witeduv719's Blog

For gorbash & all the others who believe in evolution .

 

 Frames of Reference The Bible, Politics and Science Darwin on Evolution By Darrin Yeager on March 25, 2008 7:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It’s been said evolution is a fact, with just a few details left to work out. But if you study science much, you recall another time when science had the same amount of assurance — just at the first part of the 1900’s. Physicists thought they had all the laws of physics explained, with just a few details left to work out. But along came a guy by the name of Einstein who shattered their comfort with a new branch of physics called quantum mechanics. So much for the assurance of science — will the same happen to evolution?

Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall. Better to be of a humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud. (Proverbs 16:18-19 NKJV)

The following is only a brief summary of a few problems with the current theory (some of which were raised by Darwin himself). Each by itself could be the topic of a book — the goal here is to illustrate a few things to think about in regards to evolution. Any person putting their faith in the theory of evolution must have answers for these questions. These are not just minor details to work out, they are fundamental issues that must be resolved for the theory to have credibility.

When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained, What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him? (Psalm 8:3-4 NKJV)

Part of that verse is simple. Man is composed of a few dollars worth of chemicals. The first part, unfortunately, is considerably more difficult to understand.

When we consider the heavens, we are left with two possible explanations. Either Genesis is right, or Darwin was right. (The third, that UFO’s have populated the earth, still leaves you with a choice among the previous two). But which? Well, if Darwin was right, the following statement has validity, and leads us to our first topic.

If we place a group of monkeys in front of typewriters, given enough time, they would type out word for word the Encyclopedia Britannica.

NATURAL SELECTION

Is the previous statement possible? Of course. However, this is NOT the question to ask. The question to ask is, is it probable? In other words, given the time the universe has been in existence, how likely is it to occur? Evolution says as random mutations occur, those that are beneficial to the species are more likely to be passed on to further generations — “survival of the fittest”. As billions of years go by, fish grow legs, legs change to wings, and goo turns to man. Unfortunately, science has also found out this doesn’t work.

If we place a group of monkeys in front of typewriters, given enough time, they would type out word for word the Encyclopedia Britannica.

If you actually calculate the odds of just the previous statement occurring by chance, the odds of it occurring by monkeys typing is impossible (impossible is defined as having a less than 1 in 1050 chance). So what do we do, since random mutations don’t work? Simple. We say the mutations are not random. But how does “nature” determine what goal to strive for?

Consider how a complex organ such as the eye evolves over millions of years. Let’s assume some mutations have sensitized an area of the skin to light, so that certain areas are more sensitive to light. What good is this? By the theory, this has no benefit to the species so would be selected out. But let’s suppose it survives, and goes on to develop into an eye, complete with lens, retina, and the muscles needed to focus automatically. How this happens over millions of years is unknown, for unless the entire eye is complete, it is useless. But let’s assume it happened; the eye is complete. Without the nerve connecting it to the brain, and the brain being able to process the information, the partially formed eye is useless, and would be selected out since it gives no advantage to the species. Millions of years of mutations and natural selection wasted.

But let’s suppose all this happened over millions of years. The eye is complete, and the connection to the brain works, and the brain is capable of processing the information. How did two eyes develop? What told the species you needed two? Since you wouldn’t know the benefits of two eyes working together to provide depth perception unless you already had two, how did this develop? The more thinking you do on this, the more absurd it sounds. Darwin himself knew this was a problem, and the passage of time since he proposed his theory has not made it any less of a problem.

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd to the highest degree. (Charles Darwin “The Origin of Species” Bantam Books June 1999, page 155)

Darwin explained his problem with two points he felt would solve this problem:

Numerous examples of species with transitional forms. Unfortunately, this is not the case. As we shall see in another section, the fossil record is silent on transitional forms. Has anything been found with partial eyes? Each transitional form is useful to the species. This is difficult to imagine. What good is a partially formed eye? A partially formed eye is useless, according to the theory it would be selected out.

The mystery of complex organs poses a huge problem for evolution; partially formed organs are useless. Consider also reproductive organs. If these developed over millions of years the same problem presents itself. What good are partially developed reproductive systems? They serve no purpose so would be selected out. And how did a species reproduce during the millions of years they were developing? If a species could reproduce without them, why would they evolve in the first place?

LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

If evolution has been occurring for billions of years, why isn’t there life elsewhere in the universe? Since the theory says species adapt to their environment, we can’t say other planets are inhospitable to life — to our species yes, but life should be able to evolve and adapt to any environment. It’s not for a lack of looking, but nothing has been found — not a cell, skeleton, nothing. Why not?

THE FOSSIL RECORD

This is again embarrassing. As evolution has occurred for billions of years, and we went from goo to single-celled animals to fish to crawling up on land, etc, where are the transitional forms? Where is the half fish half lizard? The fossil record should have hundreds, thousands, even millions of examples. Where are they? Evolutionists mention 3 or 4 highly debatable ones, but why have they only found a few? For billions of years of evolution? Strange. It’s not for a lack of looking — how many people are digging, and for how many decades have they been searching? There is a deafening silence from the evolutionists on this issue, and understandably so. If their theory is correct, the evidence should be there, and it isn’t. Once again, Darwin knew the problem the fossil record posed for evolution, and probably expected later scientists to find abundant transitional forms.

… the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious objection which can be urged against my theory. (Charles Darwin “The Origin of Species” Bantam Books June 1999, page 230)

But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? (ibid, page 144)

For Darwin, of course, he must have felt future people would find these intermediate species and vindicate his theory. But where are they? After all the digging, we should have found hundreds, if not thousands of examples.

Punctuated Equilibrium

Since the fossil record doesn’t have the vast evidence Darwin himself predicted, a new theory has been advanced — punctuated equilibrium. This theory states evolution isn’t really a gradual process, but happens rapidly for a time, and then stops. In this way, you don’t really expect much in the fossil record (which is good, since not much has been found).

Of course, this is based on no evidence at all — the idea comes from a complete lack of support for evolution. Evolution isn’t occurring now (so we can’t see it), and happened in the past too fast to leave evidence. Convenient, isn’t it? For what reason did this happen?

Is this what we’re now counting as science? What about the scientific method, which requires hard data?

But the unanswered question — why does evolution start and stop? What caused punctuated equilibrium in the first place? Once again, no answers, and no scientific experimental data to support the claim.

THE BIG BANG

Billions of years ago there was a huge explosion which threw out all the stuff our universe is made from. Where did the material come from in the first place? No one knows. It’s been said this isn’t a problem for evolution, since the theory is only concerned with how life changes over time (that’s not true anyway, remember the primordial goo we evolved from — it’s nonliving material). But if you have a theory to explain how we got where we are today, but can’t explain the origins, what good is the theory? It’s useless.

This is such a huge problem it must be addressed. It was popular a few years ago to claim the universe is infinitely old, then this problem doesn’t present itself. Carl Sagan was well known to promote this position, and may be responsible for it’s popularity. Only one problem — it’s wrong. The most recent science shows this can’t be so. A few excerpts from an article in the Los Angeles Times on May 26, 1999 may prove helpful (taken from a reprint in the Register-Guard of the same article on May 26, 1999 titled “Astronomers solve an age-old question”).

Astronomers, peering at the edge of forever, have determined that the universe is between 12 billion and 13.4 billion years old, resolving one of cosmology’s most fundamental and perplexing questions with unprecedented precision, independent research teams announced Tuesday. … The findings are based on eight years of painstaking calculations, observations with NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope and a range of celestial measurements. … “Our results are in agreement,” said Lineweaver at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. “The most awe-inspiring conclusion is that the universe has not been around forever; it had a beginning.”

A basic law of Physics is matter can neither be created nor destroyed. So if there is no God, how did the big bang occur? Where did it come from? Even if we assume everything after the big bang can be explained by evolution (which it can’t), we still are left with this problem.

EVOLUTION — A THEORY IN TROUBLE

Clearly, by looking at the previous points it’s obvious evolution is a theory in trouble. There are few answers given for the previous problems, and no one wants to talk about them. These are not just minor details to work out; they are significant problems shaking the core of evolutionary theory. The core argument of evolution involves change over time. Yet we find neither transitional forms as proof this occurred, nor can it be explained how gradual change explains the development of complex systems such as the eye (with each mutation actually providing a benefit).

It is left to the reader to determine why the fundamental concepts of evolution have little or no proof — considering the considerable time evolutionists have expended in search of it. Would other scientific theories survive this long without proof or with fundamental problems such as:

Matter comes from nothing. Explosions produce order. Non-living goo can suddenly come alive. A theory based on no evidence (Punctuated equilibrium).

All three not only have NO experimental evidence for them, they actually contradict many of the laws we know. They are assumed a priori simply because evolution won’t work otherwise. But where is the experimental evidence? It doesn’t exist. As the theory continues to be changed year by year, it’s apparent evolution doesn’t work. As desperate evolutionists continue to cling to their dogma and come up with ridiculous claims for which little or no evidence is ever shown, perhaps the time has come to take a fresh, open-minded look at the evidence. Until these problems can be addressed in a scientifically valid manor, it’s a waste of time to talk about the other parts of the theory. Unless, of course, you accept the theory on faith alone.

Internationally respected astronomer (and self-confessed agnostic) Robert Jastrow admits that scientists have been “traumatized” by coming up against a problem that must forever remain beyond them [the idea of how the universe came into existence] … Jastrow concludes his book [God and the Astronomers] “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” (Heeren, Fred “Show Me God” ~page 121-122)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ p>

For Further Reading go to the website from which this is copied:

http://www.dyeager.org/blog/2008/03/darwin-on-evolu
tion.html