For over 150 years, the world has shifted to adopt evolution as the primary theory for the appearance of modern species and the disappearance of many others – but is evolution flawed? Contrary to general consensus, archaeological evidence for evolution does not actually exist. The concept of evolution has been, and continues to be nothing more than a theory. While there are gaps in species origins and some strong evidence to support the concept, there is just as much evidence to support the contrary. What would the consequences be to society if evolution were not true? What would substitute evolution? How could science approach the history of the planet of Earth without evolution as a base-line?
The University of California, Berkeley, has published a website with some basic explanations to support evolution. Science relies on several factors to support this theory, the strongest of which (and what is only implied), is Occam’s Razor, relying on the simplest of explanations after putting everything together.
The first principal behind evolution is fossil evidence. For hundreds of years, scientists have known that the Earth has sustained life that is not present, today. From land-based dinosaurs to aquatic species to plant life, the fact remains that the Earth has supported a variety of life forms – starting with ultra-large creatures to the smaller species alive now. A while back I posted an article that addressed the fact that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. The premise is simple: if the majority of all prehistoric life has transformed into fossil fuels and there are but only a few skeletons from the largest of species remaining, then what could possibly lead us to believe that the absence of human remains signifies that there were no humans?
Forensic science has already established that the rate of decay for a human corpse through putrefaction begins within 36 hours. This process will continue until total annihilation has occurred. Given the 65 million years of separation between modern man and dinosaurs, it’s not only feasible, but most likely a fact that there would be no evidence of mankind’s existence during prehistoric periods. And, even if the evidence does exist – the chances of finding it given the major geological changes in the planet over the past 65 million years is … rare (not just ‘rare’, rare – but super, ultra, nobody’s ever going to just hand me 50 million dollars, rare). So, while fossil evidence may point to the existence of species that are not currently alive, it does not establish the non-existence of species that are currently living on Earth. Humans have caused 322 animal extinctions in the last 322 years, therefore, we can conclude that the disappearance of a past species is not necessarily evolution. While fossil evidence may provide for some very interesting possibilities – it does not substantially support that theory.
The next support for evolution is homology. Under this presumption, morphological homology indicates that we all have common ancestors and therefore, have common traits. For example, the human hand is webbed like that of a duck’s, or a platypus, or an alligator, or a frog, or …. well, you get the point. So – if human’s are descendants of monkeys, then why do we have webbed fingers and toes? Well, monkeys have webbed feet, too – although they have tails while apes do not (which, to note, apes do not have webbed feet). And, in fact, apes are closer to humans than monkeys. But, does that open the door for your ancestor to also include the platypus?
For this, we have to go back further – to fish. Yes, in order for evolution to be supported through homology, there has to be a common ancestral trait. In this instance, beavers, ducks, alligators, and monkeys have all descended from a similar ancestor – aquatic species that required webs or fins in order to swim. This assumes that all life started in the ocean. Note the word, “assumes”. If we were to rely on biblical history, land and sea creatures came about around roughly the same time. But, here’s the catch – if dinosaurs ruled the planet and humans came after – evolution from fish to monkey/alligator/platypus occurred roughly thereafter and that the world was covered in water AFTER the dinosaurs … ??? (Which is contrary to species such as woolly mammoths).
But, wait – that would mean that science believes evolution can take place in a very short period of time, doesn’t it? Yes. Surprisingly, based on the observation of species with ultra-short life spans, scientists have determined that evolution can take place in the course of only a few thousand years. But, drawing similarities between the whole of human evolution to minor mutations in a laboratory-confined insect is again, a stretch. Conclusions can be drawn – but not verified – and last I checked, hypothesis don’t translate to facts without actual evidence. To further defend their position, science has adopted other assumptions such as dinosaurs evolving into birds and certain amphibious/aquatic species shrinking in size without much change from their prehistoric ancestors. Again – these are all assumptions. However, the similarity between species has a flaw – chromosomes and DNA.
In a vacuum, if 1000 people were to design something as simple as hair, as a complex, protein filament, there would be almost 1000 variants. However, for every variation, the core principal would still be the same: a complex, protein filament. Factors such as length, color, and quantity would then be adjusted as needed, in the environment. So, what’s the difference between human hair, platypus fur, duck feathers – or even skin for that matter? At the core, they are all just keratin with slight variations depending on the species and the environment. Does that mean they all shared a common ancestor and mutated according to the need of that particular species?
