Evolution – a Theory in Crisis Part 1 of 3 The Scientific Bankruptcy of Darwinian Evolution Part 2 of 3 – The Philosophical Bankruptcy of Darwinian Evolution Part 3 of 3 – The Biblical Creation Alternative and Its Implications.

Richard Dawkins “No qualified scientist doubts evolution is a fact.” 800 Scientists dissent: “We are sceptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.”

Charles Darwin ( ) Evolution by natural selection

Definition of Evolution? Variation within a ‘kind’ or ‘prototype’?

Relatives?

Darwinian evolution’s ‘tree of life’

Day 1 Michael Penfold A caricature of the ‘creation model’

Day 1 Michael Penfold The actual creation model

Day 1 Michael Penfold Small changes (micro-evolution) + Millions of years = Big changes (macro-evolution) The central Darwinian Claim

Day 1 Michael Penfold Chalk & Cheese

A sample of what’s involved Evolve a 4 th chamber in its heart Evolve mammary glands and a milk supply Evolve a hair covering Evolve a temperature control system Evolve a corti in the inner ear Evolve a diaphragm To turn into a mammal, a reptile must:

Carl Sagan’s challenge: “Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.” (1934 – 1996)

Darwin Anniversary Books

Proof No. 1 The Giraffe J. Baptiste de Lamarck ( ) “Inheritance of acquired characteristics”

Proof No. 2 Dog Breeding Variations between dogs tell us nothing about where dogs came from in the first place.

Proof No. 3 Galapagos Finches Variations between finches tell us nothing about where finches came from in the first place.

Proof No. 4 - Peppered Moths Population shifts between light and dark moths tell us nothing about where the moths came from in the first place.

Proof No. 5 The Fruit Fly Variations between fruit flies tell us nothing about where fruit flies came from in the first place.

Proof No. 6 The Geologic Column

Proof No. 7 The Horse sequence ‘‘The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks.’’ - Heribert-Nilsson, Biologist.

Proof No. 8 The Whale Sequence “Convincing” – Dawkins “One of our best examples” - Coyne

Proof No. 9 Tiktaalik (Missing link between fish and amphibians)

Proof No. 10 Archaeopteryx

The Hoatzin Young Hoatzins have claws on their wings for climbing.

Proof No. 11 Feathered Dinosaurs Fakes? Misidentified birds? Collagen fibres? Flightless birds?

Darwin’s “three great classes of facts” 1. Similar Body Structure (homology) 2. Similar Embryonic Development 3. Rudiments (vestigial organs)

Darwin’s claim: Structural similarity proves common ancestry. Proof No. 12 Homology Rat Dog Horse Bat Mole Porpoise Man

Or does it? Which two of these three animals are most closely related?

Proof No. 13 Similar Embryonic Development Ernst Haeckel ( )

Darwin’s ‘marvelous fact’… …is actually fiction.

Proof No. 14 Vestigial Organs The coccyx is neither functionless nor useless.

Proof No. 15 Bad Design The recurrent laryngeal nerve

Proof No. 16 Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria “Resistance is gained…not by adding something, but by losing it ” – Dr. Lee Spetner Ph.D

Proof No. 17 Sickle Cell Anemia This haemoglobin mutation tells us nothing about where haemoglobin came from in the first place.

Proof No. 18 Molecular similarity Anomalies: 6% of human genes are not found in any chimpanzee 80% of proteins have a different sequence

Proof No. 19 ‘Ape-men’ Australopithecus afarensis - ‘Lucy’

A picture’s worth a thousand words

….and a few thousand more.

10 Features for Upright Posture

Prof. Simon Conway Morris (Cambridge palaeontologist) “When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: ‘It happened.’ Thereafter, there is little consensus…” (Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold, Cell 100, (Jan ):1-11)

8. Mathematics/Probability 2. The limits of mutation 4. The Cambrian explosion 5. Lack of transitional fossils 6. Complex beginnings 7. Irreducible complexity 1. The nature of mutations 8 Problems with Darwinism: 3. Natural Selection’s Limits

‘‘We take the side of [neo-Darwinian] science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’’ (Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31). Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin