Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
EVOLUTION SUCKS!
« older newer »
Yiffox
Yiffox's Gallery (2258)

EVOLUTION SUCKS! 2

EVOLUTION SUCKS! 3
evolution_2.doc
Keywords science 2150, evolution 650, mythos 124
CHAPTER TWO

FOUNDATIONS OF EVOLUTION

"In the sciences, people quickly come to regard as their own personal property that which they have learned and had passed on to them at the universities and academies. If someone else comes along with new ideas that contradict the Credo and in fact even threaten to overturn it, then all passions are raised against this threat and no method is left untried to suppress it. People resist it in every way possible: pretending not to have heard about it; speaking disparagingly of it, as if it were not even worth the effort of looking into the matter. And so a new truth can have a long wait before finally being accepted."

--Goethe

``The most dangerous enemy to truth and freedom amoungst us is the compact

majority. . .The majority is never right. Never, I tell you!''

--Henrik Ibsen, An Enemy of the People

I. The Nature of Science, Part II

It is a great misunderstanding that there are two types of science rather than one.  There is observational science, which is the more common and experimental science.  Both are portrayed as one science that uses the same methodology and practices, yet this is not the case.  Experimental science uses the scientific method familiar to most science students, which consist of: hypothesis, testing, theory, cooperation, and finally law using inductive reasoning.  The evidence for experimental science consists most strongly of its predictions being found true.  Failed predictions almost certainly will confine such a theory to the pages of history, while true predictions further the advance of the theory into being believed as true.  Thus, Newton's theory of gravity predicts the path of projectiles based on direction and speed.  It further found deviations in the paths of Uranus and later Neptune, the theory could either be wrong or there could be unseen planets causing these deviations.  The theory was upheld when astronomers searched for these unseen planets and found them.  This method prevents error and assures that what is being brought forth is very nearly accurate at worst.  Examples of these types of science include most of chemistry and physics.  The concern here is the methods and practices of observational science that does not have this freedom from inaccuracy and sometimes strays far into error.

Observational science is necessary when something can not be experimented on for whatever reason, whether it is too big or too far in distance or time.  Examples of this type of science are cosmology, astrophysics, meteorology and geology.  The methodology of this type of science is to look at the natural world and make a hypothesis, or guess, about how it works.  Whatever evidence was already present to lead to the hypothesis then becomes the evidence for it, as predictions tend to few and far between and inaccurate at best or repetitions of already present circumstances.  This hypothesis is either then generally accepted or rejected based only on current feelings of the scientific world.  The basis for this has no bearing on the actual merit of the hypothesis but only the feelings of the scientific world at the time.  For the most part, this means that many worthwhile hypotheses are rejected even though they are largely true.  This is the result of the scientific world wanting to keep the status quo and being reluctant to change.  Evidence and theories are rejected merely because of the whim of the elite.  The predictive power of these theories often fails to be accurate as most theories derived from observational science do in fact lack the viewpoint of scale necessary to judge the enormity of the task before them.  A clear example of this occurs in meteorology where one can judge how accurate the predictions of the weatherman are.

Furthermore, science is loath to change its views.  This is because most present scientists are indoctrinated with their view as fact.  To counter their view is not only to present an opposing argument, but also to challenge their worldview upon which they have staked their time, their careers, their livelihoods, and their reputations.  Any such challenge is one to which they must absolutely against and reject all new ones.  Thomas Kuhn noted in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions that science tends to advance new theories not with the establishment and any semblance of correcting blatant errors, but with the next, younger generation of scientists in revolution against the old.  These are the ones who have no vested interest in the established theories and are free to explore new ideas, till they too are confined by their worldviews or paradigms.  This historic viewpoint of how science behaves stands in stark contrast to how science says it should and does behave from a theoretical viewpoint.  This view claims to welcome error and use it to advance to new truths.  It is one of unending progress toward truth and better theories rather than the historic view of reaction and revolution.

The historic view shows far too many examples of this in action, where correct theories are ridiculed by their present day scientific community.  One such example is the wholesale rejection for decades of Alfred Wegener's continental drift theory, which states that the earth?s continents are moving and were once connected.  This theory was finally accepted as fact after being rejected for years.  Another example is the germ theory of Pasteur.  Subrahmanyan Chandrasehkar's theories of black holes were ridiculed for three decades.  C.J. Doppler's proposed theory of red and blue shifting of light was ignored for twenty six years because it contradicted the current theory of light.  B. Marshall proposed that ulcers were caused by bacteria when everyone knew stress and stomach acid caused them.  Nicolas Tesla's many ideas were ridiculed such as the Earth having electrical resonance, now called Schumann resonance; brushless alternating current motors; and death rays, now called particle beam cannons.  Even Evolutionary theories are rejected in like manner.  Lynn Margulis' theory of endosymbiosis was rejected for about fifteen years.  Other theories ridiculed in their time include William Harvey's theory on the circulation of blood, Karl Gauss' non-Euclidean geometry, Robert Goddard's theories of rocket travel, George Zweig's theory of quarks, meteorites coming from space, and of course child abuse and rape being real rather than imagined phenomenon to name just a few.  It is interesting to note, that many of these theories took a few decades to become accepted just when the next generation would be arising and as Kuhn predicts.

The current requirement of scientific peer-review becomes laughable because of this.  Peer review is a process that goes on before an idea may be published.  The editor of a scientific publication sends the manuscript to experts in the field for evaluation.  Since the experts chosen to review new material are almost exclusively deeply invested in the current paradigm, they are much more likely to reject items that express points of view outside their paradigm and more lenient on items that support their paradigm.  Thus, most ideas and theories outside of the current paradigm will be rejected out of hand, rather than on the basis of their merit, evidence, and plausibility if the historic rather than the theoretical view of science is true.

Many sciences have parts in both experimental and observational science, such as biology.  Biology that deals with animal structures and parts is experimental, but the biology that deals with origins of life largely belongs to the observational sciences.  It is therefore not privileged with any accuracy more than being conjecture, except what evidence directly supports it.  This evidence must then be looked at to show what actual support exists for the theory.  The theory of Evolution and Evolution from hereafter when mentioned will be the popular conception of it, comprising the theory of common descent, marked by Evolution.  It should not be confused with the process of Evolution, or species changing, which is a scientific fact.  Not surprisingly, the theory of Evolution quickly seemed to overcome the stigma against new theories, as mentioned in the last chapter.  However as was its history was previously shown, Evolutionary theory was introduced two generations before Darwin both by his grandfather and by Lamarck who indeed experienced ridiculed for the same theory of common descent albeit with different mechanisms.  It was again introduced in the generation between by Robert Chambers who was again ridiculed.  Groups adopted Evolution because it fit their social, religious and political motives and biases.  Originally though, there were five proofs for Evolution proposed in the second half of the nineteenth century:  vestigial organs, embryology, comparative anatomy, the fossil record, and the practice of breeding animals.  These proofs upheld the theory on a scientific basis and each of these will be examined in turn.

II. Vestigial Organs

One of the original proofs of Evolution was the existence of vestigial organs in various

creatures.  If Evolution were true then the theory goes that traits would be in the process of development and organisms would be in effect trying out traits.  Useful traits would help the organism survive, and non-useful or harmful traits would cause the organism no benefit or even to perish.  In the process of time, useful traits would be passed on to descendants and non-useful ones would therefore cease to be present in that race along with the less successful members that possessed them.  The same process was reasoned must occur with organs as well as traits.  Organs would be always in trial stage, with useful ones persisting in a race, and non-useful ones ceasing to continue within the species.  These non-useful ones however might become useful if the environment changes allowing this race to adapt while other races in a species perish.  There should be nascent or arising organs that may not have a purpose yet.  There should also be organs and tissues that are left over or vestigial from previous Evolutionary stages that lack the function of its ancestors.  These things would be predicted if Evolution is true.  It would also be essential to any theory to explain how organs arise in species.

When Darwin proposed the theory of Evolution in the 1850?s, this is exactly what was observed.  Darwin wrote about rudimentary, atrophied, or aborted organs in several species, and these were identified as vestigial organs and tissues.  The human body alone was thought to contain over a hundred small organs that little or no use could be found.  The German anatomist, Robert Wiedersheim, listed 86 vestigial organs in the human body in 1893 in his book:  The Structure of Man.  He later expanded this list to one hundred and eighty.  These then were thought to be the vestigial organs that the theory of Evolution demanded.  The human body alone was literally riddled with them.  As was stated in the Scopes trial:

There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities.

Support for the theory abounded with this one proof.  Moreover, it was an attack on creator-based theories of origins as the argument could be made that any creator would not produce so many useless structures within an organism.

Yet knowledge at the time was severely limited.  Because doctors thought these organs to be vestigial remnants, they often removed these organs.  Doctors in the last decade alone used to remove the appendix whenever they had opened the abdomen, and two decades ago would remove tonsils as a matter of course.  However, over the course of the last hundred years as medicine advanced, one by one these vestigial organs were found to have purposes within the body and many proved to be vital to life, usually when their removal killed the patient.  These organs mostly belonged to the endocrine and lymphatic systems within the body, and were responsible for the regulation and release of chemicals in the body, which in turn regulate such minor things as growth, heat, energy, and numerous other bodily processes.  Among these were organs such as the thyroid, which then had no apparent function, but releases chemicals that regulate everything from growth to body temperature.  Its removal resulted in death of the patient involved, as discovered by many doctors who thought it to be vestigial and killed their patient.  Today, removal of vestigial organs without cause is unlikely, unless they are misguided by Evolutionary theory.

Suddenly the number of vestigial organs in humans dwindled from hundreds down to approximately nine: the appendix, tonsils, wisdom teeth, the lesser toes, body hair, mammary glands in the male, the semilunar fold, and the muscles for the ears.  While these organs have little function, they can not be said to be functionless.  The sparse number of vestigial organs in humans precludes it from being proof for the theory of Evolution, but rather in fact acts as proof against the theory.  The vestigial organs predicted in other animals' bodies are also found to be in a meager and sparse amount, if existing at all.  More likely, this is an idea imposed from without rather than based on evidence.  It is a total reversal and collapse of the evidence of one hundred years ago.  No longer are organisms riddled with tissues and organs either nascent or vestigial, but a mere handful of remnants remain, mere vestiges of the prior evidence.  Yet, this remnant of evidence will be examined anyway.

It must first be noted however, that almost all of the above proposed vestigial organs do in fact prove useful to the organism.  In some cases, these uses are necessary ones.  Modern science in an attempt to keep vestigial organs as a proof of Evolution seeks to downplay the usefulness of these organs or seeks to merely say they have changed uses or have diminished usefulness when compared to supposed ancestors.  This is done other than admit the small remaining evidence as being a failed prediction of an old theory.  Nevertheless, their once walking museum of antiquities now has the overwhelming majority of its exhibits closed.  This in fact, turns the evidence from being for Evolution, to assuming Evolution is already true setting up circular logic.  Diminished capacity from a supposed ancestor can make any organ labeled as vestigial due to any difference in size or function.  As an example, all higher animals have lungs, if the lungs are smaller in size from a supposed ancestor, they could be labeled vestigial, rather than suited perfectly to the organism in which they reside.

However, the evidence will be looked at anyway.  The most famous of the human vestigial organs are the tonsils and the appendix.  Both were removed regularly, yet play a role in the lymphatic system along with a former member of the vestigial club: the adenoids.  They help with the immune system, which is why they are known to become infected regularly as they localize contaminants in the body.  The same thing occurs with lymph nodes, which also used to be considered vestigial and also tend to swell first upon any infection of the body.  This is not due to any vestigiality of these structures, but merely the correct performance of their immune function.  Both organs produce antibodies.  Both reside at the entrances to particular organs:  the throat and the large intestine.

The appendix is the best known of the vestigial organ in humans and so attention to this organ must be given first.  According to modern medicine, the appendix serves to provide immune support in the embryo and first few years of life before other organs take over that function.  However, it continues to provide immune support as well as general intestinal functions in order to deal with the higher bacterial content of the large intestine.  It may perform the same functions as the Peyer's patches which are part of the Gut-associated lymphoid tissues (GALT) and are also small pockets a few centimeters long that line the small intestine and are most concentrated at the end of the ileum before the entrance into the large intestine.  These patches serve as surveillance of the intestine for pathogens and initiate an immune response there.  This GALT system also includes the tonsils, adenoids, appendix, as well as lymphoid tissues in the large intestine, stomach and esophagus and comprises seventy percent of the human immune system.  Thus, the appendix is a recognized as part of the GALT system by medicine if not Evolutionary scientists.  It also produces mucus as the large intestine does in order to provide lubrication to assist in elimination of wastes.  

Much is made of the narrow opening and passage of the appendix into the large intestine being poorly designed in that the width of this passage sometimes causes it to be blocked by fecal matter, which can cause appendicitis.  However this small width would seem to work in favor of its immune function allowing a concentration of any bacteria or pathogens, much as the many pockets in various GALT structures do taking the form of pockets and pits.  The immune cells there can more easily recognize and react to these pathogens.  It thereby seems perfectly structured for its main purpose, rather than an organ with suboptimal design.  The fact is that the passage to the appendix becomes blocked far more often in modern countries than in third world countries and occurs mainly due to diet.  Refined foods cause a much greater incidence of appendicitis occurring than traditional diets higher in fiber.  Seven percent of Americans will suffer from appendicitis during some point in their life currently, which was twice as high in the early twentieth century.   Appendicitis, as many diseases, seems to have far more to do with diet than any inherent flaw in structure.

What is perhaps most ridiculous is that this is an entire fabrication.  In many mammals, the appendix and adjoining caecum are much larger corresponding seemingly to diet.  These organs are also present in birds.  Herbivores tend to have a large caecum, which contains bacteria that aids in digestion of cellulose.  Carnivores and omnivores tend to have a small caecum and a large appendix, since they do not need to digest as much cellulose, but potentially have greater introduction of pathogens from consuming meat.  Darwin listed the appendix as evidence originally because the human caecum is smaller than in many mammals and this becomes his evidence for vestigiality.  However, it must be noted that old and new world monkeys do not have an appendix, and the vermiform appendix is only present in the anthropoid primates:  gorillas, chimpanzee, gibbons, orangutans, and humans.  Rather than being a leftover or structure reduced in function, in the Evolutionary scheme it then becomes a more advanced and ``newer'' organ that ``younger'' primates do not possess at all, although one that many other mammals possess.  It therefore poses a problem since it would be a nascent rather than a vestigial organ, but analogous to those possessed by other mammals.     How did this organ jump between these animals of like diet rather than being a vestigial structure inherited not from the early primates, but from other mammals possessing it but that humans did not directly evolve from?

Evolutionists will also cite as evidence of vestigiality the fact that this organ sometimes does not develop in the human body.  This would be very convincing evidence since it would seem to show it is on its way out if it in fact sometimes does not appear.  However, this is a either an overt falsehood or merely a lack of understanding of biology on the part of the scientists since many organs do the same and is a mere matter of probability whether an organ develops in that most complicated of construction projects:  the human body.  When an organ fails to develop then it is called agenesis of the organ.  The following chart shows the rates of various agenesis of different organs with the lowest rates being presented for humans:

                         Organ Agenesis in Humans      

Organ Rate of Agenesis Organ Rate of Agenesis

Molars 20% Lung .00007%

Premolar 3.4% Thyroid .00005%

Incisor 2.25% Sacrum .00004%

Brain .002% Appendix .00001%

Kidney .0002% Penis .00000005%

Vagina/Uterus .00014%



If the agenesis rate of the appendix is to be used as evidence of its vestigiality then apparently human teeth, the brain, vaginas, and kidneys are surely on their way out first!   Such lack of organs and tissues are not the result of disuse or vestigiality, but mutations that impair development in a newborn.  The majority of these is not even genetic, but generally are just failures to develop properly.  Such variation is natural in a group.

Another tactic is to claim its removal causes no apparent harm in humans.  However, many organs can be removed without noticeable ill effects on the body such as the spleen, gall bladder, uterus, and others.  Even one lung or kidney can be removed without much harm to the body.  This is because the body tends to accommodate its loss and other organs pick up the work of the removed organ.  It does not mean the organism would not operate better without the organ.

To again preserve this organ as evidence, Evolutionists will purposely talk about the caecum and appendix as a unit rather than just the Evolution of the appendix as it does not appear in monkeys.  They will note the conical structure of the caecum in some monkeys as a precursor to an appendix and applying the caecum's function in some monkeys as a pouch to ferment cellulose as it does in other animals.  This ignores the fact that this function is only observed in some species of monkeys again depending on their diet.  Other monkeys ferment these carbohydrates in their stomach.  Some even have as large and similar caecum to rabbits, like some new world monkeys, while a minority feature the cone-shape and is variable in most of those.  Furthermore, some of these do not even have the lymphoid tissue associated with an appendix although it is common in that region of the body, yet the appendix still suddenly appears in apes fully formed in the apes.  What is especially odd for their case is that the appendix does not form an out pocket from the bottom of the cone of the caecum as one would predict, but from its side below the opening to the colon.  As with most evidence, this

seems contrived, wishful thinking of many monkeys lacking the appendix and even the closest in shape still lacking anything remotely like an appendix.  Rather than the much touted evidence of a vestigial organ, it is in fact an organ that suddenly appears in apes and appears both from its function in other animals and the actual presence of the same immunological tissue to be part of the GALT system.  While it is not an essential part and its removal does not cause impairment of this system due to redundancy that system, it is still a part of that system.

The tonsils have shared a similar fate to that of the appendix.  Tonsils and the adenoids function as part of the GALT system at the entrances to the respiratory system in the nose and throat working as part of the immune system, just as the appendix works at the juncture of small and large intestines.  Like the appendix, infection of these organs occurs more often in adolescence when they are more active.  These organs were often removed in the past, sometimes when no disease or inflammation was present.  Their function is to trap bacteria and viruses as they enter the body in the crypts on its surface and to produce antibodies to begin the body's immune response to these invaders.  Like the appendix, this function may be the cause of its frequent infection in some individuals.  However, there are many outdated sources that again believe the tonsils are functionless structures and their proof, like the appendix, is that removal causes no ill effects.  This argument is as shown above is spurious at best.

Wisdom teeth are another ridiculous addition to the list of vestigial structures.  While they might be annoying for the present generation, they would have been much more useful to previous generations.  They could have replaced lost teeth before our modern era of dental care.  However, a lot of people do have problems with wisdom teeth being impacted or coming in incorrectly.  This fact in isolation may seem significant, but it is also a fact that a lot of teeth come in incorrectly.  Teeth crowding is a common dental problem, probably because most people keep most of their teeth now.  The wisdom teeth come in worst simply because they are the last to erupt.

However, the real issue for Evolution is that our jaw is not as thick as the other primates.  There is some thought that a smaller jaw allowed a bigger cranium.  Evolutionists posit then that our smaller jaw supposedly causes crowding in our teeth while allowing a bigger brain.  Darwin in fact mentioned this as evidence in the Descent of Man in rather racist terms, yet even Darwin recognized this as a phenomenon of Western civilization.  In his Origin of Species, he wrote:

It appears as if the posterior molar of wisdom-teeth were tending to become rudimentary in the more civilized races of man.  These teeth are rather smaller than the other molars, as is likewise the case with the corresponding teeth in the chimpanzee and orang; and they have only two separate fangs.  They do not cut through the gums till about the seventeenth year, and I am assured by dentists that they are much more liable to decay, and are earlier lost, than other teeth.  It is also remarkable that they are much more liable to vary both in structure and in the period of their development than the other teeth.  In the Melanian races, on the other hand, the wisdom-teeth are usually furnished with three separate fangs, and are generally sound:  they also differ from the other molars in size less than in the Caucasian races.  Prof. Schaaffhausen accounts for this difference between the races by ``the posterior dental portion of the jaw always being shortened'' in those that are civilized, and this shortening may, I presume be safely attributed to civilized men habitually feeding on soft, cooked food, and thus using their jaws less.

Even then during Darwin's time, it was recognized that wisdom teeth were vestigial for Europeans, and its proper cause was also known, being that of diet.  The idea of wisdom teeth being vestigial then was mere prejudice, supporting the view that non-European races are less evolved than those of European.  Rather it is the refined, processed foods that are softer and thoroughly cooked having an impact on the growth of European teeth and the jaws.  Naturally when one has a diet of raw foods or that contain more grit, the jaw has to do more work and thus becomes larger as well as the accompanying muscles.  The teeth also experience more wear and attrition and so become smaller in size.  A large amount of sand and grit worked its way into bread from sand and also from the mill being ground with stone, which also contributed to major tooth attrition.  This is known to have happened as far back as history shows, with Egyptian skulls showing severe tooth wear.  Dr. Timothy Bromage again repeats Darwin's own words in that diet has been the most dramatic cause of Western man's smaller jaw and thereby less room for teeth.  This is not a factor for two-fifths of humans who subsist on a more traditional diet.  They have to put more work into chewing and may have to put up with more grit in their food as well.  Their jaws develop larger than their western equivalents and thus have fewer problems with teeth crowding and with their wisdom teeth.

