The Layman’s Guide to
The Amazing but Totally True . . . Scientific
Facts of Creation
By Wendy S. Scott
Contents: Biological Laws and Principles
BIOLOGY: Brief List of Facts
11) Mitosis and Meiosis are too different to evolve multi-celled animals
Disclaimer: The author of this guide is not a research
scientist. This information has been
compiled from an abundance of easily accessible and confirmed scientific
authorities. The majority of the
information is common knowledge in the scientific realm, while lesser known
facts are cited. Do not quote the author as a scientific authority. This guide is intended to systematically
build the case for Biblical Creation through the logical alignment and application
of the abundance of established scientific facts.
The author of this guide is not a research scientist. This information has been compiled from an abundance of easily accessible and confirmed scientific authorities. The majority of the information is common knowledge in the scientific realm, while lesser known facts are cited. Do not quote the author as a scientific authority. This guide is intended to systematically build the case for Biblical Creation through the logical alignment and application of the abundance of established scientific facts.
All undisputed facts in this guide are in bright blue.
“Know you that the Lord He is God: it is He that has made us, and not we ourselves,”
Before beginning this section, it is pertinent to review one fact, already discussed in physics, that presides over every other issue that will be discussed. There is no answer within the laws of science for how matter originated in the universe without God. There is not one. No one can give you a known scientific principle that allows for matter to come from nothing. This is absolute. The appearance of matter breaks the operating laws of the universe, and therefore, by deduction, it was a supernatural phenomenon—whoever or whatever you want to give credit to. This is an undisputed fact.
Therefore, since matter cannot come from nothing, than none of the subsequent evolutionary assumptions are possible. We can only be fighting over the degree to which God played a role, and since He is God, it is quite petty to continue to argue for the rest of evolution. It already took a supernatural incident to produce matter. But since evolutionists insist on maintaining a futile argument, they will find that there is not much science for them to work with after this point either.
There are hundreds of facts in the biological world as well that corroborate the Creation model to the exclusion of the theory of evolution. Primarily and in general, the world is perfectly balanced to accommodate life. This argument is called the anthropic principle, which points out that the precision of the universe is deliberately geared toward life on earth. An evolutionist would propose how cosmic it was that time and chance worked out that way, but the perfection of balance speaks volumes more for design than for chance.
The earth, moon, and sun are the exact distances from each other necessary for the perfect temperatures, tides, and gravitational forces on the earth. They are each the precise size necessary to keep this balance. The earth is tilted just right to cause the vital season changes, unlike other planets, which often rotate lopsided, and at uninhabitable speeds. Just two degrees of difference in any of these factors would make the earth uninhabitable for every known life form. The earth has the unique combination of water, oxygen, nitrogen and other gases, the only planet with the radiation diverting ozone layer, and it has the right planetary and gravitational conditions for retaining its perfect atmosphere.
There are a wide range of other necessary
elements to support the life that is remarkably found only on our perfect
planet. None of these factors have been adequately
explained by the Big Bang theory, and remain outrageously impossible as the
result of such chaotic beginnings. The
evolutionary assumption is that it just happened—how, is a matter of
details. When scientists attempt to
downplay the complexity of life, they are like primitives coming upon the
It is paramount that we draw upon our knowledge about biological forms when undertaking this evaluation of the origin of life. The first rule of thumb, and unfailing truth, is that life always comes from life. This is an absolute fact. Never, not once ever, has life come from non-living matter, and there is absolutely no evidence that it is possible. A rational grasp of such an unwavering reality should immediately convince the logical mind that evolution from chemicals is not on the list of possibilities. Starting with Louis Pasteur, all scientists acknowledge this as a fact. These same scientists, however, claim that evolution from chemicals is also a fact, without any scientific justification for this blind faith. They are unable to demonstrate the feasibility of this first, most crucial precursor to all future “progress” through any evidentiary means.
Since life always comes from life, which precludes the evolution of life from non-living chemicals, those who cling to faith in evolution live in a dimension of scientific paradox that is reflected in biology textbooks of all levels. One highly regarded resource for the youth makes this duality plain, as the indoctrination into evolution begins very young, even though the contradiction is so blatant. The Dorling Kindersley 1994 edition (and subsequent editions) of their Science Encyclopedia presents these tantalizing scientific explanations on page 307. On the bottom of the page, under a section titled “Life from Life,” it states:
At one time, people thought that living things could suddenly appear from lifeless substances. . . . Experiments . . . showed that this idea was wrong. Living things are now always formed by reproduction.
At the top of the same page, however, under the title “How Life Began,” it states:
Some people believe that living things were specially created, but most scientists think life came about through a series of chemical reactions that happened by chance. Over millions of years, these reactions slowly built living things from simple chemical substances.
While the implication here is that people used to think life came from non-living matter because of lack of knowledge, scientists continue to make the exact same error today, only they use more words now to explain it. Additionally, those who do not accept this contradiction suffer the same ridicule of the scientifically ignorant, although all the evidence discredits the notion. Our children are taught this confusing message from a very young age, inhibiting their own ability to reason by forcing them to consent to this and numerous other “scientific” oxymorons.
Additionally, no field of science has ever discovered what evolutionists call a “simple life” form. Relatively speaking, there are biological specimens less complex than others, but none simple. Even single-celled microscopic organisms must have the ability to take in, process and distribute fuel. They all have a method of respiration, defense and repair mechanisms, the ability to reproduce, and a complex and lengthy list of DNA instructions in order to program the cell how to grow and function.
This least complex of all living organisms requires at least 40 specific components in order to live at all, and missing just one of them prevents life. The basic parts of the simplest bacteria cell are well engineered with the capsule, cell wall, cell membrane, cytoplasm, ribosome, nucleoid, and often a flagellum for propulsion. Inexplicably, even the E. Coli bacteria have a rotary mechanism for propulsion that is as complex as any such machine made by man. The next level of complexity is a great leap of structure, as all protists (single-celled organisms), like amoebas, have a structured nucleus, and complex organelles to carry out hundreds of vital chemical processes.
Every living cell produces thousands of proteins throughout its life—each one instantaneously. The complex process begins with the DNA, which transmit the instructions to the RNA, which translates them to call for specific amino acids and links them together into long polypeptide chains to form each unique protein. Just the average single-celled organism requires 75 special kinds of proteins to perform various functions. At least 20 specific activating enzymes and 50 code breaking proteins are required to translate DNA programming, while the essential ATP releases energy for cell functions and fights against the death of the cell. In fact, ATP is a complex nucleotide that not only releases energy for the cell, but inhibits the natural destructive processes involved in decoding DNA and carrying out the chemical sequences.
So many components are required for the complex chemical exchanges of a functioning single-celled organism, that if scientists were to build a working mechanical, model to replicate the chemical output of this little wonder (a model that would not even be able to reproduce), even this simple, one celled organism would be the size of a factory—unlike the miniature machine of actual life. Clearly, being small doesn’t mean simple, since miniaturization is the ultimate advancement in our technological society.
The complexity of life is so apparent, that the evidence logically implicates its origins in design. Scientists believe that if the right chemicals were available, that they would naturally do these remarkable things. They do not. These complex processes are naturally destructive processes, and would tear apart every aspect of life if all the enzymes, ATP, and perfect genetic programming were not in place. When evolutionists propose that that these chemical reactions are a natural process of their properties, they are relying on the public’s lack of knowledge about this delicate balance. These chemicals never organize under their own initiative to make even a single protein.
If it were not so hard to create life, we would have done it by now. We have all the necessary components that evolutionists claim first randomly evoked life in a hostile planet. Despite all the information and technology, and millions of examples of functioning life all around us, we are still not able to create life on purpose. How can we actually believe it is easier for life to create itself so precisely without any direction at all? If we don’t understand enough to do it, then we don’t understand enough to say if or how it was done.
To boost their hopes in the creative power of chemicals, evolutionists profess that having the sun as an energy source automatically increases order within a system, therefore making the leap to organized life inevitable. In reality, the sun is incapable of increasing order without a mechanism to harness the energy and put it to work. The sun offers power, not information. Will a car be created because we have gasoline? Cars use gasoline, that is true, and it is ready fuel, but pouring gas on a pile of metal will certainly not make it organize into a functioning car (we could save a lot of money if it could). In fact, the sun is destructive without a harnessing mechanism, commonly witnessed in the quick deterioration of any organic matter in its steady heat.
Even plants, made specifically for harnessing the sun’s energy, die if there is too much exposure, and a leaf, once full of life, quickly breaks down when it is detached from the full energy harnessing mechanisms of the tree and exposed to the sun. People don’t run their dead loved ones out into the sun in order to restore life in them. The body must function for the energy to benefit it. These are common sense concepts, easily borne out by everyday experiences.
An available energy source cannot be confused with the intelligent directive design within an energy harnessing machine. Energy is useless as a creative force until a machine exists to put it to work, such as a cell designed to utilize energy, or genetically programmed seed, just as an engine puts gasoline to use. But instead of acknowledging what is plainly evident, evolutionists disregard these obstructions, and insist that under the right circumstances, given enough time, anything can happen.
There are many factors that challenge evoking life on a primitive earth. To avoid the classic impediments that would utterly prohibit this process, evolutionists have had to carefully consider what the best first conditions were. Note that these assumed conditions that we will discuss were not derived from any evidence about the early earth, but were formulated through the process of elimination, applied backward, and imposed on a beginning. This is a familiar theme.
Accordingly, the proposed early conditions must be a knife-edge combination of elements distinctly opposite from the conditions of today. Since all these specifications are imagined, and not observed, theories are free to fluctuate at will with impunity. Most hypothesis propose that the earth had a reducing atmosphere, and the oceans and shallow pools were a watery solution of chemicals rife with the ingredients necessary to spontaneously combine into amino acids to form proteins—the building blocks of life. In this abundant primordial soup, it would be a “simple” step for these chemicals to assemble into the full array of amino acids, and begin to masterfully organize into protein chains, and build, piece by piece, into a functioning biological machine, capable of self-reparation and self-replication.
However, there is a villain in this fantasy who doesn’t want the chemicals to get together to live happily ever after, and his name is oxygen. Biologists know that free oxygen is destructive to non-living molecules and if it were allowed to roam around their “Garden of Eden,” that it would bring death into their burgeoning world. So what do evolutionists do? They completely write free, or uncombined, oxygen out of their story. Now that oxygen has been strictly forbidden from the early earth’s atmosphere, let’s examine how plausible the entire scenario is.
Free oxygen is oxygen that is not chemically combined into another molecule. Most oxygen occurs naturally as a molecule of two oxygen atoms joined together, and this is free oxygen. Oxygen combined with hydrogen makes water, and is not considered free oxygen because it is neutralized, and is no longer seeking to borrow electrons from other atoms. The great problem about oxygen for evolutionists is that it gets into everything. It loves to interfere with other chemical interactions by attaching to them with some reactive results.
Oxygen causes a basic chemical reaction called oxidation, such as rust, and constantly tears down matter chemically by borrowing electrons from other atoms. This weakens the state of the material, making it unstable and vulnerable to destruction, which is very serious news to evolutionists. Any chemicals that might have otherwise begun to miraculously combine into life would have absolutely been invaded and torn apart by oxidation. It would have jumped into every aspect of the chemical chain, interfering with the delicate bonds, and making their combination into the basic organic materials impossible.
The life that we observe today is possible because the chemicals are already organized in “organisms,” and do not need to survive the gauntlet of an oxygen assault in order to assemble. Just as it is not possible to create a sun through naturalistic means, re-creating the origin of life faces an impossible task. We know what the ingredients are, but the assembly is supernatural. They simply already exist fully functional.
Since evolutionists know that it is impossible for chemicals to combine into life in the presence of chemically uncombined oxygen, they must say that the earth originally had no free oxygen before life started. This, of course, is contrary to our knowledge of the earth and its atmosphere because all evidence reveals that the present levels of oxygen have remained abundant. It makes up 21% of the air we breathe, about 89% of water, and a whopping 46% of the earth’s crust. In fact, oxygen is the most common element on the earth. Nearly everything from the upper atmosphere to the depths of the earth’s core has oxygen in it. This is inexplicable unless the element of oxygen has always been available for combining to form other molecules.
Geological evidence indicates that free oxygen has been acting on rocks and minerals, oxidizing them all the way back as far as scientists can measure. Since these are the very rocks that scientists rely on for telling us the “history of the world,” it is a significant concession. We aught to be apprehensive about these assumptions, which are not gleaned from geological or biological evidence, but rather based on the presumed necessary chemical conditions to carry out the scenario.
Along with water, evolutionists believe that hydrogen, and some notoriously anti-life chemicals were also present in this early atmosphere, including ammonia, methane, formaldehyde, and cyanide. The list even includes carbon dioxide, which coincidentally contains the oxygen molecule O2 although there were no molecules of free oxygen available. Strangely, though, the very product that these scientists hoped to produce, amino acids, all contain oxygen as one of four essential components along with nitrogen, hydrogen and carbon, so oxygen would only be available as the scientist bids it.
Henry Morris and Gary Parker explain in great detail the astronomical complexity of just a living cell in their book, What is Creation Science, where much of this information is discussed in greater detail. The astronomical odds of undirected chemicals accumulating in such a precise way as to generate that most precious quality of a living cell make it an illogical fantasy. There are numerous theories about how life might have self-generated. Each theory must eliminate oxygen, and incorporate the most feasible means and conditions allowable by science. They therefore share many foundational assumptions, while other factors can change seasonally. Whether formed in the rocks, clay, shallow pools or deep oceans, somehow chemicals had to fashion amino acids in order to have the beginnings of the process.
In the 1950’s, researchers eventually attempted to test their theories through a series of famous experiments led by Dr. Stanley Miller, that were aimed at creating circumstances conducive to the birth of life. This process attempted to elicit amino acids by isolating the desired ingredients, which were then electrified and distilled in order to alter and manipulate the chemical compounds. Using hydrogen, ammonia, methane, and water (again, ammonia and methane are generally inhibitive of life) he removed the desired results through distillation in order to preserve them from the toxicity of the rest of the brew.
The experiment was touted as a success because some amino acids were produced. However, the major product of the experiment was tar, which resembles organic matter, but is also extremely destructive of life. Overall, scientists recognize that their methods had fallen quite short of invoking life regardless of their most concerted efforts. Dr. Miller himself has since conceded that his experiment did not succeed in producing the appropriate amino acids, nor anything that could be construed as the actual beginnings of life.
Scientists currently are attempting to fix the problems with the Miller experiment by depriving the concoction of hydrogen, and increasing the carbon dioxide (CO2 again). Since all cosmologists agree that hydrogen was the first assumed element to emerge universally from the Big Bang (and still the most abundant known element in the universe), these two phases of the evolutionary process are incongruent.
These highly contrived experiments do not produce life, nor do they even produce organized strands of amino acids (or polypeptides) required to form just a single-protein. Scientists call amino acids the building blocks of life, but the minute, disorganized fragments produced by the experiment are far from the complex chain of hundreds of specific amino acid sequences required just to produce one protein—let alone the thousands of specific protein structures necessary to fulfill just one living cell’s structural and metabolic needs. Moreover, a major inhibitor, regardless of the miraculous and intuitive efforts of any early amino acids, hydrolysis would have utterly broken down any burgeoning protein bonds. There is no end to the laws of nature.
In fact, the Miller experiment produced amino acids that were both left and right handed, while life can use only left handed amino acids. This is a major stumbling block for evolution because as nature would have it, all amino acids must be left handed in order for the right handed nucleic acids (or RNA) to match up with them. Only left handed amino acids can match up with the RNA blueprint in order to build the appropriate protein. Both requirements make chance an impossible designer of life.
There were other problems with the experiment. In addition to the abundant product of tar, the amino acids were so delicate that they had to be removed to protect them from the very electric spark that was supposed necessary to create these required elements for life. It is not likely that this protective system was in place on the early earth. Even if organic compounds did form in these “early conditions,” and were not annihilated by the extreme toxicity of the primordial soup or the life giving bolts of lightning, fragments of amino acids floating around have no desire to organize together and randomly fashion an entire functioning organism. The mere existence of amino acids is as far from life as a single rivet is from having a functional Boeing 747. It is the least complex member of the structure, and one does not necessarily lead to the other. A plane, of course is infinitely simpler to make than life, because we can make planes, but we can’t make life.
The arrangement of life is staggeringly complex. There are 20 different types of amino acids used by living cells, which link together to form polypeptide chains. The possible combinations of these links are nearly innumerable. These polypeptide chains link together into the specific and remarkable proteins dictated by the DNA instructions. Every cell depends on this precise combination of proteins to produce each specific structure, which performs its specific function within the cell or organism, or these chemicals will not have life. In fact, it takes about 500 specific amino acids to make one single protein, and a cell’s structure and activity consists of the continuous manufacture of proteins. Some complex proteins take thousands of sequences to produce.
It is an amazingly intricate process that the cell employs to precisely produce the thousands of necessary proteins. First, the DNA uncoils, and uses the ready pool of nucleic acids to create the RNA blueprint that will leave the nucleus to carry the instructions to the ribosome. Inside the ribosome, translator RNA decipher the chemical pattern by sets of three, or codons, and call for the appropriate amino acids out of the available pool.
The simple RNA pattern of UGAC as read in sets of three can combine 61 different ways to call for one of the 20 amino acids. The amino acids link to form a polypeptide chain to produce the indicated protein. The sequence always starts with the triplet AUG in order to ensure a proper reading alignment, and three of the combinations call for no amino acid, which ends the sequence and completes the polypeptide. It is the misalignment of this translation, in fact, that can cause mutations because of the production of inappropriate proteins.
Amazingly, these same 20 amino acids produce the entire array of proteins necessary for every possible function of every possible type of cell from bacteria to whales to plants. Proteins can function as enzymes, transporters, nutrients, hormones, biological weapons, and various cell structures. The perfection of design is evident in every component. Even the specific alignment of amino acids produces every necessary shape as the proteins align to make hair, and skin, and the various textures for organs and fibers.
These structures combine magnificently to create whole functioning systems, into whole functioning organisms. And they are all dictated by the sequence of four little chemicals. Most amazingly, the complex processes involved in cell growth and the continuous production of thousands of various proteins occur in each little cell on demand and instantaneously, and this is the ONLY way a cell can exist and function. The evolutionist theory that hopes merely to produce a few disorganized amino acids in a watery concoction is worlds away from a “simple life” form.
Although the focus of the
RNA and DNA consist of sugar, nitrogen and phosphate, and could not be produced by the amino based acids. It is the nucleic acids that direct the assembly of amino acids (which coincidentally also automatically exist in each cell, ready to be assembled into proteins). If, as the experiment asserts, amino acids were the first to form and assemble, then when did DNA come along? How could the complex instruction manual of DNA that maps life, come from the very materials that they are responsible for assembling? According to the assumptions of the Miller experiments, life was concocted by amino acids spontaneously assembling into a living organism, but forever after that these amino acids were only similarly assembled by the precise direction of the miraculous DNA and RNA.
Basically scientists are contending that the unprogrammed computer wrote its own software. This is the simple version if amino acids came first, which miraculously sprang to life, and then this first life subsequently acquired DNA/RNA, that hereafter in turn created all the rest of the chains of amino acids. This is a non sequitur. In such a scenario, though, the computer is already wired to process, but in a world where life must erupt spontaneously, and naturalistically, it could not have been pre-programmed to produce life the way a computer is designed to carry out certain functions.
Some scientists believe that either in the vast ocean, or a shallow pool somewhere, the chemicals that make up RNA/DNA were magically fashioned by blind forces. Then these chemicals miraculously managed to find each other, and partially self assembled into a complex set of instructions that coincidentally explains how to build and maintain life by using other chemicals. About the same time, some of these other chemicals were also fashioned by blind forces, and they also got together magnificently into a few polypeptide chains with nowhere to go. Then the partial DNA (or RNA) ran into the partial cell in that primordial pool before they cooked in the solar radiation, and thus the first functional cell sprang to life.
This phenomenal union is supposed to happen with chemicals that are so small they cannot be detected with the naked eye. It would be convenient for it to go this way, but it also doubles the impossibility by requiring two complex miracles instead of one—three counting their meeting. There are only two real options open for scientists: either the DNA/RNA instructions to build life came first, or amino acids came first and mysteriously fashioned themselves into a complex machine that is still far beyond our own capabilities.
Many scientists believe that the first simple life form was essentially just a strand of RNA. Again, why a list of random instructions (with nothing to build) would self assemble is completely unfathomable, but this solves the problem of DNA/RNA dictating the construction and functions of cells after that. The problem is that in the world there remains such an entity, and it is called a virus. Viruses are not considered living cells by biologists because they have no cell cytoplasm or ribosome in order to produce cell-building proteins, or process food. It cannot grow, or harness energy, or repair itself. It cannot, most of all, reproduce itself.
Viruses are simply packets of genetic material in a case of protein. This is why scientists don’t consider viruses living organisms. The only time a virus is successful is when it encounters a suitable living cell and invades it. Then it can dump its genetic information into the cell, which then begins to reproduce the virus. Then the copies break out of the cell and invade other cells, taking advantage of all the cells’ manufacturing capabilities. This proposition, therefore, is not a solution for the first life form because if it was a strand of RNA or DNA, then it would be no more than a virus, and would require a real living cell to come along in order for it to reproduce.
If, instead, the first cell spontaneously assembled from amino acids, it would have to also spontaneously acquire the miraculous ribosome for manufacturing specific proteins in order to keep up with the demands of life. Then it would need to blindly produce all the necessary proteins because as a living cell, it needs to eat, build, grow, and repair, but it would have to manufacture these vital and complex proteins without possibly knowing what was necessary. Without the directive instructions of DNA, random amino acids couldn’t even build the vital protein structures that make a living cell to begin with, let alone perform the complex functions necessary to survive.
Without the instructions from the DNA, the complex chains of amino acids, and their unique combinations would have no directions for how to self-assemble and form all the vital proteins that ordinary cells produce instantaneously and continually. Moreover, the creation or acquisition of ATP for releasing energy, adds miracle upon miracle. There is no scientific reality in such a scenario. If, however, this initial experiment did impossibly succeed, it would have about a half hour to divide and reproduce—the average life of a bacteria cell. At this point, it doesn’t even know that it should, and unless it is pre-programmed, there is no biological impetus to attempt the hazards of cellular division in order to reproduce (other than intuition). How it will manage to reproduce without DNA, or how it will acquire DNA at this point is completely beyond the imagination, and certainly not founded in science.
The odds of even one protein self-assembling at all are already astronomical. It takes a great leap in faith, however, to believe that not one, but hundreds of similar freak chemical unifications formed into compatible units of polypeptides, proteins, and DNA, which found each other before they were destroyed. Moreover, they miraculously fashioned a biological machine with the precise metabolism necessary to make use of the available chemicals as a food source. How did it know? Hundreds of these chemical miracles would have to quickly cooperate to ingeniously engineer this complex marvel called life, which was miraculously also capable of replicating itself.
Since there is no scientific explanation for the creation of genes after the first amino acids combined into “simple life,” it is a curiosity how these vital genetic instructions for life created themselves later in order to program the various parts of the cell for their function, and facilitate reproduction. In spite of this crucial detail, evolutionists contend that this first attempt at life, by providence perhaps, managed to acquire DNA in mere moments in order to reproduce itself before it died in order to extend the tenuous experiment so that the miracle didn’t have to start all over again. (Imagine if it hadn’t?)
The chain of events that would be required to assemble life from a concoction of chemicals are founded on such blatant impossibilities that no reasonable person could accept the never observed spontaneous generation of life as a fact once the necessary elements are explained. Yet scientists vaguely describe the process as if it were the inevitable product of completely natural forces.
