Tag: General

By Bob Beanblossom

20 July 2016

The theories of evolution begin with the assumption that all matter and energy that ever was or will be in the universe already existed. Evolution is and must be silent on the source and force of the creation of these basics. We will deal that another time.

We should understand from the start that there is no ‘Theory of Evolution.’ Today, there are as many theories as there are believers. Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ has been replaced in scientific circles, but not in the popular media. No theory of evolution has been proven by the arduous criteria of the scientific method. Computer simulations that substitute for observed phenomena are just that—simulations (predictions) based upon suppositions. If you watch the weather forecasts, you are familiar with computer modeling—and their accuracy, even in the short term. Often cited examples of evolution such as the adaptive changes in virus to resist antibiotics are not evolution—they are adaptions. The ‘new’ forms are still virus. The theories of evolution today are matters of faith, of philosophy, and not science.

‘Proofs’ of evolution today start with existing life and describe various changes. Darwin described changes over time in finches’ beaks on the Galapagos Islands that he visited as part of his tour aboard the HMS Beagle. This argument is still used often in popular literature although it was set set aside long ago by scientists—these are simply variations due to change over time in the birds’ natural food supply due to weather and other natural factors. As the supply cycle continues, ‘evolutionary’ characteristics that disappeared reappear. Through it all, the finches are still finches.

We will look at evolution from a more fundamental perspective than the popular hunt for ‘missing links,’ although we will look at that briefly in closing.  This will be a brief but pragmatic approach to some of the basic assumptions vital to support evolutionary theory. These are the fundamental issues that must be recognized before any discussion can occur of species to species (kind to kind) transformations.

Here are the building blocks of evolution. This is not a rigorous scientific treatise, but is still intended to be accurate within the limitations of scope, time, and space. I submit to fact as I understand it, not to dogma. I stand to be corrected in any and all.

---

---

Evolution states that:

1. Organic (living) matter evolved (changed fundamentally) from inorganic (non-living) atoms and molecules into complex organic molecules over vast periods of time.
2. These changes occurred strictly by chance using existing matter, energy, and the laws of nature that we live with this very day. Evolution allows no external design, energy, or force to achieve these changes. Adaptions and permutations such as ‘biblical evolution’ that attempt to include design with chance do not meet the basic criteria of evolution. Theories of life arriving from ‘the stars’ still beg the question of origin.
3. These developments occurred in environments ideally suited for their formation, growth, reproduction, and further development.
4. Those organic compounds developed the necessary attributes to sustain themselves (live), procreate or replicate themselves, and further develop into more and more complex and specialized forms including living plants and animals. All in a finite life span. In other words, compounds such as sugar (C₁₂H₂₂O₁₁), methane (CH₄), and carbon dioxide (CO₂) developed—over vast spans of time—into not only enzymes, RNA and DNA, but eyes, ears, legs—and brains, with internal and external communications networks, sensory perceptions, defense mechanisms—and intelligence, will, social behaviors.  In other words, the ability to not only live, but to interact creatively with its environment including other life forms.

Evolution of inorganic matter into organic

This essential step requires the formation of organic compounds from inorganic elements. The essential ingredient is the element carbon (C).  While it is contained in non-organic compounds such as carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), and the basic carbon forms of diamond and graphite, it is an essential ingredient by definition in organic compounds. As early as 1828, Friederich Wohler synthesized urea from inorganic compounds. Many increasingly complex organic compounds including amino acids, purines, and pyrimidines have since been synthesized. It is important to carefully read the research, though, since discoveries of precursors in the laboratory seem to become The Missing Link in the popular press. Laboratory synthesis does suggests the possibility of natural synthesis.

Another problem is that all metabolism depends upon enzymes and most enzymes are proteins. Proteins are synthesized from DNA codes and transmitted to mitochondrial RNA. Therefore the synthesis of RNA and DNA requires proteins. In other words, proteins cannot be made without nucleic acid and nucleic acid cannot be made without proteins. (The Origin of Life, rcn.net, J. Kimball: http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/AbioticSynthesis.html).

Natural evolution of organic matter into organic

Evolutionary biochemists cite the synthesis of these chemicals in the laboratory as proof that there is no essential ‘life force’ or ‘creative force’ necessary to produce life.  Since these processes have not been observed in nature, the logical failure here is ignoring the effects of the intentional activities of the scientist. Without those activities—the set-up, the process—the reactions would not have occurred. It must again be stressed that an enzyme is not a living creature—only a component of that creature.

Room for growth

The synthesis of increasingly complex organic molecules is interesting but inconclusive relative to evolution. Laboratory synthesis of polymers has proved that the processes explored so far are self-limiting.  That is, at a certain point the culture becomes toxic to the organic compound(s). As the compounds become more complex, the requirements for their development and for the development of even more complex molecules become even more stringent and less favorable statistically.

