mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION

With the dawn of large main-frame computers came the data needed to
disprove evolution. Wistar buried evolutionary theory. Yet the
evolutionists won't admit it. Evolutionary theory is a myth. God
created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. Nothing else
can explain the evidence found in nature. This is science vs.
evolution--a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by
Creation Science Facts. 

CONTENTS: Wistar Destroys Evolution

The 1966 Philadelphia Meeting - Evolution destroyed by mathematical
facts at Wistar
The 1969 Alpbach Meeting - More evidence against evolution 
The 1980 New York Meeting - The situation became even worse 
The 1984 Cambridge Meeting - The finishing touch

This material is excerpted from the book, HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY
THEORY. (See Order Sheet.) An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that
person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in
the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by
creationists. 
You will have a better understanding of the following statements by
scientists if you will also read the web page, History of Evolutionary
Theory.

THE 1966 PHILADELPHIA MEETING

It was not until the 1960s that the neo-Darwinists really began
fighting among themselves in earnest. At Wistar, evolutionary theory
was destroyed by mathematical facts.

"The ascription of all changes in form to chance has long caused
raised eyebrows. Let us not dally with the doubts of
nineteenth-century critics, however; for the issue subsided. But it
raised its ugly head again in a fairly dramatic form in 1967, when a
handful of mathematicians and biologists were chattering over a picnic
lunch organized by the physicist, Victor Weisskopf, who is a professor
at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and one of the original
Los Alamos atomic bomb group, at his house in Geneva. `A rather weird
discussion' took place. The subject was evolution by natural
selection. The mathematicians were stunned by the optimism of the
evolutionists about what could be achieved by chance. So wide was the
rift that they decided to organize a conference, which was called
Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution. The
conference was chaired by Sir Peter Medawar, whose work on graft
rejection won him a Noble prize and who, at the time, was director of
the Medical Research Council's laboratories in North London. Not, you
will understand, the kind of man to speak wildly or without careful
thought. In opening the meeting, he said: `The immediate cause of this
conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what
has come to be thought of as the accepted evolutionary theory in the
English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian theory. This
dissatisfaction has been expressed from several quarters."--*G.R.
Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 4.

A milestone meeting was the Wistar Institute Symposium held in
Philadelphia in April 1966. The chairman, *Sir Peter Medawar, made the
following opening remark:

"The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense
of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought as the accepted
evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called
neo-Darwinian theory . . These objections to current neo-Darwinian
theory are very widely held among biologists generally; and we must on
no account, I think, make light of them."--*Peter Medawar, remarks by
the chairman, *Paul Moorhead and *Martin Kaplan (ed.), Mathematical
Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar
Institute Monograph No. 5.

A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems,
spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute. They clearly refuted
neo-Darwinianism in several areas, and showed that its "fitness" and
"adaptation" theories were tautologous--little more than circular
reasoning. In contrast, some of the biologists who spoke at the
convention could not see the light. They understood bugs and turtles,
but could grasp neither the mathematical impossibilities of
evolutionary theory nor the broad picture of how thoroughly defunct
evolution really is.

For example, one of the mathematicians, *Murray Eden of MIT, explained
that life could not begin by the "random selection," which is the
basic pillar of evolutionary teaching. Yet he said that if randomness
is set aside, then only "design" would remain--and that would require
purposive planning by an Intelligence.

*C.H. Waddington, a prominent British evolutionist, scathingly
attacked neo-Darwinism, maintaining that all it proved was that plants
and animals could have offspring!

The 1966 Wistar convention was the result of a meeting of
mathematicians and biologists the year before in Switzerland.
Mathematical doubts about Darwinian theory had been raised; and, at
the end of several hours of heated discussion, it was agreed that a
meeting be held the next year to more fully air the problems. *Dr.
Martin Kaplan then set to work to lay plans for the 1966 Wistar
Institute.

It was the development of tremendously powerful digital computers that
sparked the controversy. At last mathematicians were able to work out
the probability of evolution ever having occurred. They discovered
that, mathematically, life would neither have begun nor evolved by
random action.

For four days the Wistar convention continued, during which a key
lecture was delivered by *M.P. Schutzenberger, a computer scientist,
who explained that computers are large enough now to totally work out
the mathematical probabilities of evolutionary theory--and they
demonstrate that it is really fiction.

*Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single
ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria,
E. coli,--with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate
was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a
depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained
that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (1012) bits of data.
That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the
mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. He also
reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on
hemoglobin (red blood cells).

