Popular media and mainstream science contend that evolution, despite its many challenges and inconsistencies with the available evidence, is an established and immutable fact.  The only debate, they claim, is specifically how evolution occurs, not whether it happens.  We only need to study it more to fill in the missing pieces.  But ironically, the more science advances in its understanding of biology, the more daunting these hurdles have become.

Logic & Light has addressed the challenges facing neo-Darwinism multiple times (e.g. here and here).  In part 6 of our series on evolution, we covered two recent discoveries (2018), from within the mainstream scientific community, that question some of Darwinism’s basic premises.

First, Jordi Paps and Peter Holland published research in Nature Communications that found “the evolution of animals was driven by a burst of new genes not seen in the evolution of their unicellular ancestors.”¹  In other words, large amounts of novel, functional genetic information simply popped into existence, completely in opposition to the slow, gradual changes required by evolution.

Secondly, Mark Stoeckle and David Thaler published research in the journal Human Evolution containing three key findings that contradict traditional evolution²:  1) large, dispersed populations did not get more diverse over time, 2) ~90% of the world’s species seemed to have come into existence at roughly the same time and relatively recently in earth’s history, and 3) “species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between,” challenging the concept of transitional lifeforms.

These recent articles compound the hurdles facing evolution.  But, unfortunately for the theory, the body blows keep coming.  A 2022 study by researchers from Israel and Ghana “fundamentally challenges”³ the very foundation of neo-Darwinism.  And the emerging theory of Cognition-Based Evolution (CBE), described in an August 2024 article in Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, tacitly throws in the towel by proposing that random mutations and natural selection are insufficient and that “intelligence has been governing the flow of biological information continuously”⁴ since the beginning of life.

De Novo Mutations

The 2022 study led by scientists from Israel and Ghana provides “the first evidence of nonrandom mutation in human genes, challenging a core assumption at the heart of evolutionary theory.”⁵  The researchers were studying the origin of so called de novo mutations, specifically the human hemoglobin S (HbS) mutation that protects against malaria.  De novo (“anew”) mutations represent instances where new genetic information seemingly appears “out of the blue” with no evolutionary precursor.  In contrast to the scientists’ initial assumptions, the emergence of the HbS mutation clearly followed a non-random pattern, seemingly in response to environmental need vs. chance.⁶

This finding is important for several key reasons.  First, purposeful, non-random mutation is contradictory to the foundation of Darwinian thought and “cannot be explained by traditional theories.”⁷  Secondly, directed, non-random mutations that respond to environmental stress would require far more complex genetics and biological engineering than traditional evolutionary theory.  In fact, non-random changes may not be “mutations” at all in the conventional sense.  Rather, a genome capable of directed, non-random changes in response to specific stimuli strongly implies intentional design, purpose, and forethought rather than undirected, natural processes.  The study authors admit their findings open “the door to evolution being a far bigger process than previously conceived.”⁸  No kidding.  In fact, it opens the door wide to evolution not being true at all.

Cognition-Based Evolution

For decades, scientists have known there are massive challenges facing neo-Darwinian thought. And growing scientific evidence like the studies referenced above prove random mutation and natural selection are fundamentally incapable of producing and diversifying life.  Consequently, scientists are constantly trying to figure out the key missing ingredient that will tie everything together.  One of the latest theories to emerge is so called Cognition-Based Evolution (CBE).  CBE is unquestionably a secular framework, but it finally admits that life’s development is not possible without the influence of the one thing Darwinists have traditionally opposed with every fiber of their being – intelligence.

CBE contends that “evolutionary variation is the product of natural cellular engineering that permits purposive genetic adjustments as cellular problem-solving.”⁹   Furthermore, CBE acknowledges that all life, including “simple” prokaryotic Bacteria and Archaea, are and have been cognitive agents “that make contingent self-referential decisions completely unlike all programmed machines” since life began.¹⁰  It is important to note, CBE does not seek to explain where this intelligence, cognition, and engineering come from.  Rather, they are, somehow, intrinsic to the very nature of life.

CBE is hardly a fringe theory.  Multiple, recent articles in credible scientific publications support its premise.  And no less an authority than molecular biologist, and committed evolutionist, James Shapiro admitted that “all living cells are cognitive” back in 2021.¹¹

The implications of CBE are earth shaking from an evolutionary perspective.  By admitting that “intelligence has been governing the flow of biological information”¹² from the beginning, CBE tacitly acknowledges that we are “more than just matter” and “molecular machines.”¹³  There is something else (i.e. intelligence) that cannot be captured and/or explained by purely physical means.

While appealing to cognition as the “holy grail” that saves evolution, CBE advocates have actually dug the theory’s grave even deeper.  When purely naturalistic explanations for life came up short, they invoked something even harder to explain naturally.  CBE supporters readily admit “no one knows how cognition began.”¹⁴  And you can hardly create it via chemical reactions and processes.  Consistent with 100% of human experience since the beginning of recorded history, both life and intelligence only come from pre-existing life and intelligence.  CBE proponents have actually doubled their inexplicable issues!

Conclusion

The foundation of naturalistic evolution continues to erode as we gain greater scientific understanding.  Recent study after study calls its most basic premises into question.  And the only thing capable of “saving” Darwinism (i.e. intelligence) actually renders any naturalistic theory completely impotent.  It is encouraging that science is starting to recognize the obvious, but frustrating that so many are still ignoring that the evidence clearly points to a divine, intelligent Creator God as described in the Bible.   Concealing the facts behind the façade of “Cognition-Based Evolution” and high-sounding terms like “nonrandom de novo mutations” smacks of nothing more than willful ignorance.

Notes:

1. Luskin, Casey.   Groundbreaking Paper Shows Thousands of New Genes Needed for the Origin of Animals  https://evolutionnews.org/2018/06/groundbreaking-paper-shows-thousands-of-new-genes-needed-for-the-origin-of-animals/
2. Qunicler, Cristina.   Sweeping Gene Study Reveals New Facets of Evolution.    https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html
3. Henderson, Emily.   New study on mutation origination fundamentally challenges neo-Darwinism.  https://www.news-medical.net/news/20220131/New-study-on-mutation-origination-fundamentally-challenges-neo-Darwinism.aspx
4. O’Leary, Denyse.    Researchers:  Living Cells’ Cognition Drives Evolution.  https://mindmatters.ai/2024/08/researchers-living-cells-cognition-drives-evolution/
5. Henderson, Emily, 2022. Cit.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Miller, William; Enguita, Francisco; Leitao, Ana Lucia.   Non-Random Genome Editing and Natural Cellular Engineering in Cognition-Based Evolution  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34066959/
10. O’Leary, Denyse.  Op. Cit.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.