Science Vs Evolution

Ever since, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, proposed his theory on the transmutation of species, and, Charles Darwin, published, ‘On the origin of species’, the theory of evolution has spread across the Earth.

Today, evolution is taught as a scientific fact. Yet much is to be said on the subject, and this is why I choose to write about it. This article will look at some of the gaping flaws evolutionists tend to ignore.

To start, I’d like to discuss the human body, and what’s required to make it. At the base level, human beings are a combination of DNA and proteins. Each protein is composed of amino acids, of which there are 20 different types present in humans. In order for the human body to be the result of pure chance, and good fortune, mutating over millions of years, we would require those, aforementioned, amino acids to not only, randomly, collect together, but to also order themselves in a specific way. There are thousands of protein variations, based on the different orders those amino acids can take. However, the human cell we require the proteins to make also requires lipids, which can be found in saturated fats (among other things), as well as carbohydrates. And this is without the random formation of nucleotides which create DNA, the genetic blueprint, which requires RNA to translate and carry information to said amino acids in order to form the correct proteins.

The unlikely event where DNA forms spontaneously, and all amino acids are not only present, but also arrange themselves to form a fully functioning protein, which, in turn, gathers the necessary lipids, and carbohydrates, which store the energy needed for the produced cell to perform mitosis, in order to self-replicate, as well as other functions, and continue the process of creating a higher form of life, whilst simultaneously avoiding the law of entropy, and succumbing to life ending mutations, and genetic errors, within a primordial environment that has never known complex life, is something we now teach our children to be a scientific fact.

In reality, the theory of evolution is, to paraphrase a wise man, about as likely as a tornado hitting a junkyard and leaving behind a fully functioning Boeing 747. As I will now discuss.

Since man first imagined the metamorphosis of life, humanity has searched for those “missing links” to our primitive past. Referred to as “transitional species” by the scientific community, these alleged beings are said to hold the keys to evolution. There’s only one problem, not a single transitional species has ever been discovered. Not one.

Sure, many people have mistook fossilised remains as something they’re not, like the ‘Coelocanth’, which was considered a transitional species between fish and tetrapods, while it was thought to be extinct. Then living Coelocanth were found and the “evidence” for evolution was retracted. Similarly, the cousin of the Coelocanth, the ‘Lungfish’, was considered to be a transitional species, due to its ability to breath air. However, fossilised remains of Lungfish have been found as far back as the ‘Triassic period’.

Purported to be the ultimate transitional species, the ‘Archaeopteryx’, has long been used by evolutionists as proof for their beliefs. Said to be fossilised evidence of dinosaurs becoming birds, Archaeopteryx, is, in reality, an illusion. After careful analysis was carried out, using the same methods molecular data analysts use, Archaeopteryx was proven to be a bird, nothing more. Yet evolutionists still continue to claim this bird is a dinosaur, when all evidence says otherwise. Including the fact that the fossil has many layers to it, and other known birds are present, so it’s possible that what we see is nothing more than multiple remains atop one another.

Dinosaurs, as a whole, are used by evolutionists as a way to prop up their unscientific theory. Although a small percent of remains/fossils were actual creatures, which have become extinct, the vast majority are nothing more than fables.

For example, in 1822, Gideon Mantell, was responsible for the first discovery, and eventual identification, of the first fossil teeth. From this handful of unknown teeth he imagined the ‘Iguanadon’.

The very term, ‘Dinosauria’, was coined, in 1842, before any dinosaur remains had been discovered, by, Sir Richard Owen, a known scam artist, and controversial figure. Between 1856 and 1884, Sir Richard was superintendent of the British museum, and is said to have had a “remarkable gift for interpreting fossils”. However, when he obtained the very first known fossil bird, the, aforementioned, Archaeopteryx, and described it for publication, in 1863, he had made some fundamental errors. When the fossil was re-examined, in 1954, scientist’s determined he had gotten it upside down, dorsal for ventral, and he had missed it’s two most important features: the breastbone was flat, proof the bird could not fly, but glided. As well as the natural cast of the brain case, which was like that of a reptile.

Not only do we have gliding reptiles that exist today, like the, ‘Draco sumatranus’, the common gliding lizard, the fossil itself has also been proven to consist of multiple layers, with multiple life forms present, as I’ve mentioned previously. So, on the scale of probability, its more likely to be an extinct gliding lizard, sat atop the remains of birds, as opposed to a combination of species, but what do you expect from someone with his reputation.

In 1856, Joseph Leidy, friend of Owen, found remains in, Montana. Those remains were teeth. In 1868, the skeleton of, ‘Hadrosaurus Foulkii’, was made public at the, Academy of natural sciences. This was a plaster reconstruction based solely on a couple of unknown teeth; just like the Iguanadon.

Since the time of Sir Owen, and continuing to this day, many more, alleged, dinosaur remains have been discovered, and reconstructed. The, ‘Massospondylus’, in 1854. The, ‘Scelidosaurus, in 1859. The, ‘Bothriospondylus, in 1875. The, ‘Omosaurus’, in 1877. All were proven to consist of whale, chicken, mammoth, elephant, and rhino bones, among others.

Today, we simply create new dinosaurs when we discover juvenile fossils of extinct creatures.

For example, just as the ‘Cassowary’, or any of the birds that have a crest on their heads, grow to approximately 80% adult size before their crest begins to form, many, crested, fossilised remains, like the, ‘Stygimoloch’, and ‘Dracorex’, have been misidentified due to the lack of knowledge regarding their growth.
However, using ‘allometric cranial ontogeny’, we can see that creatures like the, ‘Hypacrosaurus’, have no crest below 65% adult growth. Yet the juvenile, adolescent, and adult variations of a single species are still claimed as seperate species, simply due to the ego of scientists and their desire to name things.

