Is Evolution An Outdated Theory?

The question used to be, "Can evolution beIn that same year, 1945, the United States
proven?" Today, a more appropriate question is,dropped atomic bombs on two Japanese cities,
"Is evolution science?"Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These two bombs alone
PRIMITIVE TWENTIETH CENTURY-- as weak and as primitive as they were by
To most people, science is seen as "today,"today's standards -- killed over 190,000 people. It
modern, up-to- date, and perhaps even thebecame obvious that we had taken control of a
promise of futuristic wonders. A generation whichpower so ferocious that the meaning of the word
possesses supersonic jets, Intercontinental Ballistic"war" would never be the same.
Missiles (ICBM's), space shuttles and sophisticatedThen, as late as April of 1986, the core meltdown
computers can hardly be called primitive. Or can itat the Chernobyl nuclear reactor finally made man
In the midst of all of this state-of-the-artacutely aware of the destructive powers of
technology, there seems to be a rather primitiveradiation even for peaceful purposes. This accident
theory which, although steadily losing credibilityin the U.S.S.R. spread radiation panic throughout a
even among those who have adhered to it for alarge portion of the world's population. Once more,
long time, still has many convinced that it is basedman was forced to deal with a nuclear-related
on science. This theory has proven one thingsituation hitherto unencountered.
beyond a shadow of a doubt: although modernTHE COMMON DENOMINATOR
technology is nearing Star Wars sophistication,What the above historical events have in
modern man is still capable of somecommon is an introduction of a facet of radiation
embarrassingly primitive thinking.to modern man. The most destructive aspect of
To understand how such a theory could haveradiation is its ability to cause random changes on
gained any support at all, one must look back atthe genetic, molecular, and atomic levels, partially
the reasoning which prevailed in the days ofor entirely destroying a recipient organism.
sorcery and witchcraft. These notions wereHere's an idea of what radiation does:
certainly not the result of tangible evidence.IMMEDIATE DAMAGE
Obviously, the human mind is highly susceptible toExposure of high doses of radiation to limited
super-human distortions and misinterpretations.parts of the body can cause severe tissue
Although sorcery and witchcraft per se havedamage and eventual necrosis.
gone the way of the horse and buggy, the kindExposure of the entire body to a few hundred
of imagery which facilitates the acceptance of"rem" (rem is a unit used for measuring radiation
irrational views of reality apparently has not. I'meffectiveness) can initially cause nausea. Then, in
talking about the "scientific" theory of evolution. Ifabout a month, the person might begin suffering
this theory is not honest misinterpretation, it mayhemorrhages, anemia, tiredness, weakness, and
very well be the most sophisticated hoax everan increased risk of infection. Although some may
perpetrated on the human race.survive, others will die as a result of these
THE TASADAY TRIBESMENmaladies.
If you think a hoax on such a large scale is notAt about 1,000 rem, nausea, vomiting, and
possible, consider this:diarrhea may develop within hours of exposure.
On August 14, 1986, ABC-TV's news program 20As these symptoms become worse, they are
20 aired a segment on the Tasaday tribesmen infollowed by fever, loss of fluids, severe infections,
the Philippine jungles, uncovering a hoax ofand finally death.
monumental proportions.At about 10,000 rem, the dose to which a
In the early 1970's, a tribe was found in theworker might be exposed during a nuclear reactor
Philippine jungles "living" under the most primitiveaccident, vomiting and diarrhea would occur within
conditions. The Tasaday tribesmen, as theyan hour, followed by reduced blood pressure,
became known, seemed "untouched by modernconvulsions, and unconsciousness. Death would
civilization." Their mode of life resembled moderncome within one to three days.
man's image of cavemen: they hunted for food,LONG-TERM DAMAGE
wore clothes made of leaves, and lived in caves.The fact that radiation can induce mutations and
Nothing could be more exciting -- and morecause genetic effects has been known for at
convincing.least fifty years. Studies show that radiation can
The discovery of a "prehistoric" tribe in moderncause not just one, but a variety of different
times was so fascinating that it got front-pagetypes of mutations. One of the effects of these
coverage worldwide, a book was written on theaberrations is cancer. The cancer can show up
discovery, and pages of "history" were added toyears or even decades after the organism's
some encyclopedias.exposure to radiation. If the organism does not
Twelve years passed before it was uncoveredshow any signs of cancer, there is still the
that the world had been taken in by a sinisterpossibility that cancer may show up in future
hoax. By the mid 1980's, in attempts to follow upgenerations.
