EVOLUTIONISTS ADMIT THEIR PROBLEMS BUT CONTINUE IN FAITH

In his new book, Christianity for Doubters, Granville Sewell takes on natural selection (NS). Quoting Harvard paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson, Sewell questions whether the fossil record can support evolution by NS:

·       “It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution.... This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large. These peculiarities of the record pose one of the most important theoretical problems in the whole history of life: Is the sudden appearance of higher categories a phenomenon of evolution or of the record only, due to sampling bias and other inadequacies?”

If the fossil record doesn’t show it, why believe it! Sewell quotes French biologist Jean Rostand, in A Biologist's View, showing that NS lacks the muscle to bring about complex changes:

·       “It does not seem strictly impossible that mutations should have introduced into the animal kingdom the differences which exist between one species and the next... [H]ence it is very tempting to lay also at their door the differences between classes, families and orders, and, in short, the whole of evolution. But it is obvious that such an extrapolation involves the gratuitous attribution to the mutations of the past of a magnitude and power of innovation much greater than is shown by those of today.”

In short, our present understanding of random mutation and NS is unable to account for major structural changes. Nevertheless, Rostand remains a believer:

·       "However obscure the causes of evolution appear to me to be, I do not doubt for a moment that they are entirely natural."

Why does he not doubt? It is not because the evidence has relieved him of doubt.

Sewell points out another problem. The ultimate proof-criterion or rationale of evolution – commonalities prove common descent – fails repeatedly. There are many instances where commonalities do not reflect common descent, and this undermines the entire rationale of evolution. For this, Sewell quotes Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz-Albert Becker article on carnivorous plants in Nature Encyclopedia of Life Sciences:

·       “...carnivory in plants must have arisen several times independently of each other... the pitchers might have arisen seven times separately, adhesive traps at least four times, snap traps two times and suction traps possibly also two times.... The independent origin of complex synorganized structures, which are often anatomically and physiologically very similar to each other, appears to be intrinsically unlikely to many authors so that they have tried to avoid the hypothesis of convergence as far as possible.”

"Convergence" admits that commonalities do not have to be the product of common descent. Instead, evolutionists admit that common structures arise independently and by chance. Sewell concludes:

·       The probability of similar designs arising independently through random processes is very small, but a designer could, of course, take a good design and apply it several times in different places, to unrelated species.

Notice that evolution has rigged all the “evidence” in their favor. Where commonalities clearly do not possibly arise from common descent, the evolutionist calls it “convergent evolution” and claims a victory. Where there exists a possibility that commonalities had come from common descent, again, evolutionists claim a victory. No matter the findings, the evolutionist claims that his theory is a proven fact. Heads I win; tails you lose.

Bioluminescence, Convergent Evolution, and Probability

Evolutionists acknowledge that common structures among the various life-forms do not always imply common ancestry.  Rather, they admit that many common traits/structures had evolved independently without common ancestry, often times from very different genes and in different ways. They term this “convergent evolution” – evolution reinventing similar structures but in independent and radically different ways. What is the probability of this happening?

Let’s take the case of bioluminescence, “reinvented” perhaps over 60 times in bugs, bacteria, fungi, and fish. Citing the findings of Oakley and Pankey, Laszlo Bencze observes that convergent evolution is statistically impossible:

·       This convergent evolution is so astonishingly unlikely that we would never expect it to occur via the evolutionary mechanism of random mutation and natural selection. But because we know that evolution by this process is a fact, we must now admit that statistically impossible things regularly occur in evolution because…well we don’t really know why but it’s clear that evolution has received a special dispensation from the laws of probability. Not once does it occur to him to doubt the evolutionary mechanism.

 

If convergent evolution is statistically impossible, why does the evolution establishment continue to promote it as an established fact? Jonathan Wells suggests that the status-quo might continue “until Darwinism is no longer an implicit requirement for tenure.”

Convergent Evolution: Sounds Scientific?

