Evolution, Human Evolution, Theory Of Evolution


To most people, science is seen as "today," modern, up-to- date, and perhaps even the promise of futuristic wonders. A generation which possesses supersonic jets, Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM's), space shuttles and sophisticated computers can hardly be called primitive. Or can it

In the midst of all of this state-of-the-art technology, there seems to be a rather primitive theory which, although steadily losing credibility even among those who have adhered to it for a long time, still has many convinced that it is based on science. This theory has proven one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt: although modern technology is nearing Star Wars sophistication, modern man is still capable of some embarrassingly primitive thinking.

To understand how such a theory could have gained any support at all, one must look back at the reasoning which prevailed in the days of sorcery and witchcraft. These notions were certainly not the result of tangible evidence. Obviously, the human mind is highly susceptible to super-human distortions and misinterpretations. Although sorcery and witchcraft per se have gone the way of the horse and buggy, the kind of imagery which facilitates the acceptance of irrational views of reality apparently has not. I'm talking about the "scientific" theory of evolution. If this theory is not honest misinterpretation, it may very well be the most sophisticated hoax ever perpetrated on the human race.


If you think a hoax on such a large scale is not possible, consider this:

On August 14, 1986, ABC-TV's news program 20/20 aired a segment on the Tasaday tribesmen in the Philippine jungles, uncovering a hoax of monumental proportions.

In the early 1970's, a tribe was found in the Philippine jungles "living" under the most primitive conditions. The Tasaday tribesmen, as they became known, seemed "untouched by modern civilization." Their mode of life resembled modern man's image of cavemen: they hunted for food, wore clothes made of leaves, and lived in caves. Nothing could be more exciting -- and more convincing.

The discovery of a "prehistoric" tribe in modern times was so fascinating that it got front-page coverage worldwide, a book was written on the discovery, and pages of "history" were added to some encyclopedias.

Twelve years passed before it was uncovered that the world had been taken in by a sinister hoax. By the mid 1980's, in attempts to follow up on earlier suspicions, the news media learned that these "tribesmen" were in fact modern-day Philippine natives; they ordinarily wore blue jeans and sweat shirts, smoked cigarettes, etc. They had been put up to this charade by a Philippine official who led them to believe that they would receive financial or other assistance if they "looked poor" for the cameras. In the end, they received no assistance, were abandoned by the Philippine official, and the charade was over.

And so, a "major anthropological find" enjoyed over a decade of "historical significance" before turning into a "major historical fraud." And had it not been for diligent investigation by the news media, this hoax could very well have remained the "anthropological find of the twentieth century" in history books.


Ever since Charles Darwin published his book "On The Origin Of Species" in 1859, the theory of the evolution of life has undergone changes, updates, and "advances" -- and the theory is still "evolving." By the time scientists are through with this theory, if ever, the "origin of species" may have more versions than species. This may make "natural selection" (of one version) extremely difficult.

The scientific concept of the origin of life on earth begins with the premise that life first appeared billions of years ago with the formation of microscopic organisms out of inanimate matter. In the billions of years which followed, small organisms evolved into higher and more complex forms of life, and one species evolved into another. The chain of events leading from the first single-celled organism to the most complex organ, the human brain, was at first believed to have been a slow and gradual process.

But archaeologists have worn out many shovels trying to uncover evidence supporting evolution. At last count, they had enough bones to make friends with every dog in Chicago and enough fossils to open a mail-order fossil business. But no evidence. No series of fossils or sets of bones show unmistakable intermediate species. If one species evolved into another, "linking" species would have to have existed in profuse quantities at various points in earth's history. But profuse quantities of missing links which could be termed "indisputable evidence" have never been found.

This brings us to a new version of evolution called "punctuated equilibrium." This version of evolution is held by many scientists who oppose the "slow and gradual" version. "Punctuated equilibrium" says that species appear more suddenly and retain their basic forms until they become extinct. Now that sounds a whole lot better. It conveniently does away with the need to find missing links. What's wrong with that? If you can't find the murder weapon, convince the jury the accused shoots bullets through his ears!

