>Creation vs Evolution Part 4 – The Law of Probability

>It can be noted that in the topic of Creation vs Evolution Parts 1,2 and 3, evolutionists did not give a satisfactory definition of macro evolution and species, such that the statement that chance gave rise to diversity of life would make sense.

What was even more amazing is that there is an irony pertaining to how evolutionists approach the topic of chance. The irony is explained below.

The Irony of Macro Evolution –
Macro evolution is the theory that the diversity of life on Earth is caused by blind, random mutation. That means that it is by chance that we have the diversity of life.

The irony is that although the above concept requires chance to be an important element, many evolutionists don’t appear to take the trouble to find out how the mechanism of chance works, in a scientific and mathematical way.

If macro evolution is science and if it depends on the element of chance, shouldn’t evolutionists be well versed in the scientific approach of the Laws of Probability and Chance? Apparently, not! See the replies (go to the above link) from the so called evolutionists on the third page of the comment section (yes, there are 500+ posts in the above linked topic, making it three pages of comments!) starting from my comment dated 4 August 2009 3:30 PM.

The bone of contention between creationists and evolutionists, as far as the topic of chance is concerned is this. Creationists view that order has to come from order. If there is any disorder or random chance, that has to happen within a larger ordered picture. Hence, it is order that controls more order and disorder. This suits the concept that the universe is designed and that all order and disorder within the universe, occurs because of the larger order controlled by the designer.

Evolutionists on the other hand, maintain that order can arise from disorder. This suits their concept that the diversity of life as we see today, is through blind and random chance.

Putting it simply, for creationists, disorder is a function of order. For evolutionists, order is a function of disorder.

The above is what the topic evolved into (from creation vs evolution). So which is right? That’s when I came up with the (topic of) Laws of Probability using the scientific and mathematical approach. In spite of that, evolutionists still insist that order is a function of disorder and not the other way, when the formula used clearly indicates that they are wrong.

Let us look at the mechanism how the Law of Probability and Chance Works.

Mathematical Laws of Probability made simple using the Coin Toss -
A coin has 2 sides. If you toss it, it will land either heads or tails. Hence, inherently, because the coin has only 2 sides, it has to land either heads or tails. Here is how the mathematical calculation used to calculate the probability that a coin will land heads is done.

Possible outcomes – heads or tails. That is 2 possible outcomes. Actual outcome, either heads or tails ONLY at any one single time. Hence, the chance for it to end up heads is 1/2, meaning 1 out of 2.

What about two heads in two consecutive throws? For every throw, there are two possible outcomes with only one actual outcome. Hence, the combinations would look like this.

H followed by H
H followed by T
T followed by T
T followed by H

Note that the chance has been reduced to 1/4, meaning 1 out of 4. What about 3 heads in 3 consecutive throws?

H, H, H
H, H, T
H, T, H
H, T, T
T, T, T
T, T, H
T, H, T
T, H, H

Note now the chance is reduced to 1/8, meaning 1 out of 8.

But there is no need to tabulate all the combination. Mathematicians have come up with a mathematical formula. The formula for a 2 sided coin toss is (1/2)^n, where n denotes the number of consecutive throws. ^ denotes the exponential. In other words, 1/2 to the power of n.

What about a 6-faced dice? No problem. A dice has 6 possible outcomes, with one actual outcome. So now the formula is now (1/6)^n. So, for example, you want to have three consecutive throws to appear “1″, just use the formula (1/6)^3 and we get 1/216, meaning 1 out of 216.

Note that we can use a mathematical formula to calculate probability. But here is the big question evolutionists appear to disagree with.

Does the mathematical law control the outcome of the individual coin tosses, or do the individual coin tosses control the mathematical formula?

For creationists, it is the mathematical formula that controls the individual coin toss. That fits into the concept of order giving rise to order and disorder. Hence the (big picture) of mathematical formula, gives the outcomes of the individual coin tosses (small picture).

