I am not an ID-eologue. I am skeptical of efforts to scient-ize creation; however I cannot get over the problems with macroevolution.
I’m not alone.
Dr. James M. Tour, PhD- expert in molecular chemistry, computer science and a few other disciplines (From the summary version of his resume:
he is presently the T. T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science. Tour’s scientific research areas include nanoelectronics, graphene electronics, silicon oxide electronics, carbon nanovectors for medical applications, green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction, graphene photovoltaics, carbon supercapacitors, lithium ion batteries, CO2 capture, water splitting to H2 and O2, water purification, carbon nanotube and graphene synthetic modifications, graphene oxide, carbon composites, hydrogen storage on nanoengineered carbon scaffolds, and synthesis of single-molecule nanomachines which includes molecular motors and nanocars. )
Smart dude, in other words. So when he says that he does not understand how the chemical processes that would be required for macroevolution work, that’s big. Even bigger, he has a standing challenge for anyone-ANYONE-to explain them to him.
Nobody has taken him up on this.
I do not know Dr. Tour’s specific questions. I have a working knowledge of organic chemistry, and I do not believe that the macro mutations necessary for speciation occur. A species is the largest gene pool that can interbreed (although there are some exceptions). There are an estimated 8.7 million species on Earth. That’s 8.7 gene pools that cannot interbreed with each other….
…are you beginning to see the problem? Once an organism mutates into another species… what is it going to breed with? That’s a huge question. You need a breeding pair to mutate identically AND simultaneously and that the mutation be beneficial! And if this is through microevolutionary processes, then there should be a much larger species overlap than there is…. And inevitably, the cross-species hybrids do not breed. In order for 8.7 million species to exist, assuming a fairly conservative failure rate of 100:1, there’d need to be 870 million failed speciation ‘attempts’.
Yeah. In the 4.5 billion years that life has been around, that’s a new speciation attempt every 5 years or so. That should be observable.
Adaptation does not appear to scale to the level of speciation.
Okay, let’s take a Liger ( It's pretty much my favorite animal. It's like a lion and a tiger mixed... bred for its skills in magic.). We have Lions and Tigers (who are close enough to interbreed) producing these cute li’l Ligers. Since they have a magic adaptation, they should be pretty successful, but no. They can’t breed with each other, even using magic. So that particular species dies within a generation---- But what if there were a Liger mutation in the Tiger gene pool? Well, it could interbreed with tigers…. And the genetic anomaly stands a good chance of being lost in the tiger genome.
There are adaptations in place to keep pollution out of a particular gene pool. Speciation is HARD- but it has to have happened A LOT to produce the current amount of species diversity we have.
I’m just a dilettante. I may not know what I’m talking about.
When one of the world’s foremost molecular chemists says that he doesn’t understand the chemical processes that are necessary for macro evolution to occur, and that no one can explain them to him- that says to me that there is a huge sucking wound in the heart of evolutionary theory, as the chemical processes should be occurring (and succeeding or failing) pretty darn frequently to produce the level of speciation we have at this point, and if no one has observed them- and if no-one has documented them and if no-one can explain them….
…well we had a phrase for that in Nuclear Power School…
“Pure Effin’ Magic.”