Posted on 10/01/2012 8:26:41 AM PDT by fishtank
The Scientific Case Against Evolution by Henry Morris, Ph.D. *
Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.
Evolution Is Not Happening Now
First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many transitional forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct kinds of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. For example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no “dats” or “cogs.” Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true vertical evolution.
Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new basic kind.
Evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, acknowledged:
It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky’s claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1
The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even evolutionist Ernst Mayr, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who alleged that evolution was a “simple fact,” nevertheless agreed that it was a “historical science” for which “laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques”2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.
Evolution Never Happened in the Past
Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.
Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion…it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.1
Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct kind to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils—after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.
Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.1
The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates—the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.
With respect to the origin of life, researcher Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concluded:
And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.3
Being committed to total evolution as he was, Orgel could not accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculated that RNA may have come first, but then he still had to admit that:
The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear….investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.3
Translation: “There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically.” Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught that Stanley Miller’s famous experiment on a gaseous mixture practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so!
Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Stephen Gould admitted:
The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.4
Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its hard parts on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate—that is, the first fish—with its hard parts all on the inside.
Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.5
Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist Niles Eldredge, acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same!
It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations….6
So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of organisms that didn’t change during their durations?
Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees—fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups….Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner—new features are often “cut and pasted” on different groups at different times.7
As far as ape/human intermediates are concerned, the same is true, although anthropologists have been eagerly searching for them for many years. Many have been proposed, but each has been rejected in turn.
All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have used this assortment of jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, together with molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a line of human descent going back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor.8
Anthropologists supplemented their extremely fragmentary fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn’t help much either because it contradicts fossil evidence. Anthropologist Roger Lewin notes:
The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed….The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.9
Summarizing the genetic data from humans, another author concludes, rather pessimistically:
Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.10
Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism.
These negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time, strong positive evidences for special creation. They are, in fact, specific predictions based on the creation model of origins.
Creationists would obviously predict ubiquitous gaps between created kinds, though with many varieties capable of arising within each kind, in order to enable each basic kind to cope with changing environments without becoming extinct. Creationists also would anticipate that any vertical changes in organized complexity would be downward, since the Creator (by definition) would create things correctly to begin with. Thus, arguments and evidences against evolution are, at the same time, positive evidences for creation.
References
Schwartz, J. 1999. Sudden Origins. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 300. Mayr, E. 2000. Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought. Scientific American. 283 (1): 83. Orgel, L. 1994. The Origin of Life on the Earth. Scientific American. 271 (4): 78. Gould, S. 1999. The Evolution of Life. Evolution: Facts and Fallacies, Schopf, ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 9. Long, J. 1995. The Rise of Fishes. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 30. Eldredge, N. 1998. The Pattern of Evolution. New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 157. Shubin, N. 1998. Evolutionary Cut and Paste. Nature. 349: 12. Tudge, C. 1995. Human Origins Revisited. New Scientist. 146: 24. Lewin, R. 1998. Family Feud. New Scientist. 157: 39. Takahata, N. 1995. Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 26: 343. Adapted from Dr. Morris’ article “The Scientific Case Against Evolution: A Summary Part 1” in the December 2000 issue of Acts & Facts. This article is available on icr.org.
* Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918-2006) was Founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
Cite this article: Morris, H. M. 2012. The Scientific Case Against Evolution. Acts & Facts. 41 (10): 4-5.
I've always thought one of the apparent assumptions of the TOE which is highly suspect is that favorable mutation is permanent. Just because a mutation may come along that increases a particular species' likelihood of survival, who's to say that individual wouldn't be killed in some other way? A favorable mutation would not only have to occur, after countless millennia of time, but its carrier would have to survive and reproduce to pass it along!
The silly thought exercise of the million monkeys with a million typewriters producing all the works of Shakespeare is full of assumptions like that:
1) Would a monkey try to type on a typewriter? Who's to say it wouldn't use the typewriter as a stool or a toilet? For each monkey that doesn't use the typewriter as intended, the condition, sooner or later, becomes irreversible.Now, many people would just roll their eyes and explain that I'm not getting it. But that's exactly the point! When you grant an easy out on the ugly details, nearly any absurd idea can "pass!"2) If a monkey did play with a typewriter, instead of actually or effectively ignoring it, who's to say it wouldn't break the typewriter? That condition is irreversible.
3) If the monkey does manage to press some keys on the typewriter, what does it type on? Is it assumed that there is an endless supply of correctly loaded typing paper? ...ribbon? Convenient and powerful assumption, that.
4) Why would a monkey continue to use the typewriter, assuming the first three obstacles are overcome? What causes the experiment to continue? Another assumption?
5) Both the monkey and the typewriter have limited life spans. You only get a finite amount of time for Shakespeare to appear before everyone and everything is dead!
All these issues have analogs in relation to TOE which, as far as I know, are not addressed by adherents. Evolution would have to work in the messy, hostile, random Real World. Favorable mutation? Yay! ...oops, dinosaur stepped on it. Start over.
When you factor in the inconvenient realities, I believe even the Magic Fairy Dust isn't powerful enough to bring the dead theory to life.
There's a lot we don't yet know. Happy now?
I’ll let you know when I get over the shock! I feel like I should make a wish or something.
Must be getting close to the next freepathon
Evolution may disprove particular creation myths if they are taken literally, but it doesn't disprove creation in general. It does describe how creation happened for people who choose not to be ignorant.
True, and I do know that there is no problem with us discussing it here.
This is a pro-God site.
Please tell what you know of science.
That, BTW, is a perfect description of the theory of evolution.
To what end do I dedicate a substantial investment in time?
That, BTW, is a perfect description of the theory of evolution.
Your opinion is noted, and held for reference in evaluating future communications.
It will make you look like you might know what you’re talking about, at least. As it stands, all I see is an “attack dog”.
To what end do I dedicate a substantial investment in time?
Not a shred of humility in you, eh?
Your opinion is noted, and held for reference in evaluating future communications
It might. Or it might just waste a large portion of my time to no good end. If all you can see is "attack dog", then that's likely not going to change. That you suddenly became interested in my reply on this thread from days ago after a disagreement on another thread brings up the possibility that this is simply and exercise in "counterattack" calculated to effect self-censoring by retreat.
Evasion.
I’ve been here too long to take that bait.
More evasion.
You’re not going to get to jerk me around, and you’re not going to get your flame war. Better luck next time.
Asking a question is not a flame war. Refusing to answer could be seen as an attempt to start one, however.
I've been here long enough to know better than that. Many a flame war has been started with loaded questions, and nobody ever started one by walking away.
By all means, point out whatever loaded question you are referring to. Never mind being more specific about “cherry-picked facts” and “logical fallacies” previously referred to.
That is argumentum ad hominem as well as argumentum ad verecundiam.
But following your line of thinking, then everything Darwin came up with should be utterly dismissed due to his own background of study. The man was not a biologist, nor had any degree in any of the sciences. He was a naturalist, which is pure philosophy and no science.
All of the questions you've asked me have been loaded.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.