what we believe DARWINIAN macro evolutionists fail to fully grasp.
reasons behind our belief that Darwinian evolution has a very limited capacity to explain the complexities of life.
Below is a list of 12 issues where darwinian reasoning does not address or grasp the basic problems if it is supposed to explain all of life.
We are far from alone in our beliefs of the limited ability of Darwinism 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.
If any one of the issues we list below 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 that answer is almost certainly that it is not.
We believe that the scientific issues discussed below 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.
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 macroevolution. 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.
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 macroevolution. Those arguments and the evidence constitute nothing like a proof. Macroevolution is on a whole different level than microevolution (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 compelling evidence for linear accumulation of micro evolution generating any large scale novelty as occurs in all life forms.
We believe that the arguments for Darwinian macroevolution 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 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 unlimited Darwinism) is not at all the same thing as a full proof or 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 macroevolution, only a number of pieces of evidence which could be explained other ways. Actual proof only exists for microevolution (bird beaks getting longer or shorter, for example.)
To be the full story for all the complexity of life, the arguments for Darwinian macroevolution would have to answer all the questions of life's complexity in every details. Furthermore, Darwinism is inherently unprovable in it claim that there is nothing but survival selection from random variations. No proof is ever possible that some hidden field was not giving direction to evolution. This is a basic an irrefutable truth. (See point 9) below.)
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. Link here to a list of Darwin 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, if not usually, at odds with the full set facts in one or more respects.) 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. 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 the following issues are examined and given their proper weight of argument, each of the issues raise serious questions which we believe cannot be reasonably explained by simple ancestral Darwinian microevolution as a theory of macroevolution;
1) The amount of information needed by a complex life form is very large and the extreme improbability of that information being developed by what are essentially linear selection processes from a preexisting form (i.e. adding or subtracting elements based on small incremental changes (no hopeful monsters even at the gene level.)) The more and more we learn of life even at the cellular level, the more complex we find it to be. The more complex it is, the more information is needed to explain it and the more information makes Darwinian linear descent incapable of providing a reasonably probable explanation. Even the simplest life forms are not building block arrangements which might have a reasonable probability of occurring by simple chance.
2) There is deep interdependence (chicken and egg relationships of great complexity) in all life forms at all levels. 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 feedback control systems. Such control systems need a control element and especially the control genes (if they are the full explanation for the control) 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 means that even if control genes (genes which perform some of the control functions are known to exist) did contain the entire control function, 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 exist. This is logically inconsistent with the linear nature of Darwinian evolution. This reduces the probabilities of random variations resulting in the necessary complexity to near zero all by itself.
3) 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. 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. With all its 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. Such man made systems are hyper simplistic compared to the complexities of life even at the cellular level.
4) 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 may 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. Darwinian macroevolution theory requires an extremely large number of unbroken chains of ancestral relationships which supposedly account for functional discontinuous novelties. There is no laboratory evidence above the molecular level for discontinuous novelty generation from environmental selection pressures. All laboratory experiments with complex life forms (for example with flies) have failed to do more than produce deformed flies for example, with more or fewer or misplaced body parts.
A major problem with Darwinian macroevolution 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 extremely week in terms of long chains of relationships leading to novel functions and life forms. Multifunctional genes and control genes (both of which are to a degree proven facts) actually argue against long gradual continuous chains of small functional changes in genes.
5) Darwinian reductionistic explanations ignore the fact that fields are the fundamental reality of the universe as proven by quantum mechanics in physics. Darwinian evolutionist always present their arguments in terms of molecules and make little if any reference to fields beyond the fields involved in local chemical interactions. Physics has 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. This will inevitably leave open the probability of miscomprehension of the realities of macroevolution which has to involve fields if it is to reflect the reality of physics.
6) The fact that fields are not linear (not simple straight line additive relationships) will require something far more than a linear building block ancestral explanation. Since fields are 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.
7) The fact that fields are not purely local must be part of the explanation for life's complexity. 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.
8) The determinate nature of initial conditions. All physical (matter or field) relationships are determined in part by initial conditions (how things start out.) In complex feedback situations you have Chaos which involves 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.
9) THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENT IS BASED ON VERY FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF MATHEMATICS AND INFORMATION AND IS A SIMPLE TRUTH WHICH ALONE SHOWS THAT MACRO DARWINIAN EVOLUTION CANNOT, EVEN IN PRINCIPLE, EVER BE PROVEN! Just because some sequence seems random (such a gene sequence), that does not prove that no determinate function exists which would describe that 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. 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.
10) The fact is that science can never run an experiment which could prove that there was no design to begin with. 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 certainty. Macroevolution of life's complexities will always remain open to the realities of the limits of science in not being able to prove certain negatives.
11) The existence of more than a small amount of homology and homoplasy is sufficient to raise serious questions about evolution being an undirected process.
12) 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 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.
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.
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.
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 not the result of 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.
Another of many examples of other scientists questioning the doctrine of macro evolution.
Science That is Not So Scientific
A Scientific Defense of the Creationist Position
Genetic Algorithms Do They Show that Evolution Works?
A source for science tapes which question Darwinian macro evolution (without reference to any religion.)
Findings Challenge Darwinian Theory
15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry
Truth in Advertising: Damaging the Cause of Science
SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVITY IN QUESTION
A Scientist Reflects on Religious Belief
Case Series on Scientific Integrity