Can this theory on the evolution of human appearance be flawed?

This is what a friend of mine said:

When there's human offspring, it will look a rough 'medium' between the two parents, with it sharing features from the two. well if the offspring of one set of parents has sex with the offspring of another set, the outcome becomes a 'medium' of those two. So the range from what we shall call 'completely average looks' (a hypothetical state of the average of everyone in the world, which is acceptable as we're looking at a process of millions of years) becomes less and less the further into the future we go. Eventually, there is almost no range between people and 'completely average looks'.

In summary: take the hypothetical average of everyone in the world, and because the offspring of two people is a slight mixture of those two people, they are a tiny bit closer to the hypothetical average of everyone in the world, which means that eventually people will be getting closer and closer to this average, so will one day look the same. So he's suggesting that slowly people will become more and more similar.

My argument is that, although this baby may be that tiny bit closer to the overall average, they're new look has effectively altered the average, meaning that they aren't actually getting closer to the average.

I'd like an opinion and flaw from some experts, such as yourselves, so please…

Quantitative genetics is one reason why this doesn't happen. For example height is affected by many genetic loci, not just 1 gene, and we can for the sake of the following illustration call them Locus A through Locus J - 10 Loci.

Now this is purely illustrative and hypothetical - in actuality there are some differences between this example and the real world, but nevertheless I shall plough on. Imagine everyone carries a basic set of genes which makes them 150cm tall. Loci A-J each have two alleles, either T or t, with one inherited from each parent. Each T allele adds 2.5cm to the basic height per copy (each parent has two copies, one goes to the offspring) and t has no effect. The parents are both heterozygous at each loci, that is they have one T and one t at each pair of loci. Therefore both parents are 175cm tall.

When these parents mate the offspring inherit one copy of each parent at random. As such the most likely single outcome is that the offspring will inherit 10 T's and 10 t's - roughly five of each from each parent. However, purely by chance they could receive 10 T alleles from each parent, giving them a height of 150+(20*2.5) = 200cm. Likewise, a sibling could also inherit only t alleles thus giving them a height of 150+(0*2.5)= 150cm. Thus variation can actually increase from one generation to the next.

There are other reasons why we do not regress to the mean as well, but I am writing a quick answer over breakfast, but I will be in the office soon where I can get some more thorough explanations from text books. E.g. (Dis)assortative mating, Mutation, Recombination, Environmental variance, Selection. However, with the increase in global movement it has become easier for dominant alleles to spread which is why the number of blue eyed people in the US is decreasing.

Here is an interesting article which backs up what I said about quantitative genetics, called "Will humans eventually all look like brazilians?" Also for good quantitative genetics texts take this as a basic intro and this for further reading.

The basic point your friend is missing is that offspring appearance is not simply a mixture of their parents'. Each child also has individual characteristics which were not present in the parents. This is due to a variety of processes, the most important of which is chromosomal cross over.

Each offspring will be a mixture of its parents and its own individual characteristics. Therefore, your friend's argument does not stand because each generation causes novel characteristics to appear so each successive generation changes in unpredictable ways.

Here's another take on it:

Suppose, for starters that you have only one gene that is responsible for your trait. Say, having version 1 (denoted T) gives you +1 to height, and having version 2 (denoted t) gives you -1. Suppose further that each version occurs in half the population. Now every individual has 2 copies of each gene, so that 1/4 of people has TT for +2, 1/4 has tt for -2 and 1/2 has Tt or tT for 0 change in height.

Now suppose two people with Tt or tT mate. If traits followed simple averaging pattern your friend suggested we would get the average of 0 and 0, that is 0 - all the time. But in genetic model (which is what really happens) 1/4 of the ofspring will get TT for +2, 1/4 will get tt for -2 and only 1/2 will actually get tT ot Tt for 0. Note that the variance - amount of variation - increases (everyone was 0 before mating, but some of the offspring has +2 or -2), whereas with the "mixing" model this does not happen.

For another mating paring - TT with tT - 1/2 of offspring will have TT for +2 and 1/2 will have tT for 0, effectively replacing the parents, so that the amount of variation stays the same (since the mean of the population is 0 variance contribution of these two individuals is 2^2+0^2=4 in both parental and offspring populations). Note that the mixing model would have all offspring at +1, which decreases the amount of variation (variance contribution going from 4 to 1^2+1^2=2).

In general, the mixing model of mating always decreases variance - leading to the "everyone looks average" result in the long run, but the actual genetic mating keeps variance constant (unless another factor - like preferential mating, mutation, or environmental factors intervenes; this was pointed out in other answers).

The same thing happens if the proportion of T and t are not 50-50. This is called the Hardy-Weinberg principle.

Finally, if there are many genes that contribute to height, the variance in a trait (like height) can be modeled as the sum of variances from each gene. Now if each one of the genes is inherited through the same genetic mechanism that preserves variance, the total variance will also be preserved. So we will not actually all become "average".

How Biology Affects Self-Perception

Science proves what many of us have long thought to be true: Women’s self-esteem is based more on their physical attractiveness, while men’s self-esteem is based more on their relative status and flow of resources. Evolutionary psychology explains why.

Humans evaluate potential mates based on a number of factors, all of them shaped by evolution to assist us in selecting the most viable mate. Women evaluate men based on their dominance, status, masculinity and good health. Because women are looking for a mate who can protect and provide for potential offspring, the physical traits generally found to be sexually attractive in men are those classic high-testosterone indicators of broad chests and shoulders, strong chins and muscular upper bodies.

Men, for their part, are looking for a fertile, healthy woman who would make a capable mother. Waist-to-hip ratio happens to be one of the strongest indicators of fertility and health in women. Now, because men are mainly seeking a fertile, healthy woman and because these are attributes men can assess through a woman’s appearance (mainly her waist-to-hip ratio), men’s evaluations of women as potential mates focus more heavily on a woman’s appearance. A woman’s evaluation of a man as a potential mate, on the other hand, does take appearance into account but also includes his status in society, his dominance over other men and his access to resources.

You see where this is going, yes?

Because women have been evaluated based on their appearance since the dawn of humanity, women naturally care more—and worry more—about their appearance than men do. Men, of course, have their own set of issues to worry about. If a man can’t find a good job or has trouble providing for his family, he feels emasculated. From an evolutionary perspective, he’s not being a good mate. It’s not about society conditioning women to be superficial or men to be bread-winning workaholics it’s about what evolution has ingrained in the human species.

But does this also apply to self-perception?

Hallowell (1949, cited in Barkow, 1978) reports that one’s self-perception, in general, can be the product of evolution. Similarly, Buss and Schmitt (1993, pp. 221 and 230) state that evolutionary characteristics may influence self-evaluation. But, no one had actually empirically verified this. So, in research I conducted examining Whites and Blacks’ self-perceptions I confirmed that one’s assessment of her/his sexual attractiveness and physical attractiveness are also influenced by biological adaptations and that physical and sexual attractiveness are different. I found that evolutionary biological criteria apply to physical and sexual attractiveness for White women, but more so for sexual attractiveness, and that African American women evaluate themselves based more on their sexual attractiveness. This difference is most likely due to social conditioning: because many of the models of physical attractiveness are White women, Black women refrain from judging their own physical attractiveness on these criteria. They focus instead on sexual attractiveness, which, evolutionarily speaking, is more important. This difference is consistent with how evolutionary processes can be affected by one’s environment as Crawford and Anderson (1989) point out. Nevertheless, it is clear that biology also affects self-perception.

Barkow, J. H. (1978). Social Norms, the Self, and Sociobiology: Building on the Ideas of AI Hallowell [and Comments and Reply]. Current Anthropology, 19(1), 99-118.

Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: A contextual evolutionary analysis of human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.

Crawford, C. E., & Anderson, J. L. (1989). Sociobiology: An environmental discipline? American Psychologist, 44, 1449-1459.

Wade, T. J. (2003). Evolutionary theory and African American self-perception: Sex differences in body-esteem predictors of self-perceived physical and sexual attractiveness, and self-esteem. Journal of Black Psychology, 29(2), 123-141.

Wade, T. J. (2000). Evolutionary theory and Self‐perception: Sex differences in body esteem predictors of Self‐perceived physical and sexual attractiveness and Self‐Esteem. International Journal of Psychology, 35(1), 36-45.

On pathological science: Darwinian evolution and the devaluing of man

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

May 13, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) &ndash Questions regarding such theories as the origins of the universe, the emergence of life on earth, the meaning of human existence, and the concept of personhood are more pivotal to contemporary intellectual thought than ever before. These questions, which form the undergirding platform for the most existential controversies of our time, and the inevitable answers to these questions, wield momentous implications and consequences for science, technology, and society as a whole, profoundly impacting civilization and humanity itself. The contemporary response to these theoretical concepts is the ideological triad of, secularism, relativism, and materialism (SRM). SRM constitutes a new world religion and the prophets of this New Age creed are Darwin, Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx. 

The basic tenets of this new dogma are essentially this: (1) Secularism &ndash that nature is mechanistic, a self-perpetuating, self-validating, evolutionary automaton encompassing the sum total of reality. And, employing Occam&rsquos Razor, with a Nihilistic twist, if there is no creation, it follows that there can be no talk of a creator. (2) Relativism &ndash that there are no absolute truths, (viz., moral virtues), that constitute the undergirding concepts which ground the ideas &ldquoright&rdquo and &ldquowrong.&rdquo Instead, relativism asserts that all moral talk is comprised of pseudo-moral statements, artificial constructions, devoid of objective reality and (3) Materialism &ndash that Man is a purely material being, bearing no distinction from any other material being save for the fact that his existence is inherently harmful to the rest of the natural world, but that, nevertheless, on his own &ndash through social and biological engineering &ndash he is capable of modifying his own nature.  

Alone secularism, relativism, and materialism constitute largely unsustainable philosophical positions but the triad, SRM, emerges as the new orthodoxy, a militant belief system. Its adherents are zealous and dogmatic, indeed evangelical, in their mission to indoctrinate the unbeliever. 

