Home » Paleontology » The Evolution Delusion – Part 2

The Evolution Delusion – Part 2

The Evolution Delusion – Part 2

By Stephen Wylie

In response to Ian Freeman’s letter of Jan-Feb 2019, Issue 88, regarding my article in Heritage & Destiny July – August 2018 Issue 85 ‘The Evolution Delusion’, this writer maintains that the following points should be considered:

It seems that Mr. Freeman fails to provide much evidence or argument for his own position and against my own, other than to refer readers to Prof. Dawkin’s book: “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution,” 2009.

I read this book from cover to cover 10 years ago and in the light of counter-evidence and admissions available from such evolutionary sources as Nature, New Scientist, Scientific American and the Natural History Museum, London, found Dr. Dawkin’s account wholly unconvincing. One would therefore recommend Mr. Freeman and other interested H & D readers to the refutation and point-by-point rebuttal of Dr. Dawkin’s book, entitled: “The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution”, by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, PhD, FM, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-949906-73-1.

Regarding this 333 page book, one reviewer stated: “An excellent rebuttal to the best that evolution has to offer. The reader should walk away with the understanding that evolution is a house of cards and its chief spokesmen are promoting poor, illogical and false arguments against the only viable alternative: biblical creation,”. Robert Carter, PhD in Marine Biology and Genetics (University of Miami).

If Mr. Freeman were to obtain and read this book by Dr. Sarfati, he could at least claim to have read both sides of the argument. As an aside, it is interesting to note how frequently leading evolutionists can, by their own admissions, be cited to provide reluctant, but impressive witness against their own position and thus for creation.

Mr. Freeman describes my article / argument as, “confused, irrelevant, illogical and ignorant”, but fails to specify precisely where the “confusion”, etc. lies. He characterises disbelief in (Macro) Evolution and the consequent belief in Creation / Intelligent Design and God, as “ignorance and superstition”, disregarding the well documented fact that hundreds of highly intelligent and highly qualified scientists, having imbibed evolution throughout their lives – as we all have have subsequently rejected Evolution on purely rational and scientific grounds. To give one example, we read that:

“Over 900 doctoral scientists (now over 1,200 [SW]) have signed a ‘Dissent from Darwinism’ statement, launched by the Discovery Institute in America (Seattle)…The list of signatories includes members of National Academies of Science in Russia, The Czech Republic, Hungary, India (Hindustan), Nigeria, Poland and the United States.

Many on the list are professors or researchers at major universities and international research institutions, such as Cambridge University, Moscow State University, Chitose Institute of Science and Technology in Japan, Ben-Gurion University in Israel and MIT, the Smithsonian, Los Alamos and Princeton in the U.S.A.” (Ref: ‘The Delusion of Evolution’, 2015, P. 35, www.c4id.org.uk) . These scientists say, “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” See www.dissentfromdarwin.org .

Is it reasonable to conclude from this, that these 1,200 plus dissenters, should all be characterized as, “ignorant and superstitious” for finding modern Darwinian theory as less as than convincing, as Mr. Freeman implies? Regarding this, it is interesting to note that, “The Moon Landing Program was headed by Dr. Werner Von Braun (1912-1977) who believed in a Designer and opposed Evolution, and a Biblical Creationist, astronaut and test pilot Captain James B. Irwin (1930-1991), walked on the Moon”, Ref: Dr J Sarfati, ‘The Greatest Hoax..’, P.307. Should such men also be dismissed as “ignorant and superstitious”?

Returning again to Prof. Dawkins, there is an interesting admission recorded in the book ‘God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?’ by Prof. John Lennox, 2009, on P.194 where he writes: “Richard Dawkins confesses he does not know what caused the origin of the universe, but he believes (yes, faith), that there will one day be a naturalistic explanation of it. As he said in his Oxford debate with me, he did not need to resort to magic to explain the universe. However, in the press conference after the debate, he responded to a question by Melanie Phillips by saying that he believed that the universe could just have appeared from nothing. ‘Magic’, she said. She later reported that Dawkins told her afterwards that an explanation for the universe in terms of LGM (little green men) made more sense than postulating a Creator. Anything but God, it would seem.”

When Ben Stein asked Dr. Dawkins in the movie ‘Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed’, 2008, how life began, Dawkins said he had no idea, and neither did anyone else. Ref: ‘Darwin’s House of Cards’, Tom Bethell, 2017, P. 152, 153.

Regarding the origin of Consciousness, we read, “To his credit, Dawkins acknowledges the reality of both consciousness and language and the problem this poses: ‘Neither Steve Pinker, nor I, can explain human subjective consciousness – what philosophers call qualia’. In ‘How the Mind Works’, Steve elegantly sets out the subject of subjective consciousness and asks where it comes from and what is the explanation. Then he’s honest enough to say, ‘beats the heck out of me’. That is an honest thing to say and I echo it. We don’t know. We don’t understand it,” Dawkins admits, (Ref: ‘There is a God’, Prof. Anthony Flew, 2007, P. 176).

We can therefore see that by his own admissions, Dr. Dawkins reveals impressive areas of ignorance, when it comes to enlisting support for his own position. As referred to above, these areas include the unsolved problems of the Origin of the Universe, the Origin of Life and the Origin of Consciousness. We can then add to his areas of ignorance by citing recent admissions from Scientific American (2013), National Geographic (2015) and the New Scientist (2013), all 3 of which use the term “mystery”, with reference to the Origin of Man.

Dr Sarfati deals effectively with the Fossil Record in chapters 7 & 8 of ‘The Greatest Hoax..’ namely, ‘Where are the Transitional Fossils?’ and ‘The Links are still missing’. For example we read, P. 143, 144: “Archaeopteryx had fully-formed bird wings (and fully-developed complex flight feathers [SW]). Evolutionists also also lack an explanation for their unique lung design. The ‘earliest’ Pterosaurs and Bats (and flying insects [SW]), were fully-formed fliers. Furthermore the ‘earliest’ bats had fully-developed echolocation.

The distinctive dinosaur groups lack fossil ancestors; sometimes this is obscured in books by shaded or dotted lines indicating postulated ancestors, in the absence of fossils.” This same absence of ancestors of dinosaurs, for example, applies equally to all 32 Orders of Mammals. Ref: Vertebrate Paleontology, Dr. Michael J. Benton, 1998, P.299.

The same Phylogeny Diagram was reproduced in the 2005 Edition, showing No fossil links between any of these 32 orders of mammals. This same total absence of fossil links between all the Orders of Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles and Birds applies also in the charts published in Dr Benton’s 2005 Edition. Dr. Benton is an Evolutionist.

The conclusion in the publication, ‘Dino-Birds’ by Dr.. Angela Milner, Natural History Museum,

London, 2002, P .62 states:

“The Liaoning (Chinese) fauna, has provided us with a snapshot of an ancient community in which different groups of feathered dinosaurs (or flightless birds [SW]) and flying birds were all living alongside each other. How were they living alongside each other if birds descended from dinosaurs?

A further complication is that Archaeopteryx is (far) older than the feathered dinosaurs from Liaoning…There is still no evidence of exactly how asymmetric flight feathers developed from downy feathers, how long ago this happened and how the number and arrangement of the flight feathers was established.” (see also Footnote1)

In ‘The Greatest Show..’ p.168, 169, Dr. Dawkins is clearly very excited about the discovery in 2006 of an alleged link between Fish and Amphibians, Tiktaalik. However, in a more cautious appraisal in ‘Nature’, 6 April 2006, P. 748, we read regarding the bones of the pectoral fins, “They are still very much components of a fin. There remains a large morphological gap between them and digits as seen in for example Acanthostega….Of course there are still major gaps in the fossil record. In particular we have almost no information between Tiktaalik and the earliest tetrapods, when the anatomy underwent the most drastic changes.” To this, we can add, that it is well known by geneticists and embryologists that the Neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection cannot deliver such “drastic changes of anatomy”, whether step-by-step, or by sudden leaps. The New Scientist 8 April 2016, P. 14, soberly comments regarding Tiktaaliks fins. “They were still clearly fins with many of the same bones as earlier lobe-finned fishes” and concludes with the admission that, “Tiktaalik is still clearly a fish.” (my underlining).

On the origins of whales (Cetacea), Dr. Dawkins candidly acknowledges in “The Greatest Show..”, 2009, P. 171, “Nobody can say that Ambulocetus was descended from Pakicetus – or that Basilosaurus was descended from Rodhocetus”.

Dr. Jonathan Safati comments in, ‘The Greatest Hoax..’ P.144: “The whale – from land-mammal transition leaves major gaps unfilled. There has been conflict about which land mammals are ancestral, from mesonychid to artiodactyl—Pakicetus was first drawn as sea creature based on no bones below the neck and claimed to be a ‘perfect intermediate’. A more complete skeleton was found, showing that it was a fast-running land mammal. The enormously long Basilosaurus had features showing that it could not be ancestral to modern whales.” Here it is noteworthy that among the various alleged hypothesized ancestral whales, only Basilosaurus had a tail fluke, as per ‘modern’ whales. Furthermore, we read that, “The origin of dorsal fins – which most cetaceans have – is a problem for evolution. If cetaceans evolved from land animals, what did the dorsal fin evolve from? Their supposed land dwelling ancestors had no limb standing up on their backs! Ichthyosaurs, extinct sea reptiles, also had dorsal fins. Yet although they are said to have evolved from land-living ancestors, there is no fossil evidence”, (‘Original View’ No. 67, Creation Resources Trust 2012). Similarly, the problem of the origin of the Tail Fluke of Whales from alleged ancestors, which lacked any such structure from which they could be derived, or anchored remains.

Regarding the origin of Tortoises and Turtles, Dr. Sarfati comments: “Tortoises and turtles have a superb fossil record because of their tough shells but their ancestors remain an enigma. The earliest representatives had fully formed shells…Even the recently discovered Odontochelys is hardly convincing: some experts believe that it lost the carapace, which leaves unexplained where the fully-shelled turtles came from…The fossil record overall, contradicts evolutionary expectations – that’s why Dawkins wants to downplay its significance.” Dr J. Sarfati, ‘The Greatest Hoax on Earth?’ P. 144 .

1 . “How and why feathers originated is one of the greatest mysteries in vertebrate biology.”

D. Naish and P.M Barrett, ‘Dinosaurs|: How they Lived & Evolved’, Natural History Museum, London, 2018, |P. 186.

On the Origin of Life: Dr. Sarfati states (P.247, 248)

  • “Origin of Life from non living chemicals has been an article of blind faith, not science and has been so from Darwin to Dawkins.
  • Darwin’s main error, repeated in much chemical evolutionary literature, was in considering life as an assembly of chemicals rather than as an information processing machine.
  • How did molecular hardware get to write its own software? Natural selection cannot explain the origin of first life.
  • Machines are required to process this information. But this information includes instructions to build these machines. A chicken and egg problem.
  • These machines need energy from the ATP synthase motor. But this cannot be built without the instructions or reading machinery.”

As Prof. Paul Davies puts it in his article ‘What is Life?’ New Scientist, 2 Feb. 2019, P. 29, “The fact is, on our current understanding, life is an enigma.”

Dr. Sarfati further comments, P. 44, “Information theory is a whole new branch of science that has effectively destroyed the last underpinnings of evolution – explained fully in the monumental work ‘In the Beginning was Information’, by Dr. Werner Gitt, recently retired professor and Head of Information Technology at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology. There is even a specialized branch called bio-informatics, the study of biological information.”

