3  Darwinism is full of mistakes♪
 The theory of evolution has been common sense for a long time, but upon examination, it seems that one can't explain the mystery of life with only that theory. We are sometimes very quick to obey the kind of "common sense" that, for example, we were taught in high school, or that we got from a biology textbook, or that a professor told us, etc. But we need to check and judge it for ourselves.
 The basic idea of Darwinism is that living things change their forms naturally over tens of millions or hundreds of millions of years to survive in the law of the jungle or the struggle for existence. For example, a fish goes from the sea to the land for survival, and after several hundred million years, it naturally grows legs to adapt to the land. But even if it has competitors, do legs or hands come to grow naturally ? I doubt it very much. On the other hand, scentists put firefly genes into a sheep through genetic processing, and a sheep with hooves that shine in the dark was created easily. I think that there is a hint here to discover the mystery of life.
 In 1859, Darwin announced that every living thing had evolved by natural selection. But he didn't refer to human beings because the time of evolution of man was too fast compared to other animals. Darwin himself said that, more than any other living thing, the theory of evolution can't be applied to man. And Darwin's coresearcher Alfred Wallace also said that the theory of natural selection doesn't work on human beings alone. He also said:
"An intellectual being directed and decided the development of human beings "
Alfred Wallace may have understood that obviously somebody intruded in the evolution of humans. Mr. Wallace also said:
" Human beings can not be born from monkeys. "
 According to evolutionists, the evolution of life takes an incredibly long time. A scientist said that if a new kind of animal appears within a few hundred thousand years, it can be called "sudden "evolution. Usually it's thought that evolution would take several tens of millions of years. The famous biologist Thomas Hawksley wrote that "It takes several tens of millions of years for a species to change its form on a large scale. But a change on a truly large scale (a large-scale sudden mutation) takes around a hundred million years."
 However, evolutionists say that human beings have had not only one but a few large-scale sudden mutations times in only 6 million years. Our ancestor Homo sapiens is supposed to have appeared two hundred thousand years ago. He appeared suddenly, the capacity of his brain was 1400cc, which is 50 percent larger than Peking man, he spoke a language, and his physique and face were nearer to modern people. The predecessor of Homo sapiens is Peking man. Peking man didn't have a language, the capacity of his brain was only 950cc, and he had a protruding brow ridge. Even seen in the most generous light, he doesn't seem to have been a competitor of Homo sapiens. It is strange that man evolved into Homo sapiens without an advanced competitor. This is obviously not evolution by natural selection, and also contradicts Darwinism, in which the evolution of life slowly follows a long process over tens of millions of years. Anthoropologists have set prizes in the search for bones from an intermediate creature between Peking man and Homo sapiens, but they haven't found them yet. And when I think about it, it is a wonder that the capacity of the brain increased so much even though man uses only a small percentage of his brain. So it doesn't seem that man was compelled to develop out of necessity. From discoveries in the cave of Cezar Island, France, it is understood that Neanderthal man ( ancient Homo sapiens ) and Cro-Magnon man ( modern Homo sapiens ) had lived in close proximity without fighting for several thousand years. They prefered to coexist in harmony rather than in competition. This fact also shows that man doesn't seem to have evolved due to rivalry.
mutations cause defects, but not evolution
 In Darwinism, sometimes it is explained that mutations are necessary for a new species to be born from other species. But it is understood from recent studies that mutations can not cause evolution. Dr. Lee Spetner, who taught information theory at Johns Hopkins University, said that mutations do not make genetic information increase, but on the contrary, decrease.
"Because mutations cause information to be lost, it is not possible that more information can be created by mutations. In the same way, a company can not make money by losing money little by little. "
This is the same conclusion that not only Dr. Lee but also many other scientists reached.
Evidence without grounds is still being accepted. An ape is originally an ape, and a man is originally a man.
In junior high school or high school, we sometimes see the plausible picture of an ape becoming an ape-man and then an ape-man becoming man. Australopithecus, Java man, Peking man, Neanderthal man, Cro-Magnon, we have all heard these names somewhere before. But now it is known fromthe research of several anthropologists that Australopithecus was a kind of animal like a monkey or a gorilla that vanished a long time ago. Recently Dr. Richard Leakey proved that this animal did not habitually stand upright by examining the structure of its ears with a CAT scan. Australopithecus is now considered to have been a kind of an ape that walked on four legs.
 It is also understood that Java man is an untruth. Java Man was discovered in 1891by a young man named Eugene Dubois who was influenced by Darwinism. But the evidence was only three bones: a skull, a thighbone, a tooth. Dubois gloried in finding them, but the famous anatomical doctors at that time, Dr. Rudolf Barkow and Dr. W.H. Barrow criticized his findings strongly because the skull was found 14 meters away from the thighbone and the tooth was found a few meters away from the skull. There was no evidence that these bones came from the same organism. When the layer was checked again later, bones of human beings the same as modern humans were discovered. So it is very diffcult to think of Java man as our ancestor.
 Not a few scientists consider the bones of Peking man to be a combination of human and ape bones. In China, the brains of apes are eaten as food, and sometimes the bones of humans and apes are discovered together, especially near Peking. Further, what were called the fossils of Peking man were lost during World War 2, so we can not even check them again with higher technology.
 I wonder why this ambiguous evidence appears in textbooks as "proof of evolution ".
From left: Australopithecus, Peking man (Homo erectus), Neanderthal, Homo sapiens. The former two are apes and the latter two are humans. You all are on hot topics ! 
 Darwinism introduces Neanderthal man as an ape-man who walked leaning forward. But now this is understood to be a complete mistake. Bones of more than one Neanderthal man have been found, revealing that they stood straight and walked perfectly. Encyclopedia Britannica explains that:
" The popular conception that those people were slouched in posture and walked with a shuffling, bent- kneed gait seems to have been due in large part to faulty reconstruction of the skull base and to misinterpretation of certain features of the limb bones of one of the Neanderthal skeletons discovered early in the 20th century. "
 It has been found that the Neaderthal bones from the limbs that were interpreted as bending over were from individuals who had rickets or arthritis due to old age. Moreover it is said that the capacity of the brain of Neanderthal man was a little bigger than that of modern people. From recent discovery after discovery, it is also understood that Neanderthal man had clothes, even customs of burial and offering flowers to the dead. Dr. Jeffrey Goodman of the Archeology Reserch Association in Arizona has said:
" The idea that Neanderthal man had bent shoulders, a stoop, and was not an intelligent animal is an incorrect assumption caused by the a priori prejudices of reserchers."
 It is also known that Cro-magnon was not an ape-man either, but rather a human being. Here is a comment by Dr. Goodman: "We can not distinguish Cro-Magnon man from the people of today except for the points that Cro-Magnon had a slightly more robust body and generally more developed musculature."
 In this way, it is now understood that an ape is fundamentally an ape and a human is fundamentally a human. There may be no intermediate creature between ape and man.
The fact that the genes of humans differ 83percent from the genes of a chimpanzee.
 Although there is a great difference in intelligence between humans and chimpanzees, it has been a great mystery that there is only a 1percent difference in genetic disposition between them. However, a recent study made it clear that this is not true.
 According to the paper announced in the English science magazine Nature, May 2004, by an international reserch team mainly made up by the Institute of Physical and Chemical Research, researchers from Japan, Germany and China, found that the genes of a human and a chimpanzee are in fact 83percent different.
 When they deciphered the 22nd chromosome of a chimpanzee and compared it to the corresponding chromosome of a human, the result was that, although the difference transposed bases was 1.44percent, there were missing or added bases at 68000 positions.
 Among of the 231genes which could be compared, only 39 genes were identical. 192, or 83percent, have differences in the amino acid sequence of the proteins, and 20percent of those 192 genes have differences in protein structure.
 Knowing the fact that there is an 83 percent defference in genes between man and chimpanzee, we can deduce that human beings probably did not evolve naturally from apes.
 An alternative is that scientists created man by genetic manipulation. This would satisfy us even if the genetic difference were 100percent.
