Convergent evolution - Lightning striking again and again and again!

There’s a common saying that lightning never strikes twice in the same place.  That’s not literally true.  When people say it, they mean if something improbable happens, it likely won’t happen again.  The odds of anyone winning the lottery, for example, are very small.  The same person winning the lottery two times in a row is virtually impossible.  Such a thing might happen in the realm of theoretical statistics, however most people understand that it wouldn’t happen in the real world.  But then again, since when does evolution operate in the real world?!

I’m talking about the idea of convergent evolution.  According to Grokipedia - by the way, I’ve started moving away from the left-leaning Wikipedia - anyway, according to Grokipedia, “Convergent evolution is the process whereby distantly related species independently develop similar traits or characteristics, typically in response to comparable environmental pressures or selective forces.”  In a recent post (here), I discussed how koala fingerprints are indistinguishable from human fingerprints.  Koalas are marsupials, and according to the theory of evolution, marsupial mammals supposedly diverged from placental mammals more than 150 million years ago.  In other words, koalas cannot be “closely related” to humans.  So why do both species share this very unusual characteristic?  Evolutionists claim it’s an example of convergent evolution.  You know, because koalas and humans live in nearly identical environments with all the same selective pressures.  Excuse me while I roll my eyes!

The idea of convergent evolution is little more than a rescue device for evolutionists.  They love, love, love to point out similarities between, say, chimps and humans, and say their similarities are evidence they share a recent common ancestor.  But any similarity between humans and koalas is merely a coincidence - a case of convergent evolution.  Evolutionists can’t see the special pleading in their argument.  In fact, they’ve become so comfortable with the idea of convergent evolution, they wave it around like an end-of-discussion solution anytime traits don’t follow any predictable pattern on the so-called, “tree of life.”  

I’ve discussed the appendix before so let’s start with that.  According to evolution, the appendix evolved in some ancestor of humans and once served an important function (or at least it evolved to serve some function). Since we are descended from this supposed ancestor, we have inherited that structure but, over the many generations of mutation and selection leading from the non-human ancestor to us, the appendix has lost its original function. For this reason, it's sometimes called an “evolutionary leftover.”

Humans are not the only creatures with an appendix. Dozens of mammals have appendixes – but not every mammal.  According to the theory of common descent, we should be able to trace the appendix along the so-called “nested-hierarchy” where all the animals which have an appendix also share a common ancestor. The problem is, there is no predictable pattern among the mammals with appendixes. The appendix appears in some species of primates, rodents, and even marsupials but is absent from the intermediate groups linking these species. It's not at all what we would expect if evolution were true.

Failed predictions are usually considered evidence against a scientific theory. However, the fact that the presence of the appendix follows no predictable pattern hardly raises an eyebrow among evolutionists. As is often the case, they invent ad hoc theories to explain the failed prediction. Here is a quote from Sciencemag.org:

In a new study, published online... in Comptes Rendus Palevol, the researchers compiled information on the diets of 361 living mammals, including 50 species now considered to have an appendix, and plotted the data on a mammalian evolutionary tree. They found that the 50 species are scattered so widely across the tree that the structure must have evolved independently at least 32 times, and perhaps as many as 38 times. [Bold added]

So let me get this straight: The appendix appears in no discernible pattern on the so-called “tree of life” which calls into question the entire concept of common descent. They try to say it evolved independently in all these different species but why would the selective pressures that drive convergent evolution create a similar organ over and over, when most creatures that have one don't need it?!  

Next, let’s talk about the eye.  In his infamous book, Darwin said this about the eye (source):

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. 

Of course, Darwin still believed the eye was evolved and went on to describe how evolution, by gradual steps, could produce such a remarkably complex organ.  However, Richard Dawkins, in his book, River out of Eden, had this to say about the eye:

[T]he time needed for the evolution of the eye... turned out to be too short for geologists to measure! It's a geological blink." And, "it is no wonder the eye has evolved at least forty times independently around the animal kingdom 

There are many, many creatures in the animal kingdom that have eyes.  I’ve written before (here) about the similarity between human eyes and those of an octopus.  Both creatures exist in radically different environments and are not supposed to be closely related according to evolution.  They are examples of what Dawkins was talking about, one of dozens of examples where the eye has evolved independently in different creatures.   But do you see the shift in tone from Darwin to Dawkins?  Darwin claims the eye is so complex it seems a wonder how it could have evolved, to Dawkins saying it’s so easy it happens all the time!

