A Scientific Challenge to Darwin!

The questions outlined below have been around for at least two decades — they have gone through many incarnations and reviews. I have used them to open up some memorable discussions with scientists and researchers, some ardent Darwin supporters and some who give only tacit support, and had enjoyable exchanges each time. The purpose of the questions is to determine whether, after careful analysis of each of the points presented, the reader is still as enthusiastic about the Darwinian explanation for the origin of life.

  1. Which would you say evolved first, RNA or protein?
  2. If RNA molecules came first, how did they develop without preexisting protein?
  3. If protein, how did it develop without preexisting RNA?
  4. If you provided an explanation for the above questions, where is the scientific support (demonstrable proof) for your answer?
  5. As mutations do not build complexity, why are they used as examples of “progressive evolution”?
  6. Where is the evidence that any complex organ (e.g. the human eye or liver) arrived by mutation?
  7. Where is the evidence for the evolution of biochemical/cellular systems?
  8. Why have new species appeared in the fossil record suddenly, without ancestral connections?
  9. In contrast to the Darwinian “Tree of Life,” why do so many genes tell “contradictory evolutionary stories”? (For example, according to eminent microbiologist Carl Woese: “phylogenetic conflicts can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.”)
  10. If life arose by accident, why is it that scientists — using the world’s available accumulated knowledge, advanced laboratory equipment and computers — are unable to duplicate the event?
  11. In view of man’s short life-span (compared to some animals and even trees), why did he develop a brain that could last for “billions of lifetimes” and reach a potential that is way beyond the abilities of any present-day intellectual? By way of illustration, would a corporation spend billions of dollars developing and building a powerful, computer-controlled, high speed motor vehicle if it was only ever going to be used just to play the stereo music system?
  12. According to recent findings (Science, August 1, 2013) all humans originated from one pair, i.e. one man and one woman. Why has this scientific evidence been sidelined in preference to the Darwinian Tree of Life?
  13. In recent decades, paleontologists have found soft tissue on fossilised dinosaur bones. Why have these findings not been used to influence the traditional ages (prehistoric periods) given for these creatures?
  14. Why do many scientists refer to the documented age of prehistoric creatures with such confidence, when the accuracy of the dating methods used to refer to such ancient time periods is untestable?
  15. Why do some scientific textbooks alter the relative sizes (in illustrations) of some skull fossils, giving the appearance of close species relationships?
  16. Why did some unscrupulous scientists feel the need to “doctor” evidence as in the examples of Piltdown Man and Java Man?
  17. With regard to the evolution of the human body, did this occur in one go or did it occur gradually over millions of years?
  18. Did the various body systems (e.g. muscular, nervous, digestive, lymphatic, pulmonary, circulatory, respiratory, immune, skeletal, excretory, urinary, endocrine, and reproductive) evolve gradually over millions of years?
  19. How did these mutually dependent systems function whilst they or their dependencies were only partially complete?
  20. Where is the evidence for the successful partially developed body system with its appropriate connections to related systems?
  21. Which do you suppose evolved first, the brain or the heart?
  22. If “heart,” what purpose did it perform without the presence of other systems that require a blood supply?
  23. If “brain,” how did it survive without a blood supply?
  24. As nerve tissue also requires a blood supply, which evolved first, blood vessels or nerve fibers?
  25. If “nerve fibers,” how were they fed without a blood supply?
  26. If “blood vessels,” how did vital information travel through the body?
  27. Did major organs such as the liver evolve before the other organs and chambers of the body that have multiple dependencies on such major organs; if so, what purpose or function would they perform at this point?
  28. If organs that have many dependents evolved at a later time, how would their dependents be able to function?
  29. If they managed to function without these dependencies, what use would the organs be that had yet to evolve?
  30. During fetal development in the womb, which formed first, bone or blood vessels?
  31. Which do you think evolved first, the skeleton or blood vessels?
  32. If bone came first, how is it that there are neatly formed channels in some bones perfectly suited, even specifically mapped, for blood vessels?
  33. If blood vessels came first, how would large creatures become ambulant without a firm skeletal structure?
  34. If they somehow managed to achieve ambulance without a skeleton, why and how would bones have ever evolved?
  35. If, in answer to the previous question, you described a “need” for a skeletal system, how did the human body manufacture the satisfactory response to fulfil that need?
  36. In your response to the previous question, where is your documentary evidence?

Please Kindly Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s