Darwin's Scorecard

Embryology

Darwin was certainly aware of the notion that the embryo passes through stages that repeat evolutionary development. According to this notion, more highly evolved animals pass through more stages of embryonic development than less highly evolved animals. Darwin said,

Thus the embryo comes to be left as a sort of picture, preserved by nature, of the ancient and less modified condition of each animal. This view may be true, and yet it may never be capable of full proof. 23

It will never be capable of full proof because it isn’t true. The notion was largely supported by Ernst Haeckel’s embryonic drawings that are now known not only to be inaccurate, but fraudulent.

Darwin didn’t actually claim this was proof of his theory. He merely said, This view may be true. But if he didn’t think it was relevant, why did he include it in his book? We have to think that he believed it, otherwise he would not have mentioned it. That’s why we have decided to include it in the list of things that Darwin got wrong.

Vestigial organs

Muscles, and perhaps even organs, do atrophy through disuse. But this is an acquired characteristic, which is not inherited. Darwin thought acquired characteristics were inherited, so he came to this erroneous understanding of rudimentary organs.

Disuse, aided sometimes by natural selection, will often tend to reduce an organ, when it has become useless by changed habits or under changed conditions of life; and we can clearly understand on this view the meaning of rudimentary organs. 24

The modern term for rudimentary organs is vestigial organs. Modern evolutionists don’t very often try to argue that vestigial organs are evidence of evolution for two reasons. One is that they know that acquired characteristics aren’t inherited. So, organs will not shrink or become less efficient over many generations through disuse. The second reason is that we now know that most, perhaps all, useless vestigial organs have uses. It is true that you can survive without your appendix, tonsils, or one of your kidneys. That doesn’t mean they are useless. It merely means that it is possible to survive with slightly reduced capability without them. Darwin got this wrong, and most evolutionists know it.

The Fossil Record

Darwin was well aware that the fossil record doesn’t support the theory of evolution.

But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be much more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the geological record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed; 25

He was right that the fossil record doesn’t support evolution. He was wrong that the fossil record is incomplete. It is very complete for shellfish. Have you ever heard an evolutionist claim that missing links between the various kinds of shells have been found? Probably not. That’s because it is the absence of transitional forms for shellfish (invertebrates) that led invertebrate paleontologists to propose the Punctuated Equilibrium theory to explain the lack of transitional forms.

Richard Dawkins is the best-known modern champion of Darwinian evolution. In his chapter, "The Museum of All Shells" in his book Climbing Mount Improbable, he describes his Blind Shellmaker program. In it he recognizes that a snail is just a coiled-up worm. Furthermore, a conch is just a snail that isn’t coiled in a single plane. And, if you take a snail, and unroll it into a cone, and make the cone fatter and shorter, it looks a lot like a clam shell. So, by varying some parameters in his Blind Shellmaker program he can make one program draw a clam, worm, snail, or conch.

Dawkins uses his Blind Shellmaker program to show how shellfish could have evolved. No, more that that. His program shows how shellfish must have evolved. In fact, what his program shows is the sequence of intermediate forms that must have existed if shellfish evolved. What you won’t find in Climbing Mount Improbable is a table showing the correlation between a Blind Shellmaker output sequence and actual fossils. That’s because the sequence of intermediate forms predicted by the Blind Shellmaker isn’t found in the fossil record.

On the other hand, we have far fewer hominid fossils than fossil sea shells. Some of these hominids are represented by a few teeth, a smashed skull, or a partial skeleton. This is where the evolutionists claim the fossil record supports evolution. This is in the tradition of Darwin’s appeal to ignorance. We don’t know what intermediate forms are missing. And, if we allow for our ignorance, we can see that all the intermediate forms must be there.

A Crowd of Difficulties

Darwin correctly realized that there were four serious problems with his theory.

LONG before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory.

These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:-Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?

Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some animal with wholly different habits? Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, organs of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, organs of such wonderful structure, as the eye, of which we hardly as yet fully understand the inimitable perfection?

Thirdly, can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection? What shall we say to so marvellous an instinct as that which leads the bee to make cells, which have practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematicians?

Fourthly, how can we account for species, when crossed, being sterile and producing sterile offspring, whereas, when varieties are crossed, their fertility is unimpaired? 26

If evolution were true, there should be innumerable transitional forms alive today. There aren’t any. Darwin could claim that the fossil record was imperfect, but he could not claim that there are many species alive today that we don’t know about. He was correct that the clear distinction between species today argues strongly against his theory.

He was right that many things, like echolocation in bats, and vision in a wide variety of creatures, could not be produced by inheritance and natural selection. He was right that instinct, which certainly exists in many creatures, cannot be explained by evolution.

He was right that breeding across species lines rarely results in viable offspring. And those rare cases that are viable are sterile. If one could cross an alligator with a chicken, then remarkable new species might evolve. But you can’t cross radically different creatures, producing new creatures that might win the battle for survival.

Darwin recognized that crossing varieties of the same species does produce fertile offspring. Although he apparently didn’t fully understand the problems with inbreeding, modern scientists do. Modern scientists understand that crossing varieties mixes up the gene pool, and makes species less susceptible to genetic diseases.

Darwin’s Score Card

Darwin got some things right. Ironically, most of the things he got right were observations that argue against evolution. Let's look at all of Darwin's conclusions in tabular form.

Darwin Got It Right

For evolution

More individuals are born than can survive.

There is a lot of variation in species.

Evolution depends upon inherited variations.

Against evolution

The laws governing inheritance were quite unknown to Darwin.

Correlation of growth (inbreeding) has side effects that limit variation.

Intercrossing causes variations to revert to the norm.

The fossil record doesn’t support evolution.

There are no living intermediate forms.

Complex structures, such as the eye, and echolocation, could not have evolved.

Instincts can’t be explained by natural selection.

One can’t breed diverse species to produce new fertile species.

Darwin Got It Wrong

Fitness is more important than luck when it comes to survival.

Features developed by exercise are inherited.

Features diminished by disuse are inherited.

Climate causes variations that are inherited.

Diet causes variations that are inherited.

There is no limit to inherited change.

Embryos trace evolutionary development.

Rudimentary organs are proof that features diminished by disuse are inherited.

The fossil record would support evolution if it were more complete.

We think you will agree that, if you ignore the things that Darwin got right that argue against his theory, Darwin got very little right.

Not only that, you can see why Origin of Species isn’t actually studied in most biology classes. Most high school and college biology teachers, and the management of the Field Museum, probably really believe that Darwin got it mostly right because they haven’t read Origin of Species themselves. They are just repeating what their teachers told them, who were repeating what their teachers told them.

In the nineteenth century, scientists did actually read Origin of Species, and if we remember how profoundly ignorant they were, we can understand how they might have believed it. The story has been passed down from generation to generation of science teachers without much critical examination. Now it is time to re-examine the theory of evolution in light of twenty-first century science. Now is the time to realize that Darwin got it (mostly) wrong. Modern science is against evolution.

Footnotes:

1. Darwin, 1859, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Chapter 14 (Ev)

2. ibid. Chapter 14

3. ibid. Chapter 4

4. ibid. Chapter 1

5. ibid.

6. ibid. Chapter 12

7. ibid.

8. ibid.

9. ibid. Chapter 14

10. ibid. Chapter 1

11. ibid.

12. ibid. Chapter 5

13. ibid.

14. ibid. Chapter 1

15. Leviticus 18:6-12 (Cr+)

16. Origin of Species, Chapter 14

17. ibid. Chapter 4

18. ibid. Chapter 1

19. Leviticus 19:19.

20. Origin of Species, Chapter 4

21. ibid.

22. ibid.

23. ibid. Chapter 10

24. ibid. Chapter 14

25. ibid. Chapter 6

26. ibid.

If you have any comments or questions
contact: bhaktivedanta_108@yahoo.com