In reality, the ‘Triceratops’, were it proven to be real, is more likely a cousin of the rhino, not an eagle, or lizard. The same can be said for all legitimate fossils that have been found, of which there are very few, and scientists should have learned from their mistakes with the Coelocanth, and Lungfish. Yet they continue on, and we’re presented with plaster cast imaginings of beings that never existed, and fanciful forgeries created from known creatures.

Scientists have also found soft tissue within fossilised remains, alleged to be dinosaurs. However, T-Rex soft tissue, when analysed, showed an uncanny resemblance to the soft tissue of birds.

Using acid to dissolve fossil, and bone, fragments, scientists discover an elastic soft tissue which is usually seen in modern bones, not those said to be millions of years old. Many excuses have been given as to how this would even be possible, given that soft tissue decays and/or is eaten by bacteria, etc, within a much shorter time span than these remains are said to have existed. In this case, the scientific method disproves every claim that these remains are ancient, and also shows the origin of the soft tissue as that of other known creatures.

The most likely explanation for the soft tissue discovery is that the remains are not millions of years old, and are likely to have been created by overlayed strata containing multiple beings, just like, ‘Archaeopteryx’. It’s either that or the remains are man made, like the infamous, ‘Piltdown man’, which was proven to be a combination of a human skull with an orangutans jaw, painted to give the appearance of age.

Mainstream science also enjoys comparing living beings based on their shared genetic data. For example, it is claimed that the closest related species to humans is the chimpanzee, which share, approximately, 99% of the DNA that we do. Yet the similarities between humans and other lifeforms is usually overlooked. Take the banana plant, for example, which shares approximately 50%-60% of the same DNA as humans. Mice also share approximately 85% of the protein-coding genomes that humans have, and approximately 50% of the non-coding genomes as well. Humans also share approximately 61% DNA with a fruit fly. Then theres the 2007 study which found that, approximately, 90% of the genes in the ‘Abyssinian domestic cat’ are similar to humans. And according to a 2009 report in the journal ‘Science’, domesticated cattle share about 80% of their genes with humans.

Given this information one must consider the, alleged, evolutionary tree of life, and how the new model must look, given we’re part fly, part monkey, part cow, part cat, and part banana, according to mainstream science.

You see, the building blocks of life are few, yet the outcome of lifeforms is many. The suttle changes here and there are not due to a mutation, or chance, they’re their on purpose, and have to be in order for us to exist. Yes, micro-evolution, the variations within a given genus, is real, but macro-evolution, the metamorphosis of one species into another, is not.

For example, Darwinists argue dog breeds are perfect examples of evolution. Yet they overlook the fact that wolves, dingos, and dogs are all canine. They are able to interbreed because they are all of the same genus, the same kind. A Dalmatian is a dog. A Pitbull is a dog. The variations between the two are many, yet both are dogs, and the variations can be easily explained via recessive DNA. It’s this recessive DNA which influences the dogs height, tail length, etc. No dog has ever been bred into a fish, nor have they ever grown wings. The metamorphic nature of evolution has, quite simply, never been proven. Even, Darwin, himself admitted that transitional species must be discovered in order to prove his theory, yet we continue to look for the first, and it’ll be a long and tedious search, I can assure you.

In other words, there are way too many gaps in the theory of evolution, and failing to uphold a single aspect of the theory dictates it’s collapse. Especially when the core of the theory, transitional species, has no evidence whatsoever.

Put simply, intelligent design is required, and as someone with zero religious affiliation, I can understand the implications of such a claim. Yet it’s a claim I will continue to make.

For example, the process that causes humans to clot their blood, and prevents us from bleeding to death, requires multiple steps, which must be completed in sequence. The lack of 1, or 2, of these steps means our blood fails to clot and we die. Therefore, all steps must be present simultaneously. This simple fact removes any notion of mutation occurring over millions of years.

If evolution were true, and we mutate to improve our chances of survival, Eskimos would have grown thick hair over their bodies, similar to fur. Yet this isn’t the case.

Also, the widely known genetic mutation, ‘sickle cell’, is all the proof we need to combat the mutation argument. Sickle cell sufferers may be immune to malaria, but at what cost?

Malaria ignores the sickle cell sufferers due to improper red blood cell development, which causes a myriad of issues for the person with the disease. Such as damaged blood vessels in the eyes, blocked arteries, and spleen damage, to name a few. The benefit of not being effected by malaria once infected is due to malaria not being able to survive within the hosts body, due to the abnormalities of the red blood cells. The trade off, if you ask me, isn’t a beneficial thing, and it definitely doesn’t equate to proof of evolution. If anything, it’s proof our genes have a multitude of expressions, some good and some bad. The fact that sickle cell has a stronger presence in areas prone to malaria seems, to me, to be proof our environment influences us on a genetic level, as is taught within the subject of ‘epigenetics’, which I discuss in my article ‘The Death Of Big Pharma’.

There are many more examples I could provide to counter the theory of evolution, but to digress would turn this article into a book, with multiple volumes, and I’d rather not bore you with the ins and outs of every aspect of the theory. Instead, I urge you to perform your own research on the subject, you can begin with the source material linked below, as well as the names and dates I’ve mentioned throughout this article, and go from there.

The natural science’s disprove evolution, and point directly to intelligent design. The time for blindly accepting a reality dictated to us is over. The time for knowing is upon us.

Seek and you shall find.


Evolution refuted:


Mouse genome:

Allometric cranial ontogeny:

Blood clot:

Sickle cell:

Dinosaur soft tissue:

Dinosaurs never existed:

Evolution refuted in under 5 minutes: