Here James Tour interviews Dr. Rob Stadler, a scientist with a PhD in medical engineering and formal training in chemistry and biology. Stadler walks through long-term, real-world experiments designed to test evolutionary claims, and the implications are devastating. The evidence shows that what is commonly called “evolution” is highly constrained and incapable of producing genuine biological innovation or novel body plans.

The interview is thorough and compelling, and Stadler’s analysis is careful and methodical. My only criticism is the recurring phrase, “evolution is highly constrained.” That wording implies that evolution has some degree of legitimacy, which I dispute. The term “evolution” itself is often vague, contradictory, and misleading. Rather than saying evolution is merely constrained, the evidence shows it has been effectively refuted- at least as an explanation for the origin of complex biological systems. It fails precisely where it must succeed: innovation. Still, Stadler deserves credit for focusing on the experimental details evolutionists routinely overlook or casually dismiss.

Evolutionary theory rests primarily on two mechanisms: random mutation and natural selection. These processes are credited with generating all biological diversity on earth today, from microbes to man. But reality is not as neat and tidy as the public narrative suggests. When scientists actually attempt to demonstrate these claims experimentally, the results fall dramatically short.

One study bluntly admits, “The tree of life is punctuated with numerous biological innovations, but explaining the origin of novelty has been problematic” (Petrie et al.). Remarkable. Yet many evolutionists I engage with are unaware such problems exist. They insist evolution has been proven beyond question and that no serious scientist doubts it.

As Stadler points out, Darwin promised nearly 167 years ago that evidence would emerge demonstrating how biological innovation arises through natural processes. Instead, scientists are still “scratching their heads.” Another study concedes, “Understanding the evolution of complex innovations remains a formidable challenge” (Szappanos et al). Formidable? Really? Others echo the same concern: “How new traits originate in evolution is a fundamental question of evolutionary biology” (Karve et al). You don’t say? I’ve been making this point for years, only to have it waved off… as if denial is a substitute for evidence. Yet those who are honest admit that such evidence remains “elusive.”

Stadler demonstrates that natural mechanisms do not innovate. Mutations and natural selection do not generate new, complex systems or novel body plans. Consider what true innovation entails: bones, limbs, organs, blood, immune systems, feathers, wings, eyes, and ears. These are not minor tweaks. Yet when we compare such features to what mutations and selection actually accomplish in experiments, the gap is enormous.

Another method Stadler uses that I favor is his adherence to clear scientific criteria to compare the evolutionary Tree of Life model with the biblical “Forest of Life” model, which holds that organisms reproduce according to their kind. When judged by the same standards, the experimental evidence consistently favors the creation model… if one is willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Stadler draws on studies involving E. coli, yeast, fruit flies, finches, rice, and other organisms. Across many generations, mutations are observed and carefully measured. The pattern is consistent: organisms can sometimes repair a single broken function, but they cannot coordinate and fix multiple mutations. In one striking example, after producing roughly one trillion E. coli- far more organisms than all humans who have ever lived- researchers observed only one of two necessary mutations becoming fixed, never both. That is fatal to the claim that evolution can build complex systems over time or account for the origin of species.

If evolution cannot reliably fix two point mutations in an enzyme, it cannot plausibly construct skin, bones, or entire organs. Yet society continues to credit evolution with feats it has never demonstrated. This ignores the staggering complexity of functional enzymes and the precise coordination required for biological systems to work at all. Evolution does not solve these problems; it assumes them away.

Be sure to check out the entire interview if you’re interested in the details of each experiment. Not only does the evidence show that “evolution” is constrained, but that true innovation requires intelligent design by a creator.