I read an interesting article in the EVN about one paper entitled “Dissecting Darwinism” that appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings. It discusses on the failure or limitation of Darwinian mechanism to explain recent discoveries and advancement in various fields of science. In the said paper, the author argued in three areas where evolution is said to be weak for failure to provide compelling evidence to support its claims (these are the issues that were raised during the Texas State Board of Education testimony in 2010), which I will discuss in short here in my blog.
I believe that it is to the best interest of Science and of the ordinary Joe to be informed on matters of development in the field of sciences especially when it challenges the present theory that explains natural phenomenon. In the said paper, the focus was on the limitations of evolution in addressing new challenges from recent discoveries or knowledge from science itself.
Many of the average Joe are not aware of these various developments and advancements in science in the last decades and in recent years that have posed great deal of difficulties for Darwinian evolutionists in addressing the issues on the beginning of life and diversity of life. Darwinian theory on natural selection is slowly losing its ground in scientific battle of credibility for failure to adequately and compellingly support or explain new scientific findings and information/Knowledge in Molecular Biology and Genetics, the Cambrian explosion, irreducible complexity and information coding in DNA, etc.. And Darwinian lobbyists, supporters and forerunners are in total denial of the fact, that Darwinian mechanism upon scientific examinations cannot be accounted for the early formation of life, lest the sudden appearance of diversity of life during the Cambrian Explosion. Another equally interesting issue that the author discussed is on the issue on the evolution of man from primitive primate to Homo sapiens (this I will discuss in separate post).
The new challenges confronting Darwinian evolution are results of new developments in various fields in science. Darwinian Evolutionists, when confronted with scientific evidence that shows the limitations or flaws of the Darwinian mechanism would resort to unsophisticated arguments. This is the reason why I wrote about this particular paper that appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, by Dr. Joseph Kuhn of the Department of Surgery at Baylor University Medical Center entitled dissecting Darwinism. Khun outlined the problems or weaknesses of Darwinism, as follows:
- Limitations of the chemical origin of life data to explain the origin of DNA
- Limitations of mutation and natural selection theories to address the irreducible complexity of the cell
- Limitations of transitional species data to account for the multitude of changes involved in the transition.
As to why the chemical origin of life is a problem in Darwinian evolution, Khun pointed out that “the fundamental and insurmountable problem with Darwinian evolution lies in the remarkable complexity and inherent information contained within DNA.” He added that “Darwinian evolution and natural selection could not have been causes of the origin of life, because they require replication to operate, and there was no replication prior to the origin of life…”
The limitations of mutation and natural selection theories to address the irreducible complexity of the cell is well pointed out in the book Darwin’s Black Box, by Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe. Khun noted that “irreducible complexity suggests that all elements of a system must be present simultaneously rather than evolve through a stepwise, sequential improvement, as theorized by Darwinian evolution.” Khun further argued that “that these irreducibly complex systems are specifically coded through DNA adds another layer of complexity called ‘specified complexity.'”
For one hundred years, textbooks illustrate the transition of specie from primate to man. They made us to believe in ape/human common ancestry. But according to the book The Myth of Junk DNA
“The DNA homology between ape and man has been reported to be 96% when considering only the current protein-mapping sequences, which represent only 2% of the total genome. However, the actual similarity of the DNA is approximately 70% to 75% when considering the full genome, including the previously presumed “junk DNA,” which has now been demonstrated to code for supporting elements in transcription or expression. The 25% difference represents almost 35 million single nucleotide changes and 5 million insertions or deletions.”
Khun added that “the ape to human species change would require an incredibly rapid rate of mutation leading to formation of new DNA, thousands of new proteins, and untold cellular, neural, digestive, and immune-related changes in DNA, which would code for the thousands of new functioning proteins.”
“The problem is that”, according to Khun, “this rate of mutations has never been observed in any viral, bacterial, or other organism”. Khun concluded that “The recently discovered molecular differences between ape and humans make the prospect simple random mutation leading to a new specie Homo sapiens largely improbable.”
How it is largely improbable, that I will discuss next.
Of course, as expected, after the “Dissecting Darwinism” appeared in the journal, many evolutionist proponents submitted their responses to the challenges on the weaknesses of Evolution put up by Khun. The funny thing about it is that, none of these replies scientifically addressed the challenges on the weaknesses of Evolution.
I will try to post some of the unsophisticated arguments from evolutionists next time, if I find time for them. But for those who can’t wait, i provided the link to the site below.
The full report explains the scientific bases and evidence of the claims here >>>> (Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1)(2012).)
Link >>> http://www.baylorhealth.edu/Research/Proceedings/Pages/default.aspx
- Creationists vs. Evolutionists: An American Story (theatlantic.com)
- The Trouble with Theistic Evolution (str.typepad.com)
- Michael Behe and Keith Fox debate theistic evolution vs intelligent design (winteryknight.wordpress.com)