Fact/Fiction 

Evidences

Assumptions

Mutations

Conclusion 

One must have evidence for any scientific theory.  The evidences for the Theory of Evolution as presented in biology textbooks generally form along the following lines:
 

1. Geographical Distribution of Plants and Animals
2. Fossils
3. Comparative Anatomy
4. Comparative Physiology and Biochemistry
5. Comparative Embryology
6. Vestigial Structures

Let's look at each of these lines of evidence as see how reasonable they are.

Geographical Distribution of Plants and Animals

This has to do with the plants or animals of a particular place.  Certainly there is a difference between the plants and animals of West Texas compared to West Africa.  Successful organisms are well-adapted to their locale.  Does this illustrate variation and natural selection leading to new species, or does it illustrate intelligent design?

Fossils

Organisms have changed over time.  Most organisms have become extinct.  However, the evidence is overwhelming that new species emerged rapidly with no convincing transition forms.  Does this illustrate Darwinian evolution, or the presence of a Creator?

Comparative Anatomy

There are similarities between many animals (e.g., mammals).  Evolutionists say this evidence points to a common ancestor for all animals.  However the differences between animals is astounding.  To go from a reptile to a mammal, as Evolutionists say is fact, means that the reptile must develop a large and substantially different brain, complex teeth, a separation of respiratory and digestive passages, three ear ossicles (instead of one), a mammal’s posture, thin skin with hair instead of thick and scaly skin, heart ventricles separated by septa, a thoracic cavity with a diaphragm, become warm-blooded, have growth that is genetically limited rather than continuous through life, and reproduce with a uterus and placenta with milk production and parental care rather than eggs with no parental care.  It takes enormous faith to believe that this happened, especially in the face of a fossil record that cannot support such a fantastic proposition.  Do similarities in comparative anatomy suggest MACRO evolution, or do they suggest a common Designer?

Comparative Physiology and Biochemistry

There are similarities between various cellular processes and structures in many forms of life.  These include similarities in enzymes, hemoglobin, thyroid hormone, insulin, mitochondrial and nuclear DNA, and ribosomal RNA.  Similar groups appear to be more related than distant groups (e.g., mammals to mammals, reptiles to reptiles, plants to plants).  However, there are notable exceptions.  For instance, the structure of cytochrome C is not universally similar.  These dissimilarities in molecular biology do not support the Theory of Evolution.  Again, evolutionists believe that the similarities demonstrate the validity of the evolutionary tree.  However, is this not a better demonstration of purposeful Designer?

Comparative Embryology

For those of us who took embryology in college, we may remember the saying, “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.”  It was a witty little saying that was supposed to reinforce the teachings of evolution, that is, embryologic development recapitulates the evolutionary history of an organism.  There are both similarities and differences between the embryologic development of humans and lower animals.  Although this is often cited as an evidence of evolution, few modern biologists accept this as a line of evidence for evolution at this time.

Vestigial Structures

The continued citing of vestigal (or rudimentary) structures as evidence for evolution may be embarrassing for modern biologists.  Recent examples of “vestigal structures” in humans have included the appendix and the pineal gland.  However, the appendix participates in the immune system, and the pineal secretes melatonin, a very necessary chemical for normal sleep.  This is not deemed a significant evidence for evolution anymore.  Informed biologists are cautious to label some organ as “vestigal” now.

So, how convincingly do these lines of evidence support mechanistic MACRO evolution?  Poorly, at best.  In fact, if the Theory of Evolution cannot be demonstrated at the level of Comparitive Physiology and Biochemistry, then there is no convincing support for MACRO evolution at all.  The notable exceptions in this area are completely incompatible and unexplainable by evolution. 
 
 

next page

Page URL: http://www.wayhome.org
Current Page: evo3.html
Copyright 2000, Vic Vadney
Webmaster: Vic Vadney
Revised: July/29/2000/