Darwinism a bunk:
A critical essay on Darwinism
In a nutshell Darwin's theory of evolution is based on mutation and natural selection, mutation in a cell is an anomaly, it is a disorder and a disadvantage in most if not all cases, it is degenerative and always a threat to the survival of the bearer. There are many mechanisms and proteins in place within the cell itself even as early as the initial cell multiplication and the separation of the two backbones of the double helix of DNA when codons are copied onto tRNA, and again prior to the production of amino acid components of proteins within the cytoplasm. Other check points are provided by the mother nature to avoid such occurrences deemed detrimental if not terminal to the cell's survival.
However every once in a while an anomaly occurs and this is no celebration of life and does not provide another prop for the tree of survival, on the contrary it marks the birth of a substandard living organism who's degree of vulnerability is defined by the importance of the damaged gene's functionality and the potential ramification of its role in the overall picture, it can be as subtle as albino, more severe as sickle-cell anemia or much more serious causing stillbirth or even subsequent death, with the worst middle ground scenario as in such cases the corrupted gene will continue to contaminate the futures interactions resulting in undesirable strains.
It is inconceivable to mark this freak tragedy as the happy and lucky event we have all been waiting for to elevate the evolution of species to the next level of refinement and guarantee its survival, while all the healthy cells are doomed to decay under the harsh environmental condition, just because it provides the only convenient catalyst to gel a bizarre story together. It seems that nature is shooting itself in the foot by first setting up an elaborate system to preclude affording an unqualified gene at the most primary stage of conception, only to reward the culprit to sire new and improved genre.
Another oddity of Darwinism with no supporting proof to keep it afloat even as a bona fide theory, is the fact that over the years its popularity has shifted the burden of proof to the critics. No doubt the hypothetical species emerging from this freaky origin can only resemble a scene from the Adams family.
The following facts are powerful arguments against evolution theory.
Acquired physical changes do not translate into genes therefore can not be passed on.
Mutants are disadvantaged , therefore a lesser candidate for natural selection in pursuit of survival.
Freak mutation in one species do not cross the line into another species to generate a link, missing or otherwise.
The mutant gene is the result of a random freak accident and is not likely to be repeated in succession in the case of an offspring in any reliable fashion so as to ensure maintaining its resilient characteristics in the future generations.
In terms of molecular biology and cell sophistication hierarchy, the ladder of evolution primarily founded on the physiological characteristics and appearances with some artistic imagination, suddenly falls apart. This is primarily due to the inconsistencies between the order of the species in the evolutionary ladder and complexity of their cells as judged by the number of chromosomes in a gene. (while man carries 23 pairs of chromosome in each cell, some species of animals even plants such as gold fish and roses, carry as many as twice this number.)
It is universally recognized that man is not a direct descendent from the present anthropoid, the claims of his common ancestry with the present anthropoid also remains an illusion pending reliable proof.
As of today, Homo erectus formerly believed to have been extinct 250000 years ago was apparently alive and well as early as 27000 years ago in Java, this makes him contemporary of the Homo sapiens with some 70000 years of overlap, making cross breading of the two species a definite possibility.
The mind boggling intricacy of the DNA molecules can not be explained in any meaningful way before it is fully developed and completed with every gene in place and in full function, a gradual assemblage of meaningless components to render the fully functional final product is an absurd notion.
There is no doubt that in the overall scheme of evolution based on natural selection, size per se is a detriment to survival, corpulence would entail its own physical and nutritional havoc, smaller creatures are far less susceptible to changes and shortages and far more adaptable.
Viruses and bacteria (microbes) have preceded us and would probably outlive us by many millions of years, their survivals alone suggest resilience, flexibility adaptability and smartness much of which can be attributed to their mere size.
A serious philosophical question is begged as to whether us, the human race , are falsely looked at as the pinnacle of the evolutionary hierarchy or the dumb and overgrown mutant destined to extinct, while our modestly sized and smart in adaptation and resilience distant ancestors are the true beneficiary of the so called evolution by natural selection.
In Darwin's time, when man's imagination could be endorsed only through physical perception, it was understandable to affix the species at the top and the bottom of the evolutionary ladder, bunch up all the physically similar species into one category, string the categories in a hierarchical order determined by wishful thinking and stretch of imagination with man of course positioned at the top followed by its closest physical look alike, the mighty monkey.
Next, create a story to fit the set up, fill in the gaps with outrageous yet uncontested fairy tails, fraudulently fabricate the physical evidence if need be (piltdawn man, a fraudulent fabrication of the only known missing link persists as a black page in the history of evolution), and you have yourself a staunch theory if not a proof, in this case the outcry of the church might have even provided the right publicity to push it through at least for now, after all one side was the unpopular city and historically regressive church and on the other side a reputable scientist, but that was then.
Unfortunately, even today, despite of the marvel of molecular biology, genetic science, and existence of electron microscopes which gives rise to an understanding and vision much deeper, with long history of failed attempts to support evolution, by hook or crook, still majority of scientific community knock on the door of evolution theory looking for scraps of proofs and clues and to rehash the leftovers, tinkering around a story that just doesn't jibe .
It takes courage and confidence to swim against the flow of traditional scientific theories and not every theoretician is an Einstein who argued that "if the experiment disagreed with my theory, the experiment is wrong". However many other bold and progressive minority of scientists have strongly contested evolution without offering a bona fide alternative.
To me as an enthusiast and not a scientist, one way of promoting science is by generating genuine skepticism to warrant a second and third look at outlandish and unfounded scientific claims fundamental to our self understanding and which could otherwise derail the course of research through popular but false presuppositions.
I praise the scientific commitment which draws a line between what we know and what we don't, leaving the question open for further research and discoveries, It is much more honorable and natural to bow to the awesome might of nature's fascinating complexity, order, synchronicity, harmony, vastness, intricacy, mystery and mind boggling variation and beauty rather than yelling Eureka, adapting an ad hoc and simplistic approach in justifying the nature's riddles through irresponsible, unscientific, unfounded and spontaneous interpretations which can not hold water for long, always comes back to haunt us and can only appeal to the simple minded apostles with an appetite for blind faith and miracles in science.
paying homage to the glory of nature can only mean courage, awareness, and justified recognition of the superior.