Why Darwinism can’t explain evolution

The Darwinian view of evolution

The classic Darwinism theory of evolution is very simply explained as follows:

Every organism in the process of reproducing produces random mutations. These mutations may result in no apparent affect to the offspring up to an affect that is so catastrophic that it is unable to survive. Sometimes, however, the change may be such that the organism is better able to survive in the prevailing conditions than those that have not had the mutation and so, over time, the mutated organisms survive and the others die off.

This absurd idea has been accepted to the point that it is considered heresy to even question it.

Here are some basic bullet points as to why this doesn’t make sense:

  • The theory assumes that the DNA process already exists but provides no explanation as to how that happened.
  • Each genetic variation would have to take place in the same line of parentage. It’s no use an organism developing an eyelid in one family and an eyelash in another if there’s no DNA linkage between the two.
  • The concept of ‘randomness’ is an absurd one. Something is only called ‘random’ when we have no understanding of what causes it to behave in the way it does. If we understand the process then we no longer call it random but ascribe its behaviour to the known cause(s), and we can predict the outcome when we understand the causes. Ironically, that is what real science is supposed to do — find the causes of a given effect.
  • Many mutations would be neutral in whether the organism is better able to survive, or it may be better in a particular environment (such as developing webbed feet in an area by an ocean) but not another. We would expect to see these mutated lifeforms surviving to some extent. In other words, we should expect to see far more genetic variations across humans and other animals than we do.
  • The timeframe for random change to take place is insufficient. This is the one I want to to focus on in this article.

It’s said that if sufficient monkeys with typewriters were to tap away randomly for enough time they will write the works of Shakespeare. What they don’t tell you is that if they typed at one letter a second, and there were as many monkeys as letters in all the works of Shakespeare, and if the timeframe was the whole time of the existence of the universe – it still couldn’t happen. If the works of Shakespeare can’t be constructed the how can the complexity of DNA and life be constructed randomly?

When I was very young (and an avowed atheist) I saw Richard Dawkins on television demonstrate how evolution works. He had a number letters in a line which would randomly display any letter A-Z or a space (the letters change fairly fast — maybe a tenth of a second). If the letters formed the phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE WEASAL the program would stop. When he ran it just went on running. The time taken would obviously be random but would approximate to 27 to the power of 28 or around 10^40 (that is, 1 followed 40 zeros) — longer than the age of the universe. However, if the device was programmed so that each letter stopped when it was the correct one, the device would achieve the correct phrase in a very short time. This was supposed to show how evolution worked and why it could come about within the timeframe of life on Earth. I remember thinking, as a kid of maybe 14 or 15 how stupid this was and why was this moron representing ‘us atheists’?.

The problem with this is that evolution, we are told, has no end plan. It takes place on its own terms. But Dawkins inserted an intelligent end. On the grand scheme of things he effectively proved that evolution can only take place when there is an intelligence that directs the process. In other words, he proved the existence of God.

By Philip Braham on .



, , , ,




Leave a Reply

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x