If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
How about all of them, not just complex organs but basic cellular organells?
This is the one that I like, universal common ancestry would indicate that these two cells had a common ancestor. The trouble is that at major transitions the most basic parts of living systems are never accounted for. The theory of evolution need not explain how the information in DNA came into existence by naturalistic means. So out of nowhere and with no directly observed or demonstrated mechanism life emerges and that is where evolution begins. This population of single celled organisms develop the organells of the cell and develop an increasingly complex and high specific series of sequences. Then by some mysterious, presently unknown, molecular mechanism the basic cells of multicellular organisms develop into their highly specialized categories.
What could the common ancestor of these two highly specialize and very different cells have had in common?
Ok, after that giant leap the cellular architecture of plants and bacteria develop in all their vast array. Then another, unaccounted for, giant leap in nature occurs with the emergence of the eukayrote cells that would again differentiate into the animalia cells
No explanation, no molecular mechanism for this, no empirical evidence that it is even possible. Then by the same naturalistic process that is covered with the clutch phrase of natural selection (as opposed to divine fiat) the basic cells organize into the major phylum (thirty-five phyla of forty) and many new subphyla (between 32 and 48 of 56 total) within a 5 to 10 million year period, about 500 million years ago. Do note that's after 3 billion years of stasis (periods of no change).
To say that the fauna of the Cambrian period appeared in a geologically sudden manner also implies the absence of clear transitional intermediate forms connecting Cambrian animals with simpler pre-Cambrian forms. And, indeed, in almost all cases, the Cambrian animals have no clear morphological antecedents in earlier Vendian or Precambrian fauna (Miklos 1993, Erwin et al. 1997:132, Steiner & Reitner 2001, Conway Morris 2003b:510, Valentine et al. 2003:519-520).
Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories
This happens at every major transition at crucial levels of adaptive evolution. The real problem is the concept of DNA as information in 'specified complexity', a concept introduced by Francis Crick describing the DNA double helix. The DNA of single celled organisms are far simpler the the more developed higher taxonomic catagories:
Studies of modern animals suggest that the sponges that appeared in the late Precambrian, for example, would have required five cell types, whereas the more complex animals that appeared in the Cambrian (e.g., arthropods) would have required fifty or more cell types. Functionally more complex animals require more cell types to perform their more diverse functions. New cell types require many new and specialized proteins. New proteins, in turn, require new genetic information. Thus an increase in the number of cell types implies (at a minimum) a considerable increase in the amount of specified genetic information. Molecular biologists have recently estimated that a minimally complex single-celled organism would require between 318 and 562 kilobase pairs of DNA to produce the proteins necessary to maintain life (Koonin 2000). More complex single cells might require upward of a million base pairs.
Creationists were the first to bring out the problems with the emergence of life and the Cambrian explosion. These days the Intelligent Design movement has managed to repeat and build on these arguments. For me the real problem with evolution, as a Bible believing Christian, is the evolution of man from apes. My problem with it has a lot to do with the fact that redemptive history has stood up to every test of authenticity applied to it.
While that is my main reason for remaining unconvinced of TOE as natural history there is another fundamental problem with it. The human brain had neither the time nor the means to have made the three fold expansion from that of apes.
There are some pretty basic reasons why this makes no sense. For instance, the directly observed and demonstrated effects of mutations in brain related cells and systems cause disease and disorder every single time.
When Mendel did his pea plant experiments that became the foundation for the Laws of Inheritance he was looking at things like, size, shape, texture...etc. When it comes to vital organs there are no molecular mechanisms capable of making the overhaul of the requite genes involved.
Again, this would have happened, very suddenly about 2.5 million years ago with the transition from Homo habilis (the mythical tool making apeman) and Homo erectus.
For us to have evolved from apes it would have required an accelerated evolution of brain related genes. The evolution of the human brain would have had to start it's accelerated evolution on a molecular basis some 2 million years ago and within Homo Erectus (considered human by most creationists) would have had a brain size twice that of the Austropihicene and early Hominids:
Early Ancestors:
A. Afarensis with a cranial capacity of ~430cc lived about 3.5 mya.
A. Africanus with a cranial capacity of ~480cc lived 3.3-2.5 mya.
P. aethiopicus with a cranial capacity of 410cc lived about 2.5 mya.
P. boisei with a cranial capacity of 490-530cc lived between 2.3-1.2 mya.
OH 5 'Zinj" with a cranial capacity of 530cc lived 1.8 mya.
KNM ER 406 with a cranial capacity of 510cc lived 1.7 million years ago.
(Source: Smithsonian Human Family Tree)
Homo Erectus Skulls:
Hexian 412,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 1,025cc.
ZKD III (Skull E I) 423,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 915cc.
ZKD II (Skull D I) 585,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 1,020cc
ZKD X (Skull L I) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,225cc
ZKD XI (Skull L II) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,015cc
ZKD XII (Skull L III) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,030cc
Sm 3 >100,000 years ago had a cranial 917cc
KNM-WT 15000 (Turkana Boy) 1.5 million years ago had a cranial capacity of 880cc
(Source: Endocranial Cast of Hexian Homo erectus from South China, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 2006)
Homo habilis that would have lived. 2.51.5 mya with a cranial capacity of ~600 cc. The next link would have been Homo erectus with a cranial capacity of ~1000cc. KNM-WT 15000 (Turkana Boy) would have lived 1.5 mya and the skeleton structure shows no real difference between anatomically modern humans. The skull while smaller then the average cranial capacity of humans but close to twice that of his ancestors of 2 mya.
That means for our ancestors to have evolved it would have required a dramatic adaptive evolution of the size just under 2 mya sandwiched between two long periods of relative stasis. One such gene would have been the HARf regulatory gene involved in the early development of the human neocortex from 7 to 19 gestational weeks. With only two substitutions allowed since the common ancestor of the of 310 mya the divergence between humans and chimpanzees indicates 18 substitutions as early as 2 mya. (Nature, vol. 443, no. 7108, pp. 167-172 September 14, 2006)
The next in the long line of evolutionary giant leaps are the Neanderthals who had a cranial capacity 10% greater then our own. The explanation seems obvious to me, the apes and humans were originally bigger and had genomes with far fewer mutations then modern ones. Evolutionists are simply taking prehistoric chimpanzees and passing them off as human ancestors because they are bigger and better developed then modern ones.
Think I'm exaggerating, consider this. The 6 million years of chimpanzee evolution is represented in the fossil record by three teeth and that's it. Human ancestors on the other hand have literally hundreds of fossils attributed to our lineage.
It's as simple as that, they simply assume naturalistic causes and no matter what the evidence is they organize it around their a priori assumption of universal common descent.
Darwinian evolution is either disproven or an unconditional a priori (without prior) assumption. My personal opinion, it's both.
Grace and peace,
Mark
