Many people talk about evolution as if it were a fact. Well, in some ways it is. Change over time and decent with modification have been observed and proven to be true. But Darwinists say more than that. They say all species have descended from one common ancestor. Well, it is an interesting theory… unfortunately that’s all it is. Here is why macroevolution is impossible.
1. Genetic Limits - There seem to be genetic limits to how much a species can change. For example dog breeders may be able to breed (with intelligence) different dog types, but dogs still remain dogs. Also scientists have done many experiments with fruit flies, but have never produced anything but fruit flies. If intelligent scientists are unable to produce new life forms than why should we expect non-intelligent natural selection to be able to?
2. Cyclical Change - When evolution has occurred is also appears to only shift back and forth on a limited range. For example Darwin’s finches with varying beak sizes changed during the wet and dry seasons, but they always remained finches.
3. Irreducible Complexity - Something that is irreducible complex is something that could not be made with successive changes over time because they would not work unless completely put together. The classic example is a mouse trap. All its parts must work together to catch mice.
[INDENT]Cilia - Cilia are whip-like hairs on the surface of cells. In the respiratory tract they sweet mucus out and on sperm cells they can row. With electron microscopes scientists have discovered cilia are complicated molecular machines. A cilium is made up of about two hundred protein parts. It’s very complicated, but basically there are rods, linkers, and motors which are all necessary for the sliding motion of the cilia.
Bacterial Flagellum - Flagellum is a rotary propeller. Only bacteria have them. The flagellum propeller is long and whip-like. This is attached to a drive shaft by hook protein which acts as a universal joint. It gets its energy from a flow of acid through the bacterial membrane. The propeller can spin at 10,000 rpm. It is very complicated but it needs at least three parts, a paddle, a rotor, and a motor which are all made up of various proteins. Eliminate one of these parts and you get a flagellum that doesn’t work at all.
Blood Clotting - Blood clotting must be done perfectly to work. To create a perfectly balanced blood-clotting system, clusters of protein components have to be inserted all at once. How can blood clotting develop over time, step by step, when in the meantime the animal has no effective way to stop from bleeding to death? Natural selection only works is there is something useful right now. [/INDENT]
There are plenty of other irreducible complex things. It seems like almost everything from eyes to DNA and RNA depend on so many things to work. Darwinists have no good explanations to irreducible complexity.
4. Nonviability of Transitional Forms - A problem for natural selection creating new life forms is that the transitional forms would be unlikely to survive. An example of this is reptiles evolving to birds. Reptiles with wings are not going to be able to fly. The wings would simply slow it down. It would be easy prey on land or air. Also the first sea creatures that developed lungs are probably not going to do so hot.
5. Molecule Isolation - Darwinists say the fact that all living creatures contain DNA is evidence for common descent. That could be true. But it also could be evidence for a creator who designed us all to live in the same biosphere. A problem for Darwinists is that is all species share a common ancestor, we should expect to find protein sequences that are transitional from, say, fish to amphibian, or from reptile to mammal. Instead, we find that the basic types of protein sequences are molecularly isolated from one another, which seems to be against any type of ancestral relationship.
6. Fossil Record - Contrary to what most people think. The fossil record is a complete embarrassment to Darwinists. If macroevolution occurred there should be thousands if not millions of transitional fossils by now. Nearly all the major animal groups known to exist appear in the fossil record abruptly and fully formed during the Cambrian period. This is come to be known as “the Cambrian explosion” or “biology big bang.” Until then the record shows only jellyfish, sponges, and worms, but then at the beginning of the Cambrian suddenly there are arthropods, echinoderms, and chordates. Paleontologists now think that during a five-million-year (or even shorter) window of time, at least twenty and as many as thirty five of the world’s forty phyla, the highest category in the animal kingdom, sprang froth with unique body plans. As Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould (evolutionist) said:
Stephen Gould
The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1). Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; Morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2) Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’
You might be thinking about the skull progressions we’re so used to seeing. The problem with this is that the fossil record cannot establish ancestral relationships. According to Michael Denton:
Michael Denton
“99 percent of the biology of any organism resides in its soft anatomy, which is inaccessible in a fossil.”
Jonathan Wells
“The fossil evidence is open to many interpretations because the fossil individual specimens can be reconstructed in a variety of ways, and because the fossil record cannot establish ancestor-descendant relationships.”
Henry Gee
"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story--amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."
Michael Behe
Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant to the question of whether evolution could take place on the molecular level. So is the fossil record. It no longer matters whether there are huge gaps in the fossil record or whether the record is as continuous as that of U.S. presidents. And if there are gaps, it does not matter whether they can be explained plausibly. The fossil record has nothing to tell us about whether the interactions of 11-cts-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodiesterase [irreducibly complex systems] could have developed step-by-step.
But wait… there’s more.
7. First Life - Life is far more complex than Charles Darwin ever could have known. We our technology we now know just how complex life is. In order to create life you must first get amino acids. You then must get them to bond correctly with each other, even though they bond more readily with other things to get them to form a protein. Then you must join enough proteins together in the right way to get a living cell. Darwinists simply have no idea on how this could happen. The popular Miller-Urey experiment that was said to create amino acids was in fact using the wrong atmosphere. Miller used a hydrogen-rich mixture of methane, ammonia, and water vapor, which was consistent with what many scientists thought back then. But scientists now believe hydrogen would have escaped into space, and instead the atmosphere would be composed up carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor. If you replay the experiment using an accurate atmosphere you don’t get amino acids. Long story short Darwinists have no idea how life could have occurred. All they can say is that there is a chance. Really they have no idea, but they say chance because they don’t know.
Information taken (and copied) from:
I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek
and
The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel
Thoughts?
