EVOLUTION WITH A PURPOSE?
Some scientists believe that the chemistry of life has been fine-tuned and that evolution was programmed into nature’s laws. Conway Morris of Cambridge University, acknowledged as one of the foremost paleontologists of his time, has proposed a theory that combines design and evolution. Morris observes, “Far from being a random, directionless process, evolution shows deep patterns, and perhaps even a purpose.”23
In his book Life’s Solution, Morris makes a compelling case for inherent design in life. Morris suggests that life could not have been a mere product of time plus chance, as Darwin theorized. He sees design and purpose in biological structures, pondering:
Does evolution have a structure, an overall design, perhaps even a purpose? Orthodox
opinion recoils from this prospect. Evolution, it is widely believed, is an effectively random process where almost any outcome is possible. … We, like all other life, are an evolutionary accident. But is this correct? In fact the evidence points in exactly the opposite direction.24
Morris cites evidence of design patterns like the eye, that exist in unrelated phyla. How did each of these unrelated animal groups develop an eye, independent of one another? Morris believes there are common patterns built into nature’s laws. He calls his theory, convergence.
According to Morris, such common design patterns in totally separate phyla provide compelling evidence against Darwin’s theory of accidental naturalistic evolution. But is designed evolution really an option if there is little or no fossil evidence to support macroevolution?
Although, like Morris, many believe in some form of directed evolution, such theories don’t adequately explain the missing transitional fossils. Macroevolution, whether by design or by accident, still requires transitional forms. Yet the intense scrutiny of billions of fossils has failed to provide clear evidence for macroevolution other than a few debatable exceptions.
What, then, is the most plausible explanation for the missing transitional forms? There are really only three viable options:
1. Darwin was right about macroevolution. An abundance of transitional fossils will someday be found, or billions of transitionals were destroyed.
2. Darwin was wrong about gradualism. Macroevolution occurred rapidly, explaining the missing transitions (punctuated equilibria or design).
3. Darwin was wrong about macroevolution. The fossils can’t be found because transitions never existed (design).
Paleontologists are not in agreement on which option is correct, but there is general agreement, with a few debatable exceptions, that the fossils that Darwin predicted would be discovered in abundance are truly missing. Materialists respond by showing fossil evidence of horses gradually evolving. But that is only microevolution.
They also try to depict human evolution by assembling fragments of hominid skulls. But the origin of Homo sapiens has been a source of frustration and controversy. (See article 7)
As we have seen, Darwinist’s best example, the Archaeopteryx, is a debatable transition between birds and reptiles. If Darwin was right, there should be millions of his predicted transitional fossils forthcoming by now. That would end the debate.
Continue reading page 8 of 8 of “Where are Darwin’s Predicted Fossils?”
