Evolution.

EDIT: Since the publication of this post, I have voraciously consumed more books and articles bringing me perhaps to an unsettling conclusion that the post you're going to read is a hippy yippy baloney. But if you found yourself having too much time, you can still read it. Or read something better, which literally means anything other than this. Also the editting and formatting on this is top-notch

Some time back, I published a post which tangentially hinted on my vague views on evolution, specifically human evolution. It is my belief that humans did not evolve from apes. I believe that evolution macroscopically is a made up lie. However for the mind to truly grasp something, it is necessary for the belief to be substantiated by logical and scientific evidence. When I started researching on this topic, I viewed it neutrally because only then would I be able to truly comprehend and solve this paradox. Unluckily, the internet is one of the worst places to do research. This is simply because you can easily find people and posts agreeing to what you believe and the proofs may be hoax. I almost gave up half way through when a particular idea turned out to be a source of immense angst for me as I could find apparently points backing both claims. So I decided to be more rational about it and read the most authentic text on evolution I could get my hands on. The Origin of Life by Charles Darwin. What you’re going to read next is a vast array of reasons which I found sufficient to realize truly that our concept of evolution is flawed. By the end of this post, I would’ve either tamed this beast or would be trampled by it.

It is only fair if we try to scrutinize what Darwin has tried to convey in this specific book, which is usually considered the core of evolution.

·         The overall population of the area almost remains same despite gradual changes and although the resources are finite but they are adequate for the population in the long term. This is further elaborated by the studying of living organism colonies and the phases they go through which are the lag, log, stationary and death phase. This is an irrefutable fact.

·         Fertile species will reproduce to ensure the survival of their generation. Thus a constant struggle for life continues. The number of different individual changes continuously. These are maintained and understood better by food chains and food webs. Such inter-organismic relationships in the ecosystem explain this further. True.

·         Natural selection. Scientifically correct and proven.

·         Adaptation of organisms based on the surroundings. Sufficiently appropriate.

·         The variations caused in the structure and gene pool due to mutation are heritable. Modern genetics has proved that off-springs inherit traits from their parents and it is only natural for the offspring to accommodate those traits that will help it to survive. Thus that’s not wrong too.

Everything that Darwin said in the Origin Of Species is right. Go ahead, read that again.

The problem lies ahead. The theory of evolution as explained under the light of natural selection appears to be wrong. There are little to no valid proofs. If there are any, do share them with me, for I am as keen to learn and expand my vision as anybody else. Let’s get down to business shall we?

In his book, The Descent of the Man, Darwin writes about some rudimentary parts in humans that are a proof of that humans evolved from other mammals. Today we call these rudimentary parts as vestigial organs or vestiges. First, it is necessary to understand the exact meaning of vestiges. It is the latin for footprint. Roughly it can be termed as the undeveloped part. It has many technically varying definitions but to build one based on the common grounds would look something like: A degenerate or rudimentary organ, more fully developed in the earlier stages of the development of the individual or species. The definition at no point refers to the fact that these parts are a hint to our primal pasts. Although this is one of the most authoritative argument Darwin gives in his book. There are certain organs normally listed in favor of evolution.

Clearly a consolidation of the vertebrae

  Coccyx also termed as tailbone, and this is half of the problem. It is not a tailbone. At least not in the sense that it is usually presented in. It is the end of the vertebrae column beyond the sacrum in man which is a part of vertebrae that connects or forms the pelvis. It is actually a consolidation of several vertebrae. It is the attachment site for tendons and ligaments. It is actually believed to be the leftover or part of the tail that other mammals have. But clearly, coccyx has a definite purpose and is not just a leftover of a tail. It supports 12 muscles or so I’ve read.

   Evolutionists argue that during gestation the embryo of various animals is similar and since animals in an order of increasing complexity so the changes in embryo by the passage of time are a reflection of the complexity attained through evolution. The embryos all appear to have tails but it gets degenerated in man. Is this due to increased development? Actually no. This is just a part of a huge sham first created by the fraudulent depiction of animal embryos presented by Ernst Hackel in his diagrams.

    These diagrams have been a part of text-books all over the world for decades and by the time they were debunked, the harm had been done. Recent imaging shows that actually the animal embryos are remarkably different. The fundamental similarities that outline them are a result of fusion of haploid eukaryotic cell, common in Kingdom Animalia.

    Humans have muscles near the external ear. These muscles are also present in various other animals. In other animals, these muscles are used to turn the ear in that direction. Human external ear does not do that. However some people can wiggle their ears but that is beyond the point. The muscles in ear can be shown to exhibit increased electrical activity when electrodes are connected to them and sound is produced. This shows the functionality of these muscles. But what purpose do they serve? 

But can you do this?

   Actually none. I am truly stumped and no amount of research yielded a proper answer. But I did find an interesting piece of information.  The muscles in the ear and eyes have somehow a nerve that leads to the brain, basically this allows us to turn our eyes in the direction of the sudden sound and react to it appropriately.

§  The Palmaris Longus. It is a very interesting case. You can find out if you have it or not. It is a muscle visible as a small tendon. Apparently it is useless and is the first choice to be used in cosmetic or plastic surgery. However research and data has shown more interesting features. Athletes with better and firm grip have a palmaris longus. Coincidence? I think not. I believe in the quantum interconnectedness of everything as stated by the Holistic Detective Dirk Gently. More over thumb abduction is observed to be more prominent if the Palmaris Longus is present. This is because the lateral portion of the tendon attaches to surface of thumb muscle (abductor pollicis brevis).

   The hair on our bodies. I mean if this is going to be considered as a reason to draw analogies between humans and monkeys than you might as well start considering eyes and ears. Our hair helps us to keep warm by proving a layer of insulation and trapping heat. We do not have fur because than sweating would become a useless arduous task. Moreover many nerve endings connect to hair follicle. So when adrenaline kicks in and we get goosebumps, the hair rises, thus even the slightest contact is felt by the body and it can be responded to efficiently. It also protects the oil secreted by the sebaceous gland.

   The Palmar-Grasp reflex is a neural reflex in babies from 3 to 6 months when babies grasp the fingers. It is considered an evidence of evolution because monkey babies do this too. This helps them to climb and wing through branches more over it prevents them from falling from long heights and helps them keep up with their mothers. Actually it is a normal spinal reflex shown by babies during that age. In fact babies with abnormalities in nervous system continue showing Palmer Grasp reflex even till 9 months of age. There is no reason behind it, at least none that I know of. Maybe it is a psychological action of the baby to build contact and establish relationship with other humans.

The appendix is a renowned vestige. It has been long considered useless. But recent research has proved that the appendix is vital to our immune function. It is the site of storage for many bacteria that live in the intestine. No doubt that the removal of appendix in case of inflammation that is appendicitis can have no apparent effect. But that doesn’t entirely rule out appendix. Parts of body such as appendix, coccyx and palmaris longus may appear useless and their eradication may not pose problems for the body but they are there for a reason. They are not just remnants. They coordinate with other body parts and bring finesse to various functions. Touché.

Darwin himself admitted to the fact that fossils weren’t the best explanation to the theory of evolution. This is mainly because of the fact that many transitional fossils have missing links. These missing links make it difficult for the ancestry to be traced: Why then is not every geological formation abd every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly doesn’t reveal any such finely graduated organic chain and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. Perhaps the theory can be obliged through this trial considering how the fossils can be easily procured with malice intent, and the study of fossils can never be deemed a hundred percent accurate. However just some years later after Darwin’s Evolution ‘hit the streets’ a very interesting fossil was found. The Archaeopteryx. It is considered to be the first or the original bird. It is intermediate between non-avian feathered dinosaurs and todays birds. This put substantial evidence to Darwin’s claim. Despite a lot of controversy on how the archaeopteryx was a fraud, time and again, it has been established as pretty much authentic. 