Hence, the outcome can be HHTHT or even HHHHH. It does not matter. Those outcomes have been ruled by the law of probability.

For evolutionists, it is the individual coin toss that gives rise to the mathematical formula. Hence, they say that if you throw a large number of times (small picture), you will see a pattern (big picture).

I strongly feel that the evolutionists’ idea is wrong. The reason is that a coin has 2 sides. Inherently, there is already a formula written on it, BEFORE even the first toss is made. A two sided coin can only have 2 outcomes. The fate of the mathematical formula has already been written! So the mathematical law (order in the big picture) exists even BEFORE the individual toss is made (order and disorder in the small picture).

Same with the 6-faced dice, where it is inherent in that dice that it can land in 6 and only 6 possible ways, with one and only one outcome at any one single time. Again, the mathematical law of probability of the dice has been written even BEFORE the first toss is made!

So how can evolutionists say that the disorder and random results of the toss (small picture) is controlling the order as in the formula (big picture), when it is clearly seen that inherently, the shape of the coin and/or dice, actually decides the mathematical formula, which in turn decides the individual outcomes of the toss?

Conclusion that can be drawn from this is that disorder can NEVER arise from order. Order can give rise to other order and disorder. Disorder will give rise ONLY to more disorder.

And there will never ever be a case where disorder can give rise to order!

I find it amazing, that evolutionists, who depend on the concept that chance gives rise to the diversity of life as in macro evolution, never really took the trouble to see how the Law of Probability and Chance works. This is akin to a cardiologist who is not interested in the physiology of the heart, isn’t it?

>Theory of Peevolution and S-pee-ciation

>32 Aug 2084 AD

Dear Fr Gregor Mendel,

It has been more than 200 years since you worked on your plants, which took the world by storm. Although you studied genetics, evolutionists have tried to claim that your works support the Theory of Evolution.

Ever since I was a kid, I tried so hard to look for evidence of Evolution, but it came to nothing. No evolutionist was able to show that macro evolution occurred.

But fret not, I have studied the behaviour of dogs and found a parallel theory – The Theory of Peevolution. Here is my study.

Long ago, when dogs lived in the wild, and before lamp posts, post boxes, walls and other vertical man-made structures were built, dogs had to pee on trees and bushes. This worked fine because the pee from the dogs gave the plants nutrients and the plants gave the dogs a place to pee.

When Man came to being, he evolved from cavemen to modern man. Now modern man means that he has to live in modern places. So he built buildings and other structures. As Man became more urbanized, there were less trees and bushes for the dogs to pee on. They had to pee on lamp posts and walls instead.

The problem was that when Man first started to urbanize, their brains were not yet fully evolved yet (unlike generations later), and hence the structures they built were not that strong. So many a time, many dogs end up getting killed, when these structures fall upon them while they pee, due to the corrosion caused by the acidic liquid discharge.

This urbanization threatened to wipe out the dog population. Then suddenly, one day, by pure chance of mutation, a genius dog was born. This genius dog thought if it lifted one leg against the structure while peeing, that lifted leg would act as support, should that structure decide to collapse.

Guess what? It worked! Now that one in a million chance mutated gene in that dog is a new species and hence, from then onwards, was able to pass its genius genes to its generation downwards.

Note that for those dogs that did not inherit that genius gene, they continued to pee with both legs down and of course were killed when the structure they peed on, collapsed on them. This means that non-genius dogs were not able to pass down the non-genius genes to their offspring.

The dogs with genius genes however, were able to live longer and hence, passed down those genius genes to their offspring and hence, continue to reproduce fitter and smarter dogs, that were able to outwit falling structures.

Now since this is a scientific study, I have decided to give this new evolved genius dog a scientific name – Theonelegup-peeingdoggietrik-didit, which is actually the modern dog in the canine family.

Fr Mendel, that is not the only thing I discovered. I found that The Theory of Peevolution can be found in other species, including homo sapiens. To understand this, I have come up with another theory – The Theory of S-pee-ciation.

