Evidence Suggests That Charles Darwin’s Theory Of Human Evolution Is Wrong

25 Mar 2015 by admin in Science & Technology

*We are aware that this is a controversial topic, with lots of information to look at. This is a tidbit, and we just wanted to express our belief that there are still many undiscovered truths to be uncovered when it comes to the *theory* of evolution. We are not suggesting that evolution did not or has not occurred in nature, because we have enough evidence to conclude that it did. 

Darwin’s work was definitely well thought out, well documented, and scientifically sound, but the evolutionary process that he documented in nature may not apply to us. There is a growing body of evidence proving that Darwin’s theory does not account for the facts of human origin as they’re known today.

There has been a widespread acceptance of the theory of evolution, yet no mention of the evidence which counters its claim. Instead, we’ve watched a lengthy search for physical evidence to prove it, while failing to realize that the fossilized “missing links” which should exist to prove the theory correct do not exist at all, or remain to be discovered. These “missing links” in our human ancestry have not been discovered for more than 150 years now, and even Darwin himself acknowledged this fact in his book, On The Origin of Species:

“As on the theory of natural selection and interminable number of intermediate forms must have existed….why do we not see these linking forms all around us? Why is not every geological formation charged with such links? We meet with no such evidence, and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections which may be urged against my theory.” (1)

This has also been expressed by many scholars, one of them being Thomas H. Morgan, a 1933 Nobel Prize winner in physiology and medicine, who stated that applying the “most rigid tests used to distinguish wild species, we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another.” (2)

Why have we found so much, searched so much, found so much, yet failed to discover these “missing links?”

Make no mistake, while Australopithecus afarensis and Neanderthals do tell a story and provide some interesting fossils, it’s possible they are not linked to us. They might be telling the story of someone’s history and evolution, yes, but it might not be ours.

Keeping in mind the fact that we have no physical evidence to prove the theory of evolution correct, let’s take a look at some research which has many scientists scratching their heads.

The Research

In 2000, researchers at the University of Glasgow Human Identification Centre compared DNA from a species believed to be our ancestor, a Neanderthal, and compared it to the DNA of modern humans. The DNA taken from the Neanderthal was very well preserved (a story in itself), as it was found frozen in a limestone cave in northern Caucasus. It was 30,000 years old, and it also marked the very first time that such tests could be performed on a body that had already been carbon-dated.

The study concluded that the possibility of a genetic link between Neanderthals and modern day human beings is unlikely, and the study went on to suggest that modern humans are not at all descendants of Neanderthals, as is so commonly believed.(3)(4)

“While in theory the science of genetic comparison should solve the mystery of our ancestry, the results are actually raising more questions regarding our evolutionary lineage and origins, and opening the door to ‘forbidden’ territory.” – Greg Braden (Deep Truth p. 9)

In 2003, a team of European scientists compared the DNA of Neanderthals and our earliest known ancestors, Early Modern Humans (EMHs). EMHs used to be called “Cro-Magnon.” The researchers studied the DNA of two EMHs, one was 23,000 years old and the other was 25,000 years old. DNA from four Neanderthals was also used, they were between 29,000 and 42,000 years old. The study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and stated:

“Our results add to the evidence collected previously in different fields, making the hypothesis of a ‘Neanderthal heritage’ very unlikely.”  (5)

This shows that that Neanderthals were probably not at all related to EHMs. The differences in physicality between them and modern humans are so small that some even believe there is no need for a separate grouping.  The appearance of our supposed ancestors hasn’t changed much over time.

The list literally goes on and on, and these are only a couple studies out of many, but for the sake of reading length, I encourage you to look into it further if you are interested. The debate about our relationship with Neanderthals remains a quite heated issue. It’s not as cut and dry as we are commonly led to believe, but make no mistake about it, many experts think that they are not our ancestors. There is not enough valid evidence to support the theory of evolution to say with any kind of certainty that yes, “this is where we came from.” So ask yourself, why do so many people and institutions teach and believe that our ancestry has been traced and confirmed through the evolutionary process?

We have indeed found interesting fossils, and evolution has occurred throughout nature, but the truth of the matter is that those fossils (Australopithecus afarensis and Neanderthals and others) might have nothing at all to do with our species.

The Mystery of “Fused” DNA

In his book “Deep Truth” Greg Braden brings up some interesting points regarding “fused DNA.” He points out how apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes (48 total) and how humans have 23 (46). It looks like we are missing an entire set of chromosomes, but that’s not the case. Instead, when scientists looked at where those missing chromosomes would be, they found that human chromosome 2 is very similar to the chromosomes 12 and 13 of the chimpanzee, “as if they were somehow combined (fused) into a single larger piece of DNA.” The thing about this is, this fusion occurred only in the case of humans. (6)(7)

“In other words, the two chromosomes that seem to be missing from our DNA appear to have been found, merged into a single new chromosome that is unique to us. Additionally, there are other characteristics of human and chimp genes that look almost identical.”-  Greg Braden (Deep Truth p. 11)

Scientists have no idea how this merging of DNA happened. Perhaps a helping hand from somewhere? Who knows.

