Critique of the Theory of Evolution. Walter Friedman
Читать онлайн книгу.
But my wings are total disgrace
In my dreams I fly like a starling
But evolutionists separated me from thee!
A “primitive man” could have captured a dozen of these wild geese, which is a fairly easy thing to do, but what would be the next step? As the evolutionists suggest, he separated the slow and low-flying birds from the flock, bred them in captivity, and repeated the process several times until he got the geese that cannot fly. There is one minor problem with this theory, however: our man did not have equipment designed to measure the height and speed of a flight! No wonder he was called “primitive.” Besides, in order to take measurements he would have to release the birds from captivity. But once they are free, they are gone, so the evolutionists’ idea of domestication of the wild geese is gone with them.
What was the name of the cow’s ancestor? Whatever its name, this was a wild animal. But wild animals produce milk only when they have offspring—otherwise, there is no one around to release them from the burden (if you don’t milk a cow for several days in a row, she’ll literally go insane). A “primitive man” might have tried to milk a wild animal just to learn that nothing comes out of those mammary glands.
4 : The Case Studies
The principle of natural selection is to the evolutionary theory as gold-digging is to alchemy. Not very many people believe in alchemy in the twenty-first century, but several other outdated theories are still alive today. The best way to get rid of them is to expose their inconsistencies.
What is inconsistent about the principle of natural selection? To start with, it leads to ridiculous conclusions, as the following cases will show.
Case Study No. 1
Consider the case of the predator XYZ hunting the prey ZYX. Usually, ZYX has higher speed so it can easily outrun XYZ. But XYZ has a higher acceleration rate, which he uses to his advantage. XYZ gets as close to the prey as possible and then attacks by thrusting his body forward with great acceleration. Still, because the distance between the animals is greater than zero, some ZYX species get away while the slowest ones fall victim to the predator. If the principle of natural selection is correct, only the animals with the greater acceleration rate will survive and pass on their traits to future generations. But then some XYZ members will go home hungry and eventually die prematurely because their acceleration rates are not high enough; the deaths of these slower XYZs will pave the way for future generations with ever-increasing acceleration rates. This analysis shows that XYZ and ZYX cause a mutual increase in acceleration rate. But if this were true, today we would see animals running with super-sonic speeds!
The evolutionists might say that there are physical limitations that prohibit a constant increase in acceleration rate.
Let’s denote maximum increase in XYZ by dX, and in ZYX by dZ. Because XYZ and ZYX have very different body structures, dX is never equal to dZ.
A) dX > dZ In this case, ZYX disappears from the face of the earth and XYZ becomes herbivorous (the poor guy has to eat something!). However, no one has observed predators becoming vegetarians.
B) dZ > dX Without its natural enemy, the XYZ species undergoes unconstrained growth. However, this phenomenon has never been observed either.
The evolutionists might argue that this is not just XYZ and ZYX; in fact, they may argue, there is a host of other species involved. This is correct, of course, but it doesn’t really matter because some species will be slowly but steadily disappearing due to the increase in number of various types of predators, while the others will be steadily increasing in number due to the lack of several other types of predators. At the same time some predators will become vegetarian because their prey is gone. None of this, however, has been observed so far.
Case Study No. 2
Darwin used the principle of natural selection in an attempt to explain the fact that some types of fish-eating birds have larger beaks than those of their close relatives. According to Darwin, a larger beak allows a bird to catch bigger fish, thus reducing the number of unsuccessful tries. This may be true, but a majority of the birds do migrate, which means that in some lakes or parts of the ocean they encounter an abundance of smaller fish. Then the large beak becomes a liability—because of the law of inertia, it is much harder to move a large beak than a small one, so the number of unsuccessful tries goes up. Overall, neither size gives definitive advantage.
Case Study No. 3
Certain animals, including the sea lions, are the “Middle Easterners” of the animal world—they practice polygamy. The strongest animals have female harems that come as spoils from fierce battles. Evolutionists see the mating habits of such animals as proof of the principle of natural selection—the strongest animals pass on their characteristics to future generations by spreading their sperm around, so to speak. This assertion is correct, of course, but, as in case of the sea lions, physical strength is not the most desirable characteristic. For the sea lions who have to cover enormous distances in search of food, the most desirable characteristic is endurance. Actually, in the case of the sea lions, physical strength does not matter at all because they can easily overpower the fish that they eat. As every biologist knows, there is no correlation between physical strength and endurance (just take a look at those dried-up legs of the marathon runners!).
Case Study No. 4
Evolutionists believe that predators pick out the most genetically imperfect prey—sort of “genetic garbage”—while healthier animals produce the offspring. However, there is plenty of evidence to suggest the opposite.
Consider the case of a healthy, vibrant antelope that has a severe case of diarrhea for two days in a row. One more day would be enough for the strong immune system to overcome a malady, but the predator strikes on the second day and the weakened antelope becomes a prey. The diarrhea overrides the principle of natural selection!
Evolutionists would say that this is a very unlikely event.
But what about the cubs who are more likely to become the predator’s lunch? Given a chance to grow up, they could become the fastest animals in the herd.
Often the older animals move slower than “genetically defective” ones. The predators might be munching on the older animal while the genetic defects copulate.
During the hunt a herd breaks into smaller groups, the predator might be chasing a group with normal animals while the animals that are not “supposed” to pass on their genes to future generations join the other groups.
A herd could be subdivided into two groups: Group A includes the animals that are temporarily ill, very young animals, older animals, and normal animals that happen to be in a hapless group chased by a predator; Group B includes animals with genetic defects only. Group A comprises about 90% of the herd; Group B comprises about 10%. There is an 81% chance that the predator will attack a healthy animal. The percentage is high enough to declare the principle of natural selection null and void.
In reality, there is no such thing as the principle of natural selection. But without this principle the evolutionary theory is dead.
5 : Too Many Obstacles
“Cradle of Life”
According to the evolutionists, the ocean is the cradle of life because it is the place where the original cell came to be. Creatures big and small inhabited the ocean, then some of them moved ashore in search of a better life. But the shore was empty and there was no vegetation around. Unless we assume that vegetation moved out of the sea and onto land first, we come to the conclusion that the creatures must have returned to the sea with its abundance of food.
It is not hard to imagine how seaweed found itself on a shore as the result of a powerful storm. But seaweed does not have the luxury of moving in and out of the sea; once it is on the soil it has to adapt to new conditions fast, otherwise it withers away. It takes several generations for seaweed, or any other type of vegetation, to adapt to new conditions. If the evolutionary theory is correctly applied, it leads to the erroneous conclusion