Top 3 Reasons Why the Popular Evolution Story Is a Myth | F. LaGard Smith

myth

This is a WordPress repost of an excellent article originally authored by F. LaGard Smith that appeared in The Christian Post.

————————————

We have Charles Darwin to thank for opening our eyes to the forces of natural selection so useful today in medical research, healthcare, and technology. But Darwin also did us a great disservice, all too blithely extrapolating from observable “bounded” evolution to his Grand Theory of microbe-to-man “unbounded” evolution. In a nutshell, Darwin speculated that, since there is evolution within well-defined species, then all species must surely be the result of evolution. Logical enough, but simply wrong. Darwin’s extrapolation is fraught with a host of problems, at least one of which—in three particulars—is fatal to his Grand Theory.

That fatal flaw? The origin of sexual reproduction. Evolution (and evolutionists) simply can’t explain it, and Darwin himself never even tried. The way he talked around the edges makes one wonder how Darwin could not have considered the difficulty, especially since he candidly addressed a number of other difficulties with his theory. In his books, Darwin discussed sexual selection, gender divergence, and all sorts of matters pertaining to breeding, but, curiously, not a single word about the origin of sex. Did Darwin simply take sex for granted since the biological world is awash with sex? Was he just too close to the problem to recognize it? Or is it possible that this particular difficulty was too much of a threat to his elegant theory to highlight it for his readers and critics? Whatever the explanation, it’s clear that Darwin never seriously dealt with the following three devastating problems with his theory:

1. Natural selection could not have “selected” from genderless asexual replication the DNA information necessary for evolving the very first male and female forms necessary for sexual reproduction. If, as evolution theory teaches, asexual replication was the sole, primitive form of biological reproduction on the planet, in order to move the evolutionary process forward to sexual reproduction it first would have been necessary to evolve separate genders. Male and female forms would have to appear separately, concurrently, and compatibly in order for the first-ever sexual reproduction to occur. Because genderless asexual DNA only enables the production of exact copies, there is no DNA information that possibly could be “selected” to produce never-before-seen gender.

2. Natural selection could not possibly have evolved even the most elementary form of sex bymeiosis—a radically-different form of reproduction from “exact-copy” asexual mitosisUnlikemitosis, in which an organism simply clones itself by making identical “selfies,” male/female meiosisrequires a precise 50% reduction of (compatible) chromosomes, a mind-boggling process of “crossing over,” and a breathtaking recombination whereby the offspring is a genetically-different organism from any other that’s ever existed. Without having all the right kinds of bells and whistles in place simultaneously in Generation One, the first-ever prototype of male/female meiosis never could have gotten off the ground to move on to Generation Two of sexually-reproducing creatures. No gradual process of natural selection possibly could have evolved this revolutionary form of reproduction.

3. Natural selection could not possibly have provided simultaneous, on-time delivery of the first sexually-compatible pair of any species in order to move to the second generation of that species, nor certainly to any other, “higher” species along the supposed chain of common descent from microbe to man. How do we know we have a distinct species? When it can’t reproduce with any other species on the planet. Species are not just different in form and function. Most crucially, they’re sexually unique. Despite certain similarities with the mating and reproductive processes of other species, each species is unique in its sexual equipment, its particular method of reproduction, and in its sexual instincts. Since no random, gradual, natural process possibly could have provided the first compatible pair of each of millions of sexually-unique species, no upwardly evolving “evolutionary tree” ever occurred.

Taken together, the first two problems are quietly acknowledged by evolutionists to be the “Queen of evolutionary problems” for which, despite their best efforts, they have no answers. Remarkably, the third (even more obvious) problem is never once addressed by evolutionists. Could that be because, as with Darwin himself, mentioning it would risk destroying an elegant, but fatally-flawed theory?

F. LaGard Smith has spent a career as a professor of law, principally at Pepperdine University School of Law. Smith is the author of over 30 books on a wide variety of legal, social and religious topics. He is most widely known as the compiler and narrator of the best-selling The Daily Bible®, with over two million copies sold. His latest book is entitled “Darwin’s Secret Sex Problem: Exposing Evolution’s Fatal Flaw—The Origin of Sex.”
Visit www.lagardsmith.com.
Advertisements
About

Disciple of Jesus, married to Peggy, with 5 grown up children, 7 grand children, ex-Canadian military and residing in beautiful Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada. a.k.a. "Papa"

Tagged with: ,
Posted in Apologetics, Defending Christianity, Evolution
4 comments on “Top 3 Reasons Why the Popular Evolution Story Is a Myth | F. LaGard Smith
  1. Keith Mosher says:

    I have another question of evolution. When I look at the natural world it is filled with mammals that give birth, and the young are able to run, jump, fly and climb sometimes within minutes…sometimes days after birth. This would be a necessary trait for survival. However Humans – the MOST evolved of ALL the mammals…. seems to have suffered evolution in reverse, as our young are all but helpless for years. The best answer I have heard attempted, is because of the size of the human brain, it takes more time to develop than other mammals…. but then how did we SURVIVE to evolve that way?

    • Bruce says:

      Exactly, if we moved from smaller and less intelligent brains to larger, more intelligent brains, what was it that enabled us to survive with the smaller brains in the first place? That is the question that evolution tries to answer over extended periods of time, with small numbers that did survive. But God’s Word says that God created Adam, fully enabled mentally as we see man now. In spite of our close DNA percentage with chimps, there is a huge difference between us and chimps, two entirely different creatures with totally different capabilities. Do we have close cousins like Neanderthals? This RTB video provides an overview on this issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xLvq67f85A

  2. SLIMJIM says:

    Thanks for sharing this

  3. […] Top 3 Reasons Why the Popular Evolution Story Is a Myth | F. LaGard Smith […]

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats
  • 72,642 hits
Google Translate Available here …
Post Categories

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 388 other followers

Last 100 of 700+ posts …

Christian Apologetics

%d bloggers like this: