2026/01/19

There's no Evolutionary Continuity Between Apes and Humans

Too Many Missing Structures

Why the Fossil Record Does Not Support Evolutionary Continuity Between Apes and Humans

Abstract

Evolutionary theory predicts the existence of numerous transitional anatomical structures between ancestral apes and modern humans. However, the fossil record consistently fails to document such intermediate forms, not merely at the species level but at the level of integrated functional systems. This paper reviews several key anatomical systems in which no plausible transitional morphologies are known, including the baculum (penis bone), vocal apparatus, craniofacial architecture, pelvic and locomotor systems, neuroanatomical organization, integumentary physiology, and manual dexterity. The systematic absence of these transitional structures challenges the gradualist assumptions of Darwinian evolution and is fully consistent with the biblical model of special creation of humans as a distinct and complete biological kind.

1. Introduction

A central claim of evolutionary anthropology is that humans arose through a gradual transformation from apelike ancestors. If this claim were correct, the fossil record should preserve numerous intermediate anatomical forms documenting stepwise transitions between ape and human morphologies. While fragmentary fossils are frequently presented as evidence of human evolution, closer examination reveals that key functional structures appear abruptly and fully formed, with no credible intermediates.

This study focuses not on minor anatomical variation but on irreducibly integrated biological systems, where partial development would be nonfunctional or maladaptive.

2. The Baculum Problem: A Missing Transitional Structure

One of the clearest examples of a missing transition is the baculum, or penis bone.

  • All extant non-human apes possess a baculum.
  • Modern humans lack a baculum entirely and rely instead on a vascular erectile system based on complex hemodynamic regulation.

Critically, the fossil record contains:

  • No evidence of a reduced or vestigial baculum in humans.
  • No transitional morphology combining partial ossification with vascular dominance.
  • No known selective pathway explaining the loss of a functional bone without a fully operational alternative system already in place.

A partially reduced baculum without a fully developed erectile vascular system would result in impaired reproductive function, a clear violation of gradualist expectations.

3. Vocal Apparatus and Speech Capability

Human speech requires the coordinated interaction of:

  • A descended larynx
  • A uniquely shaped hyoid bone
  • Precise neural control of respiration, phonation, and articulation

Non-human apes lack this configuration and are anatomically incapable of speech. Fossils do not preserve soft tissue, but skeletal correlates such as cranial base angle and hyoid morphology show distinct separation rather than continuity.

There is no known fossil representing a functionally intermediate speech apparatus. Speech is an all-or-nothing system.

4. Neuroanatomical Organization

While brain size is often emphasized, brain organization is the critical variable.

  • Humans possess uniquely reorganized frontal and temporal lobes.
  • Language-related regions such as Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas have no known intermediate equivalents.
  • Endocasts show abrupt shifts rather than gradual reorganization.

A partially reorganized brain offers no adaptive advantage and undermines the notion of slow, incremental improvement.

5. Craniofacial and Dental Architecture

Humans exhibit:

  • Reduced prognathism
  • A retracted jaw
  • A chin unique among primates
  • A radically altered dental occlusion

These features are biomechanically interdependent. Fossils do not show a continuous series of stable intermediate forms, but rather distinct morphotypes that align either with apes or with humans.

6. Pelvis, Spine, and Bipedal Locomotion

True bipedalism requires:

  • An S-shaped spine
  • A reoriented pelvis
  • A valgus knee
  • An arched foot with aligned toes

Partial bipedalism is mechanically unstable and energetically inefficient. Fossil specimens are frequently mosaics interpreted selectively, but no specimen demonstrates a fully functional transitional gait system.

7. Hand Structure and Fine Motor Control

The human hand is optimized for precision grip, toolmaking, and symbolic communication.

  • Apes possess hands optimized for power and suspension.
  • Intermediate hands would be inferior at both climbing and precision tasks.

Again, the fossil record does not show a gradual transition in hand biomechanics, but a functional discontinuity.

8. Integumentary and Thermoregulatory Systems

Human near-hairlessness is inseparable from:

  • High-density eccrine sweat glands
  • Unique skin vascularization
  • Thermoregulation adapted for endurance activity

Partial hair loss without advanced thermoregulation would be maladaptive. No fossils document such transitional physiology.

