Why Some Scientists Question Evolution

Even though evolution has long been included in science textbooks, it is still a controversial topic.

First, evolution is a hypothesis, not an axiom.

Biologist Charles Darwin proposed the theory of evolution in 1859. At that time, Darwin wrote “The Origin of Species” to explain biodiversity on earth and the origin of life. He said that “evolution theory is only a hypothesis, it is not an axiom, it needs to be further verified by future generations.”

There are several central points in the theory of evolution:

1. Common ancestor theory: Organisms can evolve from one species to another. All organisms have a common ancestor, just as all branches of a tree grow from the same trunk. Single-celled organisms can evolve into multicellular organisms, and then into animals, plants, and fungi, and develop into various phyla, orders, families, genera, and species.

2. Gene mutations: Genes can mutate. It’s how organisms evolve.

3. Natural selection: The natural environment brings pressure to the species. The ones that can adapt to the environment can survive. The strong can survive, the weak are eliminated.

However, as of April 2020, more than 1,100 scientists and researchers in chemistry, biology, medicine, physics, geology, anthropology, paleontology, statistics, and other fields have signed a scientific dissenting statement against Darwinism.

The statement says:

“We are skeptical that ‘random variation’ and ‘natural selection’ can explain the complexity of life. A serious review of the evidence for Darwinism should be encouraged.”

Why do scientists question evolution?

Q1. Life originates from the “same ancestor”? What about the missing link in the evolution chain?

We often hear that “humans evolved from apes.” The theory of evolution suggests that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor —”apes” or “hominids”—and that humans first evolved from plants to animals, apes, and finally to modern humans—”Homo sapiens.”

If this is the case, the evolutionary process must have created countless generations of intermediate species with minimal differences. But so far, no such intermediate species have been found in archaeology, and all creatures are of their own kind. No hypothetical “ape” ancestor has been found.

Some so-called “human ancestors” fossils are actually made up of bone fragments, which are not scientifically sound and do not provide complete proof that humans evolved from apes.

“Lucy,” discovered in East Africa in 1974, was considered the common ancestor of humans and apes—the “Ape Ancestor.”

Many scientists have studied Lucy’s skeleton and structure.

The main difference between apes and humans is the structure of the skeleton. In a paper in the American Journal of Anthropology, anatomists Jack Stern and Randall Sussman of the New York State University Health Sciences Center noted that Lucy’s hands and feet are not at all like those of humans, whose knees and hands and feet are straight, while Lucy’s knees and hands and feet are curved.

Dr. Charles Oxnard, professor of anatomy and human biology at the University of Western Australia (UWA) and professor at the University of Chicago and the University of Birmingham in the UK, wrote in his 1987 book published by the University of Washington Press “Fossils, Teeth, and Sex: New Perspectives on Human Evolution” that Lucy had nothing to do with the ancestors of humans, but was a type of extinct ape of the “southern archaeopteryx Alfalfa species,” which had the long, curved fingers and toes typical of arboreal primates.

Despite this, Lucy was made into a statue, with human hands and feet, and placed in the park.

The Piltdown Man hoax was a fossil found in England between 1908 and 1915, and was described at the time as the “missing link” in the evolution of apes into homo sapiens. In November 1953, Time magazine published various evidence collected by Kenneth Page Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark, and Joseph S. Weiner, among others, that the fossil was made up of three different species: the skull of a medieval human, the jaws of a 500-year-old Sarawak orangutan, and the teeth of a chimpanzee.

The skull was stained with rust and chromic acid; microscopic examination revealed filing marks on the teeth, which led to the conclusion that chimpanzee teeth had been modified to fit human teeth, thus uncovering the truth about the Piltdown apes, which a BBC article called “the biggest hoax in British history.”

Java man, discovered in 1891 was the combination of a skull, a femur, and three teeth. Later, scientists discovered that Java man was also made up of bones from different species.

