Evolutionists attempting to defend evolutionary theories further highlight fatal flaws
Dr. Colin Menter traces out a simplified human evolutionary tree in the sand.

Apparently my previous article -Evolution falsified - again struck a nerve among evolutionists. They took issue with me pointing out that evolution has been falsified because a bacteria has been found that has not evolved in 2 billion years. Aside from the ad hominem attacks, a number of Twitter commenters (like this one) stated that no change (in form) is expected if there are no (natural) selection pressures. Since the cited article indicated there was no change in the environment, many evolutionists quickly and conveniently jumped to the conclusion that no environmental changes means there were no selection pressures. But is that a valid conclusion given evolutionary assumptions?

Consider what evolutionists believe about the supposed evolution of man. According to the theory, there were a number of ancestors of modern man (homo sapiens), living simultaneously in the past. As Joe Cain, University College London puts it in a recent documentary, "Leakey has stumbled across an incredible discovery.  And that discovery is humans and human-like organisms co-existing in Africa at the same time."¹ These species had to compete against each other, which is part of the reason (in theory) some species did not survive - competition. Please note that competition is a type of natural selection or "selection pressure".

This means according to current evolutionary theory, man did not evolve in a straight line from a single ancestor - there were many hominid offshoots (over a hundred); but most of those offshoots did not survive due at least in part to competition. This is depicted in the above diagram drawn by Dr. Colin Menter of the University of Witwatersrand.²

Think about what this means. There are multiple lines of species existing at the same time. How did different species happen? According to current Neo-Darwinism doctrine, the mechanism for change is mutation. (Lamarckian evolution -  evolution through acquired change (like giraffes having long necks by continued stretching) has been discredited and is no longer believed). The mechanism for maintaining that change through time is selection. In the picture above, for every distinct line (distinct species) depicted, they came about through mutations. Lines that don't continue indicate branches (species) that existed simultaneously with other hominid species, but died out - due to selection. Part of the selection pressure is competition from the other sub-human hominid species.

The time frame for the evolution from sub-human species like Zinjanthropus and Homo habilis to man is theorized as 3 million years.  Thus according to evolutionists, man was able to evolve from the sub-human hominid "Zinj" to the modern homo sapiens within 3 million years. This means there were sufficient mutations to create an entirely separate, complex species within 3 million years.

Now consider the bacteria. Not complex - just a single cell. It's supposedly been around 2 billion years. And though there have been constant mutations, (which is acknowledged) no species emerged to compete with the existing bacteria. While in the human evolutionary story, in only 3 million years over a hundred hominid variations arose - all of which competed with the others and created selection pressures - causing many to die out.

The question remains then, how can it be that simple bacteria that was discovered unchanged for a purported 2 billion years, who are experiencing mutations as regular as clockwork, did not evolve a single different species in the time frame of 2 BILLION years when humans supposedly evolved over a hundred early hominid ancestors in only 3 million years? As one Twitter observer aptly noted, in this case  evolutionists are arguing for evolution (change in species) happening based on the fact that evolution didn't happen! (No change in species).

Which just goes to show, clearly for an evolutionists, they will create a story for every evidence they encounter - even if the evidence is clearly contradictory to the theory.  I can already hear responses to the above - they will try to justify evolution by equivocating on it's meaning saying it's not a change in species, but a change in gene frequency or alleles or something similar - and thus deny their basic belief in the molecules to man evolution while committing a common logical error.  And so once again we see there is no scenario that will, in the mind of an ardent evolutionist, ever falsify their claims. Evolution remains for them a faith commitment they will not depart from.

This discussion will be academic when they stand before their creator, Jesus, who said,

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'..."
Matthew 19.4

Christian take note: Jesus believed in creation, not evolution.
 

Duane Caldwell | posted 2/27/2015

Notes

1  Joe Cain, University Collge London,  Ape to Man, History Documentary, 2005
back

2  Colin Menter, University of Witwatersrand, referenced from Ape to man
back

Image - Ape to Man, History, Documentary, 2005