Copyright © Built on Rock!

Richard Dawkins What if you are Wrong?

Home          Topics          About Us          Contact Us

The Watch Maker          The Blind Watch Maker          Molecular Motors          Life as Digital Technology          Problem of Site

Multiple Failures of Darwinism          A Missing Link          Another Missing Link

A Built on Rock Website Multiple Failures of Darwinism

Darwin thought that artificial selection and breeding programs were good analogies for natural selection. However if he had drawn the same conclusions that the breeders had, he would have realised that nature imposes severe limitations on the amount of variation any genus or species can accommodate. From the original grey wolf genome there arose all the varieties of dogs, from Great Danes to Greyhounds to Chihuahuas. That seems a vast selection but no breeding programe has been able to break-out from the constraints imposed by nature on this genome. And if this cannot happen under the very high and motivated pressure applied by dog-breeders then it is not likely evolution could ever happen as proposed by Darwin. In every winter in extreme climates every species of animal is tested for fitness in its environment. What happens? In most cases every spring the same animals reappear; but one thing that is never seen is any example of Darwinian evolution. Finch beaks in the Galapagos Islands may alter from time to time, but nothing more significant than that. And that is well within the range known to artificial selective methods. Nature has produced a barrier and nothing passes beyond it other than the infertile. Exactly where this barrier exists is difficult to state due to the muddled and artificial distinctions made between species. But it is certain that there is such a barrier. The evidence is all around us; the animal kingdom is in a condition described by the paleontologists Gould and Eldredge as stasis: a state or condition in which there is no action or progress; a static situation. In the past there is considerable evidence of animals of far greater sizes and many more varieties of all types of animals. And what can be deduced from that: evolution or devolution? Evolution is maintained only on the basis of Darwin’s initial state assumption: that life began as simple protoplasm and developed from there via the tree of life. Take that assumption away and devolution is a viable option. Replace Darwinism with the concept of an initial state stasis: creation and nature filled with life from its inception and the entire philosophical landscape alters beyond recognition and a biblical vision unfolds.

There’s much evidence for devolution, ever increasing rates of mutation being just one of example.

Darwin conceived the idea that nature was capable of achieving more significant changes than anything mankind could achieve. That nature could produce a breakout species that would spawn, through inheritance and many generations, a wholly novel type of creature: an intermediate, a transitional, between the old type and the new. This miracle, though often inferred, has never been observed, and if it ever had it left no trace. Read the works of the paleontologists referred to above, who devised a new theory (punctuated equilibrium) precisely because of the lack of evidence. Darwin expected that fossils would demonstrate this reality, but they never have, and many of the highest ranking evolutionists admit that they are nowhere to be seen. This is yet another failure of Darwin’s hopes.

Genetics was and still is the great hope of evolutionists, because through genetic mutations it hoped to find the variety needed upon which natural selection could act.  But mutation is a surprising candidate for that huge investment of hope. It is difficult verging on impossible to find any definite example of a beneficial mutation; certainly not one that has been proved beneficial outside the safe environments founded by a science driven towards a single conclusion. Proof that evolution is a single conclusion scenario is that there are no tests devised by evolutionists to disprove their theory. They have a mind-set focused only on affirmations. Failures are never catalogued as evidence against the proposition; they are just spurs to greater effort, which is fine, until you decide you are just banging your head against an immoveable object. The history of science is full of abandoned theories. Darwin’s is perhaps unique in that it cannot be abandoned at any cost.

Darwin knew very little about the cell. His great deduction, based on the knowledge of his time that simplicity lay at the root of all life was perfectly natural. Darwin considered the cell a basic and simple entity and the fact is he could not have been more wrong; the cell is arguably more complex than any other construct: natural or man-made.

There is inevitably a major problem when laying out a universal solution in the form of a theory. Subsequent knowledge can and often does make it look ludicrous. Darwin commented on this subject and he seems totally unaware of the dangers ahead.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

A self-assured Darwin assumes his knowledge will save him from the fate of the ignorant and those who know little. The facts are that those ignorant men who thought some problems would “never be solved by science” are still correct one hundred and fifty years later. If this were not so why would there be the continuing huge investments of time and money poured into efforts to prove Darwin’s theory correct. Frustratingly the origins of kinds and species are still a mystery, and so is the origin of life.

Darwin’s natural selection is described as a gradual process by which biological traits in animals become either more or less common in a population. It selects favourable characteristics while selecting against unfavourable; which is why Herbert Spencer coined the famous phrase ‘Survival of the Fittest.’ According to Darwin, natural selection is the primary mechanism of evolution. He compared it to artificial selection, sometimes known as selective breeding: Mendel’s peas for one, dogs, horses, pigeons and roses being others.

Soon after the publication of the Origin of Species it became apparent that Darwin’s main mechanism, natural selection, was not sufficient a cause to account for the abundant variations found throughout nature. This weakness prevented Darwin’s theory from gathering real traction; and it did not really get going until the science of genetics began to make an impact in the early twentieth century. Natural Selection relied on the idea of heredity and it was only following the work of Mendel on the genetically based laws of inheritance that Darwin’s theory gained scientific credibility. Without Mendel the Origin of Species may have dropped permanently off the best-seller lists.