Bible-tube.com The evolution cruncher

 Introductory: Scientists Speak about Evolution— 1


Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.

Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.

Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.

An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is NOT known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].

"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.

"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.

"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.

"'The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].

"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).

"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].

"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.

"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

"`Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.

"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.

"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."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.

"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.

"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.

"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].

"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.

"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].

"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.

"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.'" *Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).

"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).

"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."—*Arthur N. Field.


Introductory: Scientists Speak about Evolution— 2


There are scientists all over the world who know that evolutionary theory is bankrupt. Such men as *Charles Darwin, *Thomas and *Julian Huxley, and *Steven Jay Gould have admitted it. But you will not find these statements in the popular press. Such admissions are only made to fellow professionals.

An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on , only 164 statements are by creationists. (see Book Store)

"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."—*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].

"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . .

"Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."—*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.

"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."—*P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), p. 6.

"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence."—*R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.

"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."—*John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in "The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought."

"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147.

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end—no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."—I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).

"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman's Library issue of *Charles Darwin's, Origin of Species (1956 edition).

" `Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]."—*The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].

" `The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]

"[In Darwin's writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability, and probabilities then were promoted to certitudes."—*Agassiz, op. cit., p. 335.

"The origin of all diversity among living beings remains a mystery as totally unexplained as if the book of Mr. Darwin had never been written, for no theory unsupported by fact, however plausible it may appear, can be admitted in science."—L. Agassiz on the Origin of Species, American Journal of Science, 30 (1860), p. 154. [Darwin's book was published in 1859.]

"[Darwin could] summon up enough general, vague and conjectural reasons to account for this fact, and if these were not taken seriously, he could come up with a different, but equally general, vague and conjectural set of reasons."—*Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and Darwinian Revolution (1968), p. 319.

"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century . . the origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the [ship] Beagle."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358.

"It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as `Let us assume,' or `We may well suppose,' etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone."—L. Merson Davies [British scientist], Modern Science (1953), p. 7.

"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).

"Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, his life was spent on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature . . It is absurd to expect that many facts will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution and, today, every one of his theories is contradicted by facts."—*P.T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194.

"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have, at best, a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors."—*S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).

"In essence, we contend that neo-Darwinism is a theory of differential survival and not one of origin . .

"We are certainly not arguing here that differential survival of whole organisms does not occur. This must inevitably happen [i.e. some species become extinct]. The question that we must ask is, does this represent the controlling dynamic of organic evolution? Cannot a similar argument be equally well-constructed to `explain' any frequency distribution? For example, consider rocks which vary in hardness and also persist through time. Clearly the harder rocks are better `adapted' to survive harsh climatic conditions. As Lewontin points out, a similar story can be told about political parties, rumors, jokes, stars, and discarded soft drink containers."—*A.J. Hughes and *D. Lambert, "Functionalism, Structuralism, `Ways of Seeing,' " Journal of Theoretical Biology, 787 (1984), pp. 796-797.

"Biologists have indeed built their advances in evolutionary theory on the Darwinian foundation, not realizing that the foundation is about to topple because of Darwin's three mistakes.

"George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy."—*Kenneth Hsu, "Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177.

"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hochypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."—*James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.

"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything—or at least they are not science." —*George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science,  143 (1964) p. 770.

"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved."—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition).

"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . .

"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."—*Pierre P. de Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.

"The over-riding supremacy of the myth [of evolution] has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote:] "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."—*Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].

"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77.



The  Evolution Cruncher

from Evolution Facts, Inc.

BOX 300 - ALTAMONT, TN 37301

Chapter 1, part 1 of 2

BRIEF HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY


How modern science got into this problem

This chapter is based on pp. 895-934 (History of Evolutionary Theory) and 1003-1042 (Evolution and Society) of Other Evidence (Volume Three of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this chapter are at least 318 statements by scientists, which you will find in the appendix to those chapters, plus much more, on our website: evolution-facts.org.
This chapter is heavily condensed and omits many, many quotations by scientists, historians, and evolutionists.

INTRODUCTION

Introduction: Stellar evolution is based on the concept that nothing can explode and produce all the stars and worlds. Life evolution is founded on the twin theories of spontaneous generation and Lamarckism (the inheritance of acquired characteristics);—yet, although they remain the basis of biological evolution, both were debunked by scientists over a century ago.

Science is the study of the natural world. We are thankful for the many dedicated scientists who are hard at work, improving life for us. But we will learn, in this book, that their discoveries have provided no worthwhile evidence supporting evolutionary theory.

Premises are important. These are the concepts by which scientific facts are interpreted. For over a century, efforts have been made to explain scientific discoveries by a mid-19th century theory, known as "evolution." It has formed the foundation for many other theories, which also are not founded on scientific facts!

Restating them again, here are the two premises on which the various theories of evolution are based:

1 - This is the evolutionary formula for making a universe:

Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.

2 - This is the evolutionary formula for making life:

Dirt + water + time = living creatures.

Evolutionists theorize that the above two formulas can enable everything about us to make itself—with the exception of man-made things, such as automobiles or buildings. Complicated things, such as wooden boxes with nails in them, require thought, intelligence, and careful workmanship. But everything else about us in nature (such as hummingbirds and the human eye) is declared to be the result of accidental mishaps, random confusion, and time. You will not even need raw materials to begin with. They make themselves too.

How did all this nonsense get started? We will begin this paperback with a brief overview of the modern history of evolutionary theory.

But let us not forget that, though it may be nonsensical, evolutionary theory has greatly affected—and damaged—mankind in the 20th century. Will we continue to let this happen, now that we are in the 21st century? The social and moral impact that evolutionary concepts have had on the modern world has been terrific.

Morality and ethical standards have been greatly reduced. Children and youth are taught in school that they are an advanced level of animals; there are no moral principles. Since they are just animals, they should do whatever they want. Personal survival and success will come only by rivalry, strife, and stepping on others.

Here is a brief overview of some of the people and events in the history of modern evolutionary theory. But it is only a glimpse. Much more will be found as you read farther in this paperback. And it is all fascinating reading!

Only a few items are listed in this chapter, but they are enough to provide you with a nice entry point to the rest of this paperback. Keep in mind that you can look in the Index, at the back of this paperback, and frequently find still more information on a given subject ("Linnaeus," "Thermodynamics," "Guadeloupe Woman," "Mendel," etc.).

1 - 18th AND 19th CENTURY SCIENTISTS

Prior to the middle of the 1800s, scientists were researchers who firmly believed that all nature was made by a Master Designer. Those pioneers who laid the foundations of modern science were creationists. They were men of giant intellect who struggled against great odds in carrying on their work. They were hard-working researchers.

In contrast, the philosophers sat around, hardly stirring from their armchairs and theorized about everything while the scientists, ignoring them, kept at their work.

But a change came about in the 19th century, when the philosophers tried to gain control of scientific endeavor and suppress research and findings that would be unfavorable to their theories. Today’s evolutionists vigorously defend the unscientific theories they thought up over a century ago.

William Paley (1743-1805), in his 1802 classic, Natural Theology, summarized the viewpoint of the scientists. 

He argued that the kind of carefully designed structures we see in the living world point clearly to a Designer. If we see a watch, we know that it had a designer and maker; it would be foolish to imagine that it made itself. This is the "argument by design." All about us is the world of nature, and over our heads at night is a universe of stars. We can ignore or ridicule what is there or say it all made itself, but our scoffing does not change the reality of the situation. A leading atheistic scientist of our time, *Fred Hoyle, wrote that, although it was not difficult to disprove Darwinism, what Paley had to say appeared likely to be unanswerable (*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, 1981, p. 96).

It is a remarkable fact that the basis of evolutionary theory was destroyed by seven scientific research findings,—before *Charles Darwin first published the theory.

Carl Linn (Carolus Linnaeus, 1707-1778) was a scientist who classified immense numbers of living organisms. An earnest creationist, he clearly saw that there were no halfway species. All plant and animal species were definite categories, separate from one another. Variation was possible within a species, and there were many sub-species. But there were no cross-overs from one species to another (*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p. 276).

First Law of Thermodynamics (1847). Heinrich von Helmholtz stated the law of conservation of energy: The sum total of all matter will always remain the same. This law refutes several aspects of evolutionary theory. *Isaac Asimov calls it "the 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).

Second Law of Thermodynamics (1850). R.J.E. Clausius stated the law of entropy: All systems will tend toward the most mathematically probable state, and eventually become totally random and disorganized (*Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution, 1968, p. 201). In other words, everything runs down, wears out, and goes to pieces (*R.R. Kindsay, "Physics: to What Extent is it Deterministic," American Scientist 56, 1968, p. 100). This law totally eliminates the basic evolutionary theory that simple evolves into complex. *Einstein said the two laws were the most enduring laws he knew of (*Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View, 1980, p. 6).

Guadeloupe Woman Found (1812). This is a well-authenticated discovery which has been in the British Museum for over a century. A fully modern human skeleton was found in the French Caribbean island of Guadeloupe inside an immense slab of limestone, dated by modern geologists at 28 million years old. (More examples could be cited.) Human beings, just like those living today (but sometimes larger), have been found in very deep levels of strata.

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) was a creationist who lived and worked near Brunn (now Brno), Czechoslovakia. He was a science and math teacher. Unlike the theorists, Mendel was a true scientist. He bred garden peas and studied the results of crossing various varieties. Beginning his work in 1856, he concluded it within eight years. In 1865, he reported his research in the Journal of the Brunn Society for the Study of Natural Science. The journal was distributed to 120 libraries in Europe, England, and America. Yet his research was totally ignored by the scientific community until it was rediscovered in 1900 (*R.A. Fisher, "Has Mendel’s Work Been Rediscovered?" Annals of Science, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1936). His experiments clearly showed that one species could not transmute into another one. A genetic barrier existed that could not be bridged. Mendel’s work laid the basis for modern genetics, and his discoveries effectively destroyed the basis for species evolution(*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, 1984, pp. 63-64).

Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) was another genuine scientist. In the process of studying fermentation, he performed his famous 1861 experiment, in which he disproved the theory of spontaneous generation. Life cannot arise from non-living materials. This experiment was very important; for, up to that time, a majority of scientists believed in spontaneous generation. (They thought that if a pile of old clothes were left in a corner, it would breed mice! The proof was that, upon later returning to the clothes, mice would frequently be found there.) Pasteur concluded from his experiment that only God could create living creatures. But modern evolutionary theory continues to be based on that out-dated theory disproved by Pasteur: spontaneous generation (life arises from non-life). Why? Because it is the only basis on which evolution could occur. As *Adams notes, "With spontaneous generation discredited [by Pasteur], biologists were left with no theory of the origin of life at all"(*J. Edison Adams, Plants: An Introduction to Modern Biology, 1967, p. 585).

August Friedrich Leopold Weismann (1834-1914) was a German biologist who disproved *Lamarck’s notion of "the inheritance of acquired characteristics." He is primarily remembered as the scientist who cut off the tails of 901 young white mice in 19 successive generations, yet each new generation was born with a full-length tail. The final generation, he reported, had tails as long as those originally measured on the first. Weismann also carried out other experiments that buttressed his refutation of Lamarckism. His discoveries, along with the fact that circumcision of Jewish males for 4,000 years had not affected the foreskin, doomed the theory (*Jean Rostand, Orion Book of Evolution, 1960, p. 64). Yet Lamarckism continues today as the disguised basis of evolutionary biology. For example, evolutionists still teach that giraffes kept 

stretching their necks to reach higher branches, so their necks became longer! In a later book, *Darwin abandoned natural selection as unworkable, and returned to Lamarckism as the cause of the never-observed change from one species to another (*Randall Hedtke, The Secret of the Sixth Edition, 1984).

Here is a brief, partial overview of what true scientists were accomplishing in the 18th and 19th centuries. All of them were Creationists:

Louis Agassiz (1807-1873): glacial geology, ichthyology.
Charles Babbage (1792-1871): actuarial tables, calculating machine, foundations of computer science.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626): scientific method of research.
Robert Boyle (1627-1691): chemistry, gas dynamics.
Sir David Brewster (1781-1868): optical mineralogy, kaleidoscope.
Georges Cuvier (1769-1832): comparative anatomy, vertebrate paleontology.
Sir Humphry Davy (1778-1829): thermokinetics.
Jean Henri Fabre (1823-1915): entomology of living insects.
Michael Faraday (1791-1867): electric generator, electro-magnetics, field theory.
Sir John A. Fleming (1849-1945): electronics, thermic valve.
Joseph Henry (1797-1878): electric motor, galvanometer.
Sir William Herschel (1738-1822): galactic astronomy, double stars.
James Joule (1818-1889): reversible thermodynamics.
Lord William Kelvin (1824-1907): absolute temperature scale, energetics, thermodynamics, transatlantic cable.
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630): celestial mechanics, ephemeris tables, physical astronomy.

Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778): classification system, systematic biology.

Joseph Lister (1827-1912): antiseptic surgery.
Matthew Maury (1806-1873): hydrography, oceanography.
James C. Maxwell (1831-1879): electrical dynamics, statistical thermodynamics.
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884): genetics.
Samuel F.B. Morse (1791-1872): telegraph.
Isaac Newton (1642-1727): calculus, dynamics, law of gravity, reflecting telescopes.
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662): hydrostatics, barometer.
Louise Pasteur (1822-1895): bacteriology, biogenesis law, pasteurization, vaccination, and immunization.
Sir William Ramsey (1852-1916): inert gases, isotropic chemistry.
John Ray (1827-1705): natural history, classification of plants and animals.
John Rayleigh (1842-1919): dimensional analysis, model analysis.
Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866): non-Euclidean geometry.
Sir James Simpson (1811-1870): chloroform, gynecology.
Sir George Stokes (1819-1903): fluid mechanics.
Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902): pathology.

2 - 18th AND 19th CENTURY EVOLUTIONISTS

And now we will view the armchair philosophers. Hardly one of them ever set foot in field research or entered the door of a science laboratory, yet they founded the modern theory of evolution:

*Emmanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) was a do-nothing expert. In his 1734 book, Principia, he theorized that a rapidly rotating nebula formed itself into our solar system of sun and planets. He claimed that he obtained the idea from spirits during a séance. It is significant that the nebular hypothesis theory originated from such a source.

*Comte de Buffon (1707-1788) was a dissolute philosopher who, unable to improve on the work of Linnaeus, spent his time criticizing him. He theorized that species originated from one another and that a chunk was torn out of the sun, which became our planet. As with the other philosophers, he presented no evidence in support of his theories.

*Jean-Baptist Lamarck (1744-1829) made a name for himself by theorizing. He accomplished little else of significance. He laid the foundation of modern evolutionary theory, with his concept of "inheritance of acquired characteristics," which was later given the name Lamarckism. In 1809, he published a book,Philosophie zoologique, in which he declared that the giraffe got its long neck by stretching it up to reach the higher branches, and birds that lived in water grew webbed feet. According to that, if you pull hard on your feet, you will gradually increase their length; and, if you decide in your mind to do so, you can grow hair on your bald head, and your offspring will never be bald. This is science?

*Lamarck’s other erroneous contribution to evolution was the theory of uniformitarianism. This is the conjecture that all earlier ages on earth were exactly as they are today, calm and peaceful with no worldwide Flood or other great catastrophes.

*Robert Chambers (1802-1883) was a spiritualist who regularly communicated with spirits. As a result of his contacts, he wrote the first popular evolution book in all of Britain. Called Vestiges of Creation (1844), it was printed 15 years before *Charles Darwin’s book, Origin of the Species.

*Charles Lyell (1797-1875). Like *Charles Darwin, Lyell inherited great wealth and was able to spend his time theorizing. Lyell published his Principles of Geology in 1830-1833, and it became the basis for the modern theory of sedimentary strata,—even though 20th-century discoveries in radiodating, radiocarbon dating, missing strata, and overthrusts (older strata on top of more recent strata) have nullified the theory.

In order to prove his theory, Lyell was quite willing to misstate the facts. He learned that Niagara Falls had eroded a seven-mile [11 km] channel from Queenston, Ontario, and that it was eroding at about 3 feet [1 m] a year. So Lyell conveniently changed that to one foot [.3 m] a year, which meant that the falls had been flowing for 35,000 years! But Lyell had not told the truth. Three-foot erosion a year, at its present rate of flow, would only take us back 7000 to 9000 years,—and it would be expected that, just after the Flood, the flow would, for a time, have greatly increased the erosion rate. Lyell was a close friend of Darwin, and urged him to write his book, Origin of the Species.

*Alfred Russell Wallace (1823-1913) is considered to be the man who developed the theory which *Darwin published. *Wallace was deeply involved in spiritism at the time he formulated the theory in his Ternate Paper, which *Darwin, with the help of two friends (*Charles Lyell and *Joseph Hooker), pirated and published under his own name. *Darwin, a wealthy man, thus obtained the royalties which belonged to Wallace, a poverty-ridden theorist. In 1980, *Arnold C. Brackman, in his book,A Delicate Arrangement, established that Darwin plagiarized Wallace’s material. It was arranged that a paper by Darwin would be read to the Royal Society, in London, while Wallace’s was held back until later. Priorities for the ideas thus having been taken care of, Darwin set to work to prepare his book.

In 1875, Wallace came out openly for spiritism and Marxism, another stepchild of Darwinism. This was Wallace’s theory: Species have changed in the past, by which one species descended from another in a manner that we cannot prove today. That is exactly what modern evolution teaches. Yet it has no more evidence supporting the theory than Wallace had in 1858 when he devised the theory while in a fever.

In February 1858, while in a delirious fever on the island of Ternate in the Molaccas, Wallace conceived the idea, "survival of the fittest," as being the method by which species change. But the concept proves nothing. The fittest; which one is that? It is the one that survived longest. Which one survives longest? The fittest.This is reasoning in a circle. The phrase says nothing about the evolutionary process, much less proving it.

In the first edition of his book, Darwin regarded "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" as different concepts. By the sixth edition of his Origin of the Species,he thought they meant the same thing, but that "survival of the fittest" was the more accurate. In a still later book (Descent of Man, 1871), Darwin ultimately abandoned "natural selection" as a hopeless mechanism and returned to Lamarckism. Even Darwin recognized the theory was falling to pieces. The supporting evidence just was not there.

*Charles Darwin (1809-1882) was born into wealth and able to have a life of ease. He took two years of medical school at Edinburgh University, and then dropped out. It was the only scientific training he ever received. Because he spent the time in bars with his friends, he barely passed his courses. Darwin had no particular purpose in life, and his father planned to get him into a nicely paid job as an Anglican minister. Darwin did not object.

But an influential relative got him a position as the unpaid "naturalist" on a ship planning to sail around the world, the Beagle. The voyage lasted from December 1831 to October 1836.

It is of interest that, after engaging in spiritism, certain men in history have been seized with a deep hatred of God and have then been guided to devise evil teachings, that have destroyed large numbers of people, while others have engaged in warfare which have annihilated millions. In connection with this, we think of such known spiritists as *Sigmund Freud and *Adolf Hitler. It is not commonly known that *Charles Darwin, while a naturalist aboard the Beagle, was initiated into witchcraft in South America by nationals. During horseback travels into the interior, he took part in their ceremonies and, as a result, something happened to him.Upon his return to England, although his health was strangely weakened, he spent the rest of his life working on theories to destroy faith in the Creator.

After leaving South America, Darwin was on the Galapagos Islands for a few days. While there, he saw some finches which had blown in from South America and adapted to their environment, producing several sub-species. He was certain that this showed cross-species evolution (change into new species). But they were still finches. This theory about the finches was the primary evidence of evolution he brought back with him to England.

Darwin, never a scientist and knowing nothing about the practicalities of genetics, then married his first cousin, which resulted in all seven of his children having physical or mental disorders. (One girl died after birth, another at 10. His oldest daughter had a prolonged breakdown at 15. Three of his children became semi-invalids, and his last son was born mentally retarded and died 19 months after birth.)

His book, Origin of the Species, was first published in November 1859. The full title, On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, reveals the viciousness of the underlying concept; this concept led directly to two of the worst wars in the history of mankind.

In his book, Darwin reasoned from theory to facts, and provided little evidence for what he had to say. Modern evolutionists are ashamed of the book, with its ridiculous arguments.

Darwin’s book had what some men wanted: a clear out-in-the-open, current statement in favor of species change. So, in spite of its laughable imperfections, they capitalized on it. Here is what you will find in his book:

Darwin would cite authorities that he did not mention. He repeatedly said it was "only an abstract," and "a fuller edition" would come out later. But, although he wrote other books, try as he may he never could find the proof for his theories. No one since has found it either.

When he did name an authority, it was just an opinion from a letter. Phrases indicating the hypothetical nature of his ideas were frequent: "It might have been," "Maybe," "probably," "it is conceivable that." A favorite of his was: "Let us take an imaginary example."

Darwin would suggest a possibility, and later refer back to it as a fact: "As we have already demonstrated previously." Elsewhere he would suggest a possible series of events and then conclude by assuming that proved the point.

He relied heavily on stories instead of facts. Confusing examples would be given. He would use specious and devious arguments, and spent much time suggesting possible explanations why the facts he needed were not available.

Here is an example of his reasoning: To explain the fossil trans-species gaps, Darwin suggested that species must have been changing quickly in other parts of the world where men had not yet examined the strata. Later these changed species traveled over to the Western World, to be found in strata there as new species. So species were changing on the other side of the world, and that was why species in the process of change were not found on our side!

With thinking like this, who needs science? But remember that Charles Darwin never had a day of schooling in the sciences.

Here is Darwin’s explanation of how one species changes into another: It is a variation of *Lamarck’s theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics (*Nicholas Hutton III, Evidence of Evolution, 1962, p. 138). Calling it pangenesis, Darwin said that an organ affected by the environment would respond by giving off particles that he called gemmules. These particles supposedly helped determine hereditary characteristics. The environment would affect an organ; gemmules would drop out of the organ; and the gemmules would travel to the reproductive organs, where they would affect the cells (*W. Stansfield, Science of Evolution, 1977, p. 38). As mentioned earlier, scientists today are ashamed of Darwin’s ideas.

In his book, Darwin taught that man came from an ape, and that the stronger races would, within a century or two, destroy the weaker ones. (Modern evolutionists claim that man and ape descended from a common ancestor.)

After taking part in the witchcraft ceremonies, not only was his mind affected but his body also. He developed a chronic and incapacitating illness, and went to his death under a depression he could not shake (Random House Encyclopedia, 1977, p. 768).

He frequently commented in private letters that he recognized that there was no evidence for his theory, and that it could destroy the morality of the human race. "Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without in some degree becoming staggered" (*Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, 1860, p. 178; quoted from Harvard Classics, 1909 ed., Vol. 11). "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy" (*Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229).

*Thomas Huxley (1825-1895) was the man *Darwin called "my bulldog." *Darwin was so frail in health that he did not make public appearances, but remained secluded in the mansion he inherited. After being personally converted by Darwin (on a visit to Darwin’s home), Huxley championed the evolutionary cause with everything he had. In the latter part of the 19th century, while *Haeckel labored earnestly on the European continent, Huxley was Darwin’s primary advocate in England.

The *X Club was a secret society in London which worked to further evolutionary thought and suppress scientific opposition to it. It was powerful, for all scientific papers considered by the Royal Society had to be first approved by this small group of nine members. Chaired by *Huxley, its members made contacts and powerfully affected British scientific associations (*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, 1984, p. 64). " ‘But what do they do?’ asked a curious journalist. ‘They run British science,’ a professor replied, ‘and on the whole, they don’t do it badly’ " (*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p. 467). In the 20th century, U.S. government agencies, working closely with the *National Science Federation and kindred organizations, have channeled funds for research to universities willing to try to find evidence for evolution. Down to the present day, the theorists are still trying to control the scientists.

The Oxford Debate was held in June 1860 at Oxford University, only seven months after the publication of *Darwin’s Origin of the Species. A special meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, it marked a major turning point in England,—just as the 1925 Scopes Trial would be the turning point in North America. Scientific facts had little to do with either event; both were just battles between personalities. In both instances, evolutionists won through ridicule. They dared not rely on scientific facts to support their case, because they had none.

Samuel Wilberforce, Anglican bishop of Oxford University, was scheduled to speak that evening in defense of creationism. *Huxley had lectured on behalf of evolution in many English cities and was not planning to attend that night. But *Chambers, a spiritualist adviser to Huxley, was impressed to find and tell him he must attend.

Wilberforce delivered a vigorous attack on evolution for half an hour before a packed audience of 700 people. His presentation was outstanding, and the audience was apparently with him. But then Wilberforce turned and rhetorically asked Huxley a humorous question, whether it was through his grandfather or his grandmother that Huxley claimed descent from an ape.

Huxley was extremely sharp-witted and, at the bishop’s question, he clasped the knee of the person sitting next to him, and said, "He is delivered into my hands!"

Huxley arose and worked the audience up to a climax, and then declared that he would feel no shame in having an ape as an ancestor, but would be ashamed of a brilliant man who plunged into scientific questions of which he knew nothing (John W. Klotz, "Science and Religion," in Studies in Creation, 1985, pp. 45-46).

At this, the entire room went wild, some yelling one thing and others another. On a pretext so thin, the evolutionists in England became a power which scientists feared to oppose. We will learn that ridicule heaped on ridicule, through the public press, accomplished the same results for American evolutionists in Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925.

The Orgueil Meteorite (1861) was one of many hoaxes perpetrated, to further the cause of evolution. Someone inserted various dead microbes, and then covered it over with a surface appearing like the meteorite. The objective was to show that life came from outer space. But the hoax was later discovered (*Scientific American, January 1965, p. 52). A remarkable number of hoaxes have occurred since then. Men, working desperately, have tried to provide scientific evidence that does not exist. In the mid-1990s, a meteorite "from Mars" with "dead organisms" on it was trumpeted in the press. But ignored were the conclusions of competent scientists, that the "discovery" was highly speculative.

*Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911). Galton was *Charles Darwin’s cousin who amplified on one of the theory’s logical conclusions. He declared that the "science" of "eugenics" was the key to humanity’s problems: Put the weak, infirm, and aged to sleep. *Adolf Hitler, an ardent evolutionist, used it successfully in World War II(*Otto Scott, "Playing God," in Chalcedon Report, No. 247, February 1986, p. 1).

*Wallace’s Break with *Darwin. Darwin’s close friend, Russell Wallace, eventually separated from Darwin’s position—a position he had given Darwin—when Wallace realized that the human brain was far too advanced for evolutionary processes to have produced it (Loren C. Eiseley, "Was Darwin Wrong about the Human Brain?" Harpers Magazine, 211:66-70, 1955).

*Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), along with certain other men (*Friedrich Nietzche, *Karl Marx, *Sigmund Freud, *John Dewey, etc.), introduced evolutionary modes and morality into social fields (sociology, psychology, education, warfare, economics, etc.) with devastating effects on the 20th century. Spencer, also a spiritist, was the one who initially invented the term, "evolution" (*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p. 159; cf. 424). Spencer introduced sociology into Europe, clothing it in evolutionary terms. From there it traveled to America. He urged that the unfit be eliminated, so society could properly evolve (*Harry E. Barnes, Historical Sociology, 1948, p. 13). In later years, even the leading evolutionists of the time, such as Huxley and Darwin, became tired of the fact that Spencer could do nothing but theorize and knew so little of real-life facts.

Archaeopteryx (1861, 1877). These consisted of several fossils from a single limestone quarry in Germany, each of which the quarry owner sold at a high price. One appeared to possibly be a small dinosaur skeleton, complete with wings and feathers. European museums paid high prices for them. (As we will learn below, in 1985 Archaeopteryx was shown to be a fake.)

*Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), a teacher at the University of Jena in Germany, was the most zealous advocate of Darwinism on the continent in the 19th century. He drew a number of fraudulent charts (first published in 

1868) which purported to show that human embryos were almost identical to those of other animals. Reputable scientists repudiated them within a few years, for embryologists recognized the deceit. (See chapter 16, Vestiges and Recapitulation on our website for the charts.) *Darwin and *Haeckel had a strong influence on the rise of world communism (*Daniel Gasman, Scientific Origins of National Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League, 1971, p. xvi).

*Marsh’s Horse Series (1870s). *Othniel C. Marsh claimed to have found 30 different kinds of horse fossils in Wyoming and Nebraska. He reconstructed and arranged them in a small-to-large evolutionary series, which was never in a straight line (*Encyclopedia Britannica, 1976 ed., Vol. 7, p. 13). Although displayed in museums for a time, the great majority of scientists later repudiated this "horse series" (*Charles Deperet, Transformations of the Animal World, p. 105; *G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution, 1960, p. 149).

*Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). *Nietzsche was a remarkable example of a man who fully adopted Darwinist principles. He wrote books declaring that the way to evolve was to have wars and kill the weaker races, in order to produce a "super race" (*T. Walter Wallbank and *Alastair M. Taylor, Civilization Past and Present, Vol. 2, 1949 ed., p. 274). *Darwin, in Origin of the Species, also said that this needed to happen. The writings of both men were read by German militarists and led to World War I. *Hitler valued both Darwin’s and Nietzche’s books. When Hitler killed 6 million Jews, he was only doing what Darwin taught.

It is of interest, that a year before he defended *John Scopes’ right to teach Darwinism at the Dayton "Monkey Trial," *Clarence Darrow declared in court that the murderous thinking of two young men was caused by their having learned *Nietzsche’s vicious Darwinism in the public schools (*W. Brigan, ed., Classified Speeches).

*Asa Gray was the first leading theistic evolutionary advocate in America, at the time when Darwin was writing his books. Gray, a Presbyterian, worked closely with *Charles W. Eliot, president of Harvard, in promoting evolution as a "Christian teaching," yet teaching long ages and the book of Genesis as a fable.

The Challenger was a British ship dispatched to find evidence, on the ocean bottom, of evolutionary change. During its 1872-1876 voyage, it carried on seafloor dredging, but found no fossils developing on the bottom of the ocean. By this time, it was obvious to evolutionists that no fossils were developing on either land or sea, yet they kept quiet about the matter. Over the years, theories, hoaxes, false claims, and ridicule favoring evolution were spread abroad; but facts refuting it, when found, were kept hidden.

*Karl Marx (1818-1883) is closely linked with Darwinism. That which *Darwin did to biology, Marx with the help of others did to society. All the worst political philosophies of the 20th century emerged from the dark cave of Darwinism. Marx was thrilled when he read Origin of the Species and he immediately wrote Darwin and asked to dedicate his own major work, Das Kapital, to him. Darwin, in his reply, thanked him but said it would be best not to do so.

In 1866, Marx wrote to *Frederick Engels, that Origin of the Species contained the basis in natural history for their political and economic system for an atheist world. Engels, the co-founder of world communism with Marx and *Lenin, wrote to Karl Marx in 1859: "Darwin, whom I am just now reading, is splendid" (*C. Zirkle, Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene, 1959, p. 85). In 1861, Marx wrote to Engels: "Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural selection for the class struggle in history" (*op. cit., p. 86). At 

Marx’s funeral, Engles said that, as Darwin had discovered the law of organic evolution in natural history, so Marx had discovered the law of evolution in human history (*Otto Ruhle, Karl Marx, 1948, p. 366).

As Darwin emphasized competitive survival as the key to advancement, so communism focused on the value of labor rather than the laborer. Like Darwin, Marx thought he had discovered the law of development. He saw history in stages, as the Darwinists saw geological strata and successive forms of life.

*William Grant Sumner (1840-1910) applied evolutionary principles to political economics at Yale University. He taught many of America’s future business and industrial leaders that strong business should succeed and the weak perish, and that to help the unfit was to injure the fit and accomplish nothing for society (*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, pp. 59, 446, 72). Millionaires were, in his thinking, the "fittest." Modern laissez-faire capitalism was the result (*Gilman M. Ostrander, The Evolutionary Outlook: 1875-1900, 1971, p. 5).

*William James (1842-1910) was another evolutionist who influenced American thinking. His view of psychology placed the study of human behavior on an animalistic evolutionary basis.

Tidal Hypothesis Theory (1890). *George Darwin, son of *Charles Darwin, wanted to come up with something original, so he invented the theory that four million years ago the moon was pressed nearly against the earth, which revolved every five hours.—Then one day, a heavy tide occurred in the oceans, which lifted it out to its present location! Later proponents of George’s theory decided that the Pacific Basin is the hole the moon left behind, when those large ocean waves pushed it out into space.

3 - 1898 TO 1949

Bumpus’ Sparrows (1898). Herman Bumpus was a zoologist at Brown University. During the winter of 1898, by accident he carried out one of the only field experiments in natural selection. One cold morning, finding 136 stunned house sparrows on the ground, he tried to nurse them back to health. Of the total, 72 revived and 64 died. He weighed and carefully measured all of them, and found that those closest to the average survived best. This frequently quoted research study is another evidence that the animal or plant closest to the original species is the most hardy. Sub-species variations will not be as hardy, and evolution entirely across species (if the DNA code would permit it) would therefore be too weakened to survive (*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p. 61).

*Hugo deVries (1848-1935) was a Dutch botanist and one of the three men who, in 1900, rediscovered Mendel’s paper on the law of heredity.

One day while working with primroses, deVries thought he had discovered a new species. This made headlines. He actually had found a new variety (sub-species) of the primrose, but deVries conjectured that perhaps his "new species" had suddenly sprung into existence as a "mutation." He theorized that new species "saltated"(leaped), that is, continually spring into existence. His idea is called the saltation theory.

This was a new idea; and, during the first half of the 20th century, many evolutionary biologists, finding absolutely no evidence supporting "natural selection," switched from natural selection ("Darwinism") to mutations ("neo-Darwinism") as the mechanism by which the theorized cross-species changes occurred.

Later in this book, we will discover that mutations cannot produce evolution either, for they are always harmful. In addition, decades of experimentation have revealed they never produce new species.

In order to prove the mutation theory, deVries and other researchers immediately began experimentation on fruit flies; and it has continued ever since—but totally without success in producing new species.

Ironically, deVries’ saltation theory was based on an observational error. In 1914 *Edward Jeffries discovered that deVries’ primrose was just a new variety, not a new species.

Decades later, it was discovered that most plant varieties are produced by variations in gene factors, rarely by mutations. Those caused by gene variations may be strong (although not as strong as the average original), but those varieties produced by mutations are always weak and have a poor survival rate. See chapter 10,Mutations, for much, much more on the mutation problem.

*Walter S. Sutton and *T. Boveri (1902) independently discovered chromosomes and the linkage of genetic characters. This was only two years after Mendel’s research was rediscovered. Scientists were continually learning new facts about the fixity of the species.

*Thomas Hunt Morgan (1886-1945) was an American biologist who developed the theory of the gene. He found that the genetic determinants were present in a definite linear order in the chromosomes and could be somewhat "mapped." He was the first to work intensively with the fruit fly, Drosophila (*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, 1984, p. 70). But research with fruit flies, and other creatures, has proved a total failure in showing mutations to be a mechanism for cross-species change (*Richard B. Goldschmidt, "Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist," American Scientist, January 1952, p. 94).

*H.J. Muller (1990-1967). Upon learning of the 1927 discovery that X-rays, gamma rays, and various chemicals could induce an extremely rapid increase of mutations in the chromosomes of test animals and plants, Muller pioneered in using X-rays to greatly increase the mutation rate in fruit flies. But all he and the other researchers found was that mutations were always harmful (*H.J. Muller, Time, November 11, 1946, p. 38; *E.J. Gardner, Principles of Genetics, 1964, p. 192; *Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of the Species, 1951, p. 73).

*Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) was deeply indebted to the evolutionary training he received in Germany as a young man. He fully accepted it, as well as *Haeckel’s recapitulation theory. Freud began his Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (1916) with Haeckel’s premise: "Each individual somehow recapitulates in an abbreviated form the entire development of the human race" (*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p. 177).

Freud’s "Oedipus complex" was based on a theory of "primal horde" he developed about a "mental complex" that caveman families had long ago. His theories of anxiety complexes, and "oral" and "anal" stages, etc., were based on his belief that our ancestors were savage.

*H.G. Wells (1866-1946), the science fiction pioneer based his imaginative writings on evolutionary teachings. He had received a science training under Professor *Thomas H. Huxley, *Darwin’s chief defender.

*Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930), like a variety of other evolutionist leaders before and after, was an avid spiritist. Many of his mystery stories were based on evolutionary themes.

*George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) was so deeply involved in evolutionary theory, that he openly declared that he wrote his plays to teach various aspects of the theory(*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p. 461).

Piltdown Man (1912). In 1912, parts of a jaw and skull were found in England and dubbed "Piltdown Man." News of it created a sensation. The report of a dentist, in 1916, who said someone had filed down the teeth was ignored. As we will learn below, in 1953 the fact that it was a total hoax was uncovered. This, like all the later evidences that our ancestors were part ape, has been questioned or repudiated by reputable scientists. See chapter 13, Ancient Man.

World War I (1917-1918). Darwinism basically taught that there is no moral code, our ancestors were savage, and civilization only progressed by violence against others. It therefore led to extreme nationalism, racism, and warfare through Nazism and Fascism. Evolution was declared to involve "natural selection"; and, in the struggle to survive, the fittest will win out at the expense of their rivals. *Frederich von Bernhard, a German military officer, wrote a book in 1909 extolling evolution and appealing to Germany to start another war. *Heinrich von Treitsche, a Prussian militarist, loudly called for war by Germany in order to fulfill its "evolutionary destiny" (*Heinrich G. von Treitsche, Politics, Vol. 1, pp. 66-67). Their teachings were fully adopted by the German government, and it only waited for a pretext to start the war (*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p. 59).

Communist Darwinism. *Marx and *Engels’ acceptance of evolutionary theory made *Darwin’s theory the "scientific" basis of all later communist ideologies (*Robert M. Young, "The Darwin Debate," in Marxism Today, Vol. 26, April 1982, p. 21). Communist teaching declared that evolutionary change, which taught class struggle, came by revolution and violent uprisings. Communist dogma declares that Lamarckism (inheritance of acquired characteristics) is the mechanism by which this is done. Mendelian genetics was officially outlawed in Russia in 1948, since it was recognized as disproving evolution. Communist theorists also settled on "synthetic speciation" instead of natural selection or mutations as the mechanism for species change (*L.B. Halstead, "Museum of Errors," in Nature, November 20, 1980, p. 208). This concept is identical to the sudden change theory of *Goldschmidt and *Gould, which we will mention later.

*John Dewey (1859-1952) was another influential thought leader. A vigorous Darwinist, Dewey founded and led out in the "progressive education movement" which so greatly affected U.S. educational history. But it was nothing more than careful animal training (*Samuel L. Blumenfeld, NEA: Trojan Horse in American Education, 1984, p. 43). The purpose was to indoctrinate the youth into evolution, humanism, and collectivism. In 1933, Dewey became a charter member of the American Humanist Association and its first president. Its basic statement of beliefs, published that year as the Humanist Manifesto, became the unofficial framework of teaching in most school textbooks. The evolutionists recognized that they must gain control of all public education (*Sir Julian Huxley, quoted in *Sol Tax and *Charles Callender, eds., Evolution after Darwin, 3 vols., 1960). Historically, American education was based on morals and standards; but Dewey declared that, in order to be "progressive," education must leave "the past" and "evolve upward" to new, modern concepts.

The Scopes Trial (July 10 to July 21, 1925) was a powerful aid to the cause of evolution, yet scientific discoveries were not involved. That was fortunate, since, except for a single tooth (later disproved), and a few other frauds, the evolutionists had nothing worthwhile to present (*The World’s Most Famous Court Trial: A Complete Stenographic Report, 1925).

The ACLU (*American Civil Liberties Union) had been searching for someone they could use to test the Butler Act, which forbade the teaching of evolution in the public schools in Tennessee. *John Scopes (24 at the time) volunteered for the job. He later privately admitted that he had never actually taught evolution in class, so the case was based on a fraud; he spent the time teaching them football maneuvers (*John Scopes, Center of the Storm, 1967, p. 60). But no matter, the ACLU wanted to so humiliate the State of Tennessee, that no other state would ever dare oppose the evolutionists. The entire trial, widely reported as the "Tennessee Monkey Trial," was presented to the public as something of a comic opera. (A trained ape was even sent in, to walk around on a chain in the streets of Dayton.) But the objective was deadly serious, and they succeeded very well. Although the verdict was against Scopes, America’s politicians learned the lesson: Do not oppose the evolutionists.

The Scopes trial, the first event nationally broadcast over the radio, was a major victory for evolutionists throughout the world. Ridicule, side issues, misinformation, and false statements were used to win the battle.

SCOPES TRIAL—Evolutionists turned the Dayton trial into ridiculous circus in order to frighten later State governments into banning creationism from their school curricula.

Evolution Cruncher Chapter 2

The Big Bang and Stellar Evolution Part 1


Why the Big Bang is a fizzle

and stars cannot evolve out of gas

This chapter is based on pp. 1-47 of Origin of the Universe (Volume One of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this chapter are at least 104 statements by scientists. You will find them, plus much more, on our website: evolution-facts.org.

INTRODUCTION

Look about you. There are clouds, seas, and mountains, grass carpets, the plains; and birds sing in the trees. Farm animals graze in the meadows, and water brooks run through the fields. In city and country, people use their astounding minds to plan and produce intricate things. At night the stars come out, and overhead are billions of stars in our galaxy. Beyond them are 100 billion island universes, each with 100 billion stars.

Yet all of these things are made of matter and energy. Where did it all come from? How did everything begin—all the wonderful things of life and nature?

Evolutionary scientists tell us that it all came from nothing. Yes, nothing.

That is what is being taught to your friends, children, and loved ones. You need to know the facts.

In this chapter we shall briefly view what evolutionary scientists teach about the origin of matter, stars, galaxies, and planets;—and we will give you basic scientific reasons why their cosmological theories are incorrect. (Cosmology is the word used for theories about the origin of matter and stellar objects.)

1 - THE BIG BANG THEORY

The Big Bang theory has been accepted by a majority of scientists today. It theorizes that a large quantity of nothing decided to pack tightly together,—and then explode outward into hydrogen and helium. This gas is said to have flowed outward through frictionless space ("frictionless," so the outflowing gas cannot stop or slow down) to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets, and moons. It all sounds so simple, just as you would find in a science fiction novel. And that is all it is.

WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT

The originators—*George Lemaitre, a Belgium, struck on the basic idea in 1927; and *George Gamow, *R.A. Alpher, and *R. Herman devised the basic Big Bang model in 1948. But it was *Gamow, a well-known scientist and science fiction writer, that gave it its present name and then popularized it (*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, 1984, p. 43). Campaigning for the idea enthusiastically, he was able to convince many other scientists. He used quaint little cartoons to emphasize the details. The cartoons really helped sell the theory.

The theory—According to this theory, in the beginning, there was no matter, just nothingness. Then this nothingness condensed by gravity into a single, tiny spot; and it decided to explode!

That explosion produced protons, neutrons, and electrons which flowed outward at incredible speed throughout empty space; for there was no other matter in the universe.

As these protons, neutrons, and electrons hurled themselves outward at supersonic speed, they are said to have formed themselves into typical atomic structures of mutually orbiting hydrogen and helium atoms.

Gradually, the outward-racing atoms are said to have begun circling one another, producing gas clouds which then pushed together into stars.

These first stars only contained lighter elements (hydrogen and helium). Then all of the stars repeatedly exploded. It took at least two explosions of each star to produce our heavier elements. Gamow described it in scientific terms: In violation of physical law, emptiness fled from the vacuum of space—and rushed into a superdense core, that had a density of 1094gm/cmand a temperature in excess of 1039 degrees absolute. That is a lot of density and heat for a gigantic pile of nothingness! (Especially when we realize that it is impossible for nothing to get hot. Although air gets hot, air is matter, not an absence of it.)

Where did this "superdense core" come from? Gamow solemnly came up with a scientific answer for this; he said it came as a result of "the big squeeze," when the emptiness made up its mind to crowd together. Then, with true scientific aplomb, he named this solid core of nothing, "ylem" (pronounced "ee-lum"). With a name like that, many people thought this must be a great scientific truth of some kind. In addition, numbers were provided to add an additional scientific flair: This remarkable lack-of-anything was said by Gamow to have a density of 10 to the 145th power g/cc, or one hundred trillion times the density of water!

Then all that packed-in blankness went boom!

Let’s take it point by point—That is the theory. It all sounds so simple, just as you would find in a science fiction novel. And that is all it is. The theory stands in clear violation of physical laws, celestial mechanics, and common sense. Here are a number of scientific reasons why the Big Bang theory is unworkable and fallacious.

THE BIG BANG EXPLOSION

1 - The Big Bang theory is based on theoretical extremes. It may look good in math calculations, but it can’t actually happen. A tiny bit of nothing packed so tightly together that it blew up and produced all the matter in the universe. Seriously now, this is a fairy tale. It is a bunch of armchair calculations, and nothing else. It is easy to theorize on paper. The Big Bang is a theoretical extreme, just as is a black hole. It is easy to theorize that something is true, when it has never been seen and there is no definitive evidence that it exists or ever happened. But let us not mistake Disneyland theories for science.

2 - Nothingness cannot pack together. It would have no way to push itself into a pile.

3 - A vacuum has no density. It is said that the nothingness got very dense, and that is why it exploded. But a total vacuum is the opposite of total density.

4 - There would be no ignition to explode nothingness. No fire and no match. It could not be a chemical explosion, for no chemicals existed. It could not be a nuclear explosion, for there were no atoms!

5 - There is no way to expand it. How can you expand what isn’t there? Even if that magical vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity, what would then cause the pile of emptiness to push outward? The "gravity" which brought it together would keep it from expanding.

6 - Nothingness cannot produce heat. The intense heat caused by the exploding nothingness is said to have changed the nothingness into protons, neutrons, and electrons. First, an empty vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself. Second, an empty void cannot magically change itself into matter.Third, there can be no heat without an energy source.

7 – The calculations are too exacting. Too perfect an explosion would be required. On many points, the theoretical mathematical calculations needed to turn a Big Bang into stars and our planet cannot be worked out; in others they are too exacting. Knowledgeable scientists call them "too perfect." Mathematical limitations would have to be met which would be next to impossible to achieve. The limits for success are simply too narrow.

Most aspects of the theory are impossible, and some require parameters that would require miracles to fulfill. One example of this is the expansion of the original fireball from the Big Bang, which they place precisely within the narrowest of limits. An evolutionist astronomer, *R.H. Dicke, says it well:

"If the fireball had expanded only .1 percent faster, the present rate of expansion would have been 3 x 103 times as great. Had the initial expansion rate been 0.1 percent less, the Universe would have expanded to only 3 x 10-6 of its present radius before collapsing. At this maximum radius the density of ordinary matter would have been 10-12 grm/m3, over 1016 times as great as the present mass density. No stars could have formed in such a Universe, for it would not have existed long enough to form stars."—*R.H. Dickey, Gravitation and the Universe (1969), p. 62.

8 - Such an equation would have produced not a universe but a hole. *Roger L. St. Peter in 1974 developed a complicated mathematical equation that showed that the theorized Big Bang could not have exploded outward into hydrogen and helium. In reality, St. Peter says the theoretical explosion (if one could possibly take place) would fall back on itself and make a theoretical black hole! This means that one imaginary object would swallow another one!

9 - There is not enough antimatter in the universe. This is a big problem for the theorists. The original Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of positive matter (matter) and negative matter (antimatter). But only small amounts of antimatter exist. There should be as much antimatter as matter—if the Big Bang was true.

"Since matter and antimatter are equivalent in all respects but that of electromagnetic charge oppositeness, any force [the Big Bang] that would create one should have to create the other, and the universe should be made of equal quantities of each. This is a dilemma. Theory tells us there should be antimatter out there, and observation refuses to back it up."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, p. 343.
"We are pretty sure from our observations that the universe today contains matter, but very little if any antimatter."—*Victor Weisskopf, "The Origin of the Universe," American Scientist, 71, p. 479.

10 - The antimatter from the Big Bang would have destroyed all the regular matter. This fact is well-known to physicists. As soon as the two are produced in the laboratory, they instantly come together and annihilate one another.

We have mentioned ten reasons why matter could not be made by a supposed Big Bang. But now we will discuss what would happen IF it actually had.

THE OUTWARD RUSHING PARTICLES

1 - There is no way to unite the particles. As the particles rush outward from the central explosion, they would keep getting farther and farther apart from one another.

2 - Outer space is frictionless, and there would be no way to slow the particles. The Big Bang is postulated on a totally empty space, devoid of all matter, in which a single explosion fills it with outward-flowing matter. There would be no way those particles could ever slow.

3 - The particles would maintain the same vector (speed and direction) forever. Assuming the particles were moving outward through totally empty space, there is no way they could change direction. They could not get together and begin circling one another.

4 - There is no way to slow the particles. They are traveling at supersonic speed, and every kilometer would separate them farther from one other.

5 - There is no way to change the direction of even one particle. They would keep racing on forever, never slowing, never changing direction. There is no way to get the particles to form into atoms or cluster into gaseous clouds. Angular momentum [turning motion] would be needed, and the laws of physics could not produce it.

6 - How could their atomic structures originate? Atoms, even hydrogen and helium, have complex structures. There is no way that outward shooting particles, continually separating farther from each other as they travel, could arrange themselves into atomic structures.

We will now assume that, contrary to physical laws, (1) the particles magically DID manage to move toward one another together, and (2) the particles COULD slow down and change directions.

THE PARTICLES CHANGED DIRECTIONS

AND FORMED GAS CLOUDS

The theory—Gradually, the outward-racing particles are said to have begun circling one another, forming atoms. These atoms then changed direction further (this time toward one another) and formed gas clouds which then pushed together into stars.

This aspect of the stellar evolution theory is as strange as that which preceded it.

1 - Gas molecules in outer space are widely separated. By "gas," we mean atoms of hydrogen and/or helium which are separated from one another. All gas in outer space has a density so rarified that it is far less than the emptiest atmospheric vacuum pressure bottle in any laboratory in the world! Gas in outer space is rarer (less dense; atoms more separated) than anything on earth.

2 - Neither hydrogen nor helium in outer space would clump together. In fact, there is no gas on earth that clumps together either. Gas pushes apart; it does not push together. Separated atoms of hydrogen and/or helium would be even less likely to clump together in outer space.

We will now ASSUME that the outward-moving, extremely fast, ever separating atoms (shot out by the Big Bang explosion) could slow, change direction, and form themselves into immense clouds.

GAS CLOUDS

PUSH THEMSELVES INTO STARS

1 - Because gas in outer space does not clump, the gas could not build enough mutual gravity to bring it together. And if it cannot clump together, it cannot form itself into stars. The idea of gas pushing itself together in outer space to form stars is more scienceless fiction. Fog, whether on earth or in space, cannot push itself into balls. Once together, a star maintains its gravity quite well, but there is no way for nature to produce one. Getting it together in the first place is the problem. Gas floating in a vacuum cannot form itself into stars. Once a star exists, it will absorb gas into it by gravitational attraction. But before the star exists, gas will not push itself together and form a star—or a planet, or anything else. Since both hydrogen and helium are gases, they are good at spreading out, but not at clumping together.

2 - Careful analysis has revealed that there is not enough matter in gas clouds to produce stars.

3 - There would not be enough time for the gas to reach the currently known expanse of the universe, so it could form itself into stars. Evolutionists tell us that the Big Bang occurred 10 to 15 billion years ago, and stars were formed 5 billion years later. They only allow about 2½ billion years for it to clump together into stars! Their dating problem has been caused by the discovery of supposedly faraway quasars (which we will discuss later), some of which are dated at 15 billion light-years, since they have a redshift of 400 percent. That would make them 15 billion years old, which is too old to accommodate the theory. It doesn’t take a nuclear scientist to figure out the math in this paragraph. Simple arithmetic will tell you there is not enough time.

4 - Gas clouds in outer space expand; they do not contract. Yet they would have to contract to form anything. Any one of these points alone is enough to eliminate the stellar evolution theory.

5 - If the Big Bang theory were true, instead of a universe of stars, there would only be an outer rim of fast-moving matter. The outwardly flowing matter and/or gas clouds would keep moving outward without ever slowing. In frictionless space, with no matter ahead of it to collide with, the supposed matter from the initial explosion would keep moving outward forever. This fact is as solid as the ones mentioned earlier.

6 - In order for the gas to produce stars, it would have to move in several directionsFirst, it would have to stop flowing outwardThen it would have to begin moving in circles (stellar origin theories generally require rotating gas). Then the rotating gas would have to move closer together. But there would be nothing to induce these motions. The atoms from the supposed Big Bang should just keep rushing outward forever. Linear motion would have to mysteriously change to angularmomentum.

7 - A quantity of gas moving in the same direction in frictionless space is too stable to do anything but keep moving forward.

8 - Gas in outer space which was circling a common center would fly apart, not condense together.

9 - There is not enough mass in the universe for the various theories of origin of matter and stars. The total mean density of matter in the universe is about 100 times less than the amount required by the Big Bang theory. The universe has a low mean density. To put it another way, there is not enough matter in the universe. This "missing mass" problem is a major hurdle, not only to the Big Bang enthusiasts but also to the expanding universe theorists (*P.V. Rizzo, "Review of Mysteries of the Universe," Sky and Telescope, August 1982, p. 150). Astronomers are agreed on the existence of this problem. *Hoyle, for example, says that without enough mass in the universe, it would not have been possible for gas to change into stars.

"Attempts to explain both the expansion of the universe and the condensation of galaxies must be largely contradictory so long as gravitation is the only force field under consideration. For if the expansive kinetic energy of matter is adequate to give universal expansion against the gravitational field, it is adequate to prevent local condensation under gravity, and vice versa. That is why, essentially, the formation of galaxies is passed over with little comment in most systems of cosmology."—*F. Hoyle and *T. Gold, quoted in *D.B. Larson, Universe in Motion (1984). p. 8.

10 - Hydrogen gas in outer space does not clump together. *Harwit’s research disproves the possibility that hydrogen gas in outer space can clump together. This is a major breakthrough in disproving the Big Bang and related origin of matter and stars theories. The problem is twofold: (1) The density of matter in interstellar space is too low. (2) There is nothing to attract the particles of matter in outer space to stick to one another. Think about it a minute; don’t those facts make sense?

This point is so important (for it devastates the origin of stars theory) that *Harwit’s research should be mentioned in more detail:

*Harwit’s research dealt with the mathematical likelihood that hydrogen atoms could stick together and form tiny grains of several atoms, by the random sticking of interstellar atoms and molecules to a single nucleus as they passed by at a variable speed. Using the most favorable conditions and the maximum possible sticking ability for grains, Harwit determined that the amount of time needed for gas or other particles to clump together into a size of just a hundred-thousandth of a centimeter in radius—would take about 3 billion years! Using more likely rates, 20 billion years would be required—to produce one tiny grain of matter stuck together out in space. As with nearly all scientists quoted in our 1,326-page Evolution Disproved Series (which this book is condensed from), *Harwit is not a Creationist (*M. Harwit, Astrophysical Concepts, 1973, p. 394).

11 - *Novotny’s research findings are also very important. *Novotny, in a book published by Oxford University, discusses the problem of "gaseous dispersion." It is a physical law that gas in a vacuum expands instead of contracts; therefore it cannot form itself into stars, planets, etc. That which cannot happen, cannot happen given any amount of time. Do you agree?

If you agree, you are being scientific (for you are agreeing with scientific facts); if you disagree, you are fooling yourself.

We will now ASSUME that the clouds formed themselves into what evolutionists call proto-stars, or first-generation stars.

STARS EXPLODE AND SUPERNOVAS

PRODUCE HEAVY ELEMENTS

The problem—The Big Bang only produced hydrogen and helium. Somehow, the 90 heavier (post-helium) elements had to be made. The theorists had to figure out a way to account for their existence.

The theory—The first stars, which were formed, were so-called "first-generation stars" (also called "population III stars"). They contained only lighter elements (hydrogen and helium). Then all of these stars repeatedly exploded. Billions upon billions of stars kept exploding, for billions of years. Gradually, these explosions are said to have produced all our heavier elements.

This concept is as wild as those preceding it.

1 - Another imaginative necessity. Like all the other aspects of this theory, this one is included in order to somehow get the heavier (post-helium) elements into the universe. The evolutionists admit that the Big Bang would only have produced hydrogen and helium.

2 - The nuclear gaps at mass 5 and 8 make it impossible for hydrogen or helium to change itself into any of the heavier elementsThis is an extremely important point, and is called the "helium mass 4 gap" (that is, there is a gap immediately after helium 4). Therefore exploding stars could not produce the heavier elements. (Some scientists speculate that a little might be produced, but even that would not be enough to supply all the heavier elements now in our universe.) Among nuclides that can actually be formed, gaps exists at mass 5 and 8. Neither hydrogen nor helium can jump the gap at mass 5. This first gap is caused by the fact that neither a proton nor a neutron can be attached to a helium nucleus of mass 4. Because of this gap, the only element that hydrogen can normally change into is helium. Even if it spanned this gap, it would be stopped again at mass 8. Hydrogen bomb explosions produce deuterum (hydrogen 2), which, in turn, forms helium 4. In theory, the hydrogen bomb chain reaction of nuclear changes could continue changing into ever heavier elements until it reached uranium;—but the process is stopped at the gap at mass 5. If it were not for that gap, our sun would be radiating uranium toward us!

"In the sequence of atomic weight numbers 5 and 8 are vacant. That is, there is no stable atom of mass 5 or mass 8 . . The question then is: How can the build-up of elements by neutron capture get by these gaps? The process could not go beyond helium 4 and even if it spanned this gap it would be stopped again at mass 8. This basic objection to Gamow’s theory is a great disappointment in view of the promise and philosophical attractiveness of the idea."—*William A. Fowler, California Institute of Technology, quoted in Creation Science, p. 90.

Clarification: If you will look at any standard table of the elements, you will find that the atomic weight of hydrogen is 1.008. (Deuterum is a form of hydrogen with a weight of 2.016.) Next comes helium (4.003), followed by lithium (6.939), beryllium (9.012), boron (10.811), etc. Gaps in atomic weight exist at mass 5 and 8.

But cannot hydrogen explosions cross those gaps? No. Nuclear fision (a nuclear bomb or reactor) splits (unevenly halves) uranium into barium and technetium. Nuclear fusion (a hydrogen bomb) combines (doubles) hydrogen into deuterum (helium 2), which then doubles into helium 4—and stops there. So a hydrogen explosion (even in a star) does not go across the mass 5 gap.

We will now ASSUME that hydrogen and helium explosions could go across the gaps at mass 5 and 8:

3 - There has not been enough theoretical time to produce all the needed heavier elements that now exist. We know from spectrographs that heavier elements are found all over the universe. The first stars are said to have formed about 250 million years after the initial Big Bang explosion. (No one ever dates the Big Bang over 20 billion years ago, and the date has recently been lowered to 15 billions years ago.) At some lengthy time after the gas coalesced into "first-generation" stars, most of them are theorized to have exploded and then, 250 million years later, reformed into "second-generation" stars. These are said to have exploded into "third-generation" stars. Our sun is supposed to be a second- or third-generation star.

4 - There are no population III stars (also called first-generation stars) in the sky. According to the theory, there should be "population III" stars, containing only hydrogen and helium, many of which exploded and made "population II" (second-generation stars), but there are only population I and II stars (*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, 1984, pp. 35-36).

5 - Random explosions do not produce intricate orbits. The theory requires that countless billions of stars exploded. How could haphazard explosions result in the marvelously intricate circlings that we find in the orbits of suns, stars, binary stars, galaxies, and star clusters? Within each galactic system, hundreds of billions of stars are involved in these interrelated orbits. Were these careful balancings not maintained, the planets would fall into the stars, and the stars would fall into their galactic centers—or they would fly apart! Over half of all the stars in the sky are in binary systems, with two or more stars circling one another. How could such astonishing patterns be the result of explosions? Because there are no "first generation" ("Population I") stars, Big Bang theory requires that every star exploded at least one or two times. But random explosions never produce orbits.

6 - There are not enough supernova explosions to produce the needed heavier elements. There are 81 stable elements and 90 natural elements. Each one has unusual properties and intricate orbits. When a star explodes, it is called a nova. When a large star explodes, it becomes extremely bright for a few weeks or months and is called a supernova. It is said that only the explosions of supernovas could produce much of the needed heavier elements, yet there have been relatively few such explosions.

7 - Throughout all recorded history, there have been almost no supernova explosions. If the explosions occurred in the past, they should be occurring now. Research astronomers tell us that one or two supernova explosions are seen every century, and only 16 have exploded in our galaxy in the past 2,000 years. Past civilizations carefully recorded each one. The Chinese observed one, in A.D. 185, and another in A.D. 1006. The one in 1054 produced the Crab nebula, and was visible in broad daylight for weeks. It was recorded both in Europe and the Far East. Johannes Kepler wrote a book about the next one, in 1604. The next bright one was 1918 in Aquila, and the latest in the Veil Nebula in the Large Magellanic Cloud on February 24, 1987.

"Supernovae are quite different . . and astronomers are eager to study their spectra in detail. The main difficulty is their rarity. About 1 per 650 years is the average for any one galaxy . . The 1885 supernova of Andromeda was the closest to us in the last 350 years."—*Isaac Asimov, New Guide to Science (1984), p. 48.

8 - Why did the stellar explosions mysteriously stop? The theory required that all the stars exploded, often. The observable facts are that, throughout recorded history, stars only rarely explode. In order to explain this, evolutionists postulate that 5 billion years ago, the explosions suddenly stopped. Very convenient. When the theory was formulated in the 1940s, through telescopes astronomers could see stars whose light left them 5 billion light-years ago. But today, we can see stars that are 15 billion light-years away. Why are we not seeing massive numbers of stellar explosions far out in space? The stars are doing just fine; it is the theory which is wrong.

9 - The most distant stars, which are said to date nearly to the time of the Big Bang explosion, are not exploding,—and yet they contain heavier elements. We can now see out in space to nearly the beginning of Big Bang time. Because of the Hubble telescope, we can now see almost as far out in space as the beginning of the evolutionists’ theoretical time. But, as with nearby stars, the farthest ones have heavier elements (are "second-generation"), and they are not exploding any more frequently than are the nearby ones.

10 - Supernovas do not throw off enough matter to make additional stars. There are not many stellar explosions and most of them are small-star (nova) explosions. Yet novas cast off very little matter. A small-star explosion only loses a hundred-thousandth of its matter; a supernova explosion loses about 10 percent; yet even that amount is not sufficient to produce all the heavier elements found in the planets, interstellar gas, and stars. So supernovas—Gamow’s fuel source for nearly all the elements in the universe—occur far too infrequently and produce far too small an amount of heavy elements—to produce the vast amount that exists in the universe.

11 - Only hydrogen and helium have been found in the outflowing gas from supernova explosions. The theory requires lots of supernova explosions in order to produce heavy elements. But there are not enough supernovas,—and research indicates that they do not produce heavy elements! All that was needed was to turn a spectroscope toward an exploded supernova and analyze the elements in the outflowing gas from the former star. *K. Davidson did that in 1982, and found that the Crab nebula (resulting from an A.D. 1054 supernova) only has hydrogen and helium. This means that, regardless of the temperature of the explosion, the helium mass 4 gap was never bridged. (It had been theorized that a supernova would generate temperatures high enough to bridge the gap. But the gap at mass 4 and 8 prevented it from occurring.)

12 - An explosion of a star would not produce another star. It has been theorized that supernova explosions would cause nearby gas to compress and form itself into new stars. But if a star exploded, it would only shoot outward and any gas encountered would be pushed along with it.

So we find that the evidence does not support the various aspects of the Big Bang and stellar evolution theories.

2 - MORE FACTS

WHICH BURY THE THEORY

MORE PROBLEMS FOR STELLAR EVOLUTION

1 - According to the theory, older stars should have more heavy elements because they are continually making them. But the so-called "older stars" have been found to have no more heavy elements than the so-called "younger stars." All stars, from "young" to "old," have the same amount of heavy elements.

2 - The theory says that gas floating in interstellar space is leftover from the Big Bang, and can only consist of hydrogen and helium. But *Rubins has shown that this is not true. Extra-galactic gas has a variety of heavier elements in it.

3 - The theory says that the super-fast particles, hurled outward by the Big Bang, were evenly radiated. Yet, as scientists have noted, a perfectly smooth cosmic explosion would only have produced perfectly smooth, increasingly rarified (ever farther apart) particles. So the very existence of stars disproves the theorized original giant explosion.

4 - The theory requires a continual rush of particles outward—leaving nothing inside this outer parimeter of outflowing matter. Yet there are stars and galaxies all through spacenot just at the outer edge. Even if clumped gas could have formed any stars, everything would continue to be hurled to the thin, outer edges of space—with an expanding center containing nothing.

5 - According to the theory, the farther we look out into space, the farther back into past eons of time we are gazing. This means that the farthest stars and galaxies ought to be the youngest. Yet research reveals the farthest stars are just like those nearby.

6 - Angular momentum is another serious problem. Why do stars turn? Why do galaxies rotate? Why do planets orbit stars? Why do binary stars circle one another?How could the super-fast linear (straight line) motion, started by the supposed Big Bang, have changed into rotation (spinning or revolving motion) and revolutions (orbiting motion)? How could angular momentum exist—and in such perfectly balanced orbits throughout space? There is no possible way that floating gas could transform itself into rotating and orbiting objects, like stars, planets, and moons.

7 - Inward pushing gas would not change to a rotating star. According to the theory, stars were formed by the "inward gravitational collapse of hydrogen gas clouds." If so, why do the resultant stars rotate? Some stars rotate very fast. If ten people in a circle pushed marbles in toward a common center, the marbles would not begin rotating or circling after they reached it.

8 - Matter-origin theories cannot explain why stars spin. The theorists tell us that stars somehow started spinning; but, with age, they slow down. Yet some stars spin faster than either "younger" or "older" stars. Some spin once in less than an earth-day. The fastest, Hz 1883, has a spin period of only 6 hours.

9 - Some stars orbit backward to that of other stars. The theorists cannot explain this.

10 - There are high-velocity stars that are traveling far too fast to accommodate the evolutionary theories of matter and stellar origins.

11 - If the Big Bang theory were true, all stars would move the same direction; but stars, clusters, and galaxies are moving in various directions opposite to one another. (More about the expanding universe theory later.)

12 - Evidence is accumulating that the entire universe is rotating! This is angular momentum on the most gigantic of proportions. Yet the Big Bang should only have produced linear movement outward from it.

13 - Theorists are deeply bothered by, what they call, the "lumpy" problem. The universe is "lumpy"; that is, it has stars, planets, etc. in it. Yet none should exist if the Big Bang theory were true. They argue fiercely over these problems in their professional journals, while assuring the public the theory is accepted by all astrophysicists. They consider this to be a major, unsolved problem.

"As IBM’s Philip E. Seiden, put it: ‘The standard Big Bang model does not give rise to lumpiness. That model assumes the universe started out as a globally smooth, homogeneous expanding gas. If you apply the laws of physics to this model, you get a universe that is uniform, a cosmic vastness of evenly distributed atoms with no organization of any kind.’ No galaxies, no stars, no planets, no nothing. Needless to say, the night sky, dazzling in its lumps, clumps, and clusters, says otherwise. How then did the lumps get there? No one can say."—*Ben Patrusky, "Why is the Cosmos ‘Lumpy’?" Science 81, June 1981, p. 96.

14 - The universe is full of stars, with relatively little gas. But it should be the other way around: full of gas and no stars. The Big Bang should have produced a "homogenous" universe of smooth gas ever flowing outward with, at best, almost no "inhomogenities," or "lumps" such as stars and island universes.

15 - The universe is full of super clusters. These are the biggest "lumps" of all. It has recently been discovered that the galaxies are grouped into galaxy clusters, and these into still larger super clusters. The "Big Bangers," as their colleagues call them, excuse the problem by saying that "gravity waves" produced the galaxies. But gravity, in any form, could not press floating hydrogen and helium into a star or planet out of gas, make a marvelously organized disk network of stars, or produce the precisely balanced spinning and orbiting of planets and stars.

"The main efforts of investigators have been in papering over holes in the Big Bang theory, to build up an idea that has become ever more complex and cumbersome . . I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the Big Bang theory. When a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that the theory rarely recovers."—*Sir Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang Theory under Attack," Science Digest, May 1984, p. 84.

16 - Solar collapse, not nuclear fusion has been found to be the cause of solar energy. But that would undercut the entire theory of the Big Bang. We will briefly summarize the data here. You will find it discussed more fully (along with additional quotations) in the chapter, Origin of the Stars, in our 3-volume set on our website. It is also partially referred to in "6 - Solar Collapse" in the Age of the Earth chapter in this paperback.

There is evidence that our sun "shines," not by hydrogen explosions, but by solar collapse. Yet stellar evolution is keyed to the fact that stars are fueled by (shine because of) hydrogen explosions (nuclear fusion). The amount of mass/energy our sun would have to lose daily amounts to 4 million tons [3.6 million mt] a second. The problem is the fusion process should produce lots of sub-atomic particles called neutrinos, and each square inch of earth’s surface should be hit each second by a trillion neutrinos. Scientists have neutrino detectors in place and have searched for them since the mid-1970s, but hardly any arrive from the sun. This fact alone would appear to disprove the hydrogen theory of solar energy (cf. *J.H. Bahcall, Astronomical Journal, 76:283, 1971). *Corliss, the world leader in tracking down scientific anomalies, considers the "missing neutrinos" to be "one of the most significant anomalies in astronomy" (*W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos, 1987, p. 40). It was not until the 1930s that the nuclear theory of starlight was developed by *Hans Bethe and *Carl von Weizsacker. Yet it remains a theory. In contrast, there is strong evidence pointing to solar collapse as the true cause of solar energy.

The scientific basis for solar collapse, as the source of solar energy, was developed over a century ago by two brilliant scientists: Hermann von Helmholtz and Lord Kelvin. If each star is slowly contracting, great amounts of energy would be constantly released. But evolutionists cannot accept this possibility, because it would mean the universe (and the earth) is much younger. Nuclear fusion would mean billions of years for a star’s life; solar collapse only a few million. A change in the radius of our sun of about 80 feet [24.27 m] a year is all that would be necessary to produce our sun’s actual energy release. This is a radius shrinkage of only .009 feet [.27 cm] per hour.

Some scientists have found evidence of solar collapse. One major study was done by *John A. Eddy and *Aram Boornazian (*New Scientist, March 3, 1983, p. 592). The basis for this is an analysis of solar transit measurements, made at the Royal Greenwich Observatory since 1836 and the U.S. Naval Observatory since 1846. It was calculated that the sun is shrinking at the rate of 5 ft/hr in diameter (0.1% per century, 2 arc-sec/century). They also analyzed solar eclipses for the past four centuries. A separate report by *Ronald Gilliland confirmed the *Eddy and *Boornazian report (*op. cit., p. 593).

"The sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century . . corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour [15.24 dm]."—*G.B. Lublihn, Physics Today, Vol. 32, No. 17, 1979.

The above findings would indicate that our sun’s output of radiant energy is generated by this shrinkage and not by hydrogen explosions (thermonuclear fusion) deep within it. As already mentioned, if hydrogen was the solar fuel, we should be receiving a very large quantity of neutrinos; yet almost none are detected.

Jupiter is also apparently contracting, because it is giving off more heat than it receives from the sun. A surface contraction of just one centimeter per year would account for the measured heat flow from Jupiter. A similar situation exists for Saturn.

"Jupiter . . radiates twice as much energy as it absorbs from the sun through a contraction and cooling process."—*Star Date radio broadcast, November 8, 1990.
"Saturn emits 50% more heat than it absorbs from the sun."—*Science Frontiers, No. 73, January-February 1991.

These facts are known; but, in order to defend evolutionary theory, the decision has been made to stick with solar fusion (hydrogen explosions) as the cause of solar energy and sunshine.

"Astronomers were startled, and laymen amazed, when in 1979 Jack Eddy, of the High Altitude Observatory in Boulder, Colorado, claimed that the sun was shrinking at such a rate that, if the decline did not reverse, our local star would disappear within a hundred million years."—*John Gribbin, "The Curious Case of the Shrinking Sun," New Scientist, March 3, 1983.
"Geological evidence, however, indicates that the terrestrial crust [our earth’s rock strata] has an age of several billion years, and it is surely to be expected that the sun is at least as old as the earth . . We must conclude that . . another source must be responsible for most of the energy output of a star."—*Eva Novotny, Introduction to Stellar Atmospheres and Interiors (1973), p. 248.

Summarizing solar collapse: The evidence that hydrogen explosions (thermonuclear fusion) is the cause of solar energy (sunshine) would be a great abundance of neutrino radiation. But that evidence is missing. The evidence that solar collapse (gradual shrinkage) is the cause has been definitely found. Evolutionists reject solar collapse as the cause, (1) since it would mean our sun and the universe could not be more than a few million years old; (2) their cosmology theories would be wrong and (3) the Big Bang theory would be gutted.

Is there no evidence that supports the Big Bang theory? Evolutionists are able to point to only TWO. Here they are:

[1] BACKGROUND RADIATION

NOT EVIDENCE OF THE BIG BANG

The fact—There is a faint amount of heat radiating throughout outer space. It is called background radiation. Since it comes uniformly from all directions, it is believed to exist throughout the universe. It is a very small amount of "heat": in fact, only 2.73K. above absolute zero (0oK., which is -270C. or -454F.).

The theory—Background radiation (also called microwave radiation), first discovered in 1965, is said to be the single, best evidence that the Big Bang occurred. It is said to be the leftover remains, the last remnant, from the Big Bang explosion.

Scientists said that background radiation would prove the theory in four ways: (1) It would come from only one direction—the Big Bang source. (2) It would have the right radiational strength to match the Big Bang mathematical theory. (3) It would emit the proper spectrum. (4) It would not be a smooth radiation.

But we find that, if this is the best evidence that the theorists can produce for their speculation, it surely is weak.

1 - It is omnidirectional. Background radiation comes from every direction instead of one. The Big Bang theory requires that it come from only one direction—from where the Big Bang occurred. Since its discovery, scientists have been unable to match its directional radiation (its isotropy) with the Big Bang predictions. Its omnidirectionality tells where the background radiation is coming from: "Background radiation" is actually a slight amount of heat given off by stars throughout the universe. Would they not be expected to emit a very faint amount of heat into outer space?

2 - The radiation does not fit the theory, for it is too weak. It should be far more powerful than it is. *Fred Hoyle, a leading 20th-century astrophysicist, said it should have been much stronger.

3 - Background radiation lacks the proper spectrum. It does not have the ideal "black body" (total light absorption) capacity which would agree with the *Max Planck calculation. This radiation does not fit the theoretical 2.7K black body spectrum required for the Big Bang theory.

4 - The spectrum should be far hotter than it is. The heat emitted by the radiation should have a far higher temperature. The radiation should emit a 100oK black body radiation spectrum, which is far greater than the 2.73K spectrum it now has.

5 - Background radiation is too smooth. The theory requires that it be much more irregular and "lumpy" (with "density fluctuations") in order for it to explain how stars could be formed from the Big Bang explosion. In recent years, some slight variations in smoothness have been detected, but this is still not enough to fit the theory.

"It seems difficult to believe that, whereas visible matter is conspicuously clumpy and clustered on all scales, the invisible intergalactic gas is uniform and homogeneous."—*G. de Vaucouleurs, "The Case for a Hierarchical Cosmology," Science 167, p. 1203.
"The problem was to reconcile the apparent evenness of the early expansion, as indicated by the steady background radiation, with the observed large-scale structures [stars, planets, etc.]. A perfectly smooth cosmic explosion would have produced only an increasingly rarified [ever thinner] gas cloud."—*Peter Pocock and *Pat Daniels, Galaxies (1988), p. 117.

6 - All of the above points (omnidirectionality, very slight amount of heat, general smoothness, with radiative fluctuations in strength) is what we would expect from radiational heat from the multiplied billions of stars throughout the universe. It would be understandable for all those stars to emit a slight amount of uniform, omnidirectional radiative heat. And we would expect the radiational heat emitted by the stars should, at great distances, show very slight fluctuations. Does not each one send forth both heat and occasional gigantic solar flares into space? If you do not believe stars emit heat into space, then you do not believe the sun keeps you warm.

[2] THE REDSHIFT

NOT EVIDENCE OF THE BIG BANG

OR AN EXPANDING UNIVERSE

The fact—Relatively white light can be split by a triangular prism of glass into all the colors of the rainbow. Using a spectrometer, this can be done to starlight. Dark, vertical bands mark the spectrum at various points. Analyzing these dark bands, the type of elements in each star can be ascertained. Spectral type is a star’s classification— based on its spectrum, surface temperature, and mass. A spectrogram is a photograph of a star’s spectrum. Spectroscopy is the study of spectra.

Ultraviolet is on one end of a spectrum and has a higher frequency and shorter wavelength than visible blue light. Infrared is the other end of the visible spectrum (astronomers call it "red").

Every star is redshifted to some extent (that is, the entire spectrum of that star is moved toward the red end). The farther a star or galaxy is from us, the more its light is shifted. This displacement is called the redshift.

The theory—The "Big Bangers" (as scientists call them) theorize that this redshift shows that the universe is expanding outward from the source of the Big Bang explosion. They base this on the hypothesis that the "speed theory" of the redshift is the only cause of the redshift. This means that if light is traveling toward us, the wavelength is slightly compressed or shortened. This would cause the light to be "blueshifted" (shifted toward the ultraviolet). If it is moving away from us, the wavelength is stretched out, which causes a redshift (shifted toward the infrared).

"This redshift, observed in the spectral lines of distant galaxies and interpreted as a Doppler [speed] effect, is the key to cosmology."—*Carl Sagan, Cosmos, p. 252.

What causes the redshift? It is quite obvious that the distance of the star from us has something to do with the redshift. Here are FOUR scientific explanations for the redshift, each of which are accepted by various scientists:

• The Speed redshift (also called the Doppler theory of redshift): This would occur if the star were moving away from us. Evolutionists say all the stars are moving away from us, and that there is no other cause for the recorded redshifts. But there are three other possibilities:

• Gravitational redshifts: The pull of gravity on light rays would cause a loss of energy in the beam of moving light. In 1915, *Albert Einstein predicted that gravity could bend light—and that it would cause a redshift. This was later proved to be true. As light travels toward us from distant stars, it passes other stars, which slightly slows the beam, causing its spectrum to shift toward the red.

"Einstein’s views of gravity led to the prediction that light emitted by a source possessing a very strong gravitational field should be displaced toward the red (the Einstein shift)."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, 1984, p. 50.

Yet, in order to bolster their Big Bang and expanding universe theories, evolutionists ignore gravitational, second-order Doppler, and energy-loss shifts.


Evolution Cruncher Chapter 3

 THE ORIGIN OF THE EARTH


Why the Earth did not evolve out of a molten state

This chapter is based on pp. 117-151 of Origin of the Universe (Volume One of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this chapter are at least 38 statements by scientists. You will find them, plus much more, on our website: evolution-facts.org.

Within the past 50 years there has surfaced a large amount of scientific data that disproves evolution. In this present study, we will primarily focus on just one of these discoveries.

And this one discovery, which took years to carefully research, itself disproves the theories of the Big Bang, stellar evolution, and the formation of earth from molten rocks.

That discovery concerns something that is very small in nature, yet there are trillions of them! Although evolutionary scientists have tried very hard to disprove this discovery, they have been unable to do so.

The man who researched it out is Robert V. Gentry, and the incredible discovery is astounding (*#1/9 What Scientists and Research Writers Have Said about the Research of Robert Gentry / #2/16 What Other Scientists Have Said about It / #3/14 What Evolution Has Said about It*).

Consider these facts, which were uncovered by Gentry’s research:

(1) The major basement rocks on our planet (granite) did not originate from the gradual cooling of molten lava, but came into being in their present solid form. That fact completely disproves the Big Bang and every evolutionary theory of the origins of stars and our world.

(2) Those major rock formations came into existence within a space of less than three minutes time! Incredible? Yes! But scientific evidence confirms it.

You are about to learn about the trillions upon trillions of radiohalos that are in all the granite rocks, boulders, mountains, and foundation strata of the world. Those little halos prove that those rocks came into existence in solid form within less than 180 seconds!

The above is the introduction to a lengthy chapter in our three-volume set. The complete chapter (Chapter 5) is on our website. Here is a brief summary of the findings:

Po-218 HALOS - AND THE ORIGIN OF GRANITE

In the late 1800s, scientists began studying rocks with microscopes in order to better understand their crystals and composition. Learning how to cut rocks into thin slices, they turned their microscopes on certain rocks, especially granite,—and found small colored concentric circles inside them. It was eventually realized that these were actually spherical shells that went around a central grain in the center (something like slicing an onion through the middle, and finding circles; that is, circles inside circles.) These circles (actually sliced sections of the spheres) were given the name, "halos." We today call them "radiohalos." (The technical term ispleochroic halos.)

A radiohalo is the mark left around a particle of a radioactive substance by the radiation coming from the particle. It can only form in a solid, such as rock; since, in a liquid or in molten rock, the mark would dissipate and could not be seen.

- There are many polonium 218, 214, and 210 halos in granite; in fact, careful specimen counts and extrapolations based on them reveal that there are trillions upon trillions of them in granites all over the world.

- The vast majority of these polonium 218, 214, and 210 radiohalos have no uranium 238 halos with them. Therefore they are primary polonium halos, and not daughter products of (not made by) uranium 238.

- The primary polonium 218 (Po 218) halos are totally independent of radioactive parents. They are original in all rock in which they are found. There is no evidence that they were caused by uranium in the central grain or by passing uranium streams.

4 - These independent Po-218 halos develop their half-life halo in only three minutes (in other words, they emit radiation for only a few minutes), so the radiohalos had to be in those rocks when the rocks were first brought into existence.

The rock in which they are found had to be solid at the time it was first brought into existence, or those halos could not form inside it within that three minutes.However, all evolutionary theories say that the earth was molten for millions of years.

- Since Po-218 halos are found by the trillions throughout all the granites of the world, all of that granite had to originally become solid in far less than three minutes, when it was first created, in order for the Po-218 halos to form properly.

7 - Since this granite is the basement rock, forming a thick layer, with the continents of the world above it and the basalt and magma below it, all this continental foundation had to be formed solid in less than three minutes time. With this fact in mind, there is little reason to expect the magma below and the continents above to have been formed in millions of years, if the granite between them was formed in less than three minutes.

For example, nearly everyone has dropped an Alkaseltzer tablet into a glass of water and watched it fizz away. If you found a glass of ice with half an Alkaseltzer tablet in the bottom, and bubbles going up in the ice, what would you conclude? Obviously the ice froze very quickly, or the tablet and bubbles would have disappeared. So we can know that the granites became solid in minutes, or the polonium radiohalos would not have formed.

8 - The alpha-recoil technique has proven that these isolated, independent Po-218 halos were definitely not caused by "passing uranium or other radioactive solutions" as theorized by critics of this discovery. Alpha-recoil research reveals that radioactive damage trails are always left by passing radioactive solutions.

9 - The granites should not be classified with the igneous rocks (all of which came from molten rock), but rather as primordial or Genesis rocks. Granite (generally almost white in color) is original in its present solid form and is not secondary to a prior cooling from the black basalt beneath it or from anything else.

10 - Granite with its large crystals cannot be made from any molten rock, including molten granite! When men melt granite, and then let it cool, it always reforms itself into ryolite, never into granite. Ryolite has smaller crystals and looks different. This is another evidence that granite was not formed from molten rock.

11 - Po-218, Po-214, and Po-210 halos in granite cannot be reproduced in the laboratory. No one has provided an acceptable explanation of how independent polonium could have gotten inside those granites in the first place. It is an impossible situation, but there they are.

12 - Lab tests on polonium halos are often made on mica in granite. But fluorite, another large granite mineral, also has polonium halos. Unlike mica, fluorite is a totally solid mineral, and polonium halos imbedded within it are the same as though they were imbedded in solid, thick, unflawed glass.

13 Another strong evidence that the independent polonium halos are unique, and not daughter products of uranium, is the fact that the ring structures of polonium are different than those in uranium-chain halos. The sunburst pattern of delicate needle fision tracks, always seen in uranium radiohalo chains after etching, is totally missing from polonium radiohalos.

Po-210 HALOS IN WOOD - AND THE FLOOD

14 - Research into true secondary polonium halos (coming from uranium) revealed that only polonium 210 (and not also 214 or 218) halos are to be found within coalified wood. This is due to the fact that secondary Po-214 and Po-218, with their very short half-lives, could not escape and relocate rapidly enough from uranium parents to form halos.

15 - The presence of Po-210 halos in the wood reveals a very rapid deposition of the wood during a flood.

16 - Elliptical (squashed, oval-shaped) Po-210 halos reveal that rapid covering of this wood occurred, as material was piled on top of it.

17 - The existence of double Po-210 halos (squashed halos, with round ones superimposed on top of them) reveals that rapid formation of the rock strata above the coalified wood occurred; for, within only a few decades, the increase of pressure from additional overlay material had stopped occurring.

18 - Because these wood samples came from three different geological strata levels, separated according to evolutionary theory by millions of years, and because the seven major events that happened to one group of samples happened to them all—firm evidence is thus provided that a single Flood (occurring at one time in history) was responsible for the rapid deposition of all these strata. This is strong evidence against evolutionary dating of the rock strata of earth.

HELIUM IN ZIRCON CRYSTALS

- AND THE AGE OF THE EARTH

19 - Analysis of zircon crystals, from five levels of hot rock in a 15,000-foot hole, revealed that almost no increase of lead escape had occurred at even the lowest level. This is powerful evidence in favor of a young earth and is consistent with a 6000-year age.

20 - Analysis of helium content in those small zircon crystals revealed amazingly high retention in 197° C. [386.6o F.] zircon crystals. This provides a double proof for a very young age for the earth. If the earth were millions of years old, that helium would have totally escaped from the zircon crystals.

21 - The lead-206/lead-207 ratio is too high, which is additional evidence that the independent polonium halos were not originally derived from uranium.

Evolution Cruncher Chapter  4

THE AGE OF THE EARTH


Why the Earth is not millions of years old

This chapter is based on pp. 153-179 of Origin of the Universe (Volume One of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this chapter are at least 15 statements by scientists. You will find them, plus much more, on our website: evolution-facts.org.

How old is Planet Earth? This is an important question. Even though long ages of time are not a proof of evolution, yet without the long ages evolution could not occur (if it were possible for it to occur).

Actually, there are many evidences that our world is quite young. Here are some of them:

First we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM THE STARS that the universe itself is quite young:

1 - STAR CLUSTERS—There are many star clusters in the universe. Each one is a circular ball composed of billions upon billions of stars, each with its own orbit. Science tells us that some of these clusters—with their stars—are moving so rapidly, together, in a certain direction that it should be impossible for them to remain together if the universe were very old.

2 - LARGE STARS—Some stars are so enormous in diameter that it is thought that they could not have existed for even a few million years, otherwise their initial larger mass would have been impossibly large. These massive stars radiate energy very rapidly—some as much as 100,000 to 1 million times more rapidly than our own sun. On the hydrogen basis of stellar energy, they could not have contained enough hydrogen to radiate at such fast rates for long ages, because their initial mass would have had to be far too gigantic.

3 - HIGH-ENERGY STARS—Some stars are radiating energy so intensely that they could not possibly have survived for a long period of time. This includes the very bright O and B class stars, the Wolf-Rayfert stars, and the P Cygni stars. Radiation levels of 100,000 to 1 million times as much as our own sun are emitted by these stars! Yet, by the standard solar energy theory, they do not contain enough hydrogen to perpetuate atomic fusion longer than approximately 50,000 to 300,000 years.

4 - BINARY STARS—Many of the stars in the sky are binaries: two stars circling one another. But many of these binary systems point us to a young age for the universe, because they consist of theoretically "young" and "old" stars circling one another.

5 - HYDROGEN IN UNIVERSE—According to one theory of solar energy, hydrogen is constantly being converted into helium as stars shine. But hydrogen cannot be made by converting other elements into it. *Fred Hoyle, a leading astronomer, maintains that, if the universe were as old as Big Bang theorists contend, there should be little hydrogen in it. It would all have been transformed into helium by now. Yet stellar spectra reveal an abundance of hydrogen in the stars, therefore the universe must be youthful.

Next we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM OUR SOLAR SYSTEM that our solar system is quite young:

6 - SOLAR COLLAPSE—Research studies indicate that our sun is gradually shrinking at a steady rate of seconds of arc per century. At its rate of shrinkage, as little as 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large that our oceans would boil. But in far less a time than 50,000 years, life here would have ceased to exist. Recent studies have disclosed that neither the size of the sun, nor our distance from it, could be much greater or smaller—in order for life to be sustained on our planet.

"By analyzing data from Greenwich Observatory in the period 1836-1953, John A. Eddy [Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder] and Aram A. Boornazian [mathematician with S. Ross and Co. in Boston] have found evidence that the sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century during that time, corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour. And digging deep into historical records, Eddy has found 400-year-old eclipse observations that are consistent with such a shrinkage."— *"Sun is Shrinking," Physics Today, September 1979.

Extrapolating back, 100,000 years ago, the sun would have been about twice its present size, making life untenable.

7 - SOLAR NEUTRINOS—In 1968 it was discovered that the sun is emitting hardly any neutrinos. This evidence points directly to a very youthful sun. These neutrinos ought to be radiating outward from the sun in very large amounts, but this is not occurring. This fact, coupled with the discovery that the sun is shrinking in size, point to a recently created sun.

8 - COMETS—Comets, journeying around the sun, are assumed to have the same age as our world and solar system. But, as *Fred Whipple has acknowledged, astronomers have no idea where or how comets originated. Yet we know that they are continually disintegrating. This is because they are composed of bits of rocky debris held together by frozen gases and water. Each time a comet circles the sun, some of the ice is evaporated and some of the gas is boiled away by the sun’s heat. Additional material is lost through gravitational forces, tail formation, meteor stream production, and radiative forces. The most spectacular part of a comet is its tail, yet this consists of material driven away from its head by solar energy. All the tail material is lost in space as the comet moves onward.

A number of comets have broken up and dissipated within the period of human observation. Some of those regularly seen in the nineteenth century have now vanished. Others have died spectacularly by plunging into the sun.

Evidently all the comets should self-destruct within a time frame that is fairly short. Careful study has indicated that the effect of this dissolution process on short-term comets would have totally dissipated them within 10,000 years.

There are numerous comets circling our sun, including many short-term ones, with no source of new comets known to exist.

9 - COMET WATER—It has only been in recent years that scientists have discovered that comets are primarily composed of water, and that many small comets are continually striking the earth. Yet each strike adds more water to our planet. Scientific evidence indicates that, if the earth was billions of years old, our oceans would be filled several times over with water.

10 - SOLAR WIND—As the sun’s radiation flows outward, it applies an outward force on very, very small particles orbiting the sun. All of the particles smaller than 100,000th of a centimeter in diameter should have long ago been "blown out" of our solar system, if the solar system were billions of years old. Yet research studies by satellites in space have shown that those small particles are abundant and still orbiting the sun. Therefore our solar system is quite young.

11 - SOLAR DRAG—This is a principle known as the "Poynting-Robertson Effect." Our sun exerts a solar drag on the small rocks and larger particles (micrometeoroids) in our solar system. This causes these particles to spiral down into the sun and be destroyed. The sun, acting like a giant vacuum cleaner, sweeps up about 100,000 tons [82,301 mt] of micrometeoroids each day. The actual process by which this occurs has been analyzed. Each particle absorbs energy from the sun and then re-radiates it in all directions. This causes a slowing down of the particle in its orbit and causes it to fall into the sun. At its present rate, our sun would have cleaned up most of the particles in less than 10,000 years, and all of it within 50,000 years.

Yet there is an abundance of these small pieces of rock, and there is no known source of replenishment. This is because each solar system would lock in its own micrometeoroids so they could not escape to another one, and the gravity on each planet and moon would forbid any of its gravel to fly out into space.

Next we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM THE OTHER PLANETS IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM that the solar system is quite young:

12 - COMPOSITION OF SATURN’S RINGS—*G.P. Kuiper reported, in 1967, that the trillions of particles in the rings circling the planet Saturn are primarily composed of solid ammonia. Since solidified ammonia has a much higher vapor pressure than even ice, reputable scientists recognize that it could not survive long without vaporizing off into space. This is a strong indicator of a young age for Saturn’s rings.

13 - BOMBARDMENT OF SATURN’S RINGS—Meteoroids bombarding Saturn’s rings would have destroyed them in far less than 20,000 years.

14 - MORE RING PROBLEMS—NASA Voyager treks have disclosed that Jupiter and Uranus also have rings encircling them! (In addition, a 1989 Neptune flyby revealed that it also has rings—four of them.) These discoveries have only augmented the problem of the evolutionists, for this would indicate a young age for those three planets also.

15 - JUPITER’S MOONS—The Voyager I space probe was launched on September 5, 1977. Aimed at the planet Jupiter, it made its closest approach to that planet on March 5, 1979. Thousands of pictures and thousands of measurements were taken of Jupiter and its moons.

Io is the innermost of the four original "Galilean moons," and was found to have over sixty active volcanoes! These volcanoes spew plumes of ejecta from 60 to 160 miles [97 to 257 km] above Io’s surface. This is astounding.

Nothing on our planet can match this continuous stream of material being shot out by Io’s volcanoes at a velocity of 2000 miles per hour [3218 km per hour]! The usual evolutionary model portrays all the planets and moons as being molten 5 billion years ago. During the next billion years they are said to have had active volcanoes. Then, 4 billion years ago, the volcanism stopped as they cooled. Io is quite small, yet it has the most active volcanoes we know of. Obviously, it is quite young and its internal heat has not had time to cool.

16 - MOONS TOO DIFFERENT—If all four moons of Jupiter’s "Galilean moons" evolved, they should be essentially alike in physical characteristics. The theorized millions of years they have existed should cause them to have the same amount of volcanoes and impact craters, but this is not so. In contrast, a recent creation would explain Io’s volcanoes and the variety of other surface features.

Next we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM OUR OWN MOON that it is quite young:

17 - MOON DUST—Although most people do not know it, one of the reasons so much money was spent to send a rocket to the moon was to see how thick the dust was on its surface!