To put this incredible scenario into perspective, let’s use the same reasoning to explain something ordinary. Let’s say someone came home one day and found a cake sitting neatly on the kitchen counter, and leapt to the conclusion that it had been made by accident rather than by a person. Imagine the series of flukes necessary to produce a two-layered cake, perfectly baked and frosted, by incidental natural events. There would need to be a miraculous alignment of earthquakes and powerful winds to open the refrigerator and cupboards, hurling out the right measure of ingredients into the bowl. It would need to be mixed correctly, and then the oven would need to be turned on, and the ingredients poured into the pan, pan into the oven, and the oven door closed. There it would cook to perfection until remarkably another earthquake would pop it out of the oven, and onto a plate, where it was slathered in frosting. More whirlwinds would clean up, so no sign is left of the incident.
Now taken individually, each one of these remarkable events might seem remotely feasible. Altogether, this is a ludicrous proposition. In this same way, evolutionists rely entirely on the remotest crack of feasibility for each supposed step in offering their explanation of the formation of life. It is one thing to actually witness this process, and record an account of it, but it is another to completely make it up without any evidence whatsoever. They depend on the assertion that given millions of years, eventually, accidents will align so perfectly like this, as to stumble upon life, just as some day, somewhere, a cake may make itself in someone’s kitchen, and leave no evidence as to how it was done. Once again, though, a cake is infinitely more simple to make than life. We can make cakes. In actuality, compared to making life, this cake scenario is entirely possible as far as odds go, and we know how unrealistic it really is.
Whatever formulas and scenarios are offered by scientific visions and revisions, one absolutely irrefutable fact remains. Chemicals are non-living material, not conscious of a need to become a living organism. The self- directed assemblage of life from simple chemicals is statistically impossible. Many noted scientists recognize this great obstacle, and have proposed the possibility that organic material or life may have arrived on the earth from outer space courtesy of a meteor.
Again, this ridiculous hypothesis only removes the responsibility of the inception of life from earth history to a more remote location beyond testable theory, but does not make the feat any less impossible. There are so many different theories, that evolutionists readily admit they do not know how non-living matter could have organized to become living matter, but this does not stop them from calling it a fact.
We have already discussed how scientists must impose certain assumptions on the early conditions of the earth that could enhance the possibility of life generating from chemicals. The first life forms would necessarily have been produced in dramatically different conditions then what exist today. As previously mentioned, free oxygen would inhibit the construction of life from chemicals, and therefore evolutionists must exclude it from these early conditions. This also means that there was no oxygen available in the oceans because the free oxygen contained in water today has been dissolved from the atmosphere (and plants).
Although this is the assumption, there are already difficulties with this required scenario. For instance, the water molecule itself is necessarily abundant with oxygen—H2O is two parts hydrogen to one part of oxygen, and there are millions of these molecules in a drop of water. The first question is how reasonable is it to assume that the “early” atmosphere contained no oxygen, but that the planet was completely covered in water, which is a delicate and more complex structure composed of oxygen? More details on this will be discussed in the geology section.
Plants manage to break the bonds of water molecules into oxygen and hydrogen through photosynthesis. If plants can do this simply using sunlight, then the delicate water molecule could easily be broken by the solar radiation bombardment of the “new planet,” which would free the more stable oxygen atom into the burgeoning atmosphere. The lack of ozone protection would hasten this process, which is ironic since ozone is a molecule formed of oxygen atoms. It is much more reasonable to assume, then, that oxygen existed and not water, than that there was water and no free oxygen.
Oxygen is the essential component in the ozone layer. Since the ozone layer is the necessary shield for protecting all life against the powerful destruction of solar radiation, the survival of early life without it would, all agreed, be impossible—especially if the delicate life supposedly formed in shallow pools. Solar radiation causes problems, both with the formation of life, and the need for an oxygen free environment. The ozone is a molecule of three atoms of oxygen instead of the normal two, and is found above the troposphere. Evolutionists generally believe that the ozone was formed when oxygen or water vapor was split by the sun’s radiation, and then re-joined, forming the new molecule. It is logical, based on their own hypothesis, that regardless of how the ozone formed, the radiation bombardment would have freed a great deal of oxygen at the lowest atmosphere until the resulting ozone would have pushed out the protective layer to where it is now.
In actuality, by this very proposition that the water vapor has been split by solar radiation to create ozone, evolutionists would have to concede that the very molecules of water in which that early life would begin, would necessarily be vulnerable to the same process, releasing oxygen into these shallow pools. Even if life could self generate under such a bombardment of radiation, free oxygen would necessarily be released into the water by solar radiation, which would prohibit the formation of life from chemicals.
Ironically, only after the oxygen-based ozone layer formed could life in shallow ponds be protected sufficiently from the harmful exposure to the sun’s ultraviolet light and radiation. The miraculous balance that we now enjoy does not lend itself to such a tenuous naturalistic explanation. No other planet has an ozone layer for protection. Without it, life is impossible, and without oxygen, there is no ozone.
This paradox is inescapable. Life cannot live without the ozone, which is made up of oxygen, but life could not assemble from chemicals in the presence of free oxygen. For life to ever get started, evolutionists must believe that the atmosphere had no oxygen, the oceans had no free oxygen dissolved in it from the atmosphere, and life was supposedly primed to begin from a delicate balance of chemicals in this unfriendly environment.
These are not the conditions we observe today, because oxygen is abundant, and it is the main known chemical requirement to maintain life, along with water (which, of course, has oxygen in it). Therefore, in order to account for this dramatic shift to an oxygen-saturated planet, most scientists believe that this abundant oxygen was actually produced by the same early life that grew in an oxygen-deprived atmosphere. Considering these rather strict limitations, evolutionists are generally resigned to the idea that the life form to first organize itself from chemicals had to be an anaerobic bacteria (lives without oxygen).
Strangely enough, Stephen Hawking expresses his view of this early period on earth in a blip from his book A Brief History of Time, mentioned in the earlier section. Though he is a physicist, he offers his take on early conditions after the earth formed, picking up from his area of expertise: (pg 124)
The earth was initially very hot and without an atmosphere. In the course of time it cooled and acquired an atmosphere from the emission of gases from the rocks. This early atmosphere is not one in which we could have survived. It contained no oxygen, but a lot of other gases that are poisonous to us, such as hydrogen sulfide. There are, however other primitive life forms that can survive under such conditions. It is thought that they developed in the oceans. . . . The first primitive forms of life consumed various materials, including hydrogen sulfide, and released oxygen. This gradually changed the atmosphere to the composition it has today, and allowed the development of higher forms of life. . .
There is no evidence that these proposed circumstances existed, or that they were even possible. Regardless of these assumptions, all multi-celled life today depends on this environment of an oxygen rich atmosphere. How can today’s life be the descendents of that life that was born in an oxygen-deprived atmosphere? Such conditions would be hazardous not only for today’s life, but all of the life forms found in the lowest fossil record. These first species are all recognized as aerobic, and no transition from anaerobes is evident.
The kind of life that requires oxygen today is the same kind of life represented in the earliest fossil record. Even the first evolutionary level after single-celled life (the Cambrian), is teaming with recognizable forms from worms to sponges to squid (nautiloids), all requiring oxygen today in order to perform basic cellular respiration (making fuel available for energy). In fact, all animals are aerobic, and require oxygen to perform this most essential function of respiration, and all multi-celled life recorded in the Cambrian level is comprised of animals. All plants and algae also require oxygen, even though they may produce oxygen in photosynthesis.
If the fossil life recorded from what is assumed to be the earliest phase of evolution all required oxygen, then the balance of the level of oxygen in the oceans and atmosphere had to be completely altered before these familiar plants and animals could have evolved even to the first level. Scientists believe that once life was initially formed, this incredible feat was accomplished by a single, miraculous organism. They believe that because of this single organism, the whole ocean became be so saturated with free oxygen that it altered the worldwide atmosphere.
Some even believe that the earth’s atmosphere became so full of oxygen that this abundance pushed to the edge of the atmosphere. Here the sun’s powerful radiation bombarded these excessive molecules, splitting them and creating the tri-atomic ozone molecule, (perhaps along with the oxygen freed from the irradiated water vapor). This alternative process then began to gradually build up the protective ozone layer that defines the earth’s atmosphere where, to the relief of the desolate planet, 95% to 99% of the suns’ radiation was finally shielded away. Then, after this incredible little microbe did all the work, the first recorded multi-celled organisms boomed into existence.
Even as evolutionists do not want to discuss the astonishing logistics of this unbelievable chemical transformation, they also do not like to discuss the specifics of how an organism could carry this out under the prescribed conditions. What is this biological micro-machine that the evolutionary community has burdened with such a world-changing task? Taking into consideration the type of simple life referred to by Hawking, it must be an anaerobic form of archaeabacteria capable of chemosynthesis. This is a very specific group that can live in an oxygen free environment (anaerobic), and survive by deriving energy through the synthesis of minerals (chemosynthesis), rather than organic compounds (as they would have been the first organic materials). No other organism can live without oxygen, and derive carbon from nothing but minerals.
The rare archaebacteria, like those that live today near hydrothermal vents, fit the bill. However, the process of chemosynthesis has nothing to do with splitting oxygen from other molecules, and therefore oxygen cannot possibly be a byproduct. This process only yields a rearrangement of the hydrogen sulfide it borrows electrons from, and water. Even if all the chemicals necessary for assembling life could manage to run into each other at the bottom of the vast ocean, they still could not produce oxygen as a byproduct of chemosynthesis. This little light-phobic bacterium will not change the chemical composition of the world.
Aside from chemosynthesis, there are many organisms, such as yeast, or many bacteria that can access energy through fermentation. This process is also an anaerobic form of respiration, so no oxygen is required. There are plenty of these organisms around, inhabiting our intestines, marshes, bread dough, and even oxygen free deep-sea sediments. Hey, well that sort of thing sounds handy for a possible first life form. There are, however, two (or more) significant obstacles to this concept.
The first one is that even though fermentation is anaerobic, the process begins with glucose, which is a sugar molecule that contains six atoms of oxygen. So naturally oxygen would already have to exist in order for glucose to exist. The second main problem is that there is only one biological process that produces oxygen as a byproduct, and it isn’t through fermentation. Fermentation is inefficient, and releases a very small amount of energy, and its byproduct is always an acid or alcohol. Systems that ferment are also incapable of releasing oxygen.
Oxygen is only produced through photosynthesis in plants by splitting water molecules and releasing the oxygen atom. “Well then,” the evolutionist says “let’s find a type of bacteria that is anaerobic, and uses photosynthesis.” The next candidate, according to the criteria, would be green bacteria. These hearty autotrophs do not require oxygen to release energy, and they are capable of photosynthesis. There you go. Our culprit. Except, that they use cyclic photosynthesis. This means that even though they can use the sun’s energy, for electron transportation of protons to aid in producing ATP, it is done by chemosynthesis. Water is not used for the reaction, so it is not split, and oxygen is not a byproduct. This bacterium will not change the world. So let’s find bacteria that photosynthesize, and produce oxygen. Okay.
The evolutionist will now tell you that (Stephen Hawking was mistaken, but after all, he is really a physicist, and not a biologist) after this first chemosynthetic anaerobic bacteria got things rolling, then along came the remarkable cyanobacteria (previously known as blue-green algae). This amazing organism seems to solve all the problems. It is single celled, it miraculously has developed the ability to photosynthesize light, using water, to obtain energy (pretty complicated stuff), and in the process it releases lots of oxygen. On top of that, it reproduces very fast, and they have even found lots of it in the pre-Cambrian muds. What more could a scientist ask for?
Unfortunately, a layperson, like me, will have to leave the Biology textbook’s section on “First life forms” where the miraculous oxygen producing efforts of cyanobacteria are revealed, and go to a completely different section specifically on bacteria, where you will hopefully find (if the publishers have seen fit to mention it) that cyanobacteria themselves are aerobic, and also require oxygen for respiration. But wait, didn’t we already go over that? There is no oxygen yet. How then could the little bacteria ever evolve or exist in an oxygen free environment if it requires oxygen to live? Cyanobacteria are aerobic, and therefore could not be the bacteria that changed the world because it couldn’t exist yet.
The first life form would have to be anaerobic or it could not survive without oxygen. But by nature, no anaerobe, either by chemosynthesis or fermentation, or cyclic photosynthesis can release oxygen because oxygen is only released through photosynthesis when water is split into hydrogen and oxygen. And all non-cyclic photosynthesizers have such high-energy requirements they must also use oxygen to release the energy. An organism that is capable of non-cyclic photosynthesis would not also perform chemosynthesis because they are mutually exclusive systems.
The system that evolutionists would like to exist in order to change the oxygen content of the world cannot exist in one organism because chemosynthesis and non-cyclic photosynthesis are two separate processes that cancel each other out. Either one or the other is used. There simply is no way this scenario could work unless evolutionists would like to invent the necessary culprit, and then invent a process, not used in this world, by which the organism didn’t require oxygen, but randomly produced oxygen. But since this is supposed to be science, that would be a bad idea.
The concept is absurd enough as it is. Imagine this mysterious life form that came to thrive in an atmosphere void of oxygen, until it began to overwhelm the planet. Then this little wonder, alone in the world, managed to so thoroughly infuse the ocean and atmosphere of the whole world with its byproduct of oxygen that every life form that evolved after it was forced to make use of it.
How providential that it should have happened that way too, because the “new” process of aerobic respiration apparently broke through efficiency barriers, netting approximately 36 ATP to the anaerobic yield of only 2 ATP. An energy coup. This first mystery organism truly would have changed the future of the whole world. The enormity of this assumed undertaking is already unfathomable, but evolutionists continue to rely on an impossible candidate, cyanobacteria, for the grand transformation—a life form which itself is oxygen dependant.
One middle school textbook even said that when plants started to cover the land, the oxygen level started to increase! How many ways can one break the laws of nature? “Plants” did not cover the land for a really long time because they couldn’t have evolved yet. By the time plants hit the land, there had to have been enough oxygen to support a booming animal explosion in the ocean. But perhaps they would like algae to invade land (which requires oxygen), and help turn the chemical tide. Not yet because there is one more problem.
Let’s just throw one other kink into it. All algae, including Cyanobacteria (unlike chemosynthetic bacteria) grow in relatively shallow, well-lit waters because all photosynthetic autotrophs must have abundant light. This works well for evolutionists because it would be easier to get those life-producing chemicals together in the small space of a shallow pool rather than a vast ocean. However, if you were just a little bacterium or algae, and you knew that there was no ozone to protect you from the full brunt of the sun’s life destroying radiation, you wouldn’t really want to be on the planet at all, let alone in shallow water or on land.
At least I wouldn’t if I were you. In fact, if you knew anything about radiation at all, you wouldn’t even bother to try and evolve into a bacterium until someone had taken care of that solar radiation thing. That would require an ozone layer, which requires oxygen, which destroys all your efforts to evolve. Perhaps evolutionists would like to invent some other more primitive protective “atmosphere.” Why not? You can do that when you don’t have video records. All together, it is not looking very good for biological forms if they have to do all the work themselves.
Life is so mind-blowingly complex, that scientists ought to know that the spontaneous generation of life is impossible under any conditions. Instead of science, speculation is passed off as practical through vague language and implication. Again, rather than learning about the past purely through evidence, evolutionists are forced to work backwards from the present, and make up the specific characteristics that could theoretically fill in this gap from chemicals to life—even if that life form doesn’t exist. So they can keep calling it a fact.
So let us say that the impossible was accomplished, and the first complete living single-celled organism had come into being, DNA and all. Let’s also say it managed to perform this oxygen revolution, and now nearly every subsequent organism is aerobic. Now it must undergo the daunting task of macroevolution. This simple cell could not be content very long. All animals are multi-celled organisms, and since the first level of evolution is full of animals, it would need to begin planning how it was going to move up in the world. In order to become a multi-celled organism, there would be a lot of obstacles to overcome.
The transition from single-celled organism to multi-celled organism is a chasm that appears to be impossible to cross. The fact is that all single-celled organisms begin and end their lives as a single-cell. There is a very good reason for this. All single cells reproduce by mitosis, including each individual cell that makes up multi-celled organisms. This process occurs when a duplicate set of DNA is manufactured in the nucleus, or nucleoid, and the cell divides in two, producing an identical cell with an identical set of DNA.
The first problem this presents is that the very first bacteria would be destined to replicate itself (once it had figured out the need and method to do so), and there would be little means for introducing any new DNA to effect any change. As a clone, they would all be alike. Scientists would have to allot an undocumented level of mutational supernatural powers to DNA in order to introduce any great changes to this single cell’s progeny, but they would still all be single cells.
There is a second, more serious problem. While each cell within a multi-celled organism replicate and splits into two identical cells, whole organisms themselves do not. That would be icky. Multi-celled organisms must reproduce as an entire organism, and therefore it would need to produce sex cells. The sex cells must be able to duplicate the DNA for each cell in the entire organism, including all the information each cell needs in order to build itself for its specific job in the whole organism.
However, if the sex cells contained all the DNA and fertilized other sex cells that also contained all the DNA, then that new organism would contain twice as much DNA as the parent. This might seem to be convenient at first in bacteria with a single chromosome that might theoretically become more complex after you double it a few times, if this were even possible. But in just seven generations, this monstrosity would have 64 chromosomes, about 20 more than humans. Given the short life span of bacteria and how quickly they reproduce, this would not be practical, and the information would be completely redundant, prohibiting the organism from functioning.
In order to prevent doubling the information, multi-celled organisms produce special sex cells. These cells do not simply replicate and then split, they replicate, and then by meiosis they randomly split into four cells instead of two. These four cells contain only half of the chromosomes for the whole organism so that when fertilization occurs, half of the genes are provided by each parent. What an ingenious system for creating a whole new individual! These special sex cells are imperative for the reproduction of a multi-celled organism.
It is fine for a single-celled organism to continue to duplicate and split to reproduce itself, but there are great difficulties when we try and envision its transition to a multi-celled organism. First, two or more of these “simple” organisms must be compelled to attach themselves together. At this point they are not one organism because they continue to live independent lives. If they reproduce at this point the way they always have, then there will simply be a new set of independent living cells.
Bacteria are capable of sharing DNA, but new information simply substitutes for old information. It does not make the genetic code longer, or more complex to include new features (although scientists are able to splice in and manipulate some genes). But as long as the cells reproduce the old way, and maintain their individual DNA, without expanding the code to add (not substitute) new information from the other cells, then they will always be individual cells, generation after generation. The only way for a new multi-celled organism to form is if each cell also carries all of the additional DNA for each of the other cells in the prototype organism. And each cell must not simply repeat the same information it always has, or the organism will not increase in complexity or cohesive function.
Somehow, they would have to share their DNA so that each cell carries the DNA for every other cell. This is how all multi-celled organisms are structured. Every single cell in the human body, or in any multi-celled biological organism, carries the entire blueprint for each of the other cells in the body, including all the unique functions they perform for their particular job. Therefore, even a cell of hair knows how to produce hormones, or make an eye, or fight a cold, or make hemoglobin, or send the feeling of a breeze on the skin up to the brain. The myth of stem cells is that they are the only ones that can do this, but stem cells are simply cells that have not differentiated into their particular job yet. Every cell has all this information although it only does its one job.
Even the planerian worm, which can replicate itself by splitting in half, can only regenerate the lost portions because of cells that carry the instructions for the entire organism. Every cell must carry this information, and every cell does carry this information because they all develop by mitosis (replicating) from a single fertilized cell. A single-celled organism desiring to evolve, would need to, at some point, contain all the DNA of its new partners because the sex cells that are necessary for fertilization by meiosis (dividing then combining) require this configuration.
All of the previously independent single cells would have to cooperate in order to undertake this drastic transformation to a multi-celled organism. Even if they manage to exchange DNA within their short lives, it would be suicidal to begin to divide by meiosis. If evolution is the survival of the fittest, then there would be no motivation for a cell to split in such a manner and reduce its valuable DNA, which would jeopardize the delicate function of the cell, along with that of the next generation.
Splitting the DNA in half to form sex cells is only beneficial if the cell were planning on reproducing this way, and only if it were planning to form a new multi-celled organism, which of course it would not be able to do because it doesn’t have a brain yet in order to make these decisions. Therefore, some of these perfectly successful individual organisms would need to self-sacrificingly undertake certain peril in order to begin working with each other to produce a new multi-celled organism. This contradicts the preferred mechanism of individual survival.
If, again, a bunch of single cells did manage to bunch together, share their DNA, and produce sex cells through meiosis to form a new organism, then they would still have another problem with differentiation. As with all cells in a multi-celled organism, each cell only fulfills its assigned function. This is imperative. How this happens is still a complete mystery to scientists. How some cells know to be fingernails and some to be part of the liver is completely unknown. They simply do.
As if they are aware that they are part of a whole, some unknown genetic trigger turns on what function each one will fulfill, and then they faithfully fulfill it. If a bunch of single-celled organisms decided they wanted to go in together on making a multi-celled organism, they would first each have to commit to a particular function, as if there were already a plan to build something. Then each one would need to (impossibly) write the necessary DNA in order to communicate that particular structure and function to the entire organism, and to the cells it duplicates.
That DNA would have to find its way into all the other cells so that whatever cells volunteered to be the sex cells would be able to reproduce all of this new DNA and all of its instructions for each cell in order to reproduce the entire new organism. Then those volunteer cells would have to create cells with half of that DNA, and finally fertilize another sex cell that had already been prepared the same way in order to reproduce the entire organism. If any of the cells in the new organism does not catch onto the plan, and fails to write or acquire the appropriate DNA instructions, and fails to communicate this DNA for its specific function to the other cells, the whole experiment will fail. But evolutionists believe that given enough time, (and apparently purposeful determination) one of the experiments would succeed.
Again, that’s a lot of ingenuity and organization to accomplish in about 30 minutes or so, (which is a bacterium’s average lifespan if it doesn’t reproduce), and there wasn’t even a plan to do it. What would cause a perfectly suitable cell to give up its independence to figure out what kind of function it could fulfill in the collective society of a new organism? It doesn’t know if it will live longer. It doesn’t even have a job in the organism yet. Where does it begin? How many cells does it take, and how many generations of single cells have to be determined to stick together before an organized, multi-celled organism is finally constructed? How many collective decisions have to be made before the miracle of meiosis is perfected? Where are these organisms today?
Creating a multi-celled organism from a bunch of single cells seems pretty impossible. The other option is that the DNA of a single-celled organism went bonkers, and started coming up with all this great information on its own. Even though mitosis dictates that DNA replicates itself to make a duplicate of the parent, perhaps the instructions got restless. They managed to precisely stumble upon the new structure of multi-celled life forms. The problem with this is that the first cell to contain this ingenious DNA would not be the complete organism, but only a single cell. That single cell would instantly have to begin dividing, like a zygote, or fertilized egg.
From this moment on, each of the cells would somehow also have to differentiate, and become specialized and fully functional together within the new organism, even though it had never been built before (have you ever been thrown into a new job without enough preparation? It’s like a Lucy episode). Evolutionists give more intuition to unthinking cells than even the human mind is capable of. This new miracle would still have to figure out how to produce sex cells through meiosis in order to reproduce, and it would need to fertilize itself because it would be amazing enough that there was one of them.
This scenario, of course, relies on the impossibility of non-thinking chemicals (DNA) ordering themselves so intuitively as to create the scheme to build an utterly new, unfathomably complex creature—and they got it right the first time. Like cells in today’s multi-celled organisms, these designs would not only need to account for every single cell of a non-existing creature, but every single cell’s function. These instructions would need to include the specific qualities required to perform those functions, new entire structures, organs and their complex functions, cell interaction, and interreliance, nerves, whole organism respiration, digestion, self-defense, along with the instructions for each cell to continue to construct and reproduce itself in a way that will ensure its individual survivability.
Additionally, never before cell configurations would have to be invented, again, without knowing they were necessary. Single celled organisms are very different than a nerve cell or an organ cell, or a gland, yet all of these unique cells would have been conjured and organized in one stroke by a bizarre fluke of chemicals. Aside from the fact that there is no evidence to support this fantasy, the giant leap in the complexity of instructions necessary for a single-celled organism to manufacture a unified group of cells that have assigned functions, is more miraculous than Special Creation. The life of each cell relies on such cutting edge precision, we could never hope to duplicate it, let alone grasp it all. Life’s precision is not evidence of an accidental transition from a single-celled to a multi-celled organism.
