The following four articles provide insight into evolutionary beliefs, and, by applying a little critical thinking, I hope they serve to dispel some myths; evolution lacks evidence, and, therefore, isn’t a true theory, but is more accurately described as an unsubstantiated conjecture.
The first article is titled, “Humanity’s Early Ancestors Were Upright Walking Apes”. I found this title amusing because its filled with irony and hypocrisy; evolutionists are often quick to point out that apes didn’t evolve into humans, and they correct anyone who suggests as much; instead, they explain, that while humans may share a common ancestor with modern apes, we actually evolved from some unknown ape-like ancestor about 5-11 million years ago that wasn’t an ape. So, it’s interesting that evolutionists would promote a myth they reject.
The article goes on to claim that bipedalism (walking on two legs) was the first major change that occurred in human evolution. But nothing in the article is substantiated. Evolution is assumed, and we’re expected to accept their claims as fact, without question, evidence or skepticism. For example, they claim that evolution is ‘evident from bones’. However, there are many scientists who reject such claims based on fossil evidence, so what may be evident to one scientist is counter-evident to another; it then boils down to whom you choose to believe, and that, in turn, is based on personal ideology.
The article promotes the myth that humans and chimps are distantly related, and it does so by assuming the truth of evolution. If evolution were true, they reason, then we should be able to figure out how long ago humans and chimps diverged, and this is done by comparing differences in their DNA (a molecular clock). But keep in mind that this molecular clock doesn’t prove evolution has occurred… just that, if it did, then we should be able to figure out some kind of evolutionary timeline.
But the author undermines his own claims by lamenting the bleakness of the fossil record- namely that we don’t have any fossils of the mythological creature known as our Last Common Ancestor (LCA), and it’s likely we never will, or we wouldn’t know if we did. The author admits that the fossil evidence is scant and extremely fragmented. So, I think it’s entirely appropriate to remain skeptical.
The next article is titled, “How multi-celled animals developed: Evolutionary discovery to rewrite textbooks”. A title like this should lead us to ask a fundamental question… why would the textbooks need to be rewritten if evolution were so well understood? Seriously, evolutionists have been trying to convince us for decades that evolution is indisputable, yet their facts keep changing. Perhaps this is evidence that evolution isn’t a fact after all.
The article states that our centuries-old understanding of evolution has been upended. In fact, these evolutionists were surprised at findings that contradicted their own evolutionary beliefs. It’s commonly believed that multi-celled organisms evolved from a single-celled ancestor… but that fact is no longer true. It was supposed to be a “no-brainer”, but now they’re “taking a core theory of evolutionary biology and turning it on its head”.
The best quote is from Professor Bernie Degnan: “Now we have an opportunity to re-imagine the steps that gave rise to the first animals, the underlying rules that turned single cells into multicellular animals.” In other words, evolution is based on imagination, not evidence or common sense. Evolution is so elastic that, if it’s falsified, then one only needs to reimagine it.
The next article is titled, “Drunken Monkey’ Hypothesis: Was Booze an Advantage For Our Ancestors?”
Nice! The article tries to explain that our ancestors evolved the taste for alcohol because it was an evolutionary advantage.
But such a claim doesn’t demonstrate that evolution is possible; it merely assumes it to be true; an evolutionist invents a clever story that seems plausible, and it’s accepted because it makes sense of what they already believe. But, as a creationist, I think it makes more sense that God created us to enjoy alcohol from the beginning of creation, and he did so for our enjoyment. Consider this famous quote from Benjamin Franklin: “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.”
Okay, now that quote may be questionable, but I think most beer-drinkers would raise a cheer.
The last article is titled, “As the Hunt Drags Out, Physicists Start Searching for the Lightest Dark Matter”. But wait… evolutionists have been trying to convince us that dark matter is another proven fact, so what’s the deal?
Actually, the article admits that dark matter has not been found, and, despite the sophisticated techniques used to conduct the search, experiments keep coming up empty. But that doesn’t deter evolutionists. No, they’re convinced that this hypothetical entity exists, so, to them, it’s just a matter of conducting the right experiment to prove it. You see, dark matter is necessary to prop up Big Bang cosmology, so there’s real motivation to find this substance, therefore, evolutionists must resort to new methods. Evolutionist are “searching for dark matter that may look different than theory originally predicted.”
That’s interesting because evolutionists are fond of claiming that evolution and the Big Bang are legitimate scientific theories due to their ability to make successful predictions. Typically, those theories which are falsified as a result of failed predictions are abandoned. However, even when evolution and the Big Bang are falsified, evolutionists move the goalpost. According to the author, “So now they’re expanding their guesses, and trying to stay nimble in their search.”
Hmmm, sounds like the Big Bang cosmology has been thoroughly discredited.