The book later argues that evolution is not science — using the evolutionist's own criterion of testability. Some evolutionary leaders are quoted essentially admitting that. The book argues that the new creation theory is testable science, and evolution is not. This role reversal is noteworthy since it engages the debate on the evolutionists' terms using their own criterion of science. It is also a departure from previous creationist positions.
Since natural selection theory is structureless, its proponents tell all manner of stories, called "Darwinian scenarios". Many examples of contradictory stories are examined here.For example, no multicellular animals make the enzymes necessary to digest cellulose, yet it is perhaps the world's most abundant food source. Evolutionists claim this is "bad" design and use it as evidence against a designer. This chapter shows they have it backwards. In reality, the cellulose situation is strong evidence against evolution, and fits well with the claim that a key goal of life's design is to thwart evolutionary explanation. Moreover, the situation is good system design, because it brings ecological stability to the system of life. Natural selection can only benefit the individual or perhaps small groups, but cannot look ahead to benefit the entire system of life. Like so many in this book, this argument is new.
Forty years ago the evolutionary geneticist J.B.S. Haldane discovered this problem that now bears his name. It was never solved, though evolutionists obscured it and brushed it aside. The problem and its so-called solutions are almost always absent from evolution books, even evolutionary genetics textbooks. Few advanced students are aware of the seriousness of the problem.
Haldane discovered that higher vertebrates such as mammals (organisms with low reproduction) cannot have plausibly evolved within the available time. In particular, he discovered that a rapid turnover (or substitution) of mutations into a population incurs a cost that must be paid by the reproduction of the species. Species with low reproduction cannot plausibly pay this cost fast enough to drive evolution at the high rates claimed by evolutionists.
Using Haldane's published analyses it is easy to show that the evolution of humans from their presumed ape-like ancestors 10 million years ago, could incorporate at most 1,667 beneficial nucleotides. Yet no evolutionist in the intervening forty years published any such a figure. It says too loudly that they have serious explaining to do.
This chapter illuminates the problem and debunks the evolutionists' various attempts to solve it. The evolutionist's dilemma cannot be solved by the standard model of evolutionary genetics, the one model prominent in all evolution books. This should have been visible to evolutionary geneticists forty years ago. Yet the standard model continues to be sold (and Haldane's Dilemma ignored) because it is easier to sell the evolutionary program that way.
A Haldane "cost of substitution" is mechanical and unavoidable. It even applies to computer simulations of evolution, such as Richard Dawkins's simulation from The Blind Watchmaker. His simulation is dismantled to show its illusion. Using Dawkins's simulation, running on your computer, you can see how low reproduction dramatically limits the speed of substitutions.
Two related issues are illuminated:
Just as the cost of substitution has been confused by evolutionists, so has the supposed solution posed by the neutral theory. They claimed neutral substitutions incurred no cost. This chapter untangles the confusions. The rule is: All substitutions incur a cost, even neutral substitutions. This chapter shows the novel way the cost is paid by neutral mutations, and why this does not ease Haldane's Dilemma. It also shows how the evolutionists' focus on genetic load obscured the problems, rather than revealed them.
Using straightforward data and theory supplied by Motoo Kimura himself (the author of the neutral theory), this chapter shows that in ten million years a human-like population could, at best, substitute 25,000 expressed neutral mutations. That amounts to 0.0007 percent of the genome, and is not remotely enough to solve Haldane's Dilemma or explain human evolution.
Yet another problem with evolutionary genetics is revealed — the highly inert genome. In an attempt to escape the problems posed by error catastrophe, various evolutionists hint that a large portion of the genome is inert — without expression or function — and therefore unaffected by harmful mutation. Yet a highly inert genome is not credible today, if it ever was.
Several interrelated issues now impinge on the standard model of evolutionary genetics and show it to be implausible:
In other words, the standard model of evolutionary genetics fails to give a coherent picture of how evolution occurs at the genetic level.
This chapter documents — in evolutionists' own words — how the fossil record fails to support Darwinian expectations.
Most students know that punctuated equilibria is constructed to explain the large gaps between species. However, few know it is also constructed to destroy lineages. This was the reason for the theory's peculiar emphasis on speciation. Punctuationists needed a way to 'explain' the observed absence of clear ancestors and lineages, and their theory is specially constructed to "explain" that absence.
Because of the above setbacks of the fossil record, evolutionists needed a way to put the best face on evolution. So they fell back to their key evidence — the nested pattern of life, also known as a nested hierarchy. Evolutionists sought to emphasize this evidence, and "hierarchy theory" was developed (primarily by the punctuationists) as a way to accomplish that emphasis.
Though evolutionists created the illusions of lineage and gradualism to supplement their position, life's nested hierarchy is (and always was) their central evidence. All the classical evidences — such as embryology, vestigial organs, fossil sequence, "imperfections", morphological and biomolecular patterns — are mere versions of the nested hierarchy argument. Evolutionists now claim the nested hierarchy as evolution's "central prediction".
This chapter dismantles that illusion, and shows that evolutionary theory does not predict a nested hierarchy. It never was evidence for evolution, because evolution never predicted it. Evolutionists merely accommodated that pattern and used it as evidence against a creator. They asked, "Why would a creator design life to look like it evolved?"
This chapter overturns their argument in the most startling and ironic possible way: The nested hierarchy is the result of a design plan that includes making life look unlike the result of evolution. As one of its central design goals, life was intentionally designed to resist all theories of evolution, not just Darwin's or Lamarck's theories. There exist other evolutionary explanations that evolutionists embrace — such as transposition mechanisms, and the masking and unmasking of genetic libraries (known as genetic throwbacks) — which are exceedingly potent, simple, and plausible. Those "explanations" had to be defeated, and were defeated (uniformly at the morphological, embryological, and biochemical levels) by life's nested hierarchy, while simultaneously displaying life as the unified product of one designer.