Finally, there is the topic of abiogenesis.  The odds of random chemicals coming together to create life are astonishingly small.  We’ve never observed it happen.  We’ve never been able to create life artificially in a lab, despite decades of trying.  However, evolutionists argue that in such a large universe even something very improbable will eventually happen.  Carl Sagan once said this: 

“... [T]he time available for the origin of life seems to have been short, a few hundred million years at the most. Since life originated on the earth, we have additional evidence that the origin of life has a high probability.” 

Convinced that there is a high probability of the origin of life, then it's no great leap to imagine that other life began in space as well. His faith in extra-terrestrial life inspired groups like SETI to search for signs of life beyond our planet. Today, with NASA’s interest in exploring Mars, people speculate that life could have evolved on Mars as well.  So even though we’ve NEVER observed abiogenesis, evolutionists suffer under the delusion it happens everywhere. 

Evolutionists are somewhat cavalier about what is credible. They waive the term “convergent evolution” around and suddenly the impossible becomes commonplace. A fully functioning eye evolving from a light sensitive spot on the skin?  No problem!  Life springing from non-living matter? Happens all the time!  

As was said at the start of this post, people in the real world know the odds of any improbable event happening twice is highly unlikely.  Evolutionists, on the other hand, would have us believe that lightning strikes in the area of the improbable like a timpani! 

7 simple facts that prove evolution is impossible!

There’s a sort of No True Scotsman argument that works off the premise that if someone doesn’t believe evolution, it must be because he doesn’t understand it!  Evolutionists will often admit there are some things they don’t understand about evolution - like how, where, or when things evolved - but their lack of understanding will never lead them to doubt the theory itself.  They might wonder how something evolved but they will eagerly profess that it evolved!

Of course, I have a completely different opinion of the situation.  I am convinced that, if more people understood evolution, fewer people would believe it.  The more I’ve studied evolution, the more impossible I see that it is.  It’s not a question of how something evolved but rather, how could anything evolve!  Here are seven, simple facts that I believe show why the theory of evolution is impossible.

1) ABIOGENESIS

Evolution theorizes that all biodiversity on earth is descended from a single, common ancestor.  The question then becomes, where did this common ancestor come from?  Evolutionists try to dismiss the question saying that’s not part of the theory but, for something that’s not part of the theory, they spend a lot of time obsessing over it.  I don’t believe a biology textbook exists that doesn’t contain a paragraph about the origin of life, prebiotic soup, or the failed Miller-Urey experiment. 

Once upon a time, people believed in spontaneous generation.  It’s the belief that living things could rise spontaneously from nonliving matter.  They used to think, for example, that maggots grew out of rotting meat.  Evolutionists still cling to the long discarded idea that life did indeed come from nonliving matter only now they call it abiogenesis.

Scientists have struggled for decades to create life in a lab yet still haven’t.  They don’t even have a plausible story about how it could have happened.  If all life has descended from a common ancestor, there must necessarily have been a common ancestor.  If the first living thing could not have risen from nonliving matter, then the entire rest of the theory could not have followed!

2) ORGANIZATION AND DESIGN IN NATURE

Darwin was a believer in the pseudo-science of spontaneous generation.  While most examples of the spontaneous generation of higher life forms (like maggots or mice) had been debunked by his time, he still believed that “simple” life forms, like single cells, could form spontaneously.  We know now that even the “simplest” cell is incredibly complex - far too complex to be the fortunate arrangement of pond scum.  This is why we’ve not been able to recreate life in a lab.  Imagine trying to build something as complex as the space shuttle only making it too small to see with your naked eye, and then you’ll have an idea of how complex a single cell is.

Amino acids are considered the “building blocks” of life.  When scientists found amino acids could be formed naturally, they believed they were one step closer to solving the elusive problem of abiogenesis.  However, believing amino acids could arrange themselves into a DNA molecule is like believing rocks could arrange themselves to build the pyramids.  Life is not about materials but, rather, is about organization.  All living systems are characterized by their complexity.

Think about our circulatory system.  We have a heart to pump our blood, veins and arteries to carry the blood, and there’s the blood itself.  Have you ever asked which evolved first?  I mean, what’s the use of having a heart unless there’s blood to pump and veins to carry it.  But why have blood before there’s a heart or veins?  What a pickle!  Remember too that blood has a purpose; it delivers food and oxygen to all the cells in our bodies so you also must have a respiratory system and a digestive system.  But again, why even have these other systems until there’s a circulatory system?!

Life is complex.  Even the simplest living thing is far too complex to have formed naturally.  Yet that “simple” thing didn’t have a heart or lungs or a stomach.  For that first living thing to evolve to become us, it would require entire systems (like circulatory, respiratory, etc) to arise simultaneously and function together perfectly.  I’m sorry, but that’s impossible!

3) THE STASIS OF KINDS

For evolution to occur, populations must acquire novel traits. To turn a dinosaur into a bird, it would have to acquire feathers. To turn a reptile into a mammal, it would have to acquire hair. Remember that the alleged first-living-thing didn’t have feathers or hair.  Neither did it have skin or cells, bones or blood, nor any organ of any kind.  For a molecule to turn into a man, it would require a billions of years long parade of novel features being added generation after generation. If evolution were true, new traits would have to appear in populations with a fair amount of frequency. They don't.

I like the color blue.  I also like dogs.  There are blue birds, flowers, reptiles, fish, and insects but there aren’t any blue dogs.  Could I selectively breed dogs to create a blue dog?  What if I did it for 50 years?  100 years?  1,000,000 years?  It still wouldn’t matter.  Dogs come in a lot of colors but they don’t come in new colors.  Just as the term implies, natural selection can only select from traits already present in the population.  Since there aren't blue dogs already, I could never selectively breed dogs and end up with a blue dog - not even in a million years.

Since populations need new traits to evolve, the theory has a problem.  Natural selection can’t ever add anything.  What we observe is that dogs remain dogs, birds remain birds, and people remain people.

4) GENETIC BURDEN

As DNA duplicates itself, successive generations will contain errors.  It’s an observed fact.  Most of these errors are considered “neutral” because even though they exist in the DNA, the host animal won’t appear to have any deleterious effects from them.  DNA mutations sometimes express in ways that are harmful to the host.  They can range in severity from something as mild as color-blindness to extreme conditions that are not compatible with life.  

Every once in a while, however, a mutation could add a benefit to the host.  An example of this is the blind cave fish.  In a cave where there is no light, eyes don’t offer a benefit.  In fact, while swimming around in the dark, a fish could bump into a rock and injure its eye which could lead to dangerous infections.  In this type of environment, a mutation causing the fish to be born without eyes actually gives the fish a slight advantage over seeing fish.

It is these “beneficial” mutations that evolutionists claim are the source for novel features appearing in populations.  They consider the eye-less cave fish to be a new species that have evolved from seeing fish.  I see a lot of problems with this.  First, a mutation that removes the fish’s eyes doesn’t explain how a single celled creature evolved eyes in the first place.  Also, the blind fish are less fit overall.  They might thrive in a specialized environment but they can’t compete with unmutated fish in most other environments.

The biggest problem I see with mutations driving evolution is the cumulative effect the mutations will have over many generations.  How often do “beneficial mutations” occur?  Maybe once in 100,000 mutations or maybe every 10,000 or even as little as once in every 1,000.  Remember that evolutionists claim life has been evolving for billions of years so they don’t concern themselves with how slow it might go.  They don’t see the problem.  How long could life be sustainable when DNA deteriorates thousands of times faster than it’s improving?!  When one evolutionist realized this he speculated, “Why are we not dead a hundred times over?”  I say, Why indeed!!

5) THE SCARCITY OF FOSSIL SPECIES

Have you ever heard that 99% of all the species that have ever existed are extinct?  Probably.  I’ll bet you haven’t heard that there are more living species than there are species found only in fossils!  Estimates vary but there are between 2-10 million species living (about 1.5 million have been identified and named).  There are only about 200,000 - 500,000 species only known from fossils.  

