Tuesday, September 29, 2015

EVOLUTION THEORY'S BIGGEST BLOW: Wilson's Law of Evolution. Where Are All The Fossils of Failed Mutations?

By David Wilson

First, let's get our terms straight: Evolution is not and never has been a "theory". This is a theory:  scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation  and experimentation. Evolution is less than a hypothesis, it is a supposition: a tentative insight into   the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory". This already renders evolution, then, as a mere supposition, not a "theory".

This blog always tries to give you a line or two you can use when debating in favor of Creation. Here is this post's line, and encapsulates the content of this post:

For evolution to be a viable hypothesis, it must have the element of mutation playing a vast and critical role. Mutation is a chaotic - random - process. Therefore every evolutionary jump should be flanked in the fossil record by countless random mutations which did not succeed.  That means billions of failed mutation fossils for 1.5 million species of life on earth, demanded statistically because we have many fossils of many particular animals which did "succeed". Such a fossil record of countless failed mutations does not exist. That is the end of the theory of evolution.  It's over.

Since I have never seen this subject brought up anywhere before or after our production of the video "Behold Now Behemoth" in 2007, and since it is my own thought, I am going to play secular scientist today and name this Law after myself to the presumed delight of the anti-creationists (why not?):

Wilson's Law of Evolution: The total lack of fossil evidence of the primary component of evolution, "mutation", proves the theory of evolution to be false. The fact of many fossils of the same creatures exist but no record of the billions of mutations which did not succeed defeats evolution at the stage of primary supposition. No fossil record of the statistically-demanded billions of mutations which did not succeed proves mutation from one species into another never occurred. Period.

Here is the extremely secular and liberal Berkeley university confirming that mutation is the primary component for evolution. "Mutations are essential to evolution; they are the raw material of genetic variation. Without mutation, evolution could not occur."

Here is extremely secular Berkeley University confirming that mutation is a random and unguided process.

"Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be."

As far back as 1920, writing in that year's annual report for the Smithsonian Institution (an original copy of which the author has in his hard copy collection),  Charles W. Gilmore, Associate Paleontologist at the U.S. national museum, wrote, "The late J.B. Hatcher brought to light by far the greater number of the known Triceratops specimens, compromising some 40 or more skulls and partial skeletons, all from the now famous Lance Creek locality in eastern Wyoming." So many samples of a single animal were not unusual even back then. The point, of course, is for there to be many samples of a single animal but no fossil record of the countless random mutations which did not succeed preceding it, prove statistically that evolution from one species to another never occurred, and this fossil record pattern is true for every living creature on earth.

And that, dear friends, that pretty much screws "The Theory of Evolution". It is not that the empirical evidence does not support Creationism. In this instance the empirical evidence totally and completely defeats the supposition of evolution.

Triceratops as imagined by Knight at about the time Hatcher was finding fossils of many Triceratops, but not the countless fossils of random mutations which did not succeed as demanded statistically for the "Theory of Evolution" to be viable even as a supposition.

It bears noting that, apart from the absence of a record of failed mutations, the idea of  natural selection as an element of the evolution process is a statistical absurdity, as well. Since this blog's specialty is dinosaurs, let's look at the example of the supposed transition from small bipedal dinosaurs to birds. There is mainstream science's sort of movie-transition scenario: a "proto-bird" creature with rudimentary feathers (of ONE individual) appears and - whoosh - a camera swish pan and we see the first birds soaring through the branches of Jurassic forests and escaping predictors. It's a fanciful and optimistic scene which makes us feel good because the little bird is the sympathetic protagonist. But as logic it fails miserably in a real-world scenario.

For example, If the first rudimentary feathered creature survived, how did little scales help if the scales were nowhere near developed enough to be feathers for flight at that point in development? How did the scales help that creature fare better than his contemporaries, and why was the effect not diluted by mating with a member of the same species that did not have the rudimentary feathers? Dominant genes? Just like that? And even if a bipedal dinosaur suddenly emerged with feathers fully formed, how did his land-based bipedal brain become re-wired essentially instantly for the special complex intricacies of flight? Over generations?  Perhaps falling off branches and breaking their necks just a little less than they barely flew but didn't really fly at all at that point and escaped predators better than normal-scaled dinosaurs of the same species because.... well, just because? Laughable and, frankly, grossly stupid as a real-life scenario.

 With no fossil record to confirm the countless mutations of the little first proto-bird bird before he became a true bird, there was no proven mutation at all, only different species. It's true for every single living creature on earth. Evolution of one species to another simply never happened. End of discussion.

The supposition of evolution just collapses, completely, because its primary mechanism, mutation, is not recorded in the fossil record in a way that even fractionally meets the statistical demands imposed on the theory. Yet like the old paleontologists of the past who for generations demanded that dinosaurs be ectothermic (cold-blooded) instead of endothermic (warm blooded) when everything pointed to endothermic from the very first dinosaur reconstructions, scientists today demand that these statistical fairy tales of evolution by mutation be believed or they will condescendingly wave their worthless diplomas in your face and hope that the flapping of paper will distract you enough so that you do not notice that there is no fossil record of the mutations which did not succeed, as demanded by the statistics.

The presumed hoped-for fossil record of the billions of mutations that did not succeed can no longer, if they were even considered, be thought of as simply as-yet-undiscovered-evidence. It is now long past the point that secular science must finally admit that the lack of a fossil record of the failed mutations is, in itself, the actual evidence..... that evolution on earth from one species into a new species never occurred.

Wilson's Law of Evolution: The total lack of fossil evidence of the primary component of evolution, "mutation", proves the theory of evolution to be false. The fact of many fossils of the same creatures exist but no record of the billions of mutations which did not succeed defeats evolution at the stage of primary supposition. No fossil record of the statistically-demanded billions of mutations which did not succeed proves mutation from one species into another never occurred. Period.

Here, C.R. Knight's Ornitholestes, apparently raised on Darwinian evolution, seems to be trying to help his supposed cousin Archaeopteryx learn to use his new feathers to fly. Both are plainly unaware that not only did one not evolve from the other, but that the total fossil record of life on earth, devoid of the statistically-demanded billions of fossils of failed mutations needed to prove evolution, shows that neither actually ever evolved at all.  And that's just the  immutable statistical hard facts of it. Evolution from one species to another never occurred. Period.


Related article:  Why The Culture Of The Mainstream Scientific Community Nullifies Its Authority

What's wrong with this picture? One of the first paintings of Dilplodocus, commissioned by the paleontology community in the later 1800's, and woe to anyone who dared to mock it, even though every leg bone was out of place.

ADDENDUM (and this process is likely to continue for awhile Updated 10/02/2015)

1.  Several people have asked, "What is a failed mutation?" and more specifically, "How do you identify a fossil of a failed mutation?" apparently proceeding on the flawed assumption that if you cannot identify a failed mutation fossil, it follows that you cannot say that a failed mutation fossil does not exist. That is my presumption of the motivation behind the question, anyway, and despite the fact that the question is a textbook example of failed logic to say the least, I am assuming the question is being innocently asked, so it deserves an clarifying answer.

Wilson's Law of Evolution is based as much on statistical probability as it is on fossil identification, which is usually hypothetical anyway (the entire history of paleontology is hip-deep in absolute proclamations which are instantly forgotten when it is arbitrarily decided by the mainstream to celebrate another so-called mainstream science advancement in knowledge". Read the above-linked related article, also by me. Remember how gross the mainstream scientific community has been in these kinds of mistakes. It had to be dragged kicking and screaming like an infant to the obvious conclusion of endothermic dinosaurs in the 1970's when that fact was already more or less recognized as being, essentially, a prerequisite for accurate dinosaur reconstruction from as early as 1900.

Statistically, we should see an almost endless variation in the fossil record, to the point if we had more fossils of specific (supposedly evolution-successful) species (as we do), the other billions of fossils would need to be examined to see if a good guess could be made as to whether each and every single one was part of the (supposed) larger successful process, an evolutionary dead end or a failed mutation which died in its solitary statistical state, the last of which, statistically, should comprise the vast percentage of fossils found because when dealing with a truly chaotic - random - process on this staggering scale and of this complexity, there can be no question of the undeniably vast numbers involved.

Since the fossil record has not even the remotest fraction demanded by the statistical percentages required for evolution by mutation to be viable, we see immediately that the theory is flawed at the very basic supposition stage. There is zero statistical evidence that macro evolution (one species branching into another species) by mutation ever occurred, and that is the end of the viability of the "theory" of evolution, obviously and that's just how it is. The theory of evolution is done.

2. A Facebook thread for the fan page of (of all the people)  Bill Nye The Science Guy (whose background, before becoming an entertainer, was in mechanical engineering and admits to never being a scientist) a few people posted refutations to Wilson's Law of Evolution at length about qualities of genetic mutation substantiating macro (one species to another) . Regarding the issue of genetics, There appears to be extreme confusion at the base level regarding this, so here is what I posted to them, quoted in full, so we don;t have to go through this one again.

As far a mutations appearing on a genetic level, of course. But You also appear to be making the case that evolution on a genetic level creates new species - a new physically manifest creature -  and mutation demands that that process be random, which still leaves us back at the same point: where are all the fossils - billions - of mutations which did not succeed? Mutation does not "give" an animal what it "needs". It's a random process. OK. So where is the statistically-demanded fossil record, because we have many fossils of many individual animals, but no fossil record of the chaotic process which led to any new species. With so many samples of certain animals an no fractional record of the chaotic process which supposedly caused them to spring into being, it follows very plainly that the process never occurred.

To say that genes mutate and create a new creature but then to infer at the same time that the mutated genes do not create the billions of failed mutations required by the statistical demands of a chaotic process defeats your own point if you are arguing in defense of the idea of evolution. 

It appears (some) people are simply clinging to the past for the sake of itself.and more specifically, making (their) arguments based on the words of the mainstream scientific community. I suggest (they) read this, by me:


and read this, also, by me (I won't rely on linking articles written by others. (they should) Write (their) own if (they) want to debate me):


Anything (they) write or quote which does not first take into account and explain the missing fossil record of the billions of mutations which did not succeed is proceeding on false assumptions that there is evidence of the billions of mutations caused by the chaotic process of mutation. Therefore, everything in defense of evolution is being described through the prism of a false assumption. You need empirical evidence that it happened before you can explain why, and the *most important* evidence - a fossil record of the billions of failed mutations statistically demanded by the chaotic process of mutation does not exist. That mystery needs to be solved before you can proceed. So unless (their) articles include that, and I am sure they do not, then like most similar topics stated as fact with no evidence to support them, the articles are useless.

Show me the fossils of the billions of failed mutations statistically demanded by the chaotic process, and then we can debate the fine points. The need for that evidence does not vanish because someone does a great deal of detailed talking based on unsubstantiated suppositions of what happened in the past. We need the evidence first, and it is plain that the evidence for mutation and therefore evolution will never be found because it is now obvious that it does not exist, and that is the end of the "theory" of evolution.


This main post, "Wilson's law of Evolution",  has left evolutionists, usually often quite loudly militant in defaming Creationists, nearly silent to an astounding degree. That's good. But two people brought up the "Eohippus", the so-called "Dawn Horse", as a "proven example" of evolution in the fossil record, so let me take a moment to disprove that example before we're hip-deep in Hyracotheriums.

This is the kind image that so many of us grew up with on this subject:

It's a pretty picture, but it's wrong. It is another evolution supposition.

Read this from a typical mainstream science site: "
Today, most paleontologists classify Hyracotherium as a "palaeothere," that is, a perissodactyl (odd-toed ungulate) ancestral to both horses and the giant plant-eating mammals known as brontotheres (typified by Brontotherium, the "thunder beast"). Its close cousin Eohippus, on the other hand, seems to deserve a place more firmly in the equid than the palaeothere family tree, though of course this is still up for debate!"

In other words, they don't know. Then, having admitted that there is still significant uncertainty as to whether Eohippus belongs to the horse family at all, the article wraps up with this positively jaw-dropping proclamation: "Whatever you choose to call it, Eohippus was clearly at least partly ancestral to all modern-day horses, as well as to the numerous species of prehistoric horse (like Epihippus and Merychippus) that roamed the North American and Eurasian plains of the Tertiary and Quaternary periods"

Astounding. You read it right, First they they admit they don't know if Eohippus belongs in the horse family, but then, they proclaim that they do know Eohippus belongs in the horse family, and claim to know "very clearly", even though their own statement is "still up for debate".  Positively astounding. No wonder so many people are obviously confused and post things like Eohippus as "proof" of evolution. Worse yet, this is not an isolated instance. Most everything you read in detail on Eohippus contains similar logistical and semantic smoldering train wrecks.

Required empirical evidence that the Eohippus evolved into the modern horse? None. Scratch poor little Eohippus, as cute as he is, off the list of so-called evolutionary examples (and in terms of progressions, Eohippus has always been the big illustrative example!). He is as cute as a button, I know - I love him, too -  but he is not remotely proof of evolution, according to secular mainstream science itself. Period. Done. No more silliness about Eohippus being proof of evolution. If anyone brings it up, send them to this post.

For extreme relevance to this addendum about Eohippus, please read the following two articles from this blog:

The Fantasy Semantics of the Mainstream Scientific Community

Why The Culture Of The Mainstream Scientific Community Nullifies Its Authority

These three Eohippi appear plainly bewildered and unimpressed as they ponder what a pathetic, self-serving mess mainstream science has made of their admirable, evolution-free heritage.

If you like what you see and read on CreationDino, please help us continue our work as well as additional installments of the video Behold Now Behemoth by giving a "Christian Payment Offering" for the dollar amount of your choice with the dropdown menu on the Paypal button on the upper right hand side of the screen for what you read and watch on CreationDino. We could really use the help right about now.

No comments:

Post a Comment