{ Science Truth...Assume Nothing }

Book and Article Reviews

The Role of Doubt in Science

For High School Students

What is Science?

Science Limits

The Scientific Method

Fascinating Science

Essays on Environment and Health-Related Science

Basic Science Assumptions

Spotting Bad Reasoning

Science Myths & Models

Critical Thinking

Science Philosophy

Science Uncertainty

Science-Supported Essays

The Dangers of Science

Atheistic Bias in Schools

The Truth About DNA

Anti-Christian Bias

School Environment Pollution

Science and Democracy

Scientific Politics and Misconduct

In Defense of Science

Our Vision of Science

Summary of this website's Key Positions

Site Organization

what we believe DARWINIAN macro evolutionists fail to fully grasp.

What follows is more detail of the reasoning behind our belief that Darwinian evolution has a very limited capacity to explain the novelties and complexities of life.

Explaining all of life (macro evolution) is far different than the proven ability of genes/dna variations through selection to make changes which are not of a discontinuous nature. we have mentioned macro evolution in other essays and will try herein to explain more fully why it is in all probability not explainable by Darwinism and why this is not appreciated by Darwinists. Below is a list of 12 issues where Darwinian reasoning does not address or grasp the basic problems of macro evolution, if it is supposed to explain all of life.

When the following issues are examined and given their proper weight of argument, each of the issues raise serious questions about the Darwinian arguments which we believe cannot be reasonably answered (rationally acceptable probability of happening via the theory) by simple cumulative ancestral Darwinian microevolution, as a theory of macroevolution. If even one of the ten points we raise below is valid, then Darwinism fails as a complete explanation for macro evolution;

1) The amount of information needed by a even a simple life form is very large and in essence "entangled" which do not fit accumulation of Darwinian micro steps. There is an extreme improbability of that type of information being developed, maintained, and coordinated by a Darwinian process, which is an essentially linear additive micro step selection process (i.e. adding or subtracting elements based on small incremental changes (no hopeful monsters even at the gene level.)) The more we learn of the details of life even at the cellular level, the more complex and improbable via Darwinism macro evolution is. The more complex life is (even the most simple cells are extremely complex), the more information is needed to explain it and the extremely high level of correlated/ entangled and densely stored information (code and decoder and repair mechanisms required) which makes Darwinian linear descent for all reasonable chances incapable of providing a clearly defensibly probable explanation.

Even the simplest life forms (even E-coli) are not simple building block arrangements which might have a reasonable probability of occurring by survival selection from chance variations in the genes/DNA. The magnitude and density of information in life is a major issue. Small changes in the information in bacteria shown in the laboratory are not strong evidence about the possibility of making large and correlated changes by the same process gives any reasonable amount of time (life of the earth or even the universe.)

Life contains many highly interrelated/correlated systems which present extreme improbabilities to have formed by single small step change accumulation from uncorrelated/random gene variations. There may even be instances of probable IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY which are not consistent with a Darwinian explanation. EVEN THE DESIGN OF THE KNEE MAY BE IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX.

2) The degree of deep interdependence (chicken and egg relationships of great complexity) in all life forms at all levels which is inconsistent with accumulation of micro steps. Life depends on numerous internal control systems (fluid pressure and flow balances, chemical balances of many types, temperature balance, etc.) all of which are complex reactions involving enzymes and nonlinear feedback control systems. Such control systems need a control element. As now understood by science, the control usually involves genes, and if such control genes are the full explanation for the control, they would have to obey Ashby's law ("control cannot be certain unless the controller has at least as many alternatives as the defined system can exhibit.") This is true even in something as simple as E. Coli bacteria which contain regulatory "networks"! (Read the "background" section at this link.) Homeostatic Mechanisms and Cellular Communication.

In the book; An Introduction to Information Theory by J. Pierce, it says on page 216, "When we apply feedback so as to change a process on the basis of its observed state, the over-all situation may be instable. That is, instead of reducing small deviations from the desired goal, the control we exert may make them larger. This is a particularly hazardous matter in feedback circuits." A Darwinian process working on control elements would almost always make thing worse (less survivable.) The Problem of Information for the Theory of Evolution

The truth is that the vast majority of attempts at any feedback control (without prior advanced knowledge of the system requirements which is not possible with Darwinism) make the situation worse. If, by chance the feedback is positive, the system will almost always be driven to one extreme or the other depending the starting conditions unless the system is precisely coordinated. If, by chance, the feedback is negative, almost all configurations will cause oscillation to the extreme limits or drive the controlled value to close to zero. This means that Darwinian evolution of such a living system (even if the system itself evolved as a integral group (extremely unlikely since that would involve the product (multiplying together) of numerous improbabilities)) would be almost impossible by any reasonable measure of chance.

