The Darwin legacy sold the book. No publicity was needed. All 1,250 printed copies were sold on the first day. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection was an immediate success, the Harry Potter of the nineteenth century, and sequel to the widely popular Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation.

In the afternoons, Prince Albert was known for reading Vestiges aloud to Queen Victoria. The English writer of Vestiges, Robert Chambers (1802–1871) goal was to inspire popular interest in evolution—a Discovery Channel forerunner.

Darwin, however, received wide spread of publicity, with the Westminster Review leading the publicity campaign. In 1851, Chambers aligned with the widely popular Westminster Review journal that had been established in 1823 by British philosopher and economist Jeremy Bentham and James Mill as the official arm of the Philosophical Radicals. The Westminster Review was a the New Yorker prototype.

By the mid-1850’s, Westminster Review represented the views of the elite radical intellectuals, including Harriet Martineau and the young journalist Herbert Spencer, John Stuart Mill (James Mill’s son), William Carpenter, Robert Chambers and later, Thomas Huxley. Eventually, Huxley proclaimed himself “Darwin’s ‘bulldog’”.

Ironically, Huxley’s verdict on The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in the Westminster Review, despite deep admiration and expressions of commitment to Darwin’s theory, also highlighted Darwin’s insurmountable problem—natural selection. In Charles Darwin – The Power of Place by Janet Browne points out that Huxley’s evaluation published in the Westminster Review “could not fully accept the principle of natural selection.”

Huxley at the Westminster Review was not a lone critic of natural selection, however. Some of Darwin’s critics were initially even within his inner circle, including botanist Joseph Hooker. Hooker had classified the plants Darwin collected in South America and the Galápagos Islands.

In response to Darwin’s inquiry of Hooker thoughts on his natural selection hypothesis, Hooker replied negatively with British civility –

[There] might have been a gradual change of species. I shall be delighted to hear how you think that this change may have taken place, as no presently conceived opinions satisfy me on this subject.

Agonizingly aware of the inner circle rejection of the natural selection hypothesis, the kingpin “Means” of the theory, Darwin concedes in a letter -

[Charles] Lyell and Hooker, though they would listen with interest to me, never seemed to agree. I tried once or twice to explain to able men what I meant by Natural Selection, but signally failed.

A consensus on the evolutionary the role of natural selection was not even reached within the inner Darwin circle.

The problem with natural selection stems from the lack of one essential factor—scientific evidence. In an 1859 letter to Asa Gray, Darwin clearly acknowledges that the natural selection hypothesis has “too few facts” and is, therfore, “grievously hypothetical” -

What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction [scientific], my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.

In the intervening 100 years since the publication of The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, evidence for natural selection continues only as “grievously hypothetical” concept.

Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini in What Darwin Got Wrong (2010) deliver a stunning exposé on Darwin’s inane assertion that natural selection is the evolutionary theory “Means”. As “out-right, card-carrying, sign-up, dye-in-the-wool, no-holds barred atheists”, Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini drives two points -

Darwin’s theory of natural selection is fatally flawed.

In fact, ET [evolutionary theory] can offer no remotely plausible account of how filtering by natural selection might work.

Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti in Why a Horse is Not a Fly aligns and concurs with Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini’s assessment, noting -

Natural selection could perhaps be invoked as a mechanism accounting for the survival of the species. But the claim that natural selection is creative of life, of life’s essence and types and orders, can only leave one dumbstruck.

Huxley, in the 1859 Westminster Review, pinpointed the kingpin problem with The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection—natural selection. Darwin did not heed the warning.

This begs the question, why has The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection continued as a powerful worldwide influence. Ardent evolutionist and historian, Janet Browne, answers –

Huxley welcomed the Origin of Species as ammunition for promoting science [sic] at the expense of the church, and the principles of naturalism over theologically based concepts.

The Huxley Westminster Review pattern continues—a philosophical imperative disconnected to the scientific evidence. As in the days of Huxley, the evolution industry continues today to promote the theory of evolution simply for the purposes of undermining biblical authority.

History clearly demonstrates, in time philosophical imperatives must answer to the scientific evidence. The clock has nearly finished ticking on Darwin’s “grievously hypothetical” theory.

Jerry Coyne, in his new book entitled Why Evolution is True, conveniently circumvents any reference to the butterfly, as does Darwin-Discovering the Tree of Life by Niles Eldridge. The California State sponsored website, “Understanding Evolution,” website completely ignores the notorious nature of butterflies—metamorphosis.

So, why is the evolution industry silent on butterfly metamorphosis? The answer is simple—the same DNA is found in all four life cycles; egg, caterpillar (larva), cocoon (pupa) and butterfly (adult). Metamorphosis, to the theory of evolution, is an enigma.

For over 3,500 years, to the Egyptians, Chinese, and Greeks, the butterfly symbolism was derived from the unique butterfly life cycles. The egg first develops into the caterpillar before transitioning into the cocoon. Amazingly, inside the cocoon, the caterpillar is destroyed before developing into the stunningly colorful butterfly cycle.

According to the theory of evolution, the DNA (genotype) determines the form (phenotype). The fact that the metamorphosis of the butterfly uses the same DNA in all four cycles, contradicts the theory of evolution. 

With the same DNA producing different forms, the message is clear: DNA is not the blueprint controller of life. Genetic evidence from the butterfly undermines the Central Dogma of evolution—“one gene, one protein.”

The butterfly is not an isolated phenomenon. Italian geneticist Giuesppe Sermonti points out that “examples of highly divergent forms possessing one and the same DNA are so conspicuous and so numerous that the marvel is that they have attracted so little attention.”

Even more astounding in the case of the butterfly, Sermonti notes, “what we call metamorphosis is not really a change in form. Once the pupa, or chrysalis, stage is reached, the caterpillar starts emptying itself: its organs dissolve, and its outer covering is shed. Only certain groups of cells, called marginal disks, remain vital. From these cells develop all the structures of adult.”

The larva of the butterfly not only changes form, but actually dissolves before rebuilding into the structure of a butterfly—a new life-form. From the same DNA arises a completely different organism. According to Sermonti, the same DNA, then, can play different roles: “DNA may lend itself to such diverse forms, but it is not the DNA that imposes the blueprint.”

The presence of the same DNA in different life-forms has been given the term “genomic equivalence”. This means that control of the cell is beyond the DNA, or “epigenetic.”

Brian Goodman, Canadian developmental biologist and key founder of theoretical biology, focuses on the methods of mathematics and physics to understand processes in biology concludes –

While genes are responsible for determining which molecules an organism can produce, the molecular composition of organisms does not, in general, determine their form.

H. Frederik Nijhout of the Department of Biology at Duke University, a critic of Crick’s central dogma, came to the conclusion that “the only strictly correct view of the function of genes [DNA] is that they supply cells, and ultimately organisms, with chemical materials.”

The butterfly nightmare phenomena in evolution adherents are real, the result of the holding on to the belief: DNA mutation + natural selection = evolution—a theory not supported by evidence in nature.

State funded evolutionary education along with the high priests of evolution, Jerry Coyne, and Niles Eldridge, should now deliver a therapeutic service to humanity by addressing blatant contradictions between the theory of evolution and natural history.

No wonder French geneticist, discoverer of the Down syndrome, Jérôme Lejeune, cut to the chase – “There is no theory of evolution.”

This year, 2010, has not been a good year for the “out of Africa” evolutionary theory of human origins. The following is why.

In October 2009, Time Magazine recognized Ardipithecus ramidus, now known as “Ardi,” the number one of “Top 10 Scientific Discoveries” of 2009. The journal Science declared Ardi the “breakthrough of the year.”

Ardi, an nearly complete fossilized female skeleton, was discovered by Timothy Douglas White, an American Paleoanthropologist and Professor of Integrative Biology at the University of California, Berkeley in the arid badlands near the Awash River in Ethiopia in 1994.

Examination and description of Ardi took nearly 15 years before releasing publication. Although it is not known whether Ardi’s offspring actually developed into Homo sapiens, the discovery was expected to be of great significance since Ardi is the oldest known hominid fossil. Ardi had been theorized to be an ancestor to Australopithecus afarensis, more commonly known as Lucy.

