Everyone agrees evolution is a fact if we define it as change over time. Darwinism on the other hand extends that change to common descent through novel mutations. But what happens when there is no novel mutations over billions of years, well that’s okay because that is also proof for Darwinian evolution. Say what?
“It seems astounding that life has not evolved for more than 2 billion years—nearly half the history of the Earth,” said J. William Schopf, a UCLA professor of earth, planetary and space sciences in the UCLA College who was the study’s lead author. “Given that evolution is a fact, this lack of evolution needs to be explained.”
Charles Darwin’s writings on evolution focused much more on species that had changed over time than on those that hadn’t. So how do scientists explain a species living for so long without evolving?
“The rule of biology is not to evolve unless the physical or biological environment changes, which is consistent with Darwin,” said Schopf, who also is director of UCLA’s Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life. The environment in which these microorganisms live has remained essentially unchanged for 3 billion years, he said.
I am sure prof. Schopf is looking at this purely from a scientific perspective and not based on his presupposition that evolution is a fact, and therefore some
excuse explanation is needed for this lack of evolution (yes, that was a bit of sarcasm). But is his explanation sufficient to account for these billions of years of stasis? Schopf’s justification for this stasis is to imply that environmental conditions are the only driver for morphological and phylogenetic variations. With all due respect to prof. Schopf this is like a man caught with the wrong answer but still insist that 2 + 2 = 5. The emperor is caught without his clothes.
There are multiple reasons why his explanation doesn’t work, not the least of which is the fact that there is no way for him to know what exactly were the environments that these bacteria existed in for the past 3 billion years. But if the environment was the same for 3 billion years then the problem gets even worst for Darwinian evolution. I’ve talked about this in my article “Evidence for Design, under the section similar environments will develop similar traits” If similar environments is solely responsible for morphological traits of an organism then all organisms in a given environment would look the same and in stasis. This is obviously contradicted by the facts.
Consider the case of prokaryote to eukaryote evolution. The current Darwinian theory is that eukaryotic cells evolved from prokaryotic ones through some sort of endosymbiosis. This evolutionary process was not driven by the change in the environment but rather by random chance and presumably confer some sort of advantage over some of the prokaryotic cells, and voila, the eukaryotic phylogeny is born. Is Schopf really saying that in 3 billion years while other bacteria have been able to produce the walking and talking ape, yet this particular bacteria can’t even evolve a better metabolism to outcompete its kin? How can Darwinian evolution have so much power and at the same time be so weak.
But the problem with Schopf’s explanation isn’t isolated to bacterium. Professor of genetics Giuseppe Sermonti talked about this stasis in his book Why is a Fly Not a Horse?
The opossum (Didelphis marsupialis) is found throughout the American continent, where it climbs trees and is persecuted for the damage it wreaks on poultry. The female gives birth up to three times a year, each time with a litter of ten to eighteen. Fossil opossums from the Cretaceous (about 100 million years ago) appear to be no different from the chicken predator of today. Despite its great prolificacy and the extreme range of environments in which it is found, the species has remained faithful to itself. Another interesting case is that of the Lingula, a bivalve shellfish in the brachiopod phylum. Several species have remained virtually unchanged since the beginnings of multicellular animals about 550 million- years ago.
If as prof. Schopf says that environment is the cause for Darwinian stasis then how does it account for the opossum’s stasis in diverse environments and why are there diversities in bivalves with the Lingula in stasis? Schopf’s explanation just doesn’t make sense.
Let me give another problem for prof. Schopf from my own article. Convergent evolution or analogous species is a fatal fact against Darwinian evolution. The Darwinian dogma is that naturalism is the only allowed explanation for all of existence, therefore all the complexity of life we see today are the products of random mutation and natural selection. But the problem for Darwinian evolution is that life cannot repeat itself in a random and purposeless process, Stephen J Gould have said as much with his metaphor of “replaying life’s tape”, suggesting that if we could go back a few billion years and replay the processes of life, the result would be totally different because life does not repeat itself. More importantly everything we have learned from biology experimentally and through simulation — Macroevolution simulated with autonomously replicating computer programs — have shown that RM&NS do not produce repeatable results, even with the slightest differences. Unfortunately, convergent evolution/analogous species flies in the face of this naturalistic process. When you have vast number of species separated by over a hundred million years, in diverse environments and yet they produce the same morphological features. This is complete nonsense in a Darwinian framework, it only makes sense if life was designed.
Professor Schopf is no doubt a very smart man and an eminent scientist but when he allows his presupposition and religious adherence to atheism cloud his scientific analysis, it makes him look foolish. If he would only follow where the evidence leads he would not use the emperor is without clothes explanation for the 3 billion years of stasis of these bacteria.