Thus, both the ill-fit of wisdom teeth and smaller jaw are peculiar to Western culture and their newer diet.  Even in the United States with a highly processed diet, removal of wisdom teeth due to any problems is only required in twenty five to thirty percent of the population.  Only one to two percent has serious problems occur such as cysts or tumors.  In the past, ninety percent had their wisdom teeth removed preemptively, and the majority of these were unneeded, just as with tonsils and the appendix.  Wisdom teeth therefore are not vestigial, unless science wants to declare, as Darwin did, that they are vestigial only for western man from the less-evolved non-whites.  It is widely amusing that the many texts that list and declare fervently that wisdom teeth are vestigial are so ethnocentric that they do not realize they are only talking about humans with modern, industrialized diets and further seem unaware of the racist nature of their claim.

As shown below, rather than being vestigial, a more prevalent problem for Evolution is the wholesale rearrangement of our teeth.  All our teeth seem less sharper than the apes, with canines particularly blunted.  The incisors are also changed from scoop shaped to the more precise bite of humans and even the shape of the jaw changed from parabolic to U-shaped.  These changes in the jaw and teeth are only amplified by changes all over the body, but this shall be ignored for now.  What Evolutionary advantage could be had from the change in teeth and mouth shape?  What is particularly interesting is that humans eat much more meat than any apes would, so why would our teeth grow duller rather than sharper like a carnivore?

Chimpanzee Teeth Human Teeth

Another organ to be classified as vestigial is the little toe.  The reason for this is that in many primate species the feet are prehensile and serve as an extra pair of hands.  On humans however, the feet are mainly just for walking.  While our toes and little toe in specific may not seem useful, it is attached to one-fifth of the bones of the foot.  Loss of that toe would mean the loss of those bones also and thereby lessen the stability of the foot.  Those bones in particular from obvious observation are the ones that form the side of the arch of the foot and the only ones fully in contact with the ground.  The other toe-bone structures provide the arch structure and shock-absorbing ability of the foot.  The little toe and its corresponding bones provide stability.  Its presence adds a measure of balance and increased surface area for support.  The bones of the last two toes also provide the support for the arch of the foot transversely.

Furthermore as most athletes know, the fastest way to run is on the toes and forefoot.  All the toes then come close to half the surface area of foot striking the ground.  These toes also become levers to help push the foot off the ground.  Loss of the little toe means loss of some of this surface area and some of the force of leverage to move to the foot.  Moreover, the toes do retain their grasping ability, although it is seldom used by people who prefer to bend over to pick items up.  The smaller toes tend to be more useful in this function rather than the big toe, because of its size and decreased bending ability.  How many people have picked up their socks with their toes?  How then are any of these toes in the least vestigial?

Yet, the least likely of any of the vestigial structures is body hair.  It deserves to be on this list least of all and is merely the prejudice of scientists.  Humans are one of the few mammals not covered in fur or hair and there are no animals supposedly close to us in the Evolutionary scheme that do not share this covering.  Other animals without hair include:  elephants, rhinoceroses, hippopotami, armadillos, aquatic mammals, and several species of shrews, as well as human bred cats, pigs and dogs.  These are generally very large animals, subterranean or aquatic animals.  Evolutionary theory has gone to lengths to suppose how this happened as we do not fall into any of these categories.  Their theories range from the bizarre to the mundane.

The latter includes such theories that we have less hair to prevent the parasites that dwell in hair.  It seems odd, if this is the case, that only a few mammals have followed suit in this advantage, especially in tropical areas.  However, parasites seem to ignore this supposed adaptation quite well considering, before modern cleanliness movements, humans were ridden with mites, lice, fleas and other parasites and occasionally still are as the perusal of any drug store's lice shampoo section will show.  Typhus and bubonic plague were often spread by these creatures throughout known history.   Even in the present much cleaner society, how many people have had infestations of lice in their family?

Another explanation, the theory of an aquatic primate, is probably the most bizarre; despite no evidence for such an animal ever existing.  This is much like Haeckel's creation of the gastrula organism in the previous century, and it is merely science creating modern mythological creatures.  This is only asking to be wrong, yet supposedly this stage in our development was invented to explain why human bodies have little body hair, but retain hair on their heads.  The theory says our ancestors wading in the water drove Evolution.  One way it supposedly did this was to remove our body hair where it encountered the water, but retain it on the head due to it staying out of the water.  However, semi-aquatic animals often have hair.  Otters and beavers are two examples.

For the most part, only very large volume and aquatic mammals tend to have less hair.  The aquatic mammals may have less hair for the same volume reason that large mammals do, because they tend to be large.  Because they are large, their hair does not function as well to regulate heat when the animal has a high volume which causes a lower surface area ratio.  Their larger mass has less surface area to remove heat through and must have other means to regulate heat.  Most aquatic mammals tend to not only be large, but their surface area is further reduced by their similar shape and reduced or absent limb structures allowing them better travel in water. They would have the same heat problems as large volume animals like elephants do.  A small, third class of subterranean mammals tend to also not have hair for the simple reason it would hinder their movement through the ground quickly becoming caked with mud and soil.

There are however much more obvious reasons for humans possessing head hair if scientists would actually acknowledge its function for humans.  First of all, hair does help to contain heat in the human body, just as in animals.  The largest amounts of body hair coincidentally also seem to occur where the hottest external areas of the body are:  the top of the head, the armpits, and the groin.  Thirty percent of body heat alone escapes through the top of the head and the largest amount of hair occurs there.   In hot areas, thick hair tends to act as a shield against sunlight imparting heat directly to our skin, thus helping to keep the head cooler also.  Head hair occurs before or slightly after birth as well, rather than a secondary sex characteristic that grows at puberty, showing its necessity.  This large heat loss is also probably the reason why mankind invented hats to further the action of the heat regulating action of their hair and to shelter their head from additional heat in the tropics.

  The fact is that humans have as much or more hair follicles as the primates do.  It covers the human body everywhere except the palms and soles of the feet.  Much of this hair goes unnoticed because of its short, thin quality and lack of pigment, but is known by science as vellus hair.  Terminal hair is the hair that grows longer and varies in density, thickness, color, speed of growth, and curliness between people and even on location on the body.  The body also produces a third type of hair called lanugo that is only present on the fetus and people suffering from anorexia.  This hair is the precursor of vellus hair and is replaced by it.  It is longer and thicker than vellus and serves to retain heat in the body before fat layers are developed.  This can reappear with people suffering from anorexia who loose this fat layer to again help conserve heat causing them to become hirsute.

In comparison to animals, they also have three hair types:  vibrissae, underhair, and guard hair.  Vibrissae are hairs like whiskers dedicated to extending the sense of touch; underhair or down hair is their fur; and guard hair forms everything from the top layer of fur, to manes to spines on porcupines.  The guard hair also contains the majority of pigmentation of animal hair.   Actually comparing this to human hair, our guard hair would be the visible hair on the body with head hair being the equivalent of a mane.  The underhair would be most equivalent to the lanugo which humans lack outside the womb usually and the closest normally being human vellus hair.  Thus, humans do lack this type of hair except in the womb being replaced in function by a layer of fat.

However, body hair does prove to have a number of functions.  Many animals have a reflex which causes the hair to stand on end, called piloerection or more commonly goose bumps.  Evolutionists claim that this is a vestigial reflex in humans since the claim is made that this reflex has only two functions:  to fluff the fur and create a larger barrier to retain heat or to make the animal appear larger when frightened.  They then claim that we do not have a thick coat of hair, but retain this reflex and therefore must be vestigial reflex.  Piloerection also does play a role in heat regulation in humans.  The raising of body hair affects air flow over the body and retains heat.  Furthermore, these same muscles lay the hair flat when hot to increase air flow and loss of evaporation of sweat.

Most importantly, hair extends our sense of touch.  Nerves bundle around the roots of hairs, which is why they hurt to be removed.  Rather than confining the sense of touch to the limits of the skin, hair adds another external layer to this sense.  The piloerection reflex plays a part here also.  It is triggered not only when cold, but when we are frightened or have strong emotions.  This makes our hair stand on end and further extends our sense of touch when it is perhaps needed most.  Rather than making animals look larger, it perhaps plays a more subtle role that scientists have ignored in warning animals of approach by extending their sensory range.  Perhaps in defense against a common tactic of predators to attack in packs where one distracts while others attack from the side or back where the animal can not see.  This increase in sensory range caused by fluffed hair would allow a fraction of a second advance notice of an attack.  As an experiment of this, make a cat fluff its fur and touch its fur from another angle from they are looking and see their reaction.  In humans, how many injuries have been avoiding because someone moved when something touched their hair rather than their skin?  Is it also then any wonder that body hair tends to be thicker and longer on the arms, calves and sometimes the backs of hands and feet?  These extremities are the exact areas where hair would logically be denser to perform this function best as a proximity warning.

Hair also grows around various orifices to protect them from the environment by capturing larger particles that might fly into them.  The most obvious of these are the eyelashes around the eyes.  The hairs in the ear canal combined with wax and in the nose combined with mucus also help act as filters for there passages.  Even the eyebrows helps act as a barrier to keep sweat out of the eyes as the forehead is one of the higher sweat producing regions of the body.

Yet another fact that escapes modern man is the retention of pheromones, which was well known in previous ages.  In the middle ages, it was the practice then to keep a handkerchief in the armpit during dances and then wave it in front of the women, or to wipe the brow after dancing.  Victorian age women sold their handkerchiefs with their armpit sweat on it.  This also adds another dimension to Othello.  The proof of his wife's unfaithfulness is his handkerchief, his first gift to her, being used to wipe another man's forehead, which then becomes an obvious sign of preference of smell and the infidelity necessary to the story.  Relics of this knowledge occur in traditions of keeping lockets of hair and undergarments as keepsakes.

Again, the thickest hair occurring after puberty occurs in the areas where the most pheromones are released.  These pheromones are produced by the aprocrine glands, which occur in greatest quantity under the arms, on nipples, near the genitals, lips, eyelids, and outer ear.  These pheromones are broken down by bacteria to produce characteristic smells for each human, our scent.  It has long been wondered why we have so many of these glands, but little apparent reaction.  Yet, our reaction does not appear to be conscious but unconscious.  We can not smell these pheromones, but male pheromones do have an emotional effect on women and has been shown to effect ovulation.  Males also tend to have a greater number of aprocrine glands than females do.  These glands do not become functional till puberty.  Is it then any coincidence that except for the armpits, these tend to be the foremost recognized erotic zones on the body?  Hairs near these glands function to increase the surface area where the pheromones can diffuse into the air.  Is it also any coincidence that hair begins to grow thicker at puberty where the major areas of aprocrine glands are?  

Hence, human hair retains all the functions of other animals, but only the thickness is different.  Darwin and others assumed that being hairier had a causal relationship to our supposed ancestors.  After all the beasts are hairy and we are not.  The idea that hairier is more beastly is yet another very western cultural prejudice.  Our Egyptian and Grecian roots favored hairless bodies as a mark of youthfulness.  Greek statues are evidence of this while Egyptian people tended to shave theirs off.  Other cultures favor hairy male bodies as a sign of virility.  However, as everyone knows some people are very hairy.  Some people look like they wear a coat, and everyone knows someone with a thick swatch of back hair.  Again, how then can our hair be vestigial when it serves us well, and no link can be made from a supposed ancestor having less hair than ourselves, only thicker hair?

Also the existence of throwbacks or atavisms where individuals grow hair all over their bodies does not show evidence of Evolution as scientists claim in error as most cases of atavisms would seem to be.  The assumption would be that this is caused by the expression of dormant genes that do in fact create more hair in apes while not doing so in humans.  However, atavisms on the whole would seem rather than being dormant expressed genes, natural variations in organisms, mere mutations or even faults in growth that cause structures that scientists willingly interpret as being similar to a condition like that of a supposed ancestor.  An example of this assumptive nature would be a fault in the growth of the big toe called a primus metatarsus spinatus where one of the bones is inverted and elevated.  This is deemed by some to be an atavism without proof or evidence to the opposable big toe of an ape, despite the acknowledgement that it ``biomechanically dysfunctional,'' causes pain from foot to jaw, and poor posture.  With no evidence of a genetic link causing the same feature in apes and humans, it is assumed to be atavistic because they look similar.

Such is also the case with hypertrichosis or excessive body hair.  However in this case, it is merely the result of normal variation.  No new hair is created, but existing hair is merely genetically programmed to come in thicker rather than thinner.  Rather than showing a previous condition, it shows simply the far end of normal variation in humans as mentioned above.  Thus again, our hair is not a vestigial remnant, but merely thinner than our supposed ancestors, and we have in fact as many or more hair follicles than other primates.  Hypertrochosis can also occur in a temporary condition with the formation of lanugo hair mostly in anorexics, which is also present on fetuses to conserve heat when there is no fat layer which does the job better.   Thus, our ``lack of hair'' is merely hair too thin to ignore and when humans need thicker hair to conserve heat when human fat is gone, it does in fact seem to grow.

Yet another favorite on the list of vestigial tissues is the coccyx.  These are the end bones of the spine and are commonly reported that these are fused vertebrae; however the number of bones and the number that are fused varies from person to person.  It is depicted as a useless remnant of a tail by Evolutionists, even commonly called the tail-bone.  This is the sole reason why it is considered vestigial because there is no tail attached.  By this reasoning, wherever the spine ended would be considered vestigial.  What it does do is aid in sitting and support of internal organs.  The very end of the coccyx is attached to tendons and muscles that keep the anus shut.  It also aids in labor, and bowel movements.  Any bone with tendons and muscles attached to it is obviously not useless, but these bones were also mistakenly removed in the past to the discomfort of the patients.  Moreover, all the apes have similar structures, while monkeys have fully developed tails.  As in most cases, there are no transitional forms with a partial tail but a straight jump from tail to coccyx.

There are also large differences in both the coccyx and pelvis between males and females, which are not present to nearly the same degree in other primates.  The female coccyx is oriented different than males and the pelvic bones allow a larger aperture to allow for the passage of the baby during birth.  This is why coccydynia, or pain in that region, tends to occur mostly in females and was even thought in the early twentieth century to be merely a female neurosis, or hysteria, which was supported by the fact that removal of the coccyx frequently did not end their pain.  The reality is that the coccyx is generally involved in less than one percent of lower back pain.

This structure is simply not a vestigial tail.  It has definitive functions to support tendons and muscles and provides the support to the back of the pelvic floor.  This is the connective tissue that holds the lower organs in place and comprises the anal and urinary sphincters.  It is not rudimentary or a remnant of a tail and does not function as one, having little mobility except to accommodate sitting down.  It is not a vestigial remnant as it is not designed to be an external part of the body, but works to support internal organs.  If this is a vestigial structure, please find any animal with connective tissue attached to the end of its tail that closes the anus.  It further has a much larger muscle that attaches to its upper part along with other bones.  This is the gluteus maximus, which is much larger than in comparative apes while lacking the companion muscle appearing in other primates.  This muscle apparently is different to allow humans to run upright while the increased angle of the sacrum and coccyx give this muscle greater leverage.  Rather than being a non-functioning remnant of a tail, more precisely it is corresponding part of the spine that monkeys have their similar muscles and tendons attached to the same bones.  It is not vestigial at all, but the same functional part.

Much is made of the atavism of this presumed vestigial organ also, namely a protruding tail on a human.  These most commonly are false tails consisting of tissue growing from the end of the spine and most commonly from medical causes.  One of the longest of such documented tails belonged to an Indian named Chandre Oram with a thirteen inch fleshy tail caused by spina bifida.  This disease is caused by failure of the spinal cord to form properly.  It can cause the spinal cord to protrude from the spine and in a rare form can cause the surrounding tissues to protrude with it into a cyst.  Oram's tail is an example of such a cyst with no bone inside it.  This example, rather than being a vestigial tail, it is a malformation of development.  One case has been also documented of actual bones existing outside the body in a tail, but this is merely the normal range of coccyx bones with some protruding from the body rather than extra vertebrae forming a true tail.  Rather than being a true tail, these are rare flaws in development that Evolutionists choose to label as tails, but lack the extra vertebrae, muscles, and tissues required for a real tail.

Another tissue claimed to be vestigial is the plantaris muscle.  This is a small muscle behind the knee, connects via a long tendon to the ankle and is an infrequently mentioned vestige in humans.  It is absent in nine percent of the population and is said to contribute to pressing down on the foot and flexing the knee.  This is assumed to be a degenerate form of a muscle in primates that flexes the foot for grasping and extends to the bottom of the foot.  Evolutionists assume that the plantaris lost its original connection and moved to the back to the heel.  Because it is small and does not contribute much in function to move the foot and knee, it is considered vestigial.

However, it is a fact that unused muscles tend to degenerate in animals.  It is relatively small compared to the other two muscles that press down the foot and so its assistance is very minor.  In humans however, the muscle contains a high density of proprioceptive muscle spindles as many other small muscles do that are situated in groups.  These spindles are believed to provide feedback to the nervous system about the position of the associated muscles and bones and their greatest density occurs in a number of small muscles that do not seem particularly useful in moving body parts.  The plantaris muscle in particular would seem to be very important as the foot contains the second greatest amount proprioceptive receptors in the human body next to the spine.

Evolutionists instead of studying this possible function will ignore it in preference to the idea that this muscle is a vestigial remnant.  They would rather believe that this muscle grew smaller, moved position and the point of attachment from the bottom of the foot to the back of the heel.  It further lost its function to curl the foot while other muscles picked up that function to flex the toes downward.  However, this is another good case to show how unlikely these just-so stories of small changes Evolution likes to use to say transformed tissues between species.  The problem with the assumption that small changes performed these changes is that again they must occur concurrently in multiple tissues and organs.  Not only would the muscle have to change its function from one of moving part of the body, but also change the place of its attachment from being more optimal for each function.  It moves from the bones being flexed being shortened to just attaching across a joint to the back of the heel.  The tendon elongates while the muscle diminishes to amplify any action across this joint as much as increasing a lever would do.  Small steps toward this end would make it endure generations of degeneration and tendency toward malformation as it was suboptimal for either purpose in the between stages of these changes due to its being less useful and a drain on bodily resources.  While this was going on, specific muscle spindles used to determine body position as well as increased brain functions to interpret this increased data would have to develop concurrently.  Not only that but random mutations create all these fortunate changes.  Not only that, but this arrangement is mimicked in several muscle groups in the human body for this same purpose.  This on the surface seems far more like a plan rather than the assumption that a muscle acquires a new function with fortunate size, attachment points, and necessary spindles and nerves, as well as the brain being able to take use of and interpret this new sense and this aping similar groups and functions from elsewhere in the body.

Like the agenesis of the appendix, the lack of this muscle in a minority of the population is held as evidence of its vestigiality.  It is a fact that if appears to be absent from 6.6 percent of the population.  However as shown with the previous organ, agenesis is fairly common in humans and animals, and it is not the result of muscles being phased out by Evolution.  Rather it is the natural variation of muscles growing within the multitude of humanity.  Agenesis is only one feature of this variability with muscles separating, attaching to different locations, and splitting to attach at a few locations.  Ignoring all these variations, the chart below shows the lack of muscles in humans by frequency:

Muscle Agenesis in Humans

Muscle Rate Muscle Rate Muscle Rate

Auriscularis Inferior High Occipitalis Minor +44% Extensor Pollicis Brevis 6.8%

Axillary Arch 95% Levator Palpebrae Superioris +25% Plantaris 6.6%

Epitrochleoanconeus 76% Flexor Digitorum Brevis 21% Teres Minor 4%

Transversalis Pedis Casserii 67% Palmaris Longus 11.2%   Extensor Pollicis Longus 1.5%

Psoas Minor 56% Peroneus Tertius 10% Quadratus Femors 1%

As shown, the plantaris, like the appendix is rather low on the list of agenesis and its rare disappearance does not connote vestigiality.  

Another vestigial tissue commonly brought up as evidence is the semilunar fold that Darwin mentioned first.  This is the tissue in the corner of the human eyes.  Darwin assumed this to be the remnants of a nictitating eyelid common in many types of animals from sharks to beavers, again rather than a direct chain of supposed ancestors, since only one primate species has a nictitating membrane.  This third eyelid protects these animals' eyes and acts to keep the eye clean.  However, like with the appendix, Darwin is comparing our structures to diverse organisms in order to create an analogous structure.  This structure does not act or resemble the structure which it is presumed to be vestigial from, but rather in humans, it has its own functions and belongs to an entirely different system of the body.

In other animals, the nictitating membrane varies between the larger groups.  For the most part, this is a transparent membrane that both sweeps the eye clear of debris and protects it from currents of air or water when moving quickly or when encountering things like prey or feeding that could harm the eyes.  While boney fishes have no eyelids, some sharks have eyelids that can not move, some have none like the great white shark, and some have a nictitating membrane closing from the bottom.  The nictitating membrane skips over boney fishes to reappear in amphibians.  They have the first workable eyelids and the nictitating membrane appears to protect the eye when underwater.  Turtles, lizards and crocodilians possess a nictitating membrane while snakes lack one which have only two fused eyelids in a clear membrane over the eye.  In birds, it sweeps outward from the inner corner of the eye with a cartilage blade that wipes the eye clean of debris into the nasal ducts.  They also have two muscles that are unique to moving the nictitating membrane:  the quadratus and pramidalis muscles.  These muscles wrap tightly around the eye from its back due to the large size of the avian eye and the eye's lack of movement.  Birds can actively use their third eyelid, while in mammals, it is activated by passive reflexes.  The nictitating membrane is stiffened by a plate of cartilage molded to the shape of their eye in mammals and rabbits, an animal closely related to primates.  The muscle involved in its movement is called the retractor bulbi which curves around to the back of the eye.  The nictitating membrane in most vertebrates is accompanied by a specific gland called the haderian gland which often provides the majority of tears to the eye.      