Evolutionists had long held to the fact (as we do) that the earth and moon are about the same age. It is believed, by many, that the earth and its moon are billions of years old. If that were true, the moon would by now have built up a 20-60 mile [32 to 97 km] layer of dust on it!

In *Isaac Asimov’s first published essay (1958), he wrote:

" . . I get a picture, therefore, of the first spaceship [to the moon], picking out a nice level place for landing purposes, coming slowly downward tail-first and sinking majestically out of sight."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov on Science: A Thirty-Year Retrospective (1989), xvi-xvii.

In the 1950s, *R.A. Lyttleton, a highly respected astronomer, said this:

"The lunar surface is exposed to direct sunlight, and strong ultraviolet light and X-rays [from the sun] can destroy the surface layers of exposed rock and reduce them to dust at the rate of a few ten-thousandths of an inch per year. But even this minute amount could, during the age of the moon, be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep."—*R.A. Lyttleton, quoted in R. Wysong, Creation-Evolution Controversy, p. 175.

In 5 to 10 billion years, 3 or 4/10,000ths of an inch per year would produce 20-60 miles [32-97 km] of dust. In view of this, our men at NASA were afraid to send men to the moon. Landing there, they would be buried in dust and quickly suffocate! So NASA first sent an unmanned lander to its surface, which made the surprising discovery that there was hardly any dust on the moon! In spite of that discovery, Neil Armstrong was decidedly worried about this dust problem as his March 1970 flight in Apollo 11 neared. He feared his lunar lander would sink deeply into it and he and Edwin Aldrin would perish. But because the moon is young, they had no problem. There is not over 2 or 3 inches [5.08 or 7.62 cm] of dust on its surface! That is the amount one would expect if the moon were about 6000-8000 years old.

*Dr. Lyttleton’s facts were correct; solar radiation does indeed turn the moon rocks into dust. With only a few inches of dust, the moon cannot be older than a few thousand years.

It is significant that studies on the moon have shown that only 1/60th of the one- or two-inch dust layer on the moon originated from outer space. This has been corroborated by still more recent measurements of the influx rate of dust on the moon, which also do not support an old moon.

18 - LUNAR SOIL—Analysis of lunar soil negates the possibility of long ages for the moon’s existence. The dirt on the moon does not reveal the amount of soil mixing that would be expected if the moon were very old.

19 - LUNAR ISOTOPES—Many wonder what value there has been in collecting moon rocks. One of the most surprising moon rock discoveries is seldom mentioned: Short-lived Uranium 236 and Thorium .230 were found in those stones! Short-term radioactive isotopes do not last long; they quickly turn into their end product, which is lead. If the moon were even 50,000 years old, these short-life radioisotopes would long since have decayed into lead. But instead they were relatively abundant in the moon rocks! The importance of this should not be underestimated. The moon cannot be older than several thousand years.

20 - LUNAR RADIOACTIVE HEAT—Rocks brought by Apollo teams from the moon have been dated by the various radiometric methods. A variety of very conflicting dates have resulted from these tests. But the factor of relatively high radioactivity of those rocks indicates a young age for the moon.

21 - LUNAR GASES—Several inert gases have been found on the surface of the moon. Scientists believe that these gases came from the sun, in the form of "solar wind."Mathematical calculation reveals that, at today’s intensity of solar wind, the amount of inert gases found on the moon would be built up in 1000 to 10,000 years, —and no longer. These calculations are based on Argon 36 and Krypton 84 concentrations. Even 20,000 years ago would be far too lengthy a time. Therefore the moon could not be older than about 6000-10,000 years.

22 - LUNAR PHENOMENA—A growing collection of data of transient lunar activity (moon quakes, lava flows, gas emissions, etc.) reveals that the moon is not a cold, dead body. It is still adjusting to inner stresses and is not yet in thermal equilibrium. Yet, all things considered, if the moon were very old it should not show such thermal activity.

23 - LUNAR RECESSION—Scientists have discovered two interesting facts: (1) the moon is already far too close to the earth, and (2) it is gradually moving farther away from us. This is called recession of the moon. Due to tidal friction, the moon is slowly spiraling outward away from planet earth! Based on the rate at which the moon is receding from us, the earth and the moon cannot be very old. This is an important point and can in no way be controverted. The present rate of recession clearly indicates a young age for the earth-moon system. If the moon were older—even 20 to 30,000 years old,—it would at that earlier time have been so close that it would have fallen into the earth!

"The moon is slowly receding from Earth at about 4 cm [1½ in] per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. The moon could never have been closer than 18,400 km [11,500 miles], known as the Roche Limit, because Earth’s tidal forces would have shattered it."—Jonathan Sarfati, Creation Ex Nihilo, September 1979.

Next we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM THE ATMOSPHERE that the earth is quite young:

24 - ATMOSPHERIC HELIUM—The radioactive decay of either uranium or thorium produces helium. According to evolutionary theory, these decay chains have been going on for billions of years, and should therefore have produced a much larger quantity of helium than is found in our world. The amount of helium on our planet is far too small, if our world has existed for long ages.

"There ought to be about a thousand times as much helium in the atmosphere as there is."—*"What Happened to the Earth’s Helium?" New Scientist, 24, December 3, 1964.

To fit the evolutionary pattern, our atmosphere would now have to contain much more than our present 1.4 parts per million of helium. Some evolutionists have suggested that the helium is escaping out into space, but no evidence has ever been found to substantiate this. Research has shown that, although hydrogen can escape from the earth, helium is not able to reach "escape velocity." In order to do so, the temperature of the planet would have to be too high to support the life that evolutionists say has been here for over a billion years.

To make matters worse, not only are we not losing helium to outer space—we are getting more of it from there! *Cook has shown that helium, spewed out by the sun’s corona, is probably entering our atmosphere (Melvin A. Cook, "Where is the Earth’s Radiogenic Helium?" Nature 179, January 26, 1957).

Atmospheric helium is produced from three sources: (1) radioactive decay of uranium and thorium. (2) Cosmic helium flowing into our atmosphere from space, but especially the sun’s corona. (3) Nuclear reactions in the earth’s crust, caused by cosmic ray bombardment.

Kofahl and Segraves conclude that, using all three helium sources in the calculation, earth’s atmospheric age would be reduced to 10,000 years. In addition to this, a worldwide catastrophic event in the past such as the Flood could, for a short time, have unleashed much larger amounts of helium into the atmosphere. Such an event could significantly reduce the total atmospheric age. Helium content is a good measure, since there is no known way it can escape from the atmosphere into outer space.

Also see Larry Vardiman, The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere: A Study of the Helium Flux through the Atmosphere (1990), in which he argues that, on the basis of atmospheric helium content, the earth cannot be over 10,000 years old.

25 - CARBON-14 DISINTEGRATION—The present worldwide buildup of radiocarbon in the atmosphere would have produced all the world’s radiocarbon in several thousand years. Yet, ironically, it is Carbon 14 that is used by evolutionary scientists in an attempt to prove that life has existed on our planet for millions of years!

Robert Whitelaw, a nuclear and engineering expert at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, found that the production rate is not equal to the disintegration rate. In fact, his calculations reveal a recent turning on of the C-14 clock,—otherwise the two factors would be balanced. Whitelaw’s research indicates that the clock was turned on approximately 8000 years ago. (See chapter 6, Inaccurate Dating Methods, for more on radiocarbon dating.)

Next we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM METEORITES that the earth is quite young:

26 - METEOR DUST—Meteors are continually hurtling into the atmosphere and landing on our planet. They are then known as meteorites. But small amounts of meteor dust (called micrometeors and too small to see) also enter our atmosphere and gradually settle to earth. The composition of these materials is iron, nickel, and silicate compounds.

On the average, about 20 million meteors collide with the earth’s atmosphere every 24 hours. It is now known that, because of meteorites and meteorite dust, the earth increases in weight by about 25 tons [22.7 mt] each day.

We have here another evidence of a young earth; for the amount of meteorites and meteorite dust earlier accumulated in rock strata, in relation to the amounts reaching the earth at present, would indicate an age in thousands of years, not millions.

27 - METEOR CRATERS—Meteor craters are fairly easy to locate, especially since we now have such excellent aerial and satellite mapping systems. For example, the meteor crater near Winslow, Arizona, is ¾ mile [1.2 km] in diameter and 600 feet [1,829 dm] deep. Efforts have been made to locate meteor craters in the rock strata, but without success. They always lie close to or on the surface. This and erosional evidence indicate that all the meteor craters which have struck the earth are all only a few thousand years old. No larger meteors struck the earth prior to that time, for no meteor craters are found anywhere in the lower rocks.

28 - METEOR ROCKS—Meteors of various types are continually plunging into earth’s atmosphere, and some reach the surface and are then called meteorites. Supposedly this has happened for millions of years—yet all the meteorites discovered are always right next to the earth’s surface! There are no exceptions! No meteorites are ever found in the deeper ("older") sedimentary strata. If the earth were very ancient, many should be found farther down. This is an evidence of a young earth. It is also an indication that the sedimentary strata was rather quickly laid down not too long in the past.

"No meteorites have ever been found in the geologic column."—*Fred Whipple, "Comets," in The New Astronomy, p. 207.

*Asimov’s theory is that "crustal mixing" has removed all trace of the meteorites. But the nickel from those meteorites should still be there littering the earth’s surface and to be found beneath it. But this is not the case.

"For many years, I have searched for meteorites or meteoric material in sedimentary rocks [the geological strata] . . I have interviewed the late Dr. G.P. Merrill, of the U.S. National Museum, and Dr. G.T. Prior, of the British Natural History Museum, both well-known students of meteorites, and neither man knew of a single occurrence of a meteorite in sedimentary rocks."—*W.A. Tarr, "Meteorites in Sedimentary Rocks?" Science 75, January 1932.

29 - TEKTITES—Tektites are a special type of glassy meteorite. Large areas containing them are called "strewn fields." Although some scientists claim that tektites are of earthly origin, there is definite evidence that they are actually meteorites.

Every so often, a shower of tektites falls to the earth. The first were found in 1787 in what is now western Czechoslovakia. Those in Australia were found in 1864. They were given the name tektites, from a Greek word for "molten," because they appear to have melted in their passage through the atmosphere. Tektites have also been found in Texas and several other places. Each shower lies on the surface or in the topmost layers of soil; they are never found in the sedimentary fossil-bearing strata. If the earth were 5 billion years old, as suggested by evolutionists, we should expect to find tektite showers in all the strata. If the earth is only a few thousand years old, and a Flood produced all the strata, we would expect to find the tektites only in the topmost layers of the ground and not in the deeper strata. And that is where they are.

The tektites are found on top of, what evolutionary theory calls, "recent" soil, not beneath it. The evidence is clear that the tektites did not work their way up from beneath or wash down from older sediments at a higher elevation.

EC140.jpg (178505 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGE

Next we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM THE GLOBE that the earth is quite young:

30 - EARTH ROTATION—The spin of the earth—which is now about 1000 miles [1609 km] an hour—is gradually slowing down. Gravitational drag forces of the sun, moon, and other factors cause this. If the earth were really billions of years old, as claimed, it would already have stopped turning on its axis! This is yet another evidence that our world is not very old.

Lord Kelvin (the 19th-century physicist who introduced the Kelvin temperature scale) used this slowing rotation as a reason why the earth could not be very old. The decline in rotation rate is now known to be greater than previously thought (Thomas G. Barnes, "Physics: A Challenge to ‘Geologic Times,’ " Impact 16, July 1974).

Using a different calculation, we can extrapolate backward from our present spin rate and 5 billion years ago our planet would have had to be spinning so fast it would have changed to the shape of a flat pancake. We, today, would still have the effects of that: Our equator would now reach 40 miles [64 km] up into the sky, and our tropical areas—and all our oceans—would be at the poles. So, by either type of calculation, our world cannot be more than a few thousand years old.

31 - MAGNETIC FIELD DECAY—As you probably know, the earth has a magnetic field. Without it, we could not use compasses to identify the direction of magnetic north (which is close to the North Pole). Dr. Thomas G. Barnes, a physics teacher at the University of Texas, has authored a widely used college textbook on electricity and magnetism. Working with data collected over the past 135 years, he has pointed out that earth’s magnetic field is gradually decaying. Indeed, he has shown that this magnetic field is decreasing exponentially, according to a decay law similar to the decay of radioactive substances.

In 1835 the German physicist, K.F. Gauss, made the first measurement of the earth’s magnetic dipole moment, that is, the strength of earth’s internal magnet. Additional evaluations have been carried out every decade or so since then. Since 1835, global magnetism has decreased 14 percent!

On the basis of facts obtained from 1835 to 1965, this magnetic field appears to have a half-life of 1400 years. On this basis, even 7000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger than it now has. Just 20,000 years ago, enough Joule heat would have been generated to liquefy the earth. One million years ago the earth would have had greater magnetism than all objects in the universe, and it would have vaporized! It would appear that the earth could not be over 6000 or 7000 years old. (On the accompanying graph, beyond the point where the curve becomes vertical, our planet would have had the magnetosphere power of a magnetic star!)

"The over-all intensity of the field is declining at a rate of 26 nanoteslas per year . . If the rate of decline were to continue steadily, the field strength would reach zero in 1,200 years."—*"Magnetic Field Declining," Science News, June 28, 1980.
"In the next two millennia, if the present rate of decay is sustained, the dipole component of the [earth’s magnetic] field should reach zero."*Scientific American, December 1989.

This magnetic decay process is not a local process, such as one would find in uranium, but worldwide; it affects the entire earth. It has been accurately measured for over 150 years, and is not subject to environmental changes since it is generated deep in the earth’s interior.

If any fundamental planetary process ought to be a reliable indicator of the earth’s age, it should be our earth’s magnetic fieldand it indicates an upper limit of decidedly less than 10,000 years for the age of the earth.

Most of the factors described above would apply to the age of the earth, which appears to be decidedly less than 10,000 years.

Most of the following items of evidence would apply to the length of time since the Flood, which evidence indicates may have occurred about 4350 years ago.

Next we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM BENEATH THE SURFACE that the earth is quite young:

32 - ESCAPING NATURAL GAS—Oil and gas are usually located in a porous and permeable rock like sandstone or limestone, which is sealed by an impermeable rock-like shale. Fluids and gas can easily travel through the containing rock, but more slowly pass out of the impermeable cap. Evolutionary theory postulates that tens or hundreds of millions of years ago, the oil and gas were trapped in there.

But natural gas can still get through the shale cap. A recent study analyzed the rate of escape of gas through shale caps. It was found to be far too rapid for acceptance by evolutionary theory. If the world were billions of years old, all the natural gas would already have escaped.

33 - OIL PRESSURE—Frequently, when oil well drillers first penetrate into oil, a geyser ("gusher") of oil spews forth. Studies of the permeability of the surrounding rock indicate that any pressure within the oil bed should have bled off within a few thousand years, but this obviously has not happened yet. The excessive pressure within these oil beds refutes the "old earth" theory and provides strong evidence that these deep rock formations and the entrapped oil are less than 7000-10,000 years old. The great pressures now existing in oil reserves could only have been sustained for a few thousand years.

"Why do we see an explosive gusher when a drill strikes oil? Because oil, like natural gas, is maintained in the earth at enormously high pressure—about 5000 pounds per square inch at a depth of 10,000 feet. Supposedly oil and gas have been lying there for millions of years. But how could they have lasted that long without leaking or otherwise dissipating those extreme pressures."—James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (1999), p. 136.

34 - OIL SEEPAGE—A 1972 article, by *Max Blumer, (*"Submarine Seeps: Are They a Major Source of Open Ocean Oil Pollution?" in Science, Vol. 176, p. 1257) offers decided evidence that the earth’s crust is not as old as evolutionary geologists had thought. *Blumer says that oil seepage from the seafloor cannot be a source of oceanic oil pollution. He explains that if that much had been regularly seeping out of the ocean floor, all the oil in offshore wells would be gone long ago if the earth were older than 20,000 years.

In contrast, geologists have already located 630 billion barrels [1,002 billion kl] of oil that can be recovered from offshore wells. But if our planet were older than 20,000 years, there would be no offshore oil of any kind to locate and recover through oil rigs.

35 - LACK OF ANCIENTLY DESTROYED RESERVOIRS—All of the oil in the world must have been placed there only in the recent past. We can know this because if long ages of time had elapsed for earth’s history, then we should find evidence of anciently destroyed oil reservoirs. There would be places where all the oil had leaked out and left only residues, which would show in drilling cores! But such locations are never found. Coal is found in various stages of decomposition, but oil reservoirs are never found to have seeped away.

36 - MOLTEN EARTH—Deep within the earth, the rocks are molten; but, if the earth were billions of years old, long ages ago our planet would have cooled far more than it now has.

37 - VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS—There are few active volcanoes today, yet at some time in the past there were thousands of them. In chapter 14, Effects of the Flood, we will learn that many of these were active during the time that the oceans were filling with water.

The greater part of the earlier volcanism apparently occurred within a narrow band of time just after the Flood. If it had lasted longer, our world today would have a far larger amount of volcanic material covering its surface. Instead we find that the Deluge primarily laid down the sedimentary deposits.

But even today’s volcanoes are an indication of an early age for the earth. If even the present low rate of volcanic activity had continued for the long ages claimed by evolutionists for earth’s history, there would be far more lava than there now is. Only a young age for our world can explain the conditions we see on earth’s surface now.

38 - ZIRCON/LEAD RATIOS—This and the next discovery were made by R.V. Gentry, and both are discussed in detail in chapter 3, Origin of the Earth, and in his book,Nature’s Tiny Mystery.

Zircon crystals were taken in core samples from five levels of a very hot, dry 15,000-foot [45,720 dm] hole in New Mexico, with temperatures always above 313° C. [595.4° F.]. That is more than 200° C. [392° F.] hotter than the sea-level temperature of boiling water.

Radiogenic lead gradually leaks out of zircon crystals, and does so more rapidly as the temperature increases. But careful examination revealed that essentially none of the radiogenic lead had diffused out of that super-heated zircon. This evidence points strongly to a young age for the earth.

39 - ZIRCON/HELIUM RATIOS—When uranium and thorium radioactively decay, they emit alpha particles—which are actually helium atoms stripped of their electrons. Analysis of the helium content of those same zircon crystals, from that same deep New Mexico hole, revealed amazingly high helium retention in those crystals. Yet helium is a gas and can diffuse out of crystals much more rapidly than many other elements, including lead. Since heat increases chemical activity, all that helium should be gone if the earth were more than a few thousand years old.

40 - SOIL-WATER RATIO—There is clear evidence in the soil beneath our feet that the earth is quite young, for it is still in the partially water-soaked condition that it incurred at the time of the Flood. This evidence indicates that a Flood took place, and that it occurred not more than a few thousand years ago. This is shown by water table levels (which, as you know, we today are rapidly draining).

Next we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM THE EARTH’S SURFACE that the earth is quite young:

41 - TOPSOIL—The average depth of topsoil throughout the world is about eight inches. Allowing for losses due to erosion, it has been calculated that it requires 300 to 1000 years to build one inch [2.54 cm] of topsoil. On this basis, the earth could only be a few thousand years old.

42 - NIAGARA FALLS—The French explorer, Hennepin, first mapped Niagara Falls in 1678. From that time until 1842, the falls eroded the cliff beneath them at a rate of about 7 feet [213 cm] per year. More recent calculations would indicate a rate of 3.5 feet [106.68 cm] of erosion per year. Since the length of the Niagara Falls gorge is about 7 miles [11 km], the age of the falls would be 5000 to 10,000 years.

But, of course, the worldwide Flood, the existence of which is clearly established by rock strata and other geological evidence, would have been responsible for a massive amount of initial erosion of the falls.

There are a number of large waterfalls in the world which plunge into gorges; and, over the centuries past, these were dug out as the waterfall gradually eroded away the cliff beneath it. In each instance, the distance of the cut that has been made, in relation to the amount of erosion that is being made each year by the falls, indicates only a few thousand years since the falls began.

Next we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM THE OCEANS that the earth is quite young:

43 - RIVER DELTAS—Did you ever see an air-view photograph of the Mississippi River delta? You can find an outline of it on any larger United States map. That river dumps 300 million cubic yards [229 million cubic meters] of mud into the Gulf of Mexico every year, at the point where the river enters the gulf. For this reason, the State of Louisiana keeps becoming larger. Yet, for the amount of sediment dumping that occurs, the Mississippi delta is not very large. In fact, calculations reveal it has only been forming for the past 4000 years.

The Mississippi-Missouri river system is the longest in the world and is about 4221 miles [6,792 km] in length. Because, below Cape Girardeau, flatland inundation along the Mississippi has always been a problem, over a hundred years ago, Congress commissioned *General Andrew A. Humphreys to make a survey of the whole area. It was completed in 1861. The English evolutionist, *Charles Lyell, had earlier made a superficial examination of the river and its delta and declared the river system to be 60,000 years old since, he said, the delta was 528 feet [1609 dm] deep.

But Humphreys showed that the actual depth of the delta was only 40 feet. Below that was the blue clay of the Gulf, and below that, marine fossils. His discovery revealed that the lower Mississippi valley used to be a marine estuary. Using Lyell’s formula for age computation, Humphreys arrived at an age of about 4620 years, which would be approximately the time of the Genesis Flood.

Less data is available for other world river systems, but what is known agrees with findings about the age of the Mississippi delta.

Ur of the Chaldees was a seaport several thousand years ago. Today it is almost 200 miles [322 km] from the Persian Gulf. That distance was filled in as delta formation filled from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Archaeologists date the seaport Ur at 3500 B.C. Assuming that date, the delta formed at 35 miles [56 km] for every 1000 years.

According to evolutionary theory, everything occurs at a uniform rate and the earth is billions of years old. If that is so, 80,000 years ago the Persian Gulf would have reached to Paris! At the same rate of delta formation, 120,000 years ago the Gulf of Mexico would have extended up through the Mississippi River—to the North Pole!

44 - SEA OOZE—As fish and plants in the ocean die, they drop to the bottom and gradually form an ooze, or very soft mud, that is built up on the ocean floors. This occurs at the rate of about 1 inch [2.54 cm] every 1500 years. Measuring the depth of this ooze, it is clear that the earth is quite young.

45 - EROSION IN THE OCEAN—If erosion has been occurring for millions of years, why below sea level in the oceans do we find ragged cliffs, mountains not leveled, oceans unfilled by sediments, and continents still above sea level?

An excellent example of this is the topology of Monterey Bay, California. It is filled with steep underwater canyons—so steep that small avalanches occur on them quite frequently. (See *"Between Monterey Tides," National Geographic, February 1990, pp. 2-43; especially note map on pp. 10-11.) If the earth were as old as the evolutionists claim, all this would long ago have been flattened out.

46 - THICKNESS OF OCEAN SEDIMENTS—About 29 billion tons [26.3 billion mt] of sediment is added to the ocean each and every year. If the earth were billions of years old, the ocean floor would be covered by sediments from land measuring 60 to 100 miles [96.5 to 160.9 km] thick, and all the continents would be eroded away. But, instead, we find only a few thousand feet of sediment in the ocean and no indication that the continents have eroded away even once. Calculations on the thickness of ocean sediments yield only a few thousand years for our planet.

The average depth of sediments on the ocean floor is only a little over ½ mile [.804 km]. But if the oceans were billions of years old, the rate of sediment deposit from the continents would have resulted in a minimum of 60 miles [96.6 km] of sediments, on the ocean floors, and closer to 100 miles [160.9 km].

Plate tectonics theory (chapter 20, Paleomagnetism [omitted from this book for lack of space; you will find it in chapter 26 on our website]) declares that gradually subducting plates bury themselves deep into the earth, carrying with them the sediments on top of them. But, according to that theory, this would only remove about 2.75 x 1010 tons [2.49 mt x 1010] per year, or merely 1/10th of the annual new sediments being added from the continents!

The 60 miles [96.6 km] of ocean sediments needed by the evolutionists for their theory is hopelessly missing.

47 - OCEAN CONCENTRATIONS—We have a fairly good idea of the amount of various elements and salts that are in the oceans and also how much is being added yearly by rivers, subterranean springs, rainwater, and other sources. A comparison of the two factors points to a young age for the ocean and thus for the earth.

Of the 51 primary chemical elements contained in seawater, twenty could have accumulated to their present concentrations in 1000 years or less, 9 additional elements in no more than 10,000 years, and 8 others in no more than 100,000 years. For example, the nitrates in the oceans could have accumulated within 13,000 years.

48 - GROWTH OF CORAL—Coral in the ocean grows at a definite rate. Analysis of coral growth in the oceans reveals that ours is a young world.

"Estimated old ages for the earth are frequently based on ‘clocks’ that today are ticking at very slow rates. For example, coral growth rates were for many years thought to be very slow, implying that some coral reefs must be hundreds of thousands of years old. More accurate measurements of these rates under favorable growth conditions now show us that no known coral formation need be older than 3,500 years (A.A. Roth, ‘Coral Reef Growth,’ Origins, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1979, pp. 88-95)."—W.T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 14.

Next we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM LIVING THINGS that the earth is quite young:

49 - TREE RINGS—The giant sequoias of California have no known enemies except man. And only recently did man (with his saws) have the ability to easily destroy them. Insects do not bother them, nor even forest fires. They live on, century after century. Yet the sequoias are never older than about 4000 years. These giant redwoods seem to be the original trees that existed in their timber stands. Sequoia gigantea, in their groves in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, never have any dead trees ("snags") among them. Unless man cuts them down, there is no evidence that they ever die!

The University of Arizona has a department that specializes in tree dating. *Edmund Schulman of its Dendrochronological Laboratory discovered a stand of still older trees in the White Mountains of California. These were bristlecone pines (Pinus longalva).

Beginning in 1978, Walter Lammerts, a plant scientist, spent several years working with bristlecone pine seedlings in their native habitat of Arizona. He discovered that the San Francisco Mountain region, in which they grow, has spring and fall rains with a very dry summer in between. Working carefully with the seedlings and giving them the same type of watering and other climatic conditions that they would normally receive,—he found that much of the time the bristlecone pines produce two growth rings a year. This is an important discovery, for it would indicate that the sequoias—not the bristlecone pines—are probably the oldest living things on earth.

Think of it! Today we have just ONE generation of the Sequoia gigantea! Both the parent trees and their offspring are still alive. There is no record of any tree or other living thing that is older than any reasonable date given for the Genesis Flood. In the case of the giant sequoias, there is no reason why they could not have lived for many thousands of years beyond their present life span.

For additional information on tree ring dating, see chapter 6, Inaccurate Dating Methods.

50 - MUTATION LOAD—Before completing this section on the evidence from living things, it is of interest that one researcher, *H.T. Band, discovered in the early 1960s that natural selection was not eliminating the "genetic load" (the gradually increasing negative effect of mutation on living organisms). Thus mutational defects are accumulating, even though some are only on recessive genes. Calculations, based on genetic load, indicate that life-forms could not have continued more than several thousand years—and still be as free from mutational defects as they now are.

Much more information on mutations, including a more complete discussion of genetic load, will be given in chapter 10, Mutations.

Next we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM CIVILIZATION that the earth is quite young:

(The information given in this section is somewhat paralleled by material to be found in Ancient Cultures and As Far Back as We Can Go, near the end of chapter 13, Ancient Man. Additional material will be found there.)

51 - HISTORICAL RECORDS—If mankind has been living and working on Planet Earth for millions of years, why do we find records of man only dating back to about 2000-3500 B.C.? And these records, when found, reveal the existence of highly developed civilizations.

As is shown more fully in chapter 13, Ancient Man, the writings, language, and cultures of ancient mankind started off fully developed—but are not found to have begun until about 2000-3000 B.C.

(1) Early Egyptian Records. The earliest historical books are those of the Egyptians and the Hebrews. The historical dates assigned to the beginnings of Egyptian and Sumerian history are based primarily on king-lists. The earliest records are the Egyptian king-lists, dating from about the First Dynasty in Egypt, between 3200 and 3600 B.C. But internal and external evidence indicates that these dates should be lowered. An Egyptologist writes:

"We think that the First Dynasty [in Egypt] began not before 3400 and not much later than 3200 B.C. . . A. Scharff, however, would bring the date down to about 3000 B.C.; and it must be admitted that his arguments are good, and that at any rate it is more probable that the date of the First Dynasty is later than 3400 B.C., rather than earlier."—*H.R. Hall, "Egypt: Archaeology," in Encyclopedia Britannica, 1956 edition, Vol. 8, p. 37.

The problem with First Dynasty dates is they are based on the king-lists of Manetho, an Egyptian priest who lived many centuries later, in 250 B.C. Manetho’s writings have only been preserved in a few inaccurate quotations in other ancient writings. Barton, of the University of Pennsylvania, points out the problem here:

"The number of years assigned to each [Egyptian] king, and consequently the length of time covered by the dynasties, differ in these two copies, so that, while the work of Manetho forms the backbone of our chronology, it gives us no absolute reliable chronology."—George A. Barton, Archaeology and the Bible, p. 11.

Confusion in regard to Egyptian dating has continued on down to the present time.

"In the course of a single century’s research, the earliest date in Egyptian history—that of Egypt’s unification under King Menes [first king of the first Egyptian dynasty]—has plummeted from 5876 to 2900 B.C., and not even the latter year has been established beyond doubt. Do we, in fact, have any firm dates at all?"—Johannes Lehmann, The Hittites (1977), p. 204.

It is difficult to obtain exact clarity when examining ancient Egyptian texts. A number of Egyptologists think that Manetho’s lists dealt not with a single dynasty—but with two different ones that reigned simultaneously in upper and lower Egypt. This would markedly reduce the Manetho dates.

Manetho’s king-list give us dates that are older than that of any other dating records anywhere in the world. But there are a number of scholars who believe that (1) the list deal with two simultaneously reigning sets of kings; (2) that they are not numerically accurate; and (3) that Manetho fabricated names, events, numbers, and history, as did many ancient Egyptian Pharaohs and historians, in order to magnify the greatness of Egypt or certain rulers. For example, it is well-known among archaeologists and Egyptologists that ancient Egyptian records exaggerated victories while never mentioning defeats. The Egyptians had a center-of-the-universe attitude about themselves, and they repeatedly colored or falsified historical reporting in order to make themselves look better than other nations around them.

In contrast, it is highly significant that well-authenticated Egyptian dates only go back to 1600 B.C.! Experts, trying to unravel Egyptian dating problems, have come to that conclusion.

"Frederick Johnson, coworker with Dr. Libby [in the development of, and research into, radiocarbon dating], cites the general correspondence [agreement] of radiocarbon dates to the known ages of various samples taken from tombs, temples, or palaces out of the historical past. Well-authenticated dates are known only back as far as 1600 B.C. in Egyptian history, according to John G. Read (J.G. Read, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 29, No. 1, 1970). Thus, the meaning of dates by C-14 prior to 1600 B.C. is still as yet controversial."—H.M. Morris, W.W. Boardman, and R.F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 85.

Because cosmologists, chronologists, historians, and archaeologists heavily rely on Egyptian dates for their theories, Egyptian dating has become very important in dating the ancient world, and thus quite influential. This is because it purports to provide us with the earliest historical dates. There is evidence available that would definitely lower archaeological dates and bring them into line with Biblical chronology.

We planned to include a more complete study on this subject in chapter 21, Archaeological Dating, but we had to heavily reduce it for lack of space. However, you will find it in chapter 35 on our website, evolution-facts.org.

(2) The Sumerians. The Sumerians were the first people with written records in the region of greater Babylonia. Their earliest dates present us with the same problems that we find with Egyptian dates. *Kramer, an expert in ancient Near Eastern civilizations, comments:

"The dates of Sumer’s early history have always been surrounded with uncertainty."—*S.N. Kramer, "The Sumerians," in Scientific American, October 1957, p. 72.

(We might here mention that the carbon-14 date for these earliest Near Eastern civilizations is not 3000, but 8000 B.C. In chapter 6, Inaccurate Dating Methods, we will discover that radiocarbon dating seriously decreases in reliability beyond about 1500 years in the past.)

52 - EARLY BIBLICAL RECORDS—(*#1/10 Ancient Historical Records*) The Bible is valid history and should not be discounted in any scientific effort to determine dates of earlier events. The Bible has consistently been verified by authentic historical and archaeological research. (For an in-depth analysis of a primary cause of apparent disharmony between archaeological and Biblical dates, see chapter 35, Archaeological Dating, on our website).

It is conservatively considered that the first books of the Bible were written by Moses c.1510-1450 B.C. (The date of the Exodus would be about 1492 B.C.) Chronological data in the book of Genesis would indicate that Creation Week occurred about 4000 B.C., and that the date of the Flood was about 2348 B.C.

Some may see a problem with such a date for the Genesis Flood. But we are dealing with dates that are quite ancient. The Flood may have occurred at a somewhat earlier time, but it may also be that the earliest-known secular dates should be lowered somewhat, which is probably the case here. It is well to remember that, in seeking to corroborate ancient dates, we can never have total certainty about the past from secular records, such as we find in Egypt and Sumer.

53 - ASTRONOMICAL RECORDS—Throughout ancient historical writings, from time to time scholars come across comments about astronomical events, especially total or almost total solar eclipses. These are much more accurate time dating factors! Because of the infrequency of solar eclipses at any given location and because astronomers can date every eclipse going back thousands of years, a mention of a solar eclipse in an ancient tablet or manuscript is an extremely important find!

A solar eclipse is strong evidence for the dating of an event, when ancient records can properly corroborate it.

We can understand why the ancients would mention solar eclipses since, as such rare events, they involve the blotting out of the sun for a short time in the area of umbra (the completely dark, inner part of the shadow cast on the earth when the moon covers the sun). Yet, prior to 2250 B.C., we have NOT ONE record of a solar eclipse ever having been seen by people! This is a very important item of evidence establishing a young age for the earth.

"The earliest Chinese date which can be assigned with any probability is 2250 B.C., based on an astronomical reference in the Book of History."*Ralph Linton, The Tree of Culture (1955), p. 520.

54 - WRITING—The oldest writing is pictographic Sumerian inscribed on tablets in the Near East. The oldest of these tablets have been dated at about 3500 B.C. and were found in the Sumerian temple of manna.

The earliest Western-type script was the proto-Sinaitic, which appeared in the Sinai peninsula about 1550 B.C. This was the forerunner of our Indo-Aryan script, from which descended our present alphabet.

55 - CIVILIZATIONS—It is highly significant that no truly verified archaeological datings predate the period of about 3000 B.C. When larger dates are cited, they come from radiocarbon dating, from methods other than written human records, or from the suspect Manetho’s Egyptian king-list.

56 - LANGUAGES—Mankind is so intelligent that languages were soon put into written records, which were left lying about on the surface of the earth. We know that differences in dialect and language suddenly developed shortly after the Flood, at which time men separated and traveled off in groups whose members could understand one another (Genesis 11:1-9).

The records of ancient languages never go back beyond C. 3000 B.C. Philological and linguistic studies reveal that a majority of them are part of large "language families," and most of these appear to radiate outward from the area of Babylonia.

For example, the Japhetic peoples, listed in Genesis 10, traveled to Europe and India, where they became the so-called Aryan peoples. These all use what we today call the Indo-European Language Family. Recent linguistic studies reveal that these languages originated at a common center in southeastern Europe on the Baltic. This would be close to the Ararat range. *Thieme, a Sanskrit and comparative philology expert at Yale University, gives this estimate:

"Indo-European, I conjecture, was spoken on the Baltic coast of Germany late in the fourth millennium B.C. [c.3000 B.C]."—*Paul Thieme, "The Indo-European Language," in Scientific American, October 1958, p. 74.

For more information on languages, see chapter 13, Ancient Man.

57 - POPULATION STATISTICS—Our present population explosion is especially the result of improved sanitary conditions at childbirth and thereafter. In earlier centuries, many more children died before the age of three.

It is thought that the period between 1650 and 1850 would be a typical time span to analyze population growth prior to our present century, with its many technological advantages. One estimate, based on population changes between 1650 and 1850, provides us with the fact that at about the year 3300 B.C. there was only one family!

"The human population grows so rapidly that its present size could have been reached in less than 1% (3200 years) of the minimum time assumed (½ million years) for man on the basis of radiometric dating."—Ariel A. Roth, summary from "Some Questions about Geochronology," in Origins, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1886, pp. 59-60.

The rate of world population growth has varied greatly throughout history as a result of such things as pestilences, famines, wars, and catastrophes (floods, volcanoes, earthquakes, and fires). But with all this in mind, estimates generally focus on 300 million as the population of the earth at the time of Christ. Based on small-sized families, from the time of the Flood (c. 2300 B.C.) to the time of Christ, the population by that time would have been about 300 million people.

If, in contrast, the human race had been on earth for one million years, as the evolutionists declare, even with a very low growth rate of 0.01 (1/100) percent annually, the resulting population by the time of Christ would be 2 x 1043 people (2 x 1043 is the numeral 2 followed by 43 zeros!). A thousand solar systems, with nine planets like ours could barely hold that many people, packed in solid!

58 - FACTS VS. THEORIES—In 1862, *Thompson said the earth was 20 million years old. Thirty-five years later, in 1897, he doubled it to 40 million. Two years later, *J. Joly said it was 90 million. *Rayleigh, in 1921, said the earth has been here for 1 billion years. Eleven years later, *W.O. Hotchkiss moved the figure up to 1.6 billion(1,600,000,000). *A Holmes in 1947 declared it to be 3.35 billion (3,350,000,000); and, in 1956, he raised it to 4.5 billion (4,500,000,000). Just now, the age of the earth stands at about 5 billion years. Pretty soon, someone will raise it again.

Men dream up theories, and then they call it science.

"These dates for the age of the earth have changed, doubling on average every fifteen years, from about 4 million years in Lord Kelvin’s day to 4500 million now."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 235.
"Dr. A.E.J. Engel, Professor of the California Institute of Technology, comments that the age for the earth accepted by most geologists rose from a value of about 50 million years in 1900 to about 5 billion years by 1960. He suggests facetiously that ‘if we just relax and wait another decade, the earth may not be 4.5 to 5 aeons [1 aeon = 1 billion years], as now suggested, but some 6 to 8 or even 10 aeons in age.’ "H.M. Morris, W.W. Boardman, and R.F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 74 [referring to *A.E.J. Engel, "Time and the Earth," in American Scientist 57, 4 (1969), p. 461].

Those long ages were assigned primarily because of a 19th-century theory about rock strata (see chapter 12, Fossils and Strata) and supposedly confirmed by radioactive dating (the serious problems of which are discussed in chapter 6).

In this chapter, we have seen a surprising number of solid evidences for a young earth. They all point to a beginning for our planet about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.

The young earth evidence is powerful. As discussed in this chapter, (1) ultraviolet light has only built up a thin layer of moon dust; (2) short half-life radioactive non-extinct isotopes have been found in moon rocks; (3) the moon is receding from earth at a speed which requires a very young earth;—and on and on the solid evidence goes, throughout the remainder of the chapter you have just completed. Read it again. It is solid and definite. (4) The lack of ancient human records on solar eclipses is alone enough to date man’s existence on the earth. Men are so intelligent that, in various places on earth, they have always kept written records—yet such records do not exist prior to about 4300 years ago.

The evidence for creation science is clear and forthright.

In a word, it is scientific.

 

EVOLUTION COULD NOT DO THIS

The sponge is a creature which lives in many parts of the world, and is regularly harvested in the Gulf of Mexico. This little fellow has no heart, brain, liver, bones, and hardly anything else. Some sponges grow to several feet in diameter; yet you can take one, cut it up in pieces, and squeeze it through silk cloth, thus separating every cell from every other cell, and then throw part or all of the mash back into seawater. The cells will all unite back into a sponge! yet a sponge is not a haphazard arrangement of cells; it is a complicated structure of openings, channels, and more besides. 

Yes, we said they have no brains; but now consider what they do: Without any brains to guide him, the male sponge knows—to the very minute—when the tide is about to begin coming in. Immediately he releases seed into the water and the tide carries them in. The female sponge may be half a mile away, but she is smart enough (without having any more brains than he has) to know that there are seeds from the male above her in the water. Immediately recognizing this, she releases thousands of eggs which float upward like a cloud and meet the male sperm. The eggs are fertilized and new baby sponges are eventually produced. Really, now, Uncle Charlie, you never explained the origin of the species. Can you explain anything else about them?


Evolution Cruncher Chapter 5  

THE PROBLEM OF TIME


Why long ages cannot produce evolutionary change

This chapter is based on pp. 181-183 and 210 of Origin of the Universe (Volume One of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). You will find additional information on our website: evolution-facts.org.

In the next chapter, we will discuss the inaccuracy of many current methods for dating ancient materials and objects. Although an understanding of dating technology is important, we should keep in mind that the accuracy of modern dating techniques really have no direct relation to whether evolution has ever occurred or could occur.

Long ages are not evolution; long ages cannot produce evolution! Evolution can only occur by a sequence of production of matter from nothing (chapter 2), generation of living organisms from non-living matter (chapters 7-8), and evolution of living organisms into more advanced life-forms by natural selection or mutations (chapters 9-10, 12-13). —And, even given trillions of years in which to do it, evolution cannot do any of that.

MAGICAL TIME—It is thought that time can somehow produce evolution, if there is enough time in which to do it! The evolutionist tells us that, given enough time, all the insurmountable obstacles to spontaneous generation will somehow vanish and life can suddenly appear, grow, and flourish.

"The origin of life can be viewed properly only in the perspective of an almost inconceivable extent of time."— *Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution, p. 151.

In later chapters, we will learn that even split-second, continuous, multiple chemical activity (going on for ages) and using all time and all space in the universe to carry on that activity could not accomplish what is needed. It could not produce life out of nothing.

"It is no secret that evolutionists worship at the shrine of time. There is little difference between the evolutionist saying ‘time did it’ and the creationist saying ‘God did it.’ Time and chance is a two-headed deity. Much scientific effort has been expended in an attempt to show that eons of time are available for evolution."—Randy Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1976), p. 137.

Just what is time? It is not some magical substance. Time is merely a lot of past moments just like the present moment. Imagine yourself staring at a dirt pile or at some seawater, at a time when there was nothing alive in the world but you. Continue carefully watching the pile or puddle for a thousand years and more. Would life appear in that dirt or seawater? It would not happen. Millions of years beyond that would be the same. Nothing would be particularly different. Just piled sand or sloshing seawater, and that is all there would be to it.

You and I know it would not happen in a full year of watching; then why think it might happen in an million years? Since a living creature would have to come into existence all at once—suddenly, in all its parts—in order to survive, it matters not how many ages we pile onto the watching; nothing is going to happen!

To say that life originated in that seawater in some yesteryear—"because the sand and seawater was there long enough"—is just wishful thinking and nothing more. It surely is not scientific to imagine that perhaps it came true when no one was looking. There is no evidence that self-originating life or evolving life is happening now, has ever happened, or could ever happen.

THE MORE TIME, THE LESS LIKELIHOOD—*G. Wald, in "The Origin of Life," in the book, Physics and Chemistry of Life, says "Does time perform miracles?" He then explains something that you and I will want to remember: If the probability of a certain event occurring is only 1/1000 (one chance in a thousand), and we have sufficient time to repeat the attempts many times, the probability that it could happen would continue to remain only one in a thousand. This is because probabilities have no memory!

But *Wald goes further. He explains that if the event is attempted often enough,—the total probability of obtaining it would keep reducing! If it is tried a thousand times and does not even occur once, and then it is tried thousands of more times and never occurs,—then the chance of it occurring keeps reducing. If it is tried a million times—and still has not occurred,—then the possibility of it occurring has reduced to less than one chance in a million! The point here is that time never works in favor of an event that cannot happen!

Can time change rocks into raccoons, seawater into turkeys, or sand into fish? Can time invent human hormones, the telescopic eye of an eagle, or cause the moon to orbit the earth? Can it increase complexity and invent organisms?

The truth is that the longer the time, the greater the decay, and the less possibility that evolution could occur.

*Bernal, of McGill University, explains the evolutionists’ theory of how the origin and evolution of life took place:

"Life can be thought of as water kept at the right temperature in the right atmosphere in the right light for a long period of time."—*J.O. Bernal, quoted in *N.J. Bernal, You and the Universe (1958), p. 117.

In contrast, two of England’s leading evolutionary scientists, *Hoyle and *Wickramasinghe, working independently of each other, came to a different conclusion than *Bernal’s: The chance of life appearing spontaneously from non-life in the universe is effectively zero! (*Fred Hoyle and *C. Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space).One of these researchers is an agnostic and the other a Buddhist, yet both decided from their analyses that the origin of life demands the existence of God to have created it.

The London Daily Express (August 14, 1981) put the conclusion of these two scientists into headlines: "Two skeptical scientists put their heads together and reached an amazing conclusion: There must be a God." *Hoyle and *Wickramasinghe concluded in their book that the probability of producing life, anywhere in the universe from evolutionary processes, was as reasonable as getting a fully operational Boeing 747 jumbo jet from a tornado going through a junkyard (*Fred Hoyle, Science, November 12, 1981, p. 105). The co-discoverer of the DNA molecule said this:

"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: Its Origin and Nature (1981), p. 88.

REAL TIME VS. THEORY TIME—A lot of this "millions of years" talk does not agree with the facts. Evolutionary scientists tell us that the past stretches into over a billion years of life on the earth. Man, we are informed, has been here over a million years. That is the theory, yet the facts speak far differently. When we look at those facts, as available from ancient studies of all types, we find that recorded history goes back only several thousand years. Before that time, we have absolutely no verification for any supposed dating method of science. (More evidence on this will be found in chapters 4 and 13, Age of the Earth and Ancient Man.)

If human beings have been on this planet for over a million years, as theorized by evolutionists, then we should have a large amount of structures and written records extending back at least 500,000 years.

FLAWED DATING METHODS—Evolutionists try to prove long ages of time by certain theoretical dating methods. Yet as we analyze those dating methods, we find each of them to be highly flawed and extremely unreliable.

Aside from the known inherent weaknesses in assumption and methodology (which we shall begin discussing shortly),—we cannot even verify those dates objectively. Not even uranium dating can be confirmed.

Apart from recorded history, which goes back no further than a few thousand years, we have no way of verifying the supposed accuracy of theoretical dating methods. In fact, not even the dating methods confirm the dating methods! They all give different dates! With but very rare exception, they always disagree with one another!

There are a number of very definite problems in those dating methods. In the next chapter, we are going to learn that there are so many sources of possible error or misinterpretation in radiometric dating that most of the dates are discarded and never used at all! Only those are used which bear some similarity to one another—and, more important, to the 19th-century theory.

Some people think that the various dating methods (uranium, carbon 14, etc.) can be verified by rock strata and fossils, or vice versa. But this is not true either. The geologic column and approximate ages of all the fossil-bearing strata were decided on long before anyone ever heard or thought about radioactive dating. There is no relation between the two theories or between the dates they produce. More information on this will be given in chapter 12, Fossils and strata.

LONG AGES NEEDED—For nearly two centuries, evolutionists have known that, since there was no proof that evolution had occurred in the past and there was no evidence of it occurring today, they would need to postulate long ages as the means by which it somehow happened!

*Weisz in his book, The Science of Biology (p. 636), tells us, that by the beginning of the eighteenth century, evolutionists "recognized that any concept of evolution demanded an earth of sufficiently great age; and they set out to estimate this age." The long ages were the result of wishful thinking.

*Darwin himself recognized the problem.