One notes that in his book ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’ P. 129-131 (and see also P. 405), in support of his own position, Prof. Dawkins cites the work of Dr. Richard Lenski on mutations, in the bacterium E. Coli. However, he (Dr. Dawkins) persists in his failure to provide a single significant, convincing, “example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the Information content of the genome,” (Ref. Provided in my first ‘Evolution Delusion’ H &D article, July-August 2018). Regarding Dr. Lenski’s experiments, Prof. Michael Behe, concludes that “Nothing fundamentally new has been produced. No new protein-protein interactions, no new molecular machines – some large evolutionary advantages have been conferred by breaking things.—Breaking some genes and turning others off, however, won’t make much of anything.” Biochemist Dr. Matti Leisola at the Helsinki University of Technology comments, “Put simply, for bacteria this is ‘evolution’ by losing or damaging genes.—Prof. Behe again puts the experimental results in perspective; “It was an interesting, if modest result – a gene had been turned on under conditions where it was normally turned off.” Casey Luskin elaborates: “What really happened? A switch that normally represses expression of Cit T under oxic conditions was broken, so the citric uptake path got turned on. This is not the evolution of a new molecular feature. It’s the breaking of a molecular feature – a repressor switch.” So again, a minor innovation was achieved by breaking stuff. This is no way to build a cathedral. Or a new animal. Or a new plant. Or a new kind of cell. Or even a novel protein.”

Ref: Dr. Matti Leisola: ‘Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design’, Discovery Inst. 2018, P. 164, 165.

Thus we have Dr. Lenski’s experiment starting with E. coli bacteria and ending with E. coli bacteria, with the origin of E. coli bacteria left unexplained and with Dr. Dawkin’s best and only example proving to be hopelessly inadequate and yet supportive of Professor Alan B. Linton’s verdict, “Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.”

Ref: Times Higher Educational Supplement, ‘Scant Search for the Maker’, Alan B. Linton, professor of bacteriology, Bristol University (April 20, 2001), 29.

One could thus fairly say, that in the context of attempting to provide evidence for the hypothetical

evolution from bacteria to man, the above results are not encouraging.

Concerning the origin of Information, we read, “In 2009, Dr. A.C. McIntosh published a ground breaking-research paper in the International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics Vol. 4, No. 4, 2009 in which he showed that biological structures contain coded instructions that are not defined by the matter and energy of the molecules carrying this information. Therefore the genetic information required to code for complex structures like proteins, requires information to come from external sources of information and cannot arise from natural environmental forces. That is, information has a distinct non-material nature and cannot arise as a result of some input of random energy. This research paper provides very powerful support for the concept of an external super-intelligent designer being responsible for the complex information contained within each type of living organism.” Ref: Dr. John F. Ashton, PhD., Adjunct Professor of Biomedical Sciences, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia, ‘Evolution Impossible: 12 Reasons Why Evolution Cannot Explain the Origin of Life on Earth’, P.171, 2012.

Professor Ashton refers to the “glaring and fatal deficiency in any materialist mechanism for macro- evolution. He says: “Life depends on complex non material language structures for its detailed specification. Material processes are utterly impotent to create such structures, or to modify them to specify some novel function…Coded language structures are non-material in nature and absolutely require a non-material explanation.” P.167, 168.

As recently as 2003 evolutionist and paleontologist A.G. Fisher who is well-respected in the scientific community, admitted, “Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remains unknown”, (Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, fossil section), Ref: ‘Persuaded by the Evidence’, Sharp & Bergman, 2008, P. 198, 199.

Regarding the life cycle of Butterflies and Moths, from egg to caterpillar, to chrysalis to adult, – or Metamorphosis, we read: “The evolution of insect metamorphosis remains a genuine biological mystery even today,” (Scientific American, 10 August 2010). “No credible theory to explain a step-by-step origin of metamorphosis has been proposed.” (Original View, No. 88, Creation Resources Trust, ‘The Non-Evolution of Insects’, 2019).