 At the time when scientists thought that there was only 1percent genetic difference between man and a chimpanzee, evolutionists claimed that " it took a long time for 32 millions pairs of DNA bases, equal to 1percent of genes, to form the precise design of man through a series of lucky coincidences. "
 But what a wonderful story it is ! Somebody has to design even a plastic model which is composed of 100 parts. Evolutionists often explain that, " Given enough time, one can get a coin to come up heads 100 times successively by chance. " We can see how precarious the theory of evolution is, can't we ?
     David Beckam  a baby chimpanzee           Beckam and a baby chimpanzee are different creatures. Thank you for attention ♪
    Trilobites appeared suddenly
During the Cambrian period, many species of living things like trilobites, sponges, and bivalves appeared suddenly in the sea. These life forms appeared suddenly with perfect forms but without prior creatures in the former stratum. This is called the Cambrian explosion. Trilobites did not appear due to some living thing evolving little by little. If they have evolved step by step, there would have to have been a living thing with a form like a trilobite still in the process of evolution. But we have not found such a creature yet. Nor can we find a fossil life form on the way of evolution that bridges invertebrates to the first vertebrates, fishes. It is well-known common knowledge that neither this predecessor nor intermediate creatures have ever been found.
I am the famous trilobite. Every one is talking about me.
It is not so easy to make a cultural variety
Let's check Darwinism from a view of vegetables. Wheat, rice, and potatoes have evolved from wild varieties into cultural varieties. What we eat now, vegetables, rice, and fruits, are all cultural varieties. The question is how wild varieties evolved into cultural varieties. Evolutionists make do with the easy explanation that people of New Stone Age made cultural varieties by crossing wild varieties over a long time and with great effort.
 But in order to make a cultural variety from a wild variety, one needs improvement at the molecular level and to multiply the number of chromosomes of the wild variety many times. For example, the number of chromosomes in wild wheat is 7, but the number of chromosomes of cultural varieties of wheat is 42. Wild sugarcane has 8 chromosomes, while cultural sugarcane has 80. A hybrid between a wild variety and a wild variety can not have such a high number of chorosomes. If a wild variety is crossed with a wild variety, the number of chorosomes can't increase in this way. The number of chorosomes in cultural sugarcane is ten times that of wild sugarcane. We can say that they are different plants. This kind of improvement is a difficult problem even for modern biologists. Did the primitive people of the New Stone Age really achieve this dramatic evolution ? It is very doubtful. In the first place, primitive people in the New Stone Age were hunters. Did they really undertake breeding over tens of generations, making improvements by patiently collecting data ? Even if so, could the number of chorosomes increase ten times ? Probably not. But if their genes were manipulated in laboratories with advanced scientific techniques, vegetables and fruits would evolve easily and the number of chorosomes could increase ten or twenty times.
The theory of evolution doesn't have any scientific evidence. Mr. Fabre knew this.
 the theory of evolution has been popularized as common knowledge. But its scientific evidence has not been proved at all. It may be quite a surprise to us that the theory has never been substantiated. This " hypothesis " from 150 years ago came from a period when DNA was completely unknown. If Darwin were alive now, he might make a little modification to evolutionism. Though evolution is not a mistake, man didn't evolve naturally but evolved through genetic manipulation. The fact is, a form of life can not change naturally from an ape to a man. If it could, a life form in the process of evolving should exist in the present day, but there isn't such a creature. Every living thing is a perfect system.
 The author of Souvenirs Entomologiques, Henri Fabre, criticized the theory of evolution directly. His evidence for criticism came from the results of his own research. He knew that living things are perfect systems from the time they are born.
 When a parent scoliid wasp captures a grub of a sap chafer beetle, which is bigger than a scoliid wasp, it stings the abdominal nerve center of the grub and paralyzes it alive. Then she drags the grub into the ground and lays an egg at a specific place on its abdomen, and flies away. Soon a scoliid grub, which hatched from the egg, begins to eat the unmoving body of the beetle grub from the place where it hatched, eating its way into the body of the grub. The poor grub of the sap chafer can't move while being eaten, but it keeps on living. The grub of the sap chafer is alive until the last moment, when it is eaten out with only skin and a little nerve left. The grub of the scoliid becomes a pupa inside empty shell, and then becomes an imago.
