Evidence Disproving Evolution

myself | 10/11/02 | gore3000

[gore3000]

Evidence Disproving Evolution

The basis of a valid scientific theory is that it be able to explain all the scientific data in the field it is concerned with and that no evidence contradicting the theory be true. This is a harsh test, but one which all legitimate scientific theories must pass. This is a test which the theory of evolution has failed in spades as the following abundantly shows.

Religion and Science:

Access Research Network Discovery Institute -- Origins -- Creation Science -- Creation/Evolution Sites -- Creation & Evolution Links from the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Club -- True Origins -- Answers in Genesis -- Faith Facts -- Center for Renewal of Science and Culture -- Center for Scientific Creation -- Creation Research Society -- Biblical Creation Society -- Christian Apologetics -- Institute for Creation Research

"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse;. a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows evolution." From: Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

Intelligent Design:
Darwin's Mistake by Stu Pullen -- Rebuttals of Criticisms of Darwin's Black Box -- Dembski - Another Way to Detect Design -- Behe, Michael J. - ARN Authors Page -- Leadership U. Designer Universe: Intelligent Design Theory of Origins -- Flagellar Structure and regulated transcription of flagellar genes -- Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max -- Intelligent Design Research Community -- Intelligent Design Theory Resources -- Intelligent Design. The bridge between science and theology. (William Dembski). -- Evolution vs Creation (Intelligent Design) WorldView -- Detailed defense of "Icons" by Wells -- Dembski on Intelligent Design -- Dembski: No Free Lunch -- Behe's Book -- A True Acid Test:Response to Ken Miller : Behe, Michael -- Intelligent Design Articles -- Phillip Johnson's Page -- Ohio Science Standards - IDN	A Moment in History... That a maker is required for anything that is made is a lesson Sir Isaac Newton was able to teach forcefully to an atheist-scientist friend of his. Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small scale model of our solar system which was to be put in a room in Newton?s home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can image, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences. Newton's atheist-scientist friend came by for a visit. Seeing the model, he was naturally intrigued, and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship. "My! What an exquisite thing this is!? he exclaimed. "Who made it?? Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, "Nobody." Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said: "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this. Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone. "Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has." "You must think I am a fool!? the visitor retorted heatedly, "Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is." Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way: "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?" From: Sir Isaac Newton Solar System Story, "The Truth: God or evolution?" by Marshall and Sandra Hall

Biology Disproving Evolution
Alternative Splicing -- Scientists snap first 3-D pictures of the "heart" of the transcription machine -- Molecular Biology Book -- Cell Interactions in Development -- Oldest Living Plant -- Fruit Flies Speak Up -- The Nature of Nurture: How the environment shapes our genes -- Nanobes (Nanobacteria) are crystals -- Regulation of the Cell Cycle 2001 Nobel Prize -- Amniota - Problems with the Philogeny of -- Basic Principles of Genetics Mendel's Genetics -- Photosynthesis -- Population Variability and Evolutionary Genetics -- Fossil Hominids mitochondrial DNA -- Genetics Glossary AB -- Genomics and Its Impact on Medicine and Society 2001 Primer -- The molecular clock -- Cell Signaling: The Inside Story on MAP Kinases -- Protein Synthesis -- Watching genes at work -- Cell snapshot spots cancer -- Development protein atracts and then repels muscle tissue -- Evolution of the Genomes of Mammals and Birds -- Gene Silencing - Study shows plants inherit traits from more than gene sequence alone -- Gene silencing - Environmental Stress reactions -- Bio-Tech Info - Gene Silencing Articles -- Advances In "Micro" RNA Exploring Process Of Life -- Monkeys and Men - gene expression -- Chimps, Humans and Retroviruses -- Gene activity in human brain sets us apart from chimps -- Pros and Cons of Inbreeding -- Inbreeding and desth of species -No Need to Isolate Genetics -- How Organisms Protect Themselves Against Transposons -- Uses of transposons -- Cell Suicide -- Protein Transforms Sedentary Muscles Into Exercised Muscles, Researchers Report -- Gene insertion in Transgenic Animals -- "50,000 Genes, and We Know Them All (Almost)"	While evolution continues to tell us that species transform themselves in a simple almost magical manner, modern biology shows this not to be the case. Organisms are so complex that for them to transform themselves into different ones would require a theory of COevolution. The random processes assumed by evolutionary theory deny such a possibility. Genes are just information encoded along a long string of the chemical DNA; they cannot do anything themselves. David Baltimore, Nobel Prize Winner

