Punctuated Equilibrium

By the late 1960's, evolutionary scientists were at their wits end. The more evidence that was being thrown up by the fossil record, the less proof there was for the evolution of species. Leading evolutionist of the time, Stephen Jay Gould was particularly perturbed by these findings. It looked like the whole theory was unraveling before his eyes. The fossil record, instead of confirming evolution, was, more and more, confirming creationism. Creationism teaches that each creature was created by God "after it's own kind" - please read Genesis Chapter 1. And the fossil record, time after time, was revealing completed kinds, with an almost complete absence of anything that might be termed an intermediate kind. If evolution were true, there ought to be more examples of intermediate kinds than completed kinds, were it the case that, over and over again, kind after kind was evolving into other kinds over many millions of years.

The very discovery of the fossil record in the first place was a blow to evolutionary theory as the only real way that fossils could be trapped was through Catastrophism ie the sudden fossilization of living creatures and plants through either local or widespread, sudden catastrophic environmental changes. The challenge for Evolutionary Theory was to account for periodic catastrophies, whereas, of course, the Bible, written some three thousand years earlier gave a ready account for a widespread catastrophy, the Flood of Noah. So Catastrophism, formerly eschewed by evolutionists because of it's lending of strength to the Creationist cause, had to be embraced by evolutionists, once the facts backed them sufficiently into an intellectual corner.  When the fossil record began to throw more spanners in the evolutionary works, by not confirming the evolution of species, the weight of the facts "against" was beginning  to become quite a discouragement. Enter Stephen Jay Gould. In 1972, Gould along with fellow paleontologist Niles Eldredge proposed Punctuated Equilibrium as the "new improved" theory of evolution.

The idea was that history was dotted with multiple Catastrophies, each of which were short-lasting and during which all evolutionary species changes took place on a grand scale, accompanied co-incidentally by fossilization. Each Catastrophy was followed by a very long period of "equilibrium" during which little or no evolution occurred and, during which, fossilization was rare.

It was certainly an improvement to previous theory to move the goalposts in such an extraordinary way to better facilitate the facts that were predicted already by the Creation model without any need to modify Creationist Theory. The trouble with graphs similar to the above is that they are nothing more than a figment of creative imaginations as per Msrs Gould and Eldredge. It is what it is : a picture in a book with accompanying explanation. There was no new evidence that the change from one species to another ever occurred, no evidence that the idea of multiple Catastrophies with many millions of years between was historical. All that had been done was to accomodate the facts (which already readily fitted the Creation model) into a newer, more plausible picture for those either with a predisposition against the Creationist explanation of history, or who had never been taught to investigate it for themselves.

What Gould and Eldredge completely failed to explain was how Catastrophism facilitated species change in any way. Instead, they simply repeated the error of the Big Bang theory multipled times, in insisting that there was some validity or scientific basis to the idea that, in some nebulous way, environmental catastrophies can cause great beneficial leaps in DNA mutation, whereas all scientific experimentation we actually know of has concluded that DNA mutation is 99.9%, if not 100% negative in it's effects, even in controlled environments.

Mary Shelley was the first to propose the idea that by a completely unknown process, a sufficiently powerful, nay catastrophic, electrical charge, under the right circumstances, orchestrated by the right creative brain, could in fact result in life coming from dead tissue. Her resultant creation could even be termed to be a new species, if looking a little the worse for wear. The trouble is that Frankenstein's Monster is universally acknowledged in the Arts world as being a work of fiction. Nobody actually believes that the story she weaves is "doable", though there are always a few who keep trying, where tax-payer funding squeezes through the administrative cracks. Her book is not taught in Colleges the world over as fact. Whilst reruns of the original Boris Karloff interpretation do feature on our screens from time to time, it is sporadic and tends to be found on one of the Movie channels, not on Documentaries.

So the fact that, with evolutionary backs against the wall, Punctuated Equilibrium was delivered to the scientific world some forty years ago, has little bearing on the problems that evolutionists continue to face in building a working Model of Origins, that is either convincing or fact based. It is instead rather, an unswerving commitment to evolutionary philosophy that drives the train on.

The Big Bang Theory

Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait...
The Earth began to cool,
The autotrophs began to drool,
Neanderthals developed tools,
We built a wall (we built the pyramids),
Math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries,
That all started with the big bang!

Well, first thing is I love this show! Very funny. Above are the lyrics we're all familiar with from the theme song. Again, cute. However it's worth looking closer at what the Big Bang theory itself actually says. A theory is of course a hypothesis or conjecture, a speculation or assumption, nothing more. The trouble is that this particular one is spoken of everywhere as if it's solid fact and there's no other alternative to consider. In reality, it's just the view that's currently widely accepted because lots of people no longer believe in God or bother to investigate the accuracy or historicity of the Bible for themselves, encouraged through lazy science and complacency regarding the testing of evolutionary thought. Dangerous stuff, when people suspend critical thinking. At a minimum, alternative Theories of Origins other than evolutionary ones ought to be taught with candour in schools and explained with equal gusto on the National Geographic channel. But they aren't. Evolutionary thinking, unproven and unprovable, has an almost complete monopoly on second and third level curricula the world over. Enter the Big Bang theory (no, not Sheldon).

The Big Bang theory, at it's essence, says that at some point in the far distant past, things suddenly started moving in the right direction (we do not know why), a direction that at a later point resulted in the miracle of non-life becoming life (we do not know how). The current Wikipedia description of the Big Bang admits in relation to this sudden progress, "The Big Bang theory does not provide any explanation for the initial condition of the universe, rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on" * Only it doesn't accomplish this task either. Because the real conundrum which there are no answers for among non-Creationists is how life could spontaneously emerge from dead matter? Whether you consign this emergence to the moment in time of the alleged original Big Bang ** or some later other Bang, you are still left with putting your trust in a mind-bending scenario.

This evolutionary leap of logic which says life came from non-life as a direct result of the Big Bang is comparable to hoping that a huge explosion in a large junk yard might result in a brand new, gleaming Boeing 757 airplane being subsequently found sitting with engine purring on a freshly laid tarmac runway. *** Except that everything we understand about explosions tells us that the opposite would be true. Whatever state the junkyard was in before the explosion, it would of course be in a far worse state afterwards. Any stored metals there might have been to one side of the yard would not have magically been found afterwards in a restored state, straightened and connected beautifully and with aerodynamic precision. No collection of engine parts would have benefited from the eruption to the degree that they would be in situ within the fuselage, oiled and with fuel flowing. If there had been some old remains of paint in tins in one corner, they would not have emerged in the right colours with WestJet logo in place on either side of the aircraft. You get the point. As as has been stated by evolutionary scientist W H Thorpe, "The crux of the whole problem, as we understand it, is to envisage the origin of the cell......the cell is a chemical 'laboratory' of immense complexity. The cell itself could not possibly function without the cell membranes which contain and selectively isolate the working parts of this laboratory."  ****

Evolutionary proponents are basically telling us that we should not question the idea that the unbelievably unlikely occurred. We are asked not to question, in fact, that the opposite of what we know must be true (ie that "explosions" of all kinds destroy existing working complexity rather than create more of it) is true, simply because evolutionary theory requires it to be so. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, one of the foundational natural laws, also confirms that entropy, the concept that everything we can observe is slowly heading into greater disorder, is relentlessly increasing. And at the very same time, evolutionists say they reject creationism because they find it too unbelievable, all in the name of science. It isn't science that is at fault here. It's philosophical bias. If someone chooses to deny the existence of the Creator, they will find every evolutionary illogicality acceptable, until if, and when, they come to the point that the sheer weight of evidence becomes simply unbearable.

*   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

**  http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/09/life-began-at-the-molecule-level-new-theories-on-the-origins-of-life-on-earth-other-planets.html

*** Slight variation on the original illustration of the problem as described by the late leading astronomer and opponent of the Big Bang theory, being the first in fact to coin that phrase, Sir Fred Hoyle.

****  Thorpe, W. H. "Purpose in a World of Chance : A Biologists view" Oxford University Press, 1978, p.20

Macro vs Micro

One huge advantage that evolutionists have over creationists is that they can adjust their theory continually. Years ago, evolutionists nearly all believed in Uniformitarianism (that all evolutionary processes happened gradually over millions of years). Now most deny that and lean towards Punctuated Equilibrium (the idea that most changes happened in short bursts followed by long periods of relative sameness, followed by the next burst). One of the reasons for this shift was the growing discovery of significant evidence pointing to Catastrophism (that one or more cataclysmic natural events occurred in the past, producing as a by-product, the fossil record).

