Evolution is Creation

Evolution is defined as (a) “Changes in gene frequencies in populations” or (b) “The process through which the characteristics of organisms change over successive generations, by means of genetic variation and natural selection” or (c) “Evolution is Common Descent”. However, (a) is too broad as every newborn changes the gene frequency in a population, (b) is unclear (Which characteristics? How much change? How long?), and (c) has never been directly tested beyond the immediately related.
Why is Evolution so much debated? Testable theories with great impact are not nearly as extensively – if at all – debated. Two reasons: (a) the more verified, the least debated a theory is, but evidence for Evolution (Common Descent) has so far been indirect at best, thus often and purposely misjudged, and (b) from the beginning, Darwin (like Lamarck and others before) was in search of an alternative explanation to divine creation (“inexplicable on the theory of creation”), making Evolution a Religious argument despite insistence that it is Science and not Belief. Moreover, Evolution is the cornerstone of all materialist/atheists arguments.
Evolution is a historical story with zero predictive value and should not be confused with Genetics, a genuine scientific field established by Mendel. Like any other true science, experiments show Genetics yields the expected outcomes within the limits of our knowledge. Yet Evolution and not Genetics is over-represented in our culture as many authors feel compelled to include clearly unrelated declaration of Faith sections on Evolution in their otherwise scientific books. Modern Synthesis and more recently Extended Evolutionary Synthesis have been proposed to mask the failures of the Theory of Evolution.
The natural laws proposed are either simple observations like Growth with Reproduction, Variability, Life Struggle, and Extinction, or poorly defined imaginary “laws” like Ratio of Increase, Natural Selection, and Divergence of Character. The undisputed Observations were previously known, yet few, until Darwin, have considered these in conflict with a creationist view of the world. The difference is in the interpretation and thus a matter of Belief (Religion). Darwin himself makes this clear by arguing directly with a straw man Religious narrative. Let’s see next where Evolution fails the Scientific Method:
The Gradualism argument is essential to the theory of Evolution but flawed. “Natura non facit saltum” is repeated many times by Darwin, but this argument is illogic as we just cannot say for sure what nature doesn’t do, but only what we have observed it does. In addition, gradualism conflicts with Genetics and Ecology observations. For instance, a newborn’s DNA preserves the traits inherited from each parent’s DNA rather than ending up with blended genes of the two parents.
“Random” as in Random Mutations cannot be positively identified. Furthermore, even true random events that are modified by non random forces, such as Selection, result in non-random outcomes. As a theoretic concept, randomness is acceptable and useful when the scope of the analysis is limited. However, assumed randomness cannot be extrapolated to support a whole philosophy such as Evolution.
Evolution is supposed to be a “Blind, Unguided and Purposeless Process”, but this negative claim has never been proven. And since all known selections are always carried by intelligent beings, the outcome – Evolution or something else – must be Guided and Purposeful. In addition, a Process requires a set of steps to be taken towards an end, hence Processes are incompatible with “Blind, Unguided, and Purposeless”.
“Natural Selection” is an unsupported concept. We do observe Selection – a process carried out only by intelligent beings that select or self-select leading to variability around a mean representing adaptations, and not “divergence of character”. But what does “Natural” even mean, and who decides what is and is not natural? Darwin enrolls domestication in support of his “Natural Selection” so “Natural” seems to include everyone …except a Creator in the religious sense. This is clearly not part of the scientific method. In addition, the Creator is the ultimate Natural to those that believe in Creation.
In a circular reasoning, Selection is the process that ensures Survival of the Fittest defined as those individuals that survive the Selection process. In addition to an infinite number of factors contributing to survival – some internal to the population and some external (the environment) – survival is not predetermined and members of the population differ significantly from one another, making “fit” a concept impossible to evaluate. Camouflage for instance might seem like an element of fit until we see organisms that are better camouflaged than others or some that don’t camouflage at all, yet display some other sort of protective power. Phenotype (supposedly driving the selection) is an unstable infinite set, hence unknowable, theoretical and irrelevant.
No “benefic mutation” has ever been observed to become unconditionally permanent. Color changes as well as size (including finches’ beaks), metabolic, antibiotic, antibiotic-resistance, and many other adaptations is what organisms do day in and day out. Yet none of these normal adaptations has ever been observed to become permanent after the triggering stimulus has been removed, and none has ever been observed to cause “divergence of character” transmutation into other organisms. Furthermore, these adaptations are limited in scope – for instance, no 2D-bound organism has been observed to become 3D-capable to avoid extinction. Hereditary mutations are variances around a mean and have not been observed to accumulate and promote the hypothetical “evolutionary arms race” superorganism.
