Aside from the lack of observational evidence, evolution as a theory has many challenges. Some of these challenges pose serious questions for evolutionists. We will examine several of these challenges below.
Evolutionary roadblocks
Following are some roadblocks that stop evolution dead in its tracks and render it useless for explaining the development of life. Some of these may better be thought of as “dead ends.”
Since evolution is incapable of seeing the future, one major roadblock is the evolution of sexual reproduction. To show that evolutionists acknowledge this problem, we will quote a secular university biology textbook, “One challenge for science has been to figure out why sexual reproduction got going in the first place. Compare two manufacturing operations that turn out the same product, except that one makes the product with a single factory (think: bacteria) while the other requires two factories (think: males and females). Which is going to manufacture the product at a lower cost? The single-factory operation. So how did sexual reproduction manage to break into the business of life, given its higher costs? Several ideas have been put forward, but none have won universal acceptance” (Krogh, 2007:158). Evolution cannot see into the future to know that taking a more costly measure now will help genetic variation in the future, so how could sexual reproduction evolve?
At one point in time, according to evolution, fish had to venture out on land. But the eyes of fish are different from the eyes of land animals, so they would have to quickly adapt to avoid losing sight. Some of the adaptations necessary would be: making fluid inside the eye, flattening the lens, and protecting the eye from the harmful effects of ultraviolet rays (Shute, 1961:31). Evolution by mutations and natural selection would take a long time to make these necessary adjustments, but the venturesome fish on land could not have afforded to wait. Therefore natural selection would have selected against any such creature.
Baby bats can’t afford to wait either. Baby bats have milk teeth that are like hooks pointed backward. These teeth help the babies hold on to their mothers and keep from falling. If these teeth and the instinct to use them were not present at the same time, the bat population would basically go extinct (Pitman, 1984:219). This gives evolution no time for experimenting with adaptations.
The life cycle of a caterpillar turning into a butterfly is truly a wonder. But it is even more so when we face the fact that inside the chrysalis the caterpillar turns into pulp before reforming into a butterfly (Pitman, 1984:71). Caterpillar pulp is in no way an “advanced” evolutionary step if taken on its own, so how could natural selection select for it, not knowing that this is necessary to produce a marvelous flying creature? Again, pulp is not advantageous compared to a functioning caterpillar, so evolution would never select for that stage in the life of a caterpillar.
Symbiosis
Symbiosis is just a special word for animal or plant relationships. Many times both parties in these relationships help each other out. There are several examples of symbiosis which are very difficult to explain with step-by-step evolution.
Being a cowboy must take a lot of skill, but nature has its own cowboys! “The mites of the genus Antennophorus attach themselves symmetrically on the body of a host ant so as to balance the burden they produce. There they steal food from the ant’s mouth, or stroke it to make it regurgitate, or reach out to steal from passing ants! Imagine so perfect a scheme evolving slowly!” (Shute, 1961:73).
The pilot fish enjoys the protection of the shark, while eating the parasites that disturb the shark (Pilot fish, 2009). How could the shark learn that not eating the pilot fish would be beneficial in the future? Of course, evolutionists might make up a scenario such as certain sharks just deciding not to eat the brave pilot fish that were really hungry for parasites, and then these sharks and pilot fish would survive hard times while others would die out. But there are two problems with this. First, this explanation is speculation, not observed science. Second, this explanation ignores the fact that acquired characteristics or behaviors do not pass along to offspring through DNA, so even if a certain pilot fish and shark got along together, their offspring would still have their original natural instincts.
Sibine bonaerensis, a caterpillar, shares its cocoon with a fly that helps with opening the cocoon. “A dipterous fly, Systropus corropoides, shares the cocoon of Sibine bonaerensis, then leaves it, as does the pupa, by developing a sharp point on the head and screwing its way out. How could such a mechanism evolve in stages?” (Shute, 1961:67).
Convergent evolution
Convergent evolution is when two organisms having similar structures or functions are claimed to have evolved these structures individually because one is not an ancestor of the other. The challenge arises when examining complex structures that had to develop separately in several different organisms. Evolutionists will say that these similar structures are good adaptations to the environment and therefore they evolved several times. But is a good adaptation really enough to explain the similarities, or perhaps these are good design choices made by an all-wise Creator?
One supposed example of convergent evolution is the eye, it is claimed to have evolved at least 40 times (Krogh, 2007:303). Evolving the eye once is hard enough to explain with mutations and natural selection, but 40 times, that is a serious problem!
Echolocation, like that used by bats, is claimed to have evolved four times (Krogh, 2007:303). This is no easy feat for a process like evolution. We could imagine four humans developing the sonar without ever meeting each other, but these are intelligent humans. Evolution must rely on mistakes (mutations), a filter (natural selection), and a few other mechanisms to do its job.
Here’s the big one – flight. Man has always admired creatures that can lift themselves away from this earth and soar in the vastness of the heavens. Yet this capability seems to be nothing special for evolution. Evolution is credited with evolving flight at least six times in vertebrates (Ostrom, 1979:46). Evolving flight once is challenging enough, but several times requires a great deal of faith and wishful thinking.
Absurdity of flight evolution
As was mentioned above, flight is special. But the theories that have been proposed to explain flight are less attractive. These theories are really actually quite absurd, enough to challenge the theory of evolution. The two main theories are the arboreal theory, where creatures developed wings by jumping/gliding from branch to branch, and the cursorial theory, where wings were developed by creatures jumping from the ground up. We will now examine these two theories individually.
Concerning the arboreal theory, John Ostrom, an evolutionist, explains, “The selective advantage of any anatomical change that would increase body surface area relative to body mass is obvious – first, to slow the rate of fall from a mis-leap; later, to provide lift and directional descent in longer and longer glides; and finally, to permit longer and longer gliding leaps between trees” (Ostrom, 1979:46). The selective advantage of such adaptations is quite obvious, agreed, but the mechanisms to produce any such changes are not. Ostrom himself points out another problem, the forelimbs would sooner develop grasping functions to grasp branches than wings for gliding (Ostrom, 1979:54).
As for the cursorial theory, the forelimbs supposedly gain surface area to help the animal run faster while flapping them (Ostrom, 1979:47). Then eventually, flapping and jumping take the creature into the air. But Ostrom questions if the amount of thrust gained from the first stages of this adaptation would be enough for natural selection to keep it for the running animal (Ostrom, 1979:47).
Therefore Ostrom proposes that the scales of these forelimbs expanded into feathers so that the creature could catch insects as with a net. Following this, the creature would jump higher and higher trying to catch more insects, and eventually it would fly (Ostrom, 1979:55). One must admit, Ostrom has quite an imagination when it comes to theorizing about the “undoubted” evolution of flight, but speculation is not science. We can see that evolutionists are desperate for theories about the evolution of flight, and in this condition they do not see the absurdity of their theories. Perhaps the time is ripe to consider an alternative which explains flight without difficulty- Creation?
Why trust man-made theories?
“If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents– the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts – i.e. of Materialism and Astronomy – are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents” [emphasis in original] (Lewis, 1970:52-53).
Works Cited
Krogh, David. Brief Guide to Biology with Physiology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007.
Lewis, C. S. God in the Dock. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970.
Ostrom, John H. “Bird Flight: How Did It Begin?” American Scientist 67 (1979).
“Pilot fish.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 18 August 2009. 18 August 2009 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pilot_fish&oldid=308725966>.
Pitman, Michael. Adam and Evolution. London: Rider & Company, 1984.
Shute, Evan. Flaws in the Theory of Evolution. Nutley, New Jersey: The Craig Press, 1961.