Employment

Evolution's Hall of Shame

The peppered moth See J. Well's article published in The Scientist.

Dr. Kettlewell published results from his 1955 experiment on natural selection in peppered moths in Birmingham, England concluding that, "birds act as selective agents, as postulated by evolutionary theory," and that industrial melanism was "the most striking evolutionary change ever actually witnessed in any organism."

"It seems that the classical example of natural selection is actually an example of unnatural selection. The fact that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks invalidates Kettlewell's experiments and poses a serious problem for the classical explanation of industrial melanism in peppered moths" (Jonathan Wells, The Scientist 13[11]:13, May. 24, 1999).

"The importance of industrial melanism in the peppered moth as one of the first, and still most cited examples of evolution in action, places emphasis on the need to be sure that the story is right. In the 40 years since Kettlewell's pioneering work, many evolutionary biologists, particularly in Britain, but also in other parts of Europe, the United States, and Japan, have studied melanism in this species. The findings of these scientists show that the precised description of the basic peppered moth story is wrong, inaccurate, or incomplete, with respect to most of the story's component parts. When details of the genetics, behaviour, and ecology of this moth are taken into account, the resulting story is one of greater complexity, and in many ways greater interest, than the simple story that is usually related (Melanism: Evolution in Action, Michael E. N. Majerus, 1998, p116).

Why does it persist in spite of the fraud being exposed? One evolutionist writes that the peppered moth is, "the clearest case in which a conspicuous evolutionary process has actually been observed" (Wright S. 1978. Evolution and the Genetics of Populations. Volume 4: Variability Within and Among Natural Populations. p. 186).

"Until now, however, the prize horse in our stable of examples has been the evolution of 'industrial melanism' in the peppered moth, Biston betularia, presented by most teachers and textbooks as the paradigm of natural selection and evolution occurring within a human lifetime" (Jerry Coyne. 1998. Not black and white, Nature 396:35-36).

"I unearthed additional problems when, embarrassed at having taught the standard Biston story for years, I read Kettlewell's papers for the first time. ... Finally, teachers such as myself often neglect original papers in favour of shorter textbook summaries, which bleach the blemishes from complicated experiments" (Jerry Coyne. 1998. Not black and white, Nature 396:35-36).

Homology

Evolutionists presume that similarity among organisms suggests genetic relationship. However, as comparative anatomist Michael Denton points out, this reasoning is not always applied.

"But the hind limbs of all vertebrates also conform to the pentadactyl pattern and are strikingly similar to the forelimbs in bone structure and in their detailed embryological development. Yet no evolutionist claims that the hind limb evolved from the forelimb, or that hind limbs and forelimbs evolved from a common source.
"There is no doubt that in terms of evolution the fore- and hind limbs must have arisen independently, the former supposedly evolving from the pectoral fins of a fish, the latter from the pelvic fins. Here is a case of profound resemblance which cannot be explained in terms of a theory of descent.
"Whatever the ultimate explanation for this remarkable pattern turns out to be, there seems little intellectual satisfaction in attributing one case of correspondence to evolution while refusing it in the other" (M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, pp. 151 & 153).
"The validity of the evolutionary interpretation of homology would have been greatly strengthened if embryological and genetic research could have shown that homologous structures were specified by homologous genes and followed homologous patterns of embryological development. Such homology would indeed be strongly suggestive of "true relationship"; of inheritance from a common ancestor." But it has become clear that the principle cannot be extended in this way.
"Homologous structures are often specified by non-homologous genetic systems and the concept of homology can seldom be extended back into embryology.
"In some ways the egg cell, blastula and gastrula stages in the different vertebrate classes are so dissimilar that, were it not for the close resemblance in the basic body plan of all adult vertebrates, it seems unlikely that they would have been classed as belonging to the same phylum.

"There is no question that, because of the great dissimilarity of the early stages of embryogenesis in the different vertebrate classes, organs and structures considered homologous in adult vertebrates cannot be traced back to homologous cells or regions in the earliest stages of embryogenesis. In other words, homologous structures are arrived at by different routes" (M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, pg 145).

