Evolution FAQ -- Is Evolution a Fact ?

Is Evolution a Fact?

  1. Is Evolution a Fact?
  2. What do you mean -- Isn't Evolution a Fact?
  3. Has Atheistic Macro*Evolution been proved to be a FACT ?

Who needs Evolution ?

  1. If evolution were true, would it disprove God?
  2. Do Atheists need evolution to be true?

What is Evolution ?

  1. Is it a complete description of evolution to say that evolution means "change over time"?
  2. What does Darwin's Theory of Evolution say?
  3. Has this (theory described above) been proved?
  4. What is Microevolution ?
  5. What is Micro*evolution ?
  6. What is Macroevolution?
  7. What is Macro*evolution?
  8. What is Atheistic Macro*evolution?

Is there evidence for Macro*Evolution ?

  1. What evidence do Biology Textbooks commonly provide as Proof of Macro*Evolution?
  2. Do any of the items above prove Atheistic Macro*Evolution?

Does the alleged evidence prove Macro*Evolution ?

  1. Does Selective Breeding (Artificial Selection) prove Macro*Evolution?
  2. Does Selective Breeding (Artificial Selection) provide evidence AGAINST Macro*Evolution?
  3. Is this (observation above) an experimental proof (or experimental evidence) that Darwinism is wrong?
  4. Does the capacity of bacteria to acquire antibiotic resistance prove Macro*Evolution?
  5. Does the ability of a given species to change over the years prove Macro*Evolution? (e.g., Asians becoming taller as they move to North America)

  6. Why is this not proof of macro*evolution?
  7. Is Atheistic Macro*Evolution proved by morphological similarities between creatures?
  8. Is Atheistic Macro*Evolution proved by genetic similarities between creatures?
  9. Is Atheistic Macro*Evolution proved by heritability of characeristics ?
  10. Is Atheistic Macro*Evolution proved by the fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old?
  11. Within neo-Darwinian theory, arent mutations supposed to be random, and arent the vast majority of them (> 99.99 <) harmful if not lethal, rather than beneficial?

  12. Can you create a new complex organ (e.g., the eye, or gills, or feathers) by a single mutation?
  13. How many mutations would it take to create a new functional complex organ (e.g., eye, gills, feathers)?
  14. Isnt this a problem for Atheistic Macro*Evolution?
  15. Why is this a problem for Atheistic Macro*Evolutionism?
  16. What do those who wish to believe in Atheistic Macro*Evolution do to get around this problem?

  17. Has this sequence been experimentally demonstrated?
  18. Has even a part of this sequence been experimentally demonstrated?
  19. Then why should we believe that there is such a sequence of good mutations (each of which conferred an incremental fitness on the organism) ?
  20. To believe in such a series of very low-probability events (to form a creature)... isnt this like believing in atheist miracles?
  21. Was Darwin able to explain the origins of gills and eyes by natural selection?

  22. Are Darwinists now able to explain the origins of gills and eyes by natural selection?
  23. How complex is a living cell?
  24. Is the incredible complexity of a living cell something that was predicted by (as a natural consequence of the theory of) Darwinism?
  25. Is the incredible complexity of a living cell something that was unexpected by Darwinism?
  26. Is the incredible complexity of a living cell something that is more consistent with Intelligent Design than with Darwinism (i.e., random-chance and natural selection) ?

  27. What test did Darwin propose for his theory?
  28. Is the test (of his theory) that Darwin proposed an attempt to make his theory essentially unfalsifiable ?
  29. Why does Darwin's test make his theory essentially unfalsifiable?
  30. Why is it important for us to recognize that Darwinian Macro*Evolution is NOT falsifiable?
  31. Has anyone accepted Darwin's challenge to test his theory (i.e., regarding the formation of complex organs or systems by numerous slight modifications)?

  32. What has been the response of the Evolutionary Establishment to Behe's evidence (for irreducible complexity)?
  33. Have there been any experimental demonstrations (by Darwinians) that prove that Behe's irreducibly-complex-structures are not irreducibly complex? (i.e., that the structures could arise by a step-by-step progression with slight modifications and with functional and functioning intermediate structures)
  34. So, has Darwinism been invalidated ? (shown to have "absolutely broken down" -- to paraphrase Darwin)
  35. Do Darwinists accept this fact?
  36. What is the Darwinian response?

  37. Are there evolutionary biologists who admit that this is true (that Darwinists have not experimentally proven the arising of complex organs by series of slight modifications with functioning intermediates)?
  38. Has Behe disproved Atheistic Macro*Evolution?
  39. In what sense is Atheistc Macro*Evolution a Pseudoscience?
  40. Evolutionist Jerry Coyne (Univ of Chicago) asserts "We have realized for decades that natural selection can indeed produce systems that, over time, become integrated to the point where they appear to be irreducibly complex."
  41. Is there any experimental evidence that proves that natural selection can produce such apparently irreducibly complex systems?

  42. How then can evolutionists such as Jerry Coyne be so certain that "natural selection can indeed produce [such] systems" ?
  43. Has the evolution of the eye by natural selection been experimentally demonstrated?
  44. Is it an article of faith then, to claim that the eye has evolved by natural selection (and random chance mutation)?
  45. The eye is an incredibly complex organ. Is it believed to have evolved more than once by random chance > natural selection (in our biosphere).
  46. How many separate times is the eye believed (by Darwinists) to have evolved (independently evolved) in separate alleged lineages of animals?

  47. So, this incredibly complex organ, evolved independently (in different lineages of creatures) about 30 times ?
  48. Doesnt this seem a bit difficult to believe?
  49. Why do people believe it then?
  50. Did Darwin explain how the eye evolved?
  51. Did Darwin explain where the initial light-sensitive cells came from?

  52. Are such light-sensitive cells very complex.
  53. Could they arise by random-chance?
  54. Could they arise by random-chance > natural selection?
  55. How did these light-sensitive cells come into existence in the first place?
  56. If we were to take the existence of such light-sensitive cells as a given, can random-chance > natural selection create an eye?

  57. The National Science Teachers Association has claimed that "Computer simulations of natural selection are common, such as the computer simulation of the evolution of the eye as described in Dawkins [book]." Dawkins refers to "computer models of evolving eyes" in his book River Out of Eden. Are there really such computer models?
  58. Some evolutionists accuse scientists such as Prof. Michael Behe (of irreducible-complexity fame) of not believing in Atheistic Macro*Evolution due to "the argument from personal incredulity". What does this mean?
  59. The bacterial motor (flagellum) needs about 200 parts to function. Have Darwinists experimentally demonstrated how these parts originated and how they became integrated into a functioning motor?
  60. Do Darwinists admit then that the bacterial motor could be irreducibly complex?
  61. How do some Darwinists try to avoid the inference to irreducible-complexity of the bacterial motor?

  62. Does this prove that the bacterial motor is reducibly-simple (the opposite of irreducibly-complex) ?
  63. Why do Darwinists then use this evidence as proof that bacterial motor is not IRC?
  64. Can Natural selection + mutation create the bacterial motor (flagellum) ?
  65. The atheist scientist Fred Hoyle calculated the probability of the enzymes needed for life originating by random chance. What was this probability?
  66. What did this low number (together with other such calculations and observations) indicate to Hoyle?

  67. Can Atheistic Macro*Evolution be observed or empirically tested?
  68. Does this mean that Atheistic Macro*Evolution is not a legitimate science?
  69. If Atheistic Macro*Evolution is not a legitimate science, then what is it?
  70. Is Survival of the Fittest a Tautology (a vacuous circular statement)?
  71. When Darwin published his Origin of the Species in 1859, were his most vocal opponents Christian Fundamentalists?