The Theory of S-pee-ciation

S-pee-ciation occurs when one group of organisms, first split up geographically and live in different physical locations. Because they live far apart for a long time, each group will evolve differently and there would come a time that these two groups, which were once one species before, now becomes two species. The criteria to judge if they are 2 different species is that these two groups will not be able to interbreed such that they reproduce offspring that is fertile.

My study has shown that long time ago, all males in the human race pee standing up, while females pee squatting down. It came to a point where this human race broke into two groups. The first group kept their original characteristics, ie males pee standing up and females pee squatting down. This first group is known as the normal people.

The second group however, had their genes mutated, such that the males started to squat while they pee, while the females stand while they pee. This is of course the gender benders, which is otherwise known as LGBTQ. In this scenario, the males behave like females, while the females behave like males.

Note that my definition of s-pee-ciation fits perfectly here. The males from the normal people (true males) can now no longer mate with females from the LGBTQ group (which were originally males), to produce fertile offspring. Neither can the males from the LGBTQ group (originally females) mate with the females of the normal people (true females), to produce fertile offspring.

But the males from the LGBTQ group (originally females) can mate with the females of the LGBTQ group (originally males) to produce fertile offspring!

So my definition and theory of s-pee-ciation fits perfectly like a glove! Water tight!

Now my critics have questioned, if LGBTQ is another specie, why are they in a minority and not as many as the normal group? Well, I have the answer.

You see, when Man lived in the wild, it means that Man had to face many hazards of wild life. One of them is the dreaded gonad snatching snake.

For the normal group, because the males stood while peeing, the gonad snatching snake could not reach its target. Furthermore these males had the ability to aim acid at the gonad snatching snake, killing the dreaded snake.

The females of the normal group, although had their sensitive parts exposed so close to the snake when they pee, had literally nothing to worry, because they really had literally nothing to be snatched from that part.

Again, furthermore, because the point of discharge of the acid is so close to the the snake, all the females had to do was to move their bottoms in a quick instant, and bingo, the acid hits the dreaded snake without mercy.

The dreaded gonad snatching snake stood no chance against the normal people.

For the LBGTQ group, it was different. When the males pee squatting down, they were at the mercy of the gonad snatching snake. To make matters worse, because of their habit to lift their backsides into the air, all the snake had to do was attack from the rear and the gonads would be gone. Many males of the LBGTQ hence, had literally no balls to reproduce more of their own kind.

To make matters worse, the females of the LGBTQ group could not help their male counterparts. When they pee standing up, all they could do was to spray acid down their legs and/or all over the place, instead of onto the snakes. That did nothing to help to wipe out the population of the dreaded gonad snatching snake.

As time went by, for the normal people, because the gonad snatching snake’s population decreased, the normal group was able to reproduce in large numbers.

For the LGBTQ group, because they were not able to adapt to the environment to kill the gonad snatching snake, they had their numbers reduced. The only thing that saved the LGBTQ group was when Man urbanized and had modern toilets, meaning it was not a danger whether you peed standing up or squatting down.

That explains why today there are more normal people than LGBTQs.

Fr Mendel, I am dedicating my studies to you. Without your works on genetics, I would never have discovered the Theory of Peevolution and the Theory of S-pee-ciation.

I have decided to semi-retire and live in the quiet country like you, planting seeds of vegetables and flowers. Take a look at my farm below. Are you not proud of it?

Maybe in a few years, I would retire from planting seeds too – and venture into the wilderness of the wild, to find the fossils of the dreaded gonad snatching snake.

Like a solo bear wandering in the wilderness of the rockies of Canada – a place where only bears roam free.

Signed
Solo Bear

>Creation vs Evolution Parts 1, 2 and 3 (updated)

>

This post has been updated (14 Aug 09)

Part 1 was posted on 10 Aug 09

Part 2 (below Part 1) was posted on 12 Aug 09

Part 3 (below Part 2) was posted on 14 Aug 09

Introductory Post – (Part 1)

(I will break up this topic into 3 parts. This is the first part of 3.)