Peking Man was an “upright man” discovered in Zhoukoudian, Beijing, China, between 1920 and 1930. It was considered strong proof of the existence of the ancestor of both humans and apes. However, it was merely a patchwork of skull fragments, teeth, and so on. Many scientists suspect that the brain of the Beijing man was so small that it was not like an ape’s and more like “an ape that was hunted and eaten by humans.”

Q2. Evolution of species relies on “gene mutation”? There’s not enough time in the universe!

Based on the theory of evolution, a certain gene mutation in the original species is required for the species to evolve. While most gene mutations are harmful, the probability of a beneficial mutation is only about 1 in 1000.

Then, the mutation must not only be compatible with other genes in the original species itself, but also survive natural competition and be able to reproduce. The chance for a mutated but beneficial gene to be stable and expanding in the population is almost zero.

Let’s assume that 10 beneficial mutations (in fact, more than 10 are needed) are required for a species to evolve into a new species, and the time needed is 10 to the power of 97 years. However, we now know that the age of the universe is only 20 billion years, which is 10 to the power of 10 years, so it is almost impossible to produce a new species by genetic mutation. The universe literally doesn’t have enough time for evolution.

Q3. Nature is always the “survival of the fittest”? 

Another major point of evolution is “survival of the fittest,” that the more adaptable individuals will survive. However, do all organisms in nature really follow this rule?

The journal Nature published a study of drug resistance of bacteria by scientists at Boston University and Harvard University. They found that some strains of bacteria with strong drug resistance would sacrifice themselves to increase the overall drug resistance of the bacteria, thus improving its chances to survive. In other words, nature does not exactly follow the cruel competition law of “survival of the fittest;” even microscopic bacteria display self-sacrificing altruistic behavior.

People thought that atoms were indivisible until 1897 when British physicist Sir JJ Thomson discovered that atoms could be divided. The development of science requires constant updating of the old concepts. It is only natural that the theory of evolution, which was proposed in 1859, should be questioned today.

So, if evolution is not reliable, what else do we know about the origin of species?

Before the Cambrian period, there was a paucity of biological diversity.

However, in 1909, Walcott found fossils of a variety of marine animals in the Burgess Shale in Canada that suddenly appeared in large numbers during the Cambrian period (about 570 to 500 million years ago).

The “fossil group of Chengjiang, China” also indicates that 530 million years ago, many different kinds of animals suddenly appeared in Chengjiang area. The Cambrian fossils found around the world belong to a total of more than 50 families and tens of thousands of species. They leave no trace of evolution or changes, hence the name the “Great Explosion of Life.”

According to the theory of evolution, life originated in the ocean, and the diversity of species is the result of evolution over a long period of time. That is to say, humans evolved from fish. However, the following study completely negated this view.

n 2018, Mark Stoeckle from Rockefeller University in New York and David Thaler from the University of Basel in Switzerland published a joint study in the journal Human Evolution. Together with hundreds of researchers worldwide, they studied 100,000 animal species and 5 million DNA fragments.

As we know, like the way each item in the supermarket has its own barcode, each species on Earth has a corresponding DNA “barcode” in the mitochondrial gene. By analyzing the “genetic barcodes” of different species on Earth and comparing the variability among them, scientists have deduced that 90 percent of the species on Earth today, including humans, appeared at the same time 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

A number of physicists have suggested the possibility of the existence of civilizations higher than that of humans, and that the environment in which humans live may have been created by higher beings. In that case, is it possible that so many beings with sophisticated functions were also created by higher beings?

We expect that with the continuous development and improvement of science, human understanding of the phenomenon of life will become clearer and clearer, and these mysteries will be solved slowly.

See more here: theepochtimes.com

Header image: Enrise

Editor’s note:  The views expressed in published articles are not necessarily those held at Principia Scientific. We understand the age of the universe is considered by many to be 13.7 billion years, not 20 billion. Also, while Lucy was indeed considered the human-ape ancestor for some time, dated to about three to four million years old, a new candidate for that honour is currently the fossil Pierolapithecus Catalaunicus, which is dated to 13 million years old, as in the image below:

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.

