Historical Reality
Copernicus’ “Heliocentric”
Hypothesis—Yes
Member,
State Board of Education
3707
Tanglewood
979
255-2538
I. Introduction
Evolutionists are quick to point out that the hypothesis
of “descent with modification from a common ancestor” (hereafter
referred to simply as “common descent”) is as much a historical
reality as the hypothesis of “heliocentricity”.
“Like the
heliocentric hypothesis of Copernicus, the hypothesis of descent with
modification from common ancestors has long held the status of a scientific
fact. No biologist today would think of publishing a paper on “new
evidence for evolution,” any more than a chemist would try to publish a
demonstration that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen.”[1]
“In The Origin of Species,
“Those who oppose the teaching of
evolution in public schools sometimes ask that teachers present "the
evidence against evolution." However, there is no debate within the
scientific community over whether evolution occurred, and there is no evidence
that evolution has not occurred. Some of the details of how evolution occurs
are still being investigated. But scientists continue to debate only the
particular mechanisms that result in evolution, not the overall accuracy of
evolution as the explanation of life's history.”[3]
“(E)volution is as well documented
as any phenomenon in science, as firmly supported as the earth’s
revolution around the sun rather than vice versa.”[4]
Is “common descent” historical reality?
Is “common descent” an accurate explanation
of life’s history?
Is it fair to claim “common descent” is
analogous to heliocentricity?
The purpose of this analysis is to
answer the above questions.
After clarifying the meaning of key words,
the hypotheses of “heliocentricity” and each of the two components
of the neo-darwinian synthesis—“common descent” and
“natural selection operating on genetic variation” will be analyzed
as cogent arguments, and good theories.
This analysis will demonstrate that
“common descent” has not been conclusively demonstrated to
be true and therefore can not be described as “factual” in our
textbooks.
Therefore,
any book that represents “common descent” as a fact and not a
hypothesis should be rejected as factually incorrect.
Also,
any good book will present at least some of the identified weaknesses raised in
this analysis.
II.
Clarifying the Discussion
Evolution has many
meanings; a lot of confusion can be avoided by clarifying these meanings. The
key confusion in a textbook is when its generic definition of “change
over time” is gradually morphed into
Two Preliminary Definitions (These are terms not used in the TEKS or the
textbooks, but are very useful in clarifying the terms that are used.)
Adaptive variation—Small changes of diversification within a type. The species remain the
same basic type.
Examples:
Discussion: A Fact Adaptive variation is explained by the inherent ability that is apparent in all organisms.
Macroevolution—Large changes within biologic organisms that account for
all the new kingdoms, phyla, classes, orders, families, genera, and species.
This is equivalent to “descent from a common ancestor” or
“descent with modification”. This states that all life is
“related” genealogically.
Examples: “Protozoa” to man. Reptile to bird. Reptile to mammal.
Discussion: A Theory This is the great controversial claim for evolution that critics dispute. Macroevolution is claimed to be the result of adaptive variation operating over long periods of time.
The Main Definitions of Evolution (These are terms that are used in the
textbooks.)
Evolution “Generic”—Change
over time.
Discussion: A Fact This fact is not disputed or controversial. But note, this is not the equivalent as saying all life is related. It is broader than adaptive variation as it accounts, for example, for the fact that many organisms, like the dinosaurs, once lived but are now extinct.
Evolution as “Descent from a Common Ancestor”— macroevolution.
Discussion: A Theory Unfortunately, this term is considered by textbooks to be equivalent with the “change over time” evolution and therefore presented incorrectly as a fact
Evolution as the Evolutionary “Process”—Natural selection operating on genetic variations.
Discussion: A Theory This is what is universally accepted by all scientists and textbooks as the theory of evolution.
Evolution as “Neo-Darwinism”—descent from a common ancestor by natural selection operating on genetic variations.
Discussion: A Synthesis Theory Neo-darwinism is also referred to as the modern synthesis; it is a synthesis of the two theories of “descent from a common ancestor” and “process”. Though not labeled as such, neo-darwinism is the correct term for what is presented in the textbooks as evolution.
III. Is Heliocentricity a proven
fact or hypothesis?