Creationists, on the other hand, have agreed that their explanation of origins be governed by a series of 66 books, the earliest of which were written between the 16th and 12th centuries BC and the latest of which were completed before 100 AD - the Bible. Christians believe these 66 books, penned by many authors from many different walks of life over perhaps 1500 years, were inspired by God. Although the Bible is primarily a theological book, when it touches on matters of science, it would need to also be accurate, if it is God-inspired. So, in this debate about origins, evolutionists have much room to manoeuvre, whereas creationists do not. But if the Bible is indeed God-given, that presents less of a problem.

Evolutionists believe in Macro evolution, the idea that one species evolved into a completely different one. And they believe that this happened not just once as in the case of humans, but that it happened in multipled cases, both animal and vegetable. Macro evolution is the foundational plank of evolutionary theory. If it did not occur, the argument for evolution crumbles entirely. Suffice it to say, if Macro evolution occurred on this scale, the evidence for it ought to be abounding. There ought to be far more intermediary forms that completed ones. Of course, the problem is where might these intermediary forms now be found? Only in the fossil record, as it is only by the accidental trapping of fossils that any semi-permanent record would have been possible.

The second concept involved is Micro evolution, the concept that within any given species, a large degree of variation is possible, none of which might lead to a species change, but all of which allows the species to adapt significantly to environmental flux. Evolutionists believe strongly in Micro evolution, but so do creationists. Creationists believe that dogs were always dogs, they were never anything else. But within the dog species is possible a terrific amount of variation, brought on by any amount of altered environmental and breeding conditions. Creationists believe this is the case because of the benign forethought of a loving Creator. The Book of Genesis, although written over 3,000 years ago states that God created each creature and plant type according to it's "kind" (Genesis 1:11-12, 21, 24-25) and then lastly created a species, man, also a unique kind (Genesis 1: 26:27). In other words, He created separate, fully developed species from the outset. If this is true, macro evolution never occurred and the theory of evolution as a whole is of course incorrect and should be abandoned, just like Uniformitarianism.

A lot of the argument supporting evolutionary writing muddles up Macro and Micro evolution as if they were part of the same thing. Evidence for Micro evolution is used to support Macro evolution as though they were one and the same.

 

For example, in a recent BBC Science report * regarding the  finding of the above ancient bone at a Kenyan grave site, the single bone is presented as evidence in the context of human species change. Yet the article says " In all ways, the bone - a well-preserved metacarpal that connects to the middle finger - resembles that of modern man". In other words, not only is it not evidence of Macro evolution, it isn't even an example of Micro evolution. Yet the article goes on to say the bone is 1.6 million years old. Why, because any human who used stone implements such as were found in the area, must be Neanderthal and over a Million years old - that is assumed as a given. Evolutionary fossil, object and bone dating is riddled with this kind of age assumption, but that's another topic. The fact is, this bone sample adds nothing whatsoever to the Macro evolutionary hypothesis of species change. It is used in this way simply because this is the widespread evolutionary approach.

Whatever scientists of all persuasions discover in the future about our origins, the goalposts will not be able to be moved for the Creationist. They were set in the Book of Genesis at a time when the Theory of Evolution did not exist, at a time when nobody was trying hard to argue about origins. Genesis was not written against the background of an open power struggle between major belief systems. It was written in a relative backwater, simply in the context of the authors experience and (from the Bible's point of view) out of his personal encounter with God. It stands unchanged after the intervening period. Yet it directly challenges Macro evolutionary belief. Creationists would contend that God knew millennia in advance the battle that would in the future rage for human hearts and minds. So in the Genesis verses quoted above, He made vitally clear statements about that nature of species and against Macro evolution, the central plank of evolutionary belief.

*  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25398642

What are the Chances, eh?

This one I like to call, "What are the Chances, eh?" because people who believe in the Theory of Evolution are people of incredible faith. They put us Christians to shame. Why so? Because evolutionists believe (and they keep a straight face while doing so), that everything we can see and observe exists by pure chance. And that everything that came together to make what we observe, came together by pure accident.