In short, SRM is a world view based on methodological naturalism in the absence of absolutes, and buttressed by the Darwinian myth about the descent of Man &ndash that anthropological fantasy that the human being is merely an outcropping of an evolutionary chain of random events.

The consequences of SRM are vitiating. SRM makes possible &ndash and inevitable &ndash the exploitation of the environment, and all sentient species, including human beings, where human personhood is utterly de-valued and eviscerated (e.g., abortion, genocide, slavery (human trafficking of all stripes). SRM&rsquos vicious disregard for personhood has been justified by the secular materialists&rsquo creed of relativism, rationalized by Darwin&rsquos theory of evolution. 

Darwinian evolution 

In 1953, Nobel laureate Irving Langmuir coined the expression &ldquoPathological Science&rdquo as the &ldquoscience of things that aren&rsquot so&rdquo.  Nowhere is this more applicable theory than Darwin&rsquos theory of evolution. 

Today, in academia and throughout all public discourse, Darwin&rsquos theory is presented as fact, something clearly and definitively known by scientific authority &ndash it is never questioned, never referred to as a hypothesis. From elementary school through college, students are indoctrinated by the dogma&rsquos tenets, they are required to memorize its particulars and to recite its details on exams and in oral presentations without scrutiny or critical analysis. This is a strange and puzzling attitude, because it is incumbent upon educators and scientists of all stripes to vet stories, hypotheses, and theories presented as facts but requiring validation or proof. Following the Scientific Method, it should obligate us to apply the same rigor to Darwinian dogma as we do to all other scientific claims.  Nevertheless, Darwinian dogma is strangely viewed as a belief system, which is committed to memory by the devoted, expounded upon with unerring reverence, and taught in the hushed tones of scribes solemnly pouring over revered texts.  Modern educators, like clerics, preach to students as if they were disciples, with something akin to an evangelical fervor. We should be alarmed that in teaching Darwin&rsquos theory of evolution we are preaching a pseudo-religious ideology. It is that ideology which is espoused by SRM as the genuine creed&mdashsupplanting Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. And anyone who might dare to question this new dogma is cast out of the assembly as an infidel, to be derided and vilified as a heretic. 

The fact is Darwin&rsquos theory is incomplete and unverifiable &ndash something that Darwin himself confessed.   It has never been substantiated by evidentiary proof (such as a discovery of a so-called &ldquomissing link&rdquo). No one repudiates the fact that Darwin&rsquos theory contains many contradictions, and broken chains of explanatory reasoning (ranging from organisms of &ldquoirreducible complexity&rdquo, to the Cambrian explosion).   Indeed, a growing body of scientists, including biochemists, cosmologists, paleontologists, embryologists, and geneticists, have found Darwin&rsquos main hypothesis &ndash namely, evolution by way of an unguided process of random events and environmental dynamics &ndash to be lacking explanatory depth or validity. 

A principal concern of these scientific authorities emanate from the theory&rsquos inadequate ability to explain the highly ordered complexity, and mind-boggling variety found in Nature.  Indeed, the intricacy, diversity, poetic beauty, and mathematical precision of biological organisms seem rather to suggest deliberate process, which we have come to designate &ldquoIntelligent Design.&rdquo   

Perhaps we can account for the inadequacies of his theory, if we reflect that Darwin &ndash though once a deeply religious man &ndash began to doubt the correlative relationship he once believed existed between God and Man. As his world view became secular, his theory took shape upon open questions and fabulous conjectures. But neither Darwin nor his contemporary Wallace, were in any way revolutionary in their hypothesis about evolutionary changes to explain the nature of the physical earth and its life forms. An amusing example can be found in the beliefs of the Ionian philosopher-scientist Anaximander (565 B.C.) who believed that human beings evolved from fish.

And many early scientists, in studying the natural world, assumed &ldquospontaneous generation&rdquo was responsible for the appearance of life forms which they had not discovered before.

A surprising example can even be found in the Medieval philosophy of St. Augustine (354-430 A.D.) who believed that God created through the word (logos), and the word found its expression in an unfolding (evolution) of things over time, according to a Divine Plan (Logoi spermatikoi).

In short, there is nothing whatsoever unique or novel about Darwin&rsquos concept of evolution in general.

Actually, Darwin&rsquos version had been rejected and debunked in his own day, by his own contemporaries&hellip. Why then did it &ldquosprout legs&rdquo (to use an idiom of evolution)?

Darwin&rsquos theory of evolution was eagerly embraced by secular philosophers of his century, such as Nietzsche. We can trace its ascendancy in the United States back to the radical campus movement of the 1960&rsquos a period during which a vocal community of discontent academics and cultural elite were preoccupied with challenging traditional authority of every kind &ndash moral, social, and political. And these &ldquoanarchists&rdquo found a perfect vehicle in Darwin&rsquos ideas. This failed theory became a mechanism to explain away God to dispense with the &ldquoWatchmaker&rdquo, and in so doing, liberate individuals from the Ultimate Authority &ndash and laws, altogether.

The theory of evolution took root. And the pernicious ideology of relativism spread like a noxious weed.

But what about his central tenets? Do they have any validity?

It turns out there are many fatal problems with Darwinian evolution. Let us consider a few of the many flaws and inconsistencies and inadequacies of Evolution.

What is life?

The biggest problem with any effort to explain the origins of Life, is that no one understands what it is.

Life is not merely intrinsic and essential biological existence only: it is not mere matter.

It is consciousness, a state of being entailing awareness &ndash if even at a most primitive level.

It is the real which transcends the corporeal.

The cells of a strand of hair are not aware amoeba, are.

The fallen leaf is not sensible the hemoglobin coursing through a squirrel&rsquos veins, is.

Moreover, while Man certainly can clinically duplicate the essential facts, events and conditions that permit and sustain Life, he cannot transform that prepared set of organic substance and primed conditions to actual living state. There is some energy, some reality, here at work, which transcends the purely corporeal world. Perhaps something&hellip. spiritual.

So: if we can not even say with any understanding what Life is, how can we be so arrogant as to claim we know how it began?

The question of what Life is, and how it occurred to begin with, is beyond the scope of science. Therefore, any scientist who claims to know makes a theological claim based on religious beliefs, not scientific knowledge.

Evolution: Not Science, Pseudoscience

A duck dressed as a scientist is still a duck. And a pseudoscientific theory dressed up like real science is still pseudoscience. That just leaves the question: is evolution pseudoscience? Fortunately, that’s an easy question to answer: yes. And even better, you don’t need to be a scientist to recognize a pseudoscience, just as you don’t need to be a doctor to recognize the difference between a human and a non-human like a duck. Anyone who knows what a “human” and a “duck” is can easily discern the difference. And anyone who knows what “science” and “pseudoscience” is will likewise easily discern the difference.

As you are probably already aware, a favored tactic of proponents of evolution is to label both Creation and Intelligent Design disciplines as “pseudosciences.” The irony of course being that it is a trivial matter to demonstrate that Darwinian goo-to-you evolution is the epitome of a pseudoscience. Yet regardless of how clear the evidence is, you will never, ever get an evolutionist to acknowledge that Darwinian molecules-to-man evolution is a pseudoscience. So in this article we’ll first take a look at how Darwinian evolution fits the definition of a pseudoscience perfectly then press on to demonstrate how evolution breaks a number of the known laws of science further proving it to be pseudoscience in spite of their protestations that “it’s science.”

According to the bastion of popular secular knowledge known as Wikipedia, a pseudoscience is:

“…a claim, belief, or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method. A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.”[1]

So one cannot know whether something is a pseudoscience until one first understands the scientific method. Again, according to Wikipedia, the scientific method is:

“a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as “a method or
procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”[2]

Evolution fits the definition of a pseudoscience

Evolution fits every criteria necessary to be identified as a pseudoscience:

Fits defintion – 1. “Presented as Scientific”
The claim that evolution is “presented as scientific” is so ubiquitous, a defense of that statement is not at all necessary. But but to leave no stone un-turned, I offer this page from the National Academy of Science that states evolution is both science theory and fact.[3]

Fits definition – 2. “But which does not adhere to the scientific method”
The definition of the scientific process is listed above. Below is a nice diagram of the process:

Though one is sufficient, we’ll look at two places in the process where evolution fails to follow the scientific method: A. (Unable to) Make Observations and B. (Unable to) Develop Testable Predictions

Fails Scientific Method A. (Unable to) “Make Observations”
Goo-to-you evolution fails the very first step in the process, because it cannot be observed:

1) No one has ever observed life come from non-living molecules, cells or animals. Life always comes from life, without exception. Yet this belief (abiogenesis – which we’ll return to later) is a core belief of evolutionists. Evolutionists must believe this since there simply is no other alternative once you rule out the living God as the source of all life.

And what do they substitute for observation? Bad reasoning:

The undeniable fact is that non-living materials must have formed into living materials at least once. If not through spontaneous generation, then how? [4]
Documentary: How Life began

This is common evolutionist reasoning, but it is totally flawed. It’s like coming home and finding a body dead apparently from gunshot wounds, a smoking gun, and only your spouse and the family goldfish in the room – and there is gun powder residue on your spouse’s hand. And from this you conclude the goldfish must have done it because you know your spouse couldn’t have done it. Never mind it is impossible for your goldfish to have fired the gun, the idea of your spouse doing it is so repellent, you simply can’t even seriously consider the possibility. So it is with evolutionists and God – the idea of God creating all life on earth is so repellent to evolutionists, they won’t even consider it, and prefer instead to believe in the fantasy that processes that are known to be incapable of creating life, created life.