Archaeopteryx friend extra-ordinaire

Sinosauropteryx was the first dinosaur to have feathers. Thus making it the very first non-avian feathered dinosaur, it also couldn’t fly. The Archaeopteryx could fly. I don’t know how this has evaded people or how it’s not yet fully known but I have made a critical observation. The sinosauropteryx must’ve come before the archaeopteryx, which came before modern birds. The ancestor, then transient and then the descendant. This should be the order. But interestingly the archaeopteryx were 150 million years ago but the sinosauropteryx were 130 million years ago. This is absurd! It simply negates the whole idea about archaeopteryx being the transient fossil and proves that it is in fact maybe just a non-avian feathered dinosaur like a more adapted pterodactyl. Maybe the fossil age as I saw through the internet are wrong or maybe they are not. This heeds attention. There is perhaps another thing. The ancestry of the whales is quite controversial and has perplexed evolutionists and scientists for metaphorical eons. But there is a theory now backed by somewhat reasonable reasoning. It has been deduced that whales actually evolved from a species of terrestrial animals not different from wolves. They had a crooked body to some extent but their silhouette is no different than those of animals like hyena, dogs and wolves. These are the Indohyus and Pakicetus. (Fun Fact: The fossil of Indohyus were found in India while the fossil of Pakicetus was found in Pakistan). You can find interpretations of whale evolution on the Internet easily. But most of the websites and evolutionist papers have seemingly overlooked a vital information as I realized. According to these explanations the Indohyus underwent changes in structure and the resultant was Pakicetus. 

Whales! Meet your grandpa....

However, fossil record clearly shows that Pakicetus was older than Indohyus. This again negates all authentication of such theories and thus evolution. But, I must confess that these matter of the fossil age may not be sufficient evidence. Why? Simply because other fossils may be found which overhaul the current fossils authority. Fossils are a tricky business.

One of the most general and arguably childlike creationist point of debate is that evolution has not been observed at a macroscopic ever since well, the history of man has been recorded. It is true. Yes, microevolution has not been observed (Coming to this in more detail ahead). But nothing radical in any animal or human in the previous 3000 years or so. Evolutionists rightly agree that evolution is a slow process and takes millions of years. Yet it is suspicious enough that during all this time, not even a single animal or plant has developed a new organ, changed appearance radically or preened a new function.

 The beautiful thing about science is that several of its fields overlap to formulate an intricate, sensible mesh that can hint at solutions to disputes. For a moment let us isolate the 1st law of thermodynamics from Physics and break it into its most basic statement. “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed but can be converted from one form to another.” It is quite similar to the Law of conservation of mass. Our universe is governed by these laws and their validity is not objectionable. If you are questioning them, basically all of science as we know it today is wrong. And that is just simply tomfoolery. Anyway, evolution considers the formation of a new structure seemingly out of nowhere. It inculcates the idea that a structure that was previously not there, has now sprouted. It begs the question; where did the energy for this come from? Granted, that the cells adapted at an atomic and molecular level and maybe reproduced to modify their functions but it doesn’t still justify the presence of a macroscopic structure. That being said, the 2nd law of thermodynamics says fundamentally that the universe continues with an increase in entropy of the surrounding and a decrease in energy for the system. The system is us. Earth and all the beings in it. (If Aliens exist, are they a part of it? Who knows?) This can be broken down to say that the universe is going down instead of going up. Yet evolutionists claim that the universe is continuing with an increase in complexity. The universe is going up. That is debatable. Maybe human civilization is actually not getting complex. H.G. Wells in his novel, The Time Machine, depicts the future not as we usually envision it. He shows a future where the human lifestyle is reduced to the utmost simplicity. Work, eat, pray and live basically with traces of defense and protection. Maybe actually our ancestors were most complex than us. The Pyramids were a great feat. They must have required great precision and labor. When we try to think of the ancient Egypt building those magnificent monuments, we are flummoxed. How could such a structure not be weathered down into crumbles through the years? No doubt, the ancestors were more complex because they were the ones who actually invented the basic objects. Fire, wheel, AC voltage. Today’s inventions seem marvelous and futuristic. They are forsooth very impressive. But imagine the furor that the first fire would have caused. How the wheel might’ve made everyone go crazy!? What we possess today in terms of resources and facilities is quite splendid and perhaps that is why the modern inventions will perpetually be less valuable than older ones. No doubt the world will not see the great’s equivalent of Da Vinci, Tesla and Newton again. Or even Einstein. Yes, we have Elon Musk and JK Rowling but they are not even close to the formers on the legend-inator (Heads up to Heinz Doofenshmirtz for that name). One last scientific evidence might be sufficient enough to patronize my stance. The Trilobites were very old animals. Almost the first ones. Their eyes were extremely complex and advanced. However after evolution their eyes degenerated into more simplified versions. That seems like a conundrum drumming in the idyllic evolution theory.

