Scenarios of potential proof of elements of macroevolution (nothing even close found by science to date to our knowledge), which are not prohibited by the laws of physics;

1)      Nothing like this has happened, but possibly in a laboratory (after science trying unsuccessfully already for about 70 years) a scientist might possibly find a way to cause a fruit fly (or such) to change into something at least as different from a fruit fly as a butterfly or a beetle or some whole new kind of bug or other structurally and functionally different life with new kinds of structural parts and/or novel functions.  This has been tried unsuccessfully for about 70 years on the fruit by applying some combination of heat, chemicals, or radiation to increase selection pressure and in effect, produce a compressed time experiment.  

      The changes from selection pressure would have to make the fly more than just a deformed fly with extra, or missing, or misplaced parts.  In the 70 years of trying such experiments, Darwinists only have made deformed flies from such highly intense mutation and selection pressures in many different and extreme combinations.  Nothing truly new or fundamentally novel in function has been produced.   Proof would require some new and novel fully functional life-form with complete function and enhanced survivability.

      It is also worth noting that even such a laboratory breakthrough would not prove that it was just selection from a random gene variation (Darwinism) that made such a life form change possible.  Such a proof would require removing other possibilities in the experiment which might not even be possible.  If in fact there were a set of coordinated/interrelated changes which made the modified life form viable, that would tend to disprove the Darwinian dogma in terms of macroevolution, since the probability of such a set of coordinated gene changes occurring at random all at or close to the same time is virtually zero.  Such a breakthrough/rapid generation of novelty would actually be evidence of some other organizing principle besides selection from random variation and which is capable of acting in a much shorter time than survival selection from strictly random variation. 

      It is, however, not inconceivable that some form of limited novelty could be generated which could be attributed with a reasonable probability to Darwinism.  Just because it has not  happened does not mean that it is impossible; very unlikely, but not impossible if the degree of novelty is small.

2)      Nothing like this has happened, but it is not impossible that in digs around the world, scientists might find a series of near continuous line of fossils (only very small gaps which needed to be explainable as part of the loss of ancestry due to natural fossil probabilities) which showed that the preadaptation of some structure which looked like a predesign, was actually explainable in improved survival at each step by itself before the more sophisticated functional structure was formed.   This could not be a small change as from a weasel into a squirrel, but say a lizard into a cat or some such truly discontinuous evolution. 

3)      Nothing like this has happened, but it is not impossible that in digs around the world, scientists might find a series of near continuous ancestral fossils  (each of which is clearly advantageous in terms of survival from the previous) that show how a bone structure can change from an exoskeleton to an endoskeleton, or visa versa or that both come directly from a life form with no skeleton, and this was proven and not just possible in improbable theory based on circumstantial evidence. 

4)      Nothing like this has happened, but possibly some mathematician might prove by numerical analysis in the field of information theory that the commonalities of life can result from the laws of physics alone with a significant probability consistent with the age of the universe and that the laws of physics alone are sufficient to produce a continuous evolution with discontinuous morphologies and which also provides a theoretical basis for explaining in information terms how life could arise from nonlife at least to the level of  entities which are much closer to life than any non life now known.

5)     This scenario would not be proof in itself but would at least give some scientific support for a simple materialistic (no fields) explanation for life.  Nothing like this has happened, but possibly some mathematician might prove by mathematical analysis of DNA that all the dynamic and coordinated information required to form the living entity (including all the time dependent relationships in the large number of feedback systems needed by life) is capable of being stored in the DNA in that living entity.   This would have to be sufficient to show that the DNA by itself can define all the proteins needed by the life form, to provide all the dynamic information involved in the living process of life, and it would also have to be shown that DNA contains all the control information including the controls to activate and deactivate various cell functions as an embryo grows and as the cells interact and as the life form interacts with it total environment.

6)      Nothing like this has happened, and it is a very big stretch, but science cannot prove that it is impossible that in some kind of repeatable laboratory tests, starting with no living matter, nor any biological molecule which does not exist outside of a living cell, with environmental conditions which have some reasonable probability of having existed on earth in the past, scientists might create life from non-life in a repeatable experiment (no scientific facts exist which would give any reason to believe that such is possible.)  It would also probably be necessary in such an event to look at the level of complexity of life processes that were generated and determine if such could evolve to multicellular life within the probable time of the existence of the universe as science believes it to be.   To actually prove Darwinism, there would also have to be some condition or finding in the test which ruled out the possibility of some form of life "field" which produces some guidance/control to the chemical processes, otherwise, that would remain the more probable explanation.

7)      Nothing like this is probably ever going to happened, but in the event of 1) where the change is attributed to some complex control gene like a homeobox gene, then there would also have to be an analysis done on the basis of information theory which showed that such a complex control gene could evolve at each and every step from some simpler gene and in each case provide a complete function and a survival advantage at each theoretical step of evolution and it would also have to be shown, at least by probability calculations, that there is a reasonable chance within the lifetime of the universe that such a complex gene could result from Darwinian evolution alone.

8)     Nothing like this has happened, but possibly a test might be done in a laboratory, which shows that within the known chemical reactions permitted by the laws of physics, thermodynamics, and the known principles of chaos and nonlinear systems; naturally occurring conditions can give rise to multiple interacting feedbacks systems like those abundant in even the simplest life.  To our knowledge, such tests have only resulted in comparatively extremely simple self catalytic systems and even computer simulations of such systems have shown a limit to the complexity that can be generated by nonlinear systems far from equilibrium, even when an extremely large number of selection cycles are simulated.

9)    Nothing like this has happened, but science might be able to demonstrate that natural processes can generate encoded information along with a decoding mechanism in a physical reality which occurs without any intervention by man along with an error correction mechanism which was highly effective but not perfectly accurate (which would prevent any Darwinian evolution.)  Life has encoded information and a physical decoding system and a system which corrects errors in the decoding processes.

The reality is that nothing even close to any of the above elements of a proof has ever been discovered or demonstrated in a laboratory.   While such findings are possible, they are probably unlikely since many decades of trying by many scientists who accept Darwinian macroevolution have produce little evidence for such macroevolution.

Please keep in mind that to be the full explanation for all of life, be definition, there cannot be even a single instance where Darwinian macroevolution could not explain how that form of life would have evolved with a reasonable probability, within the life of the known universe or more reasonably, the age of the earth.  Some scientists are unfortunately resorting to postulating the existence of and infinity of other universes and surmising that ours just happens by chance to be precisely balanced for life.  (If one assumes, however, the actual existence of undetectable and/or an infinite number of other universes or an infinitely extended universe, then one really does not explain anything.)  Likewise, some scientists are postulating that life must have arrived on earth from outer space in light of the extremely low probability it could have happened on earth.  They are simply ducking the failings of Darwinism to provide a reasonably probable explanation.

We concur with the extreme improbability of Darwinism as the full explanation for life on earth.  We have, however no question about or problem with Darwinian microevolution as a limited and simple part of the fine tuning process of life.  The question is; can a continuous series of very small changes generate sufficient coordinated and interrelated information to bridge the large gaps and discontinuities of form and function which obviously exists between literally thousands of life forms?   We believe the answer is clearly no based reasonable probability calculations from hard science.  This conclusion can be arrived at in many ways and we will address a few of those ways in our essays in this site.

To be The answer to all of life, Darwinism would have to actually explain all of life.  Simple cases where it does explain some element of the evolution of life, does not at all prove that it explains all of life.  Far from it.  What is true, however, that if even a single form of or element of life (such as the supposed original living cell) cannot be explained by Darwinism to a reasonable probability, then by definition, Darwinism would not be the whole answer.

Certainly, small changes in simple organisms like bacteria which are induced by environment survival pressure do not explain to a significant degree how major and discontinuous changes in morphology come about.  It also does not explain how complex living systems (even at the level of cells which are complex chemical factors with the capability to move and reproduce) came about.

It is conceivable that hard evidence could exist from laboratory experiment which would demonstrate macroevolution, but laboratory experiments do not show any such evidence. There is no more than circumstantial evidence at best that Darwinian evolution is more than a fine-tuning mechanism in the evolution of life. (What hard evidence, if ever found, would look like is outlined below.  Even such tests, if ever successful, might actually show by probability calculations that there has to be more than Darwinian evolution to explain the complexities of life coming into existence in any reasonable/imaginable period of time.)  Since hard evidence for macroevolution does not exist, and in all probability it is unlikely that Darwinism can explain truly new morphology (new functions) or the genesis of life. 

We believe that some form of additional information input (in addition to the DNA evidence in the genome) is necessary to achieve the complex nonlinear interactive control systems that are found in every living cell, especially in eukaryotic cells.  We believe that such guidance either comes from some form of (morphic) field, or some other form of basic law that operates at a level that is not at all yet known to physics, or from a Designer.  Like the Higgs field, an evolution-guiding field might be virtually impossible to detect.  That has not stopped scientists from looking for proof of Higgs and should stop a search for some form of life field either.  Design may be apparent and present if one looks for it in the right way and looks for probabilities rather than certainties.  If one assumes an infinite or near infinite improbability can some how become actualized in nature (as Darwinists do about macro evolution), that would look like design.  (That might even be what a Designer wants to be the case, to leave room for faith.)   Unless one looks for "design", however, one will certainly never find it.  What if archeologists never looked for arrowheads or other stone tools?  They would never see anything but rocks.

Unlike most proponents of Darwinian macro evolution who don’t clearly define the terms they use, we will define what we mean by Darwinian macroevolution which is what the real issue is.  The issue is not microevolution.  Our definition of Darwinian macro evolution theory is a theory where evolution is supposedly an unguided selection from purely random process.  Darwinists believe that such selection will which produces structurally unique (new functions or a new way of obtaining that function) life.  Darwinists believe that such additive selection is capable of overcoming the cusps and blind-alleys (local optimums.  That is our definition of macroevolution.  There are many scientists who believe that Darwinism cannot to any significant probability, generate true novelty by accumulation linear small step translations to achieve another form of life and thus supposedly explain all forms of life (ignoring the origin of life problem).)  Simple molecular level changes would not be macro evolution.

In terms of defining life, we would include at least the following elements; a self sustaining, repairing and reproducing system which exchanges energy with its environment and which is either capable of independent motion or at least exhibits changing/adaptive responses as its environment changes and which has multiple structures with different but coordinated and integrated functions.  To be valid, macro evolution must explain the origin of all these features of life.

 With these definitions (probably still incomplete in defining life) we will use the term macroevolution to mean origination of some new functional part (such as a new sensing structure or a new form of an eye or a new form of reproduction or a metamorphosis into an entirely new form (similar to a caterpillar into a butter fly)) from some structure which is either not living or which has an entirely different function or which had an initial structure which could not be changed via the principles of mathematical topology from one functioning part into the new function/structure without the equivalent of some form of mathematical discontinuity or change in topology. 

A bug with extra wings or extra eyes would not, for example by our definitions, be a case of macroevolution.  (Causing an existing construction sequence to be repeated or miss-located or deleted is not producing anything fundamentally novel in function.)  A bug which could not mate with its ancestors would not be an example of macroevolution.  Mating is such a delicate process that very small changes to prevent reproduction are not the introduction of anything really fundamentally new.  A bigger or smaller form of life as a whole or in its part sizes also would not be an example of macroevolution since this would just involve essentially a small change in something like a stop command.

We have read of tests which force bacteria to supposedly generate some different molecular paths in its life process.  We also believe that such simple changes at that level are not proof of macroevolution (true novelty/discontinuities.)  The laws of quantum mechanics (which governs the fundamental behavior of molecules) allows for variations which would be amplified in certain test conditions.  Very simple life forms would, therefore, be expected to exhibit molecular changes (with a limited degree of discontinuity) which would be and what is seen under certain test conditions.  This would be microevolution and not macroevolution in that the would be no major discontinuity just simple morphing (a change which does not require any large and improbable disruption of function or additional function.)  The bacteria do not change into a truly new life form.

As we mentioned, all of life seems to require complex nonlinear feedback control systems.  We believe that very few of the scientists who support Darwinian Macro evolution have more than the vaguest idea of the hidden complexity and level of design of even simple linear feedback systems.  Designing much simpler systems than those found in life requires the use of fairly complex mathematical tools such as Root Locus, Bode Plots, and Nyquist Plots, etc.  The improbabilities involved in hypothesizing that Darwinian evolution could design the far more complex nonlinear feedback systems may be by itself sufficient to demonstrate the relative impotence of Darwinism when viewed against the real complexity of life.  There have been computer analysis that show that pattern generating feedback systems are not specific to a narrow range of feedback loop functions.  This is not at all indicative of the precision and improbability required to nest feedback systems which have to control certain parameters within specific limits such as temperature, fluid pressure, ph, etc.  Designing an oscillator is much easier than designing a specific control point system and far far easier than designing nested feedback systems with multiple parameters being controlled to a narrow range.

If macroevolution by our definitions is ever found to exist by laboratory (probable historical conditions) or mathematical probability analysis of genetic patterns or the equivalent, such proof would probably have to be reasonably close to more than one of the following scenarios.  Even if this were to occur, such would probably not be a complete proof that Darwinian evolution could explain all of life, but only make the probability less than astronomical as it now believed to be by a number of scientists and mathematicians.  Unless the finding also showed how large discontinuities in morphology and function can be bridged, such a find would not be a proof that Darwinian macroevolution was the entire explanation for life.  Except for scenario 6), there would still remain the question of the origin of life.   