And the theory goes on and on, twisting and turning around every discrepancy and contradiction.

If the logic and mechanics of the theory of evolution make much sense to you, you probably haven't scrutinized it too objectively. Hopefully this book, and particularly this chapter, will help you towards that end.


For one species to have evolved into another, massive genetic changes would have to have occurred throughout earth's history. Probably the strongest thing going for evolution at the time of its inception, over a hundred years ago, was that virtually nothing was known about genetics in that era. Even today, the vast majority of the public, although somewhat familiar with terms like "genetic engineering" and "random mutation," are still pretty much in the dark with respect to this modern branch of science. And with constant exposure to the purported mechanics of evolution, it's no wonder that a theory with so little substance has been able to grab such a strong foothold on society; the average person simply does not know enough to say why evolution does not work.

I am convinced that if the public had had a decent understanding of genetics, and random mutation in particular, before being presented with the theory of evolution, the theory could never have been taken seriously and certainly could never have been accepted as legitimate science.

Furthermore, another thing going for evolution is simply the constant exposure of its ill-founded concepts to the general public. I think it is human nature to become accustomed to an idea after repeated exposure no matter how insane the idea may be. And in the case of evolution, its constant exposure coupled with the general public's lack of understanding of the mechanics of certain genetic properties is what has helped perpetuate this theory.

Here's a rough idea of what a theory might sound like for the first time when you know quite well that the mechanics don't work:


Scientists took a worm crawling in a railroad yard and put it under a powerful electron microscope. They discovered that a worm's cell magnified three billion times has an uncanny resemblance to a train window. They concluded that if you incubate three dozen worms in a solution of amino acids and carbon compounds for approximately one and a half million years they will eventually evolve into the Long Island Railroad.


Of course, the above was only a tongue-in-cheek version of a "theory." However, in the following pages I hope to demonstrate how the theory of evolution is not that far removed from such a comical scenario.


Genetic engineering, or "gene splicing," is probably the hottest and most fascinating subject in modern medicine. It seems to hold answers to questions raised by some of the most baffling diseases. And it looks more promising every day.

Genetic engineering is the business of altering genes. Found by the hundreds, sometimes by the thousands, within the nucleus of every cell, genes cause the development of characteristics such as hair color, height, the shape of some living organisms, etc. Altered genes can cause an organism or its offspring to take on new dimensions -- its physical characteristics may literally change. Sometimes these changes may be for the good. At other times, these altered genes, generally referred to as mutations, may cause genetic diseases which can destroy the organism. Although the potential of genetic engineering and the extent of its impact on biological systems are far from fully realized at this point in time, science has made great advances in the field.


It is human nature to sometimes see the possibility of an event as synonymous with the actuality of an event. This couldn't be more misleading when dealing with the subject of how genetic breakthroughs relate to the theory of evolution.

Many people, evolutionists and laymen alike, are exposed to media coverage on the progress of genetic engineering. However, by not putting the facts into proper perspective, it is easy for one to misinterpret "what is possible" as "what actually happened." That is, the idea that genetic research could confirm some arguments in support of evolution, is one misinterpretation one could easily make if not aware of the ill-founded logic involved. The logic may go something like: if scientists could change the makeup of a species to a considerable degree or change one species into another through genetic mutation in the lab, it could verify evolutionists' arguments that this could have happened naturally in the past.

Not quite.

A faulty logic we must rid ourselves of is: if you could prove that John Doe is the greatest artist that ever lived that would prove that he painted the Mona Lisa. To prove that John Doe painted the Mona Lisa, you'd have to do just that. Merely proving that he is capable of it does not prove that he actually did it. Elephants can shoot water through their trunks, but that doesn't prove African elephants have their own fire department.

