I recently read the book Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells.
The book discusses several problems with mainstream Darwinian evolution as presented by today’s neo-Darwinists. According to Wells, there are several serious flaws as well as some overt fakes in the evolutionist’s presentation of their so-called scientific evidence for evolution. I found that I agreed with 99% of Well’s presentation in the book. There was one point however that I have a disagreement with him on. At one point, Wells says, “Certainly, there are some areas of biology in which Darwinian evolution plays an important role.”
Here he is making the case for certain so called mutations that occur in such things as bacteria in order to make them resistant to certain drugs. I can see where he is coming from, but it is a major mistake to call this evolution. I do not believe that evolution is even a valid word unless it comes with some evidence. I would propose using the word “adaptation” to describe what happens in bacteria.
You might say, “Well that’s not news to us,” but stick with me and I will give you a perspective that you probably never heard before in this format anyway. The word evolution indicates that an organism is on the path of change. Evolution is the process in which an organism, by what ever means they happen to think of this week, changes from one species to the next in a never ending struggle to become something bigger and better, leaving behind the old and useless; the old yielding to the new. Of course as you can see that this constant flux in nature is seen nowhere on earth, but they keep preaching it over and over again. Everything in nature as I can readily determine is not in a constant state of flux but rather quite stable and that is the point I would like to develop in this article.
Preservation of the species is much more important than the elimination of the species. Evolution requires that a species cross the genetic barrier such that it is no longer compatible with its predecessor. I have been a Clinical Microbiologist for 15 years now and I have never seen anything that the word evolution would apply to. In fact when I suggested that I report out a result to the doctor of an intermediate species, my co-workers laughed and said “that is one sure way to get fired!” Why, because even though they are evolutionist, they know that if you try to use evolutionary principles in real life situations, you will become the laughing stock of the scientific community. So, let’s take an organism like Enterococcus faecalis. This organism is usually sensitive to the antibiotic vancomycin, but in recent years some strains of the organism has shown sporadic resistance to the drug. This has prompted evolutionist to proclaim that they can see evolution in progress. They sound the trumpet (really a clanging symbol) and say, “See, we now have proof that organisms change due to fluctuating environmental conditions.” I have some bad news for them, however. Ever since we first discovered the organism Enterococcus (even though it may have been called by different names at different times) it never changed into anything else. It always was a gram-positive cocci and it always will be a gram-positive cocci. My proposition here is to say that it adapted to it’s changing environment for the sole purpose of not evolving. Adaptation is a built in mechanism to protect a species from becoming extinct; the exact opposite of what evolution teaches. Our ecosystems would be absolutely obliterated if there were not a stabilizing mechanism in affect. The best example of evolution that I can give you is a cancer cell. A cancer cell used to be a normal law abiding citizen who communicated well with its neighbors. But one day it said, “I am going to change into something else and do my own thing.” It leaves its secure place in the world and heads out on a path of death and destruction. That is what happens when things go against their original purpose and become something that it was not created to be. So again I say that adaptation is a mechanism of stability, not a mechanism of change.
It is apparent from the fossil records that are available, that new forms of life are not arising, but rather they are becoming more extinct over time. No new species of life are forming, but rather there once was a vast wealth of life on this earth at one point and due to certain cataclysms life has been reduced. Neither is life moving from lower life forms to higher forms. Can anyone in their right mind say with a straight face that a crocodile is a higher form of life than a dinosaur? Is a lizard a higher form than a pterodactyl? Certainly not.
The scope of this article is only to prompt researchers to try approaching the issue of origins from a different perspective and see what the result would bring. I am not a researcher and I, therefore, will not go into great details of speculation. I only challenge scientists to test the theory of “environmental stabilization” instead of the chaotic wild goose chase that they are currently on. Following the pattern we see in nature it is clear that even the notion of survival of the fittest is one of stabilization not of change. When the strongest wolf earns the mating rights of the pack, he is not going to pass weak genes on that might be overtaken by some disaster. No, he is going to pass strong, solid genes on that will produce offspring that resemble him. In nature, survival of the species is more important than survival of the individual. This is a stabilizing effect. One that keeps the ecosystems in harmony and in balance. Always striving to keep things constant and stable.