• HWalker79

Darwin Doubts: Part 2

Updated: Mar 23

Natural Selection Flaws

Darwinian macro-evolution has another conundrum to overcome in that genetic mutations are rare. Science accepts this fact and affirms that beneficial mutations are even rarer. Mutations are most likely to be harmful to the organism; they are deleterious, malignant, duplicitous, etc. The very mechanism that is stated to give rise to the vast complexity we see on Earth is an overwhelmingly rare process. So, does the age of the Universe allow you enough time/enough chances to give you the possibility of hitting on all the lucky ones – hitting on all the miniscule chances to get beneficial mutations that create new species out of older, simpler ones?

How often could you possibly hit on one of those ‘beaded necklaces’ of functional chains of amino acids that can be folded up, stuck in a cell and actually do something productive? From whatever angle you come at it, the chances we’ve been given in 4.5 billion years is nowhere near enough time. Even if you were given the full 14 billion years of the age of the Universe, that wouldn’t be enough. It’s like having millions of monkeys at millions of typewriters typing randomly and the theory being that if you give them infinite time they are bound to hit on the random configuration of letters that just happens to spell out the collective works of Shakespeare. Even if you think this would still be impossible given infinity – we only had 4.5 billion years! Or 14 billion if you want to somehow stretch the time needed to work the impossible. But what lifeform could exist when nuclear fusion is occurring forming stars after the Big Bang?!

In the film Dumb and Dumber, Jim Carrey asks a girl what are the chances that she would go out with him and she lets him down gently by saying it would be 1 in a million. He looks ecstatic, punches the air and says “so, you’re telling me I have a chance! Oh yeah!” Is this the equivalent of atheist scientists not wanting to abandon macro-evolution powered by random, unguided forces because they don’t want to accept that intelligence and power is needed as a best fit explanation for the gathered evidence?

The fossil record disproves it. Every evidence we have is for micro-evolution: bacteria turn into new forms of bacteria; monkeys turn into new primates; canines turn into new forms of dogs. No example yet has been found of one species becoming another. And even if macro-evolution were theoretically true, we would need near infinite time for it to be possible via unguided forces. But we don’t have that as an option – not even close! More worryingly for Darwin’s model is that there is no currently accepted explanation for the origin of the first amino acids that somehow formed into a viable protein chain. The cellular machines that replicate themselves and make new proteins are also made of proteins. And every living thing is insanely complex with coded information in its genome – not just blobs of jelly as once theorised.

Other Issues for Darwin

The final nails in the coffin for unguided macro-evolution is that “to create a brand-new form of organism, a mutation must affect a gene that does its job early [in embryonic form] and controls the expression of other genes that come into play as the organism grows. Evidently there are a total of NO examples in the literature of mutations that affect early development and the body plan as a whole and are not fatal!”[i] That’s what miscarriages are for – to prevent malformed embryos developing into organisms with chronic problems that will affect its ability to survive into adulthood.

If I want to affect the assembly of an organism to turn it into a brand-new organism altogether, I have to get in there early before the basic body plan has been built. We are faced with a really destructive dilemma – if huge bodily changes come too late (to create a new species) then it won’t have a big impact because the main features of the animal have already been built, but if they come early, you more than likely end up destroying the formation of the animal and the maternal body rejects it. So, when does it occur? We are running out of options!

Random, unguided macro-evolution contradicts the Law of Decay, that everything in the Universe tends to disorder over time if left to its own devices. Evolution produces more complex organisms from simpler ones – you get constant order from chaos, which Science tells us is only possible if something intervenes to stem the flow of decay. This intervention would need sustaining constantly or the unrelenting Decay Law would set in again immediately. Evolution needs powerful intelligence behind it, not an unguided force contradicting a fundamental law of the Universe.

Intelligence behind the Universe?

Why should you accept that Intelligent Design must be behind the lifeforms we see? The discovery of DNA in the 1950s-60s shows us that cells encode information analogous to a digital, alphabetic form. In computer systems we have binary characters; in DNA we have chemical nucleotide bases functioning like alphabet characters in a written text according to Francis Crick. DNA is pure information in an information storage system and this conclusion came from Crick who was a code breaker during World War II.

Stephen Meyer argues that we know from experience that information always comes from an intelligent mind rather than a material process when we trace it back to its source (i.e. computer codes, Egyptian hieroglyphs, written paragraphs, etc.) From a Darwinian evolutionary point of view, we have no explanation to account for the formation of this information from a random physical process:

  • it doesn’t have anywhere near enough time;

  • and it would still have to account for how the first amino acids appeared;

  • and what formed them together in a viable chain as opposed to the many gibberish sequences;

  • and then what enclosed it in a cell with all its parts (even in a 'simple' single-celled organism).

Many cellular processes need all pieces in place before it will function. Evolution via unguided forces requires tiny, successive changes over a long period of time. Hypothetically, if a basic mousetrap were to evolve via Darwinian evolution, it would need all its 5 intricately placed pieces to come together at once. Otherwise there is no benefit to be passed on – there is no point to a lever without a spring. Why would nature carry over purposeless single parts for millennia until they all happen to come together, forming a mechanism that has a beneficial purpose? A bacterium has a complex tail (flagellum) which looks like a miniaturised motor when you see it under a microscope. It relies on a minimum of thirty separate parts that all interlock to create movement for the cell. How does this evolve over small, successive changes over vast periods time? Bacteria were one of the earliest life forms to evolve naturally and unguided according to Darwinists, so it didn’t even have vast amounts of time at its disposal to get these thirty parts to join together just right.

Micro-Evolution has plenty of evidence. Macro-evolution currently has none. I’m not arguing against Evolution. I’m arguing it couldn’t possibly have been powered by random, natural, unguided forces which the Darwinian model presents. I think the only viable conclusion is that there must be an intelligent mind behind it all.

References [i] Giving Up Darwin by David Gelernter

18 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All