The theory of evolution is false. The evolution of lies in the theory of evolution. A textbook filled with errors, false information, subjective assumptions and... lies

SuperDron
Let us consider the very beginning of the supposed evolution. It is believed that amino acid molecules were first randomly formed in the ocean, then they were grouped into clumps, and in these clumps the process of random formation of proteins began. The probability of a functional protein molecule appearing in a random set of amino acids is only 10 to the –325 power. You need to try 10 to the 325 power combinations of amino acids to get one desired protein. There are about 10 to the 80th power of electrons in the entire visible part of the Universe. If in each of its electrons you place your own Universe, in each electron of which there is also a Universe, all the electrons of which contain the entire Universe, then there will be 10 to the 320th power. Let us also note that biologically active proteins contain amino acids exclusively of left-handed rotation, and only mixtures of right-handed and left-handed forms in random proportions can appear spontaneously. It is impossible to imagine that left-handed amino acids clump together into separate groups and form proteins. If there are equal numbers of left and right amino acids, then the probability that in a protein of 500 amino acids all of them by chance will be left symmetric is only 10 to the –160th power.
The process of self-formation of order is completely unnatural for another reason. The second law of thermodynamics: any molecular system, being left to itself, tends to a state of greatest chaos, its entropy (a value characterizing the degree of chaos) increases. Therefore, for example, heat is not transferred spontaneously from a less heated body to a more heated one, but is distributed evenly. Therefore, when we arrive at the dacha in the spring, we do not find a second floor or a garage accidentally built, but only a leaky roof and a rickety fence. The hypothesis of self-formation of proteins contradicts the empirical experience that formulated the second law of thermodynamics. The phenomenon of protein self-formation under consideration would be accompanied by a decrease in entropy. The appearance of order is observed in nature, but this is by no means self-order. Water accumulates in low places, forming puddles, and freezing in the air - symmetrical snowflakes. Many substances form crystals. These states simply correspond to a minimum of potential energy and are accompanied by the release of heat, so that overall entropy increases. Transitions to a more ordered state with lower entropy are possible only in some exceptional cases of nonequilibrium, irreversible processes in open systems (the theory of self-organization of nonequilibrium thermodynamic structures was founded by I. Prigogine). But there is no reason to consider the supposed process of protein or DNA formation to be nonequilibrium or irreversible. After all, there could be no catalysts for such an assembly in the primeval ocean, as well as positive feedbacks stimulating the formation of intermediate molecules. And their collapse would be intensively enhanced by ultraviolet radiation, hydrolysis and various chemical substances of the primary ocean. In living organisms, enzymes provide a synthesis rate tens of times higher than the rate of fire of a machine gun (thousands of operations per second). It cannot be otherwise: intermediate molecules are very unstable and can fall apart, entire “assembly teams” (groups of molecules) change hundreds of times per second.
Self-synthesis at every moment would move forward through fluctuations (the random appearance of the necessary molecules) and even faster back, through the collapse of a new structure of amino acid molecules, i.e. in an equilibrium and reversible manner. The probability of a giant fluctuation leading to the appearance of the entire protein is negligible. I. Prigogine and his colleagues could not even come close to proving that the huge amount of information necessary for the self-reproduction of molecules could have accumulated naturally. The Prigogine-Arnold-Haken theory of self-organization offers only some theoretical reflections and analogies, very far from evidence of the emergence of life from chaos, which I. Prigogine himself undoubtedly recognized and is well known to scientists involved in molecular physics. Commenting on some ordering phenomena, the theory of self-organization is not able to explain the very beginning of life - the appearance of proteins and DNA. Living beings undoubtedly have the property of self-organization, reducing entropy due to external sources, but their functioning does not explain the emergence of life. Trees grow from seeds using solar energy, minerals and carbon dioxide. A grain or egg already contains all the necessary genetic programs for full development into an adult organism, programs of regulation, replacement and renewal. The egg is a very complex structure, possessing all the metabolic systems necessary for life. But how the first creatures appeared remains an insoluble mystery for the evolutionary hypothesis. Some scientists claimed that they still managed to synthesize proteins from a mixture of amino acids. However, they were clearly in a hurry with the sensation: in reality, only some distant semblance of proteins was obtained, the so-called thermal proteinoids, consisting of a polymer network of amino acids (in proteins, amino acids are linked sequentially), connected by non-alpha peptide bonds. The alpha-peptide bonds existing in the protein are formed in the interaction of many very complex molecules and enzymes. If amino acids were combined without the help of enzymes, then among the many chemical bonds that arise between different groups of amino acid atoms, only a tiny number of bonds would be alpha-peptide bonds. In the presence of non-alpha peptide bonds, proteins are unable to perform their biological functions. The polymer network did not have the spatial structure of the protein, did not have a completely definite, extremely complex sequence of molecular connections inherent to it and, accordingly, had nothing to do with life. The process of protein reproduction in living beings involves DNA, messenger RNA, 20 different transport RNAs, ribosomes (consisting of 3 ribosomal RNAs and 55 different protein molecules), and a whole complex of protein enzymes. A subtle energy supply for the process through ATP molecules is also necessary: ​​the synthesis of an average protein requires thousands of these molecules - ordinary heating or illumination by the Sun can only destroy the bonds. Almost the entire cell is involved in protein synthesis; disruption of the structure of at least one of the components blocks the process. The very fact of the functioning of this complex system in the body is surprising. The possibility of self-reproduction of proteins in the primordial ocean is absolutely excluded. DNA is not completely stable inside a living cell either. Its structure is controlled and corrected (repaired) by certain enzymes. This macromolecule functions in a state of dynamic equilibrium of disturbances that arise in its structure and their correction by enzymes. Outside the cell, DNA is quickly destroyed. There is no possibility of spontaneous emergence of life from the chemical elements of the Earth. And even if a biological macromolecule appeared from somewhere, it is not yet a living cell. The cell contains many macromolecules connected in a certain order. The probability of the random formation at least once in a billion years of enzymes (molecules that catalyze chemical transformations) necessary for a living cell. The result is a value of 10 to the –40,000th power. If the Solar System is filled with people (10 to the 50th power of people), each of whom is blindly spinning a Rubik's cube, then the indicated probability of the formation of enzymes necessary for a living cell is approximately equal to the probability that all these people will have the sides of the cube at the same time assembled by color! In addition to enzymes, there are even more complex formations in the cell. The probability of self-assembly of a living cell from prepared and piled up necessary atoms, even in the most favorable chemical environment, is 10–100,000,000,000! Such values ​​clearly show how much we are mistaken in expecting such events. Why did scientists ignore the probabilistic factor? Experts in the field of spontaneous generation of life, calling their science “highly hypothetical,” admit that calculations of the probability of spontaneous generation have never been made due to the fact that evolution was considered an undoubted fact. Scientists were just trying to figure out exactly how it could happen. The self-origin of life is not at all such a natural process as it is portrayed. On the contrary, from the very beginning (the birth of complex molecules) to the very end (the appearance of man), this hypothesis is an absurd heap of incredible, unnatural accidents. It can be concluded that belief in the currently accepted schemes of spontaneous biogenesis contradicts common sense. The impossibility of spontaneous generation of life is the stumbling block of all previous and newest evolutionary theories. The facts of molecular physics, genetics and biochemistry completely prove the impossibility of the random self-origin of living beings. In the possibilities of self-formation of macromolecules, it was assumed that on the ancient Earth there were no direct prohibitions on such processes, although there were at least two of them. The first prohibition is the destruction of protein molecules formed from amino acids by water as a result of hydrolysis reactions. The second prohibition is the immediate oxidation of amino acid compounds with oxygen. It was assumed that in ancient times there was no oxygen on the planet, and then macromolecules were able to originate, forming the simplest microorganisms. But the most ancient rocks contain iron dioxide, so there is no reason to assume that there was no oxygen in the ancient atmosphere. If oxygen were still absent, then ultraviolet light penetrating through such an oxygen-free atmosphere, which does not have a protective ozone layer, would destroy protein molecules. So, neither the absence of oxygen nor its presence is suitable for the self-origin of life. There is a third prohibition. It was assumed that the first atmosphere consisted of methane and ammonia - components necessary for the self-synthesis of amino acids. As experimental studies and computer modeling of the ancient atmosphere have shown, these gases would have been destroyed by ultraviolet rays (oxygen and ozone were absent), and the primary atmosphere could theoretically consist only of nitrogen and carbon dioxide. A fair bewilderment arises: where then did the amino acids that make up proteins come from? Scientists point to many vicious circles in the spontaneous generation hypothesis, for example: DNA reproduces only with the help of enzymes encoded by the DNA itself; proteins are synthesized using ribosomal protein complexes; cell membranes can only be synthesized on membranes; ATPs are synthesized only on membrane complexes, the synthesis of which is impossible without ATPs themselves.
The self-formation of vital macromolecules requires a huge number of mutually exclusive conditions that do not allow evolution theorists to formulate a holistic scientific concept. Today there is no serious scientific theory about where and how protein synthesis could occur on Earth. Existing hypotheses, including the newest ones (the formation of life based on RNA genomes, the so-called RNA world), describe only small isolated fragments of the proposed process. More than 30 years of experimentation in the field of chemical and molecular evolution related to the origin of life have led to a better understanding of the scale of the problem of the origin of life on Earth, rather than to a solution. However, even today there are enthusiasts who, following Academician V.I. Vernadsky, are trying to revive the evolutionary theory with a fantastic hypothesis about the spontaneous generation of life in an unknown way somewhere in space and its subsequent transportation to Earth by a meteorite or even the conscious sowing of life on the planet by intelligent beings (according to F. Kriku). Captivating with their fantastic nature, new hypotheses do not explain the origin of life, but only move the problem “out of sight” into the depths of space. But the laws of physics are universal. All probability calculations carried out will be valid there, in the unknown depths of the Universe. And there the possibilities of spontaneous generation will be just as ridiculously small.
Could a monkey accidentally type "War and Peace" while slapping the keyboard? As mathematics says, it can, but the probability of such an event is extremely small, approximately 10 to the -5,000,000th power. It turns out that by expecting the random appearance of one simple cell even under hypothetical ideal conditions, we hope that the monkey will be able to type the text of this book 20,000 times in a row without a single mistake. It would never occur to anyone that Michelangelo’s sculptures were accidentally formed on their own as a result of the fact that stone blocks, falling from the tops of mountains and falling into the abyss, were so wonderfully hewn.

Tiny male fireflies flutter over the grass in search of a mate, sending their light signals: a flash lasts 0.3 seconds, 455 flickers per kilometer of flight. The females respond with a “wink” of specific brightness and frequency (each of the almost 2000 species has its own light code), and the gentleman finds a bride.

But at the same time - deceit and love! - some become victims of a terrible deception: females of the predatory species Photuris, large and voracious, cleverly imitate the call of love, so that another gullible groom, instead of the marriage bed, falls into the arms of death.

Nearby, in the velvet darkness, males of the Macdermotti species diligently imitate the signals of the predator Photuris, trying to scare off competitors of their own tribe and gain an advantage in the search for a mate, since female Macdermotti are extremely rare.

What about Photuris males? These guys, in order to win over their food-obsessed ladies, have mastered the science of love tricks and flash their “flashlights” just like the tastiest dupes. Huge, insatiable predators don’t even have time to close their mouths - they’re already pregnant.Among insects and birds, in the underwater world and among mammals, not to mention people, from the chrysanthemum-like predatory sea anemone to the Polish president who lied to voters about having a university degree, lying and deception emerge as a strategy for success.

The favorites of natural selection are rogues, hypocrites, swindlers... Lies as an evolutionary strategy?

Kant believed that there is no place for deception in nature, and called such a tendency in humans “unnatural.”

Schopenhauer allowed himself harsher expressions, characterizing “the only deceitful creature in the world” (man) as “a disgrace to nature.” Deception was seen only as a survival strategy in the harsh struggle for existence between individual species.

This continued until 1988, when two Scottish scientists, Richard Byrne and Andrew Whiten, published a joint work entitled " Machiavellian mind", which describes the facts of monkeys deceiving their own fellow tribesmen.

Monkeys, as it turned out, are excellent at manipulating the behavior of their fellows. When he sees something tasty, a smart guy doesn’t immediately rush there, he pretends to be completely busy other things so that others do not intercept the spoils.

If it is beneficial for him, he deliberately “sounds the alarm”: he shouts about the danger, and then feigns embarrassment - they say, he made a mistake, sorry. The least prone to such tricks are gibbons that live in strictly monogamous families, which consist of a parent couple and children of different ages.

The most inventive Machiavellians, chimpanzees, lead a different way of life. Outstanding "politicians" among chimpanzees can outwit notorious rogues.

Subject to them "fourth order" trick, accessible only to a few people, when the reasoning is structured like this: “If you think that I believe that you are doing exactly what you really want, you are deeply mistaken.”

These monkeys have an ambiguous attitude towards power: the cunning often manipulates the strong

They know denunciation and betrayal; it happens that the power of a leader, like any superior, is overthrown through a conspiracy. After the publication of the work of Scottish scientists, it was as if a dam broke in the scientific world: reports poured in from all sides about facts of selfish deception on earth, in the skies and at sea. In ideological terms, these data confirmed the theory of the “cynical gene” put forward by the British bioevolutionist from Oxford Richard Dawkins.

According to Dawkins, the goal of evolution is not the preservation of species, but the preservation of a specific genotype, not the common good, but self-preservation - selfishness, asserting itself, if necessary, through the fight against its own kind. This is the basic instinct.

According to the "cynical gene" theory, every creature seeks to "manipulate objects in the environment" and influence the senses of other creatures "so that their behavior changes to its advantage."Dawkins' theory explains a lot. At the personal level, one can understand the mechanism of self-esteem, the need for love, outbursts of hatred, sympathy and antipathy, violence and cruelty.

At the social level, the endless wars waged by people throughout history, blood feuds, hostility towards strangers and racism, as well as patriotism, chauvinism, and all kinds of national ideas, become meaningful. Even the class struggle with all its paradoxes, including self-deception, is easily explained by the innate desire to affirm or protect “your gene” - the future of your children.Nevertheless, the question arises: what to do in this case withconscience?

How do you want to understand the “cynicism” of the basic instinct if it is accompanied by moral torment? And why don’t people still live, like gibbons, in clans, but create states where different genotypes coexist?

If Mr. Dawkins were right, humanity, one way or another, would not be more organized than a troop of chimpanzees!

These questions, while we in Russia, sitting behind the Iron Curtain, did not have access to new information, were answered by the American biologist Richard Alexander (University of Michigan). His “Biology of Moral Systems” states: at the last stage of development of the tribal system, humanity actually found itself on the brink of survival.

The disastrous competition between warring clans could only be resisted by uniting. Large societies cooperating with each other began to form when they managed to move from direct assistance to each other (as required by the genes of a single clan) to an indirect system of mutual settlements: we - to you, you - to us.Successful social associations strengthened and expanded. In large societies, the concept of reputation and certain moral standards arose: a good action could remain “unpaid”, but aroused general approval, which was again used in one’s own interests.

According to R. Alexander, any social structure as a whole is interested in correct, truthful information for the sake of the common good, therefore it becomes beneficial for a member of society to portray himself as honest, decent and trustworthy as possible. Consequently, every “act of good will” is the result of a sober calculation, and conscience is a set of social moral norms, enshrined in the memory of generations.

If an individual (for the sake of successful survival, first of all, of his children) is genetically ready to deceive competitors, then the state, for general security, must prevent an excessive flow of lies, which can destroy social relations, just as an excess of counterfeit money destroys the financial system.

Therefore, every state appeals to conscience and praises the truth

Thus, the world of egoists develops a certain universal law and an average “level of truth” - what is considered true today. This allows for a certain moral selection: society does not accept either notorious liars or overly active truth-tellers (remember Christ or Giordano Bruno), since both of them threaten stability.

The development of society - the achievement of a new “level of truth”, and at the same time the formation of new laws - occurs as a sufficiently large number of people comprehend new truths. It is worth taking a close look at yourself to agree: our desire for truth has its limits. There is a truth that we do not want to see. There is information that we take on faith as the cumulative experience of humanity at the current moment.

Perhaps conscience is also a belief in the riskiness of lying, an ingrained experience of fear of the bad consequences of unseemly or unreasonable actions. In any case, the mechanism of action of the “cynical gene” is much more complex, since it is clearly equipped with a powerful counteraction.By telling a lie, a person does not remain calm. His blood pressure rises, his pulse and breathing quicken, and the electrical conductivity of his skin decreases.

Symptoms of general arousal can be so strong that they can be measured (the action of the famous lie detector is based on this). When the lie is finally uttered, the person takes a deep breath - the difficult task is done, the body allows itself to relax.

So, conservation of the species or conservation of the genotype?

Charles Darwin with his "origin of species" or Richard Dawkins with his theory of the "cynical gene"? Finally, egoism or collectivism - where is the root and trunk today?Apparently in the center. Opposites fight, extremes are doomed to die until they find a compromise and harmony.Modern sociobiologists argue: evolution has proven the optimal stability of mixed strategies.

The black and white world of each and every “either or” is becoming a thing of the past; a rainbow opens before our eyes. There is an already established scientific term “ Mixed Evolutionary Stable Strategy", abbreviated as "MESS", which, translated into common language, looks something like this: the favorites in evolutionary selection are healthy people, selfish enough to lie when necessary, smart enough to value the truth, and conscientious enough to help others as much as possible.

Now, dear readers, let me congratulate us all - since we are still alive, it means that we are the undisputed favorites. Unless the learned egoists are lying.

Since the launch of evolutionary theory in the second half of the 19th century, there has been a feverish search for fossils of transitional species that could prove the validity of evolution - the origin of new species by changing some species (simple) into others (more complex). Since then, if anything has evolved, it has been the “evidence” of this theory, invented by its followers. Below are some more famous examples of evolutionist distortion.

If evolution really happened, by now we should have found abundant evidence of changes from one species to another in the fossil record. But despite the fact that “Museums around the world contain nearly one hundred million fossils, carefully cataloged and identified,” Porter Kier, New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129,

• 1. There is no evidence of the emergence of new species by changing others.
• 2. Only modern species were discovered, plus a certain number of extinct ones.
• 3. There are no transitional or “half” forms between species (and there should have been tens of thousands of them, if evolution really occurred).
• 4. ALL fossil evidence of “human evolution” (including proven fakes) can be placed in a box the size of a small coffin, and they come from places far removed from each other, in the absence of reliable indications of at least a relative (let alone “absolute”) ) age, and without any indication of how these different “people” are related to each other by kinship or origin.

The lack of evidence of evolution in the fossil record was a source of confusion for Darwin, the generally accepted father of evolutionary theory: “... intermediate links? Geology has certainly not revealed such gradual organic changes, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection that can be raised against the theory [of evolution].". Charles Darwin, quoted by David Raup in “Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum Bulletin, January 1979.

But Darwin, in his typical manner of presenting hypotheses as facts, brushed off such possible accusations, saying that in the future paleontologists will undoubtedly (!) fill in these gaps.

The lack of paleontological evidence on the one hand and the irresistible desire of evolutionists to prove at all costs the origin of man from animals, on the other, has led to a number of ongoing attempts by evolutionists to create missing evidence through fraud, forgery, lies and silence.

This shameful process was started by Darwin himself: the fact that “his” theory of evolution was based on plagiarism is unanimously hushed up by his biographers.

It is generally accepted that the book published by Charles Darwin in 1859 and which was the cornerstone of the theory of evolution, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life" was his brainchild.

[It should be noted in parentheses that 1) - in our age of political correctness, talking about the survival of the “gifted races” would be regarded as “rabid racism.” Therefore, for quite a long time, evolutionists bashfully omitted the second part of the book's title and called it “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection”; 2) - the book does not contain a word about the promised “origin of species”, but only vague, pseudoscientific and rather illiterate discussions about the possibilities of transforming some species into others; 3) - the term “selection” implies the action of an intelligent force, denied by evolutionists.].

In fact, the dubious honor of developing this theory belongs not to Darwin, but to Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913), who put forward a HYPOTHESIS about how natural selection could influence the transformation of some species into others. In February 1858, while suffering from fever on the island of Ternate (Moluccas), he wrote an extensive article "". It contains most of the ideas of evolutionary theory - here is the “struggle for existence”, and “the survival of those more adapted to the struggle for existence”, and the “law of populations of species” and everything else that became the foundation of Darwinism.

Darwin's "scientific background" consisted of two years of attending lectures at the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Edinburgh, after which he abandoned boring books. Even as a student, Darwin spent his time in local bars with friends, barely passing tests. As a wealthy heir, Darwin did not set himself any life goals, since his dad was going to get him a job as an Anglican pastor, which Darwin did not object to. However, fate decreed otherwise.

With the help of an influential relative, Darwin got a job as an unpaid “naturalist” on the Beagle, which circumnavigated the world between December 1831 and October 1836. Numerous reports talk a lot about his “scientific” research, but completely ignore the fact that, being in South America, he was initiated into the witchcraft rituals of the natives. During his trips into the interior of the country, Darwin participated in their rituals and as a result, according to contemporaries, something happened to him. Upon his return to England, although his health was inexplicably in poor health, he devoted the rest of his life to theories aimed at destroying faith in a Creator.

Without receiving a scientific education, Darwin, with the help of two other combinators from evolution, (Charles Lyell) and Joseph Hooker (), engaged in plagiarism and issued Wallace's HYPOTHESIS on the mountain in his own name. With Hooker's help, he presented a paper with "his" ideas to the Royal Society in London, while Wallace's report was delayed. Having thus established the priority of “his” development, Darwin began to write a book without any mention of the true author, Wallace. All this is described in detail in the book “Delicate Arrangement” by Arnold C. Brackman.

There is no doubt that the main purpose of Darwin's book was to attack Christianity. Thus, in his autobiography, written by him in 1876 and entitled “Memoirs of the Development of My Mind and Character,” he states:

“I do not understand how anyone could want Christianity to be the truth, since the plain meaning of its texts indicates that non-believers - and this includes my father, brother and almost all of my best friends - will be punished forever. Therefore this doctrine deserves to be cursed."

In full accordance with the traditions of lies and distortion that originally accompanied all the “developments” of evolutionists, this and other anti-Christian statements of Darwin were his autobiographies of his wife Emma and son Francis Darwin. His wife and son believed that Darwin's views on Christianity could damage his reputation! Only almost 100 years later, Darwin's statements were restored by his granddaughter, Nora Barlow, who published an autobiography in 1958 to mark the centenary of the publication of Darwin's theory. Apparently, the granddaughter decided that people of the twentieth century had moved so far away from Christianity that her grandfather’s anti-Christian ideas would not confuse anyone. Quite the opposite.

“The Book of Darwin” turned out to be exactly what some really wanted to see: an open, straightforward statement in favor of the “evolution” of species and the denial of divine providence in the creation of the world and man. Those. a direct challenge and refutation of Christianity. Therefore, this book, despite its “unscientific” nature and ridiculous errors, was enthusiastically adopted by the “world community.” Here, in general terms, are some of these errors:

• 1. Quite often Darwin refers to certain “authorities”, but does not name them. While expressing various hypotheses, he notes that “this is just an abstract” and that “a more complete version will be presented later.” But despite the fact that he wrote several other books, he never bothered to provide any evidence for his theory (nor did any of his followers).
• 2. In those cases where he indicated some authority, this, as a rule, was an opinion from some letter. The book is replete with hypothetical phrases like “it could happen like this,” “maybe,” “possibly,” “one can imagine that.” Here is his favorite expression: “let's look at an imaginary example.”
• 3. Another favorite technique of Darwin is to make a certain assumption, and later point to it as a fact: “As we have previously demonstrated.” And one more thing: propose a possible course of events, and then conclude that they are evidence of a certain phenomenon.
• 4. The book is replete with entertaining stories, but not facts. Confusing examples are given. Darwin uses seemingly persuasive and crafty arguments and writes extensively about possible explanations for why relevant facts are missing.

Here is a typical example of Darwinian logic: to explain the lack of fossils of transitional species, Darwin explains that “species were changing rapidly in other parts of the world in which people had not yet explored the sedimentary rocks. Later, these modified species moved to Western countries, where they were discovered in sedimentary rocks as new species. Thus species changed on the other side of the earth and therefore transitional species are absent on our side!

With this type of argumentation, where can we talk about science?! But this can be forgiven for Darwin, since he actually did not have a scientific education.

Conceived in the sin of plagiarism, lies and , the theory of evolution attracted worthy followers into its ranks, ready to commit any kind of fraud in order to “prove” the validity of their theory. Let's look at some of them.

Fraud at Piltdown

In 1912, the world was shocked by the news that humans had descended from apes - the discovery of "" (several skull bones) in a gravel pit in Piltdown finally "proved" it! Portraits were painted of the “great” people who found this treasure, they were knighted, the main “pioneer”, the venerable evolutionist, Charles Dawson, and a monument was erected at the site of the find. Using the “language of science”, Latin, for greater importance, the find was called Eoanthropus Dawsoni- "early Dawson man". In the town of Piltdown, the local bar was renamed the Piltdown Man. The signal from a dentist-anatomist in 1916 that someone had filed down his teeth was ignored with indignation and the skull of the “ape-man” took pride of place in the British Museum.

Over the next 40 years, copies of Piltdown Man found their way into most museums around the world and into biology textbooks as an evolutionary intermediate between ape and man. Since signals about a possible distortion with the Piltdown Man did not stop, the museum administration placed him under lock and key, and plaster casts began to be issued to those interested.

But in 1953, Kenneth Oakley, a geologist at the British Museum, with the help of Joseph Weiner, an anthropologist at Oxford University, and Le Gros Clark, a professor of anatomy at Oxford, managed to examine the treasured bones. Then, using a newly developed fluoride test, they found that Eoanthropus Dawsoni was a huge hoax! Apparently, Dawson and his associates placed an ape jaw next to a human skull, filed down the teeth (to give them a human appearance), and painted all the bones with chrome to give them an “ancient” appearance and make it seem like they were all part of this skull.

The House of Commons was so outraged that it almost approved a resolution that “the House expresses its lack of confidence in the administration of the British Museum for taking so long to expose the Piltdown Man fraud.”

Despite the “Piltdown Man” scandal, his images still appear in biology textbooks to this day as an intermediate evolutionary link between ape and man.

Nebraska Man

In 1922, the director of the American Museum of Natural History in New York, Henry Fairfield Osborn, and Harold Cook reported to “the city and the world” that, as a result of many years of persistent searching, Harold Cook had finally found not far from Snake River, Nebraska, a molar that belonged to an ancient man of the Pliocene period. Based on a single molar, Osborne was not afraid ( Aren't you embarrassed?) to claim that it belonged to a "human ancestor", half-man, half-ape. "The intermediate stage between ape and man has finally been found," as the tooth shared characteristics of ape and man.

Based on this single tooth, an artist with a rich imagination (and, presumably, consultations with Osborne) created a full-scale image of this ancient ape-man (in parentheses, we note that all such illustrations in evolution textbooks were created and are created in the same way - by the imagination of artists and “scientists”) .

"Nebraska Man" appeared in the Scopes trial (the so-called "Monkey Trial"), in which evolutionists are considered to have won a victory over "creationists."

But in 1928 it was established that the tooth belonged to a pig of an “extinct breed”! And in 1972, a living pig of this “extinct breed” was discovered in Paraguay...

Javanese man

In 1891, “Java Man” was found, which became a classic example of the search for evidence to support the theory - in 1866, Ernst Haeckel proposed the term “pithecanthropus” as a designation for a HYPOTHETICAL intermediate link between ape and man. Eugene Dubois, who became a convinced evolutionist while attending lectures at the medical faculty of a Dutch college, dropped out and went to Sumatra and other islands of the Dutch East Indies in search of fossils of this link.

In September 1891, in a damp place near the Solo River, Dubois found a skull cap. A year later, fifty feet from finding the lid, he discovered a hip. He later found three teeth elsewhere in the area.

Du Bois - from the ceiling - suggested that

1. all these bones belonged to the same person, and
2. that they are about a million years old.

Nearby, in the same condition (indicating the same age), he discovered two human skulls, but he did not promote them, since their volume was slightly larger than that of a modern person. Only 31 years later, in 1922, he admitted to this discovery.

Armed with these scattered bones, Du Bois informed the world of the discovery of Java Man and spent the rest of his life promoting this great discovery. The femur, however, turned out to be a normal human bone.

As one might expect, many experts doubted whether all the bones belonged to the same person, and also stated that these were human bones, not monkeys. But Du Bois spent most of his life giving lectures and stories about the “half-man, half-ape.” He called it "Pithecanthropus erectus", or, for emphasis in Latin, Pithecanthropus erectus(upright ape man).

British zoologists thought it was a man, German experts thought it was a monkey, and the French suggested it was a cross between a man and an ape.

Finally, in 1907, a German expedition went to Java to settle the issue. But Du Bois did not show them his “collection of bones” or help them in any other way. Arriving in Java, they dug through 10,000 cubic meters of rock and dug up 43 boxes of bones, and then declared that it was all a waste of time. Their main discovery was that the bones of Java Man Dubois were taken from the lava of a nearby volcano. Its eruption buried a large number of people and animals.

About 15 years before his death - and after most evolutionists had become convinced that his find was nothing more than the bones of a modern man - Du Bois announced his belief that the bones belonged to a gibbon!

School textbooks and popular books continue to refer to 500,000 years as the age of "Javanese man." In Haeckel’s biography, which mentions the latter’s hypothesis about “Pithecanthropus,” it is solemnly stated that “this was later confirmed by a find on the island. Java remains of Pithecanthropus!

Frauds of Ernst Haeckel

Tas Walker

A textbook filled with errors, false information, subjective assumptions and... lies?

Note: this problem is also relevant for Ukraine, since most of the errors and outdated information described in this article are also present in Ukrainian textbooks. For a complete list of errors and deceptions in Ukrainian school textbooks, see the website nt-creaz.org.ua

Recently, a friend of mine showed me his son's science textbook. He attends a government high school in Queensland, Australia. So, an entire section of this textbook is devoted to evolution. When I got to know him, my blood boiled.

Popular emotional images incline young students towards atheistic-materialistic philosophies.

Today children have wonderful textbooks - colorful, bright, interesting, in good binding, but the section on evolution soaked in lies, one-sidedness, fanaticism and dogmatism.

Well, well, they write in them what is planned by the state general education program. This tutorial, called " In the center of science, 4”, was specifically written for the study of biology in 4th and 5th grade schools in the neighboring state of New South Wales.

In the section on evolution, children are told that they have evolved. "from bacteria to humans". This information is supported by images that have a powerful impact even on children who cannot read. In addition, the pictures bypass the questions of those children who can read.

One of these pictures shows a naked man next to a cute monkey. Message to the disciples: you were not created in the image of God, but evolved, you are just animals.

Another picture shows a staircase: naked primates transforming from hunched apes into humans. This traditional image graced the cover of Jonathan Wells's book Icons of Evolution, a book about the classic "evidence" of evolution. Such an image can rightfully be called racist (I discussed this issue in another article) and, moreover, it is .

I'm wondering if any of the contributors to this section on evolution have read Wells' book? Their section is completely saturated with outdated “icons”, which Wells finally discredited. Did they deliberately ignore his scientific criticism? Do they care that they are feeding their children false information? I was reminded of what Richard Dawkins said about creationists: “Uneducated, stupid, crazy or cruel - but I’d rather not discuss that.”.

As I was looking through the section, I noticed that it contained a lot of outdated information and scientific errors. You could write a whole book refuting this nonsense. It’s good that such books have actually already been written (See, for example: "Refuting Evolution", part 1–2).

I will provide just some of the information presented in this section.

Darwin's finches(p. 228). Finches do not support evolution in the sense presented in the textbook - evolution from bacteria to humans. They are an example of natural selection, which does not create any new genetic information necessary for evolution to work (See: “Darwin’s Eden” and).

Sh her giraffe(p. 228) is a popular symbol of evolution, but it has no fossil evidence and no convincing mechanism (See: and "The Giraffe's Neck: Another Symbol of Evolution Fails").

Natural selection(p. 232). He goes against evolution. Natural selection only selects and removes genetic information that is already present (See:).

Birch moths(p. 233). Even if experiments with them were successful, they only showed natural selection, and this is not evolution. Even evolutionists themselves admit this fact (See: "Goodbye, birch moths").

Speciation(p. 234). Again, speciation is not evolution—a new species is formed without any new genetic information. Speciation will not turn “bacteria into humans.” In fact, rapid speciation is well explained within the creationist model, but evolutionists are surprised by how quickly it happens (See:).

Convergent evolution(p. 235). A name coined to explain unexpected and incredibly similar characteristics in animals. It is sometimes called "homoplastic evolution". Such similar characteristics are powerful evidence in favor of design (See:, “Are external similarities related?”, “Could the middle ear of mammals have evolved... twice?”).

Miller–Urey experiment(p. 240). What a shame! This experiment used the wrong atmosphere, produced the wrong chemicals, and produced nothing remotely resembling life. No one knows how life could arise through naturalistic processes, but students are not told about this (See: "Why the Miller-Urey study disproves abiogenesis").

Transitional forms(p. 243). There are no transitional forms on the basis of which an irrefutable proof could be built - there are only some dubious findings (See: "Refuting Evolution", part 2).

Lungfish(p. 243). Another outdated idea that scientists have abandoned (See: "The fossil record of ancient tetrapods: evidence of a major evolutionary transition?").

Archeopteryx(p. 243). Another outdated example that evolutionists have already stopped considering. Its dating is incorrect even by the calculations of evolutionists themselves, and today Archeopteryx is considered a fully functional, flying bird.

Color illustration deceives students. There should be dots instead of intermediate lines, indicating that the fossils are simply missing.

Comparative anatomy(p. 243). Sometimes evolutionists claim that similar structures support the existence of a common ancestor, but sometimes they don't think so. This opinion is, of course, subjective, and many features of embryonic development refute such a statement. Similarities in structure are good evidence in favor of a common designer (See: "Not Intended for Reuse: Homologous Structures and the Critical Uniqueness Assumption" and "Is Homology Evidence for Evolutionary Naturalism?").

Embryonic development(p. 244). Shame and shame again! This idea has long been abandoned as evidence of evolution. Haeckel's drawings are an obvious lie.

Classification of plants and animals(p. 245). Reasoning in a closed circle. Evolution supposedly explains classification, which in turn is used to prove evolution. To an evolutionist, everything around us is evidence of evolution, but there are other explanations.

Gene duplication(p. 246). If you make two copies of a document, the number of characters in your document will not double. Copying does not produce new genetic information - it simply reproduces what is already there. How did the information first arise? (Cm.: “Do new functions arise as a result of gene duplication?”).

Human evolution(p. 249). Hominid-based evidence can be divided into human fossils and ape fossils. Claims about transitional forms are merely subjective interpretations based on few and dubious findings (See: "Intransitive forms in human evolution").

Lucy(p. 250). Human eyes, arms and legs attached to a monkey make this creature look like a half-man, half-ape. But in reality, Lucy was an ordinary monkey, as evidenced by her name - Australopithecus ("southern monkey") (See: "The Evolutionists Don't Love Lucy Anymore").

Homo Gabilis(p. 251). A pile of human and ape fossils that is now recognized as an invalid taxon. The textbook even contains a picture of this fictional creature (See: "Homo Gabilis came down from the family tree").

Homo Erectus(p. 251). There is not a single piece of evidence to suggest that it is not a human species (See: Skull Wars).

Neanderthal(p. 251). Previously, he was depicted as a primitive caveman, but now it is believed that the Neanderthal is a full-fledged person (See:, , "Not bad for Neanderthals").

Cro-Magnon(p. 251). Not a beast with a club, but a full-fledged person.

Cultural evolution(p. 252). It is simply an opinion based on accepted beliefs, which in the light of existing evidence does not make sense (See: "Breaking Evolutionary Ideas to Dust!").

Mungo Man(p. 255). Remains of Australian Aborigines. This claim is based on the results of extreme radioactive dating, which is based on pure speculation and is the subject of hot debate. Thanks to Mungo Man and other evolutionary stories, people tend to think of Aboriginal Australians as “primitive” people. These assumptions and theories should not be presented in this light as they give rise to racist ideas.

The treatment of evolution in a textbook is a disgrace! Evolution is presented as science, but the entire section on it is scientifically flawed (in terms of the basic evidence it presents) and outdated. This section on evolution is riddled with lies, one-sidedness, ignorance and deception. He criticizes creation and offends those who hold a different point of view.

This is an example from an Australian textbook, but this problem has global scale.

It seems that textbooks are just part of a huge strategy to test the information available to children, similar to what is shown in the movie " You are excluded" All data is presented in the light of a secular, atheistic, materialistic and humanistic worldview.

Looking through this textbook, I was reminded of the tragic statement of Darrell Scott, whose daughter, Rachel, was shot and killed on April 20, 1999. Along with 12 other children, she was killed by two students at Columbine High School, USA. One of the student shooters was wearing a T-shirt that said “Natural Selection.”

Darrell said:

“If our children are taught that they arose from a piece of dirt, evolved from a lower form of life, and there is no future after death, then, naturally, all this shapes their worldview... In reality, life for them does not have the meaning that children, believers have that they were created in the image of God, and that besides this life they have a life to come.”

It's time for educational institutions to stop teaching our children lies. However, the authorities who fund this shameful, destructive indoctrination would rather hire more police, build new prisons and introduce harsher laws to deal with its negative consequences. This is just stupid.

Links and notes