Comments (16)

  • Avatar

    Mark Tapley

    |

    The theory of evolution attributed to Darwin had its origin over 2000 years age with the ancient Hindus who believed in evolution through reincarnation. Darwin followed the same simplistic trajectory since he knew nothing about DNA, the real effects of mutations or genetic coding. He just assumed that over time animals could adapt through random selection to create :”new kinds.” He further stated that these new “kinds” had to be proven with transitionary animals in the fossil record or his theory was wrong. Millions of fossils have been discovered but no transitionary links.

    Evolutionists often in a desperate attempt to salvage any shred of evidence, site the Galapagos finches as evidence of “change of kind” but this is ludicrous. These birds merely exhibit recessive traits already within the organism just as the much more “plastic” dog which may exhibit the characteristics of a mastiff or of a tea cup Chihuahua but are still just variations of the same animal. No change of kind.

    In a last stand the evolutionists desperately beat the evolutionary drum of mutations as being the springboard for Darwins “new Kinds.” It is just another dead end. Mutation has been shown to occur not with the addition of new genetics but rather by dropping genes as is the case for the ap. 5000 mutations that occur in humans. None of then are beneficial, most are benign, some are fatal. It is now known that each succeeding generation of humans are picking up more mutational damage. At some point down the road this will render our species infertile and extinct.

    Scientists now know that all living organisms must be coded with genetic information as is detailed by Dr. Werner Gitt, beginning with the lowly spider in his book “In The Beginning Was information.” No matter how much time (uniformitarianism) random chance from innate material cannot produce coded information anymore that a tornado through a junk yard will produce a jet airplane. More problems for evolutionists linked here:
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/3yHnSgU7bAwU/
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/KUxs34kG6bTW/

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Robert Beatty

    |

    “If this is the case, the evolutionary process must have created countless generations of intermediate species with minimal differences.“
    I believe it did. Just look around you, and see the difference in people we pass every day.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Mark Tapley

      |

      Hello Beatty:
      In fact it is the opposite. When looking at the variations in the human genome from different races and regions, the most striking characteristic is not the diversity but the similarities. Yes their are generic differences. But not that much. Especially when considering the verified mutation rate. From the original mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam all indications are that we ain’t been around but a few thousand years

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Shawn Marshall

    |

    The Discover Institute is a great source on Intelligent Design versus the unintelligent and misplaced ‘faith’ in atheistic Darwinism.
    Darwin meant to displace God from Creation.
    Marx meant to displace God from nation.
    Freud meant to displace God from human procreation.
    The Father of Lies had a perverse Trinity of his own to mock God and it plagued us to this day.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Mark Tapley

      |

      Hello Marshall:
      All three of them are connected. Darwin’s grandfather was a high level Mason which at the top levels was used as a cover by the Zionists (communism was a front) as Trotsky admitted in his diary. Marx (Moses Mordecai Levy) the disciple of Zionist founder Rabbi Moses Hess, was the operative for his uncle, the super wealthy early industrialist Lyon Philips to divide the proletariat and bring about “democracy” and the radical Zionist Freud who hated Christianity and western culture worked along with the Frankfurt (all Jew) School to subvert western society.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi PSI Readers and PSI Editors and PSI Commenters,

    I have a serious question for you all, especially those of you who should have read (https://principia-scientific.com/darwins-idea-evolution-about-the-origin-of-life-is-a-wrong-scientific-idea/).
    There is no question that the Dawrin’s idea of the evolution of life is ABSOLUTELY WRONG!
    Those of you who haven’t read this linked article should. Those of you who have read this article and still question if Darwin’s idea could be correct have a significant comprehension problem.

    THE EARTH DOES NOT STANDSTILL!!!

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi PSI Readers,

    I have no problem with admitting: I don’t know!, I have made many, many mistakes during my lifetime! But, I know I will probably make more mistakes today. Why??? I know I am a fallen human.
    However, I know that you all should know that we fallen humans have been learning ‘something’ each and everyday whether one is aware of it, or not.

