The European eel illustrates exactly why Charles Darwin theory of evolution has continued to be on the wrong side of science. Darwin once argued that “By the theory of natural selection, all living species have been connected… So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great.”
Since the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, Darwin’s “inconceivably great” number of evolutionary transitional links over the past 150 years still remains missing despite the discovery of vast numbers of fossils. The eel, sometimes known as a living fossil, highlights the unique and bizarre novelties of nature rather than Darwin’s endless series of transitional links. More importantly, rather than serving as an example of evolution, eels, specifically the European eel, now faces extinction, not evolution. Darwin, once again, proved wrong. Continue Reading
Mutation + Selection = Stasis
The genetic mutation plus natural selection equation emerged as the most popular theory of biological evolution during the twentieth century. With advances in biotechnology, however, the credibility of this theory – popularly known as neo-Darwinism or the Modern Synthesis theory – has since been increasingly challenged by evolutionary scientists.
In an experimental evolution model using the yeast microbe Saccharomyces cerevisiae, a recent study published in the journal Science by a Harvard research group undermines the theory of genetic mutations plus natural selection equals evolution. The model demonstrates stasis – not evolution.
New high-resolution CT scans of the Taung Child skull by international research team led by Ralph L. Holloway of Columbia University in New York casts renewed questions into the inane evolution storytelling practice at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History.
Discovered in 1924 in South Africa, models of the skull have long since been duplicated for natural history museums as evidence for human evolution worldwide, including the Smithsonian. Found near Taung, South Africa, the lynchpin skull was tagged with the common name of Taung Child because of the fossil’s estimated age of 3 years, then, later named Australopithecus africanus meaning the “southern ape from Africa.” Hollow’s new high-resolution CT scan images, however, undermine the long-held pre-Homo fossil status of the skull. Continue Reading
Unexpected Evolution Flip-Flop, Again
Two new research studies yielding contradictory conclusions highlight the unexpected and continuous flip-flop state of the evolution industry−once again. The latest example is a Himalayan songbird research study published in the British prestigious journal Nature contrasted against a Brazilian ant research study published in the American journal Current Biology.
The songbird study was led by Trevor D. Price of the University of Chicago, and the Brazilian ant study was led by Christian Rabeling of University of Rochester; both highly respected international teams. While the findings in the Himalayan songbird study support Charles Darwin’s speciation theory of geographical isolation, the Brazilian ant’s findings undermine his theory. Speciation, an evolution term intended to explains how new species might have developed from existing species, is in trouble once again. Continue Reading
Scientist Fired for Dinosaur Discovery
Mark Armitage, supervisor of a university laboratory and widely published scientist of more than 30 years, was fired by California State University of Northridge (CSUN) after publishing evidence of soft tissue extracted from a dinosaur fossil in a peer-reviewed journal.
Why did CSUN fire the scientist? Because, the evidence undermines the long-standing dogma of the evolution industry. The dinosaur soft tissue, according to the prevailing dogma, should have died at least 60 million years ago. “This find cannot agree with an old earth,” an astute Examiner reporter explains: “Even an old-earth creationist couldn’t explain it. But a young-earth creationist can.”
Building on Plato, Aristotle used genus (γένος) and species as philosophical categories. A genus was a category and a species was a subcategory of a genus. At the time, the two terms were just as often applied to inanimate things as to living ones. Then, as now, the term has continued as a mystery looking for a definition.
We Shouldn’t Be Here
After spending more than $6 billion on constructing the particle collider in western Europe, known as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), to unravel the greatest mysteries in physics, the evidence is seemingly pointing to one astounding fact – “the universe shouldn’t exist.”
Physicists Peter Higgs and François Englert, working on the most expensive experiment in the history of science, were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of the long sought after Higgs boson or Higgs particle, which is pivotal to the Standard Model of physics, in 2012. While the evidence continues to validate the existence of the particle, ironically the evidence may unravel the Big Bang theory for the origin of the universe.
Two opposing theories of evolution have emerged into a new impasse – “survival of the fittest” versus symbiosis. As Charles Darwin explained in The Origin of Species (1859), evolution results from competition between species. On the opposing side, evolution is thought to result from altruistic cooperation between species−a process of symbiosis.
Darwin proposed that evolution stems from “accumulating slight, successive” changes during the “struggle for life”−a process he called natural selection. Poet Alfred Lord Tennyson, born the same year as Darwin, captured the essence of this struggle for life in the now infamous phrase—“nature red in tooth and claw.”
War Over Natural Selection
After years of cross-referencing the works of Charles Darwin (1812-1882) alongside those of Patrick Matthew (1790-1874) to answer the question did Darwin ‘borrow” the theory of natural selection for The Origin of Species, Mike Sutton, a criminology expert at Nottingham Trent University, concluded that “I have no doubt, based on the weight of new evidence, that Darwin did read Matthew’s book and then went on to replicate his discovery and key themes.”
Science correspondent Sarah Knapton in the article, “Did Charles Darwin ‘borrow’ the theory of natural selection?” published by The Telegraph (UK) reporting on Sutton’s findings concludes that “Darwin must not only have been aware of Matthew’s work, but borrowed from it heavily” proving that “the naturalist [Darwin] lied.”
Algae Asphyxiates Evolution Principle
In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin cast his theory of evolution centered on a “struggle for life” principle – coined as the “war of nature” or the “survival of the fittest” in 1859. This principle is presented in the complete title of his legionary book – On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
This competitive “struggle for life,” Darwin had argued, occurs between the new and the original species. With the emergence of new species, they were imagined to compete even against their own parents:
“The principle of competition [is] between organism and organism, between child and parent… supplant[ing] the old and unimproved forms.”
Competition increases with increasing similarity. “As the species of the same genus,” Darwin argued, “the struggle will generally be more severe between them, if they come into competition with each other, than between the species of distinct genera.” Since then, however, the evidence directly challenges Darwin’s principle of evolution. Continue Reading