Here’s a good article from phys.org illustrating flaws evolutionary thinking. Those who believe in evolution typically don’t question the evidence, or the way that evidence is interpreted. But if we examine the evidence at face value, we discover that evolution is simply a tale.
The article begins with the writer setting the stage: “About 400 million years ago, our early ancestors took their first hesitant steps out of the primordial seas on to land.”
The truth is, this description is all conjecture and cannot be substantiated. There’s no scientific experiment which can prove this event actually took place, let alone when it took place, or what that creature was thinking. It’s simply based on faith.
It’s interesting that the writer goes on to question whether these organisms actually stepped, crawled or wriggled onto land. But evolution isn’t questioned. Evolutionists really do believe we evolved from fish about 400 million years ago, and now they want to understand that transition onto land.
One thing that stood out to me in this article is when Dr. Kawano (Assistant Professor of Biology at George Washington University) said, “Scientists often act as detectives for the past.” And she is absolutely right!
Science can be broken down into two parts- past vs. present. Science focused on understanding what happened in the distant past is referred to as forensic or historical science, while science done in the present is referred to as observational or operational science.
In order to understand the difference, it’s important to understand the scientific method, which is a process of collecting data, conducting measurements, formulating hypothesis, systematic observation, and repeated experimentation.
Observational science can be done in the present and allows us to make airplanes, computers, perform successful surgeries, develop medicine, and put a man on the moon. We can observe what does or doesn’t work until we have success. But forensic science is concerned about what happened in the past, and since the past cannot be observed, we have to make inferences based on incomplete evidence. But it’s important to note that those conclusions, however reasonable or unreasonable, cannot be confirmed; instead, they must be accepted by faith.
According to Dr. Kawano, “We’re looking at clues and trying to reconstruct what happened a long time ago.” And she’s exactly right.
Some evolutionists, however, refuse to see any difference between science done in the present vs. the past. Nonetheless, Dr. Kawano, an evolutionist, is making a distinction and explains that they’re conducting historical science.
Since it’s impossible to observe the past, the team was forced to use alternative methods, such as robots, computer models, reverse engineering, and the movements of modern-day animals. But they had to assume evolution rather than demonstrate it. After all, if fish didn’t actually evolve into tetrapods or amphibians, then their conclusions suffer. Thus, it isn’t helpful to consider that fish cannot evolve into anything other than another fish (and nothing else), even though that’s what the observational evidence tells us.
I disagree with Dr. Kawano when she considers early tetrapods to be “nature’s misfits”. I’d suggest that these organisms were well-designed for their habitat and weren’t misfits at all. That type of thinking is nothing more than an evolutionary presumption and cannot be substantiated.
The writer even admits they won’t question evolution, stating, “And while no one questions their giant evolutionary leap, how exactly they pulled themselves up on the prehistoric shoreline isn’t settled science.”
I’d suggest there are many who do question this ‘giant’ evolutionary leap. And why wouldn’t we? To me, it seems irresponsible not to question big evolutionary leaps; after all, if there’s no evolution, then the entire premise is invalidated! How they pulled themselves up on land becomes nonsensical. But at least they admit their conclusions aren’t settled science. I just wish they could admit that fish evolving into tetrapods isn’t settled science either!
The article, despite accepting evolution as certain, actually does a fine job pointing out the uncertainty of evolution. They used ‘cutting-edge technology’, yet realize they’re only getting to see how the fish ‘potentially’ moved, not how it ‘actually’ moved.
Dr. Kawano concluded that “Some of the earliest tetrapods could not have pushed themselves up on land with their hind legs like a salamander.” Okay. But then she made another interesting admission: “One of the great things about being a scientific researcher is that you always have new mysteries to explore”
In other words, even though they believe evolution is settled science, they don’t know how it happened- it’s still a mystery. But if they can’t tell us how it happened, then perhaps evolution isn’t as certain as they would lead us to believe.
No matter what story they weave, it will not solve this evolutionary mystery as they suppose. They can use all the computer models and robots they want, and they can video as many living organisms as they want, but they’ll never be able to observe the distant past, and they certainly can’t prove that fish evolved legs and moved on to land. That’s a fish tale that must be believed by faith.
I believe it’s more reasonable that God created fish, tetrapods, amphibians, mammals, reptiles and man, and designed all organisms to reproduce after their kind, and that’s exactly what we observe.