Robert Gange, Ph.D.

 Part I

The name "Darwin" is synonymous with evolution. Yet evolution, as a concept, traces back well before Darwin's time. Ancient Norsemen believed that life evolved from slowly melting ice, and that the process was fueled by breeze from a "land of fire." Greek philosophers likewise held that life's advent was natural. They viewed it as just another physical process. These old ideas may have influenced Charles Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus, who speculated in his book, Zoonomia that life may have evolved. But unlike those of the past, Darwin was committed to the scientific method. He also knew his Bible, and was married to a deeply religious woman. But that did not keep him from abandoning his views on Creation - a transition that began with a voyage.


In 1831, Darwin set sail on the Beagle. Leaving Devonport, he traveled toward Patagonia. Before the trip Darwin believed that Science reinforced the Bible's description of life's origin. The geologists, cosmologists and biologists of the day concurred. Virtually all of them believed that earth's history was the result of supernatural happenings. But as Darwin traveled, he saw things that changed his mind. He was also influenced by a book that he read along the way: Lyell's Principles of Geology. This book taught that small past changes accumulate to yield the structures we see today. Darwin's studies lasted about five years, and he left the ship convinced of two things: (1) The Genesis account was not literal; and (2) Evolution had occurred in nature.

His first conclusion stemmed from observations he made regarding formations in the earth's surface. He wrote, for example, about huge vertical walls in a canyon several miles across that was composed of very hard rock about three hundred feet thick. Six thousand years was too short a time for natural processes to produce what he saw. Changes caused by erosion, for example, require centuries before they are even noticeable. Also disturbing to him was the discovery that many species were extinct. If

Noah had taken all the species with him on the ark, how could so many have perished in the short span of several thousand years? Conversely, if the earth were very old, then the opportunity might exist for one species to change into another. Thus, for Darwin, the two ideas of a very old earth and the creation of new species were related.

Darwin's belief in evolution was also fueled when he noticed that insects common to South America and Europe landed on plant life common to these same continents. Had God separately created these plants and insects thousands of miles apart? Or did each come from a single parent that underwent change in the past? Analogous yet different species scattered throughout the Galapagos Islands posed a similar question to Darwin: Were these created as distinct species? Or had they evolved from a few life forms common to the islands? He found, for example, over ten different species of finches. Yet they looked like one another, and they sang the same kind of song.


Although Darwin became convinced that change over long time periods had produced life's diversity, he had no theory to explain it. He completed his voyage after about five years. Two years later, while reading Malthus's Population, Darwin pondered the question: "Why does one species survive over another?" Darwin's answer was that favorable changes are preserved and unfavorable ones destroyed. He then assumed that the surviving change created new species. Twenty years later, he wrote The Origin of Species. This book synthesized notes from the voyage with his idea that the fittest survive.

Prior to Darwin's publication in 1859, biologists believed that life was created by God, that living structures were designed, and that species were discontinuous and unchanging. But Darwin's theory changed all that. Life was now the result of an opportunistic combination from continuous random changes. In effect, physical matter had replaced God, and good fortune rather than design was the explanation. The survival of an opportunistic combination was seen as the "natural selection" of a universal, mechanistic materialism whose random motion never ceased. At long last biologists believed that they understood life's diversity.


There were two lingering beliefs that had kept Darwin's ideas from being accepted. The first was that each species of life on earth is fixed and cannot change. The second was that the earth is very young, and that its age is about 6000 years. But as Darwin's discoveries became known to wider numbers of people, these beliefs began to be seriously questioned, and their impact decreased with each passing year.

What were these discoveries? Darwin observed that the differences that separated certain dissimilar species were as large as the differences he found among some domestic animals of the same species. He argued that if such differences had occurred in animals of the same species, then they could also arise to separate animals into new and distinct species.

He further proposed how the changes occurred that created the new species. Darwin argued that a virtual continuum of evolutionary changes had occurred over long time periods, and that a natural selection mechanism existed that favored the "fittest" adaptations. New species then evolved from these "favored" changes. His arguments proved persuasive, and the old belief that species were fixed began to erode. But there was one other problem. How could evolutionary changes occur over long time periods when the earth was only 6000 years old?

One of the ways Darwin answered the age problem was an appeal to coral growth. He observed that coral reefs slowly grow off ocean floors. But they do so at depths no greater than about twenty-five feet below the surface of the water. How then, asked Darwin, can some of these coral structures be hundreds of feet high? He answered his own question in a most appealing way. He supposed that the ocean floor had slowly sunk over eons of time, and that the gradual growth of a hundred yard high coral reef from the ocean bottom had occurred not by the coral reaching great heights but, instead, by the ocean floor slowly dropping to great depths. Explained this way, the earth was not thousands -but millions of years old!

Here, then, was the removal of two great ancient beliefs that had barred the acceptance of his ideas: The first, that species are fixed and cannot change; and the second, that the earth's age is 6000 years. With these two ideas aside, the old system with fixed species and young earth was replaced by a dynamic evolving edifice where mutations create new life forms over eons of time.

The implications of Darwin's synthesis were staggering. First, life's advent and development did not need God. Second, religious thought regarding creation and, by implication, all Scripture was in error. Third, human life had no purpose and, therefore, no destiny.


In view of the foundational aspects of these inferences, it is astounding that so little data has nurtured their acceptance over the years. Even in Darwin's day, the evidence was purely circumstantial. Consider, for instance, a similar structure that is used in different ways i.e., the lever arm in a bat's wing, frog's leg and man's arm. For Darwin these were not the single design of a Supreme Intelligence, but the modifications of an earlier structure that had evolved through natural selection.

Darwin also believed that the increase in the complexity of life forms with time demonstrated evolution. These included groups of existing species, as well as sequences of simple to complex fossils in the geologic record. Darwin believed that, given enough time, small changes produced new species, and that they also produced new kinds.

These two ideas are known, respectively, as micro and macro evolution - terms have much broader application than "adoption," which pertains to a modification that enhances an organism's survival to a changed environment. Unlike adaptation, which involves change within the same species, micro- evolution pertains to the production of different species within the same kind of life. For example, different species of finches in the bird family. The second broad term, macroevolution, pertains to the creation of different kinds of life. For instance, the creation of sea life versus air life.

But it's here that we need a perspective. In Darwin's day, living cells were considered to be as complicated as ping-pong balls. Darwin had no understanding of DNA or RNA. Yet if we modeled a living cell today using objects as small as marbles, we would need a room with a volume of about 500 cubic feet. Darwin thus proposed a theory of life in a time period when knowledge about its DNA blueprint was nonexistent. We are therefore led to ask: How valid were his ideas?


Two species of the same kind of life, and that may have evolved from a common ancestor are the Black Backed and Herring Gulls. The first is found in North America, and the second in the Bering Straits. However, each species seems to undergo gradual transition into the other as one travels from either location toward that of the other. In Europe, which is about midway between either location, the two species exist side by side and do

not interbreed. Yet if we leave Europe and travel either east or west, the one species gradually diminishes until only the other remains.

Another example of microevolution is the Hawaiian fruit fly. Changes in the gene sequences along salivary gland chromosomes indicate that over 500 species seem to be descended from less than three colonizations. Over twenty species of a Hawaiian bird (the Honeycreeper) likewise appear to have come from only one ancestor.

Other examples could be cited to show that microevolution appears to exist in nature. Two possible reasons for microevolution are gene movement and genetic spread. The first occurs from the more or less random interchange, insertion, modification or altered duplication of genes. The second arises from prior chemical information within the gene producing a response at the molecular level to environmental change in a way that enhances the organism's survival. Gene movement is a more or less random process, whereas genetic spread is a "programmed" adoption.

