Discussion:
Ø
Life
was generated through evolution. If evolution occurred, God is not needed and
the Bible is false.
Ø
Man
is evolved from lower animals. Man is not unique and is not different from
other creatures.
Ø
Evolution
is scientific while creation is unscientific.
Ø
A
Christian can accept the Bible as well as the evolution
hypothesis.
a. A chief proponent of evolution Julian Huxley describes evolution as a comprehensive, all-encompassing, and universal process that consists of 3 phases: inorganic (cosmological), organic (biological), human (psycho-social) evolution. Today, for most people, the word evolution refers to bilogical evolution.
b. Major propositions of biological evolution hypothesis: (Charles Darwin)
(1) Living material has evolved from non-living matter.
(2) All living things (including man) have evolved from the simplest living things through beneficial mutation of inheritable genes.
(3) Evolution took place by means of the random operation of existing natural forces (natural selection or survival of the fittest).
c. It should be remembered that evolution theory is only a hypothesis. There are no empirical data to prove its scientific validity. When Darwin proposed the hypothesis, he admitted the lack of scientific evidence to support it. He was hoping that evidence will appear in the future. But after 150 years, and after numerous attempts by evolutionists to find good supporting scientific evidence, still no such evidence is found.
§ The evolution hypothesis uses 4 areas of scientific evidences to support their arguments.
(1) Argument
from microevolution:
► Evolutionists use breeding experiments as evidence. Dog breeders have developed new breeds of dog. However, breeding involved working with pre-existing genetic information, not new information.
► A species is normally endowed with a rich, diverse gene pool. It is certainly possible to change the appearance of a species over time, though not by much. In addition, there is gradual adaptation, such as greater resistance in bacteria as a result of antibiotics, colour variations in moths for camouflage. But both types of small-scale changes result in new varieties of same species, not new species. These changes are called “microevolution”. There is not a single evidence of any macroevolution [large-scale changes that would produce new body plans, organs or biochemical systems] bringing the formation of a new species.
► Simple bacteria can produce another generation in a matter of minutes. Yet, throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. None has been observed.
(2) Argument
from similarity:
► Similarities between species can derive from biological ancestry. But they can also result from the necessities of intelligent design of a common designer, just like a painter will paint different pictures with the same style. God may have created animals with 4 limbs because it was the best design. These do not by itself prove evolution.
► The Haeckel embryo sequence was drawn by German zoologist Ernst Haeckel about 100 years ago. It has been used to demonstrate our common ancestry with other mammals and thus prove the validity of evolution. However, the pictures were later found to be fakes.
► There is strong resemblance among all living things: the same 20 amino acids occur throughout life on Earth, and the same 5 bases comprise all DNA molecules. Yet, in reality, their differences are greater than their similarities.
(3) Argument
from fossils:
► Fossil record is said to display increasing complexity of life as one moves up from bottom to top of the geologic column. However, this is an oversimplification. In fact, there are gaps in the fossils and no transitional forms between the various species.
► Some claim the discovery of skeleton of “ancestors” of man, specifically: [1] homo erectus (1,000,000 to 500,000 years ago, found to have used fire), [2] homo neanderthalensis (150,000 to 40,000 years ago, found to have buried the dead, and made clothes from animal skins).
● However, these two have been re-assigned as homo sapiens, a different species from human beings (homo sapiens sapiens). They are also not transitional species between ape and man.
► In addition, some of the “discoveries” (previously claimed to be ancestors of man) have been found to be forgeries. Others were found to be wrongly classified and are now re-assigned as belonging to apes.
(4) Argument from anatomy:
► In 1925, an evolutionist zoologist stated: “There are no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body.” Vestigial (meaning trace) organs are described as relics from our animal past no longer serving any significant purpose. Today, the list of 180 vestigial structures is practically down to zero because scientists have found previously unknown functions for all of them.
§ Conclusion: All these arguments are found to be unreliable. None of the arguments can be used to prove evolution in a definitive way.
§
There
are evidences from 10 areas proving that the evolution hypothesis cannot
happen.
(1) Evidence
from Genetics: (Mutations are ALWAYS bad.)
► To be a different kind of creature, the genes must have mutated. Mutations are abrupt alterations in genes. They generally occur very rarely. According to the evolution hypothesis, an organism develops some new positive characteristics through a mutation, thus better adapting to the environment.
► Scientists discover that all observed mutations reduce the genetic information, not increase it. No mutations with additional information have ever been observed. Mutations delete information from the genetic code and never create higher, more complex information. When mutations occur in human beings, they cause birth defects.
► Some evolutionists pointed to mutations with beneficial effects, such as bacteria becoming more resistant to antibiotics. However, mutations that cause antibiotic resistance still involve information loss. In fact, under normal conditions, with no antibiotic present, they are weaker than others.