  72. Why were Paleontologists opposed to Darwin's theory?
  73. What did Darwin's theory predict (in terms of the fossil record)?
  74. What does the fossil record show?
  75. Do these observations match the predictions of Darwin's theory?
  76. Do these fossil observations contradict the predictions of Darwin's theory?

  77. Do these fossil observations "disprove" Darwinian theory?
  78. Do Darwinists accept this verdict?
  79. How do Darwinists try to avoid this verdict?
  80. Do any Evolutionists admit that the fossil record does not match Darwinian predictions?

  81. If Darwinism is correct, and mutations are completely random, what should we see in the fossil record?
  82. What did Darwin expect (predict) from the fossil record?
  83. Does the fossil record match Darwin's prediction?
  84. Does this mean that Darwinism has been falsified (shown to be wrong)?
  85. What does the fossil record show instead (of what Darwin predicted)?

  86. Is this contrary to Darwin's expectation / prediction for the fossil record?
  87. Does this mean that macro*evolutionary Darwinism has been falsified (shown to be wrong)?
  88. If neo-Darwinism is true, what should we expect in terms of incipient and evolving-organs in animals that are alive today?
  89. Are the two features above expectations/ predictions/ natural consequences of neo-Darwinism?
  90. As we study creatures that are alive today, do we see a near-infinite variety of organs that have no function (that might be useful later)?

  91. As we study creatures that are alive today, do we see a near-infinite variety of organs that have partial function (but not complete function) which are providing the creature a slight natural-selection edge on survival?
  92. Does this mean that Macro*Evolutionary neo-Darwinism has been falsified (shown to be wrong)?
  93. How many mutations would it take to create an eye?
  94. Has it been experimentlly proved that these millions of mutations did occurr (or could occur) by random chance?
  95. If Darwinian macro-evolution is true, a natural prediction/ expectation would be near-infinite numbers of transitional species/ creatures. Do we see such near-infinite numbers of transitional species/ creatures ?

  96. If Darwinian macro-evolution is true, a natural prediction/ expectation would be near-infinite numbers of transitional fossils. Do we see such near-infinite numbers of transitional fossils?
  97. What did the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould say about transitional fossils ?
  98. Are the evolutionary trees that we see in text books proved by fossils?
  99. What does paleontologist & evolutionary biologist Robert Carrol state about intermediate fossils?
  100. How about Archaeopteryx. Is it a transitional fossil?

  101. Was Archaeopteryx a fossil that is transitional to modern birds?
  102. Are there transitional fossils that lead to and from Archaeopteryx ?
  103. What about the "horse evolution" series presented in biology text books? Doesnt that series prove macro*evolution?
  104. What is the horse series, and is it truly a series?
  105. What is the Cambrian explosion?

  106. Do leading evolutionists recognize the sudden appearance of the phyla/ fossils at the Cambrian explosion?
  107. If Darwinism were true, what would we expect to see in the fossil strata that are before the Cambrian explosion ?
  108. Do we see "vast piles of strata rich in fossils" before the Cambrian explosion ?
  109. Was the Cambrian explosion a prediction of Darwinism ?
  110. Was the Cambrian explosion a prediction of neo-Darwinism ?

  111. Was the Cambrian explosion a prediction of The Modern Synthesis (Evolution) ?
  112. Is the Cambrian explosion a natural consequence / prediction of (neo)Darwinism ?
  113. Does the Cambrian explosion contradict the natural consequence / prediction / expectations of (neo)Darwinism ?
  114. Does the Cambrian explosion falsify (neo)Darwinism ?
  115. Based on the fossil evidence, could the Cambrian explosion of life have happened instantaneously ?

  116. Based on the fossil evidence, what is the possible range of duration for the Cambrian explosion?
  117. If the Cambrian explosion occurred over 10 million years, rather than instantaneously, would that solve the "Cambrian Explosion problem" for (neo)Darwinism ?
  118. Why not?
  119. How do some evolutionists try to explain away the Cambrian discontinuity ?

  120. What do the Chinese Cambrian/pre-Cambrian fossil-beds show?
  121. Do complex organs such as eyes appear in the Cambrian explsion ?
  122. Is this a natural consequence/prediction of neo-Darwinism ?
  123. Is this a surprise for neo-Darwinism ?
  124. Does this evidence Falsify neo-Darwinism ?

  125. What is the significance of the Cambrian / pre-Cambrian fossils?
  126. Is it a fact that the fossil record shows a sequence of fossil species consistent with evolution (except for the occasional gap) ?
  127. What does Darwin's tree-of-life predict (in terms of organisms and phyla) ?
  128. What does the fossil evidence show (in terms of organisms and phyla) ?
  129. Do evolutionists recognize that the fossil record shows the pattern described above?
  130. Is the fossil record full of evidence for evolution?

  131. Do the pre-Cambrian fossils show a gradual sequential progression from simple to complex (as would be expected if Darwinism were true)?
  132. Do evolutionists admit that transitional fossils are generally lacking at the species level ?
  133. Do evolutionists recognize that stasis (no change) followed by sudden appearance of new species is the norm, not the exception, in the fossil record?
  134. How did Evolutionists Gould & Eldgredge try to explain the sudden appearance of species that was the norm (not the exception) in the fossil record?

  135. Was such behavior of fossils a prediction/ expectation of neo-Darwinism ?
  136. Does such behavior of fossils falsify neo-Darwinism ?
  137. Does the theory of punctuated equilibrium provide an adequate empirically proved mechanism for the sudden appearance of the vast majority of species ?
  138. Is punctuated equilibrium the same as the "hopeful monster" (saltation) theory of Prof Goldschmidt (university of California at Berkeley) ?
  139. According to the "hopeful monster" saltation theory of Prof Goldschmidt were there transitional species for every new suddenly appearing fossil species?

  140. According to the "Punctuated Equilibrium" theory of Prof Gould & Dr. Eldredge were there gradual transitional species for every new species that makes a sudden appearance in the fossil record ?
  141. If so, why isnt the fossil record filled with near-infinite numbers of transitional species?
  142. But the other, non-transitional species did fossilze?
  143. Isnt it a bit difficult for an unbiased, rational, intelligent person to believe that the transitional species didnt fossilize (while millions of the non-transitional species did fossilize) ?
  144. Does it take a measure of faith to believe this -- that the transitional species are almost entirely missing (except for rare alleged exceptions) simply because the transitional fossils didnt fossilize ?

  145. According to Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET), why didnt the near-infinite numbers of transitional species fossilize ?
  146. So, Punctuated Equilibrium Theory is saying that the transitions happened very fast and so the transitional fossils were not fossilized ?
  147. So, if the species transition happens very fast, why dont we see near-infinite numbers of new species arising all around us today?
  148. So, Punctuated Equilibrium Theory is saying that species transitions occur too fast to be seen (by the fossil record) and too slow to be seen (by experiments and observations today) ?
  149. Doesn't this sound like special pleading? Like we are making up excuses for why the transition cant be seen by any method (either fossil record, or experimental observations) ?
  150. The "non-fossilizing of transitional species"... isnt this the same excuse as the "fossil record is incomplete" excuse used by gradualist neo-Darwinism ?
  151. Didnt the "fossil record is incomplete" excuse make traditional neo-Darwinism untestable and unfalsifiable in this area?
  152. Does the "too fast to fossilize" excuse do the same for Punctuated Equilibrium Theory, making the theory untestable and unfalsifiable in this area?
  153. So, based on the testability/ falsifiability criterion for science, does neo-Darwinism qualify as legitimate science?
  154. And based on the testability/ falsifiability criterion for science, does neo-Darwinism qualify as a non-testable, non-falsifiable pseudo-science?
  155. So, based on the testability/ falsifiability criterion for science, does Punctuated-Equilibrium Theory qualify as legitimate science?
  156. And based on the testability/ falsifiability criterion for science, does Punctuated-Equilibrium Theory qualify as a non-testable, non-falsifiable pseudo-science?

