Problems with evolutionary mechanisms
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Problems with evolutionary mechanisms

on

  • 1,570 views

A bird's eye critique of the major flaws in the evidence for Darwinian Evolution based on both critical Darwinist and Intelligent Design sources.

A bird's eye critique of the major flaws in the evidence for Darwinian Evolution based on both critical Darwinist and Intelligent Design sources.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,570
Views on SlideShare
1,570
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
27
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Problems with evolutionary mechanisms Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    GED Lesson at New Creation Bible Church Center
    May 14, 2011 A.D.
    Week 13. Science Review
    Instructor: Joseph David Rhodes, M.A., M. Div.
  • 2. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    I. How Does Evolution Work (according to the Theory)?
    1. Random mutations cause changes, or variation, in a population of organisms.
    2. These different organisms then compete to survive and reproduce.
    3. Those which are best able to survive and reproduce do so, and tend to leave the most offspring. This is called “natural selection.”
    4. Over time, if some organisms survive and reproduce more than others, a species will "evolve."
  • 3. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
  • 4. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    One Ancient and Modern View of Life:
    The View of Genesis 1:1:
    An Origin with a Personal
    and Infinite-Creator.
    א  בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ. 1
    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
  • 5. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    II. What does Evolution Claim?
    -All organisms are related through "common ancestry."
    - All organisms arose through the process of mutation and natural selection.
    - All organisms arose and persist because of the random chance processes of nature.
  • 6. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    III. Schema of the Evolutionary “Story”
    Origin of the Universe >> Origin of Earth >> Pre-Biotic
    Synthesis (“primordial soup”) >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
    Bacteria << First Cells << DNA/Protein World << RNA World <<
    >> Primitive Animals >> Fish >> Amphibians >> Reptiles* >>
    << Early Apes << Monkeys << Primates << Mammals <<
    >> Humans
    *Some reptiles are also said to have evolved into birds.
  • 7. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    Charles Darwin’s Early Projected “ Tree of Life” from On the Origin of the Species by Natural Selection, 1859
  • 8. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    Ernest Haeckel’s Model of “the Tree of Life” from his book The Evolution of Man (Jena, 1879)
  • 9. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    IV. Common Scientific Criticisms of Evolution
    A. The Origin of Life (i.e., Its Chemical Starting Point) Remains a Profound Mystery.
    • Life has never been created in a laboratory, contrary to popular belief.
    • 10. Iflife is ever created in the lab, how would we know it could or would happen that way in the natural world?
  • Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    IVA. More Detailed Criticisms of Abiogenesis:
    1. Some scientists and textbooks claim that amino acids, nucleotides and other “building blocks of life” (pre-biotics) were present on the early earth.
    2. However, the evidence does not seem to support this because although the famous "Miller Experiment" in 1953 did produce amino acids by sparking gasses, it did not use the gasses that geochemists think that were present in the earth’s atmosphere. When the correct gasses are used, no amino acids are created.
    3. There is also no geological evidence that there was a "primordial soup,” but even if it “soup” did exist, it would quickly have been destroyed by UV light, or quickly degrade through a chemical reaction similar to “browning” on an apple.
  • 11.
  • 12. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    B. Stanley Miller’s Experiment: Fatal Flaws in the Scientific Methodology.
    1. Arbitrary Exclusion of Oxygen in the Primitive Earth Environment.
    2. Inclusion of Methane and Ammonia as Part of Original Conditions.
    3. Unrealistic views of Ultraviolet Radiation and Limited Electricity.
    4. Dr. Miller’s Experimental Apparatus included an Artificial Trap to Isolate Organic Compounds.
    5. The few amino acids actually produced were 50 % racemic (i.e. both right-handed and left-handed molecules).
    6. 99% of the actual resulting organic compounds were toxic .
  • 13. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    IV.C. Contemporary Failure of Experimental Confirmation of Evolutionary Abiogenesis.
    1. For fifty years, no success in producing all 20 basic amino acids.
    2. There has also been no success in producing all four essential nucleotides.
    3.There has been no success in fifty years synthesizing the natural sugars.
    4.There has been no successful synthesis of fatty acids.
    5. No successful synthesis of non-racemates.
    6. There has been no successful production of actual biological units.
  • 14. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    IVC. Other Problems to Evolutionary Origin of Life.
    1. Widespread presence of water on primitive earth surface vastly favors depolymerization (dissolving of) amino acids, nucleotides, and proteins.
    2. Random evolution of life is naturally hampered by chemical cross- reaction.
    3. With a random (chance) situation, there is a high instability of building- block molecules (complex protein compounds decompose !).
    4. There is no geophysical or paleontological evidence of a primordial “biological soup.”
    5. No reasonable mathematical probability for random origin of life, e.g., it is virtually impossible according to elements and time.
  • 15. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    IVD. The Fundamental Problem of Chirality :
  • 16. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    IVD. Probability Statistics on DNA Composition:
    • All right-handed sugars…… 1/1030
    • 17. All correct biological bonds…… 1/10300
    • 18. Exclusion of non-biological units…… 1/101000
  • Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    IVE. DNA as a “Code” : A Semantic Illustration.
    All English sentences require obedience to certain rules of grammar, are composed of exclusively English alphabet letters, and make sense according English conventions of meaning.
    Nonsense phrases superficially resemble sentences, but they do not convey any determinable standard communication of real meaning. Thus, they are nonsense (non-language marks).
    Smufmddogn fusskl blaahorz walla boo hoo hoo poots.
  • 19. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    DNA makes biological sense and follows definite chemical and genetic rules or principles of protein sequencing:
  • 20. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    IVF. Facts & Theories About Origin of Life:
    Some propose that life or the “building blocks” came to our earth from outer space. Most studies of this hypothesis have shown that all organic material would be superheated and destroyed upon entering the atmosphere and impact.
    Even if the ‘building blocks” of life were present in a soup, there is no known natural chemical process for how theywould naturally and spontaneously form more complex molecules such as polymers, proteins, RNA, or DNA.1
    1Cf. Joseph D. Rhodes, “ TwoModels of Life and Science (Creationism and Evolutionism)” High School Biology Lecture and Powerpointgiven at the Bethany Christian School in Plano, Texas, March, 2009.
  • 21. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    IV.F. Facts & Theories About Origin of Life:
    There is a "Chicken and Egg" problem: DNA needs enzymes and proteins to replicate, but all enzymes and proteins are created by DNA. The whole DNA-enzyme package must stay together-- DNA must create a "cell membrane". DNA, proteins, and the cell membrane must all be present at once for life to exist.
    Life is "exceedingly complex” and far too complex to arise naturally! The simplest bacterial cell has hundreds of genes: "[T]he most elementary type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man." (W. H. Thorpe)
  • 22. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    V.A. Summary of Problems of Random Origin of Life – The First Cell is Just Too Complex for Chance !
    According to the laws of mathematical probability there is no way that an entire cell could come into being all at once. As for getting the first cell, there is too much cellular "machinery" that is linked in "irreducibly complex" ways. Even simple organisms could not arise naturally.
    The mathematical probability of a SINGLE CELL coming about by chance is 1/10340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros!2And then this cell must live long enough to reproduce.
    And then the reproduced cell must live long enough to do the same.
    2Cf. H.P. Yockey, "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory," J. Theoretical Biology, (1977), 67, pp.337-398; and H.J. Morowitz, Energy Flow in Biology (Academic Press, New York, 1968), p. 99.
  • 23. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    V.B. Summary of Problems of Random Origin of Life – The First Cell is Just Too Complex for Chance !
    “ Chemical evolution, based on random activity of molecules, fails to adequately account for the origin of the proteins required for even the simplest known free-living organism, Mycoplasma genitalium. This bacteria has one chromosome, a cell membrane, but lacks a cell wall and has the smallest genome of any known self-replicating organism. It has 470 genes, which contain an average of 1,040 nucleotide base pairs (bp). This implies that the average size protein coded for by these genes contains about 347 amino acids. The probability of forming, by a random assembly method, one such average-size protein molecule containing the amino acid residues in a required sequence is only 1/10451. ”
  • 24. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    V.B. Summary of Problems of Random Origin of Life – The First Cell is Just Too Complex for Chance !