John Noble Wilford, science writer for the New York Times reported that David Pilbeam, a professor of human evolution at Harvard University said that the Ardi skeleton represents “a genus plausibly ancestral to Australopithecus [Lucy]” and began ‘to fill in the temporal and structural ‘space’ between the apelike common ancestor and Australopithecus.”

In the excitement, the Discovery Channel produced a series of articles and videos arguing how Ardi, not the chimpanzee, were the common ancestors to humans. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, publisher of the journal Science, developed an educational series in five separate publications on Ardi.

Since Ardi was discovered in east Africa, the finding gained further support for the popular “out of Africa” model first proposed by Charles Darwin. In The Descent of Man, Darwin hypothesized - 

In each great region of the world the living mammals are closely related to the extinct species of the same region. It is, therefore, probable that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee; and as these two species are now man’s nearest allies, it is somewhat more probable that our early progenitors lived on the African continent than elsewhere

Almost fifty years after the publication of The Descent of Man, Darwin’s speculations seemed to be supported following the discovery of numerous hominid fossils in several areas of Africa. The “out of Africa” model continued to be the most widely recognized theory since the publication of the Descent of Man—until May 2010.

Svante Pääbo of the Department of Evolutionary Genetics at the Max-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany published in the journal Science in May 7, 2010, an article on the sequencing of the genome of the Neanderthal man entitled “A Draft Sequence of the Neanderthal Genome”.

According to Gregory Hannon of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in Laurel Hollow, N.Y., Svante Pääbo’s “publication of the full Neanderthal genome is a watershed event, a major historical achievement.” Pääbo noted, “In some of us they live on, a little bit” with on major caveat – not in African descendants.

Mark Henderson, science writer for The Sunday Times, London, explains – “Human genomes from France, China, and Papua New Guinea showed Neanderthal signatures, but not those from West and Southern Africa.” The absence of Neanderthal genetic evidence in Africans has devastated Darwin’s treasured “out of Africa” theory pushing the relevance of Ardi as an ancestor to humans into extinction.

Genetics is not Ardi’s only problem with the “out of Africa” theory—so is the paleontological analysis. Time Magazine, and the journals Nature and Science, after more thoroughly examining the available data, has started slow process of recanting on the role of Ardi as an early ancestor to man.

In the Time article entitled “Ardi: The Human Ancestor Who Wasn’t” now highlight that “Two new articles being published in Science question some of the major conclusions of Ardi’s researchers, including whether this small, strange-looking creature is even a human ancestor at all.”  

The British science journal Nature reports: “Ardi may be more of an ape than human.” In the article, Esteban Sarmiento, a primatologist at the Human Evolution Foundation argues in the article Comment on the Paleobiology and Classification of Ardipithecus ramidus, that the Ardi could not be an evolutionary ancestor to humans:

[White] showed no evidence that Ardi is on the human lineage…. Those characteristics that he posited as relating exclusively to humans also exist in ape and ape fossils that we consider not to be in the human lineage.

With Ardi as the celebutante, the evolution industry, in desperation to connect the dots for a human evolution theory, has once again fallen into another humiliating about-face based on the inescapable scientific evidence.

As the “out of Africa” model undergoes extinction, scientists are beginning to investigate the “multiregional origin of humans” theory in which man is simply “a single, continuous human species”—a theory approaching the recorded biblical account for the origin of man.

The fruit fly is celebrating 100 years of research. Charles W. Woodworth at the University of California, Berkley, at the turn of the twentieth century, was the first to use the fruit fly as model in the study of genetics. Today, Drosophila melanogaster, the common fruit fly, has become one of the most studied organisms in biological research, particularly in the field of genetics.

In 1910 following Woodworth’s footsteps, at Columbia University from the top floor of Schermerhorn Hall, now known as the Fly Room, Thomas Hunt Morgan confirmed and extended Gregor Mendel’s basic principles of genetics. A year later, Morgan published his findings in Science, establishing the foundation for the emerging neo-Darwinism movement.

Morgan, in the book entitled The Mechanism of Mendelian Inheritance (1915) demonstrated how mutations using radiation on two-winged fruit flies resulted in four-winged fruit flies. The four-winged fruit fly was widely heralded as the earliest evidence that the first evolutionary step to produce a new species was a mutation.

The question, however, centered on whether the mutated four-winged fruit fly was a new species or an unsustainable aberrational freek. By 1963 after decades of research, the question could be answered definitively. Ernst Mayr, Charles Darwin’s twentieth century Bulldog, viewed the mutated four-winged fruit flies as “such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as ‘hopeless.’ They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination.” Mutation is not the gateway to evolution.

While mutations on the two-winged fruit fly served as a window to study theroretical evolutionary genetics for decades, mutations are now known not supply the raw materials for evolution. Italian geneticist Giueseppe Sermonti explains –

One spur to research on mutations was the hope that an accumulation of these might lead to a new species. But this never happened.

The fruit fly as a model for evolution via mutations gets even worse—there are no “slight, successive” genetic changes even between over 1,400 closely related Drosophila species.

The number of nucleotide base pairs Drosophila species ranges from 127 to 800 million. The probability of constructing a Tree of Life with “slight, successive” changes in nucleotide base pairs from species to species approaches the realm of impossible.

Each species of Drosophila appears to remain distinct and unique. The following table is the number of estimated genome sizes as measured by the number of nucleotide base pairs in several different Drosophila genomes.

Pierre-Paul Grassé, past-president of the French Academie des Sciences in the book entitked  Evolution of Living Organisms concludes – “The fruit fly [Drosophila melanogaster],the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times”—evolution never happened. 

No wonder genetic researchers at Bioinformatics Research Center, North Carolina State University now bring into question whether genes even play a role in evolution between related Drosophila species. Wen-Ping Hsieh and collegues published in Genetics -

An emerging issue in evolutionary genetics is whether it is possible to use gene expression profiling to identify genes that are associated with morphological, physiological, or behavioral divergence between species and whether these genes have undergone positive selection. (1)

Genetic researchers from the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, similarly discovered that “no strong evidence” in gene selection exists between Drosophila species and the respective proteins produced, “divergent expression”. Between Drosophila species, changes in genes do not correllate with changes in proteins. Jeffrey M. Good and collegues in an article published in Molecular Biology and Evolution, 2006, conclude -

Overall, we found no strong evidence for an increase in the incidence of positive selection on protein-coding regions in genes with divergent expression in Drosophila (2)

Genomic research looking for the “slight, successive” genetic changes required by neo-Darwinism is no friend of evolution. The survivors of 100 years of lab torture continue just as fruit flies.

The genome of D. melanogaster was sequenced in 2000. Most surprisingly, nearly 75% of known human disease genes are now known to have a recognizable match in the genetic code of fruit flies, and 50% of fly protein sequences have mammalian homologs. Mutations are either neutral or lead to disease—not evolution.

Today, over 100 years later, Drosophila serves as a genetic model for several human diseases including the neurodegenerative disorders Parkinson’s, Huntington’s, spinocerebellar ataxia and Alzheimer’s disease.

Reflecting on the limits of genetics in establishing the validity of evolution, Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti weighs in –

Science has taken on the great wager … and lost.

1.  Wen-Ping Hsieh, Tzu-Ming Chu, Russell D. Wolfinger, and Greg Gibson. Mixed-Model Reanalysis of Primate Data Suggests Tissue and Species Biases in Oligonucleotide-Based Gene Expression Profiles. Genetics. 2003. 165: 747-757

2.  Jeffrey M. Good, Celine A. Hayden, and Travis J. Wheeler. Adaptive Protein Evolution and Regulatory Divergence in Drosophila. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2006, 23(6):1101-1103

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.  Charles Darwin

Darwin argued in The Origin of Species that evolution develops through the processes of natural laws, changing the simple into the complex, in ways analogous to the laws of gravity -

[W]hilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

The chromosome is the organizational structure of DNA and proteins in cells. DNA contains the nucleotide sequences that form the genes. During the twentieth century, determining the number of chromosomes in species has been in the investigative forefront.

Since Darwin envisioned that “natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favourable variations; it can produce no great or sudden modifications”, according to the theory, chromosomes were expected to demonstrate evolution from the simple into the more complex via “slight, successive” changes.  

While the simplest known organism, Mycoplasma hominis, does have only one chromosome, Darwin’s simple to complex theory quickly breaks down. Unless the Gorilla, Chimpanzee, Cow, Guinea Pig, and Goldfish evolved from Humans, the simple to complex theory of evolution is simply incompatible with the scientific evidence.

If natural selection acts only, as Darwin suggests, by “slight, successive” changes and “must advance by the short and sure, through slow steps”, then scientific evidence from chromosomes clearly contradicts the Darwinian theory of evolution.

In the book Why Evolution is True, Jerry Coyne conveniently and completely overlooks the lack of evidence for “slight, successive” changes in chromosomes. Coyne never even listed the term “chromosome” the Index. Reason—chromosomal evidence destroys the theory of evolution.

Niles Eldridge of the American Museum of Natural History in his companion book Darwin – Discovering the Tree of Life for the Darwin exhibit never mentions that the “slight, successive” sequences of the chromosome never happened. Evolutionist avoid chromosome like the plague. Reason, again—chromosomal evidence destroys the theory of evolution.

The evolution of the chromosome parallels horse evolution tales. Swedish geneticist Heribert Nilsson pointed out as early as 1954 that the “family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks.”

In 1996, Stephen J. Gould used stronger words in his book Full House: The Spread of Excellence From Plato To Darwin, concluding that the “popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes… has long been known to be wrong.” Rather than “slight, successive” changes as envisioned by Darwin, “fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.”

Bemoaning the continued use of what he termed “misinformation,” such as horse evolution, Gould, in 2000, pined in a 2000 article that appeared in the journal Natural History – “Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because … textbooks copy from previous texts.”

In the molecular world, biochemist Richard E. Dickerson at Cambridge University notes that the “more one approaches the molecular level in the study of living things, the more similar they appear, and the less important the differences between, for instance, a clam and horse become.”

Molecular biologist Michael Denton clarifies – “Instead of revealing a multitude of transitional forms through which the evolution of the cell might have occurred, molecular biology has served only to emphasize the enormity of the gaps.”

Mounting scientific evidence continues to erode any known comprehensive theory of evolution. The evolution industry should heed Darwin’s warning that “[i]gnorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge” by starting to count chromosomes.

The Darwin’s were the Kennedy’s of the nineteenth century—a powerhouse of influence.

Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was a prominent and wealthy English physician. As a physician in Lichfield from 1756 to 1781, he acquired a reputation for being a great healer. He was so successful that King George III asked him to be his doctor, but Erasmus Darwin refused the appointment.

Erasmus was a noted naturalist, writer, poet, inventor, and founding member of the infamous Lunar Society. Lunar members were of influence, becoming the engine-driving force of the British Industrial Revolution.

As a writer, Erasmus authored several important works of poetry and science. His most important published work was a book entitled Zoönomia, Latin for “law of life,” published in 1794. In Zoönomia, Erasmus endorsed the basic emerging tenets of evolution, asking the question in the affirmative - 

Would it be too bold to imagine that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament… continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down these improvements by generation

At Edinburgh University, Darwin studied under Professor Robert Edmund Grant, a proponent of evolution. Grant was a student of Erasmus Darwin, quoting from Zoönomia in his doctoral thesis. In England, Erasmus ignited the evolution industry. 

Aboard the HMS Beagle, by British custom, the ship’s surgeon traditionally took the position of the official “naturalist.” Darwin’s role was to be a “gentleman’s naturalist” and assist Robert McKormick and Captain Robert FitzRoy. Ashore, though, it was Darwin and not McKormick that received the notoriety and invitations from dignitaries. McKormick was upstaged by Darwin.

Being sufficiently disgruntled, McKormick left the Beagle at Rio de Janeiro just months after sailing from the docks in Plymouth harbor in 1832. McKormick’s status was “invalided out” back to Britain. Darwin assumed McKormick’s naturalist duties. The fame of the Darwin name was widespread, even along the South America coastline.

Little wonder, Darwin was recommended by his Cambridge University professor, John Stevens Henslow to Robert FitzRoy, the captain of the HMS Beagle—an elite selection process comparable to a twenty-first century NASA space appointment. 

Just after returning from the HMS Beagle voyage in October 1836, Darwin’s influence amongst intellectuals rapidly spread. Just a few months after returning from 5 years abroad, in February 1837 Darwin was elected to the British Council of the Geographic Society.

Self-esteem issues were certainly not a problem. In his autobiography, Darwin gives a self-evaluation - 

I think that I am superior to the common run of men

In January 1839, Darwin was elected as a fellow to the most prestigious scientific organization in the world, the Royal Society. The Darwin legacy of influence and privilege long preceded the publication of The Origin of Species. 

On the day the first edition of The Origin of Species was released in 1859, all 1250 copies were sold. The book was an immediate success: the Harry Potter of the nineteenth Century.

Following in the legacy of Darwin influence and privilege, long before the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, the evolution industry was well developed in eager intellectual circles even though Darwin clearly acknowledged that the theory was not supported by the evidence -

I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.

The Darwin legacy of influence continues, sadly.

Faced with the failure of the Stanley-Urey model to explain the origin of life, evolutionary scientists have been exploring the RNA World theory. With only the four nucleic acids required to form RNA rather than the twenty amino acids to form a protein, the chance probability tipped the advantage to the RNA-first theory, but that is not all.

In The Ancestor’s Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution, Richard Dawkins explains

“This is the RNA World. To see how plausible it is, we need to look at why proteins are good at being enzymes but bad at being replicators; at why DNA is good at replicating but bad at being an enzyme; and finally why RNA might just be good enough at both roles to break out of the Catch-22.”

The RNA World theory solved the chicken-or-the-egg Catch-22 conundrum. At least that was the hope. Notice Dawkins use of the word “plausible.” Building proteins requires information from DNA, but information in DNA cannot be processed without protein enzymes—the Catch-22.

The Catch-22 conundrum dogged origin of life research for decades. Like DNA, since RNA contains information. The discovery that certain RNA molecules also have enzyme activity to self-replicate paved the way to solving the Catch-22 puzzle. RNA acts like a protein at times, and at times like DNA.

The RNA World theory has emerged as the most popular natural mechanism for the origin of life. The National Science Foundation (NSF) now actively promotes the RNA World theory. NSF is a United States government agency; its medical counterpart is the National Institutes of Health.  

In association with Harvard University, the NSF RNA World theory initiative now exists for “Synthesizing Darwinian Chemical Systems.” Under the direction of Jack Szostak from the Center for Computational & Integrative Biology, Gerald Joyce from The Scripps Research Institute, and Steven Benner from The Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution state -

“As both a storehouse of genetic information and a catalyst of metabolic reactions, RNA may have been the critical component that enabled the evolution of life”

The RNA World concept started in 1959 when Spanish Catalan biochemist Joan Oró synthesized adenine, a key component of RNA and DNA, from hydrogen cyanide, similar to a Miller–Urey experiment at high temperatures.

By the late in the twentieth century, origin of life researchers began to examine the RNA World theory. American physicist, biochemist, and molecular biology pioneer Walter Gilbert, in 1986, was the first to coin the term “RNA World” 

Gilbert envisioned a RNA-first model on primordial Earth. By the actions of natural selection on RNA, DNA and protein molecules theoretically formed with the DNA molecule evolving into an information role, the protein molecules evolving into a catalytic role.

Like the Miller–Urey experiment though, the lack of geological evidence for hydrogen cyanide in the fossil record emerged as a telltale sign. Even worse, hydrogen cyanide is a gas toxic to cellular metabolism. During the German Nazi regime, hydrogen cyanide was the gas-of-choice at Auschwitz.

To date, not one laboratory experiment with realistic early Earth elements and conditions has produced a single nucleic acid. In 1981, Francis Crick published Life Itself, a book critical of the RNA World theory. “It may turn out that we will eventually be able to see how this RNA world got started” Crick later wrote in 1993. “At present, the gap from the primal ’soup’ to the first RNA system capable of natural selection looks forbiddingly wide”

Scripps Research Institute biochemist Gerald Joyce states that the “most reasonable interpretation is that life did not start with RNA.” The origin of life is so difficult a problem that German researcher Klaus Dose stated in 1988 that the RNA theory is “a scheme of ignorance. Without fundamentally new insights in evolutionary processes … this ignorance is likely to persist.”

Origin of life scientist, Robert Shapiro from New York University, a RNA World critic, notes – “no nucleotides of any kind have been reported as products of spark-discharge experiments or in the studies of meteorites.”

Stanley Miller, who performed the original Miller-Urey prebiotic simulation test points out problems with Oro’s simulation – “a high temperature origin of life involving these compounds [the RNA bases] therefore is unlikely.” The presumption of “bases, adenine, cytosine, guanine and uracil were readily available on the early earth,” Miller continues, is “not supported by existing knowledge of the basic chemistry of these substances.”

At the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, Leslie Orgel in 1994 noted – “Because synthesizing nucleotides and achieving replication of RNA under plausible prebiotic conditions have proved so challenging, chemists are increasingly considering the possibility that RNA was not the first self replicating molecule…”.

NASA lost enthusiasm for the RNA world, as well. In the Final Report issued after the “Astrobiology Workshop” in 1996 at Ames Research Center, California, concluded –

“It has been postulated that there was a time in protobiological evolution when RNA played a dual role as both genetic material and a catalytic molecule (“the RNA world”). However, this appealing concept encounters significant difficulties. RNA is chemically fragile and difficult to synthesize abiotically. The known range of its catalytic activities is rather narrow, and the origin of an RNA synthetic apparatus is unclear.”

“It goes without saying that the emergence of this RNA world and the transition to a DNA world imply an impressive number of stages, each more improbable than the previous one”, noted the eminent François Jacob in 1997 

In 1998, Leslie Orgel, senior research fellow and research professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, where he directed the Chemical Evolution Laboratory, acknowledged that “we are very far from knowing whodunit” or what were the early environmental conditions on the Earth.

After 150 years running, how life spontaneously began, to which Darwin alluded, remains a mystery. The deputy editor of the journal Nature, and science writer, Nicholas Wade, reported in the New York Times in June 2000 “everything about the origin of life on the Earth is a mystery, and it seems the more that is known, the more acute the puzzle gets.”

Nearly twenty years later after Gilbert introduced the RNA World theory, the role of RNA in the origin of life remains elusive, if not improbable. In 2007, commenting in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America on a paper by Phillipp Baaske, Eugene V. Koonin, Senior investigator at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, and National Institutes of Health noted -

“[RNA World] still is a hypothetical entity… the evolutionary path to the translation systems remains essentially uncharted.”

Richard Dawkins premise in The Ancestor’s Tale – “This is the RNA World. To see how plausible it is” – demonstrates how the common practice of word slighting in the evolution industry. The veiling of impossible as “plausible” reaches the edge of fraud—supported by US tax dollars.

“This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of all the mammals; with cows and sheep, and elephants and anteaters,” said Sir David Attenborough who narrated the BBC documentary in May 2009. “The more you look at Ida, the more you can see, as it were, the primate in embryo.”

“It tells a part of our evolution that’s been hidden so far. It’s been hidden because the only [other] specimens are so incomplete and so broken there’s nothing almost to study”, said Dr Jørn Hurum, the paleontologist from Oslo University’s Natural History Museum who assembled the scientific team. The fossil findings were released to the world at a press conference in New York, simultaneously with online publication of the paper in Public Library of Science (PLoS ONE) on May 19, 2009.

At the opening press conference, the fossil was described as the “missing link” in human evolution. “This fossil rewrites our understanding of the evolution of primates… It will probably be pictured in all the textbooks for the next 100 years”, claimed the Ida investigative team. Ida was interpreted as our “human ancestor”—the first and only one known.

The fossil had even been formally named Darwinius masillae in honour of Darwin’s 200th birthday year during 2009.  

The widely publicized Darwinius paper was released along with a book entitled The Link: Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor, a DVD entitled The Link, This Changes Everything,  a History Channel documentary, and an exhibit in the American Museum of Natural History. At a news conference attended by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the authors unveiled the nearly complete Darwinius masillae fossil found in Germany. The New York Daily News noted,

“The unveiling of the fossil came as part of an orchestrated publicity campaign unusual for scientific discoveries.”

As the Darwinian celebrations were sinking into the sand by the end of 2009, however, so was the “missing link” status of Ida as scientists continued to analysis the fossil. By October 2009, the BBC retracted their position running ran an article entitled “Primate Fossil ‘Not an Ancestor’”, stating,

“The exceptionally well-preserved fossil primate known as “Ida” is not a missing link as some have claimed.”

The sand-sinking fossil fiasco was finalized following the March 2010 article in the Journal of Human Evolution by paleontologists Blythe Williams, Richard Kay, Christopher Kirk, and Callum Ross confirming initial suspicions that the original description of Darwinius which appeared in the journal PLoS One was fatality flawed.

The updated analysis by Williams and team members painted a damning picture of the original Darwinius study. The team reports that the features of bones in the skull teeth, and limbs clearly demonstrate that Ida is not even a primate—certainly not a human ancestor.

In March 2010 news editor for the NewScientist, Rowan Hooper, published the article entitled Confirmed: Fossil Ida is Not a Human Ancestor stating – “About a year ago we were stunned in the New Scientist offices to learn of a beautiful, 47-million-year-old primate fossil which was being hyped as the ancestor to all humans. Nicknamed ‘Ida’, The Guardian newspaper hailed it as “the eighth wonder of the world… Now an independent team has examined the fossil in detail. In a paper in the Journal of Human Evolution they strongly argue that Darwinius is not one of our ancestors.”

The Ida fossil announcement in PLoS ONE followed the same pattern as the Archaeoraptor fossil disaster announcement in National Geographic magazine in 1999. This pattern follows a strict evolutionary paradigm approach where ideology drives the interpretation. Ida serves yet another example how the evolution paradigm distorts and stifles scientific investigation and undermines the credibility of the modern scientific establishment.

Ida and Archaeoraptor join a long line of fossil fiascos, including Archaeopteryx, Java Man, and the Piltdown man. Fossil fraud and deception by the evolution industry continues to pervade the history of evolutionary, perhaps because the fossil record evidence continues to contradict the Darwinian theory of evolution.

“No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long”, pines Niles Eldredge, evolutionary paleontologist, “It seems never to [have] happen[ed].”

Douglas Futuyma, president of the Society for the Study of Evolution and the American Society of Naturalists, editor of Evolution, abandoned Darwinism stating,

“The supposition that evolution proceeds very slowly and gradually, and so should leave thousands of fossil intermediates of any species in its wake, has not been part of evolutionary theory for more than thirty years.”

Ida fossil highlights again the reasons why evolution remains a theory in crisis—the fossil record evidence continues to contradict the Darwinian theory of evolution.  

In the wake of the article published in Science on May 7, 2010, entitled “A Draft Sequence of the Neanderthal Genome”, the Smithsonian Institute is definitely destined for a very busy summer updating the fiasco at the Human Origins exhibit.

The reason is the research team led by geneticist Svante Pääbo at the Max-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany that wrote the article has discovered that the Neanderthals are indistinguishable from humans—Neanderthals and humans are the same species. John Hawks, assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Wisconsin, told BBC News: “They’re us. We’re them.”

Geneticist Gregory Hannon commenting on the historical event noted – the “publication of the full Neandertal genome is a watershed event, a major historical achievement.” The evidence from “A Draft Sequence of the Neanderthal Genome,” clearly contradicts the Human Origin exhibit at the Smithsonian Institute.

 The now evident fiascos at the Smithsonian Human Origin exhibit destined for updating include the following statements:

The Neanderthal sequences were substantially different from modern human mtDNA.

These results confirmed the earlier study that showed that Neanderthals were unlikely to have contributed to the modern human genome.

Neanderthals and modern humans were separate species.

“[T]he really surprising thing for many of us,” noted Professor Chris Stringer, research leader in human origins at London’s Natural History Museum, “is the implication that there has been some interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans in the past.”

