The Argument Against Evolution Theory

You know how we got here, don’t you? Charles Darwin told us. We started as single cells in a gloopy soup. We grew fins and became fish, fins became legs and we morphed into lizards, then mice, meerkats, and monkeys. Finally evolution shaved the monkeys, gave them brains capable of starting wars, and hey presto, humans. We are one hundred per cent sure that our ancestors were mono-browed mammoth-hunters. Anyone who thinks different is redder in the neck than the entire Hazzard County police department. Right?

Wrong. There’s no solid proof for Darwinian Evolution. None. It’s a great theory, it fits beautifully, and there’s a load of evidence – DNA analysis, the shape of turtles’ shells on Galapagos, third nipples and Wayne Rooney – but no solid proof. Here are some arguments that shoot holes in Mr Darwin’s work.


Gaps in the fossil record


There are no fossils of inter-class animals, i.e. half lizard, half mammal; or even inter-species animals, e.g. half-dog, half cat. When Origin of the Species was published in 1859, Darwin said that within a hundred years these fossil gaps would be closed by further excavation. A hundred and fifty years later and… no joy. Not one gap filled.

Here’s a good example. A giraffe’s food is high up. Giraffes that couldn’t reach it died, so their necks got longer and longer over millennia until we have today’s lanky leaf-licker. There must, therefore, be fossils of giraffes with quite long, medium length and nearly-as-long-as-they-are-now necks. None have been found. No such fossil path exists for any living species.


The eye can’t have ‘evolved’


Evolution theory falls apart when you apply it to complex organs.

The eye, for example, is made up of different pieces of equipment doing different jobs. Which came first, the retina or the lens?

Here’s an analogy. If you make a mousetrap, you can’t start with a wooden base, catch a few mice, add a spring and catch a couple more, and so on, until you have a whole mousetrap catching lots of mice. For a mousetrap to catch any mice, the components must be assembled separately and then all used together. The parts of an eye work in the same way – each useless without the others. They can’t have evolved apart from each other – evolution doesn’t allow things to develop that aren’t immediately useful. They can’t have evolved together for the same reason.

A year after ‘Origin of the Species’ Darwin confessed to a friend:

“The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder.”


The Cambrian Explosion


Almost all groups of animals that we can see today first appeared in a geological blink of an eye, between 525 and 530 million years ago. They weren’t around before, then suddenly there they were, all nicely ‘evolved’. Every known body-shape of animal, either extinct or living, appeared. This can be explained neither by Darwinism nor by modern scientists who thump their textbooks and call Evolution a ‘fact’.


Why have some animals refused to get evolved?

Darwinism says that evolution never stops. Organisms are in constant competition to survive, so must continually modify to keep up. But not all creatures are taking part. Opossoms, placid cat-size bundles of fur from the US, have remained pretty much unchanged for 65 million years. Oysters haven’t changed more than a jot for 400 million. So are these creatures perfect? No – they can’t be, by the definition of the word. So why haven’t they changed?

So how did we get here?


This is where the argument gets jammed. As soon as Darwinism is questioned, Darwinists jump about saying that any anti-evolutionists are crazy god-botherers. They’re usually right. Most anti-Darwin research is funded by right wing Christian groups.

But the scientists are just as bad. Richard Dawkins, Britain’s top biology man, has said that anyone who doesn’t “believe [in evolution] is ignorant, stupid, or insane”. His, and others, refusal to listen to any argument against evolution is as scarily fundamental as any bible-basher’s creationist rant. As there is no direct proof for Darwinism, a 100% belief in it must be considered an act of faith. Not very scientific.

Scientists and religious leaders are too blinkered to consider for a moment that they might both be wrong. Neither argument is fact, both are but theories. There’s no reason that some genius won’t pop up next week with a totally new explanation.

Douglas Adams’ idea that the earth’s a super-computer run my white mice suddenly doesn’t seem so far-fetched after all.