In this latter case, each species seems designed with a range of genetic motion that ensures survival of the organism in response to changing environmental conditions. Breeders have used this genetic latitude to increase the sugar content of the sugar beet, or the range of edible birds that have been bred from the wild jungle foul. In times of drought, for example, genetic spread permits a root to grow deeper, and its cuticle to thicken. These and other similar changes, such as the thickness of a mongoloid eyelid or the skin color in a negroid constitute examples of genetic spread. But although these examples denote change within the same species, the molecular mechanisms involved can, in principle, gradually alter reproduction within isolated populations over extended time periods. Were this to occur, a new species could, in principle, arise - but it would necessarily be of the same kind as the parent stock, and of a very similar appearance. Possible examples might include the Black Backed and Herring Gulls, or the Hawaiian fruit fly or Honeycreeper.

But microevolution can also occur from the motion of one or more genes. The geographical distributions of similar species of life have been examined across our planet. Some of these are a mystery. But others can be explained by presuming that genetic changes occurred within a fixed kind of life that disallowed interbreeding of the modified organisms with the parent stock.

The current understanding of this phenomenon is that a small portion of a given species is environmentally isolated from the parent stock. Genetic changes within the altered environment then occur. In some cases, the molecular alterations disallow interbreeding. If the two groups are later rejoined, the failure of the previously isolated group to interbreed is seen from a taxonomic view as constituting a new species. If such changes actually occur, it means that the process forms a new species within a fixed life kind. The reason is that the term "species" taxonomically means the ability to sexually reproduce.


Does a process that disallows sexual reproduction among some members of a given life kind contradict Scripture? The answer is no. The Bible teaches that God created life after its kind - and not after its species. The term "species" is a human label, and it denotes one of a series of taxonomic titles created by man to catalog life. Other titles include phylum, class, order, family and genus. But the Bible uses the term "kind," and it defines what it means. In Genesis 6:19-20, for example, Noah is instructed to bring "every living thing of all flesh." God then defines what He means: birds, animals, creeping things and (verse 18) man. But Noah was not told to take sea life with him. Genesis chapter 1 also defines "kinds." They are: (v.20) Sea Life, (v.20) Flying Creatures, (v.24) Animals (v.24) Creeping Things and (v.26) Man. The term "kind" is also defined in the New Testament. 1 Corinthians 15:39 refers to men, animals, birds and fish. Since the context of this passage is degrees of glory, it is not surprising to find Creeping things omitted.

To summarize, the Bible defines five kinds of life: sea, air, land surface, earth's interior and man. And it teaches that God created each as a separate category, distinct from all others. But Darwin's leap of faith extrapolated microevolution (genetic spread) into macroevolution. He assumed that natural selection had created man in the same way that it made new skin colors.

Genetic spread is a feature of life put there for its survival. But macroevolution denotes an article of faith that has no basis in fact. The uncritical acceptance of macroevolution by numerous U.S. academic and professional societies has discouraged critical examination of Darwin's ideas. In particular, it is implicitly presumed that if evolution has occurred in some small degree, then it can occur without limit. In other words, if microevolution has happened, then so has macroevolution. However, the problem with this idea is that macroevolution implies changes to every component of the biological system. But if this occurs, how can the organism survive? This question is largely ignored by Darwin's supporters. Yet its affirmation undergirds the validity of his proposals. In part II of this article, we discuss the folly of Darwin's leap from micro to macro-evolution, and why natural selection cannot create new "kinds" of life.

Part II

In Part I of Darwin's Dilemma, we discussed macro and microevolution.

Macroevolution is presumed to have created different life-kinds such as sea, land and air whereas microevolution is the label given to genetic processes that are alleged to produce different species within the same kind of life. For example, consider birds in the finch family. The warbler finch (4.0 inches) and the large ground finch (6.5 inches) are two of fourteen finch species discovered by Darwin in the Galapagos and Cocos islands. Although the breeding habits of these finches are similar, they do not inter-breed. Experts who study birds (ornithologists) are virtually certain that all fourteen species of finches derived from a finch-like form that originally colonized the islands.

Different finch species are found around the world. The red-billed fire-finch (3.5 inches) lives south of the Sahara in Africa, whereas the habitat of the snow finch (7.0 inches) is on barren, stony ground in mountains 7000 feet above sea-level in Southern Europe, Central Asia and the Himalayas. Two genetic processes that are alleged to produce different species within the same kind of life are gene movement and genetic spread. In Part I we said gene motion appears to be a random process, while genetic spread is a feature of life identified with chemical information within the genes that helps ensure its survival.

