Darwinists are masters at defining the term "evolution" broadly enough so that evidence in one situation might be counted as evidence in another. Unfortunately for them, the public is beginning to catch on to this tactic, thanks largely to the popular works of Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson. Johnson first exposed this Darwinistic sleight of hand with his groundbreaking book Darwin on Trial. That's where he points out that, "None of the 'proofs' [for natural selection provides any persuasive reason for believing that natural selection can produce new species, new organs, or other major changes, or even minor changes that are permanent."
Biologist Jonathan Wells agrees when he writes, "Biochemical mutations cannot explain the large-scale changes in organisms that we see in the history of life." Why can't natural selection do the job? Here are five reasons it can't.
Biologist Jonathan Wells agrees when he writes, "Biochemical mutations cannot explain the large-scale changes in organisms that we see in the history of life." Why can't natural selection do the job? Here are five reasons it can't.
Genetic Limits: Darwinists say that microevolution within types proves that macroevolution has occurred. If these small changes can occur over a short period of time, think what natural selection can do over a long period of time. Unfortunately for Darwinists, genetic limits seem to be built into the basic types. For example, dog breeders always encounter genetic limits when they intelligently attempt to create new breeds of dogs. Dogs may range in size from the Chihuahua to the Great Dane, but despite the best attempts of intelligent breeders, dogs always remain dogs.
Cyclical Change: Not only are there genetic limits to change within types, but the change within types appears to be cyclical. In other words, changes are not directional toward the development of new life forms, as macroevolutionary theory requires, but they simply shift back and forth within a limited range. For example, Darwin's finches had varying beak sizes, which correlated with the weather. Larger beaks helped crack larger, harder seeds during droughts, and smaller beaks worked fine when wetter weather brought an abundance of smaller, softer seeds. When the weather became drier, the proportion of finches with larger beaks grew relative to the smaller-beaked finches. The proportion reversed itself following a sustained period of wet weather. Notice that no new life forms came into existence (they always remained finches); only the relative proportion of existing large-beaked to small beaked finches changed. Notice also that natural selection cannot explain how finches came into existence in the first place. In other words, natural selection may be able to explain the survival of a species, but it cannot explain the arrival of a species.
Irreducible Complexity: In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." We now know that there are many organs, systems, and processes in life that fit that description. One of those is the cell. In Darwin's day the cell was a "black box-a mysterious little part of life that no one could see into. But now that we have the ability to peer into the cell, we see that life at the molecular level is immeasurably more complex than Darwin ever dreamed. In fact, it is irreducibly complex. An irreducibly complex system is "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. "Those are the words of Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, who wrote the revolutionary book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Behe's research verifies that living things are literally filled with molecular machines that perform the numerous functions of life. These molecular machines are irreducibly complex, meaning that all the parts of each machine must be completely formed, in the right places, in the right sizes, in operating order, at the same time, for the machine to function. A car engine is an example of an irreducibly complex system. If a change is made in the size of the pistons, this would require simultaneous changes in the cam shaft, block, cooling system, engine compartment, and other systems, or the new engine would not function. Behe shows that living things are irreducibly complex, just like a car engine.
With painstaking detail, he shows that numerous functions in the body-such as blood clotting, cilia (cell propulsion organisms), and vision-require irreducibly complex systems that could not have developed in the gradual Darwinian fashion. Why? Because intermediates would be nonfunctional. As with a car engine, all the right parts must be in place in the right size at the same time for there to be any function at all. You can build an engine part by part (and that takes intelligence), but you can't drive to work with only a partial engine under the hood. Nor could you drive to work if one essential part of your engine were modified but others were not. In the same way, living systems quickly would become nonfunctional if they were modified piece by piece. The degree of irreducible complexity in living things is mind boggling. Behe's discoveries are fatal for Darwinism.
Irreducible complexity means that new life cannot come into existence by the Darwinian method of slight, successive changes over a long period of time. Darwinism is akin to natural forces without any intelligent help-producing a running car engine (i.e., an amoeba) and then modifying that irreducibly complex engine into successive intermediate engines until those natural forces finally produce the space shuttle (i.e., a human being). Darwinists can't explain the source of the materials to make an engine, much less how any irreducibly complex engine came to be in the first place. Nor can they demonstrate the unintelligent process by which any engine has evolved into the space shuttle while providing propulsion at every intermediate step. This is evident from the complete absence of explanations from Darwinists for how irreducibly complex systems could arise gradually.
