The Religion of Evolution

• For those who only have heard that "all known scientific evidence supports Darwinian evolution" as does "virtually every reputable scientist in the world", this may come as a shock to you:

  Many of the evidences that reportedly support Darwinian evolution actually supports "de"volution (for a lack of a better term - what I mean is the fact that the specie lost or has a lower ability than the parental specie) E.g.: drug-resistant bacteria (lower ability to compete for food - eats less anti-biotics and survives), eye-less species (loss of ability to see), etc. Other evidences that reportedly support Darwinian evolution is nothing more than manifestations of natural selection E.g.: color change in Peppered moths (dark and light color are both present in the gene pool), beak size of "Darwin's finches" (large and small beaks are both present in the gene pool) Yet other evidences are interpreted in a way that fit the theory. E.g.: Common homology features is "traditionally" attributed to similar genes inherited from a common ancestor. But when DNA analysis of similarly looking lizards living on different Caribean islands showed they do not have a common ancestor, the evolutionists remain "faithful" to the theory of evolution and propose the hypothesis that random mutations converge of similar phenotypes (external properties). They even coin a new term: convergent evolution (which sounds more like an oxymoron to me... like a "directed- random" process...). The explanation given is that the natural selection process (through environmental factors) plays an extremely crucial role in how a specie evolves - so much so that it determines the direction of the evolution. Well, this may sound plausible for fishes and lizards on an island where the animals' mobility is confined... the problem with this explantion is the fact that birds also exhibit the "convergent evolution" phenomenom and we know that birds are not bound to their habitat...

• If Darwinian evolution is a such a correct and accurate theory, then why would more and more reputable scientists abandon their support for this greatest thing since slice bread ???
  • In 2001, a hundred scientists took out this ad: click here
  • In 2005, the number grew to 400: click here
  • The list is 17 pages long in 2007.... click here

  This webpage explains the theory of evolution and elaborates on some of the evidences in its support. It also points out the problems with the evidences. Another webpage explores some phenomenom that poses major problems to the theory of evolution (See: click here )

• What is the "Theory of Evolution" ?
  • Evolution is "change for the better"

• Mechanisms in the "Theory of Evolution"
  • Random Mutation
  • Natural selection

• Mutation: the driving force for evolution

  • Mutation is event that a gene in the DNA changes.

    This change happens naturally (a copy mistake in mitosis), or under external influence, such as radiation (sun, cell tower, etc).

• Natural selection
  • Natural selection is the mechanism to select out the "better qualities"

  • In nature, the individuals that are stronger, quicker, smarter, etc are more likely to survive and when they survive, they have a chance to reproduce.... the weaker, slower, dumber, etc. ones are more likely to die without reproducing any offsprings....

  • So the "desirable" genetic properties are passed down to the next generation, while the "less desirable" properties are not expressed (it may still be around as "resessive" properties - they may express themselves again when the environment change)

  • We see this in nature on a daily basis: lions will attack the slowest members in a hert for the easy kill...

• Science advances through observations, induction, theory forming, theory validation, and verification.

• I remember the following illustrative example from a Philosophy of Science class on the process of developing scientific theory.
  1. Through observation of various polyhydrals (e.g., cube, pyramid, etc), we can derive the following relationship between the number of faces, number of sides and the number of corners:
     #sides + #corners #faces + 2

     A theory is then formulated that:

     For all polygydrals: #sides + #corners #faces + 2

  2. The theory is then validated or falsified by more examples.

     In this case, the formula is falsified using a polydral with a "protruding block":

  3. When a theory is falsified, it must be refined or abandoned. In this example, the formula works for all "convex" polyhydrals.

  Science must go WHEREEVER the EVIDENCES take it

• When a theory passes virtually every test thrown at it, and it cam be used to make predictions, science gain confidence in the theorem and promotes it to a law

  Example: Grativational law:

• When the evidence DO NOT SUPPORT a scientific theory (falsified), the theory must be changed and even discarded.