However, humans lack this movable membrane, the muscles that move it, the gland that accompanies it, and generally have no cartilage in what is supposed to be its remnant.  On the other hand, the semilunar appears to be a simple fold in the conjunctiva that covers the eye, rather than a specialized lid.  Like the conjunctiva it seems to be part of the lymphatic system and has been discovered to produce a large number of immune cells, which are presumed to help protect the eye.  It's most obvious functions are purely mechanical ones to act as an outlet for the ducts of the tear glands and to act as a seal to prevent foreign bodies from sliding into the side of the eye.  One could imagine the rubber flap at the bottom of a car window that keeps things from sliding inside the car door as the windows are slid down.  As the eye moves in the most typical direction to remove debris that is felt to be in the eye it hits the semilunar plica and is directed out of the eye.  Now add lubricant of tears coming out from the attached lachrymal ducts and one can see the obvious purpose of this structure.  It is not a movable structure like eyelids, but a stationary bumper that does quite a different thing.  Considering the fact that of all the primates, only one single species of prosimian, the calabar angwantibo, has a functional nictitating membrane; it too is not a remnant of something else with decreased function, but a mere fold in a normal part of the eye with quite different functions.

An organ in many vertebrates, the vomeronasal organ, is also rarely listed as a vestigial organ.  The organ in the nose is thought to be used intermittently to sense some pheromones and other odors and may influence mating behavior in many animals being used to sense specific chemicals in vary low concentrations.  In carnivores, ungulates, insectivores, and new world monkeys these organs are located in sacs with ducts called the nasopalatine canal opening in small slits behind the upper incisors.  Some of these animals, especially felines, use a particular grimace to allow the ducts to open and the animal to inhale odors.  In rodents, rabbits, and humans, this organ is located in the nose and opens onto the floor of the nasal cavity.  This organ is lacking in fish, cetaceans (whales), sirenians (manatees), birds, and crocodilians.  In humans, it has an enhanced presence in the embryo, but appears to recede, as other structures grow around it.  It is further thought to have loss function both in itself, its genes, and its connecting nerves to the brain.  However it must be noted that the actual processing of pheromones is still a subject of little knowledge as physiological effects are known, such as increasing heart rates, emotional reactions, and even the effect of women living together having their periods coincide.  What further complicates this, like the appendix is that this organ does not seem to be present in adult old world monkeys or apes from which humans evolved from.  How can an appearing organ be considered vestigial when it is not present in our supposed ancestors?

The most absurd additions to the list of vestigial organs are those not `functional' in one sex, but functional in another.  The most commonly mentioned of these are the male nipples.  It should have been obvious to any anatomy student that all reproductive organs are the same in both sexes and merely develop differently due to hormonal activity.  The same tissue produces the mammary glands in male and female.  For nipples to be removed from males would mean their removal in females as well.  What is more important is that they are in fact functional in males, but merely lack the hormonal trigger to activate them.  Males have been known to lactate when this trigger is inadvertently added by taking hormones or similar chemicals.  It should be noted that they are not functional in females either, until hormonal changes after pregnancy activate them.  This also entirely ignores the fact that they remain an erogenous zone for both sexes.  Thus, they are not really non-functional at all, but merely dormant in both genders until needed in the female.

A similar and even more absurd is the suggestion by people such as Stephen Jay Gould that the clitoris on females is vestigial and is merely an undeveloped penis.  Moreover, they contend the female orgasm is a non-useful remnant from its origins from the male penis.  This again on the surface is merely scientist's prejudice rather than based on evidence.  Current science thinks that the clitoris and the orgasm it inspires cause the female to retain much more sperm than without an orgasm.  It, like male nipples, is not vestigial at all and even less so since it is entirely active.  Most would hardly feel their clitoris or orgasm is a vestigial remnant.  This entire class of vestigial organs harkens back to Erasmus Darwin and his errant belief that both sexes originated as one.  As even Evolutionists do not presume this occurred in the past of any mammals, none of these structures could therefore be vestigial from any mammalian ancestor.

Last on the list of human vestigial organs, ear muscles may not play a vital role, may be insignificant, and as far as it is known now can even be said to be entirely useless.  However of all the vestigial organs once thought to be in the human body, ear muscles are perhaps the only ones truly on the list as having little purpose or virtually useless.  In some animals, these muscles are used to move the ears in the direction of sound.  Yet it is conceivable that humans do not learn to control these muscles to the same effect as their range of head movement and the possession of hands are more effective.  It is far more effective with hands to cup one to an ear to gather sound rather than a slight movement of the ear toward the sound, but this nonuse of a functional muscle group does not mean they are vestigial in the least.  Thus from hundreds of organs in the human body, the list is down to possibly one set of small muscles, which are merely unused as humans have a better option.  No other human organs can be remotely classified as vestigial.  They do not exist in the human body.

Yet failing this, people strive to list vestigial organs in other animals, but again make assumptions as to what are leftover organs and structures.  Again these can usually shown to not only have uses, but are unlikely candidates from being leftover from a supposed Evolutionary process.  They show the same failures and assumptions already shown with human organs.  Organs are compared to organisms in general rather than in those in supposed direct line of descent like happened with the human appendix.  Other functions present in these organs are ignored in ancestors for favored functions like with human hair.  Racial differences can be assumed to cause ``vestigiality'' rather than something not working as well like with human wisdom teeth, and organs that are not really comparative in form or function can be labeled vestigial such as the semilunar fold or plantaris muscle.

One other class can be added to these:  malformed organs.  The first set of malformed organs includes those that are atrophied organs or more rarely organs that have mutated so that they are dysfunctional.  In any organism if organs are not used, then they will not develop correctly and become atrophied.  Commonly known examples are humans that are confined to bed due to a coma.  They rapidly lose the use of their muscles and these tissues become atrophied, reducing in size and functionality.  They draw less blood from the body and thus absorb fewer nutrients.  If such a person wakes up they have to go through therapy to regain use of these limbs even after a few weeks of non-use.  Similar things happen to astronauts in space.  The lack of gravity can cause a person to lose up to thirty percent of their skeletal muscle mass in as little as eleven days, because they are no longer being used to support weight.  These muscles are not vestigial, but merely an apparently natural function that does not devote resources to tissues that are not being used.  During the development of an organism, this can be devastating to tissues if they are not being used, and can affect its development into a functional tissue.  Even the chloroplasts within plant cells will not develop in the absence of light.  Many examples of this can be shown that development of an organism depends on use of the tissue in question, environmental interactions, materials supplied by the environment, and even proper space requirements.

The most numerous examples of these listed as vestigial organs are the atrophied eyes in organisms that develop in darkness.  These include many animals that dwell in caves, rivers and in the earth.  Caves produce the most abundance of animals with atrophied eyes.  These include various types of cave fish, salamanders, spiders, and crayfish.  Moles and mole rats that spend a lot of time underground can also develop atrophied eyes.  Even animals in murky rivers that produce near darkness can produce atrophied eyes such as some river dolphins.  Yet are these examples really examples of Evolution or merely organs that failed to develop without proper stimulus.  It should be explored to see if these animals and their descendents would develop normal eyes if raised in lighted environment rather than assume they are genetically produced.

Regardless, atrophied organs are not necessarily any evidence for Evolution.  They are often the individual animal's natural growth or decline in an environment, but are not necessarily a genetic change.  It can simply be acclimatization.  Enhanced growth can also occur due to environment.  Humans in high altitudes with lower atmospheric pressure acclimatize by increasing the size of their lungs, making more red blood cells, enzymatic changes, and other tissue growth to facilitate intake of oxygen.  Humans acclimatize to space by reducing muscle tissue including the heart and bone tissue as mentioned previously.  Acclimatization can often be quite rapid.  When in darkness for a few hours, we are frequently blinded when going into daylight.  These changes can again be much more severe for animals raised in extreme environments.

In fact, the entire idea of vestigial structures is a remnant of Lamarckism where useless organs atrophy and disappear from the race.  They do not seem to realize they are offering evidence for Lamarck's theory and not Darwin's.  Organs will atrophy if not used.  However, this process is not passed down to their descendants as the process of becoming atrophied does not affect the genetic code.  Use and disuse do not affect Evolution.  Most Evolutionists will scream Lamarck's theory is false from the rooftops, yet they hold on to the idea of vestigial organs fiercely.

However, mutations can also possibly occur which cause the destruction of tissues or cause them to become malformed.  Insects have been known to have mutations which cause their wings and antennae to form legs in their place.  Additional structures also appear at times, like extra digits on humans or malformed limbs.  Some beetles are known to have their wing cases fused so that they can not use their fully formed wings underneath.  These mutations are generally harmful to the creature and usually hamper their ability to survive.  However, in an environment where an organ is not used at all then this mutation does not harm the creature and can easily be passed down to the next generation.  This leads to degenerate forms of organs, but not necessarily a new species.  The most common degenerate organs are perhaps sensory organs that can become atrophied and then degenerate when there is no sensation to receive, such as eyes in darkness.  Atrophied organs due to the environment are not evidence of Evolution but acclimatization. When accompanied by mutations that enhance the atrophied nature of such organs making it permanent for future generations, then it becomes evolution.  However in no case it is evidence for common descent.  These changes caused by small extreme environments that literally reduce fitness and impair the forming race from the normal in their parent species.  This continues to show the reductive nature of evolution which will be touched on later.

Scientists also bring out more traditional examples of supposed Evolutionary remnants in a few animals as well.  Three examples are the most commonly listed.  These include the wings on flightless birds, pelvic and leg bones in whales, and pelvic bones in some snakes.  The flightless birds include ostriches, cassowaries, and kiwis and are believed to have remnant wings.  They fall into two groups, the ratites, and settlers of islands that devolve into flightless forms from flying birds.  The ratite's limbs are generally used for balance while running and to make the creature look larger by fanning them out during attack or defense.  That wings are specifically to be used for flying implies design.  On the same token, the ratites seem to have a host of features designed for being grounded.  Most have smaller bones in their wings, lack the wishbone and the defined keel in their breastbone that serves as a as the attachment point for muscles to make powerful wings strokes in flying birds, tend toward a larger size, and even their feathers are shaped differently.  That these features occur together in these birds concurrently seems odd.  This group is classed together as paleognathae or old jaws.  This is based on skeletal similarities of the bones of their palate.  They are seen as the ancestors of modern birds, even though it is generally conceded that these birds are derived from flying birds.  This is similar problematic for classification as its unknown how all these birds fit together and their relationships to each other.  Some believed they evolved separately while others contend they descended from one line.  Before continental drift was acknowledged, the previous view dominated.

Then there are the flightless birds that are variants of flying birds that have been confined to islands.  One example is the dodo which is believed to be a descendent of pigeons and looks like a young pigeon.  It is believed that flightless birds originate from a neoteny of the species they originated from.  Neoteny is the slowing down of maturation by the environment or a mutation that allows an immature state to persist while the animals become sexually mature.  If this is the case, then the wings are not remnants, but merely an inhibited form of maturity.  Scientists believe that the lack of predators spurred the lack of flight in these birds.  They often seek to apply this to all ratites despite the fact that some of these birds tend to be very large and powerful.  These include the ostrich and the prehistoric phororachids, which were birds up to nine feet tall.  Rather than lacking a predator, in fact, it is also thought to be the dominant predator in South America during the Pliocene era.  The ostrich is the fastest living animal on two legs and can kill a man with a single kick.    

Another commonly listed vestigial tissue is the pelvic and leg bones of whales.  The so-called pelvis when it occurs is a piece of bone that is not attached to the backbone, unlike other mammals.  The so-called ``leg bone'' is typically a lump of bone attached to the first bone, with only the right whale sometimes having a separate piece of bone which is labeled its femur.  It seems reaching to call a nodule of bone on another bone a remnant of a leg bone when it is not detached and has none of the connective tissue associated with such bones.  The so called pelvis does often have muscles attached to them that control the penis.  As stated before, no bone with muscle attached to it is useless, and retracting your genitals from cold water seems to be an important function.

Some snakes such as the python also have small bones which are labeled their pelvis.  Pythons sometimes also have spurs in that region also which are described as the remnants of leg bones.  The fact that they are better developed in the male again may point to their role in reproduction.  So they may in fact like whales be very useful bones that science labels pelvic and leg bones, rather than small genital bones suited to their purpose.

Even in plants, scientists seek to find vestigial structures.  Much like human sexual organs, Evolutionists seek to say that male and female parts in flowers are vestigial.  Male stamens in female plants and female pistils in male plants are declared to be remnants.  One might suspect that their removal would remove it from both sexes, just as in humans.  Sexual organs on some asexual flowers such as dandelions are also called into question.  However, these undoubtedly draw animals to them that their seeds cling to and are spread further than if they did not have their sexual organs.  How many humans spread dandelion seeds due to attraction to their flowering parts?  Again these seem unlikely as vestiges, but highly developed organs designed to spread their seeds as effectively as sexual flowers do.  Rather than being a remnant, it fulfills the same function as in a sexual flower.

Yet the evidence shows that where Evolution says organs should be appearing and falling into disuse, any examples of such are few and far between.  The number of organs that can be said to have no use in any single animal is remote and arguable at best.  Scientists even have to go to great lengths to interpret systems to find and continue to use such tissues and organs.  The number of tissues said to be degenerate forms of those tissues in its assumed ancestors generally fails in comparison to organisms from which the organism is not descended.  Rather, they have to compare such tissues to organisms from which it was not directly descended.  Such is the case with the appendix in human where monkeys do not possess an appendix and so it must be either compared to the appendix in other animals or combined with the caecum as an artificial unit, even though one can not escape the fact that half this unit is missing in monkeys.  From one hundred and eighty organs just in the human body down to a handful of arguable organs seems, beyond a question of a doubt, a great collapse of evidence.  There are no such organs in human beings.  Thus not only does the evidence now offer no support for Evolution theory, but the overwhelming lack of such organs that should be riddled throughout animals is in fact support against the theory that says they should exist.  This is a failed prediction of Evolution.  Worse, the theory of Evolution not only stifled research into these organs and tissues in their assumption that they are useless relics, but have prompted their unnecessary removal from individuals sometimes resulting in pain, discomfort, and even death.  Even accepting the sparse number of organs with present claim to being vestigial, this seems trivial to the amount of tissues that should be present with arising and declining organs necessary to explain their presence to begin with.  The lack of these organs shows there is no natural method for complex organs to arise.

At the same time the once mighty list of vestigial organs began to dwindle, the move was on to integrate Darwinist theory and genetics.  Since vestigial organs proved on the whole not to exist, the idea of vestigial organs was pushed down to the genetic level, and the idea of vestigial genes was formed.  Since vestigial organs could not be found, there must be many vestigial genes lingering in the genetic code.  Since the human genome was not mapped till recently, it is impossible to know whether this is true or not.  

Yet, scientists are already making assumptions, again with little proof.  Around two percent of the human genome is responsible for protein coding.  Forty percent is made up of retrotransposons, which replicate themselves by coding into RNA and then back into DNA.  Sixteen percent is classified as pseudogenes or LINES, genes that lack separating and control elements.  Eleven percent is made up of SINES, which are shorter versions of pseudogenes.  Both LINES and SINES are encoded from RNA.  Scientists are already claiming that this sixty-seven percent of the latter two categories or more is essentially junk DNA, vestiges left over from our Evolutionary ancestors.

However, transposons are known to be responsible for mutations and can change or alter genes.  They are known to be responsible for allowing bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics.  However, all three of these elements of DNA have been labeled ``junk'' DNA as it has no known use, and ``selfish'' DNA as their only known function to make copies of themselves. Our understanding of genetics is just beginning however, just as our understanding of anatomy was just beginning in Darwin's time.  They mislabeled hundreds of human vital organs as vestigial simply because they did not yet then understand their function.  Doctors killed hundreds of people by removing these so-called `vestigial' organs.  It is a certainty that today's scientists are labeling as useless parts of human genetic structure just as they did with human anatomy a hundred years ago in their ignorance.

Time should prove that assumption of vestigial genes and junk DNA false if Evolution is false and if this prediction of Evolution is true, then support for that theory would be enhanced.  However, the evidence has already started to show this prediction of evolution to be wrong in a mere couple of years.  There have been multiple finds against the original assumption.  Additional genes have been found in junk DNA that physically block formation of RNA of adjacent genes.  Junk DNA has been found to regulate genes during the formation of the organism.  Junk DNA can serve to enhance the formation of RNA of nearby genes.  Junk DNA can silence the suppression of formation of RNA of nearby genes.  Junk DNA has been shown to regulate translation of proteins.  This leftover majority of DNA is already showing uses in the beginning of this science.  Again, it should wait a few more years before falling into an opinion based on Evolution.

Hence, vestigial organs are an idea that has slowly faded or at least it should, yet textbooks supporting Evolution continue to list vestigial organs as support.  They proudly present the last few organs in animals that have little use, yet fail to mention the hundreds that medicine has found uses for and severe decline in evidence.  They also downplay or omit the uses that these organs have as proven by studies.  

In most cases, science today has given up on the positive side of vestigial organs or nascent organs altogether.  There are no organs at all that have no function that may have a future function.  Where are the arising organs predicted by evolution?  Where are the organs in animals now that have unnecessary functions?  Nowhere are they found and this prediction so necessary to postulate the origin of organs fails.    This failure further casts a shadow on its companion, vestigial organs.  If one does not exist at all, then the few tissues that remaining that are portrayed as vestigial appear even more contrived.  This is due to the reductive nature of microevolution which will be discussed in the next chapter.

All concentration is therefore placed on reductive vestigial organs or those which supposedly existed in ancestors, but are lost in the species in question.  There are a sparse number of examples of organs within a species that are no longer used due to being dysfunctional or degenerate by mutation.  As said before, this meager number of vestigial organs is not a support for the theory since organisms should be full of vestigial organs, which are not present, and again, this absence is evidence against Evolution.  No new organs forming means there is no reason to suppose new organs ever formed and the lack of these is also evidence against Evolution.  Vestigial organs are merely the vestige of an old science that should have long since moved past the idea.

III. Embryology

The next great original proof of Evolution comes from embryology and must be examined next.  In the nineteenth century, Karl Ernst van Baer did major work in the fields of biology, anthropology, ecology, and comparative anatomy.  He also began the science of embryology by studying the embryonic development of several species.  He disproved the popular theory of preformation, which believed that an embryo contained a complete adult organism that only increased in size, and presented his theory of epigenesis, where organisms form from an undifferentiated mass to diversify and grow into a creature like the adult.  In 1826, he formulated the four laws of embryology named after him.  These stated that life starts undifferentiated, forms the most general characteristics of the adult first, and then more and more specific characteristics in succession.  The early states of all species appear alike due to being undeveloped but separate as they begin to form features, and the embryo never resembles the adult of any form, but increasingly comes to resemble and develop into its own adult form.

Louis Agassiz however came along in 1851, as stated in the last chapter, to publish his beliefs that fossil age, embryology, classification and geographic distribution all corresponded in relationship from less to more complex.  While Agassiz believed in the fixity of species, he set the stage for Evolution by arranging three great fields according to his idea of complexity.  As Darwin himself stated:

Agassiz insists that ancient animals resemble to a certain extent the embryos of recent animals of the same classes; or that the geological succession of extinct forms is in some degree parallel to the embryological development of recent forms.  I must follow Pictet and Huxley in thinking that the truth of this doctrine is very far from proved. Yet I fully expect to see if hereafter confirmed, at least in regard to subordinate groups, which have branched off from each other within comparatively recent times.  For this doctrine of Agassiz accords well with the theory of natural selection.

Agassiz went further as recorded by Darwin and believed that each type of embryo showed the features of their less developed predecessors.  He used this belief to classify organisms within his fossil hierarchy.  Later, Darwin used these beliefs and expanded on them in On the Origin of Species.  He believed that all differentiation between species occurred while the members of the species aged.  Some retained their similarity even after birth and the more closely two species are related the later in their development, their ontology, they will differentiate.

After Ernst Haeckel read Darwin in 1858, his life changed.  As previously stated, he abandoned his profession as a physician and devoted himself to Evolution.  In this new theory, he found the key to the German philosophies of Hegel and Goethe.  He believed that the progressive perfection of the universe could be expressed by Evolution and this is what he sought to achieve.  He committed himself to working in the fields of embryology and classification between 1858 and 1866, performing the founding work on invertebrates.  In 1868, he published a work that drew support for the theory of Evolution, expanded on Agassiz's theories, and tried to prove them.  In this, he formulated three laws.  His biogenic law stated that as the embryo grew in its development went through stages that its species went through in the Evolutionary process, the phylogeny, in opposition to von Baer's laws.  This was Haeckel's law of recapitulation.  He came up with the phrase: ``ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,'' and this became the more forceful form of the second proof of Evolution.  He further added the law of correspondence, which stated that each stage in the embryo corresponded to the adult form of that stage, and the law of truncation, which stated that with each stage added the embryo's ontogeny became faster to explain why the time of gestation did not increase with each additional stage.

