The Biological Models of Evolution…And The One That’s Missing?
Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI
Biblical Authority Ministries, September 5, 2025 (Donate)
Evolutionary ideas have come and gone throughout the ages. It is nothing new. Among the first evolutionists were some Greeks called Epicureans named for their founder Epicurus (also spelt Epikourus). It’s the same Epicureans that Paul argued against in Acts 17.
Marble bust of Epicurus from the 2nd Century AD; Metropolitan Museum of Art—being that the bust was long after his life, the representation is likely not accurate to what Epicurus really looked like.
That old evolutionary form is called Epicureanism and
is one the many pagan Greek mythologies. Epicureanism was unique among them in
that it does not have a multitude of “gods” associated with it—it has no “gods”
at all.
Modern evolutionary models have gone through several major
stages as secular thinkers (those who largely hold to evolutionary origins)
have attempted to explain the diversity of life apart from the God of the Bible.
So far, four major models have emerged (and there are variations within
some of these models too).
The Four Types of Biological Evolution Models
The four key evolutionary models in more recent times are:
1. Lamarckian Evolution
2. Traditional Darwinism
3. Neo-Darwinism
4. Punctuated Equilibrium
All forms of biological evolution—no matter how they are
framed—fail both scientifically and biblically.
Failing biblically is obvious—the evolutionary views simply doesn’t mesh with Genesis even with crazy mental gymnastics of reinterpretations that some try to assert. For instance, Adam was made from dust, not a previous animal ancestor.
Thus, the evolutionary view is false. Nevertheless, let’s
evaluate these models and why they fall short in more detail.
Lamarckian Evolution
Lamarckian evolution, proposed by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck
(1744–1829), is one of the earliest reinvented formal models of evolution in
modern times. It was also espoused by Charles Darwin’s grandfather Erasmus
Darwin (1731-1802) in his book Zoonomia.
Lamarck suggested that organisms can acquire new traits
during their lifetimes through use or disuse of certain organs and then
pass those acquired traits on to their offspring. In other words, if they used
their body part, they would keep it or it would evolve to an even better
appendage but if the organism didn’t use it, it would evolve away.
A classic example is the giraffe, whose ancestors supposedly
stretched their necks to reach higher leaves, thus it “evolved” to gradually
producing longer-necked descendants over many generations. Of course, this was
not observed.
Giraffe's neck don't get longer from reaching up; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (Chat GPT)
However, another observable example presented itself. Farmers would cut
off the tail of a sheep to keep it from getting messy. After years and years of
generations and generations of disuse of the tail because it was cut off, the
prediction of the model is that it would evolve away. But this didn’t happen. Sheep
in the next generation still grew tails just like their ancestors. So, the
model was failing
This Lamarckian idea has been thoroughly rejected by modern geneticists.
Scientific discoveries since the time of Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics,
have shown that acquired traits do not alter the genetic code and therefore
cannot be passed down to offspring.
For instance, a man who develops large muscles from exercise
does not have children born with larger muscles as a direct result of his
training. So, Lamarck’s ideas failed because the mechanism didn’t work. Even
from a scientific perspective, it was over.
Traditional Darwinism (Classical Darwinism)
After Lamarck’s ideas circulated and were failing, Charles
Darwin, no doubt influenced by his grandfather, offered a new mechanism for
evolution. Prior to Darwin, Ed Blyth, an astute scientific observer and a
creationist, had been publishing on variations within kinds of creatures. He
was noting how animals could be observed to survive better in some environments
compared to others and the result was due to minor variations (e.g., think of longer hair or shorter hair for the environment you are in).
Dogs with short hair thrive in warmer climates, not the cold ones where they will die off or leave; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (Chat GPT)
Blyth looked at these changes from a biblical viewpoint and interpreted them as a conservative process. Darwin read Blyth’s papers and thought that these minor changes within a kind—if given enough time—could cause evolutionary or macro changes from one kind to another over long ages. In short Darwin thought this could be a generative process—to generate new uniquely evolved traits
Alfred Russell Wallace was also competing with Darwin on these same ideas. Darwin bested Wallace, and so most people know Darwin’s name. But with this new mechanism of Blyth, called natural selection by Darwin, a new evolutionary model emerged. Darwin was still influenced by Lamarckian evolution from time to time. Even so, he was initially dead set on:
Natural selection + Millions of years = Evolution.
Traditional Darwinism stems from Charles Darwin’s new
suggested understanding of natural selection, published in On the Origin of
Species by Means of Natural Selection For the Preservation of Favored Races
(1859) and subsequently his second book (The Descent of Man, and Selection
in Relation to Sex).
Darwin proposed that small, gradual changes accumulate over
immense periods of time as favorable variations are “selected” because they
help organisms survive and reproduce. Over millions of years, these small
changes supposedly produce entirely new species and life forms.
Of course, this has never been observed over long ages. By
the end of Darwin’s life and in his sixth and final edition of Origins, he
edited it in such a way that he had backed off from being so adamant about
natural selection being the mechanism. And he even gave hints that one should
be looking for another mechanism.[1]
Darwin’s model relied on mechanisms that were unverified and
often incorrect:
- Darwin
believed in a system of internal particles called pangenesis or “gemmules”
that passed traits from parents to offspring, but this was disproven by
later genetic research
- He
assumed that gradual change would be visible in the fossil record, with
countless transitional forms showing the steps between one kind of
creature and another. Instead, the fossil record overwhelmingly shows
stability (stasis) and sudden appearance of fully formed organisms.
- Natural
selection didn’t lead to any new, complex and usable genetic information
but rather was a losing process, where it filtered out already existing
information.
- Natural
selection simply eliminates unfit individuals, preserving existing
capabilities rather than inventing new structures. It acts like a quality
control mechanism, not a creative force.
Darwin himself admitted this was a major problem for his view,
writing, “The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in
certain formations, has been urged as a fatal objection to the belief in the
transmutation of species”.[2]
In simple terms, the fossil rock layers were supposed to
have billions and billions of obvious transitional forms. But they didn’t. This
problem still persists today. And is actually a devasting problem with the next
two models as well.
Neo-Darwinism (aka, The Modern Synthesis)
By the early 20th century, Darwin’s original view
was no longer sufficient. Scientists began combining natural selection with the
new science of genetics, especially the understanding of mutations, to form
what is now called Neo-Darwinism
or the Modern Synthesis. This was led by Hugo DeVries, the father of
Neo-Darwinism.
In this model, random mutations supposedly produce new traits, and natural selection works to preserves beneficial mutations while eliminating harmful ones. Over time, this process supposedly creates new structures and ultimately new kinds of organisms. Neo-Darwinism is therefore:
Mutations + Natural selection + Millions of years = Evolution.
Again, this has never been observed over long ages.
Furthermore, mutations are almost always bad—often nearly neutral, but not what
is hoped for. Cancer is a mutation—if yet to see an instance where cancer led
to an onward and upward evolution change with new usable traits that gets
passed to the next generation of humanity.
While Neo-Darwinism remains the dominant form of evolutionary
belief today, there are several fatal flaws:
- Mutations
do not create new, complex and usable, information. Observed mutations
generally degrade or shuffle existing genetic information (nearly neutral),
rather than create the complex, organized information needed to build new
biological systems.
- There
is a lack of transitional fossil or genetic evidence. Even with genetic
knowledge, there remains no evidence for large-scale evolutionary
transitions between basic types of organisms. Instead, variation is
limited to changes within a created kind, which was predicted by the
biblical model (Genesis 1).
Like Traditional Darwinism, the fossil rock layers were
supposed to have billions and billions of obvious transitional forms. But they
didn’t.
Also, because Neo-Darwinism cannot explain the origin of new
genetic information, it fails to provide a plausible mechanism for
“molecules-to-man” evolution.
Punctuated Equilibrium
In the 1970s, paleontologists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles
Eldredge introduced Punctuated Equilibrium as an alternative model. This model
was developed specifically to address the gaps in the fossil record.
Otherwise, it is still the same as Neo-Darwinism but in this case it adds small bursts of unobserved rapid evolutionary changes that we don’t see. In one variation, called Hopeful Monster, the evolutionary changes are extremely large in one generation. This model is essentially:
Mutations + Natural selection + (short unobserved bursts) over Millions of years = Evolution.
Nevertheless, the model has organisms remain in long periods of stasis with little change,
followed by brief, rapid bursts of evolutionary activity, often in small,
isolated populations.
This suggestion is an attempt to try to get past the problem
of why transitional fossils are rare and non-existent—the appeal is to
suggest that the creatures existed for too short a time while they were
evolving quickly to be widely preserved.
The problems with this is that the evolution is no longer supposed
to be observed in the fossil layers, but in the imaginary space between
the layers, where nothing is fossilized. In other words, it is clever way of
saying the model doesn’t have evidence.
While Punctuated Equilibrium believers acknowledges the problematic
fossil record, it does not solve the fundamental issues:
- Adherents admits that gradual transitions are missing, but simply reinterprets the
absence as evidence of rapid, unobservable events in between rock layers.
- Even
rapid evolutionary bursts would still require the sudden appearance of
massive amounts of new genetic information, which mutations and natural
selection cannot provide.
Thus, this model merely shifts the problem without offering
a realistic scientific mechanism.
What Vital Model Is Missing?
An evolutionary model that works.
Did you catch that? I’ll repeat it. An evolutionary model
that works. There still isn’t one, from a genetics standpoint, geological
standpoint, or observational standpoint. The astute evolutionists know there is
still not a mechanism for evolution and they still need one if they want
biological evolution to be viable.
But as of now, there is still the problem of a missing evolutionary
model that works.
The Biblical Model
The failure of all evolutionary models is telling. And yet, the
model of variation within created kinds explains things genetically,
geologically, and observationally. According to Genesis, God created all living
creatures “according to their kinds” (Genesis 1:11–12, 21, 24–25).
These kinds were created with built-in genetic diversity,
allowing for variation within each kind (e.g., different breeds and
species of dogs but one dog kind) but not transformation into a completely
different kind (e.g., dogs to elephants).
This view explains the evidence:
- The
fossil record shows sudden appearance of fully formed organisms.
- Genetic
studies confirm that mutations degrade rather than invent new information.
- Observed
variations explains conservational survival in specific environments
better, not the origin of such traits.
By contrast, each evolutionary model—Lamarckian, Traditional
Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, and Punctuated Equilibrium—fails to explain the
complexity and design of life.
Conclusion
The history of evolution, regarding it's biological models, has a pattern
of changing views without solving the core problems. Lamarckian evolution
failed due to genetic and observational discoveries. Darwin’s gradualism
faltered in part because of fossil evidence and cannot explain the origin of
new, complex, usable information.
Neo-Darwinism attempts to rescue evolution through genetic
mutations but still cannot explain the origin of new, complex, usable
information. Punctuated Equilibrium acknowledges the gaps but only shifts the
explanation to unobservable high speed evolutionary events and still can’t
explain the fossils or biological origin of complex information.
All four models fail both scientifically and biblically—unlike
the biblical model. The evolutionary viewpoint still requires a model that has
a scientifically verifiable mechanism—at this point, it is still missing.
