Reverse Evolution

There are many reasons to believe that the theory of life on earth arising from inanimate matter and "evolving" into higher forms of life is in error. I believe that God must have created life on earth.

Another severe problem with the Theory of Evolution, as many accept it today, concerns the so-called higher forms of life, such as ourselves. The whole basis of the theory is that when a creature or organism of some type exists, just by random chance some will be born with characteristics that make them better suited to survival in their environment such as better eyesight, more intelligence, longer legs, etc. These fortunate few will thus be statistically more likely to survive to reproductive age and pass on their genes to the next generation.

This process continues over tens of thousands of generations until a new creature altogether has evolved that is much better suited to survival in the environment than the original creature, which may die off altogether. If this is the way life really has worked, then we should see evidence of it all around us. There is certainly examples of species undergoing adaptations to become more fit for a given environment. When the Industrial Revolution came along, species of white moths that lived in British cities developed darker wings over time to better blend in with the soot on buildings and thus hide from predatory birds.

But one of the many problems with this theory is that the higher forms of animal life that we have today are NOT better suited for survival as a species than the lower forms of life. This contradicts the idea that life evolves from lower forms to higher forms because the higher forms are better suited to survival and thus passing on their genes to the next generation. If this were not so, it would make no logical sense for higher forms to "evolve" from lower and indeed, would not be possible because those creatures with sets of genes containing "higher" characteristics would be less likely to pass on those genes than those with "lower" characteristics.

The higher forms of life that we have today such as lions, tigers, wolves and other predators high on the food chain are definitely not better suited to survival as a species than lower forms such as rats, grasshoppers and, ants. The magnificent higher creatures that we go to the zoo to see are in danger of extinction while the extinction of rats or ants is unimaginable. This contradicts evolution, under which theory higher forms of life should be more suited to survival as a species or they would not have undergone the change by natural selection into the higher species.

What we have done is to put our emotions into the development of evolutionary theory. Most people would rather live as a lion than as a rat so we consider the more regal and complex lion as the higher form of life. According to the tenets of the theory, this must mean that lions are, as a species, better suited for survival in their environments than are rats.

But the reality is that nothing could be further from the truth. Let us suppose that lions evolved from an earlier creature that was something like the lower rat. For this to take place, being born with some lion-like characteristics would have to make the creature statistically more likely to survive and pass on it's genes with these characteristics than those born with more rat-like characteristics, which would gradually get weeded out of the species' gene pool at the expense of the lion-like characteristics. This is what is known as natural selection.

The trouble with all of this is that nature prefers simplicity over complexity. This is why the body of a creature decays when it dies. Nature does not build complexity out of simplicity, rather it breaks down the complex into the simple. For the same reason, simpler forms of life are better suited to survival as a species because they need less for survival than complex "higher" forms of life. Dolphins, chimpanzees and, humans cannot possibly be considered as better suited for survival in the long run than ants simply because ants need so much less to survive.

It is not an "arms race" between species for survival. If we put a rabbit and a lion in a cage together, the lion will live and the rabbit will die. But that in no way means that lions are better suited for survival in the environment as a species, as opposed to as an individual, than rabbits.

Higher forms of life that supposedly "evolved" this way because it made them so much better suited for survival are actually at a great disadvantage because they are more complex, high-maintenence and, need so much more to ensure their survival. This is why the most majestic creatures on earth are in danger of extinction and humans are so intelligent that we can bring ourselves in danger of extinction with nuclear bombs and global warming.

The "higher" forms of life on earth are, in fact, far too few in number (except humans) and have to do far more work to feed themselves than the lower orders of life. Higher forms also tend to be dependent on bone for their structure, which is gradually running out over the long term. The forms of life which are fittest for survival on earth as a species are the lower forms that have vast numbers of offspring, can live anywhere, eat just about anything and, need little for survival.

Evolutionists sometimes point out that their theory of natural selection can be seen at work elsewhere, such as in business. Those industries making better products and selling them in the free market will prosper and expand while those making inferior products will go out of business and thus, the entire economy will continuously improve. That has some truth to it. But my concept of reverse evolution is also at work. Asian factory worker need much less to live on and are much more low-maintenence than North American and European factory workers. Therefore, in a free economy, factory jobs will migrate toward Asia. Soccer (football outside North America) is the world's sport primarily because it requires nothing more than a ball (or a bundle of rags) and a level playing area to play.

One concept that evolutionists tend to ignore is that of cataclysm. Life on earth does not move along smoothly in an unchanging environment forever. Cataclysms of various descriptions happen on a regular basis. There are ice ages, giant meteors and comets strike the earth, the continents split apart, there are changes in climate, human beings come along and take over the world.

When any such cataclysm happens, the more complex and high maintenence creatures in an environment are more likely to die off. A severe disruption of the environment will be much more likely to eliminate lions rather than rats or ants. This contradicts everything that evolution based on natural selection is supposed to be about. I believe that God must have created the living creatures that we have today, although it is certainly true that adaptation is at work as I described with the moths.

While it is easy to imagine the extinction of the higher forms of life on earth, including humans, ants have remained virtually unchanged in a hundred million years. Clearly, they must be doing something very correctly. Global warming or the radiation from nuclear would have very little effect on ants because of their simplicity. If the ozone layer was depleted and deadly ultraviolet radiation streamed down on earth from the sun, ants would not even notice. If there was a nuclear holocaust, the ant population would be back to it's former level in a few years.

If you ask why did God create such creatures, the predators high on the food chain could be here to keep a check on the numbers of lower creatures to prevent to many of the atoms composing flesh in the biosphere to be locked up in these creatures. Dinosaurs could have been created to remove bone material from circulation in the biosphere as I described in my posting "The Bone To Flesh Ratio". If dinosaurs had never existed, human beings might have taken their form with unlimited bone material and been fewer in number and fifty feet tall (about 15 m).