There are nonlinearly interacting chemical processes with feedback mechanisms in every single living system. Living systems are so complex that biologists are even starting to talk about systems biology, metabolic control analysis, asynchronous oscillations, signal transduction pathways and network mathematics. All this complexity points to the extreme improbability of Darwinian macro evolution by itself/alone explaining such systems.

To make matters worse, living systems are based to a major degree on enzymes. Enzymes are in essence, extremely high gain elements. Any control systems engineer would tell you that the higher the gain of the system elements, the more difficult the task to design the system. The higher the gain in the living system, the lower the probability of Darwinism as an explanation for its existence. Enzymes with very large effects as found throughout life make things even worse for a Darwinian explanation. Very sensitive and life vital high gain feedback systems exist in life. Oscillatory dynamics in the mitogen-activated protein kinase cascade.

Ashby's law means that even if control genes (genes which perform most if not all of the control functions of life forms are known to exist) did contain the entire control function (which is essentially an assumption only), they would have to originate or evolve in a fitness filtering environment while containing all the functions needed to control the complex system before the system could functionally control the genes, or there would have to be coordinated evolution of the control genes and the genes and life form which they function with and in. This is logically inconsistent with the linear selection from small steps nature of Darwinian evolution theory. The effect of Ashby's law alone reduces the probabilities of random variations resulting in the necessary complexity to near zero all by itself. At best for Darwinism, Ashby's law would require that the controlled and controller evolve in coordinated parallel function relationship which is so improbable that it is essentially zero chance.

Quoting from the book "Systems Analysis: a diagnostic approach by Van Court Hare; on page 143 speaking Ashby's law; "This gives us a numerical low bound on the requisite variety of actions the controller must have to be effective---the controller can never have less than the requisite number." Unless a controller has a minimum number of functions, it cannot control a system at all. One cannot simple have an evolving controller which is a little bit functional to begin with and evolves gradually over time. The controller would always have to evolve ahead of the life form or simultaneously in order to maintain control or the life form would have to function without a controller to begin with. This is all extremely improbable and does not fit with the Darwinian process.

A living cell which requires many control functions such as internal pressure, energy balance, and numerous chemical concentrations, etc., could not survive and evolve unless all those control functions were present and coordinated. As life evolves, every function must be controlled and integrated. One cannot simply reduce life to a set of functions acting alone. Evolution is, therefore, almost certainly not a simple reductionistic Darwinian process. It is an extremely complex higher order process. INTEGRATIVE BIOLOGY

Multivariable balances are required in the design of feedback systems which pervade life and these balances are dependent not only of structural relationships but also on the nonlinear time dependencies of processes involved in the dynamics of the information and multiple functions involved in life even at the simplest levels. This also drives down the probabilities of a Darwinian explanation be sufficient alone. Time and phase (pushing or pulling at the same or opposite times, for example) functional relationships represent critical variables in all feedback systems.

Life is not just a matter of piling up, in the right order, a collection of static elements. One cannot take life apart and put it back together again. Life is not a matter of one piece stuck to another piece. With all its interrelated control systems, life is a far more improbable than simply the chance assembly of certain building block chemicals (proteins.) Far simpler control systems designed by man require the use of computers or extensive analysis of the dynamics of the components to achieve reasonable function far short of the sophistication of the control systems found in all of life.

Such man made systems are hyper simplistic compared to the complexities of life even at the cellular level. In addition to the problem with Ashby's law in terms of magnitude of information in the control systems, control elements would have to act in the proper time frame (rate/phase) with the genes being controlled and all the rest of the living organism (many other control systems) at the same time; a probability by selection from chance variations which is also by itself essentially zero by invoking Darwinian evolution micro step accumulation.

Another way to look at it is that life contains many systems which must anticipate the future. The life form must breath, drink, and eat, utilize energy, get rid of waste products, control temperature, control fluid pressures and reproduce before it dies for example. How could systems evolve which anticipated the future, even for short time frames?

3) The fact of commonality of components does not prove dependent origination (ancestral relationship.) The fact, for example, that houseflies have eyes and rabbits have eyes and even that the structures have one or more common regulatory genes does not prove one originated from the other or even that there was a common ancestor with that gene(s). That is something that cannot be simply assumed and then stated as a fact as Darwinists do. Somewhere along any postulated line of Darwinian evolution there would inevitably be some type of discontinuous leap required between major groups of life form types. Darwinian macroevolution theory requires an extremely large number of unbroken chains of ancestral relationships without significant leaps which supposedly somehow accounts for functional discontinuous novelties between such groups. There is no laboratory evidence above the molecular level for discontinuous large scale novelty generation from environmental selection pressures sufficient to bridge discontinuities between life forms. All laboratory experiments with complex life forms (for example with fruit flies) have failed to do more than produce deformed and less survivable flies for example, with more or fewer or misplaced body parts.

One of the major problems with Darwinian macro evolution theory is that any single ancestral chain break would falsify the theory completely. It is a simple truth that the more complex the system is, the less likely it is that some simple continuous set of changes will lead to a functional system/offspring that would be more survivable. The fact that many genes are multifunction (can actually code for more than one type of protein) makes the argument of ancestral relationships as evidence even weaker in terms of long chains of relationships leading happening to produce novel functions and life forms. Multifunctional genes and control genes (both of which are to a large degree proven facts) actually argue against long gradual continuous chains of small functional changes in genes. Such genes represent specialized/concentrated information sources. Which came first; the control genes or the structures which they control? What did the supposed ancestors of the two do and how did they function? As usual, Darwinism (macro) raises more questions than it answers.

4) The fact that Darwinian reductionistic explanations also ignore the fact that "fields" are the fundamental reality of the universe as proven by quantum mechanics in physics. As with all molecules, genes are just manifestations of fields. We are referring here to coupling of functions, environments and potentials via fields as contrasted with trying to the attempts to use quantum mechanics to account for improbabilities via an appeal to the quantum wave functions which prior to the observational measurement are outside of this material reality. Almost all Darwinian evolutionist present their arguments in terms of molecules and make little if any reference to fields beyond the fields involved in very localized chemical concentrations of limited degrees of freedom.

Physics has, however, essentially proven that all of reality is some form of a field or fields. Unless and until explanations of evolution addresses field effects, such explanations will remain hyper simplistic models which can only be shadows of reality. Without field considerations, we are inevitably left with a probability of miscomprehension of the realities of macro evolution which has to involve fields and field discontinuities if it is to reflect the reality of physics and life forms.

5) The fact that fields are nonlinear (not simple straight line additive relationships) argues against Darwinistic addition of micro steps and will require something far more than a linear building block ancestral model. Since fields can be nonlinear, this results in much more complex relationships, even less likely to be explained by some simple ancestral relationships. Nonlinear effects make all reductionistic ideas (the whole is simply the sum of its parts) hyper simplistic and almost certainly misleading at significant levels of complexity. The challenge that 'interdependence' provides to Darwinian macro evolution.

6) The fact that fields are not purely local must be part of the explanation for life's complexity. Macro evolution requires coupling in the life form which would take place in and be dependent on the extended fields of the matter and structures in the life form. (All known fields propagate in space and at least at a subatomic level transmit relationships instantaneously.) This reality makes for even more complex relationships which are even less likely to be explainable by anything like simple ancestral relationship, simple gene changes or reductionistic analysis. There may in fact be a deep relationship between life and reality that goes beyond the known laws of physics. Do Deeper Principles Underlie Quantum Uncertainty and Nonlocality?

7) The determinate nature of initial conditions. All evolution and especially the complexities which pervade life are dependent on the starting conditions if they are to come into being even partially by natural mechanisms. All physical (matter or field) relationships are determined in large part by initial conditions (how things start out.) In complex feedback situations you have Chaos which involves even deeper hyper sensitivity to initial conditions. Evolutionists can never know the initial conditions and can never know, therefore with certainty if their theory of a chance start to life or at least forms of life is correct.