    “. . . With a problem this great in forming one gene, imagine the problem of forming the 470 specific genes found in the one chromosome containing 580,070 bp: Mycoplasma genitalium. Michael Behe, in his 1996 book Darwin’s Black Box, uses the term “irreducible complexity” to refer to such situations where all conditions must be met simultaneously in order for the organism to survive.”3
    3Dwain L. Ford, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, Andrews University in “Organic Chemistry,” in John L. Aston, In Six Days: Why 50 Scientist Chose to Believe in Creation (Green Forest, AR.: Master Books/New Leaf Press, 2001), pp. 139-140.
  • 25. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    Mycoplasma Genitalium
    Genome Description:
    Name: Mycoplasma genitalium G-37
    Kingdom: Bacteria
    Intermediate
    1. Firmicutes 2. Bacillus/Clostridium group 3. Mollicutes
    4. Mycoplasmataceae
    Genus: Mycoplasma
    Species: genitalium Strain G-37
  • 26. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    A Simple Cell (Escherichia Coli)
    This illustration shows a portion of an cell, Escherichi Coli, one of the “simplest” known bacteria. Many necessary parts are shown including the cell wall, a flagellum, ribosomes, tRNA, mRNA, enzymes, and nucleus with DNA and its machinery.
    From http://www.scripps.edu/pub/ goodsell/ illustration/public
  • 27. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    V. Summary of Problems of Random Origin of Life – The First Cell is Just Too Complex for Chance !
    Quote from a World Class Scientist, Dr. Paul Davies (Australia):
    “It’s a shame that there are precious few hard facts when it comes to the origin of life... the how part has everybody stumped. Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”4
    4Paul Davies, Ph.D., D.Sc. (Australian Center for Astrobiology, Macquarie U.), “ Born Lucky,” in New Scientist ,Vol. 179 (2403): 32, July, 2003. See also Charles Thraxton, W. Bradley, and Roger Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin (Dallas, TX.: Lewis and Stanley Publishers, 1984) for an overview.
  • 28. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    VI. Challenge of Irreducible Complexity.
    Classic Quotation from Charles Darwin himself in The Origin of Species :
    "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, suc-cessive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
  • 29. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    VIA. Many Biological Entities & Organs are Too “Complex” for Evolution.
    1. There are many biological parts which function like "machines." These machines only work if all the key parts are present (for an example, see the Bacterial Flagellum on the next page). If one part is removed, the entire machine “breaks down.”
    2. Here, the word “irreducible” means: “Impossible to reduce to a desired, simpler, or smaller form.” Such machines are “irreducibly complex,” be- cause if they had any fewer parts, they would not work properly. [Thus] Evolution cannot build irreducibly complex organs because evolution requires that all things arise in small steps, each of which are functional.
  • 30. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    3. For irreducibly complex organs, small steps are impossible because the organ is only functional if all parts are present. In this
    “all or nothing” game, “intermediate stages” of evolution are im-possible because they would not function. Irreducibly complex biological features thus cannot be built in a[ny] "step-by-step" evolutionary manner. As evolutionist Robert Carroll asks, “How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?“5
    5See the examination of this idea in Michael J. Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box: A Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York and London: The Free Press, 1996).
  • 31. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    VIB. Illustration of Irreducible Complexity Some of the “simplest” bacterial cells contain this “bacterial flagellum which functions like an outboard motor for swimming bacteria. Many scientists believe this organ is irreducibly
    complex.
    From:
    http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/motor.htm
  • 32. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    VII. Genetic & Morphological Evidences ?
    ( Tracing Links in the “ Evolutionary Tree.”
  • 33. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    VIIA. Genetic & Morphological Evidences ? (The Thesis of “ Common Descent”)
    Evolutionists believe that all life forms are interrelated. This is called “common ancestry” or "common descent." This hypo- thesis can be tested by constructing hypothetical "family trees" (called "phylogenetic trees") based off of assuming common descent, and then comparing the similarities of various characteristics of organisms such as genes and DNA sequences.
    (See the previous slide)
  • 34. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    VIIA. Genetic & Morphological Evidences ? (The Thesis of “ Common Descent”)
    If common descent were true, the trees would show neat lines of ancestry and inheritance of biological characteristics. Often, these do not form a “tree,” as demonstrated in the “bush” or "thicket" at left. This "bush" phenomenon is true for various types of organisms, as one evolutionist said, "the wealth of competing … proposals [of] the prevailing phylogenies of the mammalian orders would reduce [the mammalian tree] to an unresolved bush..." The basic problem is that when evolution-ists compare different characteristics, they often get different trees.6
    6lifebyevolutionordesign.pdffrom www.ideacenter.org.
  • 35. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    VIIA. Genetic & Morphological Evidences ? (The Thesis of “ Common Descent”)
    Evolutionary Claim of Morphological Similarity – The Argument from Homology
    Furthermore, it is assumed that similarities are the result of common descent and not "common design" (compare limbs of mammals in the next slide as evidence for "common design"). The assumptionsand discrepancies of evolutionary theory show that evidence for common ancestry is actually weak.
  • 36. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    Couldn’t these similarities be the result of "common design“ rather than "common descent"?
  • 37. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    VIIA. Genetic & Morphological Evidences ? (The Thesis of “Common Descent ”)
    The fact that almost all land-dwelling vertebrates have a five-toed or "pentadactyl" bone structure in their hands and feet has for years been presented as "strong evidence for Darwinism" in evolutionist publications. However, recent research has revealed that these bone structures are governed by quite different genes. For this reason, the "homology of pentadactylism" assumption has today collapsed.
  • 38. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    *References documenting problems in Phylogenetic change and the argument from homology:
    Nancy R. Pearcey, Rod Clark, A. James MeInick, et al. Of Pandas And People: The Central Question of Biological Origins . 2nd Edition; Dallas, TX.: Haughton Publishing Company/ Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 1993.
    Michael Denton. Evolution: A Theory In Crisis: New Developments in Science Are Challenging Orthodox Darwinism. Bethesda, MD.: Adler &Adler Publishers, 1986.
    3.Jonathan Well. Icons Of Evolution: Science Or Myth ? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong. Illustrations by Jody Sjogren. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing , 2000.
  • 39. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    VIII. Limitations on Chance Mutations
    Evolutionary theory claims that random mutations can build very complicated biological structures over time. Yet, mutations are almost always harmful to the organism, as the Nobel Prize winner H.J. Muller admits, "[i]t is entirely in line with the accidental nature of natural mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them to be detrimental to the organisms in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidentally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation." The French evolutionist Pierre-Paul Grasse noted that, "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of
    evolution."
  • 40. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    VIII. Limitations on Chance Mutations
    One oft-cited example of a “beneficial” mutation is that of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Yet antibiotic resistance usually involves the addition and origin of no new information into the genome. In the next slide, a simple point mutation in the ribo-some prevents the drug streptomycin from attaching, granting germ resistance. This is microevolution because it involves only minor change “within a species” and does not really add new information. Antibiotic resistance is thus different from macro-evolutionand does not explain how new biological structures arise.
  • 41. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    From Not By Chance by Dr. Lee Spetner
  • 42. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    VIIIB. The Failure of Randomness: Limitations on Chance Mutations. (References):
    1. William Dembski. No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence. Lanham, MD.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2001.
    2. ________________. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
    3. Lee Spetner. Not A Chance ! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Judaica Press, 1998.
  • 43. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    IX. Non-Validity of Developmental Evidence
    Many who take evolution in school may hear the phrase, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," meaning that evolutionary history is supposedly reflected during the growth and develop-ment of an organism. Commonly cited evidence is the alleged presence of fish gills in human embryos during growth (which indeed are NOT true gills but rather are merely small wrinkles in the neck that appear during development). These ideas were put forth by 19th century embryologist Ernst Haeckel, who now is known to have fabricated and exaggerated his data. Accurate comparisons of real embryos of humans, fish, chickens, and amphibians show they begin very different, briefly become somewhat similar at an intermediate stage, and then end quite different. If "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" and all these organisms share a common ancestry, these embryos should be similar from the very beginning and grow more different during development. Because they start different, patterns of animal growth and development are at odds with predictions of evolution.
