Failures of the theory of Darwin (part 1)

Evolution theory devised by Darwin is generally considered one of the most important intellectual achievements of the modern age. The theory allegedly put an end to hitherto existing speculations purporting to explain evolution of humanity and life on earth. In 1859, when the Origin of Species was first published, it did not directly reference humans nor made any claims of our common ancestry with other mammals. Ever since and with increasing knowledge in spheres of anthropology, genetics and biology, modern scientists came to hold it not as a possible conjecture (a sound theory with many explanations of empiric data) but as universal truth about the human life on earth. Currently, two main version of evolution theory exist: phyletic gradualism (uniformity and gradual transformation) and punctuated equilibrium (slight changes with final leap).

However till now, the theory failed to exhaustively explain or address a number of open questions and and issues:

1. Darwin, in The Descent of Man, considered it  logical to extend the theory to cognition, when he considered human characteristics such as morality or emotions to have been evolved, introducing evolutionary psychology. It holds that human nature was designed by natural selection in the Pleistocene epoch and aims to apply evolutionary theory to the human mind. It proposes that the mind consists of cognitive modules that evolved in response to selection pressures faced by our Stone Age ancestors. In the recent research conducted by authorities on the topic, Buller (in his book Adapting Minds) and  Richardson (in his book Evolutionary Psychology as Maladapted Psychology) show that neither the methodology nor the results of evolutionary psychology can be justified scientifically.

2. An apparent lack of “evolutionary” effect on bacteria (new generation: 12 mins to 24 hours) and fruit flies (new generation: 9 days) with unlimited number of genetic mutations and variations. Evolution theory must have had even a bigger effect on those because of a recently introduced model, which suggests that body size and temperature combine to control the overall rate of evolution through their effects on metabolism (smaller organisms evolve faster and are more diverse than larger organisms).

3. On rare and random occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature’s ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). But it is widely known that there are very few human treats, which were tracked to one gene (sicknesses like the Dracula Gene and the Cheeseburger Gene). Modern science currently holds that most of even simplest of human treats, features and behavioral patterns have underlying sophisticated molecular and genetic mechanisms. Therefore it is doubtful natural selection could favor parts that did not have all their components existing in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work.

4. The Cambrian/Precambrian time period does not support Darwinian evolution. There are no intermediate (transitional forms) found during this period. There appear to be no fossil ancestors for complex invertebrates or fish.

5. The theory of evolution seems to be in violation of two fundament laws: second law of thermodynamics (things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized) and law of biogenesis (living cells divide to make new cells, and fertilized eggs and seeds develop into animals and plants, but chemicals don’t fall together and life appears).

To be continued some time soon..

9 thoughts on “Failures of the theory of Darwin (part 1)

  1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies only to isolated systems. Living systems are not isolated systems: they exchange energy and matter with their environments. The Second Law therefore does not apply to the evolution of living things.

    1. But if you, as an obvious darwinist, can not state that this article has some truth in it that creates doubts towards the darwin theory, then you sir are blinded by your own belief and therefore you will be filtered out of the intellectual collection so to speak, heheh.

      1. Ruben, thanks for your reply.

        I am not sure whether you understood correctly the meaning of the article. I didn’t question the truth of the article. Indeed I wrote it and if anything, I laid down what I thought is truth about Darwin’s theory.

        Now, a little bit of pragmatism in the view of either blind affiliation to Darwinist or its adamant denial won’t hurt – and that is what I tried to show in the article. I tried to show that Darwin’s theory cannot be judged from “either black or white” point of view.

      2. Yes I understand, but some people look at darwins theory as fact, undeniable fact, this article shows that the theory has “unanswered questions”, this is old news ofcourse.
        Anyway we are not talking about 100% assurance when saying “fact”, but the view that something is fact; pretty much how things are.

        My point is, some people have told themselves “darwins theory is absolute 100% fact”. The fact that darwins theory does not work will upset a lot of people.

        Even if this article is neutral, it raises good questions and says that darwins theory is not following fundamental laws of how things work, which raises questions that needs answers, if darwins theory can not answer the questions, it is faulty.

        This article is simple truth, neutral truth, and that is enough for me.

  2. The above article is wrong ,truly wrong and just wrong. ALL 5 points are incorrect. Readers please check with your local biology Professor for the truth.

    I really mean all 5 points in the conclusion are wrong. For just one example whereas aspects of evolution psychology are wrong , nevertheless there are aspects that are correct (see Dean Keith Simonton’s work on genius).

    For another example: whereas chemicals do not fall together and organize in front of you; over billions of years, atoms organize into molecules; and carbon molecules (again billions of years – do you understanding that time? No): carbon organizes into DNA. The good news is this can be easily simulated in “Computer based modeling”.

  3. Thanks Dan, can you let me know in specifics how 5 points are wrong? It’s quite easy to claim something is wrong without any real argument. We are looking for critical but constructive and substantiated feedback and would be grateful to get it and improve this post.

Leave a Reply