BASIC PROBLEMS OF EXPLAINING LIFE THAT ARE NOT ANSWERED BY SIMPLE DARWINIAN MACRO EVOLUTION:

Keep in mind that if Darwinism is the total answer, then Darwinists must be right on every question.  If even one point made in arguments against macro evolution is correct, that Darwinism cannot be the full answer. For macro Darwinism to be true, every point made by scientists questioning Darwinian macro evolution would have to be wrong which is very unlikely.   Beware of; The Evolution Definition Shell Game.

1) Biogenesis (how life originated) is not, of course, explainable in terms of gene function/selection from mutation. Genes are made by life and would not have existed prior to life. Darwinian selection, at least as is testable in the laboratory, makes no sense in terms of simple survival of the fittest when life was not in existence. All that science can offer are partial theories like the RNA world or clay templates which are virtually without serious evidential support and are only partial theories and each of which leave a very large gap between genesis theories and science fact. Each has very serious problems/questions.

2) Even if the origin of life barrier were crossed by one of those theories, it would still leave the error catastrophe problem in DNA replication. Life that is too simple will not have the correction mechanisms needed and will go extinct through replication error accumulation by the same imperfect replication that Darwinism uses. Life that replicates too accurately would not evolve. Without the complex error correction molecular machines with just the right degree of imperfection in existence, life, if it somehow did come to exist through natural mechanisms, would mutate itself out of existence every time or not evolve at all.

3) Finding one string of fossils where a life form seems to have probably evolved in a long series of steps does not prove that the mechanism was selection on random variations alone. It is inherently impossible even looking at a string of simple information (even numbers) to say with a high confidence that there is no governing pattern and determining rule. The same principle holds for life and in the fossil record it can never prove, even in principle, that there is no undiscovered rule operating in addition to simple Darwinian selection and which directs evolution.

4) The question of sufficient time being available for selection from random variations only, requires many assumptions to be made to try to decide "if the universe and the earth are old enough for there to be a reasonable probability of selection from random variations generating complex life. It is unlikely that the assumptions on either side of the Darwinian macroevolution question are all valid. The lack of hard knowledge about the generation and survival of the massive amount of information needed by life makes proof of Darwinian macroevolution extremely improbable, even if it were true. A series of micro steps starting even with simple precursor molecules to life would probably not have enough time even if the universe is more than 10 billion years old. The amount of information in the vast array/totality of life has a negligible small probability of having been generated and the required information organized and coordinated without some form of controlling factor. Simply put, Darwinian macroevolution has not been shown to generate and conserve information fast enough to explain the vast array of incredible life forms and designs.

5) The origin of sex is a discontinuity and unexplained and goes against selfish genes. life contains selfishness but it is far less of a factor than Darwinian macroevolution would predict.

6) Altruistic (non selfish) behavior (such as nursery bats), is not unusual and is in opposition to selfish genes. Convoluted explanations by Darwinists ignore the more simple explanations that there is some field at work which generates harmony. ("THE COOPERATIVE GENE" by Mark Ridley gives numerous ways in which even at the lowest levels of life, genes must cooperate for life to exist.) also reference the book; "DARWIN'S BLIND SPOT, EVOLUTION BEYOND NATURAL SELECTION  Largely about symbiosis and the dominate truths about cooperative life forms. We do not agree with his naturalistic theory of how this symbiosis comes about, but he does make a good case against selfish genes being the dominate force in whatever limited role Darwinism has played in the evolution of life.

7) large populations will wash out novelty, small groups have a very small chance of evolving novelty because they have few members. Either condition reduces the chances of macroevolution being the full explanation to an even smaller probability.  (UNDERSTANDING PROBABILITY SITE)

8) there are fundamental problems with genes fully explaining embryology (how cells know where to go, what to become, and how to interact with surrounding cells and the strong implication that besides the genes, there is/are some form(s) of information field(s) to tell cells where they are in the assembly (even multiple chemical gradients are almost certainly not sufficient nor precise enough), which genes to activate, and where they in relation to what it to become, and the mechanism form them to move. (Refer to the book, " (REFER TO THE BOOK, "MAKING SENSE OF LIFE."  Such fields, if they exist, which seems probably but not yet proven, would by definition preclude Darwinian evolution being the whole story of life.  All "matter" is dependent on the fields of physics and well beyond the nucleus of the atom, those fields extend in space and interact. Science has proven this at the atomic level yet it is ignored by the Darwinist community.  The "field" reality is the true deep reality and not the molecular models of chemistry which have limited validity and do not tell the whole story.  DNA does not tell the whole story.

Unless a Darwinian refutation with a reasonable probability to all of the previous points is found, then Darwinian macro evolution is almost certainly not the full explanation for life. Even a single one of the points proven to be valid would, by definition mean that Darwinian evolution could not be the full explanation for life. Any such supposedly single and total explanation theory must agree with all data and provide provable answers to all apparent conflicts with the theory.

Other considerations:

9) The Darwinian evolution mechanism is a reductionist brick by brick theory which does not take into account the dynamics and interdependent interactions of the whole life form. Numerous complex interactive feedback systems even at the cellular level must exist from near the beginning for the life to be viable. Such dynamic systems must remain in balance for life to be survivable at all, let alone be more survivable. This dynamic time and relationship/interactive balance requirements greatly decreases an already extremely low probability of unguided variation selection producing more fit form of more than extremely simple life forms.

10) Darwinian evolution is an atomistic/ materialistic theory which does not take into account the reality of modern physics. Quantum mechanics has proven in hard laboratory science tests that everything in the universe is actually a type of complex field and neither matter or systems are simply reducible to granular forms or simply additive brick like building blocks. All of what we perceive is a function of nonlinear fields and there is no reason to believe that this does not hold for life as well and any physical part of the explanation of life. This means that atomistic/mechanistic explanations, like Darwinian macroevolution focused on molecular effects alone, cannot explain everything if it does not account for the reality of fields which are not local and are nonlinear

Science does not fundamentally understand fields. All science can provide is an operational definition (fields will behave certain ways and cause certain effects.) It is questionable if science can ever fully explain fields. The reality of fields alone make materialistic reductionism (like Darwinism macro evolution questionable.
 

The Living Cell.    Cells Alive.  A simplified diagram of cell processes.

Biology Anamolies (Some of that which is unexplained by simple models of real life.)

Multifunction genes and molecules make Darwinian macro evolution more improbable.

Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution.

Link to a site which presents another set of facts which they believe refutes Darwinism.

The Metaphysics of Evolution

Emergence and Evolution - Constraints on Form

Limits of Natural Selection a Reason to Teach All Theories