  • 44. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    IX. Non-Validity of Developmental Evidence
    MYTH: Certain similarities in development of animal embryos indicates that they share a common ancestry. This representation, common in biology textbooks, is based off of the faked data of 19th century embryologist Ernst Haeckel.
  • 45. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    IX. Non-Validity of Developmental Evidence
    FACT: Different organisms show developmental patterns unique from conception onward. The phrase, “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” (development reflects some evolutionary history) is not supported by the evidence.
  • 46. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    Recommended Reference:
    Drawings on the previous slides are from the recent critique of Neo-Darwinism by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. Icons of Evolution Jonathan Wells (Regnery, 2000).
  • 47. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    X. The Fossils Really Say “ No Way !”
    As an official scientific theory [hypotheses], evolution predicts that there will be millions of specific fossils which show how one form or type of organism turned into another over multiplied millions of years.
    Charles Darwin himself stated in The Origin of Species:
    “...The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth,[must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such inter-mediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. "
  • 48. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    X. The Fossils Really Say “ No Way !”
    “ Out of tens of thousands of species known from the fossil record, only a few are claimed to be Darwin's missing "tran- sitional forms." However, a close analysis of these few fossils (commonly cited ones are Archaeopteryx [a bird], Ambulocetus[a land mammal], and Acanthostega [an amphibian]) reveal that they do not shed any light on the origin of the important features of their respective groups and are often incomplete. “7
    7From evolutionprimer.pdfat www.ideacenter.org
  • 49. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    X. The Fossils Really Say “ No Way !”
    The famous veteran evolutionist, Dr. Stephen J. Gould (Harvard University), speaking about the failure of Archaeopteryx as a “missing link” candidate, reluctantly admits this:
    “At the higher level of evolutionary transition between morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Bauplana>e are almost impossible to reconstruct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeo- pteryx do not count).8
    8S.J. Gould and Nils Eldredge, Paleobiology3:147 (1977), cited by Dr. Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say NO ! (Rev. 3rd Ed.; El Cajon, CA.: Institute for Creation Research, 2006), p. 139.
  • 50. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    X. The Fossils Really Say “ No Way !”
    Dr. Gould has also stated in a later article an even more explicit confession of the failure of paleontological evidence to prove Darwin’s theory:
    "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.“ (Gould, Paleobiology, vol 6(1), p. 127)9
    9Cited in evolutionprimer.pdf at www.ideacenter.org.
  • 51. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    Bibliography for Evolution and Fossils:
    1. Michael Behe. The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwin- ism. New York and London: The Free Press, 2008.
    2. Michael Denton. Evolution: A Theory In Crisis. Bethesda, MD.: Adler & Adler Publishing, 1986.
    3. Duane T. Gish. Evolution: The Fossils Still Say NO ! 3rd Revised Edition. El Cajon, CA.: Institute for Creation Research.
    4. Philip E. Johnson. Darwin on Trial. 2nd Edition. Downers Grove, ILL: Intervarsity Press/ IVP Books, 1993.
    5. Marvin L. Lubenow. Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of the Human Fossils. Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Books, 1992.
    6. Geoffrey Simmons, M.D. Billions of Missing Links: A Rational Look at the Mysteries Evolution Can’t Explain. Eugene, OR.: Harvest House Publishers, 2007.
    8. Jonathan Sarfati. Refuting Evolution: A Handbook for Students, Parents, and Teachers Countering the Latest Arguments for Evolution. Powder Springs, GA.: Creation Book Publishers, 1999.
  • 52. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    Chart of Evolutionary Assumptions vs. Actual Facts
  • 53. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
    Explanation of Chart of Evolutionary Assumptions vs. Actual Empirical Facts :
    Darwin’s theory (a) predicts that fossil transitions between different types of organisms will be found. When transitions were not found, evolutionists proposed punctuated equilibrium (b), where the transitional forms existed briefly, and were not fossilized. Model (c) represents the fossil record with regards to the origin of the phyla. The sudden appearance of organisms points to design, not evolution.10
    10Cited in evolutionprimer.pdf at www.ideacenter.org.
  • 54. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms
  • 55. Problems with Evolutionary Mechanisms