In the introductory article for this series, we claimed that Evolution, in the wider definition of Darwinism—that all living creatures came from a common ancestor—is drawing unjustified inferences from the observed data. Simply said, sound and authentic evidence is being interpreted with assumptions and possibly confirmation bias—people’s tendency to process information by looking for, or interpreting, information that is consistent with their existing beliefs.
This article deals with the observability criterion which is the first requirement before a hypothesis can begin the journey towards becoming an acceptable theory.
The Argument:
All observations that the theory relies on are either mutations that have never led to observable evolution events of taxa above the species level, beyond single-cell organisms, or historical phenomena, which could also be used to prove Intelligent Design. However, let’s examine some of the observations that are used to “prove” the theory of Evolution from a common ancestor:
1. Comparative anatomy:
This is the “comparative study of the body structures of different species of animals in order to understand the adaptive changes they have undergone in the course of evolution from common ancestors.” [1]
Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection relies heavily on the study of comparative anatomy. For instance, the similarity between the phalanges in a human hand, a turtle forelimb, and a dolphin flipper is proof that they all had a common ancestor.
Those in favour of Intelligent Design suggest that similar parts in different kinds of animals point to a similar designer reusing the most functional parts.
See this image showing the homologies of the forelimb in six different vertebrates that apparently proves the evolution of all creatures from one common ancestor. [2]
2. Embryology and development:
This is the study of how creatures develop before being born or hatching from an egg. Evolutionists say that remains of ancestral traits often appear and disappear in different stages of the embryological development process. For example, the appearance of transitions from fish to amphibians to reptiles and then to mammals within all mammal embryos as well as the uncanny similarities within early-stage embryos of mammals. This is based largely on the fraudulent drawings submitted by Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919) where he purposefully misrepresented the appearance of different embryos at different stages of development to look the same. Since then, embryologists have confirmed that they were inaccurate.
A research paper entitled “Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered” written by Elizabeth Pennisi and published in Science on 5 September 1997 has the following abstract:
“Using modern techniques, a British researcher has photographed embryos like those pictured in the famous, century-old drawings by Ernst Haeckel—proving that Haeckel’s images were falsified. Haeckel once admitted to his peers that he doctored the drawings, but that confession was forgotten.” [3]
This is an example of data being corrupted or “bent” to suit the otherwise incompatible Evolutionary hypotheses. Again, supporters of Intelligent Design say that similar developments within embryos of different species are indicative of a designer using similar blueprints for a working design. The similarities between the embryos of animals and humans more likely point to a common creator and not a common ancestor. The same God who created animals also created human beings.
3. DNA similarities:
DNA are molecules that carry the codes that determine the characteristics of living things (e.g. eye colour, height, etc.). Evolutionists loudly claim that the similarities between the DNA of modern humans and chimpanzees are proof that we evolved from primates. The current similarity of 95% [4], when insertions and deletions are included, has been shrinking as technology and scientific advancements are showing increasingly just how much difference there is. One should also note that if 5% of the DNA is different, this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them!
Another thing to take into consideration is that DNA is not the “end-all” for comparisons. An article on nature.com called “Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content” [5] gives startling data highlighting the differences in chromosomes between humans and our “closest evolutionary relatives”.
Jeffrey Tomkins, who has a Ph.D. in Genetics from Clemson University and Jerry Bergman, who has nine academic degrees, including two PhDs, compiled a detailed research paper called “Genomic monkey business—estimates of nearly identical human-chimp DNA similarity re-evaluated using omitted data” that makes compelling reading. [6]
And the studies showing that human DNA is 84% similar to that of dogs and 60% to bananas, should also draw into doubt how the similarity of DNA could point to ancestry.
Another assumption made by Evolutionists is what’s called the junk (non-functional) DNA. They claimed that in humans 99% is junk DNA because of the unguided evolution process, where these are the residuals of old mutations that are not required anymore. This claim however has so many problems:
- The term functional vs non-functional is highly debatable. Their first assumption was based on the coding vs non-coding parts, which is now proven to be totally inaccurate, as we already discovered more and more non-protein coding regions such as genes for ribosomal RNA and transfer RNA, regulatory sequences controlling expression of those genes, elements of the genome involving origins of replication, centromeres, telomeres, and scaffold attachment regions (in eukaryotes). These are now considered functional elements of genomes as well.
- Measuring the amount of non-functional DNA is even highly debatable, as the latest figures went down from 99% to 20%, and it keeps going down with new discoveries.
- It’s an argument of ignorance: if we don’t understand it, then it must be useless junk. This approach unfortunately has blocked the scientists for many years to do enough research on the non-coding areas till the last decade.
4. The Fossil record:
Evolutionists always point to the fossil record as proof of Darwinian evolution for many reasons:
- The fossil record seems to establish deep time and change over time.
They assume the accuracy of the Geological Column and use the layers and fossils within those layers to account for the long evolution process across billions of years. However, the dating methods that have been used in this process are known to be not fully reliable, accurate or inconsistent. Sometimes dating is also based on pre-assumed methods from evolution (like the rate of mutation) which leads to circular reasoning. We will cover the used dating mechanisms later.
- The fossil record is ordered taxonomically that means from deep to upwards you find overall a pattern from getting less complex to more complex forms.
