CLEARING THE PATH

After reading through all the evidence presented up to this point, you may wonder how this could be.  How could there be so much evidence that falsifies the theory of evolution, yet it still is the generally accepted scientific explanation for how all life in the universe came to be?  Aren’t evolutionary scientists aware of all this information? 

The fact is both evolutionists and creationists look at the same evidence.  All of the evidence, whether it is from physics, genetics, fossils or molecular science, is the same.  The difference is in the interpretation of that evidence.  Most people think that science involves an unbiased look at the evidence.  In reality, all scientists begin with a bias.  

Creation scientists readily admit that, when interpreting the evidence, they start with the assumption that we were created by a supreme being.  However, evolutionists are reluctant to admit that they interpret the evidence with preconceived bias, specifically the assumption that we were not created, but are the result of undirected natural processes.  They do not consider this a bias, but a necessary starting point for their inquiries.  What they do not realize, or are not willing to acknowledge is that they are eliminating certain possibilities, specifically the possibility that we are the result of creation, right from the start. 

Unfortunately, as we have seen, some evolutionists will distort the data, or even fabricate it, in order to promote their beliefs, or continue to get research funding.  Michael Denton wrote:

"… contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach."(1)

I do not mean to imply that evolutionary scientists are dishonest.  History has shown that some are dishonest and have perpetrated frauds in the name of fame, fortune or just to promote their world views.  In general, however, evolutionary scientists are good people in search of honest answers.  However, when they evaluate evidence and design experiments, they are doing so starting with the assumption that evolution is correct.  They may believe that the current evolutionary model may need to be adapted to fit their findings, but the theory of evolution itself, the belief that we are the result of undirected natural processes, is an accepted starting point. 

Most evolutionists truly believe that there is no God, and that evolution definitely is how we got here.  It just makes sense to them that any evidence they find must be fit into their naturalistic view of life and the universe.  If an evolutionary belief is later proven to be false, they are unfazed.  They feel in their hearts that evolution is true and are confident that they will eventually figure out how it happened.  Although every axiom of science contradicts the possibility that life could have arisen on its own with no outside influence, they believe that eventually we will find some as yet unknown law of physics that will explain how life could have spontaneously began from non-life.  They believe it happened therefore there must be evidence for it that we just haven’t found yet. 

A perfect example of this scientific bias is exemplified by Nobel prize winning scientist Dr. George Wald's statement over fifty years ago:

"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution).  There is no third way.  Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation.  We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons), therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." (2) 

Evolutionary geneticists Richard Lewontin had this to say regarding evolutionary bias in science:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill 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. (3) 

The theory of evolution is formulated to be so plastic and flexible that evidence from most branches of science can be fit into the model. Evolutionists Paul Ehrlich and L.C. Birch have written:

Our theory of evolution has become…one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it.  It is thus "outside of empirical science" but not necessarily false.  No one can think of ways to test it.  Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity.  They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.(4) 

I feel I’ve made a pretty good case that the evidence better fits the creation model.  Creationists accept microevolution, which basically states that creatures have been programmed with the ability to change over time to better adapt to their environment.  There is plenty of scientific evidence for this type of limited change. 

Microevolution involves small specific genetic changes within species.  These variations occur within each class and no member of any defined class can stray beyond the confines of its type in terms of its basic characteristics.  The bottom-line essence of the dispute is that evolutionists have taken these relatively minor changes and assumed that, given enough time, these minor changes can become major changes, and can explain all the diversity of life on this planet, without resort to a supernatural creator. 

However, there is absolutely no direct empirical evidence that these “macroevolutionary” changes have ever occurred.  Evolutionists simply assume that it occurred because if we are to explain the world in purely naturalistic terms it must have occurred.  Otherwise, as Dr. Wald stated, the only other choice is supernatural creation, and that is simply unacceptable on philosophical grounds.  It may seem like a reasonable assumption that macroevolution did indeed occur if it fits your belief system, but without any actual proof, the evidence better supports creation theory. 

It was the lack of any obvious scientific alternative which was one of its great attractions of Darwinism in the nineteenth century and has remained one of its enduring strengths ever since 1859.  Reject Darwinism and there is, in effect, no scientific theory of evolution.  This is why scientists continue to accept the theory, even though so many scientific findings have discredited it. 