"The belief that species are immutable [unchangeable] productions was almost unavoidable as long as the history of the world was thought to be of short duration."—*Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species (conclusion to second edition).

That is a meaningful statement. *Darwin said it, because there is no evidence of evolution occurring at any time in recorded history. Evolution could not occur in the past unless the earth had been here for long ages. Yet there is clear-cut evidence that our planet is not over 6000-10,000 years old (see chapter 4, Age of the Earth)And when all the facts are studied, the age of the earth leans more toward the 6000 mark than the 10,000 mark.

Scientific dating evidence is needed to prove long ages. But no such evidence exists. All the non-historical dating methods are unreliable. That is what we will learn in the chapters on Inaccurate Dating Methods and Fossils and Strata.

Darwinists claim that our planet is 5 billion years old. Long ages of time are desperately needed by evolutionary theorists; for, whenever confronted with the facts disproving the possibility of evolutionary processes, they can reply, "Well, given enough time, maybe it could occur." Ironically, even if the earth were trillions upon trillions of years old, evolution still could not have taken place. The chapters, DNA and Protein, Mutations, and Laws of Nature will clearly show that life origins and species evolution could not occur in a billion trillion trillion years!

First, long ages of time cannot PROVE evolution; and, second, long ages of time cannot PRODUCE evolution. Evolutionary processes—across basic types of life-forms—is impossible both in the short run and in the long run.


Evolution Cruncher Chapter 6  

INACCURATE DATING METHODS


Why the non-historical dating techniques are not reliable

This chapter is based on pp. 183-221 of Origin of the Universe (Volume One of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this chapter are at least 62 statements by scientists. You will find them, plus much more, on our website: evolution-facts.org.

Several methods for dating ancient materials have been developed. This is an important topic, for evolutionists want the history of earth to span long ages in the hopes that this will make the origin and evolution of life more likely.

Therefore we shall devote an entire chapter to a discussion of every significant method, used by scientists today, to date ancient substances.

EC194.jpg (188981 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGE

1 - RADIODATING

MAJOR DATING METHODS—Several types of dating methods are used today. Chief among them are:

(1) Uranium-thorium-lead dating, based on the disintegration of uranium and thorium into radium, helium, etc., and finally into lead.

(2) Rubidium-strontium dating, based on the decay of rubidium into strontium.

(3) Potassium-argon dating, based on the disintegration of potassium into argon and calcium.

In this chapter, we shall discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each of these dating methods.

There is a basic pattern that occurs in the decay of radioactive substances. In each of these disintegration systems, the parent or original radioactive substance gradually decays into daughter substances. This may involve long decay chains, with each daughter product decaying into other daughter substances, until finally only an inert element remains that has no radioactivity. In some instances, the parent substance may decay directly into the end product. Sometimes, the radioactive chain may begin with an element partway down the decay chain.

A somewhat different type of radioactive dating method is called carbon 14-dating or radiocarbon dating. It is based on the formation of radioactive elements of carbon, in the atmosphere by cosmic radiation, and their subsequent decay to the stable carbon isotope. We will also discuss radiocarbon dating in this chapter.

SEVEN INITIAL ASSUMPTIONS—At the very beginning of this analysis, we need to clearly understand a basic fact: Each of these special dating methods can only have accuracy IF (if!) certain assumptions ALWAYS (always!) apply to EACH specimen that is tested.

Here are seven of these fragile assumptions:

(1) Each system has to be a closed system; that is, nothing can contaminate any of the parents or the daughter products while they are going through their decay process—or the dating will be thrown off. Ideally, in order to do this, each specimen tested needs to have been sealed in a jar with thick lead walls for all its previous existence, supposedly millions of years!

But in actual field conditions, there is no such thing as a closed system. One piece of rock cannot for millions of years be sealed off from other rocks, as well as from water, chemicals, and changing radiations from outer space.

(2) Each system must initially have contained none of its daughter products. A piece of uranium 238 must originally have had no lead or other daughter products in it. If it did, this would give a false date reading.

But this assumption can in no way be confirmed. It is impossible to know what was initially in a given piece of radioactive mineral. Was it all of this particular radioactive substance or were some other indeterminate or final daughter products mixed in? We do not know; we cannot know. Men can guess; they can apply their assumptions, come up with some dates, announce the consistent ones, and hide the rest, which is exactly what evolutionary scientists do!

(3) The process rate must always have been the same. The decay rate must never have changed.

Yet we have no way of going back into past ages and ascertaining whether that assumption is correct.

Every process in nature operates at a rate that is determined by a number of factors. These factors can change or vary with a change in certain conditions. Rates are really statistical averages, not deterministic constants.

The most fundamental of the initial assumptions is that all radioactive clocks, including carbon 14, have always had a constant decay rate that is unaffected by external influences—now and forever in the past. But it is a known fact among scientists that such changes in decay rates can and do occur. Laboratory testing has established that such resetting of specimen clocks does happen. Field evidence reveals that decay rates have indeed varied in the past.

The decay rate of any radioactive mineral can be altered [1] if the mineral is bombarded by high energy particles from space (such as neutrinos, cosmic rays, etc.);[2] if there is, for a time, a nearby radioactive mineral emitting radiation; [3] if physical pressure is brought to bear upon the radioactive mineral; or [4] if certain chemicals are brought in contact with it.

(4) One researcher, *John Joly of Trinity College, Dublin, spent years studying pleochroic halos emitted by radioactive substances. In his research he found evidence that the long half-life minerals have varied in their decay rate in the past!

"His [Joly’s] suggestion of varying rate of disintegration of uranium at various geological periods would, if correct, set aside all possibilities of age calculation by radioactive methods."—*A.F. Kovarik, "Calculating the Age of Minerals from Radioactivity Data and Principles," in Bulletin 80 of the National Research Council, June 1931, p. 107.

(5) If any change occurred in past ages in the blanket of atmosphere surrounding our planet, this would greatly affect the clocks in radioactive minerals.

Cosmic rays, high-energy mesons, neutrons, electrons, protons, and photons enter our atmosphere continually. These are atomic particles traveling at speeds close to that of the speed of light. Some of these rays go several hundred feet underground and 1400 meters [1530 yards] into the ocean depths. The blanket of air covering our world is equivalent to 34 feet [104 dm] of water, or 1 meter [1.093 yd] thickness of lead. If at some earlier time this blanket of air was more heavily water-saturated, it would produce a major change—from the present rate,—in the atomic clocks within radioactive minerals. Prior to the time of the Flood, there was a much greater amount of water in the air.

(6) The Van Allen radiation belt encircles the globe. It is about 450 miles [724 km] above us and is intensely radioactive. According to *Van Allen, high-altitude tests revealed that it emits 3000-4000 times as much radiation as the cosmic rays that continually bombard the earth.

Any change in the Van Allen belt would powerfully affect the transformation time of radioactive minerals. But we know next to nothing about this belt—what it is, why it is there, or whether it has changed in the past. In fact, the belt was only discovered in 1959. Even small amounts of variation or change in the Van Allen belt would significantly affect radioactive substances.

(7) A basic assumption of all radioactive dating methods is that the clock had to start at the beginningthat is, no daughter products were present, only those elements at the top of the radioactive chain were in existence. For example, all the uranium 238 in the world originally had no lead 206 in it, and no lead 206 existed anywhere else. But if either Creation—or a major worldwide catastrophe (such as the Flood) occurred, everything would begin thereafter with, what scientists call, an "appearance of age."

By this we mean "appearance of maturity." The world would be seen as mature the moment after Creation. Spread before us would be a scene of fully grown plants and flowers. Most trees would have their full height. We would not, instead, see a barren landscape of seeds littering the ground. We would see full-grown chickens, not unhatched eggs. Radioactive minerals would be partially through their cycle of half-lives on the very first day. This factor of initial apparent age would strongly affect our present reading of the radioactive clocks in uranium, thorium, etc.

Evolutionary theorists tell us that originally there was only uranium, and all of its daughter products (radioactive isotopes farther down its decay chain) developed later. But "appearance of maturity" at the Creation would mean that, much of the elements, now classified by evolutionists as "daughter products," were actually original—not daughter—products and were already in the ground along with uranium instead of being produced by it. We already know, from Robert Gentry’s studies, that original (primordial) polonium 218 was in the granite when that granite initially came into existence suddenly and in solid form; yet polonium is thought by evolutionists to only occur as an eventual daughter product of uranium disintegration.

TWENTY DATING METHODS—We have looked at the basic assumptions relied on by the radiodating experts; now let us examine the primary dating methods.

Here are the first twenty of them:

(1) Uranium-lead dating

(2) Thorium-lead dating

(3) Lead 210 dating

(4) Helium dating

(5) Rubidium-strontium dating

(6) Potassium-argon dating

(7) Potassium-calcium dating

(8) Strata and fossil dating, as it relates to radiodating, will be briefly considered, although we will discuss rock strata dating in much more detail in chapters 12 and 14 (Fossils and Strata and Effects of the Flood).

In addition, there are three dating methods used to date ancient plant and animal remains:

(9) Radiocarbon (carbon 14) dating

(10) Amino acid decomposition dating

(11) Racemization dating

Lastly, we will briefly overview several other supposed "dating methods" which, although not expected to provide much accuracy in dating, are still used in an attempt to postulate long ages for earth’s history:

(12) Astronomical dating

(13) Paleomagnetic dating has gained prominence in the past few decades. Because this present chapter is already quite long, we planned to fully deal with paleomagnetic dating in chapter 20 of this paperback; but, for lack of space, the greater portion of that material will be found in chapter 26 on our website.

(14) Varve dating

(15) Tree ring dating

(16) Buried forest strata dating

(17) Peat dating

(18) Reef dating

(19) Thermoluminescence dating

(20) Stalactite dating

In the remainder of this chapter, we will consider each of these 20 dating methods:

1URANIUM DATING—Because of similarities in method and problems with uranium and thorium dating, we will frequently refer to both under the category of uranium dating.

Three main types of uranium/thorium dating are included here:

(1) Uranium 238 decays to lead 206, with a half-life of 4.5 billion years.

(2) Uranium 235 decays to lead 207, with a half-life of 0.7 billion years.

(3) Thorium 232 decays to lead 208, with a half-life of 14.1 billion years.

These three are generally found together in mixtures, and each one decays into several daughter products (such as radium) before becoming lead.

FIVE URANIUM/THORIUM DATING INACCURACIES—Here are some of the reasons why we cannot rely on radioactive dating of uranium and thorium:

(1) Lead could originally have been mixed in with the uranium or thorium. This is very possible, and even likely. It is only an assumption that integral or adjacent lead could only be an end product.

In addition, common lead (lead 204), which has no radioactive parent, could easily be mixed into the sample and would seriously affect the dating of that sample. *Adolph Knopf referred to this important problem (*Scientific Monthly, November 1957). *Faul, a leading authority in the field, recognized it also (*Henry Faul, Nuclear Geology, 1954, p. 297).

When a uranium sample is tested for dating purposes, it is assumed that the entire quantity of lead in it is "daughter-product lead" (that is, the end-product of the decayed uranium). The specimen is not carefully and thoroughly checked for possible common lead content, because it is such a time-consuming task. Yet it is that very uranium-lead ratio which is used to date the sample! The same problem applies to thorium samples.

(2) Leaching is another problem. Part of the uranium and its daughter products could previously have leached out. This would drastically affect the dating of the sample. Lead, in particular, can be leached out by weak acid solutions.

(3) There can be inaccurate lead ratio comparisons, due to different types of lead within the sample. Correlations of various kinds of lead (lead 206, 207, etc.) in the specimen is done to improve dating accuracy. But errors can and do occur here also.

Thus, we have here astounding evidence of the marvelous unreliability of radiodating techniques. Rock known to be less than 300 years old is variously dated between 50 million and 14.5 billion years of age! That is a 14-billion year error in dating! Yet such radiodating techniques continue to be used in order to prove long ages of earth’s existence. A chimpanzee typing numbers at random could do as well.

Sample datings from a single uranium deposit in the Colorado Caribou Mine yielded an error spread of 700 million years.

(4) Yet a fourth problem concerns that of neutron capture. *Melvin Cooke suggests that the radiogenic lead isotope 207 (normally thought to have been formed only by the decay of uranium 235) could actually have been formed from lead 206, simply by having captured free neutrons from neighboring rock. In the same manner, lead 208 (normally theorized as formed only by thorium 232 decay) could have been formed by the capture of free neutrons from lead 207. Cooke checked out this possibility by extensive investigation and came up with a sizeable quantity of data indicating that practically all radiogenic lead in the earth’s crust could have been produced in this way instead of by uranium or thorium decayThis point alone totally invalidates uranium and thorium dating methods!

(5) A fifth problem deals with the origin of the rocks containing these radioactive minerals. According to evolutionary theory, the earth was originally molten. But, if true, molten rocks would produce a wild variation in clock settings in radioactive materials.

"Why do the radioactive ages of lava beds, laid down within a few weeks of each other, differ by millions of years?"—*Glen R. Morton, Electromagnetics and the Appearance of Age.

It is a well-known fact, by nuclear researchers, that intense heat damages radiodating clock settings; yet the public is solemnly presented with dates of rocks indicating long ages of time when, in fact, the evolutionary theory of the origin of rocks would render those dates totally useless.

2THORIUM-LEAD DATING—A majority of the flaws discussed under uranium-lead dating, above, apply equally to thorium-lead dating.

The half-lives of uranium 238, 235, and thorium 232 are supposedly known, having been theorized. But whenever dates are computed using thorium,—they always widely disagree with uranium dates! No one can point to a single reason for this. We probably have here a cluster of several major contamination factors; and all of these contamination factors are beyond our ability to identify, much less calculate. To make matters worse, contaminating factors common to both may cause different reactions in the thorium than in the uranium! (*Henry Faul, Nuclear Geology, p. 295).

"The two uranium-lead ages often differ from each other markedly, and the thorium-lead age on the same mineral is almost always drastically lower than either of the others."—*L.T. Aldrich, "Measurement of Radioactive Ages of Rocks," in Science, May 18, 1956, p. 872.

3-4LEAD 210 AND HELIUM DATING—Two other methods of dating uranium and thorium specimens should be mentioned.

First, there is uranium-lead 210 dating. Lead 210 is frequently used to date uranium.

Second is the uranium-helium method. Helium produced by uranium decay is also used for the same dating purpose.

But the lead 210 method is subject to the very same entry or leaching problems mentioned earlierHelium leakage is so notorious as to render it unfit for dating purposes.

Uranium and thorium are only rarely found in fossil-bearing rocks; so recent attention has been given to rubidium dating and two types of potassium dating, all of which are radioactive isotopes of alkali metals and are found in fossil rocks. Let us now consider both of these:

5RUBIDIUM-STRONTIUM DATING—Rubidium 87 gradually decays into strontium 87.

Rubidium: All aside from leaching and other contamination, the experts have so far been unable to agree on the length of a rubidium half-life. This renders it useless for dating purposes. This is because the samples vary so widely. *Abrams compiled a list of rubidium half-lives suggested by various research specialists. Estimates, by the experts, of the half-life of rubidium varied between 48 and 120 billion years! That is a variation spread of 72 billion years: a number so inconceivably large as to render Rb-Sr dating worthless.

Strontium: In addition, only a very small amount of strontium results from the decay; and much of the strontium may be non-radiogenic, that is, not caused by the decay process. This is due to the fact that strontium 87 is easily leached from one mineral to another, thus producing highly contaminated dating test results.

Granite from the Black Hills gave strontium/rubidium and various lead system dates varying from 1.16 to 2.55 billion years.

6POTASSIUM-ARGON DATING—Radioactive potassium decays into calcium and argon gas. Great hopes were initially pinned on this, for potassium occurs widely in fossil-bearing strata! But they were greatly disappointed to discover: (1) Because of such wide dating variations, they could not agree on potassium half-life. (2) The rare gas, argon, quickly left the mineral and escaped into other rocks and into the atmosphere (*G.W. Wetherill, "Radioactivity of Potassium and Geologic Time," Science, September 20, 1957, p. 545).

Since it is a gas, argon 40 can easily migrate in and out of potassium rocks (*J.F. Evernden, et. al., "K/A Dates and the Cenozoic Mammalian Chronology of North America," American Journal of Science, February 1964, p. 154).

Not only is argon an unstable gas, but potassium itself can easily be leached out of the rock. *Rancitelli and *Fisher explain that 60 percent of the potassium can be leached out of an iron meteorite by distilled water in 4.5 hours (*Planetary Science Abstracts, 48th Annual Meeting of the American Geophysical Union, 1967, p. 167).

Rainwater is distilled water. In heavy downpours, fairly pure rainwater can occasionally trickle down into deeper rock areas. When it does, rainwater transfers potassium from one location to another.

Another problem is that potassium-argon dating must be calculated by uranium-lead dating methods! This greatly adds to the problem, for we have already seen that uranium dating is itself extremely unreliable! This is something like the blind leading the blind.

In view of such information, it is a seemingly unbelievable—but true—fact that K/A (potassium-argon) dating is, at the present time, a key dating method used in developing and verifying advanced evolutionary theories. (See Paleomagnetism, briefly discussed in Chapter 20.) The long ages applied to the major new theory of"seafloor spreading" is based entirely on potassium-argon dates in basalts (lava) taken from the ocean bottom. You will frequently read articles about potassium-argon dating projects.

Submerged volcanic rocks, produced by lava flows off the coast of Hawaii near Hualalai, in the years 1800-1801, were dated using potassium-argon. The lava forming those rocks is clearly known to be less than 200 years old; yet the potassium-argon dating of the rocks yielded great ages, ranging from 1.60 million to 2.96 billion years! (See *Science, October 11, 1968; *Journal of Geophysical Research, July 15, 1968).

Potassium is found in most igneous (lava), and some sedimentary (fossil-bearing), rocks. In spite of its notorious inaccuracy, to this day potassium-argon dating continues to be the most common method of radioactive dating of fossil-bearing rock strata.

Only those radioactive dates are retained, which agree with the 19th-century geologic column dating theories. Research workers are told just that! (*L.R. Stieff, *T.W. Stern and *R.N. Eichler, "Evaluating Discordant Lead-Isotope Ages," U.S. Geological Survey Professional Papers, 1963, No. 414-E).

7POTASSIUM-CALCIUM DATING—If possible, the situation is even worse for dating with this method. Radioactive potassium decays to both argon and calcium (calcium 40). But the problem here is that researchers cannot distinguish between calcium 40 and other calciums because the two are so commonly and thoroughly intermixed. The argon is of little help, since it so rapidly leaches out.

PROBLEMS WITH ALL RADIODATING METHODS —The rocks brought back from the moon provided an outstanding test for the various dating methods—because all those techniques were used on them. The results were a disaster.

The age spread of certain moon rocks varied from 2 million to 28 billion years! Now scientists are arguing over the results. Some say the moon is 2 million years old while others say it is 28 billion years old. We have here a weighty scientific problem, and a headache for evolutionists. (For more on this, see *Proceedings of the Second, Third and Fourth Lunar Conferences; Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volumes 14 and 17.)

Yet there is clear-cut non-radiogenic evidence that the moon is less than 10,000 years old. (See chapter 4, Age of the Earth). In contrast with these inaccurate dating methods, scientific facts, such as the almost total lack of moon dust, lunar soil mixing, presence of short half-life U-236 and Th-230 in moon rocks, low level of inert gases, and lunar recession,—provide strong evidence that the moon is less than 10,000 years old. (See chapter 4, Age of the Earth.)

EMERY’S RESEARCH—In order for a radioactive clock to be usable, it has to run without variation. But *G.T. Emery has done careful research on radiohalos (pleochroic halos) and found that they do not show constant decay rates. When the long half-life radiohalos (made by uranium, thorium, etc.) are examined, the time spans involved show inaccuracies in the decay rates.

JUST ONE CATASTROPHE—As *Jeaneman explains so well, just one major catastrophe—such as a worldwide Flood—would have ruined the usefulness of all our radiodating clocks.

Why would a single worldwide catastrophe reset all the atomic clocks? Firstthere would be massive contamination problems, as fluids, chemicals, and radioactive substances flowed or were carried from one place to another. Second, there would be major radioactive rate-changing activities (atmospheric, radioative, and magnetic changes) which would tend to reset the clocks directly. Third, a major shifting and redistribution of rock pressure occurring above radiogenic rocks would reset their clocks. Fourth, there would be reversals of earth’s magnetic core, which was caused by the shock-wave vibrations through that fluid core from what was happening closer to the surface (volcanoes, earthquakes, gigantic geysers, seafloor sinking, and massive mountain building—see chapter 14 (Effects of the Flood) and chapter 20 (Tectonics and Paleomagetism).

Now read this:

FIVE WAYS TO CHANGE THE RATES—Careful laboratory tests by *H.C. Dudley revealed that external influences can very definitely affect decay rates. He CHANGED (!) the decay rates of 14 different radioisotopes by means of pressure, temperature, electric and magnetic fields, stress in monomolecular layers, etc. The implications of this are momentous, even astounding! (see *H.C. Dudley, "Radioactivity Re-Examined," Chemical and Engineering News, April 7, 1975, p. 2). The sedimentary rock strata were laid down under massive pressure. This involved great stress. (See chapter 12, Fossils and Strata, for more on both points.) Dramatic temperature changes occurred shortly after the strata were laid down; and Earth’s iron core was disturbed to such an extent, that magnetic reversals occurred at the poles (seePaleomagnetism, on our website). Yet *Dudley showed that each of these forces would have dramatically affected the clocks within radioactive rocks.

Immense forces were at work, during and just after the Flood, that could and did affect the constancy of radioactive half-lives—which, in turn, are the only basis for radiodating methods!

The consequence is inaccurate dating results which are not reliable and which cannot be reset—since their earlier settings are not now known.

*Time magazine (June 19, 1964) reported an intriguing item which was overlooked by much of the scientific community. Although scientists generally consider that no known force can change the rate of atomic disintegration of radioactive elements,—researchers at Westinghouse laboratories have actually done it. How did they do it? Simply by placing inactive "dead" iron next to radioactive iron. The result was that the disintegration rate was altered!

Radioactive iron will give off particles for a time and then lapse into an inactive state. When the researchers placed radioactive iron next to inactive iron, the inactive iron gradually became active. In this way, the apparent age of the radioactive iron was changed by about 3 percent while the clock of the previously inactive iron was returned to its original radioactive mass. Its clock was set back to zero!

If so much variation can be accomplished in small lab samples, think what has been taking place out in the field. All that, in this case, would be required would be for radioactive lead solutions to flow by and coat inactive lead.

2 - ROCK STRATA DATING

8STRATA AND FOSSIL DATING—In two later chapters (Fossils and Strata and Effects of the Flood), we will discuss the strata dating method in detail. We will here discuss only its relationship to radioactive dating methods—and learn that there are no relationships!

There are only two primary methods of long-ages dating: (1) fossil-bearing rock strata, (2) radioactive dating, plus carbon-14 dating.

In the chapter on Fossils, we will discover that dating rocks by their fossils is based on circular reasoning: (1) Each strata is a certain age because of certain key fossils in it; (2) the fossils in the strata are a certain age because evolutionary theory says they should be that certain age, and also because they are in rock strata said to be that age. Thus, fossil/strata-dating methods are hopelessly foundered.

Yet fossil/strata dating is crucial to the evolutionary theory! Without it, the whole thing collapses! (1) None of the other dating methods (the twelve methods discussed in this present chapter) are reliable either, but instead are in continual conflict with one another and with fossil/strata dating conclusions. (2) The 19th-century dating theory was applied to the fossils and strata, and evolutionists in later decades are required to bring their dates into alignment with those dates theorized over a century ago! Yet it cannot be done. This is a most serious problem.

In chapter 12 (Fossils and Strata), we shall discuss in detail the problems associated with fossil and strata dating. But let us right now put to rest a frequently stated misconception: that radiodating methods have successfully dated and positively established as reliable the dating system conjectures in the so-called "geologic column" of rock strata. That is not true!

ONLY THREE USEABLE TEST RESULTS—In reality, it is impossible to date sedimentary rock strata and the fossils within it by radioactive mineral dating. In fact, radiodating is so conflicting in its results, that, out of hundreds of thousands of tests,—ONLY THREE test results have agreed sufficiently with evolutionary theory to be used as "norms." Each of these, of course, could only apply to a single stratum.

Out of tens of thousands of tests only three radioactive samples have been found to be near enough to rock strata age theories to be useable,—and two of them are just interpolated guesses based on "strata thickness." Evolutionists use but three undiscarded radiodatings to vindicate the reliability of the hundred-year-old strata and fossil dating theory!

INTERLOCKING IMAGININGS—A brief historical review will help explain the situation:

(1) Early in the 19th century, evolutionists decided that fossils in certain rock strata should be such-and-such an age.

(2) So they gave the strata containing those fossils dates which would match their fossil age theories.

(3) Then they announced that they had thought up the dates by peering at so-called "index fossils."

(4) They declared that they could now prove the ages of the fossils in the rocks—by the rock strata they were in. Thus, they started out by dating the strata by imagined dates for fossils, and they ended up dating the fossils by applying those imagined dates to the strata!

This circular reasoning pattern has continued on down to the present day in regard to the dating of fossils and strata.

But then as the 20th century began, radioactive mineral dating began to be discovered. Repeatedly, scientists have tried to correlate radioactive dating with the dates they applied to fossils and strata a century before radiodating was known. But they have not been able to do so. Out of literally thousands of tests, they have been able to correlate only three of them (the Colorado, Bohemian, and Swedish dates given in the *Knopf quotation [a lengthy statement we did not have room to include in this paperback]. The evolutionists decided that three successes out of hundreds of thousands of test failures were enough to make their fossil/strata theory "scientific," by matching radiodating. It is on this basis that evolutionary scientists now grandly proclaim that the fossiliferous strata have been dated by radioactive minerals! See chapter 12, Fossils and Strata, for much, much more on this.

SOME DATING SAMPLES—To conclude this section on radiodating problems, here are a few dating samples. Many, many, many more could have been cited!

"Sunset Crater, an Arizona Volcano, is known from tree-ring dating to be about 1000 years old. But potassium-argon put it at over 200,000 years [*G.B. Dalrymple, ‘40 Ar/36 Ar Analyses of Historical Lava Flows,’ Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6, 1969, pp. 47-55].
"For the volcanic island of Rangitoto in New Zealand, potassium-argon dated the lava flows as 145,000 to 465,000 years old, but the journal of the Geochemical Society noted that ‘the radiocarbon, geological and botanical evidence unequivocally shows that it was active and was probably built during the last 1000 years.’ In fact, wood buried underneath its lava has been carbon-dated as less than 350 years old [*Ian McDougall, *H.A. Polach, and *J.J. Stipp, ‘Excess Radiogenic Argon in Young Subaerial Basalts from Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand,’ Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, December 1969, pp. 1485, 1499].
"Even the lava dome of Mount St. Helens [produced in 1980] has been radiometrically dated at 2.8 million years [H.M. Morris, ‘Radiometric Dating,’ Back to Genesis, 1997]."—James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (1999), p. 146.

Evolution Cruncher Chapter 7

THE PRIMITIVE ENVIRONMENT


Why raw materials on earth cannot produce life

This chapter is based on pp. 233-263 of Origin of the Life (Volume Two of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this chapter are at least 52 statements by scientists. You will find them, plus much more, in the 3 Volume Encyclopedia on this site.

1 - THE PRIMITIVE ENVIRONMENT

HOW THE THEORY TELLS IT—According to the evolutionary theory, life began in this way:

(1) There was just the right atmosphere—and it was totally different than the one we now have.

(2) The ground, water, or ocean where life began had just the right combination of chemicals in it—which it does not now have.

(3) Using an unknown source of just the right amount of energy, amino acids then formed in sufficient quantities that—

(4) they could combine into lots of proteins and nucleotides (complex chemical compounds).

(5) They then reformed themselves into various organs inside a main organism.

(6) They did some careful thinking (as with all the other points, beyond the mental abilities of even our best scientists today), and developed a genetic code to cover thousands of different factors.

(7) At this point, they were ready to start reproducing young. —Of course, this last point reveals that all the previous six had to occur within the lifetime of just one bacterium. Since microbes and bacteria do not live very long, this first one had to think and act fast.

Charles Darwin did a lot of daydreaming in his letters and in his book, Origin of the Species. Here was one of his hopeful wishes, as expressed in a letter to a close friend:

"But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes."—*Charles Darwin, in *Francis Darwin (ed.), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (1887 ed.), p. 202 (the parenthetical comment is his also).

*Darwin was totally puzzled as to how even one of the plant or animal species could have originated, much less the millions we have today. Yet he wrote a book which, according to the title, explained the problem. An ardent evolutionist refers to the difficulty:

"Since Darwin’s seminal work was called The Origin of Species one might reasonably suppose that his theory had explained this central aspect of evolution or at least made a shot at it, even if it had not resolved the larger issues we have discussed up to now. Curiously enough, this is not the case. As Professor Ernst Mayr of Harvard, the doyen [senior member] of species studies, once remarked, the ‘book called The Origin of Species is not really on that subject,’ while his colleague Professor Simpson admits: ‘Darwin failed to solve the problem indicated by the title of his work.’

"You may be surprised to hear that the origin of species remains just as much a mystery today, despite the efforts of thousands of biologists. The topic has been the main focus of attention and is beset by endless controversies."—*Gordon R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 140.

One of the greatest scientists of the last 200 years said this about the possibility of life making itself out of water and mud:

 DARWIN’S FAMOUS "POND" STATEMENT—Reprinted below is a page from *Charles Darwin’s letter in which he conjectured as to the possible origin of living creatures. That conjecture was about as far as he took the process; for nowhere, in his Origin of the Species, is the origin of the species discussed or even hinted at.

The present writer does not have a printed copy of the last part of the scribbled note, below. Blanks (on the left) represent portions difficult to decipher. The spelling and punctuation was revised when *Francis Darwin later (1887) placed in print an edited version of his father’s writings. (*Darwin died in the year 1882.)

EC210.jpg (366220 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGE

"Mathematics and dynamics fail us when we contemplate the earth, fitted for life but lifeless, and try to imagine the commencement of life upon it. This certainly did not take place by any action of chemistry, or electricity, or crystalline grouping of molecules under the influence of force, or by any possible kind of fortuitous concourse of atmosphere. We must pause, face to face with the mystery and miracle of creation of living things."—Lord Kelvin, quoted in Battle for Creation, p. 232.

OUR WORLD BEGINS—Evolutionary theorists tell us that long ago, our world spun off from a stellar condensation or collision of some kind. At first it was a molten mass of very hot rock. Gradually this is supposed to have cooled over a period of millions upon millions of years.

THE PRIMITIVE ENVIRONMENT—(*#1/20 The Primitive Environment*) Finally it was time for life to originate by spontaneous generation from (according to which theorist is speaking) warm wet dirt, seashore, hot and dry dirt, ocean water, desert sand, lake, poisonous chemicals or fumes, electrified mud puddle, a volcanic rim, or something else. An atmosphere of some type had formed, and occasionally lightning would strike the earth.

Scientists have tried to analyze what conditions would have had to be like in order for spontaneous generation of life from non-life to occur. They call this the"primitive environment."

What were conditions like at that first moment when life is supposed to have created itself by random chance out of a mud hole or sloshing seawater? Evolutionists have figured this out. Their conclusions are not only astonishing; but, in this chapter, we will learn—they further disprove evolution!

The theorists tell us that the first life-form developed from nothing about 4.6 billion years ago. But *Steven Jay Gould of Harvard, one of the leading evolutionary thinkers of the latter part of the twentieth century, maintains that there would have been very little time for this highly improbable event to have occurred:

"We are left with very little time between the development of suitable conditions for life on the Earth’s surface and the origin of life . . Life apparently arose about as soon as the Earth became cool enough to support it."—*S.J. Gould, "An Early Start," in Natural History, February 1978.

*Fred Hoyle wrote in the November 19, 1981 issue of New Scientist, that there are 2000 complex enzymes required for a living organism,—yet not a single one of these could have been formed on earth by shuffling processes in even 20 billion years!

2 - THE ERROR OF LIFE FROM NON-LIFE

SPONTANEOUS GENERATION—(*2/9 Spontaneous Generation*) Life from non-living things is the Dark Ages error of "spontaneous generation," an error which was not fully eliminated until more than a century ago. Modern evolutionists believe in and teach spontaneous generation, which they now call biopoiesis, so students will not recognize that they are still advocating spontaneous generation. (Earlier in the twentieth century, it was called abiogenesis.)

In contrast, Biogenesis is the scientific name for the important biological truth confirmed by Louis Pasteur and others, that life can only come from life.

"Biogenesis is a term in biology that is derived from two Greek words meaning life and birth. According to the theory of biogenesis, living things descend only from living things. They cannot develop spontaneously from nonliving materials. Until comparatively recent times, scientists believed that certain tiny forms of life, such as bacteria, arose spontaneously from non-living substances."—*"Biogenesis," World Book Encyclopedia, p. B-242 (1972 edition).

Spontaneous generation was believed by many scientists, prior to the careful experiments of Spallanzani (1780), and Pasteur (1860), which totally disproved that foolish idea. People thought that fruit flies spontaneously came forth from fruit, geese from barnacles, mice from dirty clothes, and bees from dead calves. Even Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon, *Hegel, and *Shilling believed it, but that did not make it right. Great people believing an error does not make the error truth.

Evolution teaches spontaneous generation. Think about that for a moment. We’re returning to the Dark Ages!

"Pasteur’s demonstration apparently laid the theory of spontaneous generation to rest permanently. All this left a germ of embarrassment for scientists. How had life originated after all, if not through divine creation or through spontaneous generation? 

"They [today’s scientists] are back to spontaneous generation, but with a difference. The pre-Pasteur view of spontaneous generation was of something taking place now and quickly. The modern view is that it took place long ago and very slowly."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science (1984), pp. 638-639.

In contrast, true science teaches biogenesis, which means, in general, that life can only come from life and, specifically, that species can only come from living parents in the same species. Speaking of *Rudolf Virchow, the Encyclopedia Britannica tells us:

"His aphorism ‘omnis cellula e cellula’ [every cell arises from a preexisting cell] ranks with Pasteur’s ‘omne vivum e vivo’ [every living thing arises from a preexisting living thing] as among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology."—*Encyclopedia Britannica, 1973 Edition, Vol. 23, p. 35.

" ‘Spontaneous generation is a chimera [illusion].’—Louis Pasteur, French chemist and microbiologist."—*Isaac Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations (1988), p. 193.

INSTANT SUCCESS NECESSARY—In order for life to arise from non-life, there would have to be instant success. All the parts would suddenly have to be there, and all would have to immediately function with essential perfection.

In the next chapter (chapter 8), we will learn that, in order for life to occur, DNA and protein would have to link up with ease into long, extremely complicated coded strings. In addition, thousands of other complicated chemical combinations would have to be accomplished within a few moments. How long could you live without a beating heart? How long without blood? And on it goes, item after item. The situation would be no different for the simplest of life-forms. Everything would have to be in place, suddenly,—instantly. In structure, arrangement, coordination, coding, chemical makeup, feeding, elimination, respiration, circulation, and all the rest,—everything would have to be perfect—right at the start!

The formation of amino acids, protein, DNA, enzymes, and all the rest needed to form the first living creature had to occur within an extremely short amount of time! It would all have had to occur within far less than a single generation or even half-hour. It would have had to occur within a single moment! Otherwise the next moment the organism would be dead. Millions of functions had to come together all at once.

IMMEDIATE REPRODUCTION NEEDED—Biologists are deeply concerned how that first living cell could have originated; but *Montalenti goes a step beyond that point and says "what really matters, to start life, is the faculty of reproduction" (*G. Montalenti, Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, 1974, p. 13). What good would one amoeba be, if it did not have all the needed DNA coding and fision ability to divide, or the reproduction ability—and a mate—to produce offspring?

3 - CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS

CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND LABORATORIES—Complicated chemical compounds are prepared in well-equipped laboratories, staffed by intelligent, highly skilled workers. They do not work with the sand in the back lot, but with shipments of specialized chemicals which arrive at their loading dock.

About all that most evolutionists offer for the original primitive environment for the first amino acids, proteins, etc., is dirt or seawater. Yet when scientists want to synthesize amino acids, they go to a very well-equipped laboratory, with instruments, gauges, apparatus, chemicals, and machines costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. They use high-temperatures, special solutions, sparking devices, and glass traps. They do not go down to the seashore and start sloshing around in seawater in the hope of producing those amino acids.

Because they are intelligent and highly trained, they know to do it in million-dollar laboratories, fitted out with expensive equipment and lots of purified chemicals. Yet, according to evolutionary theory, seawater somehow did it by itself.

CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND THE LAW OF MASS ACTION— Evolutionists recognize that, if a life-form suddenly appeared from nothing, it would probably have had to do it in an ancient sea. It is generally felt that water would have had to be present.

But the Law of Mass Action would immediately neutralize the procedure and ruin the outcome. This is because chemical reactions always proceed in a direction from highest to lowest concentration (assuming that the exact amount of energy is even present to perform that reaction).

"It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization."—*Richard E. Dickerson, "Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life," Scientific American, September 1978, p. 75.

We are told that amino acids miraculously formed themselves out of seawater. But the seawater needed to make the amino acids would prevent them from forming into protein, lipids, nucleic acids and polysaccharides! Even if some protein could possibly form, the law of mass action would immediately become operative upon it. The protein would hydrolyze with the abundant water and return back into the original amino acids! Those, in turn, would immediately break down into separate chemicals—and that would be the end of it.

"Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis . . [This fact is] the most stubborn problem that confronts us."—*George Wald, "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, August 1954, pp. 49-50.

The law of mass action would constitute a hindrance to protein formation in the sea as well as to the successful formation of other life-sustaining compounds, such as lipids, nucleic acids, and polysaccharides. If any could possibly form in water, they would not last long enough to do anything.

This law applies to chemical reactions which are reversible,—and thus to all life compounds. Such reactions proceed from reactant substances to compounds produced in the manner normally expected. But these reactions tend to reverse themselves more easily and quickly (*"Review of R. Shubert-Soldern’s Book, Mechanism and Vitalism," in Discovery, May 1962, p. 44).

Not just a few, but hundreds of thousands of amino acids had to miraculously make themselves out of raw seawater devoid of any life. But the amino acids would separate and break up immediately and not remain in existence long enough to figure out how to form themselves into the complex patterns of DNA and protein. The problem here is that, as soon as the chemical reaction that made the amino acids occurred, the excess water would have had to immediately be removed.

"Dehydration [condensation] reactions are thermodynamically forbidden in the presence of excess water."—*J. Keosian, The Origin of Life, p. 74.

CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND CONCENTRATION—(*#3/4 The Primitive Ocean*We never find the concentrations of chemicals in seawater that would be needed for amino acid synthesis. All the elements are there, but not in the proper concentrations. Most of what is in seawater—is just water! (*H.F. Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution (1968), p. 158).

CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND PRECIPITATES—Even if water loss could occur, enzyme inhibitors would neutralize the results. The problem here is that a powerfully concentrated combination of chemicalized "primitive water" would be needed to produce the materials of life,—but those very chemicals would inhibit and quickly destroy the chemical compounds and enzymes formed (David and Kenneth Rodabaugh, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1990, p. 107).

Even if they could survive the other problems, many organic products formed in the ocean would be removed and rendered inactive as precipitates. For example, fatty acids would combine with magnesium or calcium; and arginine (an amino acid), chlorophyll and porphyrins would be absorbed by clays.

Many of the chemicals would react with other chemicals, to form non-biologically useful products. Sugars and amino acids, for example, are chemically incompatible when brought together.

The chemical compounds within living creatures were meant to be inside them, and not outside. Outside, those compounds are quickly destroyed, if they do not first quickly destroy one another.

CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND FLUID CONDENSATION—In addition to synthesis problems, there are also condensation problems. Fats, sugars, and nucleic acids can come from the proteins only by very careful removal of fluid, amid other equally complicated activities conducted by the laboratory technicians. Without water loss, proteins cannot form in water.

CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND WATER—So most of the chemicals needed by life could not arise in a watery environment, such as seawater. In fact, the lab technicians do their work with fluids other than water! They do not use seawater or even regular water, when they prepare dead amino acids. (That which they synthesize is always dead; it never has life in it.)

"Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.

CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND ENERGY—And then there is the problem of an energy source. Scientists know that there had to be some form of energy to work the chemical transformations. They generally think it would have had to be a bolt of lightning, since there were no wall outlets back in the beginning to plug electrical cords into. But anything struck by lightning is not enlivened, but killed!

"[Arrhenius] contends that if actual lightning struck rather than the fairly mild [electrical] discharges used by Miller [in making the first synthetic amino acids], any organics that happened to be present could not have survived."—*Report in Science News, December 1, 1973, p. 340.

CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND OXYGEN—(*#4/20 Fighting It Out Over Early Environment*) Another problem is the atmosphere. It is a well-known fact among biochemists that the chemicals of life will decompose if oxygen is in the air.

"First of all, we saw that the present atmosphere, with its ozone screen and highly oxidizing conditions, is not a suitable guide for gas-phase simulation experiments."— *A.L Oparm, Life: Its Nature, Origin and Development, p. 118.

Living plants and animals only have certain proportions of the 92 elements within their bodies. These elements are arranged in special chemical compounds. Chemists say they have been reduced. When the chemicals found in living beings are left in the open air, they decompose or, as the chemists say, they oxidize. (A similar process occurs when iron is left in a bucket of water; it rusts.)

In the presence of oxygen, these chemicals leave the reduced (or chemical combination) state and break down to individual chemicals again.

"The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions [that is, with no free oxygen in the atmosphere]."—*Stanley L. Miller and *Leslie E. Orgel (1974), p. 33.

"With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have gotten started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.

CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND SUPPLY—There simply would not be enough other chemicals available to accomplish the needed task.

Since most biochemicals contain nitrogen, Gish, a biochemist, has discovered that there never has been enough concentration of nitrogen, in air and water, for amino acids to form by themselves. It does not occur naturally in rich enough concentrations.

Similar studies have been made on the availability of phosphorus by *Bernal. There would not have been enough phosphorus available for the many chemical combinations needed. Phosphorus is needed for DNA and other high-energy compounds. But phosphorus concentrations are too low.

Even worse news: *Carl Sagan found that adenosine triphosphate (high-energy phosphate) could not possibly form under the prebiological conditions.

CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND RICH MIXTURES—Extremely rich mixture of chemicals would be required for the alleged formation of the first living molecule, there ought to be places in the world where such rich mixtures are found today, but they do not exist.

"If there ever was a primitive soup, then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and the like, or alternatively in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes . . In fact, no such materials have been found anywhere on earth. There is, in other words, pretty good negative evidence that there never was a primitive organic soup on this planet that could have lasted but a brief moment."—*J. Brooks and *G. Shaw, Origins and Development of Living Systems (1973), p. 360.

4 - PROTEIN AND OTHER SUBSTANCES

PROTEIN SYNTHESIS—Protein is a basic constituent of all life-forms. It is composed of amino acids. There are 20 essential amino acids, none of which can produce the others. How were these made? How could they make themselves? 

First, let us examine the simplest of them: glycine. *Hull figured out that, due to inadequate chemicals and reaction problems, even glycine could not form by chance.There was only a 10-27 (minus 27) concentration of the materials needed to make it. If one glycine molecule was formed, it would have to hunt through 1029 other molecules in the ocean before finding another glycine to link up with! This would be equivalent to finding one person in a crowd that is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 times larger than all the people on earth!

But what about the other nineteen amino acids? Checking out the others, *Hull found that it was even less possible for the other 19 amino acids to form. The concentration needed for glucose, for example, would be 10-134. That is an extremely high improbability! (*D. Hull, "Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation," in Nature, 186, 1960, pp. 693-694).

PROTEINS AND HYDROLYSIS—Even if protein had been made by chance from nearby chemicals in the ocean, the water in the primitive oceans would have hydrolyzed (diluted and ruined) the protein. The chemicals that had combined to make protein would immediately reconnect with other nearby chemicals in the ocean water and self-destruct the protein!

A research team, at Barlian University in Israel, said that this complication would make the successful making of just one protein totally impossible, mathematically. It would be 1 chance in 10157. They concluded that no proteins were ever produced by chance on this earth.

PROTEINS AND SPONTANEOUS DISSOLUTION—Evolutionists bank on the fact that, somehow, somewhere, in some way,—a small bit of inorganic matter formed some amino acids. Yet even if such an impossible event could have happened,—it would rapidly have disintegrated away!

"In the vast majority of processes in which we are interested, the point of equilibrium lies far over toward the side of dissolution. That is to say, spontaneous dissolution [automatic self-destruct process] is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis [accidental put-together process] . . The situation we must face is that of patient Penelope waiting for Odysseus, yet much worse: each night she undid the weaving of the proceeding day, but here a night could readily undo the work of a year or a century."— *G. Wald, "The Origin of Life," in The Physics and Chemistry of Life (1955), p. 17.

In the world of biochemistry, automatic dissolution is always easier than accidental once-in-a-thousand-lifetimes putting-together. Regarding this massive obstacle to the initial formation of life, *Wald says it is "the most stubborn problem that confronts us" (ibid.).

FATTY ACID SYNTHESIS—Scientists are not able to even theorize how fatty acids could originally have come into existence.

"No satisfactory synthesis of fatty acids is at present available. The action of electric discharges on methane and water gives fairly good yields of acetic and propionic acids, but only small yields of the higher fatty acids. Furthermore, the small quantities of higher fatty acids that are found are highly branched."—*S. Miller, and *L. Orgel, The Origins of Life on the Earth (1974), p. 98.

OTHER SYNTHESES—There is more to a living organism than merely chemical compounds, proteins, and fatty acids. There are also enzymes, which scientists in laboratories do not know how to produce. Yet there are thousands of complicated, very different enzymes in a typical animal!

There are also massive DNA and other coding problems. Has any scientist ever synthesized even one new animal code? No, he would have no idea how to accomplish the task successfully. The emphasis here is on "successful." If he could interject a new code, it would only damage the organism. Scientists are now able to slightly adapt existing codes (genetic engineering); but they do not invent brand new ones. The list of necessities goes on and on.

WHAT ABOUT LIFE ITSELF?—But what about life itself? One minute after it dies, an animal still has all its chemicals, proteins, fatty acids, enzymes, codes, and all the rest. But it no longer has life. Scientists cannot produce life; why then should they expect rocks and seawater to have that ability?

5 - THE PRIMITIVE ATMOSPHERE

ATMOSPHERE WITHOUT OXYGEN—Could a non-oxygen atmosphere ever have existed on Planet Earth? It surely seems like an impossibility, yet evolutionary theorists have decided that the primitive environment had to have a "reducing atmosphere," that is, one without any oxygen. Now, the theorists do not really want such a situation, but they know that it would be totally impossible for the chemical compounds needed for life to be produced outside in the open air. If oxygen was present, amino acids, etc., could not have been formed. So, in desperation, they have decided that at some earlier time in earth’s history, there was no oxygen! And then later it somehow got it!

"At that time, the ‘free’ production of organic matter by ultraviolet light was effectively turned off and a premium was placed on alternative energy utilization mechanisms. This was a major evolutionary crisis. I find it remarkable that any organism survived it."—*Carl Sagan, The Origins, p. 253.