Hemoglobin has two chains, called alpha and beta. A minimum of 120
mutations would be required to convert alpha to beta. At least 34 of
those changes require changeovers in 2 or 3 nucleotides. Yet, *Eden
pointed out that, if a single nucleotide change occurs through
mutation, the result ruins the blood and kills the organism!

*George Wald stood up and explained that he had done extensive
research on hemoglobin also,--and discovered that if just ONE
mutational change of any kind was made in it, the hemoglobin would not
function properly. For example, the change of one amino acid out of
287 in hemoglobin causes sickle-cell anemia. A glutamic acid unit has
been changed to a valine unit--and, as a result, 25% of those
suffering with this anemia die.

For more information on the 1966 Wistar Institute, we refer you to the
book quoted above, by *Moorehead and *Kaplan. For much more on
mathematical problems confronting evolutionary theory. (See DNA and
Cells).

The 1969 Alpbach Meeting

A follow-up meeting was held in 1969 at Alpbach, but it only resulted
in fruitless discussions in defense of evolution, angry words by some,
desperation by others desiring some kind of "evolutionary" solution
that scientists could ably defend, and additional presentations of
evidence that evolutionary theory was unscientific. Although it was an
important meeting, little space was given to it in the public press.

"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant
minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring
themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the
number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment
is practically endless. When Arthur Koestler organized the Alpbach
Symposium, in 1969, called `Beyond Reductionism,' for the express
purpose of bringing together biologists critical of orthodox Darwinism
he was able to include in the list of participants many authorities of
world stature, such as Swedish neurobiologist, Holgar Hyden;
zoologists, Paul Weiss and W.H. Thorpe; linguist, David McNeil; and
child psychologist, Jean Piaget. Koestler had this to say in his
opening remarks: `. . invitations were confined to personalities in
academic life, with undisputed authority in their respective fields,
who nevertheless share that holy discontent.

"At the Wistar Institute Symposium in 1966, which brought together
mathematicians and biologists of impeccable academic credentials, Sir
Peter Medawar acknowledged in his introductory address the existence
of a widespread feeling of skepticism over the role of chance in
evolution, a feeling in his own words that: `. . something is missing
from orthodox theory.' "--*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in
Crisis (1985), pp. 327-328.

THE 1980 NEW YORK MEETING

For decades, men had to silently accept evolutionary theory in order
to graduate with a doctorate and enter a field of science. Everywhere
they turned in their chosen field, they see evidence of creation, not
evolution. An ever-increasing explosion of knowledge in the sciences
only added to the massive weight of evidence in favor of creation
science. But, at last, careful researchers were beginning to openly
scoff at evolutionary theory in professional journals. Leading
paleontologists, such as *Gould and Stanley, were brazenly flaunting
the foolishness of Darwin's legacy; but, unfortunately they were
substituting strange new fairy tales that were utterly opposed to
reality, common sense, genetics, mutational studies, or mathematical
probabilities. Something had to be done.

In October 1980, the world's leading evolutionists met in Chicago in a
special Evolution Conference.

"The central question of the Chicago conferences was whether the
mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain
the phenomena of macroevolution."--*Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory
Under Fire," in Science, November 21, 1980.

"Microevolution" is change within a species, but this is adaptation
and not evolution, as most experts will admit. "Macroevolution" is
change between species, and must always lie at the heart of
evolutionary theory. Without macroevolution, evolution does not occur.
At the 1980 Chicago meeting:

"In October 1980, . . a conference was held in Chicago on one of the
hottest issues in evolutionary studies. The respected magazine,
Science, organ of the American Association of the Advancement of
Science, called it `a historic conference' which `challenges the
four-decade long dominance of the Modern Synthesis.' `We all went home
with our heads spinning,' said one participant. `Clashes of
personality and academic sniping created palpable tension in an
atmosphere that was fraught with genuine intellectual ferment,'
Science reported."--*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p.
55.

Open attacks were hurled at evolutionary theory, and men desperate for
solutions sought for answers.

"Feuds concerning the theory of evolution exploded . . Entrenched
positions, for and against, were established in high places, and
insults lobbed like mortar bombs from either side."--*Francis
Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 12.

Yes, arguments took place, even some shouting. The conclusion of the
majority was that there is no evidence of evolution, and we have no
way of demonstrating that it is occurring now or has ever occurred.

"At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people
at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No."--*Roger Lewin,
The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 12.

*Newsweek for November 3, 1980, carried an article on the Chicago
meeting. You may wish to read it for yourself. The large majority of
evolutionists at the conference agreed that the neo-Darwinian
mechanism of mutation and natural selection could no longer be
regarded by professionals as scientifically valid or tenable. Neither
the origin nor the diversity of living creatures could be explained by
evolutionary theory.