• The fundamental principle of scientific methods is the following:
  Scientific theories derived from observations MUST be falsifiable

  In other words, there must be experiments that can be performed and observed and whose outcome will disprove the theorem conclusively.

  If a theory is not falsifiable - i.e., we cannot find any experiment to falsify the theory - then the theory is NOT scientific - the "theory" is nothing more than a RELIGION !!!

  (If someone propose a theory and there is NOT WAY to find out if it is TRUE or NOT, that theory is NOT SCIENTIFIC, but in reality, a RELIGION)

• Example: the theory: "There is a God"
  is NOT a scientific theory.

  But it is a religious doctrine,

  because there does not exist an experiment that when performed, will allow us to disprove it conclusively.

• So how about the "Theory" of Evolution ?

• Some commonly heard claims:

  Today, evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentist minority whose objection are based not on reasoning but on doctrinairy adherence to religious principles -- James Watson, 1965, Molecular Biology of the Gene

  "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" -- Richard Dawkin, The Blind Watchmaker

  "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the sense in the light of evolution" -- Theodosius Dobzhansky, 1973

• Indoctrination....

  IF all the information you get on evolution is from school textbooks and television, you will believe that evolution is a proven fact

  Only "mindless fools" and "religious zealots" would reject evolution based on "doctrinairy adherence to religious principles"

• Then explain this....
  • When recently, in 2001, PBS broadcasted a 7-part series on "Evolution": click here

    where they claim that:

    All known scientific evidence support Darwinian evolution virtually every reputable scientist in the world support evolution

  • In response, 100 reputatble scientists published this two page advertisement in The Weekly Stadard: click here

  • In 2005, the number of scientists that have publicly declared their skeptiscim towards evlution have grown to 400: click here

  • Among the scientists are Nobel price nominees, and professors in many well-known universities...

• Dissenting voices against evolution:

  Scientists who utterly REJECT evolution may be one of our FASTEST-GROWING controversial minorities.... Many scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science --- Larry Hatfield in Science Digest

  Notice that these are not "mindless fools" or "religious zealots"; many of them work in research areas like micro-biology - they know the stuff on evolution and yet, they have questions of how well the evidence match up with the theory !!!

• If the "Theory" of Evolution HAD BEEN VERIFIED, you would NOT have so many scientists rejecting it.

  In the next section in this webpage, I will outline a number of flaws of the "Theory" of Evolution and also a number of examples in nature that this "theorem" is having a hard time explaning

• Before I get into the problems with the theory of evolution, I like to criticize the non-falsifiability of the theory of evolution.

  When something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck; then we should call it a duck...

  I like to demonstrate that the theory of evolution looks like a religion, quacks like a religion and walks like a religion... yet, it claims to be "science"...

• Nature of scientific theories

  Scientific theories MUST be falsifiable If a theory CANNOT BE FALSIFIED, it is NOT scientific but a RELIGION (DOCTRINES)

• The "Theory" of Evolution has NEVER been VERIFIED with experiments (if it had been verified with experiments, there would NOT be so many dissent).

• When we consider this question:

  How can the "Theory" of Evolution be FALSIFIED ?

• The SHOCKING ANSWER to this question is:

  The "Theory" of Evolution CAN NEVER be FALSIFIED (i.e., disproved) CONCLUSIVELY

  There is not a single experiment/phenomenon that you design/name that when observe will conclusively falsify the theory of evolution !!! (Try it yourself...)

• REASON: Mutation is a RANDOM PROCSESS

  There are NO IMPOSSIBLE OUTCOMES in a RANDOM NATURAL PROCESS

  EVERY OUTCOME is possible (although not probable, it is still possible)

  Examples:

  • A hurricane going through a junk yard COULD create a completely functional Boeing 747.... not likely, but still POSSIBLE.

  • According to the "Theory" of Evolution it is possible for animals and plants to have:
    • one common ancestor or
    • many different ancestors

    The random process could have created one ancester first and then the random mutation of this one ancestor bring forth the existing plants and animals.

    But it is also possible that two or more ancester "being" were formed.

    So Evolution cannot be falsified either way.

  • Suppose, just suppose future DNA research result indicates that
    humans and dogs share a closer ancester than with apes

    Based on phenotypes (external appearance), humans should be closer related to apes....

    HOWEVER, even the discovery the human is closer related to a fruit fly will not disprove the "Theory" of evolution conclusively

    The discover will raise some eye-brows.... and MAY even persuade some to reject it.... but will NOT disprove the "Theory of evolution" because the RANDOM mutation COULD have make dogs (or fruit flies) and humans share a common ancestor (rather than humans and chimps)

  • I can go on and on. There is simply no way to falsify the theory of evolution !

    Consequently, do NOT call the "theory of evolution" a scientific theory - because science deals with falsifiable theories. (You make a hypothesis in Physics and then design experiments to show whether it is true or not).

• This is not a site that is trying to explain evolution to you; but for the sake of context, I will give a short overview of the theory of evolution

• According to evolution, life started billions of years (nobody knows how long ago, and 15 billion yrs is a good estimate as any...) from anorganic matter

• The first "life" is probably a "self-replicating molecule"... (they don't know what that molecule look like...)

  Note: protein molecules are not self-replicating; the two candidate molucules are DNA or RNA - something like a virus.

  NOTE: Although virusses are "self-replicating", they cannot replicate without a host. In fact, without the "chemical factories" inside a cell, a virus is as dead as a doorknop...

• Anyway, when enough of the self-replicating molecules are made; they suddenly transform themselves into a primitive cell... (don't ask me or them how, nobody has proposed a viable mechanism. There is only some hyposthesis about the steps (transitional forms), but there is absolutely no proposal on what mechanisms are at work to cause the change... As far as mechanism is concern, it's black magic...)

• Then the genetic matter is gathered into a nucleus... (more black magic)

• Mutations alter the genetic matter and turn one specie into another (not completely black magic, but close...)

• Natural selection weeds out the weaker species and the stronger species continue the evolution...

Evolutionists commonly use these examples to showcase that "evolution is a proven fact" (which are debunked by Jonathan Wells in his book "Icons of Evolution"):

1. Miller's experiment to synthesize amino acids

   In 1953, Miller performed the above experiment In a vase, he put chemicals that he supposed to make up the primeordial earth atmosphere Then he put the mixture under electrical sparks that simulate lightning. He drained the result and found (a very small amount) of amino-acid --- building blocks of living cells. He boldly proclaimed that he showed that this is how life began...

2. Darwin's Tree of Life illustrating how life diversified itself

   The "tree of life" is the pictorial depiction on how different species evolved Presumably, a single living "thing" was "made" some billions of years ago... Then through mutation and natural selection -- over many billions of years -- it evolves and "changes" into different species. When a new specie emerge, there is a new branch of the tree...

3. Haeckel's drawing of embryos in early stage of development illustrating the "fact" that all life forms have a common descend because in their embryonic stage, all vertibrates look alike:

   Haeckel drawing shows embroys of different species in different stages of development. Notice the top row shows that embryos of ALL vertibrates in a stage where they appear almost identical... This picture is still used in biology books in 2004 - and unfortunately, many students did not know what an forger Haeckel really was)

4. Archaeopteryx: the missing link from reptile to bird

   Artist rendition

   • The Archaeopteryx was hailed as a "missing link" between birds and dynosaurs.

   • For recent DNA analysis, you should not think too much about the link based on resemblance - looks have absolutely nothing to say about genetic descendence relationship... (see: click here)

• Miller's experiment was done in 1953 and assumed that the primitive Earth Atmosphere consists of
  Hydrogen (H₂), Nitrogen (N₂), Carbon dioxide (CO₂), Water (H₂O), Ammonia (NH₃), and Methane (CH₄)

  Furthermore, Miller assumed that the was no oxygen (O₂) (he had to, because when you add O₂ to the mixture, one spark and the whole atmosphere will blow up !!!)