Mutations:
A Scientific Defense of a Creationist Position on Evolution -- Evolutionist View of Evolutionary Biology -- Creation, Selection, And Variation -- Population Genetics, Haldane's Dilemma and the Neutral Theory of Evolution -- Haldane Rebuttal -- Point_Mutations -- Inbreeding and Population Genetics -- Introduction to Evolutionary Biology -- Neutral Mutations -- Computational Geneticists Revisit A Mystery In Evolution -- Mutations - organisms fixes them itself -- Mutations	Funny thing about mutations, it is almost impossible for them to spread throughout a species. In addition, mutations which either transform a species into another or which add any kind of greater complexity have not been seen in spite of the daily experimentation going on in thousands of research labs daily.

Junk DNA:
The Human Genome Project -- Junk DNA in man and mouse -- Junk DNA - Over 95 percent of DNA has largely unknown function -- JUNK dna and transpositions -- Junk DNA Tips Off Tumor Comeback -- Transgenics, Junk DNA, Evolution and Risks: Reading Through Rows	Evolutionists are always making assumptions. They assumed that the tonsils and the appendix were remnants of previous species from which humans had evolved and were totally useless. They were wrong about that. When the human genome was sequenced and it was found that only 5% of it was used in genes they immediately assumed that the 95% not in genes was 'junk'. They were wrong again of course. The now called 'non-coding' DNA is the source of what makes humans tick and a marvel of creation in itself.

Abiogenesis:
RNA World: A Critique -- Evolution and the Origin of Life -- Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life - Part II -- The Mystery of Life's Origin -- Message Theory/Remine -- Bruce Lipton, Insight Into Cellular Consciousness	There is a tremendous amount of proof against abiogenesis. First of all is Pasteur's proof that life does not come from inert matter (and this was of course at one time the prediction of materialists). Then came the discovery of DNA and the chemical basis of organisms. This poses a totally insurmountable problem to abiogenesis. The smallest living cells has a DNA string of some one million base pairs long and some 600 genes, even cutting this number by a quarter as the smallest possible living cell would give us a string of some 250,000 base pairs of DNA. It is important to note here that DNA can be arranged in any of the four basic codes equally well, there is no chemical or other necessity to the sequence. The chances of such an arrangement arising are therefore 4^250,000. Now the number of atoms in the universe is said to be about 4^250. I would therefore call 4^250,000 an almost infinitely impossible chance (note that the supposition advanced that perhaps it was RNA that produced the first life has this same problem). The problem though is even worse than that. Not only do you need two (2) strings of DNA perfectly matched to have life, but you also need a cell so that the DNA code can get the material to sustain that life. It is therefore a chicken and egg problem, you cannot have life without DNA (or RNA if one wants to be generous) but one also has to have the cell itself to provide the nutrients for the sustenance of the first life. Add to this problem that for the first life to have been the progenitor of all life on earth, it necessarily needs to have been pretty much the same as all life now on earth is, otherwise it could not have been the source of the life we know. Given all these considerations, yes, abiogenesis is impossible.