In his book, Charles Darwin speculated, “innumerable transitional forms must have existed.... [J]ust in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous.”  He was curious why every rock layer wasn’t full of such intermediate links.  He believed that since fossilization seems to happen rarely, most of the species just didn’t leave fossils.  This is usually the defense most evolutionists propose.  

We have found fossils of many living species.  Just google the term “living fossil” and see hundreds of examples for yourself.  Think about this too: we find trilobite fossils by the millions.  We’ve found hundreds of Australopithecus afarensis fossils.  We’ve also found dozens of T-rex fossils. Why do we find lots of species abundantly represented in the fossil record but no fossils of the billions of other species evolutionists claim have existed?  

What we observe is relatively few species abundantly represented in the fossil record.  Evolutionists claim there have been billions of species that have left no fossil trace.  I say there are no fossil remains because billions of other species simply never existed!

6) ORIGINAL BIOMATTER IN SUPPOSEDLY ANCIENT FOSSILS

Some years back, Dr. Mary Schweitzer – entirely by accident – discovered red blood cells in a t-rex fossil believed to be 68 million years old. At first, her discovery was met with disbelief by the majority of the scientific community. However, since her initial find, other specimens have been found. From Science News Explores we read, “Researchers from London have found hints of blood and fibrous tissue in a hodgepodge of 75-million-year-old dinosaur bones. These fossils had been poorly preserved. That now suggests residues of soft tissues may be more common in dino bones than scientists had thought.”

Think about that quote: soft tissues may be more common in dino bones than scientists had thought. What exactly do you think scientists thought about the possibility of soft tissue being found in dino bones? Obviously they thought it was impossible for soft tissue to be preserved for 65 million years! In an article about Dr. Schweitzer's find, Smithsonian.com wondered, “If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization.” 

Hmm.  Maybe the textbooks are right about fossilization.  It does seem totally impossible for red blood cells to remain intact for 65 million years.  Evolutionists refuse to give up their long ages so would rather search for some fantastic, natural mechanism that could preserve biomatter for millions of years.  In the meantime, the rest of us resort to the common sense solution - the bones aren’t really millions of years old!

7) THE BIBLE SAYS WE ARE CREATED

Have you ever heard a rock talk?  I ask because I read this quote online once:

When the rocks say they are 4 billion years old and the Bible says they are less than 10,000 years old; who do you believe: the author of the Bible or the author of the rocks?

I thought it was strange because my family is from eastern Kentucky and I grew up visiting the hills of Appalachia. I've literally seen mountains of rocks and in all my life, I've never heard any of them “say” anything.  

You see, rocks don’t talk.  Fossils don’t talk.  “Science” doesn’t talk.  Only people talk.  And when people are telling you things about the rocks, fossils, and evolution, it’s the people, not the evidence, that’s doing the talking.  Call me simple, call me dogmatic, call me any name you want but I will choose the clear meaning of the words of the Bible over the fanciful theories invented by men with corrupt minds and deceitful hearts.  

God spoke the universe into existence.  Jesus commanded the wind and waves to be still and they obeyed Him.  Even the dead hear His voice and it was He who called Lazarus out of the tomb.  So when God says He created the world in 6 days, I will believe Him!!

Laughing at evolution

In order to believe in evolution, a person has to accept some weird science. I'm not just talking about points of the theory that seem counterintuitive; I'm talking full-blown denial of things we know to be true. The well published, evolutionary biologist, Richard Lewontin, made this amazing admission [Billions and Billions of Demons, January 9, 1997]:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

In this candid statement, Lewontin has revealed the true heart of many evolutionists. They would rather cling to even the most absurd “natural” explanation of our origins rather than accept the possibility of a supernatural Creator. What are some of these patently absurd constructs that he was talking about? I'm glad you asked. In this post, I'm going to list a few of the more far-fetched ones. Prepare to be amused!

SPONTANEOUS GENERATION

There was once a time when people believed in a thing called spontaneous generation. It's the idea that life could rise spontaneously out of non-living material. For example, people used to believe that maggots would spontaneously appear in rotting meat or that mice would appear in appear a jar containing wheat husks.

