P. 1
Darwinism Refuted

Darwinism Refuted

|Views: 128|Likes:
Published by wercan

More info:

Published by: wercan on Nov 26, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





The second concept stressed by the proponents of punctuated
equilibrium theory is that of "restricted populations." By this, they mean
that the emergence of new species comes about in communities containing
very small numbers of plants or animals. According to this claim, large
populations of animals show no evolutionary development and maintain
their "stasis." But small groups sometimes become separated from these
communities, and these "isolated" groups mate only amongst themselves.
(It is hypothesized that this usually stems from geographical conditions.)
Macromutations are supposed to be most effective within such small,
inbreeding groups, and that is how rapid "speciation" can take place.
But why do proponents of the punctuated equilibrium theory insist
so much on the concept of restricted populations? The reason is clear:
Their aim is provide an explanation for the absence of intermediate forms
in the fossil record.

However, scientific experiments and observations carried out in
recent years have revealed that being in a restricted population is not an
advantage from the genetic point of view, but rather a disadvantage
. Far
from developing in such a way as to give rise to new species, small
populations give rise to serious genetic defects. The reason for this is that
in restricted populations individuals must continually mate within a
narrow genetic pool. For this reason, normally heterozygous individuals
become increasingly homozygous. This means that defective genes which
are normally recessive become dominant, with the result that genetic
defects and sickness increase within the population.178
In order to examine this matter, a 35-year study of a small, inbred
population of chickens was carried out. It was found that the individual
chickens became progressively weaker from the genetic point of view over
time. Their egg production fell from 100 to 80 percent of individuals, and
their fertility declined from 93 to 74 percent. But when chickens from other
regions were added to the population, this trend toward genetic
weakening was halted and even reversed. With the infusion of new genes
from outside the restricted group, eventually the indicators of the health
of the population returned to normal.179
This and similar discoveries have clearly revealed that the claim by
the proponents of punctuated equilibrium theory that small populations
are the source of evolution has no scientific validity.




Scientific discoveries do not support the claims of the punctuated
equilibrium theory of evolution. The claim that organisms in small
populations can swiftly evolve with macromutations is actually even less
valid than the model of evolution proposed by the mainstream neo-

So, why has this theory become so popular in recent years? This
question can be answered by looking at the debates within the Darwinist
community. Almost all the proponents of the punctuated equilibrium
theory of evolution are paleontologists. This group, led by such famous
paleontologists as Steven Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, and Steven M.
Stanley, clearly see that the fossil record disproves the Darwinist theory.
However, they have conditioned themselves to believe in evolution, no
matter what. So for this reason they have resorted to the punctuated
equilibrium theory as the only way of accounting even in part for the facts
of the fossil record.

On the other hand, geneticists, zoologists, and anatomists see that
there is no mechanism in nature which can give rise to any "punctuations,"
and for this reason they insist on defending the gradualistic Darwinist
model of evolution. The
Oxford University zoologist
Richard Dawkins fiercely
criticizes the proponents of
the punctuated equilibrium
model of evolution, and
accuses them of "destroying
the theory of evolution's

The result of this
dialogue of the deaf is the
scientific crisis the theory of
evolution now faces. We are
dealing with an evolution
myth which agrees with no
experiments or observations,
and no paleontological

The Invalidity Of Punctuated Equilibrium


Richard Dawkins, busy
indoctrinating the young through
Darwinist propaganda.

discoveries. Every evolutionist theoretician
tries to find support for the theory from his
own field of expertise, but then enters into
conflict with discoveries from other
branches of science. Some people try to
gloss over this confusion with superficial
comments such as "science progresses by
means of academic disputes of this kind."
However, the problem is not that the
mental gymnastics in these debates are
being carried out in order to discover a
correct scientific theory; rather, the
problem is that speculations are being
advanced dogmatically and irrationally in
order to stubbornly defend a theory that is demonstrably false.
However, the theoreticians of punctuated equilibrium have made
one important, albeit unwitting, contribution to science: They have clearly
shown that the fossil record conflicts with the concept of evolution. Phillip
Johnson, one of the world's foremost critics of the theory of evolution, has
described Stephen Jay Gould, one of the most important punctuated
equilibrium theoreticians, as "the Gorbachev of Darwinism."180
Gorbachev thought that there were defects in the Communist state system
of the Soviet Union and tried to "reform" that system. However, the
problems which he thought were defects were in fact fundamental to the
nature of the system itself. That is why Communism melted away in his

The same fate will soon await Darwinism and the other models of




arwin put forward his claim that human beings and apes descended
from a common ancestor in his book The Descent of Man, published
in 1871. From that time until now, the followers of Darwin's path
have tried to support this claim. But despite all the research that has
been carried out, the claim of "human evolution" has not been backed up
by any concrete scientific discovery, particularly in the fossil field.
The man in the street is for the most part unaware of this fact, and
thinks that the claim of human evolution is supported by a great deal of
firm evidence. The reason for this incorrect opinion is that the subject is
frequently discussed in the media and presented as a proven fact. But real
experts on the subject are aware that there is no scientific foundation for
the claim of human evolution. David Pilbeam, a Harvard University
paleoanthropologist, says:

If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him

the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, "forget it; there isn't enough

to go on."181

And William Fix, the author of an important book on the subject of
paleoanthropology, makes this comment:

As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who

have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated. If

only they had the evidence...182


You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->