What's Wrong With Darwin Theory | JamiiForums | The Home of Great Thinkers

Dismiss Notice
You are browsing this site as a guest. It takes 2 minutes to CREATE AN ACCOUNT and less than 1 minute to LOGIN

What's Wrong With Darwin Theory

Discussion in 'Jukwaa la Elimu (Education Forum)' started by X-PASTER, Sep 18, 2008.


    X-PASTER Moderator

    Sep 18, 2008
    Joined: Feb 12, 2007
    Messages: 11,651
    Likes Received: 105
    Trophy Points: 160

    More than 6,000 species of ape have existed at one time or another. The great majority of them have since become extinct and vanished, leaving only some 120 species alive today. But the fossils belonging to these nearly 6,000 extinct species represent a rich source of hoaxes for evolutionists. Unable to point to any concrete evidence, evolutionists surround fossils of extinct apes with biased analyses and then present them as evidence for evolution.
    For years now, evolutionists have been employing such methods in order to gather supporters and mislead the public. However, they now need to see that these methods are of no use. The false evidence used by evolutionists to make their tall tales of the alleged human evolution seem more credible—and the debunking of that evidence—are summarized below. However, there are many more evolutionist hoaxes than the few considered here. All the “ancestor of man” reports in the media, as well as the illustrations accompanying them are completely fictitious. Concrete scientific discoveries have now demolished the story that human beings became human by means of a gradual course of development.

    Java Man (Pekin Man)

    Piltdown Man: A fossil skull was discovered in 1912 and described as belonging to a half-human, half-ape species. For the next 40 years or so, evolutionists used this fossil as one of their supposedly strongest pieces of evidence, making countless analyses and illustrations of it in a statement issued on 21 November 1953, however, Piltdown Man was finally declared to be a hoax. A dating test performed 40 years after its discovery revealed that the jawbone and the skull did not actually belong to each other. More detailed examination revealed that the “Piltdown Man” skull had been assembled by adding an orangutan jaw to a human skull, which was then aged using potassium dichromate. The way that the skull had been displayed in London’s Natural History Museum for 40 years and that no permission had been given for detailed scientific studies to be carried out during that time has gone down as a major scientific scandal.

    Piltdown Man

    Fossils discovered on the islands of Java in 1891 and 1892 were given the name Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus). Fossils discovered near Pekin in 1923-1927 were given the name Pekin Man (Sinanthropus pekinensis). In 1939, however, two experts, Ralph von Koenigswald and Franz Weidenreich, revealed that both were actually normal human beings.(1) And Ernst Mayr from Harvard University had classified both as human in 1944.(2)


    These three completely different illustrations produced for the Zinjanthropus fossil are examples of how evolutionists interpret fossils in a highly imaginative manner.

    Zinjanthropus: A fossil discovered in 1959 and declared to be the ancestor of man. However, subsequent investigations revealed that Zinjanthropus was in fact an ordinary ape in all respects. Zinjanthropus, whose scientific name was twice revised, is regarded by contemporary evolutionists as an extinct life form with nothing to do with human beings.(3)

    Imaginary Reconstruction

    Nebraska Man: A single tooth, discovered in 1922 by Henry F. Osborn of the American Museum of Natural History, was depicted as belonging to an intermediate life form between apes and human beings. However, in an article published in Science magazine in 1927, Osborn’s colleague William Gregory stated that the tooth actually belonged to a wild boar—whereupon all evolutionist claims regarding the fossil were quietly laid aside. The illustration to the side, produced on the basis of a single tooth by evolutionists of the time, was published in the press.
    This attempt by evolutionists to reconstruct a living thing on the basis of a single tooth is a striking instance of how biased and misleading they can be when it comes to defending and imposing their theories.


    Neanderthal Man: After the first specimens were discovered in the Neander Valley in 1856, evolutionists suggested that Neanderthals were primitive ape-men. Subsequent archaeological discoveries, however, revealed that there was no scientific basis to that claim. Erik Trinkhaus, an expert on the subject of the Neanderthals and also an evolutionist, has admitted that, “Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans.”(4)
    In addition, the size of the Neanderthal Man skull—200 cubic centimeters greater than that of present-day humans—reveals the invalidity of the claim that it was an intermediate form between humans and apes.

    The illustration above shows the Homo sapiens neanderthalensis Amud 1 skull discovered in Israel. Its owner has been estimated to be 1.80 meters. tall, and its brain volume is the greatest so far discovered: 1740 cubic centimeters.


