Forums → WEPR → I Plagiarized

Ten Reasons Evolution is Wrong
Revised 3/2006

1. Introduction

1a Microevolution Defined

2. Reason 1 Genetics is not Evolution's Friend

2a Were Darwin's Galapagos Finches Evolution?

2b What About Mutations

2c Population Genetics Factors

2d Beneficial verses Positive Mutations

2e Molecular Biology and Irreducible Complexity

2f Do Hox (Homeotic) Genes Save Evolution?

2g Evolution Fails to Predict Genetic Complexity

3. Reason 2 Statistics is not Evolution's Friend

3a A Short Primer on Probability

3b Weasely Dawkins

4. Reason 3 Biochemistry is not Evolution's Friend

4a. Primitive Atmospheres

4b Sydney Fox's Protenoids?

4c The Problem with Chirality

4d Outer Space?

5. Reason 4 Information Theory is not Evolution's Friend

5a Complex Life Information verses Simple Information

5b Specified Complexity

6. Reason 5 Physics is not Evolution's Friend

6a The Laws of Thermodynamics

6b Entropy and Evolution

7. Reason 6 Astronomy is not Evolution's Friend

7a How Old is the Universe?

7b Strange Quasar - Galaxy Connections

7c What do Extra Solar Planets Tell us?

7d What About the Sun?

7e What do the Planets in our Solar System tell us?

7f The Oort cloud and the Kuiper belt

8. Reason Number 7 Paleontology is not Evolutionâs Friend

8a The Cambrian Explosion

8b Problems with the Fossil Record

8c Those Pesky Transitional Fossils

8d Bird Evolution

8e Tetrapod Evolution Fact or Fancy

8f A Whale of a Tale

8g Horse Evolution

8h Hominid Evolution or Paleoanthropology

8i Hall of Hoaxes

8j Recent Finds or is Lucy Really a Lady?

8k What Are They Thinking?

9. Reason Number 8 Radiometric Dating is not Evolutionâs Friend

9a What is Radiometric Dating?

9b Some Dating Games

9c What About Carbon Dating?

9d Are Decay Rates Constant?

10. Reason Number 9 Evolutionists are not Evolution's Friends

10a Neo-Darwinism

Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Sanders

George Gaylord Simpson

Francis Crick

Richard Dawkins

Stephen Jay Gould

Pierre Grasse

Fred Hoyle

Robert Jastrow

Roger Lewin

Richard Lewontin

Ernst Mayr

Colin Patterson

Michale Ruse

W.R. Thompson

George Wald

10b Paleontology

George Gaylord Simpson

Richard Dawkins

Niles Eldredge

Stephen Jay Gould

Pierre Grasse

Richard Leaky

Ernst Mayr

Colin Patterson

W.R. Thompson

10c Ernst Haeckel - Apostle of Deceit

11. Reason Number 10 Morality is not Evolution's Friend

11a Is Evolution Science or Philosophy?

11b So What if Evolution is an Atheistic Philosophy?

11c The Cartesian Divide and The Kantian Contradiction

11d The Blood Drenched Century of Evolution

11e What About Hitler?

11f What About Stalin?

11g What About Mao?

12. More Issues - Under Construction

A note in end of section comments: These comments are for Christians who read this document. I am attempting to remind them to treat all people as the Lord says we should. For you evolutionists who read those and suffer apoplexy - JUST CHILL! Don't read them if you don't like it dudes! Oh and they are not proof the rest is wrong either.







Introduction



Before we take on the ten reasons evolution is wrong we must first define what we are talking about. Evolutionists will say the word evolution to you and you may think you know what they are saying, but you probably donât. There are at least five concepts of evolution that the evolutionist speaks of as one. They are:

Cosmic Evolution â" Their Cosmology or how the Universe came into being.
Stellar Evolution â" How the stars, galaxies etc. formed
Earthâs Evolution â" How the Sun and the planets formed in our solar system.
Macroevolution â" The postulate that says all life formed from earlier organized non-life and through some form of mutation, natural selection, and enormous amounts of time.
Microevolution â" The limited variation that takes place in a species or families complex gene pool or genome.



As creationists we may not agree with all these as being evolution and so it helps to understand what we are saying. In this article I agree that microevolution occurs, but the other four are imminently debatable.



Now another issue needs to be face before we go on. Evolutionists are fond of talking down and attacking creationists as being less âscientificâ than they. They use ad-hominen attacks and accuse creationists as being stupid and unable to understand their âscienceâ. We need to understand what science is and how our arguments fit in itsâ framework.



Science. According to the Oxford Dictionary science is "A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain."



The process is for a postulate to be first formulated and then announced. Then there are three things about this postulate that must be true before it can be considered a theory.

The postulate must be observable.
The postulate must be capable of repeatable experimental verification
The postulate must withstand a falsifiability test, or an experiment conceived which the failure of the experiment would disprove the postulate.



When you talk with evolutionists make sure you have these points covered. They will talk circles around you and call you stupid if you donât know what they are talking about. As Evolutionists have never observed any of the first four supposed evolutions they assume are true, they only talk about the last microevolution and try to define it as all five! The constantly point out microevolution as being the proof of all the other four. The sooner we creationists figure this out the sooner we can win this debate.



From the points given above is shows us that both evolution and creation are postulates. Neither have much of a chance of becoming a theory because of the difficulty of observing events that happened in the distant past and trying to have those events become repeatable. When evolutionists become dogmatic in their speech as if evolution had been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, they are talking about microevolution and they are bluffing because the lack real proof.



What we are left to do then is look forensically into such things as fossils, microbiology, biochemistry, information theory, etc. to try and see if we can catch the process in itsâ act. We will talk about all these things in this article.