A year later, *Robert Jastrow, a leading scientist wrote:

"To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because
chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on
the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know
how that happened . . Scientists have no proof that life was not the
result of an act of creation."--*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom:
Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.

Of the scientists attending that meeting, some in desperation decided
that the only solution was to join *Gould and *Stanley in viewing
hopeful monsters as the means by which species change occurred! To
coin a phrase that might be worthy of Shakespeare: "Ah, desperation,
thou hast made men mad."

The 1980 meeting was held in Chicago's Field Museum and was attended
by 160 of the world's top paleontologists, anatomists, evolutionary
geneticists, and developmental biologists.

"[Evolution] is undergoing its broadest and deepest revolution in
nearly 50 years . . Exactly how evolution happened is now a matter of
great controversy among biologists . . No clear resolution of the
controversies was in sight [at the meeting]."--*Boyce Rensberger,
"Macroevolution Theory Stirs Hottest Debate Since Darwin," in The
Riverside (California) Enterprise, p. E9; *Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary
Theory under Fire," Science, November 21, 1980, pp. 883-887.

It was decided that no record would be kept of the sessions, in order
not to give ammunition to the creationists. The rapid accumulation of
evidence against evolutionary theory had brought a crisis of such
proportions that most of those in attendance decided to repudiate a
cardinal Darwinian doctrine; they agreed that small changes from
generation to generation within a species could never accumulate to
produce a new species.

In its place, the Alice-in-Wonderland theory of "punctuated
equilibria" was given prominence. This view teaches that sudden
massive mutations produced "hopeful monsters"--and made all our modern
species. It was at the 1980 meeting that the majority of leading
scientists present decided in desperation to adopt the basic "hopeful
monster" theory of *Goldschmidt, *Stanley, and *Gould.

Men act as if they are chained to a cart and must go wherever it
carries them. They dare not get off of it, for to do so is admit a
terrible fact which they do not wish to consider.

"According to an article in Newsweek (November 3, 1980), at a
conference in mid-October at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural
History, the majority of 160 of the world's top paleontologists,
anatomists, evolutionary geneticists, and developmental biologists
agreed to abandon Darwinian evolution in favor of punctuated
equilibria, otherwise known as the hopeful monster theory.

"Apparently, Darwin's theory had become indefensible to them, citing
particularly the absence of intermediate fossils as the conflicting
fact. The hopeful monster theory is a retreat to what appears to be
reliable geological evidence, namely, the general stringing-out of
fossils from `simple' to `complex' in the rock strata."--Randall
Hedtke, "Asa Gray Vindicated," in Creation Research Society Quarterly,
June 1981, p. 74.

1984 CAMBRIDGE MEETING

The following year, still another important meeting of evolutionists
was held. At this meeting, held at the American Museum of Natural
History in New York City, *Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at
the British Museum of Natural History, in a paper that he presented to
the assembly, declared before his peers that evolution was "positively
anti-knowledge," and added that "all my life I had been duped into
taking evolution as revealed truth."

The same year another scientist wrote this:

"An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing
number of evolutionists . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory
is no genuine scientific theory at all . . Many of the critics have
the highest intellectual credentials."--*Michael Ruse, "Darwin's
Theory: An Exercise in Science," in New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p.
828.

Commenting on the crisis that had come to the evolutionary camp,
*Niles Eldredge, head of the Department of Paleontology at the
American Museum of Natural History, later wrote this:

"The doubt that has infiltrated the previously smug confident
certitude of evolutionary biology's last twenty years has inflamed
passions . . There has been a total lack of agreement even within the
warring camps . . Things are really in an uproar these days . .
Sometimes it seems as though there are as many variations on each
[evolutionary] theme as there are individual biologists."--*Niles
Eldredge, "Evolutionary Housecleaning," in Natural History, February
1982, pp. 78, 81.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

To the next topic in this series: EVOLUTIONISTS EXPLAIN THEIR
OBJECTIVES - They tell you the real reasons why they cling to a
bankrupt theory
Back to HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. It has the topic list to
related data on this general subject
Back to the INDEX PAGE. It has a master table of contents to topics
in many fields of science which disprove evolution
COMMENTS 
ORDER SHEET

Home page-[butindex.gif] History of Evolutionary Theory topic
list-[but20toc.gif] Comments-[butcomnt.gif] Order Sheet-[butorder.gif]
Back to Panspermia-[butarowl.gif] Top-[butarowt.gif] Forward to
Evolutionists Explain Their Objectives-[butarowr.gif]