Over a couple of centuries of experimentation and observation, most examples of spontaneous generation had been debunked. In the case of maggots, it was learned that flies were laying their eggs on the rotting meat. It was understood that spontaneous generation did not occur in “higher” or more complex forms of life, like mice. However, the idea still endured that “simple” forms of life, like single-celled creatures, could spontaneously appear. If a jar of clean water was left in the sun, it would begin to cloud. When examined under the primitive microscopes of the 19^th century, they could see the water teeming with microorganisms.

Louis Pasteur, who was a contemporary of Charles Darwin, remained skeptical. He designed an experiment using special flasks that would allow air to reach the water but prevented air-borne microbes from falling into them. He boiled the water inside the flasks to insure that nothing already in the water was left alive. After several months, no microorganisms had formed. It was through this experiment that he devised the process we now call pasteurization. It was also the final nail in the coffin of the theory of spontaneous generation; all believed examples of life rising from non-living had been disproved.

Spontaneous generation had been replaced with the Law of Biogenesis. It is the scientific principle that life can only arise from life and not from non-living material. Of course, this creates a quandary for evolutionists: if life only comes from life, then how did life begin in the first place? What a pickle!

Secular scientists still cling to spontaneous generation, only now they call it abiogenesis. Regardless of its new title, it's still the same idea that life can arise from non-living matter. Continuing under the delusion that spontaneous generation must have happened, scientists have spent decades trying to create life in the laboratory. Yet even artificial life eludes them. The closest they ever came is the famous Miller-Urey experiment which produced some amino acids. Since DNA is made up of amino acids, they believe they had made the first step toward finding how life could arise “naturally.” It's funny how they are conducting experiments, trying to create life, just to “prove” that it happens by itself!

Everything we have learned from science, everything we have observed for centuries, every experiment we have ever conducted has proven over and over that the origin of life is a miracle. It cannot happen apart from a supernatural cause. Yet, in spite of all the evidence, evolutionists still want us to believe in an idea that was discarded about the same time as blood-letting! Excuse me while I laugh my head off!!

GRAVITY CREATED EVERYTHING FROM NOTHING

Where did matter come from? That question strikes at the heart of the problem with all secular explanations of our origins. Natural science has no theory or even a credible story to explain the ultimate origin of matter. In fact, matter (or energy) simply appearing naturally seems to contradict the well established, scientific principle that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it can only change forms. The mere existence of matter lends itself strongly to the idea that there was a supernatural cause for the universe.

Unfazed by secular science's lack of a plausible explanation for the origin of the universe, Stephen Hawking, made this humorous quote:

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.

What I find most comical about this statement is the sheer hypocrisy of it. How could there even be a law such as gravity until there's a universe? Hawking's “solution” seems to suffer from a chicken-and-egg dilemma. If natural laws are properties of the universe, how can they be used to explain the origin of the universe? That's like saying natural laws created natural laws! You can believe that if you want but I think it's looney toons.

EVOLUTION ADDS TRAITS BY REMOVING TRAITS

One day, an enterprising young man in the city thought he'd start a business selling watermelons in suburban neighborhoods. He'd drive out to the country, buy watermelons for 35 cents each, then resell them 3 for $1. They were very popular and always sold out quickly but each time he drove to buy more, he always seemed to have less money. Not sure what he was doing wrong, he explained his business plan to his father. His father thought about it for a minute, then slapped his son on the back. “I see the problem,” he told his son confidently, “you need to buy a bigger truck!”

Then he said, 'But if it continues for a million years...'

Natural selection is an observed phenomenon where traits not suited to the environment are removed from the population. In the famous, peppered moth example of “evolution,” birds would eat light or dark colored moths as environmental factors changed. Over time, the ratio of light/dark moth in the population would change and evolutionists call any type of change, “evolution.” According to evolutionists, these little changes (microevolution) will accumulate over time to become big changes (macroevolution).

My question to evolutionists has always been, “how long would birds have to eat one color of moth until new colors appear?” The significance of the question usually escapes them but the answer is obvious. You cannot create new colors by continuously removing one color. It doesn't matter how long you do it. Duh!