    A fossil belonging to the Neanderthal race

    The Taung child fossil

    The Taung Child: A fossil skull discovered by Raymond Dart in South Africa in 1924 was initially depicted as a supposed ancestor of man. However, contemporary evolutionists can no longer maintain that it represents such an ancestor—because it subsequently transpired that the skull belonged to a young gorilla! The famous anatomist Bernard Wood stated that this fossil constitutes no evidence in favor of evolution in an article published in New Scientist magazine. (5)

    Lucy: This fossil, discovered in Africa in 1974, was widely esteemed by evolutionists and was the subject of some of the most intensive speculation. Recently however, it has been revealed that Lucy (A. afarensis) had an anatomy ideally suited to climbing trees and was no different from other apes we are familiar with.(6) The French scientific journal Science et Vie covered the story in 1999 under the headline “Adieu, Lucy.” One study, performed in 2000, discovered a locking system in Lucy’s forearms enabling it to walk using the knuckles, in the same way as modern-day chimps.(7)
    In the face of all these findings, many evolutionist experts declared that Lucy could not have been a forerunner of man.(8)

    Ramapithecus: A partial jawbone, consisting of two parts, was discovered by G.E. Lewis in India in the 1930s. Based on these two jaw bone fragments, claimed to be 14 million years old, evolutionists reconstructed Ramapithecus’s family and supposed natural habitat (at side). For fifty years, the fossil was portrayed as an ancestor of Man but following the results of a 1981 anatomical comparison with a baboon skeleton, evolutionists were forced to quietly set it aside.(9)

    (1) B. Theunissen, Eugene Dubois and the Ape-Man from Java, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989, p. 39. (2) Garniss Curtis, Carl Swisher and Roger Lewin, Java Man, London: Abacus, , 2000, p. 87. (3) Australopithecus boisei (4) Erik Trinkaus, “Hard Times Among the Neanderthals,” Natural History, Vol. 87, December 1978, p. 10. (5) Bernard Wood, “Who Are We?.” New Scientist, 26.10.2002, p. 44. (6) Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower, New York: Taplinger Publications, 1970, pp. 75-94; Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood, Frans Zonneveld, “Implication of Early Hominid Labryntine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion,” Nature, Vol. 369, 23 June 1994, pp. 645-648. (7) Richmond, B.G. and Strait, D.S., “Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor.” Nature 404(6776): 382, 2000. (8) “Discovery rocks human-origin theories,” Tim Friend, 21 March 2003: Latest World & National News & Headlines - USATODAY.com science/2001-03-21-skull.htm
    (9) Science Digest, April 1981.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 18, 2008
  2. T

    Tikerra JF-Expert Member

    Sep 18, 2008
    Joined: Sep 3, 2008
    Messages: 1,704
    Likes Received: 7
    Trophy Points: 0
    The theory of evolution to me will remain as not bad science as some might say, but rather not science at all.To me a scientific hypothesis must be able to be proved by experimentation.Since Darwin came up with his non sense of evolution, no body has proved that apes have ever changed or evolved into human beings.This is what I expected them to show.They have never done that.So again to me evolution is nothing but non sense or utopia.
  3. Fugwe

    Fugwe JF-Expert Member

    Sep 18, 2008
    Joined: Aug 21, 2008
    Messages: 1,680
    Likes Received: 230
    Trophy Points: 160
    I agree with you. If you want to know that a certain theory is true and is working, there are criteria for evaluating it. Hereunder are these criteria:

    1. How testable?
    A good theory must be testable. If a theory can not be tested against empirical data, it is no scientific value.

    2.How simple?
    A good theory is concise, it is effectively summarized the widest range of events with a few brief statements. simplicity is the virtue because a theory is supposed to reduce a large body of information into some simple statements.

    3.How empirically validity?
    If a theory is simple and testable, then a third feature to look is whether it is empirically validit. This is also important when evaluating a theory. |Do research findings support the theory and its predictions? It means very little if a theory is simple and testable, but empirically false. What is important is whether empirical findings generally supply strong or weak evidences.

