The theory of evolution is founded upon false extrapolations

     In Origin of Species, Charles Darwin exerted considerable effort to convince the reader that changes could naturally occur in species just as they do in selective breeding. He repeatedly stated that he saw no limit to the variation that could result from millions of years of natural selection.

     The entire treatise of Origin of Species was an elaborate description attempting to prove the phenomenon of natural selective breeding in nature. Darwin then extended these observations to macroevolution, assuming that such a conclusion was scientifically valid.

     Thus, the foundation of Darwin's arguments rested on false assumptions from the beginning. The small changes observed by man, none of which are associated with any increased complexity of the genetic code, were extrapolated to the larger claims of evolution which require millions of changes in the genetic code. The extension of small simple changes over hundreds of years to large complex changes over millions of years is a self-evident fallacy.

     A common falsehood proliferated in biology textbooks is the assertion that microevolution and macroevolution are identical processes, differing from one another only on time scales.  Since evolution cannot be observed, researchers have attempted to estimate unknowns beyond an observable range of testing. This is not just speculation, it is naïve wishful-thinking.

     For example, suppose someone wanted to estimate the weight of a newborn at the future age of three years. On average, a male infant doubles his body weight by about four months of age. If an infant weighed 7.7 pounds at birth and 15.4 pounds at four months, one could estimate that his weight at three years would be 7,884 pounds. This is obviously a false extrapolation, because after the infant was weighed at the age of four months, the assumption was made that his weight would continue to increase at that same constant rate, which it doesn’t. In this example, I have illustrated the fallacy of simple linear extrapolation. A linear extrapolation is a mathematical concept in which it is assumed that one can extend data obtained within a limited range of testing to a range beyond that which has been tested. In the case of an infant’s weight, it was falsely assumed that just because a newborn’s body weight doubles within four months of birth, it will continue doubling every four months thereafter.

     Another example of a false extrapolation can be illustrated by proposing an aircraft that could orbit the earth. Suppose a twin-engine aircraft requires 30 gallons of fuel to achieve an altitude of 20,000 feet. By simple multiplication, one could calculate that the plane could achieve an altitude capable of orbiting the earth with about 1,000 gallons of fuel. This, of course, is false because conditions change with higher altitudes, making such a feat impossible.

A parallel can be drawn in the example of the aircraft and the extrapolation of natural selective breeding to macroevolution.  Just as in the example of the aircraft, the conditions required in extending the changes over long periods of time are different. Natural selective breeding is achieved through selection of pre-existing genes. Macroevolution requires the creation of novel genetic information through mutation.

     Justification of the entire evolution hypothesis relies on the unwarranted assumption that small changes over short periods can be extended to large changes over long periods of time. Bacterial antibiotic resistance involves a loss of genetic information, resulting in a loss of normal functions in an environment without antibiotics.

     Charles Darwin understood that his conclusions were tenuous, because he knew that the extension of microevolution to macroevolution was not self-evident, but conjecture. He did not understand DNA, so he should not be judged too harshly. His arguments were advanced relying on the primitive nineteenth century understanding of inheritance.

Biologists today who preach that evolution is a simple extension of genetic variability know better. It is common knowledge among all who are acquainted with science that it is reckless and unscientific to assume that data obtained within a limited range of testing can be extended indefinitely to untested ranges by simple multiplication. It should therefore be assumed at the onset that changes in biological processes cannot be extrapolated over time unless proven otherwise.

     It is critical to understand the fallacy of linear extrapolation, because the entire theory of evolution is built upon it.

The extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution is, in my view, the most embarrassing fallacy propagated in university biology departments today. The assumption that “small changes over short periods of time” equals “large changes over long periods of time” is easily recognized as absurd by children in elementary school. Yet university professors bully their students into believing that this is a scientifically valid assumption.

If one particle of evolution is true, all of it must be true

     It is astounding that biologists continue to proliferate the same irrelevant examples natural selective breeding front-and-center in university-level biology textbooks, in the attempt to convince the world that all life shares common descent. This only serves to underscore the overall weakness of the evolution hypothesis.  No compelling evidence can be presented that complex biologic systems evolved.  None of the obstacles to evolution that have been presented are addressed.  
     The demonstration of changing moth colors and of beak shapes of finches does not prove that man evolved from apes.  Despite this self-evident truth, university professors unabashedly teach that these observations of natural selective breeding indicate that all of the extravagant claims of evolution are valid.