For evolution to occur, new traits have to be added to the population. For a dinosaur to become a bird, you have to add feathers. The supposed first ancestor did not have feathers. Neither did it have hair or scales or even skin. Nor did it have bones, blood, or organs. For a bacterium to become a bird, there must be a continuous parade of novel features added. That is the only way for one kind of creature to become another kind. Evolutionists love to bring up examples of natural selection and say it's evolution. They believe the change just needs to happen for a long enough time.

If natural selection REMOVES traits and evolution requires animals to ACQUIRE traits, then we have a problem. Continuously removing traits will never add traits no matter how long it continues. It's like trying to make money by losing a little bit at a time. The idea that microevolution plus time equals macroevolution is a joke. It's a joke funnier than the one above because the one above is fictional and the evolutionists are serious. I agree that populations change. I don't agree that “change” over a long time could ever amount to evolution. Time is not the savior of evolution. Time is the “bigger truck” of evolution.

THINGS THAT LOOK DESIGNED AREN'T DESIGNED

Have you ever heard an expression like, “Cheetahs are built for speed” or “Bird wings are remarkably well designed for flying”? Most of the time, when evolutionists makes statements like these, they don't really mean to say these things are actually designed. Yet intended or unintended, they are admitting there is an apparent design in nature. A tired complaint I hear from evolutionists is that there is no evidence for creation. Evidence for design is everywhere but evolutionists refuse to see it because of their circular reasoning. Note that I said, “they refuse to see it” and not that they can't see it. Richard Dawkins, wrote about this very thing in his book, The Blind Watchmaker. In the book, Dawkins said, “The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn’t agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up.”

It's been my experience that the most obvious answer to nearly any question is usually the correct one. It's like the old joke: Why did the chicken cross the road? The first time people hear this, they usually search for some deep meaning or clever answer yet completely overlook the obvious answer – to get to the other side. I think that's what's going on here.

Q: Why does everything look designed?

A: Because it's designed!

Evolutionists may be blind and foolish, but most of them aren't stupid. They know the obvious implication of design. Yet not only do they refuse to accept design as evidence for creation, they also go to great lengths to explain to others why they too should not make that reasonable conclusion.

I normally like to link to non-creationist sources but I couldn't find a direct link to read Julian Huxley's book, Evolution in Action. In the book, Huxley is cited as saying, “Organisms are built as if purposefully designed, and work as if in purposeful pursuit of a conscious aim. But the truth lies in those two words 'as if.' As the genius of Darwin showed, the purpose is only an apparent one.”  

That's just a fancy way of telling people, “I know everything looks designed but it only looks that way. It really isn't.” Huxley could see design. To even use the word, “built” implies a builder. Huxley knew that the most reasonable implication of design is the “purposeful pursuit of a conscious aim.” Nevertheless, he boldly denounced the obvious and correct answer.

Another shameless example of explaining away design comes from Francis Crick , the co-discoverer of DNA. Crick said, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see is not designed, but rather evolved.”

Gee. How more conspicuous can anyone be? Crick is overtly saying, “I know it looks designed but keep telling yourself everything evolved!”

Evolutionists go to great lengths to explain away design but the more they explain, the more they prove my point. They would not put in such effort if they didn't grasp the clear implication of design is that there is a Designer. It's almost funny to see how they reject the most reasonable answer for such an unlikely one. It's like they're saying, “No! The chicken did not want to get to the other side!'

Is evolution even a good theory? Part 2: Predictions

This is part two of a two-part series examining evolution as a scientific theory. More specifically, I'm judging the soundness of the theory based on two criteria: 1) is it falsifiable and 2) does it make good predictions. In my last post, I discussed how evolution is so plastic as a theory, no evidence, no matter how contrary it is to our current understanding of evolution, could ever prove the theory is false. In this post, I'm going to examine how successful evolution has been at making predictions.

https://unsplash.com/@hulkiokantabak

To be of any practical use, a scientific theory should be able to make predictions. A prediction is basically to say that, if a theory is true, then we might expect a certain other thing to be true. I might say, for example, that hair is unique to mammals. If that is true, then I could predict that, if there is hair on any creature we ever discover, it will be a mammal. Predictions go hand in hand with falsifiability. If we ever discovered a cold-blooded, egg-laying, gill-breathing creature with hair, my theory would be proven false.

