1. Με τα κάτωθι δεν έχω πρόθεση να ενισχύσω ούτε την θεωρία της εξέλιξης, ούτε την κατάρριψή της , αλλά ούτε και τις αστείες απόψεις των θρήσκων δημιουργιστών.
2. Στόχος μου είναι να δείξω το πόσο δύσκολο είναι να επιτευχθεί συμφωνία και να εξαχθούν οριστικά συμπεράσματα σε θέματα τόσο πολύπλοκα όπως αυτό της εμφάνισης της ζωής και της εξέλιξής της, της δημιουργίας του σύμπαντος κτλ.
Όλες αυτές οι θεωρίες, εξετάζουν, μέσα από εύλογες υποθέσεις και έμμεσους τρόπους κάτι που συνέβη στο μακρινό παρελθόν. Ως εκ τούτου μια θεωρία αυτής της κατηγορίας που με τα έως τώρα δεδομένα φαίνεται απόλυτα ρεαλιστική μπορεί μελλοντικά εξαιτίας μιας απειροελάχιστης παράλειψης να αποδειχθεί λανθασμένη.
3. Προσπάθησα να εμφανίσω όσον το δυνατόν λιγότερες απόψεις του συγγραφέα δίνοντας περισσότερο βάρος στα σχόλια των ειδικών.
4. Οι διαφωνίες των ειδικών μεταξύ τους απλά δείχνουν πόσο ομιχλώδες είναι το τοπίο σε τέτοια αντικείμενα. Διαφορετικά, αν υπήρχαν «μαθηματικές» αποδείξεις, όλοι θα συμφωνούσαν. Δυστυχώς, απ’όσο γνωρίζω και από την επιστήμη μου(οικονομικά), κάτι τέτοιο σπάνια συμβαίνει.
5. Σε ορισμένες περιπτώσεις μπορεί να έχει γίνει επιλεκτικό quoting με στόχο την παραπλάνηση, αλλά στα περισσότερα δεν συμβαίνει-απ’όσο βλέπω-κάτι τέτοιο. Εξάλλου, υπάρχουν και οι πηγές για επαλήθευση.
6. Αν υπάρχουν σχόλια πάνω στα ακόλουθα σημεία θα τα ακούσω με ενδιαφέρον(σε π.μ καλύτερα μη μας κράξουν).
For many years, Francis Crick, a Nobel-prize laureate, believed in the theory of molecular evolution, but eventually even he had to admit to himself that such a complex molecule could not have emerged spontaneously by chance, as the result of an evolutionary process:
«An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to
us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of
life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.»
Πηγή: 1. Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 88
In fact, the probability of the formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is a
probability way beyond estimating. Furthermore, the chance of the emergence
of a certain protein chain is so slight as to be called astronomic.
Πηγή 2: 2. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Meteksan Publishing Co., Ankara, 1984, p. 39
Homer Jacobson, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry:
Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanism
translating instructions into growth—all had to be simultaneously present at that moment [when life began]. This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely
Πηγή 3: Homer Jacobson, "Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life,” American Scientist, January 1955,
Scientists who support the theory of evolution agree that there is no third alternative. One of these, Douglas Futuyma, makes the following statement:
Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.
Πηγή 4: Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial, Pantheon Books, New York, 1983, p. 197.
Robert Carroll, an expert on vertebrate paleontology and a committed evolutionist, comes to admit that the Darwinist hope has not been satisfied with fossil discoveries:
Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since the time of Darwin's death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected.
Πηγή 5: Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 25.
So how did these differences come about? Let us first consider the Darwinist hypothesis. As we know, Darwinism proposes that life developed from one single common
ancestor, and took on all its varieties by a series of tiny changes. In that case, life should first have emerged in very similar and simple forms. And according to the same theory, the differentiation between, and growing complexity in, living things
must have happened in parallel over time. According to Darwinism, life must be like a tree, with a common root, subsequently splitting up into different branches. And this hypothesis is constantly emphasized in Darwinist sources, where the concept of the "tree of life" is frequently employed. According to this tree concept, one phylum must first
emerge, and then the other phyla must slowly come about with minute changes over very long periods of time.
That is the theory of evolution's claim. But is this really
how it happened? Definitely not. Quite the contrary, animals have been very different and complex since the moment they first emerged. All the animal phyla known today emerged at the same time, in the middle of the geological period known as the Cambrian
Age. The Cambrian Age is a geological period estimated to have lasted some 65 million years, approximately between 570 to 505 million years ago. But the period of the abrupt appearance of major animal groups fit in an even shorter phase of the Cambrian, often referred to as the "Cambrian explosion." Stephen C. Meyer, P. A. Nelson, and Paul Chien, in an article based on a detailed literature survey, dated 2001, note that the "Cambrian explosion occurred within an exceedingly narrow window of geologic time, lasting no more than 5 million years." Before then, there is no trace in the fossil record of anything apart from single-celled creatures and a few very primitive multicellular ones. All animal phyla emerged completely formed and all at once, in the very short period of time represented by the Cambrian Explosion. (Five million years is a very
short time in geological terms!) The fossils found in Cambrian rocks belong to very different creatures, such as snails, trilobites, sponges, jellyfish, starfish, shellfish, etc. Most of the creatures in this layer have complex systems and advanced structures, such as eyes, gills, and circulatory systems, exactly the same as those in modern
specimens. These structures are at one and the same time very advanced, and very different. Richard Monastersky, a staff writer at Science News journal, states the following about the Cambrian explosion, which is a deathtrap for evolutionary theory:
«Ahalf-billion years ago, ...the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world's first complex creatures.
Πηγή 6: Nature, vol. 382, August, 1, 1996, p. 401.
Phillip Johnson, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley who
is also one of the world's foremost critics of Darwinism, describes the contradiction
between this paleontological truth and Darwinism:
Darwinian theory predicts a "cone of increasing diversity," as the first living organism,
or first animal species, gradually and continually diversified to create the higher levels
of taxonomic order. The animal fossil record more resembles such a cone turned upside down, with the phyla present at the start and thereafter decreasing.
Πήγη 7: Phillip E. Johnson, "Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning,” in Darwinism: Science or Philosophy by Buell Hearn, Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 1994, p. 12.
One of the oldest traces of man are the "footprints" found by the famous palaentologist Mary Leakey in 1977 in Tanzania's Laetoli region.
These remains caused a great furore in the world of science. Research indicated that these footprints were in a 3.6-millionyear- old layer. Russell Tuttle, who saw the footprints, wrote:
«A small barefoot Homo sapiens could have made them... In all discernible morphological features, the feet of the individuals that made the trails are indistinguishable from those of modern humans.»
Πηγή 8 : Ian Anderson, "Who made the Laetoli footprints?” New Scientist, vol. 98, 12 May 1983, p. 373.
One of the oldest and most perfect human fossils is KNM-WT 1500, also known as the "Turkana Child" skeleton. The 1.6 millionyear- old fossil is described by the evolutionist Donald Johanson in these terms:
«He was tall and thin, in body shape and limb proportions resembling present-day equatorial Africans. Despite his youth, the boy's limb nearly matched the mean measurements for white North American adult males.»
Πηγή 9: D. Johanson & M. A. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 250
This fossil even shook the convictions of Juan Luis Arsuaga Ferreras, who lead the Gran Dolina excavation. Ferreras said:
«We expected something big, something large, something inflated–you know, something primitive… Our expectation of an 800,000-year-old boy was something like Turkana Boy. And what we found was a totally modern face.... To me this is most spectacular–these are the kinds of things that shake you. Finding something totally unexpected like that. Not finding fossils; finding fossils is unexpected too, and it's okay. But the
most spectacular thing is finding something you thought belonged to the present, in the past. It's like finding something like–like a tape recorder in Gran Dolina. That would be very surprising. We don't expect cassettes and tape recorders in the Lower Pleistocene.
Finding a modern face 800,000 years ago–it's the same thing. We were very surprised when we saw it.»