.Microevolution Defined



We now need to define carefully the concept of microevolution as we and the evolutionists both understand it differently. Microevolution to the creationist is the limited variation that can be expressed by the genome of a âspeciesâ or family of plants or animals. It is the variation in the alleles of a genome as they are expressed in sexual reproduction and the mixing of alleles that occurs. These alleles are mostly not the product of mutations, but rather reside in the total genome of a population. See the genetics section for a further treatment of alleles in a genome.



The Evolutionist sees microevolution as the cornerstone of evolutionary theory. They believe that it is billions of microevolution mutations in the genome, creating new alleles, and natural selection preserving those changes that is the process of evolution.



Creationists do not see microevolution as being able to drive the massive information gain that needs to occur for evolution to be possible, that is the amoeba to man evolution concept. Microevolution changes mainly occur through the practice of selective breeding. There are no âmutationsâ in selective breeding or in genome adaptation to the environment. The complex changes that occur are already in the genome and are merely being brought out from human or environmental pressure.



For instance sugar beets in the early 1800âs had a 6% sugar content, by selective breeding that sugar content had risen to 17% by 1878. That was as far as the breeders were able to stretch the genome and they certainly didnât create a potato from the sugar beet.

Another instance of microevolution is the English peppered moth (Biston betularia). In pre-industrial England the peppered moth lived on the white bark of the birch tree. The moth came in two basic varieties, peppered white and dark. These two varieties hatch out at about a 50% ratio. But when the dark variety landed on the white birch bark, the birds saw them and ate them at a higher rate than the peppered white moth. But as industrialization occurred and coal dust darkened the birch trees, the peppered white moth became rarer because the birds ate them and the dark variety blended into the tree. But they still hatched out at a 50% ratio. (This has since been proven to have 'staged' photographs of the moths 'glued' to tree trunks - so much for evolutionists objectivity)

Other microevolution issues we look at are selective breeding in dogs, cats or cows for example. If we let these all breed together they would all fall back to some common denominator animal. But you can see how far the genome will stretch when you look at a teacup poodle and a Rottweiler. But they never created another species.

In fact evolutionists are experimenting with microevolution experiments to see if mutations, a cornerstone in their postulate, will really cause enough positive changes to move one species to another. Since 1910 there have been accelerated mutation experiments with the fruit fly. To date no success. Since about 1950 there have been accelerated mutation experiments with bacteria and again not much success. Come to think of it these would be really good falsifiability experiments too wouldnât they?



So with all that said we are now ready to begin our ten reasons evolution is wrong.



Reason Number 1

Genetics is Not Evolutionâs Friend



Genome â" the total genetic structure of a species or kind or its gene pool.
Mutation â" a mistake in the copying of the DNA; can be caused by radiation, or chemicals.
Recombination â" the genetic mixing in sexual or asexual reproduction
Gene â" the stuff of life, the sequence of amino acids in the double helix of DNA
Allele â" variants of genes in the Genome that are for the same structure but that express a characteristic differently, such as brown eyes vs. blue eyes.
Taxon â" Category in classification such as species, phylum.
Phylogeny â" The (supposed) evolutionary history or family tree of a species or other group.



As we stated before evolution depends on beneficial mutation, natural selection and enormous amount of time for it to occur. Therefore we will now look at genetics and see if this is true.



But first let us look at the comments of an amateur evolutionist.



âEVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM, FOR (probably not) THE LAST TIME. Variety is there because evolution causes random mutation, hence the variety.â From a debate on talkorigins.org



Ummm a little double talk. Well it also appears this is perilously close to evolution being an intelligent designer. But it is also a tautology or circular reasoning to say that âevolution causes random mutationâ because evolutionists say random mutation causes evolution.



But to be correct, evolution is a philosophy that masquerades as a science . So evolution isnât necessarily any more random than the personâs thoughts and it certainly cannot be some kind of force driving the random mutation. Nor can it cause mutations random or otherwise.



Mutation and natural selection are the engine of evolution. Creationists believe in natural selection but we doubt the role mutations play in evolution and know if we can show that mutations cannot be part of the engine, then evolution will have lost its power.



Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning. Gregor Mendel and Charles Darwin were contemporaries. Mendel is the father of modern genetics and Darwin is the father of evolution. In Darwinâs day genetics was just starting and Darwin knew really very little about how genetics worked. His idea of change in species was based on erroneous and untested ideas of inheritance. Mendelâs ideas were based on careful experimentation and showed that individual characteristics were surprisingly resilient and constant.



Darwin believed in the idea that variations caused by environment could be inherited. Thus the giraffeâs long neck was a result of the âinherited effects of the increased use of partsâ. The Origin of Species, 6th ed, London 1902, p 278. Darwin believed that if parent giraffes strained their necks to reach the top leaves then the progeny would inherit longer necks. While even evolutionists today would see this a patently false, they still accept with apparent ease the change in the genetic structure it represents and throw that change to the magic of mutation. It wasnât until much later that mutations were used as the change agent in evolution because it became apparent this idea of Darwin didnât work.



In reality there are multiple mutation processes that can impact a genome but evolutionists only choose one. I will explain why in a bit. First the types of mutations:



1. Duplication or Amplification of a segment of DNA

2. Inversion of a segment of DNA

3. Deletion of a segment of DNA

4. Insertion of a segment of DNA

5. Transposition of a segment of DNA from one place to another.

6. Point Mutation of a single nucleotide.



The first five are interesting genetic processes. Each is a complex and precise process that has much biochemical signaling and purpose. We donât really know much about why the genes do this as we are still very weak in our knowledge of how our genome works. But none of these processes can add any data to the genome, they just move data around. I must add another point here: some evolutionists place recombination in this list, but recombination is sexual mixing and once again cannot add any data to the genome. Recombination just takes the genome and mixes what is there. There are tens of maybe hundreds or trillions of combinations in our genome to recombine. We are wonderfully and fearfully made.



