Why does Darwin's theory of evolution determine that apes have changed people?

The first flaw of this theory is that it is based on people's guesses.

Firstly, a formula of the origin of life is defined, that is, inorganic matter → simple compound → complex compound → polymer organic compound → polymer protein → life. Then find the physical and chemical conditions for the evolution of this formula, and whatever conditions are needed will appear. It's just that it's really difficult to find suitable conditions when organic matter transits to protein, so it is summed up as a series of contradictions and struggles. What's more difficult is how does the polymer protein produce metabolism? There is no other specific way, so it is a word of chemical evolution and internal and external differentiation.

As we know, in order to form a living cell in protein, there must be more than 2,000 different enzymes, and there must be no mistakes in the connection between them. The probability is as small as 5 billion dice marked with 1-6 points, and each time it must be 6 points. Just like a huge wind blowing through the garbage dump, a Boeing 747 plane appeared naturally. Is it possible?

Now we are in a high-tech era, and a laboratory can completely simulate all the conditions required by the theory of evolution, but so far the process of life can not be repeated and can not be confirmed by experiments.

1953, stanley miller conducted discharge experiments with hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor under the same atmospheric conditions, and formed four kinds of amino acids, but the simplest structure of life was 20 kinds. After 30 years of continuous experiments, it is still impossible to achieve. The most difficult problem is that if there was oxygen in the atmosphere at that time, the first amino acid could not be produced. If there is no oxygen, if amino acids are produced, they will be destroyed by cosmic rays. This contradiction can't be solved in any case. There is a bigger problem: there are more than 100 kinds of amino acids, and there are more than 20 kinds of amino acids in protein. This is also impossible from the perspective of accident rate. Physicist Bernard said, "Maybe we can never explain." This accident rate is like 100 beans with 50 soybeans and 50 red beans. If you take a spoon, you must scoop out 20 red beans. The accident rate is 10- 1 13. Scientifically 10-50 is regarded as despair.

In fact, Darwin didn't understand at that time that the cell was by no means as simple as he thought, and there was a membrane outside the cell, which was a very complicated thing. It consists of protein, sugar and fat molecules. These molecules did not exist in the initial stage of biological evolution. In addition, the synthesis and maintenance of molecules must involve enzymes, otherwise they will die. Moreover, there are not only a few enzymes, but 2000 kinds of protein are needed as enzymes to maintain intracellular activities. This possibility is 10-40000, which has reached an absurd level.

The second defect of this theory is that it directly contradicts the materialist theory of contradiction transformation.

The theory of contradiction transformation holds that everything in the world is full of contradictions and contradictions are transformed into each other. However, the transformation of contradictions is conditional and must be played by external factors (environment and objective conditions) through internal factors (internal conditions).

For example, the right temperature and time can allow fertilized eggs to hatch into chickens. Here, temperature and time are external factors, and fertilized eggs are internal factors. No matter how long it takes (for example, billions of years), no matter how appropriate the temperature is, no matter what conceivable conditions, stones can't turn into chickens, and even an unfertilized egg can't hatch the same chickens. Because the internal factors have not yet reached the conditions for transformation. Because of this, how can we expect an inanimate object, an element without internal causes, to be transformed into something alive?

Evolution also opposes the theory that life happens spontaneously. People believe that all life is not mutated from inanimate things. Rotten grass can't turn into fireflies, rotten wood can't turn into cicadas, and the temperature of the sun can't make things like fish produce in the soil. /kloc-in the middle of the 0/9th century, it was proved by experiments that carrion could not naturally produce maggots. Maggots must be produced when biological spores (embryos) fall into carrion. Someone has done an experiment: pour gravy into a glass bottle with a slender and curved neck, boil gravy with fire, and kill all microorganisms and spores inside. The gravy treated in this way will not rot in Tuo. If the bottleneck is cut off and the gravy comes into contact with the outside air, the spores of microorganisms can fly in, and soon the gravy will stink and the microorganisms will multiply. This experiment proves that life can only come from life, and inanimate matter cannot produce life. In the face of facts, evolutionists must admit that life is not a sudden change, but a long period of billions of years. This virtually pushes things to agnosticism, because no one can trace back to what happened during that long time. Followed by a question: So, is time everything?

