Refuting Darwinism, point by point

EVOLUTION WATCH Refuting Darwinism, point by point Author's new book presents case against theory in just 83 pages

Editor's note: In 1999, author James Perloff wrote the popular "Tornado in a Junkyard," which summarizes much of the evidence against evolution and is considered one of the most understandable (while still scientifically accurate) books on the subject. Recently, WND talked with Perloff about his new book, "The Case Against Darwin."

ANSWER: This past March I got a call from Ohio. There has been a battle there to allow critical examination of evolutionary theory in public schools, and a gentleman wanted 40 copies of Tornado to give to state legislators and school board members. I was delighted to send him the books, but I also knew that a state legislator isn't likely to pick up anything that's 321 pages long.

A: Right. We live in an age when parents often don't have time to read anything long, and their kids, who are usually more into video, may not have the inclination.

A: I've divided it into three chapters. The first is called "Is Darwin's Theory Relevant to Our Lives?" In other words, is the subject of this book worth my time or not? A lot of people think this is simply a science issue. And to some of them, science is booooring. But actually, it's the teaching of Darwin's theory as a "fact" that starts many young people doubting the existence of God. Once we stop believing in God, we discard his moral laws and start making up our own rules, which is basically why our society is in so much trouble. In short, Darwinism is very relevant – it's much more than a science matter.

Q: You, yourself, were an atheist for many years, were you not, as a result of evolutionary teaching?

A: That's right. I thought evolution had discredited the Bible. In my books, I give examples of notables who became atheists from being taught evolution, such as Stalin and Carnegie. In fact, the atheist Boy Scout who's been in the news reportedly attributes his atheism to being taught evolution.

A: First, it's taught as "scientific fact." When kids hear "scientific fact," they think "truth." Who wants to go against truth? Second, it's the only viewpoint that's taught. After the Supreme Court kicked God out of schools in the '60s, kids heard the evolutionist viewpoint exclusively. It's like going to a courtroom – if you only heard the prosecutor's summation, you would probably think the defendant guilty. But if you only heard the defendant's attorney, you'd think "innocent." The truth is, we need to hear both sides, and kids haven't been getting it on the subject of origins.

A: The second chapter is "Evidence Against the Theory of Evolution." Let's face it, no matter what Darwinism's social ramifications, that alone would not be a sufficient basis to criticize it, if it were scientifically proven true.

Q: In a nutshell – if that's possible – what is the scientific evidence against Darwinism?

A: In the book, I focus on six areas of evidence. First, mutations – long claimed by evolutionists to be the building blocks of evolutionary change – are now known to remove information from the genetic code. They never create higher, more complex information – even in the rare cases of beneficial mutations, such as bacterial resistance to antibiotics. That has been laid out by Dr. Lee Spetner in his book "Not By Chance."

A: Second, cells are now known to be far too complex to have originated by some chance concurrence of chemicals, as Darwin hypothesized and is still being claimed. We detail that in the book. Third, the human body has systems, such as blood clotting and the immune system, that are, in the words of biochemist Michael Behe, "irreducibly complex," meaning they cannot have evolved step-by-step. Behe articulated that in his book "Darwin's Black Box." And then there is the whole issue of transitional forms.

A: Darwin's theory envisioned that single-celled ancestors evolved into invertebrates (creatures without a backbone), who evolved into fish, who evolved into amphibians, who evolved into reptiles, who evolved into mammals. Now, a transitional form would be a creature intermediate between these. There would have to be a great many for Darwin's theory to be true.

A: There are three places to look for transitional forms. First, there's the living world around us. We see that it is distinctly divided – you have invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals. But we don't see transitionals between them. If these creatures ever existed, why did none survive? It is too easy to explain it away by saying they all became extinct. And of course, there is the question: Why aren't these creatures evolving into each other today? Why aren't invertebrates evolving into fish today? Why aren't fish growing little legs and so forth?

