EHRC Homepage | New Category | Your Questions

Ashby Camp responds:

The belief that evolution predicts biologic universals is “one of evolution’s major illusions.” (ReMine, 92.) As Walter ReMine says:

First, evolution does not predict that life would arise precisely once on this planet. If there were two or more unrelated systems of life, then evolutionary theory would effortlessly accommodate that situation.

Second, even if life originated precisely once, then evolutionary theory would still not predict biologic universals. Shortly after life’s origin, nothing prevented life from branching and leading separate lineages to higher life forms entirely lacking the known biologic universals.

Third, evolutionary loss and replacement processes could prevent biologic universals. If one organism is a distant ancestor to another, then nothing in evolution predicts the two must share similarities. If evolution were true, then distant ancestors and descendants (as well as sister groups) can be totally different.

Evolution never did predict biologic universals, it merely accommodated them. (ReMine, 92-93.)

Biophysicist Cornelius G. Hunter concurs. He writes:

There is yet another reason that the universality of the genetic code is not strong evidence for evolution. Simply put, the theory of evolution does not predict the genetic code to be universal (it does not, for that matter, predict the genetic code at all). In fact, leading evolutionists such as Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel are surprised that there aren’t multiple codes in nature.

Consider how evolutionists would react if there were in fact multiple codes in nature. What if plants, animals, and bacteria all had different codes? Such a finding would not falsify evolution; rather, it would be incorporated into the theory. For if the code is arbitrary, why should there be just one? The blind process of evolution would explain why there are multiple codes. In fact, in 1979 certain minor variations in the code were found, and evolutionists believe, not surprisingly, that the variations were caused by the continuing evolution of the universal genetic code. Of course, it would not be a problem for such an explanation to be extended if it were the case that there were multiple codes. There is nothing wrong with a theory that is comfortable with different outcomes, but there is something wrong when one of those outcomes is then claimed as supporting evidence. If a theory can predict both A and not-A, then neither A nor not-A can be used as evidence for the theory. When it comes to the genetic code, evolution can accommodate a range of findings, but it cannot then use one of those findings as supporting evidence. (Hunter, 38.)

The fact that some leading evolutionists believe early life forms were biochemically distinct from modern forms confirms that evolution does not predict biologic universals. Robert Shapiro, for example, entertains the possibility of finding living relics of an original protein-based life form that lacked DNA and RNA. (Shapiro, 293-295.) Likewise, A. G. Cairns-Smith thinks that descendants of ancient crystalline clay organisms may be all around us. He states: “Evolution did not start with the organic molecules that have now become universal to life: indeed I doubt whether the first organisms, even the first evolved organisms, had any organic molecules in them at all.” (Cairns-Smith, 107.)

Remine, Walter. 1993. The Biotic Message. St. Paul Science, St. Paul, MN.
Hunter, Cornelius G. 2001. Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Baker, Grand Rapids, MI.
Shapiro, Robert. 1986. Origins: A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth. Summit Books, New York.

Cairns-Smith, A. G. 1985. Seven Clues to the Origin of Life: A Scientific Detective Story. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

For more details visit Ashby's website, True.Origin

______________________________________________________ Ó 2010 Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D.