Darwin’s Evolution narrative only goes back to “at most 4 or 5 progenitors” and thus leaves unexplained the “Origin” in the “Origin of Species” misleading title. Followers have attempted to expand, so far unsuccessfully, into Abiogenesis. Some advocates now try to separate the two issues again to salvage an incomplete Evolution argument from the undelivered Abiogenesis argument. If life were a simple random process in the presence of the right environment, Abiogenesis would be easily duplicated as life supporting environments are everywhere on Earth. Organisms from different abiogenesis episodes would not be all related, but instead would probably take different forms – perhaps some based on alternative chemistry, or with different DNA molecule, or with different cell structures, etc. Dying and extinction processes (opposite of Abiogenesis) are easily observed and duplicated, and they generate abundant “almost alive” compounds with the right properties for Abiogenesis experiments – all of which have failed until now.
Life is a quantum leap from non-life. Alive organisms follow all the identified physics and chemistry laws that non-life follows and, in addition, a new set of specific laws including: birth from very similar parent(s), growth, death and decay, metabolism, survival struggle, and reproduction struggle. Physical transformations of nonliving objects could be somewhat analogous to growth, death or metabolism of the living, but the struggles of living organisms or the generational inheritance have no correspondence in the inanimate world. ‘Natural selection’ has no meaning in the inorganic Universe. Evolution proponents simply claim that everything “arose”, but this non-explanation based on no observable fact is more akin to magic than to the scientific method.
The fossil record lends no support for Darwinian evolution because: it is sketchy at best inviting proponents to make whatever desired of it via artistic license, it is static hence one must presume evolution to see evolutionary links (the animation movie), and fossils are not positively linked to one another hence likely part of other animation movies altogether. Alternative hypotheses such as “independent development” (aka Convergent Evolution) and “directed development” (aka Intelligent Design) would have yielded the same fossil record without confirming the Darwinist model of evolution.
“Biologic species” does not have a satisfactory definition and, since organisms do not come with tree of life place cards, not just species classification but also taxonomy in general is more or less arbitrary as shown by grouping issues and the frequent revisions to its structure. Those that believe the “reproductive isolation” story point to minor adaptations, which they call “speciation” (implying stability) and then ask us to extrapolate these small changes into the dramatic transmutations imagined yet never observed by Darwin or his followers. This is a classic trick – employed extensively by magicians, cinematographers and con artists among others – where one thing is shown and the brain then “sees” another that is not there.
Evolution is all about Magic: a magical “primordial soup”, the alchemy of energy + random atoms + time + magic = life, something from nothing without external action, information out of pure noise, intelligence out of lesser or no intelligence, and much more when the magic is extended from biology to cosmology and other fields. But despite numerous experimental attempts, none of these has ever been observed. Supporters of Darwinian Evolution invoke unfitting anthropic concepts such as Benefit and Optimization while incorrectly appealing to ‘Occam’s Razor’. Indeed, not only is ‘Occam’s Razor’ not a guarantee, but ”Only Intelligence Creates” is also just as simple as ”arising of everything” by the magic of Evolution. In addition, observations confirm only the “Intelligence Creates” hypothesis.
As an instrument of creation, a version of Evolution may be valid. One has to simply consider how a Creator would use the mechanics of Evolution and Abiogenesis as Creation tools. The automobile is clearly a Creation, yet it is shaped by similar principles to those intuited by Darwin: each model could cover the Earth were it not for competing designs; a model is reproduced with variability; divergence of character helps models spread into all available environments; the better features are retained and passed to the next generation, while “natural selection” ensures the extinction of the uncompetitive designs; totally different “species” like the passenger car and the interstate truck display convergent evolution; etc. Unassisted growth and reproduction are of course missing because the automobile is only a human creation. In addition, Abiogenesis is very much in line with Abrahamic Religions as mentioned in several faith writings.
As the atheistic bible, Evolution can be tolerated since Beliefs cannot be debated because they always extend beyond the Observable evidence. But as a Belief to end all competing Beliefs, the burden of proof is on Evolution proponents and remains unmet. Darwin and his followers fail in their main goal of disproving Creation (“inexplicable on the theory of creation”). Some claim that our understanding of Evolution is work in progress and thus supporters cannot produce all the proofs promised. Fair enough, but it is not clear what proof Evolution could ever produce that would positively discredit Creation. The goal is not only unfulfilled, but also impossible – yet the public discourse is full of unfounded claims of victory for Evolution against Creation.

Summary – the evolution narrative fails:

“Natura non facit saltum” (gradualism) is illogical and contrary to everything we know about the absolute discreteness of organisms – http://nonlin.org/gradualism/
“Randomness” is unknowable and never a source of creativity – http://nonlin.org/random-abuse/
“Blind, Unguided and Purposeless Process” – the qualifiers are utterly unsupported by evidence and incompatible with any Process defined as a set of Steps Taken towards an End
“Natural Selection” fails as everything is natural, all selections are done by Intelligent Selectors and are limited to variations around a mean (regression to the mean) rather than “divergence of character”. Natural Selection also lacks creativity, so cannot explain the variety of organism designs – http://nonlin.org/natural-selection/
Phenotype is an unstable infinite set, hence unknowable, theoretical and irrelevant
Selection is Survival and “Fitness” is a redundant concept since the only measure of “Selection” and “Fitness” is the Survival of descendants
“Benefit” and “optimization” are anthropic, thus incompatible with the mechanistic universe imagined by Darwin’s followers; in addition, no unconditional “benefic” mutation has ever been observed
LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) from Abiogenesis is illogical since, in a generic “primordial soup” scenario, if one happens then many happen contrary to no evidence of “spontaneous generation” in nature or laboratory – http://nonlin.org/warmpond/
There are no examples whatsoever of “Arising” as in “Arising of Everything” and “Life vs. Entropy” – http://nonlin.org/arising-of-everything/, http://nonlin.org/life-and-entropy/
One must presume evolution to see evolutionary links in the fossil record – this “proof” is circular logic. Conversely, organisms’ resemblance is typical for common designed entities.
“Species” is a failed concept as the separation between species is arbitrary, therefore, no “speciation” and no “origin of species”

Pro-Con Notes

Con: Theistic evolutionist: “Evolution is compatible with Religion and should be accepted”.

Pro: Evolution is fake science and bad religion. Why would God outsource to Darwin? Color changes as well as metabolic, antibiotic, antibiotic-resistance, and many other adaptations is what organisms do day in and day out. Yet none of these normal adaptations has ever been observed to cause transmutation into other organisms – the primary claim of Darwinism. And no, classifying closely related organism into arbitrary and poorly defined “species” for the unstated purpose of fabricating evidence does not constitute serious proof on behalf of Darwin’s theory.

Con: The primary claim of the theory of evolution is decidedly NOT “transmutations into other organisms”. It is change in gene frequencies through time, which act on the population level not the individual level.

Pro: For sure your preferred definition doesn’t mean to renege on Darwin, but instead is just a very poor attempt to deflect criticism. As we all know, Mendel’s genetics was forced into a marriage of convenience with Darwin’s evolution. And now, the time has come for a divorce. For a successful career, I suggest you focus on genetics (real) and deemphasize evolution (speculative).

