Why Evolution is Wrong, post 5 of 10: Why Evolution is Illegal

            By now it should be clear that one of the many problems with evolutionary theory is the extremely slow rate at which evolution supposedly occurs.  As I pointed out in my last post, it is necessary for the average rate of evolution to occur faster than extinction in order for it to have a net positive effect.  Since Darwin’s time evolutionists  have fought hard-pitched battles amongst themselves over the speed of change in organisms.  While they have always agreed that evolution happens relatively slowly, some of them have argued that the actual rate of evolution can vary significantly. This viewpoint seems to have gained the upper hand in recent decades under the name of punctuated equilibrium. 

            Punctuated equilibrium was first formulated in the 1970s by Eldredge and Gould. These two men were paleontologists (scientists who study fossils). They noted that the relatively abrupt changes in species that we see preserved in the rocks contradicted the popular notion of the time that evolution takes place extremely gradually. So they proposed that evolution occurs in faster spurts followed by periods of relative stability.  Michael Behe explains the theory of punctuated equilibrium as follows:

            “The theory postulates two things: that for long periods most species undergo little observable change; and that, when it does occur, change is rapid and concentrated in small, isolated populations. If this happened, then fossil intermediates would be hard to find, squaring with the spotty fossil record. Like Goldschmidt, Eldredge and Gould believe in common descent but think that a mechanism other than natural selection is needed to explain rapid, large-scale changes.”   (Darwin’s Black Box, page 27)

            Cynthia Mills, in her book The Theory of Evolution; What It Is, Where It Came From, And Why It Works describes it this way.    

                “Mayr theorized that the evolution of new species will most likely occur when a small population becomes geographically separated from its parent population.  With a small number of migrants, there would be a smaller selection of genes for the new population, allowing it to veer off, so to speak, from the original population” (page 176).

                Punctuated equilibrium teaches that evolution happens when a relatively stable species is threatened by a change in environment that either wipes out most of the species, or at least isolates a small portion of the species from its parent group. This smaller remnant, responding to harsh selection pressures, is more able to adapt faster to the hostile circumstances because good mutations will be able to spread throughout the entire group much more swiftly as a result of its smaller size. Eventually this group of isolated individuals will change so much that it becomes a new species. In the meantime it may rejoin the parent population (assuming they’re still alive) and quickly pass on its new adaptations to its lost brethren.

            At first this theory may seem like a logical explanation for how evolution could occur at a faster than normal rate, but when you look at it closely you realize that it is full of holes.  One of them, which I mentioned in my last post, is that the enormous amount of natural selection required would probably destroy more “good” genes than it creates. This is because a huge percentage of the original population is destroyed relatively quickly*.  How do we know that just the right animals will be destroyed to assist the new genes in their timely takeover?  Secondly, the species itself would have to experience a close brush with death at just the right time but “luckily” survive. This kind of luck would have to repeat itself over and over again in order to provide the kind of intense selection pressures necessary to allow newly mutated genes to become fully incorporated into the species.  For this to happen once or twice to a handful of species may be possible, but for this to happen multiple times to the majority of living species alive today is utterly absurd.  These statistical flukes would have to become the rule rather than the exception for millions of years.  In real life it doesn’t turn out that way. In the end entropy always wins.

            Finally, punctuated equilibrium requires an intense amount of inbreeding.  This is what Cynthia Mills means when she says that “with a small number of migrants, there would be a smaller selection of genes for the new population, allowing it to veer off, so to speak, from the original population.”  Wikipedia comes right out and admits this fact in its article on inbreeding:

            “Inbreeding has a variety of consequences. Allele exposure can cause genes to be expressed that are not otherwise expressed**. This fact, combined with the fact that most mutations are recessive may indicate that inbreeding drives evolution. Speciation, a key process in evolution, depends on reproductive barriers, a necessary feature of which is inbreeding.”

            The problem with evolution relying so heavily on inbreeding, of course, is that inbreeding has been observed to cause degredation in most species, not improvement.  The same wikipedia article states that if practiced repeatedly, inbreeding “generally leads to a decreased fitness of a population.”  This does not seem to me to be a very good way to make the herd more likely to thrive.  Indeed, many governments around the world agree with me. That is why most of them outlaw inbreeding among humans. Apparantly none of them realize that they are greatly inhibitting the evolution of our species!

* “Nature does not impact a single gene—it impacts the collective actions and interactions of the organism’s entire genome. No matter how fit one gene may be, if the organism it is in is not fit the gene will be lost.” (Mills, 172-173)

** This is where the so-called biological “diversity” comes from that is supposedly produced by natural selection.

Advertisements

0 Responses to “Why Evolution is Wrong, post 5 of 10: Why Evolution is Illegal”



  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s





%d bloggers like this: