major reason why evolutionist arguments
can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with
intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with
them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by
persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a
presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part.
But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than
an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis.
(The situation isn’t helped by poor science education generally.
Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the
dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to
question its scientific validity.)
The five propositions below are among the
most troublesome to evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked
hard to counter them, but with no genuine success, because they are based on
empirical scientific data and/or scientific laws. In his “Five
Major Misconceptions about Evolution” FAQ in the Talk.Origins Archive,
Mark Isaak (ostensibly a spokesperson for evolutionary thought) says
concerning these five arguments, “If you hear anyone making any of them,
chances are excellent that they don’t know enough about the real theory of
evolution to make informed opinions about it.” He then attempts to refute
each of them with a few brief and dismissive paragraphs:
Below are explanations of why each of these
five statements is quite correct—and much more scientifically accurate
than Mr. Isaak’s responses to the same. For the objective reader,
these explanations should help to put to rest the popular myth that the
domination of evolutionary thought in modern thinking is based on scientific
knowledge. In reality, and in spite of the much-parroted claims of
evolutionists, the facts of science (i.e., the empirical data and natural
laws known to man), when examined without the prejudice of a naturalistic,
mechanistic philosophy/belief system, do not support evolutionary theory.
“Evolution Has Never Been Observed”
Back To Top
Isaak oversimplifies the whole notion of
evolutionary change by telling us that, “Biologists define evolution as a
change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is
insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few
years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level
is a fact. What they don’t appreciate is that this rate of evolution
is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a
common ancestor.”
Evolution or Variation?
Isaak here conveniently fails to mention
whether by “change in a gene pool over time” he means exactly that
(i.e., genetic variation, which is often called “micro-evolution”), or
whether he means “macro-evolution”—which is something entirely
different. The postulation of “macro-evolution” (i.e., the
emergence of entirely new and more “advanced” features through
innumerable, completely new genetically-defined traits) is not to be
confused with genetic variation (i.e., “micro-evolution”), which is the
appearance and/or disappearance of existing and/or potential
genetic traits through recombination of existing genetic code.
Proponents of evolutionism often fail to note the important difference
between these two, simply calling them both “evolution,” and thereby
deliberately blurring the distinction between them.
Genetic variation is a common phenomenon,
perpetually manifesting itself as extant dominant and recessive genetic
traits “appear” and “vanish” in successive generations within a
population of organisms. A population’s adaptation through genetic
variation is as much a fact of biological life as are genes themselves.
Though some evolutionists like to call this phenomenon
“micro-evolution,” the variations dictated by any gene pool are neither
“new” traits, nor qualitative “changes” in the gene pool (as
required for “macro-evolution”); their potential is already well-defined
within the DNA of the population’s gene pool, and all possible changes
(i.e., variations) within that population are limited specifically to those
inherent traits.
Evolutionists have no basis for
extrapolating the concept of genetic variation into Isaak’s claim that a
particular “rate” of genetic variation “is all that is required to
produce [(macro-)evolution] from a common ancestor.” Isaak wants to
believe simply because a population’s existing gene pool will yield a
variety of genetic variations, that over time these organisms will therefore
also “evolve” into new and different kinds of organisms. This is
wishful thinking, a statement of faith—not science, and the facts of
genetic science simply don’t agree with Isaak’s story.
As for Isaak’s “example” of insects
and pesticide resistance, this author knows of no work in genetics that has
conclusively shown such changes to be anything more than the natural
adaptive variation (described above) arising from the existing genetic
potential already present in the population’s existing pool. [See also “Superbugs:
Not Super After All”.] Again, adaptive (and even non-adaptive)
variations abound in the natural world, but they are not the genuine gene
pool “change” required by true evolutionary theory.
Dobzhansky’s Fruit Flies
Isaak continues: “The origin of new
species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in
the wild...” He then directs us to:
- the work of Theodosius Dobzhansky et al.
(involving the deliberate, radiation-induced mutation of fruit flies in
the laboratory), and
- the “Observed
Instances of Speciation” FAQ in the talk.origins archives.
As for Dobzhansky’s fruit fly
experiments, it should be pointed out that an example of a
laboratory-induced physiological change in a specimen—even though it
involves genetic change—can hardly be considered proof that NATURAL
evolution occurs, since the change did not take place without the
deliberate, intelligence-driven activity of man.
Furthermore, a genetic, mutational change
alone, while it may qualify (in a broad sense) as evolution
(“micro-evolution”), does not demonstrate evolution per se:
Evolution does not require mere change, but progressive change (i.e., from
simple to complex, from one organism to another organism—an increase in
both quantity and quality of genetic information).
In Dobzhansky’s work, numerous varieties
resulted from radiation bombardment: fruit flies with extra wings,
fruit flies with no wings, fruit flies with huge wings, fruit flies with
tiny wings... In the end, however, they were all ... fruit flies!
Dobzhansky meddled with the genetic code of an organism and effected changes
on the organism’s offspring. Nearly all of the changes were
detrimental to survival, and none of them resulted in an advantage over
other fruit flies.
The “Observed Instances FAQ”
As for the “Observed Instances of
Speciation” FAQ (the reading of which is encouraged by this writer), after
one goes to the trouble of digesting all the preliminary verbiage, all the
“speciation” examples given fall into one of two categories:
- “new” species that are “new” to
man, but whose “newness” remains equivocal in light of observed
genetic “variation” vs. genetic “change” (as discussed above),
and/or because a species of unknown age is being observed by man for the
first time.
- “new” species whose appearance was
deliberately and artificially brought about by the efforts of
intelligent human manipulation, and whose status as new “species”
remain unequivocally consequential to laboratory experiments rather than
natural processes.
In neither of the above examples cited by
Isaak was the natural (i.e., unaided) generation of a new species
accomplished or observed, in which an unequivocally “new” trait was
obtained (i.e., new genetic information created) and carried forward within
a population of organisms. In other words, these are not examples of
macro-evolutionary speciation—they are examples of human discovery and/or
genetic manipulation and/or natural genetic recombination. They serve
to confirm the observable nature of genetic variation, while saying
absolutely nothing in support of Darwinian “macro-evolution,” which
postulates not just variations within a type of organism but the emergence
of entirely new organisms.
Definitions of “species” and
(therefore) “speciation” remain many and varied, and by most modern
definitions, certain changes within organism populations do indeed qualify
as “speciation events”—yet even after many decades of study, there
remains no solid evidence that an increase in both quality and quantity of
genetic information (as required for a macro-evolutionary speciation event)
has happened or could happen.
Bold Claims vs. Empirical Science
Even so, Isaak insists that “it would be
wrong to say that evolution hasn’t been observed. Evidence isn’t
limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes
predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record,
comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of
species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over.
The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.”
Isaak’s impressive confidence seems to be
based in part on his inability to differentiate between “observing”
an event and “interpreting evidence” to support a hypothesized
event. Even so, the empirical data largely fails to support his
claims. The fact is, evolution has NOT been observed, and its chief
proponents don’t deny this. Furthermore, contrary to Isaak’s
assertion, evolution’s predictions regarding the fossil record, anatomy,
genetics, and biogeography have NOT been verified with “overwhelming”
support, contrary to Isaak’s bold claims, but are more often challenged by
the facts, as we shall see.
And in fact, using Isaak’s own logic in
fairness to the Creationists whom he wishes to discredit, one can just as
easily (and much more accurately) state: “It would be wrong to say
that creation hasn’t been observed. Evidence isn’t limited to
seeing something happen before your eyes. Creationism makes
predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record,
comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of
species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over.
The number of observations supporting Creationism is overwhelming.”
There is an abundance of material,
published by evolutionists and non-evolutionists alike, affirming that
Isaak’s claims regarding genetics and “observed” evolution are based
more in dogmatic “interpretation” than in a scientific, objective
approach to empirical data. Two balanced, objective, scientific
treatments of the subject by non-Creationists are:
- Denton, M. Evolution: A Theory In
Crisis. Adler & Adler, Bethesda, MD. 1985. ISBN 0-917561-05-8
- Behe, M. J. Darwin’s Black Box.
The Free Press, New York, NY. 1996. ISBN 0-684-82754-9
“The central question of the
Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying
microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of
macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the
positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be
given as a clear No.”
[As reported by Roger Lewin (evolutionist), “Evolutionary theory
under fire,” Science, vol. 210 (4472), 21 November 1980,
p. 883]
|
Isaak next wants to dispel the
“ignorance” upon which the claim is made that
Evolution Violates the 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics
Back To Top
Isaak begins with the expected declaration,
“This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about
evolution.” But we soon shall see who misunderstands both thermodynamics
AND evolution...
Defining the Law
Isaak’s definition of the second law of
thermodynamics begins with: “No process is possible in which the
sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body.” He
then tells us that “confusion arises” when the 2nd law is phrased as:
“The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.” Anyone familiar with
the 2nd law will recognize that both statements are true, and that the
second statement is commonly used of the two axioms in defining the 2nd law
as it pertains to Classical Thermodynamics—yet for Isaak, it seems to
cause some “confusion.”
|
To define our terms, in Classical Thermodynamics the term
“entropy” is the measure of the amount of energy
unavailable for work in a physical system. Left to itself
over time, any such system will end with less available
energy (i.e., a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy)
than when it started, according to the 2nd law. In this
classic form, the 2nd law applies specifically to probability of
distribution in heat and energy relationships of physical systems,
and as such, the entropy involved may be described specifically as
thermal entropy.
Similarly, the “generalized
2nd law” applies to probability of distribution matters in
Information Theory in such a way that, left to itself over time,
the information conveyed by an information-communicating system
will end more distorted and less complete than when it began
(again, a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy—in
this case informational entropy), and likewise, applied to
matters Statistics, left to itself over time, the order or
regularity of a system will be less than when it began (and again,
a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy—in this case
statistical entropy).
|
Isaak tells us that creationists
“misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from
order to disorder.” This writer knows of no creationist who has published
this “misinterpretation,” and Isaak neglects to document the
“creationists” to whom he would credit this quotation. However, it
is commonly understood by not only by creationists, but by all
scientists familiar with thermodynamics, that systems or processes left
to themselves invariably tend to move from order to disorder.
Consider what Isaac Asimov (a highly respected evolutionist, and ardent
anti-creationist) has to say:
“Another way of stating the second law
then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’
Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to
work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again
very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes
dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery,
and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them
deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything
deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that
is what the second law is all about.”
[Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6]
Thus we observe a virulent anti-creationist
stating essentially what Isaak claims is a “creationist
misinterpretation” of the 2nd law. Lest there be any doubts, a
typical college-level chemistry text book (which doesn’t concern itself
with matters of origins and therefore may be considered neutral on the
subject) says:
“Scientists use the term entropy to
describe the amount of randomness in a system. The larger the
entropy of a system, the less order or more randomness the system has.
We could say that the direction of change in diffusion or evaporation is
toward a state of higher entropy.”
[D. Callewaert & J. Genya, Basic Chemistry, New York, Worth
Publishers, 1980, p. 157]
It should be clear that the 2nd law of
thermodynamics does indeed require that a natural process or system, left to
itself, increases in entropy, or randomness, and therefore decreases in
order, and—as Asimov put it—“deteriorates, collapses, breaks down,
wears out, all by itself.” Please don’t let the fact escape your notice
that Asimov applies this law to “the universe” which pretty much assures
us that its application is ... universal (applying to all processes and
systems).
Open vs. Closed Systems
Next, Isaak arrives at the heart of his
argument, invoking what has really become a classic—and very
misleading—evolutionist tactic: He tells us that the creationists’
error is that “they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system.”
The basis of his claim is the fact that
while the 2nd law is inviolate in an isolated system (i.e., a system
in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system—often
erroneously called “closed” system), an apparent “violation” of the
law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or
matter may be added). Isaak tells us “life [is] irrelevant to the
2nd law,” and so is evidently convinced that every living systems is an
exception to the 2nd law.
Now, the entire universe is generally
considered by evolutionists to be a “closed” (isolated) system, so the
2nd law dictates that within the universe, entropy is increasing. In
other words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized,
less complex, more random on a universal scale. This trend (as
described by Asimov above) is a scientifically observed phenomenon—i.e.,
fact, not theory.
However, here on earth, the popular
evolutionary line of reasoning goes, we have an “exception,” because we
live in an open system: “The sun provides more than enough energy to
drive things,” Isaak says. And indeed, solar energy is added
to the open sub-system of the earth continuously. But simply adding
raw energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e.,
increased organized complexity, build-up rather than break-down). If
this were true, no scientist would object to the elimination of the ozone,
since more raw solar energy would only mean a welcome increase in organized
complexity (a hastening of the alleged evolutionary process, as it were) in
the world as we know it.
No, we know that raw solar energy alone
does not decrease entropy. In fact, by itself, it increases
entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder,
and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job,
a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, first with and then without
the addition of solar radiation).
Speaking of the applicability of 2nd law to
both “closed” (isolated) and open systems in general, Harvard scientist
Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:
“...there are no known violations of the
second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated
for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open
systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from
equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics
fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error
does not perpetuate itself.” [Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist
(evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7,
1980, p. 40]
So, if the 2nd law is universal (as any
scientifically defined “law” must be, and as Ross here confirms), what
is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to
“violate” (or in Isaak’s words, be “irrelevant to”) the 2nd law of
thermodynamics?
Raw Energy is Not Enough
The fact is, contrary to the simplistic claim
often parroted by evolutionists like Isaak, any increase in organized
complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) invariably requires two additional
factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These
are:
- a “program” (information) to direct
the growth in organized complexity
- a mechanism for storing and converting
the incoming energy.
The earth’s living systems have both of
these essential elements. Each living organism’s DNA contains all
the code (the “program” or “information”) needed to direct the
process of building (or “organizing”) the organism up from seed or cell
to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary
instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized,
and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout
the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the
organism’s physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed
by the 2nd law) can break it down.
Living systems also have the second
essential component—their own built-in mechanisms for effectively
converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis
to convert the sun’s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins),
while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable,
energy from the organisms which compose their diets.
So we can see that living things do not in
fact “violate” the 2nd law, nor are they “excepted from” or
“irrelevant to” the 2nd law, but they actually have built-in programs
(information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up
and maintain their physical structures “in spite of” the 2nd law’s
effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually
deteriorates and dies). Every living organism itself is a highly
complex and organized creation, able to live within the earth’s “open
system” biosphere (the only place in the universe known to man that
supports life), by means of a unique, inherent program (information, DNA),
plus an inherent energy conversion & storage mechanism (photosynthesis,
metabolism).
Order vs. Organized Complexity
Isaak argues that Creationists try to “get
around” something by claiming that “the information carried by living
things lets them create order...but order from disorder is common in
nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes,
stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of
order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to
achieve that order.”
What Isaak says here reveals some confusion
on his part, between simple “order” and “organized complexity.” All
living things (down to even a single-celled organism) are highly complex and
organized—each component in its proper place and functioning according to
its instructions to keep the organism going. They don’t just
“happen” in nature—the notion of spontaneous generation was long ago
and often disproven [Redi (1688), Spallanzani (1780), Pasteur (1860), and
Virchow (1858)], establishing the Law of Biogenesis, which remains confirmed
in that man has never observed life coming from anything but life itself,
which is not observed to exist at all without all of the above described
factors in place in some form.
On the other hand, simple “order” such
as that found in a snowflake or a crystal, for example, is exceedingly
trivial, when compared to the increase in information, organization or
complexity that would be required for either spontaneous generation (the
beginning of biological evolution), or any form of progressive
macro-evolution itself. The formation of molecules or atoms into
geometric patterns such as snowflakes or crystals reflects movement towards
equilibrium—a lower energy level, and a more stable arrangement of the
molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating structural patterns with
minimal complexity, and no function. Living things, on the other hand,
do not arrive at and maintain their high levels of order, organization, and
complexity in order to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium, but are in fact
maintaining far from equilibrium conditions in order to arrive at and
maintain those levels.
Thus, crystals are not examples of matter
forming itself into more organized or more complex structures or systems
even remotely parallel to those inherent in living organisms, even though
they may certainly reflect “order” in the form of patterns (the very
structure of which is both enabled and limited by the molecules which
comprise them), and they certainly cannot serve realistically as “proof”
that life can therefore create itself.
To so erroneously equate mere passive
“order” of molecules as they enter a state of energy equilibrium (e.g.,
the formation of crystals) with a spontaneous, self-induced increase in
“organized complexity” (as demanded by evolutionary theory for both the
beginning and development of life—and as prohibited by the 2nd law), is to
truly misunderstand the 2nd law AND evolution. This seems to be
exactly what Isaak has done.
Jeffrey Wicken (an evolutionist) does
recognize the difference, however, having described it this way:
“‘Organized’ systems are to be
carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of
system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated
according to simple algorithms and therefore lack complexity, organized
systems must be assembled element by element according to an external
‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content ... Organization,
then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is
non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori
necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’” [Jeffrey S. Wicken, The
Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and
Information-Theoretical Discussion, Journal of Theoretical Biology,
Vol. 77 (April 1979), p. 349]
Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigogine also has no
problem defining the difference, even acknowledging the extreme unlikelihood
that the requisite complexity for life could arise from non-life:
“The point is that in a non-isolated
[open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered,
low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This
ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures
such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions.
Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological
structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a
macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly
ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living
organisms is vanishingly small.” [I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis and A.
Babloyants, Physics Today 25(11):23 (1972)]
Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen make the same
clear distinction:
“As ice forms, energy (80 calories/gm) is
liberated to the surroundings... The entropy change is negative
because the thermal configuration entropy (or disorder) of water is
greater than that of ice, which is a highly ordered crystal... It
has often been argued by analogy to water crystallizing to ice that simple
monomers my polymerize into complex molecules such as protein and DNA.
The analogy is clearly inappropriate, however... The atomic bonding
forces draw water molecules into an orderly crystalline array when the
thermal agitation (or entropy driving force) is made sufficiently small by
lowering the temperature. Organic monomers such as amino acids
resist combining at all at any temperature, however, much less in some
orderly arrangement.” [C.B. Thaxton, W.L. Bradley, and R.L. Olsen, The
Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories,
Philosophical Library, New York, 1984, pp. 119-120.]
Isaak asks, “If order from disorder is
supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in
nature?” By now it should be clear to any objective reader that Isaak’s
logic is faulty:
- his assumption that “order from
disorder” is “ubiquitous in nature” is an error
- life’s “order” (better described
as “organized complexity”) is possible only because of life’s
inherent information and energy conversion mechanisms
- the “order” found in non-living
natural structures is not simply due to an unaided decrease in entropy,
but to a decrease in molecular or atomic energy level, due to external
factors (usually temperature and the existing molecular structure of the
elements involved).
The Missing Mechanism
Besides repeating his “misconception”
claim, Isaak now goes on to say that “Evolution says that organisms
reproduce with only small changes between generations ...
Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers
instead of five ... the theory of evolution calls for differential
reproductive success ... maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to
have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes
can be observed today. They obviously don’t violate any physical
laws.”
In the first place, not all evolutionists
continue to subscribe to the “small changes between generations”
theories (e.g., Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism). There is a substantial
number who now advocate the “punctuated equilibria,” “quantum
speciation,” or “hopeful monster” scenarios, in which major
morphological changes are believed to take place in rare, infrequent, and
highly isolated events, separated by long periods of little or no change.
Secondly, such changes as Isaak’s example
of “four or six fingers instead of five” are due to genetic errors
(mutations), and contrary to Isaak’s claim, differential reproductive
success serves better to weed-out these errors, rather than perpetuate them,
which is good, because they are almost invariably harmful, or at the very
least neutral, in effect.
As Ross correctly observed, “there are no
known violations of the second law of thermodynamics.” Yet evolutionary
theory demands precisely such violations every step of the way, as the
expansion of the “big bang” acquires information, organization, and
complexity, forming itself into galaxies, stars, planets, then highly
complex amino acids, proteins, DNA—essentially generating greater and
greater organization, complexity, and information all by itself, and all in
complete contradiction of the best established natural law known to science.
While many evolutionists deny this problem,
often dismissing it in the same fashion as Isaak has done (as a mere
“creationist misunderstanding”), the fact is that there are evolutionist
scientists who at least recognize the problem, and even attempt to deal with
it. Consider (again) the words of Ilya Prigogine et al. (the Belgian
scientist who won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work in
thermodynamics):
“...The probability that at ordinary
temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise
to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions
characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small.”
Charles J. Smith recognized the challenge
posed by the 2nd law of thermodynamics to the most significant unanswered
“how and why” of evolutionary theory:
“The thermodynamicist immediately
clarifies the latter question by pointing out that the Second Law
classically refers to isolated systems which exchange neither energy nor
matter with the environment; biological systems are open, and exchange
both energy and matter. The explanation, however, is not completely
satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the
ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a
number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy
(1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and
information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in
biology.” [C. J. Smith (evolutionist), Biosystems 1:259 (1975)]
George Gaylord Simpson and W.S. Beck (both
solid and respected evolutionists) also understood the problem, saying:
“We have repeatedly emphasized the
fundamental problems posed for the biologist by the fact of life’s
complex organization. We have seen that organization requires work
for its maintenance and that the universal quest for food is in part to
provide the energy needed for this work. But the simple expenditure
of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in
a china shop performs work but he neither creates nor maintains
organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow
specifications; it requires information on how to proceed.” [G.G.
Simpson and W.S. Beck (evolutionists), Life: An Introduction to Biology,
Harcourt, Brace, and World, New York, 1965, p. 465]
Angrist and Hepler reiterate the unlikely
nature of life’s beginning according to evolutionary assumptions, stating:
“Life, the temporary reversal of a
universal trend toward maximum disorder, was brought about by the
production of information mechanisms. In order for such mechanisms
to first arise it was necessary to have matter capable of forming itself
into a self-reproducing structure that could extract energy from the
environment for its first self-assembly. Directions for the
reproduction of plans, for the extraction of energy and chemicals from the
environment, for the growth of sequence and the mechanism for translating
instructions into growth all had to be simultaneously present at that
moment. This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely
happenstance and often divine intervention is prescribed as the only way
it could have come about.” [S.W. Angrist and L.G. Hepler
(evolutionists), Order and Chaos, Basic Books, New York, 1967, pp.
203-204]
Blum also sees the proposed scenario as
more of a problem than a credible explanation:
“Since the reproduction of proteins could
not have gone on without a means of energy mobilization, it might almost
be necessary to assume that these two processes had their origin at the
same time ... the problem of energy supply for the first organism seems
fundamental ... There would seem to be no way of replenishing the
supply of such compounds except by capturing energy of sunlight by means
of some photosynthetic process ... we must admit that photosynthesis of
some kind ... arose very early in the course of organic evolution, if
indeed it was not involved from the beginning.” [H.F. Blum
(evolutionist), Time’s Arrow and Evolution, Princeton University
Press, Princeton, 3rd Ed., 1968, pp. 160, 165 &166]
And Patterson also concedes that this issue
poses a challenging question:
“Closely related to the apparent
‘paradox’ of ongoing uphill processes in nonliving systems is the
apparent ‘paradox’ of spontaneous self-organization in nature.
It is one thing for an internally organized, open system to foster uphill
processes by tapping downhill ones, but how did the required internal
organization come about in the first place? Indeed the so-called
dissipative structures that produce uphill processes are highly organized
(low entropy) molecular ensembles, especially when compared to the
dispersed arrays from which they assembled. Hence, the question of
how they could originate by natural processes has proved a challenging
one.” [J.W. Patterson (evolutionist), Scientists Confront Creationism,
L.R. Godfrey, Ed., W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1983, p. 110]
The above statements—all by respected
leaders in evolutionary thought—more than adequately document the fact
that natural law stands in the way of a truly scientific explanation for any
evolutionary process. While the 2nd law of thermodynamics in its
classical application may “permit” the necessary isolated reductions in thermal
entropy required for—and theorized in—evolution, the generalized
second law effectively prohibits the existence of a scientifically
observable biological mechanism(s) required for beginning and/or
perpetuating the necessary—and sustained— reductions in both informational
entropy and statistical entropy. The above (evolutionist)
authors seem able and willing to recognize this problem, Isaak’s failure
to do so notwithstanding.
Here, the best offered to us by the leading
evolutionary thinkers and scientists (at least the ones who acknowledge the
problem) is: “The probability...is vanishingly small; the
explanation...is not...satisfying, because it still leaves open ... one of
the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology; the fundamental problems
posed for the biologist by the fact of life’s complex organization... the
work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires
information on how to proceed; this combination of events has seemed an
incredibly unlikely happenstance and often divine intervention is prescribed
as the only way it could have come about; the problem of energy supply for
the first organism seems fundamental ...we must admit that photosynthesis of
some kind ... arose very early in the course of organic evolution, if indeed
it was not involved from the beginning; ...how did the required internal
organization come about in the first place? ...the question of how
they could originate by natural processes has proved a challenging one...”
Denial is Neither Scientific Nor Honest
The bottom line here is that evolutionary
theory does indeed violate the principle of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Neither Isaak nor any evolutionist authority has succeeded in proving the
theory a practical possibility (let alone a reality), and only a few are
objective (and/or honest) enough to acknowledge the problem, which is so
confounding that no one seems to have even come up with a credible
subsidiary theory to deal with it, or it surely would have been well
documented by now!