  157. Has Atheistic Macro*Evolution been proved to be a FACT ?


Is Evolution a Fact?

Nope.

Not in the sense generally used by Darwinists. See below for explanation.


What do you mean -- Isn't Evolution a Fact?

In practice, the term Evolution refers to two different concepts (a) Micro*Evolution, and (b) Atheistic Macro*Evolution. Of these...

Micro*Evolution is a Fact.

Atheistic Macro*Evolution is NOT a Fact.

Rather, the evidence indicates that Atheistic Macro*Evolution is a pseudoscience and a collection of myths, which have not been experimentally proved.

Note: see below if needed for definitions of Micro*Evolution and Atheistic Macro*Evolution.


Has Atheistic Macro*Evolution been proved to be a FACT ?

Absolutely not.

All of the alleged proofs for Atheistic Macro*Evolution that we have examined, have turned out to be invalid, or faked, or evidence for Micro*evolution (and not Atheistic Macro*Evolution).


If evolution were true, would it disprove God?

No.


Do Atheists need evolution to be true?

Yes.

William Provine (evo bio at Cornell Univ) calls Darwinism the greatest engine of atheism devised by man.

Richard Dawkins (zoologist at Oxford Univ) said "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist"


Is it a complete description of evolution to say that evolution means "change over time"?

Nope.

Both evolutionists and creationists (even YEC) recognize that change happens over time. Children of creationists grow up to become adults, and the same with children of evolutionists. Children change over time to become adults. This does not mean that they are evolving into another species...

What is in question is whether Atheistic Macro*Evolution has indeed occured.


What does Darwin's Theory of Evolution say?

That life began on earth in the form of single-celled creatures which evolved into multicellular creatures which through millions of years evolved into higher life forms (including humans) without guidance or assistance from any Intelligent Designer (such as God).


Has this (theory described above) been proved?

Absolutely not.


What is Microevolution ?

Darwinian theory tells us how a certain amount of diversity in life forms can develop once we have various types of complex living organisms already in existence. If a small population of birds happens to migrate to an isolated island, for example, a combination of inbreeding, mutation, and natural selection may cause this isolated population to develop different characteristics from those possessed by the ancestral population on the mainland.

This is Microevolution.

When the theory is understood in this limited sense, Darwinian evolution is uncontroversial, and has no important philosophical or theological implications.

This answer is adapted from a lecture by Prof. Philip Johnson


What is Micro*evolution ?

Adaptation resulting in minor changes within a species (e.g., changes in beak size in Finches).

Adaption resulting in minor changes within closely related species.

Can include limited speciation.


What is Macroevolution?

Evolutionary biologists are not content merely to explain how variation occurs within limits (Microevolution), however.

They aspire to answer a much broader question (Macroevolution)-which is how complex organisms like birds, and flowers, and human beings came into existence in the first place.

This answer is adapted from a lecture by Prof. Philip Johnson


What is Macro*evolution?

Origin of new body-plans (e.g., new phyla).

Origin of new functional complex organs.

Origin of new functional complex biochemical systems.


What is Atheistic Macro*evolution?

An Atheist-faith-based belief that the following occurred with NO intelligent design or guidance.

We refer to Atheistic Macro*Evolution as an atheist-faith-based belief, because none of these items (above) have been empirically demonstrated (or experimentally proved) to have arisen, or to be capable of having arisen, by atheistic evolutionary processes without intelligent design or guidance.


What evidence do Biology Textbooks commonly provide as Proof of Macro*Evolution?

The list below captures items we commonly come across in biology textbooks (offered as alleged proof of Macro*evolution). Our intention is to keep expanding this list as more such alleged proofs are brought to our attention by our evolutionist friends.

  1. Artificial Selection (selective breeding).
  2. Antibiotic resistance in Bacteria.
  3. Ability of a given species to change over the years.
  4. Morphological similarities between creatures.
  5. Genetic similarities between creatures.
  6. Heritability of characteristics (across generations of a species).
  7. The fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
  8. The existence of random mutations.

We will examine each of these in turn in the FAQ below.


Do any of the items above prove Atheistic Macro*Evolution?

Nope.

We will examine each of the alleged proofs in turn in the FAQ below.

And we find that NONE of them prove Atheistic Macro*Evolution.


Does Selective Breeding (Artificial Selection) prove Macro*Evolution?

Nope.

Selective breeding of dogs creates other dogs. Selective breeding of pigeons creates other pigeons. Selective breeding of horses creates other horses.

These are examples of artificial adaptation (micro*evolution) not macro*evolution.

There is no experimental evidence showing that selective breeding of pigeons creates a horse. Or that selective breeding of dogs creates an elephant, or a cat or a mongoose or a snake, or a roach.


Does Selective Breeding (Artificial Selection) provide evidence AGAINST Macro*Evolution?

Yes.

When we breed dogs, we find that the dog species can be changed up to certain limits. Beyond these limits the dogs are not viable (they die off). The further we move away from the norm of dog-species, the weaker the resulting purebred dogs, the more susceptible to diseases and weakness which ultimately kill them off.

The same phenomenon is observed when breeding pigeons or horses.

This observation is the opposite of what we would expect if Darwinism were true.

If Darwinism were true, the natural expectation is that species should be able to easily change from one to another, and that each species should be infinitely plastic (changeable without any problems). But instead we observe the opposite.


Is this (observation above) an experimental proof (or experimental evidence) that Darwinism is wrong?

Yes.


Does the capacity of bacteria to acquire antibiotic resistance prove Macro*Evolution?

Nope.

A bacterium typically obtains antibiotic resistance from another bacterium (often through exchange of segments of DNA).

The bacterium is a bacterium before the DNA exchange; and the bacterium is a bacterium after the DNA exchange.

So, "acquisition of antibiotic resistance" is an example of micro*evolution in action, not macro*evolution in action.


Does the ability of a given species to change over the years prove Macro*Evolution? (e.g., Asians becoming taller as they move to North America)

Nope.

This is an example of micro*evolution in action, not macro*evolution.

Note: increased protein consumption has been correlated with increasing height of a given population. This does not prove macro*evolution.


Why is this not proof of macro*evolution?

Notice that in the case of the taller Asians, we have a taller version of the same species.

Darwin's theory however says we will get a new species not just a taller version of the same species. I.e., for Macro*evolution to be true, we need to obtain a new specices, nut just a taller version of the same species.


Is Atheistic Macro*Evolution proved by morphological similarities between creatures?

Nope.

(1) The fact that a car has similarites with an ox-cart does not prove that the car evolved **without intelligent design** from an ox-cart.

(2) Furthermore, if similarity proves common descent by atheistic processes, then (by symmetry), dis-similarity should prove absence of common descent by atheistic processes...

IOW, if three points of similarity prove common descent (by atheistic processes) then three points of dis-similarity should prove absence of common descent...

However this is not however how the Darwinian game is played...

Because, if we permitted this kind of reasoning, we can prove that no species descended (by atheistic processes) from any other species.

(3) Furthermore, if similarities prove common descent, then there should be no similarities between organisms that Darwinists claim do not share common ancestors. I.e., if two creatures are NOT related by common descent, then there should be no points of similarity between them (if Darwinian "logic" is correct). However in practice there are innumerable cases of creatures which share significant points of similarity, which are believed by evolutionists to NOT be related by common descent from a common ancestor.