The type of mutations called point mutations are the only genetic processes that can actually add information to the genome and that is why evolutionists have chosen point mutations as the mutational driver of evolution. We will hereafter call point mutations simply mutations to simplify the writing.







Were Darwin's Galapagos Finches Evolution?



What does happen in a population as the genome reacts to the environment? Darwin looks at the finches on the Galapagos Islands and notices variations in beak size. He thought that the harder seed in the dry time was causing the beaks of the finches to grow stouter from the use of the part. But what was happening was that natural selection or a long term drought in the islands was causing the seed cases to harden. The heavier beaked finch allele in the genome was favored and the lighter beaked finch allele was not. The heavier beaked finch became more dominant because it passed on the heavy beak alleles. The heavy beak was not the result of a mutation! It was already an allele in the genome and was just brought out as a result of the environment. When the rains came back the lighter beak became the more efficient beak and the number of heavy beaks reduced. This is microevolution at its best. But there was no change in the genome of the finch and certainly no new species has arisen from this. The genome expresses its variety by recombination of the alleles and causing the phenotype to show its wonderful God given types.



What About Mutations?



But what about mutations then? What are they and how can they be beneficial? Mutations are mistakes in the genetic copying process. They effect one nucleotide base at a time and are called point mutations. Once in every 10,000 to 100,000 copies there is a mistake made. Our bodies have a compare â" correct process that is very efficient. In fact it is 1016 times better than the best computer code, but once in every 1,000,000,000 or 10,000,000,000 copies a mutation âgets outâ so to speak. That is equal to a professional typist making a mistake in 50,000,000 pages of typescript. You see mutations are predominately bad and the cell tries to make sure they donât happen.



The Neo-Darwinists made random mutations the engine of evolution. They claim that many very small mutations are the basis of the âgoo to youâ hypothesis of evolution. For mutations to be the driver of the massive amount of information there must be two things true of those mutations.



1. The mutations must be positive and allow the organism to procreate and pass them on.

2. The mutations must add information to the genome of the organism.



To date no evolutionist has pointed out such a mutation and if they exist they must be exceedingly rare.



The smallness of the point mutation is also in question. Dawkins seems to think that the mutation can be as small as needed to make the hypothesis work, but it appears that one nucleotide base is as small as you can get. So a positive mutation cannot add but a single bit of information to the genome or one nucleotideâs worth. But is that enough? And if that truly does occur will natural selection grab and go with it?

Population Genetics Factors

Population Genetics show that a positive mutation in a population has a poor chance of surviving the ânoiseâ of random events in the population. In a stable population of organisms each organism must reproduce one of itself to keep the stability of the population. But we see in nature that animals must produce many more than one for themselves because of the randomness of death. Even elephants produce 5 to 10 offspring to overcome this random noise factor. Some organisms produce thousands or even millions to assure replacing themselves. Evolutionists want many mutations to occur so positive mutations can be captured by natural selection but a high mutation rate for a population is not good as the overwhelming number of mutations can destroy a population.



But letâs say that one point mutation occurs and gives an individual a positive value of 0.1 percent for survival and passing on that positive gene. Let us also say that this population needs 5 offspring to keep the population stable or 20 percent growth. The survival rate increase would be 20.02 for the mutation. Sir Ronald Fisher was a mathematician and one of the worldâs experts on the mathematics of evolution and one of the founders of the field of population genetics. He was also one of the architects of the Neo Darwinian Theory. He calculated that most mutations with positive survival values would not survive, and he believed that the answer was many positive mutations. He said: âA mutation, even if favorable, will have only a very small chance of establishing itself in the species if it occurs once only.â Fisher R.A. (1958). The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, Oxford, Second revised edition, New York: Dover.



Let us continue our example above with Fisherâs calculations. Our organism with a 0.1% survival factor would have one chance in 500 of surviving. If there were 500 organisms with the mutation their odds would be about 5 out of 8. With 1000 with the same mutation their odds would be about 6 out of 7 and with 2500 organisms with the same mutation the odds are about even. What are the odds of 2500 organisms having the same point mutation (it has to be the same for that particular information to get into the genome) in a population? The chances that 500 organisms would have the very same point mutation in the very same nucleotide is 1 in 3.6 x 102,738. Lee M. Spentner, Not By Chance â" Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, The Judica Press, New York, p. 103.



A mutation almost always involves a loss of information or just a copy of information. They have never added new information to the genome, so it appears that they can never bring that genome added complexity. Are there beneficial mutations? Yes there are for certain environments. Blind cave catfishes are the result of the mutation that lost the information of an eye. This mutation caused the eye, which was useless and prone to disease and injury in the cave to be lost and it actually helped the catfish survive in the cave. But the catfish genome did not have any new information added for it to become a perch genome or any other genome. In fact the eye genes were lost to the genome. If that blind fish were to be swept out of the cave by a flood, and that does happen, it wonât survive to pass on those no eye alleles. So natural selection, working in the cave worked to keep the eyeless catfish going, outside the cave it will quickly die. The important thing to keep in mind is that we all along were only working with the genome of the catfish and at no point was there any new information to change that genome to another. Genomes are like rubber bands that you can stretch out very far, but they will always snap back to the original when released.



If we look at the accelerated fruit fly experiments that used radiation to accelerate the copying errors of DNA to try to produce another species, we have only seen fruit flies with parts missing or dead flies or flies too crippled to pass on its genes. They never got a house fly out of the deal. Why? Because the mutation lost information in the fruit fly genome and did not add the information to become a house fly.



Beneficial verses Positive Mutations



How do we define âbeneficialâ mutations? It is interesting that a mutation such as an orange without seeds is considered useful, that is to orange eaters like me, but to oranges it is not such a good idea, for the seedless orange cannot pass on its genes. It is a useful mutation, but not a positive mutation. A positive mutation would enable the species to pass on its genes more efficiently and would add information to the genome. Evolutionists get this definition confused too.