Darwin and His Theory:
Charles Darwin - The Truth -- Darwin's Racism -- Darwi n's Family -- Malthus and evolutionists -- Darwin's Environment -- Darwin, Racism, Evil -- Ascent of Racism -- Talk.Origins and the Darwin/Hitler Test -- Darwin's finches Evolution in real time -- Effects of the 1998 El Niño on Darwins finches on Daphne -- Punctuated Equilibrium at Twenty -- Homology A Concept in Crisis. Origins & Design 182. Wells, Jonathan -- Darwin's Creation Myth -- David Berlinsky 'The Deniable Darwin	Evolutionists try to paint Darwin as a quiet scientist working hard on writing his theory. However, this is a totally false statement. Yes, he was a recluse. However, he was neither a scintist not a very nice person as the following quote shows: With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. From: Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man", Chapter V.

Evolutionist Censorship:
Scientists Censored for Publicly Exposing Flaws in Evolution - Suite101.com -- Science and Fairness -- Duane Gish Responds to Joyce Arthur's Critique -- Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? -- Censorship of Information on Origins -- Professor Rigid on Evolution (must "believe" to get med school rec)	Evolutionists almost since the start have tried to silence opponents. While they constantly claim to be scientists, it seems that instead of following the principles of science - questioning, discussion, and challenging of existing theories, they follow the principles of ideology - silencing and destroying opponents.

Species Disproving Evolution:

Morphology of the Archaea -- Humans Are Three Percent Puffer Fish -- JGI Fugu v2.0 Home -- Cyanobacteria not changed in 4 billion years -- Platypus -- Platypus Web Sites -- Eosimias ankle bone proves human descent! -- euglena -- Textbook Fraud: Hyracotherium dawn horse eohippus, mesohippus, meryhippus -- - On the Alleged Dinosaurian Ancestry of Birds - -- Fruit Flies Disprove Darwin -- Hymenopimecis Wasp: Parasite's web of death -- Haploid False Spider Mites -- Cambrian Explosion: Biology's Big Bang -- Cambrian Explosion: Origin of the Phyla -- Kangaroo and platypus not related

Top: Euglena, Hymenopimesis Wasp, Butterfly, Platypus Bottom: Bat, Fugu, Cambrian species

Various Topics:
A Critique of '29 Evidences for Macroevolution' -- Blind Atheist -- Freeper Views on Origins -- Freeper Views on Origins - Patriarchs -- Creation/Evolution Debate -- Homology -- 15 Answers to John Rennie and SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN's Nonsense (by Bert Thompson and Brad Harrub> -- Sir Karl Popper "Science as Falsification," 1963 -- Pope John Paul II: Truth Cannot Contradict Truth (Statement on Evolution - 1996) -- Evolution Shams -- A Critique of PBS's Evolution -- Evolution of a Creationist -- Evolution, Creation, and Thermodynamics -- God, Humanity and the Cosmos Book Section Evolutionary Biology and Theology -- The Revolution Against Evolution -- Sexual Reproduction A Continuing Mystery to Evolutionists -- Splifford FAQ (How talk.origins and sci.bio.evolution really work -- Mathematics vs Evolution -- Evolution vs Logic -- Natural Selection an Agency of Stasis, not Change -- Evolution as Anti-Science -- Critique of Gould -- Radiocarbon dating things which should not radiocarbon date... -- Evolution or Christianity -- Funding for Evolution -- Scientists find biological reality behind religious experience [Free Republic] -- Doctors increasingly find introducing prayer helps calm patients and speeds recovery -- The healing power of prayer. -- There is power in prayer [Free Republic] -- Micro vs Macroevolution -- Science Design Kit -- 50 Reasons to Leave Evolutionism -- The Evolution of Truth -- Fossils and dating -- - Talk.Origins: Deception by Omission -- Talk Origins - FAQ or Fiction? -- McCluskey, E. S. --- Which Vertebrates Make Vitamin C? -- Vitamin c Pseudogene -- Snapshots of God -- Critics of Evolution - Book Reviews	While evolution claims to explain the descent of one species from another, it has never been able to do so. The original explanation for how evolution transforms species, natural selection, has things backwards. Natural selection kills, it does not create anything. For evolution to be true it needed to propose a creative force which would have been able to add new traits, new functions to the simplest creatures and gradually transform them into more complex ones. The original proposal by Darwin, the melding of features from the parents, did not answer this problem, nor does the more modern version of the exchange of genetic information that occurs in procreation. Such methods do not add any information either, they just reshuffle the information which already exists in the species. Clearly this cannot be the source of increased complexity either. With the re-discovery of genetics in the 20th Century, the Darwinists finally accepted the incorrectness of the melding theory and proposed mutations as the agent of creation of new information. They ran into the problem that with individuals receiving half their genes from each parent and half the genes of each parent being passed on to the progeny, the chances of a new mutation, even one which might be favorable, had not only a very small chance of surviving more than a few generations, but also had an almost impossible chance of spreading throughout a species. They therefore proposed that most mutations were neutral ones and by gradual accumulation they would change the species. This explanation did not even solve the problem of how difficult it was for any mutation to survive, let alone spread throughout a species. The discovery of DNA made the above possibility, already quite unlikely and totally unproven, just about totally impossible. The high complexity of a gene and more importantly experiments showing that changing even one of the thousand DNA bases of a gene are likely to destroy functioning completely and are extremely unlikely to enhance it, presented another serious problem for evolution. This was 'solved' by proposing that gene duplication would create new functions without destroying necessary functioning. Of course, as before, this was only theory and no experimental proof of it was found to support it. The same problem of it being hard to change a gene favorably applied to such genes, the only explanatory gain was that incorrect mutations would not be deadly. Even then, this was insufficient explanation for the transformation of species. Similar genes, which are fairly common, only accomplish similar functions. The vast changes required for complete species transformation, are unexplainable without the creation of totally new genes. With the discovery that genes themselves are just factories and are controlled by other DNA in the organism, and that a single gene often produces many proteins, this explanation was rendered inadequate. Now a new function, which was already known to most likely require more than a single new gene, would require a whole complex of DNA outside the gene to make it work when and if needed. This makes the evolutionary explanation of random, non-directed species change totally untenable and indeed biologists are beginning to call the developmental process of an organism a program. Like all programs, those for life are not made at random.