Many evolutionists suggest that some algae, such as volvox, are able to work together without reproducing sexually, and this is perhaps what led to the initial stages of multi-celled life. Most algae do actually have this specialized ability to reproduce sexually, and in multi-celled algae, the individual cells typically produce specific structures and functions, such as seen in most types of seaweed, showing that even seaweed is complex. But evolutionists point to the volvox’s individual cells which seem to gather and live interdependently as a stepping stone to multi-celled life. The example is unproductive, though, because not only has this algae remained single celled, but the community it builds still responds on an individual level in the environment. It offers us no information as to how a single celled community would make such a transition to the complexity of a multi-celled organism.
There are not a lot of options for the first life forms that might have tried to make this transition to multi-celled life. Algae can’t feasibly be that first organism to accomplish this, though because it depends on photosynthesis. However, all the “first” multi-celled organisms in the fossil record are animals, and could not have evolved from photosynthetic algae. Animals are not algae. In fact, according to their own interpretation of the fossil record, multi-celled animals would have existed long before even the multi-celled algae appeared.
Therefore, since the revolution at the Cambrian level cannot be explained by the evolution of either a chemosynthetic archaebacteria, or the very helpful blue-green algae, evolutionists must fill this early Precambrian period with a dozen different algae, bacteria, plankton, slime molds and amoebas to choose from for the multi-cellular precursor. From this group of pioneers, all of life is supposed to have radiated, and yet without a single qualified transitional ancestor among any of them.
Evolutionists do not address the logistics involved with innovating so many utterly distinct micro-organisms from a single, chemosynthetic bacteria. They simply evoke them at this early time out of the necessity to provide a wide range of possible ancestors for the explosion of multi-celled animals. The problem remains in explaining even the evolutionary pathway of these unique single-celled organisms, which evolutionists also recognize, compelling them to chart no origin pathway that relates them. This raises the question of whether evolutionists really think that each one started from scratch.
Regardless of which single-celled organism made the first move, animal species from both the fossil record and living world bypass any intermediate species. Instead, they jump directly to the highly complex, sexually reproducing multi-celled organisms such as worms, and starfish, leaving a large gap in development. What could this transitional organism possibly be? There should be some hint of an infantile stage of a transitional species made up of only a few cells stuck together, living a primitive existence, sharing their DNA as one organism, rather than a leap to such an astounding development.
Even microscopic flatworms have numerous differentiated cells, a brain and nerve cord, all which function together in highly specialized structures, requiring incredible organization. Though, again, it is possible for flatworms to reproduce by fission, it is only the symmetry of the body, and genetics in each cell, that allow all the necessary parts to be available to the worm that splits off. Cell differentiation and responsibilities even in flatworms belies theories about once independent cells inventing functions for themselves in order to work together in one organism.
In fact, although the simplest multi-celled animal, sponges, have no tissues or formal appendages, they are some of the most complex chemical factories known. Scientists are still unable to synthesis these unique chemicals, or grasp the full relationship that the cells of these simple creatures enjoy in their remarkable unification for whole organism function. As simple as the structure of the sponge is, each species of sponge also builds itself based on a basic body type, following mysterious universal pattern, and assigning cellular functions. They reproduce sexually, requiring haploid (cells with half the genes) reproductive cells, which demonstrates the unity of the organism. Despite seeming to be simple, their body type is so unique that evolutionists still cannot utilize them as an evolutionary pathway to more complex animals. Instead, they appear in the fossil record as distinct as all the other Cambrian species.
Instead of finding evidence of a transitional form between single-celled to multi-celled organisms, what we see is a giant gap, demonstrating the awkwardness of such a state. There is no evidence that this unimaginable transitional species did or even could exist at all, despite the insistence of evolutionists that it is a fact. Evolutionists themselves cannot agree on a theory of how evolution from the lowest form of life happened. The processes and intuition, and cooperation necessary for the transition from a single-cell to a multi-celled organism fights all logic and scientific knowledge.
Such a conclusion cannot be gleaned from the evidence as factually proven, or absolutely unmistakable. Instead, cellular evolution is simply imposed on the evidence by allowing one exception to the rule after another. True tested and scientific evidence faithfully demonstrates how impossible these scenarios of self-willed evolution really are, and removes the theory from a realistic realm to that of a tall tale. If this transition didn’t happen, then evolution did not happen. Clearly each life form is precisely engineered for its niche in the ecosystem—powerful confirmation of creation.
There are also biological laws present that support the Creation model over the evolution model. Mendel is famous for discovering and proving them, and our entire understanding of genetics is based on them. He showed that the offspring will exhibit only the features genetically present in one of the parents. Although his breakthrough experiments were conducted with peas, the genetic principle applies to animals as well. Mendel had never seen the double helix of DNA, but he discovered how genetic heredity is transferred through sexual reproduction using meiosis.
When the genetic material of each parent divides in half, this provides half of the genes for reproduction, which is then coupled in insemination (fertilization) with half of the genes provided by the other parent. This means that a trait expressed by the offspring could be up to one of four possible variations. Mendel chose to narrow down his experiments in order to have an effective control group, and there were generally not four options for each trait available. Thus in Mendel’s experiment, the parental plants were limited to produce only one or two options per characteristic, such as either white or purple flowered pea plants (or shapes of leaves). His experiments faithfully recorded the occurrence of expression of these traits based on the parental generations.
We now have much more information on heredity, and we have seen that Mendel’s conclusions hold up throughout the biological world. We now know with surety that traits expressed in an organism are the result of parental genetic contribution. For instance, in humans, it is possible for one parent to have genes for red hair and blonde hair, and the other parent for brown hair and black hair. During meiosis division of the sex cells, the mother may provide the DNA for red hair in one sex cell, and blonde hair in another, and the same would apply to the father’s DNA for brown and black hair. That means that the child might get DNA for both blonde hair and black hair.
Now while the DNA for black hair is dominant and most likely to be expressed, later, if the child grows and marries someone else that has the recessive gene for blonde hair, even if the other parent also has black hair, they have a one in four chance that the sex cells that are fertilized will both provide the DNA for blond hair. Now those parents might be surprised to have a blond haired baby with two black haired parents, but it would not be a leap in evolution, it would be an example of the genetic laws that Mendel discovered with his pea plants.
These heredity laws dictate certain genetically prescribed outcomes of reproduction, limiting the features of the offspring to the DNA information given it by its parents. This means that there is no new information added to the genetic instructions for building the offspring after insemination, and therefore it will be of the same species as the parents, and reflect their genetic make up. The only changes that may differ between the genetic information of the parents and the genetic information of the offspring, comes in the form of genetic errors in the transmission of information, or defects in the information—typically found in the sex cells, or in replication errors after insemination. Much like a cancer is a runaway production of cells, an error in DNA always equates a breakdown or destruction of information, not an improvement or addition.
In all his experiments, Mendel’s peas never produced yellow flowers because it was not a variation genetically provided by the parents. The information in a genetic mutation does not get more complex, and does not even account for variation within a species, let alone evolution between families of species. This is an absolute fact, and there is not one documented instance where a mutation created new, more complex information in the DNA. Mutations are always errors in pre-existing information, inhibiting the perfect transmission of instructions. They not only come from a loss of information, or a superfluous replication of existing information, but simply from the misaligned translation of correct information. Mutations always result in imperfect features, deformations, and flawed efficiency. While some errors may not have a profound effect on the survival of the human or animal, they never add a survival benefit. The new information is not better, or more efficient.
Variation is already genetically present within all species, and revealed under various circumstances. Evolutionists use the famous studies on Galapagos finch beaks, or British peppered moths as their strongest examples of the process of evolution. However, these are clearly examples of variation within a species (differences in size and color of features shared by the same species) which is not a process that could eventually result in macro-evolution (evolving from one family species into another). When evolutionists use genetic variation as if it demonstrates macro-evolution, they are essentially equating the variations between a greyhound and a beagle with the differences between a greyhound and a hippopotamus. Greyhounds and beagles are types of dogs, hippos are decidedly not.
Evolutionists rely on these famous studies even though they are both unmitigated examples of natural variations. In the now famous study, a population of British peppered moths that were exposed to increased industrial conditions, adjusted in pigment to blend in with the darkening environment of soot by becoming predominantly black moths. When the environment cleared, the population supposedly readjusted back to predominantly light colored moths again. Evolutionists concluded that if the process that induced the results in these two examples were applied over hundreds of millions of years, a fish could turn into a cow.
In their conclusions, however, scientists fail to include vital observations and facts that negate the feasibility of macro-evolution through this process. Firstly, this species never made an actual genetic switch from a single known variation to a previously unknown variation. Both were original variations present in the species, and both remained genetically present and possible, but not preferred, or selected by their environment. In other words, although evolutionists imply that the white moths made a genetic adjustment and began producing black moths in order to survive, the white moths actually continued to be produced. The moths were always genetically capable of producing both black moths and white moths, and indeed continued to produce them, but due to the darker environment, the white moths did not blend into the environment, and therefore had a lower survival rate for reproduction.
Literally, by process of elimination, the majority of moths available for reproduction become the black ones. This increased the ratio of black moths because there were more of them contributing to the genetic pool for the next generation than white ones. Once the pollution that had darkened the environment subsided, the white moth population increased again. This same process can be observed regularly in nature, which eliminates weaker individuals, and those with traits that make them more vulnerable than the others of their species. Hence, the well documented process of genetic elimination known as “survival of the fittest.”
These physical vulnerabilities can have many sources, including genetic mutations, an unsuitable genetic variation for that environment, like poor camouflage, inappropriate covering for the weather, inability to process available food sources, or simply a weaker constitution. Any of these elements may result in premature death, and prevent the individual from donating genetically toward the next generation. This environmental elimination process does not promote increased genetic variations, or even genetic ingenuity, but it naturally eliminates genetically unsuitable candidates, and dictates a narrower genetic pool for the species. This is how species traits are influenced or “chosen” by the environment. However, the environment has no contribution in influencing the genetic material offered by a supposed wayward mutational factory.
The same process applies to the example of the Galapagos finches, which have radiated from the same basic species depending on the circumstances of their habitat. Darwin observed these finches in their environments on several Galapagos Islands, and it became the basis for his theory of how the various species evolved by natural selection of variations. This theory eventually became the system applied by subsequent scientists to explain the source of species variations through genetic mutation, and that it could somehow be applied to explain how life originated and evolved from a first “simple” organism. Darwin himself, only proposed a mechanism that influenced the expression of variations in species, but the concept of genetic mutation as the source of all variations, features, and speciation through macro evolution was gingerly integrated after the 1930’s when discoveries about DNA and mutations were beginning to be understood.
Despite a growing faith in a form of evolution as the explanation for life rather than God, there was no real scientific foundation or mechanism to support a general theory of evolution until Darwin’s 1831 epic and cathartic journey. His observations of these other-worldy and pristinely primitive islands rendered many exciting discoveries and he began to formulate his theory of evolution through environmental selection of variations by primarily relying on his conclusions drawn from these now famous finches. Despite all that has been made of them, these finches look almost exactly alike, except for the notation of variations in beak size, which seem to suite the available food source on each island. Although the majority of the separate populations have either slightly larger or slightly shorter beaks, this can easily be attributed to the success of each variation of the trait in that environment. However, all these populations continue to have the ability to produce these variations when exposed to the general finch population. There is no evidence of new traits that have been added to the genetic code through mutation, or through environmental pressure, but all are clearly variations genetically available, that are promoted by the available food source.
Like all other instances, the finches fit the same, proven pattern of environmental selection from the existing genetic variations that are produced, which has narrowed down the genetic options by isolation from other finch groups. Although the British moths and the Galapagos finches are considered the evolutionists’ prime examples of evolution, this process of natural selection from existing genetic variations is universal, and commonly observed in other birds, animals, insects, and even plants.
Often members of the same biological family will
manifest different variations that are either selected to succeed by their
environments, or simply result from genetic isolation. Scientists often classify animals that are
nearly identical, but have slight variations in their colors or
characteristics, as separate species.
However, as with
In every instance, evolutionists believe, as Creationists do, that each variation of species (size and color) all radiated from a basic species. Evolutionists, however, are not able to demonstrate any documented instance of mutation as the responsible catalyst. Genetic variations that are manipulated in domesticated species are well known, and this process is familiar (which will be discussed later). Likewise, the same process would naturally operate in the wild, while these stable variation traits cannot be authentically attributed to mutation.
In some cases, species separated from the parent population for a long enough time lose their ability to produce the full range of genetic variations, but this is an example of the narrowing of genetic variation, not evolution, or expansion of genetic information through mutation. In this case, genetic information is lost, and no new information is added, demonstrating entropy. One possible example is that humans may have lost the ability to produce melanin in an appropriate response to environmental exposure. Whether evolutionist or Creationist, scientists recognize that the patriarchs of humanity likely were more flexible in their pigment production, which may have become fixed through regional influence and genetic isolation. Humans can clearly produce limited increases in pigmentation, but not enough to fully adjust to a new environment.
Another example of the loss of genetic information is what scientists term “vestigial organs,” or when an organ seems to have lost its function in a species. Evolutionists propose many of these supposed “vestigial” organs to support the idea that the trait is product of evolution, but even if they are authentic vestigial organs, they clearly demonstrate the opposite process. Since the fossil evidence does not exist to support the supposed evolutionary pathways of these vestigial parts, they are entirely inferred from observation. One decides if something is vestigial because of evolution almost entirely based on the opinion of whether it is useful, even though there is no other evidence to support the history of the conclusion.
There are some very poor examples of things that humans have decided animals don’t need, and are remnants of some unsupported evolutionary history. For instance, giraffe necks apparently, are more proportionate with other ungulates when they are newborn, suggesting their evolutionary common ancestry. Since these animals do not add vertebrate as they age, this inference is a stretch (no pun). Also, many horses still carry the gene for stripes, though they are not physically expressed except when crossed with zebras and the like. This appears to be great evidence for genetic triggers and a wide selection of genetic variations encoded by a Designer. Additionally there seem to be some unnecessary remnant toes on many ungulates. Of course, I have seen them use some of these nubs for rubbing their face and eyes. It’s great how we think we know the value of these structures based on our meager observations.
Humans are apparently fraught with unnecessary remnants. Many have decided (as discussed in another section) that we are filled with “junk” DNA that has no purpose. Since we haven’t deciphered the purpose of most of our DNA (though we have mapped the genetic sequence), this is a silly conclusion to draw. We also don’t really need our toes, according to many evolutionists. I think they are great for running and stuff. Some of the more common examples in humans are the appendix, the tonsils, and wisdom teeth. Evolutionists claim that we don’t need them, and they are cast-off remnants of earlier evolutionary stages.
Most scientists, however, agree that all these things do have a specific purpose, even if we cannot see them working all the time, and even if we can survive without them today. People can survive without many parts of the body, but they still have a function. Ironically, (along with immune system functions) some scientists now think that the appendix is a degenerated caecum, left over from when we were exclusively vegetarians—and of course Adam and Eve were created to be vegetarians. Since most mammals have either a caecum, or an appendix, and often both, the human appendix is consistent with the notion that some form of this organ is necessary for living things that encounter similar foods and circumstances in the same world. Since an argument can be equally made for both sides, these concepts are not evidence for either.
Another suggested vestigial appendage is the tailbone and sacrum in humans, which is supposed to be left over from when we had tails. These features are not structured like a tail, and serve as extremely important muscle attachments, as well as a guard for our internal organs, and waste elimination processes. Actually, our tailbone, sacrum and pelvis structure is uniquely human. The distinct section of fused bone that makes up the human sacrum is the sturdiest by design, to carry the weight of the upper body upright while walking. Since, we supposedly evolved through apes (which don’t have tails), and not monkeys, the connection is even farther removed.
Some people argue that the wings on giant flightless birds, such as the emu or ostrich, are vestigial, but giant flightless birds are a part of the fossil record, and it doesn’t appear that any of them could ever fly. They seem to simply be another niche in the variety of Creation because one cannot imagine what prompted such large, clunky creatures to evolve from volant (flying) birds. Though it is hard to determine if something truly is a vestigial organ, there are instances that Creationists would agree are a type of vestigial, or left over organ.
One rare example of a clear vestigial organ is the blind cave fish, which still produces eyes, but they no longer seem to have their full function. Although their DNA still usually produce eyes, living in the complete dark has seemingly changed the environmental requirements for survival. The sighted fish were not necessarily selected by the environment over genetically mutated blind fish, which ordinarily would have been eliminated from the gene “pool” as lunch. The lack of light further inhibits the normal development of the eyes with even the fish that have sighted genes, confirming the trait. There are a few other examples, such as the blind salamander and other dark dwelling creatures that have even lost their eyes completely. Clearly, at one time, these animals had functioning eyes, and may be a rare example of true vestigial organs.
The most popular example given at this time to bolster a direct evolutionary remnant is the idea of snakes with legs (whales with “legs” will be discussed in the fossil “whale” section). It is famously known that there are no fossils to indicate how and when reptiles got tired of their legs and started getting rid of them. It is hard to imagine why this undertaking would occur, and between the two problems, evolutionists are at a complete lack of direction for the evolutionary history of the snake. However, they think that if they can point to “vestigial legs” in living snakes, then they will not have to produce a reasonable fossil history. Hence, the insistent claims that boas retain vestigial limbs as unarguable evidence for its earlier lizard-legged past.
If you examine other snakes, you will find no sign or remnant of any tetrapod beginnings. No other hind anything, and certainly never any front anything. No pelvis, or old femurs or even vague little bone structures are found. This snake family’s external spurs are the only example. They are a single, simple mini-claw, embedded in the muscle tissue just beneath the skin. There are no legs or hips or any vestige of attachment to the spine. Just these little external spurs that even evolutionists admit are used during copulation. Despite this paltry evidence, any evolutionist will jump on this idea that some snakes have vestigial legs. And this is the best they have to offer that snakes “for a fact” evolved.
Vestigial organs are only useful in evolution if it can show that one species has a left over trait from when it was another species. Not from when it was more complete. Regardless of which traits are vestigial organs and which traits are genetically original, any case for a vestigial organ is unarguably that it has lost its function. If a limb or organ that is thought to be vestigial, like the tonsils and the appendix, and the spurs in boas, but they actually do have a purpose, then even its vestigial status must be questioned since this usefulness is certainly better evidence of its design.
However, any organ that truly has lost its assumed usage (eyes in the blind cave fish) certainly is not evidence that the species is in the process of evolving into a better species. On the contrary, it proves the Creation model that everything once had better genetic information than it does now. It proves entropy, not progress in biological forms. Losing eyesight is not progress—it just may not interfere with the fish’s survival within its environment.
Natural selection narrows the genetic material of a species, and has only been observed to operate through existing traits within the available genetic code. Although certain genetic defects may be known to a species, the odds of a single defect being substantially beneficial is impossibly rare, and therefore cannot be demonstrated as a catalyst for the gradual improvement of the species by a series of hundreds of these defects. The disease, sickle cell anemia in humans, is the preferred example offered by scientists of beneficial mutations because those carrying this gene are resistant to malaria. This is only beneficial, however, where the death rate from malaria is higher than the death rate from sickle cell anemia.
The severity of the example demonstrates the lack of positive evidence for beneficial mutations. This is especially true since 25% of those who suffer from the disorder die prematurely from it, and would not otherwise count themselves lucky. Evolutionists would have us believe that this wonderful process of evolution would select the people with sickle cell anemia in a malaria crisis, and the resulting, though sickly, offspring would be an improvement on the “species”. In reality, though, the world is not full of sickly mutant transitional species, but stable, biologically viable species well designed and quite resilient.
Our understanding of genetic mechanisms is even more extensive now than ever. We know that scientists trust this genetic predictability since everything from our criminal justice system, to experimentation with gene therapy, stem cell research, and cloning relies on the dependability of the system. There are no surprises in genetic heredity. Scientists do not begin cloning experiments wondering if by chance a sheep clone will turn out to be a whale instead. Moreover, when determining paternity, doctors don’t factor in the possibility of a sudden spontaneous alteration in DNA (“Well, ma’am, he could be the father, but honestly, the way these genes jump around, we don’t know for sure”). OJ Simpson's crack team of lawyers didn't say that DNA of itself is a shifting and unreliable witness, because it is not.
The fact that the offspring are always a product of genetic information inherited from the parents supports the Biblical account that each species will reproduce after its kind according to the genetic variation already provided by the parents in its DNA. Scientific research continually verifies the stability of the transmission of genetic information. Mutations cannot be credited with the innovation of complex genetic information, but they always alter or disrupt the correct transmission of good information. The theory of evolution is not based on scientific fact that dictates such an interpretation, but instead it desperately clings to the slim light of possibility in these destructive genetic mutations alone. There is no evidence that macro-evolution must have occurred, but the hope is that it could have occurred despite the scientific evidence against it.
Here is the problem with genetics and evolution. Genetic equilibrium (Hardy-Weinberg), dictates the stability of each species within the boundaries of the variation of traits (eye and hair color, size of features, specialization of features), but does not allow for new traits (wings, eyes, fins, lungs, legs, and other complex organs). No new trait will overtake a population without isolation, or selection of unique traits (such as environment or mating). Therefore, evolution is unable to wholly explain how a new complex feature could appear in a species (along with the ability of the nerves and the brain to interpret and control it) because the features of a species are dictated by its DNA. All the new genetic information that would be necessary for creating the sudden appearance of wings (functioning or not) would have to be created painstakingly, in detail through mutant DNA that the parents do not genetically possess, and then be uniquely selected generation after generation without yet a purpose or plan.
But mutation of genetic material is never seen as anything but replication errors, so the new material would have to be instantly unique. This means that in the very instant that the sex cells would form, all the information to build a feature in an entirely new manner would spontaneously reprogram the DNA before insemination. But again, there is no statistical or observational basis that demonstrates that DNA is capable of spontaneously mutating into new complex, or even useful information in any fashion. This is why there is so much “variation” in the scientific community as to the actual mechanism for the evolutionary process. The widely accepted “fact” of evolution offers no plausible scenario to account for how it could have happened, to the point that evolutionary scientists themselves cannot agree to a theory.
The two main camps hold to the concepts of Gradual Adaptation, and Punctuated Equilibrium for the mechanism of evolution. The problem is that neither one of them are biologically possible. It is such a prominently unresolved issue, that all science textbooks teach both of these divergent possibilities, and yet evolutionists close ranks on the topic against Creation scientists. This is why these hypotheses must rely on each other for support, because neither of the theories can stand the test of scientific facts. But putting together two concepts that don’t work is to hope for the proverbial two wrongs making a right. Scientists do not know how evolution works because they have no verifiable evidence to account for it. In other areas of science, this alone would be enough to dismiss the theory as a fact.
Gradual Adaptation is the main theory discussed so far, and the one advocated by Darwin himself. It is very reasonable sounding in that it assumes that given eons of time, one creature can transform, without aiming to do so, into another completely different creature through an accumulation of coincidental and complex mutations in DNA, which are selected by nature to succeed. One might easily be convinced of this possibility with even such underachieving evidence as finch beaks and peppered moths, despite its misapplication.
To accomplish this, it is only necessary to allow enough time to apply this process to every feature of every organism—but one must be willing to ignore numerous known factors. No one would believe that a fish could give birth to a bear. What a ridiculous thought. But something magical happens when one adds hundreds of millions of years, and behold we will actually believe this is a reasonable suggestion. One might be persuaded of the possibility of such a thing occurring—once.
But evolution is not a theory of once. It contends, by fact that every one of the millions of life forms that ever existed on this planet, has transformed into their stable forms through the persistence of this random activity. To account for the present biodiversity, every last species would have emerged from a tedious, evolutionary process that no one has ever witnessed, on any level. Astonishingly, these willy-nilly bio-wanderings produced the millions of distinct, stable, complexly designed plant and animal species both of today and from the past. What is the evidence? Variations in finch beaks and peppered moths are the only evidence ever offered on behalf of this astounding process. Nothing more than the natural form of what dog breeders have been actively pursuing for thousands of years, and yet we still have just dogs.