Haeckel published drawings showing how various animals went through the same stages in their embryological formation.  Humans went through invertebrate, fish, animal, and finally human stages.  He renamed the pharyngeal arches of vertebraes that were discovered in 1817 as gill slits.  In fish, similar structures did become gills, but in mammals they were known to form the jaw and ear.  This was to prove that humans went through a fish stage.  Haeckel also observed how the end of the human spine grows faster than the body of the embryo and sticks out of its body for a time.  This he named a human tail and described this period as its primate stage.

Haeckel adopted the theory of Evolution early and became its ardent supporter.  The reason for this, like others at the time, was it offered a logical alternative to a Christian worldview.  It allowed him justification for not believing in Christianity with all the authority of science behind it.  However, his enthusiasm for the theory made him alter his drawings to better provide evidence in an effort to support it.  He also chose a more Lamarckian viewpoint for its progressive overtones, and believed that the environment acted directly on organisms, developing them cumulatively.  Since all higher embryos begin by enfolding to form the gastrula, which later forms the digestive track, Haeckel postulated from his theory in reverse that all organisms developed from a hypothetical organism he called a ``gastraea'' that would be the common ancestor of all life.   Haeckel also grouped together a new family of animals which he called protista, consisting of one celled organisms.  As with the gastraea, he proposed another hypothetical organism, which he called the monera.  This would be the earliest form of life, consisting of mere blob of protoplasm without a nucleus.  He further imagined a number of characteristics for this primordial cell.  He devised that it would originate by spontaneous generation from chemicals in slimes on the bottom of the ocean floor and replicate by dividing.  Huxley even attempted to find such slime.

However, this was disproved by the voyage of the H.M.S Challenger on its trip which started in 1872.  One of the goals of this trip was to find this organism and Huxley did indeed seem to find a white slime that formed in specimen bottles from samples of the ocean floor.  Yet the white slime was found to be merely the precipitate of calcium in the alcohol used to preserve these specimens.  This again shows the over enthusiasm shown by supporters of evolution in the race to prove their theory in their willingness to show evidence before scientifically studied.  This mistake will again and again appear in the history of the theory.

Even in his own time, it was known Haeckel illustrated his works and was rightly accused of altering drawing of embryos to support his theory by his nemesis, Wilhelm His.  His was the father of histogenesis, the study of the origins of animal tissues.  He proposed correctly that tissues developed by folding, such as the branchial slits, being caused by uneven growth.  Haeckel edited his drawings doing such things as removing the limb buds and yolk sacs off embryos to make them look more like fish.  His embryological theories were wrong.  Further studies revealed that embryos did not recapitulate the previous stages of their Evolution.  Genetics would later show that this was impossible.  Embryos are coded to develop into their adult form directly.  Thus like vestigial organs the seemingly strong evidence brought about by ignorance in the first case and fraud in the second has collapsed.  Even the previous evidence of Agassiz is extremely marred by being arranged according to preconceived ideas of complexity.  Evidence arranged artificially by complexity can not show such Evolution of complexity occurring naturally.  However to keep embryology as evidence, scientists try to exaggerate embryonic similarities even now.

Even those who acknowledge that there are great differences in the early stages of life, then go on to claim that there is a phylotypic stage in which all vertebraes converge into

Zygote To Morula

Tunicates Lancelets Fish Amphibian Bird Mammal

Cleavage Holoblastic Meroblastic Holoblastic Meroblastic Holoblastic

Bilateral Radial Discoidal Bilateral Discoidal Rotational



Phylotypic Stage

Haeckel's Drawings

X

            Evolution   ?

similarity and have  several similar features:  a notochord, a dorsal nerve cord, the pharyngeal arches, and blocks of muscle called somites.  Embryos are said to be the most alike during this stage.  This goes against the prediction of evolution that the greatest period of similarity should be the earliest when all embryos develop from a single cell, but even then there are great differences.  Contrary to Evolutionary theory, this similarity supposedly happens later.  Strangely birds, reptiles, and fish divide to form a yolk side and a side with cells, while mammals and amphibians form a more unified cell mass.  Strange that mammals and amphibians are more alike at this stage than the other three when amphibians are supposed to be transition between fish and reptiles.  However as shown by the examples in the above chart, these animals do not appear similar during this stage besides even the great differences in size.  This is obvious to anyone from just looking at the examples above.  Embryos from different classes of organisms do not look alike.  Only by classifying and reducing these organisms to base structures can they bare any resemblance.

Much is also made of the fact that all embryos use enfolding as a means to form structures, such as the common appearance of the pharyngeal arches on the neck region of vertebrates which develop into parts of the skull, neck, and face.  The supposed enfolding of the branchial arches on vertebrate embryos seems to be of particular interest.  This is because the myth of Haeckel's preservation of the gill slits in these embryos continues.  The previously named branchial arches have been renamed pharyngeal arches as the higher vertebrates do not all form branchia or structures that produce respiration.  These are the ``gill slits'' of Haeckel and so must be preserved as evidence for the theory so evolutionists ask why varied animals would develop these similar slits in their ontology.  Their explanation is that these arches are the remnants of forming gills from fish and take on other uses in higher vertebrates.  First, all major structures are formed in embryos by such enfolding of tissues.  Secondly, all these animals have skulls and faces would seem to preclude any astonishment that they developed in a similar manner.  The same observation could be made that a common spine comes from a common notochord or a common spinal cord comes from a common dorsal nerve.  However, as shown in the following chart there is no clear progression of evolution of these structures and much evidence that seems to show they vary widely among groups and even species.  Rather than a steady progression between groups, structures jump groups and appear in various forms within groups.  Amphibians, which pose the intermediate phase between fish and reptile forms, show many problems with the traditional evolutionary paradigm.  Instead of the logical transition from fish to reptile as evolution would presume if correct, they form instead yet another problem.

        

     Artery    Nerve Cartilage

Lamprey pouches form sequentially, eventually forms 7

Shark gills form fairly simultaneously 5-7

TAIL

APOPTOSIS

A so called proof of the presumed loss of the tail is the massive cell death that occurs in the tail that causes its decrease.  This would seemingly be proof of the obsolescence of this feature, until one examines the process and the method of this cell death.  This cell death is called apoptosis and is programmed to occur.  Moreover, it is a normal and extensive process in animals that is only recently being studied being first named in 1972.  Surprisingly, all cells in animals apparently are programmed to die in an orderly fashion and in fact chemical signals are generated by the cell and the body in general to inhibit this function from occurring.  This process causes the DNA to fragment preventing replication.  Its nuclear structure and the cell fluids shrink, and then the cell separate into smaller sections.  Its membrane changes to both signal and allow easy engulfment of macrophages in the body for digestion, called phagocytosis.  Mutations preventing this from occurring are the cause of cancer, and each individual is in a state of equilibrium between cell growth and apoptosis that keeps the organism healthy.  Old cells appear to be engineered to die off when its DNA is damaged among other factors.  When there is more cell growth than apoptosis, this is causes tumors.  When there is more apoptosis than growth, this causes wasting of the individual.  Moreover, this is distinct from non-programmed cell death, called necrosis, as it does not release harmful enzymes into the surrounding areas, which cause inflammation.  Rather, apoptosis allows cell contents to be reused by the body.

In the embryo, apoptosis occurs on massive scales, just as it does in the adult organism.  The difference in the embryo is that this process is used to shape organs and structures rather than to maintain body tissues.

 

So this is the current strategy of Evolutionist to compare basic structures to perpetuate this as evidence.  The claim is made that newest Evolutionary features arise last and older features arise first.  As examples, the cerebellum of humans is proposed as on such latter feature and the notochord is proposed as an early feature.  This is oversimplification at best and highlights chosen features as well.  An example is that lungs develop rather late in humans as well as eyes.   The excuse is made that this is not an absolute function.  If it is only partial evidence, it seems to be more contrived than evidence.

Lastly, Evolutionists seek to perpetuate and combine the idea of vestigial organs and recapitulation down to the embryonic level.  After all if one bad idea will not work, combine it with another.  These are in general structures which they claim appear and then disappear.  They list the tail and gills of humans, which have already been covered.  Our gills are not gills at all, and our tail is merely the end of the spine which grows faster and pokes out of the slower growing embryo for a time.  Other animals claimed to have these features are the beginning of teeth in some baleen whale embryos, which are later absorbed back into the jaw.  The fact that the baleen plates apparently grow over these small nubs of bone leads one to make the common assumption that they possibly aid in the development of these structures.  Two bad ideas just do not make sense.

Thus, the evidence, both in von Bear's and in modern times, suggests that embryos do not recapitulate at all, but only grow and form the structures of the adult and do not go through any additive process like recapitulation.  Thus the second support for Evolution has fallen to the dust.  However, most textbooks erroneously continue to list this as evidence.  Like the idea of vestigial organs, Haeckel's fraudulent drawings are still presented to the world as evidence.  What is deceptive about this is the continued use of illustrations rather than photographs of embryos.  The reason why can only be a blatant attempt to deceive students and the populace as photographs would show these differences even to the naked and untrained eye.  

IV. Fossil Record

The third line of evidence came from the fossil record.  In Darwin's time, the fossil record showed that there were many animals which once populated the earth that have since went extinct.  Darwin hoped that once science had found more numerous examples of fossils that it would show missing links between different species.  The evidence showed that a great number of species appear suddenly in the fossil record, with no transitional fossils from supposed ancestors.  Each strata contained distinct organisms, which did not show signs of slow change.  Darwin insisted on revising the then current interpretation of fossils against the beliefs of the experts to fit his theory.  Since they did not show transitional forms, he believed that they perhaps originated elsewhere in other parts of the world and their descendents migrated to new areas.  As Darwin himself stated:

We see this in the plainest manner by the fact that all the most eminent palaeontologists namely Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande, Falconer, E. Forbes, &c., and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, &c., have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of species . . . I look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries.  Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines.  Each word of the slowly-changing language, in which the history is supposed to be written, being more or less different in the interrupted succession of chapters, may represent the apparently abruptly changed forms of life, entombed in our consecutive, but widely separated formations.  On this view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear.

Thus, he argued that the lack of fossil transitional forms necessary to prove his theory was due to the imperfection of the geologic record and to the brevity of actual area explored.  His hope then arose that with larger portions of the globe being explored those transitional fossils would emerge.

Since Darwin, almost one hundred and fifty years and numerous digs later, transitional fossils have far and wide not been found.  This is so much the case that alternative theories of Evolution have been postulated to account for this lack of evidence.  One of these is called punctuated equilibrium. This theory states that instead of a gradual Evolution of species, species can jump forward very quickly to originate new species on the periphery of the old species.  This idea assumes Evolution to be correct and only tries to cover the lack of evidence in the fossil record.  The necessity of this invention is admitted by Gould to explain the lack of fossil evidence of common ancestors between species, although he claims those between major groups are well documented.  This statement however too can be put into doubt.

The finding of such fossils can be particularly problematic.  This is because bones within a species can vary greatly.  This is true just from observation of our own species.  First they can vary greatly in size.  Human skeletons also vary greatly in size over time.  Average size can vary as much as twenty percent and seems to vary with diet and health.  Males and female skeletons can vary up to eight percent in size on average.  Extreme examples can vary as much as sixty eight percent shorter or fifty five percent taller.   Human brain capacity can vary as much as a hundred percent from 1000 cc to 2000 cc for adult males.  Such differences are common within species.  Many animals have large and miniature breeds.  One can see the differences between toy dogs and Labradors or miniature horses and Clydesdales.  

Animals also can vary in structure within a species.  Arabian horses have one less rib set than the majority of breeds.  The human coccyx can vary between individuals greatly.  In different people, some of those five bones are missing, some are partially fused, and in others totally fused.  Differences between sexes also exist.  Males are generally larger and have great differences in their pelvises.  Humans also may also have an extra pair of ribs or extra vertebraes.  In total, adult humans can have between 200 and 210 bones in their body.  Human teeth alone show great variability and may be inherited traits.  If a tooth is missing, its counterpart also tends to be missing.  The human third molars can be missing in twenty percent of the population.  The second premolars are absent in 3.4 percent of the population and the top outside incisors are missing in 2.25 percent.  Then natural wear and tear can also affect the shape, size, and number of teeth     This can have major impact on a science that enumerates species based on the number of teeth a fossil has.

If one can imagine finding an unknown species with these apparently normal variations in size and structures, then the difficulties in portraying such a species accurately becomes apparent.  Fossils with very marginal differences, but still within the same species would be classified as something different.  Moreover, there is the tendency to name the same animal in another strata layer as another species and small differences within that species can warrant it being labeled as a new species also, as inherited from Agassiz and D'Orbigny.  This was even acknowledged by Darwin himself during his lifetime.  As he wrote in the Origin of Species:

It is notorious on what excessively slight differences many palaeontologists have founded their species; and they do this the more readily if specimens come from different sub-stages of the same formation.  Some experienced conchologists are now sinking many of the very fine species of D'Orbigny and others into the rank of varieties



Thus, there is intentional blurring of what constitutes a species within paleontology ignoring the known remarkable differences within species.

It should also be considered the great range of variation within known and existent species in the larger groups.  Major groups seem to fill every environment and many resemble creatures in that environment.  Fish-like mammals exist in dolphins and whales.  Many forms of marsupials resemble placental counterparts.  These include the flying phalanger, similar to a flying squirrel; the Tasmanian devil, which resembles a badger; a wombat, similar to a ground hog; and marsupial versions of mice, moles, wolves, and anteaters.  A similar range could occur in groups other than mammals, which would further confuse any attempt at finding transitional forms.  There have been reptile-like fish, bird-like reptile, reptile-like birds and fish-like reptile, and these could easily be confused as transitional forms if the desire to see them as such existed.

Next, it should be considered that fossils within a strata layer are only representative of animals that have died and quickly preserved by burying in sediments.  This usually occurs with the creature dying and being buried within water, and more rarely with covering by volcanic ash or even tree sap.  They must be covered before they decay leaving either their bones or holes where their bones were.  These are then replaced or filled with minerals dissolved from above.  The most common fossils are shelled sea life, which explains why most index fossils consist of these.  Land animals generally must die in water and become buried quickly by sediment.  It is optimal if this occurs in water that is low in oxygen and bacteria.  The result of this is that generally fossils represent those animals which die in unfortunate circumstances:  floods, volcanic eruptions, swallowing by bogs or tar pits, or the sick and injured.  The fossils of marine creatures are also limited due to the fact that many do not have hard parts of their bodies.  Thus the fossils found represent the unlucky and the ill.  It is for these reasons perhaps that science estimates that the fossil record only represents less than two percent of living species that ever existed.  This means it is believed that over ninety eight percent of species ever alive will not be preserved in the fossil record.  Not animals, but entire species!  What this also means is that fossils cannot adequately be representative of the species alive at any one time, but merely an extremely fragmentary record of those dying and trapped in fortuitous circumstances.

However, this is exactly the opposite conclusion that science makes.  Science make-believes that fossils found are the representatives of the creatures alive at the time, rather than an extremely small sample.  Not only this, in fact, but signify the age of the layer in which they are found.  This has been the practice of science since William Smith almost two hundred years ago, which has been perpetuated till the present and suspiciously radiometric dating has not refuted.  The position of fossils in layers of a small number of areas was expanded worldwide to determine ages.  Lyell and Agassiz ordered the fossils found according to their own beliefs in complexity and organization of the organisms found within the rocks.  Lyell determined age initially by the percentage of modern forms and Agassiz by their complexity.  Not only did they find index fossils for general time periods, but the belief was put forward in extremely fine layers.  Each layer was attributed to a particular fine time period with a corresponding set of fossils peculiar to it and then these time periods were cut up into even finer time periods.  Therefore, the assumption was made on what is now known as a fragmentary evidence of fossils that these can determine the age of different strata removed greatly by geography.  Moreover, it is against the uniformatist theories that formed these beliefs.  The organisms that formed fossils have to be covered quickly in order to preserve their structure.  This is against that theory that these layers had to be formed very slowly according to present levels of occurrence.   Strata would have to accumulate in days or hours rather than millions of years.  What is even more amazing is that when supposedly more accurate methods of radiometric dating arrived, they found no appreciable changes in age from these arbitrarily formed epochs and the modern ones as will be discussed later.

As evidence of the scarcity of fossil samples, there have been animals found that have not only been thought long since extinct, but used as one of index fossils to date other organisms and layers.  The most famous of these is the coelacanth which Agassiz identified in 1836.  It was thought to exist from 400 to 65 million years ago from Northern Europe and America.  It was also thought to be a transitional fossil between fish and land animals.  It lobed feet seemed to be a transition to legs. However, this fossil was found living in 1938 in caves off of Madagascar and later throughout the Indian Ocean at unexplored depths in that ocean.  Its soft tissues reveal that its swim bladder which was thought to develop into a lung is filled with oil instead of air like most other fishes and its fins act like oars instead of feet allow turns of 180 degrees.

Add to this the many examples of ``younger'' rock existing under older rock.  Science explains these formations by supposing that rock moved up and over the younger rock, which is called an overthrust.  The Lewis overthrust is perhaps the best known example being a segment of rock several miles thick and several hundred miles wide and supposedly moved over fifty miles in Montana.  There are many examples of these rocks worldwide.  The rocks were generally dated by their fossils and so these overthrusts tend to exist to explain fossils in the wrong place.

Add to this mix the desire for fame and financing that naming new species generally brings and the potential for human error multiplies.  One of the best examples of unbiased, altruistic science for science sake is the example of the Bone Wars in the latter half of the nineteenth century.  Edward Cope and Othniel Marsh were two Americans from wealthy families who both studied in Europe.  Both men also were influenced by Agassiz.  They came down on opposite camps of Evolution with Cope supporting neo-Lamarckism and Marsh supporting Darwinian selection.  Intense rivalry occurred between the two as they each sought to outdo the other in finds and naming species.  Cope produced a far greater quantity of material and often committed errors, which Marsh was only too happy to point out, such as he once attached the head of a fossil onto its tail rather than its neck.  This sparked a feud to outdo each other, and spawned a multitude of problems.  These include errors in the rush to find fossils, Marsh dynamited one site so it did not fall into Cope's hands, as well as bribery and stealing fossils.  One of the most infamous of Marsh's errors is the filling in of missing parts from a dinosaur skeleton to create one of the most familiar animals, the Brontosaurus, appearing in a multiple of movies including ``the Lost World,'' the original ``King Kong'' to ``Mrs. Doubtfire''.  Marsh found the Apatosaurus in 1877.  Two years later, he found a larger incomplete specimen.  This he named Brontosaurus and the missing pieces were filled in from other fossils.  Namely, the head came from a Camarasaurus.  This error was not discovered until 1975.

In addition to errors and overzealousness, there are the outright frauds.  Like Haeckel, some were made by people too enthusiastic for Evolution in an attempt to support the theory.  Some surely desired fame and the desire for funding undoubtedly plays an influence also.  Others merely wished to promote a hoax for the sake of fooling people.  The desire to prove Evolution correct encourages the adoption and belief in such frauds.  These examples disprove the general perception that science is an unprejudiced and unbiased account of reality.  The truth is that men will always possess agendas.

The most famous of these frauds was Piltdown man or Eoanthropus (Dawn man), which was discovered in 1912.  Scientists believed this to be a missing link for forty one years, even superceding Neanderthals and other specimens in importance.  Its acceptance was further enhanced by appeals to national pride in the willingness to find a ``British'' ape-man.  It was dated using the methods still applied to be 500,000 years old.  However, the reality was that it was an intentional fraud.  Its skull was aged and the teeth ground down to resemble more human looking teeth.  Finally, it was proved to be a hoax in 1953, which someone had constructed from the jaw of an orangutan and the skull of a human.

Nebraska man or Hesperopithecus was a similar case being built up on the ``evidence'' of a pig's tooth in 1922.  Harold Cook discovered the tooth and sent it to Henry Osborn to study.  Evolutionists try to downplay this episode in our history and to emphasize the skepticism it evoked.  They even try to show that this was a natural fact of science to correct its own errors.  They try to downplay even what Osborn thought it was.  They claim Osborn only believed it was a North American ape, however in his writings he did refer to it as:  ``infinitesimal but irrefutable evidence that the man-apes wandered over from Asia into North America.''  He clearly thought it was anthropoid in nature.  This further explains the illustrations made of Hesperopithecus in London newspaper as a typical ape-man.  Again prestige and national pride may have been in play in finding the first American ape-man.  However, when belief in these proofs spans years and decades and have any influence on popular culture then it is can not be dismissed as a simple mistake.  How many minds were changed because of these errors?  How many people were influenced by pictures of apemen ``discovered'' and missing links proved?  Osborn retracted this discovery in 1928 even though he had doubts three years earlier.  This is one example of Cuvier's legacy in practicing the reconstruction of whole organisms based on scant fossil evidence.  Even in recent times there are overanxious explorers finding such fossils.  In 1982, a small skull fragment was found and declared to be the earliest human fossil in Europe.  It was later declared to possibly belong to a donkey or infant ape.  It currently remains in doubt as to what animal it actually belongs too.  This is yet another remnant of Cuvier's practices.

Then there are the `just so' stories of Evolution.  These are often stories of an obvious better feature existing simply because it is better.  The inner ear bones of the mammal allow better hearing by controlling sound exchange to the nerves through three bones.  This appears just so because it is an improvement as justification seemingly for its appearance.  If an improvement was all that was necessary for its appearance then why did it not appear also in reptiles and amphibians?  Similar stories abound in adaptations to environments.  If they do not have facts, explain it with a story like those.  Evolution had to occur because the present better system is exists or the animal gets along better in its environment.  These stories are neither explanation or evidence, but merely conjecture at best.

Then there are series of organisms like the human, horse, and whale series.  These put together various fossil recreations in attempt to show a progressional relationship between each fossil and a modern animal.  As with most so-called transitional fossils and classification in general, fossils are artificially arranged toward similar features.  In the case of transitional fossils, this arrangement is even more artificial since particular features are sought after to show ancestry, while ignoring all others.  Since often fragmented skeletons are the only thing to compare these fossils, scientists concentrate on one to a few common features and make a progression to another animal with more common skeletal features.  Thus a terrestrial mammal with whale-like teeth mistakenly becomes the ancestor of whales.  An ape that appears to walk upright becomes our ancestor.  Since these fossils are often fragmentary, they can easily be arranged to support these views.

These decisions about transitional forms are often fraudulently supported by two methods.  First, illustrations of these animals are often enhanced to portray them as more of a transitional form than their fossil fragments would alone declare.  Thus ape-men are often portrayed in their well recognized form as semi-hairy with a mix of human and ape features and generally using human tools.  Early supposed forms of horses are shown with horse-like faces.  Early forms of whales are portrayed as being more aquatic in nature than they were swimming, and often with more flipper-like reduced legs.  Secondly, the names of animals supposedly ancestral to modern animals are all named with that animal's name.  Thus an animal thought to be an ancient ancestor to a whale is named ``whale with legs.''  Most of the supposedly ancestral forms of horses are have the surname Hippus attached to them which is Latin for horse.  All the intermediates to a whale are called whales, even though they do not resemble whales in the least.

Moreover, these series are representative of orthogenesis, which is the belief that Evolution proceeds in a linear fashion toward some goal and often driven by unknown forces.  This belief was rampant in the nineteenth century especially in the German schools of thought and is a form of Lamarck and Haeckel's progressive Evolution.  The ultimate goal for Evolution usually was man.  However, these arguments were applied to many species and one of the first was horses.  The result of this was the horse series, a steady progression from an unhorse-like animal to the modern horse.

This series was created in Darwin's time, and a much-photographed exhibit was done by the American Museum of Natural History that still appears in many textbooks.  Othniel Marsh discovered the early fossils of this series and named them as horses, albeit horses with three toes and a great reduction to the size of dogs.  He did this to emphasis a change in size, a change from four toes to one, and a change in diet from foraging to grazing as a progressional series.  However while arranged to show a progression of certain features, these animals vary according to number of ribs and other factors, that do not show any such progression.  Further, other examples of those four animals that show these animals vary in size, and fortunate examples were chosen to emphasis their progression.  Also, the animals were not chosen in accordance with location and the strata in which they were found.  The result is that it is vastly contrived.

Othniel Marsh was largely responsible for the creation of the horse series, the finding of several members of this series and for attributing horse-like features to them.  He named the first specimen Miohippus in 1874, which had been found by Thomas Condon the year before.  Marsh stole the credit for the find.  The evidence of a connection to a horse was merely the presence of a diastema or space between the front teeth and the molars, even though this is a common feature of many mammals.

Eohippus or Dawn horse was a three and four-toed animal with padded toes, standing twelve to fourteen inches tall at the shoulder.  Its legs were flexible and no bones were fused, unlike modern horses as well as having a short face with eyes in the center, also unlike modern horses.  It was originally discovered in 1840 by Richard Owen who named it Hyracotherium, which means hyrax-like beast, and he originally thought it to be a primate because of its teeth.  Marsh named fossils of this animal he found Eohippus.  It is also believed to be the ancestor of not only horses but tapirs and rhinos.  This is because science classifies hooved animals by the number of toes it has.    Eohippus had four toes on its front feet and three on the back and so is arranged to mark a transition to all the hooved animals with odd number of toes.  Its ``hooves'' were merely horny type nails and tips.  It further possessed eighteen pairs of ribs.  Thus, what is described inaccurately and frequently as a small horse is also a small tapir and a small rhino or all perissodactyls, even-toed ungulates.  It can also be may also be classified as the ancestor of all ungulates having both even and odd toes, both perissodactyls and artiodactyls, even-toed ungulates, including whales.  

The next animal in this series is the Orohippus which is similar to the Eohippus only having three toes on its back paws, larger premolars now classified as a molar, and the loss of 3 rib pairs.  It lived at the same time as Eohippus, but was confined to a smaller geographic region, notably Wyoming and Oregon, while eohippus ranged over North America and Europe.  It was similar to Eophippus, but did not have the remaining bones for its fourth and fifth toe on its hind leg.  Epihippus was the next supposed step, but was the same as Orohippus except another larger premolar classified as a molar and loss of unused foot bones.

Mesohippus and Miohippus were the next in the series with three toes on back and front feet.  It had deeper facial depressions, called fossae, which the horse does not have, and an extra crest on its upper cheek teeth.  It stood about 24 inches tall.  There were several offshoots of Miohippus, such as Kalobatippus, Archeohippus, Parahippus, Hypohippus, and Anchitherium in Europe, Megahippus, and Sinohippus in Asia.  Archeohippus was much smaller than its predecessors.  Kalobatippus was a long legged browser.  Hypohippus is a North American, extremely short legged creature with a long face.  Anchitherium was a collie-sized animal.  Megahippus was a large browsing animal weighing about 585 pounds.

Joseph Leidy discovered the teeth of Parahippus in 1857.  They were higher and crowned with some cementum like horses.  Cementum is a material in all teeth, but generally in the tooth socket, holding the tooth in place.  It is a Collie-sized animal similar to Miohippus, but has differences mainly in its teeth being more suited to grazing and a longer face.  It is very similar to Merchychippus.

This animal is next with true grazing teeth and a longer face and legs.  Although they had three toes, it is believed to walk solely on center toe, and it stands at 40 to 42 inches tall.  This animal is believed to have formed a radiation into Hipparion and Pliohippus. Hipparion was also a common three toed animal in North America.  Their one remarkable difference was the ridges on their teeth.  Pliohippus stood at 46 to 48 inches tall.  

Next, the Pliohippus was believed to form another radiation into Hippidion, Dinohippus, and the modern horse, Equus.  It had only one toe like modern horses and nineteen ribs, unlike modern horses.  However, Dinohippus and Pliohippus were originally thought of as one species, but were later separated as Dinohippus has smaller fossae, like modern horses.  Hippidion existed in South America, were back to browsing, and may have had a flexible snout.  

Equus, the Modern horse, spread over North America and Europe.  Its teeth are much longer than any of its supposed ancestors.  It has eighteen pairs of ribs and seventeen in one race.  It stands about 54 inches tall and has developed into three forms:  horses, zebras, and donkeys.  Between Equus and Dinohippus there is a large growth in size and weight almost doubles.  Molar size also almost doubles and the ability to grow throughout the animal's life develops, which is considered a primitive trait that exists in rodents and similar animals.

Examining the evidence, there seem to be only minor differences in teeth or other features between different ``species'' listed.  Eohippus, Orohippus and Epihippus seem to be the same animal with differences only in their premolars.  Mesohippus, Miohippus, and the animals that radiated from it could also possible be races of the same animal.  Parahippus and Merchychippus are also very similar.  Pliohippus and Dinohippus were also probably the same species with only minor facial differences.  Rather than a branching Evolution of animals, it seems it could easily represent simply different races of two or three animals.  The facts that these groups existed at same time and some members of these coexistent ``species'' were limited in their geography, while their fellow species ranged in a much wider area also seem to suggest this.  Thus the best example of animal Evolution in existence may simply be four groups of animals arranged conveniently with fortuitous examples of species such as Dinohippus to correlate between these groups.  Plotting these animals on a chart of height and weight also seems to confine them to specific groups with large jumps between them.

Donkeys  Zebras  Equus

   Size

Mesohippus Miohippus



Parahippus   Merchychippus

Eohippus  Orohippus  Epihippus           

       Toes

  Four/Three     Three     One

Yet, this series continues to be listed in textbooks as evidence showing a straight forward orthogenesis of these animals.  Even the newer branched structure is presented as a direct lineage.  What is curious is that animals formerly thought to be in a direct line by Marsh and others are now offshoots, such as Anchitherium, having nothing to do with the direct Evolution of Equus.  The result of this is larger gaps between the member groups.  Also, the similarities are heightened and differences ignored if listed at all, such as the fluctuating number of ribs.  Thus the best fossil evidence for Evolution of a species seems largely contrived.

The human series seems just as flawed.  A few candidates have fallen out being frauds.  Moreover, as in the horse series, each of the animals in this series do not really seem to be transitional creatures.  Just as in the horse series, they are animals arranged into a contrived series to appear as if related.  As in that series, particular features are chosen to attach importance to.  In humans this was standing upright and brain size.  As usual, evidence is fragmentary and relies on reconstructed pieces and composite pieces from different individuals.  Moreover, again and again scientists use estimation from these fragmentary pieces to determine what the entire animal is like and are often wrong.  Also, a mere handful of fossils have been found for the earlier forms, which will be touched on later.

Brain size is a determining factor in the supposed progression of Evolution and these are measured from the size of the skull as cranial capacity for different species of pre-humans.  These are measured in cubic centimeters or cc.  As a comparison, orangutans and chimpanzees have a capacity of 275 to 500 cc.  Gorillas have a brain capacity of 340 to 752 cc.  This reliance on brain size is a remnant of nineteenth century science when it was believed that the size of the skull had a direct correspondence to intelligence.  Larger brain means larger intelligence.  This was disproved during that century with the findings that genius had no correlation to brain size the brains of geniuses ranging in size the same as ordinary humans, following the human range from 1000 cc to 2000 cc.  It is now believed that brain size in other animals is a condition of size of the animal as much as intelligence.  In humans, Mongoloids or Northeastern Asians humans tend to have a larger brain size averaging at 1416 cc.  Australoids and Sub-Saharan Africans tend to be a smaller height and average a size of around 1260 cc.

The human series begins with Australopithecus.  This was a decided ape-like creature.  Its mouth was shaped like an ape's as well as a protruding face.  Its brain size was equivalent to the range of ape's, from 400 cc to 500 cc.  They were small creatures from three to four and a half feet tall.  Moreover, they retain the ape-like trait of upper arms and thighs being nearly equal in length.  In humans, the upper arm is about seventy percent of the length of the thigh.  This creature is separated into two species afarensis in East Africa and africanus located in the Transvaal area of South Africa.  The main difference between the two is that the latter has less ``primitive'' teeth and a rounder skull.

A further separation occurs in Australopithecus between robust and gracile forms.  The robust class had larger molars presumably for a diet that involved more grinding of food.  It was assumed that the robust form would be a larger creature based solely on the size of their teeth; however modern finds have determined this assumption was wrong and that they are the same size as other Australopithecus.  There is much debate over the proper classification of these creatures.  Sometimes, they are placed as two separate species with the formerly robust Australopithecus being divided into Protoanthropus robustus in Southern Africa and Protoanthropus boisei in Eastern Africa.

The only thing that makes these creatures in any way human like is that they may have walked upright.  This is based mainly on discovery of some leg bones and the likely position of the head on the spine.  However, this ignores their equal length arms and legs, which would make running on all fours easier.  Yet this assumedly bipedal ape becomes the ancestor of all humans based on one feature:  the assumed position of its head on the spine that implies walking upright, ignoring other signs that they did not do so.

Next in the series comes Homo habilis in East Africa.  This creature was very similar again to Australopithecus.  They both lived at the same time.  It was included within the Homo ``class'' based on stone tools being found in the same strata as these creatures.  These tools were attributed to habilis and a behavior rather than anatomy was the overriding factor.  The first such fossil was a partial jaw from a juvenile, from which an estimated brain size of 363 cc was obtained.  It was further estimated that the adult would have had a brain size of 674 cc.  This was obtained without any pieces of the cranium and an estimate based on another estimate.  An adult fossil found later only had a brain size of 510 cc.  Another fossil skull was found crushed flat.  It was heavily reconstructed to have a brain size under 600 cc.   These brain sizes were well within the range of apes.

Next, Pithecanthropus erectus or Java Man was found in 1892.  Sinanthropus pekinensis or Peking man was discovered in the 1930s.  Scientists placed these and other fossils under the general classification of Homo Erectus in the 1950's.  It is again separated into species by location.  Homo erectus colonized southern Asia and Europe while Homo ergaster was located in Africa.  The main difference between the two was that H.ergaster had slightly thicker brows.

However there is a large jump between Australopithecus-Homo habilis and Homo erectus.  The brain capacity of Homo erectus jumps from actual sizes under 600 cc to a minimum of 750 cc.  Their maximum size jumped twenty five percent up to Homo erectus' minimum size.  Moreover, their thigh to upper arm length suddenly becomes more in line with human standards alluding to their walking upright unlike all earlier species listed.  The brain size of Homo erectus ranges from 750 to 1250 cc.  They are also twenty percent smaller in height than modern humans in body size.

Much is made of their brain size being smaller than modern humans; however in a world where actual races of man developed, such differences might be expected.  Even with their supposed diminished intelligence, they developed advanced tools such as hand axes, choppers, hammers, knives and scrapers out of stone.  It is presumed they made tools out of perishable materials also.  They expanded into temperature zones and could possibly have used fire.

Archaic Homo sapiens or Homo heidelbergensis are confusing fossils that bear traits of both Homo sapiens and Homo erectus.  Like Homo erectus they span southern Asia, Europe and Africa.  They have modern cranial capacity, ranging from 1100 to 1400 cc, but larger brow ridges like Homo erectus.  Their technology differed slightly in the use of flint tools.

The last three members of the series, Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon, and modern humans are indeed related, but not in a progressional sense.  The evidence shows that Cro-Magnons generally inhabited Asia, Neanderthals inhabited Europe, and Modern humans inhabited the Africa, while all three co-mingling in the Middle East.  Much as modern races of man do, with separate races inhabiting general areas.

Neanderthals colonized Europe, the Fertile Crescent and Caspian Sea area between 400,000 and around 30,000 BC.  They averaged about 5'5'' in height and were generally more stocky and muscular than modern humans.  They were originally thought to be a more primitive form of humans.  This is again an intentional misconstruction of evidence by prejudiced scientists.  Marcellin Boule was delivered a Neanderthal skeleton in 1908 that had been ritualistically buried.  He created the perception that this belonged to a stooped creature with an ape-like gait and low intelligence.  He emphasized ape-like features based on his own preconceptions.

However, they had in fact a larger average brain size than modern humans with an average size of 1500 cc while modern humans only have an average size of 1400 cc.  Boule's original diagnosis was a result of his own prejudice rather than accurate science, even of the time.  His discovery was of a Neanderthal member that suffered from arthritis, a deformed hip, a crushed toe, a broken rib, and a damaged knee-bone.  Boule's mistaken view dominated science for over fifty years.  However, Neanderthals walked erect as we do, and other finds have shown that our differences are superficial at best.  Rather than making this a primitive human, it was a rather modern human who was cared for by others despite his infirmities allowing him to survive.

Neanderthals made stone tools including javelins and axes.  They skinned animals and exhibited advanced cultural skills.  They buried their dead along with offerings, such as tools and flowers, which implies belief in an afterlife.  There is evidence to suggest that they had the same abilities if not more to talk and understand speech by the size of the nerve canal to manipulate the tongue, the presence of the bone that supports the tissues of the larynx, and the structure of the ear canal.  There are even ongoing scientific arguments whether Neanderthal is in fact simply Homo sapiens.  This includes debates over whether Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens interbred.  Some studies examining 38,000 year old DNA from remains say this did not occur and estimate a divergence around 500,000 to 800,000 years ago.  Other studies examining our modern genome declare that perhaps 25 percent of our genome came from Neanderthals and unknown races.    

Cro-Magnon man comes next in the series, coexisting in Europe with Neanderthals.    They were first discovered in France and believed to exist from 40,000 to 10,000 years ago.  Like Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons have larger cranial capacities from 1500 to 1700 cc, were taller, and more muscular than modern humans.  They possibly knew how to weave clothing and also created cave art like Neanderthals.  They are thought to have coexisted with Neanderthals in the Middle East for 60,000 years and 15,000 years in Europe.  They are now recognized as modern humans and mitochondrial DNA proves them well within human ranges.

Thus, the human series of Evolution suffers from the same failures as the horse series.  It clearly separates into two groups distinct groups with a large gap in between.  If Australopithecus could walk upright rather than on all fours like their limbs suggest, it does in no way make it our ancestor, except for people desiring it to be.  Then there is a large jump in brain size and ability from them to Homo erectus.  Meanwhile, Homo erectus, Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon all fade away into possibly being diverse members of the same group of modern humans.

      Ape Range    Human Range

Avg. Neanderthal

       Avg. Homo Sapiens

Homo Habilis Modern Homo Sapiens

Austrailopithecus     Cro-Magnon

Gorilla     Archaic Homo Sapiens

Chimpanzee Homo Erectus

         500cc    1000cc      1500cc        2000cc

The third most touted series is that of the whales.  This is perhaps the one that has evolved the most from its original conception.  Darwin proposed the first theory of the Evolution of whales:

In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water.  Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.

This idea was discredited and Darwin removed it from later editions of his book.  Whale Evolution has long been a problem for Evolution, but not after it was subjected to the same faulty methods as achieved in the horse and human series.  Scientists looked for single traits in an ancestral species and then only had to find creature with one or two additional traits.  For whales, the chosen traits to find were whale-like teeth and loss of limbs.  They frequently have the same fraudulent techniques applied to them as in the other two series:  naming all the supposed ancestors whales, cetus, and attributing more whale-like features to them in illustrations than they actually possess.

The first animal in the series are the Mesonychians.  They were carnivorous, hooved animals, which were originally thought to be whale-like due to their supposedly whale-like tooth structure.  However, they have been removed as whale ancestors due to the recent DNA evidence that whales are most closely related to hippopotami.  This forced a change in the direction of their proposed Evolution into the group of even-toed hooved animals or Artiodactyla.  This placed the contrived fossil evidence at odds with DNA evidence, but this can be quickly overlooked by Evolutionists who rapidly find a new ancestor in the right group of ungulates.

Next in the series come a few land animals that are called whales again due to a few features that are similar to whales.  Pakicetus ranged in size from fox to a wolf-sized creature.  Its sole claim to being a whale ancestor is its sharp premolars and its ear structures that bear a slight similarity to whales.  It thereby replaced Mesonychian as ``first whale.''  However, it could not hear well underwater so its similarity to a whale lies in sharp teeth and whale-like ears that are not designed to work underwater unlike the actual ears of whales.  The next animal in the series is Ambulocetus name means ``walking whale,'' which again is a false supposition as creatures that walk on land are in no respect whales.  It has four, short legs with a large mouth.  There are claims that it was amphibious, but this is mere conjecture.  It is frequently depicted in a swimming pose or even with reduced back legs, although it could be fast on neither land nor water.  It is also found in strata younger than Pakicetus.  Again, it was chosen for its tooth structure.  Next, in the series came Remingtonocetus.  It possessed long legs and a longer snout in reversal from pakicetus.  Again, it ranges in size down to that of small foxes.  Protocetus or Rhodocetus possessed longer feet and its sacrum was not fused, supposedly to allow for whale-like tail movement for propulsion.  Its nose moved up on its skull slightly.  It was contemporary to Remingtonocetus and is frequently pictured with webbed toes.  It was the first ``whale'' to leave the Indian subcontinent and become globally distributed, being found in North America and Africa also.  All these animals were land animals which ranged up in down in limb size, foot size, and other features.  Each was chosen as a whale ancestor for particular features such as their teeth or ears.  Each of these features is described as intermediary between mammals and whales, however each feature is distinct to that creature.  All of these animals' teeth show the division in function that mammals do and whales do not.  Their limbs grow shorter and then longer again.  Their feet grow longer, but are then supposed to disappear all together in whales.

Dorudontidae and Basilosaurus are the animals that come next in the series.  They make the leap from land to deep water in one bound with no functional back legs.  They have snake like bodies, with tiny back limbs not connected to their spine.  They are often depicted with their back legs forming small flippers much as some dolphins have.  The Basilosaurus grew up to 60 feet long, while the former was a much shorter version.  They both still had defined mammalian teeth unlike whales.  

Whales then leap forward dividing into two large, modern groups:  the odontocetes, toothed whales, and the mysticetes, baleen whales. What is odd is that these two groups show differences in development.  Toothed whales have peg teeth to hold prey, but have a smaller pelvis and one blowhole.  Baleen whales have no teeth, but a larger pelvis and two holes for a blowhole, more like mammalian nostrils.  Again, the same problems as the other series seem to occur.  Desired features are highlighted and exaggerated, but differences are ignored.  Large gaps also occur, especially between the land animals and the water animals in the group.  There is no clear ocean going land animal in the group, but an immediate jump between these creatures.

