Evolution revisited

Evolution may be one of the most hotly debated theories. It originated around 550 BC when Greek philosopher Anaximander suggested that life originated in the sea and was modified to become all the creatures we see today. Throughout history some type of "evolution" was a part of some schools of scientific thought although Darwin, in the 1800's was the first to attempt to formalize the theory in his famous book "THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES"

I have researched this on and off for 31 years since I first read the issue of Scientific American which was dedicated to Evolution after which I became aware of the fact that the theory of evolution has some rather serious flaws.

Asking scientists who believed in and taught evolution has been of little help. 

* Confront a scientist with these problems about evolution and their answer is "Well we know it has many problems but it's the best we have to explain nature!"

This seems a bit confusing to me, though to teach a theory as scientific fact to our children in school about which even the most ardent believers admit has serious (and some fatal) flaws!

First of all, the theory of "Natural Selection" is known as "macroevolution" and opines that mutations happened by chance in species, making the species more likely to survive and thus to bear more young and eventually "evolve" into a new species.

Darwin formulated this theory from what is known as "Micro-evolution" i.e. the fact that humans can breed different types of cows or dogs. He had never observed "Macro-evolution" and forgot that in "Microevolution" changes in species are NOT evolving by chance but by the intervention of a human being! Therefore, micro-evolution is somewhat engineered!

Darwin first postulated his theory around 1850, in the middle of the so called "Age of Enlightenment" and it was hailed by those who wanted to cut out the need for God in creation. Thomas Huxley, an ardent follower of Darwin, wrote "in the evolutionary pattern of thought, there is no longer a need or room for the supernatural!"

"The Enlightenment was an idea that we will replace these religions with science... they needed a creation story... and Darwin's theory fitted into that intellectual program." (Phillip Johnson)

Is there any evidence of the theory that animals actually "evolved" from simplier creatures to more complex creatures?  In a word, NO.

*  Since the 1920's, geneticists have bred quadrillions of generations of fruit flies, their favorite experimentation media.  However in all these generations, although some structural changes were observed (fruit flies born without wings etc), the fruit fly never "evolved" into another species.  Surely in all those generations, we should have seen the fruit fly "evolve" to something different, shouldn't we have? Especially when geneticists were very much trying TO EVOLVE a new species by changing conditions etc?

* There are several species (according to the fossil record) which have virtually remained the same for millions of years including the cockroach. Again, why didn't these "evolve"?

* The fossil record reveals NO transitional species - if whole new species evolved over thousands of years, there would be many transitional species but there is a problem with this because evolution postulates infinitessimal changes by "natural selection" - the transitional species would be less efficient (and likely LESS likely to produce) than the original species which would pose a problem to the theory of how evolution developed a new species!

* They now can calculate the probability of a mutation which is advantageous and happens by chance. The probability that a mutation will be either deleterious (harmful) or insignificant is 99.99999999999999999999 percent. At those odds, it would have taken longer for a new species to have "evolved" than the known age of the universe - about twice as long as the universe has existed and of course, several times longer than animals have existed on earth!

* it is agreed by scientists that most of the animals appeared during the Cambrian Era and reasonably suddenly. In one of HIS honest moments Richard Dawkins admits "it was as though they were just planted there without any evolutionary history!"

* Darwin predicted that the extinction of a species would be even slower than the evolution of a species... but again the fossil record disproves this totally. In one of HIS honest moments, Gould calls these "anomalous and threatening" (threatening to what - his evolutionary atheistic beliefs?)

* The Sept 1978 Scientific American was dedicated to evolution. One interesting point which was made was that they had never found the link between a polymer (complex protein molecule) and the simplest form of life, which is now considered to be the bacterium. Note: It was this issue of Scientific American which really rattled my "belief" in evolution! I was appalled at the flaws in the theory - the lack of evidence and/or logic.

* It should be noted that the "simplest form of life" the bacterium, is ANYTHING but simple. In fact, In fact, it's a highly complex creature that comes in many varieties. It can even sense when it needs a certain trait and receive the necessary DNA for that trait from another bacterium, living or dead! Bacteria are also involved in supporting many types of more complex life including humans." The way some bacteria propel themselves, the flagellum, is a feature of complex design. A very strong point can be made that even this most simple type of life, some of the the complexities of which continue remained unexplained, could have NEVER "just happened" - it would have HAD to be cleverly engineered!