“It’s the fact that these chromosomes are fused together, and the way they’re fused, that has led scientists to conclude that only a rare process could have given rise to to such a genetic phenomenon. These studies are telling us that the arrangement of the DNA that makes human chromosome 2 (and us) unique is not something that we would normally expect from Darwin’s evolution through natural selection.” – Greg Braden (Deep Truth p. 11)

We Don’t Know Where We Came From

The truth of the matter is, we don’t know where we came from. All we have are theories, with evidence, and evidence that counters evidence. We have studies concluding with strong certainty that we are not at all related to Neanderthals, and we have evidence that suggests we are. For example, in 2010, about 60 per cent of the entire genetic code of several Neanderthal fossils was revealed for the first time, leading to some surprising insights into the evolution of our own species. When the Neanderthal genome was compared with those of modern humans from different continents, it showed that modern populations from Europe, Asia, and New Guinea shared more genetic information with Neanderthals than present-day Africans do, with around 2.5 per cent Neanderthal DNA in their genetic make-up. (8)

What are we supposed to think of this? With so little physical evidence to confirm most of our conclusions, why do so many people subscribe to the theory of evolution with absolute certainty, and why is it taught that way?  We have such strong evidence to support the fact that, truly, we have very little idea about what happened. How do we expect to find answers when geneticists can’t even tell us why human beings are so different from fruit flies? What about the fact that we only have 300 unique genes in the human that are not in the mouse? With only 300 genes separating us from a mouse, where are we to look for the answers as to what makes human beings so different? Maybe DNA is the wrong place to look? Maybe not. Who knows what hidden information lies within our DNA; we don’t understand much of it, we can’t even identify most of its biological function. Maybe it goes beyond physicality? Who knows, but one thing is for certain – we surely don’t.

What about new discoveries that also shake up the current theory? Just over a year ago, researchers discovered what looks to be an entirely new species of hominin unknown to modern-day science. The discovery was made in a Siberian cave. A DNA analysis of the subject’s genome detected traces of what is known as a “Denisovan,” the mysterious cousin of the Neanderthals. The alarming part is the fact that the genome also contains odd bits of DNA which seem to come from a completely unknown, unidentifiable group of “people.”

“What it begins to suggest is that we’re looking at a Lord of the Rings type world – that there were many hominid populations.” – (9) Mark Thomas, evolutionary geneticist at University College London.

You can read more about that here.

What about the archaeological evidence suggesting that advanced civilizations, with advanced technology, roamed the Earth thousands of years ago, in some cases coinciding with these evolutionary periods?

There are simply too many unknowns and too many unanswered questions, making it absurd (in my opinion) for anybody to think that our species is a result of an evolution that we have observed in nature throughout history. The biological link between humans and earlier human-like lifeforms in our apparent ancestral tree is not proven, it’s inferred. As Greg Braden points out in his book Deep Truth:

“The theory of living cells mutating randomly (evolving) over long periods of time does not explain the origin or complexities of human life.”

It’s clear that there are many DNA studies that prove we did not descend from Neanderthal families.

“It’s unlikely that the DNA that makes us human and gives us our uniqueness could have formed in the way it has from natural processes of evolution.” – Greg Braden (Deep Truth p. 14)

So, what are your thoughts? Feel free to share in the comment section below.

Concluding Comments

It’s not uncommon for our readers to believe that Collective-Evolution subscribes to the modern day theory of evolution, given our name. When we refer to the collective evolution of the human race, we are referring to the evolution of consciousnesses, we refer to how our perception regarding the nature of reality has changed over time, and how it will continue to change as new information continues to surface – changing the way we look at the world.

There are many examples of theories regarding the origin of our species that are believed to be proven and believed without question, and the theory of evolution is one of them. New discoveries within the sciences have shown us that many long-standing views about things like our world, our bodies, and life itself have to change, and history has shown us that they do change. New information and evidence (not always emphasized in the mainstream public domain) have provided us the opportunity to slow down and question these things, before we deem and accept them as absolute truth.

Another big problem is the fact that mainstream educational systems (a great point made Braden’s book, Deep Truth)  refuse to touch upon new discoveries and explore new theories that challenge what we have believed to be true. This keeps us stuck with the same ideas over and over again.


Greg Braden: Deep Truth

(1) Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species ( Seattle: Pacific Publishing Studio, 2010): p. 236

(2) Morgan, Thomas Hunt, 1866-1945, Evolution and Adaptation. p. 43




(6) Yuxin Fan, Tera Newman, Elena Linaropoulou, and Barbara J. Trask, “Gene Content and Function of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in Human Chromosome 2q13-2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions,” Genome Research, vol 12 (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2002): pp. 1663-1672. website:

(7) J.W. IJdo, A. Baldini, D.C. Ward, S.T. Reeders, and R.A. Wells, “Origin of Human Chromosome 2: An ancestral telomere-telomere Fusion,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 88, no. 20 October 15,1991):pp. 9051-9055.