Moreover, whales are entirely specialized animals for the deep sea.  They have a rib cage that allows expansion for deep breathes when surfacing and the mobility to collapse under pressure during dives.  They have specialized hearing through bone to allow for hearing in the denser medium of water.  They lack a sense of smell.  Whales have specialized hearing for communication over long distance.  The toothed whales also have specialized organs in their head and nose to create and receive sound for underwater sonar.  Their skin is specialized for life underwater, being thin and lacking the sweat and oil glands most mammals have.  Instead they have a thick layer of blubber that insulates their body.  Many have a fleshy pectoral fin to aid in swimming.  These animals are specialized to breed, give birth and even to suckle their young underwater.  Their genitalia are contained in slits inside their bodies, with mechanisms unique to them for copulation.  Their young can swim from birth and they feed from slits in their mother's skin, which contain their mammary glands.   How all these specialized structures could have developed piecemeal is incomprehensible.

Science states that transitional forms between major groups are well founded.  However, it seems as if these may be just as arbitrary and contrived as other supposed transitional forms.  There always seems to be either a small group or just one major transitional species between major groups.  One species becomes the ancestor of all land animals, one species becomes the ancestor of all birds, and one species becomes the ancestor of all mammals seemingly.  It staggers the imagination to presume that all birds, mammals, and all land animals developed from small changes in one species even over millions of years.  However it does not seem to bother scientists, especially as will be shown in the next chapter; it is believed that all life evolved from one single original cell by such small changes.  Cladistic and phylogenic trees also seem to echo these facts as they join species or groups of species to unknown common ancestors that are presumed to exist.  Where are all these missing common ancestors?

A problem occurs with cladistic analysis also.  This views an ancestor species and all its descendents as one clade.  The problem arises in transitional forms that all ancestors are already viewed as belonging to the ancestral group.  Thus, all humans are walking apes, and all birds are flying dinosaurs or crocodilians depending on their view.  How easy then is it to find transitional forms when no transition occurred.  Any ancient species of an animal could be viewed as a transitional form of that species.  Find an ancient species that looks anything like its supposed ancestor and it's a transitional form.

What is remarkable as noted by many Evolutionists and what made all the early paleontologists not believe in Evolution is the seemingly rapid and fully formed nature of species.  Earliest fossils all seem fairly well advanced, such as the earliest insect fossil at around 400 million years old, has signs of having wings already.  All wingless insects including bristletails are thought to be developed from insects with wings.  The only insect that never had wings is the archaeognatha which also is defined by not having the two mandibles that all other insects have, although bristletails and archaeognatha are often linked into the same classification due to similar appendages.  Science does not know which insects evolved first or even how wings evolved with several theories existing with no evidence to support any present theories.  Many of these theories are simple stories depending on belief in Evolution and small steps to account for multiple changes required for wings to work.  Also, in the first quarter of time after their appearance, insects in their modern forms had appeared.  

Jawed fishes

Hagfish no vertebrae.  Three hearts, no larval stage, first fossils 300 my

Lamprey metamorphosize from larva to adult, adult originally seems to be just for spawning.

Trebecula cartilage distinct from same cartilage in jawed fishes.

 

Amphibians

The origin of vertebrate land animals with is similarly problematic.  The transitional form is attributed to the freshwater fish with lobed-fins during the Devonian period.  In 1916, Joseph Barrell believed red sandstone found from the Devonian period was evidence of severe droughts and oxidation of the iron in rocks that were devoid of plants.  In the 1950's, Alfred Romer suggested that the fins are could have evolved from their lobed shape to legs by these fish using them to walk when their fresh water ponds dropped in water level between water sources.  This is a nice story rather than evidence.  However, the evidence for the severe droughts was already refuted in 1949 by Paul Krynine.  What is even more telling is that a surviving member of this group, the coelacanth uses its lobed-fins as paddles that enables it to rotate 360? rather than walk on them, which is perhaps far more useful in fresh water small areas than walking on dry land.

Further complication arose because until the last two decades, there were few fossils from this lobe-finned group, but many fossils of tetrapods after and fish before.  Several species have been found since then, although many in fragmentary states.  

//Elpistostege known by jaw, similar to panderichthys 378my// livoniana jawbone, originally identified as elpistostege, more derived teeth // Panderichthys, lobes fin rays lacks dorsal and anal fins 378my //tiktaalik 2 m long , long snout, lower jaw more fishlike, internal gills, short back skull and neck, paddle with ray-like bones may prop itself up in water, pelvis unknown,  still fish like spine 375my // elginerpeton  supposed tetrapod known from fragments of jaw, shoulder, and legs originally identified as a lobe-finned fish by Per Ahlberg, hip and limbs close to Ichthyostega, shoulder is closer to tetrapod  368my // obruchervichthys originally classified as lobefin, then tetrapod by Ahlberg as tetrapod 368my // metaxygnathus  early tetrapod jaw found in Australia, rather than Eurasia where tetrapods thought to originate // Ichthyostega was the major transitional fossil till 1987, with fossils dating from 367 million years. // jakubsonia fragments of early tetrapod from Russia //Acanthostega, digits on feet, 8 on front, 7 on back, but no ankles or wrists.  Legs and hip can not support weight, hip, spine designed for swimming not bearing of weight, ribs not long enough to support chest cavity out of water. Fish-like shoulder and forelimb.  Paddle like limbs, fish-like internal gills 363my //tulerpeton tetrapod, fragmentary finds, more complete legs, 6 digits, suited to paddling 363my// hynerpeton north American tetrapod, 2 shoulder fragments from different individuals at red hill 361my // densignathus jaw at red hill, fish like and tetrapod features 361 my // ventastega originally classified as lobe-fin, now tetrapod // sinostega earliest Asian tetrapod, incomplete jaw, resembles acanthostega // Coelacanth paired pectoral and pelvic fins360my //  Icthyostega tetrapod fish, again couldn't move on land // crassigyrinus  3 specimens, another fishlike tetrapod with small paddles, especially front set, did not dwell on land, lobes reduced from previous forms, possibly possessed spiracle.

 

Temnospondyls - various large amphibians

Anthracosaurs - reptile like amphibians, may not be amphibians?

<<From   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcopterygii"; \o "Sarcopterygii"  lobe-fined fish

   ?-   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusthenopteron"; \o "Eusthenopteron"  Eusthenopteron  (advanced lobe-fined fish)

      ?-   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panderichthys"; \o "Panderichthys"  Panderichthys  (lobe-fined fish with limb-like fins)

         ?-   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik"; \o "Tiktaalik"  Tiktaalik  (transitional fish/amphibian)

            ?-   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acanthostega"; \o "Acanthostega"  Acanthostega  (early amphibian with fishlike   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gills"; \o "Gills"  gills )

               ?-   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega"; \o "Ichthyostega"  Ichthyostega  (early amphibian)

                  ?-   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crassigyrinus"; \o "Crassigyrinus"  Crassigyrinus  (early amphibian)

                     |-   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loxommatidae"; \o "Loxommatidae"  Loxommatidae (eel-like primitive temnospondyles)

                     |  ?-  HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temnospondyls"; \o "Temnospondyls"  Temnospondyls  (large, flat-headed stegocephalians)

                     ?-   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthracosauria"; \o "Anthracosauria"  Anthracosaurs  (reptile-like amphibians)

                         |-   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymouriamorpha"; \o "Seymouriamorpha"  Seymouriamorphs  (advanced repile-like amphibians)

                         |  |-   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westlothiana"; \o "Westlothiana"  Westlothiana  (small amphibian or possibly early reptile)

                         |  ?+   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diadectomorpha"; \o "Diadectomorpha"  Diadectomorphs  (earliest reptiles or sister groups of reptiles)

                         |    ?-   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amniotes"; \o "Amniotes"  amniotes  (i.e. first reptiles)

                         ?-

>>

Seymouriamorph -reptile like amphibian, thought to be ancestor of reptiles had larva with gills

The apparent forms of amphibians seems at total odds with the traditional stories of evolution where fish adapt to land by adapting to land, forming lungs and limbs to walk.  Rather, they are creatures that exist in two phases, one suited to water and one suited to land.  Between the two phases they perform a metamorphosis that completely changes them from water to land dwellers.  This process does not exist in fish, but only in remote classes like cnidarians and insects.

Metamorphosis:  tadpole loses horny teeth, jaw reshapes, tongue muscles and nerves develop. Intestine shortens for more carnivorous diet.  Gills are absorbed, lungs enlarge and develop cartilaginous pump system. Tail is absorbed while legs form.  Skin glands form to provide mucous.  Lateral line is absorbed, middle ear and tympanic membrane develops, eyes move forward, brain innervates to process binocular vision, overall nervous system changes, eyes change pigment from porphyropsin (common in fish) to dominant photopigment land vertebrates, rhodopsin.  Tadpole hemoglobin changes to adult form binding oxygen more slowly and releasing it faster.  Excretory system changes from ammonia, which requires more water,  excreting to urea, with liver starting urea cycle to transform ammonia to urea, all controlled by thyroid hormones levels to act in sequence to hormone level, such as hindlimbs grow with low level of hormone and tail does not degenerate till higher levels are reached

Reptile-bird

Lookup:   1913 robert broom - thecodont

1923 gerhard heilmann - thecodont

1970s john ostrom - theropod

birds     Dromaeosaurid troodontid

Result of looking for similarities to birds, mark novell

Microraptor 2 sets of wings, legs and arms?

Archaeopteryx - (fully formed feathers, upper jaw moved (reptiles only mandible moves), elliptical wings, large wishbone for wing stroke, large cerebrum and visual cortex, teeth irrelevant)

Epidendrosaurus

(false - sinosauropteryx prima, fibers not feathers, maybe collagen, separation of body cavity// monoykus, digging theropod, no feathers// lack embryonic thumb of dinosaurs //  scales not feathers, different structures, originate different, feathers closer to hairs//  insulation or gliding, feathers aerodynamic //  lungs style reptiles; avians air in, air sacs allow flows in one direction so carbon dioxide rich and oxygen rich air do not mix, blood moves against flow, parabronchi instead of alveoli, 4 chambered heart, large pectoral muscles for powerful downstroke of wings, 25-35% of weight of bird, 3 toes, wishbone)

digits I-II-III in theropod vs II-III-IV in birds

theropods bellows like lungs operating from positive pressure created by diaphragm showing ectothermal nature , avians had flow through lungs and sacs, mammals have many individual blood vessel rich aveoli that passively inflate like bellows from negative pressure of diaphragm.  Both show endothermal nature.

Reptile-mammal

The next major transitional fossils are at the supposed reptile-mammal divergence.  This encounters many problems since fossils from early mammals are extraordinarily sparse with the claim that mammals were small and therefore their bones are hard to find and less common than dinosaurs during the whole of the ___ age.

Sauropsid - mammal like reptiles/cynodont (lack middle ear bones, multi-boned jaw, cold-blooded) (

Mammaliaformes :

Original linear progression of teeth cynodont some cusps ( triconodont 3 cusps in line ( symmetrodont triangle pattern of cusps ( tribosphenic molar, trigonid basin

Haramiyidian- Triassic, resemblance to Multituberculates, incompatible with theory relations, crown group divergence too early (both sometimes categorized as Allotheria)

Triconodonta - three cusps in line (Morganucodon) many fossils, 3 bones smaller, ear bones defined (possible relationship to multituberculates)  group shows large differences from near therians to more primitive

Docodonts - separate clade

Symmetrodonts - (spalacotheroid, tinodontids) triangulated molars, 3 boned ear

(Prototheria - monotremes & triconodont similarities)

Boreosphendida -

Which feature arose independently, ear bones or molars?

Megazostrodon - 4 types of teeth, single jawbone, warm-blooded, suckle young, 200my, mouse sized

Multituberculate - live young, marsupial-like, pelvis live birth 2 ear bones, 160my  ( best known

``any potential scenario for their origin requires substantial morphological transformation that is not convincingly bridged by available fossils''

cladistic analysis places within crown group and sometimes united with monotremes, show relationships with all mammal groups

Monotremes?  Platypus, echidna...Egg layers  prejudiced poor temperature control (lower avg temp, higher when active)  hair, mammary glands, 1 bone jaw, 3 middle ear bones, cloaca, leg spur, only one with electroreception 110 million yrs old, platypus bill, only venomous mammal, chemical evidence in dispute as to relationship to marsupials

-- Ausktribosphenos (110 million yrs old, Australia), Ambondro, steropodon (single opalized jaw monotremes with large tribosphenic molars (independently evolved)  25My earlier than therian tribosphenic molars on wrong continent (northern vs. Australia)

      

Thus again we find that one of the supposed supports for Evolution fails in the test of time.  Darwin postulated that a greater exposed fossil record would provide the support for his theory that it lacked in his own day.  What happened however is that no such support has been found and in fact, examples like the horse series have been removed and weakened with larger gaps between the species and contrived placement based on a few chosen features that ignore others.  Scientists agree that interspecies fossil evidence is wholly lacking while congratulating themselves for finding transitional forms between major groups that also seem to be convenient placement of exploitive forms of one and as contrived as the other evidence.  The fossil record shows only complete organisms with no steady examples of transitional forms found.  Alternate theories of Evolution are even proposed to account for these missing transitional fossils.  Again, this lack of evidence that Evolution demands throws doubt on the theory rather than supporting it.

V. Artifical Selection

Animal husbandry was the start of Darwin's argument and the beginning of his evidence for his theory.  It was from the known breeding of animals which he participated in and researched that he began his argument.  He observed that breeders would insist that each breed was not related to other breeds no matter what argument or evidence is made for that case.  He then cautioned scientists not to make the same conclusions against species being related.  He goes on to comment on the power of human selection:

The great power of this principle of selection is not hypothetical.  It is certain that several of our eminent breeders have, even within a single lifetime, modified to a large extent some breeds of cattle and sheep... Breeders habitually speak of an animal's organization as something quite plastic, which they can model almost as they please.

From these arguments, he goes on to propose the theory of common descent with nature selecting traits instead of breeders.

However, the results of human selection were perhaps not known to Darwin in his day of primitive medicine.  Today these results are known and cost the owners of these highly bred animals often dearly.  One need only casually examine the many breeds of dogs to see these results.  The more bred an animal is, the more genetic diseases become apparent with that breed.  Many breeds are known not only for their characteristic look and traits, but in their characteristic diseases and ailments.

Thus basset hounds are known for ear infections, glaucoma, bloat, spinal disc and eyelid problems.  Bloodhounds are known for hip dysplasia and bloat.  Beagles are known for hypothyroidism, demedectic mange, umbilical hernia, epilepsy, dwarfism, hip dysplasia, disk disease, luxating patella, and others.  Bulldogs are known for congenital heart disease, heart attacks, collapsed nostrils, heatstroke, respiratory difficulties and skin conditions.  Dachshunds are known for skin conditions, heart disease, spinal disc problems, diabetes, urinary stones and eye disorders.  Labrador retrievers are known for progressive retinal atrophy, hip dysplasia, cataracts, and bloat.  Rottweilers are known for sub-aortic stenosis, hip dysplasia, hypothyroidism, osteosarcoma, juvenile cataracts, and elbow dysplasia.  Meanwhile, Canaan dogs, foxhounds, Imaal terriers, harriers, havanese, irish terriers, Norfolk terriers, Tibetan spaniels, Swedish vallhunds and other breeds are not prone to any specific health problems.

Why do some breeds have all those problems associated with them and others do not?  The answer is the same one as to why incest and marriage of first cousins is generally prohibited, inbreeding.  All artificial selection of traits is in effect inbreeding.  The risk of doing this is to increase the chance of offspring showing recessive genetic faults and diseases.  This idea is so imbedded in popular consciousness that the mere word inbreeding conjures ideas of deformed mutant babies, and at best, humans of lower intelligence and general moral depravity.  Inbreeding is the process that Darwin expanded to nature in shaping the species that exist today.

This has even been amplified in present theories by people like Stephen Gould with his theory of punctuated equilibrium.  This as said before was devised to account for the stability of species in the fossil record over long periods and then periods of change, which produced new species suddenly.  He envisions small populations separating and in effect, inbreeding to produce new breeds by the expression of recessive genes.  The problem with this is that with those recessive genes, genetically recessive diseases also become expressed.  If the population rejoins the main population, then interbreeding will mask all these changes just as breeds of dogs lose their unique features when interbred with other breeds, eventually becoming mutts again.  So to be effective in causing changes, they must remain isolated and thus inbreeding continues generation after generation until mutations occur which would not allow breeding back into the original species population.  A new species would thereby be created.

While this might account for a few species being created, is it a viable process for the creation of all species from a common ancestor?  How many times could this be redone throughout history accumulating more and more mutations, genetic faults, and genetic diseases?  After a mere several generations, like dogs are today, they would be riddled with genetic diseases that shorten individual lifetimes and cause them suffering.  However, this process is known to grow worse with each successive generation that has been inbred because it inevitably leads to more inbreeding till the breed is no longer viable.  The only genetic pressure to remove these faults and diseases occurs only with the most extreme diseases that cause fairly quick death or impairment so they can not breed and pass on these faulty genes.  Minor ones like the many congenital defects in dogs remain and multiply.  Evidence of this abounds with nearly all creatures on earth possessing hidden or exposed genetic diseases and faults that limit their lives and ability to do things that their ancestors may have.  Humans alone abound with these and survive to pass these genes on such as the inability to create vitamin C in humans.

What would the species of today look like if this is the process that created them after millions of generations?  What would the species of today look like with not only the mere separation of species into breeds and races, but far deeper changes into different species, which require mutations deep enough to prevent interbreeding with the original species?  What would these brave new species look like as they further separated into all the species of Earth with the multiplication of genetic diseases undoubtedly continuing as they compromise the function of every organism?  Furthermore, could this process be the end result of all the many splendid working forms of life with mere bacterial DNA as the starting point?  Could harmful mutations, which occur far more often than helpful mutations, be overcome enough to produce all these forms of life?  The reader can decide this for themselves.  

Also, it must be noted that this process of Evolution is a reductive process.   Inbreeding is a net loss of genes.  For new traits to appear, dominant genes must be lost in the isolated population engaged in inbreeding, as they mask the recessive genes.  The only new genes to appear would be happenstance things created by mutation.  However, the loss of genes by inbreeding would far outweigh the gain of new genes by random mutation.  The fact that most mutations are harmful to some degree further hampers this additive factor as most new genes are detrimental with these being pruned from the population to the degree they are harmful.  This tends to eliminate even more genes as the elimination of the individuals who carry these harmful mutations may take more genes with them especially in small populations.  Thus over time, genes will be lost.  This occurs most rapidly in small populations that are bottlenecked by natural events or separated from the main population geographically.  A population would have fewer and fewer traits it can express.  This is the very reason that heavily inbred dogs appear uniform and recognizable as a breed.  The more this occurs, the less healthy the animal is.

This does in fact occur in nature also.  The best known example is the cheetah.  These animals have lost all genetic diversity and thus are the most inbred breed of felines.  They are so similar as to be able to accept skin grafts and organ transplants from each other without rejection.  They have no genetic material left to create separate species.  This also makes their immune system more susceptible to disease and gives them a low sperm count.  They are believed to be headed toward extinction.  A multiyear scientific study of prairie chickens in Illinois that suffered decline to a small population showed reduced fitness in these animals also.  Their fertility was also reduced from ninety-three percent to lower than eighty percent.  This is the end result of Evolution and natural selection.

Thus, the human process that led Darwin to argue his case for Evolution almost entirely repudiates its possibility for causing common descent.  Evolution, like breeding, would cause the accumulation of genetic diseases and make every species less fit and healthy.  It would also lead to the continued loss of genes and head species toward extinction unless they could somehow maintain genetic diversity.  This is why species are seen in the fossil record to maintain their species for long periods without changing, because it is healthiest for them not to inbreed and diversify.  Artificial selection therefore shows without a doubt the unlikelihood of common descent.  It is a process that leads to extinction.

VI. Comparative Anatomy

The last proof of Evolution is comparative anatomy.  This is where the theory began before Charles Darwin and where it comes back to.  Comparative anatomy and taxonomy, or classification, is what originated the theory of Evolution both in modern and ancient times.  Scientists classify animals and plants based on chosen features of likeness.  They then arrange these species in accordance with these features.  Similar animals are therefore placed in proximity to each other.  This in turn begs the question as to if they are related, and further if they in fact form a great chain where each species is descended from more primitive forms.  Yet, this is a contrived human system of thought.  Taxonomy alone does not prove Evolution but is merely a human construct.  It is humans creating a relationship between these animals in a contrived manner, not nature.

The problem with comparative anatomy is determining which structures and traits are important.  For example, science places great emphasis on the teeth of mammals to trace relationship.  Fruit-eating, grazing, browsing, meat-eating, and general eaters all seem to have teeth unique to their diets.  It could also be assumed that they would also share other similar traits related to their diet, such as similar organ specializations to process these diets, such as fruit eaters like humans do not need to create vitamin C in their bodies, while meat eaters would.  They would also logically have other similar specializations such as meat-eaters having claws and ability to digest meat.  Grazing animals would have to have specialized digestive organs to digest cellulose.  Dividing mammals into these groups would thereby cause division into groups with many similar structures, which fuels the classification attempt.