Let me give you an analogy that might demonstrate how useful predictions can be to a scientific theory. Suppose I wanted to mix paint to make new colors. I would need to know which colors to mix to make the color I want. If there were a “color theory” that predicted yellow and blue together make green, then that's useful information if I wanted to make green paint. If I mix yellow and blue paint and actually get green paint, then I might use that theory to help me with other color combinations. However, if the “color theory” said yellow and blue could make green, red, or any other color, then the theory isn't predictive and isn't useful to me at all.

Now suppose the color theory predicted yellow and blue would only make green, but when I mixed yellow and blue, I got red. In that case, I would know the theory doesn't make successful predictions. You could say it has been falsified. The inventor of the “color theory” might try to say that yellow and blue should make green but he can “explain” why it made red. OK, but the next time I mix them, I get brown. He then “explains” why I got brown. If he has an explanation every time I don't get blue, then there's really no way to falsify the theory. We're back to the problem that the theory isn't predictive but neither is it falsifiable. It's a useless theory.

Some people claim evolution is a strong theory that has made many successful predictions. Excuse me while I have a chortle. Following are a few of evolution's epic fails.

RADIOMETRIC DATING

Certain, naturally occurring substances are unstable and so will decay over time until it becomes a stable substance. Uranium, for example, decays over time and eventually becomes lead. The rate at which the decay occurs varies from substance to substance. Some decay at an extremely slow rate while others decay more rapidly (relatively speaking). By measuring the ratio of the parent/daughter elements (uranium/lead, for example), scientists can estimate how long the decay has been occurring. Many scientists consider radiometric dating to be the final word in determining the age of any sample and it is from radiometric dating that many people are convinced that the earth is very old. If radiometric dating actually dates things accurately, we could make a few predictions:

Prediction #1: Newly formed rocks should not have any of the daughter element present and should show an age of “zero.”

Results: Rocks formed at the Mt St Helen's eruption were dated using potassium/argon dating, the samples yielding ages up to 2.8 million years even though the known age of the rocks was 10 years old. FAIL.

Prediction #2: Carbon 14 is an unstable element found in all living things. As living things breath and eat, they accumulate C14. Once the thing dies, the C14 begins to decay and becomes C12. The key difference in this radiometric dating method and those discussed in the previous paragraph is that the decay rate of C14 is much quicker than many other types. It has a half-life of only 5,730 years. Due to its short half-life, we can predict that samples more than 100,000 years old should have no detectable C14 remaining in them.

Result: An 8 year long endeavor by creation scientists known as the RATE project, has found it is impossible to find any old samples without detectable levels of carbon. Even diamonds, the hardest natural substance and virtually impossible to contaminate, consistently yield trace C14 even though they are supposed to be a billion years old. FAIL.

PROGRESSION IN THE FOSSIL RECORD

According to secular dating, the rock layers represent the accumulation of sediment being laid down over time. The layers further down are older than the layers above them. Where fossils are found in the layers supposedly represents when those creatures lived. Creatures found in fossils in lower strata lived before the creatures found above them.

Prediction #3: If evolution were true, there should be a clear progression of simple to complex in the fossil record where the older creatures are more primitive than the younger creatures.

Result: Dinosaurs allegedly evolved into birds. However, I recently wrote about feathers identified as 78 myo yet are still described as being “nearly identical to those of modern birds.” Apparently, evolutionists don't see a problem with evidence showing modern birds lived contemporarily with their supposed ancestors.

The Laetoli footprints are a famous track of footprints left by three individuals as they trekked through volcanic ash. From Wiki, we read this about the prints:

The footprints themselves were an unlikely discovery because they closely resemble modern human footprints, despite being almost 4 million years old. It is noted that the toe pattern is much the same as the human foot, which is much different than the feet of chimpanzees and other non-bipedal beings. The footprint impression has been interpreted as the same as the modern human stride, with the heel striking first and then a weight transfer to the ball of the foot before pushing off the toes.