But there is a special reason why they would prefer to avoid a reducing atmosphere: There is no evidence anywhere in nature that our planet ever had a non-oxygen atmosphere! And there is no theory that can explain how it could earlier have had a reducing atmosphere,—which later transformed itself into an oxidizing one! As *Urey himself admitted, a non-oxygen atmosphere is just an assumption—a flight of imagination—in an effort to accommodate the theory (*Harold Urey, "On the Early Chemical History of the Earth and the Origin of Life," in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 38, 1952, p. 352).

*Stanley Miller was one of the pioneers in laboratory synthesis of non-living amino acids in bottles with a non-oxygen (reducing) atmosphere. (He was afterward hailed by the press as having "created life.") Miller later said the theory that the earth once had no oxygen is just "speculation" (*Stanley L Miller, "Production of Some Organic Compounds under Possible Primitive Conditions," in Journal of the American Chemical Society, 7, 1955, p. 2351).

A "reducing atmosphere" could have had carbon dioxide, methane, hydrogen, ammonia, and nitrogen. An oxidizing atmosphere, such as now exists, would have carbon dioxide, water, nitrogen, and oxygen.

(1) A reducing (non-oxygen) atmosphere never existed earlier on our planet; yet, without it, biological chemicals could not form. (2) If a reducing atmosphere had existed, so biological chemicals could form (and if they could somehow be injected with life), they would immediately die from lack of oxygen!

Here are some of the reasons against a reducing atmosphere:

(1) Oxidized iron. Early rocks contain partly or totally oxidized iron (ferric oxide). That proves that the atmosphere had oxygen back then.

(2) Water means oxygen. A reducing atmosphere could not have oxygen. But there is oxygen—lots of it—in water and in the atmosphere. According to *Brinkman, this fact alone disproves the origins of life by evolution (*R.T. Brinkman, "Dissociation of Water Vapor and Evolution of Oxygen in the Terrestrial Atmosphere," Journal of Geophysical Research, 74, 1969, p. 5366). Are the evolutionists daring to tell us that, anciently, our planet did not have water?

(3) No Life without itHow long would animals live without oxygen to breath? How long would plants live without carbon dioxide? Without it, they could not make chlorophyll. When plants take in carbon dioxide, they give out oxygen. But a reducing atmosphere has neither oxygen nor carbon dioxide! Therefore no plants could either live or be available for food.

(4) Deadly peroxides. In addition, a reduction atmosphere would form, through the photolysis of water, into peroxides, which are deadly to living creatures (*Abelson,"Some Aspects of Paleobiochemistry, "in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 69, 1957, p. 275).

(5) No ozone layer. If there were no oxygen in the atmosphere, there would be no ozone either. Without the ozone layer, ultraviolet light would destroy whatever life was formed.

(6) Ultraviolet light. Ironically, it could do more damage in an atmosphere without oxygen. Just as oxygen in the air would destroy the chemicals of life, ultraviolet light beaming in through a sky unshielded by ozone would be deadly!

Recent studies of the ozone layer have revealed that, without it, most living organisms now on our planet would die within an hour, and many within a second or two!

(7) Not with or without. Evolutionists are locked into a situation here that they cannot escape from. Spontaneous generation could not occur with oxygen—or without it!

FORMULA FOR THE PRIMITIVE ATMOSPHEREOur present atmosphere (the air which we breathe) is composed of carbon dioxide (C02), nitrogen (N2), oxygen (02), and water (H20).

The generally postulated primitive atmosphere would have had to have been composed of almost totally different chemicals: methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (C02), ammonia (NH3), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen (H2), and water (H20).

INSTANT ATMOSPHERIC CHANGE—As you might imagine, all this bad news brought evolutionary origins to something of a crisis, especially the problem about the atmosphere.

So the intransigent evolutionists came up with the wild theory that at the very instant when life was created on earth,—at that instant it just so happened that the entire world changed its atmosphere! It dramatically shifted suddenly from reducing to oxidizing!

But this possibility collapsed when a *University of Chicago study found that the plants could not suddenly have made all that oxygen,—and the oxygen had nowhere else to come from! If all the plants NOW on earth were suddenly formed on Day One on our planet, it would still take them 5000 years to produce as much oxygen as we now have!

However, the plants were not there at that time, and whatever plants might have been there would all have died soon after, since they themselves need oxygen for their own cellular respiration.

In order to avoid the problem of mass action degradation of amino acids formed in seawater, someone else suggested that the amino acids were made in dry clays and rocks. But in that environment either the oxygen or ultraviolet light would immediately destroy those amino acids.

UNUSUAL CHEMICALS—Men began to beat their brains against the wall, trying to figure out a way for those amino acids to form by themselves in the primitive environment.

*Sidney Fox suggested that the amino acids were made on the edges of volcanoes, *Melvin Calvin decided that dicyanimide (a compound not naturally occurring in nature) did the job, and *Shramm declared that phosphorus pentoxide in a jar of ether did it! Another research worker came up with an even more deadly solution: hydrogen cyanide—as the environment in which all the amino acids made themselves.

But again tragedy struck: It was discovered that the volcanic heat would ruin the amino acids as soon as they were formed. Phosphorus pentoxide is a novel compound that could not possibly be found in earth’s primitive atmosphere. The hydrogen cyanide would require an atmosphere of ammonia, which geological evidence shows never existed in our atmosphere. Dicyanimide would not work, because the original mixture in which the first amino acids were made had to have a more alkaline pH.

On and on it goes, one conjecture after another; always searching for the magic mixture and fairyland environment needed to make life out of nothing.

"Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts."—*Francis Crick, Life Itself (1981), p. 153. [*Crick received a Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA.]

6 - THE LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS

THE MILLER EXPERIMENT—It was *Stanley Miller in 1953 who first produced amino acids from chemicals. We want to know how he did it, for THAT is the way the so-called "primitive environment" would have had to do it by merest chance:

The laboratory apparatus he used to accomplish this consisted of two confluently interconnected, chemical flasks (or bottles), arranged one above the other. The lower flask was heated and contained boiling water. The upper flask contained a mixture of gases including ammonia, methane, hydrogen and water vapor. (The upper flask had the presumed "primitive atmosphere," since it was known that if oxygen were present, the experiment would be a failure.)

First, he boiled a mixture of water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen gases in the upper bottle, while a small electric spark continually played over them all. (That was supposed to be equivalent to a gigantic lightning ball in the primitive environment which might strike the spot once every so many years, instantly destroying everything it touched.) The lower bottle of water was kept boiling in order to keep the mixture in the upper bottle stirred up and circulating. (The "primitive ocean" must have been pretty hot!) There was a trap in the bottom of the glass apparatus to catch any soluble organic products, so they would not be broken down after formation by the spark. (Chemists knew that the Law of Mass Action would almost immediately have destroyed the amino acids that were formed, without a trap to catch them in quickly. The "primitive ocean" must have had similar bottle traps in it.)

EC228.jpg (276817 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGE

THE MILLER APPARATUS

 MILLER’S LABORATORY APPARATUS—This is how *Stanley Miller simulated lightning hitting some dirty water. The few non-living amino acid specs, which he produced, had equal amounts of L and D forms, so were biologically useless.

 Here is *Miller’s simulation of a "primitive environment":

A vacuum pump to continually circulate the vapors; special tubing to seal off the outside world; special distilled water inlets and outlets; an electric element producing 212o F. [100o C.] water temperature; electrical contacts to make a continuous, very low-amperage spark; and a trap arrangement to immediately siphon off nitrogenous products before they were destroyed in the boiling water and resultant vapors.

Where in the world could you find such a "primitive environment"?

After a week of this, the fluid in the traps were chemically analyzed—and were found to have microscopic traces of a few L and D (right- and left-handed) nitrogen-containing compounds—"amino acids," they called them—which had been formed. (Of course, if both L and D amino acids were formed by chemical action—as they always are when formed outside of living cells—it would be impossible for the amino acid which formed to be usable for life purposes.)

Newspapers around the world heralded the news: "Life has been created!" But no life had been created, just a few biochemical compounds. Remember that neither nitrogen compounds nor amino acids are, of themselves, living things. Just because they are in living things, does not make them living things.

In summary then, *Stanley Miller’s experiment was one of the early origin-of-life attempts. It used a reducing atmosphere (with no oxygen in it). A significant part of his experiment was a "cold trap." This was a glass cup at the bottom of the tubing that caught the products of the week-long water-chemical-spark activity. The purpose of the trap was to keep the reaction going in the right direction. If it had not been there, the simple amino acids would have been destroyed faster than they could be made!

" ‘This is the primitive atmosphere,’ said Stanley Miller, the chemistry professor at the University of California at San Diego, as he pointed to the transparent mixture of gases inside the globe. ‘And this represents the primitive ocean,’ he said, indicating a pool of water in the bottom of his apparatus."—*Rick Gore, "Awesome Worlds Within a Cell, "National Geographic Society, September 1976, p. 390.

What does that complicated lab experiment have to say about the possibility of nature doing it by accident—without the help of man? Outdoors, it could not be done without his help, or with it.

"What we ask is to synthesize organic molecules without such a machine. I believe this to be the most stubborn problem that confronts us—the weakest link at present in our argument."—*G. Wald, "The Origin of Life," in the Physics and Chemistry of Life (1955), p. 9.

The test tube attempts to "create life" have only resulted in dismal failure.

"In 1953, at the University of Chicago, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey mixed ammonia, water vapor, hydrogen and methane to simulate Earth’s early atmosphere, then crackled lightning-like electrical sparks through it . 

"Unfortunately, as Margolis admits, ‘no cell has yet crawled out of a test tube,’ and thousands of similar experiments have produced goopy organic tars, but no recognizable life. Decades of persistent failure to ‘create life’ by the ‘spark in the soup’ method (or to find such productions in nature) have caused some researchers to seek other approaches to the great enigma. [Panspermia theories—bacteria flying in from outer space—are then discussed.]"—*Richard Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 274.

NOT LEFT-HANDED AMINO ACIDS—All types of proteins in the animals are left-handed (L-aminos). None are ever right-handed (D-aminos)Yet all amino acids synthesized in laboratories consist of an equal amount of left- and right-handed amino acids (a racemic mixture). It would require days of work in the laboratory to separate just a few L from D forms. Researchers cannot figure out how to produce only the L form. Yet no animals or man could live if they had any of the D form in them. This is a major problem to the evolutionists. More on this in the next chapter.

NOT THE ESSENTIAL AMINO ACIDS—Out of the hundreds of possible combinations, there are 20 essential amino acids, yet laboratory synthesis of amino acids produces only a few of the 20 essential amino acids—plus a lot of non-essential or even useless ones.

THE OPARIN EXPERIMENT—Prior to *Miller, *A.I. Oparin, a Russian chemist, tried to produce living cells from coacervates, which are like fat droplets in a bowl of soup. He carefully kept all oxygen away from the soup and the bowl, and he hoped that, given enough time, they would join together and, somehow, life would enter into them! But the outer film kept breaking apart, and no life entered into them. *Oparin was disappointed. No reputable chemist today considers Oparin’s theory to be of any value.

THE FOX EXPERIMENTS—After Miller’s experiment, *Sydney Fox in 1960 worked out a different arrangement, but he began his with left-handed amino acids already formed. He took them from a dead animal! He claims that his method is how it was done in the primitive environment. This should have been good news for the evolutionary world; but, when we learn his complicated procedure, we can understand why few scientists have any faith in the possibility that the Fox procedure was done by chance in the ocean, near a volcano, or in a mud puddle.

Here is how nature, armed with time and chance, is supposed to have produced that first dead amino acid:

"Typical panpolymenzation: Ten grams of L. glutamic acid (a left-handed amino acid] was heated at l75o-l80o C. [347°-356° F.) until molten (about 30 minutes), after which period it had been largely converted to lactum. At this time, 10 g. [.352 ay. oz.] of DL-aspartic acid and 5 g. [.176 ay. oz.] of the mixture of the sixteen basic and neutral (BN) amino acids were added. The solution was then maintained at 170° + or -2° under an atmosphere of nitrogen for varying periods of time. Within a period of a few hours considerable gas had been evolved, and the color of the liquid changed to amber. The vitreous mixture was rubbed vigorously with 75 ml. [4.575 Cu. in.] of water, which converted it to a yellow-brown granular precipitate. After overnight standing, the solid was separated by filtration. This was washed with 50 ml. [3.05 cu. in.] of ethanol, and as substance S dialytically washed in moving Multidialyzers in water for 4 days, the water being changed thrice daily. (The term dialytic washing indicates dialytic treatment of a suspension.) In some preparations, the solid was dissolved completely in sodium bicarbonate solution and then dialyzed. The dialysis sacs were made of cellulose tubing, 27/32 in., to contain 50 ml. [3.05 cu. in.]. The nondiffusible material was ninhydrin-negative before the fourth day. The non-aqueous contents of the dialysis sac were mainly solid A and a soluble fraction B recovered as solid by concentration in a vacuum dissicator. The mother liquor of S was also dialyzed for 4 days, and then dried to give additional solid C."—*S.W. Fox and *K Harada, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 82(1960), p. 3745.

We commend *Sydney Fox and his associates for their remarkable intelligence and excellent lab equipment, days of exhausting work, and the university scientists who trained them to perform such experiments. But we can make no such commendation of sand, gravel, and seawater, which is supposed to have done the same thing by itself.

Fox began with a quantity of left-only (no right) amino acids and made sure no oxygen, sugars, etc. were present, since they would doom the experiment. Then he underwent a lot of tedious work that requires a high degree of intelligence, careful planning, and many adjustments with pH, temperature, cooking time, etc., as he proceeded with a staff of assistants to help him succeed:

Fox is modest about his abilities, for he says that random events, in a broad sea or on the slopes of a volcano, could have done it just as easily. But HE began with pure, left-handed amino acids, which are available nowhere outside of living things; he did not begin with pebbles, mud, and water.

Fox then heated the amino acids for 10 hours at 150°-180° C [302°-356°] for several hours. Pretty hot way to make amino acids!

Where would you find such conditions in nature? *Stanley Miller, who first synthesized amino acids in a laboratory later stated that his own experiment could not possibly have been done by chance outside of a modern laboratory. Other scientists have agreed.

"Such experiments are no more than exercises in organic chemistry."—*P. Mora, "The Folly Of Probability," in Origins of Prebiological Systems and their Molecular Matrices, Ed. *S. W. Fox (1965), p. 41.

Three key ingredients are (1) proper chemicals in exacting amounts, (2) a continuous energy source (such as a continuous spark), and (3) quick-dry apparatus. As soon as the amino acids are made, they must immediately be dried out. (Living tissue never contains dried out amino acids or comes from it.) Fox tells us the reaction must be "hot and dry" (op. cit., p. 378).

"To keep a reaction going according to the law of mass action, there must be a continuous supply of energy and of selected matter (molecules) and a continuous process of elimination of the reaction products."—Op. cit., p. 43.

And there is a fourth key ingredientWhether done in nature, or by researchers in a high-tech laboratory, these life substances are always the result of careful organization with specific purposes by a high-level intelligence. No one tosses the chemicals into a pan in the laboratory, walks off, hoping it will produce amino acids all by itself.

A living organism is not just dried out ocean soup. It is highly integrated, complex, and purposive. —It has life, which no man can produce. And that living creature had to have all its parts on Day One of its existence. And it had to have a mate and be able to reproduce offspring.

Not even *Darwin could figure it out.

"Darwin never really did discuss the origin of species in his [book] On the Origin of Species."—*David Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 466.

7 - THE MIRACLE OF LIFE

Reputable scientists tell us that life could neither originate nor continue without intelligence being involved.

"Any living thing possesses an enormous amount of ‘intelligence’ . . Today, this ‘intelligence’ is called ‘information,’ but it is still the same thing . . This ‘intelligence’ is the sine qua non of life. If absent, no living being is imaginable. Where does it come from? This is a problem which concerns both biologists and philosophers, and, at present, science seems incapable of solving it."—*Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 3.

A Nobel Prize laureate wrote this:

"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."—*Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature (1981), p. 88 [co-discoverer of the DNA molecule].

Even *Sydney Fox, the researcher who went through so much scientific rigmarole to make amino acids out of amino acids, admits it:

"The present laws of physics . . are insufficient to describe the origin of life. To him this opens the way to teleology, even, by implication, to creation by an intelligent agent . . If he thinks he has shown conclusively that life cannot have originated by chance, only two rational alternatives remain. The first is that it did not arise at all and that all we are studying is an illusion."—*S.W. Fox, The Origins of Prebiological Systems and Their Molecular Matrices (1965), pp. 35-55.

Another Nobel Prize laureate and, like the others, a confirmed evolutionist made this comment:

"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."—*Harold C. Urey, quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4.

THE MAGIC FORMULA—The formula for the evolutionary origin and development of life goes something like this:

NOTHING + TIME + CHANCE = "SIMPLE" CELL

ONE CELL + TIME + CHANCE = MAN

Is this modern science or is it a fairy tale? It is an astounding thought that all modern biological, genetic, and geological science is keyed to such a mythical formulation.

One evolutionist explains in philosophical rhetoric how it all happened:

"Randomness caught on the wing, preserved, reproduced . . and thus converted into order, rule, necessity. A totally blind process can by definition lead to anything; it can even lead to vision itself."—*Bur, quoted in *Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity (1972), p. 98.

That is neither true nor scientific. If randomness can produce such living wonders as are all about us, then highly intelligent scientists, working in well-equipped laboratories, ought to be able to produce eyes, ears, and entirely new species in a few months’ time.

The Great Evolutionary Myth is that randomness plus time can do anything; the Truth is that randomness, with or without time, can accomplish almost nothing. And those changes which it does accomplish will quickly be blotted out by the next random action or two,—that is, if they are constructive changes. If they are erosional, they will remain much longer.

Throughout inorganic nature we see randomness producing decay and inertness; we do not find it building houses and, then, installing the plumbing in them.

"All the facile speculations and discussions published during the last ten to fifteen years explaining the mode of origin of life have been shown to be far too simple-minded and to bear very little weight. The problem in fact seems as far from solution as it ever was."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 68.

THE EVOLUTIONARY ORIGIN OF LIFE IN A NUTSHELL—The origin of life by random means is an impossibility. Only evolutionists and the authors of children’s fairy tales say otherwise.

The following evolutionary five-step theoretical program of events consists of little more than armchair guessing combined with Alice in Wonderland hopefulness. Here it is:

"Evolution Model for the Origin of Life on the Earth:

"According to the evolution model, the story of life on the earth began some five billion years ago and gradually unfolded through a series of five stages:

"Stage 1. Evolutionists have imagined that the atmosphere of the early earth was quite different from the present atmosphere. In contrast to the present oxidizing atmosphere, which contains 21 percent free oxygen (02), 78 percent nitrogen (N2), and 1 percent of other gases, supposedly the early earth was surrounded by a reducing atmosphere made up mostly of methane (CHi), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H3), and water vapor (H20).

"Stage 2. Because of ultraviolet light, electric discharge, and high-energy particle bombardment of molecules in a reducing atmosphere, stage 2 came about with the formation of small organic molecules such as sugars, amino acids, and nucleotides.

"Stage 3. Presuming all of this happened billions of years ago in a reducing atmosphere, then stage 3 is imagined during which combinations of various small stage 2 molecules resulted in formation of large polymers such as starches, proteins, and nucleic acids (DNA).

"Stage 4. These large molecules supposedly joined together into a gel-like glob called coacervates or microspheres. Possibly these coacervates attracted smaller molecules so that new structures, called proto-cells, might have formed.

"Stage 5. Evolutionists believe that finally, at least one of these globs absorbed the right molecules so that complex molecules could be duplicated within new units called living cells. These first cells consumed molecules left over from earlier states, but eventually photosynthesis appeared in cells, in some way, and oxygen was released into the atmosphere. As the percentage of oxygen in the early atmosphere increased, most of the known forms of life on the earth today began to appear. Because of the presence of oxygen, these early life-forms destroyed all the molecules from earlier stages, and no more chemical evolution was possible."—John N. Moore, "Teaching about Origin Questions: Origin of Life on Earth," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1985, page 21.

APPLYING MATH TO IT—*Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous British mathematician and astronomer, teamed up with *Chandra Wickramasinghe in an analysis of the origin of life and the possibility that it could possibly have begun by chance.

*Hoyle is an evolutionist, and *Wickramasinghe a Buddhist. They mathematically determined that the likelihood that a single cell could originate in a primitive environment, given 4.6 billion years in which to do it,—was one chance in 1040000! That is one chance in 1 with 40 thousand zeros after it! (*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, 1981, p. 28).

Everything would suddenly have to be there all at once. It would all have to work perfectly, and it would have to split and divide into new cells immediately, and reproduce offspring quickly. And, of course, it would have to be alive!

Living forms are too awesome to relegate to the tender mercies of time and chance. It took special design, special thinking, special power to make living beings.

And that brings us to our next chapter: the incredible wonders of DNA and the impossibility of it accidentally making itself out of chance, gravel, mud, and water.

SEARCH FOR LIFE IN OUTER SPACE—(*#5/2 Searching for Life Elsewhere*Evolutionists are rabid about proving their theory. For over 30 years, working through the National Science Foundation and other agencies, they have gotten the U.S. Government to spend vast amounts of money on attempts to achieve their goal. They are searching for life-forms on other planets.

First, we will tell you of the multimillion-dollar projects. Then we will give you the warning:

"Bioastronomy" and "exobiology" are the studies of life in outer space. These are the only fields of "science" without evidence or subject matter. Researchers in these fields are trying to detect signals from outer space that would imply an intelligent source. Here is a brief listing of 15 of the projects funded by the United States. The search for life was not always the sole objective of each of these projects:

Ozma 1—1960 - $1 million - A Green Bank radio telescope probe of two nearby stars (Epsilon Eridoni and Tau Ceti) for signals indicating intelligent life. Result: No signals detected.

Apollo—1969-1972 - $30 billion - Exploration of the moon, in the hope of finding evidences of life. Result: No life detected.

Pioneer 10—1972 - Cost not available - This interspace probe was sent out beyond our solar system in the hope that intelligent beings would find it and contact us. A plaque is inside it. Result: No life/signals detected.

Ozma 11—1973 - Cost not available - 500 of the closest stars have been monitored for intelligent radio signals. Result: No signals detected.

Arecibo—1974 - Cost not available - This, the largest radio telescope on earth, was constructed for the purpose of continuously monitoring nearby stars for signals. Result: No signals detected.

National Radio Astronomy Observatory—1974 - Cost not available - The NRAO scanned 10 nearby stars for intelligent signals. Result: No signals detected.

Two Viking landers—1977 - $1 billion - These two landers were sent out in the hope of finding evidences of life on the planet Mars. Result: No life detected.

Voyager 1 and 2—1977 - Voyager 1 and 2—1977 - Cost not available -

Pioneer Venus—1977 - $230 million - Probes sent to planet Venus to measure atmospheric conditions and the possibility of life on its surface. Result: No life detected.

Very Large Array—1980 - $78 billion - 27 radio antennas constructed in New Mexico. They are probing for evidence of organic molecules in interstellar gas. Result: No life detected.

Mariner—1980 - Cost not available - This probe was specifically designed to analyze Saturn’s largest moon for signs of life. Result: No life/signals detected.

Hubble Space Telescope—1990 - $1.5 billion - This newly launched orbiting telescope will be searching for planets circling other planets. Result: No life/signals detected yet.

Cyclops—1990s - $20 billion - A large array of radio telescopes, each 100 meters [109 yds.] in diameter. Result: Not constructed yet. "Such an array would detect radio beams of the kind Earth, is inadvertently leaking at a distance of a hundred light-years, and should detect a deliberately aimed radio wave beacon from another civilization at a distance of a thousand light-years."—*Asimov’s New Guide to Science (1984), pp. 648-649.

A WARNING FROM ROSS—Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist at Caltech, did some checking and, about the year 1989, came up with an intriguing observation. Immense pressure has been placed on the U.S. Government and NASA to fund, at enormous expense, a manned voyage to Mars. Ross has discovered a primary reason for this seemingly senseless waste of money.

As you may know, winds carry small living creatures, such as microbes and spiders, to high atmospheric levels. Ross says that solar winds are able to waft particles of formerly living substances out of our high-level atmosphere—and blow them away from the sun, outward into space. Ross declares that some of the particles, caught in Mar’s gravitational field, could well have landed on the surface of Mars.

He believes that evolutionists are well-aware of this possibility, and that they want to send that manned flight to Mars to recover those particles. The main objective of the mission would be to find dead life-forms on the surface of Mars, and then use that as "evidence" that life once must have independently evolved on Mars! It is felt that this would provide a powerful boost to the evolutionary cause.

We have here another example of evolutionary deceit at work, and such a "discovery" may be made within the next decade or two.

EVOLUTION COULD NOT DO THIS

Scientists estimate that over 400 million-million horsepower of solar energy reaches the earth every day. Photosynthesis is the process by which sunlight is transformed intocarbohydrates (the basis of all the food on our planet). This takes place in the chloroplasts. Each one is lense-shaped, something like an almost flat cone with the rounded part on the upper side. Sunlight enters from above. Inside the chloroplast are tiny cylinders, called lamelliae, that look something like the small circular batteries used in small electrical devices.

Each cylinder is actually a stack of several disk-shaped thylakolds. Each thylakold is the shape of a coin. Several of these are stacked on top of each other, and this makes a single stack, or lamelium. A small narrow band connects each stack to another stack. They look like they are all wired like a bunch of batteries. Sunlight is processed by chlorophyll in those stacks, and is then stored (!) there as chemical energy in the form of sugar molecules. 

Chlorophyll, itself, is very complicated and never exists outside of the plant, just as DNA and ten thousands of other chemical structures never exist outside plants and/or animals. If they are not found outside, how did they ever get inside? In many plants, the tiny discs containing chlorophyll move about within plant cells and adjust for different light and heat conditions. When the sunlight is too strong, the little disks turn edgewise. On an overcast day, they lie as parallel to the sky as they can in order to take in the most light. They have brains?

CHAPTER 7 - STUDY AND REVIEW QUESTIONS

THE PRIMITIVE ENVIRONMENT

GRADES 5 TO 12 ON A GRADUATED SCALE

1 - List 3 reasons why water could not change itself into an animal.

2 - Discuss with your class the reasons why evolutionists are desperately trying to figure out a way that water could change itself into an animal.

3 - List at least 10 body organs or functions that would need to instantly be present and fully operating, in order for a living creature to not die within 3 minutes.

4 - Scientists generally agree that spontaneous generation of living creatures from non-living materials cannot happen. Is there any way, other than by spontaneous generation, that non-living materials could make themselves into a living organism?

5 - Evolutionists only offer lightning as a possible energy source for the formation of the first living creature. Why would lightning not be able to accomplish the needed task? Where would that first living creature afterward be able to find food to give it nourishment and provide it with an ongoing energy source?

6 - List six reasons why the oxygen problem (oxygen in water or oxygen in the atmosphere) would eliminate the possibility of a life-form coming into existence from non-living materials.

7 - Could the oxygen problem—alone—be enough to doom to failure the chance formation of life?

8 - Declaring that "life had been created!" the Miller experiment was said to have provided important evidence about the possibility of [non-living] proteins initially forming themselves from non-living materials. What did the Miller experiment actually reveal?

9 - The facts about left- and right-handed amino acids provide important evidence regarding the possibility of non-living materials making themselves randomly into protein. Explain why left-handed amino acids are a great wall forbidding the chance formation of living protein.

10 - List several reasons why the Miller experiment could not be duplicated by raw materials out in nature.


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. You will find them, plus much more, in the 3 Volume Encyclopedia on this site.

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. 1089190DNAs 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 1020cells 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.


Evolution Cruncher Chapter 9 

Natural Selection


Why natural selection

only makes changes within species

This chapter is based on pp. 347-391 of Origin of the Life (Volume Two of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this chapter are at least 154 statements by scientists. You will find them, plus much more, in the 3 Volume Encyclopedia on this site.

A fundamental teaching of evolution is that every living thing in our world—whether it be a plant, animal, or bird,—evolved from other creatures, which ultimately originated from dust, rock, and water.

According to Darwinian evolutionists, this ‘evolving’ was accomplished by "natural selection." *Charles Darwin said that natural selection was the primary way that everything changed itself from lower life-forms, and new species were produced.

In the years that have passed since Charles Darwin, this theory of "natural selection" has continued as a mainstay of evolutionary theory.

In this chapter we will carefully consider natural selection, what it can do and what it cannot do. This is an important chapter; for, along with fossil evidence (chapter 12) and mutations (chapter 10), natural selection ranks at the top in the esteem of committed evolutionists. Disprove the validity of these three, and the whole theory falls apart.

STILL DEFENDED BY SOME—(*#1/6 Evolutionists Defend Natural Selection*) It is a remarkable fact that some evolutionists still defend their natural selection theory. But we will discover why so many have abandoned it.

THE BASIC TEACHING—When a plant or animal produces offspring, variations appear. Some of the offspring will be different than other offspring. Some evolutionists (Darwinian evolutionists, also called "Darwinists") declare that it is these variations—alone—which have caused all life-forms on our planet: pine trees, jackals, clams, zebras, frogs, grass, horses.

"So far as we know . . natural selection . . is the only effective agency of evolution."—*Sir Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 36.

"Natural selection allows the successes, but ‘rubs out’ the failures. Thus, selection creates complex order, without the need for a designing mind. All of the fancy arguments about a number of improbabilities, having to be swallowed at one gulp, are irrelevant. Selection makes the improbable, actual."—*Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended (1982), p. 308.

In this chapter, we will learn that this statement is wishful thinking in the extreme, with no scientific support in its favor. On the face of it, the statement is false merely from the fact that evolutionary theory requires change by random action alone. If even half of the random changes were positive, the other half would have to be damaging. But *Ruse views all changes as being selectively positive. In addition he ignores other scientific facts, such as the powerful one that the closest thing to natural selection (gene reshuffling) never goes across the species barrier to produce a new species.

Not only is natural selection said to have produced everything, but the entire process was said to be entirely RANDOM! Therefore it is not "selection," for nothing was selected! Just whatever happened next was accepted. Random variations and chance accidents are said to have produced all the wonders around us. Their theory should be called "natural randomness," not "natural selection."

"Modern evolutionary theory holds that evolution is ‘opportunistic,’ in the word of paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson. At any point, it goes in the direction that is advantageous, often reshaping old structures for new uses. It does not know its destination, nor is it impelled to follow one particular direction."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 345.

How can total randomness select only that which is better, and move only in advantageous directions? Random occurrences never work that way. Yet in the never-never land of evolutionary theory, they are said to do so.

NEO-DARWINISM—(*#2/38 Scientists Speak about Natural Selection*) Earlier in this century, a large number of evolutionists rebelled against this theory, saying that natural selection has never given evidence of being able to change one species into another—and is not able to do it. They recognized that so-called "natural selection" (actually random changes within the true species) cannot produce cross-species change. These "neo-Darwinists" decided that it is mutations that accomplish the changes,and that natural selection only provided the finishing touches.

In this chapter we will discuss natural selection; and, in the next, mutations. When you have completed both chapters, you will have a fairly good understanding of the subject.

Keep in mind that, although evolutionists offer many theories and evidences, they admit that the only mechanisms by which evolution can occur is natural selection and mutations. There are no others! It matters not how many dinosaur bones, ape skulls, and embryos are displayed in museums, if natural selection and/or mutations cannot produce evolutionary change, then evolution cannot occur. It is as simple as that.

DEFINITION OF TERMS—(*#3/5 Natural Selection is a Useless Concept*) Here are some basic definitions that are needed at this point:

A plant or animal evolves by natural selection when those processes enable it to cross the species barrier, and produce a new—a different—species. But keep in mind that changes within a species are not evolution.

2 - Species: In these studies, we will generally refer to the word "species" as the fundamental type, but there are instances in which such a basic type (the "Genesis kind," see Genesis 1:12, 21, 25) might refer to genus instead of species. Plant and animal classifications have been made by men and errors in labeling can and do occur. There are about three dozen different breeds of domesticated house cats, and a few taxonomists would list most of them as different species. But it is generally recognized that they all are in the cat family, Felidae, the genus Fells, and the single species F. catus (some authorities call that species F. domesticus). In general, all life-forms within a true species can interbreed.

There are over a hundred different breeds of dogs, yet biologists uniformly recognize that they are all in the same species.

Yet there are exceptions even to that. In some instances, variant forms within an otherwise almost identical species type will not interbreed, and are then classified as sub-species.

3 - Variations: Variations in the offspring of a creature can occur by Mendelian genetics, that is by simple rearrangements or assortments of the existing DNA molecules within genes. This is what neo-Darwinian evolutionists refer to as "natural selection." All variations always occur within basic types (species); they never go across those types—and produce new types or species. Therefore no evolution occurs. Producing new breeds or varieties is not evolution, because the species did not change.

Some species have a broad gene pool, and are thus able to produce many varieties or breeds (such as dogs and chrysanthemums). Others have a small one (cheetahs have an extremely small one). Changes in color, bill length or shape, etc., can occur within a true species because it has a large gene pool. But the flower, bird, etc. does not change into a new species.

4 - Mutational changes: Occasionally changes in offspring occur because of a mutational defect. Such alterations always weaken the individual that has them. A mutational change is not a normal variational reshuffling of the DNA code, but an actual change in one tiny item in the code information. The result is that the perfection of the code has been damaged. The resultant offspring are weaker and they are more likely to die off.

5 - Survival of the fittest: Organisms damaged by mutations or otherwise tend to be culled out. Evolutionists call that culling out process "survival of the fittest." But all that actually occurred was that misfits produced by mutations or accidents are eliminated, thus returning the species closer to its pure pattern. "Survival of the fittest" accomplishes the opposite of evolution! The hardships of life cull out the weakened forms of each species, and thus keep each species very stable. There is nothing in this process that has anything to do with evolution, which is evolving from one species to another.

First we will consider examples put forward by evolutionists as evidences of evolution by natural selection (1 - It Does Not Occur). Then we will turn our attention to the reasons why natural selection cannot produce evolution (2 - Why it Cannot Occur).

1 - IT DOES NOT OCCUR

Species evolution never occurs by means of natural selection. Evolutionists have ransacked the plant and animal kingdoms for examples of cross-species evolution (by any means, natural selection or otherwise!), and have been unable to find them. What they have found are some interesting examples of variations WITHIN species.These they present to the public and in schoolbooks as "evidences" of evolution.

THE PEPPERED MOTH

EC288.jpg (127743 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGE

We will briefly examine several of these evidences.

1 - PEPPERED MOTH—The peppered moth in England is the most frequently discussed evolutionary "proof" of natural selection. In fact, it is mentioned ten times for every instance in which any other evidence is mentioned! Therefore, it deserves special attention. The problem is that evolutionists really have no proof, and the peppered moth surely is not one.

"This is the most striking evolutionary change ever to have been witnessed by man."—*International Wildlife Encyclopedia (1970 edition), Vol. 20, p. 2706.

Noting that Darwin was plagued by his inability to demonstrate the evolution of even one species, *Jastrow said:

"Had he known it, an example was at hand which would have provided him with the proof he needed. The case was an exceedingly rare one—the peppered moth."—*Robert Jastrow, Red Giants and White Dwarfs, p. 235.

In his large 940-page book, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, *Isaac Asimov mentions that some fools oppose evolution, saying it has never been proven; and then Asimov gives us a single, outstanding evidence: the peppered moth. This is astounding—in view of the fact that it is no evidence at all! Isaac Asimov is the leading evolutionary science writer of the mid-twentieth century. If the peppered moth is the best he can come up with in defense of evolution, surely evolutionists have no case.

"One of the arguments of the creationists is that no one has ever seen the forces of evolution at work. That would seem the most nearly irrefutable of their arguments, and yet it, too, is wrong. In fact, if any confirmation of Darwinism were needed, it has turned up in examples of natural selection that have taken place before our eyes (now that we know what to watch for). A notable example occurred in Darwin’s native land. In England, it seems, the peppered moth exists in two varieties, a light and a dark."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science (1984), p. 780.

Before 1845 near Birmingham, England, the peppered moth was primarily light-colored, but some had darker wings. (These darker varieties were called the melanic or carbonaria forms.) In accordance with Mendelian genetics, some peppered moth offspring were always born with light-colored wings while others had darker wings. Thus it had been for centuries. The little moths would alight on the light-colored tree trunks; and birds, able to see the darker ones more easily, ate them and tended to ignore the light-colored varieties. Yet both varieties continued to be produced. But then the industrial revolution came and the trees became darker from smoke and grime—and birds began eating the lighter ones. In the 1850s, about 98% of the uneaten peppered moths were the light variety; because of recessive and dominant genes, peppered moths regularly produced both varieties as offspring.

By the 1880s in the Manchester, England area, toxic gases and soot were killing the light-colored lichen on the trees and darkened even more the tree trunks. The changeover from light to dark moths began there also. The smoke and smog from the factories darkened the trunks of the trees where the moths rested. This darkening of the trees made the dark-hued moths difficult to see, and the lighter ones quite easy for the birds to spot.

By the 1950s, 98% of the peppered moths were the dark variety. All the while, the moths continued to produce both dark and light varieties.

Evolutionists point to this as a "proof of evolution," but it is NOT a proof of evolution. We all know that there can be variation with species. Variation within a species is not evolution.

There are dozens of varieties of dogs, cats, and pigeons. But no new species have been produced. They are still dogs, cats, and pigeons.

There can be light peppered moths and dark peppered moths,—but they are all still peppered moths. Even as Asimov admitted in the above quotation, they are but variations within a single species. The name of the single species that includes them both is Biston betularla. They are all peppered moths, nothing more and nothing less.

When *Harrison Matthews wrote the introduction for the 1971 edition of *Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species, he denied the possibility of evolution in several respects, and made this accurate observation about the peppered moth:

"The [peppered moth] experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection—or survival of the fittest—in action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for however the populations may alter in their content of light, intermediate, or dark forms, all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston betularia."—*Harrison Matthews, "Introduction," to Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species (1971 edition), p. xi.

Let us consider this matter a little more deeply:

Because of dominant and recessive genes (Mendelian genetics), this little moth continued to produce both light and dark offspring for thousands of years, while the birds kept eating the dark varieties. Yet all that time, dark ones continued to be born! This is proof of the stability of the species, which is exactly the opposite of evolutionary "proof!"

For nearly a century, the birds ate the lighter ones, but the darker ones kept being born. In recent years, industrial pollution laws are making the air cleaner, and the darker ones are more frequently eaten.

This is not evolution, but simply a color change back and forth within a stable species.

"This is an excellent demonstration of the function of camouflage, but, since it begins and ends with peppered moths and no new species is formed, it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution."—On CalI, July 2, 1973, p. 9.

In reality, the peppered moth did not change at all. The dark-winged type is simply a Mendelian recessive, and both types are continually produced. Birds ate one kind and left the other. Mendelian genetic variations cannot produce evolution, which is change across species.

Two leading British evolutionary scientists, said this about evolutionary claims for the peppered moth:

"We doubt, however, that anything more is involved in these cases than the selection of already existing genes."—*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 5.

*Grene adds this:

"The recent work of H.B.D. Kettlewell on industrial melanism has certainly confirmed the hypothesis that natural selection takes place in nature. This is the story of the black mutant of the common peppered moth which, as KettlewelI has shown with beautiful precision, increases in numbers in the vicinity of industrial centers and decreases, being more easily exposed to predators, in rural areas. Here, say the neo-Darwinians, is natural selection, that is, evolution, actually going on. But to this we may answer: selection, yes; the color of moths or snails or mice is clearly controlled by visibility to predators; but ‘evolution’? Do these observations explain how in the first place there came to be any moths or snails or mice at all? By what right are we to extrapolate the pattern by which color or other such superficial characters are governed to the origin of species, let alone of classes, orders, phyla of living organisms?"—Marjorie Grene, "The Faith of Darwinism, "Encounter, November 1959, p. 52.

There is a postscript to the peppered moth story. The above description included data about the habits of peppered moths in England, as cited by evolutionists. They have been telling us for years that the variation in the wing color of the peppered moth was the fact that they rest on the sides of trees, and the trees became darker. Well, it turns out that they did not even get that story straight. Peppered moths do not alight on the sides of trees! And the stock evolutionary "research photos" were made of dead moths pasted on the sides of trees!

2 - RESISTANT FLIES AND BACTERIA—Another example of what evolutionists declare to be evolutionary change by "natural selection," is the fact that certain flies have become resistant to DDT, and some bacteria are now resistant to antibiotics. But here again, the flies are still flies, and those bacteria are still bacteria; no species change occurred. In reality, there were various strains of flies and bacteria, and as certain ones were reduced by DDT, other resistant strains reproduced more and became a majority. When DDT is stopped, after a while the various strains bounce back. (Additional information on "immune" flies and bacteria in chapter 10, Mutations.)

3 - PIGEONS—Pigeon breeding first became popular in Europe in the middle of the nineteenth century. Pigeons can be bred to produce the most astonishing variety of shapes and colors. There are dark pigeons, light pigeons, pigeons, that twirl as they fly, and pigeons that have such showy wings they no longer can fly. But they are all pigeons.

Since *Darwin did not bring any live Galapagos finches home with him, he decided to work with pigeons instead. He joined two pigeon clubs, learned how to breed pigeons and then set to work. Studying them on the outside and inside as well, Darwin learned that, although there are seven basic varieties of pigeons, all the pigeons breed with one another. All were pigeons and sub-species of one basic species type: the rock dove. Darwin was not able to get his pigeons to become some other kind of species, although he tried very hard to do so.

If, after years of effort, *Charles Darwin with his evolutionary brilliance could not change a pigeon into something else, why should he imagine that the pigeon could do it by itself?

Not only was the barrier of fixity of species there, but Darwin sadly discovered that, if left to themselves, all the pigeon varieties gradually returned toward the original pigeon: the bluish rock pigeon (Columba livia). And that, itself, tells us a lot.

CHANGES BACK AND FORTH—Evolutionists strictly maintain, as part of their creed, that the evolutionary process is not reversible. Part of this irreversibility idea requires that when one creature has evolved into another,—the new creature cannot evolve back into what it used to be!

Now that has serious implications for our present study. Evolutionists present various subspecies changes as their only actual evidence of evolution. Yet these are all changes back and forth. This includes changes from white to dark peppered moths—and back again, changes from one pigeon shape and color to another and back again to the basic rock pigeon type, and changes back and forth in bacteria. All these are supposed to prove evolution. But in each of these instances, we only have changes within a species,—and we have changes back and forth within that species.

4 - GRAPES AND APPLES—An article in *World Book Encyclopedia cites the 1849 discovery of the Concord variety of grape as an example of evolution. Then it gives four other examples:

"Other sports . . as such variations are called, have produced hornless cattle, short-legged sheep, "double" flowers, and new varieties of seeds."—*World Book Encyclopedia (1972 edition), Vol. 6, p. 332.

Obviously, all the above examples are only variations within species; none go across species. They are not caused by mutations. All of your children will look like you, but each will vary in appearance from one another. That is variation within species, not evolution across species. It is a reassortment of the DNA and genes, but nothing more.

In the 1920s, a man in Clay County, West Virginia discovered an apple tree in his back yard with apples that tasted fantastic. He sent one to Stark Brothers Nursery,—and theGolden Delicious was the result. Every Golden Delicious apple tree in the world originated from seeds from that West Virginia tree.

Neither the Concord grape, nor the Golden Delicious apple was a mutation. Both were the result of naturally reshuffled genes. Both were "natural selection" at its best, which is always, only, variation within species. If they had been the result of mutations, the result would have been weakened stock whose offspring would tend eventually to become sterile or die out.

5 - GALAPAGOS FINCHES—During *Charles Darwin’s five-year voyage on the H.M.S. Beagle, he visited the Galapagos, a group of islands in the Pacific more than 600 miles [965 km] from the mainland of South America. He found several different finches (Geospizinae) on the Galapagos Islands. Although they all looked nearly alike, they had developed a number of different habits, diet, and little crossbreeding between these 14 (some say 13, others 17) finches occurred. Yet these Galapagos finches were all still finches. When Darwin arrived back in England, a friend urged him that this was very significant. So Darwin, knowing nothing of modern genetics and the boundary imposed by DNA to changes across basic types, imagined that perhaps these birds were all different types—and evolution across types had indeed occurred.

If you will personally examine all the Galapagos Island finches (often called Darwin finches), you will find that they do indeed look just about alike. They are sub-species of a single parent species that, at some earlier time, reached the island from South America. (If hummingbirds can fly across the Gulf of Mexico, finches ought to be able to be borne by storms to the Galapagos Islands.) An excellent collection of all 14 of these finches is in the California Academy of Science in San Francisco. One scientist, Walter Lammerts, who carefully examined this collection, described their similar appearance (Walter Lammerts, "The Galapagos Island Finches," in Why Not Creation? (1970), pp. 355, 360-361).

When he wrote his book, Origin of the Species*Charles Darwin gave many examples of variation within species, and tried to use them to prove evolution outside of true species. All this was before the discovery of Mendelian genetics, the gene, the chromosome, DNA, and the DNA barrier to evolution across basic types. In his ignorance Darwin wrote down his theory; and evolutionists today cling to it, fearful to abandon it.

Scientists acknowledge that all dogs descended from a common ancestor, and all are dogs. Yet there are far greater differences among dogs than there are among Darwin finches or than most other sub-species in the world. All biologists classify dogs as being in the same species.

Many other examples of variation within species could be cited. In south central Africa the Pygmy and Masai tribes live not far from each other. One is the shortest group of people in existence today; the other the tallest. Both are human beings; only the height is different.

Pigeon fanciers tell us there are more color variations among pigeons than among any other animal or bird in the world. That is the result of only a couple centuries of intensive breeding by fanciers in Europe and America. In spite of the variations, they can all interbreed and are just pigeons.

Within 14 years after writing Origin of the Species, *Darwin confessed to a friend:

"In fact the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations [faith and theorizing] . . When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed . . nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork for the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not."—*Charles Darwin, letter to Jeremy Bentham, in Francis Darwin (ed.), Charles Darwin, Life & Letters, Vol. 3, p. 25.

LAMARCKISM—(*#5/7 The Error of Lamarckism*) An important 19th-century error was the theory of *Jean Baptist Lamarck (1744-1829), later called "Lamarckism." It is the theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics, and was solidly disproved by *August Weismann in 1891, when he cut the tails off of 19 successive generations of rats—and they and their offspring continued to grow tails! Later still, when the inheritance of characteristics was found to depend on the DNA genetic coding and not habits or environmental circumstances, the reason why Lamarckism could not work was then understood.

Lamarckism teaches that one animal grew an organ for some reason—or no reason at all,—and then passed that organ on to the next generation, which was stuck with it.

Here are several additional examples of acquired traits, which were never passed on to offspring: (1) Hebrews circumcised their boys for thousands of years, but never have boys been born automatically circumcised as a result. (2) Chinese women bound the feet of their infant girls for several thousand years, yet the feet of Chinese women today are normal in size. (3) The Flat-head Indians of Northwest United States bound the heads of their children to give them unusual shapes. After hundreds of years of this practice, their babies continued to be born with normal-shaped heads.

Within each species there is a range of possible changes that can be made through gene shuffling, within the gene pool of that species. That is why no two people look exactly alike. But this variational range cannot cross the species barrier. The DNA code forbids it.