Nonviability of Transitional Forms: Another problem that plagues the plausibility of natural selection creating new life forms is the fact that transitional forms could not survive. For example, consider the Darwinian assertion that birds evolved gradually from reptiles over long periods of time. This would necessitate a transition from scales to feathers. How could a creature survive that no longer has scales but does not quite have feathers? Feathers are irreducibly complex. A creature with the structure of half a feather has no ability to fly. It would be easy prey on land, in water, and from the air. And as a halfway house between rep tiles and birds, it probably wouldn't be adept at finding food for itself either. So, the problem for Darwinists is twofold: first, they have no viable mechanism for getting from reptiles to birds; and second, even if a viable mechanism were discovered, the transitional forms would be unlikely to survive anyway.
Molecular Isolation: Darwinists often say that evidence of common descent lies in the fact that all living things contain DNA. all related, including bacteria, is the universality of the genetic code and other biochemical fundamentals. "Darwinists think the DNA similarity between apes and humans, for example, which some say is 85 to over 95 percent," strongly implies an ancestral relationship. But is this evidence for common ancestry or for a common creator? It could be interpreted either way. Perhaps the Darwinists are right-it is possible that we have a common genetic code because we've all descended from a common ancestor. But they could just as easily be wrong perhaps we a have a common genetic code because a common creator has designed us to live in the same biosphere. After all, if every living creature were distinct biochemically, a food chain probably could not exist. Perhaps life with a different biochemical makeup is not possible. And even if it is, perhaps it couldn't survive in this biosphere. Does similarity and progression prove that the kettle evolved from the teaspoon? No.
Similarity and progression does not automatically imply common ancestry. In this case we know it means there is a common creator or designer. This is the same situation we have for real living things. As we said before, the capacity of the DNA genetic alphabet to contain a message is equivalent to the capacity of the English alphabet to contain a message (the only difference is that the DNA alphabet has only four letters versus twenty-six for the English alphabet). Since all living things have DNA with its four nitrogen containing bases (represented by the letters A, T, C, and G), we would expect a high degree of similarity in the information among creatures whether or not they are ancestrally related. Let's use an example from English to illustrate what we mean. Here are two sentences with exactly the same letters:
Charles Darwin was a scientific god.
Charles Darwin was a scientific dog.
While the letters in the two sentences are identical and the order is virtually the same (greater than 90 percent), the slight difference in order yields opposite meanings. In the same way, only a slight difference in the order of the letters (A, T, C, and G) in living things may yield creatures that are far apart on the hypothetical evolutionary tree. For example, while some studies show that the DNA similarity between humans and the most similar ape may be about 90 percent, other studies show the DNA similarity between humans and mice is also about 90 percent. 16 Such comparisons are controversial and are not completely understood. More research needs to be done in this field. But if mice genetically are as close to humans as apes, this would greatly complicate any Darwinian explanation. But let's suppose that further studies someday show that ape DNA is indeed closer to humans than the DNA of any other creature. This would not prove the Darwinists' conclusion that there is an ancestral relationship. Again, the reason for the similarity could be a common creator rather than a common ancestor. We must find other evidence at the molecular level to help us discover whether the common genetic code is evidence of a common ancestor or of a common creator. That other evidence has been found-by comparing protein sequences. Proteins are the building blocks of life. They are composed of long chains of chemical units called amino acids. Most proteins have in their structure more than 100 of these amino acids, which must be in a very specific order. It's the DNA that contains the instructions for ordering the amino acids in the proteins, and the order is critical because any variation usually renders the protein dysfunctional. Here's where the problem arises for Darwinists. If all species share a common ancestor, we should expect to find protein sequences that are transitional from, say, fish to amphibian, or from reptile to mammal. But that's not what we find at all. Instead, we find that the basic types are molecularly isolated from one another, which seems to preclude any type of ancestral relationship. Michael Denton observes, At a molecular level there is no trace of the evolutionary transition from fish amphibian reptile mammal. So amphibia, always traditionally considered intermediate between fish and the other terrestrial vertebrates, are in molecular terms as far from fish as any group of reptiles or mammals! To those well acquainted with the traditional picture of vertebrate evolution the result is truly astonishing. So even though all organisms share a common genetic code with varying degrees of closeness, that code has ordered the amino acids in proteins in such a way that the basic types are in molecular isolation from one another. There are no Darwinian transitions, only distinct molecular gaps. Darwinists cannot explain the presence of these molecular gaps by natural selection.