• Problems with this assumption:
  • Hydrogen (H₂) is very light and will rise to the upper layers of the atmosphere very rapidly - in other words, hydrogen will not be present in the lower layers where the chemical reactions occur.

  • Since there is no oxygen in the atmosphere (this is necessary condition for the Miller experiment - when oxygen is present along with methane, lightning will cause a huge fireball...) there is no ozon layer to filter out the high energy rays from the sun !!!

    Now, ammonia (NH₃) and methane (CH₄) in the atmosphere are susceptable to high energy radiation and these molecules will be split apart by ultra-violet and gamma raditions !!!

    Hence, you will not find ammonia (NH₃) and methane (CH₄) in the atmosphere.

  • In the 1960's Geologists questioned whether the primitive Earth Atmosphere had these gases

    By mid 1975, Biochemist Marcel Florkin declared that the assumption of the primitive Earth Atmosphere was wrong

    In 1995, Science magazine reported that experts now dismissed Miller's experiment because the primitive Earth Atmosphere was nothing like what Miller had assumed:

    • Hydrogen (H₂) would have escaped into deep space

    • Ammonia (NH₃) and Methane (CH₄) are easily obliterated by ultra violet light from the sun

  • Science now believe that the primitive Earth Atmosphere consists of:
    Nitrogen (N₂), Carbon dioxide (CO₂), Water (H₂O),

    (And may even contain Oxygen according to NASA scientists !!!)

  Now, when Miller's experiment is REPEATED WITHOUT Hydrogen (H₂), Ammonia (NH₃) and Methane (CH₄), we get:

  The ONLY usefulness of these chemicals in life is for EMBALMING dead bodies to protect them against decade (by killing off bacterial life....)

• Reference: Case for a Creater, Lee Strobel, pp 38
• Science 1995 article: click here

• PostScript:
  • Since Miller's experiments, there have been many more proposals on theories about "how life began" (e.g., in mud, near sub-oceanic lava exhausts, etc).
  • No theory on "how life began" is accepted by all evolutionists - everyone has his/her favorite theory :-)
  • In fact, the lack of ideas on how life began among the evolutionists cannot be over-stated: basically, they don't have a clue on how life really began... only guesses without much substantial evidence...

• The appearences of the different species (phyla) according to "Theory" of Evolution and the Darwin's Tree is:

     

  According to the theory of evolution, we should see only a few species at the beginning of time Mutation and natural selection creates diversity over billions of years... So the number of different species increases gradually in time		Number of species found in fossil record should increases with time....

• ACTUAL DATA (this is REALITY) from fossil records shows the following:

     

  Very FEW fossils found before a certain time (called "Precambrian era") Fossils of ALL SPECIES found in a relatively short period (millions of years instead of billions of years) after the "Precambrian era - further more, all species are FULLY developed, without INTERMEDIATE forms		Number of species found in fossil record decreases with time....

  The fossil records DO NOT SUPPORT the "Tree of Life" which is a predictive outcome of the "Theory" of Evolution

  In fact, the fossil record supports the creation scenario !!! (But you won't hear that in any public school...)

• Haeckel's Drawing of Embryos (High resolution version: click here )

     

• Photographs of actual embryos made by Richardson and his colleagues in 1997: (High resolution version: click here )

     

  Other embryo's by Richardson that make the point that they are VERY DIFFERENT:

     

• It turns out that when Haeckel published his embryos drawing in 1874, the drawing were not trusted by his collegues - but they don't have sufficient evidence to prove otherwise.

• I like to share with you a few quotes from the "Science" article in 1975:

  NOTE: "Science" is NOT some Religious Magazine, but a Scientific publication !!!

