zootomy
Evolutionists define the so-called homologous organs through the analogy of animal organs in morphology and function, and explain that the changes in morphology and function of animals of a certain lineage in the evolutionary tree are the result of natural selection. First, the definition of homologous organs is far-fetched. You must admit that animals have evolved before you can find homologous organs. So this can never be considered as evidence in the theory of evolution, but only as inference. That is to say, we can only say that because the theory of evolution is correct, all animals of a certain lineage in the evolutionary tree have homologous organs, but we can't say that the existence of homologous organs proves the existence of evolution. After the birth of modern genetics and genetics, there is a new understanding of the relationship between morphology and function of organisms at a more essential level-gene and molecular level. Morphology and function are just phenotypes, which are determined by genes. The same morphology may correspond to completely different genes. If the wings of birds evolved into the forelimbs of mammals, their genes should be reflected in the same degree of evolution. But this is not the case. If someone tries to explain the problem from superficial phenomena, it can only be superficial.
(2) Paleontology
1. Miscellaneous fossil evidence
Both evolutionists and anti-evolutionists hope that paleontological fossils can prove their point of view. If there is a lack of fossil records in Darwin's time, so far, human beings have collected tens of thousands of tons of fossils. Has evolution been proved to be correct? Actually, I still can't. Lao Pu, a paleontologist at the Field Museum of Natural Country History in Chicago, was originally an evolutionist, but later he had to give up the theory of natural selection and support the survival theory of the lucky ones. He said that the museum has nearly one-fifth of known fossil species, but fewer intermediate fossils have been confirmed than those in Darwin's time. The existing fossil records are chaotic, and the pedigree composed of artificial evolution is full of loopholes, which can not explain the problem at all. Evolutionists use different classification methods and standards, so they often argue about the age of a fossil and can't reach a unified conclusion.
The relatively complete evolutionary pedigree evidence commonly used by evolutionists is the vertebrate sequence, including the evolution from fish to amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals and even humans. From fish to amphibian, a fish fossil named RHIPIDISTIAN was found, and its skeletal characteristics are similar to those of amphibians, so it is considered as a transitional type from fish to amphibians. However, when another living fossil named coelacanth was discovered, this view was immediately overturned, because the genetic relationship between the two animals was very close, but studies showed that coelacanth had no possibility of landing. Archaeopteryx, once a sensation, was once regarded as conclusive evidence of evolution, because it has the characteristics of reptiles and birds, and is regarded as a famous transitional type. Later, it was found that the reptilian features of archaeopteryx, such as claws and teeth, also existed in modern birds, such as OPISTHOCOMNSH-OATZIN in South America and TOURACOCORYTHAIX in Africa. In other words, this evidence cannot be used to judge the transition type between birds and reptiles. In addition, Zhan Sen's paper published in Science as early as 1977 pointed out that the fossils unearthed in the same stratum as Archaeopteryx were suspected to be similar to the femurs of modern birds, so Archaeopteryx was neither an "ancestor" nor an interspecific type. 199 1 The discovery of bird fossils of the same age or earlier in Liaoning, China, deepened the status crisis of Archaeopteryx.
Lamar apes are of great significance in the evolution from apes to humans. Its mandible has the characteristics of both humans and orangutans, and its gum structure is similar to that of humans, but it has no front teeth and canine teeth of orangutans, but the distance between the upper and lower jaws is similar to that of orangutans, which is regarded as conclusive evidence of evolution. However, a kind of baboon (THEROPITHECUSGLADE) later discovered in Africa has the same characteristics of teeth and facial bones as the ancient ape Rama, but it is regarded as a kind of baboon. It can be seen that this standard is also ambiguous.
2. CAMBRIAN Big Bang (CAMBRIAN Big Bang)
Darwin commented on the final destination of his theory: "If it can be proved that any complex organ cannot be formed through countless, continuous and minor changes, my theory will certainly fail".
The CAMBRIAN Big Bang provides an excellent example. About 530 million years ago, in a short span of tens of thousands of years, almost all living things appeared on the earth at the same time. From huge tubular worms and crustaceans in the ocean to higher chordates. If evolution is indeed carried out in a piecemeal and gradual way, as Darwin said, then millions of years will not be enough to complete the process anyway. Although multicellular fossils before CAMBRIAN have also been found, according to the viewpoint of evolution, they have no inheritance relationship with CAMBRIAN organisms. Modern Darwinist Stephen J. Gould can't explain it, calling it "the riddle in the riddle". In fact, the CAMBRIAN Big Bang is an insurmountable obstacle to evolution.
3. The origin of mankind
On the occasion of the publication of the Origin of Species, Darwin once said, "Only human evolution can never be explained by my theory of evolution".
Indeed, from an evolutionary point of view, human evolution is too fast. Taking human beings as an example, evolutionists believe that the course of human birth is as follows: Australopithecus 200 million years ago-hominid 500,000 years ago (represented by Beticontrops)-old man 654.38+10,000 years ago-new man 50,000 years ago-after the appearance of modern human beings, evolution seems to suddenly disappear, and human brain capacity has remained basically unchanged for 5,000 years. Looking at the number of brain cells, the number of modern apes is 65.438+0 billion, while the number of modern people is about 65.438+0.4 billion. From the numerical point of view, it has increased by 14 times, but the intelligence level has advanced by leaps and bounds. The evidence strongly suggests that this evolutionary tree is incorrect. These species may not be related at all, and evolutionists just pieced them together in chronological order.
In addition, since the 1960s, archaeological discoveries near Audoye Yi Canyon and Lake Ludokov have also given many counterexamples to the theory of evolution. 1972, an ancient human skull fossil was unearthed with the serial number of KNM-ER- 1470, which is called Man 1470 for short. According to its taxonomic characteristics, it is similar to modern humans and belongs to the genus Homo, which is much more advanced than Australopithecus and Homo erectus, but it has been 2.9 million years since. Man 1470 is 900,000 years earlier than Australopithecus, the human ancestor recognized by evolutionists, and 2 million years earlier than Homo erectus. This fundamentally shakes the evidence of evolution and becomes an unsolved case of paleoanthropology. So far, no evolutionist can belong to the position of human 1470 on the evolutionary tree.
(3) embryology
Similar to comparative anatomy, embryology infers that the embryos of higher animals reproduce their evolutionary process from the morphological changes during biological development. For example, in the early stage of development, human fetus has branchial cleft and tail, and its shape is similar to that of pigs and rats. In fact, this is only a superficial phenomenon. First of all, the "branchial fissure" of human fetus is actually not branchial fissure, but a wrinkle with rapid development of skin; Secondly, the caudate structure of human fetus is not tail, but neural tube. The caudate structure in frog embryo development is also the neural tube. Third, the appearance of morphology is determined by genes. The generally accepted theory of HOX gene regulation holds that although animals are rich in morphology, they are all regulated at the molecular level. Therefore, at the beginning of animal embryo development, the morphological similarity is only due to the same level of HOX gene regulation. This is one of the most important discoveries in developmental biology in recent years. In other words, we can't draw the conclusion of essential similarity from the similarity of form.
Second, the inevitable chemical evolution.
Biological evolution at the molecular level before the birth of life is called chemical evolution. The theory of evolution in a complete sense should not only answer the process of biological evolution after the birth of life, but also solve the problem of how biological substances are produced. That is, how to evolve from simple, inorganic small molecules to complex, organic macromolecules, and then produce life. But this question has been deliberately avoided by evolutionists.
Professor BEHE, the author of Darwin's Black Box, has studied thousands of articles published in several academic journals of evolutionary molecular biology (including Journal of Molecular Evolution and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) in recent ten years, which shows that the work in this field is zero. The reason why we avoid chemical evolution is simple, because evolutionists can't answer it at all. The popular view is that the primitive earth has a reducing atmosphere, containing nitrogen, hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide and other components, with little or no oxygen. Atmospheric emissions often occur, the original ocean water temperature is high, and geological activities are frequent, such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Based on this point of view, in 195 1 year, stanley miller conducted a famous "pre-biological soup" experiment. He simulated the environment of the primitive earth in a flask and simulated lightning with gas discharge. After the experiment, amino acids were separated from the product, which caused a sensation in the scientific community. But after more problems were exposed, the optimism gradually disappeared. Let's just give two examples to illustrate their plight.