Here is a very important fact, which evolutionists do not want you to know: In a later book (Descent of Man, 1871), *Darwin repudiated natural selection as hopeless, and returned to Lamarckism (inheritance of acquired characteristics) as the cause of evolution.—The one who gave us so-called "natural selection" as a means of evolution, later gave up on it as a way to produce evolution!

INSTINCT—Before concluding this section, mention should be made of the word, "instinct." This is a most wonderful word for explaining away facts which are uncomfortable. The astounding migration of birds, and the amazing flight paths they take—is explained away by calling it merely "instinct." The mental abilities of tiny creatures, which involve definite decision-making processes, is shrugged off as "instinct." That only pushes back into the past something evolutionists do not want to confront today. We will not take the space to discuss this further, but think about all the wonders in nature which are dismissed as merely "instinct."

2 - WHY IT CANNOT OCCUR

NEVER ACROSS TYPES—Plant scientists have bred unusual varieties of roses, corn, chrysanthemums, etc., but never do any of their experiments go across basic types. As we study wildlife, we find the same thing: Never does one basic species change into another species.

Neither plants nor animals produce new types, nor is man able to apply special breeding techniques and produce from them something that crosses the species barrier. It just cannot be done.

Modern molecular biology with its many discoveries of DNA has added immense confirmation to the great law of heredity. Normal variations can operate, but only within a certain range specified by the DNA for that particular type of organism. Within this range are all the possible variations to be found within each species.

HORSE AND MULE—Consider the horse. There are many types of horses: large horses, fast horses, work horses, miniature horses,—but each one is obviously a horse. Well, then, what about the mule? A mule is a cross between two species, the horse and the donkey. In a few instances such crosses between two species can occur. But it is a cross, not a crossover. The horse can reproduce more horses, the donkey can reproduce more donkeys. But when a female horse and a male donkey crossbreed, the mule that is produced is usually sterile. But in those rare instances in which a female mule does have offspring, they revert back toward the horse or donkey species. A horse and a donkey are very close to the same species, and it is only for that reason that they can crossbreed and produce a normally barren mule.

There are several instances in which similar species are crossbred:

"Domestic and wild animals have produced interesting and sometimes useful (to man) hybrids. Successful crosses have been made between cattle and bison (‘beefalo’), turkeys and chickens (‘turkens’) and horses and zebras. Usually, the male offspring of these unions are sterile, and the females are either sterile, show reduced fertility or produce offspring that do not live long."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 231.

DNA, THE BARRIER—Genetic scientists tell us that all variation occurs in living things only within each type, and never from one type to another. It is the complicated DNA code within each plant and animal type that erects the great wall, which cannot be crossed.

There is no evidence that at any time, in all the history of the world, even one new true species has formed from other species. Yet evolutionary teachings require that such dramatic new changes would have had to occur thousands and thousands of times. More on this in the chapter on Fossils and Strata.

FIVE TYPES OF EYES—Each of these eyes are totally different than the others, and evolutionists say each evolved separately. The Compound Eye is most commonly found in insects and provides maximum visibility in such a tiny creature. The Scallop Eye of bivalve mollusks is many eyes on the edges of the clam shells. Light hits a mirror-coated back which reflects it onto a concave retina, next to the lens. The Macruran Eye is one of three different types of compound eyes. Hundreds of mirror-lined tubes reflect the light onto a central area. The Octopus Eye is similar to the Human Eye, but instead of changing the shape of the lens, it changes the distance between the lens and the retina. The Human Eye, of course, is also quite complicated.

THE HUMAN EYE

THE COMPOUND EYE

THE SCALLOP EYE

THE MACRURAN CRUSTACIAN EYE

THE HUMAN EYE

THE OCTOPUS EYE

THE HUMAN EYE

EC300.jpg (559522 bytes)  EC300b.jpg (441412 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGE

THE AMAZING EYE—(*#6/39 Those Marvelous Eyes*; cf. #7/21 and #10*) Men presume a lot when they declare that evolution occurred. Not only new species would have had to invent themselves, but also the organs within those different species!

For a moment, think of what is involved in the eye. This is a very remarkable structure, yet evolution teaches that the eye slowly developed over millions of years,—and that this miracle of random production of a complete eye occurred at least three times: in the squid, the vertebrates (animals with backbones), and the arthropods (insects).

"Consider the eye ‘with all its inimitable contrivances,’ as Darwin called them, which can admit different amounts of light, focus at different distances, and correct spherical and chromatic aberration. Consider the retina, consisting of 150 million correctly made and positioned specialized cells. These are the rods [to view black and white] and the cones [to view color]. Consider the nature of light-sensitive retinal. Combined with a protein (opsin), retinal becomes a chemical switch. Triggered by light, this switch can generate a nerve impulse . . Each switch-containing rod and cone is correctly wired to the brain so that the electrical storm (an estimated 1000 million impulses per second) is continuously monitored and translated, by a step which is a total mystery, into a mental picture."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 215.

*Charles Darwin had a difficult time trying to figure out his theory, and frequently admitted in his books that it appeared impossible. He said that just to think about the eye and how it could possibly have been produced by natural selection was enough to make him ill. He also said this:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."—*Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1909 Harvard Classics edition), p. 190.
"The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 98.

Then there is the wing. Evolutionists tell us that the wing evolved four separate times: in insects, flying reptiles, birds, and bats. And each time, they maintain, it was an unplanned, random accident.

SYNTROPY—In order for a creature to live, eat, survive, and reproduce, it must be perfect. It cannot have only part of its structure, but must have all of it. And that structure must be totally complete. Of the millions of DNA codes within its cells, essentially all must be there in perfect lettering and sequence in order for it to live and function. This coding requirement is called syntropy, and it stands as another barrier to evolution across basic species.

Natural selection within a species may work fine,—but you have to have the traits to begin with! These traits may adapt (and adapting traits to new situations is not evolution), but the traits had to be there to start with.

"Evolution cannot be described as a process of adaptation because all organisms are already adapted . . Adaptation leads to natural selection, natural selection does not necessarily lead to greater adaptation."—*Lewontin, "Adaptation," in Scientific American, September, 1978.

Although it occurs all the time within species, natural selection does not explain the origin of species or traits, but only their preservation and more careful use.

*Lewontin is a confirmed evolutionist, but he recognizes that natural selection could not possibly produce evolution:

" ‘Natural selection operates essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of adaptation rather than to improve it.’ ‘Natural selection over the long run does not seem to improve a species’ chances of survival, but simply enables it to track, or keep up with, the constantly changing environment.’ "—*Ibid.

You cannot select what is not there. If the trait is not already in the genes it cannot be selected for use or adaptation. Selecting which trait will be used (which is natural selection) is not evolution, for the trait was already at hand.

SUBSPECIES—Evolutionists reply by saying that there are instances in which a species has divided into two separate species. For example, they tell us of islands in the ocean where certain flies stopped breeding together—and thus became two separate species.

Such flies have not become separate species, but subspecies. Yet producing new subspecies is not evolution. Evolution requires going across the species line, not developing variations within it, such as an earlier-producing tomato or a higher-yield corn. The tomatoes are still tomatoes, the corn is still corn, and the flies are still flies.

Genuine evolution requires new genes into the gene pool of a species. A reassortment of what is already there is not evolution. If two fly colonies no longer interbreed, each one has become more limited in its gene pool, and more restricted in its ability to manage its environment. The long-term result might be extinction.

The test of evolution is a practical one: The evolutionary scientists need to show us one species that is changing into another. But, because of the DNA code barrier, this cannot be done and never will be done.

NATURAL SELECTION ELIMINATES EVOLUTION—*C. H. Waddington explains that the processes of natural selection work exactly opposite to those of theorized evolution. In fact, natural selection would destroy evolutionary crossovers if they could occur! A plant or animal can be selectively bred for greater beauty, etc.; but in so doing, it has become less hardy than the wild, natural original. Variations are never quite as hardy as the original.

"If by selection we concentrate the genes acting in a certain direction, and produce a sub-population which differs from the original one by greater development of some character we are interested in (such as higher milk yield on production of eggs), we almost invariably find that the sub-population has simultaneously become less fit and would be eliminated by natural selection."—*C. H. Waddington, "The Resistance to Evolutionary Change," in Nature, 175 (1955) p. 51.

THERE SHOULD BE NO DISTINCT SPECIES—A confirmed evolutionist has uncovered a powerful objection to evolution. *Gould, writing in the respected journal, Natural History, said this:

"How could the existence of a distinct species be justified by a theory [evolution] that proclaimed ceaseless change as the most fundamental fact of nature?"—*Stephen Jay Gould, in Natural History, August-September, 1979.

What Gould is saying is that, if all life is constantly changing (evolving) as evolutionists tell us, —then why are there any distinct species at all? This is a very important point. *Darwin also recognized this problem, but he finally tried to solve it—by denying that species existed! Yet such a solution is merely to bury one’s head in the sand to avoid the evidence. Distinct species are there, all about us; no doubt about that.

NON-RESHUFFLEABLE SPECIES—Interestingly enough, there are species that cannot reshuffle genes enough to produce subspecies variations. How can evolutionary theory explain this?

One of these is the dandelion. Its seeds grow without being pollinated, since the pollination factor is entirely sterile! Yet the lowly dandelion does just fine, without any gene reshuffling, generation after generation. In temperate climates throughout many parts of the world you will find these cheerful little yellow flowers among the first to appear in the spring.

Something of a similar situation concerns the cheetah, which lacks enough genetic material to produce sub-species diversity. An in-depth analysis of the cheetah problem will be found in "Genetics of Cheetahs," Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1987, pp. 178-179. Other species lacking genetic diversity include giant pandas and elephant seals.

How could evolutionary theory produce the dandelion or the cheetah?

ORIGIN OF SEX—Evolutionists are overwhelmed by the problem of sexual dimorphism. Why are there male and female of most of the millions of species in the world?Evolutionists complain that nature could have accomplished the task of producing offspring far easier without it.

*Milner explains some of the problems:

"[The many problems] make the whole rigmarole seem downright maladaptive. Yet it is common, while asexual reproduction is rare . . The origin of sex remains one of the most challenging questions in [evolutionary] biology.

"Even Charles Darwin thought natural selection could not account for peacocks’ tails or similar fantastic structures so prominent in courtship displays. On the contrary, elaborate appendages or tail feathers could easily get in the way when animals had to escape enemies . . Still, if elaborate plumage makes the birds more vulnerable to predators, why should evolution favor them?"—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), pp. 402-404.

AN UNALTERABLE LAW—There is a law existing among all living things that has no exception. The law is stated in the first book in the Bible. It is the Law of the Genesis kinds:

"And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind . . great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind . . the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind."—Genesis 1:12, 21, 25.

This is the law of fixity of basic kinds of living things. This phrase, "after his kind," is used 30 times in the books of Moses, particularly in Genesis (especially in chapters 1, 6, and 7), Leviticus 11, and Deuteronomy 14.

The Genesis kinds were set up back in the beginning. From that time down to the present day, there has been a wall of separation between different Genesis kinds.

AN INTELLIGENT PURPOSE—It is totally impossible to explain anything in plants, animals, earth, or stars—apart from intelligent purpose. Randomness, accidents, and chance will never answer the mystery of life and being, structure and function, interrelationships and fulfilled needs that we find all about us. The food you eat for breakfast, the flowers in the field, the bees busily working, the moon circling above you—it all speaks of thoughtful purpose and intelligence of the highest level. —And it is Intelligence acting upon the food, flowers, bees, and moon; it is not intelligence within those objects and creatures. It is not intelligence within nature that produces the wonders of nature. The Creator is responsible for what we see about us, not the creature.

In stark contrast, evolution speaks of crudity, confusion, accidents, mistakes, damage, and errors; for that is all it has to offer in its mechanisms of natural selection and mutations.

KEEPING CLOSE TO THE AVERAGE—Because each species in the world operates within the definite limits of the pool of possible traits in its DNA, we should expect two effects: (1) a number of varieties can be bred, and (2) when not specially guarded, the varieties will tend to move back toward the average.

And this is what we find in the world about us. Regarding the first point, most of us are all acquainted with the accomplishments of plant and animal breeders.

As to the second, there is a principle involved in intelligence and aptitude testing which is never violated. Educational psychologists call it regression toward the mean. According to this principle, some people may excel in certain skills, aptitudes, or intellectual abilities. But, as a rule, their descendants will generally move back toward the mean, or mathematical average. This is because mankind, like all other species, has definite limitations determined by its gene pool.

(Keep in mind that much of the excelling in life is done by commonplace people who work hard to succeed. So do not worry about the averages; like the rest of us you may be very ordinary, but you can personally succeed outstandingly in a worthwhile work, and so fulfill God’s plan for your life. Honesty and hard work is of more value than better intellectual ability without it.)

If everything keeps moving back toward the average, there can be no evolution. The principle of regression toward the mean rules out evolution. Variations may and do occur within species, but there will be no moving out from the species to form different species.

"Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [average]."—*Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," in Science, November 21, 1980, p. 884.

BUMPUS’ SPARROWS—Hermon Bumpus was a zoologist at Brown University. During the winter of 1898, he, by accident, produced one of the only field experiments in survival by natural selection. One morning, in Providence, Rhode Island, he found 136 stunned house sparrows on the ground. Bringing them to his laboratory, he cared for them all, and 72 revived while 64 died. He then weighed them and made careful measurements (length, wingspan, beak, head, humerus, femur, skull, etc.) of each of the 136.

"Comparing the statistics of the two groups, he found the measurements of the birds that survived were closer to the mean of the group than were those of the birds that died. This type of mortality, where extremes are eliminated, is referred to as balanced phenotype, or stabilizing selection . . Even today, ‘Bumpus’ Sparrows’ continues to be quoted in about five published scientific articles every year."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 61.

In "Bumpus’ Sparrows" we find yet another evidence of the fact that those creatures which are the closest to the average of each species are the most hardy. Yet, if that is true, then it would lock each species all the more away from veering off and changing into another species. And there can be no evolution within species crossover.

AN OUTER WALL—There is an outer wall, beyond which a species cannot go. Its internal genetic code forbids it to change beyond certain limits. Even when highly trained scientists breed plants or animals, they eventually reach that code barrier.

"Breeders usually find that after a few generations, an optimum is reached beyond which further improvement is impossible, and there has been no new species formed . . Breeding procedures, therefore, would seem to refute, rather than support evolution."—On Call, July 3, 1972, pp. 9.

ADENOSINE TRIPHOSPHATE (ATP)

EC308.jpg (664047 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGE

HOW TO MAKE AN ELECTRIC BATTERY—ATP is made in eleven steps. Twice in those steps it is formed (two molecules formed at step 7 and two at step 10). Since two molecules of ATP are used to prime the entire process (step 1) initiating the breakdown of glucose, a net gain of only two molecules results from the entire eleven-step process of breaking down glucose pyruvate.

HOW TO MAKE AN ELECTRIC BATTERY—Before concluding this chapter, we want to provide you with just one example of the thousands of complicated processes which occur constantly within your body.

ATP (adenosine triphosphate) is a high-energy phosphate compound which provides each cell in living tissue with all the energy it needs to carry on its work. What is more, the cell manufactures the ATP out of raw materials. This ATP is then stored in tiny bean-shaped structures within the cell, called mitochondria. It is made in the leaves of plants and the cells of animals and man.

If the cell can do it, why can’t we do it also? ATP would solve all our energy problems. On the chart on a nearby page, you will find what your body, "by merest chance," regularly does. That extremely complicated formula is supposed to be the result of "natural selection."

As you will notice on the nearby chart, ATP is made in eleven steps. All the steps must be completed in order to produce additional ATP. How long did the cells within living creatures wait till the randomness of "natural selection" devised this utterly complicated formula. If living plants and animals did not make it constantly, they could not live; so, from the very beginning, ATP had to be made.

ONLY SEVEN WAYS—(*#9/15 Planned Breeding vs. Natural Selection*) Looking a little deeper at this subject, there are only seven ways in which change can occur within an organism:

1 - An individual can change his attitudes. Instead of being a sourpuss, he can start being cheerful about all the situations and problems he must encounter daily.

But a change in attitudes will not result in a change across a Genesis kind.

2 - An individual can have a physical accident. The result might be a loss of a limb. But losing a limb is not a basis for evolution. One researcher tried cutting the tails off rats for nineteen generations. The offspring continued to be born with tails.

3 - An individual can suffer other environmental effects. Such changes can cause marked effects in the appearance of individuals. If the ears of sun-red corn are left enclosed within the husk while developing, the kernels will be colorless. But if the husk is torn open so the sunlight contacts the developing ears, a red pigment will develop within the kernels.

Appearance may have been changed, but not the genes. The genes of the corn continue on from generation to generation, and only those ears in any given generation that are exposed to sunlight will have red kernels.

Environmental effects may include differential feeding, light, training, and other things can affect an individual; but these will not change his genes. As mentioned earlier, the feet of Chinese women were for centuries kept small by tightly binding them. Yet modern Chinese women, whose feet are no longer bound, are normal in size.

4 - One type of hereditary variation is known as a recombination. But it cannot produce new kinds, for it is only a reshuffling of genes already present. Recombination is the combining of dominant and recessive genes. Here are some examples:

Black-and-white Holstein cattle are the result of a dominant gene. If a calf of this breed has received a gene for black and white from even one parent, that calf will generally be black and white. The other parent may be red and white, but the calf will still be black and white. But in some cases, two recessive genes meet, and then a red-and-white calf is born. But the calf will still grow up to be a cow; the recessive gene will not have transformed him into a goat.

Another example would be the genes for white and brown in sheep. White is dominant, so most sheep are born white. But occasionally that recessive gene for brown will produce a brown sheep. These effects are called reversions or "throwbacks." But the result is still sheep. These hereditary variations are part of Mendelian genetics.

5 - A second type of hereditary variation is called polyploidy (or ploidy). It is keyed to a variation in the numbers of chromosomes and rearrangements of chromosomal material. But it does not produce change across Genesis kinds.

Normal cells are diploid, with double sets of similar chromosomes, but reproductive cells are haploid, with only one set. Haploid male and haploid female cells unite in the zygote to form a new diploid cell. But in polyploidy, found in many plants but rarely in animals, three or more haploid sets of chromosomes are together in the cells of an organism. Man can produce polyploid cells in plants in several ways, including the use of such chemicals as coichicine.

Here are some examples: The pink-flowered horse chestnut (Aesculus Camea) comes from two parents, each of which had 20 chromosomes in their germ cells. The result is a horse chestnut with 40, which has pink flowers! Geneticists call this ploidy, but all that happened is a slightly different horse chestnut. It has not changed into a maple tree.

There are also ploidy squirrels and ploidy fruit flies. Each time, the creature is slightly different in some way, but it always remains basically unchanged. The one is still a squirrel and the other is still a fruit fly.

"Waltzing mice" cannot run in straight lines, but only in circles. They are the result of ploidy, or changes in their chromosomes. But they are still mice.

Sometimes these new strains are called new "species," but it matters not. Names wrongly applied do not change the facts. They remain the same Genesis kinds; they are still mice, squirrels, chestnuts, or whatever their parents were. Because no mutation is involved in polyploids, no new genetic material results and no radical change in form occurs. So polyploidy cannot produce evolution.

6 - Hybridization can occur. This is a process by which men artificially pollinate across species in a genus. Because the offspring are sterile, hybridizing must continually take place. This is similar to breeding a horse and donkey and getting a sterile mule.

"In the process of hybridization, two different species of the same genus (in most cases) are crossed in order to combine the good qualities of both . . Frequently the new hybrid is stronger than either parent. The offspring are sterile and require constant hybridizing."—*Biology for Today, p. 294.

7 - Is there nothing that can affect the genes?

Yes, radiation, X-rays, atomic bombs, ultraviolet light, and certain chemicals,—for they can produce mutations. With mutations we have come to something which can make tiny changes within the genes.

The study of mutations is so important that we will deal with it in detail in the next chapter (chapter 10, Mutations). But we will here summarize part of it:

A mutation is a change in a hereditary determiner, —a DNA molecule inside a gene. Genes, and the millions of DNA molecules within them, are very complicated. If such a change actually occurs, there will be a corresponding change somewhere in the organism and in its descendants.

If the mutation does not kill the organism, it will weaken it. But the mutation will not change one species into another. Mutations are only able to produce changes within the species. They never change one kind of plant or animal into another kind.

THINKING IN A CIRCLE—(*#4/5 Survival of the Fittest is Meaningless / #8/6 Natural Selection is Based on Reasoning in a Circle*The very terms, "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest," are actually circular reasoning! They are tautologies. "Change is caused by what causes change." "That which is fit survives, because it is the fittest."

"Those things which have succeeded were able to succeed."

"It leads to the justifiable criticism that the concept of natural selection is scientifically superficial. T.H. Morgan, famous American geneticist, said that the idea of natural selection is a tautology, a case of circular reasoning. It goes something like this: If something cannot succeed, it will not succeed. Or, to put it another way, those things which have succeeded were able to succeed."—Lester J. McCann, Blowing the Whistle on Darwinism (1986), p. 49.

"Those that leave the most offspring."

"For them [the Darwinists], natural selection is a tautology which states a heretofore unrecognized relation: The fittest—defined as those who will leave the most offspring—will leave the most offspring."—*Gregory Alan Peasely, "The Epistemological Status of Natural Selection," Laval Theologique et Philosophique, Vol. 38, February 1982, p. 74.

"I tend to agree with those who have viewed natural selection as a tautology rather than a true theory."—*S. Stanley, Macroevolution (1979), p. 193.

"The fittest leave the most offspring."

"Natural selection turns out on closer inspection to be tautology, a statement of an inevitable although previously unrecognized relation. It states that the fittest individuals in a population (defined as those which leave the most offspring) will leave the most offspring."—*C. Waddington, "Evolutionary Adaptation," in Evolution After Darwin (1960), Vol. 1, pp. 381, 385.

They multiply, because they multiply.

"Thus we have as the question: ‘why do some multiply, while others remain stable, dwindle, or die out? To which is offered as answer: Because some multiply, while others remain stable, dwindle, or die out. "The two sides of the equation are the same. We have a tautology. The definition is meaningless."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 47.

"Anything that produces change."

"[*George Gaylord Simpson says:] ‘I . . define selection, a technical term in evolutionary studies, as anything tending to produce systematic, heritable change in population between one generation and the next’ [*G.G. Simpson, Major Features of Evolution (1953), p. 138].

"But is such a broad definition of any use? We are trying to explain what produces change. Simpson’s explanation is natural selection, which he defines as what produces change. Both sides of the equation are again the same; again we have a tautology . . If selection is anything tending to produce change, he is merely saying that change is caused by what causes change . . The net explanation is nil."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 49.

The survivors are the fittest, and the fittest survive.

"Of one thing, however, I am certain, and that is that ‘natural selection’ affords no explanation of mimicry or of any other form of evolution. It means nothing more than ‘the survivors survive.’ Why do certain individuals survive? Because they are the fittest. How do we know they are the fittest? Because they survive."—*E.W. MacBride, Nature, May 11, 1929, p. 713.

In the chapter on fossils, we will discover that the fossil/strata theory is also entirely based on circular reasoning!

CONCLUSION—We have found that natural selection does not produce evolution; that is, change from one true species into another. It is useless for this purpose.

In fact, natural selection is obviously is misnamed: It is "natural variation," not "natural selection"for it is only composed of simple variations, or gene reshuffling, within an existing species. Or to be even more accurate, it is "random variation."

It is NOT "selection."

"Selection" requires a thinking mind, and evolutionists tell us no thinking mind is involved in these random changes within species. Mindless activity results in variations; it is only purposive activity by an intelligent agent that selects.

The phrase, "natural selection," implies something that it is not true. It gives the impression of thinking intelligence at work while, by the evolutionists’ own admission, only random activity is said to be doing this.

According to *Macbeth, so-called "natural selection" just provides variation for each creature within a given species, and then that creature dies,—and what has natural selection accomplished?

"I think the phrase [natural selection] is utterly empty. It doesn’t describe anything. The weaker people die, a lot of stronger people die too, but not the same percentage. If you want to say that is natural selection, maybe so, but that’s just describing a process. That process would presumably go on until the last plant, animal and man died out."—*Norman Macbeth, "What’s Wrong with Darwinism" (1982), [paleontologist, American Museum].

EVOLUTION COULD NOT DO THIS

It all starts with two termites, a king and queen. They lay eggs, but never teach their offspring anything. How can they, when they have almost no brains and are all blind? Working together, the young build large termite towers, part of which rise as much as 20 feet in the air. Each side may be 12 feet across. The narrow part lies north and south, so the tower receives warmth in the morning and late afternoon, but less in the heat of midday. Scientists have discovered that they build in relation to magnetic north. Because it rains heavily at times, the towers have conical roofs and sides sloping from smaller at the top to larger at the bottom. 

The eaves of the towers project outward, so the rain cascades off of them and falls away from the base of the tower. That takes more thinking than a termite is able to give to the project. When they enlarge their homes, they go up through the roof and add new towers and minarets grouped around a central sphere. The whole thing looks like a castle. In this tower is to be found floor after floor of nursery sections, fungus gardens, food storerooms, and other areas, including the royal chambers where the king and queen live. If termites were the size of humans, their residential/office/building/factory complex would be a mile high. 

Yet these are tiny, blind creatures, the size and intelligence of worms. Then there is their air-conditioning system. In the center of the cavernous below-ground floor is a massive clay pillar, supporting the ceiling of this cellar. Here is where their Central Air Conditioning System Processor is located. It consists of a spiral of rings of thin vertical vanes, up to 6 inches deep, centered around the pillar, spiraling outward. The coils of each row of the spiral are only an inch or so apart. The lower edge of the vanes have holes to increase the flow of air around them. The vanes cool the air, and a network of flues carries the hot air down to the cellar. 

From high up in the tower these ventilating shafts run downward. But carbon dioxide must be exchanged for oxygen, which the few, guarded entrances cannot provide. So the top of the flues butt against special very porous earthen material in the top walls of the tower, just inside the projecting eaves. Fresh air is thus carried throughout the towers by the ventilating system.


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.

Evolution Cruncher Chapter 11

Plant and Animal Species


Why the species barrier

This chapter is based on pp. 441-474 of Origin of the Life (Volume Two of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this chapter are at least 87 statements by scientists. You will find them, plus much more, in the encyclopedia on this website.

Evolution is based on change from one species to another. In chapters 9 and 10, Natural Selection and Mutations, we have found that there is no mechanism by which it can occur; and in chapter 12, Fossils and Strata, we will learn that there is no past evidence of such change.

The fact that all plant and animal true species are distinct types is a crux in the entire controversy. So we will here devote a full chapter to speciationThis material will help fill out the picture of what we are learning in other chapters.

DARWIN ON THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES—The battle over evolutionary theory finds its center in the species. This is where *Charles Darwin attempted to fight it, but without success. Even though he called his first book by that name, he never did try to figure out the origin of the species.

"Darwin never really did discuss the origin of the species in his Origin of the Species."—*Niles Eldredge, Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria, (1985), p. 33.

*Darwin could not figure out why species even existed. If his theory was correct, there would be no distinct species, only confused creatures everywhere and no two alike.

"Charles Darwin, himself the father of evolution in his later days, gradually became aware of the lack of real evidence for his evolutionary speculation and wrote: ‘As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well defined species?"—H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

To make the situation worse, *Darwin did not know of one instance in which a species changed into another.

"Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."—*Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters.

ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES UNKNOWN—(*#1/27 Origin of the Species Unknown / #2/13 The Experts are Puzzled*The problem of species has become a major unsolved problem of the evolutionists, because they cannot figure out where they came from.

"More biologists would agree with Professor Hampton Carson of Washington University, St. Louis, when he says that speciation is ‘a major unsolved problem of evolutionary biology.’ "—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 141.

"In the last thirty years or so speciation has emerged as the major unsolved problem. The British geneticist, William Bateson, was the first to focus attention on the question. In 1922 he wrote: ‘In dim outline evolution is evident enough. But that particular and essential bit of the theory of evolution which is concerned with the origin and nature of species remains utterly mysterious.’ Sixty years later we are if anything worse off, research having only revealed complexity within complexity."—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 140.

1- IDENTIFYING THE SPECIES

PLANT AND ANIMAL CLASSIFICATIONS—(*#3/15 Classifying the Plants and Animals*) The science of classifying plants and animals is called taxonomy.

"Classification or taxonomy is the theory and practice of naming, describing, and classifying organisms."—*Stansfield, The Science of Evolution (1977), p. 98.

Taxonomists have placed all plants and animals in logical categories, and then arranged them on several major levels, which are these:

Kingdom

Phylum

Class

Order

Family

Genus

Species

Sub-species

It should be kept in mind that there is no such thing as a kingdom, phylum, class, order, or family. Those are just convenient names and are like rooms in a zoo or botanical garden, each one with a different collection of plant or animal species. It is the species that are alive; the room is not. The terms "phyla, classes, orders, families," and most of the "genera" are merely category labels. It is only the true species which should count. This includes some of what is listed as "species," and some life-forms called "genera," which should be labeled as species.

"According to the author’s view, which I think nearly all biologists must share, the species is the only taxonomic category that has, at least in more favorable examples, a completely objective existence. Higher categories are all more or less a matter of opinion."—*G.W. Richards, "A Guide to the Practice of Modern Taxonomy," in Science, March 13, 1970, p. 1477 [comment made during review of Mayr’s authoritative Principles of Systematic Zoology]

PANTHERA LEO—This is how the taxonomists classify the lion.

PANTHERA LEO

EC376.jpg (118426 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGE

Here is an example of how classification works. This is the classification of the house cat:

"PHYLUM Chordata—all animals possessing at some time in their life cycle pharyngeal pouches, a notochord, and a dorsal tubular nerve cord.

"SUBPHYLUM Vertebrata—all those animals that possess vertebrae.

"CLASS Mammalia—all those animals that have internally regulated body temperature, possess hair, and suckle their young.

"ORDER Carnivora—All those mammals whose teeth are adapted to a predatory mode of life, but which are not insectivores.

"FAMILY Felidae—all those Carnivora with retractile claws, lengthy tail, and a certain tooth arrangement.

"GENUS Felis—the true cats.

"SPECIES domestica—[the domesticated cats]."— Wayne Frair and Percival Davis, A Case for Creation (1983), p. 37.

SCIENTIFIC NAMES FOR SPECIES—If you go to the zoo, you will see a sign on one cage, "Giant Panda," with the words, "Alluropoda melanoleuca" just below it. The first line is capitalized and is the common name of this large black-and-white bear from China; the second line is its "scientific name." Scientists worldwide understand these two-part Latin names (called binominals). The first word is the genus, and the second is species. Sometimes the name of the discoverer or namer is added as a third word. The Swedish naturalist, Linnaeus, invented this method of scientific nomenclature in the 1750s.

*Darwin recognized that there was no evidence that any species had evolved from any other species. He decided that, instead of denying the existence of species, the only practical solution for evolutionists was, first, to classify plants and animals; second, point to similarities between them; and, then, declare that therefore one must have evolved from the other or from a common ancestor. From beginning to end, evolution is just theory, theory, theory.

THE GENESIS KIND—Back in the beginning, the law of the "Genesis kinds" was established:

"Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind . . And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind."—Genesis 1:11, 12.

In the same way, the birds, sea-life, and animals were each to reproduce "after their kind" (Genesis 1:20-22, 24-25). This principle was not to be violated. And this is what we find in the fossil record and in the world today. The "Genesis kind" is generally equivalent to the species level, but sometimes the genus level. This variation is due to flaws in our humanly devised classification systems.

Since the Hebrew words used in Genesis for "create" and "kind" are bara and min, Frank Marsh, a careful research scholar in speciation, has suggested the term baramin as an identifying name for this "Genesis kind." (Min is used 10 times in Genesis 1, and 21 times in the rest of the Old Testament.) It would be a good word to use, since it is more accurate than "species," which can at times be incorrect. Other names for the Genesis kinds, are the Genesis species, the true species, and the biological species. The present author favors "true species" as the term most easily understood.

BIOLOGICAL SPECIES—The term, "biological species," is increasingly becoming accepted as a basic reference point by scientists. Although there are instances in which obvious sub-species do not cross breed, biological species would normally apply to those species which do not cross-breed outside of their own kind. However, there are instances in which two sub-species of a true species no longer cross breed.

MICRO- VS. MACROEVOLUTION—(*#4/6 Micro and Macro*) Evolutionists point to changes WITHIN the species and call that "microevolution," and then proceed to tell us that such sub-species changes prove that theorized changes ACROSS species (which they term "macroevolution") must also be occurring.

But random gene shuffling within the species only produces new varieties and breeds. The DNA code barrier is not penetrated. New plant varieties and animal breeds never cross the species barrier.

New varieties and new breeds are not evolution; they are only variation within the already existing species. There is no such thing as "microevolution." Changes within the true species are not evolution.

COUNTING THE SPECIES—*Aristotle could list only about 500 kinds of animals; and his pupil, *Theophrastus, the most eminent botanist of ancient Greece, listed only about 500 different plants.

Through the centuries, as naturalists counted new varieties of creatures in the field, in the air, and in the sea, and as new areas of the world were explored, the number of identified species of animals and plants grew. By 1800 it had reached 70,000. Today there are several million. Two-thirds of them are animal and one-third are plant. The flowering plants and insects are the two largest single categories.

Nearly all of these millions of so-called "species" consist of sub-species of a much smaller number of original Genesis kinds, the true species. For example, today there are many different hummingbirds: but, originally, there was only one. Its gene pool permitted it to produce many sub-species.

JOHN RAY—John Ray (Wray) (1627-1705) apparently was the first scientist to formerly recognize the "species." He prepared a large classification of all the species of plants and animals known in his time (about 18,600).

Ray was an earnest Christian who, in the wonderful structures of plants and animals, saw abundant evidence of a Creator’s hand.

CARL LINNAEUS—Carl Von Linne (1707-1778) spent his adult life as a teacher at the University of Uppsala. At the age of 50, he latinized his name to "Carolus Linnaeus." The classification system of plants and animals developed by Linnaeus was to become the standard used today. He published it in his book, Systema Naturae, in 1735.

Linnaeus came to two definite conclusions: (1) Species were, for the most part, the equivalent of the "Genesis kind." (2) There had been no change across the basic categories—now or earlier. As a result of his studies, Linnaeus arrived at a firm belief in Special Creation and the fixity of species. He said, "We reckon as many species as issued in pairs from the hands of the Creator" (quoted in *H.F. Osborne, From the Greeks to Darwin, 1929, p. 187).

Men today may call themselves experts in taxonomy, but it is significant that the two men in human history able to lay a solid foundation for biological classification—saw in all their findings only evidence of creation, not evolution.

LINNAEUS AND RAY—Linnaeus was the one who developed our modern system of classification. Unfortunately, he frequently listed, as separate species, life-forms that could interbreed. Some of these decisions were based on ignorance, but nevertheless we live with the results today. Thus, the true species are not always those that are listed in the textbooks as "species." It is now recognized, by many qualified biologists, that John Ray did better quality work; for he carefully adhered to biological species in preparing his species categories. In contrast, Linnaeus at times confused them by placing true species in genera or sub-species categories.

LUMPERS AND SPLITTERS—There has been a perennial problem in regard to the "lumpers" and "splitters." There is a tendency for the taxonomists—the experts who classify plants and animals—to fall into one or the other of these two categories.

The lumpers place species together, which should be divided into sub-species. The splitters tend to put true species into sub-species categories.

"Lumper species," are also called "Linnaean species" because, back in the early 1700s, both Linnaeus and Ray pioneered the lumping of species. "Splitter species" are also called "Jordanian species" for the French botanist, Jordan, who initiated this approach in the early 1800s.

So today we find both Linnaean and Jordanian species scattered throughout the scientific lists of plants and animals. It is important to keep this in mind, for selective breeding of Jordanian species can appear to produce new species! This would appear to prove evolutionary claims and indicate species cross-over as taken place, —when, actually, two members of different sub-species, of the same true species, have interbred.

When the Santa Gertrudis cattle were developed in the 1960s by breeding zebu bulls with strains of Texas longhorns, Herefords, and shorthorns, the result was a new sub-species; but some splitters classify it as a "new species." Yet the Santa Gertrudis is merely another type of the cattle species and able to crossbreed with several others.

FAMILY TREE—(*#8/7 Our Family Tree*) Everyone has seen paintings in museums and textbooks of our "family tree," with its worms, birds, apes, and man shown in relation to how they evolved from one another. The impression is given that there can be no doubt that it really happened that way, for did not scientists prepare those charts?

 COMPARING THE FAMILY TREES—In reality, there are only twigs (actual species) all over the ground. The rest of the "evolutionary tree" is as imaginary as the two lower sketches, below.

COMPARING THE TREES

EC382.jpg (322040 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGE

The truth is that the "Evolutionary Tree of Life" is just another fake, like all the other "evidences" of evolutionary theory.

One example of what you will find on one "limb" of this imaginary "tree" are a mutually diverse group of creatures called the "coelenterates" solely because they have a saclike body, tentacles, and a single mouth opening. Although coral and jellyfish are not a bit alike, they are therefore classified together. We are supposed to believe that, because coral and jellyfish are together on the tree, one evolved from the other! One is a hard-bodied creature; the other does not have a bone in its body. In the plant kingdom, the Compositae is merely a wastebasket category that includes all the flowering plants that cannot be fitted in somewhere else. So therefore, they are supposed to have evolved from one another. This "tree" is a classificationist’s nightmare!

All it really consists of is separate twigs, with each twig a separate species. Even *Richard Milner, a diligent evolutionary researcher, admits the fact.

"Delicate twigs, burgeoning in all directions, is closer to our current idea of evolutionary history."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 54.

2 - FACTS ABOUT SPECIES

INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT SPECIES—Here are some facts about species and sub-species that will help you understand some of the problems inherent in this interesting field of plant and animal classification:

1 - Chickadees. The Carolina Chickadee (Parus carolinus) and the black-capped Chickadee (Parus atricapillus) look just like each other in every way, and freely interbreed. Yet they have different songs! Although they have been classified as two different species, we have here one species with two alternate gene factors.

2 - Wheat. Linnaeus classified spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L) as a different species than winter wheat (T. hybernum L). Yet they are both strains of the same wheat. They will cross and produce fertile hybrids. They should have been classified as sub-species.

SUBSPECIES OF DOGS—Dogs, dogs, everywhere—and scientists agree that they are all sub-species.

SUBSPECIES OF DOGS

EC384.jpg (494297 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGE

3 - Ladybugs. The ladybird beetle (Coccinellidae) has been divided into a number of different "species," but solely on the basis of different wing covers and the number and arrangement of spots on their backs.

4 - Song sparrows. For over two centuries four species of sparrows in North America had been listed (Lincoln, fox, swamp, and song). Gradually this number increased as taxonomists moved westward and found additional sparrows. Soon we had lots of sparrow "species." But as more and more were discovered, it was recognized that they were but intermediates between the others! So the experts finally got together and reclassified them all as sub-species of but one species, the song sparrow (Passereila melodía).

5 - Foxes. The red fox (Vulpes fulva) and the Newfoundland red fox have been categorized in different species, although the only difference is a paler reddish coat and shorter tail for the Newfoundland variety. Six taxonomists list 10 varieties of red fox, while 2 others list one species (Vulpes fulva) and count 12 sub-species. All these foxes are actually in one true species.

6 - Cattle. There are several different subspecies of cattle (Bos taurus L). Although the American bison (Bison bison L) and the European bison (Bison bonasus L) have a similar morphology (appearance), they will still generally crossbreed with cattle. In addition, it has been discovered that the African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) also interbreeds with them—yet the bison and cattle have been placed in totally different genera.

7 - Corn. One expert (*Sturtevant) categorized 6 species of corn (sweet, flint, flour, pod, dent, and popcorn), while other taxonomists acknowledge that they are all only varieties of one species.

8 - Finches. In the chapter on Natural Selection, we discuss *Charles Darwin’s finches (13, 14, 17, or 19; the count varies regarding this look-alike bird), which he found on the Galapagos Islands. Although about the same in size, shape and color, and together form a set of sub-species of finches which originally came from South America,yet Darwin called them different species—and therefore a proof of evolution. Those finches made a strong impression on his mind.

9 - Platypus. (*#9/3 The Creature that Fits no Category*) This one is so strange that it does not fit any category of animals.

"When zoologists examined a platypus for the first time, some suspected a hoax, thinking that parts of different animals had been sewn together. The platypus has the fur of an otter, the tail of a beaver, the bill and feet of a duck, and the venomous spurs of a fighting gamecock. Although the platypus is a mammal, it lays eggs and does not have nipples (milk oozes out of pore openings in the abdomen)."—*Asimov’s Book of Facts (1979), p. 135.

INCREASING SUB-SPECIES—There are many different sub-species in some species while there are but few for others. A key factor seems to be the ability of the creature to travel, whether by seed, spore, or in person.

For example, the tiny fruit flies cannot travel very far, so there are many varieties of them. The animal with the most sub-species appears to be the southern pocket gopher (Thomomys umbrinus) with 214 subspecies and, next to it, the northern pocket gopher (T. talpoides) with 66. Another highly isolated species is the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) with 66 subspecies.

In the case of animals that have been domesticated, such as dogs, cats, cattle, sheep, pigeons, and chickens, there are many sub-species as a result of selective breeding. The same holds true for cultivated crops (corn, beans, lettuce, and cabbage).

There are instances in which sub-species generally do not breed across sub-species. The other extreme is instances in which animals above the species level will produce young from an apparent cross-breeding. In some cases these are true species, and should have been classified as such. But there are also instances in which breeding did NOT occur—although it appeared to take place! In true fertilization, the male and female elements unite and produce young. But there are times when two different species have been bred and young have been produced—in which no true breeding occurred!

This false breeding takes place when the presence of male sperm stimulates the egg to begin production on a new life-form, but the sperm is rejected because it is from a different species. The resulting birth is known as parthenogenesis. Scientific analysis has established that this false breeding across true species works in exactly the manner described here.

It is significant that mankind can never successfully breed across with any other species, including any of the great apes.

"There is no evidence of the origin of a hybrid between man and any other mammal."—*Edward Colin, Elements of Genetics, 1946, pp. 222-223.

One careful researcher (Frank Marsh) spent years tracking down every report of crosses above that of true species. Each time he found them to be hoaxes. One instance was of bird feathers sewn to a stuffed animal skin. It made good copy for a newspaper article, so it was printed.

3 - DISPROVING SPECIES EVOLUTION

MENDELIAN GENETICS—It has been said that the foundations of evolutionary theory were laid by the work of *Charles Darwin (1809-1882), but that the principles which Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) discovered, as he worked with garden peas at about the same time that Darwin was writing his book, were the means of abolishing that theory.

Everyone is acquainted with the illustration of the rough and smooth-coated guinea pigs. It was the work of Mendel that formed the basis for understanding the transmission of inherited characteristics. Mendel prepared the foundation for modern genetics. It was later discovered that within the cell are chromosomes, and inside the chromosomes are genes, and inside them is the coded DNA. (For more information on this, see chapter 8, DNA.) Random shuffling of the genetic code is what determines whether or not that baby guinea pig will inherit a rough or a smooth coat from its parents. But either way he will remain a guinea pig. Because that tiny newborn creature is locked into being a guinea pig is the reason why Darwin’s theory crumbles before the science of genetics.

PRIMITIVE ANCESTORS—Evolutionists tell us that certain creatures are more "primitive" than others, and are their "ancestors." But that is just theory. Consider but one example: the monotremes and the marsupials, which are supposed to be "primitive ancestors" of the mammals. Both have organs that are different than mammals and just as complex. (For an excellent analysis, see A.W. Mehlert, "A Critique of the Alleged Reptile to Mammal Transition" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1988, p. 10.)

MANY VARIATIONS POSSIBLE—Yes, variations are limited by the species barrier,—but immense variations are possible within a given species!

*Francisco Ayala has calculated that, among humans, a single couple could theoretically produce 102017 children before they would have to produce one that was identical to one of their earlier children (not counting identical twins, which came from the same egg and sperm). That would be 1 followed by 2017 zeroes. The number of atoms in the known universe is only 1080. So the number of possible variations within any given species is quite broad. Yet all of them would only be variations within the same species.

ALWAYS A LIMIT—We discussed artificial selection in chapter 9, Natural Selection, and found it to be highly selective plant and animal breeding. In regard to any given single factor, selective breeding may, for a time, be carried out; but soon a limit in factor variety will be reached. What limits it? It is the DNA code in the genes. That code forbids a cross-over to a new species. The genetic makeup within the chromosomes forms a barrier, a literal wall of separation between one species and another.

LIMITS OF VARIABILITY—This is a crucial factor. All evolutionary theory pivots on whether or not there are such limits on how far you can breed differences in a species. Can one species change into another one? If there are definite limits forbidding it, then evolution cannot occur. An evolutionary encyclopedia provides us witha brief overview of the history of theory and "pure-line research" into limits of variability:

"Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin had insisted that through gradual, continuous change, species could (in Wallace’s phrase) ‘depart indefinitely from the original type.’ Around 1900 came the first direct test of that proposition: the ‘pure line research’ of Wilhelm Ludwig Johannsen (1857-1927). What would happen, Johannsen wondered, if the largest members of a population were always bred with the largest, and the smallest with the smallest? How big or how small would they continue to get after a few generations? Would they ‘depart indefinitely’ from the original type, or are there built-in limits and constraints?

"Experimenting on self-fertilizing beans, Johannsen selected and bred the extremes in sizes over several generations. But instead of a steady, continuous growth or shrinkage as Darwin’s theory seemed to predict, he produced two stabilized populations (or ‘pure lines’) of large and small beans. After a few generations, they had reached a specific size and remained there, unable to vary further in either direction. Continued selection had no effect.

"Johnannsen’s work stimulated many others to conduct similar experiments. One of the earliest was Herbert Spencer Jennings (1868-1947) of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard, the world authority on the behavior of microscopic organisms. He selected for body size in Paramecium and found that after a few generations selection had no effect. One simply cannot breed a paramecium the size of a baseball. Even after hundreds of generations, his pure lines remained constrained within fixed limits, ‘as unyielding as iron.’

"Another pioneer in pure line research was Raymond Pearl (1879-1940), who experimented with chickens at the Maine Agricultural Experiment Station. Pearl took up the problem . . [to] evolve a hen that lays eggs all day long.

"He found you could breed some super-layers, but an absolute limit was soon reached . . In fact, Pearl produced some evidence indicating that production might actually be increased by relaxing selection—by breeding from ‘lower than maximum’ producers."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 376.

Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)—but no exit through that wall.

"Darwin’s gradualism was bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection was useless."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 46.

LOSS OF FITNESS—Not only is there a limiting wall that will always be reached,—but as the researcher nears that outer wall, the subjects being bred become weaker.The variations made within those borders do not actually bring overall improvements in the corn, cows, and chickens. All of the apparent improvement is made at the expense of overall fitness for life. Gish explains why this is so:

"It must be strongly emphasized, also, that in all cases these specialized breeds possess reduced viability; that is, their basic ability to survive has been weakened. Domesticated plants and animals do not compete well with the original, or wild type . . They survive only because they are maintained in an environment which is free from their natural enemies, food supplies are abundant, and other conditions are carefully regulated."—Duane Gish, Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 34.

"Our domesticated animals and plants are perhaps the best demonstration of the effects of this principle. The improvements that have been made by selection in these have clearly been accompanied by a reduction of fitness for life under natural conditions, and only the fact that domesticated animals and plants do not live under natural conditions has allowed these improvements to be made."—*O.S. Falconer, introduction to Quantitative Genetics (1960), p. 186.

GENE DEPLETION—The scientific name for this loss of fitness through adaptation is gene depletion. According to this principle, selective breeding always weakens a species—and never strengthens it.

"[The original species came into existence] with rich potential for genetic variation into races, breeds, hybrids, etc. But so far from developing into new kinds, or even improving existing kinds, such variations are always characterized by intrinsic genetic weakness of individuals, in accordance with the outworking of the second law of thermodynamics through gene depletion and the accumulation of harmful mutations. Thus, the changes that occur in living things through the passage of time are always within strict boundary lines."—John C. Whitcomb, The Early Earth (1986), p. 94.

In chapter 10, Mutations, we mentioned the genetic load, mentioned in the above quotation.

The original stock was strong, but as it branched out into variations within its kind, it became weakened. That is gene depletion. In addition, with the passing of time, genes are damaged through random radiation and mutations occur. Such mutations are also weakening, and gradually a genetic load is built up.

Thus we see that, on one hand, the farther the species strays from its central original pattern, the weaker it becomes (gene depletion). On the other, as the centuries continue on, mutational weaknesses increase in all varieties of a given species (genetic load).

The total picture is not one of evolving upward, strengthening, improving, or changing into new and diverse species.

EVOLUTION WOULD WEAKEN AND NARROW—It is an astounding fact that evolutionary theory, if true, could only produce ever weaker creatures with continually narrowed adaptive traitsA Dutch zoologist, *J.J. Duyvene de Wit, explains that if man were descended from animal ancestors, "man should possess a smaller gene-potential than his animal ancestors!" (*J.J. Duyvene de Wit, A New Critique of the Transformist Principle in Evolutionary Biology (1965), pp. 56, 57.)

Well, that is a breath-taking discovery! If we had actually descended from monkeys, then we would have less genetic potential than they have! Our anatomy, physiology, brains, hormones, etc. would be less competent than that of a great ape.

In turn, the monkey is supposedly descended from something else, and would therefore have less genetic capacity than its supposed ancestor had. Somewhere back there, the first descendant came from protozoa. All that follows in the evolutionary ladder would have to have considerably less genetic potential than protozoa! That point alone eliminates biological evolution!

How can evolutionary theory survive such facts! It can only be done by hiding those facts. Evolution ranks as one of the most far-fetched ideas of our time, yet it has a lock-grip on all scientific thought and research. The theory twists data and warps conclusions in an effort to vindicate itself. Just imagine how much further along the path of research and discovery we would have been if, a hundred years ago, we had throttled evolutionary theory to death.

SELECTIVE BREEDING—Selective breeding occurs when people thoughtfully select out the best rose, ear of corn, or milk cow; and then, through careful breeding, they produce better roses, corn ears, or milk cows. But please notice several facts in connection with this:

(1) "Selection" requires intelligence, planning, and consistent effort by someone who is not the rose, corn, or cow. Random action is not "selection." Therefore "natural selection" is a misnomer. It should be called "random activity." The word "selection" implies intelligent decision-making. "Meaningless muddling" would better fit the parameters the evolutionists have in mind.

(2) Contrary to what the evolutionists claim, selective breeding can provide no evidence of evolution, since it is intelligent, careful, planned activitywhereas evolution, by definition, is random occurrences.

(3) Although random accidents could never produce new species,—neither can intelligent selective breeding! Selective breeding never, never produces new species. But if it cannot effect trans-species changes, we can have no hope that evolutionary chance operations could do it.

(4) Selective breeding narrows the genetic pool; although it may have produce a nicer-appearing rose, at the same time it weakened the rose plant that grew that rose. Selective breeding may improve a selected trait, but tends to weaken the whole organism.

Because of this weakening factor, national and international organizations are now collecting and storing "seed banks" of primitive seed. It is feared that diseases may eventually wipe out our specialized crops, and we need to be able to go back and replenish from the originals: rice, corn, tomatoes, etc.

POPULATION GENETICS—(*#5/7 Population Genetics Fails to Prove Evolution*) A related area is termed population genetics, and it is declared by evolutionists to be another grand proof of their theory. Population genetics looks at locations of species and variations within species found there,—and theorizes evolutionary causes and effects.

This field of study includes analysis of: (1) "geographic isolation" of species and sub-species produced by that species while in isolation. Some of these sub-species may eventually no longer interbreed with related sub-species, but they are obviously closely related sub-species. (2) "Migration of populations" into new areas resulting occasionally in permanent colonization. Additional sub-species are produced in this way. (3) "Genetic drift" is analyzed. This is the genetic contribution of a particular population to its offspring.

Variability here arises primarily from normal gene reshuffling. It is because of gene reshuffling that your children do not look identical to you. This is quite normal, and does not make your children new species!

Population genetics, then, is the study of changes in sub-species. The information produced is interesting, but it provides no evidence of evolution, because it only concerns sub-species.

A field closely related to population genetics is selective breeding of plants and animals. But a favorite study of the population geneticists is people. Human beings are all one species. Population genetics analyzes changes within the "people species." Yet changes within a species is not evolution.

"It is an irony of evolutionary genetics that, although it is a fusion of Mendelism and Darwinism, it has made no direct contribution to what Darwin obviously saw as the fundamental problem: the origin of species."—*Richard Lewontin, Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change (1974), p. 159.

"The leading workers in this field have confessed, more or less reluctantly, that population genetics contributes very little to evolutionary theory . . If the leading authorities on population genetics confess to this dismal lack of achievement and even chuckle about it, it is altogether fitting and proper for the rank and file to take them at their word. Therefore it seems to follow that there is no need to teach population genetics."—*E. Saiff and *N. Macbeth, "Population Genetics and Evolutionary Theory" in Tuatara 26 (1983), pp. 71-72.

GENETIC DRIFT—"Genetic Drift" is frequently spoken of as another "evidence" of evolution, but even confirmed evolutionists admit it proves nothing in regard to evolution. Genetic drift is changes in small groups of sub-species that, over a period of time, have become separated from the rest of their species. Oddities in their DNA code factors became more prominent, yet they all remained in the same species.

*Frank Rhodes (Evolution, 1974, p. 75) explains that all that "genetic drift" refers to is changes in a "sub-species" of a plant or animal (or in a "race," which is a sub-species among human beings). Even *Rhodes recognizes that genetic drift provides no evidence of change from one species to another. All the drift has been found to be within species and never across them.

THE MALE/FEMALE REQUIREMENT—Inherent in the species quandary is the male and female element problem. It would be so much easier to bear young and, hopefully, produce new species, if everyone were females. But because it requires both a male and female to produce offspring, any possibility of going trans-species would mean producing not one new creature—but two! Only recently was the extent of this problem fully realized.

It was supposed that mingling two sets of genes would produce a new creature; but, in 1984, researchers working with mice tried to fertilize mouse eggs with equal sets of mouse genes from other females. But they found a male gene was required. There are very real differences between identical chemical structures produced by males and females. In addition, the male proteins on the surface of the developing fetus and placenta modify the mother’s immune response so that she does not reject the growing child.

How could two of each species—independent of each other—evolve? Yet this is what had to happen. The male and female of each species are forever uniquely separate from one another in a variety of ways, yet perfectly matching partners—a male and female—would have had to evolve together, at each step. Evolution cannot explain this.

"From an evolutionary viewpoint, the sex differentiation is impossible to understand, as well as the structural sexual differences between the systematic categories which are sometimes immense. We know that intersexes within a species must be sterile. How is it, then, possible to imagine bridges between two amazingly different structural types?"—*Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation, p. 1225.

"This book is written from a conviction that the prevalence of sexual reproduction in higher plants and animals is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory."— *George C. Williams, Sex and Evolution (1975), p. v.

"Indeed, the persistence of sex is one of the fundamental mysteries in evolutionary biology today."—*Gina Maranto and Shannon Brownlee, "Why Sex?" Discover, February 1984, p. 24.

"So why is there sex? We do not have a compelling answer to the question. Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians, there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction."—*Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (1982), p. 54.

ALTERNATE ORIGINS OF THE SPECIES—Because of the inflexible nature of the species, *Austin H. Clark, a distinguished biologist on the staff of the Smithsonian Institution, wrote a shocking book in 1930. He concluded that, since there was no evidence now or earlier of any cross-overs between species,—all of the major groups of plants and animals must have independently originated out of raw dirt and seawater!

"From all the tangible evidence that we now have been able to discover, we are forced to the conclusion that all the major groups of animals at the very first held just about the same relation to each other that they do today."—*A.H. Clark, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis (1930), p. 211.

The fossil evidence indicating no transitional forms, but only gaps between species, would have proved his point. But *Clark ignored that and said that separate evolutions and origins had to have occurred—just because there were simply too many differences between the various life-forms. They could not possibly have evolved from each other.

Clark’s book shook up the scientific world. The evolutionists tried to quiet matters; but about a decade later, *Richard Goldschmidt, of the University of California at Berkeley, published a different alternative view: Gigantic million-fold mutations must have occurred all at once, that suddenly changed one species to another. Goldschmidt’s dreamy theory is today becoming more accepted by evolutionists, under the leadership of *Stephen Jay Gould.

*Clark recognized the impossibility of evolution across major groups of plants and animals. Therefore he said each one independently originated out of sand and seawater. *Goldschmidt and *Gould recognized the impossibility of evolution across species, so they theorized that once every 50,000 years or so, a billion positive, cooperative, networking mutations suddenly appeared by chance and produced a new species. (For more on this, see chapter 10, Mutations.)

THE CLADISTS—(*#6/5 Cladists against Evolution*What about the experts who classify plants and animals; what do they think about all this controversy over species and ancestral relationships?

Scientists who specialize in categorizing life-forms are called taxonomists. A surprising number of them have joined the ranks of the cladists.

Cladistics comes from a Greek noun for "branch." Cladists are scientists who study biological classifications solely for its own sake—for the purpose of discovering relationship, apart from any concern to determine ancestry or origins. In other words, the cladists are scientists who have seen so much evidence in plants and animals that evolution is not true; that, as far as they are concerned, they have tossed it out the window and instead simply study plants and animals. They want to know about life-forms because they are interested in life-forms, not because they are trying to prove evolution.

Cladists are biological classification specialists who have given up on evolution. They recognize it to be a foolish, unworkable theory, and they want to study plants and animals without being required to "fit" their discoveries into the evolutionary "ancestor" and "descendant" mold. They are true scientists who are concerned with reality, not imaginings.

A leading British scientist and life-long evolutionist says this:

"So now we can see the full extent of the doubts. The transformed cladists claim that evolution is totally unnecessary for good taxonomy; at the same time they are unconvinced by the Darwinian explanation of how new species arise. To them, therefore, the history of life is still fiction rather than fact and the Darwinian penchant for explaining evolution in terms of adaptation and selection is largely empty rhetoric . . It seems to me that the theoretical framework [of evolutionary theory] has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—*Colin Patterson, The Listener. [Patterson is senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London.]

THE SPECIES ARE NOT CHANGING—If one species cannot change into another, there can be no evolution. But this should not be surprising. For example, the fossil record reveals that the bat has not changed since it first appeared in the fossil record, supposedly "50 million years ago,"—and there was no transitional form preceding it.The same can be said for the other creatures. Throughout the fossil record, there are only solid, fixed forms and wide gaps between species. Those gaps are no surprise to us, but they are agonizing for the evolutionists. In chapter 12, Fossils and Strata, we go into detail on such matters.

"No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near it."—*Colin Patterson, "Cladistics," in BBC Radio Interview, March 4, 1982.

"Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappeared; morphological change is usually limited and directionless."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution’s Erratic Pace," in Natural History, April 1980, p. 144.

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology [the study of fossils] does not provide them."—*David Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory" in Evolution, September 1974, p. 467.

All this is a most terrible problem for the evolutionists.

"Evolution is . . troubled from within by the troubling complexities of genetic and developmental mechanisms and new questions about the central mystery—speciation itself."—*Keith S. Thomson, "The Meanings of Evolution" in American Scientist, September/October 1982, p. 529.

Evolutionists have reason to be troubled: All the evidence they can find to substantiate their claims is changes within species (so-called "microevolution," which is not evolution), never changes across species ("macroevolution," which is evolution).

"Two very influential books in recent years have been the beautifully colored Life Nature Library volume, Evolution, by Ruth Moore and the Editors of Life, and the even more beautifully colored and produced volume, Atlas of Evolution, by Sir Gavin de Beer. The impressive demonstrable evidence which fills these volumes is micro-evolution only!"—Frank Marsh, "The Form and Structure of Living Things," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1969, p. 21 (italics his).

NO TRANSITIONAL SPECIES—The speciation problem is a gap problem. There are no transitional species, as there ought to be if evolution were true.

But we find there are absolutely no transitional forms to fill the gaps. In desperation, evolutionists have come up with an answer: "The transitions were made so slowly that they left no remains behind."—Wait a minute! How can that be? The more slowly the transitions, the larger would be the number of transitional forms that would be in the fossil strata for posterity to examine! (*Steven M. Stanley, "Macroevolution and the Fossil Record" in Evolution, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1982, p. 460).

And none other than *Charles Darwin himself agrees with us!

"When we descend to details, we can prove that no species has changed [we cannot prove that a single species has changed]; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory."—*Charles Darwin, in *Francis Darwin (ed.), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Vol. 2 (1887), p. 210.

IT TAKES A MILLION YEARS TO MAKE ONE SPECIES—(*#7/4 Millions of Years for One Species*) That is what the evolutionists say! How can there be millions of species, when the evolutionists tell us it takes a million years to make just one of them?

"It takes a million years to evolve a new species, ten million for a new genus, one hundred million for a class, a billion for a phylum—and that’s usually as far as your imagination goes.

"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."—*Freeman Dyson, Statement made in 1986, quoted in Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 93 [American mathematician].

If it takes a million years to produce just one new species,—there would not have been time for the millions of present species in the world to come into existence.

There just is not enough time for all those species changes to occur. Evolutionary dogma states that nothing was alive on Planet Earth over 2 billion years ago, and that all the evolving of life-forms has occurred within that brief time span.

"[Evolution is surmised to be of the order of two billion years . . from causes which now continue to be in operation, and which therefore can be studied experimentally."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species (1951), pp. 3-11 [Columbia University].

Two billion is only 2 thousand million. If it takes a million years to produce one species change, there would only be time for 2000 new species to be produced. An evolutionist would reply that more than one species was changing at the same time in various parts of the world, and this is how all our present millions of species could evolve into existence in 2 billion years.

But that is an oversimplification. What about the theoretical stairstep pattern from the first single-celled creature that made itself out of sand and seawater to man? That single stairstep progression alone would require hundreds of thousands of major changes! Yet only "millions of years" are provided for all the changes to come about.

"Evolution, in very simple terms, means that life progressed from one-celled organisms to its highest state, the human being, by means of a series of biological changes taking place over millions of years."—*Houston Post, August 23, 1964, p. 6.

Billions of transitional species would have to occur in order to climb the evolutionary stairs from amoeba to man. Those transitional forms simply do not exist; they never have existed. There are only gaps between the species. But the transitional forms would have had to be there in order for evolution to have occurred. It could not take place without them.

Even the evolutionists themselves avow that these cross-species changes take place so slowly, that they are not seen within a single lifetime.

"Evolution, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer."—*David G. Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 466.

If the transitional changes occur that slowly, then there should be vast numbers of transitional species living today, as well as etched into the fossil record. But they are not to be found. They do not exist; they have never existed.

The above statement by *Kitts indicates that, although it cannot be seen within a single generation, cross-species changes should be observed over a span of several generations. Why then do the hundreds of thousands of paintings from past centuries reveal man and animals to be just as they are today? We can go back thousands of years into the artwork of the past, and find no species change in man or animal. Five thousand years divided by 25 years per generation is 200 generations from our time to the earliest Egyptians. Five thousand years has produced no evolutionary change.

Yet we have only been speaking about the ladder from microbe to man. What about the hundreds of thousands of other ladders? For every species, a ladder of transitional forms leading up to it should be found.

Billions upon billions of transitional species should be engraved in the fossil rock and in nature today. Yet we see none of this. Over a hundred years of frantic searching by evolutionists has not produced even one transitional form! The transitions cannot be found since they have never existed.

SUB-SPECIES RUNNING WILD—New sub-species can be produced very fast,—and they are being produced today! Gene reshuffling does this. When isolated for several years, they sometimes no longer breed across sub-species,—yet they are still sub-species and not different species. Here are some examples:

"A strain of Drosophila paulistorum which was fully interfertile with other strains when first collected, developed hybrid sterility after having been isolated in a separate culture for just a few years . .

"Five endemic species of cichlid [fish] are found in Lake Nabugabo, a small lake which has been isolated from Lake Victoria for less than 4000 years . .

"In birds we have the classic example of the European house sparrow (Passer domesticus) which was introduced into North America about 1852. Since then the sparrows have spread and become geographically differentiated into races that are adapted in weight, in length of wing and of bill, and in coloration, to different North American environments . . Yet it has been accomplished in only about 118 generations (to 1980).

"By 1933 the sparrow had reached Mexico City where it has since formed a distinct sub-species. R.E. Moreau had concluded in 1930 that the minimum time required [by evolution] for a bird to achieve that sub-species step was 5000 years; the sparrow required just 30 years. As has been aptly commented:

" ‘We can here judge the value of speculation compared with observation in analyzing evolution’ " (E.B. Ford, Genetics and Maptation, 1976).

"Rabbits were introduced into Australia about 1859; yet the wealth of variation now present there is very extensive, vastly exceeding that apparent in the European stock (Wildlife Research 10, 73-82, 1965)."— A.J. Jones, "Genetic Integrity of the ‘Kinds’ (Baramins)," Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1982, p. 17.

The above facts explain why there is such an abundance of so-called "species" in the world today. In reality, an immense number of them are just sub-species.

"According to the late Theodosius Dobzhansky, on our planet we have 1,071,500 species of animals, 368,715 species of plants, and 3230 monerans (blue-green algae, bacteria, viruses). Sabrosky tells us that the arthropods constitute about 82 percent of all animal species; among the arthropods some 92 percent are insects; and among the insects about 40 percent are beetles."—Frank L Marsh, "Genetic Variation, Limitless or Limited?" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1983, p. 204.

There is far too much jumbling of sub-species with species by the taxonomists. Scientists frequently use the word "species" in a loose sense to include a multitude of sub-species. Repeatedly, a sub-species is given a species name.

THERE SHOULD BE NO SPECIES—In fact, if evolution were true, there should not be any distinct species at all! There would only be innumerable transitions! Categories of plants and animals can be arranged in orderly systems only because of the separateness of the species. But if evolutionary theory is correct, there could be no distinct species. Instead, there would only be a confused blur of transitional forms, each one only slightly different than the others. This is a very significant and important point.

"Why should we be able to classify plants and animals into types or species at all? In a fascinating editorial feature in Natural History, Stephen Gould writes that biologists have been quite successful in dividing up the living world into distinct and discrete species . . ‘But,’ says Gould, ‘how could the existence of distinct species be justified by a theory [evolution] that proclaimed ceaseless change as the most fundamental fact of nature?’ For an evolutionist, why should there be species at all? If all life-forms have been produced by gradual expansion through selected mutations from a small beginning gene pool, organisms really should just grade into one another without distinct boundaries."—Henry Morris and Gary Parker, What is Creation Science? (1987), pp. 121-122.

Another leading evolutionist also wonders why distinct species exist.

"If a line of organisms can steadily modify its structure in various directions, why are there any lines stable enough and distinct enough to be called species at all? Why is the world not full of intermediate forms of every conceivable kind?"—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery, (1983), p. 141.

The facts that species exist at all, that there are no gaps (no transitional creatures) between them, and that living species are identical to those alive "millions of years ago" form a major species problem for the evolutionists.

There is immense complexity within each species, but a distinct barrier between species.

"In the last thirty years or so speciation has emerged as the major unsolved problem . . [Over the years, in trying to solve this problem] we are if anything worse off, research having only revealed complexity within complexity . .

"More biologists would agree with Professor Hampton Carson of Washington University, St. Louis, when he says that speciation is ‘a major unsolved problem of evolutionary biology.’ "—*Gordon R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), pp. 140-141.

"Many species and even whole families remain inexplicably constant. The shark of today, for instance, is hardly distinguishable from the shark of 150 million years ago . .

"According to Professor W.H. Thorpe, Director of the Sub-department of Animal Behavior at Cambridge and a world authority, this is the problem in evolution. He said in 1968: ‘What is it that holds so many groups of animals to an astonishingly constant from over millions of years? This seems to me the problem [in evolution] now—the problem of constancy, rather than that of ‘change.’ " —*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), pp. 141-142.

If evolution is constantly producing species, why are the species not changing into new ones?

THE LEBZELTER PRINCIPLE AND HARDY-WEINBERG PRINCIPLE—Evolutionists really have to work hard to find something validating evolution, in what they teach students in the schools. For this reason, several states require that students memorize a complex quadratic equation, called the Hardy-Weinberg principle. Teachers say this mathematical formula proves evolution. A parallel one is the *Lebzelter principle. So we will explain them both.

In 1932, *Viktor Lebzelter stated the "Lebzelter principle":

"When man lives in large conglomerates, race tends to be stable while cultures become diversified; but where he lives in small isolated groups, culture is stable but diversified races evolve."—*Viktor Lebzelter, Rassengeschichte de Menscheit (1932), p. 27.

Here it is in simpler words, when people live, socialize, and select mates from a large group, their racial characteristics are stabilized while within the large group a variety of sub-cultures will develop. But when members only have a highly restricted number of people to socialize with and intermarry among, their cultural patterns will tend to be the same throughout the small group, but racial oddities will develop.

That is true; and the cause, of course, is close interbreeding, when people marry near relatives.

"The quickest way to expose lethal traits [in the genes] is by intensive and continual inbreeding."—*Willard Hollander, "Lethal Heredity," in Scientific American, July 1952, p. 60.

"When a recessive gene arose by mutation, it will only after some time occur in an double dose by means of intermarriage—soonest by a marriage of cousins."— *G. Dahlberg, quoted in Ernst Mayr Animal Species and Evolution (1963), p. 518.

The evolutionists tell us that this Lebzelter principle is another evidence of evolution, but it is no evidence at all. Although this concept is indeed a useful one, it does not help the Darwinists. Evolutionists declare that it is the small, restricted groups (plants, animals, and people) which have produced the new species. But there is no evidence that new species have been produced. The Lebzelter principle only discusses interbreeding within a single species.

Yet the Lebzelter principle does have application to conditions just after the Creation and again at the end of the Flood . . In the time of Adam and Eve, and again as the eight members of Noah’s family left the Ark, there was only a small group and there would have been a decided tendency to produce a variety of racial stocks. As the people scattered after the destruction of the Tower of Babel, they would have settled in new areas (China, Africa, India, etc.), thus producing many restricted groups, and these would have stabilized into distinct races, to the extent that they remained separate from other groups. But, in all of this, no NEW species were produced! Evolution had not occurred, only sub-species (among humans, called "races").

Now for the "Hardy-Weinberg principle": Two scientists worked out an algebraic equation that states the Lebzelter principle. And that is all there is to it; no evolutionary proof here at all.

DARWIN’S BEQUEST—It is well-known that *Charles Darwin had little to say about the actual origin of the species—the origin of life in a "primitive environment," but, instead, focused his entire work on an attempt to disprove fixed species. Yet, with the passing of the years, he became so confused regarding the species question that he was no longer certain how species could possibly change into one another.

In his will, he gave a bequest to the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, England, which was trying to prepare the Index Kewensis, a gigantic plant catalogue which would classify and fix all known plant species.

"Some botanists have commented on the irony that the great evolutionist—who convinced the world that species are unfixed, changeable entities—should have funded an immense, definitive species list as his final gift to science."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 236.

Ironically, *Charles Darwin’s last act was money given to help categorize the separate species.

CONCLUSION—Here is how one author ably summarized the situation:

"Anyone who can contemplate the eye of a housefly, the mechanics of human finger movement, the camouflage of a moth, or the building of every kind of matter from variations in arrangement of proton and electron—and then maintain that all this design happened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident—such a person believes in a miracle far more astounding than any in the Bible.

"To regard man, with his arts and aspirations, his awareness of himself and of his universe, his emotions and his morals, his very ability to conceive an idea so grand as that of God, to regard this creature as merely a form of life somewhat higher on the evolutionary ladder than the others,—is to create questions more profound than are answered."—David Raphael Klein, "Is There a Substitute for God?" in Reader’s Digest, March 1970, p. 55.

POSTSCRIPT: SOON THEY WILL BE GONE—Interestingly enough, although the evolutionary problem is that the species are not changing, mankind’s problem today is that the species are disappearing!

"They [plant and animal species] are vanishing at an alarming rate. Normally, [evolutionists speculate] existing species become extinct at approximately the same rate as new species evolve, but since the year 1600 that equation has grown increasingly lopsided.

"Informed estimates put the present extinction rate at forty to four hundred times normal. One estimate says that 25,000 species are in danger right now. Another says that one million could disappear from South America alone in the next two decades. If current trends continue, some twenty percent of the species now on earth will be extinct by the year 2000. Current trends will probably continue.

"This awesome rate of extinction is apparently unprecedented in our planet’s history. Many experts say it represents our most alarming ecological crisis."—*G. Jon Roush, "On Saving Diversity, in Fremontia (California Native Plant Society), January 1986.

"Twenty years ago, species were being silenced at a rate of about one a day; now, despite the efforts of the [Nature] Conservancy and many other groups like it, the rate is more than one per hour. Within 30 years, mankind may have wiped out one fifth of all the earth’s species!" —*"10,000 Species to Disappear in 1991," U.S. News and World Report, January 7, 1991, p. 68.

EVOLUTION COULD NOT DO THIS

Because the quail builds her next and sets on her eggs on the ground, so they must all hatch at the same time. Not until the entire dozen or so are laid, does the mother quail begin setting. Why does she wait until then? Who told her to do this? However, all the eggs do not develop at the same rate. Yet all hatch out at the same time. Scientists eventually discovered the cause. The faster ones click in their shells to the slower ones, and that causes the slower ones to speed their development! Everything in nature is a continual amazement.


Evolution Cruncher Chapter 12

Fossils and Strata Part 1


Why the fossil/strata theory is a remarkable hoax

This chapter is based on pp. 497-605 of Origin of Life (Volume Two of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this chapter are at least 472 statements by scientists. You will find them, plus much more, in the encyclopedia on this website.

This is the largest and one of the most important chapters in this book. Fossil remains provide evolutionists with their only real evidence that evolution might have occurred in the past. If the fossils do not witness to evolution in the past, then it could not be occurring now either.

The only substantial evidence that evolution has taken place in past ages, if there is such evidence, is to be found, in the fossils. The only definite evidence from the present, that there is a mechanism by which evolution could occur—past or present—if there is such evidence, is to be found in natural selection and mutations. There is a chapter dealing with each of these three topics in this set of books (chapters 12, 9, and 10).

The subject may seem to be complicated, but it is not. We will begin this present chapter with an introduction and overview of some of the fossil problems. Then we shall give enough attention to each of those problems—and more besides—to provide you with a clear understanding of principles and conclusions.

And when you obtain it, you will be astounded at the amount of overwhelming evidence supporting the fact that there is absolutely no indication, from the fossil record, that evolution has ever occurred on our planet!

"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, ‘Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.’ "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).

1 - INTRODUCTION

DEFINITIONS—(*#1/9 Introduction*) Most people know very little about any aspect of geology. Here are some of the major areas of geologic study. Of the geologic terms defined below, you will want to give special attention to those in bold italic:

Here are several of the major branches of Physical Geology: (1) Geochemistry is the study of the substances in the earth and the chemical changes they undergo. (2)Petrology is the study of rocks, in general. (3) Minerology is the study of minerals, such as iron ore and uranium. (4) Geophysics is the study of the structure, composition, and development of the earth. (5) Structural geology is the study of positions and shapes of rocks very deep within the earth.

Both physical and historical geology include three areas: (1) Geochronology is the study of geologic time. (2) Earth Processes is the study of the forces that produce changes in the earth. (3) Sedimentology is the study of sediment and the ways it is deposited. 

Historical geology has at least four main fields: (1) Paleontology is the study of fossils, and paleontologists are those who study them. (2) Stratigraphy is the study of the rock strata in which the fossils are found. (3) Paleogeography is the study of the past geography of the earth. (4) Paleoecology is the study of the relationships between prehistoric plants and animals and their surroundings. 

Fossils are the remains of living creatures, both plants and animals, or their tracksThese are found in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is composed of strata, which are layers of stone piled up like a layer cake. (Strata is the plural of stratum.) Sedimentary rock is fossil-bearing or fossiliferous rock.  

Fossil hunters use the word taxa (taxon, singular) to describe the basic, different types of plants and animals found in the fossil record. By this they generally mean species, but sometimes genera or more composite classifications, such as families or even phyla. Taxa is thus something of a loose term; it will be found in some of the quotations in this chapter. Higher taxa would mean the larger creatures, such as vertebrates (animals with backbones).

"The part of geology that deals with the tracing of the geologic record of the past is called historic geology. Historic geology relies chiefly on paleontology, the study of fossil evolution, as preserved in the fossil record, to identify and correlate the lithic records of ancient time."—*O.D. von Engeln and *K.E. Caster, Geology (1952), p. 423.

These fossil remains may be shells, teeth, bones, or entire skeletons. A fossil may also be a footprint, bird track, or tail marks of a passing lizard. It can even include rain drops. Many fossils no longer contain their original material, but are composed of mineral deposits that have infiltrated them and taken on their shapes.

Fossils are extremely important to evolutionary theory, for they provide our only record of plants and animals in ancient times. The fossil record is of the highest importance as a proof for evolution. In these fossils, scientists should be able to find all the evidence needed to prove that one species has evolved out of another.

"Although the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more complex forms."—*Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology (1949), p. 52.
"Fortunately there is a science which is able to observe the progress of evolution through the history of our earth. Geology traces the rocky strata of our earth, deposited one upon another in the past geological epochs through hundreds of millions of years, and finds out their order and timing and reveals organisms which lived in all these periods. Paleontology, which studies the fossil remains, is thus enabled to present organic evolution as a visible fact."—*Richard B. Goldschmidt, "An Introduction to a Popularized Symposium on Evolution," in Scientific Monthly, Vol. 77, October 1953, p. 184.

PALEONTOLOGISTS KNOW THE FACTS—(*#3/25 The Experts Speak*) The study of fossils and mutations ranks as the two key evidences of evolution: The fossil evidence proves or disproves whether evolution has occurred in the past; mutational facts prove or disprove whether it can occur at all.

This is probably why, of all scientists, paleontologists and geneticists are the most likely to publicly repudiate evolutionary theory in disgust (*A.H. Clark, *Richard Goldschmidt, *Steven Gould, *Steven Stanley, *Colin Patterson, etc.). They have spent their lives fruitlessly working, hands on, with one of the two main factors in the very center of evolution: the evidence (fossils) or the mechanism by which it occurs (mutations), and that part of the body within which it must occur (DNA). 

THE FOSSIL HUNTERS—(*#2 The Fossil Hunters"). For over a century, thousands of men have dedicated their lives to finding, cleaning, cataloguing, and storing millions of fossils. The work they do is time-consuming, exhausting, yet it has not provided the evidence they sought.

NO EVOLUTION TODAY—Evolution (one type of animal changing into another) never occurs today.

"No biologist has actually seen the origin by evolution of a major group of organisms."—*G. Ledyard Stebbins, Process of Organic Evolution, p. 1. [Stebbins was a geneticist.]

EVERYTHING HINGES ON FOSSILS—Clearly, then, because no evolution is occurring now, all that the evolutionists have to prove their theory is fossil evidence of life-forms which lived in the past. If evolution is the cause of life on earth, then there ought to be thousands of various partly evolved fossil life-forms. For evolution to occur, this had to occur in great abundance. The fossils should reveal large numbers of transmuted species—creatures which are half fish-half animal, etc.

Throughout these studies, we shall refer to the basic types or kinds of plants and animals as "species." However, as discussed in chapter 11, Animal and Plant Species, biologists frequently classify plants and animals as "species," which are subspecies.

UNIFORMITARIANISM—(*#4/29 Uniformitarianism vs. Catastrophism*) A basic postulate of evolution is the concept of uniformitarianism.A basic postulate of evolution is the concept of uniformitarianism According to this theory, the way everything is occurring today is the way it has always occurred on our planet. This point has strong bearing on the rock strata. Since no more than an inch or so of sediment is presently being laid down each year in most non-alluvial areas, therefore no more than this amount could have been deposited yearly in those places in the past. Since there are thick sections of rock containing fossils, therefore those rocks and their contents must have required millions of years to be laid down. That is how the theory goes.Naturalists, working in Paris a few years before *Charles Lyell was born, discovered fossil-bearing rock strata. *Lyell used this information in his important book, Principles of Geology, and divided the strata into three divisions. He dated one as youngest, another as older, and the third as very ancient.

*Lyell and others worked out those strata dates in the early 19th century, before very much was known about the rock strata and their fossils! Some strata in England, Scotland, and France were the primary ones studied. *Lyell based his age-theory on the number of still-living species represented by fossils in each stratum. If a given stratum had few fossils represented by species alive today, then *Lyell dated it more anciently.

It has since been established that *Lyell’s theory does not agree with reality; the percentage of still-living species is very, very high throughout all the strata, and varies from place to place for each stratum in different localities. Nevertheless, after quarreling over details, Lyell’s followers extended his scheme; and, though they changed his initial major strata names, they held on to his mistake and elaborated on it. Although some of the strata names changed later in the 19th century, scientists in the 20th century have been stuck with this relic of early 19th-century error. It is what they are taught in the colleges and universities.

THE ERAS—The fossil-bearing rock strata are said to fall into three major divisions, called "eras."

At the top are the Cenozoic Era rocks. Below that comes the Mesozoic Era levels. Next comes the Pa!eozoic Era strata. At the bottom we find the Cambrian, which contains the lowest fossil-bearing rocks. Beneath that is the Precambrian. (Cenozoic means "recent life," mesozoic means "middle life," and paleozoic means "ancient life.")

DATES WHEN GEOLOGICAL TIME SCALES ORIGINATED—This fossil/strata theory is genuinely archaic. The basics of the theory were devised when very little was known about strata or fossils. But geology and paleontology have been saddled with it ever since. Here are the dates when the various geological time scales were first developed:

THE PERIODS:

Quaternary - 1829

Tertiary - 1759

Cretaceous - 1822

Jurassic - 1795

Triassic - 1834

Permian - 1841

Carboniferous - 1822

Devonian - 1837

Silurian - 1835

Ordovician - 1879

Cambrian - 1835

THE ERAS:

Cenozoic - 1841

Mesozoic - 1841

Paleozoic - 1838

Perhaps the most ridiculous part of this is that radiodating of rocks, which did not exist when the 19th-century theories were devised, is forced to fit those 19th-century strata dates! It is done by using only a few test samples which fit the 19th century dates. The rest are discarded. (See chapter 6, Inaccurate Dating Methods, for more on this.)

EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION—If evolution was a fact, we should find in present events and past records abundant evidence of one species changing into another species.But, throughout all past history and in present observations, no one has ever seen this happen. Prior to written history, we only have fossil evidence. Scientists all over the world have been collecting and studying fossils for over a hundred years. Literally millions have been collected!

THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN—Much of this, especially the dates, are imaginary. The complete column almost nowhere. The laying down of fossil strata primarily occurred below the Pleastocene, mountain building during it, and post-Flood after it. Coal is mainly in the Carboniferous.

Geologic time scale Macmillan Dictionary, p. 430

EC418.jpg (156711 bytes)  EC418a.jpg (161449 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGE

In all their research, this is what they discovered: (1) There is no evidence of one species having changed into another one. (2) Our modern species are what we find there, plus some extinct ones. (3) There are no transitional or halfway forms between species.

Yes, there are extinct creatures among the fossils. These are plants and animals which no longer live on the earth. But even scientists agree that extinct species would not be an evidence of evolution.

Yet evolutionists parade dinosaur bones as a grand proof of evolution—when they are no proof at all! Extinction is not evolution!

Before proceeding further in this study, we should mention two points that will help clarify the problem:

WHY SO VERY COMPLEX AT THE BOTTOM?—As we already mentioned, the lowest strata level is called the Cambrian. Below this lowest of the fossil-bearing strata lies the Precambrianthe lowest strata level is called the Cambrian. Below this lowest of the fossil-bearing strata lies the Precambrian

The Cambrian has invertebrate (non-backbone) animals, such as trilobites and brachiopods. These are both very complex little animals. In addition, many of our modern animals and plants are in that lowest level, just above the Precambrian. How could such complex, multicelled creatures be there in the bottom of the Cambrian strata? But there they are. Suddenly, in the very lowest fossil stratum, we find complex plants and animals—and lots of them, with no evidence that they evolved from anything lower.

"It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the [fossil] record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."—*George G. Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, p. 360.

Paleontologists (the fossil hunters) call this immense problem "the Cambrian Explosion," because vast numbers of complex creatures suddenly appear in the fossil strata—with no evidence that they evolved from any less complicated creatures!

We will discuss the Precambrian/Cambrian problem later in this chapter.

What caused this sudden, massive appearance of life-forms? What caused the strata? Why are all those fossils in the strata? What is the solution to all this?

THE GENESIS FLOOD—The answer is that a great Flood,—the one described in the Bible in Genesis 6 to 9—rapidly covered the earth with watera great Flood,—the one described in the Bible in Genesis 6 to 9—rapidly covered the earth with water. When it did, sediments of pebbles, gravel, clay, and sand were laid down in successive strata, covering animal and plant life. Under great pressure, these sediments turned into what we today call "sedimentary rock." (Clay became shale; sand turned intosandstone; mixtures of gravel, clay and sand formed conglomerate rock.) All that mass of water-laid material successively covered millions of living creatures. The result is fossils, which today are only found in the sedimentary rock strata.

IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE AVAILABLE?—Before we proceed further, it is vital that we know whether there is enough evidence available to decide the fossil problem? Can we at the present time really know for sure whether or not, according to the fossil record, evolution has or has not occurred?

Yes, we CAN know! Men have worked earnestly, since the beginning of the 19th century, to find evidences of evolution in the fossil strata.

"The adequacy of the fossil record for conclusive evidence is supported by the observation that 79.1 percent of the living families of terrestrial vertebrates have been found as fossils (87.7 percent if birds are excluded)."—R.H. Brown, "The Great Twentieth-Century Myth," in Origins, January 1986, p. 40.
"Geology and paleontology held great expectations for Charles Darwin, although in 1859 [when he published his book, Origin of the Species] he admitted that they [already] presented the strongest single evidence against his theory. Fossils were a perplexing puzzlement to him because they did not reveal any evidence of a gradual and continuous evolution of life from a common ancestor, proof which he needed to support his theory. Although fossils were an enigma to Darwin, he ignored the problem and found comfort in the faith that future explorations would reverse the situation and ultimately prove his theory correct.
"He stated in his book, The Origin of the Species, ‘The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views, on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.’ [Quoting from the sixth (1901) edition of Darwin’s book, pages 341-342.]
"Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track."—Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 9 [italics ours].
"There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.—*Porter Kier, quoted in New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129.

There are one hundred million fossils housed in museums and other collections! That ought to be enough to locate the missing links and prove evolutionary theory! That ought to be enough to locate the missing links and prove evolutionary theory!

Yes, enough information is now available that we can have certainty, from the fossil record, whether evolution ever did occur in our world! The present chapter will provide you with a brief summary of those facts.

"The reason for abrupt appearances and gaps can no longer be attributed to the imperfection of the fossil record as it was by Darwin when paleontology was a young science. With over 200,000,000 catalogued specimens of about 250,000 fossil species, many evolutionary paleontologists such as Stanley argue that the fossil record is sufficient."—W.R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited (1954), p. 48 [italics ours].
"In part, the role of paleontology in evolutionary research has been defined narrowly because of a false belief, tracing back to Darwin and his early followers, that the fossil record is woefully incomplete. Actually, the record is of sufficiently high quality to allow us to undertake certain kinds of analysis meaningfully at the level of the species."—*S. Stanley, "Macroevolutíon," p. 1 (1979).
"Over ten thousand fossil species of insects have been identified, over thirty thousand species of spiders, and similar numbers for many sea-living creatures. Yet so far the evidence for step-by-step changes leading to major evolutionary transitions looks extremely thin. The supposed transition from wingless to winged insects still has to found, as has the transition between the two main types of winged insects, the paleoptera (mayflies, dragonflies) and the neoptera (ordinary flies, beetles, ants, bees)."—*Fred Hoyle, "The Intelligent Universe: A New View of Creation and Evolution," 1983, p. 43.

150 YEARS OF COLLECTED EVIDENCE—In spite of such an immense amount of fossil evidence, *Heribert-Nilsson of Lund University in Sweden, after 40 years of study in paleontology and botany, said the deficiencies—the missing links—will never be found.

"It is not even possible to make a caricature [hazy sketch] of an evolution out of paleobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled."—*N. Heribert-Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (The Synthetic Origin of Species) (1953), p. 1212.

More than a century ago, enough evidence had been gathered from the study of fossils that it was already clear that the fossil gaps between Genesis kinds was unfillable. Even *Charles Darwin admitted the problem in his book.. Even *Charles Darwin admitted the problem in his book.

". . intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution]."—*Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, quoted in *David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," in Field Museum Bulletin, January 1979.

For over a century, hundreds of men have dedicated their lives, in an attempt to find those missing links! If the transitional forms, connecting one species with another, are really there—they should have been found by now!

Sunderland, quoted above, said "Our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species." Here, in two brief paragraphs, is a clear description of the enormity of this missing link problem:

"The time required for one of these invertebrates to evolve into the vertebrates, or fishes, has been estimated at about 100 million years, and it is believed that the evolution of the fish into an amphibian required about 30 million years. The essence of the new Darwinian view is the slow gradual evolution of one plant or animal into another by the gradual accumulation of micro-mutations through natural selection of favored variants.
"If this view of evolution is true, the fossil record should produce an enormous number of transitional forms. Natural history museums should be overflowing with undoubted intermediate forms. About 250,000 fossil species have been collected and classified. These fossils have been collected at random from rocks that are supposed to represent all of the geological periods of earth’s history. Applying evolution theory and the laws of probability, most of these 250,000 species should represent transitional forms. Thus, if evolution is true, there should be no doubt, question, or debate as to the fact of evolution."—Duane T. Gish, "The Origin of Mammals" in Creation: the Cutting Edge (1982), p. 76.

The above quotation provides an excellent summary of the fossil gap problem. The fossil record purportedly contains a record of all the billions of years of life on earth.If it takes "100 million years" for an invertebrate to evolve through transitional forms into a fish, the fossil strata should show vast numbers of the in-between forms. But it never does! Scientists discuss these facts among themselves; they have a responsibility to tell them to the public.

The evidence supports the information given in the oldest extant book in the world: the book of Genesis.

2 - DATING THE STRATA AND FOSSILS

HOW ARE ROCKS DATED?—There are vast quantities of fossils, scattered in various sedimentary strata throughout the world. Yet how are the rocks and the fossils dated? In this section we are going to learn that the rocks, from the fossils, and the fossils are dated from their theories about the dating of the rocks!

"We can hardly pick up a copy of a newspaper or magazine nowadays without being informed exactly how many million years ago some remarkable event in the history of the earth occurred."—*Adolph Knopf, quoted in Isaac Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 62 [Knopf was an American geologist].

Let us examine this dating process more closely:

REAL HISTORY—Real history only goes back about 4,500 years. The First Dynasty in Egypt has left us records that date back to about 2200 B.C. (that is the corrected date as determined by scholars; Manetho’s account reaches to 3500 B.C. See chapter 21, Archaeological Dating. [Due to a lack of space, we had to omit nearly all of the chapter from this book, but it is on our website.]). Moses began writing part of the Bible about 1480 B.C. He wrote of events going back to about 4000 B.C.

NOT DATED BY APPEARANCE—Rocks are not dated by their appearance, for rocks of all types (limestones, shales, gabbro, etc.) may be found in all evolutionary "ages."Rocks are not dated by their mineral, metallic, or petroleum content; for any type of mineral may be found in practically any "age."

NOT DATED BY LOCATION—Rocks are not dated by the rocks they are near. The rocks above them in one sedimentary sequence may be the rocks below them in the next. The "oldest rocks" may lie above so-called "younger rocks." Rocks are not dated by their structure, breaks, faults, or folds. None of this has any bearing on the dating that evolutionists apply to rocks. Textbooks, magazines, and museum displays give the impression that it is the location of the strata that decides the dating, but this is not true.

"It is, indeed, a well-established fact that the (physical-stratigraphical) rock units and their boundaries often transgress geologic time planes in most irregular fashion even within the shortest distances."—*J.A. Jeletzsky, "Paleontology, Basis of Practical Geochronology," in Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, April 1956, p. 685.

NOT DATED BY VERTICAL LOCATION—Rocks are not dated by their height or depth in the strata, or which rocks are "at the top," which are "at the bottom," or which are "in the middle." Their vertical placement and sequence has little bearing on the matter. This would have to be so, since the arrangement of the strata shows little hint of uniformity anywhere in the world. (Much more on this later in this chapter.)

NOT DATED BY RADIOACTIVITY—The rock strata are not dated by the radioactive minerals within them. The dating was all worked out decades before anyone heard or thought of radioactive datingThe rock strata are not dated by the radioactive minerals within them. The dating was all worked out decades before anyone heard or thought of radioactive dating. In addition, we learned in the chapter on Dating Methods, that there are so many ways in which radiometric dating can be incorrect, that we dare not rely on uranium and similar minerals as reliable dating methods.

Index Fossils

EC428.jpg (385633 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGE

INDEX FOSSILS—Are you able to pick up a seashell, and know it died 52½ months earlier? Evolutionists can pick up a fossil shell and tell you it died 525 million years ago!

The fact is that rocks are not dated by any physical characteristic at all. What then ARE they dated by?

DATED BY FOSSILS?—The strata are said to be dated by FOSSILS! Well, now we have arrived at something concrete. The strata are all mixed up, piled on top or under where they should go, or totally missing. But at least we can date by all their fossils.

But wait a minute! We cannot even use 99 percent of the fossils to date them by, since we can find the same type of fossils in one stratum as in many others! And in each stratum are millions of fossils, representing hundreds and even thousands of different species of plant and/or animal life. The result is a bewildering maze of mixed-up or missing strata, each with fossil prints from a wide variety of ancient plants and animals that we can find in still other rock strata.

Yet, amid all this confusion, evolutionists tell us that fossil dating is of extreme importance. That is very true, for without it the evolutionary scientist would have no way to try to theorize "earlier ages" on the earth. Fossil dating is crucial to their entire theoretical house of cards.

But if rocks cannot be dated by most of the fossils they contain,—how are the rocks dated?

