WHY THE FIRST SCIENTIST OFTEN JUST DEFINES THE START

While I am saying that evolution is outdated, I certainly do not want to take anything away from Darwin. Like all first scientists, he began our thinking in some great directions. But like most great scientists - just like Edison, and Ford, Bell and others - his science needed to be matured over the years based on new science knowledge. That has not happened. Let me give some examples why science needs to be a learning experience.

Asbestos - At one time, "most scientists agreed" (see the trouble this can get you into?) that asbestos was helpful to humans for fire safety. Now some here might be tempted to say that these scientists were so wrong. That would not be fair. Their decision was based on the best knowledge of the day. Asbestos did not flame and therefore it seemed logical. It was only later when science learned more that we learned that asbestos can also kill. That is why a science discussion should never be closed. We continue to learn.

Halogens in Electrical Cables - At one time "most scientists agreed" (here we go again) that putting halogens into electrical cables would help save human lives by stopping fires. Again, these scientists were not really wrong. The scientists of that time just used their best information available at that time. The original idea in fact seemed ingenious. The idea is that if Halogens were placed into electrical cables, then when there was a fire, the halogens would combine with oxygen. With reduced oxygen, this would help snuff the fire since fires need oxygen. A great idea. Seemingly. But as science advanced, they learned that yes while the above was true, there was also some traces of carcinogens - cancer causing properties. And of course, now they saw it really gave a danger. And so cables with halogens in them became outlawed in at least some countries. I believe that one of the Nordic countries was the first to outlaw halogens in cables.

Atkins - Now this one may be controversial. But I believe Atkins and his diet had some great points. But like the others, he did not get everything right. I personally believe that he was right that carbohydrates can lead to weight gain. Yes, I can see that. I also saw that for a time, that those people who were on Atkins diet lost weight well. But Atkins also seemed to say fatty foods were not bad for you. Well, like all pioneers, in my opinion, he had some things right but like other scientists, his work needed refinement. But I do believe that like many other pioneers, that Atkins deserves more credit than he has received.

As for the other scientists, even the very successful ones like we said above - Edison, Bell, Ford, and more, their first designs are not what we are using today. We are using the science refined versions of them. And so once again, saying the "discussion is closed" is quite damaging to real science advancement.

TRYING TO PROVE EVOLUTION IS TRUE - THE PREMISES

This is based on what I called conversational evolution - what people tell me should be believed by contemporary evolution thought. The point here is that for real scientific method - the premises must be stated and proved true beyond a shadow of a doubt before evolution can become true and not just a theory. Here are just some of the items I see that must be proven that are implied by evolution.

PREMISE 1: LIFE CAN COME FROM NON-LIVING THINGS, BUT ONLY ONCE

Many evolutionists seem to say that every animal somehow is related to the others. That implies this premise. This premise seems preposterous even on the surface, but I see it implied by at least some evolutionists. If you believe that there is no God, then you have to believe that life can come from non living things. Okay. That part is not my objection. My objection is the "only once" part of this. In my mind, if life can come once from non living things, why once? Why not hundreds of times? Why not millions? And if it is millions, then throw away your evolution book - since maybe nothing came from anything else. The problem here again going back to my jury analogy for scientific method proof - is there another possibility here other than life coming from non living things only once? You bet. Millions of possibilities. There can easily have been many different numbers of starts of life on the planet earth. No one knows or could ever know.

PREMISE 2: EARTH IS A CLOSED SYSTEM

Evolutionists seem to believe that all plant and animal life only came from earth. This seems very much like "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas". But again, this is not the only possibility. The Earth for example is a respected member of a solar system, which in turn is part of a Universe, and we are not even sure how big that is. Now of course, there is the extreme case that animals could have come here in space ships from other planets. While that might seem remote, it is not impossible. But even more directly, I understand that some of space dust is carbon and that might have reached the earth over our 4.5 billion year history. Life on earth is carbon based. Could carbon or DNA coming from animal life on other planets have come to earth? Well, you might say of course, but it would not be alive. Now let us return to premise number one. If you want to believe in evolution but not God in addition, then it does not matter if this carbon or DNA is alive or dead - since life can come from non living things. I for one do not see how any real scientist, or juror, could be certain that animal and plant life was not influenced by our solar system or universe. An update to all of this, is that scientists are now saying at least 100 and likely far more planets than that in the solar system are now found that can sustain life similar or at least closely similar to earth. If there is no God and life began on earth from non living things, why would not such a large amount of possible other planets also have life and perhaps have influenced our own earth – by carbon space dust, or something even more serious? The possibility can logically not be excluded.

PREMISE 3: SIMILAR MEANS RELATED

It seems that evolutionists sometimes say that these two animals seem similar and have many of the same chemicals therefore they are related and one must come from the other. No. There are other possibilities and that stops this from logically being the only possibility. One huge reason that they might look alike is "application" - they both must be able to exist on planet earth. Well, let me take two cars - a 2011 BMW and a 2011 Toyota. Both have four wheels. Both have primarily two main seating areas. Both have a steering wheel. Both have many of the same chemicals, such as water, alcohol for anti-freeze, oil and gas. So then, an evolutionist might say that one must have evolved into the other or at least come from the same factory. No. They seem very similar because they have the same "application". Both cars must be able to drive on the world highways, and be serviced by the same service stations and must have certain features for humans to buy them. The application is the same. Likewise with animals. The application - the planet earth with its foods and chemicals is really mostly one and the same application. To survive here, of course there will be some similarities. For example, we know in math that three points define a plane. However, in order to walk one foot might be in the air at times. So a very stable animal might have four legs - three that stabilize them on the ground while the fourth is in the air moving in order to provide walking. And yes, yes, while running an animal might have more than one foot off the ground as they propel themselves briefly through the air. These animals would use water since that is what seems to be around. And so on. I can certainly see a case where all animals could have separate starts but that some look the same because first of all they must survive on planet earth, and secondarily, just the mathematical odds of variations. Some swim, some walk, some crawl, and since there are some common simple possibilities, it is not hard to believe that some might in fact look alike. So being related or direct descendants is not the only logical possibility. Similar application can also cause required similarity in appearance, chemicals or internal organs.

PREMISE 4: ENOUGH BONES ARE IN THE GROUND TO TELL DESCENDANTS

No reason to believe that all bones would be in the ground. Even if forms of evolution did happen, basing the chain of events by what bones we do find I believe is ludicrous. It is not a given that bones will always be there, in fact it would seem most rare. And if there were to be an important "transitional" creature that gave evolutionary rise to stable ones, well, the transitional creature might not have been a stable creature itself, and therefore would be short lived and would not have reproduced long, and therefore not many bones even possible to find. In short, there is just no hard evidence to ensure all possible paths.

PREMISE 5: EVOLUTION DOES NOT MATCH WELL WITH GEOLOGY

Before we go too far into this one, we should first of all say which science fields are easily proven and which are not. The fields that are more easily proven are the ones that do exist or can exist in the present day, and be mathematically shown on paper or demonstrated in some way as proof. The ones that are hard or impossible are the ones that existed way back in history where multiple possibilities exist that can explain the occurrence of the known facts. While current biology of current species can be proven since evidence exists today, evolution is nearly impossible to prove since it is based in history where there will be inconclusive evidence and certainly we can have no controlled experiments – where there exists only one variable, or one possibility.

The easiest field to prove is often said to be math. Math is often proven using math itself. This is why some instructors refer to it as a "pure science" - easy to prove. Chemistry and Physics are mostly reasonable to prove since they can also most often be demonstrated in the current day. Chemistry has its equations and formulas that clearly can be shown to balance – and thus simply be similar to a math proof. And beyond that, the actual experiment can often to be run while you wait and be shown to be true qualitatively by the components made, and measurements of their mass and mass of each part (Qualitative Chemistry, Quantitative Chemistry, Physical Chemistry). Physics is somewhat similar where gravity is easily shown, along with conservation of momentum (relied on even by pool players for bank shots), and its offshoots of Thermodynamics, Heat and Mass Transfer, Electrical Engineering and Quantum Physics. In each case there are equations which can be shown to balance, and then the actual experiment where most items, temperature, volume, pressure, voltage, current, and the like can simply be measured. Even the amazing Einstein relativity equation has been demonstrated in the Atomic Bomb or in its more peaceful form, nuclear power plants. Physics is so predictable that one of its most interesting stories was that the transistor - the building brick of our modern age - was predicted on paper before it was ever made.

But some fields that deal in History are not so fortunate as being easy to prove. One of these that I enjoy and believe the most is Geology. I would still say that it is a hard science - which might seem like humor since in many cases it discusses rock layers. But often Geologists will study rock formations and the like and look downward and can see periods of history. Now there is some possible error there, but there is at least data that can be looked at and analyzed and also presented in something of an expected "order". For example, meteors tend to leave certain minerals behind, as do volcanoes, and sometimes the Geologists believe they can also tell even the rough temperatures of the times.

