Summary Evoskepsis Association Criticism of the Theory of Evolution

1. The theory of evolution can only be discussed adequately if a distinction is made between micro-evolution in which the seize of the DNA of an organism does not increase, and macro-evolution in which the size of the DNA of an organism does increase.
2. Micro-evolution is brought about by the recombination of gene-variants (alleles) from the genepool of a population and selection of advantageous combinations. This mechanism is fundamental for animal and plant breeding, and is responsible for the continuous adaptation of living nature to changing circumstances by natural selection. An example of micro-evolution is the change in the beaks of Darwin finches.
3. Macro-evolution would be brought about by code-expanding, inheritable mutations of the DNA that provide a selective advantage. Mutations, however, are opposed by various mutation-repair systems in the cell kernel. An example of such a mutation-repair system is the deletion of code-expanding mutations when producing sex cells. In this process, the genes inherited from the father of the organism are mixed with those inherited from the mother. If the length of the DNA partitions that are exchanged are not exactly equal, the process will break down resulting in the deletion of the code expanding mutation. In addition, macro-evolution requires a dysfunctioning mutation-repair system, which is a severe selective disadvantage for an organism in the struggle for survival since it causes cancer and hereditary diseases. A structural process of (1) code-expanding (2) immediately advantageous (3) non-repairable (4) inheritable DNA-mutations, made possible by (5) a dysfunctioning mutation-repair system, can only exist in a mythical story, but not in reality. Moreover, what to think of the logical impossibility that mutation-repair systems are produced by the processes they antagonize?
4. As micro-evolution is produced by a process completely different from the process that would produce macro-evolution, 'a huge amount of micro-evolution', in which the size of the DNA does not increase, cannot add up to macro-evolution. Micro-evolution can produce very large differences in the appearance of organisms (for instance it can produce very big, aggressive fight dogs, or kind, palmtop dogies) and new species, without an increase in the size of the DNA of these organisms. Evidently, the numerous examples of micro-evolution cannot be used to prove the existence of macro-evolution.
5. Only in mythical stories, molecules possess an intrinsic desire to clot into ever more complex substances, into organic soup, RNA, DNA, a primitive gene, cells, an ever more complex organisms. In the real world, the natural cause of events is exactly the opposite. Random processes are aimless, but they have a direction ('arrow of time'): sooner or later they will equalize any difference, for instance in energy, temperature, potential, energy density, information or complexity. No serious scholar will deny this basic property of reality. The macro-evolutionary theory is in flat contradiction with this basic property of reality, and therefore with physical science. In addition, the macro-evolutionary theory is in contradiction with Darwin's principle of 'survival of the fittest'. As a consequence, the theory of macro-evolution is an invalid scientific theory.
6. An important rule of science, frequently applied by reviewers, is that invalid theory is put into the garbage can, even when no alternative scientific theory is available. Then, a gap in scientific knowledge remains, because the theory "god, or an intelligent designer, or a pink elephant created the DNA" is not a scientific theory as it is intestable and therefore infalsifiable. The theory "god, or an intelligent designer, or a pink elephant created the DNA" is therefore a belief that belongs to the domain of religion.
7. The theory of macro-evolution is invalid and has to be rejected according to the rules of science. An excellent scientific alternative however is available: "We don't know (yet)". Such a position is completely normal and legitimate in any branch of science, and should be normal and legitimate as well in scientific discussions of how all genes and all other DNA present in living nature have originated.