Even if that might serve their idea of having a common ancestor, that doesn’t support having any unguided process as gradualism has not been observed.
In fact, the transitional fossils that should be abundant from ever-evolving organisms are absent or highly contested. This contradicts Darwin’s idea of slow evolution and gradual mutation. What’s noticed instead:
- A lot of discontinuities in the fossil records, both in terms of timings and location.
- Sudden appearance of new forms and new body plans like in the Cambrian explosion and so many other “explosions” that led to the sudden appearance of diverse plants, insects, birds, mammals, etc.
- On a timescale, the fossils’ appearance of different forms is quite abrupt and happens in a very short interval contradicting the predictions made by the mathematical models of unguided slow mutation.
- Within the same species, we don’t notice the required gradual changes that would account for a transition from one species to another, even if that species spanned millions of years.
- Sudden appearance of complex organs and systems with no previous transitional forms.
As new “links” are discovered, they are quickly debunked as well—although textbooks are much slower to acknowledge a missing link that is found to be still missing.
In addition, the found fossils do not normally add up to the pre-assumed storyline of having a tree-like where species branching is happening from a common ancestor. For example, in the assumed Homo lineages, it’s remarkable how the characteristics are developing up and down across different species like the brain size, height and mass, hand anatomy, tools usages, etc, and that’s raising more questions and concerns about the origins of these species more than providing answers.
Counter-hypotheses by Evolutionists claim that perhaps those sudden appearances are due to the under-sampling or the incompleteness of the fossil record. However, the problem with that hypothesis is that we already reached a stage where scientists keep on finding the same fossils again and again (what’s called the collector’s curve), which means that we already sampled enough to know what’s out there.
Finally, there’s also another proposal by Creationists, where they maintain that the geological layers, and the large deposits of fossils within them, are the result of a global catastrophic flood. The layers formed from sediment with differences in lithology and texture settling down. As for the fossils, all living organisms caught in a devastating flood would have been buried by layers of sediment as they were settling. This also accounts for the large caches of fossils, or “graveyards,” that are found, and why the ocean-going organisms are found in the lowest layers – they were buried first.
5. “Vestigial” biology:
This is the identification of organs or body parts that appear to have no current function. Darwin first described the vestigial argument over 150 years ago. He called certain structures rudimentary organs, meaning they are supposedly underdeveloped compared to those of our ape-like ancestors.
The most conspicuous logical flaw in the use of vestigial organs as evidence for evolution is circular reasoning. Evolutionists first declare vestigial organs to be a result of evolution, and then they turn around and argue that their existence is evidence for evolution. This kind of argument would hardly stand up in a court of law, so why is it accepted in science?
Vestigial biology is an ongoing study of a hypothesis; however, modern medical research is finding new data that is constantly redefining the boundaries of vestigiality when important functions for every one of these so-called useless organs are discovered. Yet, some biology textbooks still assert that many vestigial organs exist in humans.
6. Mutations:
Mutations are changes in the genetic code of the cells that compose our body. However, Darwinian Evolution claims that it is the accumulation of mutations through a sufficient amount of time – millions of years – that leads to the conclusion that variations in all living creatures come from mutations and are filtered by natural selection. While mutations do occur, the assumptions that these mutations accumulated to change a fish to an amphibian or create a new functioning organ within the same species are merely hypotheses that have never been observed in natural life or laboratories.
Biologists have long recognized that most DNA mutations are either neutral in that they produce no observable changes, or are harmful, in which case natural selection would have eliminated it. The National Human Genome Research Institute defines mutations as changes in the DNA sequence of an organism. Mutations can result from errors in DNA replication during cell division, exposure to mutagens or a viral infection. [7]
Mutations don’t add new information within cells. For example, a reptile cannot mutate into growing feathers, as the building blocks needed for those feathers are not written into their DNA.
Conclusion
When we assess whether Evolution satisfies the observation criterion within the scientific method, it comes up short, and thus, there’s a hole in Evolution’s claim to being a scientific theory. We simply do not see the process itself or proof of the process happening in the past in nature or even in state-of-the-art laboratories. Could it be only a hypothesis that has been outlined in an attempt to explain the existence of the variety of species seen today?
Resources
[1] Comparative Anatomy. https://www.britannica.com/science/comparative-anatomy
[2] Homologies of the forelimb in six vertebrates. https://cdn.britannica.com/90/52990-050-CB6501F4/Homologies-forelimb-vertebrates-bones-evolution-evidence-mode.jpg
[3] Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.277.5331.1435a
[4] Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12368483/
[5] Hughes, J., Skaletsky, H., Pyntikova, T. et al. Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content. Nature 463, 536–539 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08700
[6] Genomic monkey business… https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j26_1/j26_1_94-100.pdf
[7] Definition of Mutation. https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Mutation
The other articles in this series:
The Scientificity of Evolution 1 - Comparison to a scientific law
The Scientificity of Evolution 3 – Experimental Criterion
The Scientificity of Evolution 4 – Retrodiction Criterion
The Scientificity of Evolution 5 – Prediction Criterion
The Scientificity of Evolution 6 – Consistency Criterion
The Scientificity of Evolution 7 – Correctability Criterion
For similar articles, follow the link below:
Category – Evolution vs Intelligent Design