Gradual adaptation proposes that the first living cell gradually changed and radiated into every biological form once it invented DNA. This grand engineer, DNA, was apt to add complex new ideas to the sex cells through accidental, non-directed mutations, or errors. If the error was a good idea, then the creature survived, and put it to some use; if it was a bad idea, then the creature died. Gradually, over time, each mutation providentially added onto another mutation going in the same direction, that eventually added up to a brand new feature. And not just one, but in order to provide for the great diversity we have observed, each creature had the miraculous ability to branch into many new and unique creatures, and so every species was very busy. One wonders how a species could manage to go in so many well defined directions, while maintaining each individual pathway.
There are many serious problems with gradual adaptation as the mechanism for evolutionary upward movement. The most glaring is the lack of evidence that there is a system at all by which macro-evolution can occur. However, we know that the best examples to boost macro-evolution, finch beaks and peppered moths, actually misrepresents these embedded genetic variations. Scientists imply that these are new features that were acquired through mutations, but these are not new features. A new feature would be one that a species is not already programmed by its DNA to produce, for instance a bird producing fur, or venom, or gills, or some feature it never had before, not color and size.
These traits were always available in the genetic code, so natural selection could not possibly be used to explain the origin of a feature that is not programmed into the genetic code. If the code is pre-programmed to have certain variations in features for each species, than evolution from one species to another did not occur. The wide range of variations provided in the DNA of the notorious Galapagos finches and British peppered moths give these species room to adjust to their environment. This stable form of genetic provision embedded in all biological forms is strong evidence that a Creator wisely programmed life for flexibility to aid their survival. This form of adaptation does not involve mutations, and it doesn’t invoke a feature that did not previously exist, and therefore these, evolution’s best examples, are unarguably not evidence that demonstrates macro-evolution (species to species) in any possible way.
In this same way, we can look at the wide spectrum of human variations to see how the isolation of a gene pool results in common distinct regional features in people. We recognize these differences and give them the proper application as variations of the same species. Humans, for example, come in a very wide range of heights, just as finch beaks have length variations, but this is not regarded as evidence for evolution, or an indication that these distinctions make us separate species. These variations, however, are clearly passed on through the genes of our parent, not through new genes acquired through mutations.
Although brown eyes may be dominant in a
population, such as found in
The variations available to a population are dictated by the extent of their isolation from variations of other populations. Children produced by people from different regions with different genetic variations will inherently blend the genetic distinctions in their DNA. The same occurs in animal populations that are genetically compatible. People and animals that exchange DNA across distinct population boundaries will create a new gene pool, and a new set of available variations. Within a few generations, the off-spring would likely be the medium of these traits, and frequently yield variations on such traits from both populations, having a greater gene pool to draw from. If isolation reoccurs, they may distill again into more defined features through isolation, or one of the features may become the dominant trait.
The process of change within a population directly correlates with the available genetic variations. This principal has been reliably documented. However, the process through which species evolve into completely different species through mutations has never been documented, and the hoped for mechanism of change remains elusive.
Evolutionists believe that a strong factor that compels species to evolve is a negative stimulus that influences the genetic selection. Of course, natural selection does occur, however, they apply their faith in the power of mutation backwards. Evolutionists think that not only can the environment weed out weak genetic features, but it can actually induce mutations that somehow specifically respond to help the organism survive the threat. This is the implication with the peppered moths, and the very foundation of the evolutionary premise. The two concepts are intertwined because in order for evolution to be so productive, it needs a powerful motivator and engineer. They believe that under pressure, mutations respond that help the organism find a way to survive. Hence, scientists are confident that we can commonly observe this slice of evolution in action. Each feature that enables a species to survive, therefore, is always credited to an adaptation generated by mutation at some point, regardless of the circumstances.
Often evolutionists don’t even know what specifically enabled an organism to survive a stressful situation since slight differences in one individual’s genetic makeup can make the difference. There are subtleties in genetic instructions that we cannot read. Because we have so much to learn about reading DNA, these subtle physiological differences between individuals can have a great impact on survival, but it would take a diligent investigation to be able to locate that specific genetic difference.
Since the ability to survive an environmental condition is typically more complex than mere beak length, such a trait would be more difficult to account for with a simple genetic error. A personal example that I can offer is that many of the family members on my father’s side have a super sensitivity to heat, and are quickly subject to headaches, dehydration and heat stroke. The tendency in my family is so clear that plainly it is genetically related. Although we do well in cold climates, if my family were dumped in the desert, along with people who do not have this tendency, we are less likely to survive the extreme conditions and contribute to the next generation.
I know many people, though, who are not noticeably different than I am, but are quite heat tolerant, and would likely fare much better. Since this issue is not a matter of one feature (beak lengths), but numerous metabolic features (water conservation, perspiration, circulation, respiration . . .), one genetic error would have to dictate too many factors. Rather than assuming that the shared characteristic is a spontaneous complex mutation, it makes more sense to recognize it as genetic variation package already provided by the DNA. The field of study is simply too new to assert that variations are from mutations as though there were evidence.
Geneticists are very proud to have “mapped” the human genome, but what was their astonishing announcement? That much of the genetic information is “junk” DNA. They claim that unnecessary DNA is just “hitching a survival ride,” so to speak, and that it has no importance in building or maintaining the human at all. It is quite pompous to confuse the discovery of the existing genetic map with being able to read the map, which we most assuredly cannot do in the slightest. Yes, we can painstakingly read the order of the nucleic acids, and we can even narrow down certain functions of genes, and recognize the sequence of the amino acids, but we cannot actually take a whole section out and read the instructions. We can’t look at a random sequence of DNA and say “This looks like the liver instructions, let’s build one.”
We are just now able to decipher DNA through the tedious process of isolation and experimentation. But mapping the sequence is not the same as comprehending what we are reading. We are like people leafing through a full set of encyclopedias in an unknown language, childishly making up stories to go with the pictures. This is not a good basis for declaring that much of the text has no meaning. Predictably, scientists have already begun discovering “hidden” significance among this “junk DNA,” along with potential alternative instructions ready to act on genetic triggers. Moreover, the immense complexity of functions and biological responses necessary to keep the balance of the cells of our body would fill our DNA with subtle information we could not possibly grasp yet.
The complex set of instructions required to genetically code for “simple” features (let alone for compound features) belies this concept of genetic errors since such random errors produce limited results. They can either only produce malformed features because of errors in the parental sex cells, or a mere protein substitution from a DNA copying error. Numerous thoughtful substitutions would need to align to actually change the character and function of a feature or whole organism response. However, all mutations that have been documented both from the lab and otherwise, have added neither a new set of instructions, nor survival benefit. Instead they always destroy sound genetic instructions, and inhibit, or prevent the organism’s survival in the natural environment. Some examples of this are extra sets of inoperable wings or legs in fruit flies and frogs, which are a hindrance in the wild.
There is no concrete proof that variations or features arise spontaneously, through mutation, rather than through the genetic variations derived from the parents. This would entail a painstaking comparison of generations of parental DNA, until the original individual is located where the DNA in question first appeared. Clearly the individuals that could reveal the hereditary history prior to today’s organisms would be gone. But the research of present life forms is limited, and has never documented a verified origin of a variation that was anything more than mutational deformations, and a non-beneficial destruction of viable DNA. If every trait in every species can be found in the genes of one of its parents, then there is no evidence that mutations generate new, complex information for an original trait. Because of the lack of evidence, the viability of the basic mechanism behind evolution is still unsubstantiated in even simple, documentable examples.
One researcher, biologist Barry Hall, ran experiments in 1982 on the E. coli bacteria to try and find such proof. He removed the gene that produces the lactose enzyme, which helps the bacteria consume lactose. Within one generation, a new gene appeared to mutate into the lactose producing enzyme. It was a miracle. Finally, proof of evolution, and through negative stimulation at that. The whole theory could finally be validated at least once.
Of course, there were problems with the leap to evolutionary conclusions. How could a gene that requires hundreds of perfectly arranged amino acids suddenly appear in one generation just because it would be helpful? Does evolution have a mind behind it, or was this a miracle? As it turns out, though, the gene that took over the new duties already existed, and was really nearly identical to the gene that was removed. Prior to that, its function was unknown, and perhaps it is another example of “junk DNA” that has a function when triggered. Moreover, when Hall removed this second gene as well, no new gene ever evolved to take over the duties of the lactose enzyme gene. It simply died. (Behe)
The most common example offered by evolutionists as evidence of instantaneous, beneficial mutation, is in bacteria’s ability to occasionally survive toxic attacks. It is so commonly assumed that bacteria can mutate in response to antibiotics, that an amazing power is attributed to this supposed phenomenon. There are thousands of bacteria, and biologists quickly admit that we have yet to discover and genetically map most of them. If we know this, and we know how genetic variation works in other species, what makes scientists leap to the conclusion that each bacteria strain is a mutation? It would be so easy to have missed each genetic variation in a sea of bacteria when we are not even able to read the DNA that codes for such a survival mechanism until we painstakingly decipher it. Additionally, the ease with which bacteria can transfer DNA to each other enables them to quickly share successful traits with other generations.
Numerous studies on bacterial resistance have revealed that what was deemed as self-preserving mutational responses amounted to a halt or failure in the protein productions that were targeted by the antibiotic, thus slowing growth in the vulnerable area and avoiding fatal toxin exposure (see various studies by Bruce R. Levin, Christine Miller, Nathalie Q. Balaban, F.M. Barnard, P.S. Margolis, and numerous others). In all these instances, any perceived mutation was the loss or defective replication of the original genetic programming (often accompanied by an additional weakness to the bacterium) rather than an addition of spontaneous new, original genetic programming. Whether these responses are indeed mutational or actual pre-existing survival responses may be argued either way. They are still not examples of new genetic information in response to a threat.
In reality, though, it is neither logically, nor mathematically possible for bacteria to survive such an attack through sudden mutational ingenuity of new genetic material. Only pre-programmed genetic variations and equipping responses can explain their survival. Let’s say, for example, there are 10 bacteria in a dish, and an antibiotic is introduced. If none of these bacteria are genetically equipped to survive the toxin, then all 10 will die, and there will be no bacteria left to reproduce a next generation. It is impossible for a mutant generation to spring forth from dead bacteria, and therefore evolution does not succeed.
It is also not feasible for a dying bacterium to conscientiously put all of its ebbing resources into producing suitably mutated off-spring. Therefore, if none of the bacteria are equipped, none will survive, and there will not be a next generation. But, let us say, instead, that one of these bacteria does survive. That bacterium, by self definition, is already genetically equipped in some manner, to survive the toxin, and would therefore be the only bacteria left to reproduce in that environment. The generation that is produced by this bacterium would carry this necessary survival gene, and be better equipped to thrive in that specific toxin.
Perilous circumstances do not allow for mutations to occur as a survival mechanism because either the organism dies, or it survives. Instead of mutation, death (a form of genetic isolation) would determine which bacteria survived to reproduce. No matter how many bacteria are present, all will either die, or the survivors were already equipped for immunity to the toxin. Surviving bacteria are then able to reproduce, and occasionally share their DNA with other bacteria, creating new combinations, and new strains. The primary survival mechanism, however, logically must have already existed genetically.
In a recent study, researchers trying to crack the mystery of antibiotic resistant bacteria studied the E. coli response to ciprofloxacin. Using the assumption that the bacteria were indeed mutating to survive, they concluded that the toxin attack triggers a unique genetic response. Immediately the bacteria generate single strands of DNA. A protein, Rec A, lines up in strands and attaches to the single stranded DNA. Rec A facilitates cleavage of the regulatory protein, Lex A. By doing this, researchers believe that a set of repressed genes are freed to “induce mutations.” These “mutations” instantaneously find a way to block the attack. The conflicts with logic in this assumption are numerous. First, mutation is given credit for defending the bacteria. Doing so overlooks the obvious fact that even if there is a mechanism through which the cell releases the DNA to mutate, the mechanism itself would be built in equipment—earmarks of design, not chaos. Additionally, the mutation would need to be instantaneous, and somehow this random hit-and-miss process manages to generate exactly the response that is needed to defend the bacteria the instant before it dies. Thirdly, this response clearly yields the same outcome, remarkably, throughout these unrelated bacteria—otherwise we wouldn’t bother to study it. These factors are clear evidence of a genetically pre-programmed response.
Fourth, why would the bacteria begin to produce mutated DNA if its sequence was complete unless it had a goal? Chaos can’t have a goal. Of course there are mutations—lots of them—but no cell or organism can mutate at will to protect itself with a new idea. Mutations, again, corrupt the precision of the blueprint for a cell or organism, generally causing either an inappropriate production or reduction in a protein, as well as substituting an incorrect protein, but it does not create a more complex structure, or have a goal in mind. Over the life of the organism, unchecked mutations throw the function of the affected cells out of balance.
It is both unfounded and illogical to bestow such miraculous, instantaneous intuition on random, never documented mutational processes induced under extreme biological distress. The more logical conclusion fitting of the evidence is that the attack on the E. coli triggers a genetic alternative production of appropriate defensive proteins. Even now, researchers are discovering more evidence to support the concept of genetic triggers and alternative DNA sequences within other biological forms, including humans. Why should bacteria be any less equipped with an immune system than we are? Luckily, just like in humans, some bacteria are better equipped than others, and many are quite vulnerable. By studying them with a logical and scientifically substantiated assumption that recognizes their pre-programmed genetic variations, and the ability to easily transfer DNA, researchers could make more progress against these villains.
Although bacteria seem like the perfect opportunity to observe mutational ingenuity, the various strains have become predictable, and bacteria’s naturally fast reproductively and genetic flexibility do not shed light on how the rest of the biological world could have utilized mutation as an evolutionary device. Bacteria, we know, are flexible, yet still do not offer a fount of mutational creativity, but the rest of the living world is much less genetically whimsical. Even here, where generations are created in hours, there is little new to build on that could affect macro-evolution.
We think we can’t stay ahead of mutating bacteria, but really we are simply dealing with the survival of the equipped. Although this is still a daunting challenge, perhaps we are even contributing to the crisis ourselves by completely removing all of one type of bacteria from an environment. If this removal allows the unfamiliar bacteria to increase, this is good evidence that the first bacteria may have been keeping it in check. Since antibiotics are a biochemical way to inhibit the spread of bacteria, perhaps other bacteria may be able to do the same. It’s like killing all the spiders in the garden and wondering why there is an insect explosion.
Even when facing the latest crisis, the Bird Flu, a panic is spawned at the thought of the virus mutating into a form that passes from human to human, or more easily from the bird. Viruses are different than any living organism. Their DNA is not in a continuous strand, but in fragments. This enables different combinations to be available for reproduction in the host cell. This flexibility offers the opportunity for the right combination to effectively reproduce in the host before being detected and destroyed by the immune system.
This is why we continue to catch colds, even when our immune system should have been able to recognize the virus. Colds are likely a very genetically flexible virus, and never the same as last time. Other viruses that have less flexibility, such as measles, or polio, can be prevented through a vaccine, which exposes the immune system to the virus so it can recognize it and prepare the appropriate response. In most viruses, DNA that would enable a crossover between species does not exist, but in some it does. Therefore, at this point in time, either the bird flu combination exists that facilitates a human to human transference epidemic, or it doesn’t.
There remains no single example of a biological adaptation response of acquiring new appropriate genetic information through mutation. Variation, not mutation, controls genetic preparedness. Without an active, evident system of gradual evolution through mutations, species to species macro-evolution is an impossible task.
In the search for evidentiary relationships between the species, another debate rages: physical or genetic comparisons? Early evolution drew relationships between species based on their physical (morphological) similarities. Thus, for a time, the now defunct American horse series included small ungulates regardless of their appearance in the strata, because an explanation had to be offered. That has since been debunked, and no fossil series has managed to take its place. There are many problems with pure morphological comparisons, as will be discussed at length in the Fossil Record Unit, because of tremendous gaps and transitional mysteries. Since evolutionists cannot elicit clear, unambiguous connections in the fossil record that demonstrate the progress of life, then perhaps a genetic examination can reveal subtle, and more reliable historical relationships to demonstrate this great family tree.
Scientists have been clamoring to compare species at the molecular level, and some surprising relationships have been noted. Some of these will be mentioned in other sections:
· Whales are closely related to the sheep family
· Chickens and chimpanzees are more closely related in chromosome #20 than chimps and humans
· The November 2004 National Geographic article “Was Darwin Wrong” reveals (to everyone’s shock) that the Jamaican twig anole, the Puerto Rican twig anole, and the Hispanola twig anole are not genetically related, but are examples of convergent evolution (meaning evolution came up with a good idea several times in unrelated species, from unrelated ancestors) –despite the fact that they looked so much alike that they gave them the same name.
· Evolutionary relationships among the 4 amphibian classes cannot be genetically established
· DNA from Neanderthals reveal that they are not humans after all (several problems with this, as will be discussed in the Descent of Man section)
· More comparisons will be discussed in the Chimpanzee/ Human genome section
Now this concept of using DNA comparisons as a means of establishing macro-evolutionary relationships is fraught with peril. Not only does one risk one’s credibility with accepting these incredible relationships, but one is likely using a flawed method that will never have a means of verification, as we blindly follow where our un-scrutinized desperation takes us. While comparisons between known related subspecies (like all canines) can be beneficial, comparisons between completely unrelated species, or families (like dogs and cows) cannot ignore the obvious differences that will be evident in the DNA. How would one decide what genetic comparisons were valid between animals that differ so widely in appearance, structure, development, and biological function? This is why continued molecular based comparisons between animals so genetically different that they cannot produce offspring together reveal more surprising and challenging conclusions.
Let’s think about the possible reasons for such illogical conclusions. As a point of reference, how about we consider what it would take to compare something like shoes. How would one conclude the evolutionary relationship of shoes? Let’s say we have a flip flop, and we want to know what other shoes gave rise to the flip flop. Was it the Guatemalan sandal? The roman sandal? The slipper? Jellies? If the different characteristics were genes, what factors would one use to decide? Compare the shape “gene” and one might conclude the Guatemalan or the Roman sandal, but Jellis are similar as well. What about material? Flip flops are made of rubber soles and usually fabric straps. Well the Roman sandal is leather, and the Guatemalan is leather and fabric. Close enough? However, the majority of the flip flop is rubber, and both the slipper and the Jellie are made of rubber, but the slipper has a larger ratio of fabric to rubber, and the Jellie has more resemblance in function. Let’s look at the most feasible regional relationships. Well, the flip flop is of European decent, like the Roman sandal, but did the Guatemalan sandal influence the visiting Europeans hundreds of years before the flip flop, and it only showed up later? Or was it the concept of the slipper that evolved into comfortable day use? Moreover, the Jellie is American, which is where the Flip Flop has exploded in population. However, historically this is not possible because the Jellie came later.
So it is evident that a molecular comparison is fraught with uncertainties, and the decision of what elements to compare, and what to ignore, what is most significant, and what is close enough, is left up to humans and their different ideas of things. The numbers of what percentage of this species gene is related to this other species gene is a purely subjective one to calculate. Not like comparing humans to humans, cats to cats, roses to roses . . . which have all the same chromosome make up, that code for the same things, and are so well matched that we can even figure out who is whose parents. No, when it comes to molecular comparisons of one unrelated species to another, that is an inherently flawed undertaking. Much more complex than comparing shoes.
Now we can easily reconstruct the history of the Flip Flop from historical records, but the historical records of fossils that evolution relies on are just like buried shoes, with no transitional information. Some might conclude that the Flip Flop was not even an evolved shoe, but it’s own, novel creation, made for the same world that most shoes must operate in, thus sharing features with some, and not with others, but all functionally similar. In the biological world, though our only reliable assurance that species are related is their ability to produce offspring. Barring that, the rest is speculation.
Evolutionists frequently misapply their observations in attempting to demonstrate the mechanism of evolution. Distillation and separation that causes species to have distinguishing variations, again, is not an example of evolution by mutation, but of isolation from access to all the original variations of that species’ DNA. Another example of the narrowing of information that evolutionists try to use to their advantage is when occasionally, two apparently related species do not have reproductive compatibility.
These occurrences are rare from a Creationist standpoint. Meaning, evolutionists consider all animals related, and therefore the loss of reproductive compatibility would be nearly universal. But among the few species that are clearly related, (such as the Beagle and the Irish setter) the loss of genetic reproductive compatibility is explained by forms of genetic drift, and cannot demonstrate evolution through added information.
Two related species that are not reproductively compatible can be caused by a few types of genetic drift. That is, the innocuous shifts in their DNA that accumulated during isolation from each affected their genetic compatibility. In the infrequent case among two domestic dog breeds, the incompatible breeds remain fertile with the rest of the breeds. The unique pairing can fail to produce viable offspring because their DNA no longer aligns properly. There are several causes for this.
One cause can be the way the genetic information has been distributed within the chromosomes. Although the chunks of information for each attribute or instruction are linked together along chromosomes, each chunk can also stand on its own. Since there are stops and starts in the genetic information that codes for each feature, each one is relatively self contained. Because of this, it is possible for the same information in one breed or one species to be located in a different place in the chromosomes in another breed or species. Even when breeds come from the same initial species, isolation can provide the opportunity for their DNA to alter slightly in the configuration, causing the occasional misalignment.
Different forms of reconfiguration have been noted. In some cases, part of one chromosome inverts with another, which would relocate them. This may also result from translocation, when a section of DNA switches chromosomal location. In other cases, chromosomes can fuse, technically causing a reduction in the number of chromosomes, but the amount of information is the same. Much of this alteration happens in the production of gametes in the parents as the chromosomes double, and then divide through meiosis into four sex cells. During this process, genetic recombination takes place, allowing the exchange of chromosome information into the four cells. At this time, it is possible for genetic material to fuse, or invert, or relocate within the chromosomes, and not be harmful to the genetic instructions at all.
If, however two breeds or species have been isolated from each other, this process of recombination can occasionally affect the structure and number of chromosomes, disrupting the alignment of the contributing parental chromosomes during insemination. If two chromosomes are unable to align properly, that cell cannot begin to replicate and divide because the information contained in one or more of the chromosomes is unequal, even if the overall DNA is comparable.
This phenomenon is also seen in the famous infertile mule. It is widely known that the pairing of a female horse with a male donkey produces a mule (either sex). The mule, however, is almost always incapable of producing offspring regardless of the breed of the mate. Two things have been discovered about this circumstance. The first is that the domestic horse has 32 pairs of chromosomes, and the donkey has 31 pairs. When the two are paired, the extra chromosome has no trouble finding a place in the DNA, and it simply remains unpaired. From that moment on, the animal grows through mitosis, or cellular copying for reproduction, and is successful.
Studies have shown, however, that when it comes to the
production of gametes in mules, the differences in the parental chromosomes
cause problems. Not
only is there an extra chromosome from the mother, but there is also an inverted
chromosome difference between them as well.
Since sex cells are produced through the division of the chromosomes
into four cells, these differences cause an incompatibility between the
paternal and maternal chromosomes during the synaptal stage, blocking this
process. This prevents all male mules
from producing viable sperm. Females,
rarely, have been known to produce the miraculous foal with a donkey mate (as
recently as in
In most cases among related species, the factor of translocation, inversion or fusion in the chromosomes has little to no effect. This can be seen in domestic horses, which have 32 pairs, and wild horses, which have 33 pairs. Since the genetic information is essentially the same, these groups mate without consequence. House and field mice vary a great deal in chromosome number, as well as foxes, sheep, a wide numbers of antelope, and many more. All of these groups remain genetically compatible with each other because although they seem to have a different number of chromosomes, DNA manages to automatically align them according to their lengths. For example, two chromosomes in one sheep may be shorter, and contain the same information of one chromosome in its mate. These sets will align appropriately and produce no ill effects in the offspring.
The key to these examples, though, is that isolation has caused these differences to arise in keeping the two gene pools (along with whatever spontaneous reconfiguring might occur in the different populations) apart. However, the information remains the same. In these instances, no new information is added. Neither mutation, nor any other process, has added new complex instructions to the DNA. It has simply reconfigured the sequence and connections of the chromosomes during the natural process of meiotic genetic recombination. Additionally, genetic isolation may also result in the loss of a variation not perpetuated by a group, which in turn could affect the size of the chromosomes. The occasional drift in genetic compatibility, therefore, is evidence of entropy between animal “kinds” that were originally compatible.
Separation from each other only occasionally elicits this incompatibility among related animals. The majority of these “kinds” remain genetically compatible regardless of the length of separation. There are many examples of this worldwide. Surprisingly, all species of felines (lions to house cats) remain genetically compatible, and all species of wild and domestic dogs remain compatible (wolf to Golden retriever, with the odd exception of a few breeds as mentioned). But dogs and cats are not genetically compatible. Primates and humans are also not genetically compatible, signifying the clear line of distinction between the two genetically dissimilar beings.
Clearly genes offer a wide range of variations within a family, but there is an impassible line of distinction across family lines, impeding all premises of macro-evolution. Genetic barriers thus block breeding among the thousands of distinct plant and animal species, which in no way can be construed as evidence of an increase in genetic versatility. At best, if one can even explain the innovation of these genetic barriers, it would clearly be a case of the loss of genetic versatility, and evidence that evolution had shut down this great genetic oneness it is supposed to have made such use of. Or perhaps it is best interpreted, since there is no contrary evidence, that all indications are that these genetic barriers have always been here, and there never was a great evolutionary “oneness.” This is, however, an unarguable confirmation of the “kinds” indicated in the Bible at Creation, which declared that each animal was to reproduce after its own kind, affixing a barrier between them. Our observations today support this proclamation. That while the original kinds can occasionally drift apart, there would be no crossing of those barriers between kinds. If evolution were true, this absolute barrier should not be so profound since all animals supposedly came from the same evolutionary stock.
This reality is confirmation of the entire Creation model, but raises questions beyond the scope of testable theory for how evolution erected such barriers throughout the animal kingdom—and why. What observed or testable genetic principle could allow for macro-evolution to freely innovate new species, and yet firmly prevent the cross breeding among established species? It is as if there was never a relationship at all among the majority of inhabitants of this planet. While evolutionists would like to suggest that this incompatibility among thousands of animals is what caused genetic isolation, prompting each new species, it looks very much like the other way around.
An emerging possible explanation for this barrier of genetic incompatibility can be inferred from some research in the area of centromeres. Dr. Steve Henikoff has recently studied this area, which scientists call “The Black Hole” of chromosomes (Barbera Berg). Centromeres are the section of DNA where chromosomes are locked together during duplication. Each pair of our chromosomes consists of two strands of DNA—one contributed by our father, and one by the mother. These strands contain all of the possible variations available for manifestation in our body bundled up in coils of DNA. All living things possess chromosomes this way.
The point at where they intersect has so far not been mapped because it is too confusing. Scientists say that it is repetitive, and therefore difficult to discern where they start and stop. This connection is also the place where the chromosome separates after duplication in order to divide the cell when reproducing a new one. Henikoff’s team has discovered something remarkable about this section of the chromosome. The uniqueness of the histone protein contained there.
Histones are special proteins in every living thing that the sections of DNA coil around to form little packets, which organizes the DNA for replication. The histone protein is remarkably similar among all living things, from plants to animals. In the centromeres, this protein is crucial for facilitating the separation of the chromosome. It directs the whole thing. However, it turns out that although the histones among all the DNA throughout the living world is essentially the same, the histones used in centromeres is not only different from the rest of the chromosomes, but varies greatly among different species.
Henikoff first made this discovery with two species of fruitflies that are not, for some reason, genetically compatible. Whenever researchers attempt to pair them, the offspring are always severely deformed. It seemed that they should be able to reproduce, but there was some kind of genetic barrier. Then Henicoff discovered that the histone proteins at the centromeres were different between the two species. The conclusion was that when two different centromere proteins attempt to combine, it prohibits a viable offspring. This led him into further research, which has so far confirmed that these vital centromere histone proteins vary (unlike other histones) among species, which apparently causes an effective reproductive barrier.
Researchers admit that such a barrier is difficult to explain within evolution. They recognize how unfathomable it is for every other histone protein to remain consistent among the species throughout every evolutionary change. However, the centromere histone alone somehow would have evolved along with the drift of the species, periodically erecting these protein genetic barriers, as if it were intentionally attempting to maintain the integrity of the new species. This widespread phenomenon is illogical between every species that is supposedly related through evolution. It also implies genetic forethought.
Their theory, at this point, is that these histones were somehow competing within the genes. They believe that, for some reason at some point, when the sex cells formed, several proteins were offered as an option only in the centromeres. This caused a competition among the proteins, and the one that won became the new protein of that evolving species. Since it would be difficult to present any documentation that this unique and oddly limited location could randomly offer such a grand variety of proteins, logic alone can raise reasonable doubts to the validity of this theory.
It proposes the invocation of new proteins in this limited capacity, and supposes that it could have been the actual catalyst of isolation necessary for driving evolution’s progress. But this random production of various histones would also erect a not-too-handy barrier, likely to inhibit the progress of, if not terminate, the species. If the variety of these histones is so pernicious, how likely is the offspring to find an appropriate mate that offerered the same histone choice to align with? Perhaps after some experimentation, the progeny will discover that their twin sibling is their only reproductive mate. Thankfully, this process has since apparently ceased to be necessary.
If one takes the information of this new discovery, and extrapolates natural conclusions from the evidence (hopefully soon to be confirmed with hard additional data), it points to the ingenuity of the wise Creator. Primarily, the differences between species’ centromere histones help explain one way that “kind” is actually limited in the animal world. Evolutionists have been reluctant to admit that there really is a barrier between species, blaming it all on basic genetic drift and macro-evolution. However, this information clearly demonstrates that there is a specific and hard barrier that (among many other factors) promotes the stability and isolation of “kind,” and allows little rational room for an evolutionary cause. Although, leave it to an evolutionist to wear a canyon through a crack of hope.
This discovery also likely answers some technical questions about how DNA operates so precisely. For example, the chromosome contribution from both parents manages to unite perfectly when the sex cells fertilize. From there, miraculously, the new organism begins to grow according to the DNA of both its parents, somehow selecting genes from each. Now, imagine, as just discussed, what would happen if the contributing chromosomes did not align correctly. How could the genes be selected from equally if the section for the eyes was way down hooked up to the section for the heart?
Logically, the specific protein for the centromere histone of one parent links up with that protein in the other parent, and causes them to both ensure same species fertilization, and to align the chromosomes properly. This phenomenon could explain why the centromere appears to be such a “Black Hole” of confusion for geneticists. Perhaps the reason for the apparent repetitiveness of the genes in this section is because it is where the chromosomes from both parents meet for that particular feature. It must be a system for assuring alignment, and safeguarding the DNA at the joint. It probably doesn’t work otherwise. Hey, good system.
Then, consider further implications of this system. Genetic isolation in similar species may have actually distilled a slight chemical shift in these proteins between the two. For instance, the full spectrum of a protein could be lost in one of them, preventing a perfect match. This would cause the seemingly compatible species to be infertile. In the case of the fruitflies, perhaps the proteins force a misalignment in the centromere, which results in offspring, but they are severely deformed. In the case of the Irish setter and the Beagle, perhaps (though yet to be tested) a slight misalignment or mismatch in such a complex creature causes complete infertility. Perhaps histone incompatibility effects everything from successful insemination, to misalignment of centromeres, to poorly functioning cell division for meiosis.
The precision of genetic systems, again, is an insurmountable proof of Special Creation. There is nothing scientific in this wonderful design from which one can glean that evolution is the most likely innovator of it all. Clearly this complex system was set up from the beginning, which not only dictated the characteristics of species, but formed genetic boundaries between them just as God declared.
Even the rare loss of reproductive compatibility is another example not of evolution, which is a concept that purports an upward or broadening of species, but instead it demonstrates the narrowing or loss of genetic information. Genetic variations are always present within DNA, but the dominant genes of a gene pool accentuate, or narrow down the selection of characteristics through isolation. However, neither variations nor mutations can spontaneously produce a new feature, or family of species.
While there is no evidence to support macro-evolution as a reality, what about macro-evolution as a theory? Once again, there are many theoretical impracticalities with macro-evolution through gradual adaptation as well. Firstly, if random, unplanned mutation is the mechanism for macro-evolution, there is, by nature of the mechanism, a great paradox within the theory. In order for a species to venture off onto a new species tangent, there would need to be a large gene pool to draw from in order to perpetuate the minute progression of the mutated DNA. It would therefore necessitate a large population in order to facilitate transitions through Gradual Adaptation in order to provide enough variety of mutations to promote a gradual change in features in a specific direction.
Even Darwin agreed, any sparsely populated generation would likely miss opportunities for progress without a wide variety of mutations available to perpetuate the process. This is the only feasible way for an already impossible scenario to be carried out. An unsuccessful species would inhibit the progress of evolution by lacking this large gene pool, and lacking enough opportunities to continue mutations in any given direction. A small population, and therefore likely an unsuccessful species, would also likely die out before any substantial project was completed.
It is like the Yatzee principle. Let’s say your whole goal when you roll the dice is to get a three in every roll. It doesn’t matter how close to a three you get, you must roll a three to move on. If you are rolling just one die each roll (which represents a generation in evolution) then inevitably, one roll will not come up a three, and the game, or the evolutionary progress of a trait, stops. If there are three dice per roll, then the odds increase that one of them will be a three, but inevitably, one roll will not produce a three. Only a great number of dice available per roll can guarantee that every roll provides a three, even after thousands of rolls. Each generation must pass on the gene, and new generations must pick up the progress in the right direction.
Of course, it is infinitely more possible to roll threes on dice than to roll the right mutation in the right feature because each die already has a three on it, and it will periodically come up. If we believed that mutations were preprogrammed with certain definite possibilities, then it would not be mutations, but variations, which is (after all) the only mechanism we have actual evidence of. Variation is also evidence for Creation because it originates in a predetermined system.
This perfect alignment of accidents is what would be necessary in order to allow just one new mutation to gradually develop into a complex new feature, like eyes or wings. If there are only a few animals available to provide the appropriate directional and timely mutations, inevitably the progress would end. The species must be successful with a large gene pool in order to perpetuate the progress, and a threatened species would not provide the genetic mutational opportunities to progress and survive. Any slight directional changes in a struggling species would leave the creature in the midst of change for untold generations until the appropriate mutations sporadically added new information. That is if the fickle genes managed to hang onto the initial mutation long enough.
It is most feasible, then, that to perpetuate the evolutionary progress of a new feature, a species would need to be successful in order to provide a large enough mutational base. A larger population would theoretically offer more mutations to chose from, and eventually two mutations moving in the same direction might meet up. If, however, this imperative were in place, the species would clearly already be successful, and would not, therefore, be under duress to change—unless of course it were planning ahead. So evolution could only progress if the species were successful enough to provide a large gene pool, but a successful species would not need to evolve to survive.
This means that all the assumptions about the driving force behind evolution are invalidated by the factors plainly required to enable evolution. Evolution is based on a circular argument— “We believe that species gradually evolved over thousands of years in order to survive.” If they had thousands of years to evolve, obviously they didn’t need to do it to survive. If anything, gradual changes in the environment would eliminate unfit genetic makeup, not inspire a wider selection of genetic instability and mutation.
Environmental stress has always narrowed down the gene pool, not increased it. A drought would cause the less equipped to die, taking their genes with them. This would leave the survivors with a decreased gene pool to reproduce with, and limit the survival of new mutations that could enact change. The theory simply cannot be maintained within logical perimeters. If, on the other hand, all these mutations were offered by a small population, the sheer instability of the species would quickly wipe it out.
It is ridiculous to hope that there was this much genetic instability in all the millions of species that have ever lived, but somehow these mutations always lined up to perpetuate only the good progress, and always improve the constitution of the animal instead of just killing it. As we will see, there is no evidence in the fossil record of this gratuitous flow of mutations. Moreover, we do not witness such an abundance of mutations today. Nevertheless, the only hope in mutational progress would require a large, and therefore successful population, to provide such a variety of opportunities.
Evolution is based on the concept that a steady stream of genetic options for each species will be provided by mutations, and these mutational options will continually improve the survivability of each species. This contradicts what we see in the natural world. Evolution purports to rely on survival of the fittest, assuming that only the most successful species will carry on its genes. However, although a large genetic pool may provide for a wide variety of DNA, it does not aid in the development of divergent features within a population. In fact, genetics guarantees the lack of change in a stable population. Species that are successful, as discussed earlier, exhibit genetic equilibrium, and always have dominant genes, which suppress new trends in the overall population.
Let’s look again at the wide variety of dogs we
have today. We know for a fact that this
immensely diverse variety came about not through mutation, but through genetic
isolation. This variety was always
possible through the pre-programmed variations in various canine DNA, but was
not brought about until humans began manipulating features through this genetic
isolation. The natural population of
wild dogs in any given area, such as the dingos of
Again, the best way for evolution to take advantage of a lot of fortuitous mutations, it would need a large population to provide the best selection to continue a trend. But, as long as large populations have access to each other, there can be no new trends in features because the dominant genes that originally led to the large population would prevail. The more a species succeeds, the stronger the genetic pressure exists for that species to stay essentially the same. But the less successful a species is, the less likely it will reproduce enough off-spring to provide an adequate mutational gene pool to affect any changes in features. If this were the means of evolution, it would actually be survival of the un-fittest.
Although a genetic defect can be passed on to the off-spring, it will not become the dominant gene, and only appear occasionally. Many generations of incestuous reproduction would be required for the mutation to replace the original dominant gene in the population. This prevalence of dominant genes means that the only effective method available for changing features in a species, even slightly, are isolation from the major population and then eradication of dominant genes through sudden extinction. Since nearly all of the “early forms” of species unquestionably still existed after later forms supposedly appeared (like monkeys to man), extinction could apply to very few species as an impetus for change. Therefore, if evolution were true, every single species that has ever existed in the history of the world had to somehow be completely separated from the general population in order to change in the slightest.
The types of variations that can be brought out
by isolation are seen in a variety of similar species that are found on
different continents, (like elephants, large felines, bears, and canines) or in
species separated by other physical barriers.
An example of this is the Kaibab squirrel on the north rim of the
The expression of distinct variations on features is common among such mobile groups around the world when several variations on a characteristic are genetically possible. Evolutionists know that the phenomenon is not caused by mutational deviation, but by separation that narrows access to all the original genetic possibilities. These examples only demonstrate variations within the pre-programmed genetic code, and not the rise of new features. The wider expression of genetic range where the two groups overlap affirms the principle that only genetic isolation permits a gene to take over as the dominant gene.
If new species did arise through isolation, it means that every single step in evolution in every single species had to first be instigated by total isolation (or death). Meaning, if a new trait emerged in an individual animal by mutation, there are only two ways that trait could become a dominant gene in the species. One way is if almost all of the other members of that species that did not carry the new genes, died. The other way is if that specific animal with the new gene mated with one other mate in complete isolation from the rest of the population. Then each offspring could only mate with another sibling in order to make that new gene dominant.
Every single new trait to emerge would have to come from a mutation in the genes of an individual animal, but since there would never be a mate that carried the same gene (except possibly a twin), the mutation would not be able to succeed over the previously stable dominant gene. Isolation and death are the only means of creating a venue for a genetic trait to replace the previous trait. If the new trait is not protected from the general population, and the original population does not die out, or become cut off, then the new trait will not be able to disseminate and dominate the population to replace it and maintain the evolutionary progress of that feature.
When accounting for all the hundreds of thousands of insects, arthropods, fish, crustaceans, bivalves, invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, mammals, birds, and humans, this would be an astounding feat. What could have compelled each and every one of these unique species, and all their variations, to so thoroughly isolate themselves from the parent species until they had fully developed their next form? We do not see this complex evolutionary process operating today.
The problem with relying on isolation or death is that the fossil record contradicts the occurrence of isolation and death in populations as a reliable catalyst. Primarily, most species in the fossil record appear to have widespread, even worldwide habitats, and they are generally in quite abundant numbers. This demonstrates that the majority of the species were sufficiently established and successful to avoid the type of constant separation and isolation necessary to make such genetic progress even if any beneficial mutations did ever occur. Additionally, the record not only demonstrates that populations lived at the same time as their assumed ancestors, but actually lived with their supposed ancestors. This is most indisputable. In fact, it continues today, as the supposed “lower forms” still exist.
Every stage of evolution continues to live contemporaneously, from bacteria to man, and not in total isolation from each other. We know irrefutably that this complex process necessary to promote mutational evolution through isolation from every inferior ancestral form, has not occurred. Don’t we still have fish in the same ponds as amphibians, or amphibians in the same land as reptiles, or reptiles and birds, and mammals? Are there not still apes in the same land as humans?
There is not the slightest glimmer of hope that any evidence will ever demonstrate a process of isolation of populations for the tedious development of new species. There certainly is not this opportunity to develop every alteration of every trait in every species that ever existed. Living forms demonstrate genetic stability within a larger population. Single genetic anomalies within a large population are quickly overridden. Albinos, extra toes, shorter tails, greener eyes, broader noses, thicker fur. . .whatever the anomaly is, whether mutation or genetic variation, it will be subordinate to the dominant genetic features in a successful population.
Additionally, Gradual Adaptation assumes macro-evolution occurred from one species to another through genetic mutation, but simply cannot explain complex features such as eyes, wings, lungs, the brain, or any organ with complex function (which truly is any organ). Scientists want us to equate understanding the usefulness of a complex feature with a sort of self-willed development of that feature in the organism. As if imagining far in advance, an organism can utilize the chance mutations in its DNA toward a larger goal, generations down the line in order to aid in the success of the species.
This is the only way to explain why natural selection would choose a mutated organism with a useless error, generation after generation until it had fully developed into a functioning feature. Until all the necessary adjustments are in place, wings that do not work are less useful than appendages that do. If you’ve ever seen a child born with deformed arms, you’d understand why the parents didn’t exclaim with delight “Yipee, it looks like our family is climbing up the evolutionary tree!”
Mutations and deformations are always a break-down in order. According to evolutionists, a dinosaur developed into a bird through a series of these deformations, while all along natural selection coddled these new useless features, protecting the creature from the other prominent law, survival of the fittest, and perpetuated the mutation. This single creature, on which all the hopes of the future generations rested, would bear the burden, generation after generation, of slow, debilitating mutations, waiting for the unpredictable errors to aid in bringing the mutations together into one magnificent new creature. It’s strange how natural selection fights itself like that. On one hand, evolutionists say that new features developed to strengthen the survivability of a species, yet to achieve the perfection of these new features, thousands of generations would have been made vulnerable.
One evolutionary scientist attempts to answer doubts about these vulnerable intermediate forms. Richard Dawkins’ book, The Blind Watchmaker, addresses the Creation scientist assertion that the complexity of life is so evident that it cannot be mistaken for accidental assemblage, just as one would not come upon a functional pocket watch out in the middle of nowhere, and leap to the assumption that it had come about by naturalistic processes. The implication here is that biological organisms are infinitely more complex than a mechanical pocket watch. In his book, however, Dawkins argues that each one of thousands of plant and animal species on its own divergent yet contemporaneous path in development, found benefit for the slight additions of these incomplete traits on its way to developing the stable form of each trait. He caustically asserts this despite the fact that no one has ever made such an observation. Although Dawkins’ most powerful arguments are ad-homonym attacks on Creation Scientists, he has yet to offer any undisputed facts that support his creative theory to the exclusion of Creation.
Creation Scientists stress that the highly complex eye (for example) does not work unless all the nerves, muscles, special sensing devices, retina, lens, cones and rods, unique texture, tear ducts, eyelids, and a brain equipped to receive and interpret the information, all work at once. If any of it fails, it all fails. Therefore the evolutionist is left to explain the development of even this one complex organ, in each of widely diverging species on their separate little evolutionary paths, by either a sudden burst of genetic programming for the entire eye structure (or whatever organ is in question) through Punctuated Equilibrium (to be discussed later), or a gradual development of the organ.
This Gradual Adaptation, however, would take thousands to millions of years of the species carrying non-functioning, useless traits, for no apparent reason whatsoever, while the supposed errors in its genetic code blindly maintained a course toward the functionality of a previously unnecessary feature. Only when these aimless little mutations miraculously found themselves working for the same cause, could that organ become a fully developed functional, beneficial feature—purely through thousands of unplanned minute accidents. Dawkins, along with other true Darwinists, assert this process as viable despite the fact that all the fossil evidence miraculously skips the millions of years of these developments, and only presents each stable form, complete with the fully developed organs.
In the evolutionists’ defense, Dawkins argues that each supposed step in this evolutionary process toward the perfecting of the organ—in this case the eye—would still be beneficial to the organism in question. That half an eye, even not fully functional, is better than no eye. That any ability to sense visually, although still requiring the development of nerves and a brain to interpret the information, would be a benefit. The fact is that a half of a functioning eye would not function. Why would nature select half the wiring of a non-functioning eye? How about a quarter of a non-functioning eye? Or a 16th? What about just a soft, wet spot on your head? The truth is that such things are so complex that even 99% of an eye that doesn’t function is just in the way. Yet it would take thousands of pointless mutational steps to develop just the eye to its marvelous precision, and a brain that could use it.
Why would evolution produce rods, or a pupil all by themselves, or nerves hooked to nothing, or a lens with no nerves? Only if one is planning to put it all together, would these parts be retained by a species. Who would keep random incomplete parts of a TV that didn’t even function unless they knew what the parts were for, how they fit together, knew what other parts to look for, and were planning to assemble it? What use would a TV have if there was no electrical cord, or screen, or if the parts were all jumbled together inside? Moreover, TV’s pretty much all work on the same principle, but unless the parts were designed specifically for each other, they don’t work together. Try that with physiology.
More remarkably is that the range in structure and function of eyes throughout the animal kingdom vary so widely, that there seems to be no relational path in their development. Ernst Mayr, also an evolutionist, once stated that the eye must have evolved independently some 40 times because of the lack of relationship between them in different species. The astronomical unlikelihood of this is certainly not a testament to Gradual Adaptation.
The final word in this theoretical discussion, however, is the fossil record. As will be discussed later, the eye first appears not after millions of years of development through hundreds of unfortunate and sightless species. The eye, with very little differentiation from our own, appears fully formed in the strata attributed to the Cambrian Explosion in the humble squid (nautiloid). Here, in the very first phase of evolution, at the very bottom wrung, the magnificent eye bursts onto the scene, without any fanfare or precursor, fully formed and functional among the “first” multicelled animals supposed to have evolved.
Remarkably, this same magnificent eye has not only graced the simple squid for all these hundreds of millions of years unchanged, but has supposedly managed to skip across gaps in evolutionary branches to species not descended from squids whatsoever, including humans—hence the suggestion that it evolved independently so many times. If the squid managed to perfect the eye on the first try, evolution came with an instruction manual for assembly, and all the necessary parts in functioning order because in the strata below these squids that are complete with eyes, there is no precursor without eyes. There are no eyeless squids there. No eyeless anything that later got eyes. According to the fossil record, there have always been eyes, despite the assumed evolutionary process. This impossible scenario is exactly what evolutionists must cling to in order to hang onto their faith.
There are so many other complex organs with their intricacy of function that we cannot begin to replicate. The ear is a remarkable and sensitive piece of equipment, and even now all the parts can be present, and one small defect will pose irreparable hearing loss. How is it that this organ evolved at all, and twice per creature, since the organ, very remarkably has emerged on both sides of the head? The gradual adaptation argument breaks down even further when attempting to apply it to all the complex developments of different features in each species, and each specialized organ, throughout all species development.
How can the aimless process of evolution invoke all the complexities of the liver, kidney, pancreas, lungs, heart, immune system, brain, central nervous system, skin, teeth, hemoglobin, hormone producing glands, reproductive systems, and innumerable other chemical and structural mysteries of biology? Imagine the thousands of simultaneous mutational experiments that would have to be endured in every creature on its way to each perfected form, yet there is not a blink of any of this chaos in the fossil record. Scientists cannot corroborate in any fashion that evolution produced these living machines that are so perfect in harmony and functionality.
