1. Two completely different types of change (variation and innovation) are confused
The theory of evolution in its current form confuses two totally different kinds of change: variation and innovation.
Variation = the change of a (biological) system in its parameters; mathematical representation: (a1, b1) → (a2, b2).
Innovation = the change of a (biological) system in its dimensions; mathematical representation: (a1, b1) → (a2, b2, c2).
The mathematical representation of variation and innovation shows that billions of variations of a (biological) system for billions of years, cannot lead to the innovation of that system.
2. Two completely different mechanisms of change are confused
The mechanism in living nature for the realization of variations (= the variation-motor) consists of: gene regulation and recombination of gene variants and selection; see: http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOEVOLJ/TOEVOLJ-5-1.pdf. By these mechanisms the length of the DNA does not increase, and the mutation repair mechanisms that are present in every cell do not need to come in action. By the variation motor living nature constantly adapts to changing circumstances. An example of the results of variation motor is the change of the beaks of finches.
The presumed mechanism for the creation of innovations (= the innovation motor) consists of the accumulation of non-repairable, heritable, instantly advantageous, code-expanding mutations.
In science, a theory where two completely different mechanisms play a role, will be formulated more accurately sooner or later by distinguishing these different mechanisms and the associated empirical phenomena. This will also happen to the theory of evolution.
3. Changes in the DNA cause cancer and genetic diseases, not continual improvement
Cancer research proves unambiguously that mutations of the DNA cause genetic diseases and cancer. Cancer research also proves that cancer is a severe disadvantage in the struggle for life. In every cell, every day hundreds of thousands of mutations of the DNA occur, which are fortunately largely repaired by mutation repair mechanisms, for the discovery of which the Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded in 2015. In addition, the passing of code expanding mutations to the offspring is counteracted by sexual reproduction.
A population with dysfunctional mutation repair accumulates in its gene pool the material with which, in theory, new functionalities might arise after about 1000 generations. But the population will get extinct within a few generations, because it will lose the struggle for survival with a population that possesses well-functioning mutation protection. As a consequence, the theoretical future innovations of the DNA disappear within a few generations. Therefore, the innovation motor can only function in theory; not in reality.
4. The empirical evidence for evolution by the variation engine are used as proof for the functioning of the innovation motor
Evolution exists, as living nature constantly adapts to changing circumstances, by the variation motor. However, the empirical evidence of the variation motor (for example, the change in the beaks of finches or the changes in the appearance of horses, dogs or bats) is unjustly used as evidence that the innovation motor can function. All empirical data on (code expanding) non-repairable mutations show that they lead to cancer and hereditary diseases and severe selective disadvantage. The innovation motor therefore operates only in theory. This is reflected by the fossils archive in which intermediate forms are missing. All fossils look like the organisms look today, with the same variations in appearance as today (large horses, small horses; large beaks, small beak; etc). Also 'living fossils' that have not changed in hundreds of millions of years, show that the innovation motor does not work.
5. Natural processes are processes of decay and cannot innovate
Natural processes (e.g. solar radiation, lightning, radiation from space, meteorites, rain, wind, gravitational attraction, diffusion, crystallization) are processes of decay that will disintegrate eventually any complex structure. Natural processes can vary the parameters of a system, but cannot innovate a system and expand its dimensions, resulting in expansion of the information content and energy content of the system. If this would be really possible, then energy would become available for free and the chemical industry would have to close down.
6. An alchemistic view of matter lays at the basis of the theory of evolution
The current theory of evolution assumes that (organic) molecules possess an intrinsic desire to organize themselves into increasingly complex structures, and that gain in complexity is a natural process. This alchemistic view of matter is diametrically opposed to the fundamental properties of our reality and the physical laws that describe this reality. In matter, no hidden power is present, and every complex structure of matter decays sooner or later by natural processes into the smallest possible units and towards the lowest possible energy level. Any difference in elasticity, potential, temperature, concentration, density, energy, pressure, tension, will equalize sooner or later by natural processes, according to the natural laws for elasticity, potential, temperature, concentration, density, energy, pressure, stress.