  "Generations of biology students may have been MISLED by a famous set of drawings of embryos published 123 years ago by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel." "Not only did Haeckel ADD or OMIT features, Richardson and his collegues reported, but he (Haeckel) also FUDGED THE SCALE to EXAGERATE SIMILARITIES among species." "It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous FAKES in Biology," Richardson concludes.

  References:

  • Science article "Haekel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered" click here
  • Haeckel's Fraud Rediscovered: Click here
  • Haeckel's drawings: Click here
  • Science article "Haekel, Embryos and Evolution": click here

• The $6,000,000 Question:
  • WHY do school textbooks STILL promote this LIE ???

  • My experience is the "scientific community" is so NATURALISTICALLY INCLINED that they are BLIND to anything that has to do with the SUPERNATURAL....

  • Their PRIME Directive is:
    EVERYTHING must be explained NATURALISTICALLY...

    Now where did I read something like that.... ???

  2Corinthians 4:3-4 ---- But our gospel is also hidden. It is hidden to those being lost, in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them....

  In other words: The truth is hidden from the Evolutionists !!!

• Evolutionists claim that birds were evolved from reptiles
• The Archaeopteryx is a transitional form from reptile to birds

Problem

• Looks means squat (absolutely NOTHING) in terms of closeness in evolution:

  Recent research in DNA has shown that the closeness of species relationship CANNOT be concluded based on looks

  Case in point: Australian and European birds

  Some Australian birds	Some European birds

  • Judging by their LOOKS, you would conclude that:
    • Birds 1-2 are closely related
    • Birds 3-6 are closely related
    • Birds 4-5 are closely related

  • Using DNA analysis (looking at the differences in the DNA/Genetic sequences) of the birds, it is found that:
    • Birds 1, 2 and 3 are closely related
    • Birds 4, 5 and 6 are closely related

• More information can be found in this write up: click here

• Another favored example of the Evolutionists....

• Before the industrial revolution in England, there were a lot of lighter peppered moths:

       

• After many years of industrialization in England, the population of peppered moths became darker:

       

• The hypothesis was that lighter peppermoth could be more easily detected when the barks of the tree became darker due to polution and became an easy prey to birds.....

• VOILA, a perfect example of "Evolution" !!!

• Sorry, it's a perfect example of natural selection, NOT evolution:
  • within the peppered moth population, there were dark and light shaded moths

  • So when the trees got darker, the darker moths are better camouflaged - but the "dark property" was already present in the peppered moth population

  • The "dark property" was   not added to the peppermoth genome !!!

  All this example showed is that a changing environment EMPHASIZES a property that is already present in the genome of the peppered moths.

• BTW, the peppermoth example became an embarrasment when England imposed clean air laws. Before the trees got a chance to become lighter-colored, the lighter variant of the pepper moths became more dominant.

  It was then clear that the color of the trees was NOT the determinant factor for the survival of the differently colored moths... (it may still be a case of natural selection).

  What happened next was researcher was curious about WHAT really cause the mix in the peppermoth population to shift and what they found was VERY EMBARRSASSING to the Evolutioists' cause....

  Research unveiled that peppermoths DO NOT rest of barks of trees, but at tree tops so the coloring of the tree bark has zilt to do with their survival.

  Then they wonder how come pictures in Biology text books show peppermoths resting on tree barks.... and they found out that those pictures were taken by some ingenious photigrapher who glued DEAD peppermoths on the tree bark....

  This (and many other examples, like Haeckel's embryos) really show you how wonderfully creative some Evolutionists are... Things sure looks a lot like "Enron" or "Worldcom"....

Some school textbook will have you believe that the horse evolved this way:

Students need to be informed that the horse evolution "story" is just that, a story:

• "The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the heart of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature... The evolution of the horse family, Equidae, is now no better known than that of numerous other groups of organisms..."

