In its 15 January 2004 edition Nature magazine carried an article titled “Evolutionary biology: Our relative genetics.” Written by David Penny, an evolutionary biologist working at New Zealand’s Massey University, the article asks whether or not micro-evolutionary genetic changes can account for the origin of man. Penny considers this question with interpretations based on data from the still uncompleted chimpanzee genome project. He states that the fundamental issue is Darwin’s claim that “many, successful and small changes” were sufficient for the whole of the so-called evolutionary process, asking whether micro-evolution is enough to account for macro-evolution. Penny states that in order for this to be established the chimpanzee genome needs to be fully deciphered, but still offers a number of speculative interpretations by comparing human and chimpanzee genes in the framework of the existing genetic analyses.
He refers to differences in human and chimpanzee genes’ ability to break down various amino-acids, and goes on, based on these, to make claims about developments in the diets and brain development of ape-like ancestors in the fictitious process of evolution. However, the differences between human and chimpanzee genes are not of such a kind as to verify the theory of evolution. Having blindly accepted the assumption that these are the product of mutations that occurred during the imaginary evolutionary process, Penny offers a number of explanations in the light of his own belief. The differences in the digestive enzymes to which Penny refers come nowhere near accounting for the differences between human beings and chimpanzees. Penny actually offers no evidence for Darwinism here, and resorts to the tactic of depicting his own weak thesis as being actually very powerful by ignoring the insufficiencies of Darwinism.
The mathematician and doctor Marcel-Paul Schützenberger, a professor at Paris University, has painted a picture of Darwinism’s inability to account for the differences between human beings and chimpanzees as “conceptual bankruptcy” and has made the following admission:
Gradualists and saltationists alike are completely incapable of giving a convincing explanation of the quasi-simultaneous emergence of a number of biological systems that distinguish human beings from the higher primates [through so-called evolution]: bipedalism, with the concomitant modification of the pelvis, and, without a doubt, the cerebellum, a much more dexterous hand, with fingerprints conferring an especially fine tactile sense; the modifications of the pharynx which permits phonation; the modification of the central nervous system, notably at the level of the temporal lobes, permitting the specific recognition of speech. From the point of view of embryogenesis, these anatomical systems are completely different from one another. Each modification constitutes a gift, a bequest from a primate family to its descendants [in the so-called evolutionary process]. It is astonishing that these gifts should have developed simultaneously [through so-called evolution]. Some biologists speak of a predisposition of the genome. Can anyone actually recover the predisposition, supposing that it actually existed? Was it present in the first of the fish? The reality is that we are confronted with total conceptual bankruptcy. 1
Schützenberger’s meaning is clear. It is “conceptual bankruptcy” to link such miraculous developments to an imaginary tendency. Furthermore, looking at present-day genes and making comments about what imaginary ape-men who lived millions of years ago might have eaten is behaviour that rests on no scientific observation whatsoever. Penny constructs great dreams out of minute differences, and science manages to accept these claims, which are incapable of being tested. The fact is, however, that these consist solely of fairy tales produced according to Darwinist preconceptions.
However, Penny’s belief in an evolutionary scenario based on micro-evolutionary changes in this article is based on no scientific evidence at all. Findings by genetic science have revealed that the effects of small genetic changes never enhance genetic data and that, on the contrary, they actually damage existing genetic data. (for detailed information see, http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms06.html) When we consider the complexity of life and the biodiversity created by hundreds of millions of living species, it is quite clear that random mutations (small genetic changes), with their harmful effects, cannot be taken as a basis for accounting for life.
Furthermore, most evolutionists have had to accept the fact that micro-evolution cannot lead to macro-evolution, in other words to new organs and new bodily forms. The well-known evolutionist palaeontologist Roger Lewin describes the conclusion reached at a major symposium at the Chicago”s Field Museum of Natural History in November 1980, attended by 150 evolutionists:
The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution… [T]he answer can be given as a clear, No. 2 (our emphasis)
The belief that micro-evolution can lead to macro-evolution gives rise to an expectation of slow and gradual changes in natural history, in other words in the fossil record. The fact is, however, that as all palaeontologists are well aware, there is no slow and gradual development in natural history, and species appeared suddenly, with no ancestral forms behind them. (for more detail see, http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_04.html). Most modern-day evolutionist palaeontologists have therefore abandoned the neo-Darwinist synthesis based on gradual development, and have lined up behind the punctuated theory of evolution (which is devoid of any mechanism and is only supported in order not to have give credence to creation). (see, The Invalidity of Punctuated Equilibrium.)
In short, the fossil record in no way supports the model based on small changes defended by Penny.
The credence that Penny attaches to micro-evolutionary explanations possesses no scientific foundations and stems solely from his own preconceptions. Our advice to all evolutionists who act in the light of such preconceptions is that they admit the inability of the mechanisms of random mutations and natural selection to account for the origins of life and that they prepare their articles without ignoring this fact.
1. Schützenberger, M-P., in “The Miracles of Darwinism: Interview with Marcel-Paul Schützenberger,” Origins & Design, vol. 17, no. 2, Spring 1996, pp. 10-15
2. Lewin, R., “Evolutionary Theory Under Fire,” Science, vol. 210, 21 November 1980, p. 883