[Home] [Site map] [Updates] [Projects] [Contents; 1. Introduction; 2. Philosophy (1), (2), (3), (4) & (5); 3. Religion (1) & (2); 4. History (1), (2) & (3); 5. Science; 6. Environment (1), (2) & (3); 7. Origin of life (1), (2) & (3); 8. Cell & Molecular (1), (2) & (3); 9. Mechanisms (1), (2) & (3); 10. Fossil Record; 12. Plants; 13. Animals; 14. Man (1) & (2); 15. Social; 16. Conclusion; Notes; Bibliography A-C, D-F, G-I, J-M, N-S, T-Z] [Book "Problems of Evolution"]
11. `FACT' OF EVOLUTION 1. Evolution claimed fact, not theory 1. Unclear what is actually meant 2. Despite admitted ignorance of mechanisms 3. Claimed that evidence not needed 4. But is not fact 2. Common ancestry 1. Not necessarily evolution 2. Not the central claim of evolution 3. Cannot explain differences 3 Homology 1. The problem of homology 2. Circular reasoning 3. Homologous structures not always from homologous genes and tissues 4. Gaps in 5. Polarity 6. Serial & sexual homology 4. Vestigial organs and structures 1. Evolution needs nascent not vestigial organs and structures 5. Definition of "species"
11. `FACT' OF EVOLUTION 1. Evolution claimed fact, not theory Mayr considers that evolution is such "a plain fact", that "takes place all the time" and "is a fact so overwhelmingly established that it has become irrational to call it a theory" (Mayr, 2001, p.264; Hunter, 2003, p.11)."In the Origin Darwin presented a great deal of evidence in favor of the theory that animals evolve over time. In the following decades biologists searched for and found abundant favorable-and no contrary-evidence that evolution as such has occurred. In the more than a century and a quarter since Darwin's time this evidence has become so overwhelming that biologists no longer speak of evolution as a theory but consider it a fact-as well-established as the fact that the earth rotates around the sun and that the earth is round and not flat. As Dobzhansky has said: 'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.' Considering evolution to be an established fact, no evolutionist any longer wastes time looking for further evidence. It is only when refuting creationists that one may bother to assemble the powerful evidence that has accumulated in the last 130 years proving evolution." (Mayr E., "This is Biology: The Science of the Living World," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1997, Sixth printing, 1998, p.178) [top]1. Unclear what is actually meant"When evolution is said to be a fact, not a theory, what is actually meant? That now-living things have descended from ancestors, with modification, over time? Or that the modifications came by chance, not by design? Or, in addition, that all living things ultimately had the same ancestor? Or, still further, that the `first living thing' had as its ancestor a nonliving thing? Context indicates that when evolution is asserted to be a fact, not a theory, the view actually being pushed includes that of common origin, ultimate inorganic ancestry, and modification through nonpurposive mechanisms: a set of beliefs that goes far beyond the mountain of fact that is actually there, which consists largely of fossils that demonstrate some sort of relationship and some sort of change over time." (Bauer H.H., "Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method," [1992], University of Illinois Press: Urbana and Chicago IL., 1994, p.65. Emphasis Bauer's) [top]2. Despite admitted ignorance of mechanisms Evolutionists claim that evolution is a fact, despite admitting that today, in the 21st century, over 140 years after Darwin's Origin of Species, they still don't know how evolution occurred! For example: "Modern scientists accept that evolution occurred, but differ over ... how evolution occurred" (Scott, 2000); "no biologist has been led to doubt the fact that evolution occurred; we are debating how it happened" (Gould, 1983, p.256); "we should make a distinction ... between the simple fact of evolution... and theories (like Darwinian natural selection) that have been proposed to explain the causes of evolutionary change" (Gould, 2001b, p.x); "there is no dispute about the fact that evolution has occurred but there is dispute among scientists about how it has occurred." (Price, 1990, p.8); "When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: `It happened.' Thereafter, there is little consensus..." (Conway Morris, 2000, p.11); "The basic notion that life has evolved is as certain as the existence of gravity .... But how life has evolved is another matter entirely." (Eldredge & Tattersall, 1982, p.2); "There is no disagreement in science about whether evolution has occurred. There is bloody warfare on the question of how it has occurred." (Lewontin 2000, p.48); "Biological evolution ... is considered a fact of nature by almost all biologists. There ... are many arguments over the details of the mechanics of evolution, but none over the fact..." (Asimov, 1981, p.1). That is, there is no agreement on how evolution happened (science), just agreement that it did occur naturalistically (philosophy) (Wysong, 1976, p.46)! But before it can be known that evolution happened, it needs to be known how it happened (Wade, 2000). Darwin himself acknowledged that just asserting that "species ... had descended, like varieties, from other species," was "unsatisfactory, until it could be shown how the ... species ... have been modified ..." (Darwin, 1872, p.18; Lewontin, 1978. My emphasis). So just asserting that "evolution is a fact" is vacuous unless it comes with a supporting theory of how evolution occurred (Johnson, 1993, p.12; Patterson, 1981, p.3), as Darwin himself pointed out (Darwin, 1872, p.18). Indeed, since "any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all" (Dawkins, 1986, pp.248-249; Darwin, 1898, pp.6-7), if evolutionists don't know how evolution happened, i.e. whether it was in fact helped over the jumps by God, then they don't know that it was evolution! [top] 3. Claimed that evidence not needed Having declared evolution to be a fact, evolutionists then assert that there is no need to present evidence to support it. For example, Savage stated, "We do not need a listing of evidences to demonstrate the fact of evolution any more than we need to demonstrate the existence of mountain ranges" (Savage, 1963, p.v), and likewise Mayr asserts, "That evolution has taken place is so well established that ... a detailed presentation of the evidence is no longer needed" (Mayr, 2001, p.xv). But in that case, "... why evolution should be considered science and yet not be subject to questioning is not clear" (Thurman, 1978, p.71) [top] 4. But is not fact"The evolutionists themselves may have helped to build the trap they have been led to by this line of argument. All too often they have claimed that evolution is a demonstrable fact and have traded on the general reputation of scientists for infallibility. Yet, clearly, evolution is not a `fact' in the sense that the man in the street understands the word. Without a time machine, we cannot prove that birds evolved from reptiles; we can only show that the known fossil record is consistent with this belief. Nor can we prove that natural selection is the mechanism responsible for the whole development of life on earth, which is why alternatives-such as punctuated equilibrium-are being considered by some biologists." (Bowler P.J., "Evolution: The History of an Idea," [1983], University of California Press: Berkeley CA, Revised edition, 1989, pp.356-357. Emphasis in original) [top]2. Common ancestry 1. Not necessarily evolution Common ancestry is not necessarily evolution. Darwin himself, at the beginning of his Origin of Species admitted that it was not enough to conclude that "species had ... descended, like varieties, from other species," unless "it could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world have been modified" (Darwin, 1872, p.18). That is because common descent, by itself, does not tell us anything about how the descent occurred, whether the process was gradual or sudden, or whether the causal mechanism was Darwinian, Lamarckian, vitalistic or even creationist (Denton, 1985, pp.154-155). Therefore a theory of descent by itself is equally compatible with almost any philosophy of nature, including some forms of creationism (Denton, 1985, p.155). For example, God could supernaturally intervene at strategic points in such chains of descent, by inserting crucial mutations to facilitate the emergence of some new trait, and that would still mean that all organisms derived ultimately from a common ancestor, but there would then be supernatural elements in the process (Ratzsch, 1996, pp.187-188). But if there was supernatural intervention by God at any stage in the chain of common descent, then it was not evolution at all (Dawkins, 1986, pp.248-249; Darwin, 1898, pp.II:6-7), but creation. Evolutionists themselves show that common ancestry is not uniquely diagnostic of evolution and in fact equally compatible with creation, by labelling as "IDC" (Intelligent Design Creationist) Intelligent Design theorist Michael Behe, even though Behe accepts "that all organisms share a common ancestor" (Pennock, 1999, p.264; Behe 1996, p.5). Common ancestry and supernatural intervention are not mutually exclusive, as three examples illustrate. The first example is the Biblical Eve. If Eve was supernaturally created from Adam's rib (Gn 2:22), while Adam shared common ancestry with apes and ultimately all of life, then Eve's descendants (us) would share a common ancestry with all life, but it would not be entirely a natural process of common descent. It is not necessarily claimed this interpretation of the Bible is correct, but it is at least within the realms of interpretative possibility (Henry, 1957, p.282; Stott, 1994, p.164; Kidner, 1967, pp.28-29). The second example is Jesus. The Bible indicates that Jesus was fully human and He was the biological descendent of Mary (Mt 1:18-25; Lk 1:26-2:7) and thus, on his mother's side Jesus shared a common ancestor with all humans (Lk 3:38). But the Bible also states that on his father's side Jesus was the result of a special supernatural intervention by God (Lk 1:35; Mt 1:18). The third example is Dolly the cloned sheep, who was the offspring of one ewe (which provided the cell nucleus) and another ewe (which provided the cell, minus a nucleus), there being no male involved (Campbell, Reece & Mitchell, 1999, p.996). Dolly has gone on to bear her own lamb (Cohen, 1998) and it has a common ancestry with all other sheep, even though there was human intelligent design and intervention in the process. Each of these three examples shows how there can be common ancestry with intervention by an intelligent designer in the parent-child ancestral chain. Therefore, common ancestry is a necessary but not sufficient condition of evolution. What evolution requires is both common ancestry and a fully naturalistic mechanism. [top] 2. Not the central claim of evolution Common descent is not the central claim of evolution, which is that all life on Earth is the result of unguided physical process (Dembski, 2004, p.xx). Darwin, in his Origin of Species, was indifferent whether all life on Earth was descended from "a few forms or ... one" (Darwin, 1872, p.463). Darwin personally believed "that animals are descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number" and specifically rejected "that all animals and plants are descended from some one prototype" (Darwin, 1872, p.458). The proposition "that all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth may be descended from some one primordial form," Darwin regarded as "immaterial whether or not it be accepted" and that "it is possible ... that at the first commencement of life many different forms were evolved (Darwin, 1872, p.459). Evolutionists would be very happy to find life on Mars or another planet that did not share a common ancestry with life on Earth since that would "transform the origin of life from a miracle to a statistic.'" (Shklovskii. & Sagan, 1977, p.358). Indeed, as has been pointed out by some Christian thinkers, a single common ancestry sends a `biotic message' that there is one Creator (Hamilton, 1931, pp.149-150; ReMine, 1993, p.22) [top] 3. Cannot explain differences Common ancestry may be able to explain the similarity between species, but it cannot explain their differences (Behe, 1996b). In particular, that humans share a common ancestry with apes, does not explain the profound differences between them (Morgan, 1982, pp.17-18; Watson, 1987, p.127). For example, the sequenced chimp genome is about 98.5% genetically identical to that of humans, but the differences between the two species is so profound that differences of DNA alone cannot explain them (Fox, 2004; Weissenbach, 2004). Such differences include the chromosomal architecture of the genome, regulatory sequences (formerly thought by evolutionists to be `junk') which switch on and off gene expression, transcription factors that determine the final tRNA transcript that actually codes for a protein, the proteins themselves and finally the cells that those proteins build. To use a computer analogy, DNA may be the underlying system code (e.g. Windows®) that identifies its common origin, but the version number, hardware (system architecture and components), and the application software is what determines what is finally expressed on the computer. [top] 3. Homology 1. The problem of homology"Homology has proved one of the more enigmatic of evolutionary concepts. It seems to have a clear-cut meaning, but it rapidly becomes confusing when you try to apply it to real evidence. De Beer's paper discusses the problem, as he works through one possible criterion after another and shows that none of them are adequate. Homology is undoubtedly a genuine and important concept; the problem is to spell out exactly what it means." (Ridley M., "Reconstructing The Past," [1971], in Ridley M., ed., "Evolution," Oxford Readers, Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 1997, p.208)"As soon as the evolution doctrine was accepted the term took on a new significance: homologous structures were now defined as those derived from the same single structure in a common ancestor) however much that structure may have been modified by subsequent variation in evolution. All the humerus bones of the terrestrial vertebrates) for instances are thought to be derived by modification over millions and millions of years from the bones of the primitive limb-like fins of the first fish-like amphibia that pioneered the conquest of the land from the water. In the same way, the hearts, the nerve cords, the eyes and so on are said to be homologous, derived by gradual modification from the original ancestral type. This seemed very simple at one time and is still spoken of by most zoologists as if it were; the fact is, however, that today the idea of homology is not quite so easy- to understand. It is a curious paradox that this concept of homology is absolutely fundamental to what we are talking about when we speak of evolution, yet in truth I believe we cannot explain it at all in terms of present-day biological theory ..." (Hardy A., "The Living Stream: Evolution and Man," [1965], Meridian: Cleveland OH, 1968, reprint, p.211)"After 1859 there has been only one definition of homologous that makes biological sense: `A feature [character, structure, and so on] is homologous in two or more taxa if it can be traced back to [derived from] the same [a corresponding] feature in the presumptive common ancestor of these taxa.'... As a consequence homology was redefined by the Darwinians: `Attributes of two organisms are homologous when they are derived from an equivalent characteristic of the common ancestor.' " (Mayr E., "The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1982, pp.232, 465. Parentheses in original)[top] 2. Circular reasoning"So before Darwin (and for Darwin himself), the definition of homology was similarity of structure and position (as in the bone patterns of vertebrate limbs). But similarity of structure and position did not explain the origin of homology, so an explanation had to be provided. For pre-Darwinian biologists, the explanation was derivation from an original pattern, or archetype. Darwin identified `derivation' with biological evolution, and `archetype' with a common ancestor. But for twentieth-century neo-Darwinists, common ancestry is the definition of homology as well as its explanation. According to Ernst Mayr, one of the principal architects of neo-Darwinism: `After 1859 there has been only one definition of homologous that makes biological sense.... Attributes of two organisms are homologous when they are derived from an equivalent characteristic of the common ancestor.' [Mayr E., "The Growth of Biological Thought," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1982, pp.232, 465] In other words, with Charles Darwin evolution was a theory, and homology was evidence for it. With Darwin's followers, evolution is assumed to be independently established, and homology is its result. The problem is that now homology cannot be used as evidence for evolution except by reasoning in a circle. ... to turn around and argue that homologous limbs point to common ancestry is a vicious circle: Common ancestry demonstrates homology which demonstrates common ancestry." (Wells J., "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?: Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong," Regnery: Washington DC, 2000, pp.62-63. Emphasis original) [top]3. Homologous structures not always from homologous genes and tissues"The link between homology and common descent was so central to Darwin's theory that his followers actually re-defined homology to mean features inherited from a common ancestor. Even after homology was re-defined, however, the Darwinian account remained incomplete without a mechanism to explain why homologous features were so similar in such different organisms. When neoDarwinism arose in the 1930s and 1940s, it seemed to have a solution to this problem: Homologous features were attributed to similar genes inherited from a common ancestor. Modern Darwinists continue to use homology as evidence for their theory. In fact, next to the Darwinian tree of life, homology in vertebrate limbs is probably the most common icon of evolution in biology textbooks. But the icon conceals two serious problems: First, if homology is defined as similarity due to common descent, then it is circular reasoning to use it as evidence for common descent. Second, biologists have known for decades that homologous features are not due to similar genes, so the mechanism that produces them remains unknown." (Wells J.*, "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?: Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong," Regnery: Washington DC, 2000, pp.61-62. Emphasis original) [top]4. Gaps in"Neither the fossil record nor study of development in modern genera yet provides a complete picture of how the paired limbs in tetrapods evolved ... The closest comparison between the paired fins of obligatorily aquatic fish and animals that were at least facultatively terrestrial is provided by the osteolepiform sarcopterygians Eusthenopteron and Panderichthys and the stem tetrapods Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. ... Superficially, the paired fins of the fish appear typical of strictly aquatic vertebrates. They are small relative to the body; they narrow at the base that articulated with the pectoral and pelvic girdles, but broaden distally to form an effective surface for locomotion or directional control in the water. ... In contrast, the internal, endochondral bones of the fin are closely comparable to those of terrestrial vertebrates. There is a single proximal humerus and more distal ulna and radius in the forelimb, and the femur, tibia and fibula in the hind limb. They are succeeded distally by bones that are homologous with proximal elements of the wrist (intermedium, ulnare, and centralia) and ankle (fibulare, intermedium, and possibly distal tarsals) of land vertebrates, but they could not have functioned in the manner of these joints in terrestrial vertebrates because they are extensively overlapped by the radius and the tibia. The entire endochondral skeleton is with in a functionally continuous fin structure, as seen from its scaly covering. There is no trace of endochondral skeletal elements comparable with the distal carpals or digits of terrestrial vertebrates. ... In contrast with the clear homology of the more proximal limb bones in osteolepiform fish and early tetrapods, no obvious homologues of the digits is evident in any sarcopterygian. These bones appear de novo in the Upper Devonian tetrapods. How can this be explained?" (Carroll R.L., "Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1997, pp.230-232) [top]5. Polarity"Consider Darwin's treatment of the evolution of vertebrate lungs and their relationship with the swim bladders of bony fishes-an example that Darwin obviously viewed as important to his general argument because he repeats the story half a dozen times in the Origin. Darwin begins by noting, correctly, that the lung and swim bladder are homologous organs-different versions of the same basic structure, just as a bat's wing and a horse's foreleg share a common origin indicated by the similar arrangement of bones in body parts that now work in such different ways. But Darwin then draws a false inference from the fact of homology. He claims, with increasing confidence ending in certainty, that lungs evolved from swim bladders: `All physiologists admit that the swim bladder is homologous...in position and structure with the lungs of the higher vertebrate animals; hence there seems to me to be no great difficulty in believing that natural selection has actually converted a swim bladder into a lung, or organ used exclusively for respiration. I can, indeed, hardly doubt that all vertebrate animals having true lungs have descended by ordinary generation from an ancient prototype, of which we know nothing, furnished with a floating apparatus or swim bladder.'" (Darwin C., "The Origin of Species," [1872], 6th edition, Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 1967, reprint, p171) Many readers will be puzzled at this point, as I have perplexed several generations of students by presenting the argument in this form. What can be wrong with Darwin's claim? The two organs are homologous, right? Right. Terrestrial vertebrates evolved from fishes, right? Yes again. So lungs must have evolved from swim bladders, right? Wrong, dead wrong. Swim bladders evolved from lungs." (Gould S.J., "Full of Hot Air," in "Eight Little Piggies: Reflections in Natural History," Jonathan Cape: London, 1993, pp.111-112)"Although at first glance the order of fossils seems to be good evidence for macroevolutionary theory, it does present a couple of difficulties. The first concerns the issue of polarity. Although macroevolutionary theory predicts major changes over the course of time, it is incapable of predicting ahead of time what the direction or nature of change will be. For example, parasites have limited internal complexity, but macroevolutionists generally do not know whether they were derived from simpler animals without internal complexity or whether they were derived from more complex organisms but have since lost internal complexity due in some part to disuse. Green algae are thought to be related to land plants because of similar photosynthetic chemistry, but without the fossil record it might have been impossible to determine whether land plants evolved from algae or algae from plants. Similarly, without the fossil record it might have been difficult to determine whether marine mammals evolved from or into land mammals. As a result, to use the fossil record to verify the "predictions" of phylogeny may in some cases (or all?) be assuming the order of fossils to prove it." (Wise K.P.*, "The Origin of Life's Major Groups," in Moreland J.P., ed.*, "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1994, p.224)"Embryology has long been used for phylogenetic analysis, and many authors have supposed that it provides direct evidence on the polarity of evolutionary changes (see analyses by Kluge and Strauss 1985, de Queiroz 1985). The idea that early embryological features represent evolutionarily primitive states and later embryological features more derived states arose first in Haeckel's (1866) famous BIOGENETIC LAW: "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." Haeckel's belief that each embryonic stage represents the adult stage of one of its ancestors is flatly wrong (Gould 1977)." (Futuyma D.J., "Evolutionary Biology," [1979], Sinauer Associates: Sunderland MA, Second Edition, 1986, p.303). [top]6. Serial & sexual homology"I get support for my claim from an unexpected source, the famous British evolutionist, Sir Gavin de Beer. Writing as an evolutionist, de Beer (1971) titles his Oxford Biology Reader, Homology, An Unsolved Problem. In describing the first problem for evolution, de Beer notes that we have the same kind of pattern in our arm that we find in the leg of a dog and the wing of a bat. But, he adds, we also find that same pattern in the human leg. Sure enough, the upper leg has one bone like the upper arm. There are two bones in the lower leg like those in the lower arm, and the bones in the ankle, foot, and toes rare like those in the wrist, hand, and fingers. As a college biology major, I was supposed to consider this an evidence of evolution, called `serial homology.' De Beer says, in effect, `Don't do that.' He says you cannot call that evidence of evolution, because we cannot imagine that the arm evolved from the leg, or that the leg evolved from the arm, or that human beings evolved from some creature that had only one kind of limb. Repeated structures, de Beer says, (including appendages of insects and lobsters) can't be called evidence of evolution. They could not represent descent from common ancestor. That's the negative side. On the positive side, repeated structural plans can be explained in terms of creation according to a common plan. We see in serial homology the "theme and variation" pattern we so easily associate with human creativity, among both artists and engineers." (Parker G.E.*, "Creation: the Facts of Life," [1980], Master Book Publishers: San Diego CA, 1984, Third printing, pp.17-19)"The second problem for evolution that de Beer points out concerns corresponding parts between male and female reproductive systems, something biology students are aught to call `sexual homology.' De Beer wants to use 'homology" only for evolutionary relationships. He tells us, in effect, not to use that term for similarities in the basic plan of male and female anatomy. We can't even imagine, he argues, that females evolved into males, or vice versa, or that human beings evolved from an animal :hat had only one sex. On the positive side, we seem instead to see the `theme and variation' signature of one who created two complementary sexes of one flesh--creation according to a common plan." (Parker G.E.*, "Creation: the Facts of Life," [1980], Master Book Publishers: San Diego CA, 1984, Third printing, p.19) [top]4. Vestigial organs and structures 1. Evolution needs nascent not vestigial organs and structures"A serious problem with this argument for evolution is that whereas vestigial organs are known, nascent organs are not. If evolution were true, one would expect to see not just organs "going out" but also organs "coming in." These new organs would be called nascent organs. The absence of such organs would seem to argue that although we have evidence of degeneration from an earlier, more optimal design, we lack evidence of a move toward a new optimal design. It would seem that if an intelligent Designer created optimal designs in the past and life's history has been a move away from that optimum, the presence of vestigial organs and the absence of nascent organs would be better explained by intelligent design than by evolutionary theory." (Wise K.P., "The Origin of Life's Major Groups," in Moreland J.P., ed., "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1994, pp.222-223)"BIOLOGISTS adduce as strong evidence in support of the evolution doctrine the existence in organisms of structures which they usually describe as rudimentary. If these were in reality rudimentary, that is to say, in a nascent condition, in the course of being developed, their presence would indeed afford strong support to the theory. Unfortunately for the doctrine, not one of these structures is rudimentary. Some of them are vestigial, that is to say, organs in a state of degeneration. If the evolution doctrine was merely that many types have degenerated since they were created or originated, then the presence of vestigial organs would afford strong support to it. What the doctrine demands is not vestigial, but nascent organs, and the latter appear to be non-existent. Such a state of affairs seems to strike at the root of the evolution doctrine. Better evidence of the assertion that for the last fifty years biological textbooks bring to light only that which is favourable to evolution and pass over unnoticed all that is unfavourable could scarcely be adduced than the fact that these volumes contain many references to vestigial organs, but none to nascent organs." (Dewar D., "Difficulties of the Evolution Theory," Edward Arnold & Co: London, 1931, p.24)"I asserted (D. p. 24) that the theory of evolution requires for its proof, not vestigial, but nascent organs, because the existence of useless vestiges merely shows that animals may lose organs. I wrote: "although the anatomy of thousands of species has been carefully studied, it is impossible to adduce a single structure in any species which is indubitably or even probably in a nascent condition." This is clearly a very great difficulty of the evolution theory, I might almost say a fatal one. ... According to the evolution theory all multicellular animals are derived from one-celled ancestors, which exhibit nothing that can he called an organ in the strict sense. Consider now the vast number of organs and structures which are supposed to have evolved in the descendants of these organ-less ancestors; every differentiated cell, bone, cartilage, muscle, tendon, nerve, blood vessel, ganglion, hair, feather, scale, spine, shell, spur, antler, horn, hoof, claw, nail, tooth, tusk, antenna, appendage, every internal organ from the blood corpuscles to the stomach and liver. Every type of each of the above organs, according to the evolution theory, must have at one time existed in a nascent condition. Now consider the, million or so existing species of animals all of which are supposed to be in a state of flux, evolving. If these species be really evolving, the majority of them ought to exhibit nascent structures in all states of completion, from unrecognisable excrescences to structures almost ready for use. Not a single one seems to exist!" (Dewar D., "More Difficulties of the Evolution Theory: And a reply to "Evolution and Its Modern Critics," Thynne & Co: London, 1938, pp.51- 52) [top]5. Definition of "species" Evolutionary biology cannot provide a definition of "species". In the final analysis, it seems that the only `definition' of "species" that evolutionary biologists can offer is: "a species is whatever a competent naturalist or taxonomist says it is" (Guffey, n.d.)! The problem for evolutionists was well-stated by Darwin's contemporary Agassiz, who asked of Darwin, `If species do not exist ... how can they vary?" (Macbeth, 1971, pp.22-23) [top]
Copyright © 2003-2006, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved. This page and its contents
may be used for non-commercial purposes only.
If used on the Internet, a link back to my home page at
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones would be appreciated.
Created: 21 December, 2003. Updated: 12 March, 2006.