Macroevolution is, however, quite a different concept. It is a label that pertains to hypothetical events that are alleged to have created different "kinds" of life. For instance, the creation of sea life versus air life. The uncritical acceptance of macroevolution by numerous U.S. academic and professional societies has discouraged critical examination of Darwin's ideas.

A widely accepted assumption is that if evolution has occurred in some small degree, then it can occur without limit. But macroevolution implies that an organism can survive changes to every component of its biological system. This assumption is critical to Darwin's proposals and is widely accepted by his supporters. Yet its validity has never been established. On the contrary, there are reasons to believe that an organism cannot survive widespread changes to its various biological components. Yet the macroevolution proposed by Darwin, and that is accepted by his followers cannot exist without them. The basic reason that such widespread changes cannot occur in the manner proposed by Darwin concerns the complex and intricate way that various parts of living systems interact with each other. In order illustrate the point, let us examine the breathing apparatus that exists in the human body.


We can obtain an appreciation for the bewildering mutual dependencies that different parts of a living system have on each other by considering the way oxygen passes through our bodies. It begins with an involuntary action called "breathing." Each breath starts when groups of electrical signals from the brain reach a muscle called the diaphragm. This muscle spans the lower part of our body above the abdomen. When activated, it moves downward, thereby lowering pressure within our lungs below that of the atmosphere (nominally 14.7 pounds per square inch). This pressure difference causes air to flow into our lungs so that the pressure may be equalized. Our lungs then begin to expand, much like a balloon, as the flow of air fills them. fills them.


But if we were to design this system, what would we need to know? For example, the forces generated within the diaphragm are successful in moving it downward only because its boundaries are fixed. The diaphragm is attached to our breastbone in the front, our spine in the rear, and to the inside of each of our lower three ribs on both sides. In order to specify the strength and location of electrical signals that are appropriate for breathing, we would need to know the size of the diaphragm, and just how far its muscle tissue moves in response to the incoming electrical signals. We would also need to know how much force can be applied at the points where it is attached along the breastbone, spine and ribs. Otherwise the diaphragm's motion might rip these points apart, and cause tissue to undergo self-destruction.

We have only considered the electrical signals into the diaphragm, and the motion of muscle tissue that occurs in response to them. Yet questions that concern the size of the diaphragm, and the strength of the points at which it is attached lead us into another system component: the skeleton. The diaphragm is pinned to the breastplate, the spine and the ribs.

If we can specify the skeleton, we will know their size and location. The skeleton's specification therefore tells us the size of the diaphragm, and the maximum force that the muscle tissue can exert at the points where the diaphragm is attached before the bone tissue will break. Yet this is only part of the story.

The details of the location, shape and strength of the bones, and the size of the diaphragm, and how its muscle tissue responds to incoming electrical signals require us to know information we have not yet specified about the lungs. This is also true of the force that can rupture and break the points where the diaphragm is attached. To ensure that the electrical signals are not too strong, or that the motion of the diaphragm exceeds the so-called "yield strength" of the points where it is attached, we need to specify certain things about the lungs.

The diaphragm works in concert with the lungs, and the size and interface of both must agree. Also, the diaphragm's motion cannot be too extensive. Otherwise the lung tissue will rip. The amount that it does move cannot exceed the lung tissue's elastic limit. Otherwise irreversible loss in lung elasticity will result, and lung tissue will be destroyed.


How large must the lungs be? That depends on the percentage of oxygen in the air, and the efficiency with which it passes through lung tissue and into the blood. For example, if our lungs were to pass one half their oxygen to the blood, they would only be 50 percent efficient. Fortunately, they are much more efficient than this. Our atmosphere has 21 percent oxygen by volume, and we typically breathe about 20 cubic feet of air daily. But these numbers work in our favor because they organizationally harmonize with the parameters above (and some we have as yet to discuss).

Lung tissue consists of about 600 million tiny sacs called "alveoli." Although each is only 4 thousandths of an inch in diameter, in total, they represent an area the size of a racket ball court. Each sac is a highly complex machine that processes air it receives from inside the lung, extracts the oxygen, and then passes the oxygen into the blood. Millions of these remarkable "sacs" work at very high efficiency to give us a lung size that is practical. But does this end the story? If we knew the lung size, and could specify the alveoli's extraordinary properties, could we then design this system? All that we have discussed: the electrical signals, diaphragm muscle, lung tissue, skeletal structure, and the various properties of each including size, location, response, strength, efficiency and so forth are all part of a very complicated system. Each parameter works in harmony with each of the others as an optimized, balanced system. The final goal is to burn oxygen in each of billions upon billions of body cells - a process called "metabolism."


But to burn oxygen, we must get it to the cells. Oxygen isn't easily carried by a liquid. It prematurely burns by reacting with virtually everything that it contacts. This premature burning disables oxygen from being burned at its final destination in cells. But the blood that flows through our body is no ordinary liquid. It has truly remarkable properties that allow large quantities of oxygen to be transported from the lungs, and to countless billions of body cells.

The blood in each of our bodies contains about 30 trillion cells. These differ from normal body cells in that they have no nucleus (except when they first form).

Each of these 30 trillion "red blood cells" have about 270 million very special, highly intricate chemical structures called "protein molecules." Totaling almost ten thousand million trillion, they each contain a ring that is composed of carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen. The rings are afloat in the blood stream, and a cluster of four iron atoms sits at the center of each of the rings. This cluster, in turn, provides a seat for two very privileged guests: a pair of oxygen atoms that sustain life by ultimately being burned in the cell they are destined to reach. But the cluster of iron atoms surrounds the oxygen in a way that protects it from premature burning until it reaches its final destination!

This incredibly designed molecule is called "hemoglobin," and it enables an amazing amount of oxygen to be carried from the lungs, and to the body cells by the blood. Were it not for the astounding orchestration of numerous electrical, mechanical and chemical properties that have been interwoven among trillions of these intricate, microscopic structures, our hearts would need to pump 50 thousand gallons of blood through our bodies each day at almost 5 times atmospheric pressure. Since our bodies disallow this, a change in blood fluid properties would necessitate changes in the electrical signals, diaphragm muscle, lung tissue, skeletal structure, and so forth. Why? because each component interacts with all others. It is a system problem.

Yet, specifying all of these things (including the blood) still does not permit us to design the system. Even given all these things, we still need to know how quickly the blood is carrying oxygen to our body cells. The present rate is about 2000 gallons per day. But if it were half this number, we would then need to readjust all of the other systems' parameters to satisfy the demand for oxygen by the cells. It would do us no good to change just one of the parameters, say, lung size or atmospheric oxygen content. The reason is that each system component is functionally related to all the others and quantitatively impacts the way they perform. A change anywhere means a change everywhere.


To specify the flow rate of blood, we must know the number, diameter and distribution of all the arteries. Our body has an arterial network which, in total, covers about 60,000 miles. Yet even if we could enumerate all of the branches, and calculate the turbulence at each of the forks, and compute back-pressure near the valves, and catalog the manner of its distribution - knowing, for example, that 500 gallons pass through 140 miles of arteries in the kidneys daily - it would still be of little value. We must also have full knowledge of the pump that is driving the system -it's size, impedance and flow characteristics. As incredible as it sounds, a typical heart is just larger than a fist and weighs only eleven ounces! Yet, on average, it reliably pumps 2000 gallons of blood daily for over 70 years.


But given all of this, we would still need to know the rate at which the heart pumps the blood. A typical heart beats over 100,000 times each day. This totals about 2 billion beats in a lifetime. However, the rate at which these complex cycles of contractions and expansions occur is controlled by electrical signals from the brain. Thus we need to know aspects of brain operation not only in regard to electrical signals to the diaphragm muscle, but also with respect to its signals to the heart. And even if all of these things were known - we would still have inadequate information to design this system. We also require details of the burning process once the oxygen reaches its destination. This includes the rate of the metabolism, and the feedback signals from the cells to the brain controlling the release of sugar products within the liver, insulin from the pancreas and digestive chemistry within the stomach.


