Evolutionists failure
Why Do Modern Evolutionists Continue to Fail in Producing Advanced New Species in the Laboratory?
Not a single case has ever been documented of new, more advanced and complex genes being created - in nature - by mutations (or any other means, for that matter).
And although Evolutionists for decades have been attempting to force the random modification of genes in laboratories to produce new organisms, they have been woefully unsuccessful.
Fruit flies are a notable example. Because fruit flies reproduce so rapidly, evolutionists decided to employ them in an attempt to prove mutations would result in the formation of new species.
Their plan was, among other things, to expose the unfortunate creatures to extremely high doses of radiation. This would significantly increase the normal rate of mutation. Perhaps they could accelerate the rate of Evolution by the equivalent of hundreds of millions of years. The high mutation rate combined with the short generation span of the fruit fly would surely produce some interesting new species. Their intention was to separate mutated specimens, repeat the process, and breed increasingly stranger fruit flies until an entirely new species was developed.
The experiments started in the 1940s and evidently continued relentlessly for decades. Fruit flies were mutated, bred, and separated billions of times. Did the fruit fly change into a bumble bee? Or perhaps a June bug? Surely a common housefly at the very least?
Nope.
But they did succeed in one thing: they created an unparalleled freak show of fruit flies with red eyes, white eyes, little wings, and big wings. They produced live flies and dead flies. But after many, many generations and years of torturing these poor creatures, they still had nothing more than a fruit fly.
Testing has reportedly since been expanded to other organisms, yet no new species have been documented.
Why Are Evolutionists Still Fabricating "Evidence"?
Rarely do evolutionists discover complete skeletal remains. Have you ever wondered how they managed to reconstruct a skeletal remain that was 10% complete? Or 5% complete? Or maybe 1% complete? Since fossils and ancient skeletal remains are often so incomplete, how then do evolutionists come up with these amazing diagrams of ancient creatures we witness in our modern school text books, creatures they insert into their gap-riddled fossil record?
Very simple: using great imagination combined with unparalleled creativity. Science has extended to evolutionists an unrestricted, unregulated "creative license" to manufacture from fractional skeletal remains whatever creature it chooses. Unfortunately, this liberty extended to evolutionists has resulted in several highly visible and embarrassing incidents.
Boule's Monster and Nebraska Man
First comes the incident involving "Boule's monster," the discovery by renown paleoanthropologist Marcellin Boule in 1908 of a supposedly ancient human skeleton in France.7 Evolutionists were thrilled in the discovery of what appeared to be a virtually complete skeleton matching Neandrathal Man in posture. Boule's pictorial reconstruction, depicting a slumping ogre, for several decades affected the fossil record and scientific thinking. Not until years later was it discovered that the hunched Neandrathal look-alike was simply a humanoid with an advanced case of osteoarthritis.
Then there's "Nebraska Man," entirely reconstructed from the discovery in the 1920s of what years later turned out to be a pig's tooth. From this single tooth - originally estimated at 1,000,000 years old - evolutionists managed stir up incredible publicity, reconstructing not only an entire "Nebraska Man" from the tooth, but also his wife, family, and an entire new North American race. The discovery of the new North American species sent the evolutionary world into a state of wobbly bliss. Humanity finally had proof that man lived at least 1,000,000 years ago! In 1927, the reconstructed Nebraska Man was aptly placed into the fossil record much like a retired athlete is inducted into the Hall of Fame. Some called it the "million dollar tooth." Evolutionary thinking was influenced accordingly - that is, until it was revealed to be a pig's tooth.
Java Man and More
Then there's Java Man - perhaps the most famous of all ape-men. Discovered in Java in 1891 by Dutch evolutionist / physician Dr. Eugene Dubois while attempting to locate the missing link between apes and men, Java Man consisted of the top of a skull, a bone fragment (left thigh), and the 3 molar teeth. The entire evolutionary community was trilled at the find, originally approximated at 750,000 years old.
However, after closer analysis some evolutionists were skeptical. Especially when it was discovered Dubois had chosen his bones from a pit of other animal remains that were scattered over the better part of an acre. It became obvious that Dubois had simply fished among some bones until he found a couple that matched, and then located some teeth to go with the wardrobe.
