Scientist Says Evolution Makes Bad Science
Since the days of Charles Darwin, over a century ago, naturalists have generally classified living things by their appearance. A zebra and a horse are said to be more closely related than a zebra and a whale. This has been the foundation of all those evolutionary trees that claim to show that all living things have supposedly come from older, simpler living things.
In recent years, some scientists have been comparing another feature that all living things share. Today, scientists are able to look for similarities and differences among the biological chemicals – like hemoglobin. What they are finding does not agree with the evolutionary tree in their textbooks, according to Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History.
Among the examples Dr. Patterson offered to American evolutionary scientists was a comparison of alpha myoglobin among mammals, birds and reptiles. According to evolution, comparisons between mammals, reptiles and birds should show mammals and birds to be most distantly related. Reptiles should have more similarities to each. However, when humans were compared with crocodiles and birds, birds were closer to humans than were crocodiles – the opposite of what evolution predicts. Dr. Patterson asked, "What's going on?"
While Dr. Patterson did not become a creationist before his death in 1998, he was definitely dissatisfied with evolution.