* Darwin stated that "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly be formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down". Back when he formulated his theory medicine did not know much about the organs and virtually nothing about the cellular, molecular level - they do now and the complexity of such is so great, the idea that all this "evolved" by random mutation is just too much of a leap of faith. Phillip Johnson remarked "if you want to know about the complexity of a single cell, think of NY city" Dawkins admitted in another "honest moment" that "the nucleus of each cell contains more info than all the encyclopedia Britannica volumes". Darwin didn't even know the nucleus of a cell EXISTED when he formulated his theory!

* In a course I took, the text book stated that scientists had never been able to re-create any of the DNA building blocks, "nucleotides" - even though they had totally synthesized the so called "primordial soup" conditions and had worked on this for years. I went to the local university to ask the best scientists we have here, if this statement in the book was true.  The scientists I asked about this told me the statement in the book was true and they had not been able to recreate the simplest building block of life as yet.

* National Geographic Magazine observed, in an issue about Australia that animals seemed to have developed there in a different sequence from other places with some of the more complex species appearing BEFORE the simpler ones!  (Australia is isolated so a good chance to observe "evolution" if it indeed exists).

* Finally, no one has been able to finding "the missing link" to modern man or "homo sapiens" ("wise man"). Early species of man are known to be dead ends, physically too different from homo sapiens (what we are) to be a link and besides, there is some evidence that some of these species may have existed concurrently with homo sapiens. Also, what paleontologists find are fragments of bones so they have to re-construct large parts of the body from theory - paleontology is NOT an "exact" science.  To illustrate this, one smart aleck buried a carefully prepared ape skull and then announced, an amazing "find" of "the missing link".  The scientific community was really excited about it and the find was headlined in the New York Times as "Piltdown man - Evolution proven true". The scientific community was defrauded for the following 30 years until some sharp shooter pointed out that this was a classic ape skull!

So, the niggling questions remain?  How did protein molecules turn into DNA or living entities?  Where did homo sapiens come from?

Hardcore evolutionists want us to believe that complex forms of life "just happened" ("spontaneous generation"), had no engineering, just were coincidences which Dawkins admits is, often "like magic"!

* "I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution." George Wald (Nobel prize for Medicine in 1967).
Wald, George: "Frontiers of Modern Biology on Theories of Origin of Life" (New York, Houghton Mifflin, 1972), p. 187.


The problem with this is, the rule of the universe is "entropy" i.e. if left alone, the flow is from the complex to the less complex and so to say that higher forms evolved from less complex forms is saying this evolving is going against all the scientific laws we know and defying 'entropy'.  The only way we know of overcoming 'entropy' is by the intervention of an outside intelligent, purposeful force.  This would indicate that even IF complex forms had "evolved" from simpler ones, the intervention of an intelligent Force would have been necessary and this would no longer be any type of Darwinism (or as it is called "Naturalism").

Can things "just appear" with no engineering?

For example, points out Levin in THIS PERFECT DAY if we visited Mars and saw a Nikon camera lying on the ground, we might think that the Russians beat us to landing there or that some other visitors had left the camera or even that the camera proves intelligent life might exist on Mars. But none of us would believe that the camera just "happened". We know that it is only, complex extensive engineering which will result in creating a good camera, a manufactured object which is far less complex than a single cell.

Thus, the more we discover, the less possible evolution becomes. Another theory though has emerged, a theory based on "the big bang" and repercussions, a theory which unlike evolution has a growing body of evidence. That theory is called "Intelligent Design" or I.D. and the overwhelming evidence has actually converted several scientists. Neil DeGrasse Tyson admits that "15 percent of the world's most brilliant scientists now believe in Intelligent Design and this is troubling".

But to date, our schools are still teaching the outdated unproven, improbable evolution and not even teaching "Intelligent Design" as a viable theory. Why is this?  Several reasons.  Atheism trumps everything in the schools and teachers are, in no way, allowed to mention God.  Also I find that even among scientists, few understand the complexities of "Intelligent Design", the evidence thereof which lies in cosmology, astrophysics and the like.  To understand it myself, I took a course FROM an astrophysicist and good thing it was on video because I had to play each video several times to understand it.  Intelligent Design would be difficult to teach for the average person, not willing to spend that type of time in exploring the scientific evidence.

So we teach our children (and unfortunately our college students also) a nice neat "just so story", a theory which is 150 years old and now just about totally disproven.  There is a word for this. Junk science.  But this is far less unsettling for the scientist than exploring what might really be true - as Jastrow put it....

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." - Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-proclaimed agnostic.

Article by SueW


Scientific American Sept 1978, on evolution

Johnson, Phillip: DARWIN ON TRIAL


Tyson, Neil DeGrasse: The Pluto Files (and multiple other videos available on line at youtube)

National Geographics



Return to the Net Abbey

Back to evolution page