Several evolutionists weren't sure the bones even came from a man. In a meeting of 24 eminent European scientists: 10 said ape, 7 said man, but only 7 believed the bones to represent the elusive "missing link." H.G. Wells, the devout evolutionary historian, believed not only did the bones belong to an ape, but probably 2 apes. Even Dubois himself later reversed his position, declaring the bones probably belonged to a gibbon. (3) Nonetheless, lacking any other credible evidence evolutionists still promote "Java Man" as the most important proof of a missing link between man and ape.
Similar to Java Man was another find reportedly presented in a 1926 Science Newsletter of what scientists considered the complete skull of an ape-like creature. Evolutionists later were dismayed to learn that the "skull" was actually the knee-bone of an extinct elephant.
Heidelberg Man
Then there's "Heidelberg Man" - yet another famous museum exhibit. Possessing a massive jaw-bone discovered near Heidelberg (Germany), Heidelberg Man was believed to be 700,000 years old, an age that was later downgraded to 375,000 - which tends to make one a bit rightfully suspicious about the accuracy of scientific dating techniques.
Once again, with only a jaw bone to go on scientists differed in their opinions. Some believed it was worth-while and others believed it was worth-less. Some said it definitely was not an intermediate between man and ape. One scientist demonstrated Heidelberg jaw to be practically an exact match to the skull of the modern day Eskimo.
Another scientist pointed to an entire race of South Sea islanders possessing massive jaw bones. And yet another scientist observed that one could probably stroll down the streets of any major city and see example after example of men - and even a few women - with "Heidelberg jaw."
Since there was confusion among evolutionists over how worthwhile the find really was, they resorted to the old rule of thumb: when in doubt, always choose the assumption which best favors the evidence-starved Theory of Evolution. Thus, Heidelberg Man can be seen today in reconstructed form within museums and biology books spotting the globe.
Piltdown Man
Next, "Piltdown Man." Allegedly discovered in 1912 in Piltdown, England by an amateur fossilologist named Charles Dawson, Piltdown Man consisted of a skull fragment, jaw fragment, and 2 molar teeth. Evolutionists acclaimed the find at an amazing 500,000 years old, and the famous creature was respectfully dubbed Eoanthropus dawsoni in honor of its finder. (5) Piltdown Man was considered second in fame only to Java Man himself. Some believed him to be even older than Java Man. Accordingly, Piltdown Man was lavishly re-created and displayed in the illustrious British Museum. How could any sane-minded person doubt Evolution now?
More than 40 years went by, when in October, 1956 a closer examination of the find was rendered. The results were titanicly shocking. Particularly when it was determined the jaw bone had actually belonged to an ape deceased a mere 50 years prior. Worse, the teeth had been filed down to disguise their original shape, and both the teeth and bones had been artificially sprinkled with bichromate of potash. It was a horrendous fraud. And yet for almost half a century schools had religiously taught the importance of Piltdown Man in the fossil record.
This unfortunate incident was "an accident waiting to happen" in the hopeful evolutionary community, starved for empirical evidence and zealous to prove to the world their embattled theory was correct.
Piltdown Chicken
Last - but not least - comes the infamous account of "Piltdown Chicken," an evolutionary ground-hog-day performance, just the latest in the long string of hoaxes Experts have succumbed to.
Proudly displayed by the National Geographic Society as a missing link between birds and dinosaurs, Piltdown Chicken had been cobbled together in 1997 by an enterprising Chinese farmer.
The unidentified con man had reportedly discovered an exquisite birdlike fossil with faint feather impressions. Rumor has it that a couple yards away, he also located a lizard-like fossil tail.
Needing some quick cash, he glued the two together and, according to reports, apparently sold his art for a literal "steal" (forgive the pun) of $80,000 to a collection of thrilled investors consisting of Paleontology Experts and National Geographic editors. The find was insured for an astonishing $1.6 million and proudly displayed by National Geographic Magazine in its November 1999 issue.
Evolutionists had always known these creatures, these missing links between birds and dinosaurs, had existed. All they had needed was evidence.
Now they had it.
True to form, they put their boundless imaginations to work and dubbed the "new species" Archaeoraptor liaoningensis.