Yes! It is a Fact! |
No! It is not a Fact! |
A strong argument makes its appeal to authority, utility, scientific experience,
silence, analogy and tendency to prove its point. How strong
is the “heliocentricity” argument? |
|
Appeal
to Qualified or Unqualified Authority |
|
Everyone agrees. |
|
Appeal
to Utility (it works) or False
Cause |
|
It works quite well. |
|
Appeal
to Scientific Experience |
|
It fits both historic science and empirical science. |
|
Appeal
to Silence or Ignorance |
|
|
|
Appeal
to Analogy—Strong or Strained |
|
|
|
Appeal
to Strong Tendency or Hasty Generalization |
|
|
|
A good theory displays six good qualities: coherency, adequacy, consistency,
simplicity, accuracy and fruitfulness. How good a
theory is “heliocentricity”? |
|
Coherency—Is
it self-contradicting? |
|
Completely coherent |
|
Adequate—Does
it explain all the facts? |
|
It explains all the facts. |
|
Consistency—Is
it in agreement with other theories and disciplines? |
|
It is consistent with all other known science. |
|
Simple—Is
it unnecessarily complicated? |
|
It is very simple. |
|
Accurate—Is
it precise or approximate? |
|
It is very accurate. |
|
Fruitful—Is
it productive or a dead end? |
|
It has proved very fruitful. |
|
Summary of the Heliocentric Hypothesis
Heliocentricity is unquestionably reality. It has all the
strengths of a cogent argument, and displays all the qualities of a good
theory. It amazingly doesn’t have any weaknesses.
How will descent with modification from a common ancestor stack up to
the same analysis?
IV.
Is
“Descent from a Common Ancestor”—a Proven Fact or a
Hypothesis?
Yes! It is a Fact! |
No! It is not a Fact! |
A strong argument makes its appeal to authority, utility, scientific experience,
silence, analogy and tendency to prove its point. How strong
is the “common descent” argument? |
|
Appeal
to Qualified or Unqualified Authority |
|
Qualified ·
All major
science organizations endorse it as a fact.[5] ·
All major
universities world wide teach it as a fact. ·
Most highly
qualified academics support “common descent” as a fact. ·
“Common
descent” research is widely published and “peer-reviewed”. |
Qualified 1. Peer-reviewed
2.
Stephen J.
Gould, Harvard paleontologist and evolutionist, uses popular
literature. Gould defends the adequacy of non-peer-reviewed literature:
“The concepts of science …can be presented without any
compromise, without any simplification counting as distortion, in language
accessible to all intelligent people.” (WL p.16) 3.
Likewise,
today’s critics use popular literature. It is also difficult for
evolution critics to get published in evolutionary scientific journals. 4.
|
|
The
Expert’s Blind spot 5.
The
“bandwagon” can sometimes be wrong. Charles Walcott’s, one
of 6.
“The
greatest impediment to scientific innovation is usually a conceptual lock,
not a factual lock.” (WL p.276) 7.
Experts are
subject to trying to” shoehorn” data into pre-existing concepts. 8. Niles
Eldredge, co–developer of “punctuated equilibrium”, stated
the paleontologist’s dilemma: “either you stick to conventional
theory despite the rather poor fit of fossils, or you focus on the empirics
and say that saltation looks like a reasonable model of the evolutionary
process—in which case you must embrace a set of rather dubious
biological propositions.” (DT p.60) Saltation-a systematic macromutation. 9.
Evolutionists
were blind to the peppered moth’s contrary evidence for over a decade
after it was published. (MM
p.259) |
Appeal
to Utility (it works) or False
Cause |
|
|
False
Cause 10. We don’t
know if macroevolution is works. While adaptive variation has been
empirically demonstrated to be true; it can not, however, be cited as
evidence of “macroevolution”. 11.
Douglas Futuyma cites
six evidences for utility, for macroevolution to be true: bacterial
antibiotic resistance, 1898 storm that killed a lot of birds and the
survivors had slightly larger craniums, the Galapagos finches, the sickle
cell patients’ resistance to malaria, mice extinctions, and the
peppered moths. Yet none of these examples show major changes or any
permanent changes. (DT pp.25-27) 12.
There is no
empirical evidence of extrapolating “micro” to
“macro”. |
Appeal
to Scientific Experience |
|
|
Historical Science 13.
Since
conventional science has been so successful in other fields, such as
chemistry, physiology and physics, there is a belief that science can answer
everything. Biologic origins,
however, occupy what is properly referred to as “historical”
science. 14.
The goal of
“historical” science is to reconstruct the past. Ex. Archeology
and parts of anthropology, geology and evolutionary biology. 15. Philosopher
Karl Popper doubts “historical” science is science at all. 16.