An interesting article was posted at The Online Citizen’s website. It is about how religion was subtly introduced in class, and the debate centred on Creation vs Evolution.
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/08/god-sneaks-into-our-classrooms/

Here is an excerpt of the article above.

“Shortly after, a Creation-Evolution debate was staged in Michelle’s class. She and several classmates protested the topic, citing its obvious religious nature. The teacher waved aside their concerns. A visiting teacher sat in during the debate. Neither raised objections when the “Creation team” quoted from the bible. At the end of the debate, they were commended for raising “many points.” “Not everyone in my class is Christian,” said Michelle.”

It appears that whenever there is discussion on Creation/Evolution, religion (in particular Christianity) has to be introduced.

I believe that we can discuss the concept of creationism and evolution WITHOUT citing any religious scriptures. I also propose that whatever standards we want to use to judge the concept of creation, we also have to use that same standards on evolution, and vice-versa. That would be only be fair.

Before we continue, let’s look at what the ideology of creationism and evolution are. Again, taken from the same article above.

“Creation or Creationism is the belief that God created everything, basically. However, there are many views as far as Creationism is concerned. (See here. )”

As the article implies, this is the problem – “The problem arises when Creationism creeps into the secular classroom, particularly Science. Creationists tend to be scriptural literalists, who see the Theory of Evolution as a threat to their beliefs.”

Interesting. Let’s ask ourselves then.

1. So, if we can look into the concept of creationism WITHOUT introducing religion, would it be acceptable to introduce the concept of creationism into class syllabus?

2. If evolution is a threat to scriptural literalists, wouldn’t the concept of creation thus be a threat to evolutionists?

On the first point above, I will discuss the concept of creation using known scientific theories that have either been proven, or widely believed in the scientific community. This will be discussed in Part 2.

On the second point, I will discuss on the points how evolution was actually introduced into science textbooks, by lowering the standards of science. This will be discussed in Part 3.

Let us now look at what constitutes “proof” and/or “evidence”.

Standard of Judgement for Proof and Evidence -

Of course, we need to agree what constitutes proof and evidence. We need to have a standard understanding where BOTH theories of creationism AND evolution will be tested with. Here is a brief explanation.

Proof is something that confirms a theory. Eg I can proof that a circle that has a larger diameter, will have a larger area, by drawing two circles of different sizes. Visually, it can be seen that the circle with the larger diameter will have a larger area. Hence, the theory that a circle that has a larger diameter has a larger area is proven.

“Better proof” does not make a proven fact any truer. Better proof simply means the simplicity of understanding the proof. Hence, if I were to use calculus to prove that the circle with a larger diameter will have a larger area, I would have also proven the theory above. But the better proof is the earlier one, because of the simplicity in understanding that proof, as compared to the latter.

Note that you need only one proof to confirm a theory. Adding more proofs, like citing “better proof” or adding “more proofs” will not make a proven fact any truer.

Evidence on the other hand is however not a close as proof, but indicates the degree of possibility that a theory is true. Eg, if the roads are wet, I can say that is evidence that it was raining outside. However, that is not yet proven, because a wet road can also mean a burst main pipe.

“Better evidence” unlike “better proof” however does lend weight. Better evidence simply means evidence that is more convincing. Hence, a known honest person giving testimony of an event is considered “better evidence” than a known liar who gives account of that same event.

Also “more evidence”, like “better evidence” does lend more weight too. If I now say that not only the roads are wet, but the buildings, vehicles, trees etc are also wet, I now have “more evidence” – which means we are now more convinced that it has rained, than if just the roads are wet.

In summary, what we will be looking at in Parts 2 and 3 are evidence and not proofs. That’s because if there are indeed proofs, the debate between creation and evolution would be over.

It is because both groups (creaetionists and evolutionists) use evidence and ONLY EVIDENCE, the debate continues.

