Critique of the Theory of Evolution. Walter Friedman

sea habitat.

      Two Sexes

      Another obstacle that the evolutionary theory faces is the existence of two sexes.

      The evolutionary theory stumbles and falls when its proponents fail to explain the fact that there are two sexes in the animal world. All evolutionists agree that the original cell was asexual—it didn’t have reproductive organs. As the evolutionists contend, the reproductive organs appeared later when the organisms became more complex.

      There are three possible ways that this could have happened: 1) Some organisms could have developed the penis first, then, say, one million years later the vagina evolved. But the penis alone is a useless characteristic and, if the evolutionary theory is correctly interpreted, its uselessness should have made it disappear quite soon. 2) The vagina could have appeared first. (The same logic as in the previous case applies.) 3) The vagina and penis could have appeared simultaneously. How great is the chance of that? Besides, since they evolved separately, there is no reason why they should be compatible. For example, it could have been a huge penis and a miniature vagina. More importantly, there is no reason why they should be genetically compatible (genetic compatibility is required to produce offspring).

      An asexual organism does not need a partner to reproduce itself; it can branch itself into similar organisms at any time. When two sexes are involved, not everyone gets a shot at it. Some members of a species have to wait until the next mating season. This means that asexual species have a better chance of reproduction and subsequent survival of the species, so asexuality is not a characteristic to be lost. Once again, the evolutionary theory leads to a wrong conclusion.

      Not Knowing How Evolution Occurred

      The evolutionists say, “we do not know exactly how evolution occurred, but we know that it occurred because it makes sense to us; otherwise it is impossible to explain similarities between certain types of animals.”

      Let’s see what happens if this line of reasoning is used in the other branches of natural science. According to Einstein’s theory of relativity, the mass of a moving object increases along with the increase in its speed and becomes infinite when the object reaches the speed of light. All experimental data shows that this is, indeed, the case. Now, imagine Einstein saying, “the objects become lighter as their speed increases. I do not know why this happens and, frankly, I do not care why, but this makes sense to me!” Needless to say, this “Einstein” would never become a household name.

      But this is exactly what the evolutionists do—while there is no experimental data to support their claim, they simply state that the evolution hypothesis makes sense to them. Very scientific, isn’t it?

      The Platypus Logic

      The evolutionists are experiencing great joy—an overly enthusiastic evolutionist discovered the missing link between the sea creatures and the earth creatures. This specimen is called the “missing link” because he has characteristics of both ocean inhabitants and earth inhabitants.

      Here is the question—does the fact that a specimen has characteristics of both species A and species B imply that a transition from A to B, or from B to A, took place? According to the evolutionists, this, indeed, is the case; otherwise, they wouldn’t be looking for the “missing links.”

      What about the platypus, then? It has characteristics of both the bird and the mammal—it lays eggs and at the same time produces milk. However, the evolutionists insist that birds and mammals constitute two distinct branches that did not evolve from each other; they just have a common ancestor, whoever that creature may be.

      What else is new? Like all idiots, evolutionists make contradictory statements.

      What about the mule? It has characteristics of both the horse and the donkey. However, the mule is not a missing link between the horse and the donkey; if anything is missing here it’s the evolutionist’s brain.

      Now, imagine an earth creature taking a bath in shallow waters and in the process getting impregnated by a sea creature. This is how the missing link the evolutionists are so proud of was conceived! The evolutionists will, certainly, say that this is an impossible scenario. Yes, it is; but the “missing link” is an equally improbable scenario.

      6 : Mutations

      Evolutionists use advances in the science of genetics in attempts to justify the evolutionary theory. From the evolutionist’s point of view, the most important genetic concept is the concept of germinal mutations (unlike somatic mutations, germinal mutations are transmitted to the succeeding generations).

      Germinal mutations could be divided into two categories: 1) Mutations that occur due to known external factors such as radiation, pesticides, herbicides, etc. These mutations occur on a large scale. These mutations are also called “non-random mutations”; the word non-random is used to indicate that the cause of a mutation is known. 2) Mutations that occur due to unknown internal factors—these mutations are caused by changes in cellular structure. These mutations are also called “random mutations”; the word random is used to indicate that the exact cause of a mutation is unknown. Two or more random mutations cannot occur at the same time because simultaneous occurrence would classify them as non-random mutations.

      In an attempt to avoid the search for a cause of mutations that occurred millions of years ago, evolutionists take into consideration random mutations alone. This is a reasonable assumption from a logical standpoint; however, from a mathematical standpoint it causes enormous difficulties.

      Evolutionists use the following explanation of how random mutations spread to the entire population:

      Suppose a random mutation beneficial to an organism’s survival occurred in a single individual. Also assume that at least two of the descendants of a couple will receive new characteristics; this is a good assumption because a vast majority of the animals produce more than two cubs during their lifetimes. In a short period of time new characteristics will spread to the entire population at an exponentially increasing rate.

      However, the evolutionists’ calculations are completely wrong because they do not take into account the rate of survival.

      Denote by N the total number of members of a population, by q the average number of members that will reach the reproductive age, and by R the survival rate. Then R = q/N. Obviously, 0 < R < 1.

      Denote by K the number of generations that will retain newly acquired characteristics that came as the result of a random mutation, by PK the probability that this characteristic will be found in the K-th generation. It can be proven that Pk = A × RK.

      Here, A is a proportionality constant depending on the average number of cubs. (Readers with a basic knowledge of the probability theory could consult Appendix A.)

      With each passing generation Pk goes rapidly down and after about 20 generations it is, for all practical purposes, equal to zero.

      This is how the probability theory puts the evolutionary theory to shame. It is no wonder that the geneticists and mathematicians are among the most ardent opponents of Darwin’s theory.

      There is another reason why geneticists are opposed to the evolutionary theory. It has something to do with the conclusions that contradict experimental genetic data.

      Recently several groups of geneticists came to the conclusion that the human genotype could be traced to a woman who, probably, lived several thousand years ago somewhere in North Africa; they even dubbed her “Eve.” Not all geneticists agree with this conclusion, but even those who disagree do not state that such tracing is impossible in principle; they simply say that it is beyond the level of modern science, but that in the not-so-distant future it will become a reality. This tracing leads to three possibilities:

      1) The human race has two progenitors, a man and a woman.

      For the evolutionists, this opens a can of worms with all kinds of unsettling questions about religion.

      2) The trail goes beyond the human race and stops with two pre-historic beings, say, male and female apes.

      This raises