Πηγή 10: "Is This The Face of Our Past,” Discover, December 1997, pp. 97-100
The evolutionist paleontologist Daniel E. Lieberman from Washington University's Department of Anthropology had this to say about Kenyanthropus platyops in an article in the leading scientific journal, Nature:
«The evolutionary history of humans is complex and unresolved. It now looks set to be thrown into further confusion by the discovery of another species and genus, dated to 3.5 million years ago… The nature of Kenyanthropus platyops raises all kinds of questions, about human evolution in general and the behaviour of this species in particular. Why, for example, does it have the unusual combination of small cheek teeth and a big flat face
with an anteriorly positioned arch of the cheekbone? All other known hominin species with big faces and similarly positioned cheekbones have big teeth. I suspect the chief role of K. platyops in the next few years will be to act as a sort of party spoiler, highlighting the confusion that confronts research into evolutionary relationships among hominins.»
John Whitfield, in his article "Oldest Member of Human Family Found" published in Nature on July, 11, 2002, confirms this view quoting from Bernard Wood, an evolutionist anthropologist from George Washington University in Washington:
"When I went to medical school in 1963, human evolution looked like a ladder." he [Bernard Wood] says. The ladder stepped from monkey to man through a progression of intermediates, each slightly less ape-like than the last. Now human evolution looks like
a bush. We have a menagerie of fossil hominids... How they are related to each other and which, if any of them, are human forebears is still debated.»
Πηγή 11: John Whitfield, "Oldest member of human family found," Nature, 11 July 2002
"Because of its feathers, [Archaeopteryx is] distinctly to be classed as a bird."31 Paleontologist Robert Carroll further explains the subject:
«The geometry of the flight feathers of Archaeopteryx is identical with that of modern flying birds, whereas nonflying birds have symmetrical feathers. The way in which the
feathers are arranged on the wing also falls within the range of modern birds… According to Van Tyne and Berger, the relative size and shape of the wing of Archaeopteryx are similar to that of birds that move through restricted openings in
vegetation, such as gallinaceous birds, doves, woodcocks, woodpeckers, and most passerine birds… The flight feathers have been in stasis for at least 150 million years…»
Πηγή 12 : Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1961, p. 310.
Evolutionists are wrong to say that these teeth are reptilian characteristics, since teeth are not a typical feature of reptiles. Today, some reptiles have teeth while others do not. Moreover, Archaeopteryx is not the only bird species to possess teeth. It is true that there are no toothed birds in existence today, but when we look at the fossil record, we see that
both during the time of Archaeopteryx and afterwards, and even until fairly recently, a distinct group of birds existed that could be categorised as "birds with teeth."
The most important point is that the tooth structure of Archaeopteryx and other birds with teeth is totally different from that of their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs. The well-known ornithologists L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart, and K. N. Whetstone observed that Archaeopteryx and other similar birds have unserrated teeth with constricted bases and expanded roots. Yet the teeth of theropod dinosaurs, the alleged ancestors of these
birds, had serrated teeth with straight roots. These researchers also compared the ankle bones of Archaeopteryx with those of their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs, and observed no similarity between them. Studies by anatomists such as S. Tarsitano, M.K. Hecht, and
A.D. Walker have revealed that some of the similarities that John Ostrom, a leading authority on the subject who claims that Archaeopteryx evolved from dinosaurs, and others have seen between the limbs of Archaeopteryx and dinosaurs were in reality
misinterpretations. For example, A.D. Walker has analysed the ear region of Archaeopteryx and found that it is very similar to that of modern birds.
Πηγές 13,14,15,16 :
L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart, K. N. Whetstone, The Auk, vol. 97, 1980, p. 86.
L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart, K. N. Whetstone, The Auk, vol. 97, 1980, p. 86; L. D. Martin, "Origins of the Higher Groups of Tetrapods,” Ithaca, Comstock Publishing Association, New York, 1991, pp. 485-540.
S. Tarsitano, M. K. Hecht, Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society, vol. 69, 1980, p. 149; A. D. Walker,
Geological Magazine, vol. 117, 1980, p. 595.
