Criticizing the evolution theory is a very bad thought crime even for somebody who already has done many other thought crimes by doubting official explanations to strange historical events. This is so because even the doubters, conveniently dubbed conspiracy theoreticians, like to think of themselves as logical and scientific thinkers, while those crackpots who question the evolution theory are stupid ultra-religious Protestants from the deep Bible-belt. You certainly do not want to associate with them.
Well, I do not mind committing thought crimes and I do not associate with anybody. There really is a problem in the evolution theory. Let us see how this great theory came to be. Charles Darwin is today still hailed as one of the greatest minds in Western science for proving the evolution theory, unlike Einstein, Freud and Marx, who have their critics already. Charles Darwin did not invent the evolution theory. He took it from his Freemason grandpa Erasmus Darwin, but Charles wrote a thick book in support of the theory, and Freemasons and other so called freethinkers propagated the theory so well that now it is generally accepted.
Probably rather few of those, who consider the evolution theory as a proven fact, have read the book of Darwin. Those who have should have noticed that there is no proof that natural selection is the mechanism that has created life and all the different species of animals and plants. Darwin used fossils to support his claim and all he manages to do it to show that life has evolved from earlier life forms, that natural selection happens, and that some of the evolution he sees in fossil data can be explained by natural selection.
In Darwin’s time people did not know of the DNA and mutations, but they knew for a very long time that new plant and animal races (subspecies) can be created by human selection. Naturally, subspecies can then be created also by natural selection: the struggle of life selects the best fit for a given environment and the population adapts to its environment. One cannot argue against this logical claim. But it was known by the long experience of breeders that selection only created races while the races still belonged to the same species. We know now why this was so: sexual reproduction only shuffles genes and selection can only change the frequencies of genes in a population and decrease the gene pool by removing some alleles, but it cannot create different genes and even different alleles of the same genes.
It was also known that new variation did arise in breeding. It was caused by new alleles created by mutations. This mechanism could not be understood in Darwin’s time, but it was known. Yet, these new alleles did not change the race to another species.
Darwin used fossil data to convincingly show that species developed from earlier species. Now we know that it is caused by mutations and if a population is split by barriers that hinder interbreeding for a long enough time, the populations will become different species. The time is rather long, for mammals of roughly the size of humans: we can expect that about one million years of separation creates a new species. This way of creating new species was argued quite well in Darwin’s book. It does not need natural selection. Genetic drift is quite enough: random mutations will change the populations so much that they cannot interbreed after some time. Natural selection does happen in every population, of course, so one can claim that natural selection is a major force in creation of new species, though the ultimate reason for creation of new species in this case is not selection but it is isolation and mutations over a long time.
Darwin’s look at fossil data also showed that there is slow gradual evolution by smaller steps. Thus, the brain of humans has grown over the time and the wings of birds have gradually developed from skin folds that originally could have been used for jumping. If this is so, then evolution proceeds by small steps that are directed to a given direction. The DNA code is long, but evolution proceeding by mutations could work through intermediate steps: small changes could eventually lead to big differences.
By the time mutations become known, critics of evolution argued that evolution by random mutations was improbable like a monkey writing a book on a type writer, but if evolution did proceed by small changes, then this argument was wrong: there was a guiding direction: it was like optimization towards a growing gradient. It did indeed look like the theory of evolution was proven and sound, apart of details that were to be worked out.
And this is as I learned it in the school and used to believe it until recently when I got some time to think about it and to look for evidence. There is a problem since the fossil data that Darwin, and later evolutionists, could point out, does indeed proceed by small changes created by mutations, but these mutations affect the control part of a gene. A gene has protein-coding parts (exons) and non-coding parts (introns), and there is more non-coding DNA, some of which controls the gene. Thus, one can say that as a functional unit, a gene has a control part (not all inside the gene) and protein-coding part. The gradual growth of the human brain and the gradual growth of a bird wing are cases of mutations to the control part. The control part decides when to stop growth of brain cells or wing cells. If stopped later, there are more cells and the organ becomes bigger – to explain this highly complicated mechanism in the simplest and very coarse way.
Evolution in fossil data seems to show evolution of the control part by mutations: functions are turned on and off. This allows a simple explanation for parallel evolution: As fish already had genes for tails but they got turned off, turning these genes back on may explain how both Ichthyosauria and whales developed tails. There probably is no dinosaur DNA to check this hypothesis, so it is not proven, but it is suggestive. Later mutations can have changed the genes so much that fish genes for a tail cannot be identified in whales. The modern fish are not exactly the ancient forms even if some modern fish look like ancient species.
What remains is the evolution of the protein-coding DNA segments, exons. Proteins are complicated molecules, which are explained to work as three-dimensional keys. One key fits one lock, and occasionally another lock that it was not intended to fit, but rarely. Specific proteins are needed for building specific tissues and for enabling organic reactions. Life simply cannot exist without proteins. Darwin’s fossil data does not show how exons evolved by mutations. Picking a lock does indeed proceed by small steps, but it is a manual skill. In a computer the corresponding activity is password guessing and that does not proceed easily by small steps – often you need brute force. Brute force guessing has a dimensional barrier, which usually is exceeded by the exon length. The exon length corresponds to the protein complexity which corresponds to the complexity of the lock the protein must open. This looks like a serious gap in the theory.
The evolution theory by Charles Darwin made several steps forward to understanding the development of species. Created in a time when mutations were now known, it explained creating of new species by isolation and mutations, adding natural selection to the other mechanism. It also explains well evolution by mutations in the control part as gradual evolution by turning existing functionalities on and off. But all this takes us only to early forms of life. There is still missing the evolution of exons and the first step: the evolution if the first living cell from a soup of amino-acids in hot spots close to marine volcanoes.
These steps were not described in Darwin’s book and I do not remember having heard any explanations for them in the school, or after the school. Maybe they have been solved by evolutionists, but as they have not told it, it is not common knowledge. In any argument evolutionists tend to refer to fossil data, but that most probably does not relate to the evolution of exons, so it misses the point. Ridiculing the biblical creating myth certainly misses the point: those are old myths with their own historical explanations and not a viable alternative theory to evolution. I still have to look if evolutionists have addressed and solved the exon problem, but as these people tend to be quite aggressive, often are very unknowledgeable, and immediately suspect critics from trying to smuggle God to their favorite theory (which they protect with religious fervor), it is not so easy to get answers from them.
A theory is a theory, but any theory mentioned in the Protocol of the Elders groups it with a suspicious set of failed truths (socialism, communism, nietscheism, and yes, darwinism is mentioned), and any theory propagated by Freemasons is tainted (democracy with an inbuilt deep state, free press, which is secretly controlled, feminism, atheism, multiculturalism and so on). One cannot take such theories on faith. They have to be well argued to pass as science. Criticism of the evolution theory is not trying to insert creation to gaps of the theory. There should not be serious-looking gaps in the theory. Only minor details can be yet unfilled, but also in small details can lurk a serious problem. A small failure of Newton’s physics was enough to bring it down.
The evolution of exons is not the only problem I see. There is the existence of the conscious mind (which does not separate humans from other mammals), there is the problem how something comes out of nothing (as there is the beginning, the Big Bang), and there is the problem of time (leading to the old concept that the physical world is an illusion). Charles Darwin maybe though that all these other ancient proofs were debunked and all that was left was to debunk the creation, but it is not so. None of these others were debunked, only creation seemed to be scientifically refuted by the evolution theory.
Maybe I have to look at the DNA of a cyanobacteria. Maybe that is very simple and there is no problem in the evolution theory. I hope it will be something like 20 base pairs, or so. That would be easy by random mutations. They are supposed to be closest to the first living cells. Well, I checked, it was not 20 bp, it was 3.5 million bp. The problem stays.