Using natural processes alone, there’s
just no explaining how the complex, information-intense organization of even
single-celled life and its uniquely inherent and complex processes could
have emerged from non-life in the first place, and then could continue to
fly in the face of natural law with untold increases in information,
complexity and organization to yield all the flora and fauna varieties known
to have existed.
Rather than face the challenge, Isaak has
invoked the popular evolutionist claim that evolution is “irrelevant to”
the 2nd law on the grounds of an imaginary “open system clause.” The
leading authorities in evolutionary theory aren’t so simplistic in their
treatment of the problem. Clearly, the “misunderstanding” of
thermodynamics (and evolutionary theory itself) lies with Isaak, not with
creationists, who rightly point out this serious challenge posed by nature
to the evolutionary faith.
There are No Transitional Fossils
Back To Top
Isaak begins this section by offering us
this definition: “A transitional fossil is one that looks like
it’s from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has
some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and
probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional
fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between
species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should
be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral
lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage...”
Solid Ground or Shifting Sands?
It’s important that the reader understand up
front that—in spite of such a clearly defined definition—there is much
disagreement among the leaders in paleontology concerning which specimens
qualify as “transitional” and which supposed “transitional forms”
fit into which lineages, and where.
What one authority defines as a
“transitional form” between lineage A and lineage B can be (and often
is) just as authoritatively declared not so when it is said to better fit
between lineage X and lineage Y, or when a specimen is found in a position
stratigraphically “older” than the first occurrence of lineage A or
“younger” than B—and all of these are common occurrences.
Other experts in morphology further
complicate matters when they point out differences in physical
characteristics so significant that evolutionists are forced to scrap one or
another theory in phylogeny (developmental history) in spite of any existing
similarities.
A very serious indictment of evolutionary
“spokespersons” (such as Isaak) thus arises, as under the guise of a
“united front” they declare the matter of transitional fossils to be no
problem, while in reality the hands-on practitioners of science continue to
disagree with one another on matters both great and small as they attempt to
construct the very same phylogenies which the “spokespersons” describe
as firmly established and beyond dispute.
What do the Experts Say?
In the first place, any objective
paleontologist must concede that one’s interpretation of the fossil record
will invariably be influenced by one’s presuppositions (in the case of the
evolutionists, the presumption that evolution has taken place), and that
everything must therefore be forced to somehow fit into that framework.
This has been precisely the observation of Ronald West:
“Contrary to what most scientists write,
the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution
because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret
the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning
if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West
(evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass,
Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
Steven Stanley, highly-respected authority
from Johns Hopkins, has this to say on the lack of a transitional fossil
record—where it matters most, between genera and higher taxa (in other
words, immediately above the [often arbitrarily and subjectively defined]
species level and upwards):
“Established species are evolving so
slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be
occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE
FOSSIL RECORD.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil
Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460. (emphasis added)]
If that weren’t enough to raise some
doubts, Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, is also objective enough to point
out:
“The known fossil record fails to document
a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic
transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be
valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process.
San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
George Gaylord Simpson, another leading
evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of
taxonomic categories:
"...Every paleontologist knows that
most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories
above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up
to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.”
[George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution,
New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
David Kitts acknowledges the problem and
reiterates the subjectivity with which the fossil record is viewed:
“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever
supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion
that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even
provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak
sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is
compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories,
and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.” [David
B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology,
Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
E. R. Leach offers no help, observing only
that:
“Missing links in the sequence of fossil
evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually
turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.” [E.R.
Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]
Among the most well-known proponents of
evolution (and a fierce opponent of Creationism), even Steven Jay Gould
admits:
“At the higher level of evolutionary
transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been
in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western
evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are
almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is
certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like
Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge
(evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms
is the trade secret of paleontology ... 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.’” [S.J. Gould (evolutionist);
Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
[It seems a bit ironic that Isaak also
quotes Gould alluding in 1994 to “several” superb examples of
intermediary forms and sequences—“more than enough” (according to
Gould) to convince any fair-minded skeptic. Are we to understand that
it was during the 17 years between 1977 and 1994 these “superb examples”
were discovered (and if so, one wonders exactly which ones they were)?
Or sometime during that period did Gould simply change his mind, deciding to
dispute the findings of West, Stanley, Kitts, Leach and others (including
himself!)? The only remaining explanation—not unheard of among
evolutionists—would be a mild case of schizophrenic thinking.]
In spite of the agreement among many
prominent evolutionist leaders that the fossil record does little to provide
evidence of evolutionary transition, the likes of Mark Isaak somehow feel
justified in declaring that, “Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin
of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils
... there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional
fossils exist.”
What a complete contradiction to both the
above leading evolutionists’ own words, and the actual fossil record
itself! If Isaak’s claims were true, why would the leading
authorities of evolutionary thought so plainly disagree with this
“spokesperson”?
Isaak even goes so far as to claim that,
“notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land
animal to early whale, and from early ape to human.” Yet these same
alleged “transitional sequences” remain no less equivocal and transitory
(i.e., subject to continual dispute and re-evaluation among the
“experts”) than any other. Isaak declares them “notable
examples,” apparently based on his personal confidence more than on any
tangible, empirical data.
One well-documented treatment of this
subject (replacing evolutionary dogma with objective, critical evaluation)
may be found in Dr. Duane Gish’s recently updated book:
- Gish, D. Evolution: The Fossils Still
Say No. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA. 1995. ISBN
0-89051-112-8
Isaak, on the other hand, directs us to the
transitional fossils FAQ in the talk.origins archive for “proof” of
transitional fossils. A careful perusal of this source is well
worthwhile, as it exemplifies the methods used by evolutionary
“spokespersons” to defend their beliefs by blurring the line between
dogma and science, touting so much theoretical speculation as if it were
unequivocal, empirical data, so as to convince any willing disciple that
they can’t possibly be wrong.
The “Transitional Fossil” FAQ
The above-mentioned FAQ, written by Kathleen
Hunt, is in fact titled “Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ” (and does
not even attempt to address the less conveniently “explained” absence of
transitional specimens among invertebrates, or between invertebrates and
vertebrates). It is comprised of hundreds of references to various
species and genera, citing various organisms as related and/or ancestral,
based on the work of several evolutionist paleontological authorities.
To the willing disciple of evolutionary
doctrine, Hunt’s publication may seem overwhelmingly persuasive and
encouraging. But an objective, critical look at the contents reveals
that Hunt really does little more than perpetuate the myth of fossil
transitions plainly denied by the evolutionist authorities quoted above.