    4. How logically consistency?
    A good theory is logically consistent. Its parts fit together like a jigsaw puzzle.

    I doubt if Darwin's theory agreed to the above criteria. Let us hear opinions from other Jf members, may be they can conviced us.
  4. Alnadaby

    Alnadaby JF-Expert Member

    Sep 18, 2008
    Joined: Sep 28, 2006
    Messages: 507
    Likes Received: 11
    Trophy Points: 0
    Darwin himself based his book descent of man, on the basis of structural resemblances between man and apes. He did not say that he had proved it. Just like when he was on the voyage of HMS Beagle on the Galapagos Islands he noticed different finches on neighbouring islands having minor differences from each other. He concluded that all these finches had evolved from a common ancestor. Similarly he noticed resemblances between man and monkey and concluded that both had evolved from a common ancestor.
    If structural resemblance is the only criterion then we have a good resemblance with many other creatures as well. The wing of a bat, fin of a whale and arm of a man are bone and similar to each other yet these are totally different from each other and cannot be grouped together.
    Similarly, as dissection of the frog's body is taught to medical students the human beings have system for system, muscle for muscle nerve for nevre and vessel for vessel a resemblance with the frog. But can they be grouped together?
    But are we similar to other creatures in features such as locomotive reproductive, respiratory, endocrine genito-urinary, cardiac and central nervous systems? But this does not mean that man and other creatures can be grouped together with a common ancestor.
    The Encyclopedia Britanica has criticised the idea of having a common ancestor on the basis of structural resemblance. It says, "In the absence of a fossil record, structural and other adaptations have been projected back as an ancestral condition from living descendent species; but this is a very risky procedure that dismisses morphological transformation and adaptation and assumes stasis without complementary confirmation."
    As far as man's resemblance with other creatures is concerned the Holy Qur'an says, "There is not an animal on earth nor a bird that flies on its wings but they are all communities like you."
    It is quite easy to understand that man has similarities with other creatures in various body systems although it is at variance with different species, yet man enjoys a unique position. Today there are one million species of animals and two hundred thousand species of plants. Scientists also say that todays' existing species are just 0.1 percent of the total species that this earth ever witnessed.
    It means that 99.9 per cent of species have already died out and became extinct. So, out of the 2 billion species that ever existed on earth why is man the only species which has such a highly developed brain? Why is he the only one who communicates with each other with the help of a complete verbal language. Why do no other species come closer to man in these characteristics? Darwin's theory is based on natural selection, which means that the evolutionary process takes place only when there is a need for it. For example giraffes grew long necks as they needed to eat the leaves of tall trees.
    The question is what was the need which made man to develop so fast and evolve in to such a remarkable intellectual and social creature that he is unmatched by the two billion species which ever existed on this earth.
    If, according to Darwin, monkeys and apes had the same ancestors as mankind, then why did they not develop into creatures resembling man. Why did they remain so far behind whereas the environmental conditions and rules of evolution apply equally to all species.
    In fact, from the evolutionary point of view man has shown some negative trends as compared to these species. For example, if at all man has evolved from a common ancestor of monkeys and apes, why is a new-born human infant so dependent on his parents for a relatively much longer time, as compared to the offspring of monkeys who are up and about in a much shorter time after birth. Remember that evolution is a process which improves the ability of a species to live in a better manner in an environment. It does not take away the already existing good features.
    This obviously means that man and monkey have no link with each other as far as their ancestry is concerned. And here we should not forget that scientists hold the opinion that the human DNA is evolving at a much slower pace than in other species.
    Then why is it that a specie which, according to scientists, came into being only a few million years ago, became the most prominent creature of the world, whereas those species which have existed for the past 3.5 billion year are still at the stage of development where they had been before and have not shown any social or intellectual improvement?
    If we compare the human being with other species one thing becomes clear; Most other species, such as the monkey, exist in sub-species.
    Apes, orang-utans, gorillas all having anatomical differences with each other but there is only one specie, homo sapiens, living in the world. Although there are racial differences, anatomically we are all the same. Humans from all continents have the same bones, vessels, muscles, nerves and other anatomical features and there is no sub-species among them.
    This is further proof that man did not evolve as suggested by Darwin but came into being by the will of God. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that his arrival on the earth was not a gradual conversion from apes.
  5. Pundit

    Pundit JF-Expert Member

    Sep 18, 2008
    Joined: Feb 4, 2007
    Messages: 3,741
    Likes Received: 25
    Trophy Points: 135
    I applaud your sober, however biased, criteria

    1. How testable?
    A good theory must be testable. If a theory can not be tested against empirical data, it is no scientific value..[/QUOTE]

    Darwin's Theory of Evolution is testable.Please do not confuse the difficulties of testing large scale evolution, mainly due to the geological time scale needed, to testing evolution period.It is true that you simply cannot start with a single celled organism today and expect to observe the evolution of that cell into more complex forms of life and eventually observing a large mammalian like lifeform spring to life, the time involved may prove to be in the billions of years if at all the process will mature.But it is equally true that evolution can be observed as a product of random mutations and survival of the fittest.This can be observed from life forms as different as viruses (e.g evolving strands of HIV that are more deadlier than previous ones) to antibiotic resistant bacterias (back in the days certain STDs were cured without a visit to the doctor simply by using a dose of Tetraciclyne, nowadays even the more formidable Anthromicyn is not sufficient to fight some previously Tetracycline curable STDs)

    The theory of evolution is not only concise, it is that and elegant as well.It is so concise, elegant and simple that I wonder why nobody thought of it (or at least published it widely) before Darwin. The theory of evolution is compatible with some very central scientific fundamentals, like the arrow of time and entropy, the second law of thermodynamics and the principles of irreversability in nature, that if you start with simple cells, most cells are bound to be simple, but as long as a few cells mutate to become a little bit more complex and that complexity give the few cells an advantage over the less complex cells, only a handful of the complex cells will be needed to carry the torch so to speak and pass on the gene of complexity to future generations until further mutations and natural selection further the process.Give a few billion years and what started as a single cell organism will turn into Homo Sapien Sapien with all these questions.

    The problem is the human mind can comprehend neither astronomical distances nor geological timescales, we did not evolve with the yardstick to comprehend the two.

    My answer to the first question addressed not only the testability of evolution, but also gave examples to validate the said theory.

    Among the most elegant theories in science, right up there with Newton's laws of motion and Einstein's Relativity Theory. The natural world provide countless evidence and anecdotes to show how consistent evolution is.If there is an inconsistency I beg to be shown.

    A big part of the problem with people who cannot understand evolution, is the fallacious thinking that evolution is ordered, or has a certain destination, therefore they ask a whole lot of illogical questions like "If the apes and man had a common ancestors then why did not the ape evolve to look like man" they want to dictate order into a purely chance event enhanced by natural selection.

    On the other hand, even the question is subjective.At what point do you say the ape resembe man and at what can you reasonably say he doesn't? Isn't upright walking coupled with a host of other generic features enough of a striking resemblance between the ape and man?

    I again applaud your criteria, but your conclusion forwards a deep rooted doubt. Can you substantiate the reasoning behind by a possible explanation using the same criteria?
  6. Kang

    Kang JF-Expert Member

    Sep 18, 2008
    Joined: Jun 24, 2008
    Messages: 5,121
    Likes Received: 616
    Trophy Points: 280
    Very well put, there is really nothing to add.

    X-PASTER Moderator

    Sep 19, 2008
    Joined: Feb 12, 2007
    Messages: 11,651
    Likes Received: 105
    Trophy Points: 160
    The theory of evolution has been unable to provide a coherent explanation for the existence of the molecules that are the basis of the cell. Furthermore, developments in the science of genetics and the discovery of the nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) have produced brand-new problems for the theory of evolution.

    In 1955, the work of two scientists on DNA, James Watson and Francis Crick, launched a new era in biology. Many scientists directed their attention to the science of genetics. Today, after years of research, scientists have, largely, mapped the structure of DNA.

    The molecule called DNA, which exists in the nucleus of each of the 100 trillion cells in our body, contains the complete construction plan of the human body. Information regarding all the characteristics of a person, from the physical appearance to the structure of the inner organs, is recorded in DNA by means of a special coding system. The information in DNA is coded within the sequence of four special bases that make up this molecule. These bases are specified as A, T, G, and C according to the initial letters of their names. All the structural differences among people depend on the variations in the sequence of these bases. There are approximately 3.5 billion nucleotides, that is, 3.5 billion letters in a DNA molecule.

    The DNA data pertaining to a particular organ or protein is included in special components called "genes". For instance, information about the eye exists in a series of special genes, whereas information about the heart exists in quite another series of genes. The cell produces proteins by using the information in all of these genes. Amino acids that constitute the structure of the protein are defined by the sequential arrangement of three nucleotides in the DNA

    At this point, an important detail deserves attention. An error in the sequence of nucleotides making up a gene renders the gene completely useless. When we consider that there are 200 thousand genes in the human body, it becomes more evident how impossible it is for the millions of nucleotides making up these genes to form by accident in the right sequence. An evolutionist biologist, Frank Salisbury, comments on this impossibility by saying:

    A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41000 forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms), we can see that 41000=10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension.

    Simple Questions to those u belive in this theory:
    How did such a vital sense like seeing come to be? How could a formerly nonexistent concept—seeing—suddenly appear? Let's generalize the question by widening our scope. How did man come to existence in the first place, complete with his five senses, brains, internal organs, limbs, and with a soul and a functioning body?