Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What's wrong with Creationism and Darwinism?
A: The fact that both exist as challengeable theories. If either were true and correct beyond doubt, there would be no possible alternative. Everyone would line up behind the correct one and that would be the end of the argument.

Q: Surely it's not that simplistic, is it?
A: Yes, it is. Creationists blow gaping holes in Darwinism because Darwinists can’t reconcile microevolution and macroevolution. Macroevolution is necessary to account for the proliferation of all species, yet microevolution is all they can actually account for. So to that extent Creationists are right: macroevolution does not appear to exist as a viable function of nature. On the other hand, Darwinists can flatten the Creationist timeline of everything in the universe being created whole and complete by a Supreme Being in six literal days 6,000 years ago. Two words: Grand Canyon. One fact: the top of Mount Everest is marine limestone.

Q: What is the difference between microevolution and macroevolution?
A: When Charles Darwin went to the Galapagos Islands in the early 1800's, he noticed certain animal species on various islands exhibited noticeably different physical characteristics developed to more efficiently exploit ecological niches. Finches had developed different beaks for eating seeds, insects and fruits, while tortoise shells developed large “notches” in front to accommodate the extended necks of those feeding on bushes growing off the ground. They remained entirely finches and entirely tortoises, but had become slightly modified versions of their parent species. Those modifications were at the micro, meaning “small,” level.

Darwin realized those distinct micro-level changes occurred in only the few million years the Galapagos were in existence. He also knew complex life had been on Earth for hundreds of millions of years, so he logically assumed that in such a vast expanse of time entire species could be transformed. How could it be otherwise? Sea worms could turn into fish, fish into amphibians, amphibians into reptiles, reptiles into birds and mammals, and mammals into humans.

Changes of that magnitude are at the macro, meaning “large,” level, and Darwin’s mistake was assuming they inevitably followed changes at the micro level. He even suspected he might be wrong, clearly stating that if transitional species could not be found, his theory should be discarded. In 140 years of looking, Darwinists have not produced a single undeniably transitional species, when simple logic dictates that somewhere within the millions of species alive today, at least a few should be visibly in transition from one to another.

Q: What is “punctuated equilibrium”?
A: Darwinism is founded on macroevolution occurring gradually over long periods of time. Undisputed examples of it should be blatantly obvious at every level and in every era, especially after the five major extinction events that have dominated the timeline of complex life on Earth. However, after each such extinction, when 50% to 90% of all life forms were destroyed and the fossil record was essentially “wiped clean,” there was a brief period of stability (thousands of years), followed by a relatively rapid filling (a few million years) of vacated ecological niches.

This flagrant contradiction of gradualism must be explained by Darwinists in “natural” terms that do not admit the possibility of “outside intervention.” One attempt is punctuated equilibrium, which in essence states that the remaining 10% to 50% of life forms that survive extinction events somehow know they have to do more than gradually evolve into the next step up their particular Darwinian “ladder”: Each must rapidly speciate into hundreds and thousands of other life forms to fill the 50% to 90% of ecological niches emptied by the extinctions.

Q: What is the “missing link” between humans and their remote ancestors?
A: Anthropologists insist humans evolved on Earth by Darwinian gradualism, starting 5.0 or 6.0 million years ago with “Australopithecines,” a group of upright-walking primates who by 2.0 million years ago had evolved into the early Homos (in scientific terms “Homo” means “man”). Depending on which anthropologist is asked, eight or ten or twelve groups of so-called “prehuman” creatures existed; but whether eight or twelve, they all lead inexorably to modern humans.

Unfortunately, not one human bone, or even a remotely human bone, is in the entire “prehuman” fossil record until Cro-Magnons (essentially modern humans) appear quite suddenly (as fossils) 120,000 years ago. This flies in the face of Darwinian gradualism and creates a need for what has come to be called “the missing link.” The missing link is any skull or body part prior to Cro-Magnons which indicates a transition is underway from so-called “prehumans” to actual humans. This, too, has been sought by Darwinian anthropologists for 140 years, but it remains nowhere on their horizon.

Q: If humans did not produce the prehuman fossil record, where did it come from?
A: Reports have existed for centuries regarding hair-covered, bipedal primates seen in or near the most heavily forested areas of Earth. Contrary to popular belief, such areas of dense forest and jungle comprise approximately 50% of the arable land on the planet. The other 50% is the prime ecological niches preferred by humans: prairie, savanna, and lightly wooded forests. So with 50% of arable land at their disposal, the hair-covered bipedal primates have more than enough room to live and die while seldom if ever being disturbed by human trespassers.

Q: What are those hair-covered bipedal primates called?
A: Hominoids is the technical term, but they’re popularly known in the west as “Bigfoot” or “Sasquatch,” and “The Abominable Snowman” or “Yeti.” Two other kinds are dominant in other parts of the world, but western cultures know little about them. They are “Almas,” from the mountains of southern Russia (Pamirs and Caucasus), western China (Altai and Tien Shans) and other places around the globe; and “Agogwes,” found in the jungles of South America, Central Africa, and Indonesia. The recent discovery from Indonesia, “The Hobbit,” is one of these. Actually, all four kinds have dozens of different names because humans living near each place where they live call them by various regional epithets. But the names given above are most commonly used by hominoid researchers.

Q: Aren’t Bigfoot and The Abominable Snowman some kind of tabloid joke?
A: Now they are, but when their tracks were first taken seriously in the early 1950's, they were studied in great detail by several highly qualified researchers, with Ivan Sanderson the foremost among that group. Unfortunately, after a decade or so it became obvious that scientists couldn’t explain what hominoids were or where they fit into the scheme of higher primate life on Earth. Thus, they shunted discussion of hominoids into tabloids to spare themselves the continued embarrassment of having to confess their inability to explain the phenomenon.

Q: How do hominoids fit into the scheme of life on Earth?
A: They are the native, indigenous, bipedal primates of this planet, quite similar to gorillas and chimpanzees except for walking upright. More importantly, it is their bones that comprise the so-called “prehuman” fossil record. Modern men encounter hominoids all over the world on a regular basis, and each description of them, no matter where on Earth it occurs, matches other descriptions of them with astonishing consistency. Those descriptions are of creatures built exactly like the obviously non-human skeletons owned by the so-called “prehumans.”

Q: If hominoids are the prehumans, where do actual humans fit into the scheme of life?
A: Humans are decidedly late-comers to the planet, with skeletons that first begin to appear in the fossil record (as Cro-Magnons) at only 120,000 years ago.

Q: Surely the human species is vastly older than 120,000 years?
A: Not according to our genes. In the late 1980's geneticists proved our species is no older than 200,000 years, and no younger than 150,000 years. This is, of course, a great conundrum for Darwinists, whose dogma requires a much longer period to achieve any kind of significant physiological change, much less the complete overhaul humanity underwent.

Q: Does that mean humans have not had enough time to “evolve” in typical Darwinian fashion?
A: Not even an eye blink of the time required.

All Original Material Copyright 2007

© Lloyd Pye