She seeks to accomplish this with a combination of many assertively-made
statements and (wherever possible) references to specific physiological
similarities between certain species or genera, as suggested over the years
by various phylogenic theorists.
What is missing from Hunt’s document is
any honest acknowledgment that among the phylogenies she describes, few—if
any—are universally accepted among paleontological authorities, and many
remain tentative and subject to change, if not hotly disputed among
authorities with differing viewpoints.
The reader is encouraged to remember that,
given the abundant variety of vertebrate organisms in both the present and
the fossil worlds, coercing a selection of them into a passable phylogenic
arrangement to suit evolutionary preconceptions is no difficult task.
Given enough time and material, and a willingness to “overlook” any
“unsuitable” facts, the desired scenario could easily be constructed,
using similarities wherever they help, and ignoring them wherever they
don’t.
Whale “Evolution”
One of many examples of the incomplete picture
given in Hunt’s FAQ may be found in her treatment of whales. Besides
presenting a phylogeny that (much like elsewhere in the FAQ) seems to rely
largely on dental records at the expense (in the absence?) of the balance of
physiological evidence, she makes mention of Pakicetus, which she
describes as “the oldest fossil whale known ... nostrils still at front of
head (no blowhole) ... found with terrestrial fossils and may have been
amphibious...” What Hunt fails to include in her description of “the
oldest fossil whale” is the fact that the fossil material from which Pakicetus
was conjured up consisted of nothing more than:
- the back of a mammal skull
- two jaw fragments
- some teeth
[Readers may see the article linked here
for illustrations of just how much “whale
evolution” is contrived from how little substance.]
As Hunt notes, these fossils were found
amidst an array of land mammal fossils in 1983. There is no
significant evidence to lead one to assume these remains belonged to an
“old whale” any more than to an “old land mammal.” Yet the
discoverers (P.D. Gingerich et al.) chose to “interpret” their findings
as a whale, and evolutionary proponents (such as Hunt) have happily parroted
their claim ever since.
[Let the reader be reminded at this point
that one alleged evolutionary ancestor of man (Piltdown Man) was
exposed as a deliberate hoax; that another (Nebraska Man) might as
well have been a hoax, a whole hominid “species” having been contrived
entirely from a single tooth, which turned out to belong to a pig; and that
among other now seriously questioned human “ancestors” is Ramapithecus
(since reclassified as Sivapithecus), based on a few teeth and jaw
fragments that turned out to so closely resemble those of a modern day
orangutan that Richard Leakey’s associate and co-author Alan Walker has
cautiously alluded to the orangutan as a potential “living fossil”.
The history of paleontology abounds with the rise and fall of various
fabrications and complete reversals, demonstrating the need for extreme
caution in accepting any claims based on what is often scant and equivocal
evidence.]
Similarly, Hunt presents us with Ambulocetus
natans (=“walking-whale swimming”), supposedly a “transitional”
organism between land mammals and whales. Now, Pakicetus (the
“oldest whale”) is said to be 52 million years old, and yet Ambulocetus
natans (featuring powerful limbs, hooves, a long tail, and land mammal
breathing & hearing configurations) was found in fossil beds nearly 400
feet higher in elevation than Pakicetus and has been declared to be
about the same age. Curiously, Hunt doesn’t mention that this
creature, weighing an estimated 650 lbs., in addition to possessing the
above-mentioned land mammal physiology, also features teeth remarkably like
mesonychid ungulates, considered to be large wolf-like carnivorous land
mammals, adding further to its questionability as an ancestor of modern
whales.
In any case, it is noteworthy (and
conspicuously absent from Hunt’s document) that these Archeoceti (or
presumed “primitive whales”) are not universally accepted as such.
G. A. Mchedlidze, a Russian expert on whales has expressed serious doubts as
to whether the likes of Pakicetus, Ambulocetus natans, and
others—even if accepted as aquatic mammals—can properly be considered
ancestors of modern whales. He sees them instead as a completely
isolated group. [G. A. Mchedlidze, General Features of the
Paleobiological Evolution of Cetacea, trans. from Russian (Rotterdam:
A.A. Balkema, 1986, p. 91]
In 1988 R. L. Carroll, a leading
paleontological authority among evolutionists, published the presumption
that whales evolved from a land mammal like the mesonychids. Since
then, it seems there has been a rush to attribute whale ancestry to anything
resembling these wolf-like creatures, creating aquatic behavioral scenarios
to help the imagination along—thus “filling” one of many troublesome
gaps in the fossil record.
The so-called record of “transitional
fossils” (as portrayed by Kathleen Hunt and elsewhere) is replete with
just such unsubstantiated, equivocal “evidence” as exemplified in
Hunt’s treatment of whale phylogeny. It is by no means a convincing
body of “scientific data” in which an objective student could hope to
find solid evidence of transitional evolution. More accurately, it is
testimony to what is possible as a the result of forcing the data through an
imaginative and speculative matching process, based mainly on hypothetical
presuppositions.
The Old Archaeopteryx Trick
Having asserted that transitional fossils
abound, Isaak proceeds to cite Archaeopteryx (a unique and hotly
debated specimen) as an example, declaring that it “is clearly a mix of
bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in
fact).”
Yet concerning Archaeopteryx, at
least a few leading authorities on the subject seem to disagree with Isaak:
“... Archaeopteryxwas, in a modern
sense, a BIRD.”
[Allan Feduccia (evolutionist), Science 259:790-793 (1993)
(emphasis added)]
Furthermore, the published work of Larry D.
Martin et al., A. D. Walker, J. M. V. Rayner, S. L. Olson, K. N. Whetstone
and others (all evolutionists) indicate precisely the opposite of Isaak’s
assertion—that is, Archaeopteryx has far more bird-like
characteristics than reptile-like characteristics.
It should also be mentioned here
(especially since it was “overlooked” by both Isaak and Hunt) that
full-fledged crow-sized bird fossils have been found in strata believed by
evolutionists to be 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx (and as
old as the oldest fossil dinosaur), making the “transitional” nature of Archaeopteryx
(between dinosaurs and birds) less defensible than ever before. [Tim
Beardsley (evolutionist), Nature 322:677 (1986); Richard Monastersky
(evolutionist), Science News 140:104-105 (1991); Alan Anderson, Science
253:35 (1991)]
And let’s not forget that Gould himself,
while remaining a staunch believer in evolution, said:
“Smooth intermediates between Baupläne
are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is
certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like
Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge
(evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
The question is inescapable: If
Isaak’s claim is correct (that transitional specimens abound), why would
he refer us to the case of Archaeopteryx, in which he is obviously at
odds not only with the conclusions of the evolutionist experts, but also
with the latest paleontological data?
Surely if it existed, evolutionist
spokespersons such as Isaak and Hunt would present more unequivocal proof
from the fossil record. We are repeatedly told of overwhelming and
conclusive evidence for evolution, yet the hands-on paleontologists and the
data they have accumulated tell a very different—and more
objective—story.
The Theory of Evolution Says That Life
Originated, and Evolution Proceeds,
by Random Chance
Back To Top“There is
probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer
doesn’t understand evolution,” Isaak tells us. “Chance certainly plays
a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the
fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of
chance.”
Here we find a classic game of semantics
and subjective re-definition of terms. On the one hand, Mark Isaak
concedes that “chance plays a large part,” yet natural selection (now
portrayed as if an inherently, non-accidental, designed, deliberate,
goal-oriented process) plays a “fundamental role,” these two
“opposites” somehow combining to make it all work out, precisely
according to theory. (Next question, please!)
Science History Speaks
It is noteworthy that the concept of natural
selection was first suggested in the published observations of creationist
scientist Edward Blyth in 1835 (24 years before the publication of
Darwin’s Origin of Species). Blyth’s work is not likely to
have been unknown to Darwin, who appears to have “borrowed” the concept
from Blyth, ever since which time natural selection has been erroneously
attributed to Darwin and cited as evidence of evolution.
Charles Darwin’s contribution amounted to
advancing the imaginative (and still highly popular) notion that an
abundance of time was the only missing ingredient for a plausible theory of
evolution. Modern science has come to seriously question this
simplistic approach, however, returning us to a place in which Blyth’s
observations remain valid, while Darwin’s speculative—but
unfounded—extrapolations come under ever greater suspicion.
What do the Experts Say?
Before we go any further with this line of
thinking, let us recall what some respected evolutionary authorities have
said concerning natural selection:
“If most evolutionary changes occur during
speciation events and if speciation events are largely random, natural
selection, long viewed as a process guiding evolutionary change, cannot
play a significant role in determining the overall course of evolution.”
[Steven M. Stanley (evolutionist), Proceedings of the National Academy
of Science, 72:640-660, (1975), p.648.]
“Adaptation leads to natural selection,
natural selection does not necessarily lead to greater adaptation ...
Natural Selection operates essentially to enable the organisms to maintain
their state of adaptation rather than improve it ... Natural
selection over the long run does not seem to improve a species’ chances
of survival, but simply enables it to ‘track,’ or keep up with, the
constantly changing environment” [Richard C. Lewontin (evolutionist);
"Adaptation." Scientific American (and Scientific
American Book, Evolution), Sept. 1978]
“Mutations, in time, occur incoherently.
They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in
successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what
pre-exists, but they do so in disorder.” [Pierre-Paul Grassé
(evolutionist), Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New
York (1977), pp. 97, 98.]
“In the meantime, the educated public
continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by
the magic formula of random mutation plus natural selection—quite
unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and
natural selection a tautology.” [Arthur Koestler (evolutionist), Janus:
A Summing Up, Random House, New York, 1978, pp. 184-185.]
[For the reader’s benefit, a tautology is
equivalent to defining an idea simply by restating the same idea in
different terms (=circular reasoning)]
“As a generative principle, providing the
raw material for natural selection, random mutation is inadequate both in
scope and theoretical grounding.” [Jeffrey S. Wicken (evolutionist),
“The generation of complexity in evolution: a thermodynamic and
information-theoretical discussion.” Journal of Theoretical Biology,
vol. 77, April 1979, pp. 351-352.]
Stanley, Lewontin, Grassé, Koestler, and
Wicken are all authorities in their fields, and they don’t seem to share
Mark Isaak’s belief that natural selection has such special mystical
abilities as to make it the “opposite” of chance. In fact, they
all seem to agree that natural selection itself is simply a part of the
presumed random, changing, and unordered process known as evolution.
Isaak’s tale of opposites (chance vs.
natural selection), while perhaps a fascinating exercise in semantics, is
not a credible, scientific basis for denying random chance as an inescapably
fundamental aspect of evolutionary theory. To portray the process as
anything else is to erroneously attribute to nature itself an inherent,
supernatural purpose and mind of its own—which evolutionists (except
perhaps the likes of Isaak) generally frown upon.
Science or Wishful Thinking?
Having blithely redefined the roles of chance
and selection to his own liking, Isaak now proceeds to tell us that
“chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable.” (By
“beneficial” he must mean leading to macro-evolution—i.e.,
information-gaining mutations.) Yet there are no records of genuine,
information-gaining mutations even remotely suggestive of evolutionary
progress. Geneticists recognize mutations as erroneous
duplications of genetic code in which information is invariably lost,
and they don’t cite any observations of information-gaining mutations.
Isaak clearly goes out of the bounds of science, then, to make his claim.
The assertion that “different variations
are selected, leading eventually to different species” has already been
dealt with in this document (see the first section “Evolution has never
been observed”). In short, Isaak’s ignorance is here again
betrayed by his failure to differentiate between genetic variation within an
existing gene pool (a fact of science), and genetic (mutational) evolution
from one organism towards another, more complex, advanced organism (an
hypothesis). The former has been observed and documented; the latter
has not—and may not be justifiably extrapolated from the former.
“Harmful mutations usually die out
quickly, so they don’t interfere with the process of beneficial mutations
accumulating,” says Isaak. The first half of his sentence is true,
but the second half, again, erroneously makes the unsubstantiated
presumption of beneficial mutations, begging the question: How can
that accumulate which does not exist?
The Origin of Life
“Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first
life) due purely to chance,” Isaak insists. “Once a molecule forms
that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the
formation of ever more efficient replicators. ...Some self-replicating
molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).
“Some people still argue that it is
wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form...
This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem...
A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes
the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have
formed from...”
In a few short paragraphs, Mark Isaak
apparently believes himself to have swept away any objection to the age-old
notion of spontaneous generation. It is a classic evolutionist
argument to invoke vast, immeasurable oceans of “starting materials”
from which life must have formed itself. “This is too big for you to
comprehend, so just accept it,” is the implication.
But many highly respected (non-Creationist)
scientists have rejected such a simplistic, leap-of-faith approach to this
issue. As our knowledge of biochemistry has grown over the past
several decades, it has revealed insurmountable obstacles to even Isaak’s
hypothetical primal “approximately self-replicating molecule.” An
attempt to address the issue by describing some organic molecules as “not
really all that complex (as organic molecules go)” betrays a severely
limited perception of the problem:
“Prebiotic soup is easy to obtain.
We must next explain how a prebiotic soup of organic molecules, including
amino acids and the organic constituents of nucleotides evolved into a
self-replicating organism. While some suggestive evidence has been
obtained, I must admit that attempts to reconstruct this evolutionary
process are extremely tentative.” [Dr. Leslie Orgel (evolutionist
biochemist at the Salk Institute, California), “Darwinism at the very
beginning of life,” New Scientist, 15 April 1982, p. 150]
“However, the macromolecule-to-cell
transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range
of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. ...We
simply wish to point out the fact that there is no scientific evidence.
The physicist has learned to avoid trying to specify when time began and
when matter was created, except within the framework of frank speculation.
The origin of the precursor cell appears to fall into the same category of
unknowables.” [Davis E. Green (evolutionist, Institute for Enzyme
Research, University of Wisconsin, Madison) and Robert F. Goldberger
(evolutionist, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland), Molecular
Insights into the Living Processes, Academic Press, New York, 1967,
pp. 406-407]
“It is therefore a matter of faith on the
part of biologist that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever
method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence for what
did happen is not available.” [Prof. G. A. Kerkut (evolutionist,
Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, Univ. of Southampton) in Implications
of Evolution, Pergamon Press, London, 1960, p. 150]
Orgel, Green, Goldberger and Kerkut are but
a few of many voices in the evolutionist camp who disagree with Isaak’s
shallow treatment of this subject. The highly complex and orderly
structures and processes that comprise life and its functions can not even
begin to be explained as having arisen from non-living matter, no matter how
much promordial soup and time is involved. Knowledgeable and objective
members of the scientific community don’t deny this.
Lastly, Isaak disputes the claim that
Evolution is Only a Theory;
It Hasn’t Been Proved
Back To Top“Like so
many other words, [evolution] has more than one meaning,” Isaak quite
correctly reminds us (though his “Misconceptions FAQ” seems to betray a
weakness on his part for confusing at least two of them). He then
provides us with his “strict biological definition,” which is “a
change in allele frequencies over time,” assuring us that, “by that
definition, evolution is an indisputable fact.”
In the first place, all changes take
place over time. The question is what kind of change we are
addressing. Variations within a gene pool, based on the pool’s
existing genetic mix (eagerly labeled as “microevolution” by many
evolutionists) would not necessarily qualify for Isaak’s “strict
biological definition,” since “allele” changes are popularly
considered to be the results of mutation, rather than the natural shuffling
process of existing gene pool material.
On the other hand, mutational changes of a
beneficial (or at least not harmful) and enduring nature are not known (as
explained above), so all Isaak seems to be telling us here is that, by his
“strict biological definition,” changes in (harmful) mutation
occurrences do qualify as “evolution”—and that this is an
“indisputable fact”.
Defining “Evolution”
Lest there be any misunderstanding, it would
behoove us at this point to establish what evolutionary advocates, such as
Isaak, normally mean when they speak of “evolution.” Other definitions
notwithstanding (including the redefinition of genetic variation as
“microevolution”—often used in a bait-and-switch argument), the
general biological meaning of “evolution” to most evolutionists is
a continuous naturalistic, mechanistic
process by which all living things have arisen from a single living source
which itself arose by a similar process from a non-living, inanimate
world.
Leaving alone the area of cosmogony, the
“big bang” and its competing hypotheses, as well as some of the other
details, this definition is usually adequate as a reference point from which
the majority of evolutionists work.
Isaak tells us that, “...common descent
is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part
of several quite different theories as well).” Yet “common descent”
(i.e., “all things arising from a single living source”) is indeed the
larger part of the general theory of evolution, and he conspicuously fails
to list any of the other “several quite different theories” which share
this central theme of evolutionary doctrine.
Of greater significance, in any case, is
the next claim: “The theory of evolution not only says that life
evolved, it also includes mechanisms ... which go a long way towards
explaining how life evolved.” Unfortunately, the “mechanisms”
to which Isaak refers have been largely discarded as inadequate for
explaining, either singly or in combination, how life evolved; they do not
go a “long way” at all towards explaining anything, yet they are
tirelessly parroted as evolutionist doctrine, for lack of better material.
Defining “Theory”
Isaak would have us define “theory” for
our purposes as “a coherent group of general propositions used as
principles of explanation for a class of phenomena,” but to do so would be
to ignore the question of what specific “class of phenomena”
evolutionism proposes to explain. To date, evolutionary theory has not
explained any observed phenomenon—rather, it serves up speculation and
conjecture that unobserved (and unobservable) phenomena are responsible for
life as we know it. This does not qualify evolutionism as a theory
according to the definition offered by Isaak.
A better definition (no. 2 from the same
dictionary used by Isaak) would be
a proposed explanation whose status is
still conjectural, in reporting matters of actual fact.
Thus, evolutionary theory provides a
conjectural, proposed explanation in reporting on the origin and diversity
(matters) of life as we know it—life as we know it being actual fact.
“Generally speaking, scientific theories
differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more
tersely,” Isaak tells us. A little less generality is in order here,
however, as the term “law” in science refers to a description of
invariable, observable, results or phenomena under like conditions, whereas
the term “theory” refers to a proposed description or
explanation, usually based at least in part on repeatability and observation
(i.e., the scientific process). The difference is hardly that one
“can be expressed more tersely” than the other.
Curiously, Isaak now proceeds to set up for
himself a straw man by saying “...a theory implies self-consistency,
agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be
a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific
claims about what we would expect to find, so it can’t be used for
anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be
false.)”
Yet thus far, our analysis of Isaak’s own
claims concerning evolution reveal it to fail even as a theory, by this
auxiliary definition:
- Evolutionism fails to be self-consistent
- by requiring multiple
“definitions”, depending on the need of the moment
- in the varied, and contradictory
camps connected with thermodynamics, phylogeny, proposed mechanisms,
and various sub-theories, etc.
- Evolutionism fails to agree with
observations in
- the fossil record
- geology
- genetics
- molecular biology
- thermodynamics
- dozens of dating methods (both
radiometric and geological/geophysical)
- probability mathematics
- Evolutionism has failed to prove useful,
having produced
Five
Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution