Critique of the Theory of Evolution. Walter Friedman

weapons.

      7) Only humans are bipedal and use their hands for manual labor.

      The kangaroo is bipedal too, and it uses its hands to get its babies in and out the pouch. There were also reports in the media about an Australian joker who taught his kangaroo how to fight on a boxing ring. Besides, it is not clear if the prehistoric beings were bipedal. For example, some of them had a leg structure very similar to that of the kangaroo. This finding suggests that they were moving in long jumps. Usually, anthropologists compare the length of the arm to the length of the body and if the arms are relatively short, they conclude that a species is bipedal. But this reasoning is not without a flaw—there have been reports of humans who were raised by animals and were able to move on all fours faster than professional sprinters.

      Every science begins with the measurement. Anthropologists perform all kinds of measurements on the skeletons of prehistoric beings, then form various ratios such as the ratio of foot length to body length, nose length to head length, hip width to body length, and so on. After that, the average value of each ratio is computed and compared to its human counterpart. Then anthropologists happily declare that prehistoric beings are, indeed, human ancestors because the differences ratios between prehistoric beings and humans is very small. But what does “very small” really mean? Is it 0.46%? Or 3.7%? Or 10.2%? Or 24.9%? Is it possible to make the following determination: if the difference between the ratios is less than or equal to 12.6% then the prehistoric species in question is a human ancestor; otherwise, it is not? It is highly unlikely that even anthropologists would make such an idiotic assessment. There is no theory or even a hypothesis behind these measurements, which makes them completely useless. The only proof that prehistoric beings are human ancestors would come from establishing that they had human blood types. But skeletal remains give no indication of blood type.

      Anthropologists face another insurmountable problem that could be summed up in the question, Was the transition from one type of prehistoric being to another abrupt or gradual? Abrupt transitions are like those horror movies with ugly-looking extraterrestrial babies shooting out of human mothers. Luckily, all geneticists agree that such a transition is impossible. What if the transition was gradual? This would indicate the existence of transitional species, but so far anthropologists have discovered none.

      9 : Forensic Science

      What color was dinosaur skin? Some paleontologists suggest that it was gray while others think that it was colored like a rainbow. This disagreement is not a big deal; paleontologists know that the skeleton offers no clues as to what the skin color might have been.

      All prehistoric beings displayed on the evolutionary chart have very hairy bodies, like that of a monkey. In reality, no one knows what their exteriors looked like because the skeleton offers no information regarding the skin’s look or constitution. There are several other possibilities: a) their skin looked like a baby’s ass, which might not be a nice thing to say; b) their skin was covered with some sort of rudimentary scale; there are even modern-day humans with this type of genetic disorder; or c) their skin was covered with a fur similar to cat fur.

      Any of these possibilities spells the doom for the evolutionary theory.

      Everyone familiar with forensic science knows how difficult it is to extrapolate the look of facial features from the structure of a scull. Usually, additional information such as age, race, sex, etc., of a subject is required to do a fairly good extrapolation. The skeleton provides, with a certain degree of precision, information about the age and sex, but almost never provides information about the race, so an extraneous source of information is needed to determine this important characteristic. Still, the number of good forensic artists is in the double digits worldwide because this is an extremely difficult undertaking.

      No one knows how many races of prehistoric beings of one type or another there were, or what the members of different sexes looked like. There is not enough data to make sexual differentiation possible. There is no way of telling what their age was unless they were in their teens, with a smaller than average body. Yet anthropologists draw pictures of human-like prehistoric beings whose faces express human-like emotions and then say, “look at these people, they are almost like us!”

      Emotion-wise, this is a very powerful message, but it is completely wrong. Those beings looked like anything but us. Once emotions are removed from the equation, everyone sees clearly that anthropologists went out on a limb.

      section ii

Attack on the Straw Man

      10 : First-Generation Evolutionists

      Evolutionists often complain that, as far as the evolutionary theory is concerned, their opponents created a straw man and now merely attack him. The straw man is here, all right, but he was created by the evolutionists, as the history of the evolutionary theory shows.

      Every serious science is based on a philosophical system that helps to interpret its experimental data and improve its methodology. For example, modern-day physics and chemistry are based on a philosophical system called positivism; in the past they were based on the doctrine developed by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant.

      Biology is the only science that uses the currently defunct Hegelian philosophical system. Hegelian doctrine was not completely wrong, but it was replaced by more advanced philosophical systems, including positivism. This is a very interesting topic; however, a comprehensive discussion of the Hegelian philosophical system is beyond the scope of this book.

      First generation evolutionists were firm believers in the Hegelian philosophical system, which comes as no surprise—at that time it was the most advanced philosophical doctrine. Positivism was only in its nascent state.

      According to the main principle of Hegelianism, a process is bound to happen when the conditions favorable to its happening are present. The presence of favorable conditions is in itself a proof that the process is predetermined. Nothing in this definition indicates that the process should happen only once; on the contrary, the process will repeat itself as long as favorable conditions are present. For example, the presence of a gravitational field causes objects situated on the earth’s surface to remain there for an indefinite period of time; the process will repeat itself for as long as the earth exists. At a certain distance from the earth the condition known as weightlessness exists; weightlessness is also a persistent process that repeats itself permanently.

      If the main principle of Hegelianism is properly applied, it predicts that the process that created the original cell will be repeating itself over and over because the elements known as the “building blocks of life,” or the constituents of the original cell, are always present. In other words, scientists should be able to observe the creation of an original cell on a constant basis. As everyone knows, this is not the case.

      Naturally, the first generation of evolutionists tried to bypass this difficulty by saying that the presence of the building blocks alone is not enough to bring the original cell to life; something else is also needed to start the process of generation of the first DNA-like organic structure. What is this additional condition? There were several explanations depending on which evolutionists you talk to.

      A majority of the first generation evolutionists used the concept of “vital force” in a feeble attempt to explain why there was only one original cell. Webster’s New World Dictionary gives following definition of vitalism: “the doctrine that the life in living organisms is caused and sustained by a vital force that is distinct from all physical and chemical forces and that life is, in part, self-determining and self-evolving.” No one really knows what a vital force is because it is a purely metaphysical quality that cannot be measured in any way; the absence of measurements makes it a nonexistent quality. Still, it would be interesting to know why, as evolutionists believe, it acted only once to produce the original cell. The explanation is just as ridiculous as is the concept of a vital force itself. It states that a primordial vital force gave itself up completely while giving life to the original cell, until there was nothing left!

      A competing school of “thought” gave an entirely different explanation: in addition to the building blocks, favorable positioning of the planets in the solar system