that some organs, which they define as vestigial, or residual, are the result of evolution. These would be organs that no longer serve the individual, and are therefore devoid of functions.

Even if this were true, it would not prove evolution, but the exact opposite. To support the theory of evolution, it is necessary to find new developing organs, in which an increase in complexity is taking place.

History, however, has shown the falsity of this argument. Modern science has revealed the functions of more than one hundred organs believed to be residual, such as the thyroid, appendix, or tonsils (Bergman, Howe).

Other parts of the body, such as the wings of birds that are unable to fly, are equipped with functional muscles, and serve to provide cooling or warming, balance, courtship rituals, defense from predators, body protection, or protection. of the chicks.

The lack of limb functionality in birds and other animals can also be explained by the loss of characteristics (possible, and opposed to the increase required by evolution), or in some cases it is simply the result of what is called "economy of design".

The part of the DNA deemed useless or redundant has also begun to reveal its functions, as Wieland's studies have shown.

According to Walkup, a molecular geneticist, "evolutionists believe that 'junk' DNA is useless DNA left over from past evolutionary permutations ... But now many of the DNA sequences previously thought to be junk have begun to gain new attention for their role in the structure and in genome function, gene regulation and rapid speciation".

Similarly, Science magazine commented: "Many researchers believe that some of the most intriguing findings may have come from areas once believed to be genetic 'waste'."

Order

As has been seen, there are numerous and profound differences between the organized complexity resulting from the hypothetical Big Bang and the order observable everywhere in the universe.

The "coincidences" that made possible the existence and development of life on Earth - but not on other planets - are far too many to be such, and even to be listed. However, it may be interesting to remember a few.

The rotation speed of the Earth, for example, is what regulates the appearance of day and night. If it were less than the current one, the length of day and night would increase, destroying life during the day due to intense heat, and at night due to prolonged cold. If the distance between the sun and the Earth or the heat emitted were greater or less, the Earth would be too hot or too cold to allow life. If the moon were closer to Earth, the tides would flood every place. If the atmosphere were less thick, millions of meteorites would fall to Earth instead of being destroyed, devastating it. If there was much less oxygen available in the atmosphere and absorbed by water, life could not exist. If the Earth were small, the force of gravity would be too weak to allow the presence of the atmosphere; if it were large, gravity would crush every living thing to the ground. If the ozone layer were too thick, the Earth would not receive enough heat; if it were too thin, ultraviolet rays would destroy all life. Living cells contain thousands of different substances that would react with each other if an intricate system of chemical barriers and other apparatuses did not exist that cannot have evolved, or must have evolved at the right time and with great precision, to avoid harmful chemical reactions. If the electromagnetic charges were slightly weaker or stronger, the chemical bonds could not form; in the first case the decay of the protons would be, and in the second the existence of any chemical element would be impossible, with the exception of hydrogen alone.

Quotes

"If I, as a geologist, were called to briefly explain our modern ideas about the origins of the Earth and the development of life, to ordinary, simple people, such as those to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I would not be able to do better than follow very closely the language of the first chapter of Genesis"

(Pratt, evolutionist).

"Popper warns of a danger: 'Any theory, even a scientific theory, can become an intellectual fad, a substitute for religion, a dogma to hide behind.' This was certainly true of evolutionary theory"

(Patterson, evolutionist) .

"The more you study paleontology, the more you realize that evolution is based only on one faith"

(More, evolutionist).

"The modified but still characteristic Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they believe, only by a confused few, imperfect in scientific faith"

(Grene, evolutionist).

"It is possible to distinguish only two reasons why people may want to believe that species originated through evolution: either one is religiously or philosophically dedicated to the idea of evolution, or one is unaware of the evidence. Most of the people who adhere to evolutionism fall into the second category. Those who teach and promote it, into the first category "

(Garrett).

"Evolution has become, in a sense, a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are ready to 'bend' their observations to match it ... I think, however, we have to go. beyond, and to admit the only plausible explanation is Creation. I know this is unacceptable to physicists, as it is to me, but we must not reject a theory we don't like if there is experimental evidence to support it "

(Lipson, Physics Bulletin, 1980).