Chemical selectivity
The structures of all biological macromolecules are spatially ordered, and protein molecules can form α-helix); Except for the connection of specific amino acids. Secondary structure such as beta-folding; Tertiary structures, such as domains; Until a subunit with a four-level structure is formed. Double-stranded DNA molecules are composed of two single strands, which can form double helix and super helix (a-DNA; b-DNA； Z-DNA and so on. ), all these structures are closely related to the function of macromolecules. Once these structures are destroyed, macromolecules will be inactivated, so organisms show great accuracy in synthesizing biomacromolecules.
Suppose that the first multi-chain with life function appears in the primitive ocean, and its sequence is A, B, C ... (A, B, C ... represent twenty amino acids needed by natural human body). The inevitable conditions for its formation are:
(1)A, b, c, etc. There is enough concentration for molecules A, B and C to meet and react.
(2) The reaction of amino acids forming poly (moon) is a polycondensation reaction, and each step of the reaction will generate a water molecule. According to the principle of chemical equilibrium, the reaction needs dehydrating agent, otherwise water will inhibit the reaction.
(3) Assuming that the combination of A and B is random and the combination of C is selective, according to the principle of thermodynamics, this is a reduction reaction, and external energy must be input. If the above three conditions are true, then what factors determine that C is selected? Evolutionists can only answer: absolutely random. But in the natural environment, the above three conditions can never be met at the same time, and this random process lacks preconditions. In addition, from the perspective of philosophy of science, the evolutionist's answer can't be falsified and can't be tested in the empirical world.
Professor Behe gave an image example when talking about this problem. He thinks that protein is absolutely random and natural, just as it is absurd for a person to expect to produce a chocolate cake by randomly mixing hot water, eggs, flour, sugar and cocoa powder.
(2) Optical selectivity
The biological world is an asymmetric world. If you pay attention to your hands, you will find that the left and right hands cannot completely overlap in space, but the mirror images of the left and right hands can overlap. This phenomenon is called "chirality" in chemistry, and almost all biological macromolecules are chiral. For example, the sugar that makes up the human body is usually right-handed, while the amino acids that make up protein are left-handed. Levose and D-amino acids are hard to be used by human body. It is generally believed that chiral compounds can not be produced in achiral environment, but only racemes, that is, a mixture of dextrorotators and levorotators with equal amounts. Modern asymmetric synthetic chemistry usually uses expensive chiral catalysts to make the reaction proceed in the expected direction and get a single chiral compound. In Miller's experiment, all the amino acids obtained are racemic. If we still use the example of A-B-C ... the sequence mentioned above, who chose L-amino acid? As we all know, the simplest protein is insulin -5 1 (Yuetai), so what are the chances that nature will randomly synthesize a 5 1 (Yuetai) from 20 natural racemates and get an insulin molecule that is all composed of levorotatory amino acids and has biological activity? Simple mathematical calculation can prove that it is (1/40) to the power of 5 1. Actually, the probability is zero, which is impossible. Miller's experiment did not bring good news to evolutionists, but aggravated their profound crisis.
Evolution has reached a dead end from development to now. It holds that human beings are born by accident and evolution is aimless and directionless. Evolutionists become narrow-minded and conceited believers, lose the spirit of scientific exploration, and even refuse to observe and study any phenomenon outside the evolutionary system. They believe that science is the only way to study existence and acquire knowledge. Everything that modern science cannot prove and study is untrue. Evolution is an absolute truth. They shut themselves in a small circle, unwilling to take a step outward. William provine of Cornell University asserts that, according to the conclusion of evolution, man is just a complex biological machine with no special significance. Morality and belief do not exist, and there is no free will, which completely returns to mechanical materialism in the 19th century, which is a great retrogression of human thought. Sadly, this is the inevitable result of believing in evolution.
In the history of science, stagnation can only accelerate the collapse of the old system. Today, mankind has entered a new century. As long as people dare to break the inherent concepts and frameworks, the dawn of new science will surely rise on the horizon.