Problems in Evolution
by Josh Braggs
The theory of evolution supports itself on two main pillars, the geologic column, and Charles Darwin’s Natural selection. Evolution terminology is what I will discuss first. The main words are adapted or adaptation, these words are used in place of adjusted. These words are confused with each other because the evolution-based textbooks in schools switch the meanings around. The words adapt or adaptation means to change from one thing to another. The word adjust means slight change or modification. The textbook authors know the meanings but do not care to correct themselves.
The bible of evolution is the geologic column, given to them by Charles Lyell in his book Principles of Geology. This column is used to help them date the fossil. “If there were, a column of sediments deposited continuously, the formation of the earth, the entire history of the planet could be reconstructed. Unfortunately, no such column exists (H.B.J. Earth Science, 1989, pg. 326).” All geologists date the fossils they find by the rock layers , but when asked how they date the rock layers, the answer is by the index fossils found in them. The problem with this kind of thinking is called circular reasoning. “The Intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks (J.E. O’Rourke, American Journal of Science, January, 1976, Vol.276, pg. 54).” The Geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. Another man named Derek Ager wrote in, “Apart from very modern examples, which are really archeology, I can think of no case of radioactive decay being used to date fossils (Ager, 1983, pg. 425).” What happened to carbon dating, potassium argon dating, uranium lead or uranium two-thirty-five dating? Nope, I guess that using the geologic column is better. “Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first. The rocks do date the fossils but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. “Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists, on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of the time scales ( O’Rourke, 1976, pg. 54).” The thought possibly never crossed their mind t hat maybe just maybe the geologic column is wrong. This is usually about the time they say “What about index fossils?” Well, to start, there are no index fossils. The three main, supposed, index fossils are Trilobites, Graptolites, and Lobed Finned fish. The Trilobites are found throughout the geologic column, and one was found crushed in a human footprint (Hovind, 2002). Graptolites were found alive in the south pacific in 1993 (Hovind, 2002). The Lobed Finned fish was found swimming around in the Indian Ocean, and is now called the Coelacanth (Hovind, 2002). When the fish was found, the evolutionist just said “Look, it survived for forty million years.” Being crippled by their education, evolutionist never consider that their opinion of the geologic column just might be wrong.
Another small thing that sends a rift through the geologic column was the discovery of petrified trees, standing in the vertical position, running through many layers of rock that is supposable millions of years old. There is a picture of this in the Bob Jones Earth science p.306. Geologist Dr. John Woodmorappe wrote, “Eighty to eighty-five percent of all earths land surface does not have even three geologic periods appearing in correct consecutive order. It becomes "an" overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading Imagination for the evolutionary uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geologic periods (Woodmorappe, 1981).” This really poses a problem for the Geologic column.
We have only one more major support holding up this theory of evolution. Now that we have disposed of the column, let us examine Charles Darwin’s Natural Selection. I have to admit that Charles Darwin was an exceptionally smart genius in observation, any man that can write four hundred fifty pages of scientific jumbo, using words that start from Aberrant and end with Zooids does deserve some respect in science. Darwin like many other people in his day made good observations but bad conclusions. During those times when you stuck meat out for a couple days and then looked at it, the observation was maggots on the meat. Therefore, they concluded that rotting meat produced maggots; this is not the case from what we know today. We know that maggots are immature flies, and rotting meat attracts flies. Therefore, our conclusion is that the flies laid eggs in the meat and then the eggs hatched producing the maggots. Such is the case with evolutionary natural selection. Natural selection is what they used as a base for the six types of evolution: cosmic, chemical, stellar, organic, macro, and microevolution. Only microevolution (or natural selection as it should be called) has been proven but is not evidence for evolution. Microevolution is when an animal changes within its kind or species in order for evolution to happen. An animal must change from one kind or species to another for it to be called macroevolution. This form of evolution has never been observed. The other types of evolution that are unproven are cosmic evolution (The formation of the universe), chemical evolution (how all the elements formed), stellar evolution (the formation of the stars), and organic evolution (how living organisms originated). These other types of evolution are farfetched and have not been proven. Evolutionists know that they cannot prove them at this point, so they use the only one that has been proven to prove all the others.
Microevolution or natural selection is an everyday occurrence that can be observed at home with dogs. If you have a Great Dane and it mates with a weenie dog, (very unlikely) you will get a very strange looking dog, but it will still be a dog, not a cat or an orangutan. Textbook authors use this, along with their bias opinions of evolution, to convince their students of the validity of the theory. They start out talking about microevolution then switch it on them in the next paragraph or page. Darwin reasoned the same way; he observed microevolution and concluded that it proved macroevolution. In all honesty, Darwin believed that peas and eagles are related. Someone might aggressively say he did not. Unfortunately, he did make another wrong conclusion. He said in his book The Origin of Species by Natural selection or preservation of favored races in the struggle for life, “It is truly a wondrous fact… that all animals and plants throughout all time and space should be related to each other... (Darwin, 1859, pg. 70)” Darwin himself had some nagging doubt because of his theory’s lack of evidence. One was that for a creature to change into another animal it needed a beneficial mutation, despite the fact there is no proof. In the book Parasitology, Lea and Febiger said, “Natural selection can only act on those biologic properties that already exist; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptation requirements (Lea & Febiger, 2002, pg 516).”
I will end this essay with the opinion that evolution is a possible hypothesis for the origin of the universe, but that it has no place in science. Their geologic column is not valid in my opinion, nor do I agree with their interpretation of it. Darwin was wrong in his idea that microevolution proves macroevolution. The crippled view of textbook writer and university professors of today have turned the mind of the young students away from the truth and given them a false hypothesis in its place.
H.B.J. (1989). Earth science.
J.E. O’Rourke. (1976). American Journal of science, 276.5
Ager, Derek V. (Nov.10, 1983). Fossil Frustrations. New scientist, vol.100
J.E. O’Rourke. (Jan., 1976). Pragmatism vs. materialism in Stratigraphy. American journal of Science. vol. 276 p.54
Bob Jones. Earth Science, Lea & Febiger. Parasitology 6th edition.
Geologist, Dr. John Woodmorappe.(June 1981) “The Essential Non-existence of the-evolution uniformitarian Geologic column, CRSQ vol.18, No.1
Darwin. Charles. (1859). Origin of species
David Sunderland. Darwin’s Enigma. / ISBN-O89O51-1O8X/ CAT. NO. MB 285
Hovind, Kent. (2000).Creation Science Evangelism Seminar DVD’s. Pensacola, Florida