Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is not Scientifically Valid

Those who believe macroevolution, which is speciation, do so with no scientific evidence to support their claims. They ridicule and demean anyone who disagrees with them and simply refer to Darwin’s Theory as a fact. Science does not allow for facts, only theories and laws. A scientific theory is based on what’s currently known and must make way for new theories as new evidence arises.

Microevolution is defined as the change within a species or organism over a short period of time. Macroevolution is defined as a new species evolving from an already existing species, which would be genetically different. These are two very different things, but that doesn’t stop evolutionists from pointing to micro as evidence of macro.

The existence of one does not provide evidence for the other. There is no shortage of evolutionists who point to microevolution as evidence for macroevolution. These same people never point to any actual evidence of speciation being observed by anyone. Species and organisms adapt to their environments, which has been observed, but species evolving into something genetically different has never been observed by anyone.

Not only has macroevolution never been observed, it has never been replicated. When asked to cite a single source claiming otherwise, it tends to be met with the idea that I would never hold the same view for any other scientific theory. Those who make the claim have no familiarity with the Scientific Method, which lays out the steps required for a hypothesis to become a theory.

There are 6 steps to the Scientific Method. It is the process used to explore observations and answer questions. Built within the process is the requirement to take new information into account and altering a given theory as needed.

The first step is to make an observation about what is witnessed in its current state, not something believed to have happened at one point. Speciation has never been witnesses by anyone. Darwin looked at fossils and came up with a conclusion about something that happened without any evidence to support his claim.

Fossils tell us a great deal about events that did occur, such as the Cambrian Explosion, which was a sudden arrival of life with no fossils showing anything predating the event. Darwin was already aware of the Cambrian Explosion, but believed other fossils would be found to prove his theory. No fossils have ever been found to explain how the Cambrian Explosion came into existence.

The second step is to ask questions and gather information, which Darwin attempted to do, but rushed his work. Not once did he ask where the positive mutations were in nature, since he had already come up with his own conclusions. There has never been a positive mutation witnessed by anyone, which is needed for macroevolution to occur.

The third step is to form a hypothesis about what has been observed and information received. Darwin made this his first step and simply ignored what should have been the first step. He believed speciation occurred before he ever set sail and was going to force the data to fit his belief. This is not the making of scientific advancement, but the act of writing science-fiction.

The fourth step is to test the hypotheses and prediction in experiments that can be reproduced. No one in the scientific community has been able to reproduce speciation. Every experiment ends up with the species or organism remaining exactly what they started with on the genetic level.

In 1988, Biologist Richard Lenski, started a project working with E. coli bacteria to prove macroevolution exists. Over the course of those 30 years, there were over 68,000 generations witnessed, which is the equivalent of 1,000,000 years to human beings. It is believed this is the amount of generations needed to witness speciation. The reason they had to discontinue the research was from a lack of evidence to support macroevolution. E. coli remained E. coli at the genetic level, which showed signs of microevolution only.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/how-a-30-year-experiment-has-fundamentally-changed-our-view-of-how

The fifth step is to analyze the data and either accept or reject the hypothesis. Despite the constant failures to prove macroevolution exists, since it has never actually been observed and not once has anyone come close to replicating the results, there is a refusal to give up on the theory. If macroevolution were scientific, the hypothesis would have to be rejected due to a lack of evidence.

The final step is to reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observation and theory. It is difficult to reproduce something that has never been witnessed in nature. If macroevolution were a valid theory, a 30 year study of E. coli would have shown something genetically different than E. coli.

In order for something to be a valid scientific theory, it must be observed, and the results replicated. Without observation and replication, it is nothing more than science-fiction being sold as science fact. No matter how smart some of the evolutionists might be, they cannot show any actual evidence to support their irrational belief.

Logic demands taking the evidence as it is, not as one wishes it would be. No theory can be free of criticism and remain in the realm of science. All legitimate scientific theories are based on what is known, but those who claim macroevolution to be fact do not hold to scientific objectivity.