Jasmine71's Weblog

February 19, 2010

Atheism: The Fool’s Philosphy

Atheism: The fool’s philosophy

Quick-read this article:
If God doesn’t exist, why do atheists care so passionately that some people believe He does? Why do they bother writing books against the existence of God? Or fund ads on the side of London buses to deny something that supposedly doesn’t exist? They don’t go out of their way to deny leprechauns or fairies or werewolves, so why God? The reason seems to be that atheists do know that God exists.

Why do many atheists and skeptics fight so hard to deny God if they don’t believe He exists?

Christian author Ray Comfort (pictured below) may have a point when he says atheists know there is a God.

Ray ComfortIn his book You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence but You Can’t Make Him Think (WND Books, 2009), Comfort says, “We don’t have to prove that God exists to the professing atheist. This is because he intuitively knows that He exists. Every person has a God-given conscience. The Bible tells us that this is the ‘work of the law written on their hearts’.”

Just as every sane human being knows that it’s wrong to lie, steal, kill, and commit adultery, Comfort says, they also know that God should be first in their life.

Comfort’s reasoning is this: People don’t fight against something that doesn’t exist, or something they don’t believe exists.

That’s why you don’t see groups rising up to fight against belief in werewolves. You don’t see professors in universities ridiculing the existence of Santa Claus. You don’t see organizations mobilizing troops to denounce bunyips, centaurs, or leprechauns.

Atheist bus with Richard Dawkins

Above: Atheist bus campaign creator Ariane Sherine with atheist Richard Dawkins.


What’s different with atheists?

So what’s different in the atheist’s brain? If God doesn’t exist, why do atheists such as Richard Dawkins care so passionately that some people believe in Him? Why do they bother writing books against the existence of God? Or waste time preparing videos for YouTube that ridicule God? Or fund ads on the side of London buses?

In fact, why do atheists bother acknowledging that people believe in God at all? People believe all sorts of ridiculous things that atheists don’t care about, so why does it matter to them if one of those things is God?

Interestingly, the Bible gives some answers to this.

Psalm 14:1 says, “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God.” Atheists may be brilliant scholars or academics. They may be wonderful inventors, surgeons, or scientists. But if they say there is no God they are declaring themselves fools in spiritual matters. This is why atheism is sometimes called the fool’s philosophy.

The Apostle Paul pointed out in Romans 2:15 that God has written intuitive knowledge of His law in our human conscience. In a wonderful passage in Romans 1:20 he says, “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.”

There is abundant evidence of God’s handiwork written on our conscience and in nature all around us, and there is no excuse for not recognizing God’s work in this.

Justifying our actions

So, what is at the core of the atheist’s concern?

As sinful humans, we have an amazing tendency to try to justify our actions. This is something that sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. We do something stupid and try to invent plausible reasons why we did it. Sometimes this is to fool others; sometimes it is to convince ourselves that we are not as stupid as our actions indicate.

Sometimes people who have taken a strong point of view on something that is wrong think it is their duty to get others on side, because there is safety in numbers. This is how cults form, and how dictators get away with murder.

If atheists know in their hearts that there really is a God, but they don’t want to be accountable to God for their actions, then it starts to make sense why they try so hard to convince others that God doesn’t exist.

This also explains why no-one bothers speaking out against belief in mermaids, pixies, and werewolves. People do not have the truth of these mythical creatures written in their hearts or on their conscience. Nor does nature declare anything about the majesty and power of leprechauns or hobgoblins.

So atheists must know intuitively that God exists. They just want to convince themselves and others that He doesn’t exist because if He does it means they have made the worst decision of their lives to reject Him. And that has eternal consequences that are too horrible to contemplate.

God wants us to come to Him. He offers salvation to all, and has given two magnificent evidences of Himself. One is the overwhelming evidence of His physical creation all around us, and the other is the imprint of His existence in our conscience.

There should be no atheists. The fact that there are shows human rebellion and arrogance — not an intellectual discovery.

Advertisements

March 19, 2009

Unintelligent Evolution Debunked

Help Spread the Word
var addthis_pub=”sharethisnow”;var addthis_offset_top = 0; Bookmark and Share Now

UnintelligentEvolution.com

Darwin said: “…we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator,” (Origin of Species, p488)

Unintelligent Evolution Debunked in <400 Words

The hypothesis: un-intelligence can make something intelligent, is not supported by any testable evidence, scientific principle, common sense, or even Darwin’s Origin of Species. It is useless for making testable predictions.

Darwin said: “Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?” (Origin of Species, p. 188)

1. The scientific process was invented by and depends on intelligence. Testable, uncontradicted evidence, in diverse areas of life, confirm that it takes intelligence to make something intelligent.

“…all physical theories…break down at the beginning of the universe.”
— Stephen Hawking.

2. Mathematical infinity, singularities, and the “Big Bang” defy the laws of nature, showing scientifically that super-natural qualities, like God’s infinite nature, can exist.

3. A creator/designer/lawmaker is not intrinsically detectable when observing their design. Thus, one can’t use an undetected Creator to disprove a Creator.

4. All laws, man-made or otherwise, have common properties: They cause physical regularity. Thus, since man is made of “dust” and thus is part of the natural process, man’s creative/lawmaking abilities can be tested in determining the origin of the universe.

New hypotheses/proposed laws: a) Something intelligent is caused by something intelligent, b) Laws are made by an intelligent lawmaker, c) Laws are enforced/maintained by a law enforcer, d) Processes and machines have a designer, e) Designers/lawmakers/enforcers are not intrinsically detectable.

These principles have never been contradicted, apply universally, and are always useful for making predictions.

Thus, since intelligence, laws, machines, and processes are found in the universe, and we don’t detect a Designer, it is logical and predictable that there is an intelligent Creator. And a super-natural Creator/Lawmaker/Enforcer would be necessary to limit and maintain our natural space-time to cause the laws of nature to exist. By definition, random chance cannot create a single reasonable pattern without intelligently applied limitations/laws.

Conclusion: There is no testable evidence that a Creator was not needed to make evolution or the laws of nature, etc. Therefore, unintelligent evolution and faith in atheism are blind assumptions with no scientific basis. A plethora of diverse, uncontradicted, testable evidence demonstrates that God is logical and a super-natural Creator is necessary for the creation and laws of the universe. The Bible has the only scientifically accurate creation account. We should thank God for creating us and our universe, and seek to serve Him daily.

Fred Hoyle said: “there is a good deal of cosmology in the Bible.” (The Nature of the Universe, p.109.)

Material from Copyright: UnintelligentEvolution.com 2006-2009

March 8, 2009

Evolution- Full Of Gaps

Evolutionists say we have evolved from monkeys . The author at
http://migration.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/becoming-human/

says “Oh, and how do I know monkeys are following me? Human vestigiality for one.”
Really ?
However, there is no hard evidence to support such wild claims as we shall see below. The following material is from evolution-facts.org :

Why there is no evidence humans evolved from anything

This chapter is based on pp. 607-663 of Origin of Life (Volume Two of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this chapter are at least 137 statements by scientists. You will find them, plus much more, in the encyclopedia on this website.

In the previous chapter (Fossils and Strata), we examined the supposed evidences for the past evolution of plants and animals. In this chapter, we will view the imagined ancestry of human beings.

Following an introduction, this chapter is divided into two main sections: Hominids and Early Man.

The section on Hominids will deal with what is called prehistoric man, or what we might call “the man of evolution.” In some respects it is an addition to the chapter on fossils, although it reads more like a sideshow as it tells about fakeries such as Piltdown Man, Java Man, Tuang Man, etc.

The concluding section, Early Man, will be about actual geologic or historical evidences of ancient peoples, and is about the “man of history.” It is somewhat paralleled by information near the end of chapter 4, Age of the Earth.

The concept that we are just animals, only slightly removed from apes, means that there are no moral standards, no laws worth obeying, no future, and no hope. The realization of this terrible truth even penetrated the gloom of *Darwin’s mind at times.

“With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the minds of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”—*Charles Darwin, quoted in Francis Darwin (ed.), Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (1903; 1971 reprint), Vol. 1, p. 285.

1 – INTRODUCTION

HAVE SUCH BONES BEEN FOUND?—(*#1/28 Man’s Non-human Ancestry Unknown*) From grade school on up, children are taught about “cavemen,” and are gradually conditioned to the idea that we evolved from lower forms of life. They are also taught about the bones and skulls of our “ancestors.”

As adults, we frequently hear reports of fossil remains of ape-like humans that have been found. Each discovery has been hailed as a landmark proof of the theory of evolution. Scientists have given a name to these supposed half-man/half-ape remains; they call them hominids..

Is it really true that such skeletal remains have been found? Are we really related to apes? In this chapter, you will examine the evidence and find solid answers.

APES—(*#2/28 From Ape to Man*) Evolutionists teach two variant theories regarding man’s direct ancestor: (1) man and ape came from a common ancestor about 5-20 million years ago; (2) man descended from an ape.

Modern man is said to have evolved until about 100,000 years ago—and then he stopped evolving! It is claimed that, since that time, man has switched over from “physical evolution” to “cultural and social evolution.” This is an attempt to explain the fact that, in historical records, evolution has never been known among humans.

There is no evidence that evolution is now—or has ever—occurred among animals or plants either. Are they culturally evolving now also? In addition, it is strange that if man is essentially the same as he was a million years ago, then why did he only begin leaving writings, buildings, and artifacts during no more than the last few thousand years? Why does human history only go back less than 5,000 years?

“The search for the proverbial ‘missing link’ in man’s evolution, that holy grail of a never-dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation and myth to flourish as happily today as they did fifty years ago and more.”— *Sir Solly Zukerman, “Myth and Method in Anatomy,” in Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (1966), Vol. 11(2), pp. 87-114.

Did man descend from the apes? Our DNA is different from that of each of the apes, monkeys, and all the rest. The number of vertebrae in our backbone is different from that in the apes. Our cranial (brain) capacity is totally different from the great apes.

Orangutans . . . . . . 275-500 cc.

Chimpanzees . . . . . 275-500 cc.

Gorillas . . . . . . . . . 340 -752 cc.

Man . . . . . . . . . . . .1100 -1700 cc.

Cranial capacity is, by itself, an important test of whether a skull is from a man or an ape.

“Since there are variations in tissues and fluids, the cranial capacity is never exactly equal to brain size, but can give an approximation. A skull’s capacity is determined by pouring seeds or buckshot into the large hole at the base of the skull (foramen magnum), then emptying the pellets into a measuring jar. The volume is usually given in cubic centimeters (cc.). Living humans have a cranial capacity ranging from about 950cc. to 1,800cc., with the average about 1,400cc.”—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 98.

COMPARING GORILLA AND MAN—*Charles Darwin said man was descended from an ape. Shown below is a typical ape, a gorilla. Carefully notice is bony structure. Notice the skulls and neck bones. Both were carefully designed by a highly-intelligent Creator, but both are very different.

Gorilla and Man

EC522.jpg (243595 bytes) CLICK TO ENLARGE

Evolution teaches that we descended from the great apes, and they, in turn, from the gibbons and other smaller apes.

Several differences between man and ape: (1) Birth weight as a percent of maternal weight is, in man, almost twice that of the great apes (5.5 vs. 2.4-4.1), but about the same or less than that found in monkeys (5-10) and in gibbons (7.5). (2) Order of eruption of teeth is the same in man and in the Old World monkeys, but it is different than that of the great apes. (3) Walking upright is quite different. Man and the gibbon walk habitually upright; the great apes do not. As with the other teachings of evolution, scientific facts are on the side of the creationists, and the evolutionists, and their incredulous theories are outside the domain of scientific fact, discovery, and law. (4) The neck hinge is at the back on man, but at the front on the ape.

The shape and arrangement of the teeth, for example, is quite different for apes and man:, for example, is quite different for apes and man:

“Many male primates have large canine teeth, which are used in fighting and defense. Where the upper canines meet, or occlude, with the lower jaw, there are spaces, or gaps, between the opposing teeth. Canine diastemas [spaces opposite large canines] are characteristic of the jaws of baboons, gorillas and monkeys. They are used as a diagnostic feature in studying fossils because they are absent in hominids [men or near-men]. A primate jaw with canine diastemas is considered probably related to apes or monkeys, not close to the human family.”—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 69.

PRIMITIVE PEOPLES—Early civilizations were advanced; but, from time to time, groups would migrate to new areas and for a time live in “stone age cultures,” until they had opportunity to build cities, plant, and engage in animal husbandry (*Science Year: 1966, p. 256).

THE THEORETICAL ANCESTRY OF MAN—Shown below are side views of the skulls, bottom views of the upper teeth, and side views of the hands—of the supposed ancestral line of mankind (Galago to Guenon, to chimpanzee, to man).

A careful comparison reveals they are each quite different from the others.

The Theoretical Ancestry of Man

EC524.jpg (201584 bytes) CLICK TO ENLARGE

In some localities, the climate and environment have been difficult enough that groups have continued down to the present time in stone-age conditions. Such racial groups can be found in New Guinea and certain other areas.

Some of these peoples have lost a knowledge of agriculture and the making of weapons, tools, or houses. They only have a few crude stone and bamboo tools, and no weapons. They live under the trees in the open, and the men spend each day gathering worms, leaves, and fruit for the family to eat.

Many anthropologists believe that those primitive “stone age” peoples are not evidence of earlier human life-forms, but rather tribes which have slipped back from the rest of us.

“Many of the so-called ‘primitive’ peoples of the world today, most of the participants agreed, may not be so primitive after all. They suggested that certain hunting tribes in Africa, Central India, South America, and the Western Pacific are not relics of the Stone Age, as had been previously thought, but instead are the ‘wreckage’ of more highly developed societies forced through various circumstances to lead a much simpler, less developed life.”—*Science Year, 1966, p. 256.

CAVEMEN—The first introduction many children have to evolution are pictures of dinosaurs and cavemen. It is true that there have been groups that have lived in caves. They wandered from warm climates to colder ones and chose to live in caves for a time before building themselves homes in a new land. But the fact that some people lived in caves for awhile does not prove evolution from one species to another.

*Diodorus Siculus, writing about 60 B.C., told of people living along the shores of the Red Sea in caves. He describes many other barbarian tribes, some of them quite primitive. Thus we see that both advanced civilizations and more backward cave cultures lived at the same time. We have no reason to conclude that the less advanced peoples were ancestors of the more advanced ones..

Archaeologists tell us that in some places in Palestine, people resembling the Neanderthal race lived in caves, while not far away in Jericho people dwelt in well-built, beautifully decorated houses.

NEANDERTHALS—(*#3/7 Neanderthal Men*) Evolutionists call the cavemen, “Neanderthals.”

In 1856 workers blasted a cave in the Neander Valley near Düsseldorf, Germany. Inside they found limb bones, pelvis, ribs, and a skull cap. The bones were examined by both scientists and evolutionists, and for a number of years all agreed that these were normal human beings. Even that ardent evolutionist and defender of *Darwin, *Thomas H. Huxley, said they belonged to people and did not prove evolution. *Rudolph Virchow, a German anatomist, said the bones were those of modern men afflicted with rickets and arthritis. Many scientists today recognize that they had bowed legs due to rickets, caused by a lack of sunlight.

In 1886, two similar skulls were found at Spy, Belgium. In the early 1900s, a number of similar specimens were found in southern France. Over a hundred specimens are now in collections.

A French paleontologist named *Marcellin Boule said they belonged to ape-like creatures, but he was severely criticized for this even by other evolutionists who said this fossil was just modern man (Homo sapiens), deformed by arthritis.

A most excellent, detailed analysis of how rickets and arthritis caused the features, peculiar to Neanderthals, was written by Ivanhoe in a 1970 issue of the scientific journal, Nature. The article is entitled, “Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?”

“Neanderthal man may have looked like he did, not because he was closely related to the great apes, but because he had rickets, an article in the British publication Nature suggests. The diet of Neanderthal man was definitely lacking in Vitamin D.—*“Neanderthals had Rickets,” in Science Digest, February 1971, p. 35.

Neanderthal features include a somewhat larger brow ridge (the supra orbital torus), but it is known that arthritis can make this more prominent. Virchow noted that the thighbone (femur) was curved, a condition common to rickets. Lack of Vitamin D causes osteomalacia and rickets, producing a subtle facial change by increasing the size of the eye cavity (orbit), especially vertically.

*D.J.M. Wright, in 1973, showed that congenital syphilis could also have caused the kind of bone deformities found in Neanderthal specimens.

The Neanderthals apparently lived at a time when there was not as much sunlight. We know that the ice age came as a result of worldwide volcanic dust pollution. The weather in Europe at that time was cold enough that they may have stayed so much in their caves that they did not obtain enough sunlight, especially due to the overcast sky conditions.

They may also have lived longer than men do today. Biblical records indicate that those living just after the Flood (on down to Abraham and even Moses) had somewhat longer life spans than we do today. In 1973, *H. Israel explained that certain living individuals today begin to develop Neanderthaloid features—the heavy eyebrow ridges, elongated cranial vault, and so on—with extreme age. There is definite evidence that the Neanderthals were several hundred years old.

For much more information, see the book, Buried Alive, by Jack Cuozzo (1998). In it, he clearly shows that the Neanderthals were several hundred years old. Facial bones keep growing throughout life. He also discovered that the evolutionists had mismatched the upper and lower jaw, in order to make the Neanderthals look like apes.

Here are two facts you will not find in the textbooks: (1) In 1908 a typical Neanderthal skeleton was found in Poland. It had been buried in a suit of chain armor that was not yet fully rusted (”Neanderthal in Armour,” in *Nature, April 23, 1908, p. 587). (2) A Neanderthal skeleton was found in the Philippine Islands in 1910. Due to the extreme moisture of that land, it would be impossible for the skeleton to be as much as a century old (”Living Neanderthal Man,” in *Nature, December 8, 1910, p. 176).

A third interesting fact is that the Neanderthals had larger craniums than we do. They had larger brains! This indicates regression of our race from a former longer-lived, more intelligent, race rather than evolutionary progression. Brain capacity is an important indicator of whether a cranium (the part of the skull which encloses the brain) belongs to an ape or a person.

“The cranial capacity of the Neanderthal race of Homo sapiens was, on the average, equal to or even greater than that in modern man.”—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, “Changing Man,” in Science, January 27, 1967, p. 410.

“Normal human brain size is 1450-1500 ccs; Neanderthal’s is 1600 ccs. If his brow is low, his brain is larger than modern man’s.”—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 87.

“The [Neanderthal] brain case on the average was more than 13 percent larger than that of the average of modern man.”—Erich A. von Fange, “Time Upside Down,” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1974, p. 23.

They also had well-developed culture, art, and religion. At the present time, most scientists agree that Neanderthals were just plain people that lived in caves for a time. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for this change in thinking to be seen in children’s textbooks.

Two Neanderthal-like skulls were found in Santa Barbara, California in 1923. Researchers recognized that they were just Indian skulls.

Neanderthals were just racial types similar to ourselves.

CRO-MAGNON MAN—(*#4/4 Cro-Magnon and Rhodesian Man*) In 1868 a cave was discovered at Les Eyzies, in the Dordogne area of France. In the local dialect, cro-magnon means “big hole.” A number of skeletons have been found there, and have been hailed as the great “missing link” between man and ape.

The Cro-Magnons were truly human, possibly of a noble bearing. Some were over six feet tall, with a cranial volume somewhat larger than that of men today. This means they had more brains than men have today. Not only did they have some excellent artists among them, but they also kept astronomy records. The Cro-Magnons were normal people, not monkeys, and they provide no evidence of a transition from ape to man..

2 – HOMINIDS

BASIC QUESTIONS—We will now turn our attention to part of a lengthy line of fakes. As we view them, one by one, there are a few questions we should keep in mind:

(1) Why is it that, each time, only one specimen is found? Why not hundreds or thousands of them? If these are our ancestors, there should be millions of specimens. There are so many people alive today, there should have been large numbers of half-ape people alive during that “million years” that men are said to have lived on this planet. Indeed, evolution teaches uniformitarianism, the concept that past climates and living conditions were essentially like those we have now in the world.

(2) Why are only little pieces of bone found for each specimen—never a complete skeleton? Is this not reading a lot into almost no evidence? Or is it possible that the less found, the easier it is to try to make unfounded claims for it? (Later in this chapter we learn that if only parts of bones are found, their positions can be moved about to imitate half-ape skulls and jaws.)

(3) Although bones decay in a few years in damper regions, and in a few centuries in drier regions,—why is it that these special bones did not decay even though they are supposed to be “a million years old”? The very possibility, that these “million-year-old bones” are not supposed to have decayed, makes it all the more certain that there ought to be millions of other bones lying around belonging to our ancestors! There are millions living today, if people have lived on earth for a million years,—the earth should be filled with the bones of our ancestors!

(4) How could “million-year-old bones” possibly be found in damp earth (not encased within solid rock) in Indonesia, China, and England? Yet the evolutionists claim that such bones have been found, as we shall learn below.

In an article about the grand opening of the International Louis Leakey Memorial Institute for African Prehistory (TILLMIAP) in Nairobi, Kenya, *Lewin wrote this:

“Perhaps more than any other science, human prehistory is a highly personalized pursuit, the whole atmosphere reverberating with the repeated collisions of oversized egos. The reasons are not difficult to discover. For a start, the topic under scrutiny—human origins—is highly emotional, and there are reputations to be made and public acclaim to be savoured for people who unearth ever older putative human ancestors. But the major problem has been the pitifully small number of hominid fossils on which prehistorians exercise their imaginative talents.”—*Roger Lewin, “A New Focus for African Prehistory,” in New Scientist, September 29, 1977, p. 793.

ONLY BONE PIECES—One problem, as indicated above, is all that these experts work with is such things as jaw fragments, broken skull pieces, and parts of other bones. No complete or even half-complete skeleton, linking man with the rest of animals has ever been found. all that these experts work with is such things as jaw fragments, broken skull pieces, and parts of other bones. No complete or even half-complete skeleton, linking man with the rest of animals has ever been found. all that these experts work with is such things as jaw fragments, broken skull pieces, and parts of other bones. No complete or even half-complete skeleton, linking man with the rest of animals has ever been found. But, working with pieces collected here and there, imagination can produce most wonderful “discoveries.” In some instances, some of the pieces have been found at some distance from the rest of the fragments.

JAVA MAN—(*#5/5 Java Man*) In 1891, Java Man was found. This is a classic instance of a man searching for evidence to support a theory. This is a classic instance of a man searching for evidence to support a theory. * Eugene Dubois became a convinced evolutionist while attending a Dutch college. Dropping out of school, he began searching for fossils in Sumatra and other Dutch East Indies islands. He shipped thousands of crates of regular animal bones back to Holland, and then went to Java.

In September 1891 near the village of Trinil in a damp place by the Solo River, *Dubois found a skull cap. A year later and fifty feet from where he had found the skull cap, he found a femur. Later he found three teeth in another location in that area. *Dubois assumed that (1) all these bones were from the same individual, and (2) that they were as much as a million years old.

Nearby, in the same condition (indicating the same approximate age) he also found two human skulls (known as the Wadjak skulls), but he did not publicize this find, for they had a cranial capacity somewhat above that of modern man. Thirty-one years later, in 1922, he admitted the Wadjak skull was an ape.

Excitedly, *Dubois reported the find (the pieces of bone) as “Java Man,” and spent the rest of his life promoting this great discovery. The thigh bone was a normal human upper leg bone. As might be expected, many experts questioned whether all the bones came from the same person, and even if they did, they said they were human bones, not ape bones. But *Dubois spent most of the remainder of his life lecturing and telling people about the “half-human half-ape” bones that he had found in Java in 1891-1892. He named it Pithecanthropus erectus (erect ape-man).

British zoologists thought it was human, German experts decided it was ape, and the French conjectured that it was something between the two.

Finally, in 1907 a German expedition was sent from Berlin to Java to settle the matter. But *Dubois would not show them his “bone collection” nor help them in any way. Arriving in Java, they went over the Trinil site thoroughly, removed 10,000 cubic meters of material and 43 boxfuls of bones, and then declared it all to be wasted time. Their main discovery was that *Dubois’ Java Man bones had been taken from a depth that came from a nearby volcano. It had overflowed in the recent past and spewed forth lava, which overwhelmed and buried a number of people and animals.

Java Man

EC532.jpg (184546 bytes) CLICK TO ENLARGE

ARRANGING JAVA MAN—This sketch is an excellent illustration of how evolutionists prefer PIECES of bones, for they can fit them together in different ways to achieve their purposes.

About 15 years before his death, and after most evolutionists had become convinced that his find was nothing more than bones from a modern human,—*Dubois announced his conviction that the bones belonged to a gibbon!

School textbooks and popular books for the public continue to cite 500,000 years as the age of “Java Man,” which, admittedly, is quite an imaginary figure.

PILTDOWN MAN—(*#6/7 Piltdown Man / #10 The Story of Piltdown Man*) In 1912, Piltdown Man was found. In 1912, Piltdown Man was found. This created a great sensation in both the newspapers and halls of science when it was announced by the British Geological Society. They gave it the scientific name, Eoanthropus dawsoni. For nearly 40 years the scientific world bowed before Piltdown Man as the great key to human evolution. Only one specimen existed, when there ought to be thousands if it was really genuine.

Paintings were made of the great men who found and worked on it, and three of those men were later knighted by the king of England. Such is the stuff of glory. Ignored was the report of a dentist in 1916 who said that the teeth had been filed down by someone.

In 1953, *Joseph Weiner and *Kenneth Oakley applied a recently developed fluorine test to the bones—and found that Piltdown Man was a grand hoax! Someone had taken an ape jaw and put it with a human skull, filed the teeth somewhat, and then carefully stained it all so that the bones looked both ancient and a matching set. Imported mammalian fossils and handcrafted tools were placed nearby. It took 40 years to unravel that particular hoax. (Later in this chapter, the story is discussed in more detail.)

Piltdown Man

EC534.jpg (182547 bytes) CLICK TO ENLARGE

THE PIECES OF PILTDOWN MAN—It took several years to fabricate Piltdown Man. *Dawson and his associates carefully worked on the bones, in order to only provide certain pieces, so a half-ape, half-human appearance could be produced. The dark portions represent the pieces of bone; the white portions are plaster “reconstructions.”

This illustration, like all in this book, are taken from the author’s three-volume Evolution Disproved Series.

“Careful examination of the bone pieces [in 1953] revealed the startling information that the whole thing was a fabrication, a hoax perpetrated by Dawson, probably, to achieve recognition. The skulls were collections of pieces, some human and some not. One skull had a human skull cap but an ape lower jaw. The teeth had been filed and the front of the jaw broken off to obscure the simian [ape] origin. Some fragments used had been stained to hide the fact that the bones were not fossil, but fresh. In drilling into the bones, researchers obtained shavings rather than powder, as would be expected in truly fossilized bone.”—Harold G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1961), p. 221.

RHODESIAN MAN—In 1921, Rhodesian Man was discovered in a cave. Anthropologists and artists set to work turning him into a half-ape, half-human sort of creature. But then a competent anatomist had the opportunity to examine it, and found that this was just a normal human being.

Further analysis revealed dental caries which modern diets tend to produce, and also a hole through the skull made by a bullet or crossbow. So Rhodesian Man was not so ancient after all.

TAUNG AFRICAN MAN—Taung African Man was found in 1924 by *Raymond Dart, when he came across the front face and lower jaw of an immature ape in a cave in the Taung limestone quarry of South Africa. He rushed to report it, accompanied by extravagant claims. A majority of scientists rejected this find, but the press loudly proclaimed it to be the “the missing link.” Today most experts dismiss it as the skull of a young ape.

“Differences due to age are especially significant with reference to the structure of the skull in apes. Very pronounced changes occur during the transition from juvenile to adult in apes, but not in Man. The skull of a juvenile ape is somewhat different from that of Man. We may remember that the first specimen of Australopithecus that was discovered by Raymond Dart, the Tuang ‘child,’ was that of a juvenile [ape]. This juvenile skull should never have been compared to those of adult apes and humans.”—Duane Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 178.

NEBRASKA MAN—(*#7/2 Nebraska Man*) Nebraska Man was found in 1922. Well, not exactly. A single molar tooth was found in 1922,—and called “Nebraska Man”! Based on that one tooth, an artist was told to make a picture. He did so and it went around the world. Nebraska Man was a key evidence at the Scopes trial in July 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee. In 1928, it was discovered that the tooth belonged to “an extinct pig”! In 1972, living specimens of the same pig were found in Paraguay. *Grafton Smith, one of those involved in publicizing “Nebraska Man” was knighted for his efforts in making known this fabulous find.

*Henry F. Osborn, a leading paleontologist, ridiculed William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes Trial, declaring that the tooth was “the herald of anthropoid apes in America,” and that it “speaks volumes of truth” (*H.F. Osborn, Evolution and Religion in Education, 1926, p. 103).

At the trial, two specialists in teeth at the American Museum of Natural History, said that, after careful study, the tooth was definitely from a species closer to man than to the ape. (Science 55, May 5, 1927, p. 464).

PEKING MAN—Peking Man emerged on the international scene in the 1920s. The finances of *Davidson Black were just about running out, and he needed help, when in 1927 he found a tooth near Peking, China. The *Rockefeller Foundation stepped forward and gave him $80,000 to continue research on this colossal find. So *Black continued looking and came up with a skull, copies of which are displayed today in biology laboratories. *Black named it Sinanthropus pekinensis (”China man from Peking”), and received honors from all over the world for his discovery. After his death in 1934, the Jesuit that helped prepare Piltdown Man (*Teilhard de Chardin) took over the work at the site. Then *Franz Weidenreich led out until all work stopped in 1936, because of the Japanese invasion of China.

This turned out to be some kind of town garbage dump. Although thousands of animal bones were found in this pit near Peking, only a few human skulls were found, and there was no evidence that they had evolved from anything else—even though there was 150 feet of animal bones in the pit. These human bones totaled 14 skulls in varying conditions, 11 jawbones, 147 teeth and a couple small arm bone and femur fragments, along with stone tools and carbon ash from fires.

These were human bones, but with a somewhat smaller brain capacity (1,000cc., which some people today have), and with the prominent brow ridges which we find in Neanderthals and Australopithecus.

There are races today with larger brow ridges, and some Philippine women have brow ridges,—which only men generally have. Patterns vary, but the species remains one.

“The heavy-boned [Peking] hominid skull featured prominent brow ridges and a somewhat smaller braincase (about 1,000 cc.) than modern humans (1,500 cc.).”—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 359.

A braincase of 1,000cc. is not sub-human; people today vary between 1,000 and 2,000cc., with an occasional low of 750cc., and an average of 1,500-1 ,600cc.

All the skulls disappeared during World War II, so we cannot now examine them with modern methods to check their genuineness.

Australopithecus

EC538.jpg (191027 bytes) CLICK TO ENLARGE

“Amidst the uncertainties of war-torn Beijing [earlier called Peking], it proved impossible to store them [Peking Man bones] safely with Chinese authorities, so Weidenreich finally packed them for military shipment to the United States. They were believed to be aboard the marine ship S.S. President Harrison, which was sunk in the Pacific in mid-November 1941. So Peking man’s bones may now be resting on the ocean’s bottom.

“However, there have been sporadic reports that the crate never made it onto that ill-fated ship, but was left behind in a railway station, where it was confiscated by the Japanese, stolen by looters or simply lost in the confusion.”—*Ibid.

The evidence indicates that this may have been a dining area or garbage dump, and that both animals and people had been eaten.

“But just what had been excavated? A living site? A burial ground? A place of ritual cannibalism? . . Peking man was represented mainly by skulls—hardly any postcranial material. Not a pelvis or a rib. Just skulls. And the openings at their bases, the foramens magnums, had been widened and smashed, as if someone had wanted to scoop out the brains.”—*Ibid.

Twenty years later, in the 1950s, *Ernst Mayr came up with a new name, Homo erectus, and then put a variety of bone finds (Java Man, Peking Man, and several others) into it.

It is well to keep in mind that all that remains of Peking Man are plaster casts in the United States. But plaster casts cannot be considered reliable evidence.

AUSTRALOPITHECINES—(*#8/3 Ramapithecus*; #9/17 Australopithecus*) “Australopithecus” (”southern ape”) is the name given to a variety of ape bones found in Africa. After examining the bones carefully, anthropologists have gravely announced that they come from an ancient race of pre-people who lived from 4 to 1 million years ago. These bones have been found at various African sites, including Sterkfontein, Swartkrans, Koobi Fora, Olduvai, Hadar, and Orno River. The Australopithecines, like modern apes, had a wide range of varieties. But they are all apes.

One of the most famous was named “Lucy,” and will be mentioned later on.

Some experts believe that these apes, the Australopithecines, descended from another ape, the “Ramapithecines” (”Ramapithecus” is the singular for this word), which is supposed to have lived 12 million years ago.

“No proven ancestor is known for any early Australopithecus, nor for any early Homo [habilis].”—W. Mehlert, “The Australopithecines and (Alleged) Early Man,” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1980, p. 25.

Homo habilis is another ape. In the 1960s, *Louis Leakey found some teeth and skull fragments at Olduvai. He dated them at 1.8 million years ago and decided they belonged to the human family, therefore naming them Homo (people are classified as Homo Sapien. But many experts, including *Brace and *Metress have clearly shown that habilis was nothing more than a large-brained Australopithecus.

Brain sizes: Human beings have a brain size of about 1500 cc. (cubic centimeters). In contrast, habilis was 660 cc. Other brain sizes would be 800 cc. for Hadar, 900 cc. for Koobi Fora. Most other brain sizes are about 500 cc. The Taung and Sterkfontein skulls are around 430 cc. apiece, so an adult of their species would only be 550-600 cc. Thus on the score of size of brain case, these finds prove nothing.

An excellent and detailed article on this, which includes 13 charts and graphs, will be found in “Some Implications of Variant Cranial Capacities for the Best-preserved Australopithecine Skull Specimens,” by Gerald Duffert (Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1983, pp. 96-104). The article reveals that there was evidence of fraudulent measurements of those ancient African skulls. Repeatedly, when initially measured a high cubic centimeter volume was announced for the skull, but later remeasurements by other investigators disclosed much smaller measurements!

“Overall, the revisionary calculations of australopithecine skulls have led to reductions of their calculated volumes. The total percentage differences amount to—157.91.”—*Op. cit., p. 100.

“The hypothesis that brain enlargement marked the beginning of man was long popular, but went out of fashion with the discovery that the endocranial volumes of the australopithecine group were not larger than those of gorillas.”—*Elwin L. Simons, Primate Evolution: An Introduction to Man’s Place in Nature (1972), p. 278.

Speaking of the Australopithecines, *J.S. Weiner commented:

“The ape-like profile of Australopithecus is so pronounced that its outline can be superimposed on that of a female chimpanzee with a remarkable closeness of fit, and in this respect and others it stands in strong contrast to modern man.”—*J.S. Weiner, The Natural History of Man (1973).

In 1957, *Ashley Montagu, a leading U.S. anthropologist, wrote that these extremely apelike creatures could not possibly have anything to do with man (*A. Montegu, Man’s First Million Years).

After the most careful research, *Oxnard and *Zuckerman have come to the conclusion that Australopithecus is an ape, and not human, and not a transition between the two.

“Dr. Charles Oxnard and Sir Solly Zuckerman were leaders in the development of a powerful multivariate analysis procedure. This computerized technique simultaneously performs millions of comparisons on hundreds of corresponding dimensions of the bones of living apes, humans, and the australopithecines. Their verdict, that the australopithecines are not intermediate between man and living apes, is quite different from the more subjective and less analytical visual techniques of most anthropologists. This technique, however, has not yet been applied to the most recent type of australopithecine, commonly known as ‘Lucy.’ “—Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 39.

LUCY—Lucy, one of the most recent of the Australopithecus finds, was unearthed by *Donald C. Johanson at Hadar, Ethiopia in 1975. He dated it at 3 million years B.P. [Before Present]. In 1979, *Johanson and *White claimed that Lucy came under an ape/man classification (Australopithecus afarensis). But even before that startling announcement, the situation did not look too good for Lucy. In 1976, *Johanson said that “Lucy has massive V-shaped jaws in contrast to man(*National Geographic Magazine, 150:790-810). In 1981, he said that she was “embarrassingly un-Homo like” (Science 81, 2(2):53-55). Time magazine reported in 1977 that Lucy had a tiny skull, a head like an ape, a braincase size the same as that of a chimp—450 cc. and “was surprisingly short legged” (*Time, November 7, 1979, pp. 68-69).

*Dr. Yves Coppens, appearing on BBC-TV in 1982, stated that Lucy’s skull was like that of an ape.

In 1983, *Jeremy Cherfas said that Lucy’s ankle bone (talus) tilts backward like a gorilla, instead of forward as in human beings who need it so to walk upright, and concluded that the differences between her and human beings are “unmistakable” (*J. Cherfas, New Scientist, (97:172 [1982]).

*Susman and *Stern of New York University carefully examined Lucy and said her thumb was apelike, her toes long and curved for tree climbing, and “she probably nested in the trees and lived like other monkeys” (Bible Science Newsletter, 1982, p. 4).

Several scientists have decided that the bones of Lucy come from two different sources. Commenting on this, *Peter Andrews, of the British Museum of Natural History, said this:

“To complicate matters further, some researchers believe that the afarensis sample [Lucy] is really a mixture of two separate species. The most convincing evidence for this is based on characteristics of the knee and elbow joints.”—*Peter Andrews, “The Descent of Man,” in New Scientist, 102:24 (1984).

Regarding those knee joints, *Owen Lovejoy, *Richard Leakey’s highly qualified associate (an anatomist), declared at a 1979 lecture in the United States that a multivariate analysis of Lucy’s knee joints revealed her to be an ape

So whether Lucy’s bones belong to one creature or two, they are both apes.

*Johanson’s theory about Lucy is based on an assumption linking two fossils 1,000 miles [1,609 km] apart:

“Although the Lucy fossils were initially dated at three million years, *Johanson had announced them as 3.5 million because he said the species was ‘the same’ as a skull found by *Mary Leakey at Laetoli, Tanzania. By proposing *Mary Leakey’s find as the ‘type specimen’ for Australopithecus afarensis, he was identifying Lucy with another fossil 1,000 miles [1,609 km] from the Afar [in northern Ethiopia] and half a million years older! *Mary thought the two not at all the same and refused to have any part of linking her specimen with [*Johanson’s] afarensis . . She announced that she strongly resented Johanson’s ‘appropriating’ her find, her reputation and the older date to lend authority to Lucy. Thus began the bitter, persistent feud between Johanson and the Leakeys.”—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 285.

*Johanson, himself, finally decided that Lucy was only an ape.

“Johanson himself originally described the fossils as Homo, a species of man, but soon after changed his mind based on the assessment of his colleague, Tim White. They now describe the bones as too ape-like in the jaws, teeth and skull to be considered Homo, yet also sufficiently distinct from other, later australopithecines to warrant their own species.”—*Ibid.

Mehlert sums it up.

“The evidence . . makes it overwhelmingly likely that Lucy was no more than a variety of pigmy chimpanzee, and walked the same way (awkwardly upright on occasions, but mostly quadrupedal). The ‘evidence’ for the alleged transformation from ape to man is extremely unconvincing.”—A.W. Mehlert, news note, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1985, p. 145.

NUTCRACKER MAN—Nutcracker Man was found in 1959 by *Louis Leakey in the Olduvai Gorge in East Africa, and is one of the Australopithecines, discussed above.

SKULL 1470—In 1972, *Richard Leakey announced what he thought to be a human-like fossil skull, and gave it an astonishing date of 2.8 million years. The official name of this find is KNM-ER 1470, but it is commonly known as “Skull 1470.” If this is a human skull, then it would pre-date all the man/ape bones said to be its ancestors.

Both Leakey and other hominid experts think it looks essentially like a modern small-brained person. It was pieced together from several fragments.

“In 1972, Bernard Ngeneo, of Richard Leakey’s ‘Hominid Gang,’ found a similar but much more complete skull at East Turkana. It is generally known as the ‘1470’ skull, from its accession number at the Kenya National Museum.

“The 1470 skull was pieced together by Richard Leakey’s wife Meave and several anatomists from dozens of fragments—a jig jaw puzzle that took six weeks to assemble. Dated at 1.89 million years old, with a cranial capacity of 750cc., Leakey believes it is the oldest fossil of a true human ancestor. In his view, the australopithecines and other hominid fossils were sidebranches

“Leakey fought hard to win a place for his 1470 (along with the previous habiline fragments found at Olduvai) because most anthropologists thought the skull was simply ‘too modern-looking’ to be as ancient as he at first claimed.”—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 217.

Here was *Leakey’s original announcement in regard to this skull:

“Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man . . [It] leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change.”—*Richard E. Leakey, “Skull 1470,” National Geographic, June 1973, p. 819.

But it should be understood that modern, living, small-brained (750cc.) human beings have existed, so the finding of a 750cc. Skull 1470 is no reason to think it is an “ancestor” of mankind.

“Human qualities of mind, Keith proclaimed, can only appear when brain volume is at least 750 cubic centimeters, a point nicknamed ‘Keith’s rubicon’ (dividing line) . . How did he arrive at the ‘magic’ number of 750cc.? It was the smallest functioning modern human brain anatomists had seen at the time [when *Sir Arthur Keith, one of those involved in the Piltdown hoax, was alive earlier in this century].”—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 249.

Early comments on Skull 1470 included these:

“The finding of ‘Skull 1470,’ which Richard Leakey says is nearly three million years old and really human, will shatter the whole evolutionary story built upon so-called hominoids, if anthropologists accept Leakey’s pronouncements. An artist for the National Geographic Magazine obligingly painted a reconstruction which is very human indeed. The only thing peculiar is the overly flat nose—and the shape of the nose cannot be ascertained from a skull.”—News note, Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1974, p. 131.

“The latest reports of Richard Leakey are startling, and, if verified, will reduce to a shambles the presently held schemes of evolutionists concerning man’s origins.”—Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No! (1973), p. 105.

After considering the implications of the situation, the skull was carefully redated, lest it be thought that human beings had lived 2.8 million years ago. The experts did not want it to predate its ancestors!

“The 1470 Skull discovered by Richard Leakey in 1972 was originally ‘dated’ at 2.6 million years. However, many anthropologists objected because then the more modern 1470 Skull would predate all its supposed ancestors. Thus 1470 was ‘redated’ until a more ‘acceptable’ estimate of 1.8 million years was adopted.”—John N. Moore, “Teaching About Origin Questions: Origin of Human Beings,” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1986, p. 185.

This skull may have been that of a microcephalic human, a teenage human, or an ape..

It lacks the prominent eyebrow ridges common to Homo erectus (Java Man, etc.), many Neanderthals, and Australopithecus. Some fossil apes had brow ridges; others lacked them.

The brow ridge slopes back abruptly as does that of simians (apes), but it is somewhat more rounded.

The size of the braincase is equivalent to that of a teenager, or a microcephalic, and somewhat larger than an ape: 775 cc. A gorilla averages 500 cc., and an australopithecus only 422 to 530 cc. The average brain size for modern man is 1450 cc. But there are exceptions to this:

Microcephalics are human beings which have brains as small as 775 cc. This condition is a birth defect which, though unfortunate, occurs from time to time.

“Humans with microcephaly are quite subnormal in intelligence, but they still show specifically human behavioral patterns.”—Marvin Lubenow, “Evolutionary Reversals: the Latest Problem Facing Stratigraphy and Evolutionary Phylogeny,” in Bible-Science Newsletter, 14(1 1):1-4 (1976).

“None of these early hominids had brains approaching the size of modern human ones. The indices of encephalization show that australopithecines were only slightly above the great apes in relative brain size and even the largest cranium [Skull 1470] is about as close to apes as it is to humans.”—*Henry M. McHenry, “Fossils and the Mosaic Nature of Human Evolution,” in Science 190(4213):425-431.

It is significant that the lower jaw was not found. This would have told a lot. The face of the skull, below the eyes, protrudes forward in the manner of apes. The jaw and molars are somewhat larger than the average modern human’s, but not larger than those of some people. There appears to be a lack of bony support beneath the nostrils, such as is found in gorillas. Facial skeletons are relatively larger in apes than the braincase size. Skull 1470 is about midway in this category, and thus not like that of humans. It also has a long upper lip area, such as apes have.

Viewing three skulls from the rear (an adult human, Skull 1470, and Australopithecus) we find that Skull 1470 has similarities to that of Australopithecus.

John Cuozzo, in a 4-page report complete with two drawings and seven photographs (Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1977, pp. 173-176), provides intriguing evidence for his contention that Skull 1470 may have been that of an early teenage human being, and that damage to the skull after death caused the ape-like characteristics in the nasal opening, etc.

Frankly, there is not enough data available to say much more. There is no doubt that the special human qualities of speech, etc., would not reveal themselves in a skull.

It is also a fact that evolutionists eagerly desire evidence that man descended from an ape-like ancestor. Yet over a hundred years of searching has not disclosed this, even though, as we learned in the chapter on Fossils and Strata, millions of fossils have been dug out of the ground and examined. If mankind had indeed descended from another creature, there should be abundant fossil evidence. But it is not there.

BONE INVENTORY—(*#12 Major Hominid Discoveries*) Most all of these supposed ancestral bones of man have been catalogued in a *Time-Life book, The Missing Link, Volume 2 in the “Emergence of Man Series,” published in 1972. It has a complete listing of all the Australopithecine finds up to the end of 1971.

Although over 1400 specimens are given, most are little more than scraps of bone or isolated teeth. Not one complete skeleton of one individual exists. All that anthropologists have in their ancestral closet are bits and pieces.

“The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!”—*Science Digest 90, May 1982, p. 44.

As listed in the Ancient Man appendix on our website (*#12*), the number of bone pieces which have been found worldwide is incredibly small! You will want to turn to the appendix and look over the listing for yourself. There is little wonder that each new piece of bone receives so many newspaper stories!

“The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table . . The collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present.”—*John Reader, New Scientist 89, March 26, 1981, p. 802.

“I don’t want to pour too much scorn on paleontologists, but if you were to spend your life picking up bones and finding little fragments of head and little fragments of jaw, there’s a very strong desire there to exaggerate the importance of those fragments.”—*Greg Kirby, address at meeting of Biology Teachers’ Association, South Australia, 1976 [Flinders University professor].

“The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.”—*Timothy White, quoted in New Scientist 98, April 28, 1983, p. 199 [University of California anthropologist].

WHAT IT ALL MEANS—All the evidence from bones and fossils gives only one report: Mankind did not evolve from any lower form of life. Evolutionists have found no support anywhere for their theory that man came from apes, monkeys, mollusks, germs, or anything else.

Here are five special reasons why mankind did not descend from apes. We cover several of these in detail in other chapters:

“1. Abrupt appearance of fossil forms separated by systematic gaps between fossil forms. 2. Distinctness of DNA, chemical components, and pattern (design) of morphological similarities. 3. Laws of Mendel: combination, recombination always results in easily recognized plant, animal forms; conclusive evidence of fixed reproductive patterns (designs). 4. Distinctness of human self-conscious awareness, and metaphysical concerns. 5. Distinctness of human personality involving moral and ethical concern; reflective, symbolic, abstract, conceptual thought.”—John N. Moore, “Teaching about Origin Questions: Origin of Human Beings,” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1986, p. 184 (emphasis his).

Anthropologists maintain that man descended from an unknown ancestor, and *Darwin said it was an ape. If we descended from an ape, why do we have a different number of vertebrae in our backbones than apes have? Why is our cranial capacity totally different? And, most important, why is our DNA distinctly different than apes, monkeys, and all species of wildlife?

They say that they have found the bones of our hominid ancestors. Why then have only a table-top full of bones been found? There ought to be millions of bones, if they lived for hundreds of thousands of years before us. And why do all those bones look only like ape bones or human bones—and never like both?

They say that modern evolutionary anthropology is based on the pioneering discoveries of six men: * Eugene Dubois and his Java Man, *Charles Dawson’s Piltdown Man, the 1921 Rhodesian Man, the 1922 Nebraska Man, *Raymond *Dart’s Taung African Man, and *Davidson Black’s Peking Man. But the finds of *Dubois and *Dawson were later discovered to be outright fakes. Rhodesian and Taung Man were found to be apes. Nebraska Man turned out to be a pig tooth, and Peking Man was just human bones.
And are not very old after all.

You have just completed

Chapter 13 Ancient Man Part 1

EVOLUTION FACTS, INC.

– BOX 300 – ALTAMONT, TN. 37301

March 6, 2009

Atheists And Their Big Talk Against God

Atheists can’t prove there isn’t a God to Theists. Atheism is a belief system that requires blind faith.

Atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, and false prophets sure do have some big words against the God of the Bible, the true God. A lot of them come to this site and even link to us with derogatory remarks which is fine–they know they need Jesus, that’s why they keep coming here. They know hell isn’t a fairy tale.Atheists say, “There is no god,” like they know what exists in every speck of the universe. The Bible says, “The FOOL hath said in his heart, ‘There is no God’.” In actuality, there is no such thing as a “real atheist”. Here’s an illustration which can be used on any atheist.

  1. Ask him if he knows every single fact about every manmade system just on this earth–criminal law, civil law, heart surgery, biology, teaching, being a garbage man, computer programming, ants, engineering, woodcutting, business, every person’s social security number by heart, etc. He will have to tell you no, he doesn’t know every single fact.
  2. Ask him what percentage he knows of all the knowledge to be known in the entire known universe like what is happening in the core of Mars–right now. What is the temperature of that star that hubble is about to approach, etc. He’ll have to tell you he knows practically 0% of the knowledge to be known in the entire universe. I then say, “So in other words you know practically nothing.” The answer must be yes.The breakdown:The following box represents all the knowledge of the universe.
    empty box12

    The dot in the box represents the atheist’s knowledge of everything in the universe (the dot should be even smaller but you get the point). All the black space is unknown to them.

    . empty box1

    The X represents God who exists in the vast space OUTSIDE of their extremely limited knowledge.

    . empty bo X

There is no such thing as an atheist because no human being knows everything and has all knowledge as we’ve seen above. Neither can any person be everywhere at the same time. For a person to be able to confidently say, “There is no God,” he’d have to know EVERYTHING that existed EVERYWHERE–and no human being fits that bill. There is no atheist. At the very BEST a person can say, “I’m agnostic” although this is not true either…
We are not here by random chance or an ecological accident . Moreover, this is not a God of the Gaps illustration; For more evidence against atheism go to:
https://jasmine71.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/dna-and-protein/

I submit to you in accordance with the word of God (Romans chapter 1) that the big talkers and blasphemers know that God is real and they know that their day of judgment is coming. THAT is why they call themselves atheists–they are trying to convince themselves that that day of judgement will not come–the ostrich-head-in-the-sand syndrome. They would rather believe that a monkey is their daddy and a fly their cousin than give the reverence to God and Him alone. Plugging up your ears will not stay the wrath of God against you. When you get thrown in hell you will be without excuse and it will be too late to get it right with Jesus. It’s in this life you get it right or never. Turn or Burn. Repent or Perish [1].

Some man might say to me…

“Your God is a God of fear! A good God wouldn’t put His creatures in hell! If your God does that I don’t want Him!”

To that I say, “Oh so you want to continue in rebellion to your Maker? I see. And you got the nerve to think that you are automatically entitled to live in His home? Heaven is God’s home and it won’t be one evil, rebellious person living there. Either get washed in the blood of the Lamb or perish in the flames of hell.” An excerpt from a sermon by Charles H. Spurgeon entitled “Turn or Burn” will shed some nice light on the subject (the light maketh manifest)…

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

First, we cannot expect that the God of the Bible would allow sin to go unpunished. Some may imagine it; they may dream their intellects into a state intoxication, so as to fantasize a God apart from justice; but no man who has any common sense, can imagine a God without justice.

You cannot conceive of a good king or of a good government that could exist without Justice, much less of God, the Judge and King of all the earth, without justice in His heart. To imagine Him all love, and no justice, would be to make Him less than God. He would not be capable of ruling this world if He had not justice in His heart.

There is in man a natural perception of the fact, that if God exists, He must be just; and I can cannot imagine that you can believe in a God, without believing also in the punishment of sin. It would be difficult to imagine Him elevated high above His creatures, seeing all their disobedience, and yet looking with the same composure upon the good and upon the evil; you cannot imagine Him giving the same reward of praise to the wicked and to the righteous…

This world is not the dungeon where God punishes sin…judgment is reserved for the next world…

Your own consciences will tell you that God must punish sin. You may laugh at me, and say that you have no such “belief.” I did not say you had, but I said that your conscience tells you so, and conscience has more power over men than what they think to be their belief. As John Bunyan said, “Mr. Conscience had a very loud voice, and though Mr. Understanding shut himself up in a dark room where he could not see, yet he used to thunder out so loudly in the streets, that Mr. Understanding used to shake in his house through what Mr. Conscience said.” And it is true so often.

You say in your understanding, “I cannot believe God will punish sin;” but you know He will. You don’t want to confess your secret fears because to do so would be to give up what you have so often most bravely asserted. But because you assert it with such boasting and high-sounding words, I think you don’t really believe it, for if you did, you would not need to look so big while saying it… I know that when you are dying you will believe in a hell. Conscience makes cowards of us all, and makes us believe, even when we say we don’t, that God must punish sin.

Let me tell you a story; I have told it before, but it is a striking one, and sets out in a true light how easily men will be brought in times of danger to believe in a God, and a God of justice too, though they have denied Him before. In the backwoods of Canada there lived a good minister, who one evening went out to meditate, as Isaac did, in the fields. He soon found himself on the borders of a forest, which he entered, and walked along a path which had been walked on before him; meditating, and still meditating, until at last the shadows of twilight gathered around him, and he began to think how he might have to spend the night in the forest. He trembled at the idea of remaining there, with the poor shelter of a tree that he would be compelled to climb.

All of a sudden he saw a light in the distance, among the trees, and thinking that it might be from the window of some cottage where he would find a hospitable retreat, he hurried to it, and, to his surprise saw a space cleared, and trees laid down to make a platform, and upon it a speaker addressing a multitude. He thought to himself, “I have stumbled on a crowd of people, who in this dark forest have assembled to worship God, and some minister is preaching to them, at this late hour of the evening, concerning the kingdom of God, and His righteousness;” but to his surprise and horror, when he came nearer, he found a young [man] speaking loudly against God, daring the Almighty to do His worst upon him, speaking terrible things in anger against the justice of the Most High, and venturing most bold and awful assertions concerning his own disbelief in a future state.

It was altogether a[n] extraordinary scene; it was lighted up by a fire of pine- knots which cast a glare here and there, while the thick darkness in other places still reigned. The people were intent on listening to the speaker, and when he sat down thunders of applause were given to him; each one seeming to emulate the other in his praise. The minister thought to himself, “I must not let this pass; I must rise and speak; the honor of my God and His cause demands it.” But he was afraid to speak, for he did not know what to say, having come there suddenly; but he would have spoken anyway, had not something else occurred.

A man of middle age, robust and strong, rose, and leaning on his staff, he said: “My friends, I have a word to speak to you tonight. I am not about to refute any of the arguments of the speaker; I shall not criticize his style; I shall say nothing concerning what I believe to be the blasphemies he has uttered; but I shall simply relate to you a fact, and after I have done that you shall draw your own conclusions.”

“Yesterday I walked by the side of the river over there; I saw on its waters a young man in a boat. The boat was out of control; it was going fast toward the rapids; he could not use the oars, and I saw that he was not capable of bringing the boat to the shore. I saw that young man wring his hands in agony; in a little while he gave up the attempt to save his life, kneeled down and cried with a desperate sincerity, ‘O God! save my soul! If my body can’t be saved, save my soul.’ I heard him confess that he had been a blasphemer; I heard him vow that if his life were spared he would never be such again; I heard [him] implore the mercy of heaven for Jesus Christ’s sake, and earnestly plead that he might be washed in His blood. These arms saved that young man from the river, I dove in, brought the boat to shore, and saved his life. That same young man has just now addressed you, and cursed his Maker. What do you say, Sirs?”

The speaker sat down. You may guess what a shudder ran through the young man himself, and how the audience in one moment changed their mind, and saw that after all, while it was a fine thing to brag and boast against Almighty God on dry land, and when danger was distant, it was not quite so grand to think ill of Him when near the verge of the grave. We believe there is enough conscience in every man to convince him that God must punish him for his sin; therefore we think that our text will awaken an echo in every heart.–“If he turn not, he will whet his sword; he hath bent his bow, and made it ready.” (Psalms 7:12)

…O, sirs, you may think that the fire of hell is indeed a fiction, and that the flames of the pit that lies beneath the earth’s surface are but someone’s dreams; but if you are believers in the Bible you must believe that hell is real. Did not our Master say: “Where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched?” You say it is metaphorical fire. But what did He mean by this: “Be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Is it not written, that there is reserved for the devil and his angels dreadful torment? And do you not know that our Master said: “They will go away to eternal punishment;” “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire, prepared for the devil and his angels?”

There is not a man who has been born and educated in this land whose conscience does not know that the existence of hell is a reality. All I need to do is to press upon your anxious consideration this thought: Do you feel that you are a fit subject for heaven now? Do you feel that God has changed your heart and renewed your nature? If not, I beg you lay hold of the thought, that unless you are born again then all that can be dreadful in the torments of the future world must inevitably be yours. Dear listener, apply it to yourself, not to your fellow men, but to your own conscience, and may God Almighty make use of it to bring you to repentance.

Sinner! You are so desperately set on sin, that I have no hope that you will ever turn from it of yourself. But, listen! He who died on Calvary is exalted on high “to give repentance and forgiveness of sin.” Do you this morning feel that you are a sinner? If so, ask Christ to give you repentance, for He can work repentance in your heart by His Spirit, though you can’t work it there yourself. Is your heart like iron? He can put it into the furnace of his love and make it melt. Is your soul like a very hard rock? His grace is able to dissolve it, like the ice is melted before the sun. He can make you repent…

O! what would I give if one of my listener[s] should be blessed by God to go home, and repent! If I had worlds to buy one of your souls, I would readily give them, if I might but bring one of you to Christ. I shall never forget the hour when God’s mercy first looked on me. It was in a place very different from this, among a despised people, in an insignificant little chapel of a peculiar sect…

I went there bowed down with guilt, laden with sins. The minister walked up the pulpit stairs, opened his Bible, and read that precious text: “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.” (Isaiah 45:22) and, as I thought, fixing his eyes on me, before he began to preach to others, he said: “Young man! Turn! Turn! Turn! You are one of the ends of the earth; you feel you are; you know your need of a Savior; you are trembling because you think He will never save you. He says this morning ‘Turn!'”

O how my soul was shaken within me then! What! I thought, does that man know me, and all about me? He seemed as if he did. And it made me “look!” Well, I thought, lost or saved, I will try; sink or swim, I will run the risk of it; and in that moment by His grace I turned to Jesus, and though desponding, downcast, and ready to despair, and feeling that I would rather die than live as I had lived, at that very moment it seemed as if a new heaven had had its birth within my conscience. I went home, no longer cast down; those who saw me, noticing the change, asked me why I was so glad, and I told them I had believed in Jesus, and that it was written,

“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” (Romans 8:1-2)

O! if one such person like I was should be here this morning. Where are you, you chief of sinners, you vilest of the vile? My dear listener, you have never been in church perhaps these last twenty years; but here you are covered with your sins, the blackest and vilest of all! Hear God’s Word. “Come now, let us reason together, saith the Lord, though your sins be like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” And all this for Jesus’ sake; all this for His blood’s sake! “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved;”…

Sinner, TURN from your sins or BURN for your sins!


[1] When we say perish, it does not mean that people will cease to exist. They will be forever tormented in hell and the lake of fire. To perish in our context is to be banished from the presence of God to everlasting punishment. John 3:16 tells us, “…that whosoever believeth in him [Jesus] should not PERISH but have everlasting life.” Those persons who find perdition their eternal home have perished and they will live forever in torment.

Written by Earnest Baxter on the Jesus-is-lord.com website


March 4, 2009

Atheism Debunked Again -Mutations

This is the third post in a series that shows the sheer folly of Evolution and therefore atheism; it is dedicated to an atheist blogger who demands proof. Please go to https://jasmine71.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/the-atheists-religon-debunked-again/ to see the second post. The following material comes from evolution-facts.org

Evolution Cruncher Chapter 10A

Mutations part 1


Why mutations cannot produce cross-species change

This chapter is based on pp. 393-459 of Origin of the Life (Volume Two of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this chapter are at least 134 statements by scientists. You will find them, plus much more, in the encyclopedia on this website.

A mutation is damage to a single DNA unit (a gene). If it occurs in a somatic (body) gene, it only injures the individual; but if to a gametic (reproductive) gene, it will be passed on to his descendants.

Mutations rank equally with fossils and natural selection as the three most important aspects of life evolution.

Fossil evidence in the sedimentary rock strata is supposed to provide evidence that species evolution has occurred in the past, and natural selection and mutations are the only means (mechanisms) by which it could occur.

In the chapter on Fossils and Strata, we will learn that there is simply no evidence that evolution of life-forms has ever occurred in the past. In the chapter on Natural Selection, we learned that the accidental gene reshuffling (which evolutionists call “natural selection”) can indeed produce changes within species—but are totally incapable of producing different species.

So that brings us to mutations. The study of mutations is crucial! It is all that the evolutionists have left! If mutations cannot produce evolution, then nothing can.

In this chapter you will learn that, far from being beneficial, mutations constitute something terrible that ruin and destroy organisms, either in the first generation or soon thereafter. Not only is it impossible for mutations to cause the evolutionary process,—they weaken or terminate the life process! The reason we all fear radiation is because they are a powerful means of producing mutations that irreparably damage our bodies.

THE LAST HOPEIt is well-known among many knowledgeable scientists that if evolution could possibly occur, mutations would have to accomplish it. There simply is no other mechanism that can make changes within the DNA. Natural selection has consistently failed, so mutations are the last hope of a majority of the evolutionists today.

“It must not be forgotten that mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation found in natural populations and the only new material available for natural selection to work upon.”—*E. Mayr, Populations, Species and Evolution (1970), p. 103.

“The process of mutation is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution.”—*T. Dobzansky in American Scientist, 45 (1957), p. 385.

Yet they have not been able to provide proof that mutations produce evolution.

“The complete proof of the utilization of mutations in evolution under natural conditions has not yet been given.”—*Julian Huxley, Evolution, the Modern Synthesis, pp. 183 and 205.

OVERVIEW OF THE SITUATIONMutations generally produce one of three types of changes within genes or chromosomes: (1) an alteration of DNA letter sequence in the genes, (2) gross changes in chromosomes (inversion, translocation), or (3) a change in the number of chromosomes (polyploidy, haploidy). But whatever the cause, the result is a change in genetic information.

Here are some basic hurdles that scientists must overcome in order to make mutations a success story for evolution: (1) Mutations must occur quite frequently. (2) Mutations must be beneficial—at least sometimes. (3) They must effect a dramatic enough change (involving, actually, millions of specific, purposive changes) so that one species will be transformed into another. Small changes will only damage or destroy the organism.

NEO-DARWINISM—(*#1/25 What the Public is not Told*) When *Charles Darwin wrote Origin of the Species, he based evolutionary transitions on natural selection. In his book, he gave many examples of this, but all his examples were merely changes within the species.

Since then, scientists have diligently searched for examples—past or present—of natural selection changes beyond that of basic plant and animal types, but without success. For example, they cite several different horses—from miniatures to large workhorses to zebras,—but all are still horses.

Finding that so-called “natural selection” accomplished no evolutionary changes, modern evolutionists moved away from Darwinism into neo-Darwinism. This is the revised teaching that it is mutations plus natural selection (not natural selection alone) which have produced all life-forms on Planet Earth.

“Evolution is, to put it simply, the result of natural selection working on random mutations.”—*M. Ruse, Philosophy of Biology (1973), p. 96.

Neo-Darwinists speculate that mutations accomplished all cross-species changes, and then natural selection afterward refined them. This, of course, assumes that mutations and natural selection are positive and purposive.

1 – FOUR SPECIAL PROBLEMS

In reality, mutations have four special qualities that are ruinous to the hopes of evolutionists:

(1) RARE EFFECTSMutations are very rare. This point is not a guess but an scientific fact, observed by experts in the field. Their very rarity dooms the possibility of mutational evolution to oblivion.

“It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations in higher organisms between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation.”—*F.J. Ayala, “Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology,” in Philosophy of Science, March 1970, p. 3.

Mutations are simply too rare to have produced all the necessary traits of even one life-form, much less all the creatures that swarm on the earth.

Evolution requires millions upon millions of direct, solid changes, yet mutations occur only with great rarity.

“Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event.”—*F.J. Ayala, “Mechanism of Evolution,” Scientific American, September 1978, p. 63.

(2) RANDOM EFFECTSMutations are always random, and never purposive or directed. This has repeatedly been observed in actual experimentation with mutations.

“It remains true to say that we know of no way other than random mutation by which new hereditary variation comes into being, nor any process other than natural selection by which the hereditary constitution of a population changes from one generation to the next.”—*C.H. Waddington, The Nature of Life (1962), p. 98.

*Eden declares that the factor of randomness in mutations ruins their usefulness as a means of evolution.

“It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws.”—*Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as Scientific Theory,” in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution (1967), p. 109.

Mutations are random, wild events that are totally uncontrollable. When a mutation occurs, it is a chance occurrence: totally unexpected and haphazard. The only thing we can predict is that it will not go outside the species and produce a new type of organism. This we can know as a result of lengthy experiments that have involved literally hundreds of thousands of mutations on fruit flies and other small creatures.

Evolution requires purposive changes. Mutations are only chance occurrences and cannot accomplish what is needed for organic evolution.

EC322.jpg (234919 bytes) CLICK TO ENLARGE

(3) NOT HELPFULEvolution requires improvement. Mutations do not help or improve; they only weaken and injure.

“But mutations are found to be of a random nature, so far as their utility is concerned. Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences.”—*H.J. Muller, “Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material,” in American Scientist, January 1950, p. 35.

(4) HARMFUL EFFECTS—(*#2/21 Mutations are Always Harmful*) Nearly all mutations are harmful. In most instances, mutations weaken or damage the organism in some way so that it (or its offspring if it is able to have any) will not long survive.

As mentioned earlier, scientists turned to neo-Darwinism in the hope that it could do that which Darwinism could not do. The man more responsible than any other for getting scientists on the neo-Darwinian bandwagon was *Julian Huxley. But in his writings, even he knew he was on thin ice:

“A proportion of favorable mutations of one in a thousand does not sound much, but is probably generous, since so many mutations are lethal, preventing the organism from living at all, and the great majority of the rest throw the machinery slightly out of gear.”—*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 41.

Elsewhere in the same book, he admitted this:

“One would expect that any interference with such a complicated piece of chemical machinery as the genetic constitution would result in damage. And, intact, this is so: the great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effects on the organism.”—*Julian Huxley, op. cit., p. 137.

So there you have it: four special facts about mutations that demolish any possibility that they could mutate even one species into another, much less produce all the species in the world.

Mutations are rare, random, almost never an improvement, always weakening or harmful, and often fatal to the organism or its offspring.

MILLIONS OF MUTATIONAL EXPERIMENTS—At this point, you might ask, “How can we be certain of such facts about mutations if they are so rare?” That is a good question.

The answer is this: Although mutations only occur with extreme infrequence in nature, in the laboratory researchers have learned how to produce mutations at will. The usual method is radiation, but certain chemicals can accomplish it also. A sufficient amount of X-rays applied to the genes of the germ cells of an organism will produce mutations in its offspring. As a result, research geneticists have had the opportunity to study the effects of hundreds of thousands of mutations, on millions of generations of certain creatures. More on this later in this chapter.

BASIS OF EVOLUTION—Modern evolutionary theory, from the mid-twentieth century onward, is based on the idea that mutations plus natural selection, plus time can produce most wonderful changes in all living creatures. And this has been responsible for all the astounding faculties and complicated organs that we see in plants and animals.

Since DNA in the cell is the blueprint of the form that life will take, it does at first seem reasonable to assume that if the blueprint could be changed, the life-form might greatly improve.

Capitalizing on the theme, evolutionists explain in their textbooks that it is mutations that have provided us with the millions of beneficial features in every species in the world. All that is needed is time and lots of random, mutational changes in the DNA code, and soon myriads of outstanding life-forms will emerge.

Evolutionists also tell us that mutations will wonderfully adapt us to our environmental needs. *Carl Sagan, a leading scientist and science fiction writer, says that we have no creatures that move about on wheels on Planet Earth only because it is too bumpy!

“We can very well imagine another planet with enormous long stretches of smooth lava fields in which wheeled organisms are abundant.”—*Carl Sagan, The Cosmic Connection, p. 42.

Sagan’s idea of people sprouting wheels instead of legs because they live on flat ground is about as humorous as lava fields that are generally smooth and level.

We have already mentioned four facts about mutations: (1) They are extremely rare. (2) They are only random in what they do. (3) They are never really beneficial. (4) They are harmful or lethal. But now the situation gets worse.

2 – TWENTY-EIGHT REASONS

Here are 28 reasons why it is not possible for mutations to produce species evolution:

1 – NOT ONCE—Hundreds of thousands of mutation experiments have been done, in a determined effort to prove the possibility of evolution by mutation. And this is what they learned: NOT ONCE has there ever been a recorded instance of a truly beneficial mutation (one which is a known mutation, and not merely a reshuffling of latent characteristics in the genes), nor such a mutation that was permanent, passing on from one generation to another!

Read the above paragraph over a couple times. If, after millions of fruit-fly mutation experiments, scientists have never found one helpful and non-weakening mutation that had permanent effects in offspring—then how could mutations result in worthwhile evolution?

“Mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability [ability to keep living], and, to the best of our knowledge invariably affect it adversely [they tend to result in harm or death]. Does not this fact show that mutations are really assaults on the organism’s central being, its basic capacity to be a living thing?”—*C.P. Martin, “A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution,” in American Scientist, p. 102.

2 – ONLY HARM—The problem here is that those organisms which mutations do not outright kill are generally so weakened that they or their offspring tend to die out. Mutations, then, work the opposite of evolution. Given enough mutations, life on earth would not be strengthened and helped; it would be extinguished.

This gradual buildup of harmful mutations in the genes is called genetic load.

“The large majority of mutations, however, are harmful or even lethal to the individual in whom they are expressed. Such mutations can be regarded as introducing a ‘load,’ or genetic burden, into the [DNA] pool. The term ‘genetic load’ was first used by the late H.J. Muller, who recognized that the rate of mutations is increased by numerous agents man has introduced into his environment, notably ionizing radiation and mutagenic chemicals.”—*Christopher Wills, “Genetic Load,” in Scientific American, March 1970, p. 98.

3 – USUALLY ELIMINATE—Because of their intrinsic nature, mutations greatly weaken the organism; so much so that if that organism survives, its descendants will tend to die out.

The result is a weeding-out process. Contrary to the hopes of the neo-Darwinians, natural selection does not enhance the effects of the mutation. Natural selection eliminates mutations by killing off the organism bearing them!

“After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated.”—*G. Ledyard Stebbins, Processes of Organic Evolution (1971), pp. 24-25.

“If one allows the unquestionably largest experimenter to speak,—namely nature, one gets a dear and incontrovertible answer to the question about the significance of mutations for the formation of species and evolution. They disappear under the competitive conditions of natural selection, as soap bubbles burst in a breeze.”—*Herbert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung, p. 174.

4 – MUTAGENSIt is a well-known fact that scientists have for decades been urging the removal of radiation hazards and mutagenic chemicals (scientists call them mutagens) because of the increasing damage mutations are doing to people, animals, and plants.

It is time that the evolutionists, who praise the value of mutations, admit very real facts. How can such terrible curses, which is what mutations are, improve and beautify the race—and produce by random action all the complex structures and actions of life?

If scientists really believed in mutations as the great improvers of the race, they would ask that more, not less, mutagenic radiations might be given to plant and animal life! But they well-know that mutations are extremely dangerous. Who is that confirmed neo-Darwinist who is willing to let his own body be irradiated with X-rays for minutes at a time, so that his offspring might wonderfully improve?

“The most important actions that need to be taken, however, are in the area of minimizing the addition of new mutagens to those already present in the environment. Any increase in the mutational load is harmful, if not immediately, then certainly to future generations.”—*Christopher Wills, “Genetic Load,” in Scientific American, March 1970, p. 107.

5 – DANGEROUS ACCIDENTSHow often do accidents help you? What is the likelihood that the next car accident you have will make you feel better than you did before?

Because of their random nature and negative effects, mutations would destroy all life on earth, were it not for the fact that in nature they rarely occur.

“An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one’s watch or one’s radio set will seldom make it work better.”—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126. [Dobzhansky is a geneticist.]

Actually, a significant part of the grave danger in mutations is their very randomness! A mutation is a chance accident to the genes or chromosomes.

“We could still be sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smooth-functioning human body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is certain to impair—just as a random interchange of connections [wires] in a television set is not likely to improve the picture.”—*J.F. Crow, “Genetic Effects of Radiation,” in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 14 (1958), pp. 19-20.

Referring to the harmful effects of mutations, *Bullock concludes:

“Such results are to be expected of accidental changes occurring in any complicated organization.”—*Helen Bullock, “Crusade to Unravel Life’s Mystery,” The Toronto Star, December 19, 1981, p. A13.

6 – INTERTWINED CATASTROPHE—A new reason why mutations are so insidious has only recently been discovered. Geneticists discovered the answer in the genes. Instead of a certain characteristic being controlled by a certain gene, it is now known that each gene affects many characteristics, and each characteristic is affected by many genes! We have here a complicated interweaving of genetic-characteristic relationships never before imagined possible!

Touch such a delicate system with mutations and you produce interlocking havoc.

7 – ONLY RANDOM EFFECTS—So far in this chapter, we have tended to ignore the factor of random results. What if mutations were plentiful and always with positive results, but still random as they now are? They would still be useless.

Even assuming mutations could produce those complex structures called feathers, birds would have wings on their stomachs, where they could not use them, or the wings would be upside down, without lightweight feathers, and under- or oversized.

Most animals would have no eyes, some would have one, and those that had any eyes would have them under their armpits or on the soles of their feet.

The random effects of mutations would annihilate any value they might otherwise provide.

8 – ALL AFFECTEDMutations tend to have a widespread effect on the genes.

“Moreover, despite the fact that a mutation is a discrete, discontinuous effect of the cellular, chromosome or gene level, its effects are modified by interactions in the whole genetic system of an individual . . Every character of an organism is affected by all genes, and every gene affects all other characters. It is this interaction that accounts for the closely knit functional integration of the genotype as a whole.”—*Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p. 164 [emphasis his].

Each mutation takes its toll on large numbers—even all the genes, directly or indirectly; and since 99 percent of the mutations are harmful and appear in totally random areas, they could not possibly bring about the incredible life-forms we find all about us.

Since each altered characteristic requires the combined effort of many genes, it is obvious that many genes would have to be mutated in a GOOD way to accomplish anything worthwhile. But almost no mutations are ever helpful.

More generations of fruit flies have been experimented on for mutational effects than mankind could have lived for millions of years! This is due to the fact that a fruit fly produces “a new generation” in a few short hours; whereas a human generation requires 18-40 years, and researchers in many locations have been breeding fruit flies for 80 years.

Thousands and thousands of generations of fruit flies have been irradiated in the hope of producing worthwhile mutations. But only damage and death has resulted.

“Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [fruit fly] show deterioration, breakdown, and disappearance of some organs.”—*Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics and Man (1955), p. 105.

9 – LIKE THROWING ROCKS—Trying to accomplish evolution with random, accidental, harmful mutations is like trying to improve a television set by throwing rocks at it (although I will admit that may be one of the best ways to improve the benefit you receive from your television set).

*H.J. Muller won a Nobel prize for his work in genetics and mutations. In his time, he was considered a world leader in genetics research. Here is how he describes the problem:

“It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidentally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation . . Good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad.”—*H.J. Muller, “How Radiation Changes the Genetic Constitution,” in Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 11(1955), p. 331.

10 – MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE—(*#3/9 Math on Mutations*) Fortunately mutations are rare. They normally occur on an average of perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule.

Even assuming that all mutations were beneficial—in order for evolution to begin to occur in even a small way, it would be necessary to have, not just one, but a SERIES of closely related and interlocking mutations—all occurring at the same time in the same organism!

The odds of getting two mutations that are in some slight manner related to one another is the product of two separate mutations: ten million times ten million, or a hundred trillion. That is a 1 followed by 14 zeros (in scientific notation written as 1 x 1014). What can two mutations accomplish? Perhaps a honeybee with a wavy edge on a bent wing. But he is still a honeybee; he has not changed from one species to another.

More related mutations would be needed. Three mutations in a sequence would be a billion trillion (1 with 21 zeros). But that would not begin to do what would be needed. Four mutations, that were simultaneous or sequentially related, would be 1 with 28 zeros after it (1 x 1028). But all the earth could not hold enough organisms to make that possibility come true. And four mutations together does not even begin to produce real evolution. Millions upon millions of harmonious, beneficial characteristics would be needed to transform one species into another.

But ALL those simultaneous mutations would have to be beneficial; whereas, in real life, mutations very rarely occur and they are almost always harmful.

(By the way, you would need to produce all those multi-mutations in a mated pair, so they could properly produce young. Otherwise it would be like mating a donkey and a horse—and getting a sterile offspring.)

“The mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect . . All mutations seem to be of the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organism.”—*C.P. Martin, “A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution,” in American Scientist, 41 (1953), p. 103.

Evolution cannot succeed without mutations, and evolution cannot succeed with them. Evolution is an impossibility, and that’s it.

11 – TIME IS NO SOLUTION—But someone will say, “Well, it can be done—if given enough time.” Evolutionists offer us 5 billion years for mutations to do the job of producing all the wonders of nature that you see about you. But 5 billion years is, in seconds, only 1 with 17 zeros (1 X 1017) after it. And the whole universe only contains 1 X 1080 atomic particles. So there is no possible way that all the universe and all time past could produce such odds as would be needed for the task! *Julian Huxley, the leading evolutionary spokesman of mid-twentieth century, said it would take 103000 changes to produce just one horse by evolution. That is 1 with 3000 zeros after it! (*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 46).

Evolution requires millions of beneficial mutations all working closely together to produce delicate living systems full of fine-tuned structures, organs, hormones, and all the rest. And all those mutations would have to be non-random and intelligently planned! In no other way could they accomplish the needed task.

But, leaving the fairyland of evolutionary theory, to the real world, which only has rare, random, and harmful mutations, we must admit that mutations simply cannot do the job.

And there is no other way that life-forms could invent and reinvent themselves by means of that mythical process called “evolution.”

“A majority of mutations, both those arising in laboratories and those stored in natural populations produce deteriorations of the viability, hereditary disease and monstrosities. Such changes it would seem, can hardly serve as evolutionary building blocks.”—*T. Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species (1955), p. 73.

12 – GENE STABILITYIt is the very rarity of mutations that guarantees the stability of the genes. Because of that, the fossils of ancient plants and animals are able to look like those living today.

“Mutations rarely occur. Most genes mutate only once in 100,000 generations or more.” “Researchers estimate that a human gene may remain stable for 2,500,000 years.”—*World Book Encyclopedia, 1966 Edition.

“Living things are enormously diverse in form, but form is remarkably constant within any given line of descent: pigs remain pigs and oak trees remain oak trees generation after generation.”—*Edouard Kellenberger, “The Genetic Control of the Shape of a Virus,” in Scientific American, December 1966, p. 32.

13 – AGAINST ALL LAW—After spending years studying mutations, *Michael Denton, an Australian research geneticist, finalized on the matter this way:

“If complex computer programs cannot be changed by random mechanisms, then surely the same must apply to the genetic programs of living organisms.

“The fact that systems [such as advanced computers], in every way analogous to living organisms, cannot undergo evolution by pure trial and error [by mutation and natural selection] and that their functional distribution invariably conforms to an improbable discontinuum comes, in my opinion, very close to a formal disproof of the whole Darwinian paradigm of nature. By what strange capacity do living organisms defy the laws of chance which are apparently obeyed by all analogous complex systems?”—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 342.

14 – SYNTROPY—This principle was mentioned in the chapter on Natural Selection; it belongs here also. *Albert Szent-Gyorgyi is a brilliant Hungarian scientist who has won two Nobel Prizes (1937 and 1955) for his research. In 1977, he developed a theory which he called syntropy. *Szent-Gyorgyi points out that it would be impossible for any organism to survive even for a moment, unless it was already complete with all of its functions and they were all working perfectly or nearly so. This principle rules out the possibility of evolution arising by the accidental effects of natural selection or the chance results of mutations. It is an important point.

“In postulating his theory of syntropy, Szent-Gyorgyi, perhaps unintentionally, brings forth one of the strongest arguments for Creationism—the fact that a body organ is useless until it is completely perfected. The hypothesized law of ‘survival of the fittest’ would generally select against any mutations until a large number of mutations have already occurred to produce a complete and functional structure; after which natural selection would then theoretically select for the organism with the completed organ.”—Jerry Bergman, “Albert Szent-Gyorgyi’s Theory of Syntropy,” in Up with Creation (1978), p. 337.

15 – MINOR CHANGES DAMAGE OFFSPRING THE MOST—With painstaking care, geneticists have studied mutations for decades. An interesting feature of these accidents in the genes, called mutations, deals a stunning blow to the hopes of neo-Darwinists. Here, in brief, is the problem:

(1) Most mutations have very small effects; some have larger ones. (2) Small mutations cannot accomplish the needed task, for they cannot produce evolutionary changes. Only major mutational changes, with wide-ranging effects in an organism, can possibly hope to effect the needed changes from one species to another.

And now for the new discovery: (3) It is only the minor mutational changes which harm one’s descendants. The major ones kill the organism outright or rather quickly annihilate its offspring!

“One might think that mutants that cause only a minor impairment are unimportant, but this is not true for the following reason: A mutant that is very harmful usually causes early death or senility. Thus the mutant gene is quickly eliminated from the population . . Since minor mutations can thus cause as much harm in the long run as a major ones, and occur much more frequently, it follows that most of the mutational damage in a population is due to the accumulation of minor changes.”—*J.F. Crow, “Genetic Effects of Radiation,” in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 1958, p. 20.

“The probabilities that a mutation will survive or eventually spread in the course of evolution tend to vary inversely with the extent of its somatic effects. Most mutations with large effects are lethal at an early stage for the individual in which they occur and hence have zero probability of spreading. Mutations with small effects do have some probability of spreading and as a rule the chances are better the smaller the effect.”—*George Gaylord Simpson, “Uniformitarianism: An Inquiry into Principle Theory and Method in Geohistory and Biohistory,” Chapter 2; in *Max Hecht and *William C. Steeres, ed., Essays in Evolution and Genetics (1970), p. 80.

16 – WOULD HAVE TO DO IT IN ONE GENERATION—Not even one major mutation, affecting a large number of organic factors, could accomplish the task of taking an organism across the species barrier. Hundreds of mutations—all positive ones,—and all working together would be needed to produce a new species. The reason: The formation of even one new species would have to be done all at once—in a single generation!

“Since Lamarck’s theory [acquired characteristics] has been proved false, it is only of historical interest. Darwin’s theory [natural selection] does not satisfactorily explain the origin and inheritance of variations . . deVries’ theory [large mutations, or hopeful monsters”] has been shown to be weak because no single mutation or set of mutations has ever been so large that it has been known to start a new species in one generation of offspring.”—*Mark A. Hall and *Milton S. Lesser, Review Text in Biology, (1966), p. 363.

17 – INCONSEQUENTIAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS—A major problem here is that, on one hand, mutations are damaging and deadly; but on the other,—aside from the damage—they only directly change small features.

“Is it really certain, then, as the neo-Darwinists maintain, that the problem of evolution is a settled matter? I, personally, do not think so, and, along with a good many others, I must insist on raising some banal objections to the doctrine of neo-Darwinism . .

“The mutations which we know and which are considered responsible for the creation of the living world are, in general, either organic deprivations, deficiencies (loss of pigment, loss of an appendage), or the doubling of the pre-existing organs. In any case, they never produce anything really new or original in the organic scheme, nothing which one might consider the basis for a new organ or the priming for a new function.”—*Jean Rostand, The Orion Book of Evolution (1961), p. 79.

*Richard Goldschmidt was the geneticist who first proposed miraculous multimillion, beneficial mutations as the only possible cause of species crossover. (More on this later.) This is what he wrote about the inconsequential nature of individual mutations:

“Such an assumption [that little mutations here and there can gradually, over several generations, produce a new species] is violently opposed by the majority of geneticists, who claim that the facts found on the subspecific level must apply also to the higher categories. Incessant repetition of this unproved claim, glossing lightly over the difficulties, and the assumption of an arrogant attitude toward those who are not so easily swayed by fashions in science, are considered to afford scientific proof of the doctrine. It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations.”—*Richard Goldschmidt, in American Scientist (1952), p. 94.

Later in this chapter, we will briefly discuss *Goldschmidt’s “hopeful monster” theory, since it is based on mutational changes.

18 – TRAITS ARE TOTALLY INTERCONNECTED—Experienced geneticists are well-aware of the fact that the traits contained within the genes are closely interlocked with one another. That which affects one trait will affect many others. They work together. Because of this, all the traits, in changed form, would have to all be there together—instantly,—in order for a new species to form!

Here is how two scientists describe the problem:

“Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but to the basic principles of scientific explanation.”—*A. Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (1975), p. 129.

“Most biological reactions are chain reactions. To interact in a chain, these precisely built molecules must fit together most precisely, as the cogwheels of a Swiss watch do. But if this is so, then how can such a system develop at all? For if any one of the specific cogwheels in these chains is changed, then the whole system must simply become inoperative. Saying it can be improved by random mutation of one link . . [is] like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and thus bending one of its wheels or axles. To get a better watch all the wheels must be changed simultaneously to make a good fit again.”—*Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, “Drive in Living Matter to Perfect Itself,” Synthesis I, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 18 (1977), [Winner of two Nobel Prizes for scientific research and Director of Research at the Institute for Muscle Research in Massachusetts].

19 – TOO MANY RELATED FACTORS—There are far too many factors associated with each trait for a single mutation—or even several to accomplish the needed task. Mathematical probabilities render mutational species changes impossible of attainment.

“Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 480 x 1050. Such a number, if written out, would read

480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

“Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence . . Any species known to us, including the smallest single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence; ‘random mutations,’ to use the evolutionist’s favorite expression.”—*L.L. Cohen, Darwin was Wrong (1984), p. 205.

20 – REPRODUCTIVE CHANGES LOW—Here is an extremely IMPORTANT point: Mutational changes in the reproductive cells occur far more infrequently than in the cells throughout the rest of the body. Only mutational changes within the male or female reproductive cells could affect oncoming generations.

“The mutation rates for somatic cells are very much higher than the rates for gametic cells.”—*”Biological Mechanisms Underlying the Aging Process,” in Science, August 23, 1963, p. 694.

21 – EVOLUTION REQUIRES INCREASING COMPLEXITY—The theorists have decreed that evolution, by its very nature, must move upward into ever-increasing complexity, better structural organization, and completeness. Indeed, this is a cardinal dictum of evolutionists. Evolutionists maintain that evolution can only move upward toward more involved life-forms,—and that it can never move backward into previously evolved life-forms.

But, in reality, mutations, by their very nature, tear down, disorganize, crumble, confuse, and destroy.

Here is how one scientist explains the problem:

“One should remember that an increase in complexity is what evolution is all about. It is not conceived as causing a change which continues to maintain the same level of complexity, nor does it mean a change which might bring about a decrease in complexity. Only an increase in complexity qualifies.

“Radiations from natural sources enter the body in a hit-or-miss fashion. That is, they are completely random in the dispersed fashion with which they strike. Chemical mutagens also behave in an indiscriminate manner in causing chemical change. It is hard to see how either can cause improvements. With either radiations or mutagens, it would be something like taking a rifle and shooting haphazardly into an automobile and expecting thereby to create a better performing vehicle, and one that shows an advance in the state-of-the-art for cars.

“The question is, then, can random sources of energy as represented by radiations or mutagenic chemicals, upon reacting with the genes, cause body changes which would result in a new species?”—Lester McCann, Blowing the Whistle on Darwinism (1986), p. 51.

22 – EVOLUTION REQUIRES NEW INFORMATIONIn order for a new organism to be formed by evolutionary change, new information banks must be emplaced. It is something like using a more advanced computer program; a “card” of more complicated procedural instructions must be put into the central processing unit of that computer. But the haphazard, random results of mutations could never provide this new, structured information.

“If evolution is to occur . . living things must be capable of acquiring new information, or alteration of their stored information.”—*George Gaylord Simpson, “The Non-prevalence of Humanoids,” in Science, 143, (1964), p. 772.

23 – EVOLUTION REQUIRES NEW ORGANSIt is not enough for mutations to produce changes;—they must produce new organs! Billions of mutational factors would be required for the invention of one new organ of a new species, and this mutations cannot do.

“A fact that has been obvious for many years is that Mendelian mutations deal only with changes in existing characters . . No experiment has produced progeny that show entirely new functioning organs. And yet it is the appearance of new characters in organisms which mark the boundaries of the major steps in the evolutionary scale.”—*H.G. Cannon, The Evolution of Living Things (1958).

24 – EVOLUTION REQUIRES COMPLICATED NETWORKING—A relatively new field of scientific study is called “linkage,” “linkage interconnections,” or “networking.” This is an attempt to analyze the network of interrelated factors in the body. I say, “an attempt,” for there are millions of such linkages. Each structure or organ is related to another—and also to thousands of others. (A detailed study of this type of research will be found in Creation Research Society Quarterly, for March 1984, pp. 199-211. Ten diagrams and seven charts are included.)

Our concern here is that each mutation would damage a multi-link network. This is one of the reasons why mutations are always injurious to an organism.

The kidneys interconnect with the circulatory system, for they purify the blood. They also interconnect with the nervous system, the endocrine system, the digestive system, etc. But such are merely major systems. Far more is included. We are simply too fearfully and wonderfully made for random mutations to accomplish any good thing within our bodies.

25 – VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE MUTATIONS—”Visible mutations” are those genetic changes that are easily detectable, such as albinism, dwarfism, and hemophilia. *Winchester explains: (1) For every visible mutation, there are 20 lethal ones which are invisible! (2) Even more frequent than the lethal mutations would be the ones that damage but do not kill.

“Lethal mutations outnumber visibles by about 20 to 1. Mutations that have small harmful effects, the detrimental mutations, are even more frequent than the lethal ones.”—*A.M. Winchester, Genetics, 5th Edition (1977), p. 356.

26 – NEVER HIGHER VITALITY THAN PARENT—Geneticists, who have spent a lifetime studying mutations, tell us that each mutation only weakens the organism. Never does the mutated offspring have more strength than the unmutated (or less mutated) parent.

“There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species . . It is, therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations.”—*N. Herbert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (Synthetic Speciation) (1953), p. 1157 [italics his].

27 – MUTATIONS ARE NOT PRODUCING SPECIES CHANGE—Theory, theory, lots of theory, but it just isn’t happening!

“No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”—*Pierre Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 88.

“It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation [a combination of many mutations]; it is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutation [one or only a few mutations].”—*Richard B. Goldschmdt, “Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist, “American Scientist, January 1952, p. 94.

A “nascent organ” is one that is just coming into existence. None have ever been observed.

“Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producing new structures for selection to work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we don’t see them. There is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system or organ.”—*Michael Pitman Adam and Evolution (1984), pp. 67-68.

28 – GENE UNIQUENESS FORBIDS SPECIES CHANGEThe very fact that each species is so different than the others—forbids the possibility that random mutations could change them into new species. There are million of factors which make each species different than all the others. The DNA code barrier that would have to be crossed is simply too immense.

“If life really depends on each gene being as unique as it appears to be, then it is too unique to come into being by chance mutations.”—*Frank B. Salisbury, “Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene,” Nature, October 25, 1969, p. 342.


You have just completed

Chapter 10 Mutations Part 1

Chapter 10 Mutations Part 2


EVOLUTION FACTS, INC.

– BOX 300 – ALTAMONT, TN. 37301

Material from evolution-facts.org

March 3, 2009

The Atheist’s Religion Debunked Again

This is the second post in a series that shows the sheer folly of Evolution and therefore atheism; it is dedicated to an atheist blogger who demands proof. Please go to the following link https://jasmine71.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/dna-and-protein/
to see the first post.

The following material comes from evolution-facts.org

Evolution Cruncher Chapter 18

The Laws of Nature


The laws of nature oppose the evolutionary theory

This chapter is based on pp. 805-829 of Other Evidence (Volume Three of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this paperback chapter are at least 37 statements in the chapter of the larger book, plus 87 more in its appendix. You will find them, plus much more, in the encyclopedia on this website.

According to evolutionary theory, all matter came into existence by itself. At a later time on our planet, living creatures quite literally “made themselves.” Such views sound like Greek myths. But if these theories are true,—where did the laws of nature come from? Too often these are overlooked. There are a variety of very complicated natural laws. How did these come into existence? People assume that they too just sprung up spontaneously. But they are assuming too much.

INTRODUCTION—This chapter is of such importance that after reading it, someone will say, “Why did you not place it at the beginning of the book?” Someone else might add, “All you need is this chapter—and you can omit the rest!”

The earlier portions of this volume met evolution on its own ground. When given a hearing, common sense combined with scientific facts will always tear the theory of evolution to pieces.

Evolutionary theory is built on two foundational pillars. But there are two laws that crush those pillars to powder. Let us look at the two evolutionary pillars and the two laws that destroy them:

(1) Evolution teaches that matter is not conservative but self-originating; it can arise from nothing and increase. The First Law of Thermodynamics annihilates this error.

(2) Evolution teaches that matter and living things keep becoming more complex, and continually evolve toward greater perfection. Just as inorganic matter becomes successively more ordered and perfect (via the Big Bang and stellar evolution), so living creatures are always evolving into higher planes of existence (via species evolution). The Second Law of Thermodynamics devastates this theory.

1- LOOKING AT LAW

DESIGNS AND LAWS—In our civilizations, we find that it is highly intelligent people who design the machinery and make the laws that govern the nation. Because of our human limitations, much time needs to be spent in improving man-made mechanical designs and rewriting human laws.

But in nature we find the perfection in design and laws which humans cannot achieve. Every bird and animal is perfectly designed, and fossil evidence indicates that each one has had the same design all the way back to its first appearance in the fossil record. The laws of nature are perfect also. If we need evidence about the perfection of natural laws, now and in the past, all we need do is gaze upon the planets, moons, stars, and galactic systems. The perfect balancing of their rotations on their axes and revolutions (orbits) around still larger spheres or star complexes is astounding. The laws are operating with total precision. Any aberration of those laws in the past would have brought the suns and stars and systems—and our own world— crashing in upon each other. The evidence is clear that, from the most distant past, the laws of nature have operated accurately.

NO SELF-MADE LAWS—Evolutionists work on three basic assumptions: (1) laws automatically sprang into existence out of designless confusion, (2) matter originated from nothing, and (3) living things came from non-living things.

But just as matter and life did not make itself, so law did not make itself either.

“The naive view implies that the universe suddenly came into existence and found a complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed. Actually it seems more natural to suppose that the physical universe and the laws of physics are inter-dependent.”—*W.H. McCrea, “Cosmology after Half a Century,” Science, Vol. 160, June 1968, p. 1297.

“Even if one day we find our knowledge of the basic laws concerning inanimate nature to be complete, this would not mean that we had “explained” all of inanimate nature. All we should have done is to show that all the complex phenomena of our experience are derived from some simple basic laws. But how to explain the laws themselves?”—*R.E. Peieris, The Laws of Nature, (1956), p. 240.

THE LAW OF MANUFACTURE—A law is a principle that is never, never violated. Let us for a moment postulate a couple candidates for new laws:

A cardinal rule of existence would be this. We shall call it the Law of Manufacture. We could word the law something like this: The maker of a product has to be more complicated than the product.” The equipment needed to make a bolt and nut had to be far more complex than the bolt and nut! Let us call that the First Law of Products.

Here is another “law” to consider. We will call this one the Law of Originator, and describe it in this way: The designer of a product has to be more intelligent than the product.” Let us return to the bolt and nut for our example of what we shall call our Second Law of Products.

Neither the bolt nor the nut made themselves. But more: the person who made this bolt and nut had to be far more intelligent than the bolt and nut, and far more intelligent than the production methods used to make it.

MANY LAWS—There are many, many laws operating in the natural world. It is intriguing that there are also moral laws operating among human beings: laws of honesty, purity, etc. We get into trouble when we violate moral law—the Ten Commandments,—just as when we violate natural laws, such as the Law of Gravity.

“Facts are the air of science. Without them a man of science can never rise. Without them your theories are vain surmises. But while you are studying, observing, experimenting, do not remain content with the surface of things. Do not become a mere recorder of facts, but try to penetrate the mystery of their origin. Seek obstinately for the laws that govern them!”—*lvan Pavlov, quoted in *Isaac Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 99.

Let us now consider the two special laws that we mentioned at the beginning of this chapter: the two laws of thermodynamics. As with other laws, these two laws operate throughout the universe.

The first is a law of conservation that works to preserve the basic categories of nature (matter, energy, etc.). The second is a law of decay that works to reduce the useful amount of matter, energy, etc., as the original organization of the cosmos tends to run down.

Let us now closely examine each of these laws:

2 – THE TWO LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS

THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS—Simply stated, the First Law of Thermodynamics (hereinafter called “the First Law”) is also called the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy..

It says this: Energy cannot by itself be created nor destroyed. Energy may be changed from one form into another, but the total amount remains unchanged .”

Einstein showed that matter is but another form of energy, as expressed in the equation: E = MC2 (E = Energy, m = mass, c2 = velocity of light squared). A nuclear explosion (such as we find in an “atomic” bomb) suddenly changes a small amount of matter into energy. But, according to the First Law, the sum total of energy (or its sister, matter) will always remain the same. None of it will disappear by itself. (The corollary is that no new matter or energy will make itself.)

“The Law of Energy Conservation—‘Energy can be converted from one form into another, but can neither be created nor destroyed,’—is the most important and best-proved law in science. This law is considered the most powerful and most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make.”—*Isaac Asimov, “In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even,” Journal of Smithsonian Institute, June 1970, p. 6.

Since matter/energy cannot make itself or eliminate itself, only an outside agency or power can make or destroy it..

“The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total amount of energy in the universe, or in any isolated part of it, remains constant. It further states that although energy (or its mass equivalent) can change form, it is not now being created or destroyed. Countless experiments have verified this. A corollary of the First Law is that natural processes cannot create energy. Consequently, energy must have been created in the past by some agency or power outside of and independent of the natural universe. Furthermore, if natural processes cannot produce the relatively simple inorganic portion of the universe, then it is even less likely that natural processes can explain the much more complex organic (or living) portion of the universe.”—Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 12.

THE ENTROPY PROBLEM

EC782.jpg (148761 bytes) CLICK TO ENLARGE

Only a power outside of all energy and matter could overrule the Second Law. *Blum of Princeton University has written:.

“The second law of thermodynamics predicts that a system left to itself will, in the course of time, go toward greater disorder.”—*Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution (1968), p. 201 [emphasis ours].

And now we come to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and here we find an astounding proof that the entire evolutionary theory is totally incorrect:

THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS—(*#1/16 Universality of the Second Law*) The Second Law of Thermodynamics is also called the Law of Increasing Entropy (or disorder).

“It is a very broad and very general law, and because its applications are so varied it may be stated in a great variety of ways.”—*E.S. Greene, Principles of Physics (1962), p. 310.

Here are the three most important applications of this law:

“1. Classical Thermodynamics: The energy available for useful work in a functioning system tends to decrease, even though the total energy remains constant.

“2. Statistical Thermodynamics: The organized complexity (order) of a structured system tends to become disorganized and random (disorder).

“3. Informational Thermodynamics: The information conveyed by a communicating system tends to become distorted and incomplete.”—Henry Morris and Gary Parker, What is Creation Science? (1987) p. 199.

Basically, the Second Law states that all systems will tend toward the most mathematically probable state, and eventually become totally random and disorganized. To put it in the vernacular, apart from a Higher Power, everything left to itself will ultimately go to pieces.

All science bows low before the Second Law. Genuine scientists do also. The exception would be (1) the evolutionists who, with no hesitation, ignore not only the First and Second Law, but also other principles and laws (such as those which govern matter, life, the DNA species wall, mutations, etc.), and (2) a number of scientists who did not receive an adequate education in basic laws in their university training, and therefore are favorable to deception by Darwinian errors. Such men have no clear conception of the fundamental laws governing nature. Evolution is an outlaw theory, and those who bow to it refuse to acknowledge the proper authority of law.

“To their credit, there are a few evolutionists (though apparently a few) who recognize the critical nature of this problem [of the Second Law] and who are trying to solve it.”—*Ilya Prigogine, Gregoire Nicolis & Agnes Babloyants, “Thermodynamics of Evolution,” Physics Today, Vol. 25, November 1972, pp. 23-28 [Professor in the Faculty of Sciences at the University Libre de Belgique and one of the world’s leading thermodynamicists].

Regardless of the excuses that evolutionists may offer, the Second Law rises above the foibles and errors of mankind, and will not be overthrown.

“The Entropy Principle will preside as the ruling paradigm over the next period of history. Albert Einstein said that it is the premier law of all science; Sir Arthur Eddington referred to it as the supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe.”—*Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View (1980), p. 6.

THE INEVITABLE ARROW—(*#2/16 Entropy Is Always Increasing*) It was *Sir Arthur Eddington, a leading astronomer who coined the term “Time’s Arrow” to succinctly describe this second law. He said the arrow points downward, never upward. Although evolution requires an upward arrow; the Second Law says, “No, an upward arrow is not permissible.”

“There is a general natural tendency of all observed systems to go from order to disorder, reflecting dissipation of energy available for future transformation—the law of increasing entropy.”—*R.R. Kindsay, “Physics: to What Extent Is it Deterministic,” in American Scientist 56 (1968), p. 100.

“How difficult it is to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order; how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself and that is what the Second Law is all about.”—*Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970.

EVOLUTION SAYS NO—(*#3/12 Evolution Claims to be above the Second Law*) (*#3/12 Evolution Claims to be above the Second Law*) Evolution teaches an upward arrow all the way from nothingness to the present and on into a glorious future when mankind will eventually evolve into godlike creatures with fantastic minds, engaged in intergalactic space trips while founding intergalactic space empires.

You may recall a statement by a confirmed evolutionist, quoted earlier in this set of books, that the marvelous powers of evolution brought man out of dust, through microbes and monkeys to his present state and that, hereafter, we may next change into clouds. Here is that quotation again:

“In a billion years [from now], it seems, intelligent life might be as different from humans as humans are from insects . . To change from a human being to a cloud may seem a big order, but it’s the kind of change you’d expect over billions of years.”—*Freemen Dyson, 1988 statement, quoted in Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 93 [American mathematician].

Although evolution is contrary to many physical laws, including the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, throughout the remainder of this chapter we will primarily concern ourselves with the Second Law.

Evolutionary theory stands in obvious defiance of the Second Law, but evolutionists declare that this is no problem, for they declare their theory to be above law!

3 – EVOLUTIONARY EXCUSES

“OPEN SYSTEMS” ARGUMENT—(*#5/5 The Second Law and Crystallization*) The evolutionist argument goes this way: Energy from the sun flows to our world and makes it an open system. As long as the sun sends this energy, it will fuel evolutionary development here. In contrast, a closed system is one that neither gains nor gives up energy to its surroundings. Therefore, sunshine negates the Second Law,—in spite of what Einstein and all the other physicists say!

It is obvious that their neat denial denies too much. They argument effectively nullifies Second Law everywhere in the universe, except in the cold of outer space and on planets distant from stars. Evolution is apparently progressing even on our moon, for it is receiving as much energy from the sun as we are! In addition, there ought to be a lot of evolution going on inside stars, for they have the best “open systems” of all!

ERROR IN “OPEN SYSTEM”—(*#4/12 The Second Law and Open Systems*) Here is the answer to this naive argument: An influx of heat energy into a so-called “open system” (in this case, solar heat entering our planet) would not decrease entropy. The entropy continues apace, just as the scientists said it would.

Reputable scientists discovered the working of the Second Law, yet sunshine was bathing the earth when they found it! If sunlight abrogated the Second Law, scientists could not have discovered the law.

But there is more: Heat energy flowing into our world does not decrease entropy—it increases it! The greater the outside heat energy that enters the system, the more will its entropy and disorder increase. Energy by itself increases entropy, therefore random energy or heat will increase entropy.

Opening a system to random external heat energy will increase the entropy in that system even more rapidly than if it remained closed. Oxidation is increased, chemical actions speed up, and other patterns of degeneration quicken.

TEMPORARILY SLOWING THE SECOND LAW—Is there no way to temporarily curtail the effects of the Second Law? Yes, there is:

Energy that is brought into a system from outside, AND which is intelligently controlled and directed, can temporarily interfere with the operation of the Second Law. It can for a time apparently stop entropy. But deliberate, ongoing effort has to be expended to accomplish this. To say it another way: The effects of the tearing down process of entropy have to be constantly repaired. Consider the following:

There are many systems, especially artificial ones (buildings, machinery) and living systems (plants, animals) which appear to run counter to the Second Law. We walk down the street and stand in front of a house: A higher intelligence (intelligence higher than that which the building has) carefully constructed the building, keeps it heated, air conditioned, dehumidified, and in good repair. In spite of this, the building gradually ages. Eventually the higher intelligence steps back and stops repairing, replacing, and repainting—and the building decays much more rapidly and finally falls to pieces.

Ordered systems, such as a kept-up building or maintaining a human body, are working within the Second Law, not outside of it.

“Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems.”—*John Ross, Chemical Engineering News, July 7, 1980, p. 4 [Harvard University researcher].

Consider a human body: We have to constantly feed, bathe, oxygenate, and maintain it, or it would immediately die. Yet, all the while, it keeps weakening. Eventually it dies anyway. But, before it did, the body produced offspring. But later the offspring die also.

*Harold F. Blum, a biochemist at Princeton, wrote an entire book on the Second Law. He maintains that this law does indeed apply to our world and to everything in it—including living creatures.

“No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems, we find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles [the First and Second Law], but we do encounter a degree of complexity not witnessed in the non-living world.”—*Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution (1962), p. 14 [emphasis ours].

INFORMATION VS. THE LAWTheoreticians have decided that information is a partial disproof of the Second Law. The idea goes somewhat like this: If you were to write down all the sunspot data about a star for ages and ages, the star might be decaying, but your data would be increasing! This fact is thought to mean something, but it really proves nothing. It is just armchair theorizing. Nevertheless, it is a matter of deep concern to some.

Here is the answer to this “information theory” puzzle in regard to entropy: The men gathering the sunspot data keep dying, and if others do not take their place, the data is eventually lost or rots away. The gathering of data is much like continually repainting a house. As long as we keep working at it, the inevitable decay of entropy is masked over. But set the papers aside for a time and the information becomes out-of-date, and the paper it is on crumbles to dust.

QUANTITY VS. CONVERSION—Of all the arguments defending evolutionary theory against the Second Law, the “open system” argument is the most common. But the problem is that in using the “open system” defense, the evolutionists confuse quantity of energy (of which there certainly is enormous amounts sent us from the sun) with conversion of energy.

NO EVOLUTION EVEN IN AN OPEN SYSTEM—(*#5/5 The Second Law and Crystallization*) But even if “open systems” negated the Second Law, there could still be no evolution. The problem is how would the sun’s energy begin and sustain evolutionary development? How can sunlight originate life? How can it produce a living cell or a living species? How could it change one species into another one?

4 – SOLIDITY OF THE SECOND LAW

ACKNOWLEDGED BY LEADING SCIENTISTS—(*#6/12 The Second Law Destroys Evolutionary Theory*) Dedicated evolutionists declare that evolution stands above the Second Law of Thermodynamics and is not subject to it. In contrast, many of the world’s leading scientists maintain that everything is subject to the Second Law. *Sir Arthur Eddington (1882-1944) was a leading British astronomer of the first half of the 20th century. He said this:

“If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it [your theory] but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”—*Arthur S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1930), p. 74.

*Albert Einstein (1879-1955) is generally considered to have had one of the outstanding scientific minds of the 20th century. He made this highly significant statement regarding “classical thermodynamics,” which is the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics:

“[A law] is more impressive the greater is the simplicity of its premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its range of applicability. Therefore, the deep impression which classical thermodynamics made on me. It is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never be overthrown.”—*Albert Einstein, quoted in M.J. Klein, “Thermodynamics in Einstein’s Universe,” in Science, 157 (1967), p. 509; also in *Isaac Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 76.

Einstein said that the First and Second Laws were so inviolate because they applied to so many things. By the same rule, we could speak of another law, the Law of Creatorship, and declare that it is even more inviolate. Everything in the skies above and the earth beneath witnesses to the fact that God made it all!

The Second Law has never failed to be substantiated::

“The second law of thermodynamics not only is a principle of wide reaching scope and application, but also is one which has never failed to satisfy the severest test of experiment. The numerous quantitative relations derived from this law have been subjected to more and more accurate experimental investigation without the detection of the slightest inaccuracy.”—*G.N. Lewis and *M. Randall, Thermodynamics (1961), p. 87.

“There is thus no justification for the view, often glibly repeated, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only statistically true, in the sense that microscopic violations repeatedly occur, but never violations of any serious magnitude. On the contrary, no evidence has ever been presented that the Second Law breaks down under any circumstances.”—*A.B. Pippard, Elements of Chemical Thermodynamics for Advanced Students of Physics (1966), p. 100.

THE SECOND LAW POINTS TO THE CREATOR—(*#7/6 The Second Law Requires a Beginning / #8/7 The Laws and their Maker*) According to the First Law, matter can only be produced by an outside agency or power. According to the Second Law, its decay can only be postponed by activity of an outside agency or power.

“The second law of thermodynamics predicts that a system left to itself will, in the course of time, go toward greater disorder.”—*Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution (1968), pp. 201 [emphasis ours].

It is a striking fact that the Second Law of Thermodynamics points mankind to its Creator. The greatest scientists acknowledge the universality of this law. But if everything, everywhere is running down, Who got it started originally? If everything is moving toward an end, then it had to have a beginning!

The Second Law testifies to the fact that there was a beginning to everything, and therefore a Beginner.

“The greatest puzzle is where all the order in the universe came from originally. How did the cosmos get wound up, if the second law of thermodynamics predicts asymmetric unwinding towards disorder?”—*Paul C.W. Davies (1979).

All the stars and all of nature testify that there is a Creator. The perfect designs of nature and the precision of natural law—point us to the One who prepared all these things. Look at a pansy or a rose; pet a rabbit; watch a hummingbird in action. Consider the awesome wonders of island universes with their complex inter-orbiting suns. There is One who stands above and beyond all of this. One who made it all, who is thoughtful of the needs of the universe and cares for His own.

“It seems to be one of the fundamental features of nature that fundamental physical laws are described in terms of a mathematical theory of great beauty and power, needing quite a high standard of mathematics for one to understand it . . One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high order, and He used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”—*P.A.M. Dirac, “The Evolution of the Physicist’s Picture of Nature,” in Scientific American, May 1963, p. 53.

“The authors see the second law of thermodynamics as man’s description of the prior and continuing work of a Creator, who also holds the answer to the future destiny of man and the universe.”—Sonntag and Van Wylen, Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, 2nd Ed. Vol. 1 (1973), p. 248.

Very important: In order to round out your understanding of this topic, you will want to read the section, “Six Strange Teachings of Evolution” in chapter 10, Mutations. It presents several aspects of evolutionary theory which run remarkably opposite to the laws of thermodynamics, and also to common sense: (1) Evolution operates only upward, never downward; (2) evolution operates irreversibly; (3) evolution operates from smaller to bigger; (4) evolution only operates from less to more complex; (5) evolution only operates from less to more perfect; (6) evolution is not repeatable.

EVOLUTION COULD NOT DO THIS

Daniel Bernoulie was an 18th-century physicist who first stated the principle that the pressure exerted by a moving fluid decreases as the fluid moves faster. Bernoulie’s principle may sound complicated to you and me; but prairie dogs, which live in the western plains of America, understand it well. These little creatures admirably apply this principle in making their underground tunnel cities.

The burrows have two openings—one at ground level, the other located on a foot-tall chimney of mud and stones. They work hard to make that second opening higher than the flat one on ground level. Having done this, the Bernoulie principle takes effect and nicely aerates their burrows with fresh air.

CHAPTER 18 – STUDY AND REVIEW QUESTIONS

THE LAWS OF NATURE

GRADES 5 TO 12 ON A GRADUATED SCALE

1- If everything is under law, where did those laws come from? Could they have made themselves? Do human laws make themselves?

2 – Explain the “first and second laws of products.”

3 – Are even the smallest and largest things under laws? Why?

4 – There are many types of physical laws. There are also moral laws, and different health laws. Think about this and list about 12 different natural laws.

5 – Define and explain the First Law of Thermodynamics.

6 – In what way does evolution agree or disagree with the First Law.

7 – Define and explain the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

8 – In what way does evolution agree or disagree with the Second Law.

9 – – Why do scientists speak of an “arrow” in describing the Second Law?

10 – Give three examples from practical life of the Second Law in operation.

11 – Discuss the flaws in the “open systems” argument.

12 – Some say that the Second Law only applies to “closed systems,” and that our solar system and everything in it is an “open system,” and therefore not subject to the Second Law. Explain why that idea is wrong. Everything in the universe is either a closed system, and both laws apply to everything, or everything in the universe is an open system, and both laws apply to nothing.

13 – Why do evolutionists claim that evolutionary theory is “above all law”?

14 – Write a brief paragraph or two, describing what scientists say about the importance and universality of the Second Law.




EVOLUTION FACTS, INC.

– BOX 300 – ALTAMONT, TN. 37301

Only intelligent comments (positive and negative) will be posted.

DNA AND PROTEIN

Evolution Cruncher Chapter 8

DNA AND PROTEIN


Why DNA and protein could not be produced by random chance

This chapter is based on pp. 265-313 of Origin of the Life (Volume Two of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this chapter are at least 110 statements by scientists.

One of the most important discoveries of the twentieth century was the discovery of the DNA molecule. It has had a powerful effect on biological research. It has also brought quandary and confusion to evolutionary scientists. If they cared to admit the full implications of DNA, it would also bring total destruction to their theory.

This chapter goes hand in hand with the previous one. In the chapter on Primitive Environment, we learned that earthly surroundings—now or earlier—could never permit the formation of living creatures from non-living materials. This present chapter will primarily discuss the DNA code, the components of protein— and will show that each are so utterly complicated as to defy any possibility that they could have been produced by chance events.

Yet random actions are the only kind of occurrences which evolutionists tell us have ever been used to accomplish the work of evolution.

The significance of all this is immense. Because of the barrier of the multi-billion DNA code, not only was it impossible for life to form by accident, —it could never thereafter evolve into new and different species! Each successive speciation change would require a totally new and different—but highly exacting code to be in place on its very first day of its existence as a unique new species.

As with a number of other chapters in this book, this one chapter alone is enough to completely annihilate evolutionary theory in regard to the origin or evolution of life.

1 – DNA AND ITS CODE

GREGOR MENDEL—(*#1/7 Gregor Mendel’s Monumental Discovery*) It was Mendel’s monumental work with genetics in the mid-19th century that laid the foundation for all modern research work in genetics. The complete story will be found on our website.

YOUR BODY’S BLUEPRINT—(*#2 The Story of DNA*) Each of us starts off as a tiny sphere no larger than a dot on this page. Within that microscopic ball there is over six feet of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), all coiled up. Inside that DNA is the entire code for what you will become,—all your organs and all your features.

The DNA itself is strung out within long coiling strips. DNA is the carrier of the inheritance code in living things. It is like a microscopic computer with a built-in memory. DNA stores a fantastic number of “blueprints,” and at the right time and place issues orders for distant parts of the body to build its cells and structures.

You have heard of “genes” and “chromosomes.” Inside each cell in your body is a nucleus. Inside that nucleus are, among other complicated things, chromosomes. Inside the chromosomes are genes. The genes are attached to chromosomes like beads on a chain. Inside the genes is the complicated chemical structure we call DNA. Each gene has a thousand or more such DNA units within it. Inside each cell are tens of thousands of such genes, grouped into 23 pairs of chromosomes.

EC244.jpg (429772 bytes) CLICK TO ENLARGE

Inside the DNA is the total of all the genetic possibilities for a given species. This is called the gene pool of genetic traits. It is also called the genome. That is all the traits your species can have; in contrast, the specific sub-code for YOU is the genotype, which is the code for all the possible inherited features you could have. The genotype is the individual’s code; the genome applies to populations; the entire species.

(For clarification, it should be mentioned here that the genotype includes all the features you could possibly have in your body, but what you will actually have is called the phenotype. This is because there are many unexpressed or recessive characters in the genotype that do not show up in the phenotype. For example, you may have had both blue and brown eye color in your genotype from your ancestors, but your irises will normally only show one color.)

COILED STRIPS—(*#3/33 The Origin of DNA*) Your own DNA is scattered all through your body in about 100 thousand billion specks, which is the average number of living cells in a human adult. What does this DNA look like? It has the appearance of two intertwined strips of vertical tape that are loosely coiled about each other. From bottom to top, horizontal rungs or stairs reach across from one tape strip to the other. Altogether, each DNA molecule is something like a spiral staircase.

The spiraling sides in the DNA ladder are made of complicated sugar and phosphate compounds, and the crosspieces are nitrogen compounds. It is the arrangement of the chemical sequence in the DNA that contains the needed information.

The code within each DNA cell is complicated in the extreme! If you were to put all the coded DNA instructions from just ONE single human cell into English, it would fill many large volumes, each volume the size of an unabridged dictionary!

DOUBLE-STRANDED HELIXDeoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a double-stranded helix found within the chromosomes, which are located inside the nuclei of every living cell. The molecule consists of just four nucleotide units, one containing adenine, one guanine, one cytosine, and one either thymine (in DNA) or uracil (in RNA). The sides of the helix consist of alternating deoxyribose sugars and phosphates.

The illustration shows the strange shape of DNA. It has that shape because it must fit inside the chromosome. It does this by squashing an immense length into the tiny chromosome. It could not do this if it did not have a twisted shape. The four illustrations show progressively smaller views of a DNA molecule and what is in it.

DIVIDING DNA—DNA has a very special way of dividing and combining. The ladder literally “unhooks” and “rehooks.” When cells divide, the DNA ladder splits down the middle. There are then two single vertical strands, each with half of the rungs. Both now duplicate themselves instantly—and there are now two complete ladders, where a moment before there was but one! Each new strip has exactly the same sequence that the original strip of DNA had.

This process of division can occur at the amazing rate of 1000 base pairs per second! If DNA did not divide this quickly, it could take 10,000 years for you to grow from that first cell to a newborn infant.

Human cells can divide more than 50 times before dying. When they do die, they are immediately replaced. Every minute 3 billion cells die in your body and are immediately replaced.

THE BASE CODE—(*#7 Coding in the Information*) The human body has about 100 trillion cells. In the nucleus of each cell are 46 chromosomes. In the chromosomes of each cell are about 10 billion of those DNA ladders. Scientists call each spiral ladder a DNA molecule; they also call them base pairs. It is the sequence of chemicals within these base pairs that provides the instructional code for your body. That instructional code oversees all your heredity and many of your metabolic processes.

Without your DNA, you could not live. Without its own DNA, nothing else on earth could live. Within each DNA base pair is a most fantastic information file. A-T-C-T-G-G-G-T-C-T-A-AT-A, and on and on, is the code for one creature. T-G-C-T-C-A-A-G-A-G-T-G-C-C, and on and on, will begin the code for another. Each code continues on for millions of “letter” units. Each unit is made of a special chemical.

The DNA molecule is shaped like a coiled ladder, which the scientists describe as being in the shape of a “double-stranded helix.” Using data from a woman researcher (which they did not acknowledge), *Watson and *Crick “discovered” the structure of DNA.

UTTER COMPLEXITYIn order to form a protein, the DNA molecule has to direct the placement of amino acids in a certain specific order in a molecule made up of hundreds of thousands of units. For each position, it must choose the correct amino acid from some twenty different amino acids. DNA itself is made up of only four different building blocks (A, G, C, and T). These are arranged in basic code units of three factors per unit (A-C-C, G-T-A, etc.). This provides 64 basic code units. With them, millions of separate codes can be sequentially constructed. Each code determines one of the many millions of factors in your body, organs, brain, and all their functions. If just one code were omitted, you would be in serious trouble.

AN ASTOUNDING CLAIM—The evolutionists applied their theory to the amazing discoveries about DNA—and came up with a totally astonishing claim:

All the complicated DNA in each life-form, and all the DNA in every other life-form—made itself out of dirty water back in the beginning! There was some gravel around, along with some dirt. Nearby was some water, and overhead a lightning storm. The lightning hit the dirty water and made living creatures complete with DNA. They not only had their complete genetic code, but they were also immediately able to eat, digest food, move about, perform enzymatic and glandular functions, and all the rest.

Instantly, they automatically knew how to produce additional cells, and their DNA began dividing (cells must continually replenish themselves or the creature quickly dies), their cells began making new ones, and every new cell could immediately do the myriad of functions that the first creature, an amoeba, can and must do.

That same stroke of lightning made both a male and a female pair and their complete digestive, respiratory, and circulatory organs. It provided them with complete ability to produce offspring and they in turn more offspring. That same stroke of lightning also made their food, with all its own DNA, male and female pairs, etc., etc.

And that, according to this children’s story, is where we all came from! But it is a story that only very little children would find believable.

“Laboratory experiments show that the basic building blocks of life, the proteins and organic molecules, form pretty easily in environments that have both carbon and water.”—*Star Date Radio Broadcast, January 24, 1990.

In this chapter we will not consider most of the above points. Instead we will primarily focus on the DNA and protein in each cell within each living creature.

TRANSLATION PACKAGE NEEDED AT BEGINNING—The amount of information in the genetic code is so vast that it would be impossible to put together by chance. But, in addition, there must be a means of translating it so the tissues can use the code.

“Did the code and the means of translating it appear simultaneously in evolution? It seems almost incredible that any such coincidences could have occurred, given the extraordinary complexities of both sides and the requirement that they be coordinated accurately for survival. By a pre-Darwinian (or a skeptic of evolution after Darwin) this puzzle surely would have been interpreted as the most powerful sort of evidence for special creation.”—*C. Haskins, “Advances and Challenges in Science” in American Scientist 59 (1971), pp. 298.

Not only did the DNA have to originate itself by random accident, but the translation machinery already had to be produced by accident—and also immediately! Without it, the information in the DNA could not be applied to the tissues. Instant death would be the result.

“The code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell’s translation machinery consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves encoded in DNA [!]; the code cannot be translated otherwise than by products of translation. It is the modern expression of omne vivum ex ovo [‘every living thing comes from an egg’]. When and how did this circle become closed? It is exceedingly difficult to imagine.”—*J, Monod, Chance and Necessity (1971), p. 143.

This translation package has also been termed an “adapter function.Without a translator, the highly complex coding contained within the DNA molecule would be useless to the organism.

“The information content of amino acid sequences cannot increase until a genetic code with an adapter function has appeared. Nothing which even vaguely resembles a code exists in the physio-chemical world. One must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of the origin of life exists at present.”—*H. Yockey, “Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory,” in Journal of Theoretical Biology 91 (1981), p. 13.

“Cells and organisms are also informed [intelligently designed and operated] life-support systems. The basic component of any informed system is its plan. Here, argues the creationist, an impenetrable circle excludes the evolutionist. Any attempt to form a model or theory of the evolution of the genetic code is futile because that code is without function unless, and until, it is translated, i.e., unless it leads to the synthesis of proteins. But the machinery by which the cell translates the code consists of about seventy components which are themselves the product of the code.”—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 147 [emphasis his].

DESIGNING CODES—*Sir Arthur Keith, a prominent anatomist of the 1930s (and co-producer of the Piltdown man hoax), said: “We do not believe in the theory of special creation because it is incredible.” But life itself and all its functions and designs are incredible. And each true species has its own unique designs. A single living cell may contain one hundred thousand million atoms, but each atom will be arranged in a specific order.

Yet all this is based on design, and design requires intelligence—in this case an extremely high order of intelligence. Man’s most advanced thinking and planning has produced airplanes, rockets, personal computers, and flight paths around the moon. But none of this was done by accident. Careful thought and structuring was required. Design blueprints were carefully crafted into products.

The biological world is packed with intricate, cooperative mechanisms that depend on encoded and detailed instructions for their development and interacting function. But complexity, and the coding it is based on, does not evolve. Left to themselves, all things become more random and disorganized. The more complex the system, the more elaborate the design needed to keep it operating and resisting the ever-pressing tendency to decay and deterioration.

DNA and other substances like it are virtually unknown outside living cells. Astoundingly, they both produce cells and are products of cells; yet they are not found outside of cells. DNA is exclusively a product of the cell; we cannot manufacture it. The closest we can come to this is to synthesize simple, short chains of mononucleotide RNA—and that is as far as we can go, in spite of all our boasted intelligence and million-dollar well-supplied, well-equipped laboratories.

MESSENGER RNA—Special “messenger RNA” molecules are needed. Without them, DNA is useless in the body. Consider the story of s-RNA:

“The code in the gene (which is DNA, of course) is used to construct a messenger RNA molecule in which is encoded the message necessary to determine the specific amino acid sequence of the protein.

“The cell must synthesize the sub-units (nucleotides) for the RNA (after first synthesizing the sub-units for each nucleotide, which include the individual bases and the ribose). The cell must synthesize the sub-units, or amino acids, which are eventually polymerized to form the protein. Each amino acid must be activated by an enzyme specific for that amino acid. Each amino acid is then combined with another type of RNA, known as soluble RNA or s-RNA.

“There is a specific s-RNA for each individual amino acid. There is yet another type of RNA known as ribosomal RNA. Under the influence of the messenger RNA, the ribosomes are assembled into units known as polyribosomes. Under the direction of the message contained in the messenger RNA while it is in contact with polyribosomes, the amino acid-s-RNA complexes are used to form a protein. Other enzymes and key molecules are required for this.

“During all of this, the complex energy-producing apparatus of the cell is used to furnish the energy required for the many syntheses.”—Duane T. Gish, “DNA: Its History and Potential, “in W.E. Lemmerts (ed.), Scientific Studies in Special Creation (1971), p. 312.

THE LIVING COMPUTER—DNA and its related agencies operate dramatically like an advanced computer.

“All this is strikingly similar to the situation in the living cell. For discs or tapes substitute DNA; for ‘words’ substitute genes; and for ‘bits’ (a bit is an electronic representation of ‘yes’ or ‘no’) substitute the bases adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine.”—*Fred Hoyle and *C. Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 106.

Everywhere we turn in the cell we find the most highly technical computerization. Electrical polarity is a key in the DNA. This is positive and negative electrical impulses, found both in the DNA and about the cell membrane, cytoplasm, and nucleus. The result is a binary system, similar to what we find in the most advanced computers in the world, but far more sophisticated and miniaturized. In computer science, a “byte” is composed of eight bits and can hold 256 different binary patterns, enough to equal most letters or symbols. A byte therefore stands for a letter or character. In biology the equivalent is three nucleotides called a codon. The biological code (within DNA) is based on these triplet patterns, as *Crick and *Brenner first discovered. This triad is used to decide which amino acid will be used for what purpose.

THE BIOLOGICAL COMPILER—The code in both plants and animals is DNA, but DNA is chemically different than the amino acids, which it gives orders to make. This code also decides which of the 20 proteins the amino acids will then form themselves into. There is an intermediate substance between DNA and the amino acids and proteins. That mediating substance is t-DNA. But now the complexity gets worse: Each of the 20 proteins requires a different intermediate t-DNA! Each one works specifically to perform its one function; and chemically, each t-DNA molecule is unlike each of the other t-DNA molecules.

The biological compiler that accomplishes these code tasks is t-DNA. It changes DNA code language into a different language that the cells can understand—so they can set about producing the right amino acids and proteins. Without these many t-DNA molecules, the entire code and what it should produce would break down.

DNA INDEXING—Information that is inaccessible is useless, even though it may be very complete. Every computer requires a data bank. Without it, needed information cannot be retrieved and used. Large computer data banks have libraries of disc storage, but they require an index to use them. Without the index, the computer will not know where to look to find the needed information.

DNA is a data bank of massive proportions, but indexes are also needed. These are different than the translators. There are non-DNA chemicals, which work as indexes to specifically locate needed information. The DNA and the indexes reciprocate; information is cycled round a feedback loop. The index triggers the production of materials by DNA. The presence of these materials, in turn, triggers indexing to additional productions. On a higher level of systems (nervous, muscular, hormonal, circulatory, etc.), additional indexes are to be found. The utter complication of all this is astounding. The next time you cut your finger, think of all the complex operations required for the body to patch it up.

CELL SWITCHING—”What is most important; what should be done next?” Computers function by following a sequential set of instructions. “First do this, and then do that,” they are told, and in response they then switch from one subroutine to another. But how does the cell switch its DNA from one process to another? No one can figure this out.

“In bacteria, for example, Jacob and Monod demonstrated a control system that operates by switching off ‘repressor’ molecules, i.e., unmasking DNA at the correct ‘line number’ to read off the correct (polypeptide) subroutines. With eukaryotes [a common type of bacteria], Britten and Davidson have tentatively suggested that ‘sensor genes’ react to an incoming stimulus and cause the production of RNA. This, in turn, activates a ‘producer gene,’ m-RNA is synthesized and the required protein eventually assembled as a ribosome. Many DNA base sequences may thus be involved, not in protein or RNA production, but in control over that production—in switching the right sequences on or off at the right time.”—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 124.

THE FIVE CHEMICALS IN DNA AND RNA—DNA is an extremely complex chemical molecule. Where did it come from? How did it form itself back in the beginning? How can it keep making copies of itself? There are two kinds of bases in the DNA code: purines (adenine and guanine) and pyrimidines (thymine or, in RNA, uracil; and cytosine). Where did these five chemicals come from? Charlie, you never told us the origin of the species; now help us figure out the origin of DNA!

Do you desire fame and fortune? If you want a Nobel prize, figure out how to synthesize all five DNA chemicals. If you want a major place in history, figure out how to make living, functioning DNA. If sand and seawater did it, our highly trained scientists ought to be able to do it too.

Scientists eventually devised complicated ways in expensive laboratories to synthesize dead compounds of four of these five, using rare materials such as hydrogen cyanide or cyanoacetylene. (Thymine remains unsynthesizable.) Sugar can be made in the laboratory, but the phosphate group is extremely difficult. In the presence of calcium ions, found in abundance in oceans and rivers, the phosphate ion is precipitated out. In life-forms enzymes catalyze the task, but how could enzymatic action occur outside of plants or animals? It would not happen.

Then there are the polynucleotide strands that have to be formed in exactly the fit needed to neatly wrap about the DNA helix molecule. A 100 percent exact fit is required. But chemists seem unable to produce much in the way of synthesized polynucleotides, and they are totally unable to make them in predetermined sizes and shapes (*D. Watts, “Chemistry and the Origin of Life,” in Life on Earth, Vol. 4, 1980, p. 21).

If university-trained scientists, working in multimillion-dollar equipped and stocked laboratories, cannot make DNA and RNA, how can random action of sand and dirty water produce it in the beginning?

NON-RANDOM: ONLY FROM INTELLIGENCE—Non-random information is what is found in the genetic code. But such information is a proof that the code came from an intelligent Mind.

Those searching for evidence of life in outer space have been instructed to watch for non-random signals as the best evidence that intelligent people live out there. Ponnamperuma says that such a “non-random pattern” would demonstrate intelligent extraterrestrial origin (*C. Ponnamperuma, The Origins of Life, 1972, p. 195). *CarI Sagan adds that a message with high information content would be “an unambiguously artificial [intelligently produced] interstellar message” (*Carl Sagan, Cosmos, 1980, p. 314).

“To involve purpose is in the eyes of biologists the ultimate scientific sin . . The revulsion which biologists feel to the thought that purpose might have a place in the structure of biology is therefore revulsion to the concept that biology might have a connection to an intelligence higher than our own.”—*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 32.

EACH CHARACTERISTIC CONTROLLED BY MANY GENES—The more the scientists have studied genetics, the worse the situation becomes. Instead of each gene controlling many different factors in the body, geneticists have discovered that many different genes control each factor! Because of this, it would thus be impossible for the basic DNA code to gradually “evolve.” The underlying DNA code had to be there “all at once”; and once in place, that code could never change!

“However it gradually emerged that most characters, even simple ones, are regulated by many genes: for instance, fourteen genes affect eye color in Drosophila. (Not only that. The mutation which suppresses ‘purple eye’ enhances ‘hairy wing,’ for instance. The mechanism is not understood.) Worse still, a single gene may influence several different characters. This was particularly bad news for the selectionists, of course . . In 1966 Henry Harris of London University demonstrated, to everyone’s surprise, that as much as 30 per cent of all characters are polymorphic [that is, each character controlled several different factors instead of merely one]. It seemed unbelievable, but his work was soon confirmed by Richard Lewontin and others.”—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), pp. 165-166.

(A clarification is needed here about the basic DNA code in a true species which never changes: Chapter 11, Animal and Plant Species, will explain how the DNA gene pool within a given true species can be broad enough to produce hybrids or varieties. This is why there are so many different types of dogs or why some birds, when isolated on an island—such as Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos,—can produce bills of different length. This is why there are two shades of peppered moth and various resistant forms of bacteria.)

In order to make the evolutionary theory succeed, the total organic complexity of an entire species somehow had to be invented long ago by chance,—and it had to do it fast, too fast—within seconds, or the creature would immediately die!

2 – MATHEMATICAL POSSIBILITIES OF DNA

SCIENTIFIC NOTATION—This is a number plus a small superscript numeral. Using it, small numbers can be written to denote numbers that are so immense that they are both incomprehensible and can only with difficulty be written out. Thus, 8 trillion (8,000,000,000,000) would be written 8 x 1012, and 1 billion (1,000,000,000) would be written simply as 109. Here are a few comparisons to show you the impossible large size of such numbers:

Hairs on an average head 2 x 106

Seconds in a year 3 x 107

Retirement age (0 to 65) in seconds 2 x l09

World population 5 x 109

Miles [1.6 km] in a light-year 6 x 1010

Sand grains on all shores 1022

Observed stars 1022

Water drops in all the oceans 1026

Candle power of the sun 3 x 1027

Electrons in the universe 1080

It is said that any number larger than 2 x 1030 cannot occur in nature. In the remainder of this chapter, we will look at some immense numbers!

MATH LOOKS AT DNA—(*#4/37 More Mathematical Impossibilities*) In the world of living organisms, there can be no life or growth without DNA. What are the mathematical possibilities (in mathematics, they are called probabilities) of JUST ONE DNA molecule having formed itself by the chance?

“Now we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene in its complexity must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls.

“A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1000 links could exist in 41000 different forms.

“Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41000 is equivalent to 10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension.”—*Frank Salisbury, “Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution,” American Biology Teacher, September 1971, pp. 336-338.

So the number of possible code combinations for an average DNA molecule is the numeral 4 followed by 1000 zeros! That is not 4000 (4 followed by 3 zeros), but 4 followed by a thousand zeros! How could random action produce the right combination out of that many possibilities for error?

LIFE REQUIRED—In addition to DNA, many other materials, such as proteins, enzymes, carbohydrates, fats, etc, would have to be instantly made at the same time. The beating heart, the functioning kidneys, the circulatory vessels, etc. They would all need to be arranged within the complicated structure of an organism,—and then they would have to be endued with LIFE!

Without LIFE, none of the raw materials, even though arranged in proper order, would be worth anything.

One does not extract life from pebbles, dirt, water, or a lightning bolt. Lightning destroys life; it does not make it.

GOLEY’S MACHINE—A communications engineer tried to figure out the odds for bringing a non-living organism with few parts (only 1500) up to the point of being able to reproduce itself.

“Suppose we wanted to build a machine capable of reaching into bins for all of its parts, and capable of assembling from those parts a second machine just like itself.”—*Marcel J.E. Goley, “Reflections of a Communications Engineer,” in Analytical Chemistry, June 1961, p. 23.

Likening a living organism to a machine that merely reached out and selected parts needed to make a duplicate of itself, Goley tried to figure the odds for 1500 needed items—requiring 1500 right choices in a row. Many different parts would be needed, and Goley assumed they would all be lying around near that manufacturing machine! Goley assumes that its mechanical arm will have only a 50-50 chance of error in reaching out and grabbing the right piece! Such a ratio (1500 50.50 choices) is preposterous (it ought to be one chance in a hundred million for EACH of the correct 1500 selections from among 1500 items), but Goley then figures the odds based on such a one-in-two success rate of reaches. But even with such a high success rate, Goley discovered that there was only one chance in 10450 that the machine could succeed in reproducing itself! That is 1 followed by 450 zeros!