ROCKS ARE DATED BY INDEX FOSSILS—(*#5/6 Index Fossils*) The strata are dated by what the evolutionists call "index fossils." in each stratum there are a few fossils which are not observed quite as often in the other strata. As a pretext, these are the fossils which are used to "date" that stratum and all the other fossils within it!

It may sound ridiculous, but that is the way it is done. What are these magical fossils that have the power to tell men finding them the DATE—so many millions of years ago—when they lived? These special "index" fossils are generally small marine invertebrates— backboneless sea animals These special "index" fossils are generally small marine invertebrates— backboneless sea animals that could not climb to higher ground when the Flood came! These special "index" fossils are generally small marine invertebrates— backboneless sea animals that could not climb to higher ground when the Flood came! Their presence in a sedimentary stratum is supposed to provide absolutely certain proof that that stratum is just so many millions of years "younger" or millions of years "older" than other strata! These special "index" fossils are generally small marine invertebrates— backboneless sea animals that could not climb to higher ground when the Flood came! Their presence in a sedimentary stratum is supposed to provide absolutely certain proof that that stratum is just so many millions of years "younger" or millions of years "older" than other strata!

But then, just as oddly, the magic disappears when the index fossil is found alive:

"Most of the species of maidenhair are extinct; indeed they served as index fossils for their strata until one was found alive." "The youngest fossil coelacanth is about sixty million years old. Since one was rediscovered off Madagascar, they are no longer claimed as ‘index fossils’—fossils which tell you that all other fossils in that layer are the same ripe old age."—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), pp. 186, 198.

In reality, within each stratum is to be found an utter confusion of thousands of different types of plants and/or animals. The evolutionists maintain that if just one of a certain type of creature (an "index fossil") is found anywhere in that stratum, it must automatically be given a certain name,—and more: a certain date millions of years ago when all the creatures in that stratum are supposed to have lived. Yet, just by examining that particular index fossil, there is no way to tell that it lived just so many millions of years ago! It is all part of a marvelous theory, which is actually nothing more than a grand evolutionary hoax. Experienced scientists denounce it as untrue.

Any rock containing fossils of one type of trilobite (Paradoxides) is called a "Cambrian" rock, thus supposedly dating all the creatures in that rock to a time period 120 million years long and beginning 60 million years in the past. But rocks containing another type of trilobite (Bathyurus) are arbitrarily classified as "Ordovician," which is claimed to have spanned 45 million years and begun 480 million years ago.

But how can anyone come up with such ancient dates simply by examining two different varieties of trilobite? The truth is that it cannot be done.

Add to this the problem of mixed-up index fossils—when "index fossils" from different levels are found together! That is a problem which paleontologists do not publicly discuss. As we analyze one aspect after another of evolution (stellar, geologic, biologic, genetic, etc.), we find it all to be little more than a carefully contrived science fiction storybook.

FOSSILS ARE DATED BY A THEORY—But now comes the catch: How can evolutionary geologists know what dates to apply to those index fossils? The answer to this question is a theory! How can evolutionary geologists know what dates to apply to those index fossils? The answer to this question is a theory! Here is how they do it:

Darwinists theorize which animals came firstand when they appeared on the scene. And then they date the rocks according to their theory—not according to the wide mixture of fossils creatures in it—but by assigning dates—based on their theory—to certain "index" fossils.

That is a gigantic, circular-reasoning hoax!

"Fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms."—*Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology, 2nd edition (1960), p. 47.

The conclusions about which fossils came first are based on the assumptions of evolution. Rock strata are studied, a few index fossils are located (when they can be found at all), and each stratum is then given a name. Since the strata are above, below, and in-between one another, with most of the strata missing in any one location,—just how can the theorists possibly "date" each stratum? They do it by applying evolutionary speculation to what they imagine those dates should be.

This type of activity classifies as interesting fiction, but it surely should not be regarded as science. The truth is this: it was the evolutionary theory that was used to date the fossils; it was not the strata and it was not "index fossils."

"Vertebrate paleontologists have relied upon ‘stage of evolution’ as the criterion for determining the chronologic relationships of faunas. Before establishment of physical dates, evolutionary progression was the best method for dating fossiliferous strata."—*J.F. Evernden, *O.E. Savage, *G.H. Curtis, and *G.T. James, "K/A Dates and the Cenozoic Mammalian Chronology of North America," in American Journal of Science, February 1964, p. 166.

"Fossiliferous strata" means fossil-bearing strata. Keep in mind that only the sedimentary rocks have fossils, for they were the sediments laid down at the time of the Flood, which hardened under pressure and dried into rockYou will find no fossils in granite, basalt, etc.

"The dating of each stratum—and all the fossils in it—is supposedly based on index fossils, when it is actually based on evolutionary speculations, and nothing more.
"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone."—Randy Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1976), p. 31.

The "index fossils" are dated by the theory. Amid all the confusion of mixed up and missing strata, there would be no possible way to "date" rocks—or fossils—by the catastrophic conditions found in sedimentary strata. It is all utter confusion. So the evolutionists apply a theory to the strata.

They decided that certain water worms in one stratum are 80,000 years older than certain water worms in another stratum,—and then they date all the other fossils in those same strata accordingly! (That is a little foolish, is it not? How can you date a water worm as being so many hundred million years ago?)

"Because of the sterility of its concepts, historical geology, which includes paleontology [the study of fossils] and stratigraphy [the study of rock strata], has become static and unreproductive. Current methods of delimiting intervals of time, which are the fundamental units of historical geology, and of establishing chronology are of dubious validity. Worse than that, the criteria of correlation—the attempt to equate in time, or synchronize, the geological history of one area with that of another—are logically vulnerable. The findings of historical geology are suspect because the principles upon which they are based are either inadequate, in which case they should be reformulated, or false, in which case they should be discarded. Most of us [geologists] refuse to discard or reformulate, and the result is the present deplorable state of our discipline."—*Robin S. Allen, "Geological Correlation and Paleoecology," Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, January 1984, p. 2.

Big names and big numbers have been assigned to various strata, thus imparting an air of scientific authority to them. Common people, lacking expertise in the nomenclature of paleontology, when faced with these lists of big words tend to give up. It all looks too awesome to be understood, much less challenged. But the big words and big numbers just cover over an empty theory which lacks substantial evidence to support it.

CIRCULAR REASONING—(*#6/10 Circular Reasoning*) When we examine it, we find that the strata-dating theory is based on circular reasoning.

"Circular reasoning" is a method of false logic, by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this." It is also called "reasoning in a circle." Over a hundred years ago, it was described by the phrase, circulus in probando, which is Latin for "a circle in a proof."

There are several types of circular reasoning found in support of evolutionary theory. One of these is the geological dating position that "fossils are dated by the type of stratum they are in while at the same time the stratum is dated by the fossils found in it." An alternative evolutionary statement is that "the fossils and rocks are interpreted by the theory of evolution, and the theory is proven by the interpretation given to the fossils and rocks."

Evolutionists (1) use their theory of rock strata to date the fossils, (2) and then use their theory of fossils to date the rock strata!  

A number of scientists have commented on this problem of circularity.

"The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity."—*David M. Raup, "Geology and Creationism," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, March 1983, p. 21.
"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."—*J.E. O’Rourke, "Pragmatism versus Materialism and Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 48.
"Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and on the other hand, that geology is documented by evolution? Isn’t this a circular argument?"—*Larry Azar, "Biologists, Help!" BioScience, November 1978, p. 714.

The professor of paleobiology at Kansas State University wrote this:

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution, because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."—*Ronald R. West, "Paleontology and Uniformitarianism," in Compass, May 1968, p. 216.

*Niles Eldredge, head of the Paleontology Department at the American Museum of Natural History, in Chicago, made this comment:

"And this poses something of a problem. If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?"—*Niles Eldredge, Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution, 1985, p. 52.

The curator of zoological collections at Oxford University wrote this:

"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it?"—*Tom Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist 108, December 5, 1985, p. 66.

A DOUBLE CIRCLE—Circular reasoning is the basis, not only of the fossil theory,—but of the whole theory of evolution!

First, reasoning in a circle is the basis of the "evidence" that evolution has occurred in the past. (The fossils are dated by the theory of strata dating; the strata are then dated by the fossils are dated by the theory of strata dating; the strata are then dated by the fossils).

Second, reasoning in a circle is the basis of the "mechanism" by which evolution is supposed to occurred any time. (The survivors survive. The fittest survive because they are fittest,—yet, according to that, all they do is survive! not evolve into something better!) (See chapter 9, Natural Selection).

Throughout this set of books, we shall find many other examples of strange logic on the part of the evolutionists: (1) Matter had to come from something, therefore it somehow came from nothing (chapter 2, The Big Bang and Stellar Evolution). (2) Living creatures had to come from something, therefore they somehow came from dirt that is not alive (chapter 7, The Primitive Environment).

By the use of circular reasoning, evolutionary theory attempts to separate itself from the laws of nature! Limiting factors of chemical, biological, and physical law forbid matter or living creatures from originating or evolving,

Actually, the entire theory of evolution is based on one vast circularity in reasoning! Because they accept the theory, evolutionists accept all the foolish ideas which attempt to prove it.

"But the danger of circularity is still present. For most biologists the strongest reason for accepting the evolutionary hypothesis is their acceptance of some theory that entails it. There is another difficulty. The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation, which necessarily presupposes the nonrepeatability of organic events in geologic history. There are various justifications for this assumption but for almost all contemporary paleontologists it rests upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis."—*David G. Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," in Evolution, September 1974, p. 466.

FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS—As we study the fossil record, we come upon a variety of very serious problems which undermine the strata/fossil theory. Three of the most important are these: (1) At the very bottom of all the strata (the geologic column) is the Cambrian strata, which is filled with complex, multi-celled life. This is termed the "Cambrian explosion" of sudden life-forms all at once. (2) There are no transitional species throughout the column. This problem is also called fossil gaps ormissing links. (3) (3) Mixed-up and out-of-order strata are regularly found. Singly or together, they destroy the evolutionary argument from the rock strata. But there are many more problems.

3 - COMPLEXITY AT THE BEGINNING

SIMPLEST JUST AS COMPLEX—Because the waters of the Flood first covered the creatures which were not able to rapidly escape to higher ground, some of the "simplest animals" are found in the lowest of the sedimentary strata. Yet those creatures have complicated internal structuresBecause the waters of the Flood first covered the creatures which were not able to rapidly escape to higher ground, some of the "simplest animals" are found in the lowest of the sedimentary strata. Yet those creatures have complicated internal structures.

One of the most common creatures found in the lowest—the Cambrian—strata, are the trilobitesThese were small swimming creatures belonging to the same group as the insects (the arthropods). Yet careful study reveals that they had extremely complex eyes. The mathematics needed to work out the lens structure of these little creatures is so complicated, that it was not developed until the middle of the last century!

Here is how an expert describes it. *Norman Macbeth, in a speech at Harvard University in 1983, said this:

"I have dealt with biologists over the last twenty years now. I have found that, in a way, they are hampered by having too much education. They have been steeped from their childhood in the Darwinian views, and, as a result, it has taken possession of their minds to such an extent that they are almost unable to see many facts that are not in harmony with Darwinism. These facts simply aren’t there for them often, and other ones are sort of suppressed or distorted. I’ll give you some examples.
"First, and perhaps most important, is the first appearance of fossils. This occurs at a time called the ‘Cambrian,’ 600 million years ago by the fossil reckoning. The fossils appear at that time [in the Cambrian] in a pretty highly developed form. They don’t start very low and evolve bit by bit over long periods of time. In the lowest fossil-bearing strata of all [the Cambrian, they are already there, and are pretty complicated in more-or-less modern form.
"One example of this is the little animal called the trilobite. There are a great many fossils of the trilobite right there at the beginning with no buildup to it [no evolution of life-forms leading to it]. And, if you examine them closely, you will find that they are not simple animals. They are small, but they have an eye that has been discussed a great deal in recent years—an eye that is simply incredible.
"It is made up of dozens of little tubes which are all at slightly different angles so that it covers the entire field of vision, with a different tube pointing at each spot on the horizon. But these tubes are all more complicated than that, by far. They have a lens on them that is optically arranged in a very complicated way, and it is bound into another layer that has to be just exactly right for them to see anything . . But the more complicated it is, the less likely it is simply to have grown up out of nothing.
"And this situation has troubled everybody from the beginning—to have everything at the very opening of the drama. The curtain goes up [life-forms first appear in the Cambrian strata] and you have the players on the stage already, entirely in modern costumes."—*Norman Macbeth, Speech at Harvard University, September 24, 1983, quoted in L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 150.

Remember, we are here discussing one of the most common creatures at the very bottom of the fossil strata. Science News declared that the trilobite had "the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature." (*Science News 105, February 2, 1974, p. 72). Each eye of the trilobite had two lenses! Here is what one of the world’s leading trilobite researchers wrote:

"In fact, this optical doublet is a device so typically associated with human invention that its disovery in trilobites comes as something of a shock. The realization that trilobites developed and used such devices half a billion years ago makes the shock even greater. And a final discovery—that the refracting interface between the two lense elements in a trilobite’s eye was designed ["designed"] in accordance with optical constructions worked out by Descartes and Huygens in the mid-seventeenth century—borders on sheer science fiction . . The design of the trilobite’s eye lens could well qualify for a patent disclosure."—*Riccardo Levi-Setti, Trilobites, 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press, 1993, pp. 54, 57.

Extremely complicated creatures at the very beginning, with nothing leading up to them; that is the testimony of the strata. The rocks cry out; they have a message to tell us. Are we listening?

THOSE MARVELOUS TRILOBITES—There are enormous numbers of complex trilobites in the Cambrian strata, yet below the Cambrian there is hardly anything that resembles a fossil. As mentioned above, these little creatures had marvelously complicated eyes. But they also had other very advanced features: (1) Jointed legs and appendages, which indicate that they had a complex system of muscles. (2) Chitinous exos`````````keleton (horny substance as their outer covering), which indicates that they grew by periodic ecdysis, a very complicated process of molting. (3) Compound eyes and antennae, which indicate a complex nervous system. (4) Special respiratory organs, which indicate a blood circulation system. (5) Complex mouth parts, which indicate specialized food requirements.

(Another of the many types of creatures, found in great numbers in the Cambrian strata, are segmented marine worms. As with trilobites, we find that they also had a complex musculature, specialized food habits and requirements, blood circulatory system, and advanced nervous system.)

NOT SIMPLE TO COMPLEX—The evolutionists maintain that the fossil record goes from the simple to the complex. But researchers have discovered that the simple creatures were also complexThe evolutionists maintain that the fossil record goes from the simple to the complex. But researchers have discovered that the simple creatures were also complex. In fact, there are actually few examples in the fossil record of anything like "from simple to complex" progression. This is partly due to the fact that the fossils suddenly appear in great numbers and variety,—too much so for much simple-to-complex progression to be sorted out.

Included here are complex organs, such as intestines, stomachs, bristles and spines. Eyes and feelers show the presence of nervous systems. For example, consider the specialized sting cells (nematocysts) in the bodies of jellyfish, with their coiled, thread-like harpoons which are explosively triggered. How could this evolve?, such as intestines, stomachs, bristles and spines. Eyes and feelers show the presence of nervous systems. For example, consider the specialized sting cells (nematocysts) in the bodies of jellyfish, with their coiled, thread-like harpoons which are explosively triggered. How could this evolve?

EVERY PHYLUM IN THE CAMBRIAN—The startling fact is that every phylum is represented in the lowest sedimentary strata of all: the Cambrian. The "Cambrian explosion" is, for evolutionary theory, a catastrophe from which it will never recover.

Every phylum in the Cambrian

Let no one say that the Cambrian level only has "simple, primitive," or "half-formed" creatures.

EC440.jpg (391921 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGE

4 - SUDDEN APPEARANCE OF LIFE

CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION—(*#7/52 The Cambrian and Precambrian Problem*) The lowest strata that has fossils is the Cambrian. Below that is the Precambrian which has no fossils, other than an occasional algae on its surface. Paleontologists call that amazing situation the "Cambrian explosion."

Beginning with the very lowest of the fossil strata—the Cambrian,—we find a wealth of fossil types. But each type—each species—of fossil in the Cambrian is different from the others. There is no blending between them! It requires evolving—blending across species—to produce evolution, but this never occurs today, and it never occurred earlier. Look at the fossils: in the ancient world there were only distinct species. Look at the world around you: in the modern world there are only distinct species.

There are vast numbers—billions—of fossils of thousands of different species of complex creatures in the Cambrian,—and below it is next to nothing. The vast host of transitional species leading up to the complex Cambrian species are totally missing!

EVERY MAJOR LIFE GROUP HAS BEEN FOUND IN THE CAMBRIAN—In the Cambrian we find sponges, corals, jellyfish, mollusks, trilobites, crustaceans, and, in fact, every one of the major invertebrate forms of life. In 1961, *Kai Peterson wrote:

"The invertebrate animal phyla are all represented in Cambrian deposits."— *Kai Peterson, Prehistoric Life on Earth, p. 56.

That means there, in the Cambrian fossil strata, is to be found at least one species from every phyla of backboneless animal. Only one phylum had been missing: the vertebrates.

At the time when Peterson wrote, it was believed that no vertebrates (animals with backbones) appeared until the Lower Ordovician (just above the Cambrian). But in 1977 that belief was shattered, when fully developed fish (heterostracan vertebrate fish fossils) were discovered in the Upper Cambrian strata of Wyoming.Reported in Science magazine for May 5, 1 978,this discovery placed every major animal phylum group in the Cambrian rocks! Although never discussed in school textbooks, this news came as a distinct shock to the professional world. For evolutionists, the situation continues to get worse.

With the "Cambrian Explosion" suddenly appears every major type of living thing. This fact totally devastates the basis of evolutionary theory. Plants and every type of animal have been found in the Cambrian strata. Although evolutionists prefer not to discuss it, the truth is that at least one representative of EVERY PHYLUM has been found in the Cambrian!

"Until recently, the oldest fish fossils known were from the Middle Ordovician Harding Sandstone of Colorado. These were of ‘primitive’ heterostracan fishes (Class Agnatha) which are jawless. The Vertebrates were the only major animal group not found as fossils in Cambrian rocks.
"[The 1976 discovery of heterostracan fish fossils in Cambrian is discussed in detail] . . This discovery of fishes (vertebrates) in the Cambrian is without question the most significant fossil discovery in the period 1958-1979. The evidence is now complete that all of the major categories of animal and plant life are found in the Cambrian."—Marvin L. Lubenow, "Significant Fossil Discoveries Since 1958," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1980, p. 157.

Not only complex animal life, but complex plant life is represented in the Cambrian! Flowering plants are generally considered to be one of the most advanced forms of life in the plant kingdom. Spores from flowering plants have also been found in Cambrian strata.

"Spores attributed to terrestrial plants have been found in Precambrian and Cambrian rocks in the Baltic. Whether some of these are from bryophytes is uncertain."—*Robert F. Scagel, et. al., Plant Diversity: an Evolutionary Approach (1969), p. 25.

During the Genesis Flood, plants would tend to have washed into higher strata, but their pollen could easily have been carried into the earliest alluvial layers: the Cambrian and even the Precambrian.

"Just as fossils of most of the other land plants have been discovered in Cambrian deposits, so it is with the flowering plants. In 1947, Ghosh and Bose reported discovering angiosperm vessels with alternate pitting and libriform fibres of higher dicotyledons from the Salt Pseudomorph Beds and the Dandot overfold, Salt Range, Punjab, India. These are Cambrian deposits. They later confirmed that further investigation confirmed their original report, and the same results were obtained from the Cambrian Vindbyan System, and the Cambrian of Kashmir—these Kashmir beds also contained several types of trilobites. The review articles of Axelrod and Leclercq acknowledge these findings."—Marvin L. Lubenow, "Significant Fossil Discoveries Since 1958," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1980, p. 154.

5 - NO LIFE BELOW THE CAMBRIAN

PRECAMBRIAN—In contrast, there is next to nothing answering to life-forms beneath the Cambrian!

The Cambrian rocks contain literally billions of the little trilobites, plus many, many other complex species. Yet below the Cambrian—called the "Precambrian,"—we find almost nothing in the way of life-forms. The message of the rock strata is "SUDDENLY abundant life; below that, NO LIFE!" Where this terrific explosion of abundance of life begins—in the Cambrian,—we find complexity, not simplicity of life-forms.

Multicellular animals appear suddenly and in rich profusion in the Cambrian, and none are ever found beneath it in the Precambrian (*Preston Cloud, "Pseudofossils: A Plea for Caution," in Geology, November 1973, pp. 123-127).

It is true that, in a very few disputed instances, there may be a few items in the Precambrian, which some suggest to be life-forms. But a majority of scientists recognize that, at best, these are only algae. Blue-green algae, although small plants, are biochemically quite complex; for they utilize an elaborate solar-to-chemical energy transformation, or photosynthesis. Such organisms could have been growing on the ground when the waters of the Flood first inundated it.

STROMATOLITES—The only macrofossils that are of widespread occurrence in the Precambrian are stromatolitesThe only macrofossils that are of widespread occurrence in the Precambrian are stromatolites. These are reef-like remnants usually thought to have been formed from precipitated mineral matter on microbial communities, primarily blue-green algae, growing by photosynthesis. So stromatolites are remnants of chemical formations—and never were alive!

"Further analysis of the world’s oldest rocks has confirmed that microscopic inclusions are not the fossilized remains of living cells; instead they are crystals of dolomite-type carbonates, rusted by water that has seeped into the rock."—*Nigel Henbest, "‘Oldest Cells’ are Only Weathered Crystals," in New Scientist, October 15, 1981, p. 164.

Two years later, an update report in New Scientist on "the world’s oldest (Precambrian) rocks" in Greenland said this:

"Geologists have found no conclusive evidence of life in these Greenland rocks."—*Chris Peat and *Will Diver, "First Signs of Life on Earth," in New Scientist, September 16, 1983, pp. 776-781.

Scientists have remarked on how there seems to be a sudden vast quantity of living creatures as soon as the Cambrian begins. All this favors the concept of Creation and a Genesis Flood, not that of slowly occurring evolution over millions of years.

6 - NO TRANSITIONAL SPECIES

THE GAP PROBLEM—(*#8/55 No Transitions: Only Gaps*) In this section we will deal with three specific problems, but we will frequently intermingle them in the discussion:

(1) There are no transitional species preceding or leading up to the first multi-celled creatures that appear in the Cambrian, the lowest stratum level.

(2) There are no transitional species elsewhere in the fossil record.

(3) The species that appear in the fossils are frequently found in many different strata.

(4) The great majority of the species found in the fossils are alive today.

NO TRANSITIONS—The Cambrian explosion is the first major problem with the fossil record. The lack of transitions is the second. But of all the problems, this lack of transitional creatures—halfway between different species—is, for the evolutionist, probably the biggest single crisis in the geologic column. Indeed, it is one of the biggest of the many crises in evolutionary theory!

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide them."—*D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory (1974), p. 467.

Throughout the fossils, we find no transitions from one kind of creature to another. Instead, only individual, distinctive plant or animal kinds..

"It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptible changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution."—*G.G. Simpson, in The Evolution of Life, p. 149.

To make matters worse, in the fossil record we find the very same creatures that we have today, plus a few extinct types which died out before our time! Neither now nor earlier are there transitional forms, halfway between true species.

"When we examine a series of fossils of any age we may pick out one and say with confidence, ‘This is a crustacean’—or starfish, or a brachiopod, or annelid, or any other type of creature as the case may be."—*A.H. Clark, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis, p. 100.

In the rock strata, we find horses, tigers, fish, insects, but no transitional forms. For example, we find large horses and small horses, but nothing that is part horse and part something else.

After giving years to a careful examination of the fossil record, comparing it with that of species alive today, a famous biologist on the staff of the Smithsonian Institute wrote these words:

"All the major groups of animals have maintained the same relationship to each other from the very first [from the very lowest level of the geologic column]. Crustaceans have always been crustaceans, echinoderms have always been echinoderms, and mollusks have always been mollusks. There is not the slightest evidence which supports any other viewpoint."—*A.H. Clark, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis (1930), p. 114.
"From the tangible evidence that we now have been able to discover, we are forced to the conclusion that all the major groups of animals at the very first held just about the same relation to each other that they do today."—*Op. cit., p. 211.

FOSSIL GAPS—This glaring fact is a repudiation of evolutionary theory. Evolutionists even have a name for the problem: they call it "fossil gaps." No creatures that are half fish and half bird, or half pig and half cow are to be found—only distinct animal and plant types such as we know today.

A related problem is the fact that great numbers of fossils span across many strata, supposedly covering millions of years. This means that, throughout the fossil record, those species made no changes during those "millions of years."

THE OCTOPUS—Here is an excellent example of what we are talking about: the squid and octopus are the most complex of the invertebrates the squid and octopus are the most complex of the invertebrates the squid and octopus are the most complex of the invertebrates (animals without backbones). The eye of the octopus is extremely complicated, and equal to the human eye! Checking carefully through the fossil record, you will find only squid and octopi, nothing else. There was nothing evolved or evolving about them; they were always just squid and octopi. (You will also find an extinct species, called the nautiloids. But they seem to have been even more complex!)

Checking into this more carefully, you will find that octopi first appear quite early in the fossil strata. The reason for that would be simple enough: When an octopus is frightened, it may curl up in a cave or corner someplace, or it may shoot out quickly using jets of water. For this reason, some octopi would be buried early while others would be buried in higher strata. 

Checking still further, you will find that the octopus is found in nearly every stratum, from bottom to top! Many octopi continued to jet their way to the top of the waters as they rose.

(Later, after the Flood was finished, the balance of nature worked against the nautiloid and they were devoured by their enemies. Today there are none. Darwin’s "survival of the fittest" [the fittest will survive better than the others] apparently did not apply to the nautiloids, which were distinctly different than the octopi and squid, but apparently more capable than either.)

Checking still further, you will find that octopi and squid in all strata are identical to octopi and squid today.

MISSING LINKS—(*#11/133 Searching for Transitions [over a hundred quotations!]*) (*#11/133 Searching for Transitions [over a hundred quotations!]*) [It should be mentioned here that Appendix 11, at the back of our Fossils and Strata chapter on our website (evolution-facts.org), is the largest quotation appendix of all. It has 25 categories and 133 quotations. There are enough quotations here to form the basis for a major thesis.]

The links are missing. Nearly all the fossils are just our present animals, and the links between them are just not there. Few scientists today are still looking for fossil links between the major vertebrate or invertebrate groups. They have given up! The links just do not exist and have never existed.. 

Evolutionists know exactly what those transitional forms should look like, but they cannot find them in the fossil record! They are not to be found, even though thousands of men have searched for them since the beginning of the 19th century! Everywhere they turn, the paleontologists (the fossil hunters) find the same regular, distinct species that exist today, plus some that are extinct. The extinct ones are obviously not transitional forms between the regular species. For example, the large dinosaurs are not transitional forms, but are just definite species which became extinct in ancient times—probably by the waters of the Flood.

(Contrary to the lurid paintings of dinosaurs which evolutionists like to display as proof of their theory—extinction of a distinct species is not evolution, and provides no evidence of it.)

The search to find the missing links and fill the gaps between the distinct kinds has resulted in enormous collections of fossils. Recall to mind the earlier statements by Sunderland and *Kier, that 100 million fossils have been examined by paleontologists around the world.

"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is outpacing integration . The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps."—*T. Neville George, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," in Science Progress, January 1960, pp. 1, 3.

If there are no transitional forms in the fossil record, there has been no evolution!


Evolution Cruncher Chapter 13

Ancient Man


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 thatthe 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-magnonmeans "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 ofAustralopithecus 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 habiliswas 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 anaustralopithecus 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.


Evolution Cruncher Chapter 14  

EFFECTS OF THE FLOOD part 1


What actually happened after the Flood

This chapter is based on pp. 665-719 of Origin of Life (Volume Two of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this chapter are at least 80 statements by scientists, plus specialized articles. You will find them, plus much more, in the encyclopedia on this website.

The oldest historical records of mankind in our possession were written by Moses. These are the books of Genesis and Job. In the first of these is given the history of the world from about 4000 B.C. on down to about 1900 B.C. In the first two chapters of Genesis we find an account of Creation Week, when our world and everything in it were made. In Genesis 6 to 9 we are told about the worldwide Flood that occurred about 2348 B.C. (1656 A.M. [anno mundi], or about 1,656 years after Creation).. 

The effects of that gigantic flood of waters were so dramatic that we find many evidences of it today. It is impossible to properly study origins and earth science without an understanding of the effects of the Flood. For this reason, we are including it in this chapter.. For this reason, we are including it in this chapter.

We will begin by considering rock strata and fossil remains as an effect and evidence of the Flood. .

Following this, we will view several non-strata and fossil effects of the time before the Flood, during the Flood, and a period of time immediately after the Flood ended.

In this chapter, we will obtain a better understanding of the effects of the Flood. We will also see more clearly how those effects prove, not uniformitarianism, but catastrophism. There was a worldwide Flood! It alone can explain so many geographical features on our planet today.

UNIFORMITARIANISM—A basic principle of evolution for over a century has been the theory of uniformitarianism, which teaches that "all things continue as they were from the beginning" (you will find 2 Peter 3:3-7 interesting reading).

When evolutionists gaze upon the immense ocean, the millions of fossils and thick coal seams in the sedimentary rocks, the sea shells on top of the highest mountains, the deep canyons with small rivers, vast dried-up lake beds, and thrust-up mountain blocks,—they declare that it all came about by the same fairly gentle processes and natural forces that are operating today.

"This is the great underlying principle of modern geology and is known as the principle of uniformitarianism . . Without the principle of uniformitarianism there could hardly be a science of geology that was more than pure description."—*W.D. Thornbury, Principles of Geomorphology (1957), pp. 16-17.

Thoughtful scientists admit that the uniformitarian theory explains nothing about the age of fossils, rock strata, the age of the earth, or anything else:

"The idea that the rates or intensities of geological processes have been constant is so obviously contrary to the evidence that one can only wonder at its persistence . . Modern uniformitarianism . . asserts nothing about the age of the Earth or about anything else."—*James H. Shea, "Twelve Fallacies of Uniformitarianism," in Geology, September 1982, p. 457.
"Uniformitarianists find it particularly difficult to apply their principle, namely: (1) the cause of mountain-building; (2) the origin of geosynclines; (3) the origin of petroleum; (4) the cause of continual glaciation; (5) the mechanics of overthrusting; (6) the cause of peneplains; (7) the cause of world-wide warm climates; (8) the nature of volcanism producing vast volcanic terrains; (9) the nature of continental uplift processes; (10) the origin of mineral deposits; (11) the nature of metamorphism; (12) the origin of saline deposits; (13) the nature of granitization; and (14) the origin of coal measures. Not one of the above phenomena has yet been adequately explained in terms of present processes."—H.R. Siegler, Evolution or Degeneration—Which? (1972).

See chapter 12, Fossils and Strata, for much more information on this.

CATASTROPHISM—In contrast, the concept called catastrophism teaches that a terrible crisis occurred at some earlier time.

Geologic evidence on all sides is clear that it was a catastrophe of such gigantic proportions that rocks were twisted, mountains were hurled upward, water was pulled out of the earth, and the very atmosphere was dramatically affected. As a consequence, thousands of volcanoes erupted and vast glaciers moved downward from poles which had earlier been warm.

"[*Bretz] has been unable to account for such a flood but maintained that field evidence indicated its reality. This theory represents a return to catastrophism which many geologists have been reluctant to accept."—*W.D. Thornbury, Principles of Geomorphology (1954), p. 401.

The evidence is so profound that many secular scientists are indeed turning away from uniformitarianism.

"In fact, the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell [who first widely championed uniformitarianism over a century ago]. The geologic record does seem to require catastrophism: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out. To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence. The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see. The catastrophists were [in contrast] the hard-nosed empiricists of their day."—*Stephan Jay Gould, "Catastrophes and Steady State Earth," in Natural History, February 1975, p. 17. [Gould is a professor at Harvard University, teaching geology, biology, and the history of science.]
"Conventional uniformitarianism, or ‘gradualism,’ i.e., the doctrine of unchanging change, is verily contradicted by all post-Cambrian sedimentary data and the geotectonic [earth movement] histories of which these sediments are the record."—*P.D. Krynine, "Uniformitarianism is a Dangerous Doctrine," in Paleontology, 1956, p. 1004.
"Often, I am afraid the subject [of geology] is taught superficially, with Geikie’s maxim ‘the present is the key to the past’ used as a catechism and the imposing term uniformitarianism’ as a smokescreen to hide confusion both of student and teacher."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "Is Uniformitarianism Useful?" in Journal of Geological Education, October 1957, p. 150.

I - FOSSILS, STRATA, AND THE FLOOD

Although this section duplicates portions of our earlier chapter, Fossils and Strata, the duplication is considered necessary, for we will now correlate the fossil and strata evidence with the worldwide Flood. Without doing so, it would be more difficult to properly assess the relationships, implications, and impact of the Flood.

FOSSILS AND ROCK STRATA—Above the molten rock at the center of our planet is a mantle of black basalt, from which flows the lava which issues forth out of volcanoes. Above that basalt is to be found the light-colored, coarse-grained crystals we call granite. This is the basement rock of the world and undergirds all of our continents. At times this granite is close to the surface, but frequently a large quantity of sedimentary rock is above it.

The sedimentary rock that overlays the granite was obviously laid down by a gigantic flood of waters, and is characterized by strata or layers. The strata are composed of water-borne sediments, such as pebbles, gravel, sand, and clay..

"About three-fourths, perhaps more, of the land area of the earth, 55 million square miles [142 million km2], has sedimentary rock as the bedrock at the surface or directly under the cover of the mantle-rock . . The thickness of the stratified rocks range from a few feet to 40,000 feet [121,920 dm] or more at any one place . . The vast bulk of the stratified rocks is composed of shallow-water deposits."—*O.D. von Engeln and *K.E. Caster, Geology (1952), p. 129.

Within that strata is to be found billions upon billions of fossils. These are the remains—or the casts—of plants and animals that suddenly died. Yet fossilization does not normally occur today, for it requires sudden death, sudden burial, and great pressure.

"To become fossilized a plant or animal must usually have hard parts, such as bone, shell or wood. It must be buried quickly to prevent decay and must be undisturbed throughout the process."—*F.H.T. Rhodes, H.S. Zim, and *P.R. Shaffer, Fossils (1962), p. 10.

The sedimentary strata (also called fossil-bearing strata, or "the geologic column") were laid down at the time of the Flood. There are no fossils in the granite, for that rock was formed prior to the Flood.

We would not expect to find fossils in granite since the astounding information given in chapter 3, Origin of the Earth, reveals granite to be "creation rock," antedating the Flood. We there learned that, back in the beginning, granite came into existence in less than three minutes!

MILLIONS OF ANIMALS SUDDENLY DIED—The quantity of fossils in the sedimentary rocks is enormous.

"At this spot [in Wyoming] the fossil hunters found a hillside literally covered with large fragments of dinosaur bones . . In short, it was a veritable mine of dinosaur bones . . The concentration of the fossils was remarkable; they were piled in like logs in a Jam."—*Edwin Colbert, Men and Dinosaurs (1968), p. 151.

Scores of other instances of immense "fossil graveyards" could be cited. Vast quantities of plants and animals were suddenly buried. So many fossils exist that one researcher made a carbon inventory,—and found that at the present time—most of the carbon in our world is locked within the fossils in the sedimentary strata!

There must have been an immense quantity of living plants and animals before the worldwide Flood occurred. Evidence indicates that, back then, our world had no deserts, high mountains, few or no oceans, and plants and animals flourished even near the poles. So the world would have been filled with vegetation and animal life.

MOST SPECIES ARE ALREADY EXTINCT— Some great natural catastrophe occurred earlier in history, for most of the species which have ever lived are no longer alive!

"Natural selection not only brings new species into existence—if it does—but also eliminates species, and on a colossal scale. It is calculated that 99 per cent of all the species which have ever existed are now extinct. So perhaps it may be more instructive to discover why species vanish than why they appear."—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 86.
"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is outpacing integration."—*T.N. George, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," in Science Progress, January 1960, p. 1.

WHY FOSSILS ARE SO IMPORTANT—The term, "evolution," means that species change gradually into different species. If such species changes are occurring today, the transitional forms should be seen. If it has occurred in the past the fossil record will show the transitional forms.

It is of interest that evolution bases its case on the fossils. This is because there is no evidence that evolutionary processes are occurring today. Therefore the Darwinists must consider the fossils to be their primary evidence that it has ever occurred at all.

"The most important evidence for the theory of evolution is that obtained from the study of paleontology [fossils]. Though the study of other branches of zoology, such as comparative anatomy or embryology, might lead one to suspect that animals are all interrelated, it was the discovery of various fossils and their correct placing in relative strata and age that provided the main factual basis for the modern view of evolution."—*G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1960), p. 134.
"Although the comparative study of living plants and animals may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms."—*O. Dunbar, Historical Geology (1960), p. 47.

But just as there are no transitional forms today, there are none in the past either! At the present time, all we have are distinct plant and animal kinds. No transitional species are to be found. (We will frequently refer to these basic types as "species," although man-made classification systems vary, sometimes incorrectly classifying sub-species or genera as "species." See chapter 11, Animal and Plant Species for more on this.) 

In that great window to the past—the fossil record—we also find only distinct plant and animal kinds, with no transitional forms. With the exception of creatures that have become extinct (plants and animals which are no longer alive today, such as the dinosaurs), all fossils of plants and animals which did not become extinct, are just like those living today (stasis). Only distinct species are to be found; there are no halfway, or transitional, species (gaps). Thus there is NO evidence of evolution in the fossils.

ECOLOGICAL ZONATION—This simple diagram illustrates how, as the rains fell, the slowest creatures were first to be entombed in the sediments, and then larger ones above.

Ecological Zonation

EC622.jpg (170787 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGE

In *Kerkut’s statement, quoted above, it is "the placing" of the fossils in the strata that provides the evidence of evolution. All the Darwinists have to base their case on isplacement, not transitional forms. . But what caused that placement?

FOSSIL PLACEMENT—The slowest-moving creatures were buried first; after that, the faster-moving ones. As the waters of the worldwide deluge rose higher and still higher, they first covered the slowest-moving water creatures, and buried them under sediment.

Then the slower-moving land creatures were covered and buried under sediment. Then the more agile creatures (both water and land) were covered. In the fossil-bearing sedimentary strata we frequently find this arrangement, with the smaller creatures in the lower strata and the larger ones higher up.

Yet even the smallest creatures are complex, and just beneath the lowest stratum, the Cambrian, we find no fossils at all! This is both an astonishment and a terrible disappointment to the evolutionists. The lowest-level life-forms in the strata are complex multi-celled animals and plants. 

"It has been argued that the series of paleontological [fossil] finds is too intermittent, too full of ‘missing links’ to serve as convincing proof. If a postulated ancestral type is not found, it is simply stated that it has not so far been found. Darwin himself often used this argument—and in his time it was perhaps justifiable. But it has lost its value through the immense advances of paleobiology [the study of animal fossils] in the twentieth century . . The true situation is that those fossils have not been found which were expected. Just where new branches are supposed to fork off from the main stem it has been impossible to find the connecting types."—*N. Heribert-Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (1953), p. 1168 [Director of the Botanical institute at Lund, Sweden].

Each twig on the imaginary plant and animal "family trees" is a distinct plant or animal type, either extinct or like what we have today (although frequently larger). Butthere are no intermediate life-forms to connect the twigs! There are no branches and no trunk, only "twigs." The rest of the tree is imaginary.

RAPID FORMATION OF IMMENSE DEPOSITS—Nowhere on earth today do we have fossils forming on the scale that we see in geologic deposits. The Karro Beds in Africa, for example, contain the remains of perhaps 800 billion vertebrates! But such fossils are not forming today. A million fish can be killed in red tides in the Gulf of Mexico, but they simply decay away; they do not become fossils. Similarly, debris from vegetation does not today become coal. In order for fossilization to occur, the vegetation would have to be rapidly buried under an extremely heavy load of sediment.

It required massive flood conditions to do all that burying. An immense worldwide catastrophe occurred in the past. It produced the Sicilian hippopotamus beds, the fossils of which are so extensive that they are mined as a source of charcoal; the great mammal beds of the Rockies; the dinosaur beds of the Black Hills and the Rockies, as well as in the Gobi Desert; the fish beds of the Scottish Devonian stratum, the Baltic amber beds, Agate Spring Quarry in Nebraska, and hundreds more. None of this fossil-making is being done today. It only happened one time in history—at the time of the Flood.

Frequently the fossils in these beds come from widely separated and differing climatic zones, only to be thrown together in disorderly masses. Nothing but a worldwide Flood can explain this. And those fossils had to be rapidly buried. *Pinna explains why this is so.

"In fact, when an organism dies, the substances that compose its soft parts undergo more or less rapid decay, due to such factors as attack by bacteria and erosion by water (particularly the sea) . . If an organism is to be preserved, it must be protected from destructive agents as quickly as possible . . And the sooner that this consolidation occurs, the more likely it is that the organism will be preserved . . there are also certain layers, such as those formed from extremely finegrained calcareous rocks, which have consolidated so rapidly as to permit the preservation of the most delicate structures of many organisms."—*G. Pinna, The Dawn of Life, pp. 1-2 [Deputy Director of the Museum of Natural History in Milan, Italy].

In spite of these facts, there are still science writers who imagine that when an animals falls into mud, tar, or water—and dies,—it becomes a fossil! But such an idea is only fiction.

"We can easily imagine the predicament which led to the fossilization of the three individuals [three fossil birds] so long ago. They were probably forced into reluctant flight by some pursuing reptilian predator, only to flop down on the water and mud from which they could not rise."—*R. Peterson, The Birds, p. 10.

PRECAMBRIAN VOID—The lowest stratum with fossils in it is called the "Cambrian." It has a great wealth of over a thousand different types of creatures—all complex and multi-celled marine animals.

"At least 1500 species of invertebrates are known in the Cambrian, all marine, of which 60% are trilobites and 30% brachiopods."—*Maurice Gignoux, Stratigraphic Geology (1955), p. 46.

Above this are the Ordovician, Silurian, and Devonian, and they all include sea creatures similar to those in the Cambrian. It is not until the Permo-Carboniferous that the first land animals are encountered.

The worldwide fossil strata give abundant evidence of a great flood of waters that covered the earth. Below the sedimentary strata, with its hoard of fossils, we find the "Precambrian period,"—and no fossils. (Some scientists claim that a few are there, others say they are not sure, while still others maintain that there are absolutely no fossils below the Cambrian.)

The sedimentary strata with their billions of fossils are both a powerful effect and evidence of the Flood. The Precambrian lack of fossils is an additional evidence of it. Evolutionists point to these strata with their fossils as proof of evolution. But throughout the fossil rock we should find transitional—evolving—types of plants and animals. In addition, at the bottom below the Cambrian, should be the types that evolved into those in the Cambrian.

"One can no longer dismiss this event by assuming that all Pre-Cambrian rocks have been too greatly altered by time to allow the fossils ancestral to the Cambrian metazoans to be preserved . . Even if all the Pre-Cambrian ancestors of the Cambrian metazoans were similarly soft-bodied and therefore rarely preserved, far more abundant traces of their activities should have been found in the Pre-Cambrian strata than has proved to be the case. Neither can the general failure to find Pre-Cambrian animal fossils be charged to any lack of looking."—*W.B. Harland and *Rudwick, "The Great Infra-Cambrian Ice-Age," in Scientific American, 211(1964), pp. 34-36.
"Why should such complex organic forms (in the Cambrian) be in rocks about six hundred million years old, and be absent or unrecognized in the records of the preceding two billion years? If there has been evolution of life, the absence of requisite fossils in the rocks older than the Cambrian is puzzling."—*G.M. Kay and *E.H. Colbert, Stratigraphy and Life History (1965), pp. 102-103.

FOSSIL TREES—Polystrate trees are fossil trees which extend vertically through several layers of rock strata. They are often 20 feet [60.9 dm] or more in length.Often the entire length of each tree will be preserved, along with the top and bottom. Such a formation would easily be explained by the Flood, but impossible to be fitted into the theory of uniformitarianism, which says that the rock strata are like tree rings, and have slowly been forming over the last two billion years. Each stratum supposedly took millions of years to form.

There is no doubt that those trees were quickly covered by the strata, otherwise each tree would have decomposed while waiting for a hundred thousand years of strata to form around it. From bottom to top, these upright trees sometimes span "millions of years" of strata. Quite obviously, both the trees and sediments around them were moved into place and deposited at the same approximate time.  

Many will recall the explosion of Mount St. Helens on May 18, 1980. Research was done at the site shortly afterward and it was discovered that the explosion filled Spirit Lake with logs, many of which were floating vertically, due to the weight of their roots. This helps explain what took place at the time of the Flood, as trees were washed into an area and then, while floating vertically in the water, were covered by a rapid deposit of sediment.

As a result of upheaval of ground, combined with successive depositions of sedimentary layers, there are instances in which vertical trees are to be found at more than one level. Given the chaotic conditions at the time of the Flood, this would be understandable. Fossil trees have been found horizontal, vertical, diagonal, and upside down.

COAL AND OIL—Most geologists agree that coal came from ancient plants, and oil came from ancient marine animals (primarily the soft parts of invertebrates, but also fish). Neither coal nor petroleum is naturally being formed today. None of it is found in Pleistocene (ice-age) deposits, but instead was quickly laid down during the Flood, before the glacial ice flows began.

"Petroleum occurs in rocks of all ages from the Cambrian to the Pliocene inclusive, but no evidence has been found to prove that any petroleum has been formed since the Pliocene, although sedimentation patterns and thicknesses in Pleistocene and Recent sediments are similar to those in the Pliocene where petroleum has formed."—*Ben B. Cox, "Transformation of Organic Material into Petroleum under Geological Conditions," Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, May 1946, p. 647.

Why did no petroleum form after the Pliocene era? This is a mystery to evolutionary geologists, but it is no problem to Flood geology. T

From the beginning of the Cambrian to the end of the Pliocene was when the Flood occurred..

"The apparent absence of formation of petroleum subsequent to the Pliocene must be explained in any study of the transformation of organic material into petroleum."—*Ibid.

(Some oil deposits have been found below the Cambrian level, but it was afterward learned that they seeped there from fossil-bearing strata above.)

Great masses of vegetation, that became the coal we use today, were quickly laid down. Because of Flood conditions, other things were also deposited in those coal strata:  

(1) Marine fossils (tubeworms, corals, sponges, mollusks, etc.) are often found in coal beds.

(2) Large boulders are found in them.

(3) Fossil trees are found standing on an angle or even upside down in coal beds.

(4) Washed-in marine sediments will split a coal seam into two.

(5) Sediment "under-soils" will frequently be under them.

(6) Strata of deposited limestone, shale (hardened clay), or sandstone will be found in between coal deposits. These strata are often found scores of times in seams of coal.

Evolutionists maintain that oil and gas require millions of years to form, and could not be rapidly produced from vegetation, as Flood geology would require. But recent experiments have shown that petroleum can be quickly made:

"There is great promise in a system being developed by government scientists that converts organic material to oil and gas by treating it with carbon monoxide and water at high temperature and pressure . .