Evolution by Affirming the Consequent: Scientific Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

Was Darwin theoretically wrong in his world shattering conclusions and can his errors be proven on a straightforward scientific basis? Conventional criteria for a scientific theory include empiricism, logic and testability. The theory of evolution is said traditionally to meet these criteria by the mainstream scientific community. A reviewer for a medical journal evaluated the evidence for evolution within its several sub disciplines. There is found to be universally a logical disconnect between the purported evolutionary experiments or observations and their evolutionary conclusion. The most common logical error was the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Evolutionary studies are found to actually demonstrate either (1) microevolution, or (2) descriptions of comparative biology.

The empiric limits of microevolution are defined. The concept of complementary coevolution is introduced which is the theory s requirement that at least two genes, called partner genes, evolve nearly simultaneously such that their gene products can interact to perform a function. Because a random change in one gene puts restrictions one how its partner gene can evolve, complementary coevolution would be statistically impossible in the author’s view. Radioisotope dating techniques are found to be flawed because the formula to determine the half life has no scientific support and conflicts with empirically determined formulae of radioisotopes with short half lives. Two evolutionary biologists challenge Dr. Rask s conclusions making for an informative debate on Darwin, Darwinism and evolution without creationism, theology or biohistorical precedents.