Critique of the Theory of Evolution. Walter Friedman

does the trail stop here? Who were these beings? Were they created by an extraterrestrial race? What is the meaning of this?

      3) The genetic trail leads all the way back to the original cell.

      This is a sign of even more trouble! For the original cell is a single parent whose existence implies that all living organisms on this planet carry its genetic imprint. By isolating a common denominator, the imprint of the original cell, in primitive organisms, geneticists should be able to determine how inorganic matter evolved into organic matter with a DNA-like structure that produced the original cell. However, as the research in the field of genetics shows, the imprint of the original cell is a fiction that has nothing to do with serious science. Evolutionists ventured into the field of genetics but came up empty-handed.

      Now we are going to present the extremely important argument above in a nutshell, so the evolutionists can read it and weep!

      In biology textbooks the DNA compounds are described as long strands of molecules bonded together; modern technology allows these long strands to be cut into smaller ones in an arbitrary manner. If the theories of the original cell, or original cells, are correct, it is possible to cut human DNA, or the DNA of any other species, into smaller and smaller strands in such a way that at least one strand will have a structure identical to that of an original cell. If this strand, also called the imprint of an original cell, is placed into a chemical solution containing enough building blocks, it will imitate the function of an original cell by duplicating itself. As all geneticists agree, such duplication has not been observed so far. A small number of geneticists contend that the imprint mutated beyond recognition and that the original structure is gone for good. However, a majority of the geneticists counter their argument by saying that such mutation would have destroyed the self-reproductive capability.

      7 : The Original Cell as an Entity That Cannot Possibly Exist

      Evolutionists believe that an as yet unknown chemical reaction turned inorganic matter into a DNA-like structure called the original cell. This transformation, they say, occurred millions of years ago. So far, however, nobody has been able to reproduce the reaction and there are no theoretical considerations showing that such a transformation is possible. In fact, the exact opposite is true—theoretically, it is impossible for this kind of transformation to occur. The proof is presented in Appendix B of this book. Unfortunately, the proof is extremely complicated and requires considerable knowledge of atomic physics; for this reason it has been placed outside the main body of the text.

      There is yet another angle of attack on the concept of the original cell that requires only a moderate, high-school-level knowledge of physics and chemistry.

      We’ll start with comparing modern geophysical conditions with the conditions that caused the creation of the purported original cell. According to the cosmological theories, Earth was much hotter those days and the original cell’s natural habitat, the ocean, was heated almost to the boiling point, with the highest temperature at the seabed where volcanic activity was affecting the earth’s crust. Another noticeable difference was high-intensity bombardment of the planet with alpha-particles, gamma-particles, and beta-particles. All these primordial conditions could be easily reproduced in a physics laboratory. In fact, these conditions are present in one form or another in elementary particle accelerators. But physicists also know that alpha-, beta-, and gamma-particles produce unstable configurations (matter) that disintegrate into original components in a fraction of a second. This means that all cosmological theories indicate that the original cell could not possibly exist.

      American astrophysicist Carl Sagan tried to circumvent this difficulty by proposing the theory that a spore of unknown vegetation from an unknown place (was it the Planet of the Apes?) somehow got into outer space, then, while being pushed by solar winds, traveled for trillion of years and finally hit the earth, accomplishing what the original cell failed to do.

      Sagan knew physics—there’s no doubt about that—but he had no knowledge of genetics; otherwise, he would have known that the “Sagan spore,” being a single parent, would have left its genetic imprint on all of the earth’s organisms (see chapter 6 of this book).

      What if it were possible to design an experiment that would prove once and for all that the evolutionary theory is incorrect? Actually, such an experiment can be designed—it is based on the notion of an ecosystem. This is how Webster’s New World Dictionary defines ecosystem: “a system made up of a community of animals, plants and bacteria and its interrelated physical and chemical environment.”

      What would be the single most important characteristic vital to the survival of a species? That would be the ability to live outside of an ecosystem. Such an ability also implies the ability to live within any partially developed ecosystem. The original cell was all by itself; there was no ecosystem to support it. If the evolutionary theory is correct, all organisms, past and present, should have inherited its ability to live outside the ecosphere.

      The idea for this experiment is simple: it would require only a large aquarium filled with seawater and rock formations and a single specimen of fish, bacteria, or seaweed that would normally inhabit such an environment. Can it support itself outside the ecosystem? Other than coral reefs, no one can exist in such an environment for long.

      This experiment is the foundation of science; it shows that the evolutionary theory is anything but science.

      8 : Anthropology

      Anthropologists are among the staunchest defenders of the evolutionary theory. This comes as no surprise, for their livelihood depends on it! But anthropologists use a methodology that is even worse than the one used by biologists. It starts with a definition of human beings that defies all rules of logic. This definition consists of several parts; we’ll go over each of them.

      1) Only human beings can use objects that are not part of their body to accomplish a multitude of tasks.

      Nothing could be further from the truth; for example, crows use sticks and stones to procure food that is otherwise impossible to get. Anyone who likes to watch TV channels that feature wildlife knows how crows operate.

      2) Human beings are the only ones capable of drawing pictures of their surroundings.

      There are pictures of flowers and trees drawn by elephants living in Thailand; some of these pictures are even posted on the Internet.

      3) Animals are afraid of fire; only human beings can sit next to it.

      Actually, this is an urban legend. Recent evidence suggests that certain types of animals, including the fox, are not afraid of fire.

      4) Only humans use fire to cook food.

      This is true, of course, but anthropologists go a step further by suggesting that “human ancestors,” including the Cro-Magnon, were using fire to cook their supper. However, forensic experts disagree by saying that it is simply impossible to ascertain what kind of food was used in that era because the time span between then and now is simply too large for us to draw any conclusion.

      5) Humans are the only species who possess highly evolved linguistic skills.

      But anthropologists confuse two different things; it would be helpful to sort them out. To start with, each animal species, not just humans, has its own language—this is a well-known fact. Human languages are different from animal languages in one aspect—they are capable of conveying abstract concepts while animal languages deal with concrete information only. There is strong evidence that prehistoric beings who left paintings on the walls of their caves did not have a language capable of dealing with abstract concepts. This means that prehistoric beings were, in fact, animals and not human ancestors.

      6) Only human beings can manufacture clothes.

      This is correct, of course; however, there is no evidence that prehistoric beings were wearing any clothes. Prehistoric beings are depicted in biology textbooks wearing some kind of fur clothing, but this is pure artists’ fantasy. It is impossible to tell what kind of garment, if any, they were wearing because garments get destroyed after enduring millions of years of harsh conditions. All that is left are the bones of