Far smaller are all the words in all the books ever published. They would only amount to 1020, and that would be equivalent to only 66 of those 1500 50-50 choices all made correctly in succession!

TOO MANY NUCLEOTIDES—Just the number of nucleotides alone in DNA would be too many for Goley’s machine calculations. There are not 1500 parts to work out the probabilities on—there are multiplied thousands of factors, of which the nucleotides constitute one factor.

(1) There are 5,375 nucleotides in the DNA of an extremely small bacterial virus (theta-x-174). (2) There are about 3 million nucleotides in a single cell bacteria. (3) There are more than 16,000 nucleotides in a human mitochondrial DNA molecule. (4) There are approximately 3 billion nucleotides in the DNA of a mammalian cell. (People and most animals are mammals.)

Technically, a “nucleotide” is a complex chemical structure composed of a (nucleic acid) purine or pyrimidine, one sugar (usually ribose or deoxyribose), and a phosphoric group. Each one of those thousands of nucleotides within each DNA is aligned sequentially in a very specific order! Imagine 3 billion complicated chemical links, each of which has to be in a precisely correct sequence!

NOT POSSIBLE BY CHANCE—Many similar mathematical comparisons could be made. The point is that chance cannot produce what is in a living organism, —not now, not ever before, not ever in the future. It just cannot be done.

And even if the task could be successfully completed, when it was done, that organism would still not be alive! Putting stuff together in the right combination does not produce life.

And once made, it would have to have an ongoing source of water, air, and living food continually available as soon as it evolved into life. When the evolutionist’s organism emerged from rock, water, and a stroke of lightning hitting it on the head,—it would have to have its living food source made just as rapidly.

The problems and hurdles are endless.

“Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 1050. Such a number, if written out, would read:

480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

“Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the ‘benefit of the doubt’). Any species known to us, including ‘the smallest single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations (to use the evolutionist’s favorite expression).”—*I.L. Cohen, Darwin was Wrong (1984), p. 205.

Wysong explains the requirements needed to code one DNA molecule. By this he means selecting out the proper proteins, all of them left handed, and then placing them in their proper sequence in the molecule—and doing it all by chance:

“This means 1/1089190 DNA molecules, on the average, must form to provide the one chance of forming the specific DNA sequence necessary to code the 124 proteins. 1089190 DNAs would weigh 1089147 times more than the earth, and would certainly be sufficient to fill the universe many times over. It is estimated that the total amount of DNA necessary to code 100 billion people could be contained in ½ of an aspirin tablet. Surely 1089147 times the weight of the earth in DNAs is a stupendous amount and emphasizes how remote the chance is to form the one DNA molecule. A quantity of DNA this colossal could never have formed.”—R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, p. 115.

A GEM OF A QUOTATION—Evolutionists claim that everything impossible can happen by the most random of chances,—simply by citing a large enough probability number. *Peter Mora explains to his fellow scientists the truth about evolutionary theorizing:

“A further aspect I should like to discuss is what I call the practice of avoiding the conclusion that the probability of a self-reproducing state is zero. This is what we must conclude from classical quantum mechanical principles, as Wigner demonstrated.

“These escape clauses [the enormous chance-occurrence numbers cited as proof by evolutionists that it could be done] postulate an almost infinite amount of time and an almost infinite amount of material (monomers), so that even the most unlikely event could have happened. This is to invoke probability and statistical considerations when such considerations are meaningless.

LEFT- AND RIGHT-HANDED

AMINO ACID MOLECULE

EC262.jpg (177219 bytes) CLICK TO ENLARGE

“When for practical purposes the condition of infinite time and matter has to be invoked [in order to make evolution succeed], the concept of probability [possibility of its occurrence] is annulled. By such logic we can prove anything, such as that no matter how complex, everything will repeat itself, exactly and innumerably.”—*P.T. Mora, “The Folly of Probability,” in *S.W. Fox (ed.), The Origins of Prebiological Systems and of Their Molecular Matrices (1965), p. 45.

3 – AMINO ACIDS AND PROTEIN

PROTEIN NEEDED ALSO—(*#6 Amino Acid Functions*) Now let’s look at protein:

Putting protein and DNA together will not make them alive; but, on the other hand, there can be no life without BOTH the protein and the DNA. Proteins would also have had to be made instantly, and in the right combination and quantity,—at the very beginning. And do not forget the sequence: Protein has to be in its proper sequence, just as DNA has to be in its correct sequential pattern.

Proteins come in their own complicated sequence! They have their own coding. That code is “spelled out” in a long, complicated string of materials. Each of the hundreds of different proteins is, in turn, composed of still smaller units called amino acids. There are twenty essential amino acids (plus two others not needed after adulthood in humans). The amino acids are complex assortments of specifically arranged chemicals.

Making those amino acids out of nothing, and in the correct sequence,—and doing it by chance—would be just as impossible, mathematically, as a chance formation of the DNA code!

ONLY THE LEFT-HANDED ONES—We mentioned, in chapter 6 (Inaccurate Dating Methods), the L and D amino acids. That factor is highly significant when considering the possibility that amino acids could make themselves by chance.

Nineteen of the twenty amino acids (all except glycine) come in two forms: a “D” and an “L” version. The chemicals are the same, but are arranged differently for each. The difference is quite similar to your left hand as compared with your right hand. Both are the same, yet shaped opposite to each other. These two amino acid types are called enantiomers [en-anti-AWmers]. (Two other names for them are enantiomorphs and sterioisomers). (On the accompanying chart, note that they are alike chemically, but different dimensionally. Each one is a mirror image of the other. One is like a left-handed glove; the other like a right-handed one. A typical amino acid in both forms is illustrated.)

For simplicity’s sake, in this study we will call them the left-handed amino acid (the “L”) and the right-handed amino acid (the “D”).

Living creatures have to have protein, and protein is composed of involved mixtures of several of the 20 left amino acids. —And all those amino acids must be left-handed, not right-handed! (It should be mentioned that all sugars in DNA are right-handed.)

(For purposes of simplification we will assume that right-handed amino acids never occur in living amino acids, but there are a few exceptions, such as in the cell walls of some bacteria, in some antibiotic compounds, and all sugars.)

“Many researchers have attempted to find plausible natural conditions under which L-amino acids would preferentially accumulate over their D-counterparts, but all such attempts have failed. Until this crucial problem is solved, no one can say that we have found a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Instead, these isomer preferences point to biochemical creation.”—Dean H. Kenyon, affidavit presented to U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-15, 13, in “Brief of Appellants,” prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-23.

TOTAL IGNORANCE—(*#5/29 DNA, Protein and the Cell*) Scientists have a fairly good idea of the multitude of chemical steps in putting together a DNA molecule; but, not only can DNA not be synthesized “by nature” at the seashore, highly trained technicians cannot do it in their million-dollar laboratories!

“The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence we can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts.”— *R. Dickerson, “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,” in Scientific American, September 1978, p. 70.

Dozens of inherent and related factors are involved. One of these is the gene-protein link. This had to occur before DNA could be usable, yet no one has any idea how it can be made now, much less how it could do it by itself in a mud puddle.

“None has ever been recreated in the laboratory, and the evidence supporting them all [being produced by random chance in the primitive environment] is very thin. The emergence of the gene-protein link, an absolutely vital stage on the way up from lifeless atoms to ourselves, is still shrouded in almost complete mystery.”—*A. Scott, “Update on Genesis,” in New Scientist, May 2, 1985, p. 30.

4 – SYNTHESIZED PROTEIN

THE MILLER EXPERIMENTS—In 1953, a graduate biochemistry student (*Stanley Miller) sparked a non-oxygen mixture of gases for a week and produced some microscopic traces of non-living amino acids. We earlier discussed this in some detail in chapter 7, The Primitive Environment (which included a discription of the complicated apparatus he used), showing that *Stanley’s experiment demonstrated that, if by any means amino acids could be produced, they would be a left-handed and right-handed mixture—and therefore unable to be used in living tissue.

“Amino acids synthesized in the laboratory are a mixture of the right-and left-handed forms.”—*Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution (1968), p. 159.

Even if a spark could anciently have turned some chemicals into amino acids, the presence of the right-handed ones would clog the body machinery and kill any life-form they were in.

(1) There are 20 amino acids. (2) There are 300 amino acids in a specialized sequence in each medium protein. (3) There are billions upon billions of possible combinations! (4) The right combination from among the 20 amino acids would have to be brought together in the right sequence—in order to make one useable protein properly.

(5) In addition to this, the ultra-complicated DNA strands would have to be formed, along with complex enzymes, and more and more, and still more.

IMPOSSIBLE ODDS—What are the chances of accomplishing all the above—and thus making a living creature out of protein manufactured by chance from dust, water, and sparks? Not one chance in billions. It cannot happen.

Evolutionists speak of “probabilities” as though they were “possibilities,” if given enough odds. But reality is different than their make-believe numbers.

There are odds against your being able to throw a rock with your arm—and land it on the other side of the moon. The chances that you could do it are about as likely as this imagined animal of the evolutionists, which makes itself out of nothing and then evolves into everybody else.

A mathematician would be able to figure the odds of doing it as a scientific notation with 50 or so zeros after it, but that does not mean that you could really throw a rock to the moon! Such odds are not really “probabilities,” they are “impossibilities!”

The chances of getting accidentally synthesized left amino acids for one small protein molecule is one chance in 10210. That is a number with 210 zeros after it! The number is so vast as to be totally out of the question.

Here are some other big numbers to help you grasp the utter immensity of such gigantic numbers: Ten billion years is 1018 seconds. The earth weighs 1026 ounces. From one side to the other, the universe has a diameter of 1028 inches. There are 1080 elementary particles in the universe (subatomic particles: electrons, protons, neutrons, etc.). Compare those enormously large numbers with the inconceivably larger numbers required for a chance formulation of the right mixture of amino acids, proteins, and all the rest out of totally random chance combined with raw dirt, water, and so forth.

How long would it take to walk across the 1028 inches from one side of the universe to the other side? Well, after you had done it, you would need to do it billions of times more before you would even have time to try all the possible chance combinations of putting together just ONE properly sequenced left-only amino acid protein in the right order.

After *Miller’s amino acid experiment, researchers later tried to synthesize proteins. The only way they could do it was with actual amino acids from living tissue! What had they accomplished? Nothing, absolutely nothing. But this mattered not to the media; soon newspaper headlines shouted, “SCIENTISTS MAKE PROTEIN!”

“The apparatus must consist of a series of proteins as well as nucleic acids with the ‘right’ sequences.”—*R. W. Kaplan, “The Problem of Chance in Formation of Protobionts by Random Aggregation of Macromolecules,” ín Chemical Evolution, p. 320.

5 – MORE PROBLEMS WITH PROTEIN

ALL 20 – BUT IN 39 FORMS—The evolutionists tell us that, at some time in the distant past, all the proteins made themselves out of random chemicals floating in the water or buried in the soil.

But there are approximately 20 different essential amino acids. Each of them, with the exception of glycine, can exist in both the L (left-handed) and D (right-handed) structual forms. In living tissue, the L form is found; in laboratory synthesis, equal amounts of both the L and D forms are produced. There is no way to synthesize the L form by itself.

TRYPTOPHAN SYNTHETASE A—Here is the amino acid sequence of just one protein in your body. The amino acid units (written from left to right) are connected. If separated, they would read like this: methionyl, glutaminyl, arginyl, etc.

TRYPTOPHAN SYNTHETASE A

EC268.jpg (352114 bytes) CLICK TO ENLARGE

Here are all 39 forms. What a hodgepodge for the random accidents of evolution to sort through—and come up with only the L forms. Each one has its own complicated sequence of amino acids:

1 – Glycine

2a – L-Alanine 2b – D-Alanine

3a – L-Valine 3b – D-Valine

4a – L-Leucine 4b – D-Leucine

5a – L-Isoleucine 5b – D-Isoleucine

6a – L-Serine 6b – D-Serine

7a – L-Threonine 7b – D-Threonine

8a – L-Cysteine 8b – D-Cysteine

9a – L-Cystine 9b – D-Cystine

10a – L-Methionine 10b – D-Methionine

11a – L-Glutamic Acid 11b – D-Glutamic Acid

12a – L-Aspartic Acid 12b – D-Aspartic Acid

13a – L-Lysine 13b – D-Lysine

14a – L-Arginine 14b – D-Arginine

15a – L-Histidine 15b – D-Histidine

16a – L-Phenylalanine 16b – D-Phenylalanine

17a – L-Tyrosine 17b – D-Tyrosine

18a – L-Tryptophan 18b – D-Tryptophan

19a – L-Proline 19b – D-Proline

20a – L-Hydroxyproline 20b – D-Hydroxyproline

WHY ONLY THE L FORM—You might wonder why the D form of protein would not work equally well in humans and animals. The problem is that a single strand of protein, once it is constructed by other proteins (yes, the complicated structure of each protein is constructed in your body cells by other brainless proteins!), it immediately folds into a certain pattern. If there was even one right-handed amino acid in each lengthy string, it could not fold properly.

(See our special study on Protein on our website. It is fabulous, and shows the astoundingly complex activities of proteins inside the cell.)

6 – ORIGINATING FIVE SPECIAL MATERIALS

We are omitting this section from this paperback. It consists of detailed information on the step-by-step requirements needed to produce proteins, sugars, enzymes, fats, and DNA. The complexity of all this is fabulous. Over three large pages are required just to list the steps! You will find this on pp. 280-283 of Vol. 2 of the three-volume Evolution Disproved series set or on our internet site, evolution-facts.org.

7 – ADDITIONAL MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITIES

ALL BY CHANCE—Earlier in this chapter, we said that the possible combinations of DNA were the number 4 followed by a thousand zeros. That tells us about DNA combinations; what about protein combinations?

The possible arrangements of the 20 different amino acids are 2,500,000,000,000,000,000. If evolutionary theory be true, every protein arrangement in a life-form had to be worked out by chance until it worked right—first one combination and then another until one was found that worked right. But by then the organism would have been long dead, if it ever had been alive!

Once the chance arrangements had hit upon the right combination of amino acids for ONE protein—the same formula would have to somehow be repeated for the other 19 proteins. And then it would somehow have to be correctly transmitted to offspring!

THE STREAM OF LIFE—The primary protein in your red blood cells has 574 amino acids in it. Until that formula was first produced correctly by chance, and then always passed on correctly, your ancestors could not have lived a minute, much less survived and reproduced.

You have billions upon billions upon billions of red blood cells (“RBCs,” the scientists call them) in your body. This is what makes your blood red. Each red blood cell has about 280 million molecules of hemoglobin, and it would take about 1000 red blood cells to cover the period at the end of this sentence. (Hemoglobin is the iron-carrying protein material in RBCs, which carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues, and carbon dioxide from the tissues to the lungs.) Both in complexity and in enormous quantity, your red blood cells are unusual. Several large books could be filled with facts about your red blood cells.

MAKING PROTEIN BY CHANCE—The probability of forming 124 specifically sequenced proteins of 400 amino acids each by chance is 1 x 1O64489. THAT is a BIG number! If we put a thousand zeros on each page, it would take a 64-page booklet just to write the number!

The probability of those 124 specifically sequenced proteins, consisting of 400 all-left-amino acids each, being formed by chance, if EVERY molecule in all the oceans of 1031 planet earths was an amino acid, and these kept linking up in sets of 124 proteins EVERY second for 10 billion years would be 1 x 1078436. And THAT is another BIG number! That is one followed by 78,436 zeros!

As mentioned earlier, such “probabilities” are “impossibilities.” They are fun for math games, but nothing more. They have nothing to do with reality. Yet such odds would have to be worked out in order to produce just 124 proteins! Without success in such odds as these, multiplied a million-fold, evolution would be totally impossible.

Throughout this and the previous chapter, we have only discussed the basics at the bottom of the ladder of evolution. We have, as it were, only considered the first few instants of time. But what about all the development after that?

More total impossibilities.

ENZYMES—*Fred Hoyle wrote in New Scientist that 2000 different and very complex enzymes are required for a living organism to exist. And then he added that random shuffling processes could not form a single one of these in even 20 billion years! He then added this:

“I don’t know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolyers [enzymes, proteins, hormones, etc.] on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the earth.

“Astronomers will have a 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 ‘others’ are a group of persons [the evolutionary theoreticians] who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles.

“They 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). This 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 [the two laws of] thermodynamics.”—*Fred Hoyle, “The Big Bang in Astronomy,” in New Scientist, November 19, 1981, pp. 521-527.

*Taylor says that proteins, DNA, and enzymes—all of which are very complicated—would all be required as soon as a new creature was made by evolution.

“The fundamental objection to all these [evolutionary] theories is that they involve raising oneself by one’s own bootstraps. You cannot make proteins without DNA, but you cannot make DNA without enzymes, which are proteins. It is a chicken and egg situation. That a suitable enzyme should have cropped up by chance, even in a long period, is implausible, considering the complexity of such molecules. And there cannot have been a long time [in which to do it].”—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 201.

Enzyme systems do not work at all in the body—until they are all there.

“Dixon [a leading enzymologist] confesses that he cannot see how such a system could ever have originated spontaneously. The main difficulty is that an enzyme system does not work at all until it is complete, or nearly so. Another problem is the question of how enzymes appear without pre-existing enzymes to make them. ‘The association between enzymes and life,’ Dixon writes, ‘is so intimate that the problem of the origin of life itself is largely that of the origin of enzymes.’ “—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), pp. 144-145.

DIXON-WEBB CALCULATION—In 1964 *Malcolm Dixon and *Edwin Webb, on page 667 of their standard reference work, Enzymes, mentioned to fellow scientists that in order to get the needed amino acids in close enough proximity to form a single protein molecule, a total volume of amino-acid solution equal to 1050 times the volume of our earth would be needed! That would be 1 with 50 zeros after it multiplied by the contents of a mixing bowl. And the bowl would be so large that planet earth would be in it!

After using the above method to obtain ONE protein molecule, what would it take to produce ONE hemoglobin (blood) molecule which contains 574 specifically coded amino acids? On page 279 of their Introduction to Protein Chemistry, *S.W. Fox and *J.F. Foster tell how to do it:

First, large amounts of random amounts of all 20 basic types of protein molecules would be needed. In order to succeed at this, enough of the random protein molecules would be needed to fill a volume 10512 TIMES the volume of our entire known universe! And all of that space would be packed in solid with protein molecules. In addition, all of them would have to contain only left-handed amino acids (which only could occur 50 percent of the time in synthetic laboratory production).

Then and only then could random chance produce just the right combination for ONE hemoglobin molecule, with the proper sequence of 574 left-handed amino acids!

Yet there are also thousands of other types of protein molecules in every living cell, and even if all of them could be assembled by chance,—the cell would still not be alive.

BEYOND DNA AND PROTEIN—We have focused our attention on DNA and protein sequence in this chapter. Just for a moment, let us look beyond DNA and protein to a few of the more complicated organs in the human body. As we do so, the requirements which randomness would have to hurdle become truly fabulous. Consider the human brain, with its ten billion integrated cells in the cerebral cortex. How could all that come about by chance? Ask an expert on ductless glands to explain hormone production to you. Your head will swim. Gaze into the human eye and view how it is constructed, how it works. You who would cling to evolution as a theory that is workable give up! give up! There is no chance! Evolution is impossible!

COMPUTER SIMULATION—Prior to the late 1940s, men had to work out their various evolutionary theories with paper and pencil. But then advanced computers were invented. This changed the whole picture. By the 1970s, it had become clear that the “long ages” theories just did not work out. Computer calculations have established the fact that, regardless of how much time was allotted for the task,—evolution could not produce life-forms!

Evolutionists can no longer glibly say, “Given enough time and given enough chance, living creatures could arise out of seawater and lightning, and pelicans could change themselves into elephants.” (Unfortunately, evolutionists still say such things, because the ignorant public does not know the facts in this book.)

But computer scientists can now feed all the factors into a large computer—and get fairly rapid answers. Within a dramatically short time they can find out whether evolution is possible after all!

Unfortunately, the evolutionists prefer to stay away from such computer simulations; they are afraid to face the facts. Instead they spend their time discussing their dreamy ideas with one another and writing articles about their theories in scientific journals.

A computer scientist who spoke at a special biology symposium in Philadelphia in 1967, when computers were not as powerful as they are today, laid out the facts this way:

“Nowadays computers are operating within a range which is not entirely incommensurate with that dealt with in actual evolution theories. If a species breeds once a year, the number of cycles in a million years is about the same as that which one would obtain in a ten-day computation which iterates a program whose duration is a hundredth of a second . . Now we have less excuse for explaining away difficulties [via evolutionary theory] by invoking the unobservable effect of astronomical [enormously large] numbers of small variations.”—*M.P. Schutzenberger, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (1967), pp. 73-75 (an address given at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology Symposium).

*Schutzenberger then turned his attention to the key point that scientists admit to be the only real basis of evolution: gradual improvements in the genetic code through beneficial mutations, resulting in new and changed species:

“We believe that it is not conceivable. In fact, if we try to simulate such a situation by making changes randomly at the typographic level—by letters or by blocks, the size of the unit need not matter—on computer programs, we find that we have no chance (i.e., less than 1/101000) even to see what the modified program would compute; it just jams!’

“Further, there is no chance (less than 1/101000) to see this mechanism (this single changed characteristic in the DNA) appear spontaneously and, if it did, even less [chance] for it to remain!

“We believe that there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology.”—*Ibid.

There is a one in 1/101000 chance that just one mutation could be beneficial and improve DNA. Now 1/101000is one with a thousand zeros after it! In contrast, one chance in a million only involves six zeros! Compare it with the almost impossible likelihood of your winning a major multimillion-dollar state lottery in the United States: That figure has been computed, and is only a relatively “tiny” number of six with six zeros after it. Evolution requires probabilities which are totally out of the realm of reality.

THE DNA LANGUAGE—Another researcher, *M. Eden, in attendance at the same Wistar Institute, said that the code within the DNA molecule is actually in a structured form, like letters and words in a language. Like them, the DNA code is structured in a certain sequence, and only because of the sequence can the code have meaning.

*Eden then goes on and explains that DNA, like other languages, cannot be tinkered with by random variational changes; if that is done, the result will always be confusion!

“No currently existing formal language can tolerate random changes in the symbol sequences which express its sentences. Meaning is invariably destroyed.”—*M. Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” in op. cit., p. 11.

And yet evolutionary theory teaches that DNA and all life appeared by chance, and then evolved through random changes within the DNA!

(For more information on those special evolutionary conferences, see chapter 1. History of Evolutionary Theory.)

THE MORE TIME, THE LESS SUCCESS—Evolutionists imagine that time could solve the problem: Given enough time, the impossible could become possible. But time works directly against success. Here is why:

“Time is no help. Biomolecules outside a living system tend to degrade with time, not build up. In most cases, a few days is all they would last. Time decomposes complex systems. If a large ‘word’ (a protein) or even a paragraph is generated by chance, time will operate to degrade it. The more time you allow, the less chance there is that fragmentary ‘sense’ will survive the chemical maelstrom of matter.”—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 233.

