|
The Theory of Evolution In accepting the theory of evolution, we are asked to accept as fact many other theories. Evolution is not one theory, but a complex series of theories. It is based upon many preconceived `facts`. Any time someone begins piling theory upon theory, the stack of theories becomes like a chain. The failure of any one theory can easily nullify the others. In `believing` in evolution, we are asked to believe that all of the different forms of life on earth began from a `primeval soup`. No one knows where this `soup` was, or what happened to it. No one can say what happened to suddenly bring forth life from the `soup`. What evidence is there to prove or disprove the theory of evolution? Is evolution a workable explanation for the origin of life on the planet Earth? The purpose of this paper is to present the evidence showing the many misleading `facts` often presented as `proof` that evolution is an undeniable `fact`. --------- This paper is divided into two parts. The first part is a collection of statements from a file that I downloaded from a BBS. The second part is a paraphrased dialogue from a study of evolution made by a personal friend of mine. He is represented only by his initials. I have permission to quote from his dialogue. It is paraphrased because his lecture covered a time period of three hours. Therefore I have removed portions of it in the cause of brevity. To reproduce it all would probably create a file that is too large. My friend desires no publicity or material gain for his efforts. Neither do I. I offer this file as public domain. My incentive is that I feel the public has been grossly misinformed as to the validity of the theory of evolution. Some topics were present in both papers, thus I have paraphrased to avoid redundancy. As for credentials, I have none for the author of part one, although he or she is obviously an educated person. As for my friend`s credentials, he is a graduate from a major Texas college with a degree in dentistry. I have known him for more than ten years, and he is not trying to personally convert anyone to any specific point of view. He feels that the evidence speaks for itself. Words that have been capitalized are those that, I feel, demand emphasis. I am responsible for any added emphasis. -=FIRST, THE LEGALITIES=- THE DISTRIBUTOR OF THIS INFORMATION WILL IN NO CASE BE LIABLE FOR ITS INTERPRETATION, NOR WILL HE BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES, WHETHER DIRECT OR INCIDENTAL, RESULTING FROM THE CONSUMPTIONOR INTERPRETATION OF THIS MATERIAL. THIS INFORMATION IS INTENDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY! THIS FILE IS DECLARED TO BE FREEWARE. ANY PART OF IT MAY BE DISTRIBUTED AS DESIRED, AS LONG AS IT IS NOT CHANGED IN ANY MANNER. "NOT ONE CHANGE OF SPECIES INTO ANOTHER IS ON RECORD. We cannot prove that a single species has ever changed." - Charles Darwin ------------------------------------------------------- PART ONE ------------------------------------------------------- The Origin of Life What is life? Is it just having the right combinations of proteins in just the right order? Is a man nothing more than a collection of substances and chemicals that happened to somehow `become alive`? Evolutionists claim that the process of life was started by some unknown process, millions (or billions) of years ago. This is the foundation of the evolutionary theory. Is there proof that this is really what happened? One of the greatest weaknesses of evolutionary theory is that there are too many forms of life to have happened by chance, and the building blocks of life are too complex to have just somehow `happened`. Could a cell by chance come into being that "has the DNA instructions to fill one thousand 600-page books?" (National Geographic). Examples: 1. Research has shown that the requirements for life are so complex that chance and even billions of years could not have produced them. 2. Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from inorganic materials) has never been observed. 3. Mendel's laws of genetics explain virtually all of the physical variations that are observed within life categories such as the dog family. A logical consequence of these laws and their modern day refinements is that there are limits to such variation. 4. The many similarities between different species do not necessarily imply a genealogical relationship; they may imply a common Designer. 5. The human body (or the body of any other creature) cannot live without most internal organs, such as the heart, the lungs, the liver, et cetera. Remove any of these organs, and the specimen dies. This implies that the entire body was created at one point in time. 6. Natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics. 7. Mutations are the only proposed mechanism by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution. 8. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; many are fatal. 9. No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having both greater complexity and greater viability than its ancestors. 10. Over seventy years of fruit-fly experiments, equivalent to 2700 human generations, give no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in either complexity or viability. No clear genetic improvement has been observed despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates. In addition, no `new` life form has been produced by mutation. No fruit fly `evolved` into a mosquito or a bee. 11. There is no evidence that mutations could ever produce any new organs such as the eye, the ear, or the brain. 12. If the earth, early in its alleged `evolution`, had oxygen in its atmosphere, the chemicals needed for life would have been removed by oxidation. But if there had been no oxygen, then there would have been no ozone, and without ozone all life would be quickly destroyed by the sun's ultraviolet radiation. 13. Two aspects ignored by studies of the origin of life are: a) The beauty of the different forms of life. b) The symmetry of virtually all forms of life. Evolutionary scientists ignore these aspects, primarily because these two things suggest a Creator. Virtually all recorded mutations produce malformed, `non-evolutionary` changes in the subject under study. 14. There have been many imaginative but unsuccessful attempts to explain how just one single protein could form from any of the assumed conditions of the early earth. The necessary chemical reactions all tend to move in the direction opposite from that required. Furthermore, each possible energy source, whether the earth's heat, electrical discharges, or the sun's radiation, would destroy the protein products millions of times faster than they could be formed. 