"The evolutionary basis of homology is perhaps even more severely damaged by the discovery that apparently homologous structures are specified by quite different genes in different species." (M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, pg 149).

"It is the rule rather than the exception that homologous structures form from distinctly dissimilar initial states." (P. Alberch Systematic Zoology, 34(1), 1985, 46-58).

"Although mice have a gene very similar to the one that can transform a fly's antenna (Antennapedia) into a leg, mice do not have antennae and their corresponding gene affects the hindbrain." (J. Wells and P. Nelson, Homology: A Concept in Crisis, Origins and Design 18(2), 1997 pg 15).

The question to ask is whether homologies are the basis for concluding genetic relationship or if the theory of evolution is the basis for concluding that genetic relationship is evidenced by homologies. Obviously, evolutionists pick and choose features they deem consistent with evolution.

In defending evolutionary interpretation of homologies, Berra wrote: "If you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious. This is what paleontologists do with fossils, and the evidence is so solid and comprehensive that it cannot be denied by reasonable people" (T. Berra, Evolution and the myth of creationism,1990, pg 117-119). Unwittingly, he cites an example of similarity by creative, intelligent design not by genetic relationship. Similarity is not automatically evidence for genetic relationship.

As for molecular homologies, the theory predicting such similarities:

"began to crumble a decade ago when scientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their relationship to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone" (J. Lake, R. Jain, M. Rivera, Science283 (1999), p 2027-2028).

"With more and more sequences available, it turned out that most protein phylogenies contradict each other as well as the rRNA trees" (H. Philippe and P. Forterre, Journal of Molecular Evolution 49 (1999), p509-523).

Incongruities found in organisms: "are sufficiently frequent and statistically solid that they can neither be overlooked nor trivially dismissed on methodological grounds." ... "It is time to question underlying assumptions" (C. Woese, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95 (1998), pg 6854-6859).

"One of the key assumptions about the origin of life is under fire. The widely held belief that all life on Earth today originated from a single ancestor cell is being challenged by a theory that several different lineages evolved independently.
In his 'doctrine of common descent' Darwin was the first to argue that all life on the planet began with single 'primordial form,' generally interpreted nowadays as the first living cell. Not so, says Carl Woese of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. In a controversial new theory published this week, he argues that the three fundamental types of cells that form the building blocks of present-day life actually evolved independently, not in an orderly succession from a common ancestor" (Andy Coghlan, New Scientist, 22 June 2002, pg 10).

Stanley Miller

Textbooks include Stanley Miller's experiment as an example of how early life could arise contrary to the law of biogenesis. However, his experiment did nothing of the sort.

Stanley Miller was the first to show that in a simulated early earth atmosphere (which is not considered valid today), amino acids could naturally form. Though his experiment was herald as a break through in evolutionary discoveries, and some claimed that life had, indeed, been created in the laboratory, Miller had done nothing more than demonstrate that in an intelligently designed and carefully controlled experiment it was possible to produce amino acids.

This is hardly spectacular since high school students do this all the time in chemistry class. What excited people about Miller’s experiment was that he did this in what was supposed to be conditions similar to the early earth. The atmospheric model he used at the time has since been abandoned.

Upon closer examination of his experiment, one discovers that Miller’s results showed that the evolving of life was not possible.

First, Miller utilized a cold trap for his experiment to prevent the destruction of the newly formed molecules because the rate of destruction was greater than the rate of formation.

Second, the products of Miller’s experiment contained a variety of molecules that had greater reactivity for amino acids than the amino acids did for each other. This is significant because the formation of protein molecules requires that amino acids react together, but Miller’s experiment resulted in the formation of molecules that would preferentially react with amino acids and prevent the formation of polymers.