[Alamo-Girl]

You're quite welcome! IMHO, it is a great site for statistical information and analysis of murder by government, etc.

[gore3000]

This is a flat out lie on its face. The concept of 'lower races' had existed since time immemorial and justified such things as slavery. It did not require Darwinism.

Darwin popularized all the theories I mentioned, he made them respectable. He gave them the 'scientific' seal of approval. Yes, he is responsible for these ideas - and their results - whether you like it or not.

[gore3000]

I was discussing natural selection - not neutral drift - and I have explicitly stated so.

You keep restating what you were discussing. It does not matter whether you were discussing neutral drift, natural selection or genetic drift. They are all false as I have already shown. Address what I posted instead of shifting gears on each reply.

[AndrewC]

No magic involved. Just mutation, environmental changes, and good old natural selection.

On the other hand it could be that the scientists are changing the "evidence".

By comparing the specimens to Sri Lankan samples stored in museums around the world and analyzing differences in appearance, genetics and behavior (including the animals's telltale croaks), the scientists identified 120 new species.

[AntiGuv]

So a eunuch is a different species?

Here your being ridiculously thickheaded to the point of meriting no further response.

And in case you didn't know it, llamas and camels, which diverged 30 million years ago, can produce viable offspring which may be fertile.

Basic verbal comprehension skills should indicate that I've addressed this point. Evolutionary science presents an explanation of this, by the way, although I concede Creation Science does as well (because God felt like it..)

[AntiGuv]

All the theories were already popular, and they were already respectable. Darwinism simply provides an scientific model regarding why and how the intuitions arose in the first place. He is not responsible for any of those ideas - or their results - whether you like it or not. If anything, those ideas are more responsible for his model than the other way around - whether you like it or not.

[AndrewC]

Here your being ridiculously thickheaded to the point of meriting no further response.