By definition, different species cannot develop interbreeding populations, therefore the Neanderthals can no longer be considered ancestral to humans – because they are simply humans.

Clearly, the Smithsonian exhibit had presented Neanderthals as a missing link to humans not on scientific evidence, but on an evolutionary paradigm—a saga that continues as a ubiquitous plague.

 In using logic rather than scientific evidence, the Smithsonian exhibit theorized that humans and Neanderthal represents the missing link to humans because they were not interbreeding populations—a gamble that was lost.

More glaring fiascos destined for updating at the Smithsonian include the following statements:

They did not find a match between derived alleles or gene forms in modern humans and those in Neanderthals, which is evidence against interbreeding.

The preliminary sequence shows no evidence that Neanderthals and modern humans interbred.

Also, since studies show that Neanderthal mtDNA and Y chromosomes are very different, it is unlikely that Neanderthals and modern humans were interbreeding.

The exhibit exemplifies a greater fiasco to the evolutionary movement in which ideology has replaced science. With a long legacy of wrong theories and fraud, hopefully the Smithsonian will update the Human Origin exhibit based on scientific evidence—not an ideological agenda.

The immediate addressing of the Neanderthal fiasco will avoid the “fraud” label and not become the U.S. version of the Piltdown man.   

Just three years before the publication of The Origin of Species, in 1856, the first Neanderthal fossils were discovered in the Neander Valley limestone quarry located in Germany.  

In The Descent of Man, however, Darwin argued against the concept that the Neanderthals were the ancestors to humans based on the larger size of the Neanderthal skull.

“Nevertheless,” Darwin noted, “it must be admitted that some skulls of very high antiquity, such as the famous one of Neanderthal, are well developed and capacious”—the skull was too large to be a human ancestor.

Darwin was right. The journal Science on May 7, 2010, published an article entitled “A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome,” confirming Darwin’s position that the Neanderthal could not be an ancestor to humans. According to Gregory Hannon of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in Laurel Hollow, N.Y., the “publication of the full Neandertal genome is a watershed event, a major historical achievement.” 

Svante Pääbo of the Department of Evolutionary Genetics at the Max-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany led the study team. “[Neanderthals] are not totally extinct,” Pääbo said. “In some of us they live on, a little bit.”

John Hawks, assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Wisconsin, told BBC News: “They’re us. We’re them.”

“[T]he really surprising thing for many of us,” noted Professor Chris Stringer, research leader in human origins at London’s Natural History Museum, “is the implication that there has been some interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans in the past.”

This interbreeding finding is a monumental discovery since interbreeding is a defining factor for defining a species. Our current modern definition of species was developed by Ernst Mayr—Darwin’s Bulldog of the twentieth century.

In the 1942 book entitled Systematics and the Origin of Species, Ernst Mayr established the Biological Species Concept (BSC): species consist of populations of organisms that can reproduce with one another and are reproductively isolated from other such populations. Since humans and Neanderthals are now known to be isolated reproductive populations, they represent a single species—”They’re us. We’re them.”

Sequencing of the Neanderthal genome is a landmark scientific achievement. The sequencing is a culmination of a four-year investigation led from Germany’s Max Planck Institute.

Use of efficient “high-throughput” technology allowed the numerous DNA sequences to be processed at the same time from the bones of three different Neanderthals found at Vindija Cave in Croatia.

A major obstacle overcome in the study was the retrieval of quality DNA material from remains Neanderthal DNA contaminated with vast quantities of bacterial and fungal DNA. Even, the Neanderthal DNA had broken down into very short segments and had changed chemically. Since the contamination, breaks, and chemical changes were thought to be of a predictable nature, the researchers developed a software program to estimate the original DNA sequence of the Neanderthal genes.

The DNA evidence from the Neanderthal clearly aligns with the biblical account—the Neanderthals are human, descendants of Adam and Eve. Worldwide dispersion after Babel followed by environmental pressures afterward resulted in people groups with different physical characteristics, including humans with “Neanderthal” Characteristics.

Cellular biologist, David DeWitt, noted that the research was an “amazing feat” of science that continues to demonstrate the validity of the biblical record. “Finding Neanderthal DNA in humans was not expected by evolutionists, but it was predicted from a creation standpoint because we have said all along that Neanderthals were fully human: descendants of Adam and Eve just like us”.

After a flurry of studying, in January of 1831, at the age of twenty-one, Charles Darwin passed his examination for the Bachelor of Arts in theology, Euclid, and the classics from the University of Cambridge—finishing tenth out of a field of 178.

Remaining at Cambridge for two more terms after passing the final examination, Darwin became obsessed with the desire to travel. As a stroke of fate, after returning from a geological surveying tour in Wales was a letter from Professor John Henslow, with the offer of a lifetime. Darwin wrote,

“On returning home from my short geological tour in N. Wales, I found a letter from Henslow, informing me that Captain Fitz-Roy was looking for any young man who would volunteer to go with him without pay as naturalist to the voyage of the Beagle.”

The voyage was a planned two-year expedition to chart the coastline of South America in December. When Darwin shared the letter, his father said, “If you can find any man of common sense who advises you to go I will give my consent.” Not knowing who to ask, on August 31, 1831, Darwin wrote a letter to Henslow reluctantly turning down the offer.

By pure coincidence on the next day, Josiah Wedgwood II, Darwin’s uncle, arrived to visit Darwin’s father. Since Josiah was considered “one of the most sensible men in the world” by his father, Darwin discussed the situation with Josiah, who immediately made the case for the expedition.

Sealing the deal, Josiah offered to pay Darwin’s cost for the planned two-year expedition—an expedition that would eventually stretch to nearly five years. The next day Darwin quickly left for Cambridge to meet with Henslow to intercept the letter he had just sent.

On September 5, 1831, Henslow introduced Darwin to FitzRoy in London. FitzRoy was a wealthy nobleman, a descendant of the Duke of Grafton, and the Marquis of Londonderry. He was widely admired for his tight reign on his men, but as Darwin was soon to discover, his commanding was accompanied by a fiery temper.

At the age of twenty-six, FitzRoy, not much older than Darwin was at first, FitzRoy was not impressed with Darwin. FitzRoy thought the shape of Darwin’s nose was too weak to take a lengthy sea voyage. Eventually, Captain FitzRoy was persuaded—Henslow’s recommendation was accepted.

Darwin was appointed to be a “gentleman’s naturalist” and assist the “official” naturalist, surgeon Robert McKormick. As a paying passenger, Darwin was granted full use all the onboard facilities to perform research as a naturalist. Darwin was set to begin his life-long dream—exploring the tropics.

FitzRoy outlined the details of the voyage, including the impending sail date, October 10. Not wasting any time, Darwin took up residence at 17 Spring Gardens in London and began shopping and discussing the details of the voyage with FitzRoy; a dynamic relationship had just been launched.

Convinced “that he would find scientific proof that Genesis was literally true,” FitzRoy wanted a like-minded naturalist on board the Beagle to find the evidence. Darwin’s interest in William Paley’s perspective on nature made Darwin the perfect applicant. Paley’s book, Evidences of Christianity, espoused a divine design in nature.

Ironically, prior to leaving England, FitzRoy gave Darwin a copy of the just-released first volume of Charles Lyell’s new theory in the book entitled Principles of Geology, which argues in favor of only slight, successive changes in the earth. Lyell championed geological uniformitarianism. The tenet of uniformitarianism is that all the events over the history of the Earth are the same as today—catastrophic events on Earth, like The Flood and plate tetonics never happened.

Little did FitzRoy know that Principles of Geology would influence the impressions of Darwin to challenge rather than support the Genesis account. Although Darwin struggled to understand how the massive land movements along western coast of South America aligned with uniformitarianism, Darwin never abandoned Lyell’s theory.

The offer of a lifetime lead to the development of a lifetime pattern for Darwin—theory development contradicted by the evidence. Or as Charles Darwin’s brother, Erasmus, put it in a letter to Charles on November 23,1859, one day before the publication of The Origin of Species - “if the facts won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.”

Richard Dawkins, the most popular evolution advocate, explains that the mechanism of evolution is “nonrandom survival of randomly varying hereditary instructions”. For Dawkins, evolution occurs through the nonrandom selection of randomly generated genetic mutations. This defines modern neo-Darwinism.

Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, in their new book entitled What Darwin Got Wrong, delivers a stunning exposé on the Dawkins’s inane assertion that 1) natural selection is a logical theory, and 2) natural selection is nonrandom.

Seasoned by decades of scientific investigation, Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini begin by demonstrating that even “Darwin’s theory of natural selection is fatally flawed”. Not only flawed, they view the concept of natural selection is simply an “intensional fallacy”.

Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini are not lone critics. With over 20 pages of references, the authors demonstrate that the theory of natural selection is no more than circular reasoning: a tautology.

Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini explains: “[T]here is at the heart of adaptations theories of evolution, a confusion between (1) the claim that evolution is a process in which creatures with adaptive traits are selected and (2) the claim that evolution is a process in which creatures are selected for their adaptive traits… Darwinism is committed to inferring (2) from (1)”. Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini conclude, “We think this argument, although ubiquitous in the literature, is fallacious.”

Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini also address Dawkins’ issue of “nonrandom survival”, by pointing out that nonrandom processes require a mechanism to overcome entropy—randomness. The obvious question is – what is the mechanism that natural selection uses to overcome nature’s tendency towards randomness?

To answer this question, Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini quotes from Gabriel Dover (2006), the British geneticist that coined the term “molecular drive”: “Selection is not a process as such with predictable outcomes based on fixed, selective ‘powers’ of individual genes controlling aspects of phenotype.”

The evidence demonstrates that natural selection does not deliver “predictable outcomes”. Lack of evidence for a predictable outcome, highlights the fact that natural selection does not have an operational mechanism to overcome randomness to increase complexity—the essence of evolution.

Despite over 150 years of investigation since the publication of The Origin of Species, no known natural law has been discovered to guarantee  natural selection as a nonrandom process. Currently, there are no known natural mechanisms to overcome the general tendency of all nature towards randomness without an intervention. Contrary to Dawkins’ assertion, natural selection is simply a random process.

What is the role of natural selection, then? For Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini, “We think of natural selection as tuning the piano, not composing the melody.” This is not the nonrandom force of evolution as championed by Dawkins.  

Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini, like Richard Dawkins, are evolutionists and “out-right, card-carrying, sign-up, dye-in-the-wool, no-holds barred atheists.” On the subject of natural selection acting as a nonrandom agency, however, the contrasts could not be more acute. 

Consensus that natural selection cannot possibly be a nonrandom process has reached a tipping point. Mutations are random. Natural selection is random. Dawkins contention of “nonrandom survival of randomly varying hereditary instructions” is now clearly emerging as simply “breathtaking inanity.”

Of all the facts in The Origin of Species, embryology was the most important in support of the theory. In a letter to Asa Gray in September 1860, Darwin wrote – “embryology is to me by far the strongest single class of facts in favor” of the theory.

Then, just two months before the release of the first edition of The Origin of Species in September 1859, Darwin wrote to Charles Lyell, “Embryology in Chapter VIII is one of my strongest points I think.”

Darwin was fascinated by embryology. Writing in his autobiography, Darwin recalls: “Hardly any point gave me so much satisfaction when I was at work on the Origin, as the explanation of the wide difference in many classes between the embryo and the adult animal.”

To the point, Darwin writes – “We have seen in the first chapter that the homological [similar] structure of man, his embryological development and the rudiments which he still retains, all declare in the plainest manner that he is descended from some lower form.”

Darwin along with Fritz Müller (1821–1897) and Ernest Haeckel (1834–1919) were following in the footstep of Karl Ernst von Baer (1792–1876). Baer promoted the concept that a species’ embryological development (ontogeny) retraces the species’ entire evolutionary development (phylogeny).

In the case of man, then, the human embryo begins as a single cell and is progressively transformed into a tadpole, then to a fish, to an amphibian, to a monkey, and finally to man. In other words, at the different stages of development, the embryo is actually a series of ancestor species. The sequences of the embryo retrace the steps of evolution. Haeckel coined this process with the now-famous phrase “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.”

In the case of the appendix, then, the rise and fall of the appendix should be seen in the human embryo to demonstrate our presumed evolutionary human ancestry—from a functional to a non-functional organ. The question is does the evidence match the theory? The answer is – NO.

The reasons why the answer is NO, include  

• The appendix is not consistently found throughout the animal kingdom, occurring in only a few diverse mammals
• Not until the fifth fetal week does the appendix begin to develop
• Only after the fifth fetal month does the proximal end start differentiate into the true caecum
• Maximum growth of the appendix does not occur until after birth when the neonate takes on essential bacteria to reside in its colon
• Lymphoid follicles do not appear in the appendix until two weeks after birth at the same time that colonization of the large bowel with bacteria.

Contrary to the theory, at no point in the development of the appendix in the human embryo does arise and decline into a vestige organ. Rebecca E. Fisher, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Fellow from the Center for Functional Anatomy & Evolution Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, in a review article entitled “The primate appendix: A reassessment” concludes that “the evolutionary history of the appendix has also proven difficult to trace.”  

The evidence on the development of the appendix now clearly stands to demonstrate the utter fallacy of the long-standing “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” theory of evolution.

Jerry Coyne’s (2009) contention in Why Evolution is True that, “our appendix is simply the remnant of an organ that was critically important to our leaf-eating ancestors, but is of no real value to use” is another clear example of deception used in the promotion evolution. The evidence is clear: the appendix is not an evolutionary leftover.

The “vestige” status of the appendix originated with Charles Darwin in The Descent of Man (1871). In Chapter 1, Darwin writes -

“With respect to the alimentary canal I have met with an account of only a single rudiment [vestige], namely the vermiform appendage of the caecum… It appears as if, in consequence of changed diet or habits [disuse], the caecum had become much shortened in various animals, the vermiform appendage being left as a rudiment of the shortened part… Not only is it useless, but it is sometimes the cause of death”

Darwin’s concept of the appendix continued unchallenged until late in the twenteth century when clinical research began to demonstrate that not only does the appendix function to balance the bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract, the appendix plays an important immunological function. 

Loren G. Martin, professor of physiology at Oklahoma State University, stated in Scientific America -

“Among adult humans, the appendix is now thought to be involved primarily in immune functions. Lymphoid tissue begins to accumulate in the appendix shortly after birth and reaches a peak between the second and third decades of life, decreasing rapidly thereafter and practically disappearing after the age of 60. During the early years of development, however, the appendix has been shown to function as a lymphoid organ, assisting with the maturation of B lymphocytes (one variety of white blood cell) and in the production of the class of antibodies known as immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies. Researchers have also shown that the appendix is involved in the production of molecules that help to direct the movement of lymphocytes to various other locations in the body.”

Martin continues noting, “the function of the appendix appears to be to expose white blood cells to the wide variety of antigens, or foreign substances, present in the gastrointestinal tract. Thus, the appendix probably helps to suppress potentially destructive humoral (blood- and lymph-borne) antibody responses while promoting local immunity. The appendix–like the tiny structures called Peyer’s patches in other areas of the gastrointestinal tract–takes up antigens from the contents of the intestines and reacts to these contents. This local immune system plays a vital role in the physiological immune response and in the control of food, drug, microbial or viral antigens.”

Jerry Coyne (2009), professor at the University of Chicago, writes in his new book, Why Evolution is True that, “We humans have many vestigial features proving that we evolved. The most popular is the appendix.” Coyne claims that: “our appendix is simply the remnant of an organ that was critically important to our leaf-eating ancestors, but is of no real value to use.”

Classifying the appendix as “no real value” exemplifies how evolution adherents persist to be woodwinked by ideology. Mounting scientific evidence continues to demonstrate why evolution is NOT true.

Long denigrated as vestigial or useless structure, the human appendix is now known to have a number of specific functions. The most widely recognized function is as a “safe house” for the beneficial bacteria living in the human gut.” There are approximately 500 species of bacteria in the gut alone—the continued presence of beneficial bacteria is essential for good health.

ScienceDaily in an article entitled “Appendix Isn’t Useless At All: It’s A Safe House For Good Bacteria,” October 8, 2007, William Parker, Ph.D., assistant professor of experimental surgery along with R. Randal Bollinger, M.D., Ph.D., Duke University professor emeritus noted—”Our studies have indicated that the immune system protects and nourishes the colonies of microbes living in the biofilm. By protecting these good microbes, the harmful microbes have no place to locate. We have also shown that biofilms are most pronounced in the appendix and their prevalence decreases moving away from it.” One of the functions of the appendix is to serve as a microbe storehouse.

According to their study published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, the bacteria in the human gut functions to digest food and produce vitamins, like Vitamin K—essential to coagulation. In the event that bacteria in the intestines become unbalanced, or taken over by opportunistic organisms such as cholera or amoebic dysentery, the appendix functions to reboot the bacterial flora. Parker explains the mechanism: “Once the bowel contents have left the body, the good bacteria hidden away in the appendix can emerge and repopulate the lining of the intestine before more harmful bacteria can take up residence.”

“Darwin simply didn’t have access to the information we have,” explains Parker. “If Darwin had been aware of the species that have an appendix attached to a large cecum… he probably would not have thought of the appendix as a vestige of evolution.”

When Jerry Coyne (2009), professor at the University of Chicago, writing in his book, Why Evolution is True that “our appendix is simply the remnant of an organ that was critically important to our leaf-eating ancestors, but is of no real value to use,” excluded known evidence. Continued adherence to the vestige status of the appendix by evolutionists requires rejection of the scientific method.

“Maybe it’s time to correct the textbooks,” says William Parker, Ph.D., assistant professor of surgical sciences at Duke and the senior author of the study. “Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a ‘vestigial organ.’”  

Jerry Coyne (2009), professor at the University of Chicago, writes in his new book, Why Evolution is True that, “We humans have many vestigial features proving that we evolved. The most popular is the appendix.” Coyne claims that: “our appendix is simply the remnant of an organ that was critically important to our leaf-eating ancestors, but is of no real value to use.”

Coyne believes the expansion of appendix development occurred because of “use” followed by contraction due to “disuse”—the rise and fall of the appendix. Following this belief, one would expect to find the appendix first increasing then decreasing in our presumed human evolutionary ancestors.

The vestige logic is great; unfortunately, the evidence does not support the logic. Coyne, along with the rest of the vestiges adherents fail mention that the rise and fall theory of the appendix simply never happened. The reason: the appendix occurs only in a few diverse mammals—and does not follow an evolutionary continum of rising and falling.

In fact, the appendix, in any form, is not present in any invertebrate. Among the vertebrates, the appendix is absent in fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and, most importantly, even in only a few mammals. In fact, the appendix is only present in a few marsupials, including the wombat and South American opossum, a few rodents, including rabbits and rats, and only a few primates, only the anthropoid apes and man. Even monkeys do not have an appendix.

Even though the appendix is “critically important to our leaf-eating ancestors,” tracing the development of the rise and fall of the appendix in presumed human evolutionary ancestors is simply a mirage—nothing more.

Although the Chimpanzee, touted as our closest genetic ancestor, has an appendix, surgeons are not exploring the possibility of any type of Chimpanzee-to-human transplantation and nor is the pharmaceutical industry exploring the use of any Chimpanzee molecules for use in humans, not even insulin.

Insulin and heart valves from the Suidae, the biological family to which pigs and their relatives belong, have long been used in humans. Calcitonin, a polypeptide hormone, is identical to the Calcitonin produced in the species of the fish family known as Salmonidae—Salmon. Why are pigs and the salmon more similar to humans than our closest genetic counterpart?  

The reason is—nature is discontinuous and digital, designed as unique creations. Anatomical and molecular evidence demonstrates that nature is not the result of “slight, successive changes” via mutations as touted by evolution adherents—evidence Jerry Coyne must inconveniently ignore; a practice popularized by Charles Darwin.  

In the final paragraph of the section entitled Rudimentary, Atrophied, and Aborted Organs, Darwin writes: “Finally, the several classes of facts which have been considered in this chapter, seem to me to proclaim so plainly, that the innumerable species, genera and families, with which this world is peopled, are all descended, each within its own class or group, from common parents, and have all been modified in the course of descent, that I should without hesitation adopt this view even if it were unsupported by other facts or arguments.”

The concept of vestiges from the actions of “use and disuse” continues today even though proven to be “unsupported by other facts or arguments.” Little wonder why students continue to question whether science in the classroom today is really science. Even though touted by esteemed college professors, what may be “most popular” can be dead wrong. 

Vestiges  are tauted as evidence for biological evolution based on the Larmarckian concept of “use and disuse” that Charles Darwin reluctantly, yet fully accepted by the 6^th edition of The Origin of Species in 1872.

In the 1^st edition Darwin wrote that“use and disuse seem to have produced some effect” that was later changed to “use and disuse seem to have produced a considerable effect” in the 6^th edition. For Darwin, the importance of “use and disuse” increased from “some effect” to “considerable effect.”

In this series, we are examining the concept that the human appendix is a vestige structure through the process of “disuse.” Vestiges are thought to be biological elements that have lost their function through “disuse.” At issue is—what is the evidence that the process of “disuse” can actually produce vestiges?

In the decade following the publication of the 6^th edition, German biologist August Weismann, at the University of Freiburg, launched the first scientific inquiry to directly challenging Darwin’s theory. Now known as the “Weisman Barrier” in 1883 Weismann cut off the tails of mice from twenty-one generations. Seeing that the twenty-second generation still had tails, Weismann concluded that the evidence contradicted Darwin’s theory of “disuse” and that despite obvious reasons for change in the mice, “continuity” was observed, not new variations.

The concept of the Weismann Barrier became central to the emerging  Modern evolutionary synthesis. “Disuse” alone simply does not result in vestige structures. Ernst Mayr, known as Darwin’s bulldog of the twenty-first century, called Weismann “the second most notable evolutionary theorist of the nineteenth century, after Charles Darwin.”

Evidence from the Weismann Barrier continues to stand unchallenged, now for over 100 years. Even more to the point, after thousands of years of circumcision, “disuse” has failed to any effect on human anatomy. Without scientific experimental evidence demonstrating that “disuse” can result in any biological changes, the concept of vestige as evidence for evolution remains untenetable.

Other known vestige problems for evolution include, 1) the appendix is not found systematically found through nature, even in mammals; 2) “vestige” structures are now known to be functional. These evolutionary contradictions for vestiges continue to undermining evidence for evolution.

In the up-coming posts, we will continue to explore why these last two problems have completely undermined the concept that the human appendix is a vestige structure.

Charles Darwin attempted to avoid the use of the term “vestiges” largely because the term had been associated with the “erroneous” Larmarckian concept of “use and disuse” that was only “veritable rubbish.”

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744 – 1829) was a member of the French Academy of Sciences and was appointed to the Chair of Botany in 1788. When the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle was founded in 1793, Lamarck was appointed professor of zoology. In 1801, he published Système des animaux sans vertèbres, a major work on the classifications and coined the term invertebrates. Lamarck is thought to be the first use the term biology in its modern sense. Lamarck continued his work as a premier authority on invertebrate zoology.

Darwin did credit “Lamarck as the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention.… In these works he up holds the doctrine that all species, including man, are descended from other species.”

Lamarck’s theory of evolution, which he referred to as “transformism,” was based on the idea that individuals develop new traits during their own lifetimes by “use and disuse” and transmit them to the next generation. Larmack writes – “Progress in complexity of organization exhibits anomalies here and there in the general series of animals, due to the influence of environment and of acquired habits.”

The giraffe served as Lamarck’s classic example of evolution through “use,” acquiring longer necks in successive generations in competition to reach the ever-scarcer leaves higher in the trees. In illustrating Lamarck’s views on adaptation, Darwin wrote, “To this latter agency he seems to attribute all the beautiful adaptations in nature; such as the long neck of the giraffe for browsing on the branches of trees.”

For Darwin, however, this explanation was simply not scientific – “Lamarck, who believed in an innate and inevitable tendency towards perfection in all organic beings, seems to have felt this difficulty so strongly that he was led to suppose that new and simple forms are continually being produced by spontaneous generation. Science has not as yet proved the truth of this belief.”

One of the most eminent pre-Darwinists was Charles Darwin’s own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin (1731–1802). Erasmus discussed his ideas at length in a two-volume work, Zoonomia, published in 1794. Erasmus wrote that “all … have risen from one living filament.”

Erasmus’ book was widely popular in Western Europe- even translated into German, French, and Italian. Erasmus envisioned that the driving force behind species modification was a result of “lust, hunger, and danger.” In line with Greek philosophy, Erasmus envisioned changes by “continuing to improve its own inherent activity.”

Actually how these “improvements” developed was completely unknown to Lamarck and Erasmus—evolution was a philosophy, not a science. The unknown cause of “improvements” is what drove Darwin to discover the underlying laws of nature—scientifically. Writing in the preface of The Origin of Species, Darwin suggests how Erasmus’s work, although “erroneous,” may have influenced Lamarck: “It is curious how largely my grandfather, Dr. Erasmus Darwin, anticipated the views and erroneous grounds of opinion of Lamarck in his Zoonomia.”

For Lamarck, new characteristics are acquired through the process of “use and disuse.” Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was a Lamarckian evolutionist. Charles Darwin, however, in pursuit of a “scientific theory” of evolution, initially opposed Lamarckian evolution, only granting the theory marginal support.

In a letter written to J. D. Hooker in 1844, Darwin wrote, “Heaven forefend me from Lamarck nonsense of a ‘tendency to progression.’ … But the conclusions I am led to are not widely diff erent from his, though the means of change are wholly so.” “With respect to books on this subject,” Darwin continues, “I do not know any systematic ones, except Lamarck’s, which is veritable rubbish.”

Although attempting to distance himself from Lamarck’s concepts of “use and disuse” and “vestages,” Darwin distain for “use and disuse” eventually waned as causes for the origin of variation required for the actions of natural selection remained Darwin’s largest unsumountable enigma.

Since then, the term, “vestiges” has once again gained prominence over “rudiments,” as has Larmarckian concepts of evolution. The question remains, however, are structures classified as “vestiges” evidence of evolution? Specifically, have vestiges seemingly lost all or most of their original function in a species through evolution?

To address answers to these questions, we will be examining the most popular example of vestiges—the mammalian appendix in the up-coming posts.   

Charles Darwin uses “vestiges” five times in The Origin of Species. Vestiges, since then has become synonomous with evolution. The emenent evolutionist, Douglas Futuyma, Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Michigan, notes that vestigial structures make no sense without evolution. The first question is—what are vestiges?

 In this first in a series on vestiges, we will discover how structures labeled as vestiges play an important role as evidence for the theory of evolutionary. Since the most popular example of a vestige structure is the human appendix, the human appendix will be the focus structure examined in this series.

By the time The Origin of Species was published in 1859, vestiges had already been a hot topic popularized by Robert Chambers’ following the publication of the Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation in 1844. The work brought together various ideas of stellar evolution and progressive transmutation of species. The book was a best-seller and is now seen as causing a shift in public opinion that paved the way for the general acceptance of evolution.

While agreeing with the general concept of evolution, Darwin took exception to the concept that evolution occurred by sudden changes in nature. Darwin wrote – “The author apparently believes that organisation progresses by sudden leaps, but that the effects produced by the conditions of life are gradual.”

Perhaps for these differences with Robert Chambers, Darwin even avoided defining the term “vestiges” in the The Origin of Species. In the Glossary, however, Darwin does define a related term: “RUDIMENTARY.—Very imperfectly developed.” In The Origin of Species, the term “rudimentary” appears 101 times.

Darwin envisions rudimentary structures to be the result of two different dynamics: 1) as structures “imperfectly developed”—emerging, and 2) as structures in disuse undergoing loss of function—elimination. Darwin writes – “Rudimentary organs will speak infallibly with respect to the nature of long-lost structures”—a Lamarckian disuse concept. Darwin explains that rudimentary structures exist because “natural selection… had no power to check deviations in their structure.”

Today however, only the elimination due to disuse concept is thought to be in operation. WIKIPEDIA.org states: “Vestigiality describes homologous characters of organisms that have seemingly lost all or most of their original function in a species through evolution. Answers.com defines vestige structures, as “A rudimentary or degenerate, usually nonfunctioning, structure that is the remnant of an organ or part that was fully developed or functioning in a preceding generation or an earlier stage of development.”

The next question is – how well does the human appendix fit the vestige structure criteria? Next week we will examine the existence of the appendix throughout the animal kingdom.

For Charles Darwin, molecular clocks were the farthest his mind, not to mention cellular biology or DNA. In 1859, inheritance was thought to occur by blending the characteristics with the new information learned by the “gemmules” in the parents. Gregor Mendel, the Austrian monk, in 1865 eventually decimated blending inheritance, but the foundation of modern genetics went unrecognized until rediscovered by Hugo de Vries and Carl Correns in 1900.

To estimate the pace of evolution, in 1962 molecular biologist Emile Zuckerkandl and Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling were working at California Institite of Technology on hemoglobin evolution and expressed the idea of “molecular anthropology” as a new discipline. The idea was later termed the molecular clock theory. The purpose of the molecular clock is to estimate the rate of evolution for individual molecules. In 1962, molecular sequence problems were just emerging.

Zuckerkandl and Pauling postulated that in a protein, each amino acid randomly changes at a constant rate. If the estimated time for divergence between species and the number of amino acid changes since that time can be determined from the fossil record, the rate of change can be calculated. This rate of molecular change (time per amino acid change) has been called the molecular clock.

As the molecular data began to accumulate during the early 1990s, it became increasingly apparent that the theory was intrinsically even more problematic when examining evolution from the context of the entire organism and the fossil record. At the core of Darwinian evolution are the successive, slight changes in molecules. However, how different molecules can evolve at different rates in the same organism emerged as an enigma.

Information from the molecular clock was once thought to be one of the most useful tools in establishing evolutionary biology. How the evolution of each molecule can run by a different molecular clock in the same organism continues to undermine a cohesive theory of molecular evolution.

The pursuit to resolve the clock issue has reemerged onto center stage because the rate of molecular change is foundational to evolution. If the molecular mechanisms of evolution cannot be traced, the only logical conclusion is that molecular biology has played no role in evolution.

In 2007, Naoyuki Takahata, of The Graduate University for Advanced Studies in Japan, wrote in the journal Genetics, “It is now clear that any kind of molecular clock ticks erratically, but it is nevertheless widely used [unfortunately] for estimating species divergence times.”

How Zuckerkandl and Pauling’s simple postulate has become so complicated begs the question, are molecular clocks real? Professor of evolutionary biology Thomas Cavalier-Smith of the University of Oxford in England wrote in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B in a paper entitled Cell Evolution and Earth History: Stasis and Revolution that the answer is no: “Evolution is not evenly paced and there are no real molecular clocks.”

Available evidence bodes negatively for the usefulness of molecular clocks in establishing any shape for the Tree of Life. What was originally thought to become a cornerstone for molecular evolution is now irreconcilable with evolution and created chaos in evolutionary thought. Difficulties associated with attempting to explain how a family of homologous proteins could have evolved at constant rates have created chaos in evolutionary thought.

Rather than supporting the theory of evolution, the molecular clock evidence and the sequence data actually undermine the theory of evolution through “successive, slight” variations in molecular biology. Just as hope in the fossil record, the origin of life, and the sequence of amino acids dissipated, the hope that molecular clocks will become an evidential, evolutionary cornerstone is vaporizing. In 2005, geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti wrote: “Once the universal ‘molecular clock’ was shelved, biochemists ceased to question (in any case dubious) datings proposed by paleontologists.”

Molecular biologists beginning in the early twentieth century had expected to trace the organization of inorganic to organic molecules as well as the successive molecular changes as the species evolved. Clearly, however, the convergence of molecular evidence does not support the theory. Darwin concluded in The Origin of Species if the evidence does not support “numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Molecular clocks, as evidence for evolution, continue to be unsuccessful in delivering on earlier expectations.