7. The theory of evolution cannot explain the existence of mutation repair mechanisms
In 2015 the Nobel Prize for chemistry was awarded to the discoverers of the mutation repair mechanisms that repair the hundreds of thousands of mutations of DNA that occur daily in every cell. An important part of these mutations is caused by 'oxidative deamination', which makes the letters of the genetic code to be unreadable, such as the letters on a receipt gradually become unreadable by the oxidation of the ink. Fortunately, the rubbing out of the genetic code is actively repaired by detection of the damaged letter and subsequently repaired using the backup information on the other DNA strand. The repair of oxidative deamination cannot be explained by the theory of evolution because Logic prevents mutations to produce mutations repair (a process that accomplishes M cannot not simultaneously produce Conversely-M ). Also according to the laws of chemistry, it is impossible that mutations can bring about mutation repair because oxidation cannot produce reduction. On the question how the mutation repair mechanisms then have been originated, scientists must answer: "We do not know (yet)." Such an answer is perfectly normal and accepted in every branch of science, and is the driving force for any scientific research. This answer is not a 'science stopper' but a 'science driver'.
1. There are numerous indications that the earth is not billions of years old
Notice: Billions of variations, during billions of years, cannot establish innovation, as discussed at core problem 1. But nevertheless:
- The Earth is in fact a sphere of liquid rock covered with a thin crust, and would have cooled down completely after billions of years.
- The atmosphere is in open interaction with the hostile, icy vacuum of the universe; she is thrown away into space by the rotation of the earth, and constantly bombarded by high-energy particles that push away the atmospheric molecules; the difference of pressure of 1 Bar between the earth and the vacuum of the universe sucks out the atmosphere out into space. Over billions of years, the pressure difference would have evened out.
- There is hardly any dust of meteorites on earth.
- There is little leach of salts in the oceans.
- There is little sediment in the oceans.
- Due to wind and weather erosion of 0.1 mm per year, in only 100 million years all mountains would have been eroded away. Instead, the peaks of most mountains are not worn, but sharp and pointed.
- The earth is a ball of liquid rock with a thin crust. The dynamics of the earth spinning around its axis is similar to the dynamics of a spinning uncooked egg, which slows down very quickly, in contrast to a spinning hard-boiled egg. Because of the 'uncooked egg effect', the earth's rotational speed must have been considerably higher millions of years ago than it is today. A few billion years ago, the speed must have been about 100 times higher than it is now, preventing the life we know now to exist. The decreasing tendency in the rotational speed is confirmed by measurements during the past 50 years.
- The magnetic field of the earth is decreasing. Since 1830, the field has diminished in strength by 10%. Counting back, 10 million years ago the magnetic field of the earth would have been 100 times stronger as now, making it impossible for the life that we know today to exist.
2. The dating of the layers of the earth is unreliable
- The layers of the earth are dated by fossils and the fossils by the layers of the earth.
- Fossils can only be formed in catastrophic conditions, not a gradual process of millions of years. In normal circumstances, within a few days or weeks a dead organism decays by digestion by micro-organisms. Only by very rapid, catastrophic, airtight covering by layers of earth, this natural process of decay is prevented and a fossil can be formed.
- Layers of earth that differ millions of years in age, are intersected by fossils of tree trunks and vertical shafts made by worms.
- Dating of layers of earth based on radioactive decay is dependent upon the assumptions about on the amount of radioactive material that was present initially. These assumptions can be chosen in such a way that any desired date is possible.
- Non-fossilized bones of dinosaurs, which are dated to be 75 mln. years old, contain collagen and bits of DNA. Scientific research suggests that iron molecules have protected this organic material against natural decay (Science, Betty Schweitzer). If iron molecules can do such a thing, this will cause a revolution in the food industry, where people are happy with conservation for several months or a year.
3. Sunshine does not cause a natural process in which molecules are becoming increasingly complex
The opposite is the case: by sunshine every complex molecule falls apart sooner or later into the smallest possible units.