on earlier suspicions, the news media learned thatSome other disorders or genetic diseases which
these "tribesmen" were in fact modern-daymay show up in later generations as a result of
Philippine natives -- they ordinarily wore blue jeansrandom mutations are: hemophilia, congenital
and sweat shirts, smoked cigarettes, etc. Theycataract, spontaneous abortions, cystic fibrosis,
had been put up to this charade by a Philippinecolor-blindness, and muscular dystrophy.
official who led them to believe that they wouldStill other diseases such as diabetes, heart
receive financial or other assistance if theydisorders, asthma, and schizophrenia could
"looked poor" for the cameras. In the end, theymanifest themselves in later generations as a
received no assistance, were abandoned by theresult of random mutations combined with
Philippine official, and the charade was over.environmental factors.
And so, a "major anthropological find" enjoyedTHE BENEFICIAL CHANGES
over a decade of "historical significance" beforeWe've just gotten a glimpse of the severe
turning into a "major historical fraud." And had iteffects of random microscopic changes on
not been for diligent investigation by the newsbiological life. And it seems that no matter at
media, this hoax could very well have remainedwhat level these changes occur -- genetic,
the "anthropological find of the twentieth century"molecular, or atomic -- the result is almost always
in history books.the same: deterioration, destruction, and, in many
THE EVOLUTION OF EVOLUTIONcases, death.
Ever since Charles Darwin published his book "OnDoes this coincide with what evolutionists have
The Origin Of Species" in 1859, the theory of thebeen chewing our ears off with for years?
evolution of life has undergone changes, updates,For years we've been hearing stories about how
and "advances" -- and the theory is still "evolving."biological life underwent billions of years of random
By the time scientists are through with thisgenetic changes. We've been hearing how by
theory, if ever, the "origin of species" may haveaccident some of these changes resulted in
more versions than species. This may makebeneficial mutations. We've been hearing how
"natural selection" (of one version) extremelythese beneficial mutations eventually resulted in
difficult.new and more complex species. Yet, when we
The scientific concept of the origin of life on earthlook at what random genetic changes -- or any
begins with the premise that life first appearedother random changes, for that matter -- actually
billions of years ago with the formation ofdo to biological life, we find nothing but disease
microscopic organisms out of inanimate matter. Inand death. Where are all those beneficial
the billions of years which followed, smallmutations evolutionists have been talking about?
organisms evolved into higher and more complexNot one patient has ever developed or passed on
forms of life, and one species evolved intoto future generations better biceps, for example,
another. The chain of events leading from theas a result of radiotherapy. Not one of the
first single-celled organism to the most complexthousands of surviving bomb victims of Hiroshima
organ, the human brain, was at first believed toand Nagasaki has developed a more evolved
have been a slow and gradual process.brain, for example, as a result of exposure to
But archaeologists have worn out many shovelsradioactivity. Not one person involved in a nuclear
trying to uncover evidence supporting evolution.reactor accident has developed a more
At last count, they had enough bones to makesophisticated skin, for instance, which is tougher
friends with every dog in Chicago and enoughand more durable than average. In virtually every
fossils to open a mail-order fossil business. But nocase, random mutations have resulted in havoc
evidence. No series of fossils or sets of bonesand destruction.
show unmistakable intermediate species. If oneIs it possible that modern technology has actually
species evolved into another, "linking" speciesdisproven evolution rather than helped it?
would have to have existed in profuse quantitiesEvolutionists in the past have hidden behind the "it
at various points in earth's history. But profusetook billions of years" routine. Before the nuclear
quantities of missing links which could be termedage it may have been necessary to get into a
"indisputable evidence" have never been found.time machine to verify whether, given enough
This brings us to a new version of evolution calledtime, random mutations would cause life to
"punctuated equilibrium." This version of evolutionevolve. However, with the advent of modern
is held by many scientists who oppose the "slowtechnology's ability to affect massive random
and gradual" version. "Punctuated equilibrium" saysmutations relatively quickly, there is no longer a
that species appear more suddenly and retainneed to dig into the past to see the contrived
their basic forms until they become extinct. Nowfallacies supporting the evolutionary powers of
that sounds a whole lot better. It convenientlyrandom mutation. The answer is right in front of
does away with the need to find missing links.us. Random mutations result in quite the opposite
What's wrong with that? If you can't find theof what we've been led to believe. They result in
murder weapon, convince the jury the accusednothing but illness and fatalities -- not
shoots bullets through his ears!improvements. What's more, the more massive
And the theory goes on and on, twisting andand prolonged the occurrences of these
turning around every discrepancy andmutations, the greater the havoc and destruction.