This myriad of parameters undergoes cooperative interactions that stagger the mind. A trivial system with, say, five components displays twenty basic kinds of interactions. Compound interactions increase this number to sixty four.* But even a simple biological system such as a single-celled amoeba must move around, acquire food, process oxygen, eliminate waste, interact environmentally and reproduce itself. It contains hundreds of components with base and compound interactions that number in the tens of thousands, and millions, respectively. Darwin's belief in biological change through the natural selection of certain evolutionary changes were, for him, sensible because the variations that he saw were small. But his idea that special combinations survive to produce new kinds of life had no data, whatever, to support it. Macroevolution has been defended for over one hundred years. Yet nothing has been found showing natural selection created even one new life kind!** Despite this fact, however, the idea remains popular.

(*These arise when nonlinearities create functional dependencies between a system component, and the joint combination of two or more other components.) (**The five kinds of life are: sea, air, land surface, earth interior, and man.)


Macroevolution implies changes to every component of the biological system. Considering the countless interactions that exist in real living systems, how can an organism that is forced to undergo natural selection endure? Any change into a new life kind must disrupt millions of co-adoptive interactions within the organism. To survive, countless other modifications that have not yet occurred would need to be simultaneously selected. Also, separate life kinds such as fish or birds exist as distinct complex systems. What data teaches that countless graduations of modified hybrids differing slightly from one another exist between them? To modify a fish into a bird requires changes that create the bird essentially in its final form.

Thus the idea that random changes and natural selection create new life kinds is both simplistic and inadequate - a view published some time ago by the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences. They noted that existing genetic variations are negligible compared to what is necessary to create new life kinds. They further said that the functional adjustment of an organism's parts into a new life kind requires that the blueprint of the new life kind be in existence prior to its creation. The reason is clear:

Natural selection is not a mechanism that can simultaneously modify an organism's parts into an integrated system with co-adoptive interactions that yield the desired functionality.

Despite this fact, Darwinian believers herald 'descent with modification' as the source of new life kinds. However, the unwritten creed to which they are truly paying homage is design with modification. Each life kind represents, as far we can tell, an optimally designed system. A characteristic of such systems is that a change in any one of its components degrades overall system performance. To illustrate the point, let us consider some of the systems that we design. Consider a color TV picture. We can create this using only three components: glass, metal and phosphor. But properly organizing these components brings into existence something that lies outside the properties of glass, metal or phosphor considered separately. A color TV picture is familiar to all of us. Yet it exists as the collective interplay of numerous exchanges of energy that arise from way the various pieces of hardware are organized. It truly is a system property, and thus represents a dimension of being totally apart from any one of the components considered separately.

The TV picture doesn't stem from the properties of glass, or metal, or phosphor. Instead, it arises as an organizational property of their mutual interactions. This occurs through a myriad of complex, microminiaturized integrated circuits that have been creatively designed and meticulously assembled by hundreds of trained, skilled thinking people in an optimized and balanced way. But if a change occurs in one of the components, the picture doesn't improve. On the contrary, it deteriorates. In like manner, living things exist as a consequence of the vastly complex, organized interplay of myriads of nonliving parts. Our bodies consist of chemicals that are organized to live in an optimal way. And when an unintended change occurs in one of our components, we call that disease.

Another system that we design is an airplane. It is composed of parts that are organized to fly. But no one component of the airplane can fly by itself, just as no part of a TV can produce a black and white or color picture. If, during flight, an airplane component were to undergo change, would the airplane fly better -or would it crash?

The point is, airplanes fly because of the design of the wing, engine, rudder and so forth. Each is optimally designed and assembled in special relation to all of the others. It is the organizational balance and interplay that yields the final result, and if a change occurs anywhere it signals disaster, not delight. Living systems are similar, except that they are vastly more complicated. No one chemical in our body has life in and of itself. Instead, the chemistry is so configured as to have been organized to live. Changing any part of a biological system changes the interaction of that part with virtually all other components throughout the system. This doesn't create a new life kind any more than changing a radio creates a television set, or changing a car creates an airplane. Changing optimally configured parts degrades the overall system performance, and makes for a guaranteed worst result.

