You are hereNeo-Darwinism's Half-Truths : Why (Macro-) Evolution is False

Neo-Darwinism's Half-Truths : Why (Macro-) Evolution is False


By genebean - Posted on 19 June 2010



In this article we expose the tenets of Neo-Darwinian thought, backed by science, logic, reason, and observations from software design practices.
Map:

Half-Truth #1 : Macro-Evolution vs. Micro

Description : As Darwin observed, animals gradually adapt to their environment over generations. This is true and proven for simpler traits like beak length, body size, fur/skin/eye color (moths becoming dark-colored to blend with soot-covered bark), and so on. Dog breeding is an example of this, whereby certain traits are "selected" over generations.

The Lie : Neo-Darwinists say that through random genetic mutations over millions of years, new organisms and species came to exist through this process. However, they are talking about macro-evolution there, which is different from micro-evolution. They use "evolution" as one big concept to unify both types, even though only one type is true. (see footnote)

The Truth : Science has proven that there is a clever biological mechanism that was put in place to allow for micro-evolution. It is like "user customizability" that is deliberately designed by software designers (programmers). There is some randomness involved from genetic recombination, but it is "regulated" in order to harness variation, much like random-number generators used in software. Micro-evolution happens too quickly (in the span of a few generations) compared to macro-evolution, which, according to Neo-Darwinists, happens over millions of years. Science has also shown that most genetic mutations are harmful, just like introducing random letters into computer code. Micro-evolution is the only type of evolution confirmed with experiments, while macro-evolution remains a theory (a.k.a Darwin's THEORY of evolution). For one thing, the gaps in the fossil record (missing links) are too large and too numerous (see #2 below), with each species being a clearly defined "production model" with no half-formed or useless features (see #3 below). Micro-evolution is true and designed, but macro-evolution is a lie.

The Proof : see this article on the genetic framework for selective breeding, and this article on malaria.


Half-Truth #2 : Ancestry (Class Inheritance) and Gradual, Incremental Change

Description : We can observe from the fossil record that there's the idea of "universal common descent with gradual modification". Phylogeny, cladistics, and taxonomy come to mind. Some species are very closely related, and we can put all plants and animals into "tree diagrams" to show how they are related.

The Lie : Because we can see that the differences between related species are small (generally speaking, and when viewed as a big picture), it appears that these differences are small enough to have happened by accident (random chance and lucky mutations).

The Truth : Just because change appears gradual and incremental, does not make it accidental. Software designers do this all the time, using a "base class" to modify and add features to until it becomes a different, specialized product, or "production version". Some of these in turn, get modified and branched into other versions. One reason for this is that it is easier to modify something than to build it from scratch (re-invent the wheel). In fact, the "gaps" between species are so huge in the overwhelming majority of cases (missing links) that evolutionists are stumped. This is explained by the world of software design whereby software version numbers can increase, but not every version is "pushed to production". Ancestry does NOT validate Darwinian evolution.

The Proof : see my earlier article.


Half-Truth #3 : Vestigiality, Degenerative Evolution vs. Deliberate Disabling of Features

Description : A popular case : unlike most mammals (including primates), humans cannot synthesize Vitamin C and must ingest it. DNA analysis shows that we DO have the mechanism to synthesize Vitamin C, but that this feature is "inactivated" due to a "stop codon" (think of it as a switch).

The Lie : Neo-Darwinists use this to say that we have "degenerated" due to genetic mutation, implying that "we once had the ability" but have now lost it due to "evolution". However, the evidence debunks them because historical records in all cultures show evidence of humanity being dependent on fruit (to get our Vitamin C).

The Truth : Humans never "had this ability, only to lose it later". In software design, programmers frequently disable functionality by "commenting out" a "call" to a "function" or "method". A function or method performs a specific task for the overall program, and can be activated easily with a "call", or specific command, just one line long. Conversely, the call can be easily turned off by disabling that line of code. The reason for this is that it is easier to "comment out" code, than to remove/uproot the function/method. Another reason is to keep the function around in case there are future changes and the function is needed. Who's to say that the Designer did not make us dependent on fruit on purpose, compared to the primates? This also applies to other "vestigial" features like vestigial legs in whales and snakes -- it is more efficient to "tuck the legs in" and to work with the existing framework, than to remove the leg bones altogether and upset the existing structure. It is well-known that there are remnants of Windows 3.1 code embedded in Windows 98. Vestigiality does NOT validate Darwinian evolution.

The Proof : Again, the evidence against this is that historical records across cultures show humans eating fruit. If some humans "lost" this ability, then where are the humans who retained it, given that it is a beneficial trait to be passed down? The only "cutoff point" for this trait we can find is at the species cutoff. Humans need Vitamin C, as a distinct species. Species are like production models. They have specific features that are unique to the species. We didn't "evolve" to lose the ability to make Vitamin C, we never had it -- by design.


Half-Truth #4 : Pre-adaptation (Co-option) vs. Modularity (Reusability)

Description : Pre-adaptation and co-option describe a situation where one trait, feature or component is reused somewhere else, and sometimes modified for a different purpose, or sometimes used as a component in another biological machine.

The Lie : Neo-Darwinists try to justify that some leaps of biological complexity are really not that big because there were pre-existing components already found in other organs, subsystems, or organisms. For example, with the bacterial flagellar motor, they say that 10 of its 50 parts are already found in the "cellular pump" (note: it was found later that the pump came AFTER the motor, not before it).

The Truth : Let's pretend for a moment that 40 brand new parts are no big leap. So what if the 10 parts are already seen in another mechanism? This is a very weak argument for the Darwinists because, in the world of software design, programmers reuse blocks of code all the time. They build reusable code to do things like formatting dates and phone numbers, and validating email addresses. The code is "called" to do the same thing in many different implementations. In many cases, these components are even modified (see point #2 above) to suit a particular implementation (e.g. sweat glands modified into mammary glands). Who's to say that a Designer of all living things didn't do the same thing? In fact, why wouldn't he "reuse code" if it's an efficient design method? Pre-adaptation / co-option does NOT validate Darwinian evolution.

The Proof : see this definition and this article and this article from a PhD.


Half-Truth #5 : Convergent Evolution vs. Differing Platforms

Description : Many vastly different creatures have similar features (homologous structures) that perform a specific function. For example, hummingbirds and insects flap their wings in a figure-eight pattern while hovering, even though one is a bird and the other an insect. Whales and fishes have fins, tails and a streamlined shape that propel them through the water, even though one is a mammal and the other, a fish. Honey possums, butterflies and hummingbirds have a long tongue for getting nectar from flowers, even though they are from completely different animal classes.

The Lie : Neo-Darwinists credit "the forces of nature" and natural selection as the driving force behind these "convergent" features. They state that since the laws of physics are constant, as long as nature abides by these rules, new life-forms can automatically emerge from random chance and end up with the same features.

The Truth : Convergence is not exclusively unique to undirected natural forces that need to follow "the rules of the game". Intelligent design also shows convergence, as we see in the case of "technological convergence". According to Wikipedia, "technological convergence is the tendency for different technological systems to evolve towards performing similar tasks". In this case, the "rules of the game" are things like functionality, user-friendliness, and user satisfaction. One example is Microsoft Office and OpenOffice, both of which are almost clones of each other, despite having been written in completely different programming languages by different programmers. Convergence does NOT validate Darwinian evolution.

The Proof : search on "technological convergence".


Half-Truth #6 : Oversimplification of Features

Description : Neo-Darwinists tend to dismiss the irreducible complexity of biological life by saying "it's really not that complicated, and is simple enough to happen by accident". One example is the woodpecker's tongue (see this diagram). Anatomy confirms that the woodpecker's tongue is so long that it has been modified to wrap around the outside of the skull (and under the scalp), in a specialized lubricated "sheath". The Northern Flicker, also in the woodpecker family, also has a long tongue, but it loops in the other direction, coming from under, then over the skull, under one nostril and into the beak area.

The Lie : There have been articles by supposed experts, stating that "only minor genetic changes are needed to make this modification".

