Evolution, Human Evolution, Theory Of Evolution


After disproving evolution on the genetic level, it may seem hardly necessary to delve into another branch of science to disprove the same theory. Let's face it, dead is dead. However, many nails are not knocked into a coffin to prevent the deceased from escaping. It is really a matter of building the coffin properly.

Moreover, in the case of building a "coffin" for evolution, mere "nails" are inadequate. At its peak, the theory enjoyed such widespread popularity that it may be difficult for some to accept that the theory is dead. It is somewhat akin to when a famous person dies; you know the person is dead but just can't accept it. With evolution it is therefore necessary to build a coffin around the coffin to emphasize the fact that the theory has not merely been laid to rest but that it was never really alive to begin with.

This chapter will look at some findings here on earth as well as in outer space.


The phrase most often used by evolutionists is probably "billions and billions of years:" "life evolved over billions and billions of years," "the solar system developed over billions and billions of years," "the universe has been expanding for billions and billions of years." It almost seems as if these accounts of the evolution of our universe are intended to keep people from questioning unverifiable statements. That is, how do you go about disproving what allegedly happened so long ago? It's quite difficult to construct a planet in a laboratory and let it lie around for billions and billions of years to prove that life will not create itself. Unless, of course, you have a long lease.

If your lease expires within the next four and a half billion years, the following may be of interest to you:


* In 1977 two scientists, in search of hot water spewing from the ocean floors, crammed into a small research submarine named ALVIN and descended to the bottom of the ocean near the Galapagos Islands. Finding the first hydrothermal vent, an opening where water heated by earth's molten interior is released into the ocean, was not nearly as fascinating as what they discovered by accident -- the vent was surrounded by animals never seen before. Closest to the vent, in the midst of water which sometimes exceeds 450 degrees Fahrenheit, were tube worms, some of which were up to eight feet long.

For any living creature to thrive this deep in the ocean and in such scalding water was mind boggling enough. But there was more. Most animals need sunlight to survive; this part of the ocean gets no sunlight whatsoever.

Then, as if to laugh in the face of what's considered "normal" for biological life forms, these tube worms had no eyes, mouth, or intestinal tract. There may not be much to see in the dark, but how did these creatures eat or digest food?

It took scientists years to figure out how tube worms receive their nourishment. Without getting too involved with the details, these tube worms have a symbiotic relationship with bacteria which grow in profuse quantities near the underwater vent. The bacteria find their way into the tube worms, literally between their cells. The tube worms receive nutrition from the bacteria, and the bacteria in turn receive some vital functions from the tube worm.

If you think this sounds too bizarre and must be another one of my worm-train theories, I don't blame you. But it's not. Such creatures really do exist. And you haven't heard the most astonishing aspect of these creatures.

An additional factor in the area around the vent makes it an even more hostile environment than described above (if you can imagine that). The bacteria on which the tube worms depend, thrive on a chemical called hydrogen sulphide, which is found in the water coming from the hot vent. To most higher animals, hydrogen sulphide is as poisonous as cyanide!

We've just described a world which before its discovery was hard to imagine and certainly impossible to predict. The hostile environment in which the tube worms and their life-sustaining bacteria exist is truly "out of this world." It makes one wonder if biological life forms are limited or restricted in any way whatsoever to any kind of environment.

* Since 1977, several more vents have been discovered on the ocean floors. Besides tube worms, other exotic animals have been found thriving in the immediate vicinity of the vents -- pink fish, snails, shrimp, sulphur-yellow mussels, and foot-long clams. Similar animal populations have since been discovered in waters only a few degrees cooler than freezing. In all, scientists have found three totally new forms of life and dozens of new species.

In addition to the adverse conditions under which these creatures live, apparently they can also survive in a wide range of temperatures.

* Cacti are known to survive the most difficult and unusual climates. Their ability to sustain themselves in areas of little rainfall, hot dry winds, low humidity, strong sunlight, and extreme fluctuations in temperature is nothing short of phenomenal. It's almost as if the physical structures of these plants, which help conserve the little water they receive and shed some of the excess sunlight, were designed by someone. Some cacti can survive internal temperatures of near 145 degrees Fahrenheit. Most plants haven't got a chance where some cacti prosper.

* Lichens, a combination of fungus and algae, have been found thriving in an area of Antarctica where temperatures sometimes get colder than 70 degrees below zero Fahrenheit. As far as hostile environments go, this seems to be the extreme opposite of deep, dark, hot waters.

* There are insects in the Antarctic which produce natural "antifreeze" to keep from freezing at lower temperatures. Another insect in the Antarctic produces anti-antifreeze. When temperatures get so low that other insects freeze to death, this natural compound allows this insect to freeze gradually. When temperatures get warmer, the insect thaws and lives on.

* Bacteria have been found growing an amazing 25 feet underground. For life to survive such depths is incredible, to say the least.