Approach to Creation vs Evolution Discussion -

This would be the approach of my discussion. I will update this main post within the next few days. Here are my main points that would follow next.

- Looking at evidence (not proof) to support the idea of creationism, without quoting scriptures. (Part 2)

- Looking at the possibility that evolution entered into the field of science because the standard of evidence has been lowered – and that there is actually NO PROOF of evolution. (Part 3)

AND

- Drawing the conclusion that BOTH creation AND evolution are actually on the same boat, because BOTH theories have NO PROOF, but only evidence. This implies that if evolutionists argue creationists feel threatened by Evolution, creationists can claim that evolutionists feel threatened by Creationism. (Part 3)

This post will be updated. Look out for it.

To be continued ……

PS – Parts 2 and 3, will be made in THIS POST AND NOT in a new post. However, I will amend the date published on this post, if I update it, to keep this post at the top.

**********************************************

(Part 2 below was updated and posted on 12 Aug 09)

Supporting the idea of Creationism without using scriptures – Part 2

I shall define Creationism as a belief that the existence of this universe is the result of the work of an intelligent designer.

One common argument creationists use is the “watch argument”. Basically, it argues that a watch has an intricate design, which implies that the origins of the watch is from an intelligent designer. By analogy, organisms and the universe we live in, have intricate systems and hence, must have an intelligent designer.

Here is an explanation what the Watch Argument is about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

Note that the above argument is evidence and not than proof. In this part (Part 2), I would be presenting known facts in science to argue that there is evidence that there is an intelligent designer for this universe.

Water – The Source of Life

Water is important to life. Without it, no living things can live. Yet, it has certain important properties which if it does not possess, would be useless to life. Let’s look at three simple properties of water:

1. Water expands upon freezing.
2. Water as a coolant.
3. The wide temperature range overlap for water to exist as a liquid and vapour.

Significance of expansion of water upon freezing -

When water freezes, it expands. This makes the density of ice lighter than water in its liquid state. Ice hence, floats on water and does not sink. The importance of this phenomenon is that during winter, ponds, rivers and lakes freeze at the top. As the ice forms at the top, the bottom of the water body is insulated from the cold air above, allowing fish and other life to survive in the winter.

If ice were to be heavier than water, it would sink. There would not be any insulation for the water body from the cold air, and it would freeze from bottom up. Winter would be inhabitable to life then.

Significance of water as a coolant -

Water has a high specific heat capacity. A major part of our body is made of water. Specific Heat Capacity of water refers to the amount of heat energy needed to raise water by 1 degree Celsius. Water has a high specific heat capacity, meaning it needs a lot of heat energy to raise the temperature of water.

The importance of the above is that it keeps our body temperature cool. Animals move a lot (as compared to other life forms like plants, fungi and micro-organisms) and hence, generate a lot of heat. Because of the high specific heat capacity of water, our bodies are kept cool and are not overheated even if we run, swim or engage in other high heat generating activity.

Significance of wide temperature range overlap for water to exist as a liquid and vapour -

Water exists in three forms. Sold, liquid and gas. Water in solid form (eg ice, snow) exists from 0 degree Celsius downwards. Water in liquid form exists from 0 to 100 deg C. While steam exists from 100 deg C and above, water vapour can exist from above 0 deg C.

What we now have is a wide range of overlap for water in its liquid and gaseous states. Water hence, can exist in two forms from 0 deg C above to 100 deg C. The two forms are liquid (as in rivers, lakes, rain) and gas (as in water vapour).

The importance of the above property is that this allows for what is called the Water Cycle to occur. Water Cycle refers to the continuous supply of fresh water for all living things. Putting in a nutshell, rain gives all living things fresh water.

Water in liquid states can evaporate to form water vapour at any temperature from above 0 deg C to 100 deg C. This wide range ensures that many parts of the earth’s surface will see the occurrence of evaporation. Evaporation, followed by condensation, is needed to form clouds in the sky. Rain then occurs.

