I want to refer you to an excellent article on Evolution by Dr. David Deming entitled “Doubting Darwin.” You can find it here:
Dr.Deming makes the important point that Darwin’s theory contradicts the fossil record. The big question Dr. Deming asks is, “Where are the transitional fossils?” I agree it’s a huge, gaping problem. But, if we hone in on one particular line of evolutionary development, then we can see clearly how gigantic the problem is.
So, let’s take Dr. Deming’s question and get very specific about it. Let us ask: Where are the transitional breast fossils?”
Darwinists don’t like talking about breasts. They prefer to talk about eyes. That’s because the evolution of the eye seems very straight-forward. Supposedly, it started with a strip or patch of cells that happened to become more sensitive to light. Then it developed into a cavity so that the light could be channeled. Then there evolved the pupil, the lens, etc. resulting in the modern complex eye, but every step along the way was useful and functional. Every change conferred a survival advantage. There is fossil evidence of rudimentary eyes, and there is wide range of complexity in the eyes of existing species. Conceptually, it’s neat and tidy. Let’s say that they’re able to talk a good game over it.
But when the discussion turns to the female breast, it’s much more arduous. There are no transitional breasts in the fossil record, and there are no rudimentary breasts among living species. A female breast produces a finished product, milk, and nothing less. It’s hard to imagine what the gradual evolution of the mammary gland was like. What exactly did the first (accidental) genetic changes towards lactation consist of, and what did they accomplish? How did they provide a survival advantage? (And remember, according to Darwin, they had to do so, or otherwise they got chucked.)
Evolutionists have tried to answer that by suggesting that breasts evolved from sweat glands, and that in the beginning, it involved just a transfer of water, and perhaps salt, from mother to infant. But, we should note, first, that that is just a speculation. There is not the slightest bit of evidence to support it, past or present. But, not only is it fanciful to suggest that the lapping of sweat by an infant would enhance its survival- it’s preposterous even to suggest that the infant would lap.
Infant behavior is instinctual; it is genetically determined. So, you would have to have simultaneous, but independent, genetic changes in the infant brain controlling its behavior at the same time that the maternal breast was evolving, and the changes would have to be synchronous. And remember, we are talking about random, accidental genetic changes.
But, it isn’t just the infant brain that had to evolve. The entire body of the infant had to be completely transformed to turn it into a milk-processing machine. That involved its mouth and teeth, its entire digestive tract, its kidney and liver function, its hormonal function, its immune function, and more. The entire body of the infant is adapted to a milk diet. These myriad changes would have had to occur at the same time the maternal breast was evolving, and all from accidental, spontaneous mutations.
Do you have any idea how many mutations would be involved in the complete metamorphosis of a pre-mammalian infant into a mammalian one? Can you see now how flighty it is to depict breast evolution as the mere tweaking of sweat glands into mammary glands? What about the infant? How could millions, or perhaps billions, of adaptations take place in the body of the infant to adjust it to a milk diet if the entire process depended on nothing but random, directionless mutations? And why would the very earliest changes in that random process have been naturally selected when there was not yet any milk? Remember, Evolution is blind, directionless. It is not leading anywhere.
The point is that with the eye, you just had one thing and one purpose. But, with the breast, you had not only all the changes to the breast, but you also had all the changes to the infant, which amounted to the complete transformation of the organism. We’re talking about a magnitude of change comparable to caterpillar to butterfly. How could it possibly happen by a series of genetic accidents?
Let’s compare it to the lottery. If you only had to pick 1 number right out of 45, your chances of winning would be 1 in 45. If you had to pick 2 numbers right, your odds drop to 1 in 1980. To pick all 6 numbers right, your odds drop to less than 1 in 15 million. To simultaneously evolve the female breast and the mammalian infant from random genetic mutations, how many numbers would you have to get right? And what would be the odds against it? Even if you grant that Nature can “select” (through survival of the fittest) a lucky mutation, you still have to get the mutation. You still have to get all of them. The mutation itself is a random event. Nature has no control over that. How could Nature be so lucky as to keep getting them? Isn’t it like winning the lottery again and again and again, ad infinitum?
The stock answer to that is that my foolish self has no idea of the impact of geologic time. We’re talking about eons of time- enough time for evolution by natural selection to do its thing. Well, the Earth is only 4 ½ billion years old, and life on Earth has existed for only 2 billion years. It’s funny how small those numbers seem in the age of trillion dollar deficits. But whether 2 billion years was enough time or not is a matter for mathematicians to debate, and according to Granville Sewell, mathematics professor at the University of Texas El Paso, it was not enough time. Dr. Sewell, like Dr. Deming, is a signee of the Dissent from Darwinism statement of the Discovery Institute. Mathematicians, as a class of scientists, have been the most skeptical of Evolution.
The bottom line is that modern Evolutionary theory, which is the foundation of all of Biology including Medicine, is the most colossal fraud in the history of Science, and every aware person should feel an obligation to expose it.