Fundamental problems

1. In homes, offices, factories and laboratories, order never emerges by itself and proceeds to maintain itself, but requires directed and continuous external effort. The theory of evolution claims exactly the opposite.
2. The theory contradicts the fundamental laws of physics and chemistry, which prescribe that order can only arise and be maintained by directed external effort, not by undirected, accidental forces. Since natural science is grounded in empirical evidence and confirmed by daily experience, this contradiction is not surprising.
3. Simple chemicals never start combining themselves into ever larger and more complex constructions when directed external effort is missing. Instead, complex chemicals will fall apart, sooner or later, into the smallest possible entities when directed external effort is lacking. In the famous Miller experiment, "organic soup" could only originate after transporting the DNA building blocks, produced by undirected flashes of lightning, to a distillation flask where they were protected from destruction by new random flashes. Miller’s experiment confirms that the production of a more complex chemical substance out of elementary substances demands directed external effort. If this law of nature did not hold, any form of chemical industry would be pointless, since complex chemicals would emerge without effort for free. The presumed billions of tons of DNA building blocks in the primeval oceans therefore cannot have existed.
4. The change and adaptation in the living nature is not the result of the process of "gene-mutation and selection" but of the process of "gene-recombination and selection". All dogs, for example, have an identical gene pool (of the wolf), but may vary extremely in size, color, coat, behavior, etc. depending on their specific combination of genes. Organisms having a favorable combination of genes from their gene pool (for instance, the combination for a broad beak) will survive, whereas organisms that have an adverse combination (for instance, the combination for a narrow beak) will not be able to reproduce. When the selection criteria of the environment change, the favorable combinations of genes change, as well as the corresponding appearances of organisms; their gene pool, however, stays unchanged. Mutation of genes (i.e., damaging them) has nothing to do with this change in appearance of organisms. It is an absolutely different process, which is combated vigorously by mechanisms of comparison and repair in the cell nucleus based on the 8-fold redundancy of the genetic information in each cell (pairs of chromosomes, each of them consisting of two chromatids, and each chromatid consisting of two complementary strings of the same information). If the damage of the genetic information is irreparable and is passed to posterity, the offspring is usually handicapped and cannot survive in the daily struggle for food, shelter and reproduction, and the damage is still removed from the gene pool. As experiences after the nuclear disaster in Chernobyl and in the field of oncology make clear, damaging DNA cannot be the motor for development and improvement of the gene pool of a species.
5. The fossil record does not show the expected abundance of intermediate species. Fossils just look like the organisms living today, except a number of species that are extinct. Besides, geology and paleontology are linked by circular reasoning: fossils are dated by earth layers, and earth layers by fossils. As a result, the dating of fossils is completely speculative. Because the theory of evolution needs a very long time, earth layers are dated as very old, and the hypotheses on the initial values in radiometric dating are tuned to this. Many indications however suggest the earth is relatively young: (a) all earth layers in which fossils are found appear to contain 14C; (b) the earth is a barely cooled ball of liquid stone; (c) little meteorite dust can be found on the surface of the earth; (d) little leached salt is present in the oceans and (e) only a thin layer of sediments exists on the ocean floor.
6. In the living nature, numerous "irreducible complex" systems are present. For example, the light-sensitive cells of the eye, or the motor that drives the flagella of sperm cells. These systems cannot be the result of a long sequence of small, useful steps, as each element of the system only has sense and can only survive in combination with and tuned the others. Numerous processes in the living nature are "irreducible complex" too, since they cannot be the result of a long sequence of useful intermediate steps. An example is the complete rearrangement of all the building blocks of a pupated caterpillar resulting into a butterfly. Darwin noted: "If anyone would prove the existence of a complex organ that could absolutely not be the result of a large number of sequential changes, my theory would collapse completely." (The origin of species, 6e edition, New York University Press, p. 154). These types of systems have been found.



Additional problems

7. Indeed, random forces can produce temporary order, for instance: wind ripples on a beach, or complex crystal structures, or spontaneous polymerization. This order, however, decays sooner or later, when the undirected forces start following a new direction.
8. The order of the human genome (3 billion characters) is comparable with the order of the Windows operating system (1 billion characters). It is not realistic to place the order in Windows and DNA on the same level as the order in a complex crystal structure, or to consider them as a quantum fluctuation. Moreover, crystal structures and quantum fluctuations do not dispose of mechanisms of repair and maintenance of the order, as DNA and Windows do. Note: in complex construction programs (for instance in the food or the automobile industries) only a small part describes the materials to be used, whereas the rest describes how and when these materials must be applied. This is probably the case in DNA programs too.
9. The functionality of a computer program can be optimized by changing its parameters at random, selecting successful results and mutating again (et cetera). Richard Dawkins demonstrates this optimization strategy in his famous book "The Blind Watchmaker", using a program that draws symmetric trees, given a sequence of parameters specifying the number, length and direction of the branches to be drawn. In a process of mutation and selection, he can produce trees that look like insects. The program, however, will always draw trees. Only after adding new lines to the program, it will start drawing other things like houses, cars or boats. Dawkins’ evolution simulation program clarifies that random mutation of the parameters of a program only results in a variation of the output within the initial system space of the program. The expansion of the program beyond its initial system space, however, requires the effort of a software engineer. Software engineers therefore do not have to worry about the implication of the theory of evolution that one day they can be replaced by a fully automated mutation and selection process that transforms simple several-byte programs into complex billion byte programs.
10. The content and functionality of a computer program cannot grow by damaging it. As soon as a byte in a computer program is damaged (for instance as a result of a scratch on a CD or by cosmic radiation) the ‘check bit’ in this byte will change, and the program crashes and produces an error-message. Even if the damaging of the bytes of a program is automated and performed a billion times, it appears impossible to add even one line to the program, as can be proved experimentally. Likewise the DNA program of a living organism cannot grow from a few characters towards the 3 billion characters in human DNA as a result of mutation (= damaging). The opposite is the case. Mutations are vigorously combated by: (a) 8-fold redundancy of the genetic information in each cell (note that in spaceships only two or three-fold redundancy is used to combat the mutation of information); (b) complex mechanisms for continuous comparison of the genetic information and repair of damages (c) numerous obstacles prohibiting the survival of organisms with damaged DNA and the passing of damaged DNA to the gene pool of the species. The embryonic development of organisms therefore cannot reflect the supposed gradual growth of the DNA in size and complexity as a result of gene-mutation and selection.
11. The existence of order in living nature cannot be presented as a proof that order can emerge by itself, since this is a circular reasoning, presenting what has to be proven as proof.
12. The events the theory of evolution postulates are said to have happened millions or billions of years ago. They are untestable. As a result the theory of evolution does not meet the main condition for a scientific theory (testability). The few elements that are testable produce negative results (point 3: "organic soup" cannot emerge by accidental, undirected forces only, and point 4: mutation cannot be the motor for improvement and growth of the gene pool).

>> Nederlandse vertaling