Real science is about evidence, and the best evidence does not support evolution as the origin of species. Evolution Debunked is an introduction to some of the scientific problems with the theory of evolution.
What is science? Science is a methodology that involves the formulation of an hypothesis in regards to a specific question, such as the origins of life. That hypothesis is then accepted, refuted, or modified based on evidence from observation and experiment.
For some reason, whenever the subject of evolution is brought up this methodology is thrown out, and the starting point becomes that evolution is an absolute fact. When someone operates on assumption and presumption rather than evidence, they are being dogmatic, not scientific. Yet this is exactly how the subject of evolution is taught in schools, dealt with in the media, and addressed within the scientific establishment.
It's not all a bunch of flat-earthers and crack-pots who are opposed to evolution, but there are real scientists who are voicing real criticisms, based on real evidence. The following is an introduction to some of the more significant issues that they raise.
Evolution posits that all lifeforms evolved from simpler ones, going back to some early proto-lifeform. There is no plausible explanation for how this proto-lifeform could have gotten started. For evolution to occur, this proto-lifeform would have had to have been able to make copies of itself, and it is not possible that such a self-replicating machine came into existence by chance.
Life operates through proteins (think of proteins as tiny chemical machines) replicating themselves via a genetic code. The genetic code (usually DNA) acts as a blueprint for the structure of the proteins. Then the proteins "read" the DNA to make copies of themselves. Proteins need matching DNA to replicate themselves, and the DNA requires certain proteins to replicate itself. If the DNA or genetic code does not match up with the proteins, then the cell cannot make copies of itself, but will instead produce random organic material.
Protein machinery, and a matching genetic blueprint are only the beginning of what is necessary for life to get started. Both of these systems require cellular metabolism, or energy, to function together. Also, the first cell would need some kind of cell membrane to keep itself together. This barrier would not only have to selectively let in certain necessary substances (such as food), but also remove waste products. Even the simplest organisms in the world have to meet these basic requirements to survive and reproduce. No other arrangement has ever been found, or even proposed, that can do this in a simpler way. The idea that all these precise processes and components came together to make life, even one time, is preposterous.
There is a serious lack of continuity in the fossil record. There have been many strange and wonderful creatures in the long history of this planet, but a peculiar lack of connectors between them. If evolution were a reality, then bugs, plants, lizards, mammals and everything else should have a nice chain of descent in the fossil record, as one species gradually changed into another. In fact, at certain points in the fossil record it should be difficult to tell various groups of organisms apart from eachother, because they would be branching off from one basic type.
Overwhelmingly, this is not the case. Pick one creature at random and try to trace its fossilized evolutionary record, and you will hit a wall. Evolutionists love to cherry-pick what they think are examples of species changing into other species, but looking at the fossil record as a whole the theory of evolution is not supported. Simply arranging species into a fictitious evolutionary tree does not prove evolution, but rather there needs to be a gradual transition from one species to another.
Natural selection is basically trial and error. Trial and error over long periods of time could drastically change a species, however, there are limitations on what it can accomplish. Many biological systems could not have come about through this process. Take a rattle snake for example. It has specialized venom producing glands, hollow teeth, ducts, connectors, and muscles that are all rigged up to perform a certain function, which is to paralyze its prey. The hollow teeth are useless without the venom glands, and the glands without the hollow teeth. So which part came first? No part by itself is of any use to the snake, and if they are not hooked up right they would likely cause more harm than good. This system could not have evolved because all different parts and structures are interdependent on eachother to perform a useful function for the organism. How could something evolve gradually over time if it offers no benefit to the creature until it has finished evolving?
This example is not the exception, but rather the general rule of how life operates, especially at the microscopic level. Immune systems, reproductive systems, photosynthesis, muscle and nerve cells, are all examples of biological systems that could not have come about through natural selection. They require a high degree of specificity in their design to be useful within the organism, and therefore their existence is incompatible with the theory of evolution. Evolutionists try to get around this by describing how things supposedly "evolved" using very general and vague terms. These "gradual change" explanations might be appropriate for explaining superficial characteristics like the shape of a bird's beak, but they fail to account for the chemical processes and systems that support life.
Does all this mean that evolution should be banned and the bible taught in its place? No, but some fairness and candor about the subject would be nice. Evolution is not a done deal, and grows farther from it everyday. Certainly it is an interesting idea that is worth investigating, but it is by no means a fact the way that special relativity or cell theory are facts. The reality is that there are no natural processes, either discovered or proposed, that can satisfactorily explain the origin of species.
Rules: (1) Posts should be on topic. Your comments and questions should be about the section you post them in. (2) Comments should be civil. No disrespectful, slanderous, or abusive posts. (3) No repetitive, harassing, or continuous posting. (4) Avoid swearing and vulgar language. (5) No copying and posting of material from other writers and websites.