If not for the ability of water to exist in liquid and gaseous states within a such a wide range of temperature, this important water cycle may not occur. Imagine that water vapour can only exist from 80 deg C upwards. If this were to be the case, waters in rivers and lakes WOULD NEVER evaporate and the water cycle would not occur.

Rain, something which we take for granted, occurs because of water’s ability to take form in either liquid or gas, over wide temperature range.

More examples of evidence of a Designed Universe

Besides Water Cycle and water’s properties that help life, there are many countless examples that can be used to cite as examples for evidence of a designed universe. Here is a little more.

Energy Transfer, Photosynthesis and Nitrogen Cycle -

Light energy from the sun helps plants to photosynthesize to make food. Animals eat these plants. Other animals eat these animals and/or plants. When these plants and animals die, micro-organisms feed on them for energy. The energy from the sun is thus transfered to all life forms on earth. At the same time when these micro-organisms feed on our bodies, the nitrates are returned to the soil for the plants as nutrients.

Note that only ONE LIFE FORM – that is plants – is able to make use of the sun’s light energy and transform it into food. Other living organisms will have to depend on plants either directly or indirectly for this energy.

The above means that all life forms are somehow dependent on each other. No plants, means no primary source of food and hence, no continued life on earth. Animals also help plants disperse their seeds, pollinate flowers and provide nutrients for plants when they die. No animals, means that plant life will be affected too.

Micro-organisms depend on other life form for food too. If they do not exist, then there will be no decay of dead plants and dead animals and there will be no return of nitrates back to the soil for future plants.

Again, all life forms need one another. (This actually puts propagators of all life comes from one cell theory in a bind. How did that one-cell life form get its nutrients from, if there were no other life forms to feed on?)

In the process above, when plants photosynthesize, it releases oxygen. All living things respire. We breath in oxygen and produce carbon dioxide. If there is no reversal process, the supply of oxygen on earth will expire and we will all die. Magically, there exists this process called photosynthesis!

There are countless of examples in the scientific world, where we can witness intricate rules and laws of physics and other fields of science, if which they do not exist, the existence of earth, or the universe itself for that matter, may not even occur.

Back to the Watch Argument Analogy

Critics of the designed universe will say that all this does not prove that a designer exists. Yes, that is so. From the beginning I have made it clear that there will NEVER be proof. Only evidence. But as the more and more evidence mounts, that puts pressure on the “Chance Theory” propagators to come up with their evidence that chance can lead to intricacy and order, won’t it?

Basically, the argument is, if this universe (it definitely exists!) is not designed, then it had to occur by chance. So if you deny one, automatically, by default, you accept the other. The only way out of this either-or situation is to claim, “I am not taking a stance whether it is by design or chance, because I don’t know.”

Short of taking the above “no stance” stance, you have actually accepted that the universe is either designed or it happened by chance.

These same critics will also argue that the universe has been around for billions and billions and billions of years. Surely, along the way, this unique intricacy of the universe would not be impossible, and could we just be lucky that coincidentally it happened?

Well, yes it could be. But then again, the watch is less intricate than the universe. If critics are skeptical that the watch can occur by chance because that is too intricate, how then can they say the the universe happened by chance?

In the next part, we will take a look at Evolution – and study how the standards of science has been lowered, so that Evolution can enter the doorway of science and into textbooks of schools. I will then conclude that BOTH Creationism and Evolution are just theories, and they are not proven science.

So if Evolution can be part of science syllabus in schools, why not creationism?

Part 3 to be continued….

==================================

Part 3 (updated on 14 Aug)

As with the start of Part 2 where I defined Creationism, in Part 3, we also need to define Evolution. I choose this link, as it is simple to understand.

http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/Definitions.html

Macroevolution:
Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new species and broader taxonomic groups.

Microevolution:
Changes in the traits of a group of organisms within a species that do not result in a new species.