No matter what scientists do in the lab in relation to biotechnology, it has little or no bearing on what actually happened in earth's past. Recent biotechnology has produced mixed-breed animals which doubtless never existed in earth's history. Thus, what is produced in the lab says nothing more than that it is possible in the lab. What earth produced in its past is a different story.


But the fact that capability does not prove actuality is the least of evolutionists' problems. What modern man has learned thus far about genetic mutation does not only not support evolution but actually deals the theory a devastating and embarrassing blow.

To begin with, it is important that we differentiate between mutations affected by two different means:


One, random mutation. This type of mutation comes about in a random fashion, without any preconceived design or plan on the genetic level. According to evolutionists, random mutation is purportedly what brought life from the one celled stage to its present complexity. That is, through a series of beneficial accidents of random mutations, they claim, simple organisms evolved over billions of years into new and more complex species.


Two, a process we can label "intelligent mutation." Tinkering and tampering with genes in a laboratory would come under this heading. Genes are "recombined" or "spliced" with the intent of affecting a change in the organism or its offspring.

Intelligent mutation has been responsible for two impressive genetic breakthroughs. First, scientists bred red-eyed fruit flies from brown-eyed parents. Second, by combining growth genes from rats with genes in mice, scientists caused some mice to be born twice their normal size.

To one not too familiar with medicine or biology, such insignificant changes may seem hardly worth noting. Therefore, it is necessary to emphasize that it took sophisticated twentieth-century science to affect such seemingly trivial changes. They are nothing short of stupendous achievements.

Again, these are the kinds of genetic manipulations one might wish to point out in support of evolution: "If we can do it in the lab, why couldn't nature have done it by accident on a grand scale in the last three and a half billion years?"


To begin with, comparing intelligent mutation to random mutation is analogous to comparing the skillful incision of a surgeon to the random slashing of a mugger. There is not one recorded case of a mugging victim walking away from his assailant with a successful appendectomy or the successful removal of cataracts. It doesn't take a doctor or a scientist to know that an accident of random cutting will almost invariably leave behind chaos and destruction and never result in any sophisticated surgery.

Consequently, bringing intelligent mutation as an indication that nature could have produced complex species from one celled organisms through a long series of accidents of random mutations is mixing "apples and oranges." Intelligent design is normally the result of intelligence and design. And when the design is of a highly complex nature, as many life forms are, it indicates intelligence of a highly complex nature. Randomness, on the other hand, will generally not produce intelligent or sophisticated structures. Believing that nature accidentally produced complex life forms, in any period of time, no matter how long, is roughly equivalent to believing that the New York World Trade Center was built by a pack of wild mules who kicked an assortment of building material into the right places.


However, the genetic implausibility of evolution comes from elsewhere and has far stronger arguments. And without a solid genetic basis for biological organisms evolving into higher forms of life, the theory of evolution simply disappears into thin air.

So, here's how genetics -- the most crucial aspect of evolution -- does not only not support the theory but actually contradicts it:


Modern man has been acquainted with and directly affected by random mutations long before he ever took intelligent mutation seriously. Some sources of random mutations have been around even before we knew how they caused genetic effects. What are they? Carcinogenic chemicals. Cosmic rays. Sources of radioactivity such as nuclear weapons, nuclear reactors, nuclear waste, and medical X-rays.


X-rays were discovered by the German scientist Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen, making headlines on January 6, 1896. As innocent a discovery as it was at the time, man had unwittingly taken control of a highly potent force -- radiation. These rays would some day become a source of medical cures and also disease and destruction.

It wasn't until about a half century later that man realized the awesome potential of this "invisible light." On July 16, 1945, in a desert in Alamogordo, New Mexico, the United States detonated the first nuclear bomb in the world as a test. The destructive potential of this new weapon was horrifying. It could not only destroy life and an environment in a conventional explosion, but it could also accomplish the same with just its intense heat and radiation. In addition, it could render an environment uninhabitable for years, decades, or even centuries to come.

In that same year, 1945, the United States dropped atomic bombs on two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These two bombs alone -- as weak and as primitive as they were by today's standards -- killed over 190,000 people. It became obvious that we had taken control of a power so ferocious that the meaning of the word "war" would never be the same.

Then, as late as April of 1986, the core meltdown at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor finally made man acutely aware of the destructive powers of radiation even for peaceful purposes. This accident in the U.S.S.R. spread radiation panic throughout a large portion of the world's population. Once more, man was forced to deal with a nuclear-related situation hitherto unencountered.


What the above historical events have in common is an introduction of a facet of radiation to modern man. The most destructive aspect of radiation is its ability to cause random changes on the genetic, molecular, and atomic levels, partially or entirely destroying a recipient organism.

Here's an idea of what radiation does:


Exposure of high doses of radiation to limited parts of the body can cause severe tissue damage and eventual necrosis.

Exposure of the entire body to a few hundred "rem" (rem is a unit used for measuring radiation effectiveness) can initially cause nausea. Then, in about a month, the person might begin suffering hemorrhages, anemia, tiredness, weakness, and an increased risk of infection. Although some may survive, others will die as a result of these maladies.

At about 1,000 rem, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may develop within hours of exposure. As these symptoms become worse, they are followed by fever, loss of fluids, severe infections, and finally death.

At about 10,000 rem, the dose to which a worker might be exposed during a nuclear reactor accident, vomiting and diarrhea would occur within an hour, followed by reduced blood pressure, convulsions, and unconsciousness. Death would come within one to three days.


The fact that radiation can induce mutations and cause genetic effects has been known for at least fifty years. Studies show that radiation can cause not just one, but a variety of different types of mutations. One of the effects of these aberrations is cancer. The cancer can show up years or even decades after the organism's exposure to radiation. If the organism does not show any signs of cancer, there is still the possibility that cancer may show up in future generations.

Some other disorders or genetic diseases which may show up in later generations as a result of random mutations are: hemophilia, congenital cataract, spontaneous abortions, cystic fibrosis, color-blindness, and muscular dystrophy.

Still other diseases such as diabetes, heart disorders, asthma, and schizophrenia could manifest themselves in later generations as a result of random mutations combined with environmental factors.


We've just gotten a glimpse of the severe effects of random microscopic changes on biological life. And it seems that no matter at what level these changes occur -- genetic, molecular, or atomic -- the result is almost always the same: deterioration, destruction, and, in many cases, death.

Does this coincide with what evolutionists have been chewing our ears off with for years?

For years we've been hearing stories about how biological life underwent billions of years of random genetic changes. We've been hearing how by accident some of these changes resulted in beneficial mutations. We've been hearing how these beneficial mutations eventually resulted in new and more complex species. Yet, when we look at what random genetic changes -- or any other random changes, for that matter -- actually do to biological life, we find nothing but disease and death. Where are all those beneficial mutations evolutionists have been talking about? Not one patient has ever developed or passed on to future generations better biceps, for example, as a result of radiotherapy. Not one of the thousands of surviving bomb victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has developed a more evolved brain, for example, as a result of exposure to radioactivity. Not one person involved in a nuclear reactor accident has developed a more sophisticated skin, for instance, which is tougher and more durable than average. In virtually every case, random mutations have resulted in havoc and destruction.

Is it possible that modern technology has actually disproven evolution rather than helped it?

Evolutionists in the past have hidden behind the "it took billions of years" routine. Before the nuclear age it may have been necessary to get into a time machine to verify whether, given enough time, random mutations would cause life to evolve. However, with the advent of modern technology's ability to affect massive random mutations relatively quickly, there is no longer a need to dig into the past to see the contrived fallacies supporting the evolutionary powers of random mutation. The answer is right in front of us. Random mutations result in quite the opposite of what we've been led to believe. They result in nothing but illness and fatalities -- not improvements. What's more, the more massive and prolonged the occurrences of these mutations, the greater the havoc and destruction. So what do you suppose would happen to a planet subjected to random mutations for billions of years? Total annihilation!

When you take what we know as fact today about random mutation and try to reconstruct a scenario of those alleged billions of years of earth's history, instead of the fairy tale story of evolution, you come up with a picture which more and more resembles a horrible scene out of a "post-nuke" movie:

Even if earth had already been as populated in that alleged period of three and a half billion years ago as it is today, and had since been affected by billions and billions of random mutations, according to what we know today about random mutation, by now life would probably have been virtually wiped out. With random mutation being the highly destructive force that it apparently is, the process which was supposed to have caused life to evolve is precisely what would have caused, in all probability, such genetic havoc that few organisms would have survived the ordeal. Furthermore, under such circumstances, "survival of the fittest" is a totally ludicrous concept. The word "fit" would have described largely those organisms which were less disease ridden than the rest, a far cry from the "better species" of evolution. And of those "fit" survivors, many would have passed on genetic diseases to their offspring. Even if the "fit" had not been wiped out by the random mutations, their offspring still would have stood a chance of being wiped out by hereditary genetic diseases. Then, any disease-free offspring would again be threatened with annihilation when this entire mutation cycle started over again.

Thus, after billions and billions of years of random mutations, even in the unlikely event that some genes mutated in a way that might have ultimately produced some beneficial changes to an organism, an already populated planet would have been reduced to a few diseased life forms, at best. Those few beneficial genes, if they could even have existed, would have been so overwhelmed by the staggeringly high number of diseased genes necessary to produce just a few beneficial accidents, that they could never have borne any fruit. An organism would have been wiped out long before it had an iota of a chance to change or improve. In a sense, earth would have resembled a planet after a nuclear holocaust.

Now, if a planet began with relatively few life forms, as earth allegedly did, how far would life have gotten? I don't mean how far would evolution have gotten. I mean, how far would those few organisms have gotten before being wiped out by the destructive powers of random mutation? According to what we've actually seen random mutations do in modern times, life never would have gotten off the ground, let alone proliferated into highly complex and healthy species. In all likelihood, earth would have turned into a desolate planet long ago.

Even the mice mentioned earlier who were born twice their normal size as a result of intelligent mutation had a high mortality rate. That is, not only does random mutation produce diseased life forms, but even beneficial mutations can have fatal side effects. So how do you suppose billions of years of random mutations would effect life -- even if they accidentally produced a few beneficial mutations along the way? Start a process of evolution? Destruction sounds more like it.


There is no question that intelligent mutation can effect certain beneficial changes in an organism or its offspring. There is no question that natural hereditary effects can cause a member of a species to be born "bigger and stronger" than the rest -- not as a result of random mutation, but by the manifestation of traits which may have been dormant for generations. There is no question that biological systems can adapt to their environment on a macro level. But to say that adaptation to an environment or any other natural phenomena can result in random mutations which will eventually produce new or more complex species is totally baseless. To say that life started with few life forms and evolved into today's profuse, complex, and generally healthy life forms is contrary to everything twentieth-century science has learned thus far about random mutation. To say that a one celled organism evolved even into a one inch fish is an unrealistic stretch of the imagination which requires a lot of dishonest and twisted reasoning. To say that a human being is the result of an accidental evolutionary process is sheer lunacy.

The very fact that there are billions upon billions of healthy life forms in existence today actually proves the precise opposite of what evolutionists believe -- that life on earth could not possibly have gone through any massive random genetic changes. And without genetic changes, evolution is as dead as a fossil.

Furthermore, if genetic engineering proves anything, it proves that it takes a high degree of intelligence and sophistication to do nothing more than just tamper with existing forms of life. Consequently, creating or even significantly improving a species, requires intelligence and sophistication of an even higher degree. The notion that any random genetic process can create new or more complex species is not science, logic, or even a theory -- it is purely a product of the imagination.


