Solid Argument Against Evolution

http://www.amazon.com/Shattering-Myths-Darwinism-Richard-Milton/dp/0892817321

David C. Read, reviewing Richard Milton's "Shattering The Myths Of
Darwinism" (1997), writes:

"Before reading this book, I did not understand how evolution is
supposed to have happened. I had the idea that natural selection acted
upon normal variation. Obviously, there is great variety of form
within each species. It makes sense that some individuals within a
species are better fitted to survive by virtue of being stronger,
faster, smarter or in some other way better adapted. These individuals
will survive more often, mate more often, and leave more offspring,
pushing the species in the direction of greater survivability.
Eventually the species evolves into an altogether higher form of
life.

This notion of evolution is wrong. It is a misconception of the
unsophisticated; scientists know that evolution does not work this
way. Many intelligent non-scientists, however, probably share this
misconception, and most evolutionists do not bother to clear up the
confusion. The dirty little secret, in fact, is that some of them
encourage it.

The evolution scenario described above is merely selective breeding,
with nature doing the selecting. We know that selective breeding can
never lead to a new species. Humans have been practicing artificial
selective breeding on plants and animals for centuries, probably
millenia, without ever having bred a new species.

Milton recounts the evidence in Chapter 12, "Of Green Mice and Blue
Genes." Plants and animals can be selectively bred for a specific
characteristic, but that characteristic can only be pushed so far away
from the norm for that species, and no farther. One example is the
sugar beet, which, when botanists began trying to increase its sugar
content, was about 5% sugar. Selective breeding managed to push this
percentage to 17%, but there it stopped and there it remains. Another
example is afforded by the numerous experiments on fruit flies
conducted by Dobzhansky. One such experiment set out to vary the
number of bristles on the body of the fly, starting from a stock of
flies having an average of 36 bristles. By selecting for lower-than-
normal number, scientists were able to reduce the average number of
bristles to 25. After thirty generations, however, the line became
sterile and died out. The second group was selected for higher-than-
average number of bristles. Over twenty generations the average
bristle count rose from 36 to 56. Again, however, sterility became so
common that the experiment was terminated. Again and again, these
experiments showed that variability is limited. Moreover, the most
frequent response to one-sided selction is a drop in general fitness.
Ernst Mayr terms this phenomenon "genetic homeostasis." It is a
natural barrier that has been encountered by all plant and animal
breeders throughout the ages.

Thus, a new species has never evolved by breeding, that is, by the
normal recombination of genes through sexual reproduction. To get
anything really new for natural selection to act upon (thus bringing
about Darwinian evolution), there must be new genetic material. Where
does this new genetic information come from? According to
evolutionists, from genetic mutations. Mutations occur when the DNA
molecules of the parent organisms fail to correctly join, or when a
single DNA molecule fails to correctly replicate itself. Evolution,
according to Darwinists, is due basically to copying errors.

Mutations can be spontaneous or caused by radiation or highly toxic
chemicals. The results are dismally familiar: cancer, Down's syndrome,
dwarfism. Probably about 99 percent of mutations are harmful, about
90% are fatal.

As Milton points out in Chapter 14, "Of Cabbages and Kings," no one
has ever observed a spontaneous inheritable genetic mutation that
resulted in a changed physical characteristic, aside from a small
group of well-known and usually fatal genetic defects. A beneficial
spontaneous genetic mutation, though necessary to the Neo-Darwinian
theory of evolution, remains a hypothetical event. Moreover, Darwinism
provides no theoretical support for supposing that a mutation will be
one that the organism needs or will find useful in its environmental
niche. On the contrary, mutations are strictly random.

Against this background, the notion that mutations will ever yield
anything significantly helpful to the organism, much less a complex
new organ such as an eye, seems extremely unlikely. The faith of the
evolutionist is truly an extravagant faith, putting the creationist's
faith to shame.

Some evolutionists are honest about the unlikeliness of their theory.
Ronald Fisher, author of an influential 1930 book, The Genetical
Theory of Natural Selection, observed that natural selection is "a
mechanism for generating improbability." Stephen Jay Gould frankly
admits that the odds of getting any species as smart as humans is
"extremely small" and that "we are, whatever our glories and
accomplishments, a momentary and cosmic accident that would never rise
again . . ." In the 12/13/99 issue of the New Yorker, Robert Wright
criticizes Gould for being so open about the improbability of
evolution. Wright, however, is one of those evolutionists I mentioned
earlier who propagates the false notion that selective breeding can
lead to Darwinian evolution. He writes, "male chimps spend lots of
time scheming to top each other. They form coalitions that, on
attaining political dominance, get prime sexual access to females. So
savvy males should, on average, get the most genes into the next
generation, raising the average level of saviness. And, the savvier
the average chimp, the savvier chimps have to be to excel in the next
round. There's little doubt that this arms race has helped make chimps
as smart as they are, and there's no clear reason that the process
should stop now." No clear reason except the experience of hundreds of
years of selective breeding. The range of intelligence of chimpanzees
is genetically limited by the gene pool of the species. To get beyond
that limitation, a chimp must be the beneficiary of a random genetic
mutation that makes it smarter (as opposed to killing it), that does
not weaken it in some other aspect, and that can be passed on to the
next generation. The offspring must survive and pass the favorable
mutation on to succeeding generations, one of which must have another
favorable heritable genetic mutation that makes it smarter, if the
species is to continue to progress toward intelligence. Clearly,
Wright's "just so" story has less to do with evolution than with
explaining the behavior of Bill Clinton.

I've reviewed only a couple of chapters in a 25 chapter book. Suffice
it to say that this book really educated me as to what the Neo-
Darwinian theory of evolution is, and what its weaknesses are. It is
very well written and extremely readable. I recommend it without
reservation."

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Solid Argument Against Evolution
    ... I had the idea that natural selection acted ... species are better fitted to survive by virtue of being stronger, ... scientists know that evolution does not work this ... But, given time, mutations restock the variation. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Does anybody want to proofread and criticize a 7000 plus word
    ... Statistical Probability in the Evolution of Mendelian Populations ... selection of slightly advantageous mutations that frequently recur, ... biased gene conversion, and some elements of neutral molecular ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Evolution is not a fact
    ... All made of what some term micro evolution. ... exactly what you mean by "species selection". ... different populations then external pressures can select one or the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution is not a fact
    ... All made of what some term micro evolution. ... selection as an example of this sort of thing, and so far you haven't addressed it. ... exactly what you mean by "species selection". ... Natural selection is the process that prevents billions ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Bipedalism in different substrates
    ... evolution occurs when a species ... It does this by reducing variation. ... > Selection is a brake, a mechanism to reduce variation, to weed out ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
Quantcast