Home | Feedback | Links | Books

Evolution: The Creation Myth of Our Culture

David Buckna

© 2015 David Buckna.  All Rights Reserved.

Part 3 of 4
Part 1 Part 2 Part 4

Is it possible to document from the fossil record the series of transitional forms leading up to the butterfly? What do evolutionists say when asked how the process of metamorphosis (egg, larva, pupa, adult) evolved?

Enzymes are released that literally digest the larva (caterpillar) while it is encased in the pupa (chrysalis), converting it into a rich soup of disjointed tissues and cells--which after four days becomes an adult butterfly.

Richard Milton writes: "It means no stage or aspect of this physical process can be accounted for or even guessed at with our current knowledge of chemistry, physics, genetics, or molecular biology, extensive though they are. It is completely beyond us. We know practically nothing about the plan or program governing the metamorphosis, or the organizing agency that executes this plan." (Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, Park St. Press, 1992, p. 220.)



a) Is it possible to document from the fossil record the series of transitional forms leading up to the honeybee? b) To identify the location of a food source too distant from the hive to be smelled or seen by the other bees, the scout does a complicated dance on the honeycomb inside the hive. If this process slowly evolved, how would all the bee ancestors have found enough pollen to survive while this system of communication was evolving?



Edward Blyth, English chemist/zoologist (and creationist), wrote his first of three major articles on natural selection in The Magazine of Natural History, 24 years before Darwin's "Origin of Species" was published. Why then do evolutionists think of natural selection as Darwin's idea?

Blyth didn't attribute God-like qualities to natural selection, as some evolutionists do today. At least some are willing to admit: "Natural selection can only act on those biologic properties that already exist; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs." Noble, et al., Parasitology, 6th ed. (Lea & Febiger, 1989), p. 516.



During the Industrial Revolution, dark-colored peppered moths appeared in larger numbers during environmental changes. Did a new species emerge, or did it already preexist? Is this macroevolution?



In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published their paper, Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism. Marvin Lubenow writes in "Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils" (1992; revised edition 2004): "In the early 1970's, when it became obvious that we had a more than adequate sampling of the fossil record, the grim reality dawned that those transitional fossils were not to be found. The punctuated equilibria model of evolution was then invented to explain why they were not found. However, it is imperative to emphasize that the punctuated equilibria model does not remove the need for transitional fossils. It just explains why those transitions have not been found."

"Certainly, the punctuated equilibria theory is unique. It must be the only theory ever put forth in the history of science which claims to be scientific but then explains why evidence for it cannot be found." Do you agree with Lubenow? Why or why not?



Science writer Jonathan Weiner ("The Beak of the Finch", 1994) says beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought (1977) is "evolution in action", even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred.

Phillip Johnson writes: "If somebody asks, 'Do you believe in evolution?' the right reply is not 'Yes' or 'No.' It is: 'Precisely what do you mean by evolution?' My experience has been that the first definition I get will be so broad as to be indisputable--like 'There has been change in the course of life's history.' Later on a much more precise and controversial definition will be substituted without notice. That one word evolution can mean something so tiny it hardly matters, or so big it explains the whole history of the universe. Keep your baloney detector trained on that word. If it moves, zap it!" ("Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds", 1997)

Phillip Johnson says naturalists define words like "evolution" and "science" in such a way that naturalism is true by definition. He said in World magazine: "Evolutionary science is based on naturalism and draws philosophical conclusions to that base. That's why any theistic evolution is inherently superficial. It leads people into naturalistic thinking, and they don't realize it." (Nov. 22, 1997, p.13)


Agree or disagree? The beak changes Weiner writes about can be more accurately described as "minor variation in action".



Dr. Don Moeller writes in his 2003 paper, Dental fossils and the fossil record: "In summary, the fossil record demonstrates numerous highly complex coupled dento-maxillary developmental systems which can not be accounted for by any known evolutionary mechanism."


Do you agree with Moeller's summary? Why or why not?


Stern and Susman write in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology 60:279-313 (1983) that the hands and feet of Australopithecus afarensis are not at all like human hands and feet; rather, they have long, curved fingers and toes typical of arboreal primates. Why then do evolutionists insist that the footprints Mary Leakey uncovered in strata (dated at 3.5 million years old) in Laetoli were made by Australopithecus afarensis, though these prints are indistinguishable from modern man? (Tuttle, Natural History, 64)


In a unpublished letter to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Aug. 2, 1996), Dr. David Menton (at that time Associate Professor of Anatomy, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis) wrote: "...many anthropologists, including Mary Leakey herself, are not so sure that 'Lucy' [Australopithecus afarensis] could have made these prints, but rather hope that some other ape-like ancestor of man with essentially human feet may yet be found."

"The Laetoli fossil footprints comprise a trail of 20 prints identical to those of a modern 10-year-old child, and a closely adjacent trail of 27 prints of a still smaller child--both with a well developed arch and distinctively human left-right stride. During a 1982 lecture in St. Louis, Mary Leakey revealed that footprints of yet a third smaller individual were found to be placed squarely on each of the footprints in the trail of the larger individual, much as a child might step in the footprints of an elder! The problem is that evolutionists feel certain that there were no humans around when these obviously human-like footprints were made, yet efforts to force Lucy's feet into something they don't fit have been as futile as those of Cinderella's stepsisters. Now evolutionists are faced with the daunting question: what has feet like a human and walks like a human?"



a) About 30 partial bone flutes have been found in Europe late in the Neandertal period and younger. b) A 2006 paper by João Zilhão et al. reports on evidence (ornaments and decorated bone tools) that Neandertals had genuine symbolic thought. c) Caves were used by Neandertals as family burial grounds or cemeteries in Europe and the Middle-East (Israel and Lebanon). Why then do some evolutionists insist the Neandertals were merely borrowing or imitating cultural novelties from anatomically modern humans? And why do evolutionists classify Neandertals either as a subspecies of modern humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate human species (Homo neanderthalensis)?

Marvin Lubenow writes: "But the strongest evidence that Neandertals were fully human and of our species is that at four sites Neandertals and modern humans were buried together....That Neandertals and anatomically modern humans were buried together constitutes strong evidence that they lived together, worked together, intermarried, and were accepted as members of the same family, clan, and community. The false distinction made by evolutionists today was not made by the ancients. To call the Neandertals 'Cave Men' is to give a false picture of who they were and why caves were significant in their lives."

"Although anthropologists have yet to agree on a formal definition of the Neandertals, there is a set of physical characteristics that are used in referring to a classic Neandertal morphology.... [eg. larger averge brain case, low forehead, heavy brow ridges, prominant nose, thick body bones] Any one of these characteristics, several of them, or all of them could be found in some humans living today, or even perhaps all of them might be found in some humans living today. There is nothing profoundly distinct about them...."



In May 2000, Michael Ruse (philosopher of science) wrote: "Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion--a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint--and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it--the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." If religion cannot be taught in science classes, why is evolution taught in science classes?

Ruse, M., "How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? Darwinians wrongly mix science with morality, politics", National Post, pp. B1, B3, B7 (May 13, 2000)



Contact 5 evolutionists, preferably from different fields eg. biologist, biochemist, paleontologist, etc. Bonus points for those who are well-known. Ask each: What evidence would convince you that vertical evolution (information-building evolution) is false? Record their answers. If any of the evolutionists say no such evidence exists, or indeed could exist, ask: How then can evolution be testable?

Part 1 Part 2 Part 4

Home | Feedback | Links | Books | Back to Top

© 2015 TrueOrigin Archive.  All Rights Reserved.
  powered by Webhandlung