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