In Part 3, we would be looking at Macroevolution, rather than Microevolution. After all, it is the concept that the wide and diverse life forms we have on Earth today is the result of Evolution that we are debating about. We are not going into changes in traits of a group of organisms within a species.

Hence, let readers be clear that when I mention “Evolution”, we are talking about “Macroevolution” as defined above, and NOT Microevolution.

Problem with Definition of Evolution

So let is look once again, what is the definition for (Macro) Evolution.

“Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new species and broader taxonomic groups.”

The key phrase above is “results in FORMATION of NEW SPECIES”. By definition, evolution means that it is a process over time, where new species of life form are formed. So exactly what is a “species”? Note that this very, very important definition of “species” is NOT DEFINED CLEARLY by evolutionists!

From the very start, even before we talk about evolution itself, the definition of evolution has already run into problems. And this is science in school textbooks! So exactly, what is a species?

The definition for Evolution is that it results in formation of new species. Hence, at what stage can we claim that a “new species” has been formed? All we have so far are cases of microevolution. If evolutionists want to claim that a new species has been formed at a certain point of time, they have to define objectively, what is a species, such that when a new species has been formed, we can claim, “There it is! Evolution has occurred!”

My point above is that while evolutionists have defined “Evolution”, the key word, “species” is left ambiguous, so that the theory of evolution sounds scientific, when it is not. Here is an example of how ambiguously “species” is defined, such that it allows the theory of evolution to sound scientific!

http://www.reference.com/browse/species
species, in biology, a category of classification, the original and still the basic unit in the demarcation of plant and animal types. The species marks the boundary between populations of organisms rather than between individuals. Because related species are not absolutely permanent (see evolution), a precise definition of the term is difficult. On the basis of genetics, scientists now include in a species all individuals that are potentially or actually capable of interbreeding and that share the same gene pool. The latter term refers to that collection of characteristics whose combination is unique in the species, although each individual of the group may not display every single one of the characteristics (see genetics). In the few cases where members of different species can interbreed, the offspring are usually sterile (e.g., the mule). Groups distinguished by lesser differences than those marking a species are called variously subspecies, varieties, races, or tribes.

Note the words in bold above. So the term “species” is difficult to define, BECAUSE related species are not absolutely permanent. And related species are not absolutely permanent BECAUSE of evolution (as in definition of “evolution)!

So there you have it, BEFORE we even discuss Evolution as a topic itself, the definition of Evolution is already giving problems. We have what is called a “circular argument”! And this is science in your school textbooks!

What evidence on Human Evolution?

Here is a link to a site very commonly quoted by evolutionists.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/ – Note the heading “Fossil Hominids – The Evidence for Human Evolution”

Ah, so we have a link that is going to show us how Humans evolved from another species. That’s what “Evolution” is, as defined, no? At the webpage from the link above, scroll down until you find the heading “Table of Contents”. There are 2 relevant links that I would like to discuss.

The first link is “Hominid Species (including a timeline)” – http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

Now on the webpage from the immediate link above, scroll up and down as many times as you like. Read the whole webpage as many times as you like. Notice something? Where is the evidence that we (homo sapiens) came from another species? Where at any point in the webpage, did it even attempt to make it known which species did homo sapiens come from?

Isn’t the heading “Evidence of Human Evolution” misleading? And this is called Science?

Another link I would like to highlight is also found under the Table of Contents. It is “Hominid Fossils (a list of the most important hominid fossils)” – http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

Summary

There are a number of clear trends (which were neither continuous nor uniform) from early australopithecines to recent humans: increasing brain size, increasing body size, increasing use of and sophistication in tools, decreasing tooth size, decreasing skeletal robustness. There are no clear dividing lines between some of the later gracile australopithecines and some of the early Homo, between erectus and archaic sapiens, or archaic sapiens and modernsapiens.