Most of the time the minute changes toward the completion of each feature could not be necessary for survival. Surprisingly, the most drastic, yet unnecessary alterations would have imposed themselves on the skeletal structure. A comparison between any two species that are supposed to be related, will reveal dozens of useless adjustments between them to the length, articulation, number, width, and overall configuration of the bones. Though the “new” species may supposedly make use of these adjustments, the question is why the old species would be compelled to endure them when in most cases the original species evidently also continued to survive?
Just looking at the wide array of each animal class reveals this incredible skeletal assortment. All the different and stable body types both living, and in the fossil record, cannot be explained by this process when considering the wide range, yet successful varieties of fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds, and dinosaurs. Why are there both minnows and sharks, or frogs and salamanders, shrews and bears if there was such immense pressure on species to go through such drastic adjustments to survive?
The thousands of species of each class cannot be the product of this immense pressure. We may understand their niche in the world, and we may recognize that such a variety is valuable to the ecology, but evolution does not wander aimlessly through mutations in search for variety. It could only be directed by sheer survival and providence at best. Variety and ecological balance are the result of planning, not survival of the fittest. Variety thrives because of balance, while mere survival and harsh conditions eliminate variety.
Altogether, gradual adaptation doesn’t seem to be induced by any feasible or documentable factors. Additionally, the majority of these simultaneous and insignificant transitional alterations would not only be useless, but instead they conjure up the image of rather hideous creatures in a continually tenuous menagerie of imperfected parts. None of these transitional creatures, of course, are verified by the fossil evidence, while familiar species are evident from the beginning.
There is another issue as well. If these intermediate stages are so beneficial, why, then, is there stability now? Why are all the species fully formed and stable now, and if this vast array of intermediate steps were so beneficial, why haven’t they survived? Today’s life survives with a variety of organs and traits at every level of complexity, yet each species itself has a stable body form. You don’t see birds covered with scales, or lizards with feathers. Why aren’t some fish warm blooded, and some mammal types cold-blooded? What would it hurt for some people to still have tails? Shouldn’t there be a greater variety within even living species to demonstrate this wonderful benefit of change? Why do defects in body type today spell death to an organism, but in the past, the evolutionary process supposedly utilized it to its advantage?
Although an acquired trait may eventually have a useful purpose, the eventuality of use does not explain what initially compels the genes to aimlessly evolve through this method, subjecting the species to such a tenuous state. To clarify, let’s examine one theoretical transformation—dinosaur to bird. First imagine one thing, a bird that cannot fly. A bird can be wholly successful on all counts, but if it cannot fly, it will not survive. A bird incapable of flying from birth defects will not survive to pass on its genes to the next generation. Only a fully complete bird is a successful body form, which include flightless birds that have other features or environments appropriate for insuring their survival (does anyone imagine the 300 pound ostrich ever flew?).
According to the evolutionary theory, although dinosaurs were already a highly successful body form (many scientists say they were the most successful type of animal ever), this intrepid family ventured off into uncharted genetic waters, leaving all of the comforts of their previous functionally and environmentally suited body structure, to establish a completely new creature. Why would nature select the new unstable forms over the previously established form? Even as the dinosaur supposedly continued to thrive for millions of years? Such a transformation would have necessitated thousands of generations constantly enduring minute, unnecessary skeletal and physiological adjustments, which fortuitously lined up toward this miracle of flight (that is, in feathered birds—flying reptiles, flying mammals, and insects took separate miraculous paths).
Additionally, this chain of amazing mutations would have to continue, unbroken for thousands of generations without losing these hard fought transformations to premature death or an overload of too many genetic errors. How could these transitional creatures survive as the more successful body forms of each generation while the rest of the family lived on in the comfort of stasis? Against all odds, they did not fall victim to predators, but were able to fully function, and somehow become the more successful of their species, while avoiding the more common harmful genetic mutations that would suddenly destroy all those painstaking developments. At any stage in evolution, the progress could be broken by the death of the generation in trend, or the reversion to a body form not progressive toward birdhood. Had this happened, the experiment would have to conscientiously set about to salvage the disbursed bits of genetic spare parts, and corral them back into a single line of descent again like a monarchy rounding up less pure relatives in order to continue the royal bloodline.
When we imagine these dinosaurs in transition, exposed to all the other successful species, we can envision the complexities and challenges of their evolutionary journey. What exactly would it take for a dinosaur to transform into a bird? Initially, the dinosaur’s skeletal form would have to begin making great structural adjustments. How long it must have taken for the dinosaurs to give up those front legs, which had always been so useful, and courageously endure the tiny degrees of metamorphosis.
There would be an awkward time when these appendages would no longer be able to work as arms, or grasp, or bear any weight, and yet not be the wings that could fly. Despite the fact that the arms in these dinosaur species are quite small relative to the body, these insignificant appendages suddenly become the focal point of development, and begin to grow even longer than the body itself. The short clumsy arms and fingers would sprout into the delicate, elongated bones of the gracile wings. This process reduces the fingers to a single point, making the grasping claw and hand structure useless.
Moreover, for unknown reasons, the succeeding generations of dinosaurs in transition would gradually grow smaller by several feet, and their body proportions would shift dramatically. The creature would also have to spontaneously develop a sternum, unlike dinosaurs, which would eventually transform into the enormous keel, and drop down between the legs for no apparent reason, making walking and running from predators cumbersome. The bones overall would be getting lighter and more porous, becoming more delicate compared to the iron-like robustness of the dinosaur bone structure, making the creature vulnerable to breakage, and less able to withstand attack. Additionally, all the marrow would need to recede from the bones in order to make them lighter, effecting the creature’s entire hematological system.
The bulky muscles would have to be readjusting too, or the light frame would not be able to bear them. Each generation of this awkward stage would struggle for a practical structural balance between enough strength to survive life, while still transforming determinedly toward birdness. The adjustment from the meaty muscular legs to the thinner ligimented legs would be difficult since the legs, again, are the only way to flee prey, and the muscles have not yet developed to work the underdeveloped wings. Strength loss from reduced muscles would likely come at an awkward time, as the creature not yet able to fly, can no longer run or defend itself as before. Paradoxically, the very lack of usefulness of the front legs/wings at this stage should cause the atrophy of these muscles, but it is the tremendous strength of these muscles that would give the future bird the power for flight. Somehow, these breast muscles must get a genetic boost even before the creature can fly, in order for the breastbone, wings, and flight potential to continue to develop.
Additionally, the creature would be vulnerable to sudden changes in the weather due to the strange new fur appearing in stiff, light, patches, miraculously out of the non-follicle layer of scales. This unusual development is coincidental since the other dinosaurs do not seem to need the new covering, but the new bird will make use of it for flying and heat regulation. There would be a time when the patchy coat would not have developed to the point where it could insulate well, yet it would still be too bizarre to help the creature fly.
The fluff would likely absorb water, rather than repel it unlike the scaled skin it was accustomed to, or the downy feathers it would become, stressing the creature in numerous regards. It would necessarily take thousands of generations before the well refined shaft and hooked barbules characteristic of the feathers could reach that perfect engineering structure for strong, light, flexible, re-alignable, weatherproof, and aerodynamic utility. Before that moment, the creature’s imperfect covering would bring many difficulties against its survival.
It would also have difficulty eating because of the altering facial structures. While once it had lips, teeth, and strong facial muscles to aid its eating, now the muscles fight with the lighter cranium and the emerging hard structure of the beak. Of most concern, though, would be the seemingly pointless metabolic alterations from cold-blooded reptile, to warm blooded bird, bringing a confusing and uncomfortable period of transition as all the organs form and adjust. Only after the features of the bird are unified, does this incredible physiological change seem to make sense.
As the generation of flight approached, there would be a great deal of adjusting to the shape and the specialized features of the feathers, the lengthening of the wing and tail feathers for flight. All the while, the industrious DNA would seem to be aiming purposefully to unify the entire body for the specific function of flight, even though the creature has never taken wing over the course of the long progression. Finally the generation arises, and the creature’s arms are outstretched in a moment of excitement, desperately flapping. The effort sustains the creature for a moment, and the physiological and technical refining process for flight has begun.
Now that the creature has tasted the promise that the mutations have been aiming toward, perhaps its desire can somehow influence future generations of natural selection, completing the transformation from the once large, clumsy, cold-blooded, scale covered, ground dwelling reptile, to this soon to be small, graceful, warm-blooded, feathered, engineered for flight bird, not even a shadow of its former self. And not too soon either, for the dinosaur, though more genetically stable and physically suited for its environment, is about to become extinct, and the hapless new creature somehow stumbled for thousands of generations into that one body form that ensured it survival against the mysterious destruction of its former kin. Yet we wonder, logically enough, which came first, the desire to fly, or the ability to do it?
This scenario stretches the scientific imagination to the point of credulity. It requires a great leap of faith to suppose that each of these individually non-beneficial divergences in structure and physiology were somehow better for the survival of the creature than the stable body type it already enjoyed. There are so many differences between the most birdlike dinosaur, and the most dinosaur-like bird, that many details still have not been included here. Birds are so specialized, that this scenario points out only the obvious.
The idea that a creature somehow made use of debilitating defects on the way to a greater goal is pure science fiction. There are no facts to support that birds were ever anything but birds, and all of the natural sciences demonstrate the impossibility of it. There are thousands of similar scenarios, which apply to all specialized species, and yet there are no observations or scientific explanations as to how these or any creatures could survive and continue to move slowly up the evolutionary ladder toward the perfection of their stable forms.
This one scenario magnifies how nonsensical the theory of evolution is, and how unreasonable such immense changes are through mutation and gradual adaptation. Typically one is tempted to dismiss the logic of this evidence saying, “Well, it must be possible, or scientists would not say it is.” You should be concerned to know that many evolution scientists do not really think that macro-evolution is possible. If they really thought it was, then they would easily be able to agree on how, with the evidence to support it, and there would not be such vehement dissent within the evolutionary community.
The fact is that gradual macro-evolution through mutation and natural selection is not feasible, as recognized by even Darwin himself. He wrote in a chapter of The Origin of the Species, titled “Difficulties with the Theory” regarding the origin of just the eye:
To suppose that the eye, [with so many parts all working together] . . . could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
Well, if you are an evolutionist, you don’t have much other choice.
Among many other difficulties with the theory of Gradual Adaptation, the lack of fossil evidence, unrealistic chains of fortuitous mutations, and the certain dysfunction of the species in transition have caused the scientific community to search for a less tedious method of evolution. The theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, also known as the “Hopeful Monster” theory, aspires to do this. This comical theory is scientifically illogical even to a child (who knows that kitties come from cats), and it completely disregards our knowledge of genetics. It proposes that the primary adjustments to new features must have formed suddenly in a gigantic leap of evolution. For instance, despite the fact that the genetic coding of the parents was for land dwelling dinosaurs, supposedly new genetic information was spontaneously generated in the parental sex cells, which overcame the original programming and a completely different creature was hatched with essentially functioning wings and feathers. Hence, a dinosaur is suddenly a bird. What a surprise that must have been.
If such a leap between species is possible, every parent-to-be ought to wait in horrifying trepidation, lest the DNA make a drastic detour and bring forth an entirely different creature. Why is it that doctors typically declare “It’s a boy” or “It’s a girl,” at birth, when they should answer the more consequential question, “It’s a human!” We are wasting our time with such trivial pursuits as genetic research when all that we know, teetering on the slightest edge of balance, could collapse at any moment.
It is alarming that a scientist could actually envision a purely naturalistic occurrence that would cause a species to spontaneously acquire a dramatically complex set of new genetic instructions in sex cells that form from the parents own genetic code. These “mutation packets” would not only have to be capable of constructing entirely innovative and useful features—by mistake—but it would have to suddenly become the dominant gene for generations in order to continue the trend. And of course, looms that ever present question of what the new beast would mate with.
The theory of Punctuated Equilibrium was devised to explain what appeared in the fossil record to be a collective move on the part of an organism to transform into a different species altogether by gaining new complex features and forms without the burdensome task of actually evolving over millions of years. In other words, there is no evidence of gradual evolution, so there must have been sudden evolution. The famous evolutionist, Stephen J. Gould, who rejects classical Darwinian gradualism on this lack of evidence, made Punctuated Equilibrium famous. Gould (along with Niles Eldredge) explains his rejection of classical gradualism, stating in Paleobiology (3:147, 1977):
At the higher level of evolutionary transition between morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between [basic species designs] are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments: there certainly is no evidence for them in the fossil record.
Gould contends that since there is no evidence that gradualism has occurred, sudden bursts in genetic coding among isolated populations, must have given rise to entire new features. Once this initial burst in progress caught on, this population would rejoin the original population, spreading the new feature or features then through gradualism, while perhaps other minor features were subsequently added. In this fantastic manor, change from one species to another might have been enabled without leaving a trace. The fact that this theory has arisen out of a lack of evidence and feasibility for classical gradualism, rather than any supportive evidence for Punctuated Equilibrium, does not inhibit these scientists. Whether one is explaining the rise of an entirely new species, or simply a new feature, such as the eye, the problem is the same. This is not how biological systems work today, and there is nothing to support that they ever worked any differently in the past.
This theory throws out all the work that geneticists have done to grasp the laws of heredity. Where would these complex instructions come from? How could the DNA that dictates a pair of legs suddenly become DNA that dictates feathered, functional wings? Or how does DNA for gills become DNA for an entirely new physiological system built for lungs? This is indeed the stuff of fairy tales, and there is no evidence or event in human experience that allows for this possibility. DNA is simply, reliably predictable, and its message is limited to the information passed on by the parents. It cannot make up a new set of instructions, and this is an absolute fact of science. All DNA can do is mess up the instructions is has.
Think about the miracles that we would be witnessing all the time if such a thing were actually the agent of evolution between species. What are the odds that my dog will give birth to a litter of almost-giraffes? Will my cat sire pseudo-seals? How would she ever provide for their different needs? If this did happen, apparently evolutionary scientists would be the only ones NOT surprised. Hundreds of thousands of these little miracles would be needed to account for all the diversity of life, making the phenomenon fairly common place.
What is the supposed catalyst for these sudden leaps in development? Some contend that thousands of bursts in radiation plaguing our planet could actually be responsible for all the beautiful diversity around us. If this is so, how was the radiation blast able to completely rewrite the DNA input of the parents for all the species of the world, and create the new volumes of information required to produce the fully functional traits of each new species? Was it radioactive intuition that produced these great genetic uprisings?
Why is it that today, radiation is an enemy of genetic systems, and causes chaos in the embryo? Why are we so afraid of it, when it is supposed to be so useful in advancing a species? Why? Because every scientist well knows that radiation is destructive to biological systems, and could never add information or improve on it. DNA instructions are so complex, this is like thinking you can change one book into another by burning it. That is not how we have different books, they were each written separately—just like creatures, similar or not, were created separately.
Punctuated Equilibrium is a preposterous theory, and any scientist that entertains it as the solution to the evolutionary dilemma should focus his or her energies on writing fiction or advertising instead. This theory exists simply because there is such difficulty with the details of Gradual Adaptation. The only evidence offered for Punctuated Equilibrium is a lack of evidence for Gradual Adaptation. Additionally, the genetic laws of heredity have remained unchallenged, allowing no scientific rationalization for it.
Once one concedes to this faith-based theory, one may as well concede to Special Creation because Punctuated Equilibrium is not founded on the dictates of the evidence. The same evidence, or lack of, that spawned this theory supports the expectations of Special Creation. At least Special Creation recognizes the intelligent mind that would have directed all the marvelous creativity, while Punctuated Equilibrium credits such leaps in ingenuity to blind genetic insurrection. That the public in general is willing to accept the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, is tantamount to the complicity necessary for the success of the Emperor’s New Clothes. Yet without it, the theory of evolution is lost because clearly there is no evidence of Gradual Adaptation either, and the two preposterous concepts support each other, though neither one can be validated.
Genetic and heredity principles, gleaned from our extensive observations of the operation of the natural world, support the Creation model. The biological world has presented itself to be genetically stable among distinct species. The laws of heredity and the predictability of genetic functions are so reliable, that the impact of DNA research has pervaded our society like a subculture. This genetic stability emphatically validates the model of Special Creation, including variation within the species, which predicted that all species would produce offspring of their own species.
We know that, if anything, species have been lost, not created. That while species continue to succeed, the slow deterioration of all things also brings about the loss of species, and not the creation of new species. No scientific law, principle, or observation negates these facts. In light of all our observations about species and genetics, the only true conclusion that we can draw is that genetic defects are harmful, and destroy information. Extinctions and mutations clearly demonstrate that the Law of Entropy prevails in biological systems, and that there is no increase in order. All the biological evidence fully supports the Creation model, which contends that life was specifically designed, and bound by genetic laws, initially began in a perfect state, but has continued to decline from there.
In contrast, the theory of evolution must rely on two opposing concepts, Gradual Adaptation and Punctuated Equilibrium, because neither can explain evolution within the actual evidence. It asserts contrary to all the biological evidence, that life started simply, and through a process of random chaos, it has gradually improved in complexity. The theory of evolution is so faulty, that though these ideas oppose each other, there is a sense delivered to the world not to worry, that somewhere between the two, evolution somehow happened.
Although there is not one fact or principle that can correlate these imagined processes (either from the present or past), these theories prevail despite the actual evidence. Once again, evolution has been declared a fact without any facts to declare it. It is a proclaimed truth supported not with what is true, but what is conjectured to be possible because of the misrepresentation of facts—and finch beaks and peppered moths.
Evolutionists assert that the process of macro-evolution is the obvious conclusion that must be drawn from the evidence of nature, but in reality, the opposite is clear. There are innumerable examples of biological wonders that defy explanation through evolution. While one is hardly impressed with the impotent evolutionary evidence of peppered moths, they, as well as butterflies, actually demonstrate just one of uncountable examples of how evolution is incapable of explaining the complexity of life. Butterflies (moths) and beetles are good examples of the incredible evidence for Creation. Insects will be discussed in more detail in the topic of the fossil record, but as a mystery of biology, butterflies and Bombardier Beetles are an indisputable witness for special Creation. These delicate little wonders pose an unsolvable riddle for biological evolutionists.
First, let’s consider the incredible life of butterflies. After the egg develops into a caterpillar, it is soon dissatisfied with merely crawling around and munching on leaves—which is not such a bad life if your great camouflage keeps the birds from spotting you. But the caterpillar dreams of being a winged insect, which at this point, technically, it is not. Now unlike the formless maggots of some insects, which basically just start to sprout limbs and wings and stuff, the caterpillar (which is already doing pretty well as it is) has hopes of being quite fancy. So it decides to go find a nice quiet place under some leaf and seal itself up in a chrysalis, or cocoon so that it can completely disintegrate into a gelatinous pool of genetic goo. Something we all wish we could do from time to time. Now that he is a gelatinous pool of genetic goo, he has a very good plan for a major transformation into something one would never guess was once that lumpy old multi-peg-legged, earthbound caterpillar.
So he stays in his chrysalis/cocoon (which are a marvelous trick in themselves), completely disintegrated and unrecognizable for anywhere between a few days up to several months, undergoing a major overhaul. Then finally (not a moment too soon, or he’ll die) the new, beautiful butterfly emerges, and shortly sets off in a glorious flight of celebration. Of course if it is a Monarch butterfly, that is quite some journey. So now that our lumpy little friend has solved his self-image problem, he is finally confident enough to mate, and carry on his species, although he is not likely to live long enough to see his kids.
In fact, there doesn’t seem to be a great deal of evolutionary advantage to justify such a life endangering transformation. Most butterflies don’t live more than a few weeks, and most males die after mating (not much of an incentive). Additionally, they lose their very convenient munching mouths, and those handy silk producing spinnerets (pretty complex stuff for the larval stage). But who are we to judge what sacrifices beauty is worth? The question still remains, how did evolution manage to pull this off?
This is not your standard coming of age story. Becoming a butterfly takes real commitment and determination. Once you decide to somehow disintegrate yourself into a pool of genetic goo, there’s really no turning back—and one must figure it would be a little uncomfortable. It’s hard to imagine what genetic quirk brought on the sudden disintegration, and how it managed to alert the first unsuspecting caterpillar that it was about to happen so it would make itself a little house in order to get through it. It must have taken a long time for evolution to work out the system precisely.
Actually that couldn’t even be right. Unfortunately for evolutionists, caterpillars don’t mate. Butterflies do. It would be a nice story if evolutionists could say that generation after generation, caterpillars were lining up taking turns at this transformation. This way, after hundreds of thousands of years, all the little steps in progress, could pass to each new generation, and finally arrive at the perfected process of transformation from caterpillar to butterfly. But because caterpillars don’t mate, there could be no next generation once they turned into goo because they could not reproduce until after they had successfully transformed. That means that evolution would have to perfect the miracle transformation on the first try. Incredible. Evolution must be a genius. The very first butterfly had to go from a chubby wriggling little guy, to a svelte, delicate, colorful wonder of flight—in one shot.
A sudden evolutionary biological innovation is necessary because every caterpillar that would have attempted it and did NOT get it right, both committed suicide, and effectively terminated any genetic advantages it could pass on. That first intrepid caterpillar would have to get it perfectly right the first time, and so would another caterpillar, (and one pretty close by) because the only other option for reproduction would be another caterpillar, which as you know is impossible because caterpillars can’t mate. Come to think of it, since they don’t mate, where did caterpillars come from before they were butterflies? This is confusing.
Somehow the whole system would have had to plan this pretty well in order to arrive at this final procedure. There would have been a lot of cooperation going on. Insects don’t really communicate that well. They don’t really seem to have that much control over their genetic makeup, either, and don’t seem to get a lot of new ideas. Probably because they die so fast. No, it just doesn’t make sense for the little caterpillar/butterfly to have evolved. Too messy. Too, how should we say it—IMPOSSIBLE.
Now the Bombardier Beetle is just as amazing. This little creature could give lessons in chemical warfare. As a defensive mechanism, it carries a potent weapon in its rear end: a chemical canon. Not simply some smelly juice, like the skunk, but an explosive arsenal that blasts attackers with a chemical concoction that at once sends a horrible taste into their mouth, and a boiling hot cloud of smoke. Inside the beetle is a complex chemical factory and storage compartments. This beetle produces two highly corrosive chemicals, (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones) which, when combined, react and explode. But it is not this simple.
First, the chemicals must be manufactured, which in itself is a unique feat. Then, they must be stored separately, or the two chemicals would blow the beetle up, so there are two non-corrosive storage compartments in the abdomen. Special enzymes, however, are necessary to keep the chemicals inert while in storage. Then a mechanism must inject the two into a separate mixing chamber, where another enzyme stabilizes the concoction until the specialized canon fires it in any of a 180 degree direction. The boiling mixture then explodes just as it is being released into the attacker’s face.
Now, how did the little Bombardier Beetle manage to evolve into such a creature without blowing itself out of existence before each component had been perfected so that the whole unit could function? Which element possibly came first—the production of the explosive chemicals, or the system to hold them? Was any element useful enough to be selected generation after generation until the rest of the necessary components came along? It seems that the little beetle must have been on a mission to develop this weapon. Given the complexity of this feature, evolution could not be the best explanation for such a design. This complex system defies all evolutionary scenarios (barring the miraculous) and is another example of an unexplainable anomaly that evolutionists must ignore in order to maintain their faith in the system.
In fact these and thousands of living examples could not have evolutionary origins based on logical and observed scientific applications. There are multitudes of familiar creatures and systems that demonstrate the implausibility of evolution, and the common sense of Special Creation.
The natural tendency is to focus on animals when discussing evolution verses Creation, but we do a great disservice to the immensely complex world of plants. We could hardly begin to discuss the magnificent providence of all the wonders of the plant kingdom without writing an entirely new book, but what a well spent investment of time it would be to learn about their extraordinary systems.
Plants actually use sunlight to convert air into food. Imagine that. Get your mind around that incredible concept. The plant absorbs water, and the chloroplasts absorb the sunlight, splitting the water into hydrogen and oxygen. The oxygen is released, and the hydrogen is combined with carbon dioxide to create usable, storable energy and the building blocks for the plant. The textbook Biology, Exploring Life explains how amazing this process is on page 160:
The magnitude of this statement becomes evident when you consider that the splitting of water in a laboratory requires the use of a strong electric current, or temperatures approaching 2,000 degrees Celsius. Yet a plant can do this on a snowy mountainside using the small amount of energy of visible light.
This incredible feat only begins to raise questions about the evolution of plants. They range from the standard, reproductive wonders we are familiar with, to outright killers, such as the Venus fly-trap, sundew plants, and pitcher plants. These carnivores cleverly produce a variety of devices to trap nitrogen rich insects in areas that have poor soil conditions. These killer plants can shape their leaves to hold water used for drowning their victims. They can attract them with the promise of elixir or tempting odors , such as rotting carrion, which is enticing to flies. Many produce trap like, or in-turned hairs to prevent escape, or secrete sweet and sticky substances that catch the insects. Most of these plants also generate digestive juices through special glands, and some can actually move their leaves in order to entrap their prey. How did the random processes of mutational evolution arm plants with such deadly ingenuity?
The majority of plants and trees, however, are quite docile because they rely on outside assistance for their reproductive needs. They produce spores, seeds, flowers, and fruit and require the help of parasites, fungus, insect and animal activity, the wind, fire, and water for fertilization, pollination, transportation, and germination. It is inconceivable that even one plant, let alone dozens of unrelated families of plants, could manage to survive for millennia while randomly evolving such precise systems of sexual reproduction, which completely relies on outside assistance.
These plants succeed, in essence, through chance—through the mere potential to succeed—and yet developing all these cleaver and diverse methods requires a great investment of energy. While instinct drives animals to mate, plant reproduction is almost entirely in the hands of outside forces that must be exploited or enticed to participate. How is it that evolution risked so much on developing such uncertain systems?
Amazingly, angiosperms (flowering plants and trees) put an enormous amount of energy into producing flowers and fruit in order to attract insects and animals for aid in pollination and for the mobilization of their seeds. Most angiosperms use so much energy to produce flowers and fruit, that they must undergo some type of dormancy for much of the year in order to survive difficult seasons. Many flowering plants die completely after this great effort. Their entire lives and systems are geared toward producing the next generation by sacrificing precious reserves that could have prolonged their individual lives, which is antithetical to the mechanism behind evolution.
The wide spectrum of Angiosperms boggles the mind when trying to establish an evolutionary relationship. There are trees, grasses, cacti, duckweed, annuals, shrubs, vegetables, orchids and even parasites. Somehow, each of these thousands of unique species is supposed to have evolved from a single parent plant. They produce a most astonishing array of flowers of every shape, color, and size with irreplicatably complex fragrances. Yet flowering plants are not compelled to spend all this energy producing these beautifully intricate blossoms because the flowers themselves fulfill any biological benefits, but purely in order to attract attention for pollination.
There is a remarkable relationship and interdependence between plants and insects that is impossible to construct through the chaotic process of evolution. The concept of evolution relies on the accumulation of accidental mutations with no foreknowledge or consciousness of a plan. Neither the plants nor the insects can influence or direct what genetic mutations are generated to ensure such a perfectly cooperative alignment of features. Evolutionists believe that they can explain the phenomenal inseparability of plants and insects through an unobserved concept they have termed “coevolution.”
This concept of “coevolution” is a story written backwards from the ending, based on the presumption of evolution, which fills in the details of the plot through the imagination. There is no scientific basis or evidence to support that such a process has ever occurred, and is capable of producing this perfect complement of form and function between plants and insects. Evolutionists believe that somehow like dueling banjos, insects and plants managed to produce genetic echoes in precision with their counterpart, and thus influence each other’s development. One textbook, Biology, the Unity and Diversity of Life, explained it in this sophisticated, scientific terminology on page 514:
About 435 million years ago, when plants first invaded the land, insects that fed on decaying plants and spores were probably not far behind them. The smorgasbord of aboveground plant parts seems to have favored natural selection of winged insects with an amazing array of sucking, piercing, and chewing mouthparts . . . At first (pollen) simply may have drifted on air currents . . . then insects made the connection between “plant parts with pollen” and “food.” Plants lost some pollen to hungry insects, but gained a reproductive advantage . . .What we are talking about here is a case of coevolution. The word refers to two or more species jointly evolving as an outcome of close ecological interactions . . . In our coevolutionary tale, new or modified plant structures that were more enticing to pollen-delivering insects were favored. Individual insects that were quicker to recognize and locate particular plants also enjoyed a competitive edge.
The sincerity and storytelling style should not substitute for scientific knowledge and observation, as enticing as it may sound. There is a palatable lack of evidence and even logic missing from this textbook assessment, not uncommon in evolutionary folklore. One might wonder why plants that could reproduce without insect help weren’t favored. Or why couldn’t the insects just eat the plants instead of getting involved in transferring the pollen? Although the symbiotic relationship is vital now, either one should have been able to continue surviving without building such an intertwining web of connectivity.
But once again, “coevolution” fails to explain how the usefulness of a symbiotic relationship actually caused the manifestation of those thousands of mutational evolutionary baby steps, nearly simultaneously on both sides of the relationship, in order to produce those complex counter features. The usefulness of an elevated petal platform does not produce it. The usefulness of wings does not produce them. The usefulness of nectar does not produce it. The usefulness of sucking tongues does not produce them. The usefulness of such a relationship does not set a plan in motion to create new features in order to exploit each other or even formulate apparatuses to accommodate the other. There is no consciousness in either party to do so.
Moreover, as we will see in the section on the fossil record, the earliest insects and the earliest plants are already disparately diverse and fully formed, leaving no trace of this gradual coevolutionary developmental stage. This is an imaginary process that fails to incorporate the reality of spontaneous mutations, and the inability to induce them, compounding the issue with an underlying agreement to cooperate.
How did each, incredibly different plant, succeed while it was testing its various formulas for attracting cooperative assistance at the expense of utilizing its energy reserves? Was the plant planning this exchange with the animal world? Were the plants planning when they began to develop ways to trick insects and animals into performing their reproductive duties for them? Were they even aware of the animal world?
Logic and scientific observation tell us that plants could not have stumbled upon these unique structures by accumulating random mutations because each feature is so specifically designed for the particular helpers it is fashioned to entice. Each plant has a system of reproduction that depends on these external and independent helpers for success. Again, angiosperms, or flowers, are renowned for this partnership with animals through the enticements of their blooms. Every flower has at least one particular pollinator it is designed for.
For instance, many flowers are geared toward bees’ sensibilities, which are attracted primarily to fragrant flowers, and prefer bright blue and yellow colors. The vast array of scents produced by flowers are mainly geared toward these busy helpers, and are so chemically specialized that we are not able to adequately reproduce them. Many plants also display ultraviolet markings, like the marsh marigold, which take advantage of bees’ ultraviolet vision to attract them.
Butterflies and moths are also attracted to fragrant
flowers, and flowers with abundant nectar.
Many are designed so that only they can reach the sweet elixir with
their long mouth parts, like the honeysuckle, bougainvilla, and the blooming
tobacco. Moths are particularly
attracted to pale and white fragrant flowers, which are easier to locate in the
dark, like honeysuckle, and some of these flowers open for them at night, like
the night blooming jasmine. One
remarkable example of this is the boabob (sp?) tree in
Some flowers are designed for pollination by birds, (especially humming birds). Since birds have a poor sense of smell, these flowers usually do not invest in producing scents. Many of these flowers are red, which are attractive to the bird’s keen vision, but a waste on bees, which cannot see red. Yellow and orange are also attractive to hummingbirds. Flowers, such as the hibiscus and columbines have deep cups that require the hummingbird’s long beak and tongue to access the nectar.
Other flowers are designed for beetles, with a
more open cup, which are typically white or dull colored with spicy or less
sweet scents, like the magnolia or wild roses.
Even the tiniest flowers, perfect replicas in miniature, are geared
toward ants and gnats and other small insects.
In the tropics and sometimes deserts, bats serve
as an important pollinator of the large, often white, fragrant flowers, which
are able to attract them at night.
Century plants, some bananas, and the genus of tropical vines called
Mucuna are among the bat-dependant pollinators that are clearly geared for
their unique flight approach. Most
remarkably, the giant saguaros of
While the system of attraction is not based on hard, fast rules, the flowers clearly have pre-designed characteristics that appeal to specific animals. Some flowers can attract more than one pollinator. For instance, bees are attracted to the bright yellow center of pomegranate flowers even though the petals themselves are red and lack a fragrance. Hummingbirds visit the pale jacaranda flowers, and butterflies like daisies even though they do not challenge the full length of their long tongues. Some flowers are versatile, and some are specific to a helper, but they all demonstrate a plan to illicit help from the animal world.
Each flower offers to its helper the appropriate enticement to elicit cooperation. These blossoms produce pollen, nectar, and occasionally they offer other insects for food by attracting them into a trap with sweets. Some flowers exude odors that attract flies to perform pollination, like the skunk cabbage, and carrion flowers. In at least one case, the orchid Ophrys speculum, the flower is fashioned to the pattern and structure and amazingly even the scent to imitate the opposite sex of a specific wasp from the region. The suitors come bumbling around looking to mate, and only manage to help fertilize the flower.
Some flowers provide insects a place to lay and feed young, like the North American Yucca, which relies exclusively on the yucca moths for fertilization. Strangely, when the moth lays its eggs on one of its flowers, it takes pollen from another flower and adheres it to the stamen to provide food for the larvae. Fig trees also have a reproductive relationship with their wasp pollinators. Remarkably, almost all of the world’s species of figs require a tiny wasp in order to penetrate and pollinate their flowers (which are actually inside the figs themselves). This relationship is impossible to imagine in the developmental stage as the survival of each is so exclusively intertwined with the other.
In most instances, the tiny male and female wasps develop in the figs and immediately mate. The wingless males chew a hole in the fig to let the female escape, where some of the pollen adheres to her. She then flies to another fig and enters a small hole, which typically pulls off her wings. There she attempts to deposit her eggs in the tiny flowers inside the fig. This process pollinates the flowers, producing the necessary seeds to perpetuate the species. Since the figs are enclosed, no other pollinator is capable of pollinating the tiny flowers, and therefore the tree is dependant on the wasp. The wasp, in turn, is dependant on the fig tree for its life cycle. This is an astonishing relationship not feasibly explained through “coevolution.”
In most cases, like this one, the relationship is so strong between pollinator and plant, it is impossible to imagine one without the other. Bees, the most common pollinator, live exclusively on the pollen and nectar provided by flowers. Butterflies and moths also rely on flower nectar, while these same flowers rely on them. How did the hummingbird intuitively evolve the long specialized beak, and tongue, and specialized wings and streamline body for hovering, when a hummingbird would not have enough energy to perform these functions until he had evolved the features in order to obtain the nectar? How did the flowers manage to gear themselves toward this fascinating creature? It is difficult to envision how both sides of these relationships could have evolved without conspiring to work together, and without a predetermined genetic plan.
The special structures of the different petal shapes, stigma and pollen location, in addition to masterful fragrances, all point to the clever ingenuity of flower design. The petals generally radiate in a manner that directs the insect to the prize to aid pollination (like in daisies) and frequently there are ultraviolet or other markings to help catch the passing insect’s eye (like in irises and orchids). Often the flower is designed with the pollinator’s comfort in mind, angling the bloom for best access, such as a platform, shelf, upturned cup, or dangling blossom.
Most of these specialized flowers are constructed to ensure that the pollen is deposited on the animal in the proper place so that it will unwittingly pollinate the next flower it visits. Flowers often are designed to deposit pollen on only certain capable visitors, and some force their helpers to perform particular motions in order to retrieve food so that proper pollination occurs, as with bees and the compartmentalized snapdragon.
Many such flowers are specially designed for bee access, like the down-turned tubular foxglove. The tiny, paper-like flowers of the common purple statice are also cleverly arranged. Bees come to visit the nectar and pollen offered by the white flowers that sporadically bloom from the purple flowers. As bees are crawling around to reach the white flowers, their feet pick up the pollen and transfer it to the stigma of the purple flowers.
Some flowers have mechanisms to powder a hummingbird with pollen as it thrusts in, and the unique stigma on the next flower retrieves it, as with some lilies. The fuchsia’s hanging blooms are perfectly designed for the hummingbird’s hovering capabilities, and are easily fertilized by their enthusiasm. A wonderful example of a flower design geared toward birds is the flamboyant Bird of Paradise, which is best accessed (except for ants) by a creature with a beak. Although hummingbirds love the nectar of this gracious flower, it was evidently not designed with them in mind. Hummingbirds hover when they drink, and this is why they do not pollinate the Bird of Paradise (unless they land on it to rest).
The Bird of Paradise, as well as its giant version, is designed for only one creature—nectar drinking birds. The many folds in the petal membrane make the contraption a challenge even to the most determined bee. The flower’s bright orange plumage (or white, in the giant version) bursts an advertisement to the very visual birds. These petals encompass the inner blue petals, the only true location of nectar. The blue petals are configured to fortify the nectar from being consumed by inferior agents. The long lower blue petals tightly encase the stem of powder, white pollen. The short upper blue petal hangs over it and narrows the opening access to the nectar. The two lower petals cross in such a manner that they form a set of levers that only the bird beak is capable of pushing through. The angle of blooms also alternates, causing the bird to land sometimes with its right foot forward, and sometimes its left, ensuring proper pollination. A marvel in mechanical ingenuity.
The thirsty bird lands on the sturdy lower encasement that the flowers emerge from. Each case produces several blooms, one at a time, and when the new flower is easiest to access, the stigma and the pollen are in line with this natural perch. As the bird lands on the perch to drink, it pinches open the tightly encasing petals with its feet, which dusts them with the tiny pollen. When the bird visits the next Bird of Paradise, the sticky, protruding stigma at the end of these petals retrieves the pollen off of the bird’s feet from the previous flower. Since Bird of Paradise plants cannot even be fertilized by a clone (grown from the same plant), this flying traveler is the best way to perpetuate the species.
Many flowers have devices that prevent self-pollination, such as the location of the stigma and the stamen in a manner that hinders the insect from accidental pollination, and some flowers are genetically coded to reject their own pollen. One flower, to avoid self pollination, goes to deadly lengths. The South African water lily passes through two stages—first the female, then the male. Insects that visit a flower in the male stage collect pollen, but then mistakenly visit a flower that is in the female stage, which offers it no pollen. However, the cleaver plant traps the insect in its slick cup, and closes around its visitor for one deadly night. The insect drowns in the pool at the bottom of the cup, and the pollen floats off the body down to the stigma. The flower then opens the next day in the male stage to offer pollen for insemination of other flowers.
The end result of much of the effort to pollinate is the production of seeds encased in elaborate fruits. These decadent delicacies not only provide an incubator for the seeds, but elicit further animal participation as a means of disbursing the seeds. This final product is a vital part of the cooperation between plants and animals, and signifies their interdependence. The miraculous convergence of ingenious utility and elaborate genetics is irreconcilable through a directionless, evolutionary processes. Both rationally and scientifically, the flawlessness of all these designs completely belies the development of flowers and fruit through a process of random mutation and happenstance.
Evolutionists must believe in a great many miracles in order to accept the evolution of plants. There are thousands of minor differences between them, such as slight variations in leaf shape and size, color, texture, form, and so on. These varieties are capable of living within close proximity of hundreds of species in a region—all of which are capable of surviving. Yet their many variations seem inconsequential. All this beauty and superficial variety is clearly not survival driven because the supposed “lower forms” continue to exist. Therefore, the risks of failure that plants would have had to take in order to experimentally evolve so many slight nuances in variety could not result from the pressure to survive, or the “lower forms” would not have continued.
On the other hand, many of the more dramatic differences between them would have involved great risks to the reproductive systems that already worked. In fact, the very individuality of these plants is found in the slight differences in their reproductive character since flowers, and sex organs and fruit are all part of the complex reproduction efforts. Plants are reproductive machines, yet developing each new flower’s shape, or color, scent, or formula, would be tampering with a successful trait simply in order to fill another ecological niche. In the evolution of reproduction methods, these would be critical experiments. As in all life forms, the success of the reproductive method is absolutely the only way for a species to continue. Yet there are dozens of methods throughout the plant (even the animal) kingdom that would have, without exception, needed to get the method right the first time.
Each generation has only the tools it was given by its DNA in order to produce the next generation, and there is no margin for error. Unlike other physical features, reproductive methods cannot fine-tune over generations until it accomplishes the perfected feature. One may believe that half a wing is still useful in some fashion, and therefore the feature may be retained by the next generation for further modification through “accidental mutations.”
One cannot, however, rationally assert that only half of a working reproductive feature, system, or method would be useful because it would effectively terminate that species. If any of the generations during a genetic transition in reproductive method fails to successfully complete its alteration within that single generation, the species would risk extinction. The transition fails if one generation gets caught in an awkward, unbeneficial stage. Given the intricate balance of success that plants enjoy now, the odds of failure because of poorly aligned or unfavorable mutations are unavoidable.
Although we have discussed the unreasonable risks for animal experimentation with reproductive methods, the plant world incurs inherently more risks by these dangerous ventures. Even after considering the absurdity of relying on outside help for fertilization, this energy consuming method does not result in a plant. In the animal world fertilization, remarkably, nearly always results in off-spring, but not in the plant kingdom. Even if the flower’s perfume happens to be just right, and the shape of the flower is just right, and the nectar is produced acceptably, and the pollen is just the right formula, and the location of the sexual organs is sufficiently positioned, and by some miracle a pollinator is convinced that this flower is just what it needs, fertilization is not in itself a success. Fertilization in the plant world, at best, results in potential off-spring in the form of a seed.
That seed, by all observations, is dead—an insignificant speck—and yet it is a miniature DNA package that miraculously contains all the information and genetic blueprints necessary to generate the complex living machinery of a plant or tree of incredible size and intricacy. But does the plant begin to grow merely because it is fertilized? No. This little packet must encounter the right conditions before it will sprout. If the soil, temperature, moisture, and sun are not just right, it will never grow. If it is not covered properly, or if it rots, or if an insect or rodent eats it, again, it will not grow. How did the orchid come to rely exclusively on certain fungi for its germination and nutrition? The millions of years of directionless mutational experimentation that it would take to combine for the right process would have eradicated these unsteady misfits long before producing perfection.
The elaborate and risky method of reproduction in plants contradicts their efficiency and purposefulness of design and genetic information transference. If evolution stumbled upon each form and method of reproduction in plants, it did so precisely. It would be an un-evolutionary like risk for plants to experiment with their reproductive methods, while attempting to engender a symbiotic relationship with the animal kingdom that it should have no awareness of (being plants, after all).
Consider all the tenuous functions that total the life of plants. They are immobile, they eat air and light from water that they split in their delicate leaves, they can’t fertilize each other so they cleverly fashion themselves to perfect utility in order to entice help from animals, and again rely on external forces for the haphazard disbursal and success of the next generation. Evolutionists are forced to reject logic, proven genetic processes, and mathematical probability in order to prefer evolution as the catalyst for such success and abundant variety in these cleaver biological machines—plants.
The Creation model is also supported by the fact that DNA is a symbolic language. People, even scientists, fail to see the significance of this remarkable phenomenon. Like any other symbolic language, the genetic code is a long list of specific instructions that dictates the complex workings of each unique cell in any plant or animal, conveying the blueprints for building and maintaining the entire organism. The absolute miracle of this cannot be stressed enough. If this does not seem miraculous, you do not understand.
Symbolic languages are only created by intelligent humans. All other kinds of communication are representative, like between animals, or people without a common language. This type of communication relies on visuals, utterances and gestures, that generally express emotions, or the corresponding meaning is evident in the gesture or symbol. This form of language is limited, and non-complex. But despite the fact that these other kinds of language are NOT symbolic, and therefore less sophisticated, they are still only utilized between thinking beings. Thought, therefore, is still a requirement for the inspiration of every kind of language.
Symbolic language, however is sophisticated because is requires planning. It is created by humans when they agree on the meaning of certain random sounds or symbols. For instance, one can communicate a great deal with a picture, but this is not precisely expressive communication. One can show someone a splotch of blue paint on a piece of paper in an attempt to communicate the idea blue, but without language to clarify, the meaning can be missed. Is it paint, paper, splotch? Each communication would be an exhausting encounter, and without language to verify, we would never know if we were communicating effectively.
For this reason people have words to represent ideas. Symbolic language is specific, but can only convey meaning to those who use the same language. In English we say “blue,” in Spanish they say “azure.” Without a translator, no one would know that they had the same meaning because they are random sounds with an agreed upon meaning. Anyone who does not use the language would not be able to understand its meaning because it is complex and symbolic, and cannot be communicated by inference. People who do not speak Hebrew will not be able to recognize the meanings of the Hebraic language because the components do not have intrinsic meaning. The same is true for DNA.
This is why DNA is so amazing. The patterns of the genetic code spell out specific instructions to each individual cell on how to construct and maintain itself to fulfill its job in the plant or animal. We cannot look at a strand of DNA and see instantly that it is the section that represents eye color. It does not look like eyes; it does not have a picture of blue eyes on the DNA. There is nothing inherent in the DNA message that is a blue eye, but it is only a list of instructions to that cell for making that particular part of the blue eye. We can only translate in general what feature that strand represents by deciphering it through isolation and experimentation.
The chemical compounds that represent the four elements of DNA (ATGC) or RNA (AGUC) do not have a specific meaning, just as the individual letters of this essay do not carry any meaning. Not until the letters are combined into words, into sentences, and into paragraphs, do they carry any meaning, and then only to those who use the same system of communication. The chemical letters that compose the genetic instructions to the cells are communicating through symbolic language. This can only occur when it has been created for use between two agreed parties—DNA and the protein manufacturing components of the cell, tRNA and the ribosome.
When DNA sends messenger RNA from the nucleus to the cytoplasm, the ribosome begins decoding the coded message through translator RNA. As discussed earlier in the biological section, tRNA decode the sequence by sets of three, or codons. Each triplet sequence dictates which amino acid is called for. These “three letter words” spell out the required amino acid, and the sequence of these words builds each required protein dictating its structure and activity. Though there are only four chemical symbols used by the DNA/RNA, their patterns dictate the start and stop of a sequence, and translate to call for 20 amino acids, which combine into thousands of proteins.
These amino acid combinations create all the proteins that dictate the activities, qualities, and structures for that specific cell. A DNA/RNA sequence may call for the building of a certain protein, but those same four nucleic acids arrange slightly differently spell out and call for amino acids to build another protein in the same way our 26 letters combine to make different words. If the individual letters (nucleic acids) themselves invoked any meaning, then they could appear in any order, like “tar,” “art” and “rat”, and have the same meaning, but they don’t. It is the agreed upon chemical translations of the mRNA that enables just four chemicals to combine and evoke the miraculously complex language of all biological systems.
We can’t see what these sequences mean—we can only translate them through extensive experimentation, like any language. Even when geneticists figure out which section of information they are viewing, they still cannot not apply that knowledge to another section of DNA and be able to read what specific cell and purpose those instructions are for. Is it a lymph node or a hormone gland, or the frontal lobe? Who can know by reading the instructions until it is translated through experimentation? DNA is a complex language that only the biological system can interpret.
At this point, one may argue that the amino acids are not “reading” the language, as much as “responding” chemically to genetic chemical triggers—meaning “this genetic chemical elicits this chemical response.” There are several flaws with this assumption. First, DNA/RNA does not itself create the cell qualities—blueness is not generated by DNA/RNA. The RNA dispenses instructions to the ribosome through the tRNA which translates the codons to produce the appropriate polypeptide chains that will generate blueness, and all the other qualities and metabolic functions for that cell.