Let's take for example the human body. We have everything we need to successfully interact with the physical world we inhabit. We have every sense that is necessary. We have eyes to see stuff, take note of that information and determine our actions. We have ears to hear sounds, the cry of an infant, the voice of a friend. We have noses to smell flowers, steak as it's cooking, a burning building. We have tastebuds to enjoy a delicious dinner or to warn us of poisonous plant, and touch to express concern or to feel our way in the dark.

Imagine if say just eyes had never evolved. That would be awkward. Really awkward. We could still have survived as a species (or maybe not), but it would be with a very different level of enjoyment and accomplishment in our experience of living. But it's not just those five senses we evolved by chance. What about the heart? A perfectly tuned pump that, under normal circumstances, operates reliably and efficiently for 70 to 80 years at least. Man still would struggle today to design an artificial pump that lasted half this long without needing to be replaced. And even at that, such a pump would require years of design. Not chance. You could leave the non-working parts of this pump on a table forever and they would never jump together and start pumping. Inert, dead matter will never do that as far as we have found. Yet evolutionists believe that is exactly what happened with millions of aspects of human, animal and plant experience. The dead parts are believed to have magically come together (in the right sequence mind you) and more amazingly still, then starting working. Faith? Evolutionists have awesome faith.

And it doesn't stop there. We could talk about the immune system, the liver, the human voice, the digestive system, the lungs, the oxygenation of blood. Or take this one : the reproductive system. Now there's a fortunate co-incidence for evolutionists. By chance, yep pure chance, we evolved the ability to reproduce ourselves perfectly. It would have been a real bummer if, having got through all the thousands of hoops we got through to happen to evolve all our organs, if we then had no ready means for reproduction. The "experiment" would have been short-lived. The human reproductive system is of a simply brilliant design (sorry to offend with the use of that non-evolutionary term again). Without  upsetting any children present or their mothers, suffice it to say that all the parts needed are present. They work together perfectly, beautifully even - and the result? A baby is conceived, grows safely in an ideal environment for nine months and then, emerges as a small but fully functional other human being. Amazing is what is is. Outstanding.

We are only scratching the surface of the amazing topic of the human body. What do evolutionists (yes, millions upon millions of them) actually believe? That all of this exists by mere luck and good fortune and the apparent inevitability of what is termed "the survival of the fittest". Not just once, but hundreds and thousands of times. All of which happened for no reason, but we're jolly glad it did. What are the odds involved against all human characteristics and functionality evolving by chance? 1 to the power of 1000? 1 to the power of 1,000,000? I'd say you can add many more zeros. The odds in fact are preposterous. But evolutionists believe it anyway and seem to sleep at night and somehow get through the day. And a lot of these people say they find it too hard to believe in God.

What are the chances, eh?

Models of the Past

Looking back into the past, trying to put the pieces of the jigsaw together is a lot like standing under a lamp post at night and trying to figure out what you're seeing in the distance. The farther you look, the more obscure objects become. You might see a car, but what make is it? What colour is it? Is it moving towards you or driving further away?

So it is with the question of how we got here. Most people fall into one of two camps : we evolved purely by chance, or we were put here for a reason. These two camps are very different. One has the utmost faith in chance, co-incidence and astronomical mathematical probability. The other has utmost faith in a Creator and that He has loving intentions plus an awful lot of power and authority.

At an initial glance, most people lean either one way or the other as to which seems most likely to them. But the difficulty western culture has at present is that from a very young age, we are bombarded day and night with  one view being assumed true and the other assumed to be irrelevant fiction. This is completely the opposite to where society was at 100 years ago. But is this fair? And is it reasonable? The pendulum has swung so far towards the evolutionary camp, that there is only one direction it can possibly go from here, and that is back towards consideration of a Creator.

What scientists should be trying to do is construct a model that best fits the past from the evidence we can find. Building a model is like trying to make a jigsaw. Jigsaw makers rely heavily on the picture on the front of the box. But our jigsaw hasn't come in a box. The pieces are everywhere! We aren't sure if we have them all and may be unsure where to start. We need to try not to force pieces to fit together that weren't meant to be. And someone has pointed out that there is a short description of Origins that may prove very helpful, commonly known as Genesis Chapter One. But a lot of people have crumpled it up as spurious and set about the jigsaw without it.

So, which model best suits the facts? Which picture best fits the pieces we are able to find? That's what I'm hoping to address in this blog. I hope it proves useful to those who are also on this journey.