EXAMPLES ILLUSTRATING HOW DARWINIAN "EXPLANATIONS" OFTEN RAISE AS MANY QUESTIONS AS THEY ANSWER; 

If one looks at what Darwinists say about groups of life forms which have major differences, beyond the species level of things such as different bird beak lengths, etc., one is talking about clearly distinguishable groups call Phyla.  A book has been written titled; "On the Origin of Phyla." 

In the article referencing the book, the reviewer says;  "Phyla originated hundreds of millions of years ago, and extinction has weeded out intermediate forms, leaving significant differences between the living phyla."  This is typical of Darwinist double speak.  He says "extinction has weeded out intermediate forms" (a misleading way of admitting there is no evidence of intermediate forms.) The reviewers comment is a leap of logic with little or no evidential support, and the actual historical record is in fact just a direct violation of the Darwin dogma.  That is one of the reasons there is what is called the "Cambrian explosion" which is the sudden appearance of a number of new phyla which goes against the small continuous changes demanded by Darwinian dogma.  The question raised is; where are all the intermediates?   Another question is what caused the explosion?

This lack of evidence has lead "Darwinists" to come up with the idea of "punctuated equilibrium" which is a term for the fact that there is no evidence of Darwinian evolution leading to new phyla.  In the reference site it says; "most evolutionary changes in morphology, although perhaps continuous in the sense of passing through many intermediate stages, have been so rapid that the fossil record presents the appearance of a discontinuous change."  This is an admission that slow/gradual Darwinian evolution does not fit the fossil record and just raises the questions; how could Darwinian evolution produce such major changes so fast and what causes the long term periods of stasis if/when the genes are continually changing leaving the door open for speciation (small changes)?

Scientists who believe in Darwinian evolution as the full explanation for life, say that "selfish" genes  tells us everything about living creatures. If we believe the idea of selfish genes, this raises many problems for Darwinism.  Reference the book by M. Ridley* titled "The Cooperative Gene" which shows that cooperation is the more universal guiding principle and that selfish genes could not survive.) 

The Darwinian scientists have also found that there are common genes between very different life forms which control other genes.   One could interpret this as genes which again cooperate.  A mouse and a fly have a common gene which controls the development of their eyes.  When they place that gene from the mouse in a fly, however, the fly still grows a fly eye and not a mouse eye.  The gene is, however, necessary to grow the eye, so what does this say about genes working together in general?

If control genes are able to control the development of a completely different type of eye, are they really the control or does the real control come to them from somewhere else, such as a field of some sort acting through the control genes?   If other genes control the control genes, what in turn controls those higher level control genes?  Where does the coordination/cooperation stop?  Simple chemical gradients cannot contain enough information to exert such elaborate control unless the control genes are extremely sophisticated and if control genes were that sophisticated, that we make Darwinian explanations just much more extremely improbable because of the concentration of information in tiered control genes.

Since there are control genes, how did they evolve?  How did the control of the control genes evolve?  If they evolved together with some life form that was complex (all life forms are) and needed to be controlled, that would be co-evolution which extreme improbability multiplied by extreme improbability.  Again, do the hard facts in reality support Darwinian macroevolution (the theory that evolution can do more than make small changes such as the length of a birds beak, etc.) as the whole story of life (at least after life began in some way when one looks at the probabilities of coordinated evolution?) 

The two types of eyes in this example could not be much more different.  If the gene is the same for both types of eyes why do those eyes come out almost completely different if the gene is in fact determining the eye design?  The answer is apparently that the gene they transplanted only "commands or controls" other genes, but again that just raises more questions (the gene supposedly somehow evolved to know how to control the growth of more than one type of eye?) This is typical of Darwinian macro evolution theory.  Except for things like the size of bird beaks or outer colors, if you carefully follow the hard science, you will find that Darwinian theory often raises more deep questions that it answers when it tries to explain the deeper complexities of life!

                               a        

If Darwinian evolution is true as explaining all of life, then what did the control gene(s) do to survive evolutionary pressures before the genes it or they control had evolved?  Otherwise, what did the genes which could make an eye do to insure their selection survival before the control gene(s) evolved to tell them what to do?  Survival of complex control genes would be extremely unlikely by just chance (the more complex the system, the less likely it is to have a survival advantage if governed by some simple gene change due to random effects, some other explanation is probably necessary.    Complex control genes are just hopeful monsters (almost certainly not have evolved in one leap) but do not fit the Darwinian dogma.

This eye gene problem is just one more continuing string of which came first the chicken or the egg problems that are not explainable by Darwinian theory without resorting to assuming extremely improbable events.  Microevolution (changes in bird beak sizes or changes in bacterial chemical responses) is science fact, macroevolution is much different and not proven by the fact of microevolution.  Follow this link to see what we believe about Darwinian evolution.

Our other essays on evolution.

You are entitled to know the whole truth about evolution, including the large amount of evidence which argues against macro evolution.  The more complex the process of life, the more questions it raise about Darwin's simple theory as a total explanation.  It is very unlikely that it is the full explanation. 

The truth is that almost every time science looks deeper at life, life is found to be incredibly more complex than expected.  Scientist present very simplified stories to the public, especially when seeking funding.  Sadly, those who depend on their defense of Darwinian macroevolution theory for their income, are not in a position to be candid.  They do not admit this (probably in many cases, even to themselves, let alone to their students.)  To find out the truth, you need to study the subject including all the pros and cons yourself.  You need to know what scientists disagree on as well as the agreements.  Science is supposed to be an open and honest contest of ideas.

A DOGMA DEFENDED BY THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC AT ALL COSTS

The Natural Limits to Biological Change, Neo-Darwinism Under Attack

OPEN DEBATE ON LIFE’S ORIGIN

The Extinction of Darwinism

Genes in Action — Mystery Link: from genetic information to cell structure and function

Is it more reasonable to believe in creation over evolution?

*The Cooperative Gene: How Mendel's Demon Explains the Evolution of Complex Beings by M. Ridley.  Note; the reference to Mendel's Demon is a term in thermodynamics and physics and has nothing to do with religion.