Evolution Debunked

Real science is about evidence, and the best evidence does not support evolution as the origin of species. Evolution Debunked is an introduction to some of the scientific problems with the theory of evolution.

What is science? Science is a methodology that involves the formulation of an hypothesis in regards to a specific question, such as the origins of life. That hypothesis is then accepted, refuted, or modified based on evidence from observation and experiment.

For some reason, whenever the subject of evolution is brought up this methodology is thrown out, and the starting point becomes that evolution is an absolute fact. When someone operates on assumption and presumption rather than evidence, they are being dogmatic, not scientific. Yet this is exactly how the subject of evolution is taught in schools, dealt with in the media, and addressed within the scientific establishment.

It's not all a bunch of flat-earthers and crack-pots who are opposed to evolution, but there are real scientists who are voicing real criticisms, based on real evidence. The following is an introduction to some of the more significant issues that they raise.

Evolution posits that all lifeforms evolved from simpler ones, going back to some early proto-lifeform. There is no plausible explanation for how this proto-lifeform could have gotten started. For evolution to occur, this proto-lifeform would have had to have been able to make copies of itself, and it is not possible that such a self-replicating machine came into existence by chance.

Life operates through proteins (think of proteins as tiny chemical machines) replicating themselves via a genetic code. The genetic code (usually DNA) acts as a blueprint for the structure of the proteins. Then the proteins "read" the DNA to make copies of themselves. Proteins need matching DNA to replicate themselves, and the DNA requires certain proteins to replicate itself. If the DNA or genetic code does not match up with the proteins, then the cell cannot make copies of itself, but will instead produce random organic material.

Protein machinery, and a matching genetic blueprint are only the beginning of what is necessary for life to get started. Both of these systems require cellular metabolism, or energy, to function together. Also, the first cell would need some kind of cell membrane to keep itself together. This barrier would not only have to selectively let in certain necessary substances (such as food), but also remove waste products. Even the simplest organisms in the world have to meet these basic requirements to survive and reproduce. No other arrangement has ever been found, or even proposed, that can do this in a simpler way. The idea that all these precise processes and components came together to make life, even one time, is preposterous.

There is a serious lack of continuity in the fossil record. There have been many strange and wonderful creatures in the long history of this planet, but a peculiar lack of connectors between them. If evolution were a reality, then bugs, plants, lizards, mammals and everything else should have a nice chain of descent in the fossil record, as one species gradually changed into another. In fact, at certain points in the fossil record it should be difficult to tell various groups of organisms apart from eachother, because they would be branching off from one basic type. Overwhelmingly, this is not the case. Pick one creature at random and try to trace its fossilized evolutionary record, and you will hit a wall. Evolutionists love to cherry-pick what they think are examples of species changing into other species, but looking at the fossil record as a whole the theory of evolution is not supported. Simply arranging species into a fictitious evolutionary tree does not prove evolution, but rather there needs to be a gradual transition from one species to another.

Natural selection is basically trial and error. Trial and error over long periods of time could drastically change a species, however, there are limitations on what it can accomplish. Many biological systems could not have come about through this process. Take a rattle snake for example. It has specialized venom producing glands, hollow teeth, ducts, connectors, and muscles that are all rigged up to perform a certain function, which is to paralyze its prey. The hollow teeth are useless without the venom glands, and the glands without the hollow teeth. So which part came first? No part by itself is of any use to the snake, and if they are not hooked up right they would likely cause more harm than good. This system could not have evolved because all of the different parts and structures are interdependent on eachother to perform a useful function for the organism. How could something evolve gradually over time if it offers no benefit to the creature until it has finished evolving?

This example is not the exception, but rather the general rule of how life operates, especially at the microscopic level. Immune systems, reproductive systems, photosynthesis, muscle and nerve cells, are all examples of biological systems that could not have come about through natural selection. They require a high degree of specificity in their design to be useful within the organism, and therefore their existence is incompatible with the theory of evolution. Evolutionists try to get around this by describing how things supposedly "evolved" using very general and vague terms. These "gradual change" explanations might be appropriate for explaining superficial characteristics like the shape of a bird's beak, but they fail to account for the underlying chemical processes and systems that support life.

Does all this mean that evolution should be banned and the bible taught in its place? No, but some fairness and candor about the subject would be nice. Evolution is not a done deal, and grows farther from it everyday. Certainly it is an interesting idea that is worth investigating, but it is by no means a fact the way that special relativity or cell theory are facts. The reality is that there are no natural processes, either discovered or proposed, that can satisfactorily explain the origin of species.