What is convergent evolution? According to Wikipedia:

• Convergent evolution describes the independent evolution of similar features in species of different lineages. Convergent evolution creates analogous structures that have similar form or function, but were not present in the last common ancestor of those groups. The wing is a classic example of convergent evolution in action…The recurrent evolution of flight is a classic example of convergent evolution. Flying insects, birds, and bats have all evolved the capacity of flight independently. They have "converged" on this useful trait.

Never mind that the capacity for flight requires massive changes in the shape of the body, muscles, respiratory and circulatory systems! However, some evolutionists, like Simon Conway Morris, believe that the forces of unguided evolution are so fertile that it was inevitable that the best body structures would inevitably evolve:  

• Convergence is a dominant force in evolution, and given that the same environmental and physical constraints are at work, life will inevitably evolve toward an "optimum" body plan, and at some point, evolution is bound to stumble upon intelligence, a trait presently identified with at least primates, corvids, and cetaceans. (Wikipedia)

But could evolution reinvent the same brain structures over and over again? In this regards, neuroscientist and evolutionist Paul Patton made an interesting revelation:

• “One of the most common misconceptions about brain evolution is that it represents a linear process culminating in amazing cognitive powers of humans, with brains of other modern species representing previous stages…However research in comparative neuron-anatomy clearly has shown that complex brains—and sophisticated cognition—have evolved from simpler brains multiple times independently in separate lineages.” (Scientific America Mind, “One World, Many Minds,” Dec 2008/Jan 2009, 72-73)

Patton acknowledged that what had been promoted as the evolutionary pathway of the brain (from simplicity to complexity), is not so. Previously, it had been taught that our brains derived from four sequential evolutionary steps in which the fish brain was overlaid by a reptilian complex and later repackaged in over-lying paleo- and then neo-mammalian brain additions:

• “A ‘neural chassis” corresponding to the brains of fish and amphibians; a reptilian complex, consisting of the basal ganglia, which were held to dominate the brains of reptiles and birds; a paleomammalian component, consisting of the brains limbic system, which supposedly emerged with the origin of mammals and which was responsible for emotional behavior; and finally a neomammalian component, consisting of the neocortex, the site of higher cognitive function.” (75)

What does this say about the “common brain structures” that had confidently cast fish as our ancestors?

• “In recent decades scientists have cast aside a linear, sequential view of brain evolution in which the human brain incorporated components resembling the brains of modern fish, amphibians, reptiles and birds.” (79)

How then do evolutionists explain not only the similarity in brain function but also the similarity in structure? Convergent evolution comes to the rescue – the inevitableness that these analogous structures would independently evolve! However, the evidence is lacking.

But is natural selection and random mutation (or any other naturalistic explanation) so generative? Evidently not! If life evolved, it only happened once, as evidenced by the universality of the features common to all life.

Besides, the sheer numbers of analogous organs – the so-called products of “convergent evolution” - strain credulity. In the case of bioluminescence, the ability to produce light, we are asked to believe that this ability has independently evolved on at least 40 separate occasions! Malone and Vett explain this:

• From single-celled organisms called dinoflagellates to glow worms found in caves; from deep-sea fish to googly-eyed glass squids; there is a vast array of creatures with an ability to mix varying forms of luciferin and luciferase to produce light at will. It turns out that each of these creatures uses a slightly different variation of the key chemicals to produce light. One would think that closely-related organisms should have similar luciferns and liciferases, while creatures further apart on the evolutionary sequence would have much different versions of such chemicals. NO SUCH PATTERN EXISTS. Thus according to those who have extensively studied this subject, “bioluminescence is estimated to have evolved independently at least 40 times.” (Inspired Evidence 

It is difficult enough to believe that this ability to produce light – with its many necessary structures and complex chemicals – could have evolved at all. However, evolutionists are forced to insist that this same ability magically evolved “independently 40 different times.” It is wildly improbable that any collection of chance mutations could have accounted for these common features.

There’s another interesting feature about bioluminescence. Malone and Vett observe,

• A firefly’s luminescence is 88% efficient while the light produced by the best luminescence reaction developed by mankind is a mere 23% efficient.

Not bad for a collection of genetic abnormalities – random mutations!