It is your definition. And the point of your tap dance is to hide the fact that having such a tenuous and shape-shifting definition of species allows the just so stories to abound using the Darwinian "science".

[AntiGuv]

Address what I posted instead of shifting gears on each reply.

I did not restate what I was discussing; I chose to elaborate further in order to aid your comprehension. Nonetheless, you choose to believe whatever makes you happy which is consistent with your character. I cannot assist you further with this particular failing. Otherwise, I have addressed virtually everything that you have posted directly to me, and even beyond that numerous points addressed to others.

[AntiGuv]

Very well, then. Here's my final answer to this:

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. - Proverbs 26:4-5

[AndrewC]

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. - Proverbs 26:4-5

It goes both ways brother.

[AntiGuv]

Yep. Let God sort us out. :p

[AndrewC]

Yep. Let God sort us out. :p

Amen.

Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

[Seeker204]

No, there's a lot of stuff there, but mostly it goes to prove evolution, not the other way around. The entire fabrication was of course concocted by some misguided fool who obviously doens't know what he's talking about. Evolution says that one species evolves into another? The casual (idiotic) observer may think so, but it's simply not true. Ooh! A picture of a butterfly! Butterflies have wings. They're too pretty to have not come from God. Lookee! A mRNA creating a protein! God's definitely making that happen. As a matter of fact, w/o his love we'd all fall apart this instant. As I understand it, that's actually an argument that has been used before by Christians. God makes the god go 'round.

IF YOU HAVEN'T REALY READ WHAT I JUST SAID: what that heap was all about was a big ol' hunk of SCIENCE. Somebody went through the trouble to go through a couple of textbooks, some websites. He proclaims to the world, I have learned, have tasted, and I find it good... in the eyes of God. Not good for Darwin. Do you realize that this guy is using science to explain something that is completely unscientific? God is not science. The guy's arguments are flawed because they don't make sense. Does he (I doubt that a woman could be so stupid or obsessive) realize that Darwin isn't the leading expert on Evolution today? He says that evolution is defunct in the present scientific community. He's a bloody idiot for saying that.

And what is all that shit about Newton? Where did that come from? A watch or a model are not comparable to life. Genes are just information, and can't do anything themselves? Have you ever touched the stuff? Have you ever engineered it? Have you ever knocked out the stuff from a mouse or yeast cell and replaced it w/ vectors creating from similarily engineered E. coli cells? I've done it, and I don't see god anywhere.

You are being irrational. You mock the idea of evolution, which states that complex systems like DNA came out of billions of years of coincidents, yet agree with the idea that they suddenly popped out of nothing? Excellent logic. Why would God have created DNA and cells and atoms and muons and strings? Why do ppl tend to become more religious in a stressful or dangerous situation? I'm sure that you've of soldiers who claimed that God protected them from a dangerous situation. Why would God care about anybody? He hasn't helped anybody like... almost ever. Why would he look down upon a soldier and say, you'll be safe because my magical hand is shielding you from the eyes of your enemies? God's existence has been proven. They put tape and sensors around the brains of priests in deep prayer, gurus in deep meditation, etc., and found a certain part of the brain that controls this stuff. Frontal lobe, personality. This whatever, religion. That's god right there.

Glad you brought up junk DNA. Why would that be there? They've found some weird shit in the Human genome. Like you said, much of it is useless. Is god not all-powerful? Did he make a crapload of mistakes when he was molding us from clay? Why would ppl have diseases like malaria or asthma or river blindness? It never mentions in the Bible that God got pissed at us and gave us diseases. Explain that.

As I've stated many times before, Evolution is seen every day. Mutations that create viable organisms occur every generation. My parents were mutants. Their parents, your parents, and so on. Show me two ppl who look exactly the same, same prints, same facial heat signiture, iris, and I'll crawl on my hands to kiss you feet. And also viruses and bacteria evolve all the time to counter immunization, medication. Part of this is through the use of vectors, but some of it is incorporated into the DNA. The selfish gene. Ever heard of that? It's a theory and also a book. Read it some time. It'll help you. Save yourself from further waste of time.