2) No one has ever observed the evolution of one type of animal to another type of animal. The change in finch beaks that Darwin observed in the Galapagos, for example, was not evolution from one kind to another. It was natural selection in operation. There’s a more current example: Elephant tusks are getting smaller. Why? Because poachers are killing elephants with the bigger tusks leaving the ones with the smaller tusks to breed and reproduce.[5] So the overall effect is a population of elephants with smaller tusks. But the finches are still finches and the elephants are still elephants, so this is not goo-to-you evolution. This is natural selection at work (well in the elephant’s case it’s human selection), and as I’ve pointed out before, natural selection is not synonymous with evolution.

Fails Scientific Method B . (Unable to) “Develop Testable Predictions”
Honest evolutionists acknowledge the inability for evolution to meet the scientific requirement of being predictive in a manner that is testable:

“The theory is inadequate because it is not predictive. It explains what has evolved, but not what will. There are too many possible courses evolution can take.”[6]
Professor Armand Marie Leroi
Imperial College, London

How true – too many paths – leaving room for plenty of stories. So while they can’t make a scientific prediction, they can indulge their wild flights of fancy. So if you’ve got a animal and you’re looking for their origin, evolutionists have a story for you. Based on two populations of fish in two separate lakes that look similar, Prof. Leroi “hopes” evolutionists can make predictions in the future[7]. Like other evolutionary hopes and dreams this one will remain unfulfilled since evolution of the type I’m discussing is impossible.

Fits Definition 3. (Fails to meet) The norms of scientific research.
This is a broad topic, and cannot be covered in any detail here. But a recurring area of concern here that should never happen in research is the fabrication or falsification of data. Not only is it unethical as was universally agreed in a recent survey[8], and tends to make evolution look like the pseudoscience that it is but more importantly if evolution is so obvious, and there is so much evidence for it, why has there been, and continues to be so much fraud, fabrication and falsification of data in attempts to prove it true? To see some examples of the frauds, just search for “Frauds of Evolution.”

So there you have it. Evolution clearly meets the definition of a pseudoscience. And you know the old saying – if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. And so it is with evolution. It may be dressed up as science, but it’s really pseudoscience. But the above demonstration that evolution fits the definition of a pseudoscience to a T is really just an introduction to what I believe the stronger evidence is that demonstrates it’s a pseudoscience: evolution is a pseudoscience because it breaks the known laws of science.

Pseudosciences break known laws of science

In an article titled Is Evolution Pseudoscience Mark Johansen, a CMI author considers this proposition and goes through a 10 point list from the Skeptics Dictionary that identifies pseudosciences and shows how evolution meets 9 of the 10 criteria. Item number 9 is of particular interest:

“Some pseudoscientific theories … contradict known scientific laws and use ad hoc hypotheses to explain their belief.”[9]

Evolutionists are fond of calling evolution “science” and “fact” but real science does not contradict the established laws of science. With evolution breaking so many laws of science, you can call evolution pseudoscience, or religion. But what you can’t call it, is science. It fits neither the definition of science, nor the method of science (as shown above0, nor follows the laws of science (as shown below). So without further ado, some of the many laws of science that evolution breaks.

1. Evolution breaks the law of Biogenesis.
The law of biogenesis states that life comes only from life. That is all that has ever been observed. Life from Non-living things has never been observed. The idea of “spontaneous generation” was decisively destroyed in the 19th century with Louis Pasteur’s swan necked flask experiment. But in the 19th century, the idea of spontaneous generation concerned mice coming from dirty rags and wheat instead of the current chemical evolution variety of life coming from replicating molecules. With that as the case, evolutionists think they’ve distanced themselves from the concept. In fact popular Cosmos host Neil deGrasse Tyson pokes fun at the concept and the foolishness of spontaneous generation:

“I always liked the spontaneous generation concept – some dirty rags, some wheat, look the other way and mice crawl out. That’s kind of fun. I don’t know why that concept hung on for so long. Because a simple test could have verified that mice do not spontaneously generate themselves out of dirty clothes and wheat.”[10]
Neil deGrasse Tyson

True, scientists no longer believe in “spontaneous generation” of the type they spoke of in the 19th century. Now they believe in “abiogenesis,” a theory of life arising through chemical evolution – but it has the same problem: it still requires life to come from lifeless matter – a ludicrous proposition. The list of reasons of why chemical evolution is impossible is extensive and far beyond the scope of this article. So I can’t cover them here. (Though you can see one of the reasons in my previous article here on the impossibility of evolution to produce a protein.) Let me suffice it by giving you the bottom line:

“The idea of the origin of life by natural processes is a preposterous idea. Absolutely preposterous idea.”[11]
Don Batten
Agricultural Scientist and Creationist

“For evolutionists to believe in chemical evolution, this is not a position they got from science, but a position they got from blind faith. They’re basically having to believe in miracles because it’s not real chemistry there they can appeal to.” [12]
Jonathan Sarfarti
Physical Chemist, Spectroscopist and Creationist

2. Evolution contradicts Genetic processes.
Once again I will limit myself to just two of the many areas of genetics where evolutionary processes contradict known genetic processes.

A) Evolution with it’s trial and error method over millions of years predicts that there will be much “junk” found in the code of DNA. Some evolutionists state that up to 98% of our DNA is junk. But scientists have learned how seriously mistaken that view is. Protein coding is one of the main functions of DNA. But there are parts of DNA that don’t code for proteins, and it’s those areas that evolutionists have called “junk.” But with further research, scientists have learned that the non-protein coding portions of DNA formerly considered “junk” by some are performing a number of other critical cellular functions. And in fact, “It’s now known that parts of genome code for more than 1 thing at the same time.” [13] In other words, there are messages within other messages of DNA strings. Such double coding or multiple coding – if you will – is a mark of extreme intelligence as I pointed out in DNA and Windtalkers. Further,

“Overlapping codes are almost impossible to improve upon – because if you improve on one of the codes you are destroying or disrupting one of the other codes.”[14]
John Sanford

Thus the concept of “junk DNA” is, as plant geneticist John Sanford states: ” …profoundly wrong and will be recorded in history as one of the “greatest blunders in science.” [15]

B) Evolution states that random mutation and natural selection can emulate the process of design to get ever more complex creatures until you get the diversity of creatures we see today. Yet the mutations in the human genome are destroying good design, not adding new information, or features. The human genome is suffering from genetic entropy, and evolution can do nothing to stop it. The result:

“So genetic entropy is profound…It is lethal to genetic evolutionary theory – it means things are going down, not up.”[16]
John Sanford

Once again evolution predicts the exact opposite of what the physical reality is.

3. Evolution breaks the Laws of Chemistry

Many suggestions from evolutionists for the first living cells have them emerging from some primordial ooze or soup. But that theory is seriously flawed. Because for life, you need to build many large molecules from small ones. The problem is – the chemistry of molecules doesn’t work that way. The normal process is large molecules are regularly broken down to smaller ones not smaller ones joined together to get larger ones:

“Everything I’ve learned about real chemistry shows that reactions go in the opposite way from what’s required for life to come from non living chemicals – breaking up large molecules to small molecules.”[17]
Jonathan Sarfati

And with regard to the primordial soup:

“Any chemist wouldn’t have water in the reaction because water tends to drive the reaction in the opposite direction towards the little molecules.
Yet the primordial soup would have inevitably had loads of water in it, so it’s the last place a real chemist would try to make proteins or DNA.”[18]
Jonathan Sarfati

Chalk up another huge fail for evolution with regards to any chance of building the necessary chemical building blocks for life while abiding by the laws of chemistry.

4. Evolution breaks the Laws of Information Theory

Philosophical materialist scientists (those who believe only material things exist) used to believe that reality consisted only of matter and energy – which are – as Einstein revealed to the world, different manifestations of the same thing. But in these latter days, scientists have had to acknowledge that there is a non-material portion that comprises reality – information:

“During the 19th century scientist believed there were two fundamental entities – matter and energy. But as we enter the 21st century there’s a third fundamental entity that science has had to recognize and that is information.”[19]
Stephen Meyer
Philosopher of Science

Even evolutionists recognize that DNA contains information. The information is in fact coded information. Further, as noted above, it is coded with overlapping information making it information packaged in a highly complex manner . The question that Darwinists can’t answer, is what is the origin of the information in DNA and wherever else information is found in living creatures? And what is the origin of the highly complex information storage and retrieval system we call DNA? We know two things about the origin of information: 1. Natural processes cannot create information. 2. Intelligent agents can produce information:

“So at present there is no naturalistic explanation, no natural cause that produces information. Not natural selection, not self organizational processes, not pure chance.

“But we do know of a cause which is capable of producing information, and that is intelligence.”[20]
Stephen Meyer

Darwinist say that mutations and natural selection can create information, but as Meyer points out they cannot. Mutations destroy information, and natural selection can only eliminate information. Evolutionists need a naturalistic way to create information, but there is none. Information comes only from agents with intelligence. This is such a serious challenge to evolution that Meyer characterized the problem this way:

“Neo-Darwinism and its associated theories of chemical evolution and the like will not be able to survive the biology of the information age, the biology of the 21st century.”[21]
Stephen Meyer

5. Evolution breaks Darwin’s own slow, gradual process maxim
This next item is included not because it is science, but because it demonstrates that not only does evolution not follow the laws of science it doesn’t even follow its own laws. Punctuated Equilibrium is an update to evolutionary theory proposed in 1972 by noted paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould. It was proposed because evolutionists realized the fossil record does not conform to Darwin’s theory of slow, gradual change of species. As Wikipedia explains it, the fossil record of an evolutionary progression:

“…typically consists of species that suddenly appear, and ultimately disappear, in many cases close to a million years later, without any change in external appearance.”[22]

Eldredge and Gould were among the evolutionists who realized the evidence simply doesn’t fit Darwin’s theory, and instead of discarding the theory, changed it to allow what Darwin said was forbidden: saltations – or jumps in the fossil record. But as evolution evangelist Richard Dawkins acknowledges:

Evolutionists like to pretend they believe in Darwin’s theory of slow and gradual change, but the fact that punctuated equilibrium was even proposed shows that 1.) The fossil record doesn’t support Darwin’s theory, and 2.) Evolutionists have conceded that slow gradual processes simply cannot do what they claim they can, and that in fact the only solution is something that can produce saltations – jumps. But jumps require the intervention of an agent outside of the material world something that can intelligently manipulate natural processes to do what slow and steady processes can’t – to do what Dawkins correctly characterized as “a miracle.”