A: In the fossil record. And here we have a problem of almost comparable magnitude. We find no fossils showing how the invertebrates evolved, or demonstrating that they came from a common ancestor. That's why you hear of the "Cambrian explosion." And while there are billions of fossils of both invertebrates and fish, fossils linking them are missing. Of course, there are some transitional fossils cited by evolutionists. However, two points about that. First, there should be a lot more if Darwin's theory is correct. Second, 99 percent of the biology of an organism is in its soft anatomy, which you cannot access in a fossil – this makes it easy to invest a fossil with a highly subjective opinion. The Piltdown Man and the recent Archaeoraptor are examples of how easy it is to be misled by preconceptions in this arena.

A: Microscopically, in the cell itself. Dr. Michael Denton, the Australian molecular biologist, examined these creatures on a molecular level and found no evidence whatsoever for the fish-amphibian-reptile-mammal sequence. He summarized his findings in his book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis."

The last chapter is "Re-evaluating Some Evidences Used to Support the Theory" of evolution. That would include evidences that have been discredited, and also some evidences presented as proof that in fact rest on assumptions.

A: Ernst Haeckel's comparative embryo drawings. The human body being laden with "vestigial structures" from our animal past. Human blood and sea water having the same percentage of salt. Babies being born with "monkey tails." These are not foundational evidences, but they still hold sway in the public mind.

A: Yes. Anatomical similarities between men and animals are said to prove common ancestry. But intelligent design also results in innumerable similarities, as in the case of two makes of automobile. Also, what has been called "microevolution" – minor adaptive changes within a type of animal – is extrapolated as evidence for "macroevolution" – the changing of one kind of animal into another. However, a species is normally endowed with a rich gene pool that permits a certain amount of variation and adaptation. Certainly, those things happen. But the change is ordinarily limited to the confines of the gene pool. It doesn't mean a fish could adapt its way into being a human.

Q: You covered a lot of this ground in "Tornado in a Junkyard." Can readers expect something new from "The Case Against Darwin"?

A: There is a bit of new material, but no, if you've read "Tornado," or for that matter, if you read the July 2001 Whistleblower, where we looked at evolution, you already know most of the points. What's new is the size. This is a book to give to a busy friend, a book for a high-school student to share with his science teacher.

Now I am having trouble focusing ...You're a bore

You are getting sleepy... sleeeeepy... You will feel an uncontrollable urge to cluck like a chicken the next time you hear the word "Hillary"...

Hey, I thought you said that you were "not interested in arguing with me" any more? Shoo.

Or do you consider gratuitous insults to be a different category?


M:  Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A:   Yes it is.
M:   No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A:   No it isn't.
M:  It is!
A:   It is not.
M:  Look, you just contradicted me.
A:   I did not.
M:  Oh you did!!
A:   No, no, no.
M:  You did just then.
A:   Nonsense!
M:  Oh, this is futile!
A:   No it isn't.
M:  I came here for a good argument.
A:   No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M:  An argument isn't just contradiction.
A:   It can be.
M:  No it can't. An argument is a connected series of
 statements intended to establish a proposition.
A:   No it isn't.

Regarding only one of the materialistic miracles, the existence of matter can only be explained in 3 ways. Two of the three ways defy logic.

Be careful, at one time the notion of the Earth circling the Sun "defied logic".

("Don't be ridiculous, if the Earth were moving we'd feel it, or fall off!")

Armchair "logic" is fine for brainstorming some ideas to test, but sooner or later you need to reality-check them or it's all just alchemy.

3: The third option is that matter was created.

Right, by the Big Bang. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

This option is not only logical, it is the best explanation of all and solves the difficulties of the first two explanations. This is the only option that has some evidence in its favor.

Indeed.

Your original claim was that "gradualistic" development of placental birth from an egg-laying predecessor was "impossible" because it couldn't have happened in "one mutation" or "one generation". You asserted that it *must* have happened "all at once" (or else not at all) because otherwise the embryo would have "starved" for lack of nourishment.

And my claim has not been refuted. If the entire system does not work the species dies.

First, I showed that you had completely overlooked the mechanism of developing placental feeding *in addition to* the pre-existent yolk-feeding method, not as an immediate *replacement* for it to which you had simplistically limited your thinking.

