The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Evolution myths

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search
Dead Darwin Fish large.png

Evolution myths are conclusions based on philosophical presupposition, hoaxes, and lies used to support evolution. Disputes of scientific evidence are rampant in the various fields of science making philosophical worldviews such as creation and evolution clash, all the more. Within these disputes, the claims of mistakes, fraud and deceit are frequent. Because of the ratio of evolutionists to creationists, creationists frequently spend much of their time either affirming or disproving, essentially falsifying evolutionary theories. Unless specified, this article will not make claims of intent with regard to fraud, but merely underscore popular evidence for evolutionists that were claimed as fact for many years but through time and proper scientific discipline were discarded. While many evolutionists are aware that these arguments are not valid, they can still occasionally be found in debates and in school textbooks. This collection of myths should serve to inform people and provide a central reference.

Embryonic Recapitulation

Main Article: Recapitulation theory

Ernst Haeckel promoted the idea that the human embryo as it develops goes through the evolutionary stages that led to the development of humans. This idea is known as recapitulation. Haeckel copied a number of embryo images and modified them to demonstrate this principle. His images are now well known as being fraudulent [1][1].

Peppered Moths

Peppered moths with two varieties: one lighter and one darker
Main Article: Peppered moths

The peppered moths (Biston betularia) have long been used as an example of evolution. The explanation shows that pollution from the Industrial revolution caused tree trunks to become darker. The lighter moths now stood out against the darkened trees, so that preditor would target them, giving the darker coloured moths a natural advantage. There are two problems with this:

  1. The images used to demonstrate the moths were fraudulent, with the moths stuck to the tree. The moths don't rest on trees during the day, they only fly at night.
  2. This doesn't demonstrate evolution, but instead shows natural selection which is also present in the creation model. This demonstrates already existing traits being selected for or against

Paleoanthropology

Main Article: Paleoanthropology

Creationists regard all supposed ape to man intermediate fossils to be either fully ape (the Australopithecines) or fully human, although there remains some disagreement [2].

  • Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus dawsoni): Fraudulent fossil that was filed-down to look human-like and chemically treated to give it the appearance of age. It was hailed as proof of Darwin's theory for forty years.
  • Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii): Refers to a poorly-preserved fossilized tooth incorrectly identified as belonging to a primate in the 1920s, but a consensus was later reached that it belonged to a peccary (wild pig).
  • Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus): Fraudulent fossil.
  • Neanderthals (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis): Despite earlier attempts by evolutionists to classify Neanderthals as primitive "ape-men," recent discoveries indicate Neanderthals were human. Further, several Neanderthal specimens dated by Professor Reiner Protsch were found to be drastically younger than suggested. [3]

Archaeoraptor

Main Article: Archaeoraptor

The most recent and perhaps the most infamous evolution frauds was committed in China and published in 1999 in the journal National Geographic (196:98-107, November 1999). Dinosaur bones were put together with the bones of a newer species of bird and they tried to pass it off as a very important new evolutionary intermediate.

Human-chimp DNA Similarity

This was a myth followed and taught blindly by evolutionists for 30 years. It is now, since we have unraveled DNA and decoded the genome can we see and truly understand the complexity and difference of human and chimp DNA.

Writing for Scientific American, JR Minkel had this to say about the findings and statistics that back it up[4]:

In humans and chimps, which have about 22,000 genes each, the group found 1,418 duplicates that one or the other does not possess. For example, humans have 15 members of a family of brain genes linked to autism, called the centaurin-gamma family, whereas chimps have six, for a difference of nine gene copies.

The group estimated that humans have acquired 689 new gene duplicates and lost 86 since diverging from our common ancestor with chimps six million years ago. Similarly, they reckoned that chimps have lost 729 gene copies that humans still have.

"The paper supports the emerging view that change in gene copy number, via gene duplication or loss, is one of the key mechanisms driving mammalian evolution," says genomics researcher James Sikela of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center.

Matthew Hahn (Indiana U) and a team of scientists carried out studies comparing human and chimp DNA but took into consideration gene duplications which wasn't when the 1.5% was propagated. It is now known that difference ranges about 6%. Mr. Hahn published the myth-shattering findings [5] in PLoS One, a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

More recently, genetic comparisons of Y Chromosome has reveled a difference of up to 30% between humans and chimps.

News

  • Anthropologist resigns in 'dating disaster' - Panel says professor of human origins made up data, plagiarized works. WorldNetDaily, February 19, 2005
  • Dinosaur exposed as fake An Icthyosaurus specimen on display at the National Museum of Wales in Cardiff was removed for maintenance and found to be a composition of two different specimens, with a mess of plaster mixed in. BBC, December 8, 2000

References

  1. Wells, Jonathan (2000, 2002). Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing. p. 81-109. ISBN 0-89526-200-2. 

Related References