One of the basic rules of science is that scientists is not to appeal to authority (ie other experts)   to make their point. The facts are supposed to speak for themselves.  The reason for this rule is that scientific truth is not supposed to be arrived at by majority vote or by opinions of experts.  An appeal to authority can be a subtle (or not-so-subtle) form of intimidation.  It can be a way of pressuring one to side with the majority or with the experts.  It implies that the majority of the experts are always right, which in the major events in the history of science has proven not to be the case.  

Scientists know that an appeal to authority in science is very wrong and very illogical, yet it is very effective.  No one uses the appeal-to-authority argument more often than do evolutionists.(5) Hence, as Ehrlich and Birch stated above, evolutionary dogma has become an accepted part of the training of virtually all scientists today.

At this point it might be helpful to demonstrate how your point of view can easily bias the evidence.  I searched the internet to find an example of an evolutionist making his case for why evolution is correct.  One thing that immediately struck me was the arrogant and often condescending attitude many of these professors have toward anyone that does not accept their views.  In the example I chose, this attitude is obvious. 

Jerry Coyne is a professor in the department of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, and the author of the book Speciation. (6)  On a website called “Edge” Coyne states his case against intelligent design being taught in our public schools.(7)  In doing so he lists several points to illustrate why he believes that evolution is a “fact” and not just a theory.  What I want to point out here is the way evolutionists arrogantly state why their case makes absolute sense, but then just give generalization and often inaccurate information to make their point. 

People reading statements such as those presented by Coyne, who are either unsure about evolution or already believe in it, usually just accept what is written uncritically.  In other words, the general public relies on the authority of these professors, and for the most part will not investigate the actual evidence for themselves.  This was one of my inspirations for this website.. I will go through much of what Dr. Coyne wrote to demonstrate these points. 

It is important to mention that Coyne, like most other evolutionists, does not even address the subject of the origin of first life.  He just assumes that other scientists already addressed and solved this issue and doesn’t even bother to mention it.  But as we saw in the Origin of 1st Life page, not only has the problem not been solved, the barriers that prevent life from arising by purely random naturalistic processes are so immense that it can effectively be considered impossible. 

But, as usual, evolutionist simply assume that it happened and are willing to ignore the facts of science by clinging to the hope that some as yet unknown process will be discovered that will explain how life could have arose on its own.

So let's get started.  I will not reprint every word of what he wrote, but only what is necessary.  Nothing is taken out of context.  Refer to the website for the complete text of his article.(7)

Coyne begins his webpage by discussing the legal battles to keep the teaching of intelligent design out of the classrooms.  I will skip that section and start with the section where Coyne begins to state what he sees as specific evidence in support of evolution.  His words will be italicized.  I will add my comments in bold face regular print to easily differentiate.

Coyne writes: 

The overwhelming evidence for evolution can be found in many books (and on many websites). Here I wish to present just a few observations that not only support the neo-Darwinist account, but in so doing refute the alternative theory of creationism, that God specially created organisms and their attributes.  Given the similarity between the claims of intelligent design and creationism, it is not surprising that these observations also refute the major tenets of ID. 

The fossil record is the most obvious place to search for evidence of evolution.  Although the record was sparse in Darwin's time, there were already findings that suggested evolution.  The living armadillos of South America bore a striking resemblance to fossil glyptodonts, extinct armored mammals whose fossils occurred in the same area.  This suggested that glyptodonts and armadillos shared a common South American ancestry. 

First, and as stated in the page Biochemistry and Design, contrary to most evolutionists, it was not their beliefs which led intelligent design scientists to intelligent design, but their scientific findings which led them to their beliefs.  

Regarding fossils, and as shown in the Fossil page, the fossil record clearly did not support Darwin’s theories during his time, and nothing has changed since.  Darwin himself admitted this, but hoped that further search would turn up evidence to support his theory. Not much has changed in the succeeding 150+ years.  

Regarding the glyptodant, they were just giant armadillos, not some primitive precursor.  This is clearly microevolution, as they simply adapted to changes in their environment.

Coyne: 

And the record clearly displayed changes in the forms of life existing over large spans of time, with the deepest and oldest sediments showing marine invertebrates, with fishes appearing much later, and still later amphibians, reptiles, and mammals (along with the persistence of some groups found in earlier stages).  This sequence of change was in fact established by creationist geologists long before Darwin, and was often thought to reflect hundreds of acts of divine creation. (This does not exactly comport with the account given in Genesis.) 

First, the fossils do not occur in this order, simple to complex from bottom to top. The fossils at the bottom (i.e., long ago) are equally as complex as any animal today, and are essentially the same as their modern counterparts.  Some body styles go extinct as you come up the column, but no new basic styles are introduced.  There are only variations of already existing themes.  As we saw in the Cambrian explosion, the fossils appear abruptly in the record, fully formed and fully functional without less adapted ancestors in lower levels that would have preceded them in time.  

Further, the arrangement in which different types of creatures are found in the geological record could easily be explained in terms of the Genesis Flood. (I plan to add an appendix summarizing evidence for the Genesis Flood).  You can also refer to the fossil chapter to see that honest evolutionist admit that the fossil record does not support evolution. :

Coyne 

Yet evolution predicts not just successions of forms, but also genetic lineages from ancestors to descendants.  The absence of such transitional series in the fossil record bothered Darwin, who called this "the most obvious and serious objection that can be urged against the theory." (He attributed the missing links, quite reasonably, to the imperfection of the fossil record and the dearth of paleontological collections.)  But this objection is no longer valid. Since 1859, paleontologists have turned up Darwin's missing evidence: fossils in profusion, with many sequences showing evolutionary change.  In large and small organisms, we can trace, through successive layers of the fossil record, evolutionary changes occurring in lineages.  Diatoms get bigger, clamshells get ribbier, horses get larger and toothier, and the human lineage evolves bigger brains, smaller teeth, and increased efficiency at bipedal walking.  Moreover, we now have transitional forms connecting major groups of organisms, including fish with tetrapods, dinosaurs with birds, reptiles with mammals, and land mammals with whales.

Coyne is correct in stating the fossil record bothered Darwin, but incorrect in saying clear lineages have been found.  This is absolutely false and honest scientists admit it.  Evidence of creatures changing over time is merely an example of microevolution.  These are simply adaptations within species due to environmental changes. The clam is still a clam, the horse still a horse.  As we saw in the fossil chapter, no true indisputable transitional fossil connecting one species to another has ever been found.  The supposed "transitional forms connecting major groups" are nothing of the kind and have been discredited.  Where there should be literally millions of examples of transitional fossils, we instead find a handful of disputable ones.  To assert otherwise is contrary to the actual evidence as has been clearly shown. :

Coyne 

Darwin predicted that such forms would be found, and their discovery vindicated him fully.  It also destroys the creationist notion that species were created in their present form and thereafter remained unchanged. 

Again, creationists do not claim that species have remained unchanged.  What we deny is that the major divisions of nature have been or could have been crossed.  And, contrary to Coyne’s claims, all the evidence supports this position.

Coyne:

Darwin's second line of evidence comprised the developmental and structural remnants of past ancestry that we find in living species, those features that Stephen Jay Gould called "the senseless signs of history."  Examples are numerous.  Both birds and toothless anteaters develop tooth buds as embryos, but the teeth are aborted and never erupt; the buds are the remnants of the teeth of the reptilian ancestor of birds and the toothed ancestor of anteaters.  The flightless kiwi bird of New Zealand, familiar from shoe-polish cans, has tiny vestigial wings hidden under its feathers; they are completely useless, but they attest to the fact that kiwis, like all flightless birds, evolved from flying ancestors.  Some cave animals, descended from sighted ancestors that invaded caves, have rudimentary eyes that cannot see; the eyes degenerated after they were no longer needed. A creator, especially an intelligent one, would not bestow useless tooth buds, wings, or eyes on large numbers of species. 