contradiction.So what do you suppose would happen to a
If the logic and mechanics of the theory ofplanet subjected to random mutations for billions
evolution make much sense to you, you probablyof years? Total annihilation!
haven't scrutinized it too objectively. Hopefully thisWhen you take what we know as fact today
book, and particularly this chapter, will help youabout random mutation and try to reconstruct a
towards that end.scenario of those alleged billions of years of
BORN OF IGNORANCEearth's history, instead of the fairy tale story of
For one species to have evolved into another,evolution, you come up with a picture which more
massive genetic changes would have to haveand more resembles a horrible scene out of a
occurred throughout earth's history. Probably the"post-nuke" movie:
strongest thing going for evolution at the time ofEven if earth had already been as populated in
its inception, over a hundred years ago, was thatthat alleged period of three and a half billion years
virtually nothing was known about genetics in thatago as it is today, and had since been affected
era. Even today, the vast majority of the public,by billions and billions of random mutations,
although somewhat familiar with terms likeaccording to what we know today about random
"genetic engineering" and "random mutation," aremutation, by now life would probably have been
still pretty much in the dark with respect to thisvirtually wiped out. With random mutation being
modern branch of science. And with constantthe highly destructive force that it apparently is,
exposure to the purported mechanics ofthe process which was supposed to have caused
evolution, it's no wonder that a theory with solife to evolve is precisely what would have
little substance has been able to grab such acaused, in all probability, such genetic havoc that
strong foothold on society -- the average personfew organisms would have survived the ordeal.
simply does not know enough to say whyFurthermore, under such circumstances, "survival
evolution does not work.of the fittest" is a totally ludicrous concept. The
I am convinced that if the public had had a decentword "fit" would have described largely those
understanding of genetics, and random mutation inorganisms which were less disease ridden than
particular, before being presented with the theorythe rest, a far cry from the "better species" of
of evolution, the theory could never have beenevolution. And of those "fit" survivors, many
taken seriously and certainly could never havewould have passed on genetic diseases to their
been accepted as legitimate science.offspring. Even if the "fit" had not been wiped out
Furthermore, another thing going for evolution isby the random mutations, their offspring still
simply the constant exposure of its ill-foundedwould have stood a chance of being wiped out by
concepts to the general public. I think it is humanhereditary genetic diseases. Then, any
nature to become accustomed to an idea afterdisease-free offspring would again be threatened
repeated exposure no matter how insane thewith annihilation when this entire mutation cycle
idea may be. And in the case of evolution, itsstarted over again.
constant exposure coupled with the generalThus, after billions and billions of years of random
public's lack of understanding of the mechanics ofmutations, even in the unlikely event that some
certain genetic properties is what has helpedgenes mutated in a way that might have
perpetuate this theory.ultimately produced some beneficial changes to an
Here's a rough idea of what a theory might soundorganism, an already populated planet would have
like for the first time when you know quite wellbeen reduced to a few diseased life forms, at
that the mechanics don't work:best. Those few beneficial genes, if they could
THE WORM-TRAIN THEORYeven have existed, would have been so
Scientists took a worm crawling in a railroad yardoverwhelmed by the staggeringly high number of
and put it under a powerful electron microscope.diseased genes necessary to produce just a few
They discovered that a worm's cell magnifiedbeneficial accidents, that they could never have
three billion times has an uncanny resemblance toborne any fruit. An organism would have been
a train window. They concluded that if youwiped out long before it had an iota of a chance
incubate three dozen worms in a solution ofto change or improve. In a sense, earth would
amino acids and carbon compounds forhave resembled a planet after a nuclear holocaust.
