"Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance." - Sir Isaac Newton




Home Evolution: Impossible Disagree with Darwin? Designed Links Missing Links


Evolution: Impossible
Enter the world of science fiction and see the problems with evolution theory for yourself



The following are a series of simple problems that the evolutionist has no answer for. Not only do they undermine the theory of evolution as popularised by Charles Darwin, they show it to be impossible.



For amino acids and nucleotides to have formed in a primordial 'soup' the atmosphere would have to be void of oxygen because oxygen would 'corrode' these essential building blocks for life. However if there were no oxygen there would be no ozone layer and the ultra violet radiation from the sun would have destroyed the amino acids and nucleotides. Michael Denton in his book, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis' comments: “What we have is sort of catch 22 situation. If we have oxygen we have no organic compounds, the building blocks of life. But if we don't we have none either.” 10 This is not an emotional argument against Evolution theory, but a scientific one.




Proteins are made up of entirely left-handed amino acids. There are 20 amino acids found in living systems but only about 10% of these have been able to be produced in laboratory experiments designed to simulate the earth atmosphere as proposed by evolutionists. Out of the10% that have been formed by 'random chance' in a laboratory, there has been a mix of 50/50 right and left handed amino acids. Evolutionists have yet to explain how, by random chance, 100% left handed amino acids are found in living systems.




Whilst the best scientists with the best minds have been unable to produce 'by random chance' any nucleotides (long complex chains of nucleic acids) the building blocks of DNA and RNA the problem that would have to be faced even if this could be done, is that DNA and RNA are made up entirely of right handed nucleotides. If random chance could in some way construct a complex nucleotide chain, how is it possible that these randomly selected nucleotides would all be right handed?




Proteins are long chains of left-handed amino acids that are built up by adding one amino acid at a time. If, as evolutionists claim, life arose by chance, then long chains of amino acids would have to randomly join together to form proteins. If you take one amino acid and chemically combine it to another amino acid you produce what is known as a dipeptide and a molecule of water. In the same way if you have a molecule of water and a dipeptide, the chemical reaction can go the other way to produce two amino acids. Evolution theory suggests that life began in a 'primordial soup' made up primarily of water.


The problem is that the law of mass action states that a reversible chemical reaction, a reaction that goes both ways, will never go in the direction to produce more of something that already exists in excess amounts. This means that amino acids which would have to join together in long chains to form proteins would have to defy this law of chemistry because every time they joined together they would produce another molecule of water which would already exist in abundance.

Exactly the same problem exists with nucleic acids that join together to form nucleotides, nucleotides being the building block of DNA and RNA. This fairly simple law of chemistry is yet further proof that the spontaneous generation of life from a primordial soup millions of years ago is science fiction not science fact.




Even if proteins and nucleotides could form by random chance, a potentially even bigger problem exists; information. You need intelligence to produce information. For example, a book consists of ink and pages. Even if the ink fell onto the pages and arranged itself by random chance into letters and words, it is still meaningless. Why? Because the only reason that we can read it is because we know what the letter means. Each letter has a shape, which is meaningless unless there is a pre-agreed meaning for the shape.


Suppose someone were to invent a new alphabet with new letters:


Now if someone were to write you a poem it would just look like scribble unless they had explained to you what the letters meant etc. In other words information such as contained in a letter, or on a strand of DNA, must come from an intelligent source. This is not just another problem with spontaneous generation as proposed by evolutionists, it is the end of the road…...unless of course evolution is not science but a religion “noun - a belief held to with ardour and faith”.



Fossils are often put forward as 'evidence' of evolution and also 'proof' that the earth is billions of years old; in fact, they are one of the strongest evidences against these two assumptions. Fossils do not show any evidence for evolution at all; a fact well recognised by Darwin himself. In his book 'The Origin of the Species' Charles Darwin said: “But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have exited, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” (page 163). Darwin added: “The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be argued against the theory of evolution” (Page 323).

