Five areas of science that pose serious problems for the neo-Darwinian model of chemical and biological evolution
- Genetics: Mutations cause harm and do not build complexity.
- Biochemistry: Unguided and random processes cannot produce cellular complexity.
- Paleontology: The fossil record lacks intermediate fossils.
- Taxonomy: Biologists have failed to construct Darwin’s “Tree of Life.”
- Chemistry: The chemical origin of life remains an unsolved mystery.
1. Genetics: Mutations cause harm and do not build complexity.
Mutations are overwhelmingly deleterious, often leading to a loss of function rather than the gain of new, beneficial features. While proponents of evolution argue that mutations can lead to increased complexity through natural selection, the reality is that the vast majority of mutations are either neutral or harmful. Beneficial mutations, when they do occur, typically involve a loss of genetic information rather than the creation of new, complex structures. For instance, antibiotic resistance in bacteria often involves the loss of regulatory functions, which is beneficial in a specific context but not an example of the creation of new genetic information. Thus, the idea that mutations can drive the complexity observed in living organisms lacks empirical support.
2. Biochemistry: Unguided and random processes cannot produce cellular complexity.
The intricate machinery of the cell, including molecular motors like ATP synthase and the precise regulation of genetic information through processes like transcription and translation, cannot be accounted for by unguided, random processes. These systems exhibit irreducible complexity, where the removal of any single component renders the entire system non-functional. This suggests that such systems could not have evolved through gradual, step-by-step processes as required by Darwinian evolution. Additionally, the specificity and efficiency of these biochemical systems point to Creation and intelligent design rather than random chance, as the likelihood of these systems arising spontaneously is astronomically low.
3. Paleontology: The fossil record lacks intermediate fossils.
The fossil record, rather than providing evidence for gradual evolution, shows a pattern of sudden appearance and stasis, where species appear fully formed and remain unchanged for long periods. The so-called "Cambrian Explosion," where most major animal phyla appear abruptly without clear evolutionary precursors, is a significant challenge to the theory of gradual evolution. Despite extensive searching, the expected plethora of transitional fossils that would demonstrate a gradual change from one species to another is conspicuously absent. This lack of intermediates is more consistent with the idea of created kinds, each reproducing according to their own type, rather than a gradual transformation of species over time.
4. Taxonomy: Biologists have failed to construct Darwin’s “Tree of Life.”
The “Tree of Life” concept, which posits a common ancestor for all life forms, has been increasingly challenged by discoveries in molecular biology. Horizontal gene transfer, the mixing of genetic material between unrelated species, and the complexity of gene regulatory networks have blurred the lines of evolutionary ancestry. Phylogenetic trees constructed from different genes often lead to conflicting evolutionary histories, undermining the notion of a single, coherent tree. These inconsistencies suggest that life forms are not connected by common ancestry but are instead distinct, created kinds with their own unique genetic blueprints, which cannot be easily reconciled with Darwin’s original vision. Phylogenetic trees, built on the basis of e.g. microRNA molecules, look completely different from trees built on the basis of DNA. Nothing works.
5. Chemistry: The chemical origin of life remains an unsolved mystery.
 |
| Experiments aimed at replicating the origin of life, such as the Miller-Urey experiment, have failed to produce life or even the full set of necessary biomolecules. |
Summary and conclusions:
The basic principles of the theory of evolution do not work in observed nature. Darwin was seriously wrong. Random mutations do not create new structures; on the contrary, they cause diseases, death, and loss of information. The Darwinian tree of life is incompatible with genetic research. Avoiding the explanation of the origin of life undermines the credibility of the entire theory of evolution, but this is understandable since even top scientists have not been able to create a living cell in the best laboratories. The theory of evolution is a scientific fairy tale that has nothing to do with observed science.
It's time to take Biblical creation account seriously.