Additionally, because the sequences must be read by three’s, there is no direct one to one relationship between a single nucleic acid and a single amino acid. The chemical response is not innate; the sequence is translated. The four simple components in sets of three are essentially words delivered to the ribosome requesting each of the 20 amino acids. If the RNA itself could elicit that chemical response, amino acids would be able to gather around the RNA and polypeptide chains would form off of it without needing the ribosome and the tRNA to read and assemble the necessary proteins. Therefore, there is not a “natural” interaction between amino acids and RNA which causes the proteins to be constructed, or the ribosome wouldn’t be needed. As we know from earlier in this section, the ribosome is necessary, or a virus would be able to self-replicate using its own components of RNA and protein.
Furthermore, DNA/RNA, again, does not possess those actual qualities of the cell that it is trying to produce. It is the instructions to the ribosome for how to produce the proteins for the necessary qualities and metabolic functions. The genetic instructions are so complex that they dictate every conceivable aspect of an organism’s being. We have no idea what all it is saying. DNA itself doesn’t affect anything in the body. It directs the effects. DNA doesn’t heal the body through a direct chemical reaction the way aspirin directly soothes the nerve receptors of the body through a chemical reaction. DNA instructs the body to release painkilling hormones, and directs the immune system to accurately evaluate and mobilize to defend the body against a myriad of attacks.
The aspirin itself chemically elicits a response from the nerves without communication. The immune system, however, is a body wide communication system of such complexity, that the embedded instructions throughout the whole organism can evaluate each invader and kick into a unified, pre-programmed biochemical response. We can’t even design a home defense system nearly as relentless. Since every evidence confirms that DNA is a symbolic language, the riveting question remains: If DNA is the manual on how to build and maintain the body, then who wrote the instructions?
Symbolic language is such a distinct signature for intelligent design, that an archeologist can uncover a single symbol in a remote location, and know it is the product of the human mind. It is an irrefutable sign of invention. This is why DNA demonstrates, without exception, that the biological world is the result of intelligent design. Only an intelligent Being could devise the complex language of DNA. If someone were to find this printed page in the middle of an uninhabited wilderness, but they could not read English, there would still be no mistake that these symbols are a language, and that a human had written them. We have found such a page in the wilderness of biological forms, and the writing is of unmistakable design.
Although the need for a language in these biological systems is clear, the need for something does not evoke its existence. The fact that there is no better way for the biological world to operate, is not an explanation for how a language devised itself. It is not even conscious of itself. It is a system, not an organism. Language systems are used by intelligent beings. Intelligent beings are not devised by arbitrary systems anymore than a program can physically build for itself a computer to exist in. How would a program exist before there were computers? Likewise, DNA and its living body are perfect partners in a whole, but both were blatantly the product of design.
This is perfect evidence of a Designer, which confirms the Creation model. Scientists agree that DNA is a biological, symbolic language, transmitting in its genetic programming the most complex instructions of any devising. It is translated and applied by a highly ordered and concise system of communication for the building and inter-cooperation of every cell in every living thing. They know this, but do not consider the implication. Such a precise and complex system does not support the chaotic and hapless theory of the evolution of life through chance and circumstance. It is the clear signature of an intelligent Being as surely as writing on a wall.
Another fact that supports the Creation model is thought. Only special Creation can explain how non-living matter made the transition to conscious living beings. The mind is a great mystery, and even now we can only find where certain functions originate, but we do not understand how electrical impulses translate into complex thought. Evolutionists know that non-living matter does not have thought, and that there is no biological accident or manipulation that can bring consciousness to matter. Conscious thought is abstract, and not a biological function.
The power of thought is incomparable in the natural world, and the gulf (known as Einstein’s Gulf) between inanimate matter and conscious, living beings is biologically uncrossable. Any scientist who claims otherwise, does so in theory, without known examples or any practical means. Evolution contends that we began as non-living matter, but how was this transition from inanimate object to self awareness possible? How is it that thought is carried in impulses, or that proteins and chemicals somehow equate awareness and memory, and comprehension—imagining what is not? Scientists would have you think that the leap from a central nervous system to conscious thought is a simple one. That being wired somehow makes thought happen, but any computer programmer will tell you that no computer thinks before someone puts thoughts in it.
Although a computer has a wonderfully designed brain, you can leave it plugged in indefinitely, and it will never have a thought on its own. It will never become conscious of itself and its surrounding, and it won’t look out for its own survival. You can plug a camera and microphone into it, and feed it stimuli, but it will not process it. It is ready made for any number of contemplations, but it will still need to be programmed and taught how to think. There is no difference between the non-living materials of the primordial soup, and the unprogrammed computer. At what point did thought and self-awareness spontaneously occur? What miracle caused the collection of chemicals to cross that boundary of the inert, and awaken into the conscientious world of the living?
Can this phenomenon be disregarded as a simple fact of life? I think, therefore I am? What was I before I thought? We know that humans have complex brains, but if we only use a small percentage of our brains, why did evolution so over shoot the need? Why is it that some creatures seem to think, and others give no sign of it? Why is it that a cow, with its large brain can hardly remember who feeds it, and a mouse, with its little brain, can have such a great capacity for reasoning, memory, and awareness?
The Creation model is better suited than the evolution model for explaining this phenomenon, which holds that all creatures were made specifically from the beginning, with all the features and potential we observe in them now. The evolutionary model cannot give any supporting evidence that thought could have spontaneously occurred as a product of dead, chemical matter. One ventures into the world of mystery when speculating on this concept, as there is no scientific explanation for something evolutionists believe is a scientific fact. Just think about it.
In a similar point, animals are born with what scientists magically term “natural instinct.” Animals have an innate knowledge about survival that humans are not born with. While some behaviors are gained through observation, many of the behaviors are from instinct alone. This knowledge cannot be gained through observation or communication. Some examples are the spawning salmon, birthing techniques, mating rituals, most nest building, and innumerable, various survival techniques. The insignificant little spider instinctively, always copies the intricate web of its species regardless of an opportunity to observe the parent. This blind instinct is seen in numerous animals which are not able to communicate the details as efficiently as humans. Humans use language to teach their children, so instinct is essential for survival in the animal world.
What is so remarkable is that instinct is not a natural response to a trigger, like thirst or hunger, or a purely biological response, like digestion, or gaseous exchanges. Instinct is pre-programmed thought patterns. That all species act very much like all other members of their species, regardless of their ability to observe behavior, demonstrates that there is something common to every species that cannot be traced through evolution. A salmon and a bird and a spider are completely unrelated on the evolutionary branches, yet they share this remarkable quality of instinct. And these instincts are unique to their species.
Apparently even evolutionists (occasionally) will confess the difficulty in explaining natural instinct through evolution. The writers in the Atlas of Life on Earth admit this on page 38:
. . . many newborn animals appear to be equipped with instinctive behavior that allows them to survive in difficult circumstances without parental assistance. This phenomenon raises serious questions as to whether a fully charged memory bank in a newborn animal is an evolutionary characteristic.
How is it that DNA, the master of biological functions, is able to program a pattern of thought? It is a greater mystery than evolutionary scientists would like to speculate on, in that a spawning salmon is making a decision, however small its brain is, to endure what it does to return to its place of origin. A bird instinctively builds a nest, a nest like all the other members of its species, though it was not alive to watch its parents build it. How does the Monarch butterfly make that incredible journey? How does a mother cat know to break the sack on the kitten? What is the secrete code that programs and prepares certain animals for hibernation? Why does the praying mantis kill her mate? How does the spider have the blueprints in its little, bitty brain in order to engineer that incredible web design, in the same pattern as every member of its species?
There are many animal behaviors that are transmitted through instinct alone. It is not logical that the impersonal, unconscious evolutionary force could purposely produce complex instinctive thought. It is, however, something that could be programmed by a Creator providing means for His creatures’ continued survival.
Evolutionists habitually regard humans as just another species in the grand scheme of evolution. But how do we fare as a product solely of mutation, and chance, and adaptation? We don’t actually make a lot of evolutionary sense. It should be a great mystery how man has survived so long after the supposed quirks in evolution stripped him from the physical features that would have most suited him for survival. Assuming that man descended from apes, one wonders why he has lost nearly all of his hair (though the hair on his head seems to grow unnecessarily long), lost his long, strong, tough hands, his feet suited for climbing and walking barefoot, and his sharp canine teeth and robust jaw, and his incredible strength. The design of man dictates that he must use tools by necessity because evolution evidently has taken away these natural physiological tools.
Man is naked, and vulnerable, and must cultivate and process food to survive. He is not built for climbing, he is not built for digging, he is not built for chasing, he is not built for jumping, he is not built for swimming, he is not built for flying. Although he is versatile in that he can do many of these things, none of them are as effective as if they were part of his specialized construction, in the way that a dog can swim, but it is not a natural asset. He has only about a fifth of the strength of even a chimpanzee, and loses that great evolutionary advantage as well. Humans beat very few animals in these categories. Man is basically built for walking, something that only seems to enable him to think and make tools, which he would not need to do if he had these other features.
The majority of animals come built with their tools, but man does not. Humans have very good eyes; a very poor sense of smell, decent hearing, but not nearly as good as most predators; and an adaptive body type that allows for versatility, but he is required to create and implement tools in order to survive. He needs tools to kill, to cut flesh, to cultivate, harvest and to grind grains, to sew clothing because he has no fur, and to put shoes on his feet because they are too sensitive. Some people in more “natural” societies do not wear shoes and have built up tough feet, but the large, unprotected contact of the naturally soft flesh to the ground compared to animals makes humans the most vulnerable. Try putting shoes on an ape, or anything but a horse, and the poor animal will suffer, not benefit. Unlike any animal, humans must use tools to adapt and survive—something he was not born with.
Humans are not built for laying or sitting on the ground or in trees comfortably. A dog might like a bed, but often still prefers the ground. Gorillas do pad the ground with leaves and brush before they take a nap, but little adjustment is necessary for this their natural environment. Not humans. Man is not designed to sleep or dwell directly on the ground, and he cannot easily climb to the safety of the trees. He requires shelter, yet his instincts are not programmed for building a shelter—he must learn it. His frail body cannot take the burden of a purely natural environment.
Man’s best adaptation is making and using tools. He has the mind of a predator and the eyes of a predator, but he does not have the speed, agility, strength, sense of smell, or physical weapons to hunt and kill and even eat prey without tools. Still, he requires abundant protein in his diet. His teeth, jaw, and digestion are not built to facilitate the mass consumption and break down of tough, raw, leaves or grasses, like his supposed predecessors. He is not even well sited for unprocessed grains, yet he requires these nutrients as well.
About the only thing humans seem naturally adapted to eating without preparation are bugs and fruit—even most nuts require tools for access because the teeth and jaws are not strong enough. One wonders why a creature adapted to eating bugs and fruit would bother to evolve into the unique being it is today. Why walk upright? Why make tools? Why is man so different when he didn’t need to be, and why is he lacking in so many natural features more suited for survival? Why does man stand, head and shoulders, on top of the animal world, completely unique from head to toe?
We know that man is the “superior species,” but this incredible uniqueness cannot be the product of evolutionary planning. What evolutionary force would drive man right out of his natural habitat into a realm requiring him to rise above nature with his mind and his tool-making ability in order to conquer it, but not adjust to it? Why would evolution only equip man with potential, not actual, survival tools? How would evolution know man would think to make tools when he was given no other choice?
Is a monkey really your uncle? Evolutionists have tried to put proof to this claim with some interesting data. “Humans and chimpanzees have 99% identical DNA.” Wow. It’s hard to argue with that, right? I know that we look very different, and have very different lives, but how can you dispute science? Well, science tells you what it wants you to hear.
As it turns out, this great claim of genetic commonality with our “closest relatives” was based on a very narrow and select amount of information. In fact these estimates were not based on actual genetic sequences, but only on the gene coding regions that we actually share. Not the ones we did not share. And even then, the comparison was not made line for line. This assessment only regarded the regions that actually align, but disregarded those that do not align, because how can you compare something that doesn’t line up? In fact, this assessment took into account only a very tiny fraction of the approximately 3 billion DNA base pairs that make up our genetic code.
There was a little hint of the crack
in the dam in 2004 when researchers in
Moreover, 20% of the genes showed significant differences in their pattern of activity. Researcher Todd Taylor commented “We have seen a much higher percentage of change than people speculated.” Maybe not people with eyes. The research team also revealed that they have identified two genes called NCAM2 and GRIK1 which contain large sections in the human version that are also completely missing in chimps. These genes are thought to be responsible for neural function. Sounds important.
Later, in a separate study, researcher Sophie Soloma of UC Santa Cruz specifically compared chromosome 20, and found of the only 118 base pairs, there were 18 differences between Chimps and humans. Chimps and chickens only have two differences. Researchers believe, not surprisingly, that this chromosome, seems to code for the brain.
This evidence was just the beginning, though. In 2005, an international research consortium that has been working on the entire chimpanzee genome sequence, announced its findings. The first glaring piece of information offered was that we have been downgraded to 96% similar. That’s a big difference, but is it enough to give rise to doubt? Wait, there’s more. Those similarities are based on their assessment of what a difference is.
For instance, only 30% of all human proteins are identical in sequence to the corresponding chimp protein. Since proteins are the way in which everything is physiologically expressed, rearranging them (as one can see) makes a great difference. Some of these differences can occur in a single base pair. Just one variation could mean a minor, or a major difference in the expression of the gene depending on location. Another difference could be something geneticists have termed “duplication events.” It sounds like maybe some useless gene was duplicated for no reason and it is just extra, so why count it right? No. Duplication events are a very sneaky term for any large chunk of information either missing or present in one and not the other.
Essentially, the idea behind this term is that when these sections were duplicated, they were inadvertently lost, or somehow (unfathomably) inadvertently inserted, which caused this growing differentiation between the species. In other words, they found huge gaps of information in comparing our genetic sequences. These chunks would code for extensive structural or functional differences. It’s not like missing a rivet here or there, it is like missing whole, functioning parts of an engine or body. Noticeable differences.
Here’s a numerical perspective. There are 35 million base pair differences, and 45 million in humans that are completely missing in chimps, and about 45 million in chimps that are absent in humans. That is about 125 million differences. It would take an estimated 40 million separate mutation events to create the differences between the two. But that is if many of these mutations occurred in massive chunks of information. Over 50 whole genes in humans are completely missing in chimps! That’s a minimum of 50 major differences, not even accounting for the millions of more minor effects on gene expression.
These major portions of differences are shocking to evolutionists, though they feign acceptance. In one instance, a segment of DNA in “chromosome 2” appears only once in humans, but 500 times in chimps! Researchers have commented that these major differences result in how genes are expressed in both (they just noticed that we look different), and reveal a rapid evolution in the areas accounting for speech (yes, we speak—they do not). They concluded that genes change unusually quickly in humans from chimpanzees compared to other mammals. What this really means is that they only have about 6 million years to generate, accumulate and fix these magnificent “mutational” differences—without a mind to do so. This is off the scale in the evolution paradigm.
Researchers acknowledge how quickly the mutations must accumulate in the right direction to account for these drastic changes. They have identified 6 regions of the human genome that they believe had to appear within the last 250,000 years. Of course, this is based on assumptions about the evolutionary stages of man, not on any time clock intrinsic in the DNA. However, the differences are too numerous to accumulate one by one, so they must occur in hunks of information. Evolutionists must therefore assert that many of the chunks missing in humans simply didn’t make the cut, but that the chunks missing in chimps were essentially there originally, but were not retained. Otherwise, how could they explain the genetic innovation of large chunks of complex information added to the human genome if there was no foundational genes to build on? So in order to account for the “rapid” accumulation of entire functional genes, along with the other genetic differences, chimps are really devolved humans. Who would have thought?
No other animal has the mind or the physical features that allow it to produce a complex symbolic language. Although primates have been taught gestures, and other creatures like dolphins have a capacity for learning, no other creature is capable of creating an entirely new and completely symbolic language, and humans have hundreds of them. It is the hallmark of humanity. Somehow, only humans have this ability for complex language, and all humans have it.
Most linguists now regard language as compulsory in humans. Meaning, there is something innate in the human mind and character that creates an urgency in humans to acquire a language and to communicate in complex thoughts. Animals are born with an innate ability to communicate in their species’ method, such as barking, and meowing, grunting, growling, and so on. Their communication seems to have been provided by either genetic coding, or as part of that mysterious package of instinctual behaviors, perfected by interaction. Humans, however, are born with an urge to communicate, but all language is learned. Strangely, what does not seem to be learned are syntax and grammar—the concepts of sentence structure. The most abstract aspect of language is actually intuitive—wholly remarkable if one hopes to believe in an evolutionary cause.
Animals, including the higher primates, like chimps, communicate through non-complex, non-grammatical sounds and gestures. The meaning is conveyed generally through action and emotion, and is not symbolic. Anger, fear, warning, affection, dominance, submission, and many others are examples of the types of non-complex relationship communications in the animal world. For instance, a baboon is capable of screaming and chasing off another baboon, but the communication is only contextual. He cannot specifically say, “You are in my spot hanging out with my girl, and if you come back again, I will tear your eyes out.” The monkey will not only yell essentially the same way regardless of what the irritant is, but he will not be able to go back to his girlfriend and say, “Can you believe that guy? How many times to I have to tell him? Listen honey, I don’t want you around him anymore, okay?”
Bees have the remarkable ability to communicate, with fair accuracy, the location of a food source through body motions that indicate its relation to the sun and the hive. But this is non-symbolic communication, the way a map is essentially non-symbolic. In other words, a map is a visual representation, while a symbolic representation would rely on a representative vocabulary. Most people can glean information from the illustration of a map regardless of the language
Many people think that because animals have been able to memorize some of the words or gestures of the human vocabulary that they can use language, but they cannot. Their ability to memorize is limited, and they cannot build complex communications because they are not able to use grammar and syntax. Additionally, they have not incorporated what they have learned as the preferred method for communicating with their species.
Apes have learned sign language, parrots have learned to imitate words, and dogs have learned certain commands, but they cannot utilize these languages effectively apart from humans. A sure sign that animals do not have a complex language is that they have all existed at their same level of social complexity as they have from the beginning. They are not improving their situations, or developing civilizations beyond what they instinctively already do because they are not able to share complex ideas with each other, or the next generation. They don’t seem to even want to.
Scientists have discovered that humans are wired for language. Not only that, but wired to need language. Aside from lacking syntax, grammar, and a large lexicon, animals do not have the ability to grasp theories, or conceptualize the whole range of abstract thoughts that humans are. It turns out that the ability to utilize a language is not merely a genetic expansion on what animals already do, but it is a whole new way of thinking, fully incorporated into this human brain that is built for these processes. Language is not a quirk in chemistry because it involves the entire human brain.
For years, scientists have thought that humans evolved their language ability from a part of the primate brain that previously was used for other functions, such as seeing. Evolutionists have also affiliated language with the ability to make tools, and have placed language centers in humans on the left side of the brain. The reasoning behind this is that as “early” humans made the leap to tool utilization, this led to the expansion of the brain, opening the pathways to language. Two factors, however, show this to be a weak premise. One, most primates can use tools, and this has not improved their language or theoretical thought. The other is that we now know that language is not limited to these areas of the left hemisphere (called Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas). Extensive MRI testing has revealed that the area used specifically for decoding or recalling language is found in the Planum Temporal region, whether the language is spoken or signed. In fact, language processing has been found to stimulate multiple areas of the brain.
The new discoveries about how the brain processes language have many implications. First, it was once thought that deaf people utilize their motor centers for sign language, but in fact sign language is processed almost entirely in the same areas as those who hear and speak. Also, since language uses so many parts of the brain, it could not have evolved as the result of one heroic leap of expansion. The human mind truly is more complex than the primate mind, but the areas once thought to be responsible for the language expansion, are now seen to demonstrate a more monumental distinction.
Not only are these areas responsible for language, but also for centers of conceptual thinking, and socialization, not found in animals. Language and conceptual thinking are linked, and interdependent, and both only found in humans. Although the Planum Topoal region exists in chimps, it does not serve as a language center, and none of the other parts of the primate brain exhibit any of this responsibility. Language is a totally human phenomenon, and the human brain, all together, is wired for language.
This means that no evolutionary theory for language can incorporate the evidence. It could not have been the result of a size explosion, because children have much smaller brains than apes, and they innately utilize language. Language could not be a new function of an old part of the primate brain because language incorporates many parts of the brain. In order for language to evolve in humans from primates, not only would almost the entire brain have had to coordinate in this leap of sophistication, but it would have to acquire conceptual and abstract thought solely from the chemical realm (Einstein’s Gulf again). Additionally, humans would have needed their unique vocal cords, mouth configuration, and that incredible, articulate tongue before they could utter such philosophy with such precision.
So many physiological factors and so many parts of the human brain participate and are inter-linked in language that language would necessarily have been the goal of evolution—a very unevolutionary thing. Moreover, recent findings in the genetic code comparison make it clear that any physiological change had to be the idea of the DNA, and clearly the difference is vast and informationally innovative. The buffet of opinions about the evolution of language in humans demonstrates that it is not a fact. Evolutionists can only guess at the possible impetus and source of the extraordinary mind that predisposes us to language, and conceptual thought. It is not really something that an impersonal system like evolution could reasonably shoot for.
Evolution cannot explain the uniqueness of man and man’s mind. Its best explanation is that it simply happened that way, and aren’t we lucky? The human being has a superior capacity for learning, discovering, planning, imagining, creating, forming languages, remembering, conniving, and experiencing the full depth of complex emotions. Did evolution know the benefits of such a phenomenal brain? Could it really be an accident? This is not science. This is not logic.
Though in some self-deceptive thought process all this conjecture may somehow seem possible, the actual evidence does not dictate that such a being is in fact the result of the arbitrary process of arguably rapid genetic evolution. There is no evidence to validate a single premise. In fact, the more we research, the more impossible and complex the concept becomes. A better model completely and undeniably fits the evidence on all accounts. Evolution is not the most logical interpretation of the evidence.
The Creation model tells us about the Special Creation of man as separate from the other animals. Man was made specifically in the image of God for a special relationship with Him. God specifically planned and equipped people with a unique mind and ability to experience complex emotions, thoughts and interactions, as well as language. No other animal formed was like him or his equal. The Bible tells us in Genesis chapter three that after sin entered the world, man would have to work very hard to produce food and clothing and shelter, just as we experience today. The evolutionary model does not explain why man is so poorly equipped for a natural environment, but the Creation model does. Man has always been man. Why would an ape give up so much to become him?
There is no biological evidence to support any of the theories of macro-evolution. Every foundational principle of evolution is disputed by the actual scientific evidence. Despite the assertion that evolution is a fact, the only support for the theory comes from misconstrued information, easily disputed by logic, experiments and common knowledge. Life always comes from life, even a single cell is complex, with specific cell structures, ribosome for protein production and its amazing, self-preserving genetic programming. Single-celled life always begins and ends its life as a single cell, and would have to unify with other of these single cells and reproduce by meiosis, not just mitosis, for it to evolve into a multi-celled organism. The proposed atmospheric conditions of the early earth without free oxygen are contradicted by the geological and biological evidence.
We also see that all the theories about how evolution occurs, are based on misconstrued evidence that really demonstrates genetic variation, in addition to the misapplication of mutations, which are always a harmful loss of genetic information. There are no documented examples of positive adaptive mutations as the result of negative stimulus, including the standard assumption about bacterial responses. The biological facts of heredity and observations of living forms give no confirmation for the proposed evolutionary processes. The precision of biological systems are absolutely perfect with endless examples of nature that defy evolution, from the death defying butterfly, to the ingenious language of DNA, to the phenomenon of thought and instinct, to the brilliant, but unequipped human.
Everything we know about living forms confirms the assertions of the Creation model, that God specially created all life, and that all life reproduces according to their initial forms, maintaining distinct species according to the instructions of their genetic code. Each species was designed with built in genetic variation, and appropriate physical and mental capabilities for its survival. There is no biological basis for accepting the theory of evolution over the Creation model. The only actual basis for this preference is blind faith.