Stephen J Gould, a Harvard University geologist, in an article called “Evolutions Erratic Pace” published in 'Natural History Vol. 5' May 1977 concludes that the well-known evolution tree, found in almost all school biology textbooks, that draws on supposed 'evidence' from the fossil record is in reality made up by 'inference' not evidence. In other words, because there is no fossil evidence, they have just guessed, or to be more precise, made it up! He comments: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record, persists as the trade secret of palaeontology”. Again, what he is saying is that geologists and palaeontologists know that no evidence for intermediate forms (i.e. one
creature changing into another) exists in the fossil record, but they prefer to keep it
quiet! He continues: “We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history,
yet to preserve our favourite account of 'evolution by natural selection' we view
our data as so bad, that we never see the very process that we profess to
study”.11 Fossils do not show any transitional forms but rather variation within kinds -
exactly in accord with the Bible.

In addition to this problem comes the way that fossils are actually formed. Evolutionary propaganda has led many to believe the fossils are somehow proof of millions of years etc. The reasoning goes like this: a particular fossil must be x number of millions of years old because it is found in certain rock layer. We know that the rock layer is that old because we find fossils in it that are x number of million years old! This is circular reasoning, bad 'science', extremely misleading and dishonest. Fossils are almost always formed rapidly by sudden death, burial and extreme pressure being applied to the creature or life form in question. This implies some sort of upheaval or catastrophe (such as the worldwide flood described in the Bible). Very seldom (if ever) will a creature just die and get fossilised, because unless it is covered rapidly it would simply decay or get scavenged by other creatures. There are many examples of fossils that were obviously buried suddenly, including ones where one creature is in the middle of eating another.

In a radio interview on BBC Radio One ('Steve Wright in the afternoon' 27th September 2004), Alan Titchmarsh (best know from the 'Ground Force' gardening programme) was commenting on his most recent documentary series that looks at the geographical and geological history of the British Isles. In the interview he stated that there are marine fossils on the top of mount Snowdon in Wales, and went on to say that they are there as a result of glaciers.


It is incredible that an intelligent man can take, without questioning, an explanation like this. Glaciers move slowly. There is no way a slow moving glacier could pick up a fish, push it to the top of a mountain and then bury it quickly! Glaciers may well have covered much of the British Isles but this cannot explain how marine fossils can end up at the top of a mountain. So how else did they get there? Again, the rational answer would point to a worldwide flood where everything was violently turned upside down and mud and silt would have been deposited at random.

This would also explain the many geological features like the Grand Canyon in America that have been formed by huge quantities of water flowing through them eroding the softer materials and leaving the harder rock. There are examples of fossilised trees standing upright through different layers of rock strata, thus clearly demonstrating that all of those particular rock layers were deposited at the same time.

‘Recent laboratory experiments have demonstrated that many layers are laid down together, building up crab-wise. Thus fossils in lower strata could have been buried after those in higher strata. Studies of volcanic explosions show that hundreds of feet of stratified sediment can be laid down all at once’ - Dr David Rosevear 12

Clearly, geologists need a new theory, or perhaps a return to the Biblical explanations that give answers that do not contradict science or observation.



One of the backbones of evolution theory is the notion of survival of the fittest, only the strong survive etc. However when you actually stop to consider the implications, this is one of the strongest rebuttals to evolution theory possible. Take for example a reptile evolving into a bird. In order for this change to take place, the reptile’s front legs have got to become wings with feathers. As this supposed change takes place the reptile reaches a point where its front legs are not now really legs impeding its ability to run away from predators, but they are not yet wings so it can't fly away either. Nor could it hunt very successfully as its claws would by now have given way to its prototype wing structure. What has happened is that it has become less fit and less able to defend itself hence it would not survive. This same problem exists with every proposed transitional form; rather than becoming stronger, it would actually become less able and weaker as it hits the intermediate stage where it is neither one thing nor another. Survival of the fittest is a reality, the strong and most able, that are suited to their environments stand the best chance of survival. This is strong evidence of Design, and another major problem for evolutionists.



Another vital component in the theory of evolution is the idea that mutations were the mechanism by which one life form changed into another. In many senses the problem is the same as with the 'Survival of the fittest problem” because almost all mutations are harmful to the creature or life form concerned, thus reducing its life expectancy rather than improving it or allowing it to change. However, what evolutionists suggest is that a series of 'beneficial' mutations occurred that allowed
the creature to change.

What often is not told is that for every one 'beneficial' mutation that occurs, there would be 10,000 mutations that at best are neutral, but many of which would be lethal! Given the number of mutations required to change one creature into another the odds are clearly stacked against it. Also, a mutation is actually a loss of genetic information, but evolution would require an increase in the genetic information if a life form is to become 'more advanced' (see “The Information problem”). These two problems combined don't just make evolution unlikely, but according to the science of Information Theory, show that it is absolutely impossible! You sometimes get the feeling that evolutionists are clutching at straws!




All but one of the sciences acknowledges the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, also known as the entropy law. This law basically states that in a closed system, all spontaneous processes lead to a decrease in order and a loss of information. In other words, things go from order to disorder. We can observe this every time we tidy the house or garage! Have you ever not bothered to tidy the house for a week and at the end of the week found it tidier than it was at the start? The same is true in the universe around us, everything is going from order to disorder. That is unless of course you are a 'state-trained' biologist. For our education system, from schools to the top universities, disregard this basic law because unless they do, their theories of 'The Big-Bang' and the 'spontaneous generation of life' have to be abandoned.

The suggestion that all this order - the Sun being exactly the right size and distance from the Earth, the Moon being exactly the right size and distance from the Earth in relation to the Sun, the exact balance of chemicals in our atmosphere, the incredible symmetry in living things, the list could go on and on. The suggestion that all this order came about as a result of an explosion - which can only create disorder - defies every scientific law and discovery that we know. It has been said that the theory of spontaneous generation of life on earth is equivalent to the idea of a tornado blowing through a scrap yard and producing a Boeing 747 from the scrap parts! No one would believe that this could happen, it's about time that people were told the truth that evolution can't happen either! Evolution is anti-science and anti-God.




The evolutionary scientists who believe that man existed for over a million years have an almost insurmountable problem. Using the assumption of forty-three years for an average human generation, the population growth over a million years would produce 23,256 consecutive generations. We calculate the expected population by starting with one couple one million years ago and use the same assumptions of a forty-three-year generation and 2.5 children per family….The evolutionary theory of a million years of growth would produce trillions x trillions x trillions x trillions of people that should be alive today on our planet. To put this in perspective, this number is vastly greater than the total number of atoms in our vast universe. If mankind had lived on earth for a million years, we would all be standing on enormously high mountains of bones from the trillions of skeletons of those who had died in past generations. However, despite the tremendous archaeological and scientific investigation in the last two centuries, the scientists have not found a fraction of the trillions of skeletons predicted by the theory of evolutionary scientists.

Article taken from The Signature of God, Grant R. Jeffery 13








10) Michael Denton, Evolution: A theory in crisis - quoted by Dr Mark Eastman, The Creator Series,
Koinonia House. www.khouse.org

11) Quotation by Dr Mark Eastman, The Creator Series, Koinonia House. www.khouse.org

12) Quotation take from ‘Introducing the Creation Science Movement’ leaflet, go to:

13) Grant R. Jeffrey, The Signature of God - ISBN 0-921714-28-9 go to: www.grantjeffrey.com



on this page
the Oxygen problem
the Left-handed problem
the Right-handed problem
the Law of mass action problem
the Information problem
the Fossil problem
the Survival of the fittest problem
the Mutation problem
the Entropy problem
the Population problem



This week's recommended site: www.evolutionisstupid.com        Why not visit our links page to discover further sites on this subject?


© 2009 Deal Christian Fellowship Trust, Registered Charity - Number 1081906   DCF accept no responsibility for the content of external sites linked from this site.

Whilst every effort is made to ensure that downloads are virus free, downloading is undertaken solely at the users own risk.