False Ideas About Truth - Part 27 - Criticisms of Darwin’s Conclusions by Dr. Joe L. Mott on Sept. 21, 2026

References: (1) Allow me to refer to what Tom DeRosa said in his book Evolution’s Fatal Fruit.  “The stunning diversity of plants and animals that Darwin observed on his voyage [on the Beagle] made him ask the question: Why are there so many types of turtles, lizards, birds, insects, etc., to be observed across the world? And why do these kinds of animals and plants all SEEM to be perfectly ADAPTED to their geographic environment? As he toured the Galápagos Islands, he struggled to understand why these islands had such UNIQUE creatures, which nonetheless ROUGHLY correspond to animals observed on the continent. He discovered in South America the fossils of GIANT EXTINCT ANIMALS, such as an 18-foot-tall SLOTH and a 5-foot-long ARMADILLO. These exciting finds led to more questions about why the  body plan of these extinct animals so closely corresponded, except for size, to their contemporary COUNTERPARTS.” (2) “The conclusion Darwin came to from all this was that change is taking place through time, which is [the simplest definition] of evolution. ‘It was evident,” Darwin wrote in his Autography, ‘that such facts as these, as well as many others, could ONLY BE EXPLAINED on the supposition that species GRADULLY MODIFIED; and the subject HAUNTED ME.” (3) Then DeRosa makes his own comments: “These modifications that “haunted” Darwin can be BEST EXPLAINED, not as evolution, but as VARIATION within the sloth or armadillo kind. Could the huge size of these fossils be due to GIGANTISM? The tallest man in medical history measured 8 feet 11 inches, while the smallest tribe of pygmies, from Zaire, Africa, can be as small as 4 feet 1 inch. Despite the size range, both are STILL HUMAN.” (4) What about the modifications in the plumage or beak size of birds? Is this evolution? How would we KNOW? If we do not know how to define a SPECIES, how can we know when enough change takes place to constitute “transmutation,” which is Darwin’s term for evolution from one species into another.” That is, what Darwin means is MACROevolution. It is certainly a change WITHIN A SPECIES so it is MICROevolution. My question becomes: Is a species the same as what Genesis calls a kind? (5) The point of controversy is whether modifications may be SO EXTENSIVE that microevolution leaps beyond the SPECIES BOUNDARY and at some point becomes MACROevolution. But here is the fly in the buttermilk, since “species” is NOT DEFINED, it is IMPOSSIBLE to say when the SPECIES BARRIER IS BROKEN. This VAGUE DEFINITION makes it possible to say that small changes or large changes can be said to produce a new “species.” But how can that conclusion be CERTAIN? (6) DeRosa points out: “These “facts” include Darwin’s MISTAKEN ASSUMPTIONS that later had to be CHANGED. So, how RELIABLE are Darwin’s assertions that are based on inferences that can’t be tested? On what BASIS can he assert that his “facts” will bring to light to that “mystery of mysteries” — the origin of species? (7) Niles Eldredge claims that finches beak changes are one of the MOST COMPELLING ARGUMENTS that led Darwin to his theory of evolution. Really? There is no evidence whatsoever that finches changed to another species. They still remained FINCHES. In fact, the finches DO NOT SUPPORT EVOLUTION at all, but are great examples of variation WITHIN a kind. DeRosa reports that the Princeton zoologist Carl Wieland reported in Creation magazine vol. 14 (3): pp. 22-23 that after years of study the Galapagos finch population DID CHANGE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS. This is episode 294.