Interesting. Modern humans weren't supposed to have existed 4 million years ago but here are footprints that “closely resemble modern human” footprints found in ash they claim is 4 million years old. Since this evidence isn't compatible with evolutionists' claims about human evolution, they allege the prints belonged to Australopithecus afarensis, a supposed human ancestor. According to the Wiki article, other footprints were found in the same ash as the suspect prints.

Other prints show the presence of twenty different animal species besides the hominin A. afarensis, among them hyenas, wild cats,... baboons, wild boars, giraffes, gazelles, rhinos, several kinds of antelope, Hipparion, buffaloes, elephant relatives (of the extinct genus Deinotherium), hares and birds.

Think about this for a moment – they find baboon footprints and assign them to baboons; they find giraffe footprints and assign them to giraffes; they find rhino footprints and assign them to rhinos; they find modern human footprints and assign them to A. afarensis!! Isn't that hilarious?!

We have myriad examples of modern species living simultaneously with their supposed ancestors. There is no clear progression of fossils from ancestor to modern. FAIL.

TRANSITIONAL FORMS

Evolution is a history of descent with modification. A lobed fin becomes a leg which become wing. A fold in the skin becomes a scale which becomes a feather. The structures found on every creature of every species are simply adaptations of more primitive structures found on the creatures' ancestors.

Prediction #4: If evolution were true, we should expect to find volumes of fossil evidence showing creatures in transition from one species to another. In Darwin's own words, “innumerable transitional forms must have existed.... [J]ust in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous.” We should not be able to turn over a shovel of dirt without finding another transitional form.

Result: Darwin himself was surprised that we didn't find, “every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links.” After more than a century and a half of looking, and the trillions of fossils that exist, evolutionists have – at most – a few dozen examples of transitional forms and even most of these are suspect. The “innumerable” amount we would expect to find are simply not there. FAIL.

THE APPENDIX

As we've already discussed, evolution is a history of descent with modification. Over time, some structures have supposedly lost their original function and have either become useless or have been adapted for some completely different function. Such structures are called, “vestigial.” The appendix is perhaps the most touted example of a vestigial structure.

Prediction #5: The appendix appears in many different species of mammals. If descent with modification has occurred, we should be able to trace the appendix along the so called, “tree of life” and find that all the creatures who have an appendix also share a common ancestor.

Result: The problem is, there is no predictable pattern among the mammals with appendixes. The appendix appears in some species of primates, rodents, and even marsupials but is absent from the intermediate groups linking these species. It's not at all what we would expect if evolution were true. FAIL.

TIKTAALIK

I bring this up because it is often cited by evolutionists as an example of a successful prediction made by their theory. It was even used by Bill Nye in his debate against Ken Ham. The most commonly accepted understanding of history is that life began in the sea and evolved onto land. If this has occurred, scientists would expect to find fossil evidence of creatures with structures in transition from sea-to-land.

Prediction #6: Based on their understanding of when the supposed transition of sea-to-land occurred, researchers began exploring an area of exposed, Devonian deposits in the Canadian Arctic in hopes of finding fossil evidence of a creature in transition from sea-to-land. They found Tiktaalik. According to one website detailing the prediction, “Not only was it exciting to find a new species, but it was made all the better by the fact that scientists had predicted the existence of a creature like this all along.”

Result: A few years after the discovery of Tiktaalik, a track of fossilized footprints belonging to a tetrapod were uncovered in a quarry in Poland. They were dated according to evolutionary dating methods to be 18 million years older than Tiktaalik. This would mean that fully evolved, ambulatory tetrapods were walking around millions of years before their supposed ancestor, Tiktaalik, ever lived (see failed prediction #3). FAIL.

In summary, I'll just say that I'm not sure of any successful prediction the theory of evolution has made. I only know that there are many, many failed predictions. Evolutionists will offer a lot of excuses in an effort to explain away these failed predictions but they are similar to the excuses I discussed about about failed predictions of mixing paint using a color theory. The difference is, knowing what colors to mix to make new colors is actually useful information. Evolution isn't useful to any field of science. There is no life-improving advancement made in the last 100 years whose invention hinged on an understanding of evolution. It's the trivial pursuit branch of biology. It's generous that we still even call it a “theory.”