Evolution – evidence still lacking

Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed.

Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters.

Nothing has changed since he wrote that, despite desperate attempts to find transitional forms.

Darwin also wrote:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei [“the voice of the people = the voice of God “], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

(from the chapter, Difficulties, in Origin of Species)

There are many ‘ifs’ in Darwin’s claim that the problem of the eye could be explained. His book is unconvincing (except to those who want to believe it of course) in provding the explanation. Note how each gradation must be ‘shown’ to be useful to the possessor. What modern-day evolutionists tend to do is hypothesize how such and such a development in the eye might have been useful. They fail to meet Darwin’s much more reasonable (scientific) criteria.

Tags: ,

16 Responses to “Evolution – evidence still lacking”

  1. Matt Says:

    Many transitional forms have been found, examined, identified and verified (including a rather extensive peer review process). Just some names off the top of my head: Haasiophis terrasanctus, Pachyrhachis, Mososaurs, Pezosiren portelli, Runcaria and Halkiera just to name a few.

    Also, using grossly outdated texts to try to make a point (and yes, Darwin was ignorant of a lot of what would later be discovered) could easily be labelled as intellectually dishonest.

    • soulangler Says:

      Quoting Darwin is ‘intellectually dishonest’? When does a statement pass its ‘truth by date’? Is this the argument from newness?

      • Matt Says:

        Of course it’s intellectually dishonest if what Darwin said have been proved to be wrong (and yes, he was wrong about a great many things – usually because he was ignorant of discoveries that would be made in the following decades).

        Likewise, it is intellectually dishonest to pick and choose quotes without doing so in full and proper context. The eye text you quoted originally is an example of this; Darwin later went on in his works to actually point out a fairly decent scientific theory of how the eye evolved (and later research by various parties backed this up).

  2. Z Says:

    Read The Blind Watchmaker. It’s (contrary to The God Delusion) a quite calm book, not all propoganaish, just him clearly explaining evolution. It’s a pretty light read too.

    • soulangler Says:

      I read it a while back. What a superb introduction – the discussion of bats was very memorable – I loved that bit. I did note a very significant logical blunder somewhere – can’t remember where now – must have another look – I seem to remember it being about page 40ish-50 – it was central to his whole thesis. Therefore the book rested on a false premise.

      A much better book than God Delusion GD- more his territory than the sloppy philosophy of GD. Some authors begin to rest on their reputation as they get older and less on the work that got them the reputation in the first place. I started GD got halfway through, scrawled all over it (straw men, logical fallacies, generalisations etc.) and then gave up because he had lost credibility. If I was a philosophy lecturer I would have made him redraft it. My atheist friend (just last Weds) mentioned it in passing and also slammed it.

      Books – I have no system – but I have always got books on the go. Gotto go…

      • Z Says:

        Do you not remember what the false premise was? It doesn’t really help to remember there was a false premise but not remember what it was!
        I flipped through those pages, didn’t see anything; maybe talking about an argument from personal incredulity.

      • soulangler Says:

        it was more fundamental as I remember – he was still building his case (your ed. may have diff. page nos) still…I must get it out of the library and try to find it. It would be good to get it – I’ll let you know – ask me a week or so from now and I may have it.

      • Z Says:

        How about know?

      • Z Says:


      • soulangler Says:

        I still think it’s missing – but of course, evolutionists will disagree with me. According to Dawkins, on Expelled, for not believing evolution I am simply ignorant.

        PS – I’m hoping to pick up Blind Watchmaker tomorrow or at least by Weds and start thumbing through for that logical error I mentioned. It might also come in handy for a public debate I will, hopefully, be having with an atheist friend at our Uni soon.

  3. Z Says:

    Oh, sick. Will the audio/video of the debate be available?

  4. Zachariah Says:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: