Have any Protestant Biologists demonstrated through their own research that Evolution is untenable?

Henry M Morris and John C Whitcomb together wrote the book 'The Genesis Flood' and published it in 1961. The entire book is, in effect, a 'research paper' and I would suggest it is more than that : I would classify it myself as a PhD thesis.

The book gives a sensible, plausible and thoroughly researched alternative to evolution and shows, extensively, that evolution cannot be a truth, in and of itself.

It is said that the book "elevated young Earth creationism to a position of fundamentalist orthodoxy."(1)

Whitcomb was a geologist and a paleontologist ; and Morris was a hydraulic engineer.

The book covers paleontology, geology, biology, cosmology, physics, chemistry, genetics and biology. The book is scientifically based but quotes extensively, also, from the holy bible.

The book had a profound effect on evangelical Protestantism in the 1960s and thereafter.

I read the entire book whilst I was a teenager in the 1960s and whilst I was studying chemistry and biology at school. I was thoroughly convinced then and I remain so to this day, now in my seventieth year.

I went on to study Chemistry at College and, further, to attain Licentiateship of the Royal Society of Chemistry.

Both as a chemist and as a Christian, I can see no logic whatsoever to the concept of evolution as a mechanism of either generating or propagating species. The Genesis Flood destroys every single pillar upon which that theory is supported.

(1) Ronald Numbers, 2006

In order to come to a conclusion about research that shows the theory of evolution to be untenable, you will need to read quite a few books and articles, written by Christian scientists who maintain the theory has more holes in it than a colander. I detail just two at the end of this answer.

It should also be pointed out that part of the process of coming to such a conclusion requires examining the research that promotes the theory of evolution, to see whether there is verifiable proof of the claims made in support of it. If there was sufficient doubt as to the veracity of evidence presented, that in itself could be enough for rational people to think, "Maybe - maybe not. Actual proof is still lacking." I expect this paragraph might elicit howls of protest from evolution supporters, insisting that evolution has been proven. Sigh. The proof that is given is one thing. The conclusions arrived at can be another thing, being interpretations that are dubious. A set of scientific facts can have varying conclusions arrived at, due to people having differing interpretations of the facts. Unless people are prepared to look at the subject with such openness to the problem of how facts can be interpreted in different ways, no progress can be made.

That is why it can be a waste of time trying to answer such a massive question as this on such a limited forum as this. Therefore, I suggest you start reading a couple of books (there are far more than these), written by a Christian who is a scientist.

Who Made God? Searching for a theory of everything by Edgar Andrews

What is Man? Adam, Alien or Ape? by Edgar Andrews

Edgar Andrews is Emeritus Professor of Materials Science in the University of London, England. He hold PhD and DSc (higher doctorate) degrees in Physics and has published over 100 scientific research papers. I believe he is now retired. He has written Bible commentaries / books, acclaimed by the Evangelical Library. Yes, he’s a Protestant.

Yes. You can find many articles at ApologeticsPress.org by Jeff Miller who is a Biomechanical Engineer who explains why evolution is a false theory. See "God and the Laws of Science: Genetics vs. Evolution (Part I) here.

Excerpt:

"Scientists have realized today that Darwin was wrong. Natural selection alone would not suffice to cause evolution to occur. Evolutionary paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University once explained, “The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well” (1977, p. 28, emp. added). Therein lies the problem. Evolutionists recognize today that they cannot even claim that natural selection could create the fit. Hugo de Vries long ago said, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest” (1905, pp. 825-826, emp. added)."

And, further -

" the origin of biological information” (1990, p. 170). In the book, In the Beginning was Information, Gitt makes the compelling argument that “[t]he question ‘How did life originate?’ which interests us all, is inseparably linked to the question ‘Where did the information come from?’… All evolutionary views are fundamentally unable to answer this crucial question” (Ch. 6). Neil Shubin, paleontologist and professor of organismal biology and anatomy at the University of Chicago wrote:

I can share with you one true law that all of us can agree upon. This law is so profound that most of us take it completely for granted. Yet it is the starting point for almost everything we do in paleontology, developmental biology, and genetics. This biological “law of everything” is that every living thing on the planet had parents. Every person you’ve ever known has biological parents, as does every bird, salamander, or shark you have ever seen…. To put it in a more precise form: every living thing sprang from some parental genetic information (2009, p. 174, emp. added)."

Moreover -

"Several years ago, evolutionary scientists gathered in Mainz, Germany and discussed some of the problems that had yet to be solved by naturalists (and still have not been solved today) regarding origins. Klaus Dose of the Institute for Biochemistry at Johannes Gutenberg University wrote concerning the findings of the seventh “International Conference on the Origins of Life”:

A further puzzle remains, namely the question of the origin of biological information, i.e., the information residing in our genes today…. The Mainz report may have an equally important historical impact, because for the first time it has now been determined unequivocally by a large number of scientists that all evolutionary theses that living systems developed from poly-nucleotides which originated spontaneously, are devoid of any empirical base (1983, pp. 968-969, emp. added). .

In other words, no scientist has any empirical evidence that biological information could spontaneously generate. But evolution requires the spontaneous generation of information. Without such a process, naturalistic evolution has no mechanism for the initial generation of information at the onset of life or for interkind transformation."

Part II of his article continues here.

Apologetics Press has many more articles from other scientists explaining why the theory of evolution is false and has never been proven empirically. It is a theory designed to satisfy those who rebel against the idea of a creator, and who refuse to believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Yet, it is the "state religion" that is taught in all of American education science classes as a fact.

ADDENDUM

Just a couple of notes relating to some comments and answers on this question. This is the "Christianity" stack site, but many are wanting answers that are "peer reviewed" from scientists who have been trained in educational centers that will only provide "degrees" if the student agrees with and corresponds to the accepted "science" agenda. It is disingenuous to claim that there are no peer reviewed papers against the theory of evolution when to do so in today's politicized environment will ruin a "scientist's" career.

Further, the interpretation of "genes" and DNA > RNA development comes from the biased presumption that evolution is real, and so all data or discoveries is seen through the rose colored lenses of that bias to support that belief system. See "What is Horizontal Gene Transfer, and Does It Support Evolution" by Joe Deweese at Apologetics Press here .

Mutations are mostly harmful, and destructive, and do not supply better information. The human gene pool is degenerating over time, not getting better.

Excerpt from "Heterozygous Lethal Mutations" by Joe Deweese, Ph.D. Biochemistry -

"While it is true that relatively “small” mutations can cause major problems and conversely, some “larger” mutations do not result in immediate lethality (for example, the extra copy of chromosome 21 in Down’s Syndrome), this argument may be missing a more relevant point. It is clear that mutations cause many problems, including cancer (Hanahan and Weinberg, 2011), and that documented mutations in long-term evolution experiments do not show major evidence for macroevolutionary change (Behe, 2010). Perhaps the more important point has to do with the types of changes that can be expected. As one geneticist argued in a recent book, mutations cause the decay of the “message” of the genome rather than the formation of new information (Sanford, 2008). A summary of long-term evolution experiments also suggests that even mutations considered “beneficial” (for the organism) in these studies generally involved the loss of genetic information (Behe, 2010).

In order for organisms to progressively evolve from one form to the next, new genetic information is needed. However, there is no known mechanism or natural process for generating new information (Gitt, 2005; Sanford, 2008; Meyer, 2009). Some theorize that naturally occurring mutation processes like duplication could account for increases in genetic information. But duplication does not explain the origin of the gene being duplicated, much less explain how position-specific nucleotide changes could develop a new feature or function (Sanford, 2008). The random mutations occurring naturally have no direction and do not have a “plan” for developing a particular function (Sanford, 2008). The expectation that random changes will develop new information does not fit the available evidence, nor is it statistically likely to occur (Sanford, 2008; Meyer, 2009; Behe, 2010). [NOTE: This topic gets very complex very quickly, and care should be taken any time this is discussed to be sure that the underlying science is very well understood. Misunderstanding can lead to misrepresentation, which can harm the cause and discredit those responsible.]

In summary, some very small, but very harmful, genetic changes have been documented, and their occurrence supports the concept that the genome is decaying over time (Sanford, 2008). A larger challenge for the macroevolutionary approach is to explain how new information can develop by random, undirected means in order to facilitate the development of new features and ultimately new organisms. A better explanation? We are here by design (Romans 1:20)." (Source: ApologetiicsPress

New information is not better information, and is not a proof of macro-evolutionary change.

Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, and Douglas Axe have argued in technical & lay publications against the plausibility of unguided evolution; several of the arguments used are:

• Specified complexity is found in DNA; specified complexity is not known to occur randomly, but is known to be developed by intelligent minds
• Irreducible complexity in cellular structures requires design if the unit would not function in intermediate stages (i.e. you either have a functioning machine or a non-functioning machine, anything "in between" would be useless and natural selection would not favor it)
• There haven't yet been enough life forms in the history of earth for macro-evolution to produce 1 novel, successful protein fold by chance, let alone do so many, many times. Axe argued that approx. 1 in every 10⁷⁸ possible DNA permutations creates a viable protein fold (others have suggested at least a somewhat less daunting figure); there have only been approx. 10⁴¹ or 10⁴² living organisms in earth's history. If this calculation is correct, we would have to replay the entire history of life on earth about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times in order to get just one new protein fold to come into being by chance.
• Changes in epigenetics & developmental gene regulatory networks cannot be explained by natural selection acting upon random mutation. This doesn't mean evolution cannot influence these things, but it does mean that the Modern Synthesis of Darwinsim cannot adequately account for them.

(See Darwin's Doubt by Stephen Meyer for further development of each of these ideas)

These are not deductive arguments, they are abductive arguments, making an inference to the best, known explanation. Honest biologists on all sides of the debate must acknowledge that there is much that we do not yet know. Further discoveries will doubtless answer some existing dilemmas and create new ones as well.

These do not constitute arguments against evolution generally, rather, they are arguments against blind/unguided evolution. Each of the authors cited is a proponent of the development of life under the hand of an intelligent designer.

No. There is not a single "real (peer-reviewed) research paper" showing that evolution is not likely or possible. I would challenge anybody who provides names to instead post a link to such a paper. If they do, I can guarantee you that it either:

1. isn't a real peer-reviewed journal, or
2. is very very old and has since been discarded, or
3. has been misinterpreted by the commenter and does not actually show that evolution is unlikely or impossible.

There are two main reasons I can promise this is so:

1. Science is not in the practice of proving negatives to begin with. (e.g., "X cannot happen." The most you might get is "X does not happen under Y conditions," or "X requires Z conditions.")
2. Evolution has been directly observed in laboratories many many times already and itself is a supporting pillar of other working sciences that produce working results. Evolution itself isn't (just) a theory (any more); it is an observed fact like gravity. (Instead of thinking of the label "evolution", just reword it like "new species arise from older species") But the theory of why evolution (aka, speciation) happens is "natural selection". As in, just as Einstein posited General Relativity for his theory as to why gravity happens, so Darwin posited Natural Selection for his theory as to why evolution happens. (The modern accepted theory is actually more complex than that now. See Wikipedia on "the modern synthesis" of evolution.)

The people who may desire or claim to produce such a paper may be found on this list. You can sort by field, qualification, and date of last real (i.e., non-pseudojournal) publication. You'll note that there are no such people meeting the asker's criteria.