such criticism from them a good reason to read, what is more often than not, a highly informative
paper. Otherwise it wouldn’t have ruffled so many academic feathers. But the fact that there are
fatal flaws in Darwin’s theory is now evident and much to their annoyance, it has even been
scientifically proven by Academia itself due to recent, quite major advancements that have been
made in various fields, such as the discovery, mapping and study of DNA. The information is
also quite well known within science community itself, though they just seem to make a point not
to actually inform the public. The information emerged as yet another somewhat rude shock for
science, about 1980 and further confounded the devotees of Darwinian thinking.
You see, Palaeontologists, through the study of bones, had discovered that, (if it actually
happened,) the split in the evolutionary chain when primates evolved into man must have
occurred sometime between 5 million and 8 million years ago. Then, armed with this information
a group of Geneticists in 1980 decided to attempt to narrow that date down to discover a more
accurate timeline. The Geneticists believed that this wide bracket of 3 million years could be
narrowed dramatically by charting mutations in DNA and so they began gathering DNA samples
from around the world to use in their subsequent experiments.
A controversy then erupted when the results for these tests came in and the information was
deemed so shocking that the tests were run again, in fact several times over because what they
showed was that genetically, man was in fact, no more than 200,000 years old. Naturally the roar
of protests from Anthropologists was unprecedented.
However, subsequent testing has now proved beyond any doubt that the geneticists were
absolutely correct, and there are other things too. Lloyd Pye covers these topics quite extensively
in ‘Human Origins’ and again, I highly recommend reading it.
For example a popular statistic that is presented to us to back up evolution is the fact that the
DNA of humans differs from chimpanzee DNA by as little as 1% and from gorillas by only 2%.
This makes it appear to those who are uneducated in the science of genetics, that evolution is
quite obviously correct and humans and primates are virtually cousins. However, what they never
seem to mention is that the human DNA tree has three billion base pairs and so 1% of this is in
fact, 30 million base pairs. Now, 30 million base pairs is, in reality, a tremendous amount of
difference between the two species by any measure. And of course with Gorillas, that would be
60 million base pairs.
Primates also suffer from very few genetic disorders apart from perhaps Albinism, which is a
gene common in a variety of animals groups, including humans. By way of comparison, humans
have over 4,000 genetic disorders; several that will most definitely kill absolutely every victim!
So, are we asked to believe that these disorders manifested in our evolution to a ‘higher and
more improved species’?
One of the most undeniable and obvious differences of all between the species can also be
found in the fact that primates have 48 chromosomes yet humans, who are considered to be vastly
superior to them in the evolutionary chain have only 46 chromosomes! So, how in the world
could we just lose two full chromosomes in this ‘evolutionary improvement process’ we are
supposed to have undergone? Two full chromosomes is an awful lot of DNA to just disappear!
Primates are also much stronger than humans, in fact on a pound for pound ratio, about 5 to ten
times stronger, even small monkeys. If we really evolved from primates then apart from losing
chromosomes, how did we also become so puny and weak compared to our ‘ancestors’ in this
‘improvement process?’
When analysed, nothing about evolution makes any logical sense at all really.
The list goes on: Human bones are far lighter than any primate bones or Neanderthal or any
other so called ‘ancestral’ species; and more. It was explained well in a recent article by Lloyd
Pye explains in which he made the following observations:
“Skin: Human skin is not well adapted to the amount of sunlight striking Earth. It can be
modified to survive extended exposure by greatly increasing melanin (its dark pigment) at its
nextflipdebug2
(nextflipdebug2)
#1