Proof Darwin Was Wrong

3 Fatal Flaws in the Theory of Evolution

This is the title of a site I clicked on.  I am interested in Evolution and read things both supporting the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, and things against it.  I had hoped to find a well argued case against evolution, but instead found something so full of logical errors that I found it annoying enough to want to write about it in detail.

The site gave what they refer to as three fatal flaws in the theory.

The first 'fatal flaw' was the absence of a single formula describing evolution:

"Mathematical formulae make up the VERIFICATION LANGUAGE of science. Formulae are the only reliable way to test a theory. Every scientific theory has a formula, except the Theory of Evolution.  Darwinists have never been able to derive a working Evolution Formula because Evolution theory does not work."

This statement is odd.  Coming up with a formula derived from a scientific theory or law does not prove the theory or law is true, it simply makes it easier to test.  Isaac Newton formulated the theory of universal Gravitation.  There are well respected formulae from this law, but nowadays it is generally accepted that they do not work perfectly under all conditions, and Albert Einstein's theory sometimes give a better fit to observations.

Similarly, the absence of a formula is not any sort of proof that a theory is wrong.  Certainly the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection has not been proved.   It is difficult to imagine anything that would be accepted as proof by everyone.

The Second 'Fatal Flaw' in the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the absence of any mechanism we know about which adds a gene:

"Darwinists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life.  The most basic bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand.  In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes.  But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene.  (Mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene.)  This means there is no mechanism for Darwinian Evolution and this is a fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution."

This is some very strange logic.  There is no need for a mechanism to add a gene.  What is needed is a mechanism to increase the number of genes.  There are several mechanisms for this, and in some ways it happens distressingly often.  Naturally, in the great majority of cases this will be a disadvantage, and the organisms affected will not be the most fit and will not replace the 'Normal' type.

This happens in Humans.  Down syndrome, which used to be called mongolism, is caused by an extra twenty first chromosome.  (In some cases, only part of the extra Chromosome is present.)  This occurs in less than 1 in a 1000 in young mothers (less than 30 years old) but much more frequently in older mothers.

There are many other conditions known that are caused by extra genes in Humans.  Not all of them are disadvantageous to the same extent.

In other organisms there are many which have extra genes which have thrived.  In some cases they will be more vigorous than their parents.  In other cases they are sufficiently different to be able to exploit another niche and another separate species is formed.  An example of this is Oxalis pes-carpae, a small plant which is pentaploid.  That is, it has two and a half times as many genes as its parents.  This is a very successful plant within its range.

The third 'Fatal Flaw' in the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the helplessness of the babies of mammals and birds compared with the 'lower' animals:

"Every Helpless Baby Born Proves Darwin Was Wrong

The Theory of Evolution in a nutshell is "Survival of the fittest." But most mammals and birds give birth to helpless babies - instead of strong and fit ones.  Neither Darwinism nor Neo-Darwinism can explain infantile helplessness.  Every baby that is born contradicts Evolution Theory and this is a fatal flaw."

This seems to contradict everyday experience.  Is the author suggesting that humans are not good at surviving?  The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is about fitness to survive, not about what someone thinks would be better.  Humans have been able to exploit a huge range of environments, partly because they give the babies parental care and teach their children things.

Another organism may produce huge numbers of babies and also be successful.  To suggest that mammals and birds are not successful in surviving and reproducing is an odd thing to do.  There are many ways of surviving.