These points above show that Atheistic Macro*Evolution is NOT proved by morphological similarities between creatures (despite protestations to the contrary by many evolutionists).


Is Atheistic Macro*Evolution proved by genetic similarities between creatures?

Nope.

Same kind of reasoning as above...

I.e., ...

(1) The fact that a car has similarites with an ox-cart does not prove that the car evolved **without intelligent design** from an ox-cart.

(2) Furthermore, if genetic similarity proves common descent by atheistic processes, then genetic dis-similarity shoud prove absence of common descent by atheistic processes...

IOW, if three points of genetic similarity prove common descent (by atheistic processes) then three points of genetic dis-similarity should prove absence of common descent...

However this is not however how the Darwinian game is played...

Because, if we permitted this kind of reasoning, we can prove that no species descended (by atheistic processes) from any other species.

(3) Furthermore, if genetic similarities prove common descent, then there should be no genetic similarities between organisms that Darwinists claim do not share common ancestors. I.e., if two creatures are NOT related by common descent, then there should be no points of similarity between them (if Darwinian "logic" is correct). However in practice there are many cases of creatures which share significant points of genetic similarity, which are believed by evolutionists to NOT be related by common descent from a common ancestor.

These points above show that Atheistic Macro*Evolution is NOT proved by genetic similarities between creatures (despite protestations to the contrary by many evolutionists).


Is Atheistic Macro*Evolution proved by heritability of characeristics ?

Nope.

The fact that Johnny's nose looks like his dad's does not prove that Johnny is going to evolve into another species.


Is Atheistic Macro*Evolution proved by the fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old?

Nope.

The existence of a 4.5 billion year old earth does not prove that Atheistic Macro*Evolution is true.


Within neo-Darwinian theory, arent mutations supposed to be random, and arent the vast majority of them (> 99.99 %) harmful if not lethal, rather than beneficial?

Yes (to both questions).


Can you create a new complex organ (e.g., the eye, or gills, or feathers) by a single mutation?

Nope.


How many mutations would it take to create a new functional complex organ (e.g., eye, gills, feathers)?

Thousands if not millions.


Isnt this a problem for Atheistic Macro*Evolution?

Yes.


Why is this a problem for Atheistic Macro*Evolutionism?

Because the probability of obtaining one good needed mutation is very small. To get 100 such needed mutations, you have to multiply all of the small probabilities (of each mutation occurring) which results in such a low probability that any rational person would be justified in saying the occurrence of the needed 100 "good" mutations is impossible for all practical purposes.

This situation is even worse given the need for 1000's (or millions) of such good mutations. The probability of them occuring as and when needed is so infinitismally low as to be zero for all practical purposes.


What do those who wish to believe in Atheistic Macro*Evolution do to get around this problem?

They ask us to believe by faith that there was an extended series of such good mutations each of which made the creature slightly more fit... and natural selection selected each of these mutations until finally one day, voila, you have a functioning eye (or other functioning complex new organ).


Has this sequence been experimentally demonstrated?

Nope.


Has even a part of this sequence been experimentally demonstrated?

Nope.


Then why should we believe that there is such a sequence of good mutations (each of which conferred an incremental fitness on the organism) ?

Because we have to believe in such a series if we are to reject the concept of an intelligent designer who overcame these probabilistic limitations using his intelligence.


To believe in such a series of very low-probability events (to form a creature)... isnt this like believing in atheist miracles?

Yes.


Was Darwin able to explain the origins of gills and eyes by natural selection?

Nope. Not in any experimentally rigorous way.


Are Darwinists now able to explain the origins of gills and eyes by natural selection?

Not in any experimentally rigorous way.

Attempted explanations are largely exercises in hand-waving, without any verification with experimental rigour.


How complex is a living cell?

A single living cell is as complex as an entire major city (e.g., as complex as New York City).

Each living cell has (a) factories, (b) power plants, (c) transportation systems, (d) food processing plants, (e) packaging plants, (f) storage sheds, (g) workers, (h) supervisors, (i) copy-editors, (j) proof-readers, (h) truck drivers, (i) copy machines, (j) faxes, (k) computers, (l) vacuum cleaners, (m) janitors, (n) sewage treatment plants, (o) sewage systems, and (p) innumerable machines of every kind.


Is the incredible complexity of a living cell something that was predicted by (as a natural consequence of the theory of) Darwinism?

Nope.


Is the incredible complexity of a living cell something that was unexpected by Darwinism?

Yes.


Is the incredible complexity of a living cell something that is more consistent with Intelligent Design than with Darwinism (i.e., random-chance and natural selection) ?

Yes.


What test did Darwin propose for his theory?

He said "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."


Is the test (of his theory) that Darwin proposed an attempt to make his theory essentially unfalsifiable ?

Yes.


Why does Darwin's test make his theory essentially unfalsifiable?

Because Darwin is basically arguing that if he can "imagine" a series of slight modifications (without any experimental demonstration of the viability of such intermediate organs) that is all it takes to validate his theory.

In other words, he has come with a new definition for science. If Darwin (or any of his followers) can ***imagine*** something that supports their theory, that means the theory has been validated.

Legitimate science does not function in this manner. Cults do.

In legitimate science, experimental evidence/proof is needed to validate a theory or a hypothesis.

Within Darwinism, such experimental evidence/proof is NOT needed to validate Darwinian theories or hypotheses. All it takes to "validate" (in Darwinist's minds) their conjectures, speculations and hypotheses is their ability to imagine that they happened.

In practice, this is exactly what we see today within the Darwinian fold... Lots of conjectures and speculations with no experimental demonstration or proof.

This methodology (accepted and practiced by Darwinists at large) makes Darwinism essentially unfalsifiable.


Why is it important for us to recognize that Darwinian Macro*Evolution is NOT falsifiable?

Because one of the hallmarks of a true science is that its hypotheses and theories should be Falsifiable.

We should be able to clearly demonstrate that the hypothesis or theory is False by running an experiment and comparing its results against the predictions of the hypotheis/theory. If our experimental results do not match theh theory's predictions that would indicate that the theory is False (i.e., the theory has been falsified).

If a theory can not be falsified, then the theory is not Science. Rather it is Pseudo-Science.

Based on the Criterion of Falsifiability, Darwinism is not legitimate science. Rather it is Pseudo-Science (i.e., atheist faith pretending to be science).


Has anyone accepted Darwin's challenge to test his theory (i.e., regarding the formation of complex organs or systems by numerous slight modifications)?

Yes. Prof Michael Behe.

After a good amount of research in this area, he wrote a book titled "Darwin's black box".

In that book, he lists and discusses a variety of biochemical machines and systems (within living organisms) that have irreducible complexity. I.e., it takes a certain minimum level of complexity for the machine to even begin to be functional.

Such machines (with irreducible complexity) can not be evolved by a step by step progression (with functioning intermediates).

This experimental observation indicates that Darwin's theory is false.


What has been the response of the Evolutionary Establishment to Behe's evidence (for irreducible complexity)?

The responses have been basically irrational.

"Behe does not understand science." (IOW, Science = Atheism. And if Behe doesnt recognize this, Behe is a bad man and we shouldn't listen to him. :)

"Behe has a religious agenda" (IOW, Behe believes in God, and so that makes him automatically mentally incompetent and so we shouldnt listen to him. :)

"Behe suffers from a failure of the imagination." (IOW, Behe subscribes to the concept that experimental validation is a good way to do science. And because he does not use the Darwinian method of just imagining a series of intermediates and being content to accept that rather than looking for experimental validation, Behe is a bad man and we should not listen to him. :)

Atheist Evolutionary Zoologist Richard Dawkins (Oxford University) denounced Behe as cowardly for believing in God, but admitted that he could not answer Behe's argument. [ref: Talking about evolution with Richard Dawkins, PBS: Wattenberg, Oct 18, 2001]


Have there been any experimental demonstrations (by Darwinians) that prove that Behe's irreducibly-complex-structures are not irreducibly complex? (i.e., that the structures could arise by a step-by-step progression with slight modifications and with functional and functioning intermediate structures)

Nope.


So, has Darwinism been invalidated ? (shown to have "absolutely broken down" -- to paraphrase Darwin)

Yes.


Do Darwinists accept this fact?

Nope.


What is the Darwinian response?

The response basically boils down to -- "I can imagine that there is such a series. Therefore irreducible complexity is invalid. Therefore we should still believe in Darwinism."

It is worthwhile to reiterate that...

There have been no experimental demonstrations (by Darwinians) that prove that Behe's irreducibly-complex-structures are not irreducibly complex.

All of the evidence indicates that the structures are indeed irreducibly complex. And this inference of irreducible complexity has not been falsified.

There have been no experimental demonstrations (by Darwinians) that prove that the incredibly complex machines in the living cell are not irreducibly complex.

All of the evidence indicates that these complex machines in the living cell are indeed irreducibly complex. And this inference of irreducible complexity has not been falsified.


Are there evolutionary biologists who admit that this is true (that Darwinists have not experimentally proven the arising of complex organs by series of slight modifications with functioning intermediates)?

Yes...

There are evolutionary biologists who admit that Darwinists have not experimentally proven the arising of complex organs by series of slight modifications with functioning intermediates... and that the irreducibly complex structures that Behe highlights have not been experimentally shown to be reducible.

Tom Cavalier-Smith (Evolutionary biologist, University of British Columbia) states, "For none of the cases mentioned by Behe is there yet a comprehensive and detailed explanation of the probable steps in the evolution of the observed complexity".

Robert Dorit (Molecular Biologist, Yale University) states, "In a narrow sense, Behe is correct when he argues that we do not yet fully understand the evoluiton of the flagellar motor or the blood clotting cascade."

Both Dorit and Cavalier-Smith believe that evolution is true (somehow).


Has Behe disproved Atheistic Macro*Evolution?

Yes.

Unless Atheistic Macro*Evolution is basically an unfalsifiable (nondisprovable) pseudoscience.

Coming to think of it... the more I investigate Atheistic Macro*Evolution, the more I am led to infer (based on the evidence) that Atheistic Macro*Evolution is indeed a pseudoscience like Astrology (unfalsifiable; extremely vague predictions; retrofitting of the theory to explain away contrary evidence; retrofitting of the theory to make it look like it made certain predictions when it did not make those predictions prior to the discovery of the fact it was supposed to have predicted etc).


In what sense is Atheistc Macro*Evolution a Pseudoscience?

Extensive investigation of the theory indicates that the theory has the following features (that are characteristic of pseudoscience).


Evolutionist Jerry Coyne (Univ of Chicago) asserts "We have realized for decades that natural selection can indeed produce systems that, over time, become integrated to the point where they appear to be irreducibly complex."

Has there been any experimental observation of natural selection producing such an apparently irreducibly complex systems.

Nope.


Is there any experimental evidence that proves that natural selection can produce such apparently irreducibly complex systems?

Nope.


How then can evolutionists such as Jerry Coyne be so certain that "natural selection can indeed produce [such] systems" ?

Apparently by Atheist Macro*Evolutionary Faith.

When you have such faith, who needs experimental observation? Who needs experimental proof? Who needs experimental evidence?

Only those stupid heretics who have the temerity to question Atheistic Macro*Evolution. Obviously they must be "stupid, insane, or wicked" (to paraphrase Richard Dawkins).


Has the evolution of the eye by natural selection been experimentally demonstrated?

Nope.


Is it an article of faith then, to claim that the eye has evolved by natural selection (and random chance mutation)?

Yep.


The eye is an incredibly complex organ. Is it believed to have evolved more than once by random chance + natural selection (in our biosphere).

Yep.


How many separate times is the eye believed (by Darwinists) to have evolved (independently evolved) in separate alleged lineages of animals?

About 30 different times.


So, this incredibly complex organ, evolved independently (in different lineages of creatures) about 30 times ?

Yep.


Doesnt this seem a bit difficult to believe?

Yep.


Why do people believe it then?

Because if you have enough Atheist Macro*Evolutionary Faith, it becomes possible to believe that anything is possible to Atheistic Macro*Evolutionary processes (essentially natural selection + random chance).

Even without any experimental proof or validation.


Did Darwin explain how the eye evolved?

He made a conjecture (that a patch of cells that were sensitive to light gradually evolved into an eye). However neither he nor any of his followers have ever empirically demonstrated that this happened, or experimentally demonstrated that this can happen.


Did Darwin explain where the initial light-sensitive cells came from?

Nope.


Are such light-sensitive cells very complex.

Yep.


Could they arise by random-chance?

Nope.


Could they arise by random-chance + natural selection?

It is an article of faith of Atheistic Macro*Evolution that they can.

However, there is no empirical proof or experimental demonstration that they have or that they can.


How did these light-sensitive cells come into existence in the first place?

The truth of the matter is that Evolutionists dont really know.

This doesnt stop them from coming up with conjectures and speculations. However none of the conjectures and speculations have been (are appear likely ever to be) empirically proved or experimentally demonstrated.


If we were to take the existence of such light-sensitive cells as a given, can random-chance + natural selection create an eye?

It is an article of faith of Atheistic Macro*Evolution that they can.

However, there is no empirical proof or experimental demonstration that they have or that they can.


The National Science Teachers Association has claimed that "Computer simulations of natural selection are common, such as the computer simulation of the evolution of the eye as described in Dawkins [book]." Dawkins refers to "computer models of evolving eyes" in his book River Out of Eden. Are there really such computer models?

Dr. David Berlinksi (a scholar who is skeptical of Atheistic Macro*Evolution; not a Christian; not a Bible-thumper) tracked down the scientists who supposedly created this computer model and found that the model does not exist.

Here is Berlinski's summary (from The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, Tom Bethell):

I am not saying that Dawkins is intentionally lying... it is possible that since he so badly wants to believe in Atheistic Macro*Evolution (he is an atheist and so needs Atheistic Macro*Evolution to be true in order to support his atheism), after a while the line between truth (painstakingly researched) and falsehood (based on flights of imagination) might possibly become a bit blurred...

This line is easily blurred in the case of Atheistic Macro*Evolutionary Theory (AMET) because the vast bulk of AMET is based upon speculative flights of the imagination rather than upon rigorous empirical (experimental) demonstrations and proofs.


Some evolutionists accuse scientists such as Prof. Michael Behe (of irreducible-complexity fame) of not believing in Atheistic Macro*Evolution due to "the argument from personal incredulity". What does this mean?

This means that in such evolutionist's eyes, scientists such as Behe should suspend their scientific incredulity (requirement for empirical proof or experimental demonstration) and should become personally credulous (willing to believe anything).

Such personal credulity will help scientists such as Behe to then take Darwinian conjectures and speculations to be fact...

That is a bit much to ask (for any rational intelligent person who is really interested in Truth) -- particularly given that Darwinists are so vocal that "Evolution is a Fact" (which it patently is NOT, as we see in this FAQ).


The bacterial motor (flagellum) needs about 200 parts to function. Have Darwinists experimentally demonstrated how these parts originated and how they became integrated into a functioning motor?

Nope.


Do Darwinists admit then that the bacterial motor could be irreducibly complex?

Nope.


How do some Darwinists try to avoid the inference to irreducible-complexity of the bacterial motor?

Some Darwinists state that a few of the 200 parts of the bacterial motor have other uses in the cell.


Does this prove that the bacterial motor is reducibly-simple (the opposite of irreducibly-complex) ?

Nope.


Why do Darwinists then use this evidence as proof that bacterial motor is not IRC?

Apparently for lack of better evidence.

The evidence they offer does not prove that the bacterial motor is reducibly-simple.


Can Natural selection + mutation create the bacterial motor (flagellum) ?

It is an article of faith of Atheistic Macro*Evolution that they can.

However, there is no empirical proof or experimental demonstration that they have or that they can.


The atheist scientist Fred Hoyle calculated the probability of the enzymes needed for life originating by random chance. What was this probability?

Zero, for all practical purposes.

For math buffs, the actual number is 10-40,000 (which is zero for all practical purposes).


What did this low number (together with other such calculations and observations) indicate to Hoyle?

That a "superintellect has monkeyed with physcis, as well as with chemistry and biology and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."


Can Atheistic Macro*Evolution be observed or empirically tested?

Nope.


Does this mean that Atheistic Macro*Evolution is not a legitimate science?

Yep (based on the testability criterion).


If Atheistic Macro*Evolution is not a legitimate science, then what is it?

It is an Atheistic Religious faith.


Is Survival of the Fittest a Tautology (a vacuous circular statement)?

In practice, most of the time, yes.

I.e., the fitness is not independently measured for later correlation with Survival rates.

Rather, survival is assumed to be due to fitness, and fitness coefficients are calculated based on survival rates.

In other words... why did the organism survive? Because it was fit.

How do you know it was fit? Because it survived.

This is circular irrationality, not science.

To break this circularity, it is necessary for the Darwinist to independently measure the fitness, and independently measure the survival rates, and then match the two.

In most cases, this is not done.


When Darwin published his Origin of the Species in 1859, were his most vocal opponents Christian Fundamentalists?

Nope.

His most vocal opponents were Paleontologists (scientists who study fossils).


Why were Paleontologists opposed to Darwin's theory?

Very simply, because the fossil evidence contradicts Darwin's theory.


What did Darwin's theory predict (in terms of the fossil record)?

Gradual change, with one species gradually merging into another.


What does the fossil record show?

(a) Large numbers of species suddenly appearing out of nowhere. (b) The species stays largely unchanged for millions of years. (c) The species then suddenly disappers. (d) New species suddenly appear out of nowhere.


Do these observations match the predictions of Darwin's theory?

Nope.


Do these fossil observations contradict the predictions of Darwin's theory?

Yep.


Do these fossil observations "disprove" Darwinian theory?

Yep...

Unless of course, Macro*Evolutionary Darwinism is an untestable, unfalsifiable pseudo-science like Astrology.

Which, coming to think of it, does appear to be the case.


Do Darwinists accept this verdict?

Nope.


How do Darwinists try to avoid this verdict?

By invoking a variety of untestable, unfalsifiable hypotheses, speculations and conjectures (incomplete fossil record; fast speciation in an isolated sub-population that happened somewhere else).


Do any Evolutionists admit that the fossil record does not match Darwinian predictions?

Yes.

Dr. David Raup (Geologist, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago; believes in evolution) stated:


If Darwinism is correct, and mutations are completely random, what should we see in the fossil record?

There should be a near-infinite number of varieties of transitional creatures with small minor changes (mutations) that lead gradually to a new structure or organ such as a feather, a wing or a lung.

We do not see anything like this in the fossil record.


What did Darwin expect (predict) from the fossil record?

That there should be "interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps."


Does the fossil record match Darwin's prediction?

Nope.


Does this mean that Darwinism has been falsified?

Yes...

Unless of course, Macro*Evolutionary Darwinism is a pseudo-science (like Astrology) that is incapable of falsification...

Which (as mentioned above) does appear to be the case.


What does the fossil record show instead?

(a) Large numbers of species suddenly appearing out of nowhere. (b) The species stays largely unchanged for millions of years. (c) The species then suddenly disappers. (d) New species suddenly appear out of nowhere.


Is this contrary to Darwin's expectation / prediction for the fossil record?

Yes.


Does this mean that macro*evolutionary Darwinism has been falsified?

Yes...

Unless of course, Macro*Evolutionary Darwinism is a pseudo-science (like Astrology) that is incapable of falsification...

Which (as mentioned above) does appear to be the case.


If neo-Darwinism is true, what should we expect in terms of incipient and evolving-organs in animals that are alive today?

Neo-Darwinism tells us that evolutionary changes are by random-mutations, and >99.99 % of mutations are detrimental (bad), and < 0.01 % are beneficial (good). And that it would take thousands of beneficial mutations to create a new organ. And that random-chance changes/ evolution is a continuous on-going process.

If these are true, what would we expect in terms of incipient and evolving-organs in animals that are alive today?

We would expect to see a near-infinite variety of incipient organs at various stages of evolution/ development in the adults of all of the species we come across.

Including random-genetic-drift-induced evolution -- There would be a near-infinite variety of organs that have no function (that might be useful later). There would be a near-infinity variety of incipient organ-like structures which are in the process of evolving (essentially by random-chance) into something that might be useful later. These would all be structures that are NOT detrimental to the survival of the creature, but neither are they beneficial to the survival of the creature.

Considering just "natural-selection + random-chance-mutation" induced evolution, there would be a near-infinite variety of organs that have partial function (but not complete function) which are providing the creature a slight natural-selection edge on survival.

We do not see either of these features in the species that are alive today.


Are the two features above expectations/ predictions/ natural consequences of neo-Darwinism?

Yep.


As we study creatures that are alive today, do we see a near-infinite variety of organs that have no function (that might be useful later)?

Nope.


As we study creatures that are alive today, do we see a near-infinite variety of organs that have partial function (but not complete function) which are providing the creature a slight natural-selection edge on survival?

Nope.


Does this mean that Macro*Evolutionary neo-Darwinism has been falsified?

Yep...

Unless of course, Macro*Evolutionary neo-Darwinism is a pseudo-science (like Astrology) that is incapable of falsification...

Which, coming to think of it, does appear to be the case.


How many mutations would it take to create an eye?

Thousands, possibly millions.


Has it been experimentlly proved that these millions of mutations did occurr (or could occur) by random chance?

Nope.


If Darwinian macro-evolution is true, a natural prediction/ expectation would be near-infinite numbers of transitional species/ creatures. Do we see such near-infinite numbers of transitional species/ creatures ?

Nope.


If Darwinian macro-evolution is true, a natural prediction/ expectation would be near-infinite numbers of transitional fossils. Do we see such near-infinite numbers of transitional fossils?

Nope.


What did the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould say about transitional fossils ?

He stated that the extreme rarity of transitional fossils is the "trade secret of paleontology".


Are the evolutionary trees that we see in text books proved by fossils?

Nope.

Stephen J. Gould stated: "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of hte brances; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."


What does paleontologist & evolutionary biologist Robert Carrol state about intermediate fossils?

He states: "very few intermediates between groups are known from the fossil record."


How about Archaeopteryx. Is it a transitional fossil?

Nope.


Was Archaeopteryx a fossil that is transitional to modern birds?

Nope.

Archaeopteryx is now viewed as a dead end, not as a transitional species to modern birds.


Are there transitional fossils that lead to and from Archaeopteryx ?

Nope.

Archaeopteryx appears to have come out of nowhere, and went nowhere.


What about the "horse evolution" series presented in biology text books? Doesnt that series prove macro*evolution?

Nope.