Popper claimed:
“The wrong view of science betrays itself in the craving to be
right.” o
Entire
professional disciplines are based on “common descent”; they are
threatened when their “fact” comes under attack. (DT p.149) o
The longer a
hypothesis is called a fact, the more difficult it is to challenge it. (MM
p.297) 17.
Luis Alvarez, a
Nobel laureate, debunked “historical’ science in the New York
Times, claiming, “I don’t like to say bad things about
paleontologists, but they’re really not good scientists. They’re
more like stamp collectors.” (WL p. 281) 18.
“Historical”
science depends on narrative not experiment. 19.
Gould cites
“historical” science claims can be verified by disproof of
alternatives. But, since the evolutionist declares there are no alternatives,
“descent from a common ancestor” must be true. This is a truly an
ingenious way to win an argument. 20.
Origin of life
research is conducted empirically and scientists are pessimistic about it;
“common descent” research is conducted historically and
scientists are optimistic about it. Empirical Science 21.
Mayr:
“Evolution is a historical process that cannot be proven by the same
arguments and methods by which purely physical of functional phenomena can be
documented. Evolution as a whole, and the explanation of particular
evolutionary events must be inferred from observation.” (E p.13) 22.
“Common descent” covers events that can
never be observed or will be observed; therefore it is not
conventional science. |
Appeal
to Silence or Ignorance |
|
·
Evolutionists cite
imperfection in organisms as evidence of “common descent”. Ex.
The blind spot of the human eye means it must have evolved.[6]
Hollow bones in flightless penguins, a Panda’s thumb, etc. |
Ignorance 23.
Evolutionists
claim there is no other option but their theory so it must be true. There
are other options: typology, catastrophism, or “we don’t know”. 24.
“Punctuated
Equilibrium” is an appeal to no evidence, to ignorance. (see
Paleontology ) 25.
Circular
reasoning—Evolutionists claim the
absence of transitional forms enhances their theory. 26.
Raup likens the
Cambrian explosion to a disease epidemic, “Evolution is indeed like a
disease if one thinks of speciation as analogous to reproduction of the
disease organism and extinction as analogous to its death. …If the
analogy is correct, it is futile to search for some special
event—physical or biological—that triggered the Cambrian
explosion.” (Ext p.27) 27.
Mayr
hypothesized that evolution proceeded rapidly on the fringe of species
distributions, in isolated as areas. “Hence, the fossil record would be
most inadequate exactly where we need it the most—at the origin of
major new groups of organisms. (ST p.83) |
Appeal
to Analogy—Strong or Strained |
|
|
Strained
analogy 28. “Common
descent” depends on the strained analogy that adaptive variation over a
long time becomes macroevolution. But, Micro changes do not necessarily
extrapolate to macro changes. For example: High-low weather pressure
systems do not predict seasons—the tilt of the earth orbiting the sun
does. 29. Darwin,
himself, made an appeal to a strained analogy by appealing to artificial
selection to support natural selection. |
Appeal
to Strong Tendency or Hasty Generalization |
|
·
Life as seen in
the fossil record demonstrates “change over time”. |
The Fossil Record 30.
Fossils,
homologous structures, moths, molecular evidence are hastily generalized as
proof of macroevolution. However, these are only circumstantial evidences.
They easily support non-evolutionary theories also. |
·
Homology—common
anatomical morphology. “The hypothesis of evolution predicts next, that
organisms should share various characteristics in a hierarchical
arrangement.” (ST 105) ·
Molecular
homology—common building blocks, processes, and organization. |
Homology 31.
Homologies are
assumed to be ancestral; analogies are assumed to be parallel adaptations.
Homologies and analogies are not empirical evidence, they are only
assumptions and also are hastily generalized as evidence. 32. Circular
reasoning—by definition a homology is acquired from a
common ancestor and we know they are common ancestors because they share this
trait. 33.
Circular reasoning—what is
homologous and analogous depends on what is first assumed to be a common
ancestor trait. For example, many marsupials and placentals are very similar
morphologically. However, these similarities are arbitrarily designated as
analogous while the mode of child bearing is designated as homologous. They
make this decision arbitrarily, based on the geographical isolation of |
·
Vestigial
structures. |
34.
To claim a
structure is a trace of its ancestral past has been an embarrassment for the
evolutionists as the list of previously designated vestigial structures has declined.
