Many people presume evolution happened, & claim creationists have blind or irrational faith to believe anything else. The issue here is do we have evidence to support evolution?
Let me clear up that we can observe what is called micro evolution. Micro evolution is simple adaptation within a type of creature, for example, canine creatures are a type, & probably have adapted to their environments to give us the various breeds of dogs & wolves, which can be interbred, & are clearly related on that premise. This does not presuppose that cats, who cannot interbreed with dogs, are related to dogs. The production of completely new creatures from old ones is macro evolution, & is what this discussion is about.
Evolution is based on a system known as natural selection. This can be defined simply as “survival of the fittest.” So, according to this theory, the fittest survive, & who are the fittest? The ones who survive, of course. Not necessarily the creatures who are stronger; smarter; faster; bigger; smaller, genetic diversity proves this. Just simply the fittest survive, & those survivors are the fittest. This is a tautology, known to lay people as circular logic. It is logically invalid, but so is induction, so scientists seldom make it their mission to be completely logical.
To be fair, natural selection probably does happen, but it doesn’t say anything about evolution, or about fitness, it’s simply that some creatures suit certain environmental situations better, & others do not. Selection involves removal of existing things, not creation of new ones. Thus, natural selection doesn’t actually have anything to do with evolution, so Darwin’s book title, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the
Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, doesn’t actually provide a logical or scientific connection between evolution & natural selection, which actually have opposite effects. It simply provides a justification for racism.
Scientific method (which has it’s faults) follows a system in which observability & testability are essential. Have we ever seen the change from one creature to another? No. Have we a lab test that could prove it? The easy answer is no, but in the 1920s scientists thought they had one which is worth a look. Fruit flies have a nine day life cycle, so scientists decided to try to “evolve” them. Numerous mutations have been forced on these flies, & they have been subjected to environmental extremes. Despite all these tests, there is no creature produced by the tests that can be called anything but a fruit fly. There are nine interbreedable sub species that would revert back to the original if restored to their natural environment. When either the testability or observability issues are bought up with evolutionists, particularly the failed fruit fly tests, the reply is that evolution takes millions of years to happen. The fact is, this statement proves that this theory can’t be studied using scientific enquiry, & is therefore not a scientific question.
Science & logic aren’t the only ways to prove things, for example, we can’t use science or logic to prove the existence of Anne Frank (holocaust deniers actually claim her diary was a fabrication.) In such cases we rely on what can be called historical evidence, admittedly, this also has it’s issues.
“History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.” – Winston Churchill
History is written by winners with agendas (just ask Winston.) Unfortunately, either we have very little to believe in, or we have to accept that history gives us enough to go on. Fortunately we don’t need to examine the conventional historical sources for evolution, because we haven’t been making records for millions of years. This time lapse excuse works well for evolutionists.
Geology is supposed to support evolution, so maybe we should look there. Apparently if you take a bunch of creatures with varying degrees of similar traits, you can arrange them in a line, normally from smallest to largest, & call it an evolutionary timeline. The earliest horse in the evolutionary timeline is a hyrax, or at least that’s what it looks like, attested to by it’s classification as hyracotherium (hyrax like). Genetically the modern version (of the hyrax) is supposed to be related to elephants & manatees, not horses.
Evolution is supposed to move from less complex organisms to more complex organisms. Unfortunately, the fossil record shows no evidence of this. The oldest (according to evolutionists) fossil bearing layer is the cambrian layer. This layer contains some incredibly complex life forms, trilobites, for instance, are extinct creatures that are as complex as anything we see today. The octopus has an eye that has the same structure as a human eye. This eye took our ancestors millions of years to evolve, but the octopus already had it in the cambrian era. (In the beginning the octopus…) Another interesting thing about the octopus is that it has undergone no major evolutionary changes in over 450 million years, but during this same period of time, fish became people, perhaps Dagon worshippers have the right idea.
Apparently genetic evidence is the most convincing proof for evolution. I say apparently because any first year student in logic should be able to see that this argument is illogical on the grounds that it affirms the consequent. All we really know about genetics is that if you are closely related to someone (a person) then your DNA will be more genetically similar to someone you aren’t so closely related to. Most people seem to agree that we are all related. For people who accept the bible, the most recent common ancestor would have lived about 4300 years ago (Noah). & according to scientists, the most recent common ancestor was around between 2000 & 5000 years ago. There is no way to logically apply this connection outside of our species. The statement we can arrive at, since the starting point (what we know) is a familial link, & the end point is genetic similarity, is, “if two people are closely related, then they will be more genetically similar to each other than two people who aren’t closely related.” This is fine, except when you say, “humans & chimpanzees exhibit a high level of genetic similarity, therefore they are related.” Apart from the obviously huge & untestable inductive leap (I thought genetics was scientific), the consequent has clearly been affirmed, which isn’t logically valid (see here).
This isn’t exhaustive. One could examine the lack of evidence for the missing link, which can be argued against with the same argument athiests use against the existence of God. One could examine the existence of male & female evolving out of the highly efficient reproductive system of mitosis. One could examine erosion rates & patterns to question the geological time scale. The point here isn’t whether there is evidence against evolution, which there probably is. The point is that while there is no evidence for it, belief in it is no less an act of faith than believing in God. A separate issue is the social ramifications of the idea of evolution, but I have avoided that so as not to be accused of using an ad hominum argument. I’ll do that in a separate post.
We all have the right to believe what we perceive, but the lack of perceptible evidence for evolution makes me wonder how it has become so popular. It all seems to come down to: take an amoeba, add some time & you have a person, & an elephant, & a banana, & AIDS, & toe jam & & &. Time seems to conquer all, & faith is essential to the system, is this not religion? Aren’t evolutionists simply putting divine power in time? The Greeks did it with Chronos, and the Romans with Saturnus. It isn’t new, just packaged differently. Incidentally in human experience, time only accomplishes decay, not improvement.