approximately one and a half million years they willNow, if a planet began with relatively few life
eventually evolve into the Long Island Railroad.forms, as earth allegedly did, how far would life
THE COMEDY OF SCIENCEhave gotten? I don't mean how far would
Of course, the above was only a tongue-in-cheekevolution have gotten. I mean, how far would
version of a "theory." However, in the followingthose few organisms have gotten before being
pages I hope to demonstrate how the theory ofwiped out by the destructive powers of random
evolution is not that far removed from such amutation? According to what we've actually seen
comical scenario.random mutations do in modern times, life never
EVOLUTION: A GENETIC IMPOSSIBILITYwould have gotten off the ground, let alone
Genetic engineering, or "gene splicing," is probablyproliferated into highly complex and healthy
the hottest and most fascinating subject inspecies. In all likelihood, earth would have turned
modern medicine. It seems to hold answers tointo a desolate planet long ago.
questions raised by some of the most bafflingEven the mice mentioned earlier who were born
diseases. And it looks more promising every day.twice their normal size as a result of intelligent
Genetic engineering is the business of alteringmutation had a high mortality rate. That is, not
genes. Found by the hundreds, sometimes by theonly does random mutation produce diseased life
thousands, within the nucleus of every cell, genesforms, but even beneficial mutations can have
cause the development of characteristics such asfatal side effects. So how do you suppose billions
hair color, height, the shape of some livingof years of random mutations would effect life --
organisms, etc. Altered genes can cause aneven if they accidentally produced a few beneficial
organism or its offspring to take on newmutations along the way? Start a process of
dimensions -- its physical characteristics mayevolution? Destruction sounds more like it.
literally change. Sometimes these changes may beBASELESS THEORETICS
for the good. At other times, these altered genes,There is no question that intelligent mutation can
generally referred to as mutations, may causeeffect certain beneficial changes in an organism or
genetic diseases which can destroy the organism.its offspring. There is no question that natural
Although the potential of genetic engineering andhereditary effects can cause a member of a
the extent of its impact on biological systems arespecies to be born "bigger and stronger" than the
far from fully realized at this point in time, sciencerest -- not as a result of random mutation, but by
has made great advances in the field.the manifestation of traits which may have been
A MISCONCEPTION ABOUT 'COULD'VE' ANDdormant for generations. There is no question
'DID'that biological systems can adapt to their
It is human nature to sometimes see theenvironment on a macro level. But to say that
possibility of an event as synonymous with theadaptation to an environment or any other natural
actuality of an event. This couldn't be morephenomena can result in random mutations which
misleading when dealing with the subject of howwill eventually produce new or more complex
genetic breakthroughs relate to the theory ofspecies is totally baseless. To say that life started
evolution.with few life forms and evolved into today's
Many people, evolutionists and laymen alike, areprofuse, complex, and generally healthy life forms
exposed to media coverage on the progress ofis contrary to everything twentieth-century
genetic engineering. However, by not putting thescience has learned thus far about random
facts into proper perspective, it is easy for onemutation. To say that a one celled organism
to misinterpret "what is possible" as "what actuallyevolved even into a one inch fish is an unrealistic
happened." That is, the idea that genetic researchstretch of the imagination which requires a lot of
could confirm some arguments in support ofdishonest and twisted reasoning. To say that a
evolution, is one misinterpretation one could easilyhuman being is the result of an accidental
make if not aware of the ill-founded logic involved.evolutionary process is sheer lunacy.
The logic may go something like: if scientists couldThe very fact that there are billions upon billions
change the makeup of a species to a considerableof healthy life forms in existence today actually
degree or change one species into anotherproves the precise opposite of what evolutionists
through genetic mutation in the lab, it could verifybelieve -- that life on earth could not possibly
evolutionists' arguments that this could havehave gone through any massive random genetic
happened naturally in the past.changes. And without genetic changes, evolution is
Not quite.as dead as a fossil.
A faulty logic we must rid ourselves of is: if youFurthermore, if genetic engineering proves
could prove that John Doe is the greatest artistanything, it proves that it takes a high degree of
that ever lived that would prove that he paintedintelligence and sophistication to do nothing more
the Mona Lisa. To prove that John Doe paintedthan just tamper with existing forms of life.
the Mona Lisa, you'd have to do just that. MerelyConsequently, creating or even significantly
proving that he is capable of it does not proveimproving a species, requires intelligence and
that he actually did it. Elephants can shoot watersophistication of an even higher degree. The
through their trunks, but that doesn't provenotion that any random genetic process can
African elephants have their own fire department.create new or more complex species is not
No matter what scientists do in the lab in relationscience, logic, or even a theory -- it is purely a
to biotechnology, it has little or no bearing onproduct of the imagination.
what actually happened in earth's past. RecentA MATHEMATICAL IMPROBABILITY
biotechnology has produced mixed-breed animalsEven without genetic considerations, the
which doubtless never existed in earth's history.ludicrousness of evolution can be expressed in
Thus, what is produced in the lab says nothingterms of simple mathematical probabilities. If, for
more than that it is possible in the lab. What earththe sake of argument, a process -- random
produced in its past is a different story.mutation -- will develop life in billions of years and
A MORE SERIOUS PROBLEMthe same process will destroy life within a human
But the fact that capability does not provelifetime, which will happen first? The destruction?
actuality is the least of evolutionists' problems.No, it will not happen first -- it's the only thing
What modern man has learned thus far aboutthat'll happen. In the time that life is suppose to
genetic mutation does not only not supportdevelop, it will be destroyed literally millions of
evolution but actually deals the theory atimes over -- nothing can ever get to the point of
devastating and embarrassing blow.developing.
To begin with, it is important that we differentiateEven the question "Given billions of tries, can a
between mutations affected by two differentspilled bottle of ink ever fall into the words of
means:Shakespeare?" has become obsolete as a result
RANDOM MUTATIONof modern man's understanding of random
One, random mutation. This type of mutationmutation. Till now, this question pointed out odds
comes about in a random fashion, without anyso astronomical that it rendered the event a
preconceived design or plan on the genetic level.virtual impossibility. Now, it's not even a question
According to evolutionists, random mutation isof beating ridiculous odds. Now we're shooting dice
purportedly what brought life from the one celledwhich deteriorate with each throw and eventually
stage to its present complexity. That is, through aself destruct. That is, we're shooting dice (genetic
series of beneficial accidents of random mutations,"messages") which deteriorate (cause genetic
they claim, simple organisms evolved over billionsdiseases) with each throw (of random mutation)
of years into new and more complex species.and eventually self destruct (the host organism).
'INTELLIGENT MUTATION'Thus, instead of, "Can you beat such ridiculous
Two, a process we can label "intelligent mutation."odds?" the question now becomes, "After
Tinkering and tampering with genes in arelatively few tries, will you have any ink, paper,
laboratory would come under this heading. Genesor dice left with which to try again?" Since the
are "recombined" or "spliced" with the intent ofvery life that is supposed to evolve will be
affecting a change in the organism or its offspring.destroyed in the process, it is impossible for the
Intelligent mutation has been responsible for twoprocess to even go on for any required length of
impressive genetic breakthroughs. First, scientiststime. This makes it highly questionable, to say the
bred red-eyed fruit flies from brown-eyedleast, that a trial-and-error method of genetic
parents. Second, by combining growth genesmutations could beat even realistic odds -- forget
from rats with genes in mice, scientists causedabout the preposterous odds proposed by
some mice to be born twice their normal size.evolutionists. Therefore, whether life could develop
To one not too familiar with medicine or biology,in an environment (of genetic mutations) where
such insignificant changes may seem hardly wortheven fully developed biological systems cannot
noting. Therefore, it is necessary to emphasizesurvive is really no more a question of odds than
that it took sophisticated twentieth-centurywhether a cow could survive underwater long
science to affect such seemingly trivial changes.enough to conceive and give birth -- it's simply
They are nothing short of stupendousimpossible.
achievements.EVOLUTION OF ART
Again, these are the kinds of geneticThe insanity of evolution is also apparent in the
manipulations one might wish to point out inmore aesthetic aspects of man. How could
support of evolution: "If we can do it in the lab,qualities such as artistry, abstract thinking, and
why couldn't nature have done it by accident on aappreciation of music have become traits
grand scale in the last three and a half billioncommon to an entire species? According to the
years?"mechanics (or imagery) of evolution, it would
A LUDICROUS COMPARISONhave been a great wonder if such qualities, so
To begin with, comparing intelligent mutation tomeaningless to the survival of purely physical and
random mutation is analogous to comparing thebiological systems, would have evolved in only a
skillful incision of a surgeon to the random slashingminute fraction of a species. Yet, to be present --
of a mugger. There is not one recorded case of ato one degree or another -- in virtually every
mugging victim walking away from his assailanthuman being? How? This should never have
with a successful appendectomy or the successfulhappened.