There is also the possibility that even these near proofs would be found to have another more probable explanation other than simply the acting of selection on just random variations.

Will scientists create new life forms—and what would it prove?

In the book; "Finding Darwin's God" by K Miller, the author gives what he what he seems to believe is proof of Darwinian macro evolution.  The example he gives is a test on bacteria to see if they can generate, in the presence of oxygen, an enzyme they don't normally produce in those conditions and an experiment showed that they could.  The point to note, however, is that the ability to make that enzyme was already known to be present (most of the information was already present) and it is not surprising that under pressure to generate the enzyme the bacteria did.  We do not question that changes can occur on the molecular level.  The noise and imperfections in the processes and reproduction of life do lay down a very limited spectrum of simple variations.  This issue is whether or not those small variations can add up to major discontinuities and novelties in life.  There is no significant evidence that such is the case.

The author says on page 106: "Score one for evolution."  If he is talking about micro evolution (small/not truly novel changes) yes it scored one.   The author himself says later on the page "The researchers then analyzed the mutant genes and discovered that the changes were remarkably simple."  Opponents of Darwinism (macro evolution) are not arguing that Darwinism can make such "remarkably simple" molecular changes.  It is very much disputed, on the other hand, that complex and interrelated and interdependent changes can be made in a coordinated way by Darwinism alone.  Sadly, this confusion of micro and macro evolution is brought into the picture by Darwinists because their evidence is obviously weak and confusing the issue is their best defense.

The above example of supposed proof of the power of Darwinism is typical of lab tested supposed evidence.  This is not to say that even if some significant change had been found in the bacteria, the test would in any way have excluded some type of "field" guiding the process.

The author makes another telling admission on page 157 referring to blood clotting; "Like all bio-chemical systems, it evolved from genes and proteins that originally served different purposes."  This statement is quite an admission about the limits of Darwinism; especially about it silence on the origin of life.  Darwinism is also silent on the origin of the genes and proteins which is close to the same thing.  To say that genes and proteins originally served different purposes does not explain anything but just adds another lay of explanation that is required.

How is it then that so many (not all by any means) scientists believe in Darwinian macroevolution?  We believe there many reasons but one primary factor underlying evolution science is the fact that those trained in the sciences examining evolution (and an inherently incomplete history of life) are trained to simply accept that certain leaps of faith must be made in light of the reality the limited historical evidence.   We believe that this becomes so deeply ingrained in their way of thinking that very smart scientists don't see the problem when it is taken to the extreme.

Another factor is the fact that truly innovative macroevolution has never been demonstrated in the laboratory but there is no other hard science theory that has been demonstrated in the lab either.  The hard truth is that the evolution sciences are inherently (at least to this point in time) then forced to be the study of history and the analysis of partial historical data in terms of macroevolution theory, and with no other theory being looked at (there are other possibilities) intelligent scientists just accept Darwinism as the full explanation an work hard to fit every finding to some variation of the theory (usually with having to spin improbable stories with no proof and adding additional levels of required explanation.)  Since no other explanation is supposedly needed, scientist trapped in the community rarely thinks of the possibility that the data might not truly fit Darwinism to a reasonable probability and those scientists do not look for alternative theories (they would not get funding to do so and would usually be committing professional suicide or at the very least career stagnation for lack of funding.

There is another factor which virtually forces scientists in the field to indulge in overstatements of the significance of their research.   Again, leaps of logic becomes a pattern of their thinking by their training, research funding is controlled by those "established in the field", there is also peer pressure, and the nature of the science is to assume the missing pieces and information "must exist" (the phrase "must have been" is found very frequently in discussions of evolution by Darwinists, but virtually never in any other form of science.)   All these factors will almost inevitably color what one comes to accept as proof.    Testing in the laboratory has failed to show more than shuffling or limited molecular changes within very small bounds.  Nothing like hard macroevolution evidence rising at all to a level of proof has ever been obtained in the laboratory.    

Another site suggesting possible evolution tests.

In the life sciences, as in all science, there will always be a possibility that some simple underlying law or factor is governing evolution or some other phenomena and that the hidden law/factor has just not been discovered yet.  We believe that this is by far the most probable truth.

A Scientific Critique of Evolution

Deep evolution: the emergence of post Darwinism

Evolution: Debate it.

HIERARCHY VERSUS REDUCTIONISM.

Punctuated Equilibrium and the Fossil Record

Findings Challenge Darwinian Theory

Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution

Feeling for the Organism; Are living things nothing more than the sum of their gradually-evolved parts?

Darwinism: Science or Philosophy