8) The simply observable fact that information required by life for macro evolution is fundamentally different in degree and in kind (in life very closely relating to the existence of decoding mechanisms) than the information found in non living structures. We believe that the information in life is clearly coordinated and very different than that what can arise from simple survival selection from very small incremental changes. (This is shown by the computer simulations of evolution which show that simple rules result in limits to the evolution no matter how long it is run on the computer. Similarly, real evolution would be very limited if it we just survival selection from random variations. The "survival selection" function is too simple for the actual complexity of the real world. We believe that the real function (of which survival selection would only be a small part) is hidden in the information of life which has a random appearance.

The following argument is based on very fundamental principles of mathematics and information and is a simple truth which alone shows that Darwinian evolution based on random variations cannot ever, even in principle be prove to explain all of life! Just because some sequence seems random (such a gene sequence), that does not prove that no determinate function exists which would describe and could be controlling that sequence or the origin of the sequence according to some rule, and the absence of such a rule/function can never be proven. Pure randomness can never be proven in any information sequence in any field of science, not even in mathematics. Refer to Undecidability & Randomness in Pure Mathematics. Even if evolution seems totally randomly determined or at least has what appears to be random components, science can never know if there is not some controlling law/function which has simply not yet been discovered which produced the gene sequence which is the primary information source, at least for the proteins, used by that life form. There is no scientific evidence or principle whatsoever that the only changes which occur, and which have occurred in the past, are random. So how, then, is apparent randomness produced?

9) The fact is that science can never run an experiment which could prove that there was no design to begin with or even that no controlling field is present. (Nor can science run an experiment which could prove that only random variations (no governing rule) are being selected from. It is not possible to prove such negatives. The same is true for initial conditions from any kind of starting condition. It is not possible to prove that the initial conditions were not special. The relationships between initial conditions, the nature of information, the laws of physics, and the nature of design do not allow for experiments which could ever, even in principle, rule out design and the existence of a designer or some form of undiscovered life morphology field. This is fundamental and no discovery could even in theory prove otherwise. Science cannot prove certain types of negatives; i.e. the lack of some law or organization with anything close to certainty. Macroevolution of life's complexities will always remain open to the realities of the limits of science in not being able to prove that there is no undiscovered rule. Crashing the barriers, or does it really matter if there are some things that science will never solve? In general science it may not, but in understanding evolution it does.

Murray Gel-Mann (Noted physicist who believes in evolution to some degree (we believe even more than Mr. Gel-Mann that the degree is very limited for simple Darwinian selection from random mutations)) says on page 38 of his book; "The Quark and the Jaguar" (where the letters AIC stand for Algorithm Information Content), "we cannot in general, be sure that the AIC of a general string isn't lower than we think it is." In layman's terms, this means that one can never be sure that what is believed to be random (such as a string of evolution history) is not the result of some rule (algorithm) operating. So even if Darwinian macro evolution is ever determined to have taken place (not accomplished as of this date to the macro level) there may be an undiscovered rule directing evolution that is the determinate factor overall. One cannot even in principle ever know for sure that there is not some predetermined direction to evolution. This says that Darwinian macroevolution as the supposed whole story of life can never be proven.

10) The reality of the limits of Darwinian evolutionary search model and the phenomena of local optimums and the related local fitness valleys and cul-de-sacs do not add up to explaining the real world where every niche is filled. The world is literally covered with life with literally millions of different survival modes. If the evolutionary search were strictly random (according to Darwinian dogma) it is extremely improbable that all such environmental niches would be filled. Life would have ended up in a few cul-de-sacs and been trapped (note near the bottom the reference to "local search escape analysis") there by the close range search capability of randomly directly small steps which are all that is possible with Darwinian micro evolution. A random search with small steps is not able to explore variations which would allow movement to major new life niches. Thus there would not be a large number of truly novel life forms via Darwinism and there are in fact millions. Link here to an example of army ants getting stuck in a local optimum of behavior. Link here for some idea of what real optimization considerations are like.

If any one of the issues we have listed is not fully understood, it would lead to a miscomprehension of the extreme improbability that Darwinian evolution (survival selection from simple random gene variations) as a possible complete explanation of life. It is not at question that Darwinian evolution is partially consistent with some part of the story of the evolution of life, nor that it is a fine tuning mechanism on existing life forms. The question is; is it the whole story of life? We believe, others agree that answer is that it is not. The limits of Darwinism. The Natural Limits of Evolution. Limitations of evolutionary processes. Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution.