So, why do I say that evolution theory and geology seem to be at odds? Well evolution theory seems to speak or imply of these smooth transitions where creatures evolve and modify into new things and isn't it a great story? Well, geologists tell us that the earth was not peaceful, and that at times likely life might have been mostly or totally killed from time to time. What are the killers they often speak of? They are at least three: ice ages, volcanoes and meteors. So if you want to know what really to worry about on this planet, I would say to worry about things that did happen in our past - such as volcanoes, meteors and ice ages. And they say that we have had 7 ice ages, and now some Russian scientists are predicting that earth may now slowly be heading into its 8^th ice age. Well it seems to me that life on earth was not simply a walk in the park. I would believe that likely it started up and died a few times, and or that huge groupings of different life forms were sometimes lost in some of the earth tragedies. Some scientists now believe that perhaps a meteor landing near North America perhaps 11,000 years ago killed off the saber tooth tigers and the Wooly Mammoths of North America. Please forgive me if my timing here is off a thousand years or so.

As one example, some evolutionists tell us that birds descended from dinosaurs. Okay. But Geologists sometimes tell us that it would seem all dinosaurs died out about the same time. They seem to have theories such as a meteor, but I am not sure that they are certain. So then, putting these two things together, sudden dinosaur death and the birth of birds - it would seem to beg the question of - did birds evolve from dead dinosaurs?

Well, if evolution cannot be ever proven due to lack of evidence in history that leads to one and only one solution, then it is a theory. I am not against theories. But even a theory should keep pace with the rest of the sciences. And if not and if I am asked to choose, I choose to believe geology much more than evolution. And geology to me seems to tell me that life on earth likely had a number of starts and difficult ones – not just one simple evolving group.

PREMISE 6: EVOLUTION IS INCONSISTENT WITH WORLD HISTORY

If I understand Darwin evolution correctly, Darwin speaks to constant mutation and changing of the species over time and then that survival of the fittest then leads to new creatures sometimes very different than the last ones. Well, there seems no real evidence of this. I understand that most animal forms existed by the Cambrian age or a similar age and have not changed much since. Those who are fond of evolution should look into if it is conforming with other known science and facts. If not, then the theory needs to be adjusted since it no longer fits reality. I understand that even Darwin himself was concerned about the Cambrian age – sometimes called the Cambrian explosion – and that the timing there goes against his premise of constant change. That proves that Darwin was indeed a smart man, but that we again, are not letting science evolve on his original ideas.

LOGIC – THE NEGATIVE SET

More than just the items above, I have often "felt" that evolution will have traits making it impossible to prove. I have recently begun to think that may be because I see it enters into an area of logic that has no definite end. I have heard a few bright people talk about the "negative set" in logic, but I can also see that it may not be a widely used term. But the way a few of us use the term is that it is often easier to prove that something did happen than to prove that it never happened. Proving that something never did happen or only happened perhaps in one way some of us call the "negative set".

Let me give an example of the "negative set", or trying to prove that something never happened. I recently found it useful to use a phrase often attributed to Mark Twain that is "Rumors of my death are greatly exaggerated". It is of course a good line, and also a most humorous line at the same time. However, I then found an internet fact check operation on the internet that claimed that Mark Twain never said that. But my opinion of "their" opinion – the fact check site – quickly changed when I realized they were doing the impossible. They were trying to prove the "negative set". You see? Even a famous person as Mark Twain would have less than 5% of his life documented. To make claims about what happened the other 95% of the time is quite impossible. Or Mark Twain could have said this to another person and the saying attributed to him is not in Mark Twain lore, but in the written history of the other. To be blunt – of course he could have said that and more. And what says that this so called fact check site actually went through all of the published information on Mark Twain, and then read it carefully word for word? No, the fact check site lost credibility with me instantly. It was on very poor logic grounds. The most the fact check site could say and still be credible is that after a bit of research, they could find no proof of it.

To understand this, let us go to a person that you know best – yourself. Let us say that you are now much older and that someone is trying to decide whether or not you ever said the phrase "It will be a nice day if it does not rain out". And then that person or group publishes that you never said that. I think immediately you should be upset. There is, you would see, no way that they possibly could be so certain.

How does this affect evolution? In the biggest manner. Trying to prove that there were not many starts of life on earth or that life on earth was not influenced by our planetary system is quite similar in difficulty level as it is to prove "the negative set" – and that is in fact, logically impossible.

SUMMARY OF PROOF OF EVOLUTION

In order to prove that the current version of evolution commonly taught is in fact reality and not a theory, each of the six premises above would have to be completely proven and also it would need to be proven that there are zero other possibilities. I know logically that it cannot be done. We cannot simply redo world history and make it an ironclad controlled experiment. And as history stands, there are just too many good possibilities in order to pick just one and to claim all others are false. Evolution is a theory at best. But the real travesty is that since added science knowledge is not allowed to be added to it, it is slipping out of date and so far as to be crazy - at least to some of us. Let the scientists go and work on getting evolution updated to match the world science we know today.

And next... my opinion of what real evolution truly is - that does follow known history – at least better. I call it:

Ron's THEORY OF LAZY SPECIES.

