Evolution: An Objective Look

B. I Respond to Evolution Lecturer at UCI 04/25/07

I attended an evening lecture at UCI on Wednesday. The subject was how religion and evolution are compatible. It was a huge lecture hall, with about 300 in attendance. I sent an email to the lecturer, Dr. Francisco Ayala, who “wrote over 300 ariticles, 24 books, and is one of the leading evolution scientists in the world!” He is also good buddies with Richard Dawkins, the worlds smartest guy, and also the world’s leading evolutionist.
My email:

Francisco:

I attended your lecture on Wednesday. You seem like a very bright and kind person, but not a scientist. Good science requires a skeptical eye, and you do not have the good skepticism of a good scientist. Your discussion about evolution/religion really was about convincing your listeners about evolution, and that it is an absolute fact. Religion was a sidebar in your talk, which was really fine with me, as I came to hear what new evidences for evolution there may be. Your evidence was in the pebble realm when Darwinian evolution really requires a Mt. Everest. You listed:

(1) Fish that show growing fins over millions of years. Of course there is no proof that the later fish were progeny of the earlier, or that fish fins went on to become limbs. And, your fish are a poor example anyway.

(2) A moth that changed colors. This proves that some animals can change colors, nothing more.

(3) Bacteria that become resistant to a chemical. Trillions die, but the remaining few, who are resistant by biochemical inheritance, produce progeny that are also resistant. This is simple mathematical biochemistry, not Darwin’s radical evolution.

(4) A biochemical DNA relationship between species, which demonstrates that all life is biochemically related; nothing more.

(5) Eyes of current species that show different levels of complexity. That is not evidence that eyes evolved from nothing to the complex eyes of today. It is only proof that there are different types of eyes of current species.

(6) Evolution of the jaw and teeth. I am a dentist, and I spent years studying and dealing with the incredible matching of the maxillary teeth with the mandibular. They fit like a perfect puzzle, the cusps of the maxillary teeth fit perfectly into the fossa’s of the mandibular. The anterior teeth allow for cutting, the bicuspids allow for shearing and cutting, and the molars are primarily for mashing, exactly as they should. If you can come up with any way Darwinian evolution could possibly evolve a lower set of teeth to match perfectly against the upper, then you would have something. But, there is absolutely no way that that could happen. To understand the occlusion of human teeth is to understand an engineering biological miracle. You mentioned the nerves in teeth that cause so much misery as evidence of the imperfection of nature versus the design of a perfect God. The pulp chamber of teeth is a necessary byproduct of the formation of the teeth. The odontoblasts that lay down the dentin of the body of the tooth would run out of blood supply if they continued until the tooth was solid. They must quit dentin formation before they finish the job, which is unfortunate for mankind, but necessary. The nerve/pulp chamber is simply a byproduct of tooth formation. The fact that many people do not have the room for all teeth is just evidence that nature is not perfect; but it is pretty damn close, considering that our bodies function like near perfect machines.

Evolution that produces change in size (your fish), abilities and habit (your bacteria), or color (your moth), the evidence that you used, is not even remotely close to the evolution that would be needed to produce hearts, eyes, lungs, and brains. You had pebbles when Mt. Everest is needed. And the Mt. Everest of evidence either does not exist, or it has not been found, either of which should place Darwin in the realm of very weak theories.

For Darwin to be correct, there would have to be tremendous changes in species for which there is a fossil history. Fossil history should look something like the growth of a fetus, spread over millions of years. The growth of fingers, limbs, eye sockets and ear canals in the fossil record, should be the norm. These are not the norm, not the exception, but non-existent. If you were a real scientist, you would see that. What you are is a real believer. If you would take a very critical and scientific look at Darwin and your lecture Wednesday, your next lecture would be very different. But, that takes a great deal of independence and courage to go against the norms. And most people don’t have that. Evidence shows that species did not arrive the way Darwin says. It’s time for a new look.

I wanted to enter your question session at the end of the lecture, but, obviously, I couldn’t express myself in a few sentences. And I hope you had time to read to here, and if you did, thanks!

Stephen Thomas DDS

Francisco responded:

Dear Dr. Thomas:

I did not intend to prove evolution (and other matters) in a one-hour lecture. You obviously are an educated person who knows that the evidence for evolution is in many books (including several of mine) and thousands of scholarly articles published in scores of peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Best wishes,
Francisco Ayala

Like Tom, Francisco doesn’t have the time to list any of the more profound evidences, or put them in his lecture. He used weak ones on purpose. He referred me to other literature, which is the norm for evo-illusionists. The evidence is always “over there”. They themselves cannot describe the MO of evolution, but “there are many books on the subject”. End of discussion. Now I get to go look through books and journals; which I have done. And, no the answers aren’t there either. Oh well. Thanks for responding Francisco.