There is no doubt that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution has value and is correct in some of its observations; those confined to internal species development of features and faculties. He never said it was the absolute 100% truth, it was a THEORY, a hypothesis. These days with the likes of Richard Dawkins it has become a fanatical religion; based upon faith!
There is much evidence emerging to show that cells are not necessarily following the Darwin protocols. If they don’t at such a fundamental level then how can anything higher up the chain do so, when basic bacteria is at the roots of all life. As a Biologist you might expect Dawkins to be an impartial scientist looking at evidence, but no there is none so blind as those who refuse to see. (Maybe too big a pill to swallow when a career has already been established on an ever increasingly shaky evidence.)
Darwin’s theory states that Random Mutations over long periods of time have and are the only driving force of adaptation and evolution, with survival of the fittest additionally moderating things.
BUT science is now showing that NON-RANDOM mutations are observed in cells; thus ipso-facto at the very least throwing the Darwinian theory back to a requirement for additional caveats.
“The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection of random mutations should be consigned to history where it belongs; electronic intercommunications and resonance may be involved in activating and mutating just the right genes…” Dr Mae-Wang Ho ( SCIENCE IN SOCIETY 60 Winter 2013)
Cells are at the heart of biological change therefore, discoveries that cells are organised from external organising signals does change all things assumed about adaptation from the viewpoint only from survival and environmental pressures. Maybe cells can change rapidly from such external conditions mutating creatures and life to fit, within a generation or two; but no evidence to support this fits with Darwin’s long term slow paced adaptation theory.
The theory goes: random mutations are shaped by natural selection; but modern genetics show no proof of this in fact the very opposite “mutations” according to Dr Lee ” have never been found to ad information” Mutations visibly delete information from the genetic code taking things downwards rather than upwards to a better more newly adapted result; that just doesn’t appear to happen at the genetic level. Dr Lee Spencers book
Another book, The Case Against Darwin: “Mutations have never been observed to originate a new hormone, organ or other functional structure: they reduce, but do not generate, biological technology” – James Perloff.
Cellular life supposedly originated from lightening strikes into a chemical soup that generated amino acids (but that’s not organic life its chemical) over millions of years these acids somehow sparked into proteins then organic primitive cells; crossing the chemical biological barrier, all by accident. This has yet to be observed or generated in a laboratory – under better controlled circumstances than those supposed to have done so originally! Sir Francis Crick has trouble with this too (the discoverer of the DNA code) and is on record saying its mathematically infeasible, and that’s the odds against just one single protein being generated, chance would need to roll its dice multiple numbers of times to generate enough proteins from the electrically (lightening) generated amino acids to even begin to form long chain molecular structures that could feasible produce a single cell. And then that cell would need the genetic code creating from some totally unknown method to even begin to rise up the ladder of biology to then, we are told, generate every living thing on the planet. Amazingly that first cell must also have created its own method of cell division (quit a complex operation) in order to generate offspring – this stretches credulity to its outer limits.
At higher levels of life that cellular there are many conundrums. There are many examples that stretch credulity for fitting with Darwin’s theory like the Vella Jelyfish which is a composite of a communality of co-operating operating entities: very strange.
Now we come to sex and the male – female reproductive system. Why and how could nature generate a male reproductive system? As until it was fully developed it would serve no function, it would take a huge amount of time to become functional. Why would it be required unless it co-operated with a similarly chance generation of a female reproductive system, you see the problem, how could any species get going on this basis? Millions of paralleling chance steps on two reproductive systems to come together to produce offspring before the actual species existed in the first place – so we have eggs and chickens in circular patterns of confusion.
Scientists have worked upon fruit fly generations for decades as they breed new generations every few days. Since the 1900’s this observation and methods of intervening in such breeding and all manner of external applied conditions has not yet produced another developed offspring species; just fruit flies, always fruit flies. Nothing other than a fruit fly has ever evolved and the timeline ads up more than enough of it to have shown something if Darwin s theory of species developing out of others was possible. Bacteria never turn into anything other than bacteria. Micro-evolution is when there are changes inside a species like the adaptation of bird beaks, macro-evolution states changes from one species into another, Darwin claims everything came from a single species evolving over time into all the others we see toady: and yet bacteria, the starting point dose not. (see Debunking Evolution) There is evidence for evolution within a species, and this has been taken as the method for all evolution, but there is no evidence nor fossil record for one species to turn into another; no donkey has turned into a giraffe.
The Cambrian explosion is another unanswered question for Darwinism. And where are the transitional fossils showing evolving generations of one intermediate form of life into another?
There appears to be not enough time on planet earth’s timeline to be able to generate life. So some theorists have allowed a theory that life may be seeded here from outer space – life spores on comets for example (panspermia theory), but even so how that life originated has to answer the same questions that chemical beginnings of evolution jumping over to biological cells is taught as fact but has yet to be proven in a science experiment.
Why has evolution apparently stopped? apart from that one example of the Peppered Moth which is now thought to be only a fluctuation and debunked as a theory in Icons of Evolution (Jonathan Wells). So, why aren’t reptiles evolving, why aren’t fish trying still to adapt to land and so on; shouldn’t evolution be progressing? or is everything perfectly adapted these days? or is it totally impossible for a species to develop beyond its own gene pool, which most honest genetic scientists are tending to prove. But this will not stop the possibilities of chimeras the gene splicing of one species DNA with another thus generating a none evolution produced hybrid – thus proving external design and intervention!
Bird feathers represent a major difficulty in Darwinism: as they are extremely complex in operation. To get to such technical capability the evolving bird would be easy prey for predictors in the long period before flight could begin.
Other troubles are in ancient remains not only of huge bones, but also unaccountable ancient artefacts, even buildings like the pyramids that exhibit higher levels of technology than our current one, possibly indicating a superior race before us lost in the sands of time maybe following a cataclysmic event. Such avenues may distract but more and more annoying (to orthodox scientists) facts and artefacts continue to emerge.
If we have such a fundamental flaw in our understanding as to the beginnings of life, then how can science be trusted? When only the Darwinian model is taught in education and the ‘problems’ with it are not given voice, then real science can never evolve.
The topic is only briefly covered here but enough to show that the theory of Darwin needs to be completely re-evaluated: it doesn’t work and is holding us back on a set of completely false assumptions, now for detailed information READ THESE BOOKS:
This book just about nails it to Darwin!
The Case Against Darwin by James Perlof