  George Gaylord Simpson (Paleontologist), Life of the Past, 1953

• Marsh's 'Horse Evolution' is still presented as fact to students today! A fossil exhibition was staged at the American Museum of Natural History. "The exhibit is now hidden from public view as an outdated embarrassment. Almost a century later, paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson re-examined horse evolution and concluded that generations of students had been misled."

  Encyclopedia of Evolution - Richard Milner

In SIMPLER English:

We do NOT have a CLUE how the horse exactly evolved, but we will teach something to you anyway, because we BELIEVE it is true....

How is THAT different from religion ????

• In the coast of Mexico, scientists dicovered similar fishes on the surface and in caves:

  Fish living on ocean surface		Fish living in cave

• Where there eye is supposed to be, the cave-dwelling variant has a scarf.

• Let me now quote a Science research paper ( click here ):

  In the cave fish, the lens and optic cup develop normally for the first 24 hours; after this, however, the lens cells undergo programmed cell death or apoptosis. The cornea and iris do not form and the retina is extremely disorganized. Growth of the eye stops and photoreceptor cells never develop. The rudimentary eye eventually sinks back and is covered by skin.

  The eyeless fish develops its eyes normally during the first day and then the development stops....

  The researchers suspect that some external stimuli is neccessary to promote normal growth.

• The fish that lose its eyes is a perfect example of mutation

  However, it is a TERRIBLE example for EVOLUTION

• As soon as the blind fish leaves the cave, NATURAL SELECTION will KILL it off

  This mutation was DEGENERATE i.e., it caused information LOSS,

  BTW, LOSING some capability that a specie has is VERY EASY to accomplish - happens MOST of the time in mutation

  Most mutations are HARMFUL, which NATURAL SELECTION will root out....

• References:
  • click here

  • click here

In the past few years, the medical community has become increasingly concerned about the certain bacteria that "develop resistance" to antibiotics.

Bacteria sometimes develop resistance to even powerful antibiotics: click here

But is it evolution ? In other words, did bacteria develop new properties ? The answer is not really.

Batteria become resistent to anti-biotics in 2 ways:

1. It is well-known that bacteria have the ability to exchange genetic material with one another

   Furthermore, it is also known that some batteria that are not harmful to humans (does not cause desease in humans) are in fact resistent to anti-biotics.

   The first way that a strain of harmful bacteria can become resistent to anti-biotics is through exchanging genetic information with the harmless strains.

   When a person gets sick and uses anti-biotics, it will kill off the non-resistent straint, but not the resistent straint. Through this process of "natural selection" (when you use new anti-biotics to kill off bacteria), you will eventually get a straint of bacteria that is resistant to every anti-biotic we have.

   But this is NOT evolution - there are no new information added to the genome of the bateria.

2. It has also been determined that bacteria can "become" resistant to existing/new anti-biotic through mutation, but.... unfortunately for the evolutionists, this mutation did not add any new properties to the bacteria....

   The reason that some bacteria becomes resistent to anti-biotics is the fact that they were "damaged". The anti-biotics need to be "eaten" (transfered) into the bacteria in order to kill them. Bacteria (cells) have a sophisticated "pumping system" to move food from outside through the membrane into the bacteria..... Some bacteria developed a degenerative change that cause this "pumping system" to become less effective, in other words - they eat slower.....

   Such bacteria will develop resistance to the antibiotics - because they are unable to take in a sufficiently large amount of poisonous anti-biotics that will kill them off.... HOWEVER, these drug-resistant microbes CANNOT COMPETE with the natural strains in the ABSENCE of antibiotics !!!

   So these "super bugs" are WIMPS !!!! - if they are left in the wild to compete with the "normal bugs", they don't stand a change to survive - because they eat slower that the normal bugs, they starved to death.

   (That's why the advise of doctors NOT to over-prescibe anti-biotics. Let these super-bugs die a NATURAL death)

   Reference:: click here .

• In 1904, Walter S. Sutton, an American cytologist, decided there might be some connection between Gregor Mendel's 1860s research and the newly discovered chromosomes with their genes.

• A major breakthrough came in 1906, when Thomas Hunt Morgan, a Columbia University zoologist, conceived the idea of using fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) for genetic research.

  This was due to the fact that

  • they breed so very rapidly (12 days to hatch)
  • require little food,
  • have scores of easily observed characteristics
  • and only a few chromosomes per cell.

• Furthermore, X rays have been used to increase the mutation rate in the fruit fly by 15,000 percent

• The result:

  

  • After decades of experiments, without immediately killing or sterilizing them, 400 different mutational features have been identified in fruit flies.

  • Out of 400 mutations, there is not a single one that can be called a new species.

    In other word: scientists have not been able to come up with something other than fruit flies.....

• What have we learned in the great fruit fly experiment ?
  • Mutant fruit flies are always weaker in one way or another.

  • Natural selection KILLS off ALL MUTANTS when mutants must compete with normal hardy fluit flies

    So natural selection WORKS AGAINST MUTATION in all fruit fly experiments !!!

  • A fruit fly was a fruit fly, is a fruit fly and will still be a fruit fly....

    In other words: when you start with a fruit fly, you ain't gonna get anything BUT fruit flies....

    The experiments have only produced geneticists' monster fruit flies - multiple heads, without eyes, etc...

  • Yes, I know about the fruit fly with 2 pairs of wings, unfortunately, I also know its second pair is innert - don't move a bit.

    It's kept alive in a lab - try to set it out in the wild and see how long it will survive....

• Here is an interesting quote for you:
  "A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is certain to impair - just as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture."

  --- James F. Crow, Radiation & mutation specialist.
  --- In "Genetic Effects of Radiation" Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Vol. 14, p. 19-20

• The ULTIMATE way to determine if two individuals are related to one another is through DNA analysis

  That's indeed how we determine who is the biological father of a child in a paternal lawsuit.

• A common way that evolutionists used to determine "relatedness" between species is through examining outward characteristics, e.g., bone structure, length of bones, beak, etc

• Recently, DNA studies has shown that closeness of these outward features will tell you absolutely nothing about how closely the genomes are

  and since the differences in the genome is the ultimate measure that determines how closely two species are related and whether they may have a common ancestor, looking at the outward characteristics will tell you SQUAT (NOTHING) about how closely they are related....

  (This reminds me of a story where someone who lost his keys in some bushes in a dark area, but searches his keys in an area under a street light - because he could see there...)

• Case in point: Anolis Lizards of the Greater Antilles (see Science 279 (1998) pp 2115-2118)

  Losos et. al. found that the Anolis lizard have "evolved" into two forms on many islands of the Greater Antilles (Cuba, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, Hispaniola).

  One form is small and has short legs that live on fragile twigs. The other form is larger, with large toe pads that live on the crown of trees.

  This is where it gets interesting:

  • Based on their looks ("morphological features" or "close resemblance), members of the small variants of the lizards from different islands were found to be more closely related to each other than the small and large variant of the lizards from the same island

    (In other words: small lizards from island A and small lizards from island B look more alike than small and large lizards from the same island.)

    But based on a comparison test of the mitochondrial DNA sequences of the different Anolis lizards, it was discovered that the small versions of the lizards from different island were not very closely related to one another !!! In fact, the small and large variants on the same island are more closely related to each other !!!

    So lesson: you can't tell how closely two species are related to one another by their looks.

• BTW, evolutionists still insist that the small variants from different islands have the same common ancester - their solution: the lizards from the different islands took the same evolutionary path

  That is giving a lot of faith to a number of totally random processes (mutations happening to the lizards on different islands) to somehow synchronized themselves... As I mentioned earlier - it is impossible to disprove the religion of evolution, because there is a random component in this religion. This random component can allow any and every possible outcome.

  References:

  • click here
  • click here