This is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all the laws of science broken by evolutionary theory, but merely one sufficient to show that that Darwinian evolution does in fact break many laws of science and in fact breaks its own scientific requirements and therefore is rightfully characterized as a pseudoscience. Marine biologist Robert Carter summarizes it succinctly:

“Everything we know about the laws of chemistry, genetics, statistics and information theory argues against any life from non-life idea. But an evolutionist must believe that scientific laws are violated for life to arise from none living chemicals. That sounds like faith to me.”[24]
Robert Carter

So you can legitimately call evolution pseudoscience, or you could call it religion. But if you know anything about the operation of science in the real world, and how Darwinists state evolution operates, you cannot call evolution science.

3. Evolution Resources: Is Evolution Theory or Fact, The National Academy of Sciences, accessed 5/1/2016,

4. How Life Began, History Channel Documentary, 2008

6. Professor Armand Marie Leroi, What Darwin Didn’t Know, BBC documentary, 2009

7. Keep in mind Leroi makes the classic evolutionist mistake – he assumes similar features are due to common evolutionary paths instead of a common designer.

8. Evaluation of the Research Norms of Scientists and Administrators Responsible for Academic Research Integrity (Abstract), Stanley G. Korenman, MD Richard Berk, PhD Neil S. Wenger, MD Vivian Lew, PhD JAMA. 1998279(1):41-47. doi:10.1001/jama.279.1.41.

9. Mark Johansen, Is Evolution Pseudoscience?, Creation Ministries International, Magazine article: Creation 29(4):25–27 September 2007 Online:

10. Neil deGrasse Tyson, How Life Began, History Channel Documentary, 2008

11. Don Batten, Evolution’s Achilles Heel, Creation Ministries International Documentary DVD, 2014

12. Jonathan Sarfati, Evolution’s Achilles Heel

13. Rob Carter Evolution’s Achilles Heel

14. John Sanford, Evolution’s Achilles Heel

15. John Sanford, Evolution’s Achilles Heel

16. John Sanford, Evolution’s Achilles Heel

17. Jonathan Sarfati, Evolution’s Achilles Heel

18. Jonathan Sarfati, Evolution’s Achilles Heel

19. Stephen Meyer, Unlocking the Mystery of life, Illustra Media Documentary (DVD), 2002

20. Stephen Meyer, Unlocking the Mystery of life

21. Stephen Meyer, The Case for a Creator, Illustra Media Documentary (DVD), 2006

23. Richard Dawkins, referenced from Darwin’s Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record, Illustra Media Documentary (DVD), 2009

The Controversy of Evolution

The Theory of Evolution has been the topic of many debates between the scientific and religious communities. The two sides seemingly can't come to an agreement on what scientific evidence has been found and faith-based beliefs. Why is this subject so controversial?

Most religions do not argue that species change over time. The overwhelming scientific evidence can't be ignored. However, the controversy stems from the idea that humans evolved from monkeys or primates and the origins of life on Earth.

Even Charles Darwin knew his ideas would be controversial in religious communities when his wife often debated with him. In fact, he tried not to talk about evolution, but rather focused on adaptations in different environments.

The biggest point of controversy between science and religion is what should be taught in schools. Most famously, this controversy came to a head in Tennessee in 1925 during the Scopes "Monkey" Trial when a substitute teacher was found guilty of teaching evolution. More recently, legislative bodies in several states are trying to reinstate the teaching of Intelligent Design and Creationism in science classes.

This "war" between science and religion has been perpetuated by the media. In fact, science does not deal with religion at all and is not out to discredit any religion. Science is based upon evidence and knowledge of the natural world. All hypotheses in science must be falsifiable. Religion, or faith, deals with the supernatural world and is a feeling that cannot be falsified. Therefore, religion and science should not be pitted against each other as they are in completely different fields.​

The five most common misunderstandings about evolution

Do I resemble your great-great-grandfather by any chance? Credit: DaniRevi/pixabay

Given its huge success in describing the natural world for the past 150 years, the theory of evolution is remarkably misunderstood. In a recent episode of the Australian series of "I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here", former cricket star Shane Warne questioned the theory – asking "if humans evolved from monkeys, why haven't today's monkeys evolved"?

Similarly, a head teacher from a primary school in the UK recently stated that evolution is a theory rather than a fact. This is despite the fact that children in the UK start learning about evolution in Year 6 (ten to 11-year-olds), and have further lessons throughout high school. While the theory of evolution is well accepted in the UK compared with the rest of the world, a survey in 2005 indicated that more than 20% of the country's population was not sure about it, or did not accept it.

In contrast, there are not many people questioning the theory of relativity, or studies on the acceptance of the theory of relativity possibly reflecting an acceptance that this is a matter for physicists to settle. Many studies have tried to determine why evolution is questioned so often by the general public, despite complete acceptance by scientists. Although no clear answer has been found, I suspect the common misconceptions described below have something to do with it.

Yes, scientists call it the "theory of evolution", but this is in recognition of its well accepted scientific standing. The term "theory" is being used in the same way that gravitational theory explains why, when an apple falls from your hand, it goes towards the ground. There is no uncertainty that the apple will fall to the ground, in the same way that there is no uncertainty that bugs resistant to antibiotics will continue to evolve if we do not curb our general use of antibiotics.

Although people use "theory" in everyday conversation to mean a not necessarily proven hypothesis, this is not the case in scientific terms. A scientific theory typically means a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that sits above laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

2. Humans are descended from monkeys

No, your great-great-great-ancestor was not a monkey. Evolution theory indicates that we have common ancestors with monkeys and apes – among the existing species, they are our closest relatives. Humans and chimpanzees share more than 90% of their genetic sequence. But this common ancestor, which roamed the earth approximately 7m years ago was neither a monkey nor a human, but an ape-like creature that recent research suggests had traits that favoured the use of tools.

3. Natural selection is purposeful

There are many organisms that are not perfectly adapted to their environment. For example, sharks don't have a gas bladder to control their buoyancy (which bony fish typically use). Does this refute the theory of evolution? No, not at all. Natural selection can only randomly favour the best of what is available, it does not purposefully turn all living organisms into one super creature.

It would be really convenient if humans could photosynthesise hunger could be immediately cured by standing in the sun (and the much-sought miracle diet would have been found: stay inside). But alas, the genetic ability to photosynthesise has not appeared in animals. Still, selection of the best option possible has led to an amazing diversity of forms remarkably well adapted to their environments, even if not perfect.

4. Evolution can't explain complex organs

A common argument in favour of creationism is the evolution of the eye. A half developed eye would serve no function, so how can natural selection slowly create a functional eye in a step-wise manner? Darwin himself suggested that the eye could have had its origins in organs with different functions. Organs that allow detection of light could then have been favoured by natural selection, even if it did not provide full vision. These ideas have been proven correct many years later by researchers studying primitive light-sensing organs in animals. In molluscs like snails and segmented worms, light-sense cells spread across the body surface can tell the difference between light and dark.

5. Religion is incompatible with evolution

It is important to make it clear that evolution is not a theory about the origin of life. It is a theory to explain how species change over time. Contrary to what many people think, there is also little conflict between evolution and most common religions. Pope Francis recently reiterated that a belief in evolution isn't incompatible with the Catholic faith. Going further, the reverend Malcom Brown from the Church of England stated that "natural selection, as a way of understanding physical evolutionary processes over thousands of years, makes sense." He added: "Good religion needs to work constructively with good science" and vice-versa. I fully agree.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

What’s Wrong About Darwin’s Theory of Evolution ?

Central to Darwin’s Theory is the “Tree of Life”. The massive tree trunk represents simpler life forms such as amoebas, protozoas, and one-celled organisms etc. The more complex organisms such as fish, birds and land mammals are represented by smaller branches at the top of the tree. Header Image courtesy of Pinterest Evolution

Left magazine cover courtesy of New Scientist.

According to Graham Lawton in a 2009 article in New Scientist, Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life , this “iconic concept of evolution, has turned out to be a figment of our imagination.” Darwin’s tree has been rendered obsolete by the discovery of Horizontal Gene Transfer. Instead of a Tree, we have a new model represented by a network of inter-related life forms.

Left Image: This “Tree of Life” sketch is seen in Darwin’s notebook (Image: courtesy of Mario Tama / Getty).

Darwin Wrote His Theory of Evolution in 1859

This isn’t the only flaw in Darwin’s theory. Since 1859 when Darwin wrote his theory evolution, there has been considerable progress in molecular biology. In 1953, the double helix structure of DNA was elucidated by Watson and Crick, along with its genetic code. In 2003, the genetic code for the entire human genome was sequenced. These advances provoked a paradigm shift in thinking about evolution. Darwin’s simple 19th century Theory of Evolution required drastic revision in order to incorporate all this new knowledge.

The Evolution From Simple to More Complex

Left Image: Charles Darwin 1880 Courtesy wikimedia commons,

The idea of evolution of life from the simple to more complex is an old idea and can be found in ancient writings. Darwin’s theory started with this concept and sought to explain the mechanism. of evolution. Darwin’s theory of evolution is the idea that over many generations, small incremental changes lead to emergence of entirely new species. This idea seemed plausible to professional animal breeders with extensive experience “breeding-in” desirable traits in their dogs, horses or livestock.

Darwin’s idea was that “Mother Nature” would act in place of the professional animal breeder. Nature would select traits which provided survival advantage, and reject traits that impaired survival. Animals with better survival advantages would win the battle for reproduction. This is called “Natural Selection“. In 1859, Charles Darwin then took the next step. He proposed Natural Selection as the mechanism for evolution. Left Image Darwin Gets a Haircut Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

To summarize Charles Darwin’s theory of Evolution:

1) Random genetic mutations in the herd provide variation.

2) The genetic variants most adapted for survival will survive, while less adapted will not. This is called Natural Selection.

Questioning Natural Selection as the Mechanism

Newton Replaced by Einstein

Just as Newtonian Physics has been superceded by new physics of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, so too have Darwin’s 19th century ideas been antiquated and replaced. Darwin’s mechanism of evolution has been found insufficient to explain new discoveries in molecular biology. Current knowledge of the human genome, and cell biology reveals that random mutations in the genome are insufficient to create new species. Quite the opposite, genomic changes have been found to be non-random, and predictable in a process described as “Genetic Engineering”.

Natural Selection Replaced by Genetic Engineering

Left image courtesy of James A Shapiro PhD

James A Shapiro at the University of Chicago proposes Genetic Engineering as the new mechanism for evolution. He says that genome change is a regulated biological function, and natural genetic engineering processes are subject to biological feedback at multiple levels. Here is his slide show about Natural ENGINEERING OF GENOME STRUCTURE by James A Shapiro.

Dr Shapiro says: “Cells have a large toolbox of biochemical systems that carry out genome restructuring at all levels of

Article in Boston Review by Dr James A Shapiro: Shapiro.1997.BostonReview1997.ThirdWay

Common Questions Raised by Darwin Dissenters:

How does random change (mutation) in the genome add information to a genome to create progressively more complicated organisms?

It Doesn’t. Evolution is Non-Random. James A Shapiro says “Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents.” (from James A Shapiro_2009_Revisiting_Central_Dogma)

A multi-national team of biologists has concluded that developmental evolution is deterministic and orderly, rather than random, based on a study of different species of roundworms. Another molecular biologist from Princeton, David Stern, says that evolution is predictable because mutations tend to occur at hot spots in regulatory genes. Even Richard Dawkins, an atheist and Darwin’s most vocal defender says that evolution is non-random, referring to Natural Selection as a “non-random mechanism” in a debate with Stephen Meyer. Here is a quote from Evolution News:

“At a guess, I would say that Dawkins entered the debate at all — something he usually avoids — because Lawrence Krauss in the Toronto event was basically channeling Dr. Dawkins on the point that Darwinian evolution isn’t a “random” process. The truth is it’s both random and nonrandom. The fuel is random genetic variation. The winnowing process, natural selection, is nonrandom. But as scientists have recognized for more than a century, that only helps with the “survival” not the “arrival” of biological novelties.”

Lack of Gradualism in the Fossil Record.

Left image courtesy of Stephen Jay Gould.

Another flaw in Charles Darwin’s original theory is the geological record which did not support Darwin’s prediction of gradual transition between life forms. To explain this lack of gradualism in the fossil record, Stephen Jay Gould invented a new theory called Punctuated Equilibrium. Rather than finding gradual transition forms in the fossil record, paleontology has found sudden bursts in appearances of life forms, as well as long periods of stasis or little change in the fossil record.

Cambrian Explosion

One example of this is the Cambrian Explosion about 555 million years ago when 40 body plans appeared over a ten million year period with no preceding transition forms.

These findings had to somehow be incorporated into Darwin’s theory, adding to the complexity of the theory. Thus, the invention of “punctuated equilibrium”.

Left: Cover of Time Magazine 1995 Cambrian Explosion.

Cornelius Hunter author of Science’s Blind Spot: regards Punctuated Equilibrium as a form of “Post-Hoc” reasoning to be analogous with the Epicycles of the pre-Newtonian Geo-Centrists who claimed the earth was the center of the universe. Galileo’s telescope disproved Geocentrism.

How does the first living cell arise spontaneously to get evolution started?

The spontaneous origin of life is called abiogenesis, and Neo-Darwinism does not even address this issue.

Science doesn’t have a clue as to how the first living organisms originated. Stephen Meyers refines this question further as the question of the origin of “biological information” encoded in the DNA of the first cell. We have no scientific explanation for the appearance of this first information.

The Human Genome Project showed that only 1-2% of Human DNA codes for proteins, or about 25,000 genes.

Are these enough to account for the complexity of the organism? What is the other 98% of the genome’s function? We don’t have answers to these questions yet. In the recent past, this non-coding DNA had been called “junk DNA”, a misnomer and a false prediction made by neo-Darwinists resulting in the delay of molecular biology research for the past 25 years.

New research suggests this 98% of the genome, the “junk DNA”, is not junk and in fact is very functional. It regulates development and gene expression. Does this non-coding DNA also direct the evolution of the species? We don’t know yet. New findings in molecular biology by scientists like Dr. Shapiro and Dr. Stern are leading the way.

Central Dogma Refuted

The Central Dogma says that genetic information follows in only one direction from the genome to the protein. The discoveries of reverse transcriptase and retroviruses showed reversed flow of information back to the genome from the environment. A new concept called the “fluid genome“ replaced the Central Dogma. This has profound implications for evolutionary theory.

Directed Evolution

Another promising new theory of evolution is “Directed Evolution” described in Michael J. Denton’s book, “Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe”. Denton suggests a concept called “directed evolution” in which changes in the genetic code leading to speciation (new species), which were previously thought to be caused by random mutations, are instead “directed” by the genomic information contained in the DNA (possibly in the non-coding portion of DNA previously called “junk DNA”). New findings in molecular biology by Shapiro at U of C and by Stern at Princeton are lending support to this view.

An Analogy from Embryology

An analogy is drawn from embryology, in which the genetic code in the DNA directs the tiny embryo to follow well defined steps to “evolve” into the mature organism. This idea can be applied to evolutionary theory itself. The intracellular nuclear DNA could contain “directed information” for the steps leading from primitive life forms to more complex life forms in over billions of years of evolution. Hopefully, we will see more of these fascinating ideas in print over the next few years.

The Snowflake – Self Organizing Properties of Matter

A small particle of water grows into a beautiful snowflake with no two patterns alike. The snowflake is a complex orderly object which arises because of the self-organizing properties of molecules of water. There is no need to invoke randomness as an explanation. Likewise, the first life forms could have arisen from the self-organizing properties of matter without invoking randomness as an explanation.


Another new approach is called evo-devo and Sean Carrol’s Book, Endless Forms Most Beautiful: attempts to reconcile new findings in molecular biology and embryology with the theory of evolution.

Gert Korthof

If you plan to study the topic of evolution, a good place to start is Gert Korthof’s web site which exhaustively reviews dozens of new books on evolution, intelligent design, evo devo, molecular biology, etc.

Mainstream Scientists Who Dissent

As of April 2014, here is a list of scientists who dissent from Darwinsim. They all signed this statement:

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged” .

1) James A Shapiro Ph.D. Professor of Microbiology University of Chicago: “Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents.”

2) Stanley N. Salthe Ph.D. Zoology, 1963, Columbia University.“So, with current neoDarwinian theory, we can claim that it does not model evolution, only short term survival from one generation to the next.”

“As to its ability (neo-Darwinism) to explain the evolution of organisms (as opposed to the evolution of gene systems), it has not, after some 60 years of development, delivered a very convincing mechanism.” see: Natural Selection neo Darwinian theory of evolution 2006 Salthe.

3) Stuart Kauffman professor at the University of Calgary with a shared appointment between biological sciences and physics and astronomy. He is the author of The Origins of Order, At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization, and Investigations.

4) Lynn Margulis Distinguished University Professor Microbial Evolution and Organelle Heredity Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts.”She does, however, hold a negative view of certain interpretations of Neo-Darwinism, excessively focused on inter-organismic competition, as she believes that history will ultimately judge them as comprising “a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology.” Left Image courtesy of Lynn Margulis and Carl Sagan.

5) David Stern, group leader at the Janelia Research Campus. From 2008 to 2011, he was an HHMI investigator at Princeton University.

“Although mutations are thought to occur randomly in the genome, the distribution of mutations that cause biologic diversity appears to be highly non-random.” (Science Feb 2009)

Physicians Dissent from neo-Darwinism

According to a 2005 poll, 112,500 or 15% of licensed physicians in the US reject neo-Darwinism. An even greater number, 315,000 believe that “God initiated and guided an evolutionary process that has led to current human beings.” There are 750,000 licensed physicians in the US.

When asked to select between two choices,
1) Evolution or
2) Intelligent Design,
a full one third of phyicians polled selected Intelligent Design. That extrapolates to 250,000 physicians accept Intelligent Design rather than neo-Darwinian Evolution.

The Big Bang and The Universality of Genetic Code

Implies a Common Ancestor

Science tells us that all Life evolved from matter originating 15-20 billion years ago at an event called the “Big Bang”, or “Singularity”. This theory suggests that first inanimate matter and then life forms evolved from this singularity event. This theory also implies that all life forms share a common ancestor going back in time to that first instant of the “Big Bang”.

In addition, the genetic code is universal for all life forms, implying that all life forms are related by a common ancestor, a common design, or both. (Note: the genetic code translates encrypted DNA codons into amino acid sequences).

Update 2018: Mitochondrial DNA Bar-code study contradicts Darwinian Evolution. They propose that most present-day animal species, including humans, arose in the past 100,000 to 200,000 years. Stoeckle, Mark Y., and David S. Thaler. Why should mitochondria define species bioRxiv 2018.

“A straightforward hypothesis is that the extant populations of almost all animal species have arrived at a similar result consequent to a similar process of expansion from mitochondrial uniformity within the last one to several hundred thousand years” Quote.

Although our current knowledge indicates all life forms are related and share a common ancestor, the exact mechanism of evolution has not yet been elucidated by science. Some day, in the future, science may discover the mechanism.

To be honest about our current scientific understanding, we must admit that science does not know the following items listed:

1) How the Universe originated.

3) The Correct Mechanism of Evolution.

4) How Human Intelligence Originated.

Articles With Related Interest:

References and Links:

1) For the free full text of the 2009 Graham Lawton New Scientist article click here. Here is a pdf of the article: New Scientist Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life 2009 Graham Lawton

2) Genome Evolution in the 21st Century James A. Shapiro University of Chicago
What general principles operate in genome function and genome reorganization?

• All genome functions are interactive (no Cartesian dualism, genome always in communication with rest of cell)

• Every genome component operates as part of a complex information-processing system (no “one gene-one trait” correlation)

• Genome systems are organized and integrated into cell networks by repetitive DNA

• Genome change is a regulated biological function

• Natural genetic engineering processes are subject to biological feedback at multiple levels.

Contributor Edward Sisson sees the key question in the debate over biological evolution as whether all life is “the result of chance events occurring in DNA (or perhaps elsewhere) that are then ‘selected’ in some fashion without the need of any guiding intelligence”, thereby undergoing “unintelligent evolution”, or whether at least some of the diversity of life on earth can be explained only through “intelligent evolution”, in which “an intelligent designer (or designers)” causes preexisting species to undergo designed changes in DNA.

His view is that “no data has been found that amounts to real evidence for unintelligent evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life”, that “science is ignorant of how the diversity of life came to be”, and that “an intelligent cause is necessary to explain at least some of the diversity of life as we see it”.[12]

DARWINIAN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY AND THE LIFE SCIENCES IN THE 21ST CENTURY by Roland F. Hirsch. This essay was originally published in “Uncommon Dissent” (ISI Books, 2004) edited by William Dembski.

These complete genome sequences have revealed several complexities that Darwinian evolutionary theory did not anticipate. Four of these will be discussed here:

1) the major role played by transfer of genes from one species to another as opposed to inheritance from ancestors

2) the fact that bacterial species do not evolve solely in a random fashion, but show a bias toward deletion of genetic material

3) the discovery that much of the portions of the genome that do not code for proteins is not “junk DNA” but in fact has a critical function and the observation that expression of genes is controlled by regulatory circuits that are as complicated and as precisely arranged as the most sophisticated engineering diagrams.

To sum up this section, Darwinian evolutionary theory failed, in this author’s view, to anticipate several key discoveries about genetics, inheritance, and gene expression and development.

In each case, evolutionary theory should have guided researchers to make these discoveries, but in fact the opposite seems true: changes were made in evolutionary theory after the fact to account, for example, for the significance of horizontal gene transfer or to explain the complexities of regulation of gene expression.

Conclusion: I have no doubt that these and other technology-driven advances in the life sciences present a serious challenge to the validity of the main principles of Darwinian evolutionary theory. Much of what was taught forty years ago has had to be unlearned or has become irrelevant much of what today’s experiments and field research reveal about life cannot be explained by the evolutionary theory of the past.

Life as revealed by new technologies is more complicated than the Darwinian viewpoint anticipated. Thus evolutionary theory, which was considered to be a key foundation of biology in 1959, today has a more peripheral role.

Adam S. Wilkins, the editor of the review journal BioEssays, put it this way in introducing an issue of his journal devoted to evolution in December 2000: The subject of evolution occupies a special, and paradoxical, place within biology as a whole. While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution,” most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. “Evolution” would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.

Perhaps the reader will recognize from the preceding examples that to assume all one needs to know about an organism is contained in its genome is an unsatisfactory way to study biology. The much anticipated completion of sequencing the human genome—and of many other genomes—has only revealed that life is more complex than the previously dominant gene-oriented evolutionary theory led scientists to believe. Biologists are now increasingly turning to a systems approach to study biology, using, for example, the concepts of engineering and design.

There is good reason to believe that this trend will continue as the 21st century progresses. In the view of this author, modern science makes it possible to be a scientifically informed doubter of Darwinian theories of evolution.

6) Problems with the Darwinian Mechanism Materialistic naturalism—the foundational principle of evolution—is not a science at all, but a philosophy. It is an assumption, designed to eliminate God by definition. Thus evolution is deeply rooted in the philosophical assumption of materialism.

Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry
Sunday, 6 July 2008, 12:32 pm Article: Suzan Mazur
THE ALTENBERG 16 – Will the Real Theory of Evolution Please Stand Up? By SUZAN MAZUR AN EXPOSÉ OF THE EVOLUTION INDUSTRY An E-Book in 8 Parts – Part 1 – Chapters 1, 2 & 3

WAS DARWIN WRONG? Yes — His Logic was Fatally Flawed
by Don Cruse

Biochemist Roland Hirsch, in an essay published in 2004, while noting that the Darwinian theory of evolution, in the Darwin Centennial Year of 1959, was confidently proclaimed to be the foundation of the science of biology, maintains that “such confidence is not warranted today,” because “new technologies have revealed that life is more complicated than was imagined in 1959” (Hirsch, p. 1).

By 2004, base sequences for more than a hundred genomes had been determined, and “these complete genome sequences have revealed several complexities that Darwinian evolutionary theory did not anticipate.”

Four of these unanticipated complexities are the following:
a) transfer genes
b) bacterial species evolving also by deletion of genetic material
c) the finding that some portions of the genome that do not code for proteins are not, nevertheless, “junk DNA”
d) the finding that “the expression of genes is controlled by regulatory circuits that are as complicated and as precisely arranged as the most sophisticated engineering diagrams” (Hirsch, pp. 2-3).

But, says Hirsch, “how could a function requiring multiple proteins in a cellular machine ever arise through the required random mutations that developed one protein molecule at a time and in a stepwise manner, and gave no intermediate product with any function that would allow Darwinian natural selection to work?” (Hirsch, p. 11).

To Roland Hirsch it is clear that the accepted idea of organisms evolving from simple to complex does not apply to the protein synthesis machinery that works “with a precision exceeding that of the most complicated devices designed and engineered by humans” (Hirsch, p. 13). It is Hirsch’s general conclusion that much of what was taught forty years ago in keeping with Darwinian theory “has had to be unlearned or has become irrelevant,” because it cannot explain much of what today’s experiments and field research reveal about biological life (Hirsch, p. 19).

Basic concept of the Darwinian theory of evolution is that the species living today emerged from prior living species by a process of random mutation and natural selection. ‘

FRANCIS S. COLLINS AND THE LANGUAGE OF GOD reviewed by John F. McCarthy [Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press – Simon and Schuster, 2006 – viii plus 294 pages – available also from ] Part I. Random Change Versus Intelligent Design. dr dach.

AAAS Board Resolution Urges Opposition
to “Intelligent Design” Theory in U.S. Science Classes

The AAAS Board recently passed a resolution urging policymakers to oppose teaching “Intelligent Design Theory” within science classrooms, but rather, to keep it separate, in the same way that creationism and other religious teachings are currently handled. dr dach.

“The United States has promised that no child will be left behind in the classroom,” said Alan I. Leshner, CEO and executive publisher for AAAS. “If intelligent design theory is presented within science courses as factually based, it is likely to confuse American schoolchildren and to undermine the integrity of U.S. science education.”

(c) Copyright 2009-2015 All rights Reserved Jeffrey Dach MD
Dr Dach

Web Site and Discussion Board Links:

The reader is advised to discuss the comments on these pages with his/her personal physicians and to only act upon the advice of his/her personal physician. Also note that concerning an answer which appears as an electronically posted question, I am NOT creating a physician — patient relationship. Although identities will remain confidential as much as possible, as I can not control the media, I can not take responsibility for any breaches of confidentiality that may occur.

Copyright (c) 2014 Jeffrey Dach MD All Rights Reserved. This article may be reproduced on the internet without permission, provided there is a link to this page and proper credit is given.

Fossils, Lamarckism, and Darwinism Explained

Fixism is a theory about the diversity of life on earth which claims that the current species in existence were identical to species in the past and that these emerged already adapted to the environment without undergoing changes.

Fixism opposes evolutionism since evolutionism is the idea that current species emerged from gradual transformations undergone by ancestral and extinct species.

The religious version of fixism is called creationism. Many different forms of creationism are found in the mythology of various religions. Modern religious interpretations teach creationism as metaphorical wisdom and not in opposition to evolutionism.

Furthermore, it is possible to make evolution compatible with creationism by considering that God in His perfection would not create a world so full of imperfections and suffering like our world. It is possible to maintain creationist beliefs by thinking that the world God created is another much better world or, at least, not the one that we see, while admitting that the imperfection of life that we see has emerged through evolution.

4. In the scientific competition against fixism, what are the main arguments that favor evolutionism?

The main arguments in favor of evolutionism are: paleontological, such as the study of similarities among fossils from different periods those based on comparative anatomy, such as the existence of residual organs or other structures with same origin and function, such as the human appendix, that reveal relationships among species those of comparative embryology, such as the similarities between structures and developmental processes among embryos of related species and those based on molecular biology, which shows the existence of a large percentage of similar nucleotide sequences in the DNA of species with common ancestors.

Select any question to share it on FB or Twitter

Just select (or double-click) a question to share. Challenge your Facebook and Twitter friends.


5. What are fossils?

Fossils are the petrified remains of organisms that lived in the past, which are conserved by chemical and geological processes and which are found within rocks and sedimentary strata of the earth's crust. 

6. How does the study of fossils strengthen the theory of evolution?

The study of fossils reveals ancient and extinct species with many structures similar to those of others of the present and of the past. Fossils allow radioactive dating to estimate the periods during which species lived and to establish a chronological relationship between them. This evidence strengthens the hypothesis of the relationship between and common origin of species and that their features have modified gradually until the formation of the current species.


7. Historically, what were the two main evolutionary theories?

The two main evolutionary theories were Lamarckism and Darwinism. 

8. What is meant by the law of use and disuse and by the law of the transmission of acquired characteristics?

According to the law of use and disuse, the characteristics of a body vary depending on whether it is used more or less. This rule is valid for features such as muscle mass and the size of the bones, for example.

The law of the transmission of acquired characteristics established that parents could transmit characteristics acquired by the law of use and disuse to their offspring.

9. What is Lamarckism?

Lamarckism is the theory that unites the law of use and disuse with the law of the transmission of acquired characteristics, and asserted that acquired characteristics, such as muscle mass, could be transmitted from a parent to its offspring.

The theory was proposed by the French naturalist Lamarck at the beginning of the 19th century. At that time, the idea was not so absurd since nobody knew how the transmission of hereditary characteristics occurred. (Lamarck was a brave man to introduce an evolutionary theory based on natural law at a time dominated by fixism.)


10. Who was Charles Darwin?

Charles Darwin was an English naturalist born in 1809 and is considered the father of the theory of evolution. At the end of the year 1831, before turning 23, Darwin embarked on the ship the Beagle as volunteer scientist for a five year expedition to the South American coast and the Pacific. During the voyage, the most famous part of which was the stop in the Galapagos Islands, Darwin collected data that he used to write his masterpiece The Origin of Species (1859). In this book, the principles of the common ancestry of all living organisms and natural selection as the force that drives the diversity of species were described. Darwin died in 1882.

(The original name of the most famous book written by Darwin was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.)

11. What is the mechanism described by Darwin that eliminates species less adapted to environmental conditions?

That mechanism is natural selection.

12. How did Darwin deduce the principle of natural selection from the observation of differences among members of the same species?

Darwin recognized that, within one particular species, there were individuals with different characteristics. He also realized that those differences could lead to different survival and reproduction chances for each individual. Therefore, he discovered the importance of the effect of the environment on organisms and the preservation of those with ਌haracteristics more advantageous for survival and who are more able to generate offspring. This is how he described the basis of the principle of natural selection.

13. How did the industrial revolution in England offer an example of natural selection?

One of the classic examples of natural selection is the moths of industrial zones of England at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. As the industrial revolution advanced, the bark of the trees that moths landed on became darker due to the soot released from factories. The population of light moths decreased and was substituted by a population of dark moths, since the mimicry of the dark moths in the new environment protected them from predators, meaning that they had an adaptive advantage in that new environment. Light moths in turn suffered the negative effect of natural selection because they had become more visible to predators, and were almost eliminated. In the open forest far from factories, however, it was experimentally verified that light moths maintained their adaptive advantage and the dark moths continued to be more easily found by predators.

14. What are the fundamental similarities and differences between Lamarckism and Darwinism?

Both Lamarckism and Darwinism are evolutionary theories opposed to fixism and, both admit the existence of processes that caused changes in the characteristics of living organisms in the past.

However, these two theories have different explanations for those changes. Lamarckism combines the law of use and disuse with the law of the transmission of acquired characteristics to explain the changes. Darwinism defends the effect of natural selection. 

The Synthetic Theory of Evolution

15. In the time of Darwin, the results of Mendel’s research on biological inheritance had not been published, genetics was not yet developed, and neither DNA nor the concept of genetic mutation were known. What is the modern Darwinist theory that incorporates these bodies of knowledge?

The modern Darwinist theory that incorporates knowledge from genetics and molecular biology is called neo-Darwinism, or the synthetic theory of evolution.

16. How does the synthetic theory of evolution incorporate knowledge from genetics and molecular biology into Darwinism?

Today, it is known that the variation of inherited characteristics is created by alterations in the genetic material of individuals, and more precisely by modifications or recombinations of DNA molecules. Small changes in genetic material accumulate and new phenotypical characteristics emerge. The carriers of these characteristics are then subject to natural selection. Modern biology recognizes that natural selection generates an increase in the frequency of alleles and genes more favorable to survival and reproduction in a given population, whereas less advantageous genes and alleles tend to be eliminated.

17. Using the concepts of variability, environmental pressure and natural selection, how does the synthetic theory of evolution explain Darwinian natural selection?

Genetic variability occurs from the recombination of chromosomes during sexual reproduction and from DNA mutations in germ cells and gametes. Such variability creates individuals who are carriers of some new phenotypical characteristics compared to their ancestors. These individuals are submitted to environmental pressure and can be more or less well-adapted concerning survival or reproduction. Those better adapted transmit their genetic heritage to a larger number of descendants, thus increasing the frequency of their genes in the population those less well-adapted tend to transmit their genes to a smaller number of descendants, thus decreasing the frequency of their genes in the population or even becoming extinct. This process is called natural selection (the preservation of organisms that present more adapted phenotypes for the environmental pressures they face).

18. In hospitals where many tuberculosis patients are treated, the population of tuberculosis mycobacteria may be composed of multiresistant (to antibiotics) strains. How does the synthetic theory of evolution explain this fact?

The appearance of multiresistant strains of pathogenic parasites in hospitals and of multiresistant tuberculosis bacteria, for example, can be explained by the synthetic theory of evolution.

As in any environment, TB bacteria in hospitals undergo changes in their genetic material. In the hospital environment, however, they undergo continuous exposure to antibiotics. Many of them die from the effect of the antibiotics but carriers of mutations that provide resistance to those antibiotics proliferate freely. These resistant microorganisms, when subject to other antibiotics, once again undergo natural selection and those which became resistant to these other drugs are preserved and proliferate. As a result, strains of multiresistant (non-treatable) mutant bacteria emerge in hospitals.

The use of antibiotics is a factor that promotes natural selection and the emergence of multiresistant bacteria. This is the reason why hospitals often have committees that control the use of antibiotics.


19. What is reproductive isolation?

Living organisms are considered to live in reproductive isolation when they cannot cross-breed among themselves or if they can cross-breed but cannot generate fertile offspring.

20. What is the relationship between the concept of reproductive isolation and the concept of species?

Reproductive isolation is an important concept because it defines the concept of a species: only living organisms that can cross-breed among themselves and generate fertile offspring, or rather, that are not in reproductive isolation, belong to the same species. For example, humans and chimps are under subject to reproductive isolation and are not of the same species.

21. What is speciation?

Speciation is the process by which different species emerge from a common ancestor species. Speciation generally begins when populations of the same species become geographically isolated, such as when they are separated by some physical barrier that disallows cross-breeding between individuals from one population and individuals of another population.

Groups that are kept in geographical isolation for a long time tend to accumulate different phenotypical characteristics from each other by means of genetic variability (mutations and recombination) and natural selection. When those differences reach a point that makes the cross=breeding of individuals of one group with individuals of the other group impossible, or the generation of fertile offspring no longer happens, speciation is considered to have occurred.

22. Why does geographical isolation lead to speciation?

Geographical isolation between groups of the same species leads to the formation of a new species since it prevents cross-breeding among isolated individuals. Characteristics which are distinct from the other groups are incorporated by the effect of genetic variability and natural selection on the isolated group, producing a new species. Therefore, the geographical isolation creates the reproductive isolation.

Adaptive Convergence and Adaptive Radiation

23. How can the fact that fish and dolphins have similar organs and a similar general shape be explained?

Fish and dolphins have similar organs and shape because, although they have phylogenetically distant ancestors, they face similar environmental pressures, as they share the same habitat (water). Therefore, by undergoing genetic variability and natural selection, some similar features, such as a hydrodynamic body and the presence of fins, were incorporated into these animals.

24. What is adaptive convergence?

Adaptive convergence is the phenomenon by which living organisms which face the same environmental pressure (problems) and which are subject to genetic variability and natural selection incorporate similar (analogous) organs and structures (solutions) into their bodies during evolution. An example of this is the fins and the hydrodynamic body of fish and dolphins, which are phylogenetically distant animals. 

25. What is adaptive radiation?

Adaptive radiation is the appearance of several other species from one common ancestral species that have spread to various regions or environments. The different characteristics among the species correspond to the adaptive necessities of the ecological niches each one occupies, that is, to different environmental pressures.

Analogous and Homologous Organs

26. What is the difference between analogous and homologous organs?

Characteristics of different species are said to be analogous when they have the same biological function, such as the wings of bats and the wings of insects.

Characteristics of different species are said to be homologous when they have the same biological origin, or rather, when they are the products of the differentiation of the same characteristic of a common ancestor, such as cat paws and human feet. (Characteristics of different species may be analogous and homologous.)

Now that you have finished studying Evolution Theory, these are your options:

What We Really Know about Biological Evolution

Among Christians, there is a wide variety of views on biological evolution . Many accept the naturalistic explanations of the universe forming from a big bang and the earth evolving from gas and dust in space, but they reject the evolution of living things on earth. Why accept naturalistic explanations—even though they conflict with the Bible —and then reject the same reasoning when it comes to living things? Others accept the naturalistic explanation for biological evolution but insist that God guided the process or filled in the gaps. Why would God have used the death of billions of animals to bring about the pinnacle of His creation—mankind—when He is capable of creating everything in an instant? Is that the type of God who revealed Himself in the Bible ? Questions like these are not often considered by those Christians who accept that secular science has provided the answers to many of life’s questions. If we start from the Bible , we arrive at totally different conclusions.

The story of evolution teaches that man is a product of death and suffering over billions of years (above). The Bible teaches that sin and death are products of mankind’s rebellion against God (below)—quite opposite doctrines.

A plain reading of Scripture reveals that God created all living things in the span of three days. Not only that, but Genesis 1:29–30 tell us that all creatures were created as vegetarians. There was no death in God’s “very good” creation. It was not until after sin entered the world that death entered in as a consequence. Today, we live in a world that is marred by sin and we must keep that in mind as we interpret the evidence. The Garden of Eden was not planted by God on top of sedimentary layers filled with death, thorns, and disease (all found in the fossil record). God created a perfect world that had not yet been marred by sin. Mankind and the rest of creation is awaiting the day when they will be freed from that corruption ( Romans 8:20–22 ).

The topic of biological evolution is a very broad topic that cannot be covered in detail in this chapter. The companion to this book, Evolution Exposed: Biology, covers these topics in a more thorough manner. Please refer to that book for an in-depth discussion on biological evolution .

