The evolutionary theory, which posits that all living organisms descend from a common ancestor, contains several significant gaps and inconsistencies. Such shortcomings within a scientific theory should naturally prompt further critical inquiry and rigorous investigation. Yet, the relatively few evolutionary scientists who undertake this task often find themselves confronted with more questions than definitive answers. In a separate series entitled The Scientificity of Evolution, we have previously examined some of the strictly scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution. In this article, however, we aim to explore its fundamental logical inconsistencies. We will present a number of illustrative examples here and intend to expand upon them in subsequent publications.
A foundational tenet of Darwinian evolution is the assertion that animals evolved through genetic mutations which enabled them to adapt to their environments, and that those individuals best adapted were more likely to survive and reproduce. This principle—mutation guided by natural selection—forms the cornerstone of evolutionary theory. However, as evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma notes, “…there is still no evidence that single mutations are responsible for the multiple character differences that typify most genera or other higher taxa.” [2] This statement underscores a significant challenge to the explanatory power of mutation-driven evolution, particularly at higher taxonomic levels.
This raises the question: how can altruistic behaviour be explained within the framework of Darwinian evolution? Encyclopaedia Britannica, in an entry discussing animals that exhibit care toward unrelated individuals—even across species boundaries—states the following: “Often, selfless behaviours jeopardise the acting individuals’ fitness, possibly lowering their chances of leaving behind offspring. Darwin realised that this presented a problem for his theory of natural selection, for which the bearing and survival of offspring was a vital determinant of evolutionary success.” [3] This observation highlights a fundamental tension within evolutionary theory, as behaviours that appear to reduce individual reproductive success seem to contradict the core premise of natural selection.
Before proceeding further, it is important to clarify a key term. Genetic diversity—often referred to as microevolution—describes the minor variations that occur within a species as it adapts to environmental conditions. Examples include birds developing thicker beaks to better process harder food sources, or rabbits exchanging darker fur for white in order to blend into snowy surroundings. These changes represent adaptations within a species, rather than transitions between distinct species. For a more detailed explanation of the various components and terminology related to evolution, see our article here: https://copticapologetics.com/2025/03/10/what-is-evolution/.
Charles Darwin introduced the term incipient species to describe organisms that appear to be in the process of transforming into entirely new species. However, 20th-century geneticist Richard Goldschmidt challenged this notion, asserting that “the facts of microevolution do not suffice for an understanding of macroevolution [i.e., evolution through speciation from a common ancestor into distinct species or families].” He concluded, “Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” [4] In other words, Goldschmidt argued that intra-species adaptations do not have the genetic capacity to give rise to entirely new kinds of organisms.
Similarly, in 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff noted: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest.” They ultimately concluded that “The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.” [5]
Another point of contention is the concept of homology, which refers to structural similarities in anatomical features—such as the resemblance between the bones of a human hand and those in a bat’s wing. Darwin regarded such similarities as evidence for common ancestry. In 1999, evolutionary biologist David Wake stated, “Common ancestry is all there is to homology.” Yet philosopher of biology Ronald Brady critiqued this logic, noting, “By making our explanation [common ancestry] into the definition of the condition to be explained [homology], we express not a scientific hypothesis but belief.” In other words, the assertion that homology both proves and is explained by common ancestry constitutes a clear instance of circular reasoning.
Further difficulties arise when examining the fossil record. Darwin’s theory of evolution depends on vast geological timescales and gradual change through successive mutations. This would imply that the fossil record should be abundant with transitional forms—those “incipient species” that bridge the evolutionary gap between ancestral organisms and their descendants. However, such transitional fossils remain conspicuously absent, undermining a key expectation of Darwinian theory.
Some proposed explanations for this gap in the fossil record require considerable interpretative effort. For example, fossils from the Pakicetidae family—a land-dwelling mammal resembling a cross between a wolf and a large rodent, complete with fur and canine teeth—have been presented as transitional ancestors of modern whales. The claim that Pakicetus represents an early cetacean demands an imaginative leap that is not substantiated by direct evidence. At best, this could be described as speculative; at worst, it borders on wishful thinking. In either case, such assertions fall short of the scientific standards of evidence and logical coherence.
(Insert image of Pakicetus from Encyclopaedia Britannica with caption: “Pakicetus, an ancestral whale, the first cetacean discovered with functional legs.” [6])
By contrast, some scientists openly acknowledge that the evidential support for these transitional forms is simply not available—at least not yet.
It is crucial for evolutionary writers to exercise greater caution when basing their arguments on fossils that are highly contested—or, in many cases, thoroughly refuted by other evolutionary scholars. The continued citation of Australopithecus afarensis (“Lucy”) or Tiktaalik as so-called “missing links” in modern (2023) literature is, frankly, scientifically untenable and intellectually embarrassing.
For readers interested in a more in-depth examination of the logical inconsistencies within Darwinian evolution, the forthcoming articles in this series will analyze each point in greater detail. Those who wish to maintain a belief in the theory of evolution—regardless of its lack of scientific rigor or philosophical coherence—may continue to do so, though such a position rests more on conviction than critical analysis.
For our complete series of articles addressing the lack of scientific basis in evolutionary theory, click here: https://copticapologetics.com/category/evolution-and-intelligent-design/science-or-evolution/
Resources
[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/genus
[2] Douglas J. Futuyma, 2017. “Evolutionary biology today and the call for an extended synthesis”, Article section 2. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsfs.2016.0145
[3] https://www.britannica.com/science/group-selection
[4] Goldschmidt R (1940) The material basis of evolution. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut
[5] Scott F. Gilbert, John M. Opitz, and Rudolf A. Raff, 1996. “Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology,” Developmental Biology 173 (1996), 357-372.
(6) Image of Pakicetus: https://www.britannica.com/animal/cetacean/Paleontology-and-classification#ref1279812
