{5}         STUDY: The Impossibility of Evolution


It is often said that belief in evolution requires more faith than belief in creation. In view of the evidences presented from the two sides, the statement is definitely true. Some of those who understand the difficulties of evolution even try to construct incredible theories such as the planting of life on Earth by extraterrestrial aliens in order to bypass the difficulties of the evolution hypothesis.


What are the major propositions of biological evolution hypothesis?

[1] Living material has evolved from non-living matter. [2] All living things have evolved from the simplest living things through beneficial mutation of genes. [3] Evolution took place by means of the random operation of existing natural forces (natural selection or survival of the fittest).

Is evolution a scientific theory?

Scientific method includes the following basic steps: [1] observation, [2] formulation of a hypothesis, [3] experimentation to demonstrate the hypothesis, and [4] validation or modification of the hypothesis based on evidences obtained.

Evolution passed through the first 2 steps. However, there has been no progress toward any definitive verification of the hypothesis. Evidences collected so far appear to disprove the hypothesis. Therefore, evolution is certainly not a scientific theory and is best described as a hypothesis.

What are the evidences showing evolution hypothesis does not represent reality?

[1]        Evidence from Genetics: (Mutations are ALWAYS bad.)

All observed mutations reduce the genetic information, not increase it. No mutations with additional information have ever been observed. If mutations can only lead to the loss of information in the genetic code, 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 Darwin’s time, cells were thought to be very simple so that it would be feasible for chemicals in a “primordial soup” to come together and form one. That would be the beginning of life.

However, 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.

Stanley Miller in 1953 was successful in turning chemicals turned into amino acids in the laboratory. However, the experiment could not have happened in nature because of many reasons. Moreover, no one has succeeded in synthesizing one self-replicating protein molecule, let alone a cell.

Evolutionist Crick estimates that the probability of getting just one protein by chance would be 1 in 10260. Evolutionist Morowitz calculated that the probability for the formation of the smallest living organism by random process is one chance in 10340,000,000. Yet he and his fellow evolutionist scientists still believe that it happened!

[3]        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 over 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.

Biochemical systems, such as human vision, are irreducibly complex. They cannot have evolved step-by-step because individual parts of the organ are useless unless the entire organ is functioning.

[4]        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.

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 have all been proved unsupportable. All the missing links are still missing.

[5]        Evidence from Taxonomy: (There are NO living intermediates between groups.)

If there is evolution, we should not 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.

[6]        Evidence from Molecular Biology: (There are 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 shows that fish are just as distant from amphibians as fish are from humans.

[7]        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. Yet many natural phenomena undercut the theory of natural selection.

o        Obviously, flight is beneficial. Why didn’t all advanced species possess flight since it is beneficial? The same argument is true for complex eyes of insects.

o        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 (including evolutionists) is that the struggle for existence plays no part in evolution. This is a retreat from the position of natural selection.

[8]        Insufficient time: (Earth’s history is too short for evolution.)

What are the difficulties about evolution, even if we accept that many mutations are beneficial?

Assumptions: [1] one mutation per million births, [2] all mutations beneficial, [3] 1 mutation to evolve into the next species, [4] a male and a female of the new species are born with the same mutations.

Result: 1 member of the higher species per 1 million members of the lower species. If humans were evolved from apes and apes from monkeys, then for every human, there should be 1 trillion monkeys 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.


        Our faith does not depend on whether the evolution hypothesis is proved valid or not. However, objecive facts prove that the use of evolution to account for the origin of life is groundless.

        We have to keep a skeptical eye on all the pronouncements of proof to evolution. Don’t blindly believe them. There has been no definitive evidence that can stand under scrutiny since Darwin.