Dawkins Joins Ranks of Evolutionists who Disprove Evolution

From its inception Darwinian evolution had embedded in its very definition the seeds of its own destruction. There are actually a number of these seeds, and Darwin himself recognized one of the more obvious ones that disprove evolution that was clear even in his day. But let me come back to Darwin since his refutation - which he himself acknowledged - has been pointed out many times.  Instead let me start with Richard Dawkins, the famous atheist and evolutionist who as pointed out in the title, has joined Charles Darwin in the ranks of evolutionists who, in their efforts to validate evolution, have actually decisively proven it false.

Following are four evolutionists, including Richard Dawkins, who have provided criteria by which to disprove evolution showing it to be false. So according to their own criteria, evolution is demonstrably false.

Dawkins

In an article by Intelligent Design proponent Casey Luskin titled "Intelligent Design Passes the Dawkins Test"[1] Luskin points out a test that Dawkins put forth multiple times apparently because he was certain it would prove evolution to be true. This shows the power of the lie to deceive since Dawkins clearly believed his proof would be verified. But since Darwinian evolution is false, it is not surprising that this latest attempt to prove it true has done the opposite and once again proven it false. Here's an overview of the failure.

Darwin and even neo-Darwinists claim that all life on earth - all of it from insects to birds to whales to worms to humans are all descendant from a single original ancestor sometimes called "LUCA" for Last Universal Common Ancestor. Supposedly as these creatures diversified, they created a single "tree of life" that relates them all back to the original ancestor. Here is the Milwaukee Public Museum's depiction of the tree of life:

The problem, as Luskin explains it is this:

"The test that Dawkins has formulated goes this way: He says that if Darwinian evolution is correct, every gene in a group of organisms will give “approximately the same tree of life.” If ID [Intelligent Design] is correct, on the other hand, the designer could have “picked and chosen” the “best proteins for the job” in each organism. In that case, he says, genes would not all give the same tree of genetic resemblances."[2]

So given any particular gene in a group of organisms, if you construct a tree of life from the various genes taken from the various organisms, they should all yield the same tree of life. Is that true? Decisively note. Scientists have now sequenced the genomes of a great number of creatures. Consequently they now know that they do not yield approximately the same tree of life. It's not even close. Dawkins was wrong. So one of the foundational ideas of Darwinian evolution - a single universal tree of life - has been proved wrong. But don't expect that to be persuasive for evolutionists. Because for most evolutionists, they believe evolution not because of the scientific evidence, but as a faith commitment in a position that allows them to have a faith that doesn't require God.

Dr. Richard Buggs, a professor of evolutionary genomics at Queen Mary University of London is one of the scientists who recognizes that genomes do not produce a single tree of life, and cites a paper that shows "discordant" trees - in other words, not a single of life and offers this depiction of many different gene trees - 763 to be precise.

Darwin

I mentioned above that Darwin himself recognized one of the glaring problems of his theory - that being the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. According to Darwin, complex creatures are always preceded by a serious of less complex creatures starting with very simple creatures which evolve into the highly complex creatures we see today. The supposed mechanism that accomplishes this change is natural selection acting over long periods of time. (Neo-Darwinists add random mutations to generate the needed variety.)

Darwinists incorrectly believe that fossil remains represent a record of the various life forms that have existed over the supposed millions of years since the beginning of life on earth. But such transitional forms do not exist in the fossil record - which Darwin recognized. This is not surprising to those who believe what's clear from the biblical record: that fossils are the record of burial of the creatures who died in the great flood of Noah's day. But since Darwinists believe the fossil record is a record of the history of life on earth, there should be a record of all the transitional forms that have existed since the beginning of life.[3] Such a record of transitional forms does not exist, which Darwin himself recognized and lamented:
 

“Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed, … and that during these vast periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. …

To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earlier periods prior to the Cambrian, I can give no satisfactory answer.”[4]

In the course of studying a T. Rex bone fossil, a creature that is supposed have been dead for more than 65 million years, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, an evolutionist who believes in the requisite millions of years, discovered blood vessels and other soft dinosaur tissues. Reportedly she remarked, "It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But of course, I couldn't believe it...the bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?" She couldn't believe it because the supposed 65 million plus old samples looked like "modern" samples. But that flies in the face of evolutionary dogma for the age of the earth and consequently the age of dinosaurs.


Light Microgaphy of one of the red blood cells inside
a T.Rex bone marrow blood vessel. Image Credit:
Mary Schweitzer 2005
 

3. In passing, pure Darwinism offers no theory for the origin of life. Darwinists who realize that offers an incomplete world view had hopes of chemical evolution providing an answer to the origin of life, but the more they learn, the more apparent that abiogenesis - life from lifelessness - is impossible.)
Back

4. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Sixth London Edition, with all Additions and Corrections, First published 1859; This edition published by Enhanced Media ,  p. 292 Kindle Loc 5212
Back

Image

Featured: Dawkins and Darwin's Tree of Life, Composite, Duane Caldwell © 2023