* There are animals and insects which carry venom strong enough to cause disease and death in other living organisms, yet these carrying organisms are unaffected by the venom. Mosquitoes spread yellow fever, malaria, dengue, and encephalitis to animals thousands of times their size. But no mosquitoes have been known to die of these diseases. Snakes, too, discharge venom which kill other animals, yet they themselves are unaffected by the poisons they carry.

* Earth now has millions of species of plants and animals. The sheer number of species is overwhelming. The precise number of living organisms is nothing short of mind boggling. And the diversity of these creatures -- from such monstrosities as whales right down to microscopic life forms such as the amoeba -- is probably beyond the imagination of even Steven Spielberg.


In the course of earth's history, about a half billion animal species have been in existence. That's a half billion before you even bring plant life into the picture.


The sun, earth, and the other planets in our solar system, according to scientists, were formed about four and a half billion years ago. It is further alleged that the most primitive forms of life already appeared on earth about three billion years ago. Huge creatures such as dinosaurs roamed our planet as far back as 200 million years ago. They ruled for an enormously long period of over 100 million years. Finally, humans appeared about two to three million years ago. That is, something as complex as the human brain has allegedly been around for at least a staggering two million years. An optical instrument as sophisticated as the eye (of the non-human variety) has been around even longer.


Now, how does one verify how all these living organisms came into existence? That is, if you can't build your own planet and cultivate it for billions of years, what's the next best thing? Perhaps finding a planet in outer space which has been around for as long as earth. Not quite. That's not the next best thing. That's even better.


Because the science of planetary evolution, if you can call it that, is far from an exact science, to say the least. After 30 years, some scientists are having great doubts about the generally accepted view of the composition of earth's atmosphere in that alleged period of three and a half billion years ago. For a long time scientists believed that earth's primordial atmosphere contained little or no oxygen. Now some studies suggest that earth's atmosphere may have contained one million times more oxygen than previously believed, and the ultraviolet rays of the sun may have pounded earth at levels thousands of times higher than today.

Whether the new interpretations make any more sense than the old assumptions is irrelevant. What is relevant here is that laboratory simulations and scientific deductions of primordial conditions on earth are obviously based on much guess work and unverifiable assumptions. So why resort to such vagrant concoctions when a real "living" planet tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?


Two Viking spacecraft landed on Mars in the summer of 1976. Viking 1 landed in the Chryse Planitia region and Viking 2 landed in the Utopia Planitia region. One goal of these missions was to find life or evidence of life on Mars. The spacecraft spent months analyzing the Martian soil and atmosphere, with no luck. Not a trace of past or present life was found. No dinosaurs. No microorganisms. No carcasses. No bones. No fossils. Absolutely nothing. It became obvious to scientists that for evidence of life to be found on Mars, they'd have to send Frank Perdue up there to pluck his chickens.

Of the planets we've explored to date, Mars seems to resemble earth more closely than any other planet does. If life were to have existed anywhere else in our solar system, Mars would probably have been the place. But no trace of life has been discovered on Mars, or any other planet, for that matter.


Now take what is known, what is "believed," and what is "alleged," about earth and compare it to what is known about Mars. What do you get? Verification of theories? No. You get inexplicable contradictions! We live on a planet where life proliferates in virtually every corner. You'd be hard pressed to find a place on earth where there is no life whatsoever. And the environment doesn't seem to matter either. Life on earth thrives under the most adverse conditions. Yet, when we look at a planet right next to us in space, what do we find? We find a barren world with no trace of life ever having existed. How's that possible?

Are we to believe that this god called evolution, who has given earth such a sophisticated organ as the human brain as far back as two million years ago, has to this date not managed to put forth on Mars so much as a dumb ass? Are we to believe that the same evolution which has given earth living creatures the size of dinosaurs 200 million years ago has in a staggering four and a half billion years not given Mars simple one-celled organisms? Are we to believe that this glorious evolution which has to this date given earth an astronomical total of literally millions upon millions of plant and animal species has in the same period of time not given Mars even one species of plant or animal?

Sure the Martian environment is hostile. But then, here on earth, two miles down at the bottom of the ocean near vents which spew hot water mixed with hydrogen sulphide in total darkness is not exactly my idea of a vacation spot either -- that's about as hostile as an environment can get! But life thrives there in complete defiance of what are normally considered ecological adversities. Antarctica is also a hostile environment. So is 25 feet underground. So is the desert. Furthermore, in that alleged period of three and a half billion years ago, the entire earth, according to scientists, was hostile. Life on earth allegedly began in an environment which would be hostile to many of today's life forms. And many of today's life forms live in conditions which would have been intolerable to the organisms which allegedly brought life into existence billions of years ago. But life on earth thrives in spite of it all.

Life on earth goes even a step further. Some organisms do not simply thrive in adverse conditions, they actually become immune to conditions which are designed to, and at one point did, kill them.

