CAN DARWINIAN MECHANISMS ACCOUNT FOR MACROEVOLUTION?

Does natural selection provide evidence of its creative power to create new species? Not according to Matti Leisola in his book Heretic:

·       All the textbook examples of natural selection give no evidence of a far-reaching creative power. Consider the classic example of color changes.

As an example, Leisola cites the changes in moth coloration and also argues that changes brought about by breeding have also failed to offer any evidence for progressive evolution:

·       Their breeding has sacrificed overall fitness in pursuit of a niche advantage. Wolves are vastly more fit to survive in the wild than are greyhounds [who were breed for speed not for survival].

If any research should have been able to demonstrate the influence of mutations to bring about new genetic information or new structures, it should have been evidenced within cell biology. However, Leisola reports that:

·       Research in cell biology has shown that the traditional mechanism of neo-Darwinism is incapable of producing major evolutionary changes.

Leisola adds that such evidence is not even found in research on proteins:

·       [Doug] Axe has made a thorough analysis on the origin of novel protein structures and shown, against the conventional view, that not even a single new protein structure could be formed by a blind evolutionary search. 

Leisola also cites the failure of laboratory experimentation on fruit flies to produce any evidence to favor macroevolution:

·       The physiologist and Nobel Laureate Thomas Hunt Morgan performed systematic experiments with fruit flies (Drosophila) in the early twentieth century. He saw that those mutations that influence the basic structures of the animal, which occur early, are without exception harmful, leading to crippling malformations or death. 

The same problems emerge when microorganisms are mutated in the laboratory. While Leisola admits that these mutations have been successfully used to produce new compounds, it has always been at the expense of the viability of the organism - an evolutionary dead-end:

·       What we don’t see is the generation of novel structures and novel biological information—a prerequisite for an evolutionary mechanism able to generate the diversity of life we find around us.

In light of the profound lack of evidence for macroevolution, Leisola asks:

·       So, given the mounting evidence against the powers of natural selection, why does all the optimistic talk about natural selection persist in the scientific community and the popular media? I’m convinced it’s an outgrowth of the materialistic paradigm. Those who adhere to the paradigm will not consider the possibility of intelligent design, and they understand that blind evolution is the lone alternative for explaining life’s diversity.

It’s a paradigm kept alive by threat. Richard T. Halvorson explained it this way in the Harvard Crimson:

·       Intellectual honesty requires rationally examining our fundamental premises—yet, expressing hesitation about Darwin is considered irretrievable intellectual suicide, the unthinkable doubt, the unpardonable sin of academia. Although the post-modern era questions everything else—the possibility of knowledge, basic morality and reality itself—critical discussion of Darwin is taboo. (Richard T. Halvorson, “Confessions of a Skeptic,” Harvard Crimson, April 7, 2003, accessed November 11, 2017, http:// www.thecrimson.com/ article/ 2003/ 4/ 7/ confessions-of-a-skeptic-does-our/)

Fear and intimidation are used only when reason and evidence are unable to make its case. I am not aware of any scientific organization which has resorted intimidation to prevent its scientists from arguing in favor of a flat earth. The evidence against it is enough.