Despite this, there is little consensus on what our family tree is. Everyone accepts that the robust australopithecines (aethiopicus, robustus and boisei) are not ancestral to us, being a side branch that left no descendants. Whether H. habilis is descended from A. afarensis, africanus, both of them, or neither of them, is still a matter of debate. It is possible that none of the known australopithecines is our ancestor.

A number of new genera and species have been discovered within the last decade (Ar. ramidus, Au. amanensis, Au. bahrelghazali, Au. garhi, Orrorin, Kenyanthropus, Sahelanthropus) and no consensus has yet formed on how they are related to each other or to humans. It is generally accepted that Homo erectus is descended from Homo habilis (or, at least, some of the fossils often assigned to habilis), but the relationship between erectus, sapiens and the Neandertals is still unclear. Neandertal affinities can be detected in some specimens of both archaic and modern sapiens.

What the?????

An Evolution site, used by many evolutionists, tells us that there is evidence of human evolution (by virtue of its misleading heading), now in the summary, says that there is no consensus on our family tree?

How did Evolution creep into science books?

Summary of Main Flaw of Concept of Evolution

Here are the main flaws of Evolution as it is taught today.

1. The definition of Evolution is faulty, due to the fact that evolutionists cannot define what “species” is. How can you say that evolution is responsible for the large number of species on Earth, when we can’t define what exactly “species” is?

2. Circular Argument – by saying it is difficult to define “species” because it is not absolutely permanent due to evolution, is going round in a circle. You depend your theory on an piece of evidence. And that evidence is dependent on your theory. Duh.

3. Till today, no evolutionist is able to tell anyone which species we evolved from – yet they say they have evidence that human evolution is science. Duh!

My take on Evolution

Like creationism where it has no proof, evolution has no proof either. Only evidence. Now if both are in the same boat, why is evolution allowed to enter the door of science? Shouldn’t evolution be treated with the same standards of other fields of science? Why the lax criteria?

So shouldn’t we allow creationism into schools, just like evolution? Or alternatively, let’s ditch evolution the way we ditch creationism in schools.

Another point I would like to make is that just as evolutionists claim that evolution is a threat to religion, religionists can now take heart that creationism is a threat to evolution!

Comparing Creationism with Evolution (Creationism vs Evolution)

It is my opinion that it is easier to argue the case for Creationism than Evolution, if we use known scientific facts and theories. In part 2, I have argued that the laws of the universe are orderly, hinting an intelligent designer.

It is not just those who believe in an intelligent designer who have to support their claim. Those who claim that the existence of the universe is by chance, will have to support their claim too. The basis is that they have to show that orderliness can occur from chance.

The only way out of this design-chance controversy is to admit that we don’t know if it is by design or chance. But the moment we either accept or reject the intelligent design theory, we have to support our stance – either to show that orderliness is the result of design OR the result of chance.

Evolution, on the other hand, is more difficult to argue, if we truly use science, the way we applied for Creationism as in Part 2. However, Evolution doesn’t really need science, does it? See how easily it got into textbooks even when there is difficulty defining what evolution is, and in spite of the fact that even evolutionists do not know exactly which species homo sapiens came from!

I dare even say that evolutionists are now behaving like Christian religionists. Just like how Christian evangelists perfected the art of apologetics, evolutionist sites have also now perfected the same art.

Below is a link to show you how evolutionists argue with creationists. Don’t these evolutionists sound like the very creationists they have been scoffing at? http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html

So how did evolution get into the books of Science in the first place?

My Final Point on Evolution

Evolution is actually nothing more than a revolution. A revolution against the Church in its early days. That’s why evolutionists today cannot shake off the temptation to bring in religion, whenever the debate Creationism vs Evolution comes along.

Evolution was used as a political ideology (like secularism, democracy etc) to oust what is seen as an oppressive control by the Church. Only difference is the evolution tries ever so hard to include science into its ideology.

Evolution should NEVER have been allowed into science books. There is no proper definition what evolution is, and there is no consensus among evolutionists who are ancestors are.

How that can ever be Science?