One of the major problems of the theory of evolution is that there is no mechanism that can transform one type of organism or animal into another. A fish cannot evolve into an amphibian. Darwin searched for the mechanism in his day and moved from the idea of acquired characteristics to natural selection and back to acquired characteristics. He knew there was a problem and optimistically hoped that the mechanism for evolution would be found. He reasoned that since evolution had occurred, there must be a mechanism. But, the proof of evolution is not the “fact” that it has happened, because the theory of evolution cannot be its own proof.
The theory of Evolution is like the picture of the old car above. The car has no engine and no wheels to get it to move and go forward. Evolution has the same problem. No mechanism exists within the DNA which adds completely new genetic information which would be needed to change one organism into another. Mutations actually screw things up, while natural selection conserves, rather than adds, additional information. Scientists have been looking for over 150 years for the mechanism of evolution and have yet to come up with a viable theory, let alone proof.
Darwin at first believed acquired characteristics was the answer. Acquired characteristics was idea that if an animal, like a deer, reached for food from places where it needed to stretch its neck, eventually, the neck would grow and the animal would pass on that growth to the next generation. Over a period of, maybe thousands or tens of thousands or millions of years, a deer could, with little changes in each generation, pass on its acquired characteristic, the elongated neck, to the next generation. Eventually, over time, a deer could evolve into a giraffe.[1]
The idea of acquired characteristics was laid to rest in 1889 through an experiment by August Weisman, a famous scientist of the day. Weisman cut off the tails of a hundred generations of mice. Yet, still, the next generation was born with a tail. Scientist concluded that acquired characteristic was not a valid mechanism.[2]
Being familiar with the breeding of birds, Darwin also realized that the variation that occurred through natural selection was similar to how a breeder selects for certain qualities when breeding his animals. He knew there was a limit to the amount of change possible. Yet, since he believed that evolution had occurred, he concluded there must be a mechanism. It just needed to be found. He hoped that in time the theory would be justified and the mechanism found.
Though
Mendel´s work on genetics was published in 1866, seven years after Darwin´s work, it lay undiscovered until the beginning the 20th century.[3] At that time, scientists thought that Mendel´s genetics would perhaps justify Darwin´s theory. Scientists searched in genetics for the proof of evolution, looking for the missing mechanism. However, genetics proved to be a dead end, verifying that variation or the change in one generation to the next is limited to the available gene pool.
Statics have shown that students who have studied genetics are more likely to doubt the theory of evolution than those who don´t.
It was at this point that the idea of mutations was introduced by evolutionary scientists in an attempt to save the theory from destruction. If the genes mutated and then were selected for, they surmised, natural selection together with mutations could be the mechanism needed to transform from one kind of animal to another. However, all scientific evidence until today has yet to find one instance where mutations have added new genetic information.
Mutations may cause the information to be different and therefore “new” in that sense. Mutations may even have beneficial results as in the case of sickle-celled anemia, where malaria is incapable of attaching itself to the damaged sickle-anemic cell. It, thus, offers a beneficial protection against malaria. Nevertheless, the mutated sickle-celled is anemic and the carrier is debilitated because of it. But mutations do not add additional information capable of creating necessary body parts or organs. New additional genetic information would be needed for one type of animal, like a dinosaur, to change into another type of animal, like a bird.
Dr. Lee Spetner, who holds a PH.D in physics from MIT, said in his book
Not by Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution that
“in all the reading that I have done in life-science literature, I have never found a mutation that added information…..All mutations that have been studied on a molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information, not increase it.”[4]
British scientist Michael Pitman, also, has said “neither observation nor controlled experimentation has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme or organ.”[5] Finally, famous geneticist, Dr. Wilder Smith concluded, “The chemistry of mutation in the genetic code has an effect similar to that of water on a text. Mutations modify or destroy already existing genetic information, but they never create new information. They never create an entirely new biological organ.”[6]
The error of modern day Neo-Darwinists is that they teach and insist that new information can be created by mutations. The truth is that natural selection working with mutations does not have creative power. There is still no mechanism for evolution. Evolution is not only improbable, but it is impossible. The theory should be laid to rest like the theory that the sun revolved around the earth. Eventually, the evidence got to be so overwhelming in favor of the Hellenistic system that science had to abandon the Earth-centered idea, which had been believed for thousands of years. It is time to do the same with evolution. The theory is not just dead, it was never really alive.[7] There is no mechanism!
Footnotes:
1. Dr. Carl Werner, Evolution the Grand Experiment, 2007, page 28.
2. ibid, page 30.
4. James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard, 1999, page 26.
5. ibid.
6. ibid, page 27.
7. Dave A. Schoch, The Assumptions Behind the Theory of Evolution, 2008, subtitle.
