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.