Many talented scientists have done work that is devastating to the theory of evolution. Two such people are Michael J. Behe and Stephen C. Meyer. Some of their writings are available online:

Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference. By: Michael J. Behe

Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories. By: Stephen C. Meyer

Comments

Chronick 26 Oct 2009, 02:28

Hello sir,

I read your post and I disagree with what you are saying.

That dogmatic certainty that you mentioned in the beginning of your post is evident throughout your whole post. Your 'facts' are very selective and incomplete. I would recommend doing more research on microbiology before you write your 'facts'. You are missing out on the big picture and just focusing on a small part and calling it preposterous because you are not seeing it in context.

The fossil record is far from being complete. It is very rare that an organism dies in the exact conditions needed for its remains to go through mineralization and become rock. Of course we don't have a complete flowing record. We have only really began recording fossils in this past century or so. The tree is merely a guideline, scientists are aware that there is so much more discover and there are many uncovered branches yet to be found.

With the rattlesnake example, you are missing the big picture. There was a venomous animal that was a precursor to the rattlesnake as we know it. You say (with dogmatic certainty) that the function is to paralyze prey. The actual function is to aid the snake in receiving energy. That has been the underlying function of mouth parts since they first appeared. Paralyzing prey is merely an adaptation to further assist the snake. The mouth parts have always been benefiting the snake and all other creatures with mouth parts. You come across as saying that the snakes mouth parts were useless until they were able to accomplish what modern rattlesnake mouth parts can accomplish.

"Immune systems, reproductive systems, photosynthesis, muscle and nerve cells, are all examples of biological systems that could not have come about through natural selection." Again with the dogmatic certainty (I see a theme here). You are missing the big picture. It makes it very hard for me to believe that you have done any research on evolution besides rephrasing what anti-evolutionists have said. Do you understand how evolution works?

There are four major mechanisms of Evolution. Natural selection is only one. Mutation, gene flow, and genetic drift are the others. Please learn the subject on both sides before you make such an empty attack.

Doug Buckley 27 Oct 2009, 16:34

Chronick:
Your response is typical of how the subject of evolution is dealt with in schools and the media. You've assumed that the theory of evolution is a fact, and therefore the evidence against it is invalid, and not worth considering.

Rather than explaining how organic chemicals could combine to form the protein systems of life, you simply shrug it off as being a nonissue, and out of context. If by "out of context" you mean free from the usual whitewash, then I guess it is. Yet it's obvious to most people who have studied biology that all life is inherently complex, and that this complexity had to get started at some point in the past for evolution to have occurred. Abiogenesis is not just a gap, but a gaping hole in the theory of evolution.

Then there's the issue of the fossil record. If by an "incomplete" fossil record you mean one that does not support the theory of evolution, then you're correct. People have been hunting fossils around the world for well over a hundred years, and with all the various specimens that have been found, the proof of evolution is noticeably absent. Even as recent as the extinction of the dinosaurs, there should be evidence that a rat-like mammal branched off to form everything from lions to goats to camels. Instead its all just a bunch of supposition and fanciful artwork, disguised as fact.

With the rattle snake example, you said that the venom delivery system is an adaptation of the snake's overall digestive system, which does not address the issue. The snake would first need the biochemical pathways to make the toxins. It would also need a way of collecting and storing the toxins that does not damage its own tissues, as well as a way of releasing them at the right time and place. Even assuming that some of this took place as part of its digestive system, that still doesn't explain the fangs. Unless they have a complete narrow channel running through them, and are properly hooked up to the right glands, they offer no selective advantage.

Lastly, you seem to be a bit confused about evolution itself. The proposed mechanism of macro-evolution (which is what we are talking about when discussing the origin of species) is natural selection acting on random mutation. So-called "genetic drift" and "gene flow" describe changes in the frequency of certain existing genes within a population, but are not considered to be possible mechanisms of macro-evolution.

Hit button once. This comment form does not display links.
If you make a mistake, wait a minute, repost, and I will delete the first one.
Powered by Scriptsmill Comments Script.

Articles/Essays

What are we being saved from in Christ?

Is faith enough, or do we also need works?

Risen from the Dust

Why does Jesus say that those believing in him will never die?

Will people be tormented forever in the Lake of Fire?

The three different types of biblical resurrection...

Do people have spiritual souls within their bodies?

Bible Questions

Do we need to repent for our sins and dead works more than once?

Are the bible codes real, or is something else going on?

Fellowship