Design Science vs Evolution


While studying whale evolution and looking at what type of evidence is presented, I found that no macro evolutionary evidence was presented from a biological process for several critical integrated biological systems. The evidence was mainly from homology and fossil placement and it assumed undocumented and unexamined biological changes throughout millions of years. Evolution was given credit, without scientific analysis of biological processes. Of course, this is typical of evolutionary science.

No mutational evidence was presented, but many things could be attributed to genetic malfunction rather than genetic innovation. For instance: hind legs and pelvis withering away or the esophagus and trachea failing to join together in the embryo stage, or in skull development, or fin development being a mutated outgrowth of blood vessels. The critical timing of these changes to make them work together was not addressed. Most evolutionists must therefore believe by faith, that through fortunate mutations, they arose when they were needed. But whales are not malfunctioning land mammals. How could the biological process of mutation account for the innovative features in whales?

There were four features that stood out as being evidence against whale evolution through genetic mutations. The evolution of these four features also seemed to be unexamined using science. If they have been, no one is talking about it.

  1. Changes in the breathing system.
  2. Changes in reproduction behavior.
  3. The innovation of the baleen system.
  4. The innovation of the sonar system.

Usually only baleen and sonar were addressed by evolutionists but only to indicate when they first appear in the fossil record. No scientific analysis of the steps required from genetic changes via system building mutations was addressed. This is indirect evidence that an analysis of stepwise genetic change is damaging to the “fact” of evolution.
Evolutionists do sometimes attempt to examine the steps that might occur across an evolutionary path, but in order to make it look plausible they skip over difficult but important details, attempt to steer the examination away from elements that support the conclusion of intelligent design, start at a point where most of the supposed evolution has already happened or fill in gaps with thought experiments that go untested by real science.

A prime example of this would be the evolution of the eye. A paper by researchers at Lund University in the 1990s impressed many evolutionists with its claim that the eye could evolve in a stepwise fashion in a period of only a few hundred thousand years. They started with a light sensitive spot, which included all the intelligently designed biochemistry they needed. That is, they didn’t start with something that had been demonstrated could evolve. Then they showed the steps that would need to be taken to change the structures of the existing materials in the light sensitive spot to an eyeball. But they used an intelligently designed path. All the evolutionists were impressed, but no one seemed to notice that their eye could never be functional. They forgot to include a very important part of the function of they eye. Signal processing. Without signal processing the better optical properties of the eye would be useless and therefore would not have been selected. Their target of better optical properties was completely unrealistic.

Latteral Gene Transfer
Scientific American in July 2011, repeated the assumptions, but concluded that natural selection would have created the signal processing. Thus assuming that the mutations to create and coordinate signal processing were just there. According to Trevor Lamb signal processing would have just happened. He said, “With the advent of the lens to capture light and focus images, the eye’s information-gathering capability increased dramatically. This augmentation would have created selection pressures favoring the emergence of improved signal processing in the retina beyond what the simple connection of photoreceptors to output neurons afforded.”

So the signal processing came about because there was more signal to process. Just believe. Would extra information gathering favor emergence? Scientifically wouldn’t we want to explain why or how it could emerge from multiple mutations? No one has proven signal processing, photoreceptors or neurons could evolve through mutation. We know the complexity of these things are specified and coordinated and that we can intelligently design systems that mimic their properties. In fact, I think that things like signal processing are convincing proof against evolution and it’s probably a major reason why it’s not discussed in evolutionary scenarios. Or as in the case above, brushed aside with a simplistic just-so story.

Whales have two systems that depend heavily on signal processing, the baleen system and the sonar system. Neither can be attributed to a gradual, step-wise, mutation driven, evolutionary origin. The best that is offered from the evolutionists is when the physical features connected with them first appear in the fossil record. But the physical attributes are useless without signal processing. We know more now than we did in Darwin’s day, but evolutionary analysis still largely flows through the 19th century level of understanding. This did not require an understanding of variation, mutation or signal processing, but it is at the core of all biology.

Echolocation requires advance signal processing. Could mutations cause the specialized organ for focusing sound, the sophisticated signal processing required to turn sound into a 3D picture or the instincts to use such a system?

Prestin VirusOne recent discovery is that the sonar system in dolphins, already known to share multiple features with echolocation in bats, also shares many genetic and molecular elements. Evolutionists call this “convergent evolution.” What this means is that they believe it evolved more than once, not that they can explain it via the process of mutation, or have any science that backs such a belief. Molecular convergence caused one disheartened evolutionist to speculate that maybe a sonar creating virus was behind it. Why not just accept that science is confirming the need for intelligent design?

Convergence, which should be extremely rare in evolution, is actually widespread. This is because it’s an illusion created by a misconception of how biological systems originate. We share numerous presumably convergent features with all sorts of organisms from jellyfish to birds. This would be expected if life is the product of intelligently designed systems, but it’s a problem for evolution. Evolutionists usually invoke natural selection as the cause for convergence because they are unsure how to deal with the implications of the multiple genetic mutations that would be needed to create the similarities. The origins of the genetic differences that make up any complex coordinated systems are answered by intelligent design.

Baleen requires very precise movements to keep it from breaking under the pressures exerted when a whale is feeding. This requires a special organ that detects the pressures used to regulate movements. The organ would be of no use without the signal processing needed. The question isn’t when it evolved, which is what evolutionists convince themselves with, but how mutation could cause it to evolve. Organs such as this have no reason to arise, when there isn’t any purpose or survival advantage until it has an impact on a population. The gap isn’t answered by natural selection until the mutations to create the organ have been defined.