The human body is also a palimpsest of our ancestry.  Our appendix is the vestigial remnant of an intestinal pouch used to ferment the hard-to-digest plant diets of our ancestors. (Orangutans and grazing animals have a large hollow appendix instead of the tiny, wormlike one that we possess.) An appendix is simply a bad thing to have.  It is certainly not the product of intelligent design: how many humans died of appendicitis before surgery was invented? 

This subject is covered in the vestigial organ section of the Other Supposed Evidence page.  As we saw, virtually every vestigial organ actually does have a function.  These creatures simply adapted to their environment.  They did not become different creatures.  The kiwi has always been a bird, the anteater always an anteater.  Regarding the rudimentary eyes of the cave bats, they are not an example of evolution but actually the opposite.  They lost function, they did not gain it. Creationists delight in using blind cave bats as examples of 'downhill' or 'information-losing' mutations causing 'devolution'.  But again, they are still bats.

Coyne:

And consider also lanugo.  Five months after conception, human fetuses grow a thin coat of hair, called lanugo, all over their bodies.  It does not seem useful…after all, it is a comfortable 98.6 degrees in utero…and the hair is usually shed shortly before birth.  The feature makes sense only as an evolutionary remnant of our primate ancestry; fetal apes also grow such a coat, but they do not shed it. 

The idea that the human embryo expresses some of its past evolutionary stages during development has an ignoble history.  The idea of 'embryonic recapitulation' was bolstered by massive fraud and has been repeatedly discredited.  Yet it still rears its head occasionally from those like Coyne who should know better !!  It is well known that in the womb, the human embryo develops a soft, downy covering of special hair known as lanugo, often still visible in premature babies.  Evolutionists like Coyne follow the assumption that this is a temporary 'throwback' to our 'hairy ape ancestors.'  

But on closer inspection the argument falls apart.  Such arguments imply that some dormant ancestral genetic information causes the temporary development of something which became unnecessary during an organism's evolutionary ancestry, and so it fades away again prior to reaching adulthood.  The fact is, hair grows from structures called follicles.  The more follicles per unit area there are, the greater the resultant density of hair.  So if there really was an embryonic stage reflecting a 'hairier' ancestor, investigation should reveal that at that stage in the womb we have a larger number of hair follicles than in later life.  However, this is not the case. 

There are three types of hair: lanugo, vellus and terminal. Terminal hairs are the 'obvious' ones, like on our scalp. Vellus hairs are extremely fine, colorless and very short.  A woman has the same number of hairs on her face as a man but they are the vellus type.  When males reach puberty, the follicles in the 'beard' areas stop producing vellus hairs and grow terminal hairs instead.  The point here is that all three types of hair, including the lanugo, are produced by the same follicles.  If evolutionary claims were true, there would be many more follicles per square inch, since our supposed ancestors were hairier than us.  But this is not the case. Thus there is not a 'hairier' embryonic stage. 

Coyne:

Recent studies of the human genome provide more evidence that we were not created ex nihilo. Our genome is a veritable Gemisch of non-functional DNA, including many inactive "pseudogenes" that were functional in our ancestors.  Why do humans, unlike most mammals, require vitamin C in our diet?  Because primates cannot synthesize this essential nutrient from simpler chemicals.  Yet we still carry all the genes for synthesizing vitamin C.  The gene used for the last step in this pathway was inactivated by mutations forty million years ago, probably because it was unnecessary in fruit-eating primates.  But it still sits in our DNA, one of many useless remnants testifying to our evolutionary ancestry. 

Recent discoveries of function in certain pseudogenes have led to the recognition of widespread function in pseudogenes.  The major premises on which evolutionary pseudogene-based arguments rest are steadily crumbling.  This supposed junk DNA has proven to play many essential roles. 

The pseudogene that is presumably related to the inability of humans to produce their own vitamin C are believed to correspond to parts of functional genes that are found in those mammals capable of synthesizing vitamin C.  Evolutionists have cited these apparently vestigial remnants to make arguments against an Intelligent Designer.  However, studies have shown these pseudogenes are much more closely related between humans and guinea pigs, than between humans and their supposed simian ancestors.(8)  Regarding these findings, John Woodmorappe states that even if one accepts organic evolution, one must concede that the astounding degree of identicalness between these guinea pig and human pseudogenes could not possibly have resulted from evolutionary ancestry. (9) 

Coyne:

Darwin's third line of evidence came from biogeography, the study of the geographic distribution of plants and animals.  I have already mentioned what Darwin called his "Law of Succession": living organisms in an area most closely resemble fossils found in the same location. This implies that the former evolved from the latter.  But Darwin found his strongest evidence on "oceanic islands," those islands, such as Hawaii and the Galapagos, that were never connected to continents but arose, bereft of life, from beneath the sea. 

There is nothing earth-shattering here.  This evidence fits equally as well into the creation model.  The fact that the fossils found on these islands closely resemble the organisms that are currently on those islands is the same microevolutionary evidence previously mentioned. Further, the fact that these islands were never connected to continents does not suggest Iguana, for example, evolved from some other more primitive creature.  Through ocean currents, land creatures can float on “rafts” of plants, branches, etc, blown out to sea during a storm.  An example of this from modern times is Krakatoa.  After the eruption in 1883 the island was lifeless for some time.  Eventually a variety of creatures made their way there on their own.  They obviously did not evolve there !! 

Back to Coyne:

What struck Darwin about oceanic islands, as opposed to continents or "continental islands" such as Great Britain, which were once connected to continents, was the bizarre nature of their flora and fauna.  Oceanic islands are simply missing or impoverished in many types of animals.  Hawaii has no native mammals, reptiles, or amphibians.  These animals, as well as freshwater fish, are also missing on St. Helena, a remote oceanic island in the middle of the South Atlantic Ocean.  It seems that the intelligent designer forgot to stock oceanic (but not continental!) islands with a sufficient variety of animals.  One might respond that this was a strategy of the creator, as those organisms might not survive on islands.  But this objection fails, because such animals often do spectacularly well when introduced by humans.  Hawaii has been overrun by the introduced cane toad and mongoose, to the detriment of its native fauna. 

Here Coyne seems to be trying more to dispute creation than to support evolution.  Evolution cannot explain why only these particular creatures came to be on these remote islands.  This argument actually supports creation rather than evolution.  By whatever means, some of which Coyne himself explains later, certain species were able to reach these remote islands. Once there, the fossil evidence can only demonstrate microevolutionary changes.  If it were true that evolution began with molecules that evolved into the great diversity of life present on earth, then why did that not happen on these remote islands?  What we find instead is that the life forms that somehow got to these islands only exhibited microevolutionary changes once there.  The fact that species introduced by humans thrive on these islands supports this.

Coyne:

Strikingly, the native groups that are present on these islands, mainly plants, insects, and birds, are present in profusion, consisting of clusters of numerous similar species.  The Galapagos archipelago harbors twenty-three species of land birds, of which fourteen species are finches. Nowhere else in the world will you find an area in which two-thirds of the birds are finches.  Hawaii has similar "radiations" of fruit flies and silversword plants, while St. Helena is overloaded with ferns and weevils.  Compared with continents or continental islands, then, oceanic islands have unbalanced flora and fauna, lacking many familiar groups but having an over-representation of some species. 

Ditto what I said above. The life forms that somehow got to these islands only exhibited microevolutionary changes within the limits of their species.  It makes perfect sense that these islands have unbalanced flora and fauna.  All of the species found on continents simply did not make it to these islands.  Many of the ones that made it flourished.  If macroevolution were true, then certainly these species would have branched out into new species over the supposed millions and millions of years of evolutionary history.  The fossil evidence simply does not support this.  Yet this makes sense in a Creation scenario.

Moreover, the animals and the plants inhabiting oceanic islands bear the greatest similarity to species found on the nearest mainland.  As Darwin noted when describing the species of the Galapagos, this similarity occurs despite a great difference in habitat, a fact militating against creationism:  Why should the species which are supposed to have been created in the Galapagos Archipelago, and nowhere else, bear so plainly the stamp of affinity to those created in America? There is nothing in the conditions of life, in the geological nature of the islands, in their height or climate, or in the proportions in which the several classes are associated together, which resembles closely the conditions of the South American coast:  in fact there is a considerable dissimilarity in all these respects. 

