7.06.2005

Evolution: A Disproven Hypothesis

Alright, alright, I know that the title of this post is just a little bit strong. But it should be! Macroevolution is being taught in our schools as fact, when it really has very little scientific basis. In Charles Darwin's day, the mainstream scientific belief regarding the origin of life was a caricature of Genesis: God supposedly created all wildlife just as we see it today. Of course, nowhere in the Bible is such an idea stated. God created many distinct kinds, and these kinds reproduced and exhibited natural variation. For example, we got all the dogs we see today from one distinct dog-kind similar to a wolf. But dogs always bred dogs. When Darwin signed on to The Beagle as the ship's naturalist, he sailed to the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific. In this island setting, the wildlife was very specialized and very open to observation. Darwin's grandfather had already publicized the idea that the Genesis account was totally false, and that all life on this planet was descended from the same primitive creature (universal common descent). This young naturalist noted that there were many different kinds of birds on a particular island. One type of bird he was especially interested in were the finches. It is interesting to note that he didn't learn that these birds were finches until after he arrived back in civilization. These finches were many and variegated. Some had big beaks, some had small beaks, some had medium beaks, some had long beaks, and some had short beaks . . . you get the point. Lots and lots of beaks. Darwin theorized that all these finches came from the same basic kind of finch, but natural variation during reproduction changed them slightly. The offspring that had the best chance to live then were given a better chance of passing on their genes; these genes were thereby 'selected'. He called this process "Natural Selection". Natural Selection is a perfectly viable process. Through this mechanism, we get dark skin and light skin, poodles and pyrenees, etc. all through natural genetic variation from a few distinct kinds thousands of years ago. However, because Darwin had been conditioned by his grandfather to think in terms of universal common descent, he began to extrapolate on the data. Extrapolation, or extending of data, is fine if you have a lot of information and just a little that you don't know. But all Darwin knew was that over time, finches' beaks became more specialized. Perhaps, he decided, this same kind of change happens over millions of years, turning bugs into businessmen. I've finally found something to substantiate Gramp's claim! When Darwin returned to civilization, he wrote The Origin of Species. This book detailed his new hypothesis; all the animals we see today descended from a common ancestor through extra-extended natural selection. He also wrote The Descent of Man, where he explained his theories on how man evolved from monkeys. However, the budding idea of evolution would soon be dealt a stunning blow. At the time, simple cells were thought to be just that: simple. Research soon indicated that all life was dependent upon DNA, the four-letter amino acid language that dictated everything about an organism. Research showed something else also. The variation Darwin saw in the finches was only the highlighting of certain parts of the genetic DNA code. This was microevolution within a species, but Darwin's hypothesis required macroevolution: drastic changes to the DNA code itself rather than the masking of unnecessary parts. Until now, atheists had a handy way of denying God: "It all happened through evolution!" But now, evolution was heading downhill. Clinging to their ideology like religionists, the atheistic crowd tried to find some way to make the evidence fit their ideas. Mutations! That's right, mutations! Scientists knew that random mistakes occasionally changed the DNA in the genome. They called these mistakes mutations. Perhaps, the atheists theorized, lucky mutations were the cause of genetic change and macroevolution! Any bad mutations would be filtered out by natural selection, and the lucky mutations they needed would be passed on to the next generation to be built upon by more mutations. Of course, all this is speculation. We haven't ever seen a mutation that not only made its owner more likely to survive but also added to the genome and would eventually lead to a more advanced species. This is the current theory held by the majority of scientists worldwide. But could mutations ever do the trick? The Descent of Man. Our DNA is a little less than 98% the same as the DNA of chimpanzees. Of course, this doesn't mean we are closely related to chimps or anything. We also share 50% of our DNA with bananas, but we aren't banana from the waist up or from the waist down. That 2% of DNA holds an enormous amount of information that dictates many different characteristics. Most of these characteristics are critical to the life of the organism; for example our blood pressure is different from chimpanzees so all the pressure-sensitive cells must be changed to cope with the different conditions. DNA is composed of four amino acid letters: A, C, G, and T. These letters are combined in pairs to create the language; the base pairs AT, CG, GC, and TA. For only 100 DNA base pairs, there are 10 to the 60th possible combinations: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 combinations!!! This is only 100 base pairs. The smallest pieces of DNA that can define a physical function are genes, the smallest of which composed of 1,000 base pairs. The number of combinations for such a thing would be unimaginable! But let's consider 100 base pairs. Any imperfect combination would either kill the mutating organism or would be automatically filtered out by the individual cell's copying mechanism. So, in order to define 1/10th of a gene, we have 1 in 10 to the 60th chances. Mathematics experts tell us that the threshold of impossibility is 1 in 10 to the 50th, meaning that 10 to the 60th is 10,000,000,000 times more than impossible! Evolutionists, of course, always have a way to defend their ideology. They propose that nature can cope with these overwhelming odds because it has extremely large periods of time. But even if we have 10 to the 60th chances, it isn't as if this guarantees victory. Each chance the mutating organism has is just 1 in 10 to the 60th! This puts evolution right back where it started. Science tells us that these odds are astronomically greater than what the human mind is able to grasp. Evolution by mutation is impossible! Scientific ideas progress from speculation to hypothesis to theory and finally to fact. In order to be called a theory, the idea must have substantial, tangible evidence that backs it up; in the case of evolution intermediate forms would be required. I have demonstrated that evolution is impossible. It has been disproven time and time again. Since we never had any evidence for evolution other than the speculations of atheists, this idea never reached the level of theory. Therefore, Darwinian Evolution is nothing but a disproven hypothesis. In Him, David S. MacMillan III

11 comments:

David S. MacMillan III said...

What, no attack S?

MVB said...

Awesome article!

Toad734 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Toad734 said...

Without spending more than 2 minutes to dispute your claim I must point out two flaws in your argument:

1 Creationism is an unproven Hypothesis and there isn't one shred of evidence to support this hypothesis as there are many to support evolution.

2 Apparently you know very little about evolution because if you did you would know that no one thinks we descended from monkeys. What has been concluded, a long time ago, is that humans share the same ancestors as apes and other hominids, not that we evolved from monkeys.

If you need more information feel free to check out a couple of my posts:

http://toadthoughts.blogspot.com/2005/06/for-those-who-need-evidence-of.html

http://toadthoughts.blogspot.com/2005/05/we-need-law-making-them-teach.html

Anonymous said...

Since I'm somewhat busy I'll keep my comments short.

What, no attack S?

Busy with work and climbing mountains in Colorado.
Too busy to give biology lessons to young ideologues.

Anyway, the argument you are advancing is basically a old Fred Hoyle argument and relies on a misunderstanding of Darwinism. I've tried to drive home the important point selection plays in evolution since it acts as a sorting mechanism to a stochastic process but I guess you're not receptive to actually learning new things. John Wilkens has written something about this on the talk.origins site, I believe, and Jason Rosenhouse goes into this on his article How anti-evolutionist's abuse mathematics.

S

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

^
If you can add anything substantive to the discussion please do.

Looking over the references I just gave I noticed they don't give the most obvious criticism of your particular model. The papers I have pointed to have explained the evolution of new genes though such mechanisms as exon shuffling, gene duplication, retroposition, etc. In these mechanisms the base pairs are not independent of their neighborboring base pairs so to calculate the likelihood of having a particular combination of base pairs with each pair independent of the others isn't particularly useful.
I would find it more convincing if those who argue 'mutations are not beneficial' would actually substantiate this claim with some evidence. For a given mutation you ought to try and go out and see how this affects the fitness of the organism. This is what evolutionists have done in some instances when they can.

S

David S. MacMillan III said...

1. Creationism is an unproven Hypothesis and there isn't one shred of evidence to support this hypothesis as there are many to support evolution.

As in? Evolutionism was thought up to explain away special creation. Therefore, the lack of evidence for evolutionism is by default evidence for supernatural creation.

2. Apparently you know very little about evolution because if you did you would know that no one thinks we descended from monkeys. What has been concluded, a long time ago, is that humans share the same ancestors as apes and other hominids, not that we evolved from monkeys.

I didn't say that anyone today thinks we evolved from monkeys. I said that in his book The Descent of Man Darwin discussed how we evolved from monkeys. And I quote:

"The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the new world and the old world monkeys, and from the latter, at a remote period, man, the wonder and glory of the universe, proceeded." -Charles Darwin in The Descent of Man.

Regardless of what Charley meant from "old world monkeys", the fact remains that he did state that man evolved from monkeys.

If you need more information feel free to check out a couple of my posts:

For Those Who Need Evidence of Evolution

We Need the Law: Making Them Teach


Will do, but not in this comment. Who knows? If your articles are good enough, I might even publish a refutation on the main page of my site!

David S. MacMillan III said...

Anyway, the argument you are advancing is basically a old Fred Hoyle argument and relies on a misunderstanding of Darwinism.

Tell me how I misunderstood evolutionism.

I've tried to drive home the important point selection plays in evolution since it acts as a sorting mechanism to a stochastic process. . . .

Natural selection plays an important role in microevolution but when we are shifting from one species to another things change dramatically.

In the example I gave, the blood pressure has increased by mutation. Fine. But now, we have just 1 in 10 to the 60th chance to change the pressure-sensitive cells to fit the precise change.

Natural selection, the benevolent encourager in non-critical evolution, becomes the deadly axe of the executioner when dealing with critical systems like blood pressure, ruthlessly eliminating any and all gene combinations that are not absolutely perfect.

In microevolution, there are tons of possible beneficial changes. But when changing a species (changing critical subsystems to differentiate the species), one tiny change in a critical subsystem requires exact changes in tens of different systems to accomodate the change. This is why natural selection helps for microevolution and eliminates all hope for macroevolution.

. . . but I guess you're not receptive to actually learning new things.

Don't worry. I love learning new things. Most of my arguments on this comment come from a book recently written by a friend of mine, God Has To Be. I love learning new things!

John Wilkens has written something about this on the talk.origins site, I believe, and Jason Rosenhouse goes into this on his article How anti-evolutionist's abuse mathematics.

I'll check it out, but not right now.

David S. MacMillan III said...

I would find it more convincing if those who argue 'mutations are not beneficial' would actually substantiate this claim with some evidence.

Wait a minute! The burden of proof is on you! You're the one claiming that beneficial and progressive mutations exist, so you have to come up with examples.

For a given mutation you ought to try and go out and see how this affects the fitness of the organism.

Will do. Just give me a mutation, and I'll examine how it affects the fitness of the organism and its progress in "macroevolution".

David S. MacMillan III said...

Toad,

Your articles were full of baloney. I will not comment on the first one because it is extremely disgusting except to say that it is impossible to have a mutation that creates gills, which destroys your entire postulate.

Your second one was just as inept. For every 20 words, you invented a new strawman.

If evolution is false, then supernatural creation must be true by default. Therefore, you must explain exactly how evolution happened in every single instance or it would appear that a supernatural creator exists. And you can't have that, now can you?