This is to be my last post in R/S. Possibly forever. If not forever, then for a very long time. I cannot continue here. There is simply to much to do, and too much to respond to. I have some things I would like to pick up, and it would be very nice to drop my debating here. However, as promised, here is my thread on things that I find disturbing in Evolution.

This will not list each and every fall in the theory, obviously, but to prove that I have reasons to find Evolution unscientifically sound, I have made this thread. If I were to post every complication the the theory poses, I would be going on for a very very long time.

I will not be around to respond, so please do not be alarmed when you do not receive one.

Missing Fossils

Evolution. When the scientific voodoo is removed from the equation, it's basic fibers go to tune of: A one celled creature to a multi-trillion celled human. Naturally, this all took a great deal of time. Seventy trillion cells were added to the package in only 700 million years. Those were the days when genetic mutations occured at 100,000 positive genetic mutations per year, which is 260 per day! The Earth was a very busy place back then. Of course, the factories have slowed down considerably since then. Pity too, because now we can't see all the glorious creatures that would take rise from the process. So, what can we do? Well, naturally, we can search for fossils. If we can't see Gorrilas turn to humans, then we can at least go look for them underground. And, that's exactly what we do. In our visits underground, we have unearthed many natural wonders. Such as Dinosaurs, extinct fish, and even plants. We have also unearthed many un-natural wonders. Such as, the ancient city of Pompeii, and Solomon's Temple. In these excavations, many new creatures have been discovered that we would never have known about otherwise. Things die, and get buried under the earth. Some of the luckier specicmens get the chance to become fossils, so that future generations may take them and observe their ancient and natural beauty. Of course, fossils don't easily or quickly occur. It takes time, and chance to fossilize any creature. (unless, of course, super extreme circumstances are involved) But, we have seven hundred million years to work with, so that's no problem. An ancient race of half humans and half apes once roamed the earth, a hybrid of natural processes. Through the countless eons and decades they survived. Creating the first cave paintings, and intentional fires to provide light and warmth. Many lived on to bring about more offspring - some weren't so lucky. Many unfortunate cave men died. Whether it was by some starved animal who happened upon the relatively defensless bunch, or whether it was by some gale that cought the the poor half-man off guard. However it happened, many bodies were left to fate under the ancient sun, or to sink under water or tar. Most would rot, or get eaten by other animals. Some would decompose to provide fertile soil for plants to come. But, others were chosen by circumstance to be fossilized like the many other plants and animals that came before them. And, considering the large sums of time they had to do it, there had to be a HUGE ammount of fossils.

And now, we come to our own day, where we excavate in almost every country in the world. Our mission is to find these many ancestors who came before us. But, a mystery has puzzled many scientists for years - where are they??? With all the ancient animals we have unearthed, why can't we find our prehistoric cousins? Afterall, we have found the fossils of creatures who came long before them. Science believes it may have found the first life to tread our wonderful planet under hundreds of feet of rock and soil. The ones that came hundreds of thousands, and even millions of years before the first primates began to tread soil. So where are the hybrids? Where are the animals that connect humans to apes? Where lie their fossils and bones? Why have we not found them? Nature has freely yielded many secrets of the times that came before us, and yet, our ancient ancestors remain nigh unfindable. Why are they so elusive? Now, this is problematic. We can't find any shreds of ancient evidence that suggests our forefathers are apes.

Well, as frustrating as it may be, another question is even more disturbing:

Where are any of the hybrids?

Where are the legged fish which brought our kind from sea to dry land? Where are the apes that look like humans, and the humans that look like apes?

Well, obviously, there have been beliefs in the past that these HAVE been found. Almost every creationist and Evolutionist knows of the many "missing links" that have been thought to show the piece that links us with the apelike creatures that Evolution suggests we came from. But, there is not one that has not exhibited one of the following traits:

(a). It was a fraud
(b). It WAS an ape/chimpanzee
(c). All aspects of the creature were found to be human in every manner, so, that pretty much destroys their credibility of being a "missing link".

The missing link argument has gained infamy due to the very heated conflict that remains between Creationists and Evolutionists on the matter, and occasionally Scientists suggest that they may have found it yet again, and the same cycle repeats itself.

But, the problem summarized is this: Why is it that we can find SO many different animals burried beneath the soil (some that apparently appeared millions of years before any primates) and yet cannot find more than a few debunked fossils that link supposedly Evolutionary related animals together; specifically primates?

A bad answer: A bad answer that is often used to this problem is that Evolution occurs in "growth spurts". There are extended periods of inactivity that do not appear in the fossil record due to their short lived span, which makes it appear that there is a skip from one generation to the next. I.E, directly from humans to apes.

1. There is no Scientific reason to believe this. No mechanism should suddenly be able to trigger a huge increase of genetic mutation in a species.

2. This makes Evolution all the more unrealistic; In the first paragraph, we see the bare minimum of POSITIVE genetic mutations that would be necessary to create a human being in a span of seven hundred million years, which is about 100,000 a year and 260 a day. Keep in mind that while mutations occur relatively frequently, they rarely ever induce results, much less positive results. Considering that the current rate of genetic mutation is around fifty a day, there would have to be at least 260 a day back then in order for Evolution to be possible. For it to be realisitc, there would have to be on beyond a thousand genetic muatations a day. I can only IMAGINE how agonized those poor creatures were. Because, if you're having 260 positives, your bound to have well over a hundred negatives. Seems like extinction would be inevitable. But, anyways: with reduced periods of time, that only means that the genetic mutations would have to work even FASTER. In the end, it gets reallllyyy messy, so this answer only further demonstrates another fallacy of Evolution, which is the rate of genetic mutation.

Irreducible Complexity

Irreducible complexity has gained infamy for it's human eye argument, which people have decided to belittle. As such, I won't bother to pain you with it. I shall only breifly mention it, as the problem speaks for itself. The people reading this already understand Evolution, so I sahll not re-explain the whole messy process of natural selection. However, specifically, the aspect of natural selection that shows things becoming gradually better and better on a microscopic scale is the issue here. The human body is a delicate, yet durable thing. Obviously, the human body can endure physical sport and injury, yet is balanced on a very delicate momentum that if disturbed, can prove fatal to the entire body. Everything in the body is dependent on eachother. The body depends on oxygen, which depends on the lungs, which depends on the blood, which depends on the heart, which depends on the pace maker. Everything works together to safely run the body. One shifted clockwork can result in an entire system failure. If the heart stops, the rest of the body is dead. If the lungs stop, likewise. If the stomach stops working, then again, everything is doomed. However, Evolution states that each organ individually evolved. It would be a miraculous coincidence if a tiny organism had been evolved with cropped down versions of EVERY dependency in the human body. Even more miraculous that almost every creature runs in a very similar way, what with the respiratory system, the brain, etc.

The fallacy is also evident in sexual reproduction in mammals. Many creatures reproduce asexually. Why should sexual reproduction that require complex processes in both the male and female to be finely tuned. Organs, sperm, eggs, etc. It is all so complex and dependent on so many factors, that it certainly does NOT seem that sexual reproduction should have been favored over asexual reproduction.

So, in short, the problem is, how did genetic mutation create organs that depend on other organs?

Nothing's New

Right, so, Evolution happens, right? Well, why has it not been observed in anything? On rare occasion, natural selection has benefited bacteria (a fact that any creationist will not be allowed to forget) but where are the new things? Take fruit flies. Fruit flies are a favorite toy of scientists, because they are easy to study: They spawn a new generation every nine days. Now, fruit flies are wierd things. They are often being born with genetic mutations. There is much variation of fruit flies through there many generations, and they have been bred for many many years now.

Question: Where are the vegetable flies? Why are there no new creatures that have stemmed up from the whole messy business of breeding fruit flies? Afterall, a generation every nine days is forty generations a year, which is four hundred five generations in a decade. That is the equivalent of about 13,000 human years. Surely SOMETHING should be different in the fruit flies. Maybe a tweaked nose? Maybe larger wings? More attractive face? But, no. Still fruit flies, and pretty much the same as they were fifty years ago.

The same goes for bacteria. We see immuned bacteria, but nothing new. It's still the same immuned bacteria as was found in frozen bodies hundreds of years older than the first antibiotics.


Now, I shall procede to briefly list some of many opposing factors of Evolution:

The mind boggling complexity of protein cells

Trees running through layers apparently millions of years old.

Repeated patterns in nature (E.g, Fibonacci in sunflowers, galaxy spirals, and even molecules; such patterns have no reason to be evolved through a random process like Evolution; on the contrary, things like plants should be disorderly)

Non-living things never turn to living things - doesn't happen, and never has happened in all the countless experiments which attempted to duplicate such a process.


Right, now as said before, I could keep this thread going on for quite a long time, but do not intend to.

Good bye R/S!