The interactions among glass, metal and phosphor yield something new: a color TV picture. Likewise interactions among airplane parts produce something new: A flying object. Now let's consider just one interaction. Two gases (hydrogen and oxygen) combine at room temperature to create water, a liquid that at lower temperatures becomes a solid (ice), and at higher temperatures changes into a gas (steam). This one interaction creates a new substance. Regardless of whether the water is liquid, solid or gas, each represents a form with properties different from the two gases that created it. But can we improve on the properties of water by making a change in either the hydrogen or oxygen gas whose sole interaction created it? The answer is no. Instead of improving it, making a change in either gas destroys the very special liquid we know as water. With this in view, why would we believe that a change in the component of a living system would create an improved, new life kind? The "newness" of even the simplest of organisms contains vast numbers of components undergoing vast numbers of interactions. When examined in detail, these "components" emerge as highly complex entities with millions of balanced energy exchanges that functionally coadapt into a system that "lives." The organism thus exists through the strategic interplay of its nonliving components, and not through the hokum of some ill-defined circumstance.


Sometimes it is argued that the basis for selecting an "optimum" change can be found in the survival of the organism. But, of itself, no one component in which the change occurs has survival value. Survival has meaning only in terms of the organism taken as an entire system. It is a system property. The organism exists through co-adoptive interactions among its components. But natural selection operates at the component level. For example, what survival value does an eyelid have without muscles to operate it? Or a retina without the lens? Or the duct glands without the pupil? Or any one of these things without any other?

Yet the eye is but one of a number of subsystems within the body. Natural selection explains none of them. Or consider the acoustic sending and receiving mechanisms in a dolphin or a porpoise or a platypus. How can natural selection create either mechanism without the other? For instance, of what possible survival value is the sending unit without a way to receive the echo? And of what possible survival value is either mechanism in the absence of interpretive brain centers to guide the organism?

Compound traits are found in all living things, many at unseen levels. One example is enolase, versus triose isomerase, versus 2,3 diphosphoglyceric acid in glycolytic metabolism. A more familiar example is the ductus venosus versus the umbilical vein in fetal blood circulation. In this case the right ventrical is connected to the aorta, thereby bypassing lungs that otherwise remove CO2. Therefore, although an organism may undergo random changes, those that favor a new life kind are only known in terms of survival criteria that pertain to the entire organism. This is also true for individual subsystems that display compound traits, such as the eye.

Survival is an organizational property. Thus any mechanism imagined to create new life kinds must be global in scope. Conversely, natural selection operates at the component level. It is a local mechanism and cannot, therefore, explain the advent of new kinds of life.


Examination of any biological structure shows that its chemical building blocks are located in strategic places that create vast numbers of constructive, harmonious, life-sustaining interactions. These channel energy along countless numbers of intricate, very special pathways. Therefore, biological components are organized to "live," in that they are separated into a highly complex configuration that has virtually no order. Its descriptive blueprint requires vast amounts of information. But simple gases create water by combining into a configuration that constitutes a highly ordered state with virtually no complexity. Its descriptive blueprint is complete with very little information. Mixing the gases creates paths of energy reduction typical to that which occur in all natural processes.

But organizing parts to "live" requires a plan of energy exchange that specifies, controls and stabilizes the unnatural simultaneous cooperation of millions of intricate, self- sustaining interactions. Since this plan of life provides the only criteria by which the collective selection of millions of random changes can survive, how can its existence be explained by the natural selection of favored random changes? In effect, we have a chicken-egg situation. For natural selection to create a meaningful new life kind, the plan must first exist to tell it what changes are favorable i.e., that identify the changed components that are to be retained. The plan cannot, therefore, be the product of natural selection. Moreover, virtually all of the components would need to undergo simultaneous change to ensure the survival of the new life kind.