If however they attempted classification based on other structures, such as the number and of ribs, number of vertebrae, length of legs, cranial size, or many others, the relationships between animals would be totally different.  Moreover, there are similar structures in many different animals.  Modern biology classifies these similarities according to whether they believe the animals are related or not.  Similar structures in animals that are related are referred to as homologous structures.  Those in unrelated species are called analogous structures.  The later are said to be similar due to convergent Evolution which was referred to earlier, such as the similar animals between placental and marsupial mammals.  Thus, relationships are already assumed.

The fact that remarkably similar functions and structures exist in creatures that are not directly related would seem to be rather disturbing.  Whether this seemingly endless list could be produced by Evolution seems rather absurd.  Even if similar environments are give, although no two environments are that similar, it beggars the imagination again to conceive that these traits could evolve in sometimes deeply separated lines.  There are numerous examples such as the storage of fat reserves in a creature's tail like the platypus, the Tasmanian devil, and the fat-tailed sheep.  Another odd example are the three inner ear bones in monotremes and therians, placental and marsupial mammals, that are believed to evolve separately.  The analogous placental and marsupial mammals have already been mentioned.  The fins and fusiform, spindle-shaped, body developed in several aquatic mammals like the whale, dolphin, seal, and walrus sharing these characteristics with fish.  The eardrum in vertebrae is believed to have evolved numerous times:  in stegocephalians, ancient amphibians; anurans, frogs and toads; synapsids, ancient mammal like reptiles; diapsids, crocodiles, lizards, dinosaurs and birds; possibly temnospondyls, another ancient amphibian; and possibly anapsids, turtles; seymouriamorphs.  The appearance of heterodont or specialized teeth in animals is another curious appearance of analogous structures as these are used as a primary basis for categorizing mammals.  These include a cretaceous, ``mammal-like'' crocodilian Malawisuchus with specialized incisors and cusped molars similar to some aquatic mammals, the cretaceous lizard Peneteius that also possesseddifferentiated teeth, and a more famous example in Tyranasaurus rex who had teeth differentiated into three types based on location.  One of the oddest coincidences is the sex chromosomes of mammals (XY) and birds (ZW).  Although the differing chromosomes in mammals produces males and females in birds, it seems odd this same method of determining sex would develop along similar lines when their common ancestor in reptiles determine their sex by the temperature while in the egg.      

Lamprey/hagfish distantly related to gnathostome , 1 nostril vs 2 nostrils

ENDOCRINE

Fish distributed throughout body.  Adrenal gland functions in kidneys and cells around it.  Thyroid follicles similar to mammalian, but distributed in connective tissue of pharynx, eyes, aorta, and kidneys.  Islets of langerhans not localized.  Ultimobranchial gland below heart secretes calcitonin and corpuscles of stannous below kidney secretes hypocalcin to regulate calcium instead of parathyroid.  Pineal gland secretes melatonin to regulate timing.  No Lymph nodes

CARDIOVASCULAR

Fish - 2 chambers

Amphibian -3 chambers, oxygen-rich from lungs and oxygen-poor blood mixes in ventricle, single to double loop

URINARY

Kidneys- freshwater saves ions, excrete water, saltwater fish - excrete ions and conserve water, Nitrogenous waste excreted through gills.

RESPIRATION

Fish respiration mainly through gills

Dorsal gas bladder diverted from gut, may have connection (gar, sturgeon) most no surfactant, either gulp airs or transfers gas through blood to organ for buoyancy.  No larynx.

Cutaneous respiration more than any other type of animal

Lungfish

Connected divided gas bladder

Amphibians

Symmetric, paired lungs connected to gut, simple balloon structure.  Larynx absent in caecilians, poorly developed in salamanders (small cartilages), well developed in frogs (lateral, artyenoid, cricoid cartilage, vocal cords) Dominant or supplemental oxygen exchange through gills, skin, or cloaca.

Reptiles

Symmetric Lungs, Hepatic piston, liver functions as pump pulling lungs down, Structures branch inward to form bronchi, increasing surface area.  Larynx and vocal cords poorly developed in most resemble salamander.  Crocodilians (artenoid, cricoid, thryoid cartilages, vocal cords) Dinosaurs (some had well developed larynx) Exhalation muscles dominant.

Birds

Symmetric lungs connecting to air sacs for form flow through lungs, extremely efficient transfer of oxygen, poorly developed larynx, unique syrinx.  Bronchi subdivide into capillary-rich parabronchi.  Exhalation muscles dominant.

Mammals

Asymmetric, paired lungs. Right lung usually lobed.  Divided trachea into tree of bronchi ending in alveoli form that inflate independently, tidal ventilation.  Inhalation muscles dominant.  Most have diaphragm separates lungs and heart from body cavity.  Well developed larynx (large thyroid, arytenoid, cricoid, 2 sets of vocal cords, varying use per species)

SPECIAL ORGANS

Fish- lateral line - canal over length of fish for sound and changes in water.

 

This continues on the genetic level.  One far flung example is homologous genes in mammals and sharks.  One recent study shows 154 protein coding genes that exist in various mammals, including humans, and in cartilaginous fishes, like sharks.  What is odd is that these genes do not appear in boney fishes, which are in between the two categories according to Evolution.  For mammals to have these genes, boney fishes would have had to have them also, but the only explanation is that they lost all these genes, many of which have important functions.

The artificial nature of classification is apparent in the many revisions classification has undergone and is still undergoing.  DNA evidence is now causing major changes to classification schemes being the new chosen set of features.  One example has already been given in mesonychian being the former ancestor of whales and then removed when DNA evidence showed it belonged to the wrong group of ungulates.  Another major change is the fate of elephants being removed from their previous order of Cuvier's Pachydermata of thick skin and hooved feet.  They were moved to Proboscidea based on their trunk, which is exclusive to elephant species.   It all depends on the features scientists deem to be important at the moment.

Again, this circular logic is used to support Evolution.  Comparative anatomy does not in itself prove Evolution, but only relationships.  These relationships depend on the features chosen as important.  As teeth is deemed important with mammals, their diet becomes the common relationship, and therefore, the major groups logically become carnivores and herbivores.  This is exactly what is found with the four major groups of placental mammals being rodents (Rodentia), bats (Chiroptera), carnivores (Carnivora), and yes, herbivores (Cetartiodactyla). There has been much effort to back up the results of comparative anatomy with comparative biochemistry.  Rather this works against the previous classification schemes in that species previously thought to be close together are found to be more removed, which again shows the artifical nature of classification.  What is amazing is that animals are thought to have evolved by arrangement of these chosen features, but then science rewrites these arrangements and then looks for other common features to support Evolution, but never seem to question whether Evolution in fact occurred.

VII. Conclusion

Thus, all five of major proofs of Evolution have either faded away, work against the theory, or provide no more evidence than it did in the time of the ancient Greeks.  In fact, the severe decline of known vestigial organs, the lack of transitional forms in present organisms and the fossil record, the reversal of evidence in embryology, and the known degenerate nature of inbreeding by artificial selection are evidence against Evolution.  The finding that the law of recapitulation and that some fossils were fraudulent shows the length that people will go to support a theory in order to support their own beliefs.  This is echoed in the fraudulent methods of scientists in the horse, human, and whale series in calling supposed ancestors by their descendents name and altering illustrations.  The whale series is perhaps the most ridiculous, as there are no land-dwelling whales!

The prejudice, presumption, and circular logic are rampant.  When Evolution is used to determine failed theories of embryology, which are in turn used to determine ages and order of fossils as well as classification themes, how then are these going to be used to support the theory of Evolution that altered and ordered these disciplines to begin with.  Therefore, they offer little evidence for the case of Evolution, other than supposition.  The mere possibility of Evolution and the large jumps it requires to overcome shall be examined in the next chapter.

 PAGE  

 PAGE   103

 Neptune [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune#History"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune#History  (June 8, 2008)

 Plate tectonics: history of an idea [WWW]   HYPERLINK http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/techist.html  http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/techist.html  (September 25, 2006)

 The Story of Louis Pasteur, dir. William Dieterle, perf. Paul Muni, Warner Brothers, 1935.

 Charles Darwin, On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life (London: John Murray, 1859) p. 450-458

 Robert Wiedersheim - Wikipedia [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wiedersheim"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wiedersheim  (December 16, 2006)

 Horatio Hackett Newman, quoted in The World's Most Famous Court Trial: The Tennessee Evolution Case (1990), p. 268.

 Health and Medical Information produced by doctors - MedicineNet.com [WWW]

  HYPERLINK "http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/ques.asp?qakey=...  http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/ques.asp?qakey=...  (December 17, 2006)

 Gut-associated lymphoid tissue [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gut-associated_lymphoid_t...  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gut-associated_lymphoid_t...  (June 11, 2008)

 Peyer's patches [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyer?s_patches"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyer?s_patches  (June 11, 2008)

 Lecture 16 - Organ Systems: Digestive [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.usd.edu/biol/faculty/swanson/histo/lecture1...  http://www.usd.edu/biol/faculty/swanson/histo/lecture1...  (December 17, 2006)

 Science/Health Abstracts [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.tagnet.org/abstracts/v3n3.htm"  http://www.tagnet.org/abstracts/v3n3.htm  (December 18, 2006)

 eMedicine - Veriform Appendix [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.emedicine.com/med/byname/vermiform-appendix...  http://www.emedicine.com/med/byname/vermiform-appendix...  (December 18, 2006)

 Vestigiality of the human appendix [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html...  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html  (December 18, 2006)

 Primates [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/PRE_PYR/PRIMATES_Lat_pri...  http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/PRE_PYR/PRIMATES_Lat_pri...  (December 18, 2006)

 The Primate Caecum and Appendix Vermiformis:  A Comparative Study [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=...  http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=...  (June 11, 2008)

 Primate Digestion:  Interactions Among Anatomy, Physiology and Feeding Ecology [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.anthropology.wisc.edu/lambert/pdf/Lambert19...  http://www.anthropology.wisc.edu/lambert/pdf/Lambert19...  (June 11, 2008)

 Ageneis of the vermiform appendix [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10789585?dopt=Abstr...  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10789585?dopt=Abstract  (June 11, 2008)

 Anencephaly [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.ascensionhealth.org/ethics/public/issues/an...  http://www.ascensionhealth.org/ethics/public/issues/an...  (June 11, 2008)

 Agenesis and variation of teeth [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/8_1Agenesis.ht...  http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/8_1Agenesis.htm  (June 11, 2008)

 Renal agenesis [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renal_agenesis"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renal_agenesis  (June 11, 2008)

 Penile Agenesis [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_agenesis"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_agenesis  (June 11, 2008)

 Sacral agenesis [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacral_agenesis"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacral_agenesis  (June 11, 2008)

 Congenital Hypothryroidism [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.emedicine.com/ped/byname/congenital-hypothy...  http://www.emedicine.com/ped/byname/congenital-hypothy...  (June 11, 2008)

 Care and Counseling of the Patient with Vaginal Agenesis [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://mrkhorg.homestead.com/files/foley-morley-VagAge...  http://mrkhorg.homestead.com/files/foley-morley-VagAge...  (June 11, 2008)

 The primate appendix: a reassessment [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/76...  http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/76...  (February 10, 2009)

 Tonsils and Adenoids [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.entnet.org/healthinfo/throat/tonsils.cfm"  http://www.entnet.org/healthinfo/throat/tonsils.cfm  (December 18, 2006)

 Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, and the selection in relation to sex (London: John Murray, 1871) p. 26-27

 The dentist in Ancient Egypt [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.egyptologyonline.com/the_dentist.htm"  http://www.egyptologyonline.com/the_dentist.htm  (December 19, 2006)

 As humans evolve, wisdom (teeth) going extinct [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://archive.recordonline.com/archive/2004/08/04/wis...  http://archive.recordonline.com/archive/2004/08/04/wis...  (December 19, 2006)

 Wisdom teeth [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.tmweiloms.com/wisdom_teeth.htm"  http://www.tmweiloms.com/wisdom_teeth.htm  (December 19, 2006)

 Chapter 17:  The ankle and the foot [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.dartmouth.edu/~humananatomy/part_3/chapter_...  http://www.dartmouth.edu/~humananatomy/part_3/chapter_...  (December 31, 2006)

 Division of Parasitic Diseases - Body Lice Fact Sheet [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/lice/factsht_b...  http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/lice/factsht_b...  (December 31, 2006)

 Plague: Natural History - CDC Division of Vector-Borne Infectious Diseases [WWW] http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/plague/history.htm (December 31, 2006)

 Thermal sensation and regulation   HYPERLINK "http://ergo.human.cornell.edu/studentdownloads/DEA350p...  http://ergo.human.cornell.edu/studentdownloads/DEA350p...  (January 2, 2007)

 Human thermoregulation and Hair loss [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.modernhumanorigins.net/anth501.html"  http://www.modernhumanorigins.net/anth501.html  (January 2, 2006)

 Hair Types: Lanugo hair - Vellus hair - Terminal hairs [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.pg.com/science/haircare/hair_twh_7.htm"  http://www.pg.com/science/haircare/hair_twh_7.htm  (June 19, 2008)

 A Collaborative Study of the Genetics of Anorexia Nervosa and Bulimia Nervosa [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.wpic.pitt.edu/research/angenetics/an_backro...  http://www.wpic.pitt.edu/research/angenetics/an_backro...  (June 19, 2008)

 Vertebrate Zoology [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.zoology.ufl.edu/COURSES/old_cours_files/Ver...  http://www.zoology.ufl.edu/COURSES/old_cours_files/Ver...  (June 24, 2008)

 Fur [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fur"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fur  (June 24, 2008)

 Thermal sensation and regulation

 Thermal sensation and regulation

 Skin Pheromones for attraction and bonding [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.skinbiology.com/skin-pheromones.html"  http://www.skinbiology.com/skin-pheromones.html  (January 3, 2007)

 Thermal sensation and regulation

 The Smell of love - Healthy living [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?article...  http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?article...  (January 3, 2007)

 Egypt: Tour Egypt Monthly:  Great Hair Days in Ancient Egypt [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://touregypt.net/magazine/mag07012001/magf3.htm"  http://touregypt.net/magazine/mag07012001/magf3.htm  (January 3, 2007)

 P&G hair facts - How much hair do we have? [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.pg.com/science/haircare/hair_twh_5.htm"  http://www.pg.com/science/haircare/hair_twh_5.htm  (January 14, 2007)

 Primus Metatarsus [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.mortonsfoot.com/articles/primusmetatarsus.p...  http://www.mortonsfoot.com/articles/primusmetatarsus.pdf  (June 14, 2008)

 Primate Anatomy [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~bramblet/ant301/seven.html#a...  http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~bramblet/ant301/seven.html#a...  (January 14, 2007)

 Coccydynia, a Real Pain in the Tailbone [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.spine-health.com/topics/cd/coccydynia/coc01...  http://www.spine-health.com/topics/cd/coccydynia/coc01...  (January 14, 2007)

 Pelvic floor disorders, incontinence, pelvic pain [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.surgery.usc.edu/divisions/cr/pelvicfloordis...  http://www.surgery.usc.edu/divisions/cr/pelvicfloordis...  (January 14, 2007)

 The Human Gluteus Maximus and its Role in Running [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/209/11/2143...  http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/209/11/2143...  (June 11, 2008)

 Chandre Oram [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandre_Oram"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandre_Oram  (June 24, 2008)

 Lower Limb [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://gibbon.anat.sunysb.edu/EGA/EGA_2001_10.pdf"  http://gibbon.anat.sunysb.edu/EGA/EGA_2001_10.pdf  (April 15, 2008)

 Improving Proprioception [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.ccptr.org/KDC/improving__proprioception.htm...  http://www.ccptr.org/KDC/improving__proprioception.htm  (June 11, 2008)

 Alphabetical Listing of Muscles [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.anatomyatlases.org/AnatomicVariants/Muscula...  http://www.anatomyatlases.org/AnatomicVariants/Muscula...  (June 11, 2008)

 Avian Extrinsic Eye Muscles [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://campus.murraystate.edu/academic/faculty/terry.d...  http://campus.murraystate.edu/academic/faculty/terry.d...  (June 26, 2008)

 Bird Brain II [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.people.eku.edu/ritchisong/birdbrain2.html&q...  http://www.people.eku.edu/ritchisong/birdbrain2.html  (June 25, 2008)

 Amazing Sharks [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.sharks.org/teachers/1-Answers-Amazing%20Sha...  http://www.sharks.org/teachers/1-Answers-Amazing%20Sha...  (June 25, 2008)

 Shark Anatomy [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.everwonder.com/david/sharks/anatomy/index.h...  http://www.everwonder.com/david/sharks/anatomy/index.html  (June 25, 2008)

 Biology of the Rabbit [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.aalas.org/pdfUtility.aspx?pdf=CT/45_01_01.p...  http://www.aalas.org/pdfUtility.aspx?pdf=CT/45_01_01.pdf  (June 28, 2008)

 Carnivore Anatomy [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://vanat.cvm.umn.edu/carnLabs/Lab24/Lab24.html"  http://vanat.cvm.umn.edu/carnLabs/Lab24/Lab24.html  (June 28, 2008)

 Reptilia Lab [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://faculty.juniata.edu/yohn/reptilialab.htm"  http://faculty.juniata.edu/yohn/reptilialab.htm  (June 29, 2008)

 Comparative Opthalmology [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/courses/vet_eyes/conotes...  http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/courses/vet_eyes/conotes...  (June 29, 2008)

 The structure of the human semilunar plica at different stages of its development - a morphology [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/15255295"  http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/15255295  (December 16, 2006)

 Vomeronasal organ [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://neuro.fsu.edu/~mmered/extendedText.htm"  http://neuro.fsu.edu/~mmered/extendedText.htm  (July 7, 2008)

 The existence of the vomeronasal organ in postnatal chimpanzees and evidence for its homology with that of humans [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.cnbc.cmu.edu/~masmith/reprints/smith_janat_...  http://www.cnbc.cmu.edu/~masmith/reprints/smith_janat_...  (July 7, 2008)

 Lactation definition [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey...  http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey...  (January 14, 2007)

 F. Bryant Furlow "  HYPERLINK "http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1175/is_n1_...  The orgasm wars - adaptive function of the female orgasm ". Psychology Today. Jan-Feb 1996. FindArticles.com. 14 Jan. 2007

 NASA - Pumping Iron in Microgravity [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/postsecondary...  http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/postsecondary...  (January 15, 2007)

 Human Biological Adaptability:  Adapting to High Altitude [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://anthro.palomar.edu/adapt/adapt_3.htm"  http://anthro.palomar.edu/adapt/adapt_3.htm  (January 23, 2007)

 NASA - Fit for Space [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/presskits/fit_fo...  http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/presskits/fit_fo...  (July 3, 2008)

 The Bird Site: Flightless Birds [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.nhm.org/birds/guide/pg019a.html"  http://www.nhm.org/birds/guide/pg019a.html  (January 24, 2007)

 Digimorph - Rhea Americana [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.digimorph.org/specimens/rhea_americana/"  http://www.digimorph.org/specimens/rhea_americana/  (July 6, 2008)

 Lectures 3 and 4 [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.usd.edu/biol/faculty/swanson/ornith/lec3_4....  http://www.usd.edu/biol/faculty/swanson/ornith/lec3_4....  (January 24, 2007)

 Featured Species [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://members.tripod.com/harve9/id27.htm"  http://members.tripod.com/harve9/id27.htm  (January 24, 2007)

 Introduction to the Palaeognathae [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/palaeognat...  http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/palaeognat...  (July 6, 2008)

 Whales [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file...  http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file...  (January 24, 2007)

 Python [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761561532/Python_(...  http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761561532/Python_(...  (January 24, 2007)

 Transposons [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.dls.ym.edu.tw/ol_biology2/ultranet/Transpos...  http://www.dls.ym.edu.tw/ol_biology2/ultranet/Transpos...  (January 24, 2007)

 Junk DNA [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm"  http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm  (April 13, 2008)

 Comparative Embryology [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=dbio.sec...  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=dbio.sec...  (January 24, 2007)

 Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species p. 338

 Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species p. 444-449

 Comparative Embryology

 Ernst Haeckel and the Biogenic Law [WWW]  http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?ch=23&id=219 (January 24, 2007)

 Biography of Ernst Haeckel, 1834-1919 [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.gennet.org/facts/haeckel.html"  http://www.gennet.org/facts/haeckel.html  (January 25, 2007)

 The Voyage of the Challenger [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/marinebio/challenger.html&q...  http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/marinebio/challenger.html  (January 25, 2007)

 Wilhelm His [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9040572/Wilhelm-H...  http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9040572/Wilhelm-His  (January 25, 2007)

 ``A question of intent: when is a `schematic' illustration a fraud?'' Nature Vol 410, 8 March 2001: 144

 Ernst Haeckel [WWW]    HYPERLINK "http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/haeckel.html"  http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/haeckel.html  (January 24, 2007)

 Frog Embryology [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ecol&Evol/Compar...  http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ecol&Evol/Compar...  (July 10, 2008)

 Zebrafish Staging [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/sgilber1/DB_lab/Fish/...  http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/sgilber1/DB_lab/Fish/...  (July 10, 2008)

