Answers in Numbers

This will be a brief post about some unresolved issues with the Darwinian theory of evolution.

Today the slogan “Evolution is a fact” is often stated whenever any dare to voice their skepticism on the topic.  Perhaps it is indeed a fact. Or indeed perhaps it is not. There is room for “common dissent” on the subject because there is no consensus on any aspect of the theory in the scientific field, nor is there consensus on the theory overall. Many do not find the proposed evidence for evolution to be compelling. Many are accused of ignorance and/or religious motivation for doubting it, but because generalizations are not “always” true for “everyone”, there are those who doubt evolution on scientific grounds. More could be said here, but in effort to be concise and brief I’ll start with a simple definition of evolution so we can have a shared definition of what is being discussed. “Variation” (changes) is not at issue here, neither is the word “theory” (explanation of phenomena) at issue. Only “evolution”, because evolution has become a loaded term.

In short, “common descent” is what is at issue. For definition, the “evolution” discussed is the Darwinian theory that serves to fully explain the process of how biodiversity of all life occurred and occurs.

Some reasons I doubt evolution adequately explains all of biodiversity are due to the following:

1. Natural selection and mutations have limits therefore are inadequate mechanisms for producing all of biodiversity alone. Both are limited by the ability of the population to produce variation. (Natural selection is limited in preventing extinction of species and natural selection isn’t innovative. Mutations are limited by their rarity, how infrequent they’re beneficial, and how often they must reoccur, so the accounting for “arrival of the fittest” for the “survival of the fittest” to occur just doesn’t add up.)
2. “Fitness” is an ill-defined concept. (Fitness lacks any independent measure therefore it’s assessable only retrospectively. This makes fitness either illusory or makes natural selection a weak or infrequent occurring phenomenon)
3. Variations have limits. When pushed, the line becomes sterile and dies out instead of descending into new genus groups.
4. Biodiversity to the degree we see is mathematically improbable to have occurred within the timeframe allotted.
5. Human consciousness cannot evolve because it is an ontological difference between humans and animals, not a biological difference.
6. Molecular biology fails to provide evidence for a grand “tree of life”.
7. Long history of inaccurate predictions regarding vestigial organs (a.k.a. “junk” DNA). Continually we are learning purposes of many organs we formerly labeled useless.
8. Irreducibly complex structures have only been assembled in theory, but no evidence of how mutations and natural selection can viably generate the genetic information required for these structures.
9. Abrupt appearances of species in the fossil record doesn’t support Darwinian evolution.
10. Humans display many behavioral and cognitive abilities unnecessary for survival advantage.

These hardly scratch the surface of reasons for why I and others are skeptical of evolution as far as speciation, common descent, and genetic drift to new genus go, nonetheless it is a start.