The Never-Ending Problems In Evolutionary Biology
by Frank Sherwin, M.A.
In 1995, a reviewer of the book, Darwinism Evolving: Systems Dynamics and the Genealogy of Natural Selection by Depew & Weber said, “. . . evolutionary biology remains a turbulent, dynamic area of biology and of science in general” (American Library Association, choice card #356-57, v. 33). Many unsolved problems in evolution thinking were listed, and the problems continue for scientific materialists. Consider the following “problematic” quotes:
One of the most difficult problems in evolutionary paleontology [the study of fossils] has been the almost abrupt appearance of the major animal groups (A. G. Fisher, evolutionist, Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, 1998, fossil section.)
The formation of species has long represented one of the most central, yet also one of the most elusive subjects in evolutionary biology (Palumbi, “Marine Speciation,” Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics, 1994, p. 548.)
As Darwin noted in the Origin of the Species, the abrupt emergence of arthropods in the fossil record during the Cambrian presents a problem for evolutionary biology (Osorio, Bacon & Whitington, American Scientist, May/June 1997, p. 244.)
How natural selection operates at the molecular level is a major problem in evolutionary biology (Yokoyama, “Color vision of the Coelacanth,” Journal of Heredity, May/June, 2000.)
Genetic variability is an open problem within Darwin theory (David Berlinski, Commentary, September, 1996, p. 38.)
Indeed, the fact that dioecy [female & male flowers are borne on separate plants] has evolved from hermaphroditism [both female & male reproductive organs on the same flower] repeatedly distinguishes it as a central problem in evolutionary biology (Tia-Lynn Ashman, “A prescription for gender study in the next century,” American Journal of Botany, January 2000, p. 147).
Thus we see formidable and fundamental problems of evolutionism. We suspect these “problems” of secular biologists derive from the fact that they are looking at the evidence from the wrong perspective. There is a better alternative, one which fits the evidence—that of sudden creation of each basic type at some unobserved event in the past. Today we see the separate groups, and variation within each group, but their origin was accomplished by some another process.