9. Discussion

These missing transitions are not isolated anomalies but form a pattern of systematic absence. Evolutionary explanations frequently rely on hypothetical soft-tissue changes, behavioral assumptions, or unobserved selective pressures. In contrast, the biblical creation model predicts:

  • Distinct created kinds
  • Functional completeness from the beginning
  • Clear anatomical boundaries rather than blurred continua

The data align with this expectation.

10. Conclusion

The fossil record does not merely lack some transitional forms between apes and humans. It lacks entire categories of necessary intermediate structures, including the baculum, speech apparatus, neuroanatomical organization, and locomotor systems. These absences undermine the explanatory power of evolutionary theory and strongly support the conclusion that humans were created as a unique and fully functional biological entity, consistent with the biblical account of creation.

Posted by at

Extraordinary precision of reorganization of information

Genomic Change Is Not Random — Why Meiotic Recombination Challenges Darwinian Evolution

Abstract

Darwinian evolution assumes that genetic change accumulates gradually, randomly, and without direction. However, modern molecular biology shows that genomic change is tightly regulated, hierarchically prioritized, and mediated by complex cellular systems. In particular, meiotic recombination does not create new biological information; instead, it reorganizes existing genomic content with extraordinary precision. This article examines how the structure and function of the genome, especially during reproduction, contradict the idea of undirected evolutionary change.

1. The Darwinian Expectation: Gradual and Directionless Change

According to the classical evolutionary model:

  • Mutations occur randomly.
  • Natural selection filters these mutations.
  • Over time, new biological structures and new species arise.

This framework implies that:

  • Genetic change should be continuous,
  • without intrinsic goals or direction,
  • and driven solely by chance and environmental pressure.

If this were true, we would expect to see genomes that:

  • Drift gradually.
  • Accumulate functional complexity step by step.
  • Show no internal prioritization or design.

2. What We Actually Observe: A Hierarchically Organized Genome

Modern genomics reveals a very different picture.

The genome is not a passive collection of random code. Instead, it is:

  • Actively maintained
  • Continuously monitored
  • Repaired and reorganized

Some genomic systems are clearly prioritized over others. For example:

  • DNA repair pathways
  • Chromatin organization and condensation
  • Cell cycle regulation
  • Epigenetic control systems

These systems operate at the highest functional priority because without them:

  • The genome cannot be preserved.
  • Reproduction becomes unstable.
  • Life itself collapses.

This reveals something fundamental:

The genome is not drifting randomly — it is being actively conserved and protected.

3. The Role of Meiotic Recombination

One of the most misunderstood biological processes is meiotic recombination.

This process occurs during the formation of gametes and ensures that:

  • Chromosomes align properly.
  • Genetic material is exchanged between homologous chromosomes.
  • The resulting genome is functional and viable.

Importantly:

  • Meiotic recombination does not generate new genes.
  • It does not create new biological systems.
  • It rearranges existing genetic information.

In other words:

The cell acts as an information engineer, not an information creator.

4. Recombination Is Precise, Not Random

Contrary to the evolutionary assumption of chaos, meiotic recombination is:

  • Highly targeted
  • Carefully regulated
  • Controlled at multiple molecular levels

Recombination “hotspots” are not scattered randomly. They are:

  • GC-rich
  • Epigenetically regulated
  • Functionally significant

This shows that the genome:

knows where to recombine.

Such precision is not compatible with the idea of accidental, directionless evolution.

5. Recombination Preserves Function Instead of Building Complexity

When recombination occurs:

  • Damaged sequences may be corrected.
  • Functional alleles are preserved.
  • Harmful changes are filtered out.

This is not the creation of new information. It is:

Biological quality control.

The cell does not experiment blindly; it:

  • Evaluates
  • Prioritizes
  • Preserves

This strongly supports the idea that:

Genomic systems exist to maintain life, not to invent it.

6. The Limits of Human Understanding

Even the most advanced genomic models today cannot fully explain:

  • How recombination chooses its targets.

  • How information is prioritized.

  • How functional genome integrity is preserved across generations.

This suggests:

The genome operates on a level of complexity that exceeds current human comprehension.

It is not a random chemical accident — it behaves like a:

Self-regulating, information-processing system.

7. Implications for Evolutionary Theory

If evolution were truly:

  • Gradual
  • Random
  • Directionless

Then reproduction would simply propagate random variation.

But instead, what we observe is:

  • Directed genomic maintenance
  • Precision recombination
  • Functional preservation
  • Hierarchical information control

This indicates:

The genome is designed to protect and reorganize existing information, not to generate new biological structures.

Conclusion

Darwinian evolution predicts chaotic and directionless genomic change.

However, the evidence shows:

  • The genome is stable, prioritized, and actively regulated.
  • Meiotic recombination reorganizes information instead of creating it.
  • Biological systems are preserved, not invented.

Therefore:

The observed behavior of genomes is not consistent with undirected evolutionary change.

Instead, it reflects:

A deeply ordered, information-driven biological reality.

Posted by at

Genetic decay in Chimps doesn't support evolution

Genomic Degeneration in Chimpanzees: Evidence for Information Loss Rather than Evolutionary Advancement

Introduction

Chimpanzees are often presented as humanity’s closest evolutionary relatives. However, when their genomes are examined in detail, the picture that emerges is not one of upward evolutionary progress, but rather one of genomic fragmentation, loss, and degeneration. A key and often overlooked feature of this pattern is the phenomenon known as deletional bias — the tendency for mutations to remove genetic material rather than create it.

This article examines the current scientific evidence for:

  • Deletional bias in chimpanzee genomes
  • Functional gene degradation
  • Population-level genetic erosion
  • Instability and degeneration of the chimpanzee Y chromosome

Together, these findings challenge the narrative that chimpanzees are “evolving upward,” and instead indicate that their genomes are undergoing progressive information loss.

1. Deletional Bias: The Genome Is Losing, Not Gaining

Modern comparative genomics shows that deletions occur far more frequently than insertions in primate genomes, including chimpanzees. This is referred to as deletional bias.

In practical terms, this means:

  • The genome tends to shrink rather than expand
  • Functional sequences are more often removed than created
  • Genetic change overwhelmingly reflects loss of information

This is not a minor statistical detail — it is a dominant evolutionary force. In mammals, including chimpanzees, deletions occur roughly four times more often than insertions.

This directly contradicts the idea that evolution builds new complex systems through random mutation. Instead, the natural mutational process is erosive, not creative.

2. Evidence of Functional Gene Degradation

When chimpanzee and human genomes are compared, one does not find new functional systems appearing in chimpanzees. Rather, one finds:

  • Genes that have become inactive
  • Regulatory sequences that have been deleted or disrupted
  • Loss of genetic elements important for neural, immune, and reproductive function

Examples include:

  • Missing regulatory elements present in humans
  • Gene families that are partially degraded or absent
  • Increased occurrence of loss-of-function mutations

This is consistent with a model where the chimpanzee genome is breaking down, not improving.

3. Population-Level Genetic Erosion

Genomic studies across chimpanzee subspecies show:

  • Some populations have very low genetic diversity
  • Certain isolated populations show inbreeding effects
  • Signs of reduced reproductive fitness have been documented

Small or fragmented populations are particularly vulnerable. Over time, this leads to:

- Genetic erosion and loss of adaptability

Again, this reflects degeneration, not advancement.

4. The Chimpanzee Y Chromosome: A Clear Case of Degeneration

The chimpanzee Y chromosome is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that primate genomes are not evolving upward.

Compared to the human Y chromosome, the chimpanzee Y:

  • Is highly rearranged and fragmented
  • Has lost many genes
  • Contains large deletions and structural instability
  • Shows signs of ongoing degeneration

Rather than gaining new capabilities, the chimpanzee Y chromosome is:

- shrinking, mutating, and losing functional content

This is precisely what one would expect from genetic decay, not evolutionary innovation.