[Seeker204]

And also good job trying to prove the existence of god using science.

[Ahban]

The short version is ....

I think we need the long version. The theory makes specific predictions. Your objections are so vauge as to be incomprehensible to me.....that you can't make a scientific theory by postulating the Designer, and then filtering evidence, keeping what fits and throwing out what doesn't.

Really, why not? Didn't evos do the same thing with PE? Evos have variation in their interpretation of HOW evolution did it while sticking with the Naturalisic framework. Creationists should have the same options. Whatever do you mean by "filtering evidence"?

In grade school this sometimes passes for science, but it's not working. Again, why? The theory makes several testable predictions. Why isn't that science?

[AndrewC]

And also good job trying to prove the existence of god using science.

Thank you, but that would be an unintended consequence. There is no need to prove something that is.

[f.Christian]

Seeker204 signed up 2002-09-13.
This account has been banned.

[gore3000]

A picture of a butterfly! Butterflies have wings. They're too pretty to have not come from God.

Seems that while you call yourself 'seeker' you do not look for answers. There is a very good reason why I give the butterfly as proof that evolution is wrong. It is the 'double' birth of it. For one thing evolutionists claim that all embrionic development goes through the same steps as all the previous species in the supposed evolutionary tree. Clearly a species that is essentially born twice, does not do that. There is another reason for it, this second birth could not have arisen by the step by step gradual development proposed by evolution. If the birth process does not work, the organism dies so it obviously had to be correct from the get-go.

Do you realize that this guy is using science to explain something that is completely unscientific? God is not science.

The guy is me and you are absolutely wrong. God is science in the sense that all science is about the discovery of God's creation. If the universe was totally materialistic and operated in a totally stochastic manner, then science would be impossible. Science is about finding order in the universe and if the universe was of random origin no such laws, no such order would ever have been found.

Have you ever knocked out the stuff from a mouse or yeast cell and replaced it w/ vectors creating from similarily engineered E. coli cells? ...

[and in a later paragraph]... Glad you brought up junk DNA. Why would that be there? They've found some weird [expletive deleted for 'stuff'] in the Human genome. Like you said, much of it is useless.

Well, you just showed both that you are not a scientist and have a big problem with reading comprehension. I said:

When the human genome was sequenced and it was found that only 5% of it was used in genes they immediately assumed that the 95% not in genes was 'junk'. They were wrong again of course. The now called 'non-coding' DNA is the source of what makes humans tick and a marvel of creation in itself.

How you can say from the above that I am saying it is junk is beyond me. That you call yourself a scientist and not know that this DNA not in genes is not junk is a complete contradiction. Practically all the work on DNA being done the last few years is concerned with discovering what this non-coding DNA does, how it controls and regulates the actions of genes. So no, you are not a scientist and you can save yourself the time of posing as one.

[gore3000]

You should grab yourself a good Medieval or Early Modern history text and you'll discover that an absolute morality and absolute ethics are similarly insufficient to restrain the basest instincts of man. This is what we saw in the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries after the broad conversion to Christianity and before Darwin.

You are making some very false assumptions there one of which that there were no atheists before Darwin. The most destructive European war before the 20th century was the one started by the atheistic French Revolution. Just about all the wars of Christianity - including the Crusades - before 1500 were defensive wars against atheist Norsemen, atheist nomads from Asia and the followers of the evil prophet Mohammed. If you knew anything about the Middle Ages you would know that war was a very gentlemanly thing in those times and civilian populations were almost completely unaffected by it. The only stain on Christianity came afterwards with the wars of the Reformation. While they might have claimed to be religious wars they clearly were using religion to incite the populace into unChristian actions for the purpose of conquest. Such were the wars of the English against the Scots and the Irish for example. So overall, Christianity has indeed shown a most civilizing effect on mankind and held back the barbaric passions we have seen displayed way too often by atheistic societies.