Another Problem with Evolution6 Feb 2010
For years, sections of the scientific community have claimed that Darwin's theory of Evolution offers the explanation of the origin of the species. However, time after time, it has been shown that the trusted theory of the day can't explain the development of the observed forms of life. Yet, the faith continues in the theory despite the track record.
Currently, one of the fundamental mechanisms that people have assumed to be part of evolution is being challenged. Many evolutionists now concede that the current genetic makeup of the species cannot be explained by the traditional vertical gene transfer of parent to child, and are now looking to a horizontal process, where genetics are derived from surrounding organisms. Biologist Jan Sapp stated, “The process of evolution just isn't what most evolutionary biologists think it is.”
A recent article in the New Scientist magazine, Horizontal and vertical: The evolution of evolution, presents a case for this departure from the “vertical” model of evolution imagined by Charles Darwin. The problem with this traditional view is that it limits the development of organisms to a tree structure, where once species have diverged, there is no mechanism for a common influence on the genetics across branches. As a result, it doesn't explain the observed world. Microbiologist Carl Woese stated,
: “Biology built up a facade of mathematics around the juxtaposition of Mendelian genetics with Darwinism, and as a result it neglected to study the most important problem in science - the nature of the evolutionary process.”
By way of analogy, if forms of transport had evolved, we could consider the car and the motorbike to be separate species which have diverged from a common ancestor. But then if we look at a detail like ABS brakes, by Darwinian evolution, for both species to have that feature, they either it must have been passed down from the common ancestor, or each must have developed it individually. The problem is, in many cases the common ancestors don't have the feature, and it stretches credulity to believe that it developed individually in the same way in all these organisms.
In contrast, if we open our minds to the possibility of a creator designing the lifeforms on Earth, it all makes good sense. There is a logical mechanism for common genetics to be introduced across a range of species, just as human designers incorporate ideas across a range of manufactured products.
People are prepared to put faith in the Theory of Evolution to explain in their minds the origin of life on the Earth, but to many it is a blind comfort. It doesn't take much scratching beneath the surface to recognise that it isn't the neat and simple explanation that popular science would have us believe. We now know the theory of last year was falsified in that it couldn't explain how a world without a creator could have happened. The theories this year are even more complex and involved to allow for it, but if experience is anything to go by it, will still be playing catch-up for years to come.