Artist · Writer David Branstetter

.com

Oct
17thThe Proximity Problem: A Case Study in Evolution

When discussing Evolutionary Theory, we must take into account the proximity of mating between two pairings of two sub-humans at the moment that both sub-humans pass on their identical genetic mutation.

For Evolutionary theory to work, we must first assume that human life originated from both a male and a female sub-human. As we understand reproduction today, it takes both a male and female to create offspring. Let us assume that the male chromosome is actually a damaged female chromosome and a mutation. If the first human was female, then she would have to reproduce asexually until the male mutation appeared so that her offspring could mate to perpetrate the species. While some cases have shown in nature that females can spontaneously reproduce (i.e. frogs and sharks), it is a rare event. The rarity of the event would not take place in one lifetime and so therefore it would be impossible for a female to reproduce asexually. In addition to that, she would have to reproduce often and create the vital male chromosome through an extremely unlikely mutation. Therefore we must eliminate this possibility of evolution from our theory.

This is important because we must establish that male and female pairings had to spawn the first human. The proximity problem comes into play because every mutation that is passed down from each successful pairing must be able to be physically passed down from one generation to the next. Yes we can assume that accidental changes in DNA can happen and often do. These changes are often non-beneficial to human life as we know it. Occasionally it may lead to an individual having superior calculation skills but at the expense of being able to socialize, or possibility mating. We can observe that mutation in DNA can be passed down from generation to generation (i.e. Hemophilia) and that it is possible for humans to live and reproduce while expressing DNA mutations. However, in the case of Hemophilia, we can assume that if modern medicine did not have the capability of preventing loss of life that eventually [“life, that” and omit eventually here –you have it in the sentence later] those that carry this gene would eventually die out, because under normal circumstances this genetic mutation leads to death.

The interesting thing about genetic expression is that it can express three different gene types. Dominant and dominant, recessive and dominant, and recessive and recessive. Evolutionary theory assumes that we create higher forms of life depending on the successful succession of mutated recessive gene types. In order for an organism to pass on its DNA, it must mate with another of its kind to produce offspring. That is to say, if a subhuman tried to mate with a different subhuman and it was not able to produce a viable offspring, then that line of genetic mutation is cut off and can longer be used as the stepping stone towards the evolved human. Not only does this mating need to create a viable offspring, that offspring must mate with its brother or sister to ensure that its new mutation is passed down to its offspring. Even then, the likely hood [likelihood] that the recessive gene type will be passed on is slim. You have a 75% chance that the offspring would express the dominate trait and that those offspring would more than likely mate with a different family of subhumans. Thus the precious recessive trait would be buried in a mountain of dominate types, eventually killing off the genetic mutationthrough natural selection.

We know that we exist because we are here. We know that humans came from other humans. What we do not know is how those humans came to be. While the theory of Evolution tries to account for this, itdoes not make sense from a mathematical or statistical point of view. Humans are sophisticated creatures. When a tiny thing goes wrong with our bodies, it can lead to death. Look at cancer. It’s a little mutation that tells your cells to keep producing no matter what, even to the point of death. This is a microscopic change in the way our cell functions. Just imagine how many wrong turns it took to get to the animal we call human.

It is bad science to run to one explanation of our existence over another explanation without due process. The Theory of Evolution does not hold up to the basic scientific method! Sure we can “Ask a Question” where did we come from [“Where did we come from?”] , and we can “Do Background Research” by observing the natural processes that are around us. Evolutionists have “Constructed a Hypothesis” that states that through small genetic changes over a course of time humans evolved from a lower form of animal. The observation is, “Hey I look like a monkey; I wonder if I evolved from a monkey? I am a creature of higher intelligence and must therefore be better than a monkey. So if I am better than a monkey , some changes must of occurred over a span of time to turn me into the human I am today.” The next step would be then to “Test the Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment”. How can we test such a thing? Evidence has been produced claiming that fossil records prove that humans were in transitional states between a monkey and a human. It would be one thing to postulate that humans evolved without any proof , but it is another to have actual fossil records showing the changes. When an individual actually examines the evidence for himself, he will find that over the decades since the Theory of Evolution was formulated several fossils have been produced that claim to be the missing link; however, they have actually been proven to be fake, elaborate hoaxes, or misclassified bones. Sometimes reconstructions have assembled both human and monkey bones and were later dis-proven (i.e. Lucy). The last two steps of the scientific method are to “Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion” and to “Communicate Your Results”. The scientific community has been communicating its “results” for years but has not followed the method perfectly. Those same scientists have drawn the conclusion before analyzing the data. To those of you who say “Wait! We have plenty of evidence!” there are at least 5 examples on Wikipedia of missing links! Uh hu. How often do we see despairingly different variations of our own kind? Short people, tall people, black people, white people… Still people…..still human and still able to mate and produce viable offspring. In fact there is no evidence of a change of kind in the entire fossil record. That is the main thrust of Evolutionary Theory and yet the evidence is just not there. If it were true, we would simply see more evidence. Lucy’s bones are supposedly 3.2 million years old. If one set of bones can survive 3.2 million years, than surely we would be able to find a plethora of evidence to support the theory of evolution. Sadly enough it is just not there.

I love this quote from Arthur Conan Doyle “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” Clearly the Theory of Evolution has holes in it. While believing in something like Creationism is uncomfortable, a good scientist will not eliminate something because of the way it makes him feel. We see evidences in our life; we see order in a swirl of chaos, and we intuitively understand the unquantifiable. The natural progression of the universe is to destroy itself, yet Man is a product of biological perfection. How can such a fragile creature thrive in such desperate conditions? How could it be that those little mutations managed to survive and thrive? Was it the guiding hand of evolution or was it the guiding hand of God?

The very idea of crediting a supernatural force for an event goes against the very fabric of science. I agree that we should use science to observe the world around us and not give in to superstition. We can recall from our textbooks the discovery of the life-cycle of flies. Many believed that flies were magical beings that came from nowhere or a supernatural source. However, science was able to prove that these flies actually came from the worms in the meat which were maggots that developed from fly eggs. Only by doing the research and applying the scientific method were they able to make that discovery. I love science because it is able to describe the complexity of the world in ways of which I could never dream. When science turns from observation and into speculation it is almost always incorrect.

What are some of the ways we can test the Theory of Evolution? Why not try to combine the DNA of monkeys and a human to see if they are even compatible? Why not test that result by breeding that offspring together to see if they even can reproduce? I speculate that in the same way a horse and donkey offspring (A Mule) cannot create its own offspring, human and monkeys are genetically incompatible. If such a test was conducted, we could possibly end some of the speculation surrounding the evolution debate. My question to you is, why have you taken the word of others over your own thoughts and observations? Why leave such a huge question up to the experts without examining it for yourself? Amongst many reasons I believe the Theory of Evolution is not the answer to why humans exists, and we certainly do exist.