The problems of the sharks curious mode of reproductive development are similar, but not as great as those with human development, but they are also pretty large - including the implantation problem, and complete loss of the shell - again in one generation I guess. So this example proves nothing. What it does prove is that two totally unrelated species were able to do a quite extraordinary transformation, neither of which you can explain.

Structures or processes which may have been necessary novel developments for the first primitive placenta, which you claim (without any real support) are somehow impossibly difficult.

My whole post# 542 dealt with just that. It showed what scientists say, it has links for those who wish more information, it shows a picture which shows the significant differences between an egg laying circulatory system and a live bearing one. What more do you want?

If you can refute the statements made there by SCIENTISTS then go ahead and prove them wrong. In particular you need to refute the following:

This adaptation has entailed a dramatic restructuring of the maternal anatomy (such as expansion of the oviduct to form the uterus) as well as the development of a fetal organ capable of absorbing maternal nutrients.

The above alone proves my statement that it could not have happened in one generation. Your repeating what has already been answered in full shows quite well that you cannot disprove my statement but are trying to dishonestly claim you have. You cannot even give a detailed description as to how all these SYSTEMS which are clearly necessary in live birth could have arisen in a gradual manner - and no evolutionist authors have been able to do so either otherwise you would have cut and pasted it or typed it in. Your snow job does not cut it.

Nice try, but minute analysis of DNA and cross-species anatomical comparisons yield a great deal of evidence. They're hardly "creating" it.

Of course they are, your answers to the problems I mentioned prove it. If evolution is not true then the gradual building up of mutations over time would not be true, so yes, the study assumes that evolutionist assumptions are true (and considering that not a single mutation creating greater complexity has ever been shown to have happened but numerous mutations simplifying a complex system have), that is a tremendous assumption with no basis in fact. There is no data showing that egg layers came first because the bones do not show reproductive data and neither does it show the DNA from millions of years ago when this supposedly happened. As to the time basis for the mutation differentials, claiming I am ignorant shows my statement is correct. Your claim that they can be calibrated by fossil dating when fossils do not provide DNA is just a plain lie. As to my point that evolutionists claim that mutations are there just to prove evolution and have no purpose except when evolutionists want it to have a purpose is quite correct. If differences in organism have no purpose then yes, one could claim that any mutations were just happenstance and could be used as a time scale. However, when the changes do have meaning one cannot say that and your insult just proves my statement correct. This is another example of evolutionists contradicting themselves to take both sides of a question. The whole thing is rhetoric, not science.

Fits well with your series of evolutionary check points you so laboriously put together, and then rejected, as if you had never proposed it.

Oh, now that *definitely* deserves an award:

In case you missed it the *first* time you made your ridiculous mischaracterization of what I actually wrote, allow me to repeat my response:

Oh? Where? Quote me. Or retract your idiotic charge. Or just go away and leave the conversation to those with better reading comprehension.

The challenge still stands. Pick one of the three choices.

Your foolish "analogy not homology" argument is tiresome.

Only because it took three tries for you to finally describe it correctly. You're wearing *me* out too.

Why not simply admit you have no idea what you are talking about.

Because I don't like lying.

How many peer-reviewed scientific papers have you published?

How many lame non sequiturs have you posted?

Please write me off again.

Very glad to oblige.

"You stated, specifically, and I quote, that there is not a "single evolutionist writer that will deal with the question of the scientific facts about how a reptile could ever have transformed into a mammal"."

Semantics again.

Ah, yeah, "semantics". That's what it's called when you make an incorrect claim because you don't understand the field. I get it.

The subject under discussion was the transformation of the reproductive system from egg laying to live bearing. Has been all along. So I did not dot the I and cross the t, shoot me.

Sorry, no dodging allowed. This is not about you not "crossing your t's", this is about you making a ridiculous blanket statement that was quite simply enormously wrong, and is *still* enormously wrong if you go back and edit it to say what you now say you really meant all along.

Point is that not a single evolutionist writer (or for that matter any writer) is willing to give a detailed explanation according to the scientific facts about how the reproductive system of reptiles transformed itself gradually into a live bearing system.