► Mutations are inheritable; but the changes are inevitably downward, or at best neutral. Mutations have never been observed to originate a new organ, or other functional structure. They reduce, but do not generate, biologic complexity. There is no evidence of the existence of mutations with an information gain, despite intense search by Darwinists.
► According to evolution, all life began as a single cell. If mutations can only lead to the loss of information, no advanced multi-cell life could ever be the result of mutations.
(2) Evidence
from Origins Science:
(The evolution of life from chemicals is impossible.)
► Evolutionists believe that chemicals in a “primordial soup” came together and formed the first cell. But even a “simple” cell contains information to fill a 100 million page encyclopedia. Cells consist essentially of proteins; one cell has thousands of proteins, and proteins are in turn made of smaller building blocks called amino acids, and these amino acids must be in precise functional sequence.
► Evolutionists often quote the experiment done by Stanley Miller in 1953. It is used to prove that chemicals can be turned into amino acids. However, there are many reasons why Miller’s experiment could not have happened in nature. For example, the experiment will not work if oxygen is present. This is entirely incredible.
►
Presume even that Miller’s
experiment could work in nature, the probability of getting just one protein by chance would be 1 in 10260
(calculation by evolutionist), an impossibility.
► Today, it is still not possible to synthesize one self-replicating protein molecule in the laboratory under any artificial conditions. Of course, the artificial synthesis of inorganic matter into organic matter is even more remote. If none of these can be synthesized even after years of deliberate human effort, it is difficult to imagine how this is transformed accidentally in nature.
(3) Evidence from Specified Complexity: (Random process can never produced specified complex patterns.)
► Specified Complexity is an argument used by Intelligent Design theory to argue why evolution is impossible. A specified pattern is one that admits short descriptions, while a complex pattern is one that is unlikely to occur by chance.
► Evolutionist Thomas Huxley argued for chance origins by saying that 6 monkeys, poking randomly at typewriters, and given enough millions of years, could write all the books in the British Museum.
► Question: what are the odds of a monkey correctly typing one predetermined 9-letter word, such as “evolution”? Let us assume that the typewriter has only 26 letters and no other symbols and that the monkey can type 30 letters per minute; it would take 344,000 years. If 10 monkeys started typing at the time of the Big Bang, the group would not have sufficient time to finish typing correctly even one predetermined word of 13 letters (which requires 15.7 billion years).
► To explain the beginning of life by chance happenings based on probability is unbelievable. An evolutionist scientist Dr. Morowitz formulated a model to calculate the probability for the formation of the smallest living organism by random process. He comes up with a probability of one chance in 10340,000,000. Yet he and his fellow evolutionist scientists still believe that it happened!
(4) Evidence
from Biochemistry:
(Biochemical systems do not allow step-by-step evolution.)
► Biochemical systems are very complex. If any component was missing, the system would have no function. It is termed “irreducible complexity.”
► For example, blood clotting is a very complex process involving more than a dozen steps. A person with just one clotting factor missing has hemophilia and is at risk for bleeding. If blood clotting had evolved step-by-step over long periods of time, creatures would have bled to death long before blood clotting was ever perfected.
► Biochemical systems, such as human vision, are also irreducibly complex. They cannot have evolved step-by-step because individual parts of the organ are useless unless the entire organ is functioning.
(5) Evidence
from Fossils:
(Missing links are ALL still missing.)
►
According to evolution, one species
was evolved into another species through a large number of small changes
through mutations. Darwin admitted that there should be millions of transitional forms, thousands between each
evolutionary step. Darwin admitted that none
of these creatures’ fossils had been found in his day. He was bothered by the
total lack of transitional forms. He could only hope that future excavations
would produce them.
► If evolution hypothesis is true, the geologic fossil record should reveal billions of transitional forms Darwin spoke of. Yet after almost 150 years, despite uncountable attempts to find even one missing link, none has been confirmed. All the missing links are still missing. Most fully formed species appeared suddenly without transitional forms.
(6) Evidence
from Taxonomy:
(There are NO living intermediates between groups.)
► Taxonomy is the science that classifies plants and animals, grouping them by characteristics they share, assigning organisms by kingdom, class, and species. If there is evolution of species, we should see living intermediates between these groups. Evolutionists acknowledge the missing intermediates but say that they must have become extinct. Yet there are not even fossils of any intermediates.
► The biochemical “relatedness” between various plants and animals does not support evolution. The difference in anatomy proved to be much wider under careful examination.
(7) Evidence
from Molecular Biology: (Molecular biology demonstrates the large GAPS between species.)
► Evolutionists believe that fish evolved into amphibians, which then evolved into reptiles, then vertebrates, then mammals, then primates, then humans. If evolution follows a sequence, then fish must be much closer to amphibians than to humans.
► Research of different animals on a molecular level disputes the validity of evolution. An analysis on the molecular structure of cytochrome C (found in organisms ranging from bacteria to man) shows that fish are just as distant from amphibians as fish are from humans.
(8) Issue
of Natural Selection: (Explanation using natural selection has been abandoned.)
► According to natural selection (survival of the fittest), a physical trait is acquired because it enhances survival. Reptiles wanted to eat flying insects that were out of reach. So the reptiles began leaping, and flapping their arms to get higher. Over millions of years, they became birds.
► Yet many natural phenomena undercut the theory of natural selection: [1] Obviously, flight is beneficial but advanced species do not possess flight. [2] Existence of many organisms contradict adaptation and natural selection, eg. snakes live on the ground, but there is no grass eating snake; birds live on trees but there is no leaf eating birds.
► Because of these evidences, the modern scientific position is that the struggle for existence plays no part in evolution. This is a retreat from the position of natural selection.
(9) Question of Proportional Population:
(There are insufficient population of lower species.)
► Evolutionists estimated that there
is one inheritable mutation for every one million
births. Presume that all mutations are beneficial and inheritable, then for
every 1 member of the
higher species, there will be 1 million members of the species one step below
them. If humans were evolved from apes and apes from monkeys, then there should
be 1 trillion monkeys in the world for every human on Earth.
(10) Insufficient
time: (Earth’s
history is too short for evolution.)
► Even evolutionists accept that 4.5 billion years are too short for cooling down of the Earth, synthesis of inorganic matter into organic matter, and the entire evolution process from a one-cell plant to a human.
§ Conclusion: The cumulative effect of these evidences convincingly prove that the evolution hypothesis is close to impossible.
a. Does the evolution hypothesis
conflict with Christianity?
► There are some possible problems if evolution is true:
(1) There is no need for a God to explain the existence of the world because the world, life, and man happened spontaneously.
(2) The Bible is inaccurate because it did not describe evolution. Evolution could also contradict the claim in Gen 1:21,24–25 that God created animals “according to its kind”.
(3) Man is not special and is no different from lower animals; in fact, man will then be the descendant of lower animals. This will contradict the claim in Gen 1:27 that God created man in His own image.
b. No direct conflict: Actually, the evolution hypothesis has no direct conflict with Christian beliefs. Evolution, even if proved to be correct, can be harmonized with the Bible. For example, evolution can be regarded as the process used by God to create different species. That is why some theologians subscribe to the theory of theistic evolution.
c. Rejecting evolution: There are many objective reasons for rejecting the hypothesis. Even a truthful non-Christian scientist will admit that there are a lot more evidences that reject the evolution hypothesis than support it. Moreover, evolutionists use the hypothesis to reject God. Evolution is therefore effectively an enabler of atheism.
► Evolutionary theory stands at the base of moral relativism and the rejection of traditional morality. With evolution, human life has no inherent dignity, and morality has no objective basis.
D. Possible Christian Position:
(1) Micro-evolution exists but
not macro-evolution [no evolution across species; God created the “kinds” and
could have allowed micro-evolution to develop]. Microevolution does not contradict biblical
teaching in any way.
(2) Fossil records do not contradict the Bible as there is a similar sequence in Genesis.
(3) Evolutionists have no credible alternative and insist on evolution not because of the evidence, but despite the evidence. Evolution, at best, is a disputed theory that should always be regarded as a hypothesis until it can be proved by evidence.
SUPPLEMENT
Supplement to Q.15: Evolution as a process
► Evolutionism
is that view of reality which holds that natural processes, operating
exclusively by means of natural forces, are responsible for the whole range of
physical, chemical, biological, psychological, and sociological phenomena which
make up the history of the universe
► Evolution can have 5 meanings:
(1) biological change over time;
(2) descent through common ancestry;
(3) Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural
selection;
(4) extension of the term beyond biology to
include the origin and development of the universe, galaxy, sun and earth;
(5) a general synonym for change or development.
► Some scientists use the following
evolution model in explaining the origin of the universe, life, and man.
|
Eternal Matter-Energy |
|
|
STELLAR EVOLUTION |
|
V (explosion - Big Bang) |
|
Universe and the Earth |
|
|
MOLECULAR EVOLUTION |
|
V (spontaneous generation) |
|
Organic Life Forms |
|
|
ORGANIC EVOLUTION |
|
V (transmutation of kinds) |
|
Plants, Animals, Human |
|
|
CULTURAL EVOLUTION |
|
V |
|
One World Utopia |
Supplement to Q.15: Evolution not a scientific theory
A. Scientific method includes the following basic steps:
(1) the observation of
phenomena,
(2) the formulation of a
hypothesis concerning the phenomena,
(3) experimentation to
demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and
(4) validation or modification of the hypothesis based on evidences obtained.
B. The present state of evolution can be described as having passed through the first two steps. The hypothesis has been stated. However, there has been no progress toward any definitive verification of the hypothesis. In fact, the evidences collected so far appear to weigh more heavily toward disproving the hypothesis. If evolutionists can honestly examine the evidences, the evolution hypothesis should either be invalidated or at least greatly modified. Therefore, evolution is certainly not a scientific theory and is best described as a hypothesis.
C. Even Darwin himself said in 1858 that his book Origin of Species was “grievously too hypothetical.”
Supplement to Q.15: Requirement of evolution
●
formation
of organic matter from inorganic matters together in the same place in large
amounts
●
beneficial
and inheritable mutation, reproducing large number of organisms with the same
mutation
●
successful
mutation within a short time for the successfully mutated species in the
previous round
Supplement to Q.15: Criticism of supporting evidence for evolution (Perloff)
(1) Argument
from microevolution:
► Evolutionists use breeding experiments as evidence. Dog breeders have developed new breeds of dog; racehorse owners have bred faster horses; horticulturists have developed new plant varieties. However, breeding involved working with pre-existing genetic information, not new information.
► A species is normally endowed with a rich, diverse gene pool. By selecting out creatures with particular genes, it is certainly possible to change the general appearance of a species over time. In addition, there is gradual adaptation of species to new environment, such as greater resistance in bacteria as a result of antibiotics, colour variations in moths for camouflage. But both types of small-scale changes are confined to the limits of its gene pool, producing new varieties of the same species, not new species. These changes are called “microevolution”. There is not a single evidence of any macroevolution [large-scale changes that would produce new body plans, organs or biochemical systems] bringing the formation of a new species.
► Simple bacteria can produce another generation in a matter of minutes. Yet, throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. None has been observed.
(2) Argument
from similarity:
► Similarities between species can derive from biological ancestry. But they can also result from the necessities of intelligent design of a common designer, just like a painter will paint different pictures with the same style.
► The Haeckel embryo sequence was drawn by German zoologist Ernst Haeckel about 100 years ago. It has been used to demonstrate our common ancestry with other mammals and thus prove the validity of evolution.
► In his picture, he showed that the embryos of man, the ape, the dog, the rabbit, the calf, the hog are also similar in shape. However, the pictures were found to be fakes. He actually took a human embryo and copied it and then pretended that embryos of all other animals look the same. When a scientific team took the photographs of growing embryos of 39 different species, they discovered the fraud. Haeckel’s theory is now rejected by scientists. However, some evolutionists are still attempting to revive it.
► There is strong resemblance among all living things: the same 20 amino acids occur throughout life on Earth, and the same 5 bases comprise all DNA molecules. Yet, in reality, their differences are greater than their similarities.
► Similarities can derive from biological ancestry. But they also result from the necessities of intelligent design. Cars have 4 wheels because that is the best arrangement. In the same way, God may have created animals with 4 limbs because it was the best design. These do not by itself prove evolution.
● The biochemical “relatedness” between various plants and animals is not what one would expect in a scheme of descent based on evolution from one common ancestor. Instead, plants or animals in one large biological grouping appear to be equidistant from those in any other group, in spite of varying physical differences among themselves. For example, the amount of difference between specific protein of insects and protein of any vertebrate is the same, as though no one vertebrate is more closely related to invertebrates than another.
(3) Argument
from fossils:
► Fossil record is said to display increasing complexity of life as one moves up from bottom to top of the geologic column. However, this is an oversimplification. In fact, there are gaps in the fossils and no transitional forms between the various species. Some gaps are so large that the link between species remain unbridgeable even in imagination. Also, out of the thousands of strata studied, there is not even one sequence of fossils from sequence of adjacent strata showing indisputable signs of progressive change above the species level.
● The way to determine the age of the rocks and the age of fossils in the geologic column is based on circular logic. If the rock layer is thought to be 50 million years old, then the fossils in that rock layer are decided to be 50 million years old. Similarly, if a fossil is thought to be 70 million years old, then the rock where the fossil is found is decided to be 70 million years old. There is no absolute certainty that the age was correctly determined.
► Some claim the discovery of skeleton of “ancestors” of man, specifically: [1] homo erectus (1,000,000 to 500,000 years ago, found to have used fire), [2] homo neanderthalensis (150,000 to 40,000 years ago, found to have buried the dead, and made clothes from animal skins).
► However, these two have been re-assigned as homo sapiens, a different species from human beings (homo sapiens sapiens). They are also not transitional species between ape and man.
► In addition, some of the “discoveries” (previously claimed to be ancestors of man) have been found to be forgeries. Others were found to be wrongly classified. The scientific position today is that all the fossil remains which were previously assigned some intermediate status between apes and humans have later been re-assigned definitely into the categories of either extinct ape or human.
(4) Argument from anatomy:
► In 1925, evolutionist zoologist Horatio Hackett Newman stated: “There are no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities.” He asserted that the human is loaded with vestigial (meaning trace) organs—relics from our animal past no longer serving any significant purpose.
► One reason why so many tonsillectomies (surgical removal of tonsils) were previously performed was the false belief that tonsils were “vestigial”; the tonsils are recognized today as having an immune function. Evolutionists said the pineal gland, located in the brain, was vestigial; now we know it secretes the hormone melatonin. The thymus, found in the chest, was also declared useless; we have since discovered it has an immune function. The thyroid, coccyx, and many other body parts previously deemed “vestigial” are now understood to have important uses to the body. The list of 180 vestigial structures is practically down to zero.
Supplement to Q.17: Detailed analysis of evidence against evolution (Perloff, Milton)
(1) Evidence
from Genetics: (Mutations are ALWAYS bad.)
► A creature cannot be anything physically its genes won’t allow. Even after millions of years in the jungle, monkeys would still be monkeys, because they only have monkey genes.
► To be a different kind of creature, the genes must have mutated. Mutations are abrupt alterations in genes. They generally occur very rarely. According to the evolution hypothesis, an organism develops some new positive characteristics through a mutation, thus better adapting to the environment. Darwin assumes that animals have an unlimited ability to adapt to the environment and will unavoidably evolve into a higher species. The mutated creature then passes this mutated trait on to the next generation, and eventually it spreads through the whole species. Organisms without the trait, being weaker, die out (“survival of the fittest”).
► However, scientists who specialize in the study of mutations discover that all observed mutations reduce the genetic information, not increase it. No mutations with additional information have ever been observed.
► Mutations delete information from the genetic code and never create higher, more complex information. When mutations occur in human beings, they cause birth defects, including death, sterility, hemophilia, sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, Down’s syndrome, and 4,000 other diseases.
► Some evolutionists pointed to mutations with beneficial effects. The most common example given: mutations sometimes make bacteria resistant to antibiotics. However, the fact is that mutations that cause antibiotic resistance still involve information loss. The reason for antibiotic resistance can be explained as follows. To destroy a bacterium, the antibiotic streptomycin attaches to a part of the bacterial cell called ribosomes. Mutations sometimes cause a structural deformity in ribosomes. Since the antibiotic cannot connect with the misshapen ribosome, the bacterium is resistant. But even though this mutation turns out to be beneficial, it still constitutes a loss of genetic information, not a gain. No “evolution” has taken place; the bacteria are not “stronger”. In fact, under normal conditions, with no antibiotic present, they are weaker than their nonmutated cousins.
► It is often possible to deduce a benefit from information loss. For example, you can argue that a child born deaf gains a benefit for never being able to hear any curse words.
► Mutations are inheritable; they do create changes, but the changes are inevitably downward, or at best neutral. Mutations have never been observed to originate a new hormone, organ, or other functional structure. They reduce, but do not generate, biologic complexity.
► Can mutations ever be beneficial with an information gain? There is no evidence of the existence of such mutations, despite intense search by Darwinists. Since not even one is observed, it means that they are highly unlikely, or at least unproven. As the validity of evolution depends on billions of beneficial mutations with information gain, the probability of this is virtually zero.
► According to evolution, all life began as a single cell. If mutations can only lead to the loss of information, no advanced multi-cell life could ever be the result of mutations.
(2) Evidence
from Origins Science:
(The evolution of life from chemicals is impossible.)
►
At
► However, through advances in biology, we now know that even a “simple” cell contains enough information to fill a 100 million page encyclopedia. Cells consist essentially of proteins; one cell has thousands of proteins, and proteins are in turn made of smaller building blocks called amino acids. Normally, chains of hundreds of amino acids compose a protein, and these amino acids must be in precise functional sequence.
► Evolutionists often quote the experiment done by Stanley Miller in 1953. It is used to prove that chemicals can be turned into amino acids. Miller assembled an apparatus in which he combined water with hydrogen, methane, and ammonia (proposed gases of the early Earth), although no oxygen because it created problems for him (see details below). He subjected the mixture to continuous electric sparks. After a week, he discovered that some amino acids had formed in a trap in the system.
► Steps required: [1] Using the result of this experiment, evolutionists conjecture that in the primitive Earth, lightning could have struck a similar array of chemicals and produced amino acids. [2] After millions of years, the amino acids eventually linked up, by chance, into the correct sequences. The first proteins were formed. [3] Eventually, at least one protein molecule acquired the capability of self-replication. [4] Then, thousands of necessary proteins were formed by chance, and they were synthesized to form the first self-replicating cell.
► However, there are reasons why Miller’s experiment could not have happened in nature.
(a) A vital part of the experiment was the cold trap where the synthesized products collected as they were formed from chemical reactions. Without the trap, the chemical products would have been exposed to the same energy source (the electrical sparking). In other words, amino acids caused to form by lightning would soon be destroyed by the same agent, lightning.
(b) Time required would have been several years, and with no way to trap the products of synthesis, they could not stay together in the natural environment.
(c) Accumulation of significant quantities of simple organic compounds would have been precluded by the fact that rate of destruction would have far exceeded rate of synthesis.
(d) Only very small quantities of simple organic compounds could have accumulated since ultraviolet radiation penetrating sea water would have destroyed those compounds.
(e) Amino acids and sugars react with mutual destruction.
(f) Most important of all, geologists conclude that the early Earth was probably rich in oxygen. If oxygen was in the atmosphere, it would have destroyed most of those organic compounds by oxidization. For this reason, Miller’s experiment exclude oxygen from the experiment. In other words, the experiment did not replicate primitive Earth conditions.
(g) What happened if the primitive Earth really did not have free oxygen? Then there is another problem. Without oxygen, there would be no ozone. Without the protection of ozone, the solar radiation would have destroyed the organic compounds anyway.
►
Presume even that Miller’s
experiment could work in nature, the probability of getting just one protein by chance would be 1 in 10260
(calculation by evolutionist Francis Crick). In mathematics, odds worse than 1 in 1050
are considered an impossibility. Thus chance could not produce even one
protein, let alone thousands of protein that one cell requires.
► Moreover, cells need more than proteins; they require the genetic code. In addition, cells also need devices which actually translate the code to be understood. To believe in evolution, we must believe that, by pure chance, the genetic code was formed, and also by pure chance, translation devices arose and transformed the meaningless code into something with meaning.
► Today, it is still not possible to synthesize one self-replicating protein molecule in the laboratory under any artificial conditions, such as applying extreme high temperature, extreme high pressure, and whatever chemical compounds available. Of course, the artificial synthesis of inorganic matter into organic matter is even more remote. If none of these can be synthesized even after years of deliberate human effort, it is difficult to imagine how this is transformed accidentally in nature.
(3) Evidence from Specified Complexity: (Random process can never produced specified complex patterns.)
► Specified Complexity is an argument used by Intelligent Design theory. A specified pattern is one that admits short descriptions, while a complex pattern is one that is unlikely to occur by chance.
► Evolutionist Thomas Huxley was once reported to have use an example to make his case for chance origins. He said that 6 monkeys, poking randomly at typewriters, and given enough millions of years, could write all the books in the British Museum. If this is true, then it is possible that some mutations were by chance both beneficial and inheritable. It is then also possible that some naturally occurring chemicals were by chance synthesized into amino acids; and that these same amino acids were by chance synthesized into self-replicating proteins; and that these same proteins were by chance transformed into life.
► Question: what are the odds of a monkey correctly typing one predetermined 9-letter word, such as “evolution”? Let us assume that the typewriter has only 26 letters and no other symbols. The probability of typing “evolution” once correctly is 26 to the power of 9, equal to 5,000,000,000,000 (5 trillion) attempts. Presume the monkey can type 30 letters per minute; it would take 344,000 years to type one 9-letter word correctly. To type two consecutive predetermined 9-letter words would take 3.5 trillion trillion trillion years. [In comparison, many scientists believe that the universe began in a Big Bang explosion 15 billion years ago.] If 10 monkeys started typing at the time of the Big Bang, the group would not have sufficient time to type correctly even one predetermined word of 13 letters (which requires 15.7 billion years).
● Another similar example was attributed to Fred Hoyle and quoted in Philip Johnson’s book Darwin on Trial: “That a living organism emerged by chance from a pre-biotic soup is about as likely as that ‘a tornade sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.’ Chance assembly is just a naturalistic way of say ‘miracle.” No wonder he supported extraterrestrial origin of life.
► To explain the beginning of life by chance happenings based on probability is unbelievable. An evolutionist scientist Dr. Morowitz formulated a model to calculate the probability for the formation of the smallest living organism by random process. He comes up with a probability of one chance in 10340,000,000. Yet he and his fellow evolutionist scientists still believe that it happened!
(4) Evidence
from Biochemistry:
(Biochemical systems do not allow step-by-step evolution.)
► Biochemical systems are very complex. If any component was missing, the system would have no function. It is termed “irreducible complexity.”
► For example, blood clotting is a very complex process involving more than a dozen steps. A person with just one clotting factor missing has hemophilia and is at risk for bleeding. If blood clotting had evolved step-by-step over long periods of time, creatures would have bled to death long before blood clotting was ever perfected.
► For example, the immune system requires white blood cells (macrophage), B cells, and 4 kinds of T cells. Without any of these kinds, immunity will not work. If evolution caused the existence of these cells one after another. Diseases would have wiped out all creatures long before the immune system could have been perfected.
► Biochemical systems, such as human vision, are also irreducibly complex. They cannot have evolved step-by-step because individual parts of the organ are useless unless the entire organ is functioning.
► An amusing example of the need for all the parts of a complex organic system to be put in place at once is pointed out by Robert Kofahl and Kelly Segraves in their book, The Creation Explanation: A Scientific Alternative to Evolution. [from Grudem]
● The “Bombardier beetle” repels enemies by firing a hot charge of chemicals from two swivel tubes in its tail. The chemicals fired by this beetle will spontaneously explode when mixed together in a laboratory, but apparently the beetle has an inhibitor substance that blocks the explosive reaction until the beetle squirts some of the liquid into its “combination chambers,” where an enzyme is added to catalyze the reaction. An explosion takes place and the chemical repellent is fired at a temperature of 100°C at the beetle’s enemies.
● The book rightly asks whether any evolutionary explanation can account for this amazing mechanism: “Note that a rational evolutionary explanation for the development of this creature must assign some kind of adaptive advantage to each of the millions of hypothetical intermediate stages in the construction process. But would the stages of one-fourth, one-half, or two-thirds completion, for example, have conferred any advantage? After all, a rifle is useless without all of its parts functioning…. Before this defensive mechanism could afford any protection to the beetle, all of its parts, together with the proper explosive mixture of chemicals, plus the instinctive behavior required for its use, would have to be assembled in the insect. The partially developed set of organs would be useless. Therefore, according to the principles of evolutionary theory, there would be no selective pressure to cause the system to evolve from a partially completed stage toward the final completed system…. If a theory fails to explain the data in any science, that theory should be either revised or replaced with a theory that is in agreement with the data.”
(5) Evidence
from Fossils:
(Missing links are ALL still missing.)
► Evolutionists made up a “tree of life” to explain how life forms branch out. At the tree’s bottom is a single-celled creature. According to evolution, this little organism gradually evolved into the first invertebrates such as jellyfish.
► Cambrian rock is the low geologic layer containing most of the oldest known invertebrate fossils. In it, we find literally billions of fossils of invertebrates: clams, snails, worms, sponges, jellyfish, sea urchins, swimming crustaceans, etc. But there are no fossils demonstrating how these creatures evolved. For this reason, we hear of the Cambrian “explosion.”
► Supposedly, invertebrates evolved into the first fish. But despite billions of fossils from both groups, transitional fossils linking them are missing.
► According to evolution, one species was evolved into another species through a large number of small changes through mutations. That is why Darwin stated that “the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth.” (Origin of Species) Darwin admitted that there should be millions of transitional forms, thousands between each evolutionary step.
►
Darwin admitted that none of these creatures’ fossils had
been found in his day. He was bothered by the total lack of transitional forms.
He could only hope that future excavations would produce them.
► If evolution hypothesis is true, the geologic fossil record should reveal the innumerable transitional forms Darwin spoke of. There should be billions of intermediates validating his theory. For every macromutation like the hypothetical bird, there would be millions of one-legged crocodiles or aardvarks with wings. Yet after almost 150 years, despite uncountable attempts to find even one missing link, none has been confirmed. In fact, discoveries have proved just the opposite: there are thousands of additional missing links, all of them unfilled.
► There are a handful of questionable fossils, thought to be missing links. They include:
(a) Piltdown Man (1912): claimed to be a transitional form between ape and man. It was validated by many British leading scientists to be 500,000 years old. It was finally determined in 1953 to be a deliberate fraud. It was in fact a very recent orangutan jaw, its teeth filed down to make them more human-looking, planted together with a human skullbone, stained to create an appearance of age. Chemical tests, such as nitrogen loss or fluorine uptake, then showed that none of the human bones could be more than a few centuries old.
(b) Archaeoraptor (1998): found in Liaoning, China; claimed by National Geographic Magazine to be a missing link between dinosaurs and birds. It was discovered to be a fake in 2000 and the Magazine published a retraction. The fossil was in fact created by a Chinese farmer who glued two fossils together, a piece of Microraptor dinosaur, and a piece of a fossil bird now named Archaeovolans.
(c) Coelacanth: a bony fish claimed to be a missing link between fish and amphibians. It was regarded as an index fossil in the Jurassic rock and thought to be extinct 70 million years ago. A live one was caught off the African coast in 1938 and another caught near Indonesia in 1998. It turned out to be 100% fish, with no amphibian characteristics.
► The reason why biologists can be misled by a fossil is because 99% of an organism’s body is in its soft anatomy. When only the bone is left, there can be unlimited ways to speculate what the organism originally looks like.
► All the missing links are still missing. All life forms appear in the fossil record with no trace of how they evolved. Most new species, genera, and families appear quite suddenly, without ancestors, only a few with possible but disputed links; all new order, classes, and phyla are without ancestors. Most fully formed species appear suddenly without transitional forms.
► Since there is no transitional forms, the links between organisms on the tree of life are purely speculative. That is why different biologists construct different trees of life and they is no consensus.
(6) Evidence
from Taxonomy:
(There are NO living intermediates between groups.)
► Taxonomy is the science that classifies plants and animals, grouping them by characteristics they share, assigning organisms by kingdom, class, and species. The pioneer of taxonomy was Swedish botanist Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778) who strongly opposed evolution. He saw that the larger divisions of living organisms were distinctly divided by large gaps, without overlaps.
► If there is evolution of species, we should not only see distinctly different groups, but living intermediates between these groups. Evolutionists acknowledge the missing intermediates but say that they must have become extinct. Yet there are not even fossils of any intermediates.
► The biochemical “relatedness” between various plants and animals does not support evolution. The difference in anatomy proved to be much wider under careful examination.
●
(7) Evidence
from Molecular Biology: (Molecular biology demonstrates the large GAPS between species.)
► Evolutionists believe that fish evolved into amphibians, which then evolved into reptiles, then vertebrates, then mammals, then primates, then humans.
► If evolution follows a sequence, then fish must be much closer to amphibians than to humans.
► Research of different animals on a molecular level disputes the validity of evolution. An analysis was done on the molecular structure of cytochrome C, a protein involved in producing cellular energy, found in organisms ranging from bacteria to man. The study shows that fish are just as distant from amphibians as fish are from humans.
► Molecular biology has served to emphasize the enormity of the gaps between different species.
(8) Issue
of Natural Selection: (Explanation using natural selection has been abandoned.)
► Evolutionists explain how reptiles evolved into birds: Reptiles wanted to eat flying insects that were out of reach. So the reptiles began leaping, and flapping their arms to get higher. Over millions of years, their limbs transformed into wings by increments, their tough reptilian scales gradually sprouting soft feathers.
► According to natural selection (survival of the fittest), a physical trait is acquired because it enhances survival. Yet many natural phenomena undercut the theory of natural selection.
● Obviously, flight is beneficial. Why didn’t all advanced species possess flight since it is a beneficial trait?
● Since the evolution process is still ongoing today, why aren’t at least some reptiles develop feathers?
● Existence of many organisms contradict adaptation and natural selection, eg. snakes live on the ground, but there is no grass eating snake; birds live on trees but there is no leaf eating birds.
● The complex eyes of insects are obviously more advanced than simple eyes of mammals. Unlikely our eyes, they can detect enemies approaching from all directions. Why would all advanced life forms give up the advantage?
► Because of these evidences, the modern scientific position (including the one held by evolutionists) is that the struggle for existence plays no part in evolution. This is a retreat from the position of natural selection.
(9) Question of Proportional Population:
(There are insufficient population of lower species.)
► Julian Huxley estimated that there
is one inheritable mutation (harmful or beneficial,
even though no beneficial mutations have been observed) for every one million
births.
► Assumption 1: the one-million figure is correct.
► Assumption 2: all mutations are beneficial (although none has been
observed).
► Assumption 3: one mutation is enough
to evolve into the next species.
● For one species to evolve into the next higher species, thousands of “beneficial mutations with information gains” are required. Thoretically, there should be innumerable number of transitional forms between one species and the next higher species. Not even a single proven transitional form has been observed. However, let us PRESUME that no transitional forms are required, and that ONE “beneficial mutation with information gains” is required to evolve into the next higher species.
► Assumption 4: the mutation will be
inherited even though it is carried by one of the parents.
●
To
assure that the mutation will be passed on to the next generation, both a male
and a female will need to have the same mutation. Moreover, they will need to
live in the same locality. This is highly unlikely to occur. If only one parent
has the mutation, then the probability of the mutation being inherited will be
only half.
► Result: 1 member of the higher
species per 1 million members of the lower species.
► What do we have after all these
assumptions? Let us name the lower species A which will evolve into the next
higher Species B which in turn evolved into Species C. Then there
will be 1 member of Species B for every 1 million members of Species A.
Similarly, there will be 1 member of Species C for every 1 million members of
Species B. In other words, for every 1 member of species C, there should be 1
million million (1 trillion) members of species A in the world. If humans were
evolved from apes and apes from monkeys, then for every human, there should be
1 trillion monkeys in the world. Again, for every human, there should be 1036
members in the each of the thousands of species 5 steps below us. This is of
course not what we find in the world.
► Furthermore, the ratio should be
much much larger because this ratio (1 million to 1) is based on a 100% success
rate for all 4 assumptions above. If only one of the 4 assumptions fails even
once, the ratio will be double. In other words, the ratio between species from
consecutive steps should be much larger than 1,000,000:1.
► How high can this ratio be? Before
answering this question, let us guess what the next more advanced species
evolved from human beings would be like. Among the 4 primates, gorilla has the
largest average brain size. The average human brain is 2.5 times larger than
the gorilla’s. Perhaps we can expect the super-human species to have a brain
2.5 times the size of the human brain. We have not seen one such super-human
among the 6 billion people presently on Earth. Therefore, it is reasonable to
assume that the ratio between consecutive species is at least 6 billion to 1.
In other words, when in history, the evolution process succeeded to produce one
human being, there should be over 6 billion apes on Earth at the same time.
► One argument may be that most of the
lower species were destroyed. But this will require the destruction of over
99.99% of a species for each upward step. Further, this argument cannot
adequately account for species that have no natural enemies.
(10) Insufficient
time: (Earth’s
history is too short for evolution.)
► Even with Huxley’s generous estimate of one mutation every one million births, the 4.5 billion years are too short for cooling down of the Earth, synthesis of inorganic matter into organic matter, and the entire evolution process from a one-cell plant to a human.