In his book ‘Doubts about Darwin’, Baker Books, 2003, P.10 & 20, the author Thomas Woodward writes: “In the course of hearing how key Design advocates came to their current view, it became clear that their entry into the movement stemmed from intellectual or scientific – not religious –reasons…Several of the founders frequently relate a vivid tale of how they previously had assumed the validity of Darwinian scenarios and were later shocked to discover major weaknesses in the case for Darwinism. Typically this intellectual epiphany leads to further reading and research, which cements the new radical doubt about the theory’s plausibility.”

Regarding this we read: “The following problems have proved utterly intractable, not only for the mutation – selection mechanism, but also for any other undirected natural process proposed to date: the origin of life, the origin of the genetic code, the origin of multi-cellular life, the origin of sexuality, the scarcity of transitional forms in the geological record, the biological big bang that occurred in the Cambrian era, the development of complex organ systems and the development of irreducibly complex molecular machines. These are just a few of the more serious difficulties that confront every theory of evolution that posits only undirected natural processes. It is thus sheer arrogance for Darwinists like Richard Dawkins – to charge design theorists with being ignorant or stupid, or wicked or insane for denying the all-sufficiency of undirected natural processes in biology–” (Ref: ‘The Design Inference’ Dr. William Dembski, Cambridge University Press, 1998, P. 231).

Dr. Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History makes an astonishing admission. He says, “We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change] knowing all the while that it does not”. (Ref: Time Frames: The Evolution of Punctuated Equilibria, Princeton University Press, 1985, P. 144, 145). As Prof. John Lennox remarks: “But Why? What conceivable reason could there be for members of an academic community, to suppress what they know to be the truth – unless it were something which supported a world view, which they had already decided was unacceptable?” Ref: God’s Undertaker, 2009, P. 114.

Regarding Race: All the Races of Men are anatomically and biologically fully-Human. The differences between them being essentially cultural rather than genetic.

Tribalism and Territorialism can be seen as part of our innate defensive and social programming. Hence Nationalism/ Patriotism is instinctive and natural and the Nation State can be seen as an extension of the family group. It is evident that Man, like every other created being or type, would require a built-in survival instinct or program which would involve the deployment of defensive, territorial strategies and responses to any perceived threats, or environmental changes and conditions.

It does not follow from such considerations, as Mr. Freeman implies, that Humans evolved from non-human ancestral Primates. Regarding this, the latest information received on the subject is as follows: “As things stand the so-called fossil record for human evolution is still nothing but a collection of apes and humans with no transitional forms linking the two groups. This inconvenient fact was the subject of a 2016 Royal Society research paper bearing the provocative title. “From Australopithecus to Homo: the transition that wasn’t.”

In the Royal Society paper, the researchers bluntly state: “Although the transition from Australopithecus to Homo is usually thought of as a momentous transformation, the fossil record bearing on the origin and earliest evolution of Homo is virtually undocumented.”

Ref: Kimbel, W.H. and B Villmoare, 2016. ‘From Australopithecus to Homo: the transition that wasn’t’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.371 (1698): 20150248. Source: Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins PhD (Genetics) “Recent Humans with Archaic Features Upend Evolution”, Acts & Facts 48 (4) ICR. ORG, April 2019, P.15.

Perhaps the most appropriate comment with which to conclude, is that from Dr. Jonathan Wells, a qualified scientist, a post doctoral biologist in the Department of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, who says: “The Darwinian paradigm is in serious trouble of the kind that matters most in science: it doesn’t fit the evidence.” (Ref: Darwinism Defeated?, ed. P.E. Johnson, et al, Regent College Publishing, 1999, P. 137).

For further arguments, evidence and additional reference sources, see: ‘The Evolution Delusion’, Heritage and Destiny, Issue 85, July-August, 2018.

Stephen Wylie,

Surbiton, Surrey, England 5 June 2019

Leave a Reply

© 2011 Western Destiny · RSS · Designed by Theme Junkie · Powered by WordPress