Even without genetic considerations, the ludicrousness of evolution can be expressed in terms of simple mathematical probabilities. If, for the sake of argument, a process -- random mutation -- will develop life in billions of years and the same process will destroy life within a human lifetime, which will happen first? The destruction? No, it will not happen first -- it's the only thing that'll happen. In the time that life is suppose to develop, it will be destroyed literally millions of times over -- nothing can ever get to the point of developing.

Even the question "Given billions of tries, can a spilled bottle of ink ever fall into the words of Shakespeare?" has become obsolete as a result of modern man's understanding of random mutation. Till now, this question pointed out odds so astronomical that it rendered the event a virtual impossibility. Now, it's not even a question of beating ridiculous odds. Now we're shooting dice which deteriorate with each throw and eventually self destruct. That is, we're shooting dice (genetic "messages") which deteriorate (cause genetic diseases) with each throw (of random mutation) and eventually self destruct (the host organism). Thus, instead of, "Can you beat such ridiculous odds?" the question now becomes, "After relatively few tries, will you have any ink, paper, or dice left with which to try again?" Since the very life that is supposed to evolve will be destroyed in the process, it is impossible for the process to even go on for any required length of time. This makes it highly questionable, to say the least, that a trial-and-error method of genetic mutations could beat even realistic odds -- forget about the preposterous odds proposed by evolutionists. Therefore, whether life could develop in an environment (of genetic mutations) where even fully developed biological systems cannot survive is really no more a question of odds than whether a cow could survive underwater long enough to conceive and give birth -- it's simply impossible.


The insanity of evolution is also apparent in the more aesthetic aspects of man. How could qualities such as artistry, abstract thinking, and appreciation of music have become traits common to an entire species? According to the mechanics (or imagery) of evolution, it would have been a great wonder if such qualities, so meaningless to the survival of purely physical and biological systems, would have evolved in only a minute fraction of a species. Yet, to be present -- to one degree or another -- in virtually every human being? How? This should never have happened.

The existence of such aesthetic human qualities as emotion, humor, and intellect cannot be explained biologically, no matter how ridiculous you want to get. Why, for example, did nature give us a sense of humor? How did nature even know what a sense of humor was? And how did a sense of humor render humans more "fit to survive?" There are millions of plants and animals without a sense of humor which have obviously survived. There are even humans without a sense of humor who seem to survive. How did such a quality ever evolve


Evolution is certainly not the run-of-the-mill theory. For an unproven and outdated theory, it is taken rather seriously by a great number of people. Those who see through its faulty reasoning, biases, misinterpreted findings, and obvious defiance of common sense and logic, see it as just another feeble attempt to undermine and tarnish the rational person's ideals. It should be placed in the same category as sorcery and witchcraft. Such notions have one thing in common -- bereft of any plausible logic, they are "understood" only by those determined to believe in them. The most significant difference is that no one ever had the gall to call sorcery and witchcraft science.

It's ironic how, in a nuclear age, some of the same people who live with the constant fear of life on earth being catapulted into oblivion by a nuclear holocaust, can still believe that an aspect of this highly destructive nuclear force -- random mutation -- is the mechanism which brought us here. In Darwin's days they new nothing about genetics, and certainly nothing about the unimaginably destructive nature of random mutation. But what about today? A theory which originated over a hundred years ago -- in times of relative scientific ignorance -- should have been abandoned by now. Instead, it seems that, the stronger the evidence against evolution becomes, the more determined are some individuals to believe in it.


At this point, it should be at least somewhat obvious, even to those who have taken evolution seriously at some point, that the scenario proposed by this insane theory does not work and certainly could never have occurred. One may even find it puzzling how a concoction such as evolution could ever have been accepted as science in the first place. I think that if evolution can be called science, there should be several other equally qualified scientific topics included in science text books -- the physics behind Superman's X-ray vision, the story of how the power of speech evolved in Mickey Mouse, and the chemical composition of Batman's Shark Repellent Spray. If we're going to have fun theories, let's really make them fun.