Whatever we might think about this improbability, these observations, and many others like them, demonstrate that common structures do not prove common descent. The evolutionist can’t logically have it both ways. Either commonalities do prove common descent or they do not prove common descent, which they admittedly don’t! However, evolutionists have construed it so that “heads I win; tails you loose.” They’ve even made up a term for when common features fail to reflect common descent – “convergent evolution.” Sounds scientific, doesn’t it!

The Theory of Evolution cannot be Refuted!

We have a tremendous capacity to believe what we want to believe. It seems that God has given us this capacity to sin by merely sticking our heads in the ground and denying the obvious. Consequently, the Book of Proverbs laments that, “All the ways of a man are clean in his own sight” (16:2).

I marvel at evolutionists who claim that there is no evidence against their theory of evolution and that it is already a “proven fact.” How can they be so blind! Well, we can rig the rules of the game so that all of the facts can be lined-up in support of our theory.

For example, the persuasiveness of Darwinism rests on this one idea: commonalities – genetic, fossil, and morphological – prove common descent. However, Darwinists are also ready to admit that there are an abundance of examples of commonalities that clearly are not the result of common descent. On his blog, biologist Cornelius Hunter mentions one of them:

• By now this must seem tedious, but there is…evolution’s endless stream of failed expectations. This time it is striated muscles, in bilaterians and non-bilaterian eumetazoans. They seemed to evolutionists to have a common evolutionary origin. But now the molecular differences do not support that expectation. Instead, the considerable similarity across these various species would likely have arisen independently, via those random mutations. But evolutionists forget about this long list of false expectations. Evolution must be a fact, regardless of the evidence.

However, many evolutionists are unconcerned about this gaping hole in their theory. When commonalities are clearly not the result of common descent, they merely call these instances “convergent evolution.” This means that the many commonalities are the result of something else, but they are quick to assure us that these puzzling commonalities are the result of common evolutionary pressures. For instance, birds and insects both fly because of the common pressures to either find food or to escape enemies. In other words, if they can explain how common structures are the result of common descent, they again “win,” and if they can explain how these structures are the result of common pressures, they again “win.”

How then can they loose? Well, they can’t! Heads, I win; tails, you loose!

Kissing Cousins: We and the Octopus

If macro-evolution is a fact, then we should find the precursors for our organs within our alleged ancestry, related species, and not in totally unrelated ones. If instead, the species of the various phyla reflect the hand of an intelligent Designer, we might instead find these traits spread out among the various living things as unconnected patterns in a patchwork quilt.

Instead, we find common traits and organs within unrelated phyla. Interestingly, evolutionists have a term for this commonly found un-associated mosaic of traits - "convergent evolution." Paleobiologist and evolutionist, Simon Conway Morris, reflects on one example:

·        The idea is this: that convergence – the tendency of very different organisms to evolve similar solutions to biological problems – is not just part of evolution, but a driving force. To say this is an unconventional view would be something of an understatement. To start with an example of convergence (itself an astonishing phenomenon), take the “camera eye” – an eye comprising a lens suspended between two fluid-filled chambers, and the kind of eye which you are using to read this feature…If you go to the octopus and, if you’re not too squeamish, dissect it, you’ll find that it has a camera eye which is remarkably similar to our own. And yet we know that the octopus belongs to an invertebrate group called the cephalopod mollusks, evolutionarily very distant indeed from the chordates to which we belong. Cambridge Alumni Magazine (#65 Lent, p. 32)

·        The common ancient ancestor of mollusks and chordates could not possibly have possessed a camera eye, so quite clearly they have evolved independently. The solution has been arrived at by completely different routes.

How is it that we and the Octopus share the same eye? Convergent evolution! How does this explain the existence of this strange relatedness? It doesn’t – not at all! It merely suggests that there must be some undiscovered force that causes nature to replicate itself in entirely different species on many occasions – a “driving force” that directs mindless evolutionary processes to find the identical adaptive solutions. Sounds like design to me!

Morris concludes that the evidences of “convergent evolution” require a radical rewriting of evolution. However, he doesn’t see an intelligent Designer as a necessary ingredient. Nevertheless, he clandestinely offers an alternative "designer" - a "driving force."