Except that they have. So, as I pointed out, you're wrong, and you're an ignoramus for making a wild claim about something you clearly don't know the first thing about (i.e., what the literature says).

If any had I am sure you would have quoted from it.

Let me get this straight... You're admitting that you based your wild "no one's ever written about this" claim on nothing more than the fact that I didn't happen to quote any?

"Perhaps if you bothered to *read* something on the topic before you spout off, you wouldn't keep making a fool of yourself."

If they exist and you have read them, why did you not use them in this discussion???????????

Because I can deal with most of your silliness without leaving my chair -- it seems overkill to drive down to the downtown library and wade through the stacks just to dig out books and quote them for your amusement.

Go do your own homework before you start making any more laughable declarations about what you think "does not exist".

"I didn't say it was an "analogy of homology", you dolt, I said "they are not homologous, they are analogous". Learn to read."

This is the wonderful thing about evolutionists - if something descended from another, it proves evolution. If it did not, it also proves evolution. If it is homologous it proves evolution. However, if it is homologous but does not show descent, then it is analogous and also proves evolution.

This is the "wonderful thing" about creationists -- if they can't beat you on the facts, they'll just make stuff up about you.

To correct your many errors, no, descent does not "prove" evolution, nor do evolutionists claim it does. Ditto for lack of descent. Nor does homology alone. Nor does "homology without descent", which is not only used as proof of evolution, it doesn't even make any bloody sense -- it's an oxymoron. Nor do analogous structures prove evolution.

Gore, you're batting 0.000 here. If you'd like to try to salvage anything of your dignity, you could always try to provide *examples* of evolutionists doing what you (falsely) allege they do. This ought to be amusing. Be careful, though -- make sure you understand what point someone is really trying to make before you present your examples...

In other words, heads you win, tails everyone else loses.

In other words, Gore shoots himself in the foot again.

Shows quite well that evolution is rhetoric, not science.

It might if you were actually accurately describing what evolutionary scientists say, but since it's not, all I have to say is...:

"How about a little fire, Straw Man! *cackle*"

One thing about analogous though. Analogous proves descent.

No, actually, it doesn't. You're really striking out tonight. Compare, for example, bird wings and bat wings. Analagous, but *not* the result of common descent from a winged ancestor of both birds and mammals -- which explains why despite superficial similarities, they are *very* different structurally.

It is extremely unlikely that following an evolutionary biological path creatures as far apart as fish and mammals would have similar structures.

What analogous-but-not-homologous structures do you see between fishes and mammals that you find "extremely unlikely"?

This is proof of an intelligent designer reusing parts which have been successful in other creatures which need it.

"Proof", eh? "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means." -- Inigo Montoya.

If He "reused parts", then why is the shark placenta so different from the mammalian one? Why base them on different structures, for example? And why not give all the sharks placentas, instead of just a small number of closely related ones?

Instead, that looks like things hobbled together by evolution from different building blocks.

I think the example of the sharks, so closely related to each other shows design not evolution when creatures which arose at a similar time were able to develop such different reproductive systems.

You're welcome to think whatever you like.

"...FURTHERMORE, an examination of placentas even among different mammals shows several "stages" of sophistication, showing that gore3000's "all or nothing" belief is not only pure hogwash, but based on a fundamental ignorance of basic biology..."
Though you desparately wish it weren't so, you were indeed making the case that the deep answers of evolution could be found the hamerhead-marsupial-cow-human placenta continuum.

No, I wasn't, but thanks for missing the point so thoroughly.

Here's the point again, although it was clear enough the first time (i.e. post #378): Gore3000's claim rested on his belief that any egg-laying to placental-birth transition would have to happen in "one generation", because of his mistaken premise that nothing "in between" would be workable.

So I proved him wrong by showing several "in between" methods which provably worked just fine, because different animals actually use them. QED.

(You know, this wasn't that difficult, *and* it has been re-explained several times -- what's your excuse for still being befuddled by it?)

As I've already explained several times (do try to keep up), this line of argument holds even if Darwinian evolution happens not to be true. It would be valid even if we were arguing the possibility/impossibility of converting egg-laying to placental birth via a) Lamarckian inheritance, b) multi-generational genetic engineering, c) God trying his hand at gradualism, d) etc.

So are you clear on the concept yet, or shall I explain it in even smaller words?

An as you correctly stated, only an idiot would believe this.

And yet, you seem repeatedly drawn to such a concept...

What continues to bother me is that we know now that a single celled organism found in pond scum has far more sophisticated mechanisms than NASA's space shuttle facility.

There are engineering marvels within the cell that far exceed man's ability to engineer. Complexity that our finest scientist continue to be baffled by. Here is an exerpt from an article regarding the human genome project.

"But to my mind, the most memorable moment in these last few weeks of genetic astonishments came during an interview with computer scientist Gene Myers at the Maryland headquarters of Celera Genomics, just a few days before the genome maps were made public.

'We're deliciously complex at the molecular level,' Myers said, gesturing with his fork. 'We don't understand ourselves yet, which is cool. There's still a metaphysical, magical element.'

Myers was the guy who put together Celera's genome map. Celera's sequencing machines had broken the 3 billion chemical letters in a strand of DNA into millions of fragments, each a few hundred letters each. 'What really astounds me is the architecture of life,' he said. 'The system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed.'

My ears perked up.

Designed? Doesn't that imply a designer, an intelligence, something more than the fortuitous bumping together of chemicals in the primordial slime?

Myers thought before he replied. 'There's a huge intelligence there. I don't see that as being unscientific. Others may, but not me.'"

I am shocked and amused that you would call my incisive commentary a "lame non sequitur," particularly when you initated the undignified excoriation of Gore3000's presumed lack of scientific education.

Small words, just for you:

1. If Gore wants to talk science, or prove science wrong, he needs to know some.

2. Only a fool thinks that is the same thing as having "published peer-reviewed scientific papers".

Are you a fool, or do you just play one on the net?

Clear?

I think your education on the matter is quite relavant

Then you should ask a more "relevant [sic]" question than the foolish non sequitur one you asked, shouldn't you?

I need to know: Are you trolling, or are you just naturally this obnoxious?

I'm sorry, but you dodged again. You failed to address the specific questions I posed to you in the post to which you were responding. Here they are again:

Do you admit that your original presumption that it "had" to occur "in one mutation, in one generation" was faulty? Yes or no.
Do you admit that you erred when you presumed that mammals would have had to "develop" structures and processes which, oops, were already present in the egg-laying method of reproduction? Yes or no.
Do you withdraw your original claim that gradualistic development of placental birth would be "impossible"? Yes or no.
Note: This is a test of your intelligence and honesty. Respond accordingly.

Note the "note"... Strike one. Care to try for two? Or would you like to actually directly address the questions this time?

I fully understand the context of these posts. Look, the Theory of Evolution is very creative (pun intended) idea devised by highly intelligent minds comparing anatomic features between various species, both living and extinct. The years of collecting data, making comparisons, disproving the null hypothesis, minimizing bias, statistical analyses, and finally wading through the peer-review process is laborious work. And all for a single data point.

Ah, but connecting these points is fairly easy, and I might add, open to debate. A creative mind, artistic flare and a rudimentary knowledge of biological sciences is about all that is required to understand the theory. Anyone who played "one of these things is not like the other..." can grasp it. It seems so satisfying. It appears to make teleologic sense. It is seductive. It can be skethced out on a peice of paper while sitting in in the drawing room on a comfortable oxblood chair. "We can easily get there from here."

Can we really? Mutation is lethal nearly every time its tried. Would not an incremental accumulation of hypothetically beneficial mutations pose an even geometrically greater satistical challenge? Are environmental pressures patient enough to allow an organism "to get there from here?" Can the fossil record be interpreted in another way?

Since historical events cannot be directly tested using classical scientific methodology, I view the Theory as another speculative discipline, like psychology and the social sciences (no disrespect intended). However, unlike these areas of study, defenders of evolutionary dogma seem to have a particular disdain for alternative points of view. Regards.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.