Con: Imperfection in organisms makes sense from an Evolutionary perspective, but not from a Creationists one.

Pro: “Imperfections” make sense from an organism development plan perspective. Besides, what is “perfection” anyway? Historically, people have appreciated different qualities in objects and beings and competing designs of certain objects are never identical, suggesting that ‘perfection’ is elusive. In addition, members of the same species are never equally endowed, so why even expect design perfection?

Con: Genetics is one of the pillars of evolution as it also shows how it happens.

Pro: How can genetics be a pillar of evolution when the two were completely unrelated until Dobzhansky’s synthesis of moribund Evolution theory with Genetics to revive the former? That happened in 1937 but Darwin and Mendel had nothing in common whatsoever.

Con: There is overwhelming evidence regarding evolution. Genetics, observations, fossil records, etc, all show it is the foundation of biology.

Pro: You could end the controversy here and now through an experiment that transforms one known life form into another known life form. But you can’t. And no, developing antibiotic resistance doesn’t count as the resulting bacteria is still of the same species as the original.

Con: Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with evolution.

Pro: Darwin repeats the gradualism mantra several times in “Origin of Species”, and it is clear that without that his theory fails apart. Quantum mechanics shows that charge, spin, energy – all come in discrete values, hence no gradualism in nature, hence Darwinism fails. And what is sexual reproduction other than a quantum leap? The newborn is not same as either parent but a mix of the two plus novel characteristics. Darwin could not have known genetics, but you should know this minimum.

Con: Darwin’s great insight was that while species do change, they do not progress toward a predetermined goal: Organisms adapt to local conditions, using the tools available at the time.

Pro: People have known for ever and didn’t need Darwin to tell them that “Organisms adapt to local conditions”. The only thing Darwin added was the pure speculation that somehow organisms change into other organisms over time, but this speculation was never ever confirmed even in the most simple and fast reproducing organisms.

Con: Angraecum sesquipedale, known as Darwin’s orchid is best known from Darwin’s prediction that there must be a moth with an extremely long proboscis. He made this prediction in 1862. The moth (Xanthopan morganii praedicta) was discovered in 1903, 21 years after his death. This was one of the great experimental vindications of evolution.

Pro: That was deductive reasoning, not a prediction: “something must pollinate that plant, and a moth with a matching proboscis is possible”. This observation conforms to the theory of evolution, but it’s far from being sufficient evidence. The observation is also very much compatible with competing theories.

Con: Evolution has predictive power for finding the previously unobserved remains of intermediate species: Date two linearly related but now geologically remote species, match the intermediate date with a land mass in the neighborhood during the same period, go where that land mass ended up and dig to the prescribed, time-correlated depth. Voila, as Darwin predicted.

Pro: When you’re expecting a certain hypothesis to be true no matter what, you will interpret all field observation as the find you were looking for so ardently. This is called ‘confirmation bias’.

Con: Cancer is Evolution in action.

Pro: Evolution is not a Scientific concept – i.e. not verifiable as it lacks a clear, testable definition. If and only when this will ever be resolved, we will be able to compare Cancer to Evolution and evaluate a possible match. Until then, a simple observation is that Cancer kills itself by killing the host (if we even want to go as far as assigning a self to Cancer). Transmission in a few cases is due to the incidental and preexisting behavior of the host which has nothing to do with the Cancer itself. If Cancer had modified the behavior of the host, then the resemblance might be somewhat more believable.

Con: Evolution is true. Besides, why fight it so fiercely anyway?

Pro: Darwinist evolution is a never ending chain of unsupported generalities and illogical claims. For 150+ years, Darwinism has been a cancer on the human mind, responsible for Communism, Nazism, Eugenics, and destructive soulless Atheism. As Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc., you are delusional in trying to reconcile Darwinism with your other Beliefs.