15. If, despite the virtually impossible odds, proteins arose by chance processes, there is absolutely no reason to believe that they could ever form a self-reproducing, membrane-encased, living cell. There is no evidence that there are any stable states between the assumed naturalistic formation of proteins and the formation of the first living cells. No scientist has ever advanced a testable procedure whereby this fantastic jump in complexity could have occurred -- even if the universe were completely filled with proteins, as you will see. 16. The cells of living creatures are enormously complex. Every part must be present in order for the cell to survive. All the parts have different `jobs`. It is not illogical to state that if you remove any one part, the cell cannot survive. This obviously implies that the parts (ie, the cell membrane, the nucleus, the ribosomes, etc.) had to have come into being at the same time. 17. Computer-generated comparisons have been made of the sequences of amino acids that comprise a protein which is common to 47 forms of animal and plant life. The results of these studies seriously place the theory of evolution into jeopardy. 18. The genetic information contained in each cell of the human body is roughly equivalent to a library of 4000 volumes. For chance mutations and natural selection to produce this amount of information, assuming that matter and life `somehow` got started, is analogous to continuing the following procedure until 4000 volumes have been produced: (a) Start with a meaningful phrase. (b) Retype the phrase but make some errors and insert some additional letters. (c) Examine the new phrase to see if it is meaningful. (d) If it is, replace the original phrase with it. (e) If it is not, return to step (b). To accumulate 4000 volumes that are meaningful, this procedure would have to produce the equivalent of far more than 10^3000 (10 to the 3000th power) animal offspring. To begin to understand how large 10^3000 is, realize that the entire universe has `only` about 10^80 atoms in it. 19. Based on present day observations, DNA can only be replicated or reproduced with the help of certain enzymes. But these enzymes can only be produced at the direction of DNA. Since each requires the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must simultaneously explain the origin of the other. 20. Amino acids, when found in nonliving matter, come in two forms that are chemically equivalent; about half can be described as "right-handed" and half "left-handed" (a structural description -- one is the mirror image of the other). However, the protein molecules found in all forms of life, including plants, animals, bacteria, molds, and even viruses, have only the left-handed variety. The mathematical probability that chance processes could produce just one tiny protein molecule with only left- handed amino acids is virtually zero. 21. The simplest form of life consists of 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probability that just one molecule could form by the chance arrangement of the proper amino acids is far less than 1 in 10^527 (10 to the 527th power). The magnitude of the number 10^527 can begin to be appreciated by realizing that the visible universe is about 10^28 inches in diameter. 22. There are many instances where quite different forms of life are completely dependent upon each other. Examples include: fig trees and the fig gall wasp, the yucca plant and the pronuba moth, many parasites and their hosts, pollen-bearing plants and the honey-bee family consisting of the queen, workers, and drones. There are many, many others. If one member of each interdependent group evolved first (such as the plant before the animal), the other member could not have survived. Since all members of the group obviously have survived, they must have come into existence at essentially the same time. 23. Earthly life forms reproduce after their own kind. Different animals do not inter-breed. This suggests that each of these life forms were distinctly created. Cats and dogs do not interbreed to produce `cat-dogs`. Therefore it is highly unlikely that different life forms were formed by species interbreeding. ----------- FOSSIL EVIDENCE "The vast majority of artists` conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. Artists must create something between an ape and a man; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it." -- Science Digest 1. Stories claiming that primitive, ape-like men have been found are overstated. Piltdown man was an acknowledged hoax. The fragmentary evidence that constituted Nebraska man was a pig's tooth. The discoverer of Java man later acknowledged that it was a large gibbon and that he had withheld evidence to that effect. The `evidence` concerning Peking man has disappeared. Louis and Mary Leakey, the discoverers of Zinjanthropus (previously referred to by some as Australopithecus), later admitted that they were probably apes. Ramapithecus man consists merely of a handful of teeth and jaw fragments; his teeth are very similar to those of the gelada baboon living today. For about 100 years the world was led to believe that Neanderthal man was stooped and ape-like. Recent studies show that this individual was crippled with arthritis and probably had rickets. Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man are similar to humans living today. Artists' depictions, especially of the fleshy portions of the body, are quite imaginative and are not supported by evidence. Furthermore, the dating techniques are highly questionable. 2. Many of the world's fossils show, by the details of their soft fleshy portions, that they were buried before they could decay. This, together with the occurrence of polystrate fossils (fossils that traverse two or more strata of sedimentary rock) in Carboniferous, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic formations, is unmistakable evidence that this sedimentary material was deposited rapidly -- not over hundreds of millions of years. 3. Many fossils of modern looking humans have been found deep in rock formations that are supposedly many millions of years older than evolutionary theory would predict. These remains are ignored or even suppressed by evolutionists. 4. The vertical sequencing of fossils is frequently not in the assumed evolutionary order. 5. Nowhere on the earth can one find the so-called "geologic column." Even at the Grand Canyon, only a small fraction of this imaginary column is found. 6. If `evolution` had occurred, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers and between all forms of life. Just the opposite is found. Many complex species appear suddenly in the lowest layers, and innumerable gaps and discontinuities appear throughout. 7. The vast majority of the sediments, which encase practically all fossils, were laid down though water. 8. The worldwide fossil record is evidence of the rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a flood; it is not evidence of slow change. 9. A `simple' protein consists of about 100 amino acids. How likely would it be that such a protein could `chain together` by chance? Assume that we have a `soup` full of amino acids. We want these amino acids to `link up` at random to form a protein consisting of 100 amino acids. How many different combinations are there? Suppose there are 20 different amino acids available. If we wanted a chain of two acids there would be 20 possibilities for the first and 20 for the second - a total of 20 