Friday, September 14, 2012

The Flawed Evidence for Evolution

In a previous post I explained why Darwinism is False. In this post I will explain why the evidence for evolution is flawed.

The article A Primer on the Tree of Life by Casey Luskin discusses the scientific research into the evolutionary relationships between species. The evolutionary relationships between species are determined by examining how similar species are with respect to one or more characteristic. Species that are most similar are believed to be most closely related evolutionarily. These evolutionary relationships can be illustrated with a tree of life. Each new species formed during evolution is represented by a fork in a branch on the tree of life and the new species is represented by a new branch. This illustrates the belief that a new species evolves from only one other species and the resulting two species, the original species and the newly evolved species, are shown on the tree by the two branches of the fork.

If the theory of evolution is correct, then when you examine different characteristics of organisms they should show the same evolutionary relationship between species. However what scientists have discovered is that when they examine different genes they find that they may indicate different trees of life. This contradicts the theory that a new species evolves from only one other species. The theory of evolution cannot explain how a species could evolve from more than one other species.

Someone may say that some of the similarities between species are due to common ancestry while other similarities are due to convergent evolution - where similar environmental factors lead to the evolution of similar characteristics. This could explain why a species might seem closer to one species when one characteristic is examined and closer to another species when a different characteristic is examined. However the theory of evolution says that all species evolved from a common ancestor. If there is no way to tell which characteristics are due to common ancestry and which are due to convergent evolution, if there is no way to tell which species evolved from which, then there is no evidence for evolution.

Casey Luskin provides detailed evidence and a thorough discussion of it in the body of the article, but he sums it up well in the conclusion:

The methodology for inferring common descent has broken down. Proponents of neo-Darwinian evolution are forced into reasoning that similarity implies common ancestry, except for when it doesn’t. And when it doesn’t, they appeal to all sorts of ad hoc rationalizations to save common ancestry. Tellingly, the one assumption and view that they are not willing to jettison is the overall assumption of common ancestry itself. This shows that evolutionists treat common descent in an unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific and ideological, fashion.

Meanwhile, as far as the data is concerned, the aforementioned New Scientist article admits, “Ever since Darwin the tree has been the unifying principle for understanding the history of life on Earth,” but because “different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories,” the notion of a tree of life is now quickly becoming a vision of the past — as the article stated “today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded,” and as scientists quoted in the article said, “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality” or the tree is being “annihilated.” Perhaps the reason why different genes are telling “different evolutionary stories” is because the genes have wholly different stories to tell, namely stories that indicate that all organisms are not genetically related. For those open-minded enough to consider it, common design is a viable alternative to common descent.

Copyright © 2012 by ncu9nc All rights reserved. Texts quoted from other sources are Copyright © by their owners.