Another problem is that evolutionists confuse mutations with recombination and alleles. They are not the same. Some variant alleles in a genome are the result of mutation, but most are from recombination and were there at the beginning of that species. All alleles that arise from mutation are either neutral or excessively deleterious. There are not really any positive mutations in literature today, even evolution literature. In one instance the single nucleotide substation in a genome was responsible for the resistance to a weed herbicide. This herbicide was made to attach and deactivate a protein needed by the weed. A single change in the genetic code for this protein, in the sector used for defining the herbicide attachment, deprived the herbicide of its attachment point and nullified its effectiveness.



Was this a positive mutation? We have no way of knowing if this was the result of a mutated allele or the expression of an allele in the genome that was already there. It may have been a very rare, neutral mutation of an allele that had been in the genome too. But it was specific to the man-made herbicide and had no selective value outside of that. It did not create another function and did not help the weed to adapt any other way. It added no information to the genome and thus no new complexity. There was no evolution here.



So you see, mutations can produce an allele of a gene that is neutral (rarely) or produce alleles that are dangerous, but cannot be the driver of massive amount of change that needs to occur to change one species into another. Most people donât appreciate the massive amount of point change that must occur. For that to occur we should be seeing many positive mutations in the population. Instead we are seeing massive information loss mutations in the population. The X-Men just couldnât happen outside of the movies.



Molecular Biology and Irreducible Complexity



Even molecular biology has not helped as the evolutionists have hoped. Molecular genetics have found that genomes have supported Taxonomy and not Phylogeny. It has also been found in molecular genetics that genomes have multiple copies of genes or of non-coding sequences that are very homogeneous within species, but heterogeneous between species. Such ârepeatsâ could not have been formed by random mutations acting on a common genome of a postulated ancestor. Evolutionists suggest an unexplained âmolecular driveâ to account for these copies. It is simpler to assume there is no common ancestral genome.



Michael Behe in his book âDarwinâs Black Boxâ speaks of the irreducible complexity of several biological systems that cannot be created in a manner where there are non-functional intermediates because they wouldnât exist long enough to pass on their structure. He uses the common mousetrap as his analogy, none of the parts can catch a mouse, and they all have to be present and functionally joined together to work. The cell is an example that had to be created in situ and not from an intermediate that couldnât function much like the parts of the mousetrap.



There have been arguments from evolutionists that the parts of the mousetrap could be used for other uses, like fish hooks or paperweights, but that is missing the point entirely. That cellular systems are useful in other places does not say they would be useful in the cell by them selves, just as a paperweight won't catch a mouse! It is a MOUSETRAP we are interested in, not a paperweight! One even said that a simple spring could catch a mouse. Ummmm yeah, right!



Do Hox (Homeotic) Genes Save Evolution?



Another microbiological issue is the Hox gene that seemed to fit in the âpunctuated equilibriumâ of Gould, because a small mutation in a Hox gene could have a profound effect on the organism. But further research on the Hox gene proved this not to be Evolutionâs Saviour. Dr. Christian Schwabe, a non-creationist critic of Darwinian evolution said this:



âControl genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. ⦠Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs.â (Mini Review: Schwabe, C., 1994. Theoretical limitations of molecular phyolgenetics and the evolution of relaxins. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 107B: 167-177



In the eleven years since this quote research has born out this quote. Changes to homeotic genes cause monstrosities; they do not change an amphibian into a reptile. And the mutations do not add any information; they just cause the existing information to be misdirected to create fruit fly legs where fruit fly antenna needs to be for instance.



Do not be misled by the Evolutionists. They constantly try to find the mutation that is positive (I donât blame them either) and try to find the new thing that supports their theory. I have concerned Christians coming to me all the time with a newspaper article saying what about this?! I just tell them not to panic and wait because it too will fall and be found as nothing. Truly God is in control and all striving will cease. Pray for your evolutionist friends, donât get into a mad argument with them, and love them as Christ called us to. Donât call them names and donât talk about them in bad ways, that is not Jesus in you.



Remember Evolution is a philosophy masquerading as a science. You are talking with someone who thinks âscienceâ is totally on their side, but donât really know it isnât. They donât believe in Creation because that would make them have to answer to God.



Evolution Fails to Predict the Genetic Complexity



Any scientific theory, which evolution is purported to be, has to be able to predict to be a good theory. But evolution in itsâ need to connect mutation in the genome to the massive change needed for evolution incorrectly predicted the direct gene to morphology connection. Only with this connection can small mutations actually have the ability to make massive morphological changes necessary for evolution to be plausible.



The Darwin concept:



One gene â" One Protein â" One Function



But we are learning more about the genetic package and are finding that contrary to the evolutionistâs wishâs the genetic structure has always been surprisingly resilient. I must mention again the accelerated fruit fly experiments and the extraordinary resilience of the fruit fly genome. I believe that this would be a great falsifiability test for evolution.



What evolutionist say is that evolution is a theory that can absorb all new data and take it in and make it part of the theory. When they say that they are not describing a scientific theory, but a philosophy.



We have recently discovered the incredible complexity of the genome and how it reacts and moves itsâ instructions to create the morphology or the phenotype of the organism. It is not a one to one correlation, but the complexity is much beyond that.



