Incredulity a.k.a. Skepticism.







How do evolutionists address the problem of parallel evolution?



We are told that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. No skepticism allowed. Yet, in light of our current understanding of biology, especially knowing some of the mechanics and programming at the cellular level, the evolution of any single structure in life should test the limits of credibility. Because of faith in evolution, Evolutionists are not skeptical over tales of convergent evolution, a 19th century idea that should have long ago been discarded.The assumption is that the conditions of the environment help create the convergent organisms. This idea can be maintained because evolutionists keep their focus on the credible non-evolutionary part of the process, natural selection (natural selection without mutation is not evolutionary). They assume the incredible part, the multiple, coordinated, information bearing, beneficial mutations will happen given enough time. Who can doubt that natural selection will select an organism that is suited to its environment? But mutation has never shown any promise in creating a fit organism through adding to the genome. The only alternative is intelligent design which can definitely be responsible for an organism that fits its environment. What are the odds that simultaneous, non-directed mutations (sheltered from natural selection) would cause new features to emerge and change an organism to become suited to an environment so it could then be selected?What are the odds that it would happen once? What are the odds that it would happen more than once, as in every case of convergent evolution?Science has shown us that the information in the DNA could not arise from non-directed change and there is no evidence that suggests that it could. So, while the imaginary lines drawn by evolutionists between organisms on a chart seems plausible to some, science simply does not support it. Evolution is therefore supported by circumstantial evidence and confirmed by consensus.For example we may know what sequences or what genes are responsible for building some aspects of an eye, but no one at present has a clue as to how the programming unfolds, not only to build the eye, but to connect it to the brain and load the brain with "visual basic". Skepticism should be warranted when someone, scientist or otherwise, tells you "it evolved"? Especially when they say, "it evolved more than once."From a programming standpoint DNA bases have been compared to letters and words, and the genetic sequences to programming. We can take the most basic human programming language and devise a statistical likelihood of creating an operational program by chance alone. The likelihood of a program writing itself without intelligent intervention or intention is zero. The chances of a complex program with the potential to change and thereby "improve" to create a new function without additional human intervention or intention would be zero. The likelihood of any program to degenerate if random changes are made to the code is 100%. This is only because human programming is ridged and intolerant to error. If you introduce a single error in the programming code it doesn't work. The code in life in some cases is different however, it's far more advanced. It is designed to be tolerant to a certain amount of undirected change. It has back up and repair systems. It is also designed to resist change, and correct errors. There is no evidence that it's inventive. And yet inventiveness in a code would be all the more reason to know it was intelligently designed.As expected, the fact that convergence is a problem is largely ignored. Evolution is assumed to be a fact up front. This often means that no further thought or science is likely to follow. The commitment to the materialistic paradigm means it doesn't cross their mind that it might be a real problem for features to evolve more than once. Those who did recognize that there was a problem had two basic defenses. One is the "theological perspective" presenting the idea that God wouldn't have made "parallel creations." The second was to reiterate the unscientific idea that mutations create the new features that are then shaped by natural selection because of the environment. This view uncritically assumes that mutation supplies the features that natural selection will act on.Does science really lead us to the inevitable conclusion that complex living systems are bound to reoccur without an intelligent cause? Before listing some of the many evolutionary relationship problems let's look at words and phrases used very freely by evolutionists to avoid dealing with evolutionary anomalies.