For our purposes, this means that as complexity increases towards real living organisms (and we haven’t even gotten close to that point), the likelihood of success decreases fundamentally.  That is the reason for the vast age of the earth and universe that evolutionists claim. I have discussed the dating methods in another paper. Organic compounds are not living entities. They are simply chemicals contained in living beings, like fuel is a component of a functioning internal combustion engine. Both are required, but are not the whole. Once evolved, these organic compounds have to be assembled both in very specific and very diverse ways to produce a living plant or animal. 

Creating offspring

We really can’t go here. Since we have not been able to create a life form, we have nothing to reproduce. If the conditions could be duplicated that were produced in the labs, it is conceivable that organic compounds could be synthesized. Remember, that this is akin to hydrogen and oxygen combining to form water. It is a chemical process. Water babies aside, chemicals are not life. They are only components of life. Essential, but incomplete.

This will not satisfy the devout evolutionist. It is not intended to do that. What I would like to do is to encourage some real investigation by evolutionists and creationists into the facts of the religion of the age.

Let’s conclude with one more step. It is important to remember that all of this is theory.  None of the above principles have ever been proved by the accepted tenants of the scientific method. Frequently cited ‘proofs’ of evolution (Ref. National Geographic Gene Study, Richard Peacock) include

• “The universal genetic code.
• The fossil record.
• Genetic commonalities.
• Common traits in embryos.
• Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.”

With our improved working knowledge of the facts of evolutionary theory and our honed investigative skills, let’s look at those proofs. There is redundancy in the list: repetition is often a tool used to mask weak arguments.  I will combine some just to simplify.

Universal Genetic Code, Genetic Commonalities

Whether you assume a Divine Creator or evolution as described above, there is agreement that the elements of the universe are universal. A carbon-12 atom is composed of six protons, six neutrons, and six electrons. The source does not matter. It combines in specific ways with other elements, as do all the elements.  We would expect both predictability and uniformity here, and we get it.

Perhaps, this should not be an argument used by the evolutionists, though. Since evolution is described as a process taking place over millions of years in diverse times and locations, commonality seems to be a contradiction. We would expect more diversity from this process as local conditions provided different components and environments.

The Fossil Record

This is the most popular form of evolutionary ‘proof’ used today because it is easy to relate to, and it grabs our imaginations. The argument is a ‘Buyer beware’ situation, though. Here are some examples.

The website “Understanding Evolution” from the University of California at Berkeley presents the following: (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_02)

“Fossil evidence

“Nicholas Steno’s anatomical drawing of an extant shark (left below) and a fossil shark tooth (right) below. Steno made the leap and declared that the fossil teeth indeed came from the mouths of once-living sharks. “The fossil record provides snapshots of the past that, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and may have bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is old and has changed over time. “Early fossil discoveries  In the 17th century, Nicholas Steno shook the world of science, noting the similarity between shark teeth and the rocks commonly known as “tongue stones.” This was our first understanding that fossils were a record of past life. “Two centuries later, Mary Ann Mantell picked up a tooth, which her husband Gideon thought to be of a large iguana, but it turned out to be the tooth of a dinosaur,Iguanodon. This discovery sent the powerful message that many fossils represented forms of life that are no longer with us today. “Additional clues from fossils Today we may take fossils for granted, but we continue to learn from them. Each new fossil contains additional clues that increase our understanding of life’s history and help us to answer questions about their evolutionary story.”

Did you notice anything missing?  There is no discussion of actual fossil progression from one species of life to another. In fact, there is no mention of evolution at all—just that life has changed with time. We have seen that in our own lifetime, but we have not seen evolution. Man, for instance, is very diverse in a number of characteristics, with some such, as height and weight, changing visibly.

Here is another look, this time from Austine Cline, self-identified as Agnosticism & Atheism Expert (http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/FossilRecordEvolution.htm).

“When you hear talk of evidence for evolution, the first thing that frequently comes to mind for most people are fossils. The fossil record has one important, unique characteristic: it is our only actual glimpse into the past where common descent is proposed to have taken place. As such it provides invaluable evidence for common descent. The fossil record is not “complete” (fossilization is a rare event, so this is to be expected), but there is still a wealth of fossil information.

“What Is the Fossil Record?

“If you look at the fossil record, you find a succession of organisms that suggest a history of incremental development from one species to another. You see very simple organisms at first and then new, more complex organisms appearing over time. The characteristics of newer organisms frequently appear to be modified forms of characteristics of older organisms.

“Tis succession of life forms, from simpler to more complex, showing relationships between new life forms and those that preceded them, is strong inferential evidence of evolution.

“There are gaps in the fossil record and some unusual occurrences, such as what is commonly called the Cambrian explosion, but the overall picture created by the fossil record is one of consistent, incremental development.”

To be fair, there is more to his article, but the gist is that creation is not an option. To beat that dead horse, did you notice anything missing?  He does cite evolution in his equivocal certainty, but where is his “succession of organisms” that is the basis for his argument. Missing, again. Typically, following his admission that “common descent is proposed,” he concludes that the unspecified fossil record is “invaluable evidence.”