Bent Proteins


Bent proteins have had much interest in science for a couple of decades. Many first heard of them in some rather strange diseases such as the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease or the Mad Cow disease that was caused by a prion or a badly bent protein. We all wondered how could a bent protein cause morphological change in a brain?
As researchers dove deeper into this issue and looked a past research going back into the 1970s they started seeing that there appeared in cells an incredibly complex dance between the genes and protein and RNA folds to transmit data to assemble extremely complex protein machines in the cell as well as transmit data to assemble cell structures as well as create the macro morphology of an organism. This answered some questions that arose in genetic research where it appeared the genes didnât always have a one to one correspondence with morphological structure. In fact some genes seemed to be connected to multiple structures and some genes seemed to be unconnected. As it turns out the bent proteins provide another layer of highly organized information in the cell. The appear to be bent in non-random ways based on the molecular structure and the bends are actually a function of physics and not biology. We have discovered around 200 of these protein bends and have seen how they actually provide more information to the cell than the genes themselves.
The folding process has been found to be absolutely necessary for the protein to function in the cell and occurs right out of the ribosome. The folded shape is determined by several factors.
1. Internal covalent bonds such as disulfide bridges between cysteine units in the chains.
2. Hydrogen bonds.
3. Hydrophilic and hydrophobic interaction with the surrounding solvent.
4. The interaction with other with other molecules large and small that help carry on cellular function.
In fact two different proteins can fold into similar shapes and perform the same cellular function. But this is all made possible by a process that is guided. Random folds wouldnât work. The prions of the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease prove that. There are protein complexes that provide a chaperone that help the proteins to bend in the proper way, and there are chaperones that help the protein to stay in its proper bend. These chaperones are also responsible for metal ions movement in the cell.
This is something evolutionists may claim as âpart of the great universal acidâ of their theory, but evolutionary theory actually prevented researchers from discovering these protein machines because of the assumptions built into evolution. Another failure and another nail in the coffin.





Reason Number 2

Statistics are not Evolutionâs Friend



Statistics and probability are great enemies of Evolution. Because Evolution utilizes random mutations as the main engine of their postulate, we can then use the laws of probability to exam their claims. Many evolutionists cry foul here, but they have no reason to do so as they also use probability to lay out their claims.



Here is another quote from an amateur evolutionist.



âAll this complexity can easily come about through evolution, as is explained in âThe Blind Watchmakerâ (a book by neo-Darwinist Richard Dawkins). This is because it is often cumulative, and so more likely and more efficient. . . . Nothing betrays a lack of understanding of natural selection quite like saying that the chance (of Evolution being correct) is too small. Natural selection is an algorithmic process, it the complete OPPOSITE of chance. The author states that there hasnât been enough time. This is all too human thought of our own significance. The Earth was formed; it is estimated, around 4,600,000,000 years ago. In comparison, Homo Sapiens are thought to have emerged around 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. Four and a half billion years ago seems more than enough.â



I am really intrigued by evolutionistâs ideas of natural selection. As we discussed above natural selection cannot operate on something that is not there. It has no intelligence to drive anything. It is a predator, it is a storm, it is a drought, it is a thousand other things that will either destroy an animal that has the wrong alleles in its phenotype. In fact natural selection is not algorithmic but it is digital. Either alive or dead. Natural selection is not the opposite of chance, it just makes sure the good alleles last and the bad ones disappear, that is all. But natural selection is also blind and may also just snuff out a really good allele that had its head down at the water hole too long. As we spoke above in the genetics section the mutations are decidedly bad and lose information and lead to bad alleles, so natural selection usually limits their existence in a population. But natural selection is also "noise" in a population that doesn't allow a single point mutation a very good set of odds for surviving and passing on those genes. Evolutionist speak of natural selection like it is intelligent or something and can spot a mutation that it needs to save.



Short Primer on Probability



Now we will look at the âcumulativeâ idea and see if that is a go or not. For Evolution to be true there has to be a large amount of cumulative organization of positive mutations. In fact Evolution says that all life came out of prior non-life. Darwinâs warm pond or the lightning charged primordial soup of other evolutionists. Could that really happen? What do statistics say?



The amateur evolutionist above thinks that four and a half billion years seems to be enough, but is it?



We will give him not the 4.6 billion years for life but the whole supposed age of the universe of 20 billion. We will even assume that ALL of the 20 billion years are good and that all the precursors to life are in some warm primordial soup (we will discuss this in the Biochemistry section below) somewhere just waiting to do their thing.



Letâs talk briefly about probability which is a subset of Statistics. What is the chance if you toss a coin you get heads? Assuming the coin is equally weighted, and not a trick coin, it is 1/2. On a die the probability of rolling a six is 1/6. The probability of tossing a coin and getting heads and rolling a die and getting a six is 1/2 x 1/6 = 1/12. Now this doesnât mean that in twelve tosses and throws you will get simultaneously a head and a six, it means that if you throw long enough 1/12 of all throws will have both a head and a six.



Now let us get a little more complicated. Letâs figure the odds or probability of randomly spelling the phrase âthe theory of evolutionâ. There are 26 letters and one space possible adding to 27 possible selections. There are 20 letters in the phrase and 3 spaces. Therefore the odds, on the average, spell out the phrase correctly only once in 2723 outcomes! That is only one success in 8.3 quadrillion, quadrillion attempts or 8.3 x 1032. Now suppose âchanceâ uses a machine which removes, records and replaces all the letters randomly at the fantastic speed of one billion per microsecond (one quadrillion per second). On the average the phrase would happen once in 25 billion years by this method.



Whoops! We ran out of time just trying to randomly recombine correctly a 23 letter and space phrase. You see the probability multiplication rule is not so kind to the randomness of evolution thought.



But letâs look at biological beginnings. You see in that warm pond or primal soup we just assume that there were amino acids there and we will assume that there were all the L type necessary for life. We will look later at Biochemistry and see it those assumptions are safe, but for now we will just assume them. One thing we will have to turn off is natural selection, because natural selection wonât work here. We are just trying to polymerize a self replicating organic structure like a DNA or RNA molecule, and natural selection assumes that a good allele will be safe and a bad allele wonât, and we donât have any good or bad alleles yet. We are just trying to get the genes now in the right sequence. If they are not in the right sequence they wonât work and if they are they will. And there is no way for evolution or natural selection or whatever other magic driver the evolutionists can come up with to know if the sequence is right until it replicates. There is no cumulative process here as a partially correct complex molecule wonât work and would be discarded until one does.



