Evolution's Achilles Heel
The great mystery of our time is why so many people, especially enlightened intellectuals, believe in evolution. Ultimately, the evidence for evolution-the idea that all life has descended from a common ancestor-is simply not compelling; evolutionists have failed to account for the development of today's complex cell. Since first life could not have possessed all the amazing biochemistry we find today, evolutionists must demonstrate evidence for how natural selection-evolution's primary mechanism-created it. All other evidence for evolution, from rocks, microscopes and the imaginations of man depends upon evolution proceeding at this microscopic level. What evidence do they provide?
Jerry Coyne, one of the world's leading evolutionists, in his highly acclaimed book Why Evolution Is True, 2009, argues that it is impossible to provide every detail of evidence concerning biochemical complexity. He also admits evolutionary development of "complex biochemical… pathways is not easy, since they leave no trace in the fossil record." Okay. How many details does he provide to demonstrate the evolution of life's complex chemistry?
Amazingly, considering the foundational nature of cell biology to drive all evolutionary adaptations, the only "detail" Coyne provides in his book is speculation about an imaginary gene. He states that "the common ancestor of sea cucumbers and vertebrates had a gene that was later co-opted in vertebrates…" as fibrinogen. Anyone who has studied high school biology realizes that if this is all the evidence he can provide for the development of the myriad of biochemical pathways like the Krebs's cycle or protein synthesis or other cell complexities, his evidence is embarrassingly nonexistent. Evidently, it is not only impossible to provide every detail; it is impossible to provide a single detail. And, since all other explanations in his book depend on this fundamental foundation, his arguments collapse.
Similarly, prominent evolutionist Kenneth Miller, textbook author and plaintiffs lead expert witness in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover intelligent design trial, fails to provide compelling evidence for the development of cellular complexity. Texas's 2009 high school biology standards require explanations; his new textbook presents only two details. First, a single cell organism engulfs an alga and then acquires the photosynthetic ability of the alga. Second, two distinct classes of bacteria share similar enzymes. Like Coyne, he provides no evidence for how these enzymes and foundational processes developed from first life. In conclusion, Miller waves the magic wand of his imagination and confidently declares "that complex cellular structures and pathways were produced by the process of evolution."
Ironically, even famous evolutionist Richard Dawkins, in his book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, 2009, fails to present evidence-at least for the development of biochemical complexity. The only detail he cites is a double mutation in E. coli that allows it to digest citrate. Like Coyne and Miller, he offers no evidence for how the process developed initially. He describes the cell as "breathtakingly complicated," and states "the key to understand how such complexity is put together is that it is all done locally, by small entities obeying local rules." He also states that some of the features of the cell descended from different bacteria, that built up their "chemical wizardries billions of years before." These statements are not evidence; they are vain imaginations.
The only indisputable fact is: leading evolutionists have no evidence that natural selection created today's biochemical complexity. Therefore, skepticism is the best response. Evolutionary dogmatism-the insistence that evolution is true-is a serious issue. Science is not threatened by evolutionary skepticism; science is threatened by the quasi-science of the evolutionist.