We believe that the scientific issues discussed herein are not fully considered (if considered at all) by most scientists in making judgments about the power of Darwinian evolution. Without proper consideration of these issues, competent scientists could easily miscomprehend the limits of the Darwinian dogma; especially if they are trapped inside the Darwinist community financially and professionally. Do real scientists believe in Creation?

Make no doubt about it, however, there are many very competent scientists and a lot of good science being done about the way life has evolved (changed over time.) The problem is that for the most part, these scientists are somewhat blind to the major deficiencies in the Darwinian dogma in terms of macro evolution. We believe this is almost inevitable due to their training which teaches them to proceed along a line of investigation even if most of the evidence is missing. Their job is to look for the missing evidence so they had to be trained that way. In effect, they have been trained in college to ignore holes in their studies and cannot now fully appreciate how serious those holes are. If one asked a Darwinist if Darwinism is probable, most would answer yes when in fact there are several ways in which it is inherently unprovable.

We understand that there are arguments (of limited explanatory power and critically based on assumptions, circumstantial evidence, and extrapolations from observed microevolution) which can be made for Darwinian macro evolution. Those arguments and the evidence, however, constitute nothing like a proof. Macro evolution is on a whole different level than micro evolution (which is why some scientists have proposed that life must have come from outer space and some scientists have proposed what is called punctuated equilibrium evolution) and there is no direct remotely compelling evidence for linear accumulation of micro evolution generating any large scale novelty as is found in all higher life forms.

We believe that the arguments for Darwinian macro evolution fall far short of what would constitute a proof and fail to rule out other explanations (such the possible existence of some other factor (field of some sort or some form of design like factor that may be built into the laws of physics or a Designer.) When the factors discussed below are brought into the analysis, it seems clear that the Darwinian explanation is far too simplistic to explain the interrelatedness of life and the extreme complexities, discontinuities and nonlinear nature of life even at the "simple" level of the cell. (Even the simplest living cell is actually extremely complex.)

Limited evidence of support for a theory (such as micro/limited to small steps Darwinism) is not at all the same thing as a full proof and certainly not even a partial proof. A proof is an unbroken chain of compelling logical steps which lead to no other possible conclusion. There is no proof of Darwinian macro evolution, only a number of pieces of indirect evidence which could be explained other ways. Actual proof only exists for microevolution (bird beaks getting longer or shorter, or changes in existing bacteria for example.)

To be the full story for all the complexity of life, the arguments for Darwinian macro evolution would have to answer all the questions of life's complexity in every details. Furthermore a basic tenet of, Darwinism (the belief that selection occurs from random gene changes) again, is inherently unprovable in it claims that there is nothing but survival selection from random variations. No proof is even theoretically possible that the gene changes have resulted from selection from random variations only. Undecidability & Randomness even in Pure Mathematics No proof is ever possible that some hidden field was not giving direction to evolution. This is a basic an irrefutable truth. (See point 8).

To state our specific objections to macro evolution in another way, what we believe is at best questionable are 1) only random gene variations drive evolution and 2) that random gene variations can within any reasonable probability cross the valleys of a fitness landscape without being trapped in local optimums, and 3) that the fitness landscape does not consist mostly of steep valleys where Darwinian driven evolution would almost always get trapped (and at the very least would have left quite a number of obviously dead end species and a wide array of intermediates which failed in the process of partial adaptation.

In any case, regardless of how strong the Darwinian story seems to be in a limited arena, that does not prove that the macroevolution theory is the full story unless it is equally applicable in all arenas of questions about life. A theory which is inconsistent with any single fact, is by definition not automatically the correct theory for all the facts of the story of life. This is especially true when the theory rests on many assumptions. Here is a list of Darwinian macro evolution assumptions.

All the arguments for Darwinian macroevolution are deficient in one or more ways (in most cases consistent with part of the facts but actually at odds with the full set facts in one or more respects related to true novelty.) In trying to explain the facts of the fossil record and the incredible complexity of life all the way down to the cellular level one cannot scientifically ignore certain facts at odds with the theory. The theory or theories which are proposed as explanations are just partially supported conjectures if they ignore any hard facts. In true science, one cannot simply say "this must have happened" or that this was "invented" and move on as though such a conjecture is to be considered a fact when it is just an assumption that Darwinism could have done that.

In his book "Quark and the Jaguar" Nobel Prizing winning physicists M. Gell-Mann says on page 266; "in the case of biological evolution, it is too simplistic to suppose that a complex adaptive system merely slides downward on the landscape. ---If the system did nothing but slide downward, it would be overwhelmingly likely to get stuck at the bottom of a shallow basin." What Mr. Gell-Mann is saying is that it is overwhelmingly unlikely that simple Darwinian evolution would have produced such an array of life which is well suited to its environment (landscape.) S. Kauffman (Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry) says on page 74 of his book Investigations; "Whence these wonderful fitness landscapes that are so well suited to be climbed by mutation and recombination." In other words, if the landscapes are precisely fit for evolution, how does that just "happen" to be? If they are, isn't that also a sign of Design?

It is very important to note that if even more than one of these twelve issues are valid to a reasonable degree, that would, all by itself, invalidate or at least make it extremely improbable that Darwinian macroevolution theory is the full explanation for life.

S. Kauffman (Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry) in his book Investigations also says on page 6, speaking of supposed early simple life that evolved into more complex life; "If genes are constituted by as few as several hundred atoms, the familiar statistical fluctuations predicted by statistical mechanics would be so large that heritability would be essentially impossible. Spontaneous mutations would happen at a frequency vastly larger than observed. The source of order must lie elsewhere." He is saying a lot here. Early simple genes would quickly breakdown and be useless and the continuation of life by inheriting survivable characteristics would be impossible (based on the laws of physics and statistical mechanics) without some additional source of order beyond the genes. Professor Kauffman goes on to say on page 7; "If these musings be true, we must rethink science itself." On page 17 speaking of Darwin's theory he says; "It does not yet explain the genesis of forms, but the trimmings of the forms, once they are generated." There is no scientific reason to believe it ever will explain the genesis of forms.

Professor Kauffman says on page 47: "evolution must somehow be crafting the very capacity of creatures to evolve. This is another way of saying that evolution is not explained by simple random mutation of genes. Such random mutations could not anticipate future needs of the life form. On page 45 he says; "autocatalysis and molecular reproductions are necessary for life, but not yet sufficient. Life possesses deeper, still more mysterious properties than the autocatalysis we have explored." He is saying here that not self sustaining (auto) process have been found which explains the deeper processes of life.

It is worth noting here that the limitations of Darwinism and simple linear gene theory is becoming recognized by experts in the field as well. The scientist, Dr. D. Kenyon, who wrote one of the mainline books on evolution "Biochemical predestination (Doctorate in biophysics and professor of biology at S.F. State University in Calif.) has through his studies come to believe that Darwinism cannot be the full explanation and that design of some type must also be involved in evolution. The Decline of the Theory of Molecular Evolution.

Darwinian evolution taken to the macro (true novelty) level is a classic case of very questionable science. Going beyond the probable limits of Darwinian evolution, Darwinists also claim that such evolution has the dominate theme of survival of the fittest. The reality is that even if Darwinian macroevolution was the whole truth, evolution is dominated more by cooperation than by selfish survival. The fossil record shows that evolution does not match the tree pattern of Darwinism.

Dr. Lewis Thomas, scientist and author once said; "A century ago there was a consensus that evolution was a record of open warfare among competing species, that the fittest were the strongest aggressors, and so forth. Now it begins to look different. The great successes in evolution, the mutants who have made it, have done so by fitting in with and sustaining the rest of life." This viewpoint is the subject of the book; "The Cooperative Gene".

For other than the committed harshest atheists, it is clear that life is almost certainly not the result of survival selection random evolution and is not dominated by selfishness. Darwinian macroevolution is not only and extremely improbable explanation of life, it is also certainly not a model of the reality of the beauty and harmony of life.

We are far from alone in our beliefs of the very limited ability of Darwinism (selection from random genes variations only) to explain the true novelties (macro differences/true novelties) and the origin of life. We are not alone amongst those trained in science in this belief. This referenced site gives a list of comments by others similar to our beliefs. This URL is a list of 100 scientists who question Darwinian macro evolution. Another 400 Ph.D. scientists who question the theory. Even among Darwinists, there is a debate about the ability of Darwinian micro evolution to explain macro evolution.