The similarities of species
The evolutionist explanations for the similarities of species which had been separated early are the ďconvergent evolutionĒ and the ďparallel evolutionĒ. These theories along with the fossil records make the creation of a polygenetic tree immensely hard. If we accept the axioms of evolution (the greedy algorithm mixed with beneficial mutations) and imagine such model at work it would result a much wider diversity of skeletal structures.
If all the vertebrate terrestrial animals are originated from primitive chordates or fish, like coelacanth, it would open a wide opportunity for skeletal builds.
All the mystical creatures like centaurs, hippogryphs, pegasuses and other 6,8 or more limbed structures should/could exist. Considering the success of arthropods the viability of these structures canít be denied. In reality all terrastial vertebrates have (or had at some point) 4 limbs, a tail and 5 toes on each limb. Birds and horses also had five toes. Why are there five toes? The past 400 million years proved tetrapods donít need five toes and it also proved animals are loosing and not gaining toes over time. When and why were they gaining them, and why did it change? The functions behind reproduction (the greedy algorithm) didnít change so there is no reason for such tendency change either.
The solution is presented by degeneration again. It is much easier to create a polygenetic tree if we define the initial common ancestor of all vertebrate as a four limbed animal which had at least five toes on each. To make one step forward it must have had wings as well. Te fossil records suggest they had laid eggs and had feathers. To conquer the oceans it must have had gills and lungs simultaneously. There are vertebrates which have lungs and gills simultaneously these days as well. They are the lungfish, and they are very interesting creatures.The c-value paradox
The lungfish are remnants of the past when animals had lungs and gills simultaneously. Fossil evidences suggest they have remained virtually unchanged for well over 100 million years, making them living fossils and one of the oldest living vertebrate animals on the planet. For someone familiar with the degeneration theory it is not surprising that a certain species of this order has the biggest genome amongst all the vertebrates (50 times bigger then the human genome), but for evolutionist biologists it was an enigma, therefore they called this phenomenon the c-value paradox. Is it a coincidence that those animals which havenít been affected by evolution for millions of years (maybe as a result of frequent parthenogenesis) have the largest genome? It still doesnít mean lungfish would be superior, they are already degenerated and simplified creatures but they clearly show the tendency of decreasing genome size over time, which is contrary to the evolution indeed.
The australian lungfish
Later when non-coding DNA had been discovered this enigma considered to be solved. For a long time non protein coding DNA was called junk DNA so it became irrelevant what size of genome certain species have when the most of it are actually genetic junk. This approach has proven to be wrong. It has been discovered that these non protein coding sequences have meaning as well, many of them have important functions as transcriptional and translational regulation and some of these sequences are responsible for the regulation of the immune system. Is it a coincidence that the Australian lungfish has a lifespan over 100 years? It is remarkable for a fish. Maybe the human genome could use some more junk DNA as well. The size of the genome is not at all irrelevant. The additional non protein coding sequences contain information as well, only we canít understand all of this information yet.
The most convincing evidence of this statement is that the distribution of nucleobases in non-coding DNA is not at all random. The entropy and other statistics of these codes are very similar to human languages.
Are there traces of the initial language coded in our DNA? It is not impossible.Human languages
There are quite a few theories about the origin of language. These theories have common features like each of them assumes a complexity increment at the beginnings and each of them lacks evidences. All the ancient scripts and other remnants of ancient languages clearly point to an opposite tendency. The ancient Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Chinese and all the other old languages as far as we can see back were more complex than their modern descendants. They had more complex grammar which allowed expressing more information with lesser words. This reduction of complexity in languages is a fact, but when did the increment stop and why did the degeneration begin? The ancient languages we know are extremely hard to learn and it is very challenging to use their complicated grammar precisely for a modern person. Which means the people who used them in a daily basis must have been at least as intelligent and sophisticated in the way of thinking as modern people. According to the scholar history books first civilizations appeared around 5000 years ago. By then these languages had already been there. Why did those primitive nomad tribes need such refined grammatical system who lived before civilizations.
The Hand and Arm Signals for United States Army consists of around 50 signs and it is more then enough to execute complicated cooperative tasks. Complex grammatical rules, prefixes and suffixes are not needed for such tasks. Not many more words (maybe 200-300) would be required for the simple hunting lifestyle prehistoric humans supposed to live. The level of complexity of the ancient languages makes them capable of expressing very sophisticated thoughts and to describe detailed and complicated mechanisms. This level of complexity doesnít offer evolutionary benefits for a primitive hunting tribe.
The evolution theory also assumes that the intelligence and the cranial capacity of human beings have evolved, increased over time. There are many contradicting evidences which actually prove the degeneration and explain the existence of these complicated languages.
An elongated skull (video)
It is rather well known that both the people of Neanderthal and Cro Magnon had slightly larger brain than modern humans, but there are more confusing fossils from all around the world suggesting there were people on the planet with twice as big brains than ours. These people are called the coneheadheads.
The cranial capacity of these skulls reached 2500 cm3 which is enormous compared to the average 1400 cm3 of modern people.
Of course these skulls donít really fit in the original theory, so they didnít get as much publicity as this issue deserves. The evolutionist excuse for the existence of these fossils was the aesthetic artificial cranial deformation. The problem with this explanation is that pressing someoneís skull could not result in a growth of cranial capacity. So we can add two more things to the list of tendencies which prove degeneration: degenerating languages and shrinking human brain.[QUOTE]The logarithmic tendency of evolution
First it has to be clarified what the purpose of the natural reproduction through the greedy heuristic is. The method of the reproduction favors the interest of the population over the individual. Its purpose is to make the next generation viable in the given environmental conditions. This is the adaptation. Considering this nature of the method accumulating evolutionary traits is very unlikely. If a species has a certain trait that occasionally beneficial for some of the members but in most cases it is unnecessary for surviving, that trait will disappear. This is the case with the disappeared tails, toes and limbs and this is the mechanism of degeneration. All the traits and functions that are not necessary in a given environment start to degenerate then disappear. A static environment like a deep ocean accelerates this process. There are no extreme conditions, fast temperature changes, winds, high trees to climb in the ocean, so most of the functions of an average terrestrial creature become unnecessary. In a relatively static environment creatures start to simplify and as they simplify the reproduction rate becomes higher and faster in general. As the reproduction becomes faster the degeneration which works through reproduction becomes even faster making the animals even simpler and so on. This means degeneration is an accelerating, exponential function and doesnít need much time (compared to evolution) to succeed. This also means that degeneration reacts to the environment and its rate is corresponding to the environment effects.
evolution and degeneration on the same timeline
The evolution, on the other hand, is a whole different story. Beneficial mutation - the essence of the theory - doesnít happen on demand. It is completely random so you canít urge this phenomenon, which means the rate of evolution does not accelerate. In fact itís not even static.
The reproduction rate in the evolutionary direction is continuously slowing, so the function of evolution is actually a logarithmic function and therefore it needs infinite time to succed.
Aside form all the fossil evidences and other pros and cons of both theories this pure mathematical illustration favors degeneration unequivocally since it doesnít require near as much time as evolution.