In order for us to begin the discussion of how amoebas are supposed to have evolved into apes, there is a more important question to ask. How did the first living thing come to be? Because modern science absolutely rejects the possibility of any supernatural influence, all life on earth must have come from nonliving matter. The story presented in the textbooks is that life evolved about 3.5 billion years ago from simple chemical interactions on the cooling earth. Experiments like those performed by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey are used to explain how life evolved from a primordial soup. These experiments are hailed as proof that life, somehow, appeared. There is little mention of the impossibility of such a transformation based on observational science. Instead, life is assumed to have appeared on a planet that is assumed to have formed from a collapsing nebula that is assumed to have formed from the big bang which is assumed to have occurred without a cause. If any of these links in the chain of assumptions breaks, the whole story of naturalism unravels.

The term evolution is used quite loosely in most circles—including the textbooks. In order to have an intelligent conversation, it is important to define the terms. Evolution, in biological terms, refers to the idea that all organisms are related to one another through time. The tree of life started with a single organism that changed over time to produce every form of life that has existed on earth.

Evolution All life on earth has come about through descent with modification from a single common ancestor (a hypothetical, primitive, single-celled organism).

Evolution is generally assumed to happen as a consequence of natural selection. However, no direct observational evidence supports the concept of a fish turning, however gradually, into an amphibian. Natural selection is often used interchangeably with evolution but can better be defined as:

Natural Selection The process by which individuals possessing a set of traits that confer a survival advantage in a given environment tend to leave more offspring on average that survive to reproduce in the next generation.

Natural selection is an observable process that falls into the category of operational science. We have observed mosquitoes, birds, and many microorganisms undergoing change in relatively short periods of time. New species have been observed to arise. Biblical creationists agree with evolutionists on most of the ideas associated with natural selection, except the idea that natural selection leads to molecules-to-man evolution . Evolutionary biologists assume, based on geologic interpretations, that there have been billions of years for this process to occur. But if long ages did not exist, the evolutionary theory cannot be true.

Another requirement for molecules-to-man evolution , a mechanism for adding new information, is also assumed to exist—even though it has never been observed. Natural selection deletes genetic information from the population. If natural selection is the mechanism that explains the successive adaptations in the transformation of a fish to an amphibian, it must provide new genetic information. To produce the new bones, muscles, and tendons in the limbs requires an elaborate orchestration of biologic processes. The bones don’t only have to be present they must develop at the right time in the embryo, have their shape and size predetermined by the DNA sequence, be attached to the correct tendons, ligaments, and blood vessels, attach to the bones of the pectoral girdle, and so on. The amount of information required for this seemingly simple transformation cannot be provided by a process that generally deletes information from the genome.

Biblical creationists consider major structures to be part of the original design provided by God . Modifications to those structures (adaptations) occur due to genetic recombination, random mutations, and natural selection. These structures do not arise from the modification of similar structures of another kind of animal. The beak of the woodpecker, for example, did not arise from the beak of a theropod dinosaur ancestor it was an originally designed structure. The difference in beak shapes among woodpeckers fits with the idea of natural selection leading to changes within a population of woodpeckers—within the created kind.

Created Kind (Baramin) The original organisms (and their descendants) created supernaturally by God as described in Genesis 1 these organisms reproduce only their own kind within the limits of preprogrammed information, but with great variation. Note: Since the original creation, organisms of one kind presumably cannot interbreed with a different kind, but individuals within a kind may have lost the ability (information) to interbreed due to the effects of the Curse.

This concept distinguishes biblically-based thinking from evolutionary thinking. Evolutionists would suggest that the first single-celled organism evolved into different multi-celled organisms. Eventually, a fish evolved from one of these lines (supposedly a relative of the starfishes) and then the fish evolved into an amphibian. The amphibians gradually developed features that allowed them to move away from water and eventually became reptiles which then evolved into birds and mammals. Eventually, the primates evolved and from that group the first humans emerged between 2 million and 200,000 years ago (depending on which source you put your faith in). The fossil record, DNA, and other biological molecules are used to support this idea.

When we look at what the Bible describes in Genesis, the idea of evolution from one kind of organism to another does not exist. The Bible describes organisms that were created after their own kind. The biblical kinds correspond roughly to the family level using today’s classification scheme. Natural selection occurs within the kinds but could never produce a new kind of organism.

One of the most problematic spots in the explanation of the evolution of life on earth is what is known as the Cambrian Explosion. At this point in the fossil record, supposedly 540 million years ago, all of the major body plans of organisms appear quite suddenly. There are no ancestors in the lower rock layers, so it appears as though there were an explosion of evolutionary activity. This would seem to be contrary to the theory of evolution , but is explained by the presence of alleged dramatic climate changes which led to an increased rate of evolution . The plastic theory of evolution is able to accommodate rapid change or no change at all—the evidence will always support the theory!

This illustration shows a representation of some of the forms that appeared very suddenly in the fossil record during the period known as the Cambrian Explosion. In the creationist model, these animals represent descendants of the original created kinds that became extinct during the Flood of Genesis . Gradual evolution cannot account for the sudden appearance of so many types of life.

Missing from the layers of rock, at any level, are the transitional forms that document how the relatively simple organisms evolved into relatively complex arthropods. When Darwin developed his theory, he expected the fossil record to reveal the missing transitional forms. Over the last 150 years, there has been little in the way of transitional forms revealed. If fish had truly evolved into amphibians over millions of years we would expect to find lots of variations that are partially fish and partially amphibian in the fossil record. There should be a clear line of ancestry from fish to amphibian with countless side-branches of creatures that became extinct. Instead, we find many fish and many amphibians with a few examples of possible transitions.

For example, the recently discovered Tiktaalik is hailed as a clear transition by evolutionists. However, this is simply a fish adapted to living in shallow water. Such variety in the fishes is expected when we start from the Bible and consider the creativity of God. Because evolutionists believe fish evolved into amphibians, they interpret Tiktaalik as part of that transition. Despite the fact that the ancestors often appear higher in the rock layers than their descendants, the status of transition is claimed.

Have you seen a dinosaur lately? You likely saw one out the window today—as it fluttered by. Birds represent living dinosaurs according to many evolutionists. The theropod dinosaurs grew feathers on their arms and evolved into the many birds we see today. There are those who reject this claim but many dinosaurs are now shown with feathers despite the fact that no fossils with feathers have been found. Those fossils that have feathers have been shown to be frauds or identified as true birds. From a biblical perspective, birds were created before dinosaurs so there is no way to reconcile the evolutionary account with the Bible .

Drawing feathers on a dinosaur does not make it a bird! The fibers on Sinosauropteryx have been determined to be collagen fibers, not protofeathers. Even if dinosaurs with feathers were found, this would merely be an example of a feathered reptile. The Bible teaches that birds and land animals are separate creations—one did not evolve into another.

When the phrase “human evolution ” is used, this is probably one of the first images to pop into people’s minds. Despite its iconic status and widespread use, it is not based on factual evidence, but on imagination.

The myth of transitional forms is very evident when we approach the subject of human evolution . Evolutionists would have us believe that all apes share a common ancestor. The textbooks present humans arising from this common ancestor over 4 million years ago. Whether this was in Africa or around the world simultaneously has not been determined, let alone which fossil represents the ancestor of modern humans. An examination of the fossils that are proposed as human ancestors, or at least along the branch that led to humans, shows many specimens that overlap in evolutionary time, as well as gaps of millions of years. There is no consensus on the path to humans, and any representation of the lineage is highly subjective. In the biblical creationist model, these specimens either represent some type of extinct ape, or groups of humans.

The moral implications of the evolutionary philosophy that man is simply an advanced ape are increasingly manifested in our culture. If man is an ape, then the apelike or primal urges that we have for violence and sexuality can be excused as coming from our evolutionary history. Exercising those urges is contrary to the Christian doctrine of self-control. If we are just advanced apes and ultimately a product of random, cosmic accidents then there is no basis for what is right and wrong. The Bible , on the other hand, provides a clear basis for morality—we are all accountable to the Creator and His moral laws.

Another attempt to cut the Creator out of the picture involves alien life. The search for life on other planets in the universe is based on evolutionary assumptions. According to evolutionists, if life could evolve here on earth then it must have evolved in many different places in the universe. Billions of dollars are spent on determining where and when this life may have evolved. Popular culture reflects this belief in the many different science fiction stories where the alien life offers hope to humanity. Whether this hope is from technology or medical knowledge, these beings are seen as saviors of mankind in many cases. Rather than accepting the Savior revealed in the Bible many people put their hope in something for which there is not a shred of evidence.

The belief in the evolution of life on the earth is simply in total contradiction to what the Bible presents. The fossil record and the observations concerning natural selection do not support the evolutionary worldview unless there is a prior commitment to uphold a belief system. Starting with the truth in God ’s Word, we must reject evolutionary thinking and the conclusions it leads us to.

It’s no wonder that both the 1991 and 2005 surveys recorded nearly 70% support for wolf restoration in the park. Conversely, an increase in the wolf populati.

Evolution was not Darwin’s idea alone. The speculation of evolution had already been purposed by his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. “Darwin saw all life as a s.

According to State Farm Insurance Company there are over 1.23 million deer-vehicle collisions in the USA from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012 (Blackwell, Seama.

Introduction This experiment was performed to test the effects of different evolutionary forces on a population that would normally be in Hardy-Weinberg equ.

The FDA defines genetic engineering as a process in which recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology is used to introduce desirable traits into organisms. A genetical.

With so many variations in populations of species, the struggle of existence results in 'survival of the fittest', a term coined by Herbert Spencer. The surv.

A description of how scientists in this area of study do their work There are a few way to how scientist study evolution, which are fossils, DNA, homologous .

This would therefore create new species. Darwin and Lamarck were both scientists interested in the mechanism of evolution. Lamarck’s theory was oriented arou.

The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled” (Baugh, 1997, pg. 4). There is not enough solid evidence to even begin to prove that man evolved from a.

In 1831, Darwin embarked on a 5 year voyage around the world on the HMS Beagle. Here he studied specimens all over the globe which ultimately led him to begi.