Darwin said, ‘Natura non facit saltum’ : nature takes no
leaps. Except it does….
Problems with Darwinism and gradual evolution:
1. Primordial
Soup: The actual
chemical content of the ‘primordial soup’ as currently considered could not
have given birth even to amino acids (contrary to earlier experiments which
used the wrong chemicals apparently) let alone a fully-fledged cell, which is a
bit like a Concorde happening by accident. To randomly produce a protein
molecule or the gene to produce it would be a probabilistic impossibility (one
chance in 10 with a 125 zeros after it).
2. Cambrian
Explosion: we had jellyfish, sponges and worms for billions of years
and then ‘boom’ virtually all the ‘families’ of animals (phyla) appeared
suddenly in the fossil record fully formed. Darwin admitted that the Cambrian
explosion went against his theory but felt confident future discoveries would vindicate
him. They haven’t. Darwin remains unvindicated yet this does not bother the
mainstream. This situation alone is enough to disprove gradual evolution
according to Darwin himself. There is also no experimental evidence to support
the view that there were gradual changes within the genetics structure which
took place but then expressed themselves suddenly – why would natural selection
or gradual evolution affect a process in the DNA that had no visible effects
for billions of years? The hidden genetics hypothesis is completely
unsubstantiated experimentally. Clutching at straws comes to mind.
3. Embryology: Darwin
claimed that because early embryo’s look similar this is evidence of common
ancestry. However the early embryo diagrams by Haeckel were doctored (this was
known in 1860 yet the diagrams were still being used in 1990s!). Most embryos are not similar in their early
stages.
4. Homology: similar
features in different animals. The developmental pathway theory of evolution
(tree of life) and common gene pathways theory have both failed experimentally
(for example genes for the eyes can be
swapped between frogs and flies yet still the right eye for each animal
develops). Developmental pathway and gene pathway theories cannot therefore be
used to validate Darwinism. Homology itself is not proof of Darwinism as it can
also be used to argue for Intelligent Design.
5. ‘Gills’ in non-fish
mammal embryos: could be just neck creases in the womb.
6. Missing
Links: The
archeopertyx is simply an extinct bird, it is not a missing link as it was from
the wrong era to link reptiles and birds. There are little or no ‘missing
links’. We are supposed to accept on faith that birds descended from dinosaurs
but this is not proved. If Darwinism was correct the fossil record should be
jammed packed with ‘missing links’ and intermediate forms. It is not. Therefore
gradual evolution from species to species is not supported (macro-evolution).
Micro-evolution, (changes within a species), is generally agreed as we can all
see it happen. (Update - I recently read about how the gradualism of our own evolution does not stack up either. Our nearest hominid pre-human, is dozens of 'missing links' away from us. What are described as 'pre-human' are essentially upright apes. The difference between them and modern man is an immense leap of massive changes in bone density, skeleton and skull shape. Gradualism does not explain this process. The changes between Neanderthal and modern human are equally massive and sudden. Our matriarchal DNA also indicates we are a very young species - the exact opposite of what Darwin's theories would predict if we 'gradually' emerged).
7. Java Man:
Half-ape/half-man from 1891 was a ‘skullcap, a femur, three teeth and a lot of
imagination’.
8. Irreducibly
Complex Systems: there are many biological systems such as bacterial
flagella (complex tail propellers with ingenious super-powered micro-engines)
which cannot be reduced to simpler systems. If you take one part away from the
complex whole it no longer functions. Most scientists are at a loss to describe
how gradual selection can create irreducibly complex systems, of which there
are many.
9. The cell itself is so
complex that many leading biologists have all but given up the ‘chance’
hypothesis. Many scientists now side with intelligent design, often changing
their position from a previously held view of gradualist evolution as such a
view is not compatible with the evidence.
10. Molecules: How
can gradual evolution work at the molecular level where there is no organism to
be affected by natural selection? Darwinism fails to explain how non-life can
organise to produce life.
11. DNA: There
is no known chemical or physical process which would bring the first DNA or RNA
sequence together into formation. The power to do so would need to come from
outside the molecule itself. (Life-force may be capable of doing this but
life-force is not known to most scientists of either intelligent design,
evolutionist or creationist persuasions).
12. Self-organising
processes known to mainstream science produce mechanical order, such as
repetitive sequences of crystals but life itself is a different kind of order (an
irregular complexity capable of producing new information). However life-force
sciences observe that irregular complexity does spontaneously arise in the form
of the life-vesicle termed the bion by Reich or other pre-cellular forms
discovered by others. The proto-cellular form bions can be created by cooking
organic matter at high temperature. They display life-like characteristics
though they are much less complex than a cell. Here are bions emerging from a
super-sterile, autoclaved hay infusion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXickkE3aDU
Here are some quotes from molecular biologists such as Dr
Wells:
‘Darwinism is merely materialist philosophy masquerading as
science'
‘Darwinian evolution is bankrupt.’
The above notes were taken from or were inspired by Lee Stroebel's book 'Case for a Creator', the chapter on Darwinism, a very enjoyable account of a journalist's investigation of the mainstream scientific evidence for a creator. My own views differ quite a bit from Strobel's because he is not aware of life-force, which changes the ball game once again. A good book too which pulls apart the 'religion' of modern blind science is this by the scientist who has worked on the 'morphic field' theory, Dr Sheldrake, The Science Delusion
The above notes were taken from or were inspired by Lee Stroebel's book 'Case for a Creator', the chapter on Darwinism, a very enjoyable account of a journalist's investigation of the mainstream scientific evidence for a creator. My own views differ quite a bit from Strobel's because he is not aware of life-force, which changes the ball game once again. A good book too which pulls apart the 'religion' of modern blind science is this by the scientist who has worked on the 'morphic field' theory, Dr Sheldrake, The Science Delusion
Also, in politics it should be remembered, Darwinism is absolutely fascist. No single theory has done more to philosophically support fascism in both economics and sociology than Charlie's contribution. Think Eugenics, think Rockefellers, think Nazism, think mechanical biology - all rely on Darwin's theories as background support and validation. The strong crush the weak, there is no spiritual higher powers, everything has a mechanical cause, there is only mechanics and anything approaching a God or a spiritual perspective is redundant.
Interesting article on the context of Darwinism and Kropotkin's alternative theory by SJ Gould here http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/stephen-jay-gould-kropotkin-was-no-crackpot.pdf
ReplyDeleteHe refers to an article on Russian responses to Darwin, here http://www.jstor.org/stable/231917
Thanks, unbelievably, only just read your comment as had this blog linked to old gmail...thanks for those articles, will have a read and see how it sits with my current thinking on evolution, or the lack of it...:-)
Delete