Bacterial dysentery is becoming more and more difficult to cure. There is a strain of gonorrhea which is resistant to penicillin. A certain form of leprosy cannot be treated with the standard drug, dapsone. These are only a few of the cases of bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics as a result of being overexposed to the very drugs which have killed them in the past. In some cases, bacteria even transfer this resistance to other bacteria which have not had such exposure to the drugs.

There is a species of South American bee which has become immune to DDT. The bees can carry doses hundreds of times the amount needed to kill other bees without suffering ill effects. Some mosquitoes are also immune to DDT.

So, you see, life on earth is as potent as it is diversified. It pushes forward, overcoming many seemingly insurmountable obstacles, and sometimes in spite of these obstacles. Looking at the diversity of conditions under which life on earth thrives, looking at the life forms which have learned to fight environmental hazards and man-made poisons, it's hard to imagine life on earth ever being completely wiped out by any kind of disaster, natural or manmade. But somehow, life on Mars has either been completely wiped out -- and the telltale traces mysteriously hidden -- or something prevented life from coming into existence. How do you account for the complete absence of any trace of life on Mars? Does evolution have favorites? It is totally inconceivable that something as powerful and as diversified as life has not left its mark on Mars. Where is all the evidence of an evolutionary process? If not living creatures, at least bones and fossils.

Some find it difficult to explain. But is it really difficult to explain? Maybe some people are just looking for the wrong explanations. Maybe they're looking for preconceived explanations and discounting the facts. The fact is there is no sign of life or evolution on Mars.


Let's take this one step further. Who made the life forms on earth the standard for life? That is, why does life have to have anything to do with oxygen, carbon dioxide, or even carbon compounds? As accidentally as life allegedly formed of what was available on earth, life could have formed of what ever happened to be available elsewhere in space. After all, we're still having problems grasping the limits to which biological life can go -- as is acutely demonstrated by tube worms and other unusual biological life forms -- we're certainly not close to understanding consciousness and intellect on a scientific level. We may know that consciousness and intellect "attach" themselves to certain biological systems, but we haven't the foggiest clue as to how or why; no scientist has yet shown any physical relationship between a biological system and the psyche. So why isn't there life on the moon? That's right, the moon's own version of "biological" life. Perhaps intelligent creatures made up of lunar soil which receive their nourishment through cosmic rays?

And what about Venus? Sure it's 900 degrees there. But by astronomical standards, when you talk about stars which burn at temperatures around ten million degrees, Venus could be the "Siberia" of the Milky Way. Why are there no creatures there which live in a 900 degree environment and drink sulfuric acid for nourishment

If some of this sounds a little facetious, it is not meant to be. Remember, we're not talking about a Supreme Intelligence with a plan, design, and purpose, which would imply that life was put precisely where it was meant to be and nowhere else for reasons we may or may not fully understand. We're talking about a mindless force of nature which purportedly creates life at random out of inanimate matter. What made life on earth so "feasible" and life elsewhere so "impossible?"


To say that it is "difficult to explain" why life is in such abundance here on earth yet nonexistent elsewhere in the universe is just another case of sticking one's head in the ground. Explaining why a cigarette lighter will not work underwater is only difficult for someone who for some insane reason remains convinced it will work in spite of all contradictory evidence. Why it will not work is not difficult to explain. The difficulty lies in explaining why one continues to believe it will work. Similarly, why there is no extraterrestrial life is not difficult to explain. Our space explorations have found the irrefutable answer: the process we call evolution simply does not work. The difficulty lies in understanding those who prefer to ignore the facts.

According to NASA, microorganisms were inadvertently taken to the moon by an unmanned spacecraft. When the equipment of this spacecraft was brought back to earth more than two and a half years later by our astronauts, it was discovered that an earth microbe had survived the lunar environment, which is harsher than the Martian environment. Obviously, for life to have thrived on extraterrestrial bodies there was no need for nature to resort to biologically "strange" creatures. In spite of the hostile environments of these spheres, life forms with which we are familiar could have survived. Yet, these worlds show absolutely no signs of ever having been inhabited by any forms of life -- normal or strange. So, where does all this leave evolution? Not on very solid ground.


Strangely, even earth today, which is considered a hospitable environment to present life forms, only gives that appearance superficially. It took a twentieth-century epidemic -- AIDS -- to make us aware of the true hostile nature of the very environment modern man thrives in. AIDS is caused by a virus which attacks the immune system and leaves the body susceptible to a host of deadly diseases which are caused by other viruses and microbes. AIDS accentuates the grim reality that earth today is so contaminated with deadly viruses and bacteria that were it not for a complex and ingenious immune system, the average human being, and probably a host of other living organisms, could not survive beyond infancy. Is outer space really more hostile than this? A little hard to imagine. So why hasn't life in outer space evolved and developed an immune system to ensure its survival? A hostile environment? Hostile environments apparently do not deter life. Obviously, there is no such mechanism as evolution.