The odds of forming a chain of 124 specifically sequenced proteins of 400 amino acid bases is 1 x 1064,489! Now that is just one complex molecule and life requires much, much more. Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome of the free living organisms, containing 482 genes comprising 580,000 bases. A human DNA molecule can contain three billion amino acid bases. That is not counting all the other enzymes, proteins, hormones and other life chemistry needed. These odds are utterly impossible and shows that evolution being the source of lifeâs beginning is not even remotely possible.



Fred Hoyle stated this: âTwo thousand different and very complex enzymes are required for a living organism to exist. And random shuffling processes could not form a single one of these even in 20 billion years. I donât know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the arrangement of not even one of the many thousand of biopolymers (Life molecules) on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on earth.



âAstronomers will have little difficulty in understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so; the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The âothersâ are groups of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles.



âThey advocate the belief that, tucked away in nature outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). The curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations. . . The modern miracle workers are always found to be living in the twilight fringes of thermodynamics.â

Fred Holye, âThe Big Bang in Astronomy,â in New Scientist, November 19, 1981, pp 521-527



Weasely Dawkins



We will now look briefly at a case of weaseling by a master weasel Richard Dawkins of âThe Blind Watchmakerâ and âThe Selfish Geneâ etc. (Yes I have read them both!). Richard Dawkins is a neoâ"Darwinist who has championed the Evolution of random mutations and natural selection which was falling awry in evolutionary thought in recent years. Mr. Dawkins in âThe Blind Watchmakerâ developed a program on computer to generate the phrase âmethinks it is like a weaselâ in about 164 supposedly random iterations. This computer program was quite a novelty in the early 80âs when it was written, but today it is quite primitive.



But the program has some problems.



1. The outcome is known and targeted, whereas in life chemistry there is no target, there is only something that may work when the sequence is right and there is no way of knowing it might work until you get it complete. No near guesses allowed.



2. Correct guesses are saved. In life chemistry there is no way of knowing if any iteration has protein sequences that will be useful later as the only way of knowing they are right is when the whole complex molecule works.



3. It is a computer program with the parameters carefully chosen by Dawkins to make sure the outcome is what he wanted. If the parameters are tweaked another way the real probability comes back normally. Dawkins sped up the random mutation rate to accelerate the evolution rate and tried to use these figures to prove evolution could happen with a mutation rate that would destroy a population. Weak thinking in a Weasely mind.



Remember to love those evolutionists out there whom you know, and do not use this to just to whack them. Lovingly query them and even if they revile you as a cretin in science, pray for them.



Reason Number 3

Biochemistry is not Evolutionâs Friend



Words you may need to know.

Biogenesis â" A term in biology that states the life only descends from life.
Spontaneous Generation â" The belief that life can come spontaneously from non-life. Many in Darwinâs day believed that bacteria would just appear from non-life in a water cask. Today we know this is not true.
Law of Mass Action â" Chemical reactions always proceed in a direction from the highest to lowest concentration.
Polymerization â" Linking together of organic molecules to make bigger molecules.
Chirality â" The âhandedness of life molecules. Nearly all amino acids are âleft-handedâ and nucleic acids, starch, glycogen, etc. contain sugars that are all âright-handed.

Chirality diagram

Chirality



6. Homochirality â" All having the same handedness

7. Heterochirality â" Having a mixture of handedness, also called âracemicâ.

8. Enantiomers â" Having a 50/50 mixture of handedness, or having mirror image oppositeness.



You remember the warm little pond of Darwin? Well it didnât exist and neither did the primal soup we are supposed to come from. You see these ideas have terrible problems in coming up with the proper compounds to produce life. You remember my parameters in the statistics section above, I allowed there to be plenty of substrate compounds available to see if we could actually randomly organize them into a self-replicating molecule and found we couldnât. Well in looking at evolutionists ideas of the primitive atmosphere we will put some more nails in the Evolution coffin.



Primitive Atmospheres



What do the evolutionists need in a primitive atmosphere to have life generate from non-life. Remember if we cannot do this step the rest of Evolution is kind of moot. Mutations and natural selection donât work on non-life chemicals.



Evolutionists tell us our planet was spun of from some kind of collision, or was some kind of rocky collapse or something spun out of the sun. Pick your favorite. And they say the earth was molten for millions and millions of years. This should have sterilized the early earth of just about anything organic. So where did the organic substances come from. Evolutionists believe they came from spontaneous generation maybe, or maybe outer space! Weâll just see if any of these make any sense.



Some evolutionists say that amino acids just formed out of seawater. If they did then mass action would have wiped them out. Richard E. Dickerson said:



âIt is therefore hard to see how polymerization could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization rather than polymerization.â Richard E. Dickerson, âChemical Evolution and the Origen of Life.â Scientific American, September 1978, p. 75



Another problem with the primitive atmosphere is the presence of oxygen. Oxygen would destroy much of the organic compounds so the evolutionists came up with a reducing atmosphere or one without O2 and with CH4 as the main carbon carrier.



The trouble with this primitive atmosphere concept is that once life did occur, the reducing atmosphere would kill it as life needs oxygen. Evolutionists try to say that plants produced the oxygen, but plants need oxygen for respiration. There would have to been a very rapid change from reducing to oxidizing atmosphere once life appeared for life to have occurred in this manner. There is no mechanism or process that could do that quickly. The current plant oxygenizing of the atmosphere today couldnât do that in less than 5000 years. Primitive life would not have even the capability as there wouldnât be nearly as many of the plants in the brand new world.



Harold Urey admitted âthat the non-oxygen atmosphere is just an assumption â" a flight of imagination â" in a effort to accommodate the theory.â

Harold Urey, âOn the Early Chemical History of the Earth and the Origin of Life,â in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 38, 1952, p. 352



Stanley Miller, who was a pioneer in the laboratory synthesis of non-living amino acids in bottles created in a reducing atmosphere, said that the theory that the earth once had no oxygen is just âspeculationâ.

Stanley Miller, âProduction of Some Organic Compounds under Possible Primitive Conditions,â in Journal of the American Chemical society, 7, 1955, p. 2351.



A recent Scientific American summary article on the origin of life admits that:

The classic âchicken and eggâ problem of âwhich came first, protein or DNAâ (since both need each other to reproduce) has not been solved by the 1980s idea of âself-reproducingâ RNA, as many textbooks imply. This is because the laboratory simulations are highly artificial with a âgreat deal of help from the scientistsâ.
Stanley Millerâs classic 1953 synthesis of lifeâs âbuilding blocksâ in the test tube, as well as Sydney Foxâs âproteinoidsâ (which produced circular blobs claimed to be âprotocellsâ) are now largely regarded as dead ends.
Cleverly designed artificial self-reproducing molecules have no relevance to the origin of life.
Highly speculative ideas about lifeâs beginning on clay, floating in from outer space, forming on the surface of foolâs gold, in mid-ocean vents, and so forth, are just that. Stanley Miller, who is now a chemistry professor still leading in this area, himself says, âI come up with a dozen ideas a day, and I usually discard the whole dozen.â
The chairman of a recent National Academy of Sciences committee reviewing all origin-of-life research (which concluded that âmuch more research is neededâ), stated that âthe simplest bacterium is so [expletive] complicated from the point of view of a chemist that it is almost impossible to imagine how it happened.â

Do they then consider that the supernatural or miraculous (that is, creation) could have been involved? Not at all, says Stanley Miller. âI think we just havenât learnt the right tricks yet.â

John Horgan, âTrends in Evolution: In the Beginningâ¦â, Scientific American, February 1991, p. 100-109.

The Problem of Chirality



Now let us look at the problem of Chirality or handedness of organic compounds. Many important molecules of life exist in two forms. These two forms are non-super imposable mirror images of each other. Nearly all biological life requires the biological polymers to be homochiral or the same handedness. That would be no problem of they could be produced chemically that way, but chemically there are produced in a racemic mixture, or with a mixture of both handedness.



âSynthesis of chiral compounds from achiral reagents always yields the âracemic modificationâ and âOptically inactive reagents yield optically inactive productsââ

Morrison, R.T. and Boyd R.N., 1987. Organic Chemistry, 5th ed. Allyn & Bacon Inc. p. 150.



So if the organic compounds were formed somehow in a primitive atmosphere they would be racemic. And that would present some major problems in polymerization of complex organic compounds such as large proteins, RNA, DNA etc. A wrong handed amino acid would cause the stopping of the polymerization of the more complex compound and effectively kill the process. Random organization of complex organic compounds would be drastically effected for the worse. All amino acids in proteins are âleft-handedâ, while all sugars in DNA, RNA and in the metabolic pathways are âright-handedâ.



Another problem with Chirality is that homochiral biological substances racemize in time. This is the basis of amino acid racemization dating method. This method is not very reliable because of the variables such as temperature and pH and the particular amino acid. Racemization is a big problem during peptide synthesis and hydrolysis for it shows that the tendency of undirected chemistry is towards death, not life. This presents enormous problems for chemical evolution ideas as well.



Chirality can have tragic consequences. Thalidomide was prescribed in the early 60âs for women suffering from morning sickness. The left-handed form is a powerful tranquillizer, but the right-handed form can disrupt fetal development, resulting in the severe birth defects. The synthesis of the drug produced a racemate, as would be expected, but the wrong homochiral was not removed before the drug was marketed.



Evolutionists had no idea how Chirality came about in the biochemistry of the origin of life and to date have no real answer to the severe problems it represents in their postulate.



They have come up with some ideas that all are weak and I will list them here but not go into depth. If you want to know more, just e-mail me and I will explain whey these cannot explain Chirality.



Circularly polarized ultraviolet light
Will destroy the correct form as well, but not at the rate of the other form.
Requires a very narrow band of CP light.
Beta Decay and the weak force
Weak force is not strong enough to have the effect needed to create Homochirality.
Could not produce the L-enantiomer in a necessary significant excess.
Optically active quartz powders.
While quartz crystals are hexagonal and dissymmetric they are also racemic in nature and would not eliminate the homochiral organics
All experiments failed to prove this could be the reason for lifeâs needs for homochiral compounds.
Clay minerals.
The chiral selection of clay minerals that was reported now appears to have been an artifact of the technique used. This has been rejected.
Fluke seeding
Postulated that a fluke seeding of a supersaturated solution with a homochiral crystal would crystallize out the same enantiomer.
If the primal soup existed it would be extremely diluted and grossly contaminated.
The growing homochiral crystal would be immersed in the solution of the wrong remaining enantiomer and would not do anything.
Homochiral template
Proposed that a homochiral polymer arose by chance (wonder what the odds?) and acted as a template.
âBut the opposite enantiomer acts as a chain terminator in the polymerization of chains and posses a severe problem in origin of life postulates.â Joyce, G.F., Visser, G.M., VanBoeckel, C.A.A., VanBoom, J.H., Orgel, L.E. and van Westrenen, J., 1984. Chiral selection in poly(C)-directed synthesis of oligo(G). Nature, 310:602-4.
Transfer RNAâs selected the right enantiomer.
Russell Doolittle, professor of Biochemistry at USC San Diego, and an atheist said: âFrom the start of their (Transfer RNA syntheases) existence, they probably bound only L-Amino Acids. Doolittle, R., 1983. Probability and the origin of life. In: Godfrey, L.R., ed., 1983. Scientists Confront Creationism, W.W. Norton, NY.
This is mere hand waving by this professor who lost a debate to Duane Gish. He never explains how such complicated enzymes could have functioned unless they themselves were homochiral, or how they would operate before RNA was composed of homochiral ribose.
Magnetic Fields
German scientists led by Eberhard Breitmaier of the Institute for Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of Gerhard â" Domagk â" Strasse in Bonn, reported that a very strong magnetic field produced 98% homochiral products from achiral reagents. Bradley, D., 1994. A new twist in the tale of natureâs asymmetry. Science, 264:908.
No one could reproduce the experiment and it was found that one of the team, Guido Zadel, the post-doctoral fellow on whose the thesis the original work was based, had adulterated the reagents with a homochiral additive. Clery, D., and Bradley, D., 1994. Underhanded âbreakthroughâ revealed. Science, 265:21.



Outer Space?



So with all the problems on earth of creating even the substances out of which life could occur scientists looked to space. There has been much hoopla where scientists zapped impure ice, supposedly matching interstellar compositions with ultraviolet light and forming amino acids. The ice contained a high amount of ammonia, methanol and hydrogen cyanide. This study was published in Nature on 28th of March 2002.



The paper said in part:



âHow life originated is one of the earliest and most intriguing for humanity. Early experiments on the processing of a gas mixture simulating the primitive earth conditions assumed a reducing atmosphere with methane as the carbon containing molecule. Several amino acids were formed under these conditions as the products of spark discharge, photo processing or heat. It is now believed, however, that the Earthâs early atmosphere was rather non-reducing, with CO2 as the main carbon carrier. Processing of these alternative gas mixtures under experimental conditions leads to the formation of, at most, traces of amino acids.â



People, let me translate for you. What they are saying is this: âAll our best guesses about how life started on earth are busted. But, we by faith believe in evolution so we must look to space as the place where life chemistry started.â



If is couldnât start here, what makes them think it started out there?



God Bless each of you who are believers and may God use you in spreading the truth. Remember to treat with love and kindness those who differ from you.





Reason Number 4

Information Theory is not Evolutionâs Friend



Information is the stuff of life. We see it every day in multiple ways. This paper is complex information. There are 26 letters, spaces, periods, commas, etc. all arranged (hopefully more correct than not!) to give out information. This did not come from random chance and no one would even begin to think so. That is unless one is an evolutionist.



Here is a quote from another amateur evolutionist. The quote is really about entropy which we will look at in the next section, but has some interesting stuff on information we can look at here.



â. . . However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in non-living systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightening are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?â



We wonât discuss the 2nd law of thermodynamics in this section but in the next. Right now we want to look at the nature in information that is given in the example above and compare it to biological information and see if the analogy given is valid.



Complex Life Information verses Simple Information



What we have here is a misunderstanding of what is true complex information and what is just information. What the amateur evolutionists above is looking at is simple information inherent in the laws of physics. We will look at snowflakes and stalactites first because they are both crystallization scenarios that evolutionists like to use. They also like to use salt crystallization from a warm salt laden fluid too. The crystal is not complex and it repeated over and over. If you break a crystal into two pieces you have two crystals. Crystalâs information would look something like this:



Abcabcabcabcabcabc



Where the life polymer would look like thisâ



The purpose of life is to love the Lord



If you break this apart you will lose the meaning and if you break apart the life polymer you will not have a smaller protein, you will destroy the protein.



Another issue is that crystallization is a process inherent in the substances them selves when the right environment occurs. There is no information given them to do this and they are very poor in information themselves. To try and say that this information as complex as DNA is absurd. They are waving their hands and bluffing in this.



Now if you saw a doily on the ground that was crocheted into a snowflake design you would instantly know some intelligence made it because you inherently know that the cotton fibers do not have a physical propensity to form that way no matter what the physical characteristics of their environment.



Graded river beds and sand dunes are just the remnants of the action of wind and water, the grading and dunes are because a certain velocity of wind or water will only carry particles of a certain size and down. As the wind or water velocity varies so to the particle sizes and thus you have a grading of particles. Extremely low complexity in these two examples. Just physics in action Iâm afraid.



But if you saw 500,000 sand particles all lined up in a row you would suspect intelligent design, because wind can carve and grade a dune but it wonât line up the particles.



Now we can look at tornadoes and lightening. Wow, some people who experienced a tornado might not consider them so orderly. But all that aside they are much like the other examples as just particles obeying the laws of physics. Differential high and low pressure systems, caused by heat, moisture etc. These systems are more complex than the last two but still no cigar as to overall complexity and nowhere remotely near the complexity of a single small chain of amino acids.



This order from disorder is a chimera for there is only physical nature obeying the physical laws. In fact the non-theist physicist Paul Davies admits: âThere is no law of physics able to create information from nothing.â



Specified Complexity



What is important here is the difference from âorderâ and information. Information is âspecific complexityâ. Specific complexity is needed to drive life, order is just interesting phenomena.



Information in the printed page is not in the paper nor the ink, but in the pattern of the characters and in the mind that understands and made them. Information in sound is not in the sound waves themselves nor in the storage devices, but in the modulation and words understood by the mind understands and made them.



Information in all living things is encoded in a kind of book called DNA. This information describes the complexity of a sequence and it doesnât depend on the matter in the sequence. As in the above concepts the DNA molecule also appears to be understood by our cells and have been made by a higher intelligence that can âreadâ the message as well as âcreateâ the message.



The DNA in one cell can carry the information of 3-4 30 copy volumes of encyclopedia Britannia. DNA is the most information dense medium known to man. The number of paperback books that could be stored in the DNA that would fit on the head of a pin is equivalent to a stack of books 500 times taller than the distance to the moon and each with unique and specific content. T