The observed abundance of so-called "convergence" is also explained with the self-same theory. These abundant features serve the ends of the biotic message — they help unify life as the product of one designer, yet they cannot be explained by common descent, nor by transposition, nor by atavism. Evolutionists are left with their least plausible explanation, that these similar designs happened to converge from highly diverse beginnings.
This chapter recounts the rise and fall of Recapitulation Theory, the notion (of Ernst Haeckel) that embryos retrace the development of their distant ancestors. New insight is given into Haeckel's ideas: His theory could have been conceived in an armchair, with no knowledge of embryology other than von Baer's laws and a desire to re-interpret them to put the best light on evolution. That can explain everything about Haeckel's theory, including its reliance on bizarre and fictitious mechanisms (terminal addition and telescoping acceleration), and Haeckel's fudging of the embryological data to make it conform to the expectations of those fictitious mechanisms.
Von Baer's laws of embryology remain our best and most general descriptions of embryology. They are in fact an evolutionary enigma, (especially the sequence described in von Baer's laws). Recapitulation theory was an implicit attempt to reinterpret them, and with its downfall evolutionists haven't even tried to explain them. Evolutionists possess no coherent explanation of von Baer's laws. They merely attempt to use it as evidence against a designer.
Yet the patterns of embryology nicely convey the biotic message. The incredible similarities between embryos of humans, chickens, sharks, and turtles, for example, were visible to the naked of eye of ancient greeks thousands of years ago. They correctly interpreted this as evidence that life came from only one source, one designer. The patterns of embryology speak of one designer, while simultaneously being awkward for evolutionists to explain in a coherent way.
The claim of human "gill-slits" is also debunked.
The argument from vestigial organs used to be a huge part of the evolutionist's arsenal. But it has suffered badly through the years, as more and more functions were found for these supposedly "functionless" organs. The once long list of vestigial organs has dwindled to near zero. And evolutionists now try to revive it be redefining the concept of vestigial organ. This chapter documents these matters, and debunks the notion of "human babies with tails" as evidence of evolution.
Biomolecules form a fairly good nested pattern, as displayed in phenograms and cladograms. But just like phenograms and cladograms at the morphological and embryological levels, the molecular versions are essential evidence against evolution's simplest, most plausible, most powerful explanations — transposition processes, and the masking and unmasking of genetic libraries (known as genetic throwbacks). Evolutionists have shown they are perfectly willing to invoke these mechanisms, and virtually the only thing preventing them is — the biomolecular phenograms and cladograms! In other words, these are key evidence against evolution. The molecules of life show the same consistent design strategy we see elsewhere. Life is incredibly unified, as the work of one designer. Yet life simultaneously thwarts all evolutionary explanations.
This chapter shows how evolutionary illusions are created by evolutionists' claims about the fossil sequence. They have adopted powerful devices for explaining away out-of-sequence fossils and making their theory immune to the fossil sequence. Chief among these is their refusal to identify ancestors.
This chapter shows how the fossil sequence fits the expectations of biotic message theory. In particular, the fossil sequence has a special structure that pursues the unending task of compelling observers to accept the substantial 'completeness' of the fossil record. In other words, the fossil record contains a special pattern that authenticates itself as substantially complete, complete enough to use as evidence against evolution. That is an interesting feat in itself, and it is essential to making life look unlike the result of evolution.
Biogeography was once claimed as important evidence of evolution. Yet it has dwindled to the point where few evolutionists raise it as serious evidence for large scale evolution. Some evolutionists openly admit that it supplies no such evidence. This short chapter documents what has become of this short issue.
The biotic message is first and foremost a biological theory, yet this chapter briefly examines how geological and cosmological evidences add additional support. Chief among these is the rather curious situation that the fossil record — mostly of marine organisms in sedimentary rocks — is stacked up high and dry on land starring at us. This record is unavoidable, even on the highest mountains. That is a curious and unexpected situation for a natural planet. Yet this fortuitous situation is absolutely essential for the success of the biotic message.
This chapter offers a new systematic method, the only one known for studying the boundaries of continuity (and discontinuity). Other methodologies (such as phenetics or cladistics) do not study continuity, if anything they assume it. Discontinuity Systematics focuses precisely on a pattern of life that is unstudied by any other method. Like various types of film (infrared, ultraviolet, and x-ray film), these different methods study different patterns of nature. Discontinuity Systematics studies the central issue of the creation-evolution debate, especially the absence (or not) of clear-cut lineages.
Discontinuity Systematics is defined in a neutral way that makes it useful to all sides of the origins debate for studying nature, and debating the results.
The method defines four key terms that are interrelated in a special way for easy study of nature and communication of the results. It also provides a straightforward method of knowledge construction, where the results of two separate researchers can be compiled into greater knowledge by a third researcher, and so forth.
This short chapter explains how the new systematic method impacts creation theory and the origins debate.
More background on the origins and subtleties of Discontinuity Systematics.
The book relies on evolutionists and anti-creationists for documentation of all key points. Thirteen pages of references just for material cited in the book — small-print, single-spaced, double-column. That includes over a page of references on Stephen Gould's material cited within the book. Gould's writings were covered at length in researching this book.
Eleven pages of comprehensive index — small-print, single-spaced, triple-column. Stephen Gould is cited so frequently he is included in the index.
Back to home page
Copyright © 1997-2007 Saint Paul Science Inc., All Rights Reserved.