Ex. The thyroid gland, the pineal gland, the appendix and the coccyx. 35.
Vestigial
formation is moving in opposition to evolution. |
·
All life shares
a common genetic code. Richard Dawkins states: I regard this as
near-conclusive proof that all organisms are descended from a single common
ancestor.” (BW p. 270) |
36.
Again, this is
only circumstantial evidence. Common building blocks and similar biochemical pathways in nature
makes the food chain less complicated.
|
Continental drift would predict that groups that
evolved late would not be broadly distributed over the world, whereas early
evolved groups would be. |
37.
Again, this is
only circumstantial evidence. |
A good theory displays six good qualities: coherency, adequacy, consistency,
simplicity, accuracy and fruitfulness. How good a
theory is “common descent”? |
|
Coherency—Is
it self-contradicting? |
|
·
A completely
naturalistic explanation. |
38.
It is only
“historical” science—not testable or observable. 39.
It is not easy
to explain how random macroevolution can generate a highly ordered
classification system This
implies: a.
You can’t
lose the descent trait as you lose the ancestral relationship, and b.
All intermediate
forms must die out or they would be alive today. c.
The essence of 40.
41.
There are no
living transitional forms. |
Adequate—Does
it explain all the facts? |
|
Paleontology ·
It explains the
old rocks with simpler life and younger rocks with more complex life.[7] ·
Flowers are good
runners. (FDG 61) ·
Coprolites .
(FDG 62) |
Paleontology 42. Stasis is the
natural order of the fossil record. In contrast to what would be
predicted in “common descent”, all fossils show a sudden
appearance in the fossil record and then remain remarkable unchanged in
appearance. 43.
The absence of
pre-Cambrian fossils that can explain the rise of the incredible
“Cambrian Explosion” leaves the defenders of evolution scrambling
to create hypothetical qualifiers such as “vast Pre-Cambrian oceans
with no continents nearby to serve as a source of sediments” (WL p.274)
to explain the absence. 44.
The Cambrian
explosion, with all major phyla appearing suddenly, totally contradicts the
“common descent” view. 45.
The fossil record
is not as incomplete as is maintained; George Gaylord Simpson states that the
fossil record is virtually complete for the larger forms. (TC p.189) 46. Gould:
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record is the
trade secret of paleontology.” (DT p.59) 47.
Eldredge:
“We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [the
story of gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing it does not.”
(DT p.59) 48.
Therefore the
paleontologists/evolutionists proposed abrupt macroevolutionary changes to
account for the lack of transitional forms: a.
Goldschmidt was
first in 1940. This b.
Gould and
Eldredge followed in 1974 with their hypothesis of “Punctuated
Equilibrium”. 49.
There are no
fossils at the forks of the branches of the evolutionary tree of life; they
are only found at the end of the branches. |
It explains the sequential nature of the fossil
record. i.e. Basic morphology of the groups seems to fall into a natural
sequence. o
Fish to
Amphibians. o
Amphibians to
reptiles. o
Reptiles to
birds. o
Reptiles to
mammals. o
Mammals to Man |
The Sequential Nature of the Fossil
Record 50.
Among the
primary sequential patterns of the fossil record, the vertebrate, the primate
and the plant series, every division is clean cut; they offer no proof of 51. The sequential
nature of the fossil record is NOT as convincing when you look at the
details. Ex. The aortic arches (TC p.113) 52.
Fish to
Amphibians. a.
A living
coelacanth, a proposed candidate for a transitional organism between fish and
amphibians, and thought to have been extinct for 70 million years, was found
living in the seas off b.
Barbara J.
Stahls’ Vertebrate History “none
of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the earliest land
vertebrates.” (DT p.76) 53.
Amphibians to
reptiles. a.
While it would
be difficult to document this transition of primarily soft body changes in
the fossil record, no explanation has been offered for the adaptation of the
reptilian amniotic egg from an amphibian egg. A hard shell, two membranes and
a yolk sac must be explained. (TC p.218) 54.
Reptiles to
birds. a.
Feathers are very hard to explain. Again, Barbara J. Stahls’ Vertebrate History states about
feathers: “how they arose initially, presumably from reptile scales,
defies analysis.” b.
To fly, a reptile would need, for starters, a new
heart, new bones, new scales, new muscles, a new backbone, and strong breast
muscles. 55.
Retiles to
mammals. a.
In the featured
reptile to mammal sequence, it is speculated that several of the therapsid
species separately evolved into mammals. This would require “that
accidental mutations crafted the extraordinary, precisely integrated parts of
the mammalian ear. Moreover, they did this many times, each independently,
a claim that seems severely strained.” (P p.101) b.
Great emphasis
is made on the transition of the reptilian jaw to the mammalian jaw and ear.
But, what about the origin of the mammalian organ of corti? c.
What did the
mammalian breathing diaphragm develop from? 56.
Mammals to man. a.
Baby humans are
helpless for years. b. All fossils to
date have been either ape or man. c.
Very few
hominoid fossils when compared to dinosaurs etc. d.
Circular
reasoning. The scientists first assume some sort of relatedness, and then
assemble a pattern of relations. (P p 112) |
Classification—“Common descent”
fits the tree of life. It explains taxonomy as a result of ancestral
relationships. |
Classification—Taxonomy 57.
Each textbook devotes
a chapter to the classification of living organisms, usually in it s
evolution section. This because classification could indicate common ancestry
and thus be proof of “common descent”. But, Ernst Mayr, of 58.
Mayr also
observed that with the great philosophical shift from traditional taxonomy to
evolutionary phylogeny that one would expect a radical change of
classification, but this is by no means the case. In fact, you can not tell
an evolutionist from a traditional taxonomist like Cuvier by their
classification. (TC p.124) 59.
Classification
evidence is also presented as a tautology—If we define
“common descent” as what produces classification, we can not then
use classification to prove “common descent”. 60.
Just identifying
a relationship does not equate to “common descent”; it just means
that life can be organized in a table. 61.
Traditional taxonomy
can explain the same data accurately. 62.
There are no
identified ancestors at the forks of the tree of life, or at the nodes of the
cladists. There are no creatures at the branching points. 63.
David Raup:
“We actually may have fewer examples of smooth transitions than we had
in 64.
“The fact
that we can use a few characteristics to make a treelike diagram accords with
the idea of evolution, but of course it doesn’t prove that evolution
has occurred”. (ST p.205) Classification—Discontinuities 65.
Discontinuities
are what allow biologists to categorize life. Without distinguishing
characteristics, like mammalian hair, the different classifications would be
lost. Discontinuities are what make it possible to distinguish a dog from a
cat, a tree from a flower. 66.
Discontinuities
are a problem for “common descent”. “The fact it was
possible to predict the entire morphology from a tiny fragment of one of the
parts provided Cuvier with what he saw as irrefutable evidence for permanent
discontinuities. For example, a depression on a fossil jaw bone implies a
specific muscle attachment; the shape and size of the depression implies the
size and direction of the muscle and thus the size and shape of the face. It
is only the discontinuous nature of life that allows one reasonably to assume
what the depression on the jawbone really represents. 67.
It doesn’t
explain the discontinuities of the tree of life. The typological model fits
the data exactly. 68. “…it
is easy to see how Cuvier and Agassiz could have seen in the pattern of
nature what they took to be irrefutable evidence in favor of their
anti-evolutionary stand. “ (TC p.117) 69.
“Common
descent” predicts a continuum of organisms through the evolutionary
tree of life, yet natural history reveals the opposite, with the persistence
of discontinuities between groups. |
|
Other Major unexplained
phenomenon 70. It does not
explain the incredible increase of
information encoded in the genetic codes. 71.
It can not explain “irreducible complexity”. (See
Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box) |
Consistency—Is
it in agreement with other theories and disciplines? |
|
·
It is consistent
with the ages of the geologic column. ·
It is consistent
with “naturalism” |
Mathematics 72.
It works against probability theory. Something may be possible but not probable. (TC
p.66) 73.
To get a cell by
chance would take at least one hundred proteins. For that to develop by
chance would take a probability of 1040,000. (TC p.323) 74.
It is
inconsistent with problem solving by undirected chance. It is so inefficient
it is impossible. Ex. Play golf blind and see what you shoot. (You would be
lucky to find your ball after the first shot.) 75.
The
improbability of the origin of DNA led its discover, Francis Crick, to
propose “Panspermia”—the idea that the source of DNA
complexity came from outer space. Physics and Chemistry 76.
It works against physics and the 2nd
law of thermodynamics. All things decay, rundown and increase in disorder
“you can not simply dismiss the problem of …complexity of
biological systems by a vague appeal to open-system, non-equilibrium
thermodynamics. The mechanism responsible for the emergence and maintenance
of coherent (organized) states must be defined”. (ML p.117) Embryology 76. It works
against embryology: different embryonic structures give rise to similar
morphologic structures. (TC p.145) 77. De Beer;
“… correspondence between homologous structures cannot be pressed
back to similarity of position of the cells of the embryo or the parts of the
egg out of which these structures are ultimately differentiated.” (TC
p.147) 78. Insect
metamorphosis rearrangement is from different embryonic cells. (TC p.147) 79. Limbs form in
different species from different embryonic tissue. (DT p.73) Molecular Biology 80.
It works
against molecular biology: Molecular
discontinuities are the same as morphologic discontinuities. 81. It is not
enough to show a relationship; one must show that the relationship is a
result of decent from a common ancestor. 82.
Molecular
discontinuities confirm the taxonomic classification systems just as much as
they confirm “common descent’s” classification systems. 83.
A Tautology—The
idea presented in the textbooks that “molecular clocks” support
“common descent” is false. The molecular clock hypothesis just
restates homology and reconfirms that there are no ancestral intermediate
forms. 84.
None of the
papers, ever, in the Journal of
Molecular Evolution has proposed how “common descent” could
work in the origin of photosynthesis, intra-molecular transport, cholesterol
biosynthesis. Etc. Biology 85.
The implied origin of “common descent”
–the chemical origin of life—contradicts the law of biogenesis
which states that life only comes from other life. |
Simple—Is
it unnecessarily complicated? |
|
On
the surface, it is simple and elegant. |
86.
The Self-sacrifice
and other behavioral characteristics require creative hypotheses. 87.
Likewise, the
incredible symbiotic relationships require creative hypotheses. 88.
One can’t
even envisage transitional forms. 89.
According to
Mayr, something as complex as the eye must have evolved 40 separate times. 90. Flight would
have had to evolve four separate times: for insects, for birds, for extinct
reptiles, and mammals (bats). 91.
Hind limbs and
forelimbs developed separately; it is not likely that the adaptive necessity
would generate 5 digits for each one. 92.
Evolutionists
are incredibly optimistic, Futuyma states: “If you ask, ‘What
would I have to do to transform a primitive mammal; into a bat or a
whale?’ the answer is, ‘Nothing very drastic.’” (ST
p.62) |
Accurate—Is
it precise or approximate? |
|
|
93.
It is totally
circumstantial and hypothetical.
There is no preciseness in “common descent” at all. |
Fruitful—Is
it productive or a dead end? |
|
·
It encouraged
“missing link” fossil hunting. ·
It is claimed to
be the great unifying principle of biology.[8] |
94.
It discouraged
reporting of routine fossil finds. 95.
“Common
descent” has encouraged origin of life research which is a dead end. 96.
Critics ask
biologists: What would change about your biology research, if “common
descent” were false? The most common answer is: “Nothing”. 97.
“Common
descent” is “a failed scientific research program—that does
not constitute a well-supported scientific theory, that its explanatory power
is severely limited and that fails abysmally when it tries to account for the
grand sweep of history.” (ID p.112) 98.
“Common
descent” discouraged the search for function of what was thought to be
vestigial organs. 99.
Ignored so
called “junk” DNA for over 40 years. |
Summary of
the “Common Descent” Hypothesis
While heliocentricity is unquestionably reality, descent
with modification from a common ancestor is unquestionably a weak argument and
theory.
Strong |
Weak |
Coherency—Is
it self-contradicting? |
|
|
100. Natural
selection is nature’s “quality control”; it actually
prevents macromutations beyond species. 101. It is a tautology a.
The survivors
survive. b.
