Darwinian Evolution


pretty much…

Anti-scientific stance Darwinian Evolution

C’mon, man!

Captain Obvious Darwinian Evolution

Yeah, don’t

be absurd!

Darwinian Evolution


This article claims:

Humans are a strange exception to this club. For some reason, recipes long preserved by our ancient ancestors were suddenly ‘spiced up’ within a short evolutionary period of time.

“Spiced up.” For “some reason.” How, uhm, scientific. So like a crappy novel writer, just say “magic” solved everything. In an “evolutionary short” period of time. Hmmm…

Can we get some material and/or efficient causes, here? Maybe I just can’t believe hard enough. Help thou mine unbelief…

OK, back to the article: So just where did this presumed “spice” come from? I mean, statistics tell us that the odds are amazingly low that all these changes would happen all at once by chance alone–even over 14 or so billion years–the age of the Universe. We just don’t have enough statistical “headspace”–there’s simply not enough time for the numbers to even be remotely plausible. Plus, the age of inhabitable earth is not anywhere near that of the universe.

Oh, and another thing, just one or two changes would NOT have “survival value”for the organism–in fact, large changes would be catastrophic to the organism, and they would never live long enough to reproduce. So ALL of those changes have to happen in concert.

And then, this is new genetic information that codes the new proteins for the new organelles and body plans and such. New.

So, just where did this new genetic information come from? It wasn’t there before. And it logically could NOT have come solely from random mutations–the math/probability/logic just doesn’t work! The hard data we have is simply not supportive of a “random chance” hypothesis.

The purely chance model the writer seems to embrace is logically bankrupt! You have to take it on faith. But I’m just not enough of a “believer” to be converted to the religion of Neo-Darwinian evolution…

Darwinian Evolution

The usual

biological evolution arguments are falling more and more flat to me.

As I have learned more and more about statistics and probability, I have become less and less convinced by the Darwinian Evolution argument, as prominent and orthodox as it is in academic circles.

Understand well that this is NOT an objection based on religious beliefs. Indeed, any such beliefs are totally unrelated to my objections.

Nor is this a facile “God in the box” sort of reasoning, that because A is not true, B must be. No, I’m not saying that at all.

What I AM saying is that A simply doesn’t work. See, the orthodox Darwinian Evolution explanation just can’t explain what needs to be explained. The math doesn’t work.

There is always a defense by Darwinian (or more technically, Neo-Darwinian) advocates to buttress their arguments by saying, “Yeah, but with millions and millions of years it could happen by chance alone.”

But no, no it couldn’t. The age of the universe itself is far too short for entirely random changes in millions of species! That dog just don’t hunt. And if evolution is directed, it is not Darwinian evolution. I mean, directed by whom?

Nor will some species of deistic evolution solve it (though that is an argument for another day).

So, I am left with calling this a fantasy. Why? Because I am a scientist. So I need to look for other explanations!