The infamous picture

The Cell Theory is the common ground for all of Biology and it has been given its current stature after rigorous testing. It is one of the theories in Biology that are almost a law. Almost every other theory is a product of it. The theory clearly states that ‘All cells arise from pre-existing cells.’ This particular statement was proved by Louis Pasteur in his experiment when he showed that bacterial cells produced new similar bacterial cells. It would be more justified to say that a cell produces similar cells. This makes me wonder how one cell can completely change to produce a totally different cell. Imagine the leap cells would have to take for a terrestrial organism like Indohyus to evolve into an aquatic animal like whale. (Considering that the theory is true). And let’s not even delve into the deeper musings such as the accurate randomness it would take for all the genes to mutate themselves in a perfect order so that one species could change into another. I mean a virus has 4,639,221 genes. Imagine how many a developed ape would have. Now imagine all of them mutating and then arranging themselves in a perfect order so that a larger unit that is DNA can initiate the process for the synthesis of these proteins. Oh. And did I mention that each cell different type of cell would have to undergo similar changes in the genes. Mutations are utterly random through natural selection and that would have to be some cosmic luck for all of them to align perfectly. To quote Einstein but out of context: “God does not play dice”. An analogy: It’s like having a million sticks in million boxes and randomly throwing all of them hoping that they would all form a picturesque masterpiece. Absurd!

While thinking about evolution another thought struck me. A middle child is usually in a paradox. He/she cannot avail the facilities of being the eldest and cannot harvest the love of being the youngest. So. What about the middle child of evolution? What happens to the animal which hasn’t completely evolved and is not exactly maintaining the originality of its ancestors? The one with a half-leg or half a fin? The transitional animal. I bet its life must be worthless and that generation would have easily died down because it is not exactly adapted to the surroundings and neither is it not adapted to the surrounding…Lo! Another Pandora box. I find myself smiling at this particular moment maybe because I have truly realized and firmly understood why evolution doesn’t work. At least not the way it is supposed to. The beast is almost done for.

A stray fact: Alfred Russel Wallace was the first person to write about natural selection. 

The man, the myth, the legend.

He found the idea extremely interesting and wrote to Darwin. He asked Darwin not only to review the paper but also to put in a good word for his work in the committee. Basically he wanted Darwin to confirm that Wallace hadn’t gone off his rockers. A most peculiar coincident transpired as Darwin was the only person in the world around that time who was also interested in the very idea of natural selection and was writing a paper on it. Darwin was taken off guards. He decided to complete his paper in a hurry and submitted it. Due to better connections, Darwin got the crown for what was a potentially world ‘evolving’ theory (You saw what I did there? Cheeky monkey…no not literally). By the end of his life, Darwin was pointing out flaws in his theory. It proves that the theory of evolution is not as right as it seems. Yes, the discovery of controversial evidence in the form of fossils etc and modern scientific research might’ve validated it more but there’s something missing from the equation here. The evolution inculcated and indoctrinated by most evolutionists is not what Darwin exactly thought of. Epigenetics and natural selection are true. Changes in structure depending upon the environment are true. But one specie changing into another is bogus. That’s where I call it BS. Microevolution has been experimentally verified. But not macroevolution. However, even in microevolution, never has one bacteria changed so many of its characteristics that it turned into a new or a different species of bacteria.

This brings me to the conclusion. Evolution has been misinterpreted. Darwin wrote majorly about natural selection which brings about evolution but is not actually evolution itself. Origin of Life and other Darwin’s books talk on the same notion. The Descent of the man maybe delves into the primal origins. Darwin admitted that there was and had been no proof ever of one specie evolving into another. Therefore, let’s deal in facts and verified information instead of blowing one thing completely out of proportion. Darwin wasn’t right, but I sympathize for him. Nobody likes having the (stolen?) work of their life wrongly presented and believed in.