Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Evolution is Inevitably Correct
Most theories are amenable to falsification. They can be proven wrong. Others are like silly-putty. They can simply change shape in the face of disqualifying evidence. Evolution is big, slimy, and ever changing. There is no magic bullet that can bring it down. It just absorbs the bullets, however well-aimed they might be.
After it had been found that all living things were comprised of cells and that these all contained DNA and RNA, the evol.-establishment celebrated. These common substances “proved” common descent. According to evolutionist Niles Eldridge,
• “The basic notion that life has evolved passes its severest test with flying colors: the underlying chemical unity of life, the myriad patterns of special similarities shared by smaller groups of more closely related organism, all point to a grand pattern of ‘descent with modification.’”
About their optimism, biologist Cornelius Hunter writes,
• “Evolutionist believed that the fruits of molecular biology, unknown to Darwin, had resoundingly confirmed his theory. In fact, it is difficult to overestimate the confidence instilled by these findings.”
However, this confidence was soon to evaporate. New findings revealed many dissimilarities along with the similarities. For one thing, the protein machines involved in the replication process were just too different. For another, the DNA replication processes were also found to be very different – too different. Hunter concludes,
• “For the process of DNA replication, the evolutionary prediction that this fundamental molecular process is conserved across all life has been empirically falsified. Not only are the key molecular components not conserved, but there is not one, but several types of DNA replication processes.”
Instead of finding a portrait of gradual common descent among cells made possible by lining them up according to their overwhelming similarities, the evol.-establishment encountered such differences, among the similarities, that they were prompted to consider independent lines of evolution to account for the differences. According to Hunter,
• “Now they say that the fundamental molecular processes within the cell, that perform functions common to all life, may not originate from a common ancestor, but perhaps evolve independently.”
But how can such similar structures (DNA, RNA) have come about independently without design? The notion that life came about by chance is already mind-boggling, but that it happened more than once in very similar ways is just too much. However, this is no problem for the theory of evolution. Like a blob of jelly, which can be made to conform to any container, evolution can conform to whatever the scientific findings and then boldly say, “Oh, you see, that fits in with our theory.” There can never be a wrong fit. How convenient!