 Mr. Fabre tried various experiments, tying the sap chafer grub down to keep it stationary instead of a sting by a parent scoliid wasp, changing the place of the egg, changing the wasp grub's food haff way, etc. He came to the conclusion that a sap chafer beetle grub dies and goes rotten and the scoliid grub dies together with the beetle grub if the method is changed even a little. The way of stinging, the place of laying the egg, the route that the scoliid grub eats through the unmoving sap chafer grub - if all these things are not done properly, the scoliid can't live.
 If the parent scoliid wasp that hit upon the idea of using the grub of a sap chafer as food for the first time didn't know this procedure, or made a tiny mistake, this scoliid wouldn't have any descendants. If the first parent of the scoliid didn't know the anatomy, if it couldn't give general anesthesia with the first sting to the central nerve node of a grub, if it laid its egg in the wrong place, if the grub of the scoliid ate through the sap chafer grub by the wrong route, Mr. Fabre said that these would all be fatal for the survival of scoliid wasps.
 But this is a mystery. Why did the first parent of the scoliid who hit upon this method know the location of the nerve center of a sap chafer beetle grub? Why did it know the proper place to lay the egg ? Even if it knew these things, why did the first grub of the scoliid, who had never met this situation before, know the route to eat without killing the sap chafer grub? Mr. Fabre said the following.
"I checked every possibility (that Darwinists always insist upon) for the origin of the acquisition of these traits, and I could only reach the answer of zero. If an animal doesn't master his work throughly from the first, if he needs to acquire ( more ability ), he dies. This is inevitable. If he knows what he needs to know, he will success in surviving and have descendants. But if so, this is native instinct. He doesn't have to learn at all. It is instinct unchanging over time that he doesn't need to learn nor can he forget"
 A living thing can't live if it doesn't have all of its functions from the start.
  There must be an author of genes
 A famous biologist at the Smithsonian Institution, Dr. Austin H. Clark, commented about the theory of evolution.
" There is no evidence that humans developed step by step from lower forms of life. There is nothing that relates humans to apes in any form. Humans suddenly appeared in the same form of the present day."
 Even though many problems have been brought up, Darwinism has maintained its status as an " established theory " because of "the exercise of the power". Those who know, know that pointed questions have been stifled everytime by the power of mass thinking, and hence have become untouchable taboos.
 A former professor in the department of agriculture of Tohoku University, Dr. Kiyoshi Takahashi, converted from Darwinism to Creationism. He gave his reasons as follows:
" I had avoided the meeting ( of the creation science study group ) for a long time because I thought that scientists should not take part in such meetings. But one day I tried to see all these things from the point of view of creation science. I came to find that the insistences of evolutionary theory are full of tricks. "
 The story of evolution often tells us that fishes came out of the sea to the land to look for food and at last they grew hands and feet. But do fishes really look to the land for food ? Even if they came ashore everyday, I don't think that hands and feet would grow naturally. Efforts can not cause natural changes. The world famous scientist of genetics appearing in Chapter 1, Professor Murakami at Tsukuba University, said,
 "Deciphering the code of genes is like reading a book with a dictionary in one hand. I can read it because meaningful messages are written in it. So there must be an author. It is absolutely impossible that a book could be written by chance without a will or some kind of "feeling"trying to get some message across."
 Today various new life forms are created easily through genetic processing. Some scientists have created a new kind of animal by mixing a sheep and a goat through genetic processing. It is very natural for people today to think that life forms don't change naturally but can be changed by gene manipulaton. It's said that there are twenty million kinds of living things on the earth. So it's quite difficult to imagine that the same miracle, that is, natural evolution, happened in all of those twenty milion kinds of life. Just to create humans, 2490 million parts (83percent of human genes) would have to appear by miracle. Nature does nothing, so it is impossible. But if there are scientists who are very good at genetic processing, it is not a surprise that 20 million kinds of perfect living things exist on earth.