We know that intelligent design is a viable answer, and evolutionists admit to it. Stephen J Gould said in speaking of the arm that “any engineer starting from scratch could design a better limb”. Trevor Lamb, mentioned above said that “if engineers were to build an eye with the flaws of our own they would probably be fired.” Of course these are false claims. No engineer can do genetic design to create an arm or an eye from scratch…because we don’t know enough yet. These evolutionists mistakenly think that if they find what they think is a flaw or a sub optimal design this means nature has the capacity to design it. But all this does is show their hand. They admit that they think that intelligent design is capable of designing life, and they believe by faith, according to their own admission, that human understanding and intelligence can do it now and do it better.

But, in reality they can’t even get to the first cell without borrowing from future understanding. That is we still have to get smarter before we can even build a single cell of our own design from scratch, let alone structures, organs and systems and the signal processing and communication networks that tie them together.

Larry Holds Back A SneezeThe other problem that is not considered in evolutionary scenarios is instinct. It seems that evolutionists assume that if you have a feature the instincts to use them automatically evolve along with the features. That is, mice jumping out of trees will eventually grow wings, develop sonar and the instincts to use them. Or land mammals wading into the water will eventually grow fins, develop sonar and the instincts to use them. Instinct would have to evolve, but that is not evidence that it would or did.
For whales there are at least two instinctual behaviors that are critical to survival. They are reproduction and breathing.

Blowholes are not just modified nostrils that drifted up the skull. They are the most noticeable aspect of a radically different system for breathing. There is no evidence to support the needed changes to soft tissue or behavior in the fossil record so they can go overlooked in evolutionary stories. This is a side effect of using geology to verify biology.
A whale doesn’t breath automatically like other mammals. It must make a conscious decision for each breath. This means whales can’t sleep like other mammals. One half of their brain sleeps while the other must remain awake.

Then there are the changes to the lungs to allow for more oxygen absorption and water pressure, changes in myoglobin levels to allow for more oxygen storage and other changes in metabolism to allow for aquatic survival.

How many genetic changes needed to occur? At what rate? In what combinations? Evolutionists don’t answer these questions with science, but rhetoric, because science has already determined that mutation won’t produce these effects. Whales breathing system didn’t evolve, it was designed.

We can only imagine how the land mammals that evolutionist’s call “whales” reproduced. At some point that method of reproduction had to change. The problem for evolution is that reproduction is driven almost completely by complicated instinctual behaviors and responses. Which means, at some point both the instinct of the adults and offspring had to change radically from what we know of other mammals.

Reproduction is an absolute unforgiving requirement for life to survive. For evolution however, multiple mutations have to work together or there is no survival. And this is where evolution fails when examining biological systems.

In the case of whales, there had to be a point where they began to give birth in the water. This had to coincide with the development of the instincts of both the parent and offspring telling them what to do. For example surfacing is not a concern when giving birth on land, but the single instinct of the offspring to surface is essential. One instinctual response of the evolutionist is to claim that it evolved before it was needed. Ok, but that’s not a scientific answer. It’s really not right to claim science is on your side and present faith based answers. But I think that’s just human nature.

Whales didn’t evolve.

It’s not that these matters are awaiting scientific investigation so that Evolutionists can find out the evolutionary origins of whales. Science has already demonstrated that mutations don’t create the kinds of effects that needed to occur if evolution were a fact. Whale existence is evidence that evolution is false, before the fossil evidence is even considered. The real connection between land mammals such as the pakicetus and the blue whale is that the same creator designed them both. Science doesn’t give us any reason to doubt that whales were intelligently designed. This is not true for evolution. Nineteenth century science made evolution seem plausible because it looked at shapes and sequences. But intelligent design using the codes and programming of life, and looking at the deeper questions this raises, has 21st century science on its side.


  • June 13, 2014 - 1:05 pm | Permalink

    Thank you for posting this article. Convergent evolution really is a ridiculous notion. You have the best cartoons on the internet!!!

  • Jason
    February 5, 2016 - 5:55 pm | Permalink

    What an awesome, clear explanation. Sadly, the blinders that are worn by evolutionists preclude them from seeing the obvious and worshiping the Lord God Almighty, Creator of all things.

  • Mike
    April 23, 2016 - 11:01 pm | Permalink

    This is one of the best websites for Creation!

  • Michael
    May 7, 2017 - 1:04 pm | Permalink

    Interesting points. Thanks for posting OP.

    A few critiques, if you don’t mind. I would challenge the premise that finding “bad” scientists automatically means the science itself is “bad.” With science or religion or any other pure search for truth, you will inevitably encounter its bad practitioners — doesn’t mean that a GOOD practitioner couldn’t have found some evidence for (let’s say) a gene mutation, or, importantly, a set of gene mutations that confer a set of attributes to an animal which do happen to include a given physical advancement. Now admittedly it’s very difficult to scientifically prove macro evolution, because good luck finding a bunch of DNA strands from ancient history that each contain ALL relevant genes for comparison with one another. By the same token, good luck delineating God’s rational design process, and good luck distinguishing the consequences of that process from the results of a gene mutation or set of mutations.

    Anyway, I do applaud your search for truth in these complex matters. I’d ask that we keep refining our methods and ourselves in this continual and difficult, but ultimately necessary, process of separating gold (i.e., truth itself) from that which merely glitters.

  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    Powered by: Wordpress