4. The billions of tons of primordial soup could never have existed
The Miller experiment (1953) demonstrates this: new lightning destroys amino acids formed, and the bigger and more concentrated they are, the faster. Only by building a plant in which formed amino acids are transported to a secure flask, Miller was able to produce an ever more concentrated primordial soup.
5. Putting organisms in a family tree does not prove that they are originated from each other by natural processes
Family trees in which the appearance of finches, chickens, horses, dogs, corn, cabbage, apples, berries, etc. vary, display the actual effects of the variation motor (see core problem 1). Family trees in which, for example, land animals turn into whales do not reflect actual innovation processes, as the innovation engine does not work. (See core problem 3)
6. Putting organs in a family tree does not prove that they have originated from one another by natural processes
In living nature many kinds of eyes, many kinds of lungs, many kinds of hearts, etc. exist. These organs can be ordered in a family tree based on their complexity. But that does not prove that they have originated from one another by a natural process, because the innovation engine does not work (see key core problem 3).
7. Putting processes or molecules in a family tree does not prove that they have originated form one another by natural processes
Chemical processes and molecules can be put in a family tree on the basis of their complexity. But natural processes lead to the decay of any complex molecule (see core problem 5). Only in the fantasy world of Alchemists, molecules have an intrinsic desire to organize themselves into larger units (see core problem 6).
8. The decrease of order elsewhere in the universe cannot provide an increase of order on earth
Between a power outlet, behind which order decreases, and a refrigerator, in which the order increases, a cable is present. Between the earth and a place far away in the universe where the order decreases, a cable is missing.
9. The order of the human DNA is not comparable to the order of a crystal structure
The order of the human genome (3 billion characters) is similar to the order of the Windows operating system (1 billion characters). It is absurd to equate the order in Windows or in the DNA with the order of a complex crystal structure, or to consider them as a quantum fluctuation. In addition, Windows and the DNA possess mechanisms for repair and maintenance of the order. Quantum fluctuations and complex crystal structures lack these mechanisms. Note that in complex programs (for example in the food, or the automobile industry) only a small part describes the materials to be used, while the rest describes how and when these materials must to be applied. This is also the case in DNA programs: only 10% of DNA codes for the proteins to be used. The remaining 90% encodes when and how the proteins must be applied. Errors herein lead to cancer (e.g. leukemia).
10. Within living nature, numerous "irreducible complex" systems are present
Darwin wrote: "If anyone would prove the existence of a complex organ that absolutely could not have come from a large number of consecutive changes, then my theory would completely collapse" (The Origin of Species, 6th edition, New York University Press, p . 154). Such systems exist. For example, a butterfly crawling out of a chrysalis. In it, all the molecules of a caterpillar have been taken apart and are reassembled as a butterfly. After crawling out of the chrysalis, the wings of the butterfly are unfolded and inflated, and the flexible tubes are transformed after several minutes into a hard, wearing skeleton. Also, the two strands hinging at both sides of the mouth of the butterfly are zipped together to form a hollow proboscis. After the zip, the butterfly sips some nectar and flies away. All of this cannot be the result of a long sequence of meaningful increments. If one small increment would be missing the entire sequence would not work properly. No transformation of a caterpillar into a butterfly would happen, and the caterpillar as well as the butterfly would become extinct.
11. Claiming that mutations can cause mutation repair is nonsense
In the long run, every natural process will slow down because the initial difference that produced the driving force, will equalize. But no natural process will after slowing down, start running in the opposite direction. If that would be possible, then from these two opposing processes a perpetual motion machine could be built. But perpetual motion cannot exist according natural laws.
12. The theory of evolution has difficulty to meet the standards for scientific theories
Any scientific theory must be testable and refutable. In addition, the theory must not be in conflict with empirical evidence or the laws of nature. The core problems and secondary problems mentioned above indicate that the theory of evolution in its current form does not meet these standards. It is required to formulate the theory of evolution more accurately by distinguishing the underlying mechanisms of change and their associated empirical data (see core problems 2).