Let’s try again. This will be more detailed. Here is an excerpt from Evolution and the Fossil Record

(http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/examplesofevolution.html)

“Examples of Evolution 

“The fossil record contains many well-documented examples of the transition from one species into another, as well as the origin of new physical features. Evidence from the fossil record is unique, because it provides a time perspective for understanding the evolution of life on Earth. This perspective is not available from other branches of science or in the other databases that support the study of evolution. 

“Evolution of birds

“Most paleontologists regard birds as the direct descendants of certain dinosaurs – as opposed to descendants of some other group of reptiles. Paleontologists and zoologists have long accepted that birds and reptiles are related. The two groups share many common traits including many skeletal features, the laying of shelled eggs, and the possession of scales, although in birds, scales are limited to the legs. Among modern birds, the embryos even have rudimentary fingers on their wings. In one modern bird, the South American hoatzin, Opisthocomus hoazin, the wings of the juvenile have large moveable claws on the first and second digits. The young bird uses these claws to grasp branches.

“The descent of birds from dinosaurs was first proposed in the late 1860s by Thomas Henry Huxley, who was a famous supporter of Darwin and his ideas. Evidence from fossils for the reptile-bird link came in 1861 with the discovery of the first nearly complete skeleton of Archaeopteryx lithographica in Upper Jurassic limestones about 150 million years old near Solenhofen, Germany. The skeleton of Archaeopteryx is clearly dinosaurian. It has a long bony tail, three claws on each wing, and a mouth full of teeth. However, this animal had one thing never before seen in a reptile – it had feathers, including feathers on the long bony tail. Huxley based his hypothesis of the relationship of birds to dinosaurs on his detailed study of the skeleton of Archaeopteryx. 

“Here is the proof, including the citation of Thomas Huxley—an icon in the pantheon of evolutionary heroes. The discussion will center on the statements highlighted in bold print above.”

“many well-documented examples” Show me. Not commonalities (discussed below), not changes in characteristics (small horses developing into larger horses—that are all horses). Among the contributions of the science of DNA is a better understanding and adjusting of the classification of species.  This will be an area to watch with interest and honest skepticism as it is decoded.

• “Most paleontologists regard” While this may or may not be a true statement, it is designed as a shaming tool—very much like ‘everybody is doing it.’ Intimidating, but meaningless.
• “share many common traits” This is worth looking at. We hit it briefly above, but will consider the implications now. In a biological context, ‘traits’ include both physical attributes and behaviors.

o   Frogs, flies, and felines all have heads, yet I have not heard anyone claim they were in the same evolutionary ‘branch.’ That’s the proof of commonality.

o   More subtle commonalities such as those mentioned above are worth examining. Scales in fish and birds are cited as ‘proof’ of an evolutionary link. That’s like saying that all animals with hair are directly linked on an evolutionary branch. That would make mice, mountain goats, and men close kin, separated by only a few millions of years. So, when you set a mouse trap, remember: ‘There but by the fate of chance go I.’

• “Embryos have rudimentary” is one of those ‘proofs’ that persist after the state of scientific knowledge has moved on. An often-cited example was that human embryos developed thru a series of stages that included fish. Modern medical techniques have debunked this theory.
• “Evidence from the fossils” The statement is that there is a similarity (see above). There are no examples of reptile to intermediate species to bird.  Extinct species are not proof of evolutionary links that failed, but of species that failed. This occurs today. An endangered or species passing on to extinction is not an evolutionary link.
• “never before seen” Lack of knowledge is certainly proof of nothing except a lack of knowledge.

If evolutionary theory were correct, there could be no ‘missing links.’  Each developmental species (missing link) would have to exist long enough and in enough quantities to develop into a new species that in turn changed into another species. The fossil record should reflect this abundance of life forms. It does not. The survival of any of those species had/has nothing to do with new speciation. If it did, those species which have died out in our lifetime are ‘missing links.’ And, they are not.

I have sought to show that evolution is not the fact that those who choose not to believe God would have the rest of us believe. It is philosophy, religion, rather than scientific fact. While some of the basic building blocks (organic compounds) are within the realm of science and the scientific method, the actual evolution of species to species is not. It has never been observed, cannot be tested, and cannot be replicated, or falsified by competent peers.

It is important to state similarly that creation is also a philosophy, a religion, rather than a scientific fact. It, too, cannot be observed, tested, or replicated in the laboratory. This is, of course disputed hotly by evolutionists who still claim that they rest on a scientific foundation.

But, there is a significant difference. Where evolution, as we have discussed above, argues from silence and supposition, the creationist argues from experience—his experience with a personal, communicating, self-revealing God. This is personal and cannot be quantified in objective measurements. That in no way makes it less real.

There is a missing link–it is the jump from organic compounds, no matter how complex, to life forms–to plants and animals.