The third defect of this theory is that appearance replaces substance and imagination replaces fact.

They believe that all living things originated from primitive cells. They all have a certain blood relationship, and they all have the same ancestor. In this way, people have to believe that elephants and fleas come from the same ancestor, and the eagle hovering in the sky and the frog jumping in the field all originated from a small cell. "To admit that there is a kinship between creatures is to admit that there is a common origin." (Evolution of Biology 2 1 Page 1973 Science Press)

It is said: "About 40 million years ago, our ancestors were fish ... About 30 million years ago, our ancestors lived on land without water. This is an amphibian. Their limbs can't support their bodies on land, so they always drag their bodies when they walk. Their skin is bare, without the protection of scales, and there is no cover of feathers or hair ... Only then did reptiles with strong limbs appear. About 20 million years ago, our ancestors became experts in tree climbing. They were apes and similar primates. About ten million years ago, our ancestors lost their tails. This is an orangutan, also known as an ape. About millions of years ago, our ancestors came down from trees to live and walked upright, and later they gradually developed into educated people through labor. " (ibid., p. 38)

Why is there such a bizarre imagination? This is because they think that monkeys are most similar to people in appearance, so people must have changed from them. And apes can only evolve from reptiles. Since life begins with water, look for something that can become a reptile in the water and look around. It is said that only fish with fins can turn fins into feet. But fish living in water can't live on land, so they imagine that the total fin fish has inner nostrils and can evolve into respiratory organs on land, such as lungs. Unexpectedly, these painstaking ideas were recently overturned by new scientific discoveries. On August 3rd1982, People's Daily published an article entitled "Zhang Miman, a middle-aged scientist in China, discovered that the total fin fish had no inner nostril, which shook the traditional theory of the origin of terrestrial quadrupeds, and this discovery aroused great interest of international paleontologists". The article said: "According to the theory of biological evolution, quadrupeds on land evolved gradually from vertebrates in water-fish. What kind of fish is the ancestor of terrestrial quadrupeds? How did they land? In the past hundred years, the academic circles have been arguing endlessly. Swedish paleontologists, who are influential in paleontology research, believe that about 350 million years ago, the highest-ranking animal on land was the total fin fish. This kind of fish has inner nostrils and can breathe air directly without gills. Their four fins have hard bones that ordinary fish don't have, and they can develop into' four legs' and climb on land. This kind of fish is likely to evolve into amphibians, and then evolve into reptiles, mammals and humans. "

Zhang Miman, a scientist in China, "In the analysis of the nasal sac of the finless fish, she found that this fish has no internal nostrils, and it can't breathe without water, so there is no material basis for living on the shore." This shakes the proposition that the total fin fish is the ancestor of land quadrupeds. "

1946 The live total fin fish caught in the western Indian Ocean is exactly the same as the fossil specimen, which proves that it has never been deformed, and it can neither survive without seawater nor crawl on its four fins when landing.

Similarly, archaeopteryx has long been described as the ancestor of birds, and many textbooks (including primary and secondary school textbooks, university textbooks, dictionaries, etc. ) are spreading this concept. The annotation under "Archaeopteryx" in today's 1980 edition of Ci Hai is transcribed as "archaeopteryx". This is the oldest bird ever discovered. It is as big as a crow and covered with feathers. Although its forelimbs have wings, it still has three independent phalanges, claws at the ends of fingers, a very long tail (20 coccygeal vertebrae) and teeth on the chin, which is similar to reptiles, so it is considered as a transitional type from reptiles to birds. Fossils were found in the late Jurassic strata in Germany. " Cihai 1 10 1 page.

"According to legend, the world's first archaeopteryx fossil specimen was collected by Karl in 186 1 year. Habtriein, a German medical doctor, is in the Indole Limestone near Sulenhofen, Bavaria. 16 years later, the second archaeopteryx fossil specimen was collected near the same place, and now it is exhibited in London and East Berlin Natural Museum respectively. So far, these two specimens are considered as one of the most important fossils in the world, because they reveal the transitional form between reptiles and birds.

Surprisingly, recently, the British paleophysicist F Hall pointed out that the first archaeopteryx fossil specimen was forged, and it was just a standard reptile skeleton with beautiful decorative feathers artificially made.

At the same time, archaeopteryx fossils are revealed to be not genuine but fake, as well as paleophysicist C. Vikramasin of Cardiff Archaeological Institute in England and Israeli physicist L. Speiner. They asserted that the two archaeopteryx fossils collected by Dr. Carl Habelin were all forged. They took photos of the specimens and published them in the recent British Photography Monthly.

Paleontologists are not opposed to this explosive news. A. Chaliki of the Natural History Museum in London also said angrily that the key to specimen forgery lies in artificially adding feathers. He can hardly understand why paleontologists in the past described the evolution of birds so vividly. Perhaps the forgers took advantage of this eagerness to reveal the evolution of birds and put all their eggs in one basket to achieve the goal of making a blockbuster or even lasting forever!

In order to further see through the hypocrisy of the specimen, let's take a look at Speiner's test! In February last year, 65438+, he took photos of fossil specimens with the support of the London Museum of Nature. The photos clearly show that these two specimens are similar to the fossils of reptiles and small dinosaurs. Fakers glue chicken feathers or similar feathers together, then make models with cement and forge them. This is because traces of glue were found under the feathers. Physicists can easily confirm that these two fossil specimens are made of models. Because Habelin is not an excellent mold maker and operator, he finally gave away the clues. Because feathers have the superposition of the upper and lower paragraphs.

Another important basis to prove that feathers are artificially configured is the feathers at the tail of fossil specimens. It uses 12 feather. If it is removed, it will leave a lizard-like tail. Modern birds don't have this tail at all, which shows the flaw.

From the analysis of the whole fossil skeleton, this animal can't fly at all, because it doesn't have the keel or sternum that birds must have, and it itself violates the concept of' Archaeopteryx'. "(journal of natural history, page 24, No.4, page 85)

Now, this fake case that has been cheated for more than 0/00 years has been clarified, and the so-called intermediate connection between reptiles and birds has been broken. The scientific community realized that "now it seems that this may be an outdated and wrong concept." (Excerpted from Science Illustrated1No.987 1 1 "Archaeopteryx is not the ancestor of birds")

One of the six unsolved problems in science today is that there is a gap in the theory of evolution that cannot be proved. Huxley, an Englishman, proved that human beings cannot directly evolve from apes, and there should be a link in the middle. Japanese anthropologists believe that there should be an "ape-like" transition between apes and humans, but it has not been discovered.

If the evolution phenomenon is true, it should be a continuous process, and it is impossible to break out and disappear in an instant. Therefore, intermediate links should be seen everywhere in today's biological world. There are creatures similar to humans, apes and non-apes, horses and non-horses, cows and non-cows, and so on. One hundred and twenty years later, these people who resembled human beings became human beings, and these creatures who resembled horses and non-horses evolved into cattle and horses. Unfortunately, we have never found an evolutionary "semi-finished product" between the two categories.

It has been more than 100 years since the evolution theory appeared, but we have never seen a biological gene mutation or other reasons become another biological species. Although we can put many guesses in Qian Qian thousands of years ago, we can't find any evidence in today's science. This is the biggest weakness.

The theory of evolution proves that people evolved from herbivores because of the existence of cecum, a trace organ on the body. They think that "a reasonable explanation is that our ancestors ate plants." At that time, cecum and wormlike processes were very useful to our animal ancestors. Later, due to the change of living habits, plants were no longer the staple food, so the cecum and vermis gradually degenerated into useless things. However, due to the power of heredity, these trace organs have not disappeared, but their volume has been greatly reduced. " (The Evolution of Organisms, page 25)

This passage does not prove the correctness of evolution, but it shows the correctness of biblical history. Our ancestors did eat plants for 2000 years. God created us and arranged teeth for us to eat plants instead of meat. It was not until the flood flooded the world that God allowed people to eat animals (Gen. 9:3). It has been more than 4000 years, and it is not surprising that the cecum has become smaller. Since the power of heredity is so stable, how can one species become another?

The embryology of evolutionary theory, based on the evidence that babies occasionally have tail deformities, says that this is an "atavism phenomenon", which shows that people evolved from apes with tails. This is another manifestation of superficial phenomenon, which is illogical. If this method is used, if it is found that people with white hair all over the body are not proved to be goat evolution, people with cleft lip are not rabbit evolution. This is morbid, not "atavism".

The five basic arguments of evolution can't solve the problem of evolution between biological species in any case.

(1) They admit that living things are hereditary, such as frogs giving birth to frogs and mice giving birth to mice, but not other living things. But there are also variations, such as individual size and color-this is called individual difference.

(2) They admit that the chromosomes in the nucleus are the genetic code to keep the species stable. But it also tries to prove that mutations are sometimes found in genes, which are genetic functional units in chromosomes. If plant seeds are induced by X-ray neutron flux or other methods, seed quality and disease resistance can be improved and high yield can be achieved. A creature called Drosophila originally had wings, but due to genetic changes, the offspring born may have short wings, broken wings or different colors-this is the so-called genetic mutation.

(3) They acknowledge the dependence of living things on the environment. Adverse changes in the environment will lead to the death of living things. However, it also emphasizes the biological struggle for existence. For example, some plants have strong ability to cope with the environment, can endure drought and take root in the desert, and organisms can develop their individual abilities in the struggle for survival. -This is called struggle for existence.

(4) Nature preserves those creatures that mutate in a favorable direction and destroys those that mutate in a harmful direction. For example, there are black and white in a group of animals. Under forest conditions, white is easy to be found, which is not conducive to survival and often leads to destruction. In the ice and snow, white is good for survival and easy to survive-this is called natural selection.

(5) Geographical isolation often produces subspecies, such as Northeast Tiger and South China Tiger. The tigers in the two places developed in different directions because they adapted to the different climate and natural environment in the north and south, and produced different species-this is called subspecies formation.

No matter what kind of changes, they are all circling in the same kind of creatures, such as frogs, which are still frogs despite individual differences. Gene mutation produces short-winged or residual-winged fruit flies, but they are still fruit flies. Whether it is white or black, the species is still the same. No matter Northeast Tiger, South China Tiger, Tiger or Tiger. Two identical yellow cattle are raised under different conditions, and their development is very different. Peas produced by crossing high-stem peas with low-stem peas are tall and short. The radiation breeding in Japan caused gene mutation, and the new rice varieties were formed about two months earlier. There were many protein -a gene mutations in the seeds, including variation and genetic variation. But cattle are still cattle, peas are still peas, and rice is still rice. A foot moth in western Europe, gray-black, whose trunk is blackened by soot in industrial areas. Black-footed moth is not easy to be found by birds on the trunk and has developed. Gray is easily eaten by birds. In non-industrial areas, gray is easily protected by gray tree trunks, and black is often eaten by birds-this is natural elimination and survival of the fittest, but regardless of gray development or black development, foot moths are still foot moths.

So how did one species become another? How did cells evolve into elephants? How can a caterpillar become a magpie in the sky? This bridge has never been crossed in evolution. If humans evolved from apes, what is the difference between this blood type? There are too many questions! They just gave a simple definition: "the phenomenon of gradual development of organisms ... the organs of organisms are from simple to complex, from low to high, which is related to: organisms are from small to large, ... whether plants or animals, evolution is always from single cell to multi-cell, from one cell to multiple cells, and the viability is improving." "Biological evolution" on page 95.

Why are giraffes' heads and necks so long? Some scientists use "use in and waste out" and "acquired inheritance" to explain it. It is believed that the ancestors of giraffes lived in an environment without grass around them for generations. In order to survive, giraffes have to keep craning their necks to eat young leaves on trees. After many generations, the neck gradually became longer and finally became what it is today.

Some scientists use the theory of "natural selection" to explain. There are some differences between the ancestors of giraffes, and these differences will produce different results under certain conditions: the long-necked ones can eat leaves to save lives, the shorter ones are eliminated, and the long-necked offspring are preserved.

In fact, when the theory of evolution talks about evolution, it often pays attention to one thing and ignores another. Giraffe's head and neck grow by eating leaves, but they don't care how much strength its heart needs to press blood to such a high height. Its jugular vein has a special valve to prevent blood from flowing back too fast. Did all this evolve synchronously, or did it "pretend" afterwards? If so, human beings hope to have eyes behind them. Why didn't they evolve according to this requirement? Why is the son of a swimmer born unable to swim?

The fourth defect of evolution theory is to replace inevitability with contingency in speculation, which leads to the dilemma of violating the inevitable law.

Because the theory of evolution lacks science and evidence, it encounters many difficulties. In order to cover it up, in a short period of nearly 200 years, the argument has been constantly revised. Whenever you find this road impassable, put it another way. At present, there are "direct generation theory", "source theory", "spontaneous generation theory", "Lamarckism" and "New Lamarckism" under the theory of evolution. Darwinism alone includes Darwinism, neo-Darwinism and modern Darwinism.

When Darwin published the theory of evolution, he certainly didn't know that there were genetic codes of genes in organisms. This is a stabilizing factor in heredity, which keeps every species stable. In biological cells, one substance is called DNA and the other substance is called RAN. DNA is the main substance of heredity, and the genetic traits of organisms are controlled by DNA, while RNA is in a controlled position. A nucleic acid molecule can be copied to produce a nucleic acid molecule with the same structure as the original molecule, so that the genetic characteristics can be passed down from generation to generation. Molecular biology expounds the law of information transmission by nucleic acid: DNA first transcribes genetic information into RNA, and RNA carries the information given by DNA from the nucleus to the cytoplasm, where it directs the synthesis of various protein according to the instructions of DNA. This is the so-called "central law" of heredity, which can be expressed by a formula: DNA (transcription) →RNA (translation) → protein. This is the phenomenon of biological genetic variation, which is why children, like their parents, will inherit the characteristics of the previous generation to the next generation. Because the nucleic acid (RNA) in the next generation of fertilized eggs records a set of information (i.e. passwords) containing all the characteristics of parents, during the growth of fertilized eggs, RNA will translate the meanings represented by these passwords and instruct cells to combine according to the characteristics of passwords, so they will develop into children with parental characteristics. Although the total number of human chromosome genes in the world is less than the size of a needle hoop, the information stored in each chromosome cell can reach 800 million words, which is equivalent to eight Chinese encyclopedias. These genetic information include and control all human personality, psychology, skin color, hair, appearance and so on.

Molecular biology has also proved that nucleic acid, as the basis of genetic variation, has laws to follow from molecular structure to molecular replication, and it follows the principle of "base complementary pairing". Therefore, biologists believe that "heredity is unchangeable" and "genes are the most stable of all organic structures." "Genotypes are relatively stable because genes can replicate themselves."

Genes of a species can only be communicated within species, but not between different species. All living things strictly follow internal gene replication to maintain species stability. Cows give birth to cows, and horses give birth to horses, because cows have genes from cows and horses have genes from horses, and the size, quantity and shape of genes are stable. For example, peas have 14 chromosomes, ordinary wheat has 42 chromosomes, and humans have 46 chromosomes. The most wonderful thing is that chromosomes exist in even numbers in ordinary cells of organisms, but in germ cells they are halved-they exist in odd numbers. For example, human cells have 46 chromosomes, but human sperm and eggs have 23 chromosomes. When sperm and egg combine, the two groups of chromosomes recombine into 46, and the two groups of chromosomes recover to double, so the same type of life begins. Generation after generation, the number of chromosomes remains stable. Monkeys are monkeys, born monkeys, born people. If the gene is unstable, the organism will get out of control. Monsters will appear in the world at any time. By the way, protein, the earliest in the theory of evolution, has metabolism. Are there chromosomes in it? What creature's chromosome is it? How to breed offspring?

People cross horses and donkeys to give birth to mules and cultivate new plant varieties through hybridization. However, the species produced by hybridization are sterile and unable to reproduce. The fundamental reason is the disorder of genes in germ cells. Studies have proved that although the reproductive organs of male and female mules are well developed, the reproductive organs of male mules cannot produce estrogen. The female snail's reproductive organs can produce motilin, but can't produce fertility-promoting hormone, so the eggs produced are weak, die quickly, can't mature, and of course can't be fertilized, so the mule has only one generation.

The new varieties cultivated by people through hybridization generally revert to the male parent or the female parent after three generations, and all the characteristics of the varieties disappear and must be re-cultivated. An excellent grafted variety, if its seeds are directly sown, will not only have no advantages after grafting, but even the advantages of the original female parent will disappear because the genetic code is very strict and stubborn. The discovery of genetic genes makes it impossible for species to change the theory of evolution. So with the unveiling of all unknown mysteries, more and more scientific people believe in creationism.

The gap in the theory of evolution:

There are several insurmountable gaps in the theory of evolution: from fish to amphibians to reptiles to birds to mammals to humans.

(1) The gap between fish and amphibians: the fish's spine needs pelvis, the heart needs to change from two chambers to three chambers, the hearing needs to change from the body surface to the eardrum, the tongue will never bend, and the eyes need a membrane to blink. ..... Originally wanted to take lungfish as the first winner, because it has gills and swim bladder, and it can breathe with swim bladder when it is out of water temporarily, but it was denied by itself, because the skull is completely different from the lowest amphibian.

(2) the gap between amphibians and reptiles: colloidal eggs become shell eggs, in vitro fertilization becomes in vitro fertilization, and fertilization is needed to form shells, so the reproductive mode and sexual organs must be changed.

(3) The gap between reptiles and birds: cold blood turns into blood, bones change from solid to hollow, and the heart changes from three rooms to four rooms. The vision is improved like a telescope, but the toes change from five toes to four toes, which is convenient for grasping branches. The cooling system has developed to use airbags. Evolutionists often take archaeopteryx as an example, but now they don't believe it, because it's a forgery.

(4) The gap between reptiles and mammals: From spawning to viviparous, where do breasts with lactation function come from? Evolution believes that it evolved from sweat glands of reptiles, but reptiles don't even have sweat glands.

(5) The biggest gap: from mammals to humans. Human brain, thinking, tradition, culture, speech, moral concept, wisdom ...

1965, two French "molecular geneticists" and another "microbial geneticist" both won the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine, and they denied the theory of evolution.

1970, Jacques Mono, the French Nobel Prize winner, published the book "Chance and Inevitability", which comprehensively and systematically demonstrated that biological evolution is pure chance with the achievements of molecular biology. Invariance is the fundamental attribute of living things. Therefore, this latest scientific achievement denies Darwin's theory of evolution.

Of course, not everyone in the scientific community can accept creationism and deny evolution. 1973, the American journal of human evolution published an article by anthropologists, saying that the process of human evolution is a game with no rules.

At present, the theory to solve the evolutionary dilemma is the "error theory", and they think that there may be errors in the replication of DNA in heredity. For example, copying the DNA of a sperm made an error, which led to the variation of the next generation, thus making the organism evolve. The theory of evolution can't deny the fact that thousands of creatures in Qian Qian have multiplied for thousands of years, but it doesn't help to find a theoretical basis for the theory of evolution on the basis of "wrong theory".

There is no doubt that since all normal genes are copied strictly according to certain instructions, if there is an error, it is an abnormal phenomenon, and this mutation is also pathological. Finally, it was eliminated. For example, the frog in the leakage area of Chernobyl nuclear power plant is dozens of pounds, and a kind of bee affected by nuclear radiation has been discovered in the United States, which is more than two meters long. Mutation forms deformed monsters, so it is not constructive, but destructive. Mutation can only produce variation, but not new species. Mutations can make people have six fingers, but they still have hands instead of wings. Mutation can make a person's whole body hair turn white, but it is still hair, not feathers. Under the irradiation of X-rays, the mutation frequency of Drosophila increased by more than 100 times, and a large number of malformations appeared. But it's still a fruit fly More interestingly, after several generations of reproduction, the mutant Drosophila returned to normal individuals. So geneticists sighed: "Even if there are 1000 mutations in a fruit fly, no new species will be born." If the extremely rare pathological conditions and errors in biological inheritance are taken as the mainstream to explain the reasons for biological evolution, it is not convincing in itself. As we all know, small differences in DNA can only form small differences between the same species. For example, that person and this person are different in figure and personality, and that cow and this cow are different in size and fur. If a person's reproductive inheritance mutates and gives birth to conjoined twins or a person with two heads and twelve fingers, it is not a new species, but also a person, not an intermediate link in the evolution to another species. And most of this mutation is harmful. Doctors remind pregnant women not to take X-rays, films and take certain drugs in the early stage of pregnancy, because it is easy to cause fetal malformation.

Therefore, if the emergence of life, the evolution of life and the emergence of human beings are all explained by chance in speculation, there is no scientific basis. It ignores the inevitability and regularity and puts the cart before the horse.