Anti-Evolution Not sure if I’m going to get all of this done in one hit but bear with me and the whole argument will hopefully become clear over the next few days. (Note although the arguments below appear all over the place, I have a very nice summary of them in a book by Michael Baigent called “Ancient Traces” which I shall crib from shamelessly.) First we need to agree what Darwin actually proposed. I put forward the following two points as the fundamentals: 1) Small, random changes in structure or function occur in nature. العاب حقيقيه Those which are advantageous are, by natural selection, retained; those which are not are discarded. 2) This process of evolutionary change is gradual, long-term and continuous: it occurs now just as it occurred in the past. The cumulative effect of these small changes over long periods of time is to create new species. Now let’s look at the problems with this. 1) Sudden Appearance of All Basic Body Shapes So, the fossil record apparently begins at the Cambrian age 590 million years ago. For the animal kingdom everything happened during the “Cambrian explosion” 530 million years ago probably over a period of 10 million years (although the Cambrian period lasted 85 million years). In terms of classifying the animal kingdom think back to Biology class and remember the Phylum classification (by body shape). There are 37 phyla in the animal kingdom and all of them arose during the cambrian period. They all appear in the fossil record fully-formed and distinct without any previous predecessors – there is no evidence of evolution up to this point. Thus if we look at the timescales involved it appears that 2% of the time was in creating the original forms and 98% of the time was in tinkering with minor modifications to those forms. payeer bank In case you argue that maybe this is because they have not found the correct fossils, please note that they have found fossils for 97.7% of the orders (a few rungs down on the classification system from phyla) and 79.3% of the families (another level of details down) that exist on earth today. نتائج يورو 2024 In all the fossil record there is no giraffe with a medium sized neck, nothing halfway between a fish and an amphibian, no mouse even that evolved into a rat. P.S. Darwin himself realised that the fossil record undermined his theory and he fretted quite a lot about it. 2) What Minor Evolution There is Appears Selective Slightly less compelling this one but weird all the same. How come oysters have stayed the same for 400 million years, sharks for 150 million? Are we saying that sharks are supremely adapted to their environment and have stayed so (through huge geological/environmental changes) for 400 million years?? If so, then how come the other specied evolved – they would be less “fit” than the sharks and should have perished. 3) Random Changes Leading to Meaningful Changes and Complex Structures (Not) I love these type of statistics: apparently (maths geniuses you can work this one out) if a monkey sat at a typewriter striking a key every second – at random – it would take him, by the laws of chance, nearly 17 million years to create a 12 letter English word. For that same monkey to produce a string of 100 letters (say a paragraph or two)? Sorry, the odds against it exceed the number of atoms in the observable universe (no, really). What impact does that have on the far more complex genetic code? How do we get to a structure as complex as the human eye in so short a time (500 million years)? Not possible, my dears. Just not possible by blind (ha!) chance alone. And that’s it for now. Possibly next up the Cheetah – you know you want it!