removal of cataracts. It doesn't take a doctor orThe existence of such aesthetic human qualities
a scientist to know that an accident of randomas emotion, humor, and intellect cannot be
cutting will almost invariably leave behind chaosexplained biologically, no matter how ridiculous you
and destruction and never result in anywant to get. Why, for example, did nature give us
sophisticated surgery.a sense of humor? How did nature even know
Consequently, bringing intelligent mutation as anwhat a sense of humor was? And how did a
indication that nature could have producedsense of humor render humans more "fit to
complex species from one celled organismssurvive?" There are millions of plants and animals
through a long series of accidents of randomwithout a sense of humor which have obviously
mutations is mixing "apples and oranges." Intelligentsurvived. There are even humans without a sense
design is normally the result of intelligence andof humor who seem to survive. How did such a
design. And when the design is of a highlyquality ever evolve
complex nature, as many life forms are, itMODERN SCIENCE
indicates intelligence of a highly complex nature.Evolution is certainly not the run-of-the-mill theory.
Randomness, on the other hand, will generally notFor an unproven and outdated theory, it is taken
produce intelligent or sophisticated structures.rather seriously by a great number of people.
Believing that nature accidentally producedThose who see through its faulty reasoning,
complex life forms, in any period of time, nobiases, misinterpreted findings, and obvious
matter how long, is roughly equivalent to believingdefiance of common sense and logic, see it as
that the New York World Trade Center was builtjust another feeble attempt to undermine and
by a pack of wild mules who kicked antarnish the rational person's ideals. It should be
assortment of building material into the rightplaced in the same category as sorcery and
places.witchcraft. Such notions have one thing in
LUDICROUS EVEN WITHOUT COMPARISONcommon -- bereft of any plausible logic, they are
However, the genetic implausibility of evolution"understood" only by those determined to believe
comes from elsewhere and has far strongerin them. The most significant difference is that no
arguments. And without a solid genetic basis forone ever had the gall to call sorcery and
biological organisms evolving into higher forms ofwitchcraft science.
life, the theory of evolution simply disappears intoIt's ironic how, in a nuclear age, some of the
thin air.same people who live with the constant fear of
So, here's how genetics -- the most crucial aspectlife on earth being catapulted into oblivion by a
of evolution -- does not only not support thenuclear holocaust, can still believe that an aspect
theory but actually contradicts it:of this highly destructive nuclear force -- random
SOURCES OF RANDOM MUTATIONSmutation -- is the mechanism which brought us
Modern man has been acquainted with and directlyhere. In Darwin's days they new nothing about
affected by random mutations long before hegenetics, and certainly nothing about the
ever took intelligent mutation seriously. Someunimaginably destructive nature of random
sources of random mutations have been aroundmutation. But what about today? A theory which
even before we knew how they caused geneticoriginated over a hundred years ago -- in times of
effects. What are they? Carcinogenic chemicals.relative scientific ignorance -- should have been
Cosmic rays. Sources of radioactivity such asabandoned by now. Instead, it seems that, the
nuclear weapons, nuclear reactors, nuclear waste,stronger the evidence against evolution becomes,
and medical X-rays.the more determined are some individuals to
LET'S TAKE RADIOACTIVITYbelieve in it.
X-rays were discovered by the German scientistSCIENCE FICTION
Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen, making headlines onAt this point, it should be at least somewhat
January 6, 1896. As innocent a discovery as itobvious, even to those who have taken evolution
was at the time, man had unwittingly takenseriously at some point, that the scenario
control of a highly potent force -- radiation. Theseproposed by this insane theory does not work
rays would some day become a source ofand certainly could never have occurred. One may
medical cures and also disease and destruction.even find it puzzling how a concoction such as
It wasn't until about a half century later that manevolution could ever have been accepted as
realized the awesome potential of this "invisiblescience in the first place. I think that if evolution
light." On July 16, 1945, in a desert in Alamogordo,can be called science, there should be several
New Mexico, the United States detonated theother equally qualified scientific topics included in
first nuclear bomb in the world as a test. Thescience text books -- the physics behind
destructive potential of this new weapon wasSuperman's X-ray vision, the story of how the
horrifying. It could not only destroy life and anpower of speech evolved in Mickey Mouse, and
environment in a conventional explosion, but itthe chemical composition of Batman's Shark
could also accomplish the same with just itsRepellent Spray. If we're going to have fun
intense heat and radiation. In addition, it couldtheories, let's really make them fun.by Josh
render an environment uninhabitable for years,Greenberger Get his free book on evolution at
decades, or even centuries to come.EvolutionDead.