The Truth : There is more than one factor here (tongue length) that is involved in this amazing feat of biological engineering. How many lucky mutations are needed for (1) moving the base of the tongue from the top of the throat to the eye socket, (2) a sheath that happens to be perfectly covering the tongue so that it can travel around the skull, (3) secretions in the sheath, with the correct properties for lubrication (not too sticky, not too dry, preserves moisture correctly), (4) forking the tongue (in the case of the woodpecker and not the flicker) where it loops into the beak area, and then joining it back again to form one piece, (5) the correct muscular modifications in order to wield a longer tongue (more than one axis), (6) the needed neural-motor modifications needed to wield a longer tongue, (7) the special "glue" produced by the tongue of juvenile woodpeckers to get insects to stick, and (8) the barbs on the tongue that replace the glue when woodpeckers reach adulthood, (9) the hardening and shaping at the tip of the tongue in order to withstand normal usage (projected like a spear), and (10) the DNA instructions to provide the correct build sequence for future offspring ... ? All of these modifications (and more, I'm sure) are needed to be in place at the same time in order for the whole "upgrade" to work. How many lucky mutations were needed, and what are the odds? Where are the intermediate transitions? (The sapsucker bird doesn't count as a proto-woodpecker, it is another woodpecker with a short tongue specially adapted to lapping up tree sap after pecking a hole in the bark, the same way that a Humvee can be either a missile launcher or a troop carrier.) Biological features are NOT as simple as Darwinian evolutionists like to promote.

The Proof : The diagram from the University of South Florida should be enough evidence that this is an amazing feat of divine engineering, and not "an accident".


Half-Truth #7 : Underestimation of Timespan

Description : Many scientists, even the pro-Darwin ones, acknowledge that cases like the woodpecker's tongue (see point #6, an instance of irreducible complexity) had to happen with all the modifications in place at the same time. They acknowledge that it wasn't a sequence of mutations over time (since natural selection would have weeded out half-formed or half-functional features); however they explain that given enough time, this chance occurence could have happened.

The Lie : A popular idea is that since the building blocks of biological life (carbon-based molecules) are like Lego bricks and have special properties that allow them to connect easily, then given enough time (and quite an unfathomable span at that), all the lucky mutations needed would have come up in the same instant, *INCLUDING* DNA instructions for the correct build sequence of the new biological features, to be passed down successive generations. This is just like saying that given eternity in a tropical jungle, random jungle sounds will produce Beethoven's 9th Symphony observed within one lucky timespan *INCLUDING* a recording of it for you to take home.

The Truth : "The universe is at least ten billion orders of magnitude (a factor of 1010,000,000,000 times*) too small or too young for life to have assembled itself by natural processes. These kinds of calculations have been done by researchers, both non-theists and theists, in a variety of disciplines". Note that these calculations were made taking into account known rates of mutations. In other words, the special connectivity of these "Lego bricks" was already factored in. (Note: even Lego bricks have a designer behind them.) The luxury of eons of time commonly assumed by Darwinian evolutionists does NOT exist.

The Proof : * see my earlier article for footnotes backing up the above calculation.




FURTHER READING

Extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution

"The conventional view of evolution is that macroevolution is simply microevolution continued on a larger scale, over large expanses of time. That is, if one observes a change in the frequencies of spots in guppies within 15 generations, as a result of selective pressures applied by the experimenter in the laboratory, then over millions of years one can get amphibians and reptiles evolving from fish due to natural selection. If a change in beak size of finches is seen in the wild in 30 years due to natural selection, then natural selection can result in new phyla if given eons of time."

"Indeed, the only concrete evidence for the theory of modification by natural selection—that natural selection is the causal agent of both microevolutionary and macroevolutionary change— comes from microevolutionary evidences, which are then extrapolated to macroevolution. However, the validity of making this extrapolation has been challenged from the time of Darwin, and remains controversial today, even among top evolutionists. Many see microevolution as decoupled from macroevolution in terms of mechanisms, with natural selection being incapable of being the creative force of macroevolutionary change."

Source : http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Microevolution


Quotes from Darwin himself :

"Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps."

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."


AddThis

share