 Gastrulation and Germ Layer Formation in Flat Embryos [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.brynmawr.edu/biology/271/LecSlides/Lec19.pd...  http://www.brynmawr.edu/biology/271/LecSlides/Lec19.pdf  (August 6, 2008)

 Embryogenesis [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic_development"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic_development  (August 6, 2008)

 Cleavage (Embryo) [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleavage_%28embryo%29"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleavage_%28embryo%29  (August 6, 2008)

 Stages of Vertebrate Development [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/anastaj/BY52%20web%20page/...  http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/anastaj/BY52%20web%20page/...  (August 25, 2008)

 Expression of Brachyury Gene [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.dartmouth.edu/~aerives/pdfs/DGD-Erives.pdf&...  http://www.dartmouth.edu/~aerives/pdfs/DGD-Erives.pdf  (August 30, 2008)

 Embryo [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_embryo#The_human_em...  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_embryo#The_human_em...  (January 21, 2009)

 Haeckel's Drawings [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Haeckel_drawings.jpg...  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Haeckel_drawings.jpg  (January 21, 2009)

 Wells and Haeckel's Embryos [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html"  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html  (January 26, 2007)

 Endodermal and Mesodermal Organs [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.d.umn.edu/~pschoff/documents/EndodermalandM...  http://www.d.umn.edu/~pschoff/documents/EndodermalandM...  (July 9, 2008)

 Pharyngeal Arches [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.columbia.edu/itc/hs/medical/humandev/2004/P...  http://www.columbia.edu/itc/hs/medical/humandev/2004/P...  (July 10, 2008)

 Embryology of the Head[WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.lab.anhb.uwa.edu.au/hfa213/week8/lec8devhea...  http://www.lab.anhb.uwa.edu.au/hfa213/week8/lec8devhea...  (July 10, 2008)

 UNSW Embryology - Head and Neck Development - Stage 13/14 [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/Notes/head3.htm"  http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/Notes/head3.htm  (January 21, 2009)

 Development of Branchial Arches [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://musom.marshall.edu/anatomy/grosshom/allppt/pdf/...  http://musom.marshall.edu/anatomy/grosshom/allppt/pdf/...  (January 21, 2009)

 Internal Organs and Face [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.brynmawr.edu/biology/devbiology/Lec20.pdf&q...  http://www.brynmawr.edu/biology/devbiology/Lec20.pdf  (January 22, 2009)

 Patterning the Pharyngeal Arches [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.bios.niu.edu/davis/bios661b/Graham2001.pdf&...  http://www.bios.niu.edu/davis/bios661b/Graham2001.pdf  (January 23, 2009)

 Somite Number and Vertebrate Development [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://dev.biologists.org/cgi/reprint/125/2/151.pdf"  http://dev.biologists.org/cgi/reprint/125/2/151.pdf  (January 23, 2009)

 Embryology of the lamprey and evolution of the vertebrate jaw [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=...  http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=...  (February 8, 2009)

 AIG - About Apoptosis [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.nih.gov/sigs/aig/Aboutapo.html"  http://www.nih.gov/sigs/aig/Aboutapo.html  (July 11, 2008)

 Early Development [Stem Cell Information] [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/appendixA.asp&...  http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/appendixA.asp  (July 11, 2008)

 UNSW Embryology [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryo.htm"  http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryo.htm  (April 4, 2008)

 Prenatal Development [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_development"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_development  (April 4, 2008)

 The Loom:  the Origin of the Ridiculous [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/08/15/the_origin_of_...  http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/08/15/the_origin_of_...  (January 26, 2007)

 Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species p. 310-311

 All you Need to Know about Punctuated Equilibrium [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~theobal/PE.html"  http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~theobal/PE.html  (January 26, 2007)

 In the United States, What is the Average height and weight for a man and woman? [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://science.enotes.com/science-fact-finder/human-bo...  http://science.enotes.com/science-fact-finder/human-bo...  (January 30, 2007)

 Who is tallest [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://ae.euhsd.k12.ca.us/staff/sthomas/wphealth.html&...  http://ae.euhsd.k12.ca.us/staff/sthomas/wphealth.html  (January 30, 2007)

 Untitled [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/faq/Encarta/...  http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/faq/Encarta/...  (January 31, 2007)

 The Interactive Skeleton [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.eskeletons.org/faq.cfm"  http://www.eskeletons.org/faq.cfm  (April 7, 2008)

 Agenesis and variations of teeth [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/8_1Agenesis.ht...  http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/8_1Agenesis.htm  (April 7, 2008)

 Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (p. 297)

 No title [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://animals.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/X...  http://animals.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/X...  (February 3, 2007)

 The Formation of Fossils [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://scienceviews.com/dinosaurs/fossilformation.html...  http://scienceviews.com/dinosaurs/fossilformation.html  (February 2, 2007)

 Fossil [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/ees123/fossil.htm"  http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/ees123/fossil.htm  (February 2, 2007)

 Sedimentation and Stratigraphy [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.gpc.edu/~dthieme/SedStrat_Lectures/5142-Bio...  http://www.gpc.edu/~dthieme/SedStrat_Lectures/5142-Bio...  (January 28, 2007)

 Louis Agassiz [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/agassiz.html"  http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/agassiz.html  (January 28, 2007)

 NOVA:  Ancient Creature of the Deep [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/fish/anatomy.html"  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/fish/anatomy.html  (February 3, 2007)

 Glacier National Park Geology [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.nps.gov/archive/glac/resources/geology.htm&...  http://www.nps.gov/archive/glac/resources/geology.htm  (February 2, 2007)

 AmericanHeritage.com:  Professor Cope vs. Professor Marsh [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1...  http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1...  (February 3, 2007)

 There is no such thing as a Brontosaurus [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/brontosaurus.htm...  http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/brontosaurus.html  (February 3, 2007)

 The role of Nebraska man in the creation-Evolution debate [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html&...  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html  (January 29, 2007)

 Orce Man [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.columbia.edu/itc/anthropology/v1007/castro/...  http://www.columbia.edu/itc/anthropology/v1007/castro/...  (January 30, 2007)

 John Day Fossils Beds NW [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.nps.gov/archive/joda/findingfossils.htm"  http://www.nps.gov/archive/joda/findingfossils.htm  (February 4, 2007)

 Hyracotherium 2 [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fhc/hyraco2.htm"  http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fhc/hyraco2.htm  (February 3, 2007)

 Hyracotherium 3 [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fhc/hyraco3.htm"  http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fhc/hyraco3.htm  (February 3, 2007)

 Evolution [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.bbhc.org/unbrokenSpirit/evolution_1.cfm"  http://www.bbhc.org/unbrokenSpirit/Evolution_1.cfm  (February 4, 2007)

 Fossil Horses in Cyberspace Exhibit Menu [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/firstCM....  http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/firstCM.htm  (February 4, 2007)

 The Evolution of the Horse [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.geocities.com/szswim38/horse_evol/index.htm...  http://www.geocities.com/szswim38/horse_evol/index.html  (February 4, 2007)

 Cranial Capacity [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cranial_capacity"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cranial_capacity  (February 8, 2007)

 Human Ancestors Hall [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.ht...  http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html  (February 8, 2007)

 Human Evolution Chart [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.ucalgary.ca/~eslinger/genrels/HumanEvol.htm...  http://www.ucalgary.ca/~eslinger/genrels/HumanEvol.html  (February 8, 2007)

 Early Human Evolution [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_3.htm"  http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_3.htm  (February 8, 2007)

 Culture - humans [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_l...  http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_l...  (February 6, 2007)

 Archaeological Sites [WWW]   HYPERLINK "https://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/europe/l...  https://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/europe/l...  (February 6, 2007)

 Archaeological Sites [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/europe/n...  http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/europe/n...  (February 6, 2007)

 Human Ancestors Hall:  Homo Neanderthalensis [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/neand.htm...  http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/neand.htm  (February 6, 2007)

 Human Ancestors Chart

 Evolution of Modern Humans [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/default.htm"  http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/default.htm  (February 8, 2007)

 Neanderthal [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthals"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthals  (April 8, 2008)

 Lecture 2 [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/history/lecture02/l...  http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/history/lecture02/l...  (February 8, 2007)

 Cro-Magnon [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro_magnon"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro_magnon  (April 8, 2008)

 Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (p. 184)

 Primitive Eocene Whales [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.intersurf.com/~chalcedony/Basilosaurus1.htm...  http://www.intersurf.com/~chalcedony/Basilosaurus1.html  (February 8, 2007)

 Cetaceans [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/cetacean.h...  http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/cetacean.html  (February 8, 2007)

 Whale Origins [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/whale_orig...  http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/whale_orig...  (February 8, 2007)

 The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Factors [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/"  http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/  (February 9, 2007)

 Baleen Whales:  Birth and care of young [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/Baleen/birthbw.html&...  http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/Baleen/birthbw.html  (February 9, 2007)

 The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Factors

 Archaeognatha [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeognatha"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeognatha  (April 11, 2008)

 Archaeognatha [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Archaeognatha&contgro...  http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Archaeognatha&contgro...  (April 11, 2008)

 Insect Evolution [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Evolution/evolution-segues...  http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Evolution/Evolution-segues...  (April 11, 2008)

 Introduction to the Myxini [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/basalfish/myx...  http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/basalfish/myx...  (February 8, 2009)

 Embryology of the lamprey and evolution of the vertebrate jaw [WWW] Ibid.

 Crassigyrinus [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Crassigyrinus&contgro...  http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Crassigyrinus&contgro...  (January 31, 2009)

 Devonian Times [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/old-order.html"  http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/old-order.html  (April 11, 2008)

 Elginerpeton [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elginerpeton"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elginerpeton  (April 12, 2008)

 Reptiolomorpha: Batrachosauria [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/190Reptilomor...  http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/190Reptilomor...  (January 31, 2009)

 Metamorphosis [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.sbs.utexas.edu/shankland/BIO349/lc22meta.ht...  http://www.sbs.utexas.edu/shankland/BIO349/lc22meta.htm  (January 31, 2009)

 Bird anatomy [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_anatomy"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_anatomy  (April 19, 2008)

 Developmental Patterns and the Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/278/533...  http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/278/533...  (January 21, 2009)

 Lung Structure and Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/lung_structur...  http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/lung_structur...  (January 21, 2009)

 Megazostrodon [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megazostrodon"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megazostrodon  (April 12, 2008)

 Early Mammalian Radiations [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3790/is_200111...  http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3790/is_200111...  (April 16, 2008)

 Early Mammalian Radiations, Ibid

 Palaeos Vertebrates: Mammaliformes [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/Unit420/420.3...  http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/Unit420/420.3...  (April 16, 2008)

 Therapsida [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapsid"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapsid  (April 9, 2008)

 Mammaliaformes [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammaliformes"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammaliformes  (April 9, 2008)

 Monotreme [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotreme"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotreme  (April 9, 2008)

 Platypus [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus#In_mammalian_evo...  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus#In_mammalian_Evo...  (April 9, 2008)

 Dual origin of tribosphenic mammals [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.carnegiemnh.org/vp/media/LuoEtAl(2001a).pdf...  http://www.carnegiemnh.org/vp/media/LuoEtAl(2001a).pdf  (April 17, 2008)

 Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (p. 30-31)

 Canine Health Problems by Breed [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.dogpack.com/health/healthproblems.htm"  http://www.dogpack.com/health/healthproblems.htm  (February 9, 2007)

 Purebred dog breeds into the Twenty-First Century [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.netpets.com/dogs/healthspa/bragg.html"  http://www.netpets.com/dogs/healthspa/bragg.html  (February 9, 2007)

 Saving the Cheetah:  race against time [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.hrw.com/science/si-science/biology/animals/...  http://www.hrw.com/science/si-science/biology/animals/...  (February 9, 2007)

 Tracking the Long-term Decline and Recovery of an isolated population [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/282/5394/16...  http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/282/5394/1695  (July 7, 2008)

 Homology and Analogy [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://web.grinnell.edu/individuals/brownj/edu/136_lab...  http://web.grinnell.edu/individuals/brownj/edu/136_lab...  (February 9, 2007)

 Platypus [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus#In_mammalian_evo...  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus#In_mammalian_Evo...  (April 9, 2008)

 Monotreme [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotreme"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotreme  (April 9, 2008)

 Evidence for Evolution [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVpag...  http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVpag...  (April 9, 2008)

 Aquatic Mammals [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.educationalimages.com/it110015.htm"  http://www.educationalimages.com/it110015.htm  (April 9, 2008)

 Hens, cocks and avian sex determination [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?to...  http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?to...  (April 9, 2008)

 Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammalian_au...  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammalian_au...  (April 13, 2008)

 Laelaps:  Heterodonty where you least expect it [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2008/04/heterodont_arc...  http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2008/04/heterodont_arc...  (May 16, 2008)

 Developmental studies of the lamprey and hierarchical evolutionary steps toward the acquisition of the jaw [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.bios.niu.edu/davis/bios661b/Kuratani2005.pd...  http://www.bios.niu.edu/davis/bios661b/Kuratani2005.pdf  (January 24, 2009)

 Cutaneous Gas Exchange [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://universe-review.ca/I10-82-respiration.jpg"  http://universe-review.ca/I10-82-respiration.jpg  (February 10, 2009)

 Lecture Notes [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.faculty.biol.ttu.edu/strauss/VertStructure/...  http://www.faculty.biol.ttu.edu/strauss/VertStructure/...  (January 24, 2009)

 Biology of Fish [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/biology_of_fish....  http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/biology_of_fish.php  (January 30, 2009)

 Survey Sequencing and Comparative Analysis of Elephant Shark Genome [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-...  http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-...  (June 25, 2008)

 Pachydermata [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachydermata"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachydermata  (April 9, 2008)

 Elephant [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant  (April 9, 2008)

 Mammals [WWW]   HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammals"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammals  (April 9, 2008)

External

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
page
1
page
2
page
3
page
4
page
5
page
6
page
7
page
8
page
9
page
10
page
11
page
12
page
13
page
14
page
15
page
16
page
17
page
18
page
19
page
20
page
21
page
22
page
23
page
24
page
25
page
26
page
27
page
28
page
29
page
30
page
31
page
32
page
33
page
34
page
35
page
36
page
37
page
38
page
39
page
40
page
41
page
42
page
43
page
44
page
45
page
46
page
47
page
48
page
49
page
50
page
51
page
52
page
53
page
54
page
55
page
56
page
57
page
58
page
59
page
60
page
61
page
62
page
63
page
64
page
65
page
66
page
67
page
68
page
69
page
70
page
71
page
72
page
73
page
74
page
75
page
76
page
77
page
78
page
79
page
80
page
81
page
82
page
83
page
84
page
85
page
86
page
87
page
88
page
89
page
90
page
91
page
92
page
93
page
94
page
95
page
96
page
97
page
98
page
99
page
100
page
101
page
102
page
103
page
104
page
105
page
106
page
107
page
108
page
109
page
110
page
111
page
112
page
113
page
114
page
115
page
116
page
117
page
118
page
119
page
120
page
121
page
122
page
123
page
124
page
125
page
126
page
127
page
128
page
129
page
130
page
131
page
132
page
133
page
134
page
135
page
136
page
137
page
138
page
139
page
140
page
141
page
142
page
143
page
144
page
145
page
146
page
147
page
148
page
149
page
150
page
151
page
152
page
153
page
154
page
155
page
156
page
157
page
158
page
159
page
160
page
161
page
162
page
163
page
164
page
165
page
166
page
167
page
168
page
169
page
170
page
171
page
172
page
173
page
174
page
175
page
176
page
177
page
178
page
179
page
180
page
181
page
182
page
183
page
184
page
185
page
186
page
187
page
188
page
189
page
190
page
191
page
192
page
193
page
194
page
195
page
196
page
197
page
198
page
199
page
200
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
next
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
previous
page
 
 
page
1
page
2
page
3
page
4
page
5
page
6
page
7
page
8
page
9
page
10
page
11
page
12
page
13
page
14
page
15
page
16
page
17
page
18
page
19
page
20
page
21
page
22
page
23
page
24
page
25
page
26
page
27
page
28
page
29
page
30
page
31
page
32
page
33
page
34
page
35
page
36
page
37
page
38
page
39
page
40
page
41
page
42
page
43
page
44
page
45
page
46
page
47
page
48
page
49
page
50
page
51
page
52
page
53
page
54
page
55
page
56
page
57
page
58
page
59
page
60
page
61
page
62
page
63
page
64
page
65
page
66
page
67
page
68
page
69
page
70
page
71
page
72
page
73
page
74
page
75
page
76
page
77
page
78
page
79
page
80
page
81
page
82
page
83
page
84
page
85
page
86
page
87
page
88
page
89
page
90
page
91
page
92
page
93
page
94
page
95
page
96
page
97
page
98
page
99
page
100
page
101
page
102
page
103
page
104
page
105
page
106
page
107
page
108
page
109
page
110
page
111
page
112
page
113
page
114
page
115
page
116
page
117
page
118
page
119
page
120
page
121
page
122
page
123
page
124
page
125
page
126
page
127
page
128
page
129
page
130
page
131
page
132
page
133
page
134
page
135
page
136
page
137
page
138
page
139
page
140
page
141
page
142
page
143
page
144
page
145
page
146
page
147
page
148
page
149
page
150
page
151
page
152
page
153
page
154
page
155
page
156
page
157
page
158
page
159
page
160
page
161
page
162
page
163
page
164
page
165
page
166
page
167
page
168
page
169
page
170
page
171
page
172
page
173
page
174
page
175
page
176
page
177
page
178
page
179
page
180
page
181
page
182
page
183
page
184
page
185
page
186
page
187
page
188
page
189
page
190
page
191
page
192
page
193
page
194
page
195
page
196
page
197
page
198
page
199
page
200
by Yiffox
EVOLUTION SUCKS!
+5
EVOLUTION SUCKS! 3
Keywords
science 2,150, evolution 650, mythos 124
Details
Type: Writing - Document
Published: 4 years, 10 months ago
Rating: General

MD5 Hash for Page 1... Show Find Identical Posts [?]
Stats
163 views
1 favorite
6 comments

BBCode Tags Show [?]
 
Kythra
4 years, 9 months ago
And here you go off the rails on the second page. Observational sciences cannot do experiments to order, correct. But their theories stand or fail based on predictions of what nature will do when the next interesting event occurs, not on some nebulous consensus of what scientists like. Particularly true in geology, which got a lot of its early funding from mining companies. They screwed up, the companies went broke and those geologists were soon unemployed. Theories stood or fell based on whether they could correctly predict the presence of coal seams and ore bodies; using the theories to correctly project what was still hidden. It isn't -nearly- as arbitrary as you claim. Prevailing philosophy may shape what hypotheses are proposed, but not which of those are accepted as accurate.

Wegener, forex, wasn't denounced for proposing a theory nobody liked. He was ignored because his version of continental drift didn't have a plausible mechanism. Recall that this was in the time before plastic deformation or even the nature of the ocean floor were known.

And ... yeah, pretty much the rest of this is 'disproving' evolution because the mechanisms proposed a century or more ago were often incorrect, or based on vastly incomplete knowledge of anatomy, biochemistry and genetics. Almost none of your examples date from the 20th century.
Yiffox
4 years, 9 months ago
There is a vast difference between predictions and recognizing existing traits and saying yeah such and such conditions should be similar.  As I stated previous, evolution theory has a long list of failed predictions.  To my point, I often hear that island versions of species exhibit dwarfism as a prediction.  It is not, it is simply recognizing an observational commonality and saying oh, we should expect this on other islands.

But we didn't have a mechanism for evolution for over 50 years and so why the different treatment?

Because this chapter is showing how all the original evidence has disappeared or actually is evidence against the theory.  I think you skimmed.
Kythra
4 years, 9 months ago
But they -did- have a proposed mechanism for evolution from the beginning. It had to be revised when Mendel's work was discovered, but they weren't hand-waving the way Wegener was.

And your declaration that evidence means the opposite of what it means or has been suppressed or lost when we still have it? Classic conspiracy theory stuff. You should get help. But you won't, because They're Part of the Conspiracy.
Yiffox
4 years, 9 months ago
The only proposed model by Darwin was a unit of hereditary that traveled from feature to the genitals, and no proof of that happening at all.  Lolz.

I didn't say that.  I said the evidence no longer supports the theory as its been disproved as evidence, like nascent and vestigial organs, or breeding animals shows we can manipulate them into anything (when we now KNOW that the more you breed a species, the less healthy the individuals are, see all the genetic diseases common to any breed of dog.)  So no, stop trying to make up things and stick to what's actual said (but you didn't read what I said, DID YOU?)
Kythra
4 years, 9 months ago
I read what you wrote. The fact that you don't comprehend what the actual issues are and insist that mistaken ideas from over a century back invalidate the current synthesis is not my problem, except as it touches on wasting my time trying to educate you.
Yiffox
4 years, 9 months ago
LOLZ...you do realize all these proofs are still taught in textbooks...so justification they are not important?  The appendix is still held up as the only still existing actual vestigial organ, even though its well known to be part of immune system containing crypts that sample bacteria alerting the immune response.  Also its smaller in apes, and non-existent in monkeys, however much bigger in their supposed ancestors, rodents, where the corresponding organ is involved in digestion.  If you read this, you would have read that.

But *I* need to be educated, you are a fool.
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.