Do you believe in evolution? Why? Do you believe in creationism?

The core scientists of Darwin's "evolution theory" admit that "evolution theory" should be abandoned.

According to Doolittle, an evolutionary biologist, life did not originate from the same ancestor.

On August 24th, 1999, Weekly Digest reported that Darwin's theory of evolution that all kinds of life have the same ancestor has been challenged recently. Doolittle, an evolutionary biologist at Dalhousie University, made a thorough microscopic study of various genes, and proposed that all life did not originate from the same ancestor.

A summary of "evolution" by authoritative biologists

World famous paleontologist? Stephen, the master of evolution? Jay. Gould Stephen? Jay. Gould also publicly admitted that the history of most biological fossils contains two characteristics that conflict with the gradual "evolution theory":

1, Stability: In the past, when most people lived on the ground, there was no sign of evolution or degradation. Most species have almost the same appearance when they appear in the stratum and when they disappear. Even if there is a change, it is very limited and does not show a certain evolutionary direction.

2. Sudden appearance: survey results around the world confirm that no species is gradually changed by its ancestors; On the contrary, all kinds of creatures have been "finished" when they appear. ?

Gould's article also tells people calmly that "evolution" is not the ultimate source of studying life, nor is it the way to understand the deepest meaning of life. It is the task of other sciences to explore how life first appeared on the earth, because "evolution" only studies the changes after life is born.

Gould pointed out on page 3 1 in Since Darwin: Nowadays, more and more people think that science has completely overturned the theory of evolution, so the theory of evolution should be abandoned. In Bethel's words, "perhaps out of respect for the old gentleman, he is still lying next to Sir Newton in Westminster Abbey, and everything he has done is to make him disappear carefully and gently."

Second, the "evolution" famous scientist's conclusion

Keynes Smith, a famous scientist loyal to Darwin, adopted Darwin's definition of life in philosophy. When describing the observed facts, he had to say: What impressed us most was that all living things have their innate dexterity, which seems to be designed with a purpose ... One of the most obvious features is that the simplest living things we can imagine are very different from the substances that may have formed on the earth at first. ...

Keynes-Smith's research on biological genetic information system also found that the simplest biological cell structure is extremely complex, and each complex part must be just matched to keep the cell alive.

"Evolution" molecular biology, information science, mathematical probability expert York (Hubert? Dr. Yocky) said: "At least protein didn't happen spontaneously by accident, and it is impossible to accidentally produce life in the original liquid." .

"Evolutionary" biologist Koyuk (Francis? Dr Crick concluded: "An honest man, armed with all our current knowledge, can only say that in a sense, the emergence of the origin of life is almost a miracle, and it is met with so many conditions."

Third, the senior scientist of the museum gave a speech to the public: "Natural selection does not produce new species"?

The famous evolutionist Del (niles? Dr. eldridge, librarian of the American Museum of Natural History in new york, said: "Natural selection will not produce new species."

The mission of the British Museum of Natural History is to defend the theory of evolution, but a commentary in Nature confirmed this point: "Although no biologist would deny the possibility of God creating human beings, if someone thinks so, then he will think that the mechanism observed by Darwin is also the way of creation chosen by God."

Darwin's "Theory of Evolution" is on display at the British Museum of Natural History in 198 1. Many question marks at the entrance of the exhibition hall read:

"Are you surprised that there are so many kinds of creatures in the world?

There is a view that all the creatures we see today evolved from ancestors long ago.

How did evolution happen? How does one species become another? The exhibition in this hall shows you a possible explanation, and that is Charlie. Darwin's explanation. "

Another booklet published by the museum said more clearly and definitely: "Strictly speaking, the evolutionary concept of' natural selection' is unscientific. Because it is only logical inference, there is no experimental proof. " He added: "If the theory of evolution is true, it can provide an explanation for taxonomists why there are' small groups in groups' in nature. ? "

However, today's museum scientists openly point out that "evolution only depends on some kind of logical reasoning rather than evidence."

A report published in the journal Nature quoted a speech made by a senior scientist to the public in the museum:

"Survival of the fittest is an empty talk, just a game of talking about words, so many critics say that not only the concept of evolution is unscientific, but even' natural selection' is not scientific. Whether we should believe in' natural selection' is a meaningless question, because it is an inevitable conclusion inferred from some predetermined premises.

The idea of evolution from "natural selection" is a logical problem, not a scientific one. Therefore, the evolutionary concept of "natural selection" is strictly unscientific.

Although we believe that evolution did happen, obviously we should keep an open mind on this issue.

