The View From 1776
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Facility Begets Falsehood
The various Darwinian evolutionary hypotheses all rest upon unproved assertions. In the final analysis, the best they can offer is “probably.”
All supposed proofs of Darwinian evolution, whichever of its many theoretical variants is chosen, amount to the unsubstantiated assumption that any two life forms that resemble each other must have evolved from a common ancestor or that one must have evolved from the other. Darwinian apologists have never, and probably can never, offered any example of a continuous evolution from one species to another, apart from controlled (i.e., the opposite of random Darwinian evolution) laboratory experiments with fast-breeding life forms, that doesn’t ultimately revert to the original. They are millions of miles removed from demonstrating a continuous evolutionary chain from one genus to another genus.
The only thing Darwinian apologists can offer to bolster their religious faith in godless materialism is “might have been,” “we can assume,” or “it is reasonable to think that.”
Casey Luskin, in Critically Analyzing the Argument from Human/Chimpanzee Genetic Similarity, looks at that sort of unsupported, facile Darwinian assertion that amounts to falsehood, such as Darwinian religionist Dennis Venema’s casual assertion, “By whatever measure used, we are but a hand-breadth away from our evolutionary cousins at the DNA level.”
Spanning that hands-breadth, it turns out, would probably require more than 100 million years of random genetic mutations.
In 2008, [intelligent design advocate] Michael Behe’s critics Rick Durrett and Deena Schmidt tried to refute him in the journal Genetics with a paper titled “Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution.” But Durrett and Schmidt found that to obtain only two specific mutations via Darwinian evolution “for humans with a much smaller effective population size, this type of change would take > 100 million years.” The critics admitted this was “very unlikely to occur on a reasonable timescale.”
The following is the incredibly low level of detail they provide for the alleged Darwinian evolution of vertebrate genetic structure: “We imagine that rapid and extensive evolutionary change could possibly be an emergent property of having all genes duplicated at the same time, allowing this expanded gene repertoire to evolve together.” Such vague assertions of evolutionary processes in no way demonstrate the efficacy of random mutation and natural selection. Instead, without providing any evidence that natural selection and random mutation could produce observed vertebrate diversification, they simply assert that it happened.