ALL AT ONCE—Everything had to come together all at once. Within a few minutes, all the various parts of the living organism had to make themselves out of sloshing, muddy water.

“However, conventional Darwinian theory rationalizes most adaptations by assuming that sufficient time has transpired during evolution for natural selection to provide us with all the biological adaptations we see on earth today, but in reality the adaptive process must by necessity occur rather quickly (in one or at the most two breeding generations).”—*E. Steele, Somatic Selection and Adaptive Evolution (2nd ed. 1981), p. 3.

“So the simultaneous formation of two or more molecules of any given enzyme purely by chance is fantastically improbable.”—*W. Thorpe, “Reductionism in Biology,” in Studies in the Philosophy of Biology (1974), p. 117.

“From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life.”—*Homer Jacobson, “Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life,” American Scientist, January 1955, p. 125.

“To form a polypeptide chain of a protein containing one hundred amino acids represents a choice of one out of 1O130 possibilities. Here again, there is no evidence suggesting that one sequence is more stable than another, energetically. The total number of hydrogen atoms in the universe is only 1078. That the probability of forming one of these polypeptide chains by change is unimaginably small; within the boundary of conditions of time and space we are considering it is effectively zero.”—*E. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World (1982), p. 135.

“Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanism translating instruction into growth—all had to be simultaneously present at that moment. This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance, and has often been ascribed to divine intervention.”—*Homer Jacobson, “Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life,” American Scientist, January 1955, p. 121.

BACTERIA DISPROVE EVOLUTION—Let us go beyond DNA molecules and pieces of protein, and consider one of the simplest of life-forms. Scientists have studied in detail the bacterium, Escherichia coli. These bacteria are commonly found in the large bowel.

Under favorable conditions bacterial cells can divide every 20 minutes. Then their offspring immediately begin reproducing. Theoretically, one cell can produce 1020 cells in one day! For over a century researchers have studied E-coli bacteria. All that time those bacteria have reproduced as much as people could in millions of years. Yet never has one bacterium been found to change into anything else. And those little creatures do not divide simply. The single chromosome replicates (makes a copy of itself), and then splits in two. Then each daughter cell splits in two, forming the various cells in the bacterium. These tiny bacteria can divide either sexually or asexually.

Escherichia coli has about 5000 genes in its single chromosome strand. This is the equivalent of a million three-letter codons. Yet this tiny bacterium is one of the “simplest” living creatures that exists.

Please, do not underestimate the complexity of this, a creature with only ONE chromosome: First, that one chromosome is a combination lock with a million units, arranged in a definite sequence. Second, each unit is made up of three sub-units (A-C-C, G-T-A, etc.). Third, the sub-units are combined from four different chemical building blocks: A, G, C, and T. What are the possible number of combinations for that one chromosome? Get a sheet of paper and figure that one out for yourself.

FRAME SHIFTS—Then scientists discovered an even “simpler” creature that lives in the human bowel. It is called the theta-x-174, and is a tiny virus. It is so small, that it does not contain enough DNA information to produce the proteins in its membrane! How then can it do it? How can it produce proteins without enough DNA code to produce proteins! Scientists were totally baffled upon making this discovery. Then they discovered the high-tech secret: The answer is but another example of a super-intelligent Creator. The researchers found that this tiny, mindless creature routinely codes for that protein thousands of times a day—and does it by “frame shift.”

To try to describe it in simple words, a gene is read off from the first DNA base to produce a protein. Then the same message is read again—but this time omitting the first base and starting with the second. This produces a different protein. And on and on it goes. Try writing messages in this manner, and you will begin to see how utterly complicated it is: “Try writing messages / writing messages in / messages in this / in this manner.” That is how the simplest of viruses uses its DNA coding to make its protein!

Does someone think that the virus was smart enough to figure out that complicated procedure with its own brains? Or will someone suggest that it all “just happened by chance?”

With all this in mind, *Wally Gilbert, a Nobel prize winning molecular biologist, said that bacteria and viruses have a more complicated DNA code-reading system than the “higher forms of life.”

THE CENTRAL DOGMA—*Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, prepared a genetic principle which he entitled, “The Central Dogma”:

“The transfer of information from nucleic acid to nucleic acid, or from nucleic acid to protein may be possible, but transfer from protein to protein, or from protein to nucleic acid is impossible.”—*Francis Crick, “Central Dogma,” quoted in *Richard Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 77.

The Central Dogma is an important scientific principle and means this: The complex coding within the DNA in the cell nucleus decides the traits for the organism. But what is in the body and what happens to the body cannot affect the DNA coding. What this means is this: Species cannot change from one into another! All the members in a species (dogs, for example) can only be the outcome of the wide range of “gene pool” data in the DNA, but no member of that species can, because of the environment or what has happened to that individual, change into another species. Only changes in the DNA coding can produce such changes; nothing else can do it.

“It [the Central Dogma] has proved a fruitful principle, ever since James Watson and Crick discovered the double-helix structure of DNA in the 1950s. DNA is the blueprint; it gives instructions to the RNA and to proteins about how to arrange themselves.”—*Richard Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), ibid.

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”—*Francis Crick, Life Itself (1981), p. 88.

BLUE GENE—As we near press time on this paperback, announcement has been made that IBM has begun work on their largest computer to-date. It is called “Blue gene”; and it must be powerful, for they have been building ever larger supercomputers since the 1940s. This one will be 100 times more powerful than Big Blue, the computer used to defeat Kasperson in chess several years ago.

They are trying to figure out something which is so utterly complicated that no lesser computer can handle the task. No, not something simple like computing a trip to Saturn and back. Their objective is solving something far more complicated. —It is figuring out how a protein folds!

In every cell in your body, brainless proteins assemble more proteins from amino acids. They put them into their proper sequence (!), and then, as soon as the task is ended, the new protein automatically folds down into a clump, as complicated as a piece of steel wool. IBM is trying to figure out the fold pattern instantly made by this microscopic piece of mindless, newborn protein!

The computer will cost $100 million, and Stanford University is trying to get people to let them use their home computers to help with the task (go to standford.edu for details). They say they need the information to figure out drugs to counteract HIV and other viruses. So far, they can only get the protein to wiggle; they cannot get it to fold (NPR, Wednesday evening, September 27, 2000).

As we go to press: It has recently been discovered that the terrible plague of mad cow disease (initially brought into existence by cannibalism) is caused by eating meat containing proteins that do not fold correctly, or by being injected with raw glandulars containing them.

For more on proteins and how they do their work in the cell, go to our website, evolution-facts.org, and locate a special study on protein which we have prepared. It contains a remarkable collection of facts.

EVOLUTION COULD NOT DO THIS

The teeth of a rat are designed so the top two front teeth go behind the bottom two, at just the right angle to produce self-sharpening teeth. Engineers at General Electric wanted to design a self-sharpening saw blade in order to obtain exactly the right angle in relation to the metal it is cutting; so they studied the teeth of a rat. They found there was no other way it could be done as efficiently. As it slices through the metal, small pieces of the new blade are cut away by the metal, thus always keeping the blade sharp. That self-sharpening blade lasts six times longer than any other blade they had previously been able to make. All because the trained researchers studied the teeth of a rat.

CHAPTER 8 – STUDY AND REVIEW QUESTIONS

DNA AND PROTEIN

GRADES 5 TO 12 ON A GRADUATED SCALE

1- Prepare a diagram of a DNA molecule. Use different colors to show the different parts.

2 – Research the story of how DNA was discovered and write a report on it.

3 – Would it be easier for DNA to be made by randomness or by researchers in a laboratory? Could living DNA be made in either place?

4 – Research into what is in a blood cell, and then write about the different parts. Underline those parts which could be produced by random action (called “natural selection”).

5 – There are 20 essential amino acids, 300 special-sequence amino acids in each medium-sized protein, and billions of possible sequences. What do you think would happen in your body if just one of those sequences was out of place?

6 – Can “non-random patterns” be produced randomly? Codes are made by intelligent people. Can they be produced by chance?

7 – Find out how DNA divides, and write a brief report on how it happens.

8 – Random production of amino acids always produce a 50-50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms of them. Could the randomness of evolution produce living tissue with only left-handed amino acids?

9 – Why is it that evolutionists do not give up trying to prove that impossible things can happen?

10 – There are 26 reasons why DNA cannot be originated outside of living tissue. List 10 which you consider to be the most unlikely to be accomplished synthetically.

11 – Briefly explain one of the following: translator package, messenger RNA, biological compiler, codon, nucleotide, t-DNA.

12 – Write a report on the mathematical possibilities (probabilities) that amino acids, protein, or DNA could be accidentally produced by random activity in barrels of chemicals which filled all of space throughout the universe.

Material from:


EVOLUTION FACTS, INC.

– BOX 300 – ALTAMONT, TN. 37301

February 28, 2009

Evolution Is Religion , Not Science

Evolutionists often insist that evolution is a proved fact of
science, providing the very framework of scientific interpretation,
especially in the biological sciences. This, of course, is nothing but
wishful thinking. Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since
there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested.

THE RELIGIOUS ESSENCE OF EVOLUTIONISM

As a matter of fact, many leading evolutionists have recognized the
essentially “religious” character of evolutionism. Even though they
themselves believe evolution to be true, they acknowledge the fact that
they _believe_ it! “Science”, however, is not supposed to be something
one “believes.” Science is knowledge — that which can be demonstrated
and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or even tested;
it can only be believed.

For example, two leading evolutionary biologists have described
modern neo-Darwinism as “part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most
of us as part of our training.”[1] A prominent British biologist, a
Fellow of the Royal Society, in the Introduction to the 1971 edition of
Darwin’s _Origin of Species_, said that “belief in the theory of
evolution” was “exactly parallel to belief in special creation,” with
evolution merely “a satisfactory faith on which to base our
interpretation of nature.”[2] G.W. Harper calls it a “metaphysical
belief.”[3]

Ernst Mayr, the outstanding Harvard evolutionary biologist, calls
evolution “man’s world view today.”[4] Sir Julian Huxley, probably the
outstanding evolutionist of the twentieth century saw “evolution as a
universal and all-pervading process”[5] and, in fact, nothing less than “the
whole of reality.”[6] A leading evolutionary geneticist of the present
day, writing an obituary for Theodosius Dobzhansky, who himself was
probably the nation’s leading evolutionist at the time of his death in
1975, says that Dobzhansky’s view of evolution followed that of the
notorious Jesuit priest, de Chardin:

The place of biological evolution in human thought was, according
to Dobzhansky, best expressed in a passage that he often quoted
from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: ‘(Evolution) is a general
postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must
henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be
thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all
facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow.'[7]

The British physicist, H.S. Lipson, has reached the following
conclusion:

In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion;
almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to
‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.[8]

The man whom Dobzhansky called “France’s leading zoologist,” although
himself an evolutionist, said that scientists should “destroy the myth
of evolution” as a simple phenomenon which is “unfolding before us.”[9]
Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of
Natural History, by any accounting one of the world’s top evolutionists
today, has recently called evolution “positively anti-knowledge,” saying
that “all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed
truth.”[10] In another address he called evolution “story telling.”[11]

All of the above-cited authorities are (or were) among the world’s
foremost authorities on evolutionism. Note again the terms which they
use in describing evolution:

Evolutionary dogma A scientific religion
A satisfactory faith The myth of evolution
Man’s world view Anti-knowledge
All-pervading process Revealed truth
The whole of reality An illuminating light
Metaphysical belief Story-telling

Charles Darwin himself called evolution “this grand view of life.”
Now such grandiloquent terms as these are not scientific terms! One
does not call the law of gravity, for example, “a satisfactory faith,”
nor speak of the laws of thermodynamics as “dogma.” Evolution is,
indeed, a grand world view, but it is _not_ science. Its very
comprehensiveness makes it impossible even to test scientifically. As
Ehrlich and Birch have said: “Every conceivable observation can be
fitted into it. –No one can think of ways in which to test it.”[12]

RELIGIONS BASED ON EVOLUTION

In view of the fundamentally religious nature of evolution, it is not
surprising to find that most world religions are themselves based
on evolution. It is certainly unfitting for educators to object to
teaching scientific creationism in public schools on the ground that it
supports Biblical Christianity when the existing pervasive teaching of
evolution is supporting a host of other religions and philosophies.

The concept of evolution did not originate with Charles Darwin. It
has been the essential ingredient of all pagan religions and
philosophies from time immemorial (e.g., atomism, pantheism, stoicism,
gnosticism and all other humanistic and polytheistic systems). All
beliefs which assume the ultimacy of the space/time/matter universe,
presupposing that the universe has existed from eternity, are
fundamentally evolutionary systems. The cosmos, with its innate laws and
forces, is the only ultimate reality. Depending on the sophistication of
the system, the forces of the universe may be personified as gods and
goddesses who organized the eternal chaotic cosmos into its present form
(as in ancient Babylonian and Egyptian religions), or else may
themselves be invested with organizing capabilities (as in modern
scientific evolutionism). In all such cases, these are merely different
varieties of the fundamental evolutionist world view, the essential
feature of which is the denial that there is one true God and Creator of
all things.

In this perspective, it becomes obvious that most of the great world
religions — Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Animism, etc. —
are based on evolution. Creationism is the basis of only such systems
as Orthodox Judaism, Islam and Biblical Christianity. The liberal
varieties of Judaism, Islam, Catholicism and Protestantism, as well as
most modern pseudo-Christian cults, are all based on evolution.

All of this points up the absurdity of banning creationist teaching
from the schools on the basis that it is religious. The schools are
already saturated with the teaching of religion in the guise of
evolutionary “science.” In the modern school of course, this teaching
mostly takes the form of secular humanism, which its own proponents
claim to be a “non-theistic religion.” It should also be recalled that
such philosophies as communism, fascism, socialism, nazism, and
anarchism have been claimed by their founders and promoters to be based
on what they regard as scientific evolutionism. If creation is excluded
from the schools because it is compatible with Christian
“fundamentalism,” should not evolution also be banned since it is the
basis of communism and nazism?

THE SCIENTIFIC IRRELEVANCE OF EVOLUTION

Some people have deplored the questioning of evolution on the ground
that this is attacking science itself. In a recent debate, the
evolutionist whom the writer debated did not attempt to give any
scientific evidences for evolution, electing instead to spend his time
defending such scientific concepts as atomic theory, relativity,
gravity, quantum theory and science in general, stating that attacking
evolution was tantamount to attacking science!

The fact is, however, that the elimination of evolutionary
interpretations from science would hardly be noticed at all, in terms of
real scientific understanding and accomplishment. G.W. Harper comments
on this subject as follows:

It is frequently claimed that Darwinism is central to modern
biology. On the contrary, if all references to Darwinism suddenly
disappeared, biology would remain substantially unchanged. It
would merely have lost a little color. Grandiose doctrines in
science are like some occupants of high office; they sound very
important but have in fact been promoted to a position of
ineffectuality.[13]

The scientific irrelevance of evolutionism has been strikingly (but,
no doubt, inadvertently) illustrated in a recent issue of _Science
News_. This widely read and highly regarded weekly scientific journal
was commemorating its sixtieth anniversary, and this included a listing
of what it called the “scientific highlights” of the past sixty
years.[14]

Of the sixty important scientific discoveries and accomplishments
which were chosen, only six could be regarded as related in any way to
evolutionist thought. These six were as follows:

(1). 1927. Discovery that radiation increases mutation rates in
fruit flies.

(2). 1943. Demonstration that nucleic acids carry genetic
information

(3). 1948. Enunciation of the “big bang” cosmology.

(4). 1953. Discovery of the “double helix” structure of DNA.

(5). 1961. First step taken in cracking the genetic code.

(6). 1973. Development of procedures for producing recombinant
DNA molecules.

Four of these six “highlights” are related to the structure and
function of DNA. Even though evolutionists have supposed that these
concepts somehow correlate with evolution, the fact is that the
remarkable DNA molecule provides strong evidence of original creation
(since it is far too complex to have arisen by chance) and of
conservation of that creation (since the genetic code acts to guarantee
reproduction of the same kind, not evolution of new kinds). One of the
two other highlights showed how to increase mutations but, since all
known true mutations are harmful, this contributed nothing whatever to
the understanding of evolution. One (the “big bang” concept) was indeed
an evolutionary idea but it is still an idea which has never been proved
and today is increasingly being recognized as incompatible with basic
physical laws.

Consequently, it is fair to conclude that no truly significant
accomplishment of modern science either depends on evolution or supports
evolution! There would certainly be no detriment to real scientific
learning if creation were incorporated as an alternative to evolution in
school curricula. It would on the other hand, prove a detriment to the
pervasive religion of atheistic humanism which now controls our schools.

———————————————————————————————–

The table below shows some of the problems with the
theory of evolution. 

         EVOLUTION THEORY              SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life came from non-living matter     Never observed or duplicated in a
  (spontaneous generation)             laboratory
Random processes create life. The    Creating a simple 100 component non-
  existed for 30 billion years,        living organism would take 3 billion
  during which time all life           billion billion billion billion
  evolved by random processes          billion billion years. The simplest
                                       protein that can be termed "living"
                                       has 400 components
Sexual reproduction came about by    Two humans had to evolve at the same
  evolution.                           time and place, having complementary
                                       reproductive systems. If one system
                                       wasn't complete or compativle, the
                                       species would become extinct.
Species evolve from other species.   There are no fossils of transitional
                                       life forms. Organisms have never
                                       been found to cross the boundaries
                                       between species
Mutations are the primary way that   Greater than 99% of mutations are
  new genetic material is available    defects. No mutant has been observed
  for evolution.                       that has become a different species.

REFERENCES

1. Ehrlich, Paul and L.C. Birch. _Nature_, Apr. 22, 1967, p. 352.

2. Matthews, L. Harrison. “Introduction” to _Origin of Species_. London,
J.M. Dent and Sons, 1971, p. X.

3. Harper, G. W. “Alternatives to Evolutionism.” _School Science
Review_ 51, Sep. 1979, p. 16.

4. Mayr, Ernst. “Evolution.” _Scientific American_ 239, Sep. 1978, p.
47.

5. Huxley, Julian. “Evolution and Genetics.” Ch. 8 in _What is
Science?_. Edited by J.R. Newman. New York, Simon and Schuster,
1955, p. 272.

6. Ibid, p. 278.

7. Ayala, Francisco. “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light
of Evolution: Theodosius Dobzhansky, 1900-1975.” _Journal of
Heredity_ 68, No. 3, 1977, p. 3.

8. Lipson, H.S. “A Physicist Looks at Evolution.” _Physics Bulletin_
31, n.d., 1980.

9. Grasse, Pierre P. _Evolution of Living Organisms_. New York, Academic
Press, 1977, p. 8.

10. Patterson, Colin. “Evolution and Creationism.” Transcript of Speech
at American Museum of Natural History, Nov. 5, 1981, p. 2.

11. Patterson, Colin. “Cladistics.” Interview on BBC Telecast, Peter
Franz, Interviewer, Mar. 4, 1982.

12. Ehrlich and Holm, op cit.

13. Harper, G.W. op cit., p. 26.

14. “Six Decades of Science Highlights.” _Science News_ 121, Mar. 13,
1982, p. 192.

Article written by Henry M. Morris , Ph.D.

February 25, 2009

The Atheist and his atheism

keywords: atheism, God, atheist, Jesus, agnostic, Christianity, religion, philosophy

Atheism is defined by Webster’s New World Dictionary as, “1. the belief that there is no God, or denial that God or gods exist. 2. godlessness”. An atheist, therefore, is a person who believes that there is no God. But what does the Bible say?

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

PSALMS XIV:I

Atheism is a belief system that ardently denies the existence of God. God calls the atheist a FOOL. Many atheists spend much time and effort attempting to “disprove” that God exists. According to Romans chapter 1 they know that He exists, but they want to control their own lives and not submit to the Lord. They are actually rather tragic figures just like any other unsaved individual. It is hard to live out their atheism–if they did, they’d actually be considered crazy like O’Hair was.

The atheist’s RELIGION (which is simply a system of beliefs based on a philosophy) of atheism is simply a way to try to block out and override the truth–the ol’ ostrich-head-in-the-sand technique:

If you try to tell ’em the truth, they say “Shut up!”
stick their heads in the ground and shout– “There’s nobody there,
there’s nobody there,
there’s nobody there, I tell you!
See, I can’t see ’em!”

Well, atheist reader, Somebody is there and His truth has stood from the beginning of time and will continue for all eternity. God is not dependent on you in any way. Blasphemies, wars, famines, and political appointments come and go, but when the dust settles, there’s Jesus. And there is nothing you can do about it but breathe out hot air. You will humble yourself before the Lord Jesus or you will be ground to powder.

And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. –Jesus Christ
Matthew 21:44

Most atheists have what I call the Don Quixote Syndrome. Let me explain. Cervantes wrote a book about Don Quixote a long time ago. Don Quixote would attack windmills as if they were his enemies. Of course a windmill is nobody’s enemy. If what the atheist believes is REALLY his belief, then he would leave people like me alone. After all, if God did not exist, He and His followers would be no enemy to the atheist. We’d just be deluded people. Therefore IF the atheist REALLY believes there is no God and the fool attacks a Christian, then he has the Don Quixote Syndrome because the Christian is not his enemy. Nevertheless, God is real and THAT is why atheists have all these organizations and debates to “prove” that God does not exist. Atheist reader, if you would just be true to what you purport to believe, then you wouldn’t have the Don Quixote Syndrome.

My old pastor once ministered to an old atheist who had been a card-carrying atheist for decades–but as he laid on his death bed, he wanted a pastor. I don’t know if he got saved or not. When it’s time to die, many atheists are understandably uneasy and those that aren’t should be terrified.

There is hope for the atheist. He can be saved. In fact, there are plenty of atheists that have come to Jesus Christ. I refuse to argue with them, but will answer honest questions. Unfortunately, many atheists ignorantly say hard things against the Lord Jesus Christ and His people. Don’t let fancy titles and big words shake your faith in the One who holds your eternal destiny.

Think about this: What does the atheist have to offer you? Eternal life? Spiritual comfort? Love? Kindness? Comfort in the midnight hour when no one is around? No, none of these. He has nothing to offer you but blasphemy, hell fire and the wrath of God. The atheist will tell you fabulous fairy tales like

you were spontaneously generated from a rock,
a monkey is your daddy,
a fish is your cousin,
you have no hope,
you should just live for today,
when you’re dead, you’re dead.

If you follow their ignorant advice and die without Christ, you WILL forever regret it and you will remember that someone told you the truth and you scoffed.

Atheists try their hardest to argue a fact that is firmly established–God is real. You cannot look on His creation and its ways and honestly deny it. I won’t argue that 2+2=4 and I won’t argue that God exists. An atheist once wrote and said, “2+2 is not necessarily 4”. Well, write any other number on your math test and see if you get it right.

The bottom line is that atheism is a false belief system composed of fools–it’s not new–the Bible told us about atheism thousands of years ago. Is there a real atheist? No. The closest thing to it is someone who has told themselves a lie so many times that they begin to believe it’s true.

Blog at WordPress.com.