In general, changing only one part of a biological system leads to disastrous consequences. The advent of nuclear reactors, for example, created a convenient source of radiation to which plant life and insects (e.g., fruit flies) have been exposed in experiments conducted over a period of at least two decades. In each case the mutations deteriorated the species. In other experiments fifty roses of the Queen Elizabeth variety were neutron irradiated at a strength equivalent to several million lifetimes of the rose. All of them became weaker or defective. Or consider the hemoglobin discussed earlier. Natural mutations have created at least forty variants of this incredible molecule. Yet all of them carry less oxygen than normal hemoglobin. Why? Because changing an optimally design system degrades it.

Human cells, for example, contain twenty-three pairs of chromosomes. Each pair contains over three thousand microscopic genes. On average, about six of these are "defective" in every person alive. This means that each of us carry about six genes that, in one way or another, have undergone abnormal change.

Fortunately, these genes are suppressed and the "change" is unexpressed. But what would occur if these changes were to impact our genetic machinery, such as is alleged to occur in macroevolution? Would we improve as a species? To the contrary, we would undergo a range of genetic disorders including cancer, sickle-cell anemia, hemophilia and Huntington's disease. Male babies born with an extra Y chromosome, for instance, tend toward extreme violence, have lower IQ's, and are ten times more likely to end up in a maximum security prison.

Families with markers along chromosome 15 are identified with dyslexia. The most common form of mental retardation in males (1 in 2000) occurs from a change at a fragile site along the X chromosome, and a single base substitution in the complementary DNA for a certain enzyme (ornithine transcarbamylase) leads to sparse fur and skin abnormalities in mice, and to metabolic and neurological disorders in humans. The point is this: As a practical matter, life on earth constitutes biological systems that are optimally designed. Rather than creating new and more complex life kinds, unintended genetic changes destroy these systems.

From a scientific perspective, this does not mean that natural selection does not occur. Neither does it mean that natural selection may not have been responsible for the advent of some new species among very similar kinds of life. But what it does mean is that if macroevolution occurred, then natural selection is an inadequate explanation. The data that supports natural selection pertains to micro, and not macroevolution. Therefore, to suppose that macroevolution exists in nature, or that it somehow created new kinds of life seems to be an exercise in faith based upon neither science nor sound reason.


We have discussed macro and microevolution. Evolutionists say that the first - macroevolution, is what created the different kinds of life - such as sea, land and air. On the other hand microevolution is identified with genetic processes that are said to produce different species within the same kind of life. One good example is different species of birds in the finch family. However, the uncritical acceptance of macroevolution by many academic and professional societies has served to keep Darwin's ideas from being critically examined. Many assume that if any evolution has occurred, even in some small degree, then it can occur everywhere and without limit.

These ideas not only require changes to occur in virtually every biological component of an organism, but also that the organism will survive these changes in a beneficial way. The reasons why this will not happen were discussed in Part II of Darwin's Dilemma. Survival is an intricate compound trait i.e., it depends upon the complex yet harmonious interplay of literally millions of separate living parts. To illustrate the point, we turned to the breathing apparatus of the human body and examined the consequences of making even a small change to the diaphragm.

We saw that this implied changes to the muscles and ligaments that attached the diaphragm to the breastbone, spine, and ribs. It affected the location, shape, size and strength of skeletal structure bones. Lung size, cell efficiency, heart rate, blood flow, artery networks, brain signals-- all must be included as part of a vastly complicated system where details of the oxygen burning process including metabolism rates and feedback signals from the cells to the brain control the release of sugar products in the liver, insulin from the pancreas and the digestive chemistry of the stomach. This functionality rests upon an astounding orchestration of innumerable electrical, mechanical and chemical properties that underlie trillions of intricate interwoven parts.

When one believes that a significant mutation brings anything but catastrophe to this system, one has accepted a dogma that lies outside the realm of science and rational thought.

A listing of Robert Gange's publications may be found at his Website: http://www.genesisfoundation.org


Return to the Evolution Connection Index




İRon Wallace, http://www.biblefragrances.com. Anyone is free to reproduce this material and distribute it,
but it may not be sold under any circumstances whatsoever without the author's consent.


Home | Recent Additions | Studies | Commentary


Prophecy | Articles | Topical | About Us