The Originality of Species E-Book

Thomas Seiler

• Herausgeber: Books on Demand
• Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 28

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2011

Beschreibung

The idea of evolution suggests that all natural species have one common ancestor, or a few of them, and that over very many generations a continuous gradual change produced the diversity of all biological species observed today. It suggests a development from simpler life forms to more complex ones, introducing a multitude of new organs and functional structures which did not exist in the beginning. According to this concept, mainly mutation and natural selection are the driving forces that bring about a gradual evolution towards more complex life. However, the results of scientific examinations in different research areas delivered no proof for the theory of evolution. On the other hand, the most basic natural law, the absence of evolving organs and logical considerations deliver proof of the contrary and lead to the conclusion that evolution did not happen and can never happen. Natural species are not connected by common descent. Within the framework of their natural variability they have always been the same since their origin – an origin which cannot be attributed to any observable or reproducible natural process. www.originality-of-species.net

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

Introduction

Molecular Genetics

Embryology

Anatomy

Paleontology

The geological column

Population Genetics

Thermodynamics

Logic

Anatomy

Conclusion

Introduction

The idea of evolution suggests that all natural species1 have one common ancestor, or a few of them, and that over very many generations a continuous gradual change produced the diversity of all biological species observed today. It suggests a development from simpler life forms to more complex ones, introducing a multitude of new organs and functional structures which did not exist in the beginning. According to this concept, purely natural processes, mainly mutation and natural selection, are the driving forces that bring about a gradual evolution towards more complex life.

Fig. 1. Charles Darwin's “tree of life”

In order to be scientific, a process has to be observable and reproducible. Since the publication of Darwin's book “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” in 1859, intensive efforts have been made in different areas of research to find a proof that the concept of evolution is true. Many claims have been reported that evidences for evolution in history or even observable evolution in action were found.

1 Here, natural species is defined as the group of all individual plants or animals that can potentially breed fertile offspring.

Molecular Genetics

One famous example offered as proof for evolution is the statement that chimpanzees and humans have 99 % of their genes in common. However, there are four objections to this: First, one cannot explain mental properties as a result of DNA expression since thoughts and feelings cannot by explained by chemical reactions.

Secondly, similarity in the DNA or in the outer appearance of two different kinds of organisms does not prove common descent. It can equally be explained by analogous functional or constructional needs. There are, for example, non-related animals like the ant-eater and the woodpecker which have one very similar complex organ: a tongue which can be extended to pick up insects which are difficult to reach in their holes. This is a clear case where similarity is not due to descent. On the DNA level, this is confirmed by the reported similarity between man and mouse of 97,5 %2.

Thirdly, the originally assumed 99 % similarity between chimpanzee and man was based on comparing only a very small fraction of the DNA (ca. 3 %)3. The function of the overwhelming majority of the genetic code was not understood. Therefore, it was concluded that this DNA had no function at all and it was considered “leftover junk from evolution”. The mistake of this reasoning became obvious with the discovery of significant functionality in the assumed non-coding areas. One of the principal researchers, John Mattick , recently claimed that, “the failure to recognize the implications of the non-coding DNA will go down as the biggest mistake in the history of molecular biology.”4