Third, the “naturally” occurring mixture of amino acids that formed was racemic, meaning both left and right handed molecules of amino acids had formed in equal quantities. This was predictable, as well as unfortunate, for the evolution model because only left handed amino acids occur in living cells. But, right and left molecules are naturally equally reactive with each other. One would logically predict that in simulated conditions proposed by evolutionists that evolved cells would naturally possess near equal numbers of right and left handed amino acids, but they do not.

The unnatural exclusive presence of left handed amino acids in living cells, the formation of molecules with greater reactivity for amino acids, and the necessity of a cold trap in Miller’s experiment suggest that the formation of monomers required for the evolving of living as observed today cells is improbable. Further, experiments, since the efforts by Miller, have failed to add credibility to the possible evolving of cells by natural means. The known evidence at this time leads the honest and objective observer to conclude that the evolution of the cell is not possible at stage one, and that the creation model is the preferred model of cellular origins.

Sidney Fox

Another experiment often found in textbooks is Sidney Fox's polymer formation, the second step in the progression from non-life to life. Like Miller's experiment, Fox's experiment shows that life could not arise by chance.

Polymers are complex molecules made of long chains of monomers. There are four major kinds of polymers found in living cells: (1) proteins made of amino acids, (2) carbohydrates made of sugars, (3) lipids made of glycerol and fatty acid chains, and (4) nucleic acids made of nucleotides.

Evolutionists propose that monomers reacted to form polymers. Sidney Fox gained fame for demonstrating that he could produce proteins in his laboratory. As with Miller’s experiment, Fox’s experiment is not spectacular because it is done in laboratories everyday. Though Fox’s experiment was touted as a break through for evolution (and the accompanying spurious claim that life had been created in the laboratory) a review of his experiment shows that the formation of polymers is even more improbable than the formation of monomers.

To begin his experiment, Fox used an unnatural pure solution of reactants, namely, left-handed amino acids. One may wonder why he did not use a racemic mixture since that would be more representative of natural early earth conditions. In fact, one may legitimately wonder why he did not use the naturally formed products of Stanley Miller’s experiments since those would represent the molecules most likely to be naturally present in the early earth as hypothesized by evolutionists of the day. Though using Miller’s natural products would have been ideal and presented continuity for the experiments on evolution, the collection of these molecules would have prevented the natural formation of proteins containing left handed amino acids, which are found in living cells. Thus, Fox demonstrated from the very start of his experiment, that proteins can be formed under intelligently designed and carefully controlled conditions. He avoided designing an experiment to simulate early earth conditions altogether.

His experimental procedure also showed the improbability if not the impossibility of forming proteins in natural, chaotic conditions suggested to have occurred in the early earth. In order to produce proteins, Fox discovered that he had to heat the proteins to 175° in dry conditions for not less than two hours and not more than four prior to dissolving them in hot water and subsequently immediately cooling the products in cold water. The required timing and involvement of changing conditions more than suggest that such occurrences would not happen naturally. Rather than support the evolution model, Fox’s experiment showed that supernatural creation is the most reasonable and preferred explanation for the origin of life.

previous shame... | more evolution shame...

More news on Ida, the missing link finally found!

“Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, and the then radical, outlandish ideas he came up with during his time aboard the Beagle.” (Alex Watts, Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution UK, Wednesday May 20, 2009 Sky News Online).
Finally confirms Darwin’s theory of evolution? No wonder the, “Media and evolutionary experts the world over reportedly made monkeys of themselves (Guardian headline...) as they literally tripped all over one another with gushing expletives to convey the significance of this fossil find.” They thought they had finally found the missing link.
But it turns out that the proof of the long lost link dubbed Ida and described by experts as the "eighth wonder of the world" is not really proof or a link after all.
“So, Ida is not a ‘missing link’ – at least not between anthropoids and more primitive primates. Further study may reveal her to be a missing link between other species of Eocene adapiforms, but this hardly solidifies her status as the ‘eighth wonder of the world’. (Chris Beard, Why Ida fossil is not the missing link, 12:50 21 May 2009, Issue 2710).