The horse series is an example of micro*evolution, not an example of macro*evolution.


What is the horse series, and is it truly a series?

Many (possibly most) biology text-books present a sequence of very small horses (about dog sized) evolve up into modern large horses.

However, paleontologist & evolutionist, Niles Eldredge, states that the sequence is entirely speculative, even though it is commonly presented as literal truth in biology textbooks.

Apparently in recognition of this fact, the American Museum of Natural History has had to rearrange its "liner horse sequence" exhibit, to try to reduce miscommunicating to the public.


What is the Cambrian explosion?

About 500 million years ago, an incredible number of new animals and plants appear suddenly on the scene. This biological explosion is called the Cambrian Explosion. About 80 new phyla (of animals/ creatures) appear suddenly on the scene.

34-35 of today's 35 currently living phyla appear suddenly at the Cambrian explosion.

Each phylum has a completely different body plan / body organization. Many (may be all) phyla have novel organs, organ systems and novel proteins.


Do leading evolutionists recognize the sudden appearance of the phyla/ fossils at the Cambrian explosion?

Yes. Evolutionist & zoologist Richard Dawkins states "It was as though they were just planted there, without evolutionary history."


If Darwinism were true, what would we expect to see in the fossil strata that are before the Cambrian explosion ?

We would expect to see "vast piles of strata rich in fossils" that gradually lead up to the fossils in the Cambrian explosion.


Do we see "vast piles of strata rich in fossils" before the Cambrian explosion ?

Nope.


Was the Cambrian explosion a prediction of Darwinism ?

Nope.


Was the Cambrian explosion a prediction of neo-Darwinism ?

Nope.


Was the Cambrian explosion a prediction of The Modern Synthesis (Evolution) ?

Nope.


Is the Cambrian explosion a natural consequence / prediction of (neo)Darwinism ?

Nope.


Does the Cambrian explosion contradict the natural consequence / prediction / expectations of (neo)Darwinism ?

Yes.


Does the Cambrian explosion falsify (neo)Darwinism ?

Yes.

Unless (neo)Darwinism is a vague pseudo-science (like Astrology) that makes no specific testable falsifiable predictions...

Which, coming to to think of it, does appear to be the case.


Based on the fossil evidence, could the Cambrian explosion of life have happened instantaneously ?

Yes.

When we deal with fossils that are half a billion years old, it is not possible to resolve a time period to less than ~5-10 million years. So if the Cambrian explosion took place in an instant, we would only be able to identify that instant as being within a 5-10 million year period.

So, yes, based on the fossil evidence, the Cambrian explosion could indeed have happened instantaneously.


Based on the fossil evidence, what is the possible range of duration for the Cambrian explosion?

Anywhere from 1 second to 10 million years. I.e., the maximum possible length is 10 million years. The minimum duration of the explosion is an instant of time (e.g., 1 second or less).


If the Cambrian explosion occurred over 10 million years, rather than instantaneously, would that solve the "Cambrian Explosion problem" for (neo)Darwinism ?

Nope.


Why not?

Because the ~80 phyla that show up in the Cambrian explosion each appear suddenly in the fossil record, without a gradual sequence of fossils that lead up to them.

The pattern of the fossils / evidence contradict the expectations/ predictions of neo-Darwinism.


How do some evolutionists try to explain away the Cambrian discontinuity ?

Some evolutionists try to explain away the absence of preCambrian transitional fossils by stating that they were soft-bodied.

However, in 1984, paleontologists discovered very rich beds of Cambrian and pre-Cambrian fossils in China. Large number of pre-Cambrian soft-bodied creatures were incredibly well preserved as fossils. And all we see are a few varieties of worms and sponges. No transitional species leading up to the Cambrian explosion.


What do the Chinese Cambrian/pre-Cambrian fossil-beds show?

The Chinese fossil beds show that "the dramatic transformation of life from primeval single-cell organisms to the complex multicellular precursors of modern fauna was more sudden, swift and widespread than scientists had thought."

(John N. Wilford, "Spectacular Fossils Record Early Riot of Creation," New York Times, April 23, 1991)

As evolutionist Richard Dawkins states, the Cambrians fossils arise "as though they were just planted there."


Do complex organs such as eyes appear in the Cambrian explsion ?

Yep.


Is this a natural consequence/prediction of neo-Darwinism ?

Nope.


Is this a surprise for neo-Darwinism ?

Yep.


Does this evidence Falsify neo-Darwinism ?

Yep.

Unless of course, neo-Darwinism is a vague pseudo-science like Astrology, which makes no clear testable predictions...

Which coming to think of it, does appear to be the case.


What is the significance of the Cambrian / pre-Cambrian fossils?

It had been viewed in the past that ... "Most of everything that was going to happen, all the ways of making invertebrate animals, had already happened by the mid-Cambrian."

But... "Now, it seems the new life forms were invented within the first few million years of the Cambrian." (Harvard professor of natural history, Andrew Knoll).


Is it a fact that the fossil record shows a sequence of fossil species consistent with evolution (except for the occasional gap) ?

Nope.

Evolution is a collection of speculations (conjectures) regarding how species might have arisen. The speculations are contradicted by the fossil record.


What does Darwin's tree-of-life predict (in terms of organisms and phyla) ?

Darwin's tree-of-life predicts that there should be a few primitive organisms which gradually branch out into many other organisms.

At the base of the tree we should have few simple organisms which fall within one phylum. After millions of years, the number of organisms should gradually increase, and branch into two phyla. And after more millions of years, those phyla should branch into 4 phyla, and after millions of years, those phyla should branch into 8 phyla etc.

So, with time, the pattern that Darwin's tree-of-life predicts is the following:

How would this look graphically?

In the figure below, "1" denotes a phylum. "..." denotes millions of years.

Graphical representation (of numbers of phyla expected if Darwinism were true):

The biosphere today.
...
11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111
...
11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 1111
...
11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11
...
11111 11111 11111 1
...
11111 111
...
1111
...
11
...
1
...
Origin of first life.

Graphical representation with Numbers of phyla (expected if Darwinism were true):

The biosphere today.
...
80 phyla
...
64 phyla
...
32 phyla
...
16 phyla
...
8 phyla
...
4 phyla
...
2 phyla
...
1 phylum
...
Origin of first life.

Another Graphical representation (of the growth in Numbers of phyla expected if Darwinism were true):

The biosphere today.
.......... .......... ........... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
.......... .......... ........... .......... .......... .......... .......... ........
.......... .......... ........... .......... .......... .......... .......... .....
.......... .......... ........... .......... .......... .......... .......... ...
.......... .......... ........... .......... .......... .......... ..........
.......... .......... ........... .......... .......... .......... ........
.......... .......... ........... .......... .......... .......... .....
.......... .......... ........... .......... .......... .......... ...
.......... .......... ........... .......... .......... ..........
.......... .......... ........... .......... .......... .......
.......... .......... ........... .......... .......... .....
.......... .......... ........... .......... .......... ...
.......... .......... ........... .......... ..........
.......... .......... ........... .......... .......
.......... .......... ........... .......... .....
.......... .......... ........... ..........
.......... .......... ........... .......
.......... .......... ........... .....
.......... .......... ........... ...
.......... .......... ..........
.......... .......... .......
.......... .......... .....
.......... .......... ...
.......... ..........
.......... .......
.......... .....
.......... ..
..........
.........
........
.......
......
.....
....
...
..
.
Origin of first life.


What does the fossil evidence show (in terms of organisms and phyla) ?

Instead of the pattern above (predicted by Darwinism), we see the opposite.

At the base of the tree, we see an incredible explosion of phyla, with more than 80 phyla being represented. And with time, we see a decrease in the number of phyla (kind of like a clock running down).

Today only about 35 phyla remain out of the original 80 initial phyla (which appeared suddenly, almost as if they were created instantaneously) at the Cambrian explosion.

Graphical representation:

The biosphere today.
...
11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 (35 phyla)
...
11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 (40 phyla)
...
11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 (45 phyla)
...
11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 (50 phyla)
...
11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 (55 phyla)
...
11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 (60 phyla)
...
11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 (65 phyla)
...
11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 (70 phyla)
...
11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 (80 phyla)
...
Origin of first life.

Another Graphical representation (of the Numbers of phyla):

The biosphere today.
.......... .......... ........... .....
.......... .......... ........... .......
.......... .......... ........... ..........
.......... .......... ........... .......... .....
.......... .......... ........... .......... .......
.......... .......... ........... .......... ..........
.......... .......... ........... .......... .......... ...
.......... .......... ........... .......... .......... .....
.......... .......... ........... .......... .......... .......
.......... .......... ........... .......... .......... ..........
.......... .......... ........... .......... .......... .......... ...
.......... .......... ........... .......... .......... .......... .....
.......... .......... ........... .......... .......... .......... ........
.......... .......... ........... .......... .......... .......... ..........
.......... .......... ........... .......... .......... .......... .......... ...
.......... .......... ........... .......... .......... .......... .......... .....
.......... .......... ........... .......... .......... .......... .......... ........
.......... .......... ........... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Cambrian Explosion.

Notice that this pattern is exactly the opposite of what is expected if Darwinism were true.

Darwinism predicts a V-shaped growth that is very narrow (1 phylum) at the bottom and has the greatest number of phyla (e.g., 80) at the top.

What we observe in the fossil record is exactly the opposite. An incredible explosion of phyla at the Cambrian Explosion (about 530 million years ago) with 80 phyla appearing suddenly on the scene. And after this, with time the number of phyla have actually decreased with time (not increased as would be expected from Darwinism), until we are now down to about 35 phyla.


Do evolutionists recognize that the fossil record shows the pattern described above?

Yes.

Evolutionist Dr. Jun-Yuan Chen (Nanjing Institute of Geology & Paleontology) states regarding the fossil record, "The base is wide and gradually narrows... Darwinism is maybe only telling a part of the story for evolution."


Is the fossil record full of evidence for evolution?

Nope.

Rather than evidence for evolution (in the fossil record), we basically have "ingenious excuses"[1] from evolutionists for why the fossil record does not match the expectations of neo-Darwinism.

[1] to quote Prof. Phillip Johnson, law professor, University of California at Berkeley.


Do the pre-Cambrian fossils show a gradual sequential progression from simple to complex (as would be expected if Darwinism were true)?

Nope.

Evolutionist Dr. Nicholas Holland (Scripps Institute of Oceanography) says about the the pre-Cambrian fossils, "You just hardly know what order to put the material in now. I mean, you might as well just present the phyla alphabetically. It's come to that."


Do evolutionists admit that transitional fossils are generally lacking at the species level ?

Yep.

Evolutionist Prof. Stephen J. Gould has stated that transitional fossils "are generally lacking at the species level."


Do evolutionists recognize that stasis (no change) followed by sudden appearance of new species is the norm, not the exception, in the fossil record?

Yep.

Evolutionists Prof. Stephen J. Gould and Dr. Niles Eldredge recognized this fact and broadcasted it to the scientific community and also to lay-people, much to the chagrin of the traditional neo-Darwinists.


How did Evolutionists Gould & Eldgredge try to explain the sudden appearance of species that was the norm (not the exception) in the fossil record?

They came up with a theory called Punctuated Equilibrium.

The theory states that stasis (no change) is the norm for the vast majority of species, followed by sudden bursts in which new species arrive on the scene in a "geological instant".


Was such behavior of fossils a prediction/ expectation of neo-Darwinism ?

Nope.


Does such behavior of fossils falsify neo-Darwinism ?

Yep.

Unless neo-Darwinism is a vague pseudo-science (like Astrology) which makes no specific testable falsifiable predictions.

Which coming to think of it, does appear to be the case.


Does the theory of punctuated equilibrium provide an adequate empirically proved mechanism for the sudden appearance of the vast majority of species ?

Nope.


Is punctuated equilibrium the same as the "hopeful monster" (saltation) theory of Prof Goldschmidt (university of California at Berkeley) ?

Nope.


According to the "hopeful monster" saltation theory of Prof Goldschmidt were there transitional species for every new suddenly appearing fossil species?

Nope.

The jump from one species to the next (very different fossil species) was by saltation -- a sudden jump that is not marked by gradual change.

This was viewed as being of very low probability by other evolutionists. As a result, Prof Goldschmidt was mocked and derided by other evolutionists, almost to the destruction of his career.


According to the "Punctuated Equilibrium" theory of Prof Gould & Dr. Eldredge were there gradual transitional species for every new species that makes a sudden appearance in the fossil record ?

Yes.


If so, why isnt the fossil record filled with near-infinite numbers of transitional species?

Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET) believes that the transitional species did not fossilize.


But the other, non-transitional species did fossilze?

Yes.


Isnt it a bit difficult for an unbiased, rational, intelligent person to believe that the transitional species didnt fossilize (while millions of the non-transitional species did fossilize) ?

Yes.


Does it take a measure of faith to believe this -- that the transitional species are almost entirely missing (except for rare alleged exceptions) simply because the transitional fossils didnt fossilize ?

Yes.


According to Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET), why didnt the near-infinite numbers of transitional species fossilize ?

Because the transition occurred very rapidly and so there wasnt enough time (and numbers of transitional species/ creatures) for fossilization of the transitional species.


So, Punctuated Equilibrium Theory is saying that the transitions happened very fast and so the transitional fossils were not fossilized ?

Yes.


So, if the species transition happens very fast, why dont we see near-infinite numbers of new species arising all around us today?

Because species transitions are too slow for us to observe in real time (according to Punctuated Equilibrium Theory).


So, Punctuated Equilibrium Theory is saying that species transitions occur too fast to be seen (by the fossil record) and too slow to be seen (by experiments and observations today) ?

Yep.


Doesn't this sound like special pleading? Like we are making up excuses for why the transition cant be seen by any method (either fossil record, or experimental observations) ?

Yep.


The "non-fossilizing of transitional species"... isnt this the same excuse as the "fossil record is incomplete" excuse used by gradualist neo-Darwinism ?

Yep.


Didnt the "fossil record is incomplete" excuse make traditional neo-Darwinism untestable and unfalsifiable in this area?

Yep.


Does the "too fast to fossilize" excuse do the same for Punctuated Equilibrium Theory, making the theory untestable and unfalsifiable in this area?

Yep.


So, based on the testability/ falsifiability criterion for science, does neo-Darwinism qualify as legitimate science?

Nope.


And based on the testability/ falsifiability criterion for science, does neo-Darwinism qualify as a non-testable, non-falsifiable pseudo-science?

Yep.


So, based on the testability/ falsifiability criterion for science, does Punctuated-Equilibrium Theory qualify as legitimate science?

Nope.


And based on the testability/ falsifiability criterion for science, does Punctuated-Equilibrium Theory qualify as a non-testable, non-falsifiable pseudo-science?

Yep.











Work in progress...

More material is being added on a weekly basis.


Bottom-Line:

Has Atheistic Macro*Evolution been proved to be a FACT ?

Absolutely not.

All of the alleged proofs for Atheistic Macro*Evolution that we have examined, have turned out to be invalid, or faked, or evidence for Micro*evolution (and not Atheistic Macro*Evolution).