Although a few months later a scientist had the decency to expose the fossil as a hoax, once again the incident showcased the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality of evidence-starved evolutionists. (6)
Where is the Real Evidence?
Evolutionists claim to have discovered supporting evidence from practically every field of science imaginable - including such impressive fields as archaeology, geography, medicine, and biology. In fact, some boldly acclaim that the entire field of biology is based upon the Theory of Evolution. Is this true?
One of the "best kept secrets" of macroevolution is simply it's lack of quality evidence. It has none. All of the evidence, without exception, is highly circumstantial and always accompanied with ample reasonable doubt.
Perhaps the greatest scientific hypocrisy of our day is practiced by evolutionists who extol the virtues of the Scientific Method while ignoring it completely when it comes to macroevolution. The Scientific Method - taught in practically every first level course of biological science - rightly suggests scientists should "ask questions about nature, pose hypotheses to answer the questions, and test the hypotheses with actual evidence; be skeptics, suspicious of poorly documented or contrived answers to their questions."
But evolution has no hard evidence to hang its hat upon - only distant circumstantial evidence combined with often entertaining speculation. Even some evolutionists will privately admit the truth. Biologists Paul and Ann Ehrlich wrote: "In the vast majority of cases, the rate of change [of evolution] is so slow that it has not even been possible to detect an increase in the amount of differentiation [of species]." (7) And, "…there is not a fossil proof for believing that there has ever been change from one large classification group to another." (8) These facts, however, have not kept evolutionists from proclaim their embattled theory as rock-solid as Thermodynamics itself.
So, instead of embracing the Scientific Method, evolutionists have consistently disregarded it. Instead of properly testing their theories, they have ignored other viable explanations; instead of being skeptical, they have been gullible; instead of being suspicious of poorly documented or contrived answers, they have themselves been guilty of purposefully deceiving the general public by contriving their own answers.
Evolutionists have not been able to observe Evolution taking place in nature. They have not been able to reproduce the phenomenon in their laboratories - although for years they've been trying to make it happen. They have subjected their pathetic creature-subjects to massive dosages of radiation and other experiments in futile attempts to generate mutated, more complex organisms. After decades of effort and untold millions of dollars spent: still no positive results.
Evolutionists have ignored one of the most fundamental laws of our universe (Entropy). They have ignored obvious facts (e.g., the massive extinction rate and the impossible mathematical probabilities involved in macroevolution) with no hard evidence supporting their unlikely explanations. And today, in spite of the explosion of technology, they are still no further along in proof of their theory than in Darwin's day.
Incredibly, the main evidence presented today as "proof" of Evolution still appears to be the Fossil Theory (a "fossil" is an ancient skeleton that has been preserved in the earth's crust, usually in rock). Evolutionists have cataloged their fossil finds from the simplest-looking to the most complex. They call their catalogue the "fossil record" or "fossil chain." Merely looking at the fossil record, they claim, provides the strongest evidence Evolution happened. But the fossil record was far from the smooth continuum they expected. Indeed, it contains large, inexplicable gaps in it - "missing links." Said evolutionist Dr. James Birx: "Admittedly incomplete at this time, the fossil record is the single most important body of evidence to support the fact of organic evolution." (9) But remember: "…there is not a fossil proof for believing that there has ever been change from one large classification group to another."
To explain these disturbing roadblocks to their theory, Evolutionists have manufactured a great deal of speculation they have convinced many is "science." The fossil record does not progress smoothly from one life form to the next, as one might expect, even though evolutionists have millions of fossils to work with and arrange in the order of their choosing - an art rather than a science. But why? Could it be that Evolution was accelerated at times, and at other times it was decelerated (i.e., the artful theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium")? Wouldn't this explain why fossils were found for some species but gaps existed elsewhere?
Bottom line: no conclusive evidence for any of it.
Evolutionist Robert Lewin added: "The fossil record...does not reveal a continuum of transitional forms between species. Each species in the record is relatively unchanging through time." (10)
Another evolutionist admitted: "the production of a new animal species in nature has yet to be documented." Yet another added: "Within species there normally is no progressive modification by natural selection." (11)
This doesn't exactly inspire our confidence in the Theory of Evolution.