We can't prove that the idea is true, but we can't prove that it is false. Maybe one day there will be a better theory to replace it, but then. "

The publication of Nature has also aroused the anger of 22 well-known biologists of "evolution", who think that "evolution" is a theory and naturally cannot introduce facts. These famous biologists said, "We have no absolute evidence of evolution. And conclude that if there is a better theory, we can give up the' evolution theory' tomorrow. "

But I don't know why, 1987, in front of the exhibition hall of the British Museum of Natural History? "A possible explanation" The guilty signs of many question marks have been changed to:

"When we compare ourselves with our relatives in fossils, we will find evidence that people have evolved. Darwin's work strongly supports the view that all living things evolved over a long period of time. This is what we call evolution. " ?

Modern "evolution" celebrities admit that more than 99.9% mutations can't prove evolution.

According to the complete fossil record from ancient times to the present; The existence form of life on the earth and the early life of all kinds of animals are instantaneous and sudden. Darwin's gradual "evolution theory" fell into a quagmire. Darwinian "survival of the fittest" immediately rushed to write "catastrophe theory", but this is wrong. We can't give up all our efforts, and we should also give up the catastrophe theory.

Although today's "evolutionists" have not completely abandoned the mutation theory, they have admitted that mutation has little effect in evolution, and most mutations (above 99.9%) are harmful, and of course they can't promote evolution.

Fourth, the writers and speakers of Evolution will also be shaken.

1942, Julian? Huxley (Thomson, one of the founders of evolution? Huxley's grandson published Evolution: Modern Synthesis, which synthesized the research results of modern evolution in various fields, so modern evolution is also called modern synthesis theory, that is, neo-Darwinism. Modern synthesis theory has been attacked since its establishment, but it is still the mainstream theory of evolutionary biology. However, some biologists are skeptical about this inference. They think that great biological evolution may have its own mechanism.

The authors and spokespersons of "Evolution Theory" also take the small changes of the same species of plants (sometimes called "micro-evolution theory") as proof of evolution, but micro-evolution (small changes and variations) only involves small-scale biological changes (such as color, size and so on). )? Micro-evolution cannot produce new gene information, but can only recombine existing genes, and the gene pool remains unchanged. Micro-evolution can hardly be used to explain or prove evolution or macroevolution. The theory about the transformation of one animal and plant into another.

Revised edition of Origin of Species: Only the theory of biological species evolution can be completely terminated.

On page 557 of the revised edition of the Origin of Species (1995), Darwin called his theory "this view of life". If this view of life is only a scientific theory about the evolution of biological species, it can be terminated now, but it's just as well.

Fifthly, reprint the preface of Darwin's Origin of Species.

Mathews Matthews, a leading figure of British "evolution" and a professor of biology, admitted in the preface of the second edition of Darwin's Origin of Species: "Believing in evolution and believing in creationism are exactly the same, both of which have been confirmed by believers, but so far there is no way to prove it."

Sixth, Darwin's own conclusion.

A real scientist is based on scientific facts, and he doesn't want to use assumptions and reasoning in his final conclusion. For example, Darwin, the founder of the theory of evolution, said in his own words when the fossils of molluscs and vertebrates have been discovered: "I don't want to pretend that I don't know how scarce the records of species mutation are, and I can't find a large number of transitional organisms to connect the creatures that appear before and after each stratum in the best preserved stratum.

When Darwin talked about fossils in the Origin of Species, the title was "Incomplete Geological Records". ? He admitted that the fossil research at that time found no evidence of transitional types between species, which was also the fatal wound of his hypothesis of "evolution", and pointed out that this might be the most easily tested and fatal reason against "evolution".

Darwin believed that all species evolved from primitive single-celled organisms, but he did not believe that single-celled organisms could automatically evolve from inanimate objects. He still believes that there is an insurmountable gap between living things and non-living things. Therefore, he believes that the emergence of single-celled life needs an "initial push".

Darwin gave his friend and famous geologist Lyle (Charles? Lyell) said in the letter: "If my theory of' natural selection' can only be meaningful by this sudden evolutionary process, I will regard it as dirt and abandon it. ..... If you need to add magical progress in any step, then the theory of' natural selection' is worthless. " ?

On page 557 of the revised edition of Origin of Species 1995, Darwin called his theory "this view of life".

Landerko Vantage released the secrets of the sixth edition at 1983. Darwin himself abandoned it as an evolutionary mechanism in the sixth edition of the Origin of Species. The real Darwinian theory of "natural selection" is to protect species, not to turn them into other species.

Because he discovered many biological structures and functions, he admitted that no one including himself could explain them. Darwin clearly told people in the second chapter "Variability" of the Origin of Species: "The word" species "generally means" special creation (created by God) ",and no one can answer how it is" special creation ".

In fact, modern Darwin also understood that Darwin believed that the emergence of single-celled life needed an "initial push". As a driving force, of course, it is not automatic evolution, and it needs a promoter or driving force. Therefore, he himself has always called it "evolution theory" and admitted that it is a hypothesis. Sadly, the followers who have spread to this day and don't know the inside story regard the hypothesis as a "law."