5. What Does This Mean?

Scientific Summary

Chimpanzees show:

ObservationInterpretation
High mutation ratesDoes not create new complexity
Deletional biasGenome is losing information
Gene degradationLoss of biological function
Population genetic erosionReduced fitness and stability
Degenerating Y chromosomeClear evidence of genomic decay

The genetic evidence does not point toward evolutionary progress, but toward entropy and degeneration.

6. A Creation-Based Interpretation

From a biblical “kind” framework:

  • Chimpanzees represent a single created Chimp Kind
  • Their variation reflects population splitting and adaptation
  • Their genomic trajectory shows information loss, not new creation

Humans, in contrast, do not show such fragmentation or chromosomal instability. This supports the view that:

- Humans were created uniquely and do not “evolve” from apes

Conclusion

Genomic research in chimpanzees does not support the idea of evolutionary advancement. Instead, the evidence shows:

  • A strong deletional bias
  • Loss of functional genes
  • Population-level genetic weakening
  • Severe instability and degeneration of the Y chromosome

Together, these findings indicate that chimpanzee genomes are undergoing genetic deterioration rather than evolution toward greater complexity.

This aligns with a model where biological kinds diversify and adapt, but do not evolve into new fundamentally different organisms.

Posted by at

2026/01/17

Evidence for the Global Flood

The Fountains of the Great Deep — Geological Witnesses of the Flood

Genesis 7:11 gives a precise and dramatic description of the beginning of the global Flood:

“In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.”

This was not merely heavy rainfall. The text describes a catastrophic rupture of the Earth’s crust, releasing vast amounts of water and material from deep within the planet. Scripture calls these sources “the fountains of the great deep.”

Modern geological and geophysical discoveries reveal that this description corresponds remarkably well with what lies beneath the Earth’s surface.

The Richat Structure — A Monument of the Deep

One of the most unusual geological formations on Earth is the Richat Structure, also known as the Eye of the Sahara. It is a massive circular uplift nearly 40 km across, visible even from space.

What makes this formation especially significant is its deep internal composition.

Geological surveys show that thick salt layers — in some places reaching up to 5 kilometers — lie beneath the Richat region. These salt formations are not random. They indicate powerful upward movement of material from deep below the crust.

If, during the Flood, pressurized subterranean waters erupted through the crust, they would have carried dissolved salts upward, forming salt domes and massive saline deposits. The Richat Structure is surrounded by abnormal mineral and salt accumulations, fitting the biblical description of a deep rupture.

Salt Layers Beneath the Continents

Evidence from deep oil and gas drilling confirms that kilometers-thick salt formations exist beneath large parts of the continents.

A well-known example is the Brazilian Pre-Salt oil fields, where oil is trapped beneath enormous subsurface salt layers. Petroleum geologists understand that such formations require massive geological pressure and fluid movement from deep within the Earth.

These findings show that the Earth’s crust contains vast internal reservoirs of water and mineral-rich brines, capable of being released catastrophically — just as Genesis describes.

A Hidden Ocean in the Mantle

Even more striking is recent geophysical research concerning the Earth’s mantle.

Studies of the mineral ringwoodite, found in the mantle’s transition zone, show that it contains chemically bound water. Scientists now estimate that the amount of water stored in this layer is at least three times greater than all the water in Earth’s oceans combined.

This water lies at depths of roughly 410–660 kilometers, forming what researchers call a global “subsurface ocean” inside the Earth.

This discovery confirms that the Earth indeed contains immense internal water reservoirs — precisely what the Bible refers to as “the great deep.”

Volcanoes and Salt Lakes — A Global Pattern

Around the world, major tectonic and volcanic regions are frequently associated with salt lakes and saline plains, suggesting that deep water and minerals have broken through the crust repeatedly.