    I know that R.C. Sutcliffe (Weather and Climate) began: “When we begin to write about weather and climate we embark upon the story of our natural home, which has been our dwelling in one continuous stream of life these thousand million years, and for the last million or so has been explored and exploited by the conscious mind of mind. It is then not unreasonable to suppose, indeed it could hardly be otherwise, that the problems presented by weather, by wind and rain and warmth, were amongst the earliest to force themselves on consciousness and that in a historical sense meteorology lay at the foundation of physical science. It was, and is, is difficult science to reduce to its basic principles and so to present as a deductive structure, and it was another of the environmental sciences, astronomy, the very limited positional astronomy of the solar system, which was first illuminated by the light of Newton’s genius.”

    After you have read what Sutcliffe wrote, I ask: What very important, critical fact did Sutcliffe overlook, ignore??? I will give my answer to my question.

    It is, that the first primitive people, “in one continuous stream of life these thousand million years” have somehow survived to the day that he wrote those words (correct or incorrect).

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Allan Shelton

    |

    Re: The Big Bang Theory
    “According to the Big Bang theory, the expansion of the observable universe began with the explosion of a single particle at a definite point in time. Georges Lemaître, (1894-1966), Belgian cosmologist, Catholic priest, and father of the Big Bang theory.”

    This theory was accepted because then God could be included by Lemaitre.
    The expanding universe was mathematically extrapolated back in time to a singularity, which, of course, was created by God.
    I, for one, don’t believe it. The BBT is a falsehood. IMO.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Геннадий

    |

    Doubts will disappear if we consider the evolution of human speech.
    All modern national languages originated from one language, from which our civilization began.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi,
      I don’t accept your reasoning. An expanding interaction of people would cause a convergence of languages.
      There is a tribe in Africa that communicate using clicking sounds and how about the language of the Australian native inhabitants?
      Herb

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Jerry Krause

        |

        Hi Herb,

        Do I really need to remind you that in The Beginning there was one language but the Creator God instructions to his created male and female was to ‘fill the earth’ and God saw that tower built because there was only one language would defeat this objective; so He confused their speech which still exists today even though English seems to becoming the one language again as you suggest should happen. But now we know that people have filled most of the land of the earth as planned by God.

        So, you are correct knowing the history of man.

        Have a good day, Jerry

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Геннадий

          |

          About 7-8 thousand years ago, a person mastered the phonetics of speech. Only then did he realize his mind, and began to use it for his own good.
          Only then did he become a “Homo sapiens”, before that there was a “Homo habilis”.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Mark Tapley

            |

            7,000-8000 years ago both the Egyptians and Mesopotamians had developed the alphabet. If there had been a transition from the evolutionary fiction of “Homo hablis” it would have had to have occurred much earlier as the evolutionists claim ap. 200,000 years ago, even though that is just another conjecture used to fit their pre written storyline. Then the problem becomes, what took them so long to develop an alphabet.

  • Avatar

    James

    |

    All scientists question evolution. People who call themselves scientists but do not question evolution are religious fanatics, not scientists. Evolution is a religion, not a science. It is anti-scientific.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Mark Tapley

      |

      hello James:
      Evolution is the official Zionist approved religion of science just as the germ theory of pathogenic transmission is the Zionist approved allopathic model of big pajama medicine. Their patron saints are the medical con man Pasteur and survival of the fittest plagiarist Darwin.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    bmatkin

    |

    Gentlemen: The problem with the study of evolution (whether true or false doesn’t matter)is a complete waste or resources that cannot add to the useful scientific body of knowledge that has propelled man’s technological trajectory.
    It may be interesting and has been used as a cudgel for religious purposes (divine being faiths or the so called progressive religion) but has really nothing to offer as an advancement.
    This is self evident as we can only live today and in the future, not in the past.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via