Problems in Evolutionary Theory
Created | Updated Jan 21, 2005
Without a doubt, Darwin’s theory of evolution is one of the most discussed scientific theories of all time. The theory is broadly accepted and many consider it proven that the existence of life is the result of a lengthy, random process of mutation and selection. Nevertheless the theory contains five serious problems.
1. Contradiction with reality and natural science
In homes, offices, factories and laboratories, order never emerges by accident and never starts maintaining itself, but always demands directed and continuous external effort. Natural science confirms this everyday experience, and lays down in natural laws that order can only be maintained and increase by directed external effort, not by undirected, accidental forces. The theory of evolution postulates exactly the opposite.
2. Organic soup cannot have existed
Simple chemicals never start combining themselves into ever larger and more complex constructions when directed external effort is lacking. Instead, complex chemicals will break down, sooner or later, into the smallest possible entities. In the famous Miller experiment, “organic soup” could only originate by transporting the DNA building blocks produced by undirected flashes of lightning to a distillation flask, sheltering them from destruction by new accidental flashes. The Miller experiment confirms that the production of a more complex chemical substance out of elementary substances demands directed external effort. If this natural law did not hold, any form of chemical industry would be pointless, since complex chemicals would emerge without effort for free. The presumed billions of tons of DNA building blocks in the primeval oceans therefore cannot have existed.
3. Gene recombination confounded by gene mutation
The change and adaptation in living nature is not the result of the process of “gene mutation and selection” but of the process of “gene recombination and selection”. Dogs, for example, vary extremely in size, color, coat, behavior, etc., depending on their specific combination of genes from the same gene pool (i.e., of the wolf). Dogs that possess an advantageous combination of genes from their gene pool are selected by dog-breeders for reproduction. In free nature, natural selection takes place. inches, for instance, that possess a gene combination for a broad beak are sometimes able to survive, whereas finches that have a gene combination for a narrow beak will not. When the selection criteria of the environment change, the favorable combinations of genes change, as do the corresponding appearances of organisms. Their gene pool, however, stays unchanged. The changes in the shape of the beaks of finches or the appearances of dogs therefore have nothing to do with the mutation of genes. Mutation of genes (i.e., damaging them) is an absolutely different process, which is combated vigorously by mechanisms of comparison and repair in the cell nucleus, which are based on the 8-fold redundancy of the genetic information in each cell (pairs of chromosomes, each of them consisting of two chromatids, and each chromatid consisting of two complementary strings of the same information). When the damage of the genetic information is irreparable and is passed to posterity, the offspring is usually handicapped and cannot survive in the daily struggle for food, shelter and reproduction, and the damage is still removed from the gene pool. As experiences after the nuclear disaster in Chernobyl and in the field of oncology make clear, damaging the DNA cannot be the motor for development and improvement of the gene pool of a species.
4. No intermediate species in the fossil record
The fossil record does not show the expected abundance of intermediate species, as Darwin noted. Fossils just look like the organisms living today, except a number of species that are extinct. Besides, geology and paleontology are linked by circular reasoning: fossils are dated by earth layers, and earth layers by fossils. As a result, the dating of fossils is completely speculative. Because the theory of evolution needs a very long time, earth layers are dated as very old, and the assumptions as to the initial values in radiometric dating techniques are attuned to this. Many indications however suggest the earth is relatively young: (a) all earth layers in which fossils are found appear to contain 14C; (b) the earth is a barely cooled ball of liquid stone; (c) little meteorite dust can be found on the surface of the earth, (d) little leached salt is present in the oceans and (e) only a thin layer of sediments exists on the ocean floor.
5. Irreducible complex systems and processes present
In living nature, numerous “irreducible complex” systems can be found. For example, the light-sensitive cells of the eye, or the motor that drives the flagella of sperm cells. These systems cannot be the result of a long sequence of small, useful steps, as each element of the system only makes sense and can only survive in combination and in harmony with all the others. Numerous processes in living nature are “irriducible complex” too, since they cannot be the result of the incremental useful expansion of a simple initial process. An example of this is the complete rearrangement of all the building blocks of a pupated caterpillar resulting into a butterfly. Darwin noted: "If anyone would prove the existence of a complex organ that could absolutely not be the result of a large number of sequential changes, my theory would collapse completely." (The origin of species, 6e edition, New York University Press, p. 154). These types of systems have been found.
6. Scientific theory or mythic story?
The events the theory of evolution postulates are said to have happened millions or billions of years ago. They are untestable. As a result, the theory of evolution does not meet the main condition for a scientific theory (testability). The few elements that are testable produce negative results (point 2: “organic soup” cannot emerge by accidental, undirected forces only, and point 3: mutation cannot be the motor for improvement and growth of the gene pool). Apart from that, the presence in living nature of irreducible complex systems and processes is, according to Darwin himself, sufficient reason to falsify the theory. It is therefore seriously questionable whether the theory of evolution can be kept as a scientific theory, or must be seen as a mythical story. If the theory of evolution were to be rejected on scientific grounds, science would no longer have a testable theory explaining the origin of life. This would not be a severe problem. "We do not know (yet)" is a very respectable scientific position.
See further: www.evoskepsis.nl
1. Contradiction with reality and natural science
In homes, offices, factories and laboratories, order never emerges by accident and never starts maintaining itself, but always demands directed and continuous external effort. Natural science confirms this everyday experience, and lays down in natural laws that order can only be maintained and increase by directed external effort, not by undirected, accidental forces. The theory of evolution postulates exactly the opposite.
2. Organic soup cannot have existed
Simple chemicals never start combining themselves into ever larger and more complex constructions when directed external effort is lacking. Instead, complex chemicals will break down, sooner or later, into the smallest possible entities. In the famous Miller experiment, “organic soup” could only originate by transporting the DNA building blocks produced by undirected flashes of lightning to a distillation flask, sheltering them from destruction by new accidental flashes. The Miller experiment confirms that the production of a more complex chemical substance out of elementary substances demands directed external effort. If this natural law did not hold, any form of chemical industry would be pointless, since complex chemicals would emerge without effort for free. The presumed billions of tons of DNA building blocks in the primeval oceans therefore cannot have existed.
3. Gene recombination confounded by gene mutation
The change and adaptation in living nature is not the result of the process of “gene mutation and selection” but of the process of “gene recombination and selection”. Dogs, for example, vary extremely in size, color, coat, behavior, etc., depending on their specific combination of genes from the same gene pool (i.e., of the wolf). Dogs that possess an advantageous combination of genes from their gene pool are selected by dog-breeders for reproduction. In free nature, natural selection takes place. inches, for instance, that possess a gene combination for a broad beak are sometimes able to survive, whereas finches that have a gene combination for a narrow beak will not. When the selection criteria of the environment change, the favorable combinations of genes change, as do the corresponding appearances of organisms. Their gene pool, however, stays unchanged. The changes in the shape of the beaks of finches or the appearances of dogs therefore have nothing to do with the mutation of genes. Mutation of genes (i.e., damaging them) is an absolutely different process, which is combated vigorously by mechanisms of comparison and repair in the cell nucleus, which are based on the 8-fold redundancy of the genetic information in each cell (pairs of chromosomes, each of them consisting of two chromatids, and each chromatid consisting of two complementary strings of the same information). When the damage of the genetic information is irreparable and is passed to posterity, the offspring is usually handicapped and cannot survive in the daily struggle for food, shelter and reproduction, and the damage is still removed from the gene pool. As experiences after the nuclear disaster in Chernobyl and in the field of oncology make clear, damaging the DNA cannot be the motor for development and improvement of the gene pool of a species.
4. No intermediate species in the fossil record
The fossil record does not show the expected abundance of intermediate species, as Darwin noted. Fossils just look like the organisms living today, except a number of species that are extinct. Besides, geology and paleontology are linked by circular reasoning: fossils are dated by earth layers, and earth layers by fossils. As a result, the dating of fossils is completely speculative. Because the theory of evolution needs a very long time, earth layers are dated as very old, and the assumptions as to the initial values in radiometric dating techniques are attuned to this. Many indications however suggest the earth is relatively young: (a) all earth layers in which fossils are found appear to contain 14C; (b) the earth is a barely cooled ball of liquid stone; (c) little meteorite dust can be found on the surface of the earth, (d) little leached salt is present in the oceans and (e) only a thin layer of sediments exists on the ocean floor.
5. Irreducible complex systems and processes present
In living nature, numerous “irreducible complex” systems can be found. For example, the light-sensitive cells of the eye, or the motor that drives the flagella of sperm cells. These systems cannot be the result of a long sequence of small, useful steps, as each element of the system only makes sense and can only survive in combination and in harmony with all the others. Numerous processes in living nature are “irriducible complex” too, since they cannot be the result of the incremental useful expansion of a simple initial process. An example of this is the complete rearrangement of all the building blocks of a pupated caterpillar resulting into a butterfly. Darwin noted: "If anyone would prove the existence of a complex organ that could absolutely not be the result of a large number of sequential changes, my theory would collapse completely." (The origin of species, 6e edition, New York University Press, p. 154). These types of systems have been found.
6. Scientific theory or mythic story?
The events the theory of evolution postulates are said to have happened millions or billions of years ago. They are untestable. As a result, the theory of evolution does not meet the main condition for a scientific theory (testability). The few elements that are testable produce negative results (point 2: “organic soup” cannot emerge by accidental, undirected forces only, and point 3: mutation cannot be the motor for improvement and growth of the gene pool). Apart from that, the presence in living nature of irreducible complex systems and processes is, according to Darwin himself, sufficient reason to falsify the theory. It is therefore seriously questionable whether the theory of evolution can be kept as a scientific theory, or must be seen as a mythical story. If the theory of evolution were to be rejected on scientific grounds, science would no longer have a testable theory explaining the origin of life. This would not be a severe problem. "We do not know (yet)" is a very respectable scientific position.
See further: www.evoskepsis.nl