Fossil Records: Without the benefit of today's technology, Charles Darwin could not recognize the problems his theory faced at the cellular level. However, he did recognize that the fossil record posed a big problem for his theory because it didn't show gradualism. That's why he wrote, “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” But Darwin thought that further fossil discoveries would reveal that his theory was true. Time has proven him wrong. Contrary to what you may hear in the general media, the fossil record has turned out to be a complete embarrassment for Darwinists. If Darwinism were true, we would have found thousands, if not millions, of transitional fossils by now. Instead, according to the late Harvard palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould (an evolutionist), The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1). Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear, Morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2). Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'
In other words, Gould is admitting that fossil types appear suddenly, fully formed, and remain the same until extinction without any directional change exactly what one would expect to find if creation were true. The main point here is that the fossil record actually lines up better with supernatural creation than with macroevolution. Indeed, there aren't missing links-there's a missing chain! There is no chain because nearly all of the major groups of animals known to exist appear in the fossil record abruptly and fully formed in strata from the Cambrian period (which many scientists estimate to have occurred between 600 and 500 million years ago). Jonathan Wells writes, "The fossil evidence is so strong, and the event so dramatic, that it has become known as 'the Cambrian explosion," or 'biology's big bang.” "This evidence, of course, is completely inconsistent with Darwinism. All animal groups appear separately, fully formed, and at the same time. That's not evidence of gradual evolution but of instantaneous creation.
So the Darwinian tree we are so used to seeing doesn't properly illustrate the real fossil record. In fact, as Wells observes, "if any botanical analogy were appropriate, it would be a lawn rather than a tree.” And that lawn would have patches of different grasses or plants separated by large areas of nothing but dirt. At this point you may be thinking, "But what about the skull progression we're so used to seeing? Doesn't it appear that man has evolved from apes? “How can you ignore the fossils? The skulls look like they're in a progression. They look as if they could be ancestrally related. Is this good evidence for Darwinism? No, it's not any better than the evidence that the large kettle evolved from the teaspoon.
The problem for the Darwinists is that the fossil record cannot establish ancestral relationships. Why not? Because, according to Michael Denton, "99 percent of the biology of any organism resides in its soft anatomy, which is inaccessible in a fossil.” In other words, it's extremely difficult to discover the biological makeup of a creature by looking at its fossil remains. Jonathan Wells observes, "The fossil evidence is open to many interpretations because individual specimens can be reconstructed in a variety of ways, and because the fossil record cannot establish ancestor-descendant relationships. "But this doesn't stop the Darwinists. Since Darwinism has to be true because of their prior philosophical commitment, Darwinists have to find evidence supporting it. So instead of admitting that fossils can't establish ancestral relationships, Darwinists take the one percent that fossils tell them and then use the other 99 percent of leeway to depict their fossil discoveries as filling any gap they want. With such vast lee way and no facts to constrain them, Darwinists have been free to creatively build entire "missing links" from fossil remains as trivial as a single tooth. This is why many so-called "missing links" have later been exposed as frauds or mistakes."
According to Behe, biology dwarfs anatomy on the question of the plausibility of macroevolution. Just as the contents of a book provide far more information than its cover, the biology of a creature provides far more information than its skeletal structure. Nevertheless, Darwinists have long argued that similarity of structure between, say, apes and humans is evidence of common ancestry (or common descent). Does it ever dawn on them that similarity of structure may be evidence of a common designer rather than a common ancestor? After all, in a world governed by certain physical and chemical laws, perhaps only a certain range of anatomical structures will be conducive to animals designed to walk on two legs. Since we all have to live in the same biosphere, we should expect some creatures to have similar designs.
Moreover, while apes may have a similar structure to humans, what is often overlooked is the fact that apes and humans bear almost no resemblance to snakes, fungus, and trees. But according to Darwinism, all living things have evolved from the same ancestor. To posit Darwinism, you must be able to explain the vast dissimilarity between living things. You must explain how the palm tree, the peacock, the octopus, the locust, the bat, the hippopotamus, the porcupine, the sea horse, the Venus flytrap, the human, and mildew, for example, have all descended from the first irreducibly complex life without intelligent intervention. You also have to explain how the first life and the universe came into existence as well. Without viable explanations, which Darwinists have failed to provide, it takes too much faith to be a Darwinist. And that's why we don't have enough faith to be Darwinists.
Made with Bullet