Examples include:

  • Salt Lake City (Utah, USA) — located near major tectonic and volcanic activity
  • Salar de Uyuni (Bolivia) — the world’s largest salt flat, adjacent to the Andes volcanic belt
  • Danakil Depression (Ethiopia) — salt plains near active volcanoes
  • Lake Assal (Djibouti) — one of the saltiest lakes on Earth, within an active rift zone
  • The Dead Sea region (Israel/Jordan) — surrounded by deep crustal faulting

Additional volcano–salt associations:

  • Mount Etna (Italy) — nearby saline springs and salt deposits
  • Mount Vesuvius (Italy) — coastal salt flats in the Naples area
  • Mount Ararat region (Turkey) — mineral-rich and saline landscapes
  • Icelandic volcanic systems — geothermal brines and salt springs
  • Mount Fuji (Japan) — saline lakes in surrounding tectonic zones

These correlations indicate that mineral-rich waters from deep within the Earth have erupted upward through crustal fractures.

The Flood Connection

Taken together, the evidence paints a clear picture:

  • The Earth’s crust contains vast salt and mineral layers beneath the surface
  • The mantle transition zone stores enormous quantities of water
  • Geological formations like the Richat uplift reveal deep crustal ruptures
  • Salt lakes and salt plains occur especially in regions of tectonic and volcanic instability

This is exactly what Genesis 7:11 describes.

The Flood began when the Earth’s deep internal reservoirs were suddenly broken open, releasing water and dissolved minerals to the surface. The Flood was therefore not only a hydrological event — it was a global geological catastrophe.

Scripture’s words are precise:

The fountains of the great deep were broken up.

Sources

 

Posted by at

2026/01/11

DNA Is Not the Master Molecule

DNA Is Not the Master Molecule — Epigenetic Mechanisms Control the Genome

For more than half a century, biology has been dominated by the idea that DNA is the master molecule of life. Genes are said to “control” cells, mutations are assumed to “drive” evolution, and DNA is treated as the primary causal agent behind biological form and function. Yet modern molecular biology tells a very different story. DNA does not act, decide, or regulate. It is chemically inert, passive, and blind to its own meaning. What gives DNA biological power is not its sequence alone, but the epigenetic systems that read, modify, repair, rearrange, and rewrite it.

In living cells, DNA functions much more like a database than a director. It is stored, accessed, edited, corrected, and reorganized by a sophisticated epigenetic infrastructure. This infrastructure—made of chromatin modifiers, non-coding RNAs, chromatin remodeling complexes, RNA editors, and DNA repair enzymes—controls what DNA becomes in real biological systems.

DNA Cannot Do Anything by Itself

DNA has no capacity to:

  • decide which genes are read,
  • correct errors,
  • reorganize chromosomes,
  • protect itself from damage,
  • or rewrite its own sequence.

A naked DNA molecule in a test tube is biologically meaningless. Only when embedded in chromatin and regulated by epigenetic systems does DNA acquire function. What we call a “gene” is not simply a stretch of DNA, but a dynamically regulated unit defined by:

  • chromatin accessibility,
  • histone modifications,
  • DNA methylation,
  • RNA-based targeting,
  • and three-dimensional genome architecture.

Without these layers of regulation, DNA is silent.

Epigenetic Systems Control What DNA Is Read

Every cell type in the human body contains essentially the same DNA sequence. Yet neurons, immune cells, muscle cells, and germ cells behave completely differently. The reason is not genetic, but epigenetic.

Histone modifications, DNA methylation, and non-coding RNAs determine:

  • which genes are open or closed,
  • which promoters are active,
  • which exons are included or skipped,
  • and which regulatory elements interact.

This means that epigenetic mechanisms decide what DNA means. DNA provides potential; epigenetics selects which potential becomes real.

Epigenetic Control of RNA Editing and Its Impact on DNA

One of the clearest examples of epigenetic control over genetic information is RNA editing. Enzymes such as ADAR (A→I editing) and APOBEC (C→U or C→T editing) do not act randomly. They are recruited to specific RNA and DNA regions through chromatin state, histone marks, and non-coding RNAs.

These enzymes can:

  • alter codons,
  • change protein sequences,
  • modify splice sites,
  • and regulate RNA stability.

Crucially, edited RNA can be reverse-transcribed back into DNA through endogenous reverse transcriptases (LINE-1 elements, endogenous retroviruses, telomerase-associated activity). This means:

Epigenetically modified RNA can become new DNA.

In this pathway, DNA is not the source of change—it is the recipient of changes generated by epigenetic RNA processing.

DNA Repair Is an Epigenetic Process

When DNA is damaged, it does not repair itself. The cell first modifies chromatin around the break:

  • histone H2AX is phosphorylated (γH2AX),
  • chromatin is opened,
  • repair complexes are recruited.

Which repair pathway is chosen—accurate template-based repair, error-prone repair, or recombination—depends on the epigenetic state of the region. Thus:

DNA repair is governed by epigenetic chromatin logic, not by DNA sequence alone.

The epigenome decides whether DNA will be faithfully restored, rearranged, or structurally altered.

Epigenetic Control of DNA Replication and Duplication

DNA duplication is not uniform across the genome. Replication origins, timing, and stability are controlled by chromatin state. Regions with open, active chromatin are more likely to be replicated early and to undergo copy number changes.

This explains why gene duplications and copy-number variations appear preferentially in epigenetically open regions. DNA is copied according to an epigenetic map.

Transposable Elements as Epigenetic Tools

Transposable elements are not autonomous genetic parasites. They are tightly regulated by:

  • DNA methylation,
  • histone marks,
  • small RNA pathways (piRNA, siRNA).

In meiosis and development, transposons participate in:

  • recombination hotspots,
  • chromosome rearrangements,
  • regulatory innovation.

Epigenetic systems decide when and where these elements are silenced or activated. Through this, epigenetic mechanisms relocate DNA structure and genome organization.

The Three-Dimensional Genome Is Epigenetically Organized

DNA is not arranged linearly in the nucleus. Chromatin loops, topological domains, and nuclear compartments bring distant DNA regions into physical contact. These structures are built and maintained by epigenetic proteins and RNAs.

This 3D architecture controls:

  • which genes interact,
  • which enhancers activate which promoters,
  • and which DNA segments are accessible.

Again, DNA does not organize itself. The epigenetic system does.

DNA as a Passive Database

All of these mechanisms point to the same conclusion:

DNA is not the master molecule.
DNA is a passive information repository.

The cell’s epigenetic machinery:

  • reads DNA,
  • edits DNA,
  • repairs DNA,
  • copies DNA,
  • rearranges DNA,
  • and sometimes rewrites DNA via RNA-mediated reverse transcription.

In the words of Denis Noble, DNA is best understood as a database used by the cell, not as the executive controller of biology.

Conclusion

Modern molecular biology has quietly overturned genetic determinism. What we observe in living systems is not DNA-driven life, but epigenetically governed DNA. The genome is dynamic, responsive, and context-dependent because epigenetic systems control its structure, content, and meaning.

DNA is not in charge.
The epigenetic system is.
Evolution never happened.

Posted by at

2026/01/01

The most audacious claims of the theory of evolution

Evolutionary Theory’s Most Audacious Claims Do Not Survive Scientific Daylight
Why are these processes invoked so often, yet never observed even once?

Introduction

Modern evolutionary theory frequently appeals to convergent or parallel evolution to explain the repeated appearance of complex biological systems. In many cases, the claims go far beyond modest convergence and assert that highly integrated, information-rich systems have arisen independently dozens of times. While such claims are common in the literature, they rest largely on historical inference rather than direct observation. Below, I examine several of the most striking examples and explain why they are empirically unsupported, mechanistically implausible, and observationally unverified.

1. Photosynthesis evolved independently 30–35 times

Claim: Oxygenic and anoxygenic photosynthesis, including distinct reaction centers, arose independently many times.

Critical comment: Photosynthesis is among the most complex biochemical systems known, requiring coordinated pigments, reaction centers, membrane architecture, electron transport chains, ATP synthesis, repair systems, and precise regulation. No experiment has ever observed even a partial photosynthetic system arising de novo. The claim of dozens of independent origins is not based on observation, but on phylogenetic reconstruction combined with assumption. Repetition is inferred precisely because direct evidence is absent.

2. The eye evolved independently 40–60 times

Claim: Complex visual systems such as camera eyes, compound eyes, and mirror eyes evolved repeatedly in unrelated lineages.

Critical comment: Vision requires simultaneous emergence of optics, photochemistry, neural processing, developmental programs, and integration with behavior. Incremental pathways are speculative and unsupported experimentally. No laboratory or natural observation has ever documented the stepwise construction of a functional visual system from non-visual precursors. Multiple independent origins are asserted, not demonstrated.

3. Multicellularity evolved independently at least 25 times

Claim: Independent transitions from unicellular to multicellular life occurred across plants, animals, fungi, and algae.

Critical comment: True multicellularity requires regulated cell differentiation, apoptosis, intercellular signaling, adhesion systems, and developmental timing. Laboratory experiments produce at best transient cell clusters or simple colonies, not integrated organisms with developmental programs. The repeated-origin claim extrapolates far beyond what has ever been observed.

4. Nervous systems evolved multiple times independently

Claim: Complex nervous systems arose separately in vertebrates, arthropods, and cephalopods.

Critical comment: Nervous systems depend on voltage-gated ion channels, synaptic machinery, neurotransmitter synthesis, wiring specificity, and developmental guidance. No experimental system has ever shown the origin of synaptic signaling from non-neural tissue. Independent origins are inferred retrospectively, despite the complete absence of observational support.

5. C₄ photosynthesis evolved over 60 times

Claim: C₄ photosynthesis repeatedly evolved as an adaptive response to low CO₂ and high temperatures.

Critical comment: C₄ photosynthesis requires coordinated anatomical changes, cell-type specialization, enzyme retooling, regulatory rewiring, and metabolite transport. While minor regulatory tweaks can improve efficiency in existing systems, no experiment has demonstrated the emergence of a full C₄ pathway from a C₃ ancestor. Repetition is assumed, not observed.

6. Identical protein folds arise easily from unrelated sequences

Claim: Different amino acid sequences frequently converge on the same functional protein fold.

Critical comment: Experimental protein biology shows that functional folds occupy an extremely sparse region of sequence space. Claims of easy convergence rely on sequence similarity detected after the fact, not on demonstrated generative processes. No experiment has shown random mutation producing a novel, functional protein fold from scratch.

7. Life originated multiple times, but only one lineage survived

Claim: Abiogenesis occurred repeatedly on early Earth, with most origins going extinct.

Critical comment: This claim is entirely speculative. No abiogenesis mechanism has been demonstrated experimentally, even once. Multiple origins are invoked solely to rescue theoretical plausibility, not because of empirical evidence. It is a narrative solution to a missing observation.

8. Complex traits arise without shared genetic foundations

Claim: Similar structures can evolve independently using entirely different genes and regulatory networks.

Critical comment: This claim dramatically weakens explanatory rigor. If similar outcomes can arise from unrelated genetic causes, then evolutionary explanations become unfalsifiable. The absence of shared genetic mechanisms is treated as evidence for convergence rather than as a challenge to the theory.

9. New biological information arises routinely through mutation

Claim: Mutations and selection generate novel genetic information.

Critical comment: Empirical studies overwhelmingly document loss, truncation, modification, or regulatory adjustment of existing information—not the origin of new, complex, prescriptive information. Claims of information gain are typically semantic redefinitions, not measured increases in functional complexity.

10. Evolution is both random and highly predictable

Claim: Mutations are random, yet evolution reliably produces similar complex solutions.

Critical comment: This internal tension is unresolved. If outcomes are predictable, the process is constrained; if the process is random, repeated complex outcomes are extraordinarily unlikely. The theory simultaneously affirms both positions without a coherent mechanistic bridge.

Conclusion

The repeated independent emergence of complex biological systems is not an observed phenomenon. It is an inference layered upon assumptions, models, and historical reconstructions. In every case examined here, the claims extend far beyond experimental evidence and rely on retrospective storytelling rather than demonstrated causal processes. Science observes variation, adaptation, and modification of existing systems—but never the origin of integrated, information-rich biological architectures.

The more frequently such origins are claimed, the more pressing becomes the question: why are these processes invoked so often, yet never observed even once?

Posted by at
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)