did man come from?
6) punctuated equilibria
evolution is a theory. It is also a fact...And humans evolved from ape-like
ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's mechanism or by some other yet
to be discovered."
is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the
most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny."
theory #2: punctuated equilibria
scientific community's formal rejection of Darwinism's slow, gradual evolution
of one species into another probably began in the 1930's with Richard
Goldschmidt. While acknowledging the modifications caused by micro-evolution
within a given species (something that was never challenged), he expressed
doubt that slow evolutionary changes over great periods of time resulted
in new species.
examples such as a creature evolving from a crawling species into a flying
one. At some point, Darwinian evolution maintains that creature would have
appendages that were half feathered wings and half scale-covered legs. Accordingly,
this would leave countless middle generations to be rather poor at either
running or flying. This would be a significant threat to another Darwinian
necessity: survivability. Less obvious transitions would present equally
The lungs of reptiles
consist of millions of tiny air sacs; whereas, bird's lungs have tubes.
The piecemeal evolution of bird's lungs from reptile's lungs seems virtually
was that massive changes came about suddenly in single generations.
This theory additionally required that an appreciable number of like-mutations
must have appeared during the same generation. Simultaneous like mutations
are essential. Otherwise, when one-of-a-kind creatures mated with their
normal species, if even possible, the mutation would disappear. The mutation
would be lost; if not immediately, then after a sufficient amount of interbreeding
with normal genes. Hopeful monsters, as they were dubbed, must have similar
monster mates in order to propagate their mutation.
As modernized per DNA studies
Today's modernized hypothesis
of Goldschmidt's theory contemplates non-functional DNA, called psuedogenes,
mutating for generations unnoticed. Then, when a more rare functional gene
mutates, the functional gene triggers the other mutations. At this point,
the traditional analogy of Goldschmidt's hopeful monster theory might occur:
a lizard's egg hatches and a bird flies out.
Stephen J. Gould
and Niles Eldredge likely found the hopeful monster theory too incredulous,
but confirmed that the fossil record was absent of transitional forms. What
the fossil record did show, they said, was that many creatures, like the
marine bivalve, existed for tens of millions of years completely unchanged.
Then, when the geologic record appears to indicate their sudden disappearance,
a different, fully developed form abruptly appears; again, with no indication
of transitional development.
By 1977, Gould and Eldredge
incorporated these observations into an evolutionary theory, or modification,
called punctuated equilibria. This would describe macro-evolution as
a rare and relatively quick event. Transitions happen:
- just fast enough
as to avoid leaving evidence in the fossil record (or leaving enough to
- just slow enough
that it cannot be observed, and
- just rarely enough
that no species-to-species transition has ever been or will likely ever
be observed or discovered.
10.21 Problems with punctuated
b. no (primordial)
soup for you
1.) Punctuated equilibria
differs from Darwinian evolution in the amount of time and degree of change
thought to occur between each favorable mutation. However, punctuated equilibria,
like traditional evolutionary belief, theorizes there once existed a primordial
soup of the building blocks of organic matter from which emerged a simple
information about a primordial soup and the nature of cellular life was
insufficient in Darwin's day to weigh in on the issue, a great deal of information
has been gained in these areas in the last thirty years. What this information
shows is that: a) cellular life is not simple, and b) there was
no primordial soup.
DNA co-discoverer Francis
Crick's research shows that the early earth did not have an oxygen poor
atmosphere amenable to such a soup:
Since the atmosphere
interacts with the chemicals on the surface of the earth, the chemical
composition of the earliest sedimentary rocks should give us some clues
to the composition of the early atmosphere. ...if all the available rocks
of a given age are considered, then, when averaged, the evidence suggests
that the atmosphere in the past was rather like what it is today.
that his own work with Hoyle confirms Crick's investigation into the early
This had been around
for a good many years, the general belief, that life has to originate
on the surface of our planet from some kind of primordial soup which developed
in the very early days of the earth's history... The atmosphere of the
earth was supposed to be of a character that permitted the formation of
complex organic materials, according to the conventional story, and our
investigations revealed to us that earth's atmosphere could not have had
this character. 44
Drs. Thaxton, Bradley
and Olsen concur:
geological evidence indicates an organic soup, even a small organic pond,
ever existed on this planet. It is becoming increasingly clear that
however life began on earth, the usually conceived notion that life emerged
from an oceanic soup of organic chemicals is a most implausible hypothesis.
We may therefore with fairness call this scenario 'the myth of the prebiotic
2.) Even granting the existence of a primordial soup
which punctuated equilibria demands, microbiology has only recently revealed
the true complexity of so-called simple cells. Michael Behe points out that
these inner workings of cells were totally unknown in Darwin's day; workings
which early evolutionists had a largely simplistic and erroneous conception.
Molecular biologist Michael Denton expounds on the actual workings of the
What we would then
see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design.
On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the
port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual
stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these
openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and
...Is it really credible
that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element
of which -- a functional protein or gene -- is complex beyond our own
creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance,
which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?
Hoyle positively agrees
with Behe and Denton stating,
are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed
through random shufflings of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute,
to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero. 47
and molecular biologist Hubert Yockey also agrees:
The origin of life
by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability... A practical
person must conclude that life didn't happen by chance. 48
regardless of their unique differences, are absolutely clear and unanimous
on this point: Life was
3.) Even if simple cells, as complex as they really
are, can be granted to have miraculously appeared out of impossible primordial
pools, the fossil record remains the star witness against both Darwinian
evolution and punctuated equilibria. The fossil record displays that highly
complex living systems existed from the very beginning. Hoyle writes,
If one believes that
life originated on Earth, the compulsion to search for an ancestral cell
is strong, and the tendency is to imagine that there must have been a
time when simple cells existed, but when complex cells did not... this
belief has turned out to be wrong. 49
Hoyle further records,
Most of the biochemical
complexity of life was present already at the time the oldest surface
rocks of the Earth were formed. Thus we have no clue, even from evidence
which penetrates very far back in time, as to how the information standard
of life was set up in the first place, and so the evolutionary theory
lacks a proper foundation. 50
This being the case,
Gould's theory, like its predecessor, has no scientific foundation by which
to believe that life forms have chronologically progressed from one species
4.) Punctuated equilibria, like modern Darwinism, assumes the layering of
fossilized lifeforms in the theoretical geologic column to be representative
of serial development; a progression from the small and simple to the larger
and complex. However, as pointed out previously,
this is not conclusive of serial development. The layering seen in the
column is not substantially different from what any cross-section of the
earth reveals right now.
In the deepest levels
of the sea and earth, tiny microbial life can be found. As one moves toward
the surface levels, creatures are progressively found larger in size and
complexity. If a large asteroid hit the ocean, or a large volcano exploded
and raining silt and debris buried all land-borne life in place right now,
imagine what a future generation of evolutionists might conclude. By digging
into a cross-section of the resulting geologic column, they would find the
remains of people, then below that gophers, then grubs, then mites, then
single-celled creatures, and mistakenly conclude this was a serial development.
Each form must have preceded the one above it by millions of years. That
would completely miss the fact that all these forms exist at the same
time right now.
The previously discussed
explosion of Mt. St. Helens and the consequential filling of Spirit Lake
is a great example of how geologic findings can be misinterpreted. Massive
flooding and landslides over a few days caused acres of trees to be buried
vertically in layers one atop another. This was a condition which had previously
only been interpreted as separate forests succeeding one another by hundreds
of thousands of years. This observed event proves with certainty the plausibility
of a sudden-burial explanation for layered fossils of creatures that may
well have coexisted.
5.) If, as fellow evolutionists
charge and as Gould and Eldredge admit, punctuated equilibria has no clear
evidence and is not observable or falsifiable, then, like Darwinian evolution,
punctuated equilibria is a matter of blind faith, not testable science.
To believe in this theory,
one must almost begin with the premise that evolution is true:
- Macro-evolution happened.
- Therefore, if it
cannot be proven to have happened slowly according to Darwin, and...
- it cannot be proven
to have happened quickly according to Goldschmidt, and...
- it cannot be recreated,
predicted, observed, or evidenced, then...
- it happened in some
unobservable, non-evidencing, improbable kind of way.
Interestingly, it is
just such a non-evidencing, improbable kind of way that describes the third
and most recent evolutionary idea: Directed Panspermia.
PART 7) Directed panspermia
Where did the earth come from?
Where did the universe come from?