The fittest are
those that have more off-spring and those that have more off-spring are the
fittest. (DT p.20) 102. Natural selection of artificial selection reverts to
the wild type. 103. The highly specialized artificially selected breeds
die out in the wild. 104. Natural selection is a “conserving force”
in action—not a creative force. Ex. It preserves organisms through
severe threats. For example: Peppered moths, Galapagos finches, and moth and
finch alleles are already present. 105. Gradual extinctions are predicted but not found. 106. Artificial
selection reaches a limit due to the limit of the genetic pool. 107. Natural selection is credited for both producing
highly ordered and precise results and also for imperfect results. |
Adequate—Does
it explain all the facts? |
|
·
It explains
adaptive variation. |
108. Can’t explain macroevolution. 109. It can not explain living fossils, creatures that have
supposedly survived virtually unchanged. 110. Molecular biologists, when challenged to name one
single unambiguous example of the formation of a new species, remained
silent.(DBB p.26) |
Consistency—Is
it in agreement with other theories and disciplines? |
|
·
Genetics—in
a small population a genetic variation can spread fairly rapidly i.e. the new
“bean” can dominate. |
Genetics 111. In a large
population the new “bean” is swamped. Hardy-Weinberg law. 112. The “founder effect” in small populations
will hurt survival as well as help it. 113. Genetic drift—Accidents, and chance can explain
dominance or survival. |
Simple—Is
it unnecessarily complicated? |
|
. |
114. You can’t evolve a sentence. 115. Overlapping genes. 116. Moves to fast to see; moves to slow to see. |
Accurate—Is
it precise or approximate? |
|
|
117. Beneficial mutations are rare. 118. No net gain in
genetic complexity. |
Fruitful—Is
it productive or a dead end? |
|
·
It can guide
medical researchers in the fight against disease. ·
Natural selection
brings taxonomy, genetics, paleontology botany, zoology ecology together. |
|
VI. Conclusion
The entire crux of the evolution debate hinges on whether “descent from a common ancestor”, like the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, is accepted as a historical reality, or as only a hypothesis.
This analysis has argued that it is only a hypothesis, and a shaky one at that.
Therefore,
· I urge board members to carefully consider the argument of this analysis and in spite of the overwhelming scientific experts’ opinions, consider what the overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrates, and insist that “common descent” be portrayed as a hypothesis in the textbooks.
· I also urge the board to reject any book that portrays descent with modification from a common ancestor as a fact.
· I also appeal to the publishers to incorporate in the texts the many reasons for the distinction.
References
TC Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, (Bethesda, Adler & Adler, 1986)
DT Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 2nd edition, (Downer’s Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1993)
WL Stephen Jay Gould, Wonderful Life, (New York, W. W. Norton, 1989)
ID William Dembski, Intelligent Design, (Downer’s Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1999)
DBB Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, (New York, The Free Press, 1996)
ML Thaxton, Bradley, Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin, (New York, The Philosophical Library, 1984)
P Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, (Dallas, Haughton Publishing, 1989)
ST Douglas Futuyma, Science on Trial, (New York, Pantheon Books, 1983)
Ext David M. Raup, Is Extinction Bad Genes or Bad Luck?, (New York, W. W. Norton, 1991)
E Ernst
Mayr, What Evolution Is, (
MM Judith
Hooper, Of Moths and Men, (
FDG Kenneth Miller, Finding Darwin’s God, (New York, Cliff Street Books, 1999)
BW Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, (London, W. W. Norton, 1986)
[1] Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 3rd ed., Sinauer Associates, 1998, p 12.
[2] Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 3rd ed., Sinauer Associates, 1998, p 12.
[3] Teaching About
Evolution and the Nature of Science, National Academy of Science, http://books.nap.edu/html/evolution98/evol1.html
page 3
[4] Stephen Jay Gould, I Have Landed, Harmony Books, 2002, p. 214
[5] The appeal to a qualified authority is the strongest argument for “common descent” to be considered a fact in our textbooks; it is incredibly strong! How can a board of lay persons make a stand against such impressive credentials? I say we can take such a stand based on the scientific evidence and the ‘historic” nature of evolutionary science. It is completely within our responsibility to look at “common descent”, and take it out of the arena of fact and place it back into the arena of a hypothesis.
My challenge to the evolution supporters is to not attack any group, not to argue against a bunch of straw men, but to respond to the questions raised in this analysis.
[6] The deductive logic of this statement follows: (1) a designer would not have made an eye with a blind spot, (2) the eye has a blind spot, therefore (3) “common descent” produced the eye. This is an invalid argument with an unknowable premise. (DBB 223)
[7] This is as good as it gets in the evidence for “common descent”; this is as close as they get to empirical evidence. Having noticed that the old rocks contain simple organisms (like bacteria) and younger rocks contain more complex organisms (like dinosaurs), they hypothesize that the complex ones are ancestors of the older simple ones, but they can not prove ancestral relationships. Mayr: The most convincing evidence for the occurrence of evolution is the discovery of extinct organisms in older geological strata. (E p.13)
[8] [8] If evolution is so important, why is evolution only referenced only 138 times out of 144,000 entries in college biochemistry books? (DBB p.182)