First of all, who said all of these species were supposed to have been created in the Galapagos or other distant islands?  Volcanic islands develop from volcanic eruptions.  All the life then got to those islands in any of a variety of ways. Coyne himself verifies this in the next paragraph (see bold print added by me):

As the final peg in Darwin's biogeographic argument, he noted that the kinds of organisms commonly found on oceanic islands, birds, plants, and insects, are those that can easily get there.  Insects and birds can fly to islands (or be blown there by winds), and the seeds of plants can be transported by winds or ocean currents, or in the stomachs of birds.  Hawaii may have no native terrestrial mammals, but the islands do harbor one native aquatic mammal, the monk seal, and one native flying mammal, the hoary bat. 

All of Darwin's observations about island biogeography point to one explanation: species on islands descend from individuals who successfully colonized from the mainland and subsequently evolved into new species.  Only the theory of evolution explains the paucity of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and freshwater fish on oceanic islands (they cannot get there), the radiation of some groups into many species (the few species that make it to islands find empty niches and speciate profusely), and the resemblance of island species to those from the nearest mainland (an island colonist is most likely to have come from the closest source).  

I was incredulous when I read this.  He is explaining how all of this life got onto these islands and flourished.  He states, somehow all of these species got there, and after that there was only evidence of microevolution.  For some reason, no mammals made it to Hawaii, or if they did they were not able to flourish.  All life on these islands show closest resemblances to life on the nearest continents. How any of this proves evolution and disproves Creation is a mystery to me !  He actually addresses some of his earlier criticisms.

Coyne states the findings contradict creation but he is making up his own idea of creation.  He speaks of species that “are supposed to have been created in the Galapagos Archipelago, and nowhere else.”  He obviously has not read the Bible’s account of creation.  The Bible states that all life was destroyed in the Genesis Flood.  After the Flood, all life forms had to begin again from a central location, the resting place of the Ark.  Only the ones that were able to reach these islands, as Coyne mentions, are the ones we find there (other than the ones introduced by humans).  Any changes found in these species over time are strictly microevolutionary.  Just like on the continents, there is absolutely no evidence of macroevolutionary changes on these islands.  There is nothing here that supports the molecules to man hypothesis.  I really cannot understand the points he is trying to make, other than to pile on supposed evidence for lay readers to be impressed by.

Coyne continues:

In the last 150 years, immense amounts of new evidence have been collected about biogeography, embryology, and, especially, the fossil record.  All of it supports evolution.  But support for the idea of natural selection was not so strong, and Darwin had no direct evidence for it.  He relied instead on two arguments.  The first was logical. If individuals in a population varied genetically (which they do), and some of this variation affected the individual's chance of leaving descendants (which seems likely), then natural selection would work automatically, enriching the population in genes that better adapted individuals to their environment. 

The second argument was analogical.  Artificial selection used by breeders had wrought immense changes in plants and animals, a fact familiar to everyone.  From the ancestral wolf, humans selected forms as diverse as Chihuahuas, St. Bernards, poodles, and bulldogs.  Starting with wild cabbage, breeders produced domestic cabbage, broccoli, kohlrabi, kale, cauliflower, and Brussels sprouts.  Artificial selection is nearly identical to natural selection, except that humans rather than the environment determine which variants leave offspring.  And if artificial selection can produce such a diversity of domesticated plants and animals in a thousand-odd years, natural selection could obviously do much more over millions of years. 

Evolutionists like Coyne frame natural selection as this wonderful innate process that “automatically enriches the population with genes” to better adapt individuals to their environment.  Basically, the organisms with traits that allow them to better survive are going to leave more offspring with those genes that provide those traits.  So, of course, the population will include more individuals with those genes.  I don’t see the evolutionary magic here.

However, his statement about artificial selection really grinds my gears. Here he is clearly insulting the intelligence of his readers.  This is the typical misrepresentation that evolutionists continue to spread to the unwitting public and it is appalling.  It is amazing to me that scholarly professors promote such simplistic and false ideas. This line of thinking is seriously flawed and guys like Coyne should know better. 

While breeding experiments and the domestication of animals has revealed that many species were capable of a considerable degree of change, they also revealed distinct limits in every case beyond which no further change could ever be produced.  And breeders can reach these limits relatively quickly.  To assume that given huge periods of time would make a difference is clearly contrary to the evidence and overtly misleading. 

What artificial selection and breeding actually accomplishes is to rapidly establish the limit beyond which no further change is possible.  Not to mention the fact that in all cases the specialized breeds produced possess reduced viability, that is, their basic ability to survive has been weakened.  This obviously contradicts the theory of “survival of the fittest.”  To imply to the unwitting public that the major division of nature can be crossed by simply adding eons of time is purposely misleading.  I can’t believe Coyne could be ignorant of these facts so I must assume he is just being intentionally deceptive. 

Coyne:

But we no longer need to buttress natural selection solely with analogy and logic.  Biologists have now observed hundreds of cases of natural selection, beginning with the well-known examples of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, insect resistance to DDT, and HIV resistance to antiviral drugs. Natural selection accounts for the resistance of fish and mice to predators by making them more camouflaged, and for the adaptation of plants to toxic minerals in the soil. (A long list of examples may be found in Natural Selection in the Wild, by John Endler.) 

Again, ignorant or purposely misleading.  Antibiotic resistance is not due to mutations, but to complex enzymes that inactivate the poison.  The same is true for insecticide resistance.  The resistance is due to inactivating enzymes, not evolution.  None of the insects or fish he refers to changed anything else or "evolved".  This information created in all DNA allows all organisms to adapt to their environment.  This is a testament to a Supreme Creator, not evolution.

Coyne:

Moreover, the strength of selection observed in the wild, when extrapolated over long periods, is more than adequate to explain the diversification of life on Earth. 

Again, evolutionists continue to push the idea that given enough time all barriers can be crossed.  Not only is this not true, the actual time available for evolution continues to shrink as scientists continue to find evidence for life closer and closer to when the earth’s crust cooled.  Even with an assumed age of 5 billion years, there simply is not enough time to explain the diversity of life on earth, had mutations and natural selection been the mechanism.

And so evolution has graduated from theory to fact.  We know that species on earth today descended from earlier, different species, and that every pair of species had a common ancestor that existed in the past. 

This is simply not true.  Again, back to the fundamental point.  Evidence of microevolutionary change, which is always limited, has been found and no one disputes it.  There is absolutely no evidence, however, that macroevolutionary change has occurred.  Further, and as we have seen in previous pages, an abundance of evidence exists which demonstrates that it could not have happened. 

Notice that Dr. Coyne slips in the last statement about common ancestors.  Where is this evidence that “every pair of species had a common ancestor” that existed in the past?  The fossil evidence certainly does not support this.  Although the “family tree” showing evolution from single-celled creatures up to humans continues to be presented in most high school and college textbooks as accepted scientific fact, many honest and empirical scientists flatly deny its validity.  

As early as the 1930s and 1940s, leaders in paleontology realized the deficiency.  As evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould stated, “The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference…”(10)  

Coyne:

Most evolutionary change in the features of organisms, moreover, is almost certainly the result of natural selection.  But we must also remember that, like all scientific truths, the truth of evolution is provisional: it could conceivably be overturned by future investigations.  It is possible (but unlikely!) that we could find human fossils co-existing with dinosaurs, or fossils of birds living alongside those of the earliest invertebrates 600 million years ago.  Either observation would sink neo-Darwinism for good. 

He is acting scientific when he says future findings might invalidate evolution but he doesn’t really believe it.  This article by Dr. Coyne is typical of evolutionary writing.  It is a good example of how a scientist’s bias affects how he views the evidence.  Most people just accept what they hear uncritically.  If the statements fit a person's world view they are likely to accept it without further investigation.  Coyne's article does not fit my world view.  Upon investigating it becomes clear that his statements are very biased and do not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

BTW, refer back to this quote from Coyne as listed on the "In Their Own Words" page: 

We conclude—unexpectedly—that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak. (11) 

Jerry Coyne, of the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago

It is normal to assume that these brilliant scientists know what they are talking about, and since the vast majority believes in evolution, most laymen feel it must be true.  I’m sure the scientists of the middle-ages who supported the geocentric theory of the universe were also very smart.  Unfortunately, their philosophical biases got the best of them.