A.D. Walker, as described in Peter Dodson, "International Archaeopteryx Conference,” Journal of
Vertebrate Paleontology 5(2):177, June 1985.
Dr. Feduccia also made important comments on the invalidity—and the shallowness—of the"birds evolved from dinosaurs" theory:
«There are insurmountable problems with that theory," he [Dr. Feduccia] said. "Beyond what we have just reported, there is the time problem in that superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old." "If one views a chicken skeleton and a dinosaur skeleton through binoculars they appear similar, but close and detailed examination reveals many differences," Feduccia said. "Theropod dinosaurs, for example, had curved, serrated
teeth, but the earliest birds had straight, unserrated peg-like teeth. They also had a different method of tooth implantation and replacement.»
Πηγή 17: "Scientist say ostrich study confirms bird 'hands' unlike these of dinosaurs,” http://www.eurekalert. org/pub_releases/2002-08/uonc-sso081402.php
One of the biological concepts that evolutionists try to present as evidence for their theory is the
resistance of bacteria to antibiotics. Many evolutionist sources mention antibiotic resistance as an example of the development of living things by advantageous mutations. A similar claim is also made for the insects which build immunity to insecticides such as DDT. However, evolutionists are mistaken on this subject too. Antibiotics are "killer molecules" that are produced by microorganisms to fight other microorganisms. The first antibiotic was penicillin, discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928.
Fleming realised that mould produced a molecule that killed the Staphylococcus bacterium, and this discovery marked a turning point in the world of medicine. Antibiotics derived from microorganisms were used against bacteria and the results were successful. Soon, something new was discovered. Bacteria build immunity to antibiotics over time. The mechanism works like this:
A large proportion of the bacteria that are subjected to antibiotics die, but some others, which are not affected by that antibiotic, replicate rapidly and soon make up the whole population. Thus, the entire population becomes immune to antibiotics. Evolutionists try to present this as "the evolution of bacteria by adapting to conditions."
The truth, however, is very different from this superficial interpretation. One of the scientists who has done the most detailed research into this subject is the Israeli biophysicist Lee Spetner, who is also known for his book Not by Chance published in 1997. Spetner maintains that the immunity of bacteria comes about by two different mechanisms, but neither of them constitutes evidence for the theory of evolution. These two mechanisms are:
1) The transfer of resistance genes already extant in bacteria.
2) The building of resistance as a result of losing genetic data because of mutation.
Professor Spetner explains the first mechanism in an article published in 2001:
«Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to these antibiotics. This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell... The organisms having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well. Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have... succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics.»
Πηγή 18: Dr. Lee Spetner, "Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue: Continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max,” 2001, http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp
Spetner then goes on to say that this is not "evidence for evolution":
«The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner... is not
the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution… The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacterium's genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species.»
Πηγή 19: Dr. Lee Spetner, "Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue: Continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max,” 2001, http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp
The second type of immunity, which comes about as a result of mutation, is not an example of evolution either. Spetner writes:
«... [A] microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic through a random substitution of a single nucleotide... Streptomycin, which was discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first reported in 1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in this way. But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT [Neo-Darwinian Theory]. The type of mutation that grants resistance to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and degrades its molecular match with the antibiotic molecule.»
Πηγή 20: Dr. Lee Spetner, "Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue: Continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max,” 2001, http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp
In his book Not by Chance, Spetner likens this situation to the disturbance of the key-lock relationship. Streptomycin, just like a key that perfectly fits in a lock, clutches on to the ribosome of a bacterium and inactivates it. Mutation, on the other hand, decomposes the ribosome, thus preventing streptomycin from holding on to the ribosome. Although this is interpreted as "bacteria developing immunity against streptomycin," this is not a benefit for the bacteria but rather a loss for it. Spetner writes:
«This change in the surface of the microorganism's ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule from attaching and carrying out its antibiotic function. It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information. The main point is that Evolution… cannot be achieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of them there are. Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only degrade specificity.»