The Layman’s Guide to
The Amazing but Totally True . .
. Scientific
Facts of Creation
By
Wendy S. Scott
Updated 7/27/09
Contents: Biological
Laws and Principles
Biological Laws and
Principles
Inter Species Genetic
Barriers
BIOLOGY:
Brief List of Facts
1) Perfect physical conditions on earth
for life
3) Life too complex to emerge from non-living chemicals
4) Living cells and nucleic acids are inseparable
5) Impossible to create life ourselves
6) The complex chemicals responsible for life do not naturally
self-assemble
7) Oxygen
interferes with chemicals
8)
Oxygen is essential to our living world
9) Photosynthesis
is the only biological process that produces oxygen
10) The
average lifespan of bacteria is about 30 minutes
11) Mitosis and Meiosis are too different to evolve multi-celled
animals
12)
Every cell in an organism carries its
entire genetic code
13)
Sex cells must carry a specific
configuration of DNA to be fertilized and reproduce
15)
Species are determined by parental DNA
and Heredity principles are predictable
16) Mutations
destroy genetic information (entropy) and hinder success
17)
Natural selection uses existing genetic
variation and narrows existing genes
18)
The rare vestigial organs are an
example of genetic loss, not expansion
19)
Genetic
Equilibrium dictates specific circumstances where new DNA can take over a
population
20)
Genetic Evidence refutes
macro-evolution
22)
Even bacteria cannot demonstrate that
survival is in mutations
23)
DNA
is programmed with species stability
24)
Genetic barriers prevent breeding
outside species, demonstrating established “kinds”
25)
Centromere histone protiens vary by
species despite “common ancestor” theory
26)
Successful species promote genetic
stasis through genetic equilibrium
27)
There is not enough species isolation
and genetic innovation to enact macro-evolution
28)
Examples, like the eye evolved suddenly
29)
Dinosaur could not sprout feathers from
non-follicle scales
30)
New genetic information is not added to
DNA through mutation
31)
Example of butterflies and beetles
refute biological evolution
32) Plant complexity defies evolutionary
processes
33)
DNA is a symbolic language
34)
Thought is not a biological function programmable by evolution
35)
Animals have pre-programmed instincts
36)
Humans
and Chimps too genetically separate for evolutionary timeline
37)
Only humans possess language skills
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE
INFO
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.
True Blue
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,”
Psalm 100:3
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
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
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.
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
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.
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
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.
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
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.
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
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.
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
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.
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
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.
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
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.
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
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.
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
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.
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
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.
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
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.
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
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.
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
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.
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
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.
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
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.
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
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.
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
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.
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
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.
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
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?
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
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.
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
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.
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
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.
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
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.
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
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
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.
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
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.
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
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?
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
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.
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
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?
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
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?
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO
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.
INTRO PHYSICS back to top FOSSILS GEOLOGY CHALLENGE INFO