While that is a plausible argument, there is another possibility: finite mutation within a series of chemical reactions. To derive the whole of the species from a single source is not only a huge stretch, but it requires accepting that a single element was mutated in thousands upon thousands of alternate variations. However, we can see similarities between species and this tells us something else other than homology – that the potential variants of that particular element are limited. In other words, nature can only make (x) amount of variations with keratin. For example, if X = 2000 possible variants, but there are millions of species, then the likelihood that the variants would be repeated over and over again would be … extremely high! Therefore, homology provides some support for evolution, but equally as likely, the similarities between species do not have to be based upon a common ancestor but rather, upon a periodic table of elements that can only be tweaked and mutated in a limited number of ways!
What makes homology an even worse premise is that there isn’t sufficient evidence on the variety of species in the ocean in relationship to the variant chemical differences and mutation possibilities vs. the deviations among the various species that have existed on this planet! In other words – everything on the planet did not evolve from a single fish – there would have to be a certain quantification of diversity originally to substantiate any relative value for the diversity that exists today.
The next consideration for evolution is the bio-geographical distribution of species across a long period of time. But, in fact, this is an exhaustively limited perspective. On its own merit, the potential for alien bacteria, amino acids, and other chemicals through meteor impacts fully invalidates the lack of similarities on a single planet across a vast expanse of time as a foundation for evolution. The distribution of species relies on the premise that the world was flat … or rather, had a mohawk, of sorts (confusing, perhaps, but I have previously discussed in other articles why the joined continent theory has some excessively outrageous flaws). Then, through discoveries of fossils and other remnants of previous life at different periods, science determines which species spread world-wide by crossing large land masses, and which are more confined, supporting evolution.
But, what about today? If a million years from now, archaeologists looked at the Earth as it is, with separated continents and the multitudes of species crossing over all of those continents, would they decide that it was evolution, or that the continents were joined and humans, dogs, cats, and the occasional rabbit, all crossed over the large, land masses together? I am not implying that horses and zebras went their separate ways via a boat (since their distribution pattern would have occurred after the massive tectonic shifts 65 millions years ago and earlier). The point about distribution can be as easily undone by spores in the wind as it can a hundred thousand other explanations.
For instance, there is nothing saying that land masses, ice bergs, and the like did not break off during an earthquake and carry large numbers of species across the planet. Again, we come back to the argument about the absence of evidence. Just because we can only find a species in one location and not another does not necessarily mean that its appearance was evolutionary. Let’s consider the destruction of Easter Island through the more recently, accepted historical perspective, of rats (not that I’m implying archaeological science that relies on assumptions is wrong simply because newly discovered evidence unravels its predecessor – although that’s a good point, too!!).
How did rats find their way to this secluded island? Ahh … boats! Rats built giant vessels during the great period of Ratatopia when they set out to conquer the known world …. um … okay, that’s just silly. However, settlers to Easter island, the islanders themselves, and pirates are believed to have had rats on their ships. Of course, there’s also the geological presumption that Easter Island is the only high, mountaintop left that sticks above the ocean’s surface and could have been connected via other land masses. Add to this that there are species which have been discovered where they weren’t previously believed to be around the planet and species that were believed extinct but spontaneously reappeared in other locations and … well … geographic distribution is another, weak argument for evolution.
The final argument for evolution is evidence by example. This theory is still – theory. It’s a hypothesis that is not yet an established fact that makes it documented science. Why? No species has been seen making the dramatic evolutionary shift that would quantify the epic changes that Charles Darwin first noted in his book, On the Origin of Species. The gap between homo erectus and homo sapien is a rather large gap that has not been sufficiently demonstrated (thus the term, “missing link”). The gap between fish growing legs and evolving into beavers has still not been established (although Ducks fans might still try to convince you of this fact).
The only ‘evidence,’ that science has to rely on goes back to the premise of assuming a common ancestor. But on that matter, we have already established herein that the similarity between bones in the human hand and bones in a bird’s wing don’t make the two closely related – especially with different bone structures. A question to consider is this: Is it reasonable to believe that life started in the ocean with one-celled organisms? Is it reasonable to believe in the contrary possibility that there were puddles of goo/sludge on dry land comprised of amino acids that lead to the species on Earth today? Is it possible that the protein chains in the liquefied remains of dinosaurs, on land, began life? Even if we accept the one-celled organism theory … then where did they come from?
So, now, what does this mean for evolution? Let’s take something as simple as the Woolly Mammoth and the elephant. There is sufficiency in their similarity to draw the conclusion that the species has adapted over time, decreasing in size (gravity, food, population density, etc.) and losing their fur coat. Does this prove evolution? Well – if it does, then perhaps an ape losing its fur coat and walking around as a bald, upright man has some merit as the argument for evolution. However, I would make the point that evolution is not just adaptation. Adaptation is as simple as a crustacean living on the back of a whale and the two having a symbiotic relationship – they have adapted to find support in their living arrangements. Adaptation can also be as simple as a Golden Delicious Apple versus a Red Apple, or black skin versus white skin.
Adaptations are therefore nothing more than minor variations in the chemistry of a body that result in distinct, outward differences. At the cellular level, there are striking similarities, and that’s because the species are literally “variants” of one another based on finite elemental / chemical combinations. But, evolution is that fundamental change in the entire physiology of a being so dramatically that it its very nature and state of being change. One of the few examples we have on this would be if apes had evolved into humans or fish into badgers – but we don’t.
If we consider biblical context, many of the species of the Earth were placed here at the same time. For conspiracy theorists, this means that aliens deposited those species. For atheists, this means that meteors carrying the DNA of these species landed here. For Scientology, it means more money (whether they’re right or not … but that’s a WHOLE other SERIES of articles!!)! No matter how you look at it, the result is the same: a combination of species and plant not native to this planet were deposited and adapted over time to the various climates. Hard to believe?
What do you think is planned for Mars? Humans want to deposit plants and animals on its surface and begin a long-term process of Terra-forming the planet. Since that’s reality – how far fetched is it to believe that was the case a hundred million years ago?
The real question is this: are there other factors with substantial possibility of validity equal to that of evolution from aquatic species to land mammals? Using the evolutionary principle of geographic distribution over time, given the assumed vastness of space and number of potential planets with similarities to Earth – the possibility of distribution of species through space (no … not the Whales from Star Trek 4 … although … I can believe VGER from Star Trek I … ), via genetic material has a much greater possibility of being valid than distribution on a single planet (the numbers are overwhelmingly in favor of space-distribution).
What about mutation? Well – if evolution is anything, it’s mutation. And, given the amount of solar radiation around the Earth, the amount of radioactive chemicals on the planet, and other, similar factors – mutation is as equally a possibility. So, then, why do we value evolution so much?
It’s certainly not for the scientific link between prehistoric and modern day species (the missing link, anyone?). Most likely, evolution was a way, following the Scopes Trials, an excellent story for those who don’t know it, to provide a non-religious view of the world that included the incredible scientific discoveries such as fossils. Unfortunately, evolution was taken too far. While it has its merits (as previously referenced, the horse and the zebra, the woolly mammoth and the elephant, human beings and the platypus ….), those merits should be reclassified as adaptation and not evolution (except the platypus … that was a joke … at least, I’m pretty sure it was … ask God, He knows). Even ancient Sumerians wrote stories about the visitors from other worlds mixing their bodies with those of the creatures of this world (The Nephilim?)
There are more arguments to be made, but due to space and time – this article has focused on a small portion of the biggest issues. Too many inconsistencies exist historically for evolution to be the standing theory. The “giant human” remains that have been discovered have brought into question many “origin” possibilities for human beings. While many of these are fake, there is evidence of those that are not. But, does this mean we have to give up on evolution?
What we do have to give up on is creating a solution and trying to prove it by fitting enough facts into the box to make it look like a really good answer. Abandoning the theory of evolution and re-approaching the problem could provide a lot more valuable insight than has been ever considered before. We have to allow science the room to hypothesize and not find “absolute” answers, but let it explore possibilities – otherwise, we will never expand our knowledge of the universe or our minds. The ultimate conclusion of this article is that there is sufficient evidence to see that evolutionary theory is flawed and has sometimes skewed the legitimate, hard work by many archaeologists who are eager to learn the truth.
And, if we abandon the theory of evolution and start asking questions again- we may begin to find answers that will establish the “missing link” and help in our understanding of the history of our world.
“Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. But I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey, and reminds us to cherish every moment because they’ll never come again. What we leave behind is not as important as how we lived. After all, Number One, we’re only mortal.“