Similarity to Darwin

I do not hate Darwin or think he was a bad person at all. I just believe that the first person into any science gets some great ideas right and some ideas wrong. And the right answer for science is not to stop discussion - but instead to allow new science learning to refine the field into something that is at least a theory in harmony with known facts.

What I do agree with Darwin is:

SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST

Yes, I agree with this part of Darwin. We can see this in our own world. As the world modernizes and the face of the earth changes, some species cannot cope and die off. Yes. I would also add that trying to stop it is mostly a waste of money. I believe that this part of Darwin's findings are reality. Some species will always be dying off since they can no longer cope, and new ones may be arriving, that we have not even have noticed yet.

I have two examples of this and both are dog stories. First the difference between dogs and wolves. While there seem some very real physical similarities the obvious difference is that dogs have become dependent on humans and actually seem to study and know a lot about humans while wolves could care less - unless it is dinner time and they might want to eat the humans. I understand that Russians in Siberia ran a test where they took wolves and over time, trained them to be with humans. After some long period of time they became like dogs. No, I did not check this story out totally. The reason I did not is that I simply believe it. Both animals and humans are quite adaptable and may change in order to survive.

Another dog story, though this one has not happened to my knowledge. I do believe it would however. If the earth were to grow colder I would imagine at some point that some humans would notice that dogs have thicker fur. So they might say that the dog fur evolved. Well, I would say yes and no to that. I have no dispute that dogs would have thicker fur - the question is how it happened. I believe what would happen is that dogs with thicker fur would thrive in the new cold but dogs with thinner fur would not, would breed less, and die off earlier. And so over time, by natural selection (sounds like Darwin) the dogs with the thicker coats would prevail and breed. So that is how I think dogs would seem to have thicker coats.

WHERE I DISAGREE WITH DARWIN

The continuous mutation portion of evolution and then its associated natural selection I disagree with. There is no real evidence of that. There are at least a million ways all of the species we know could have arrived on earth. Choosing one and calling it fact is not good science, but very bad science.

Now I do agree that humans and animals can change in order to cope and survive in an ever changing world. This next part is where I disagree with Darwin: In my case I do not believe it is constant. it is only WHEN THEY HAVE TO in order to survive. That is why I call my theory - the Theory of Lazy Species. I do not believe species are always changing. They only do so until their species can survive well on earth. Then they stop. This is in fact what the earth has seen. Animals and other species changed up until some point (the Cambrian age) but did not change much since. My point would be - why would they? So my thinking is somewhat along the lines of that line in the movie "Jurassic Park" where one scientists remarks - nature will find a way. Yes, nature will find a way if it has to. But if it is fine, it is okay for monkeys to continue to eat bananas and swing in trees.

PEOPLE DID NOT DESCEND FROM APES

In my theory humans would never descend from apes, nor would apes descend from humans. The reason in both cases is the same. Why bother? As soon as a species is stable on earth by my theory, it stops changing. There is no need for change. And even today, both humans and all kinds of monkeys, baboons, gorillas and the like are fairly stable earth life forms. There is no need for change. So then, what happened?

Well, as I say - animal and human species occurred long ago and left very little proof one way or the other. Monkeys and Humans could have had separate starts and their similarities could easily be chance as each adapted to earth. If you had a billion separate life starts on earth, of course you would always find two that are the closest. But logically, that in no way proves that either one came from the other. Or if evolution does work in any manner at all, both could have descended from the same ancestor - an unstable one that is no longer alive today. Had they both descended from a third species - an unstable ancestor, then there would be incentive for all those species to get to something stable. Some might become stable monkeys and some might become stable humans. And the incentive for that to happen is that if they stayed like that third unstable species they would die and not be capable of living on earth. And since that third species was unstable, it would not have a long earth history and therefore likely would not leave many bones in the ground to find.

Now you see? I did not give a clear answer here since evidence is lacking. But my idea fits with world history far better than the current version of evolution. I say, species only change when they must, and for the time being most earth species are stable so thank you very much, just get out of their way. They will not mutate as Darwin incorrectly said. There is no reason. Perhaps nature will find a way - if it needs to. But if there is no need, then nature can simply .. be lazy. As I said. This is my Theory of Lazy Species. And I do believe its logic fits the world facts much finer than evolution.

HOW MANY STARTS?

Well there are some things my theory will not even try to guess at - such as how many times did living things come from non living things. I do not believe it was just one. Based on the most difficult world the Geologists say that the earth had, my belief would be that many species began trying to make it, but then were instead wiped out by meteors, volcanoes and ice ages. One would have to take the time to look at what we do know with the geology data and the life form data that we have, and try and figure out what ages some species were alive and when they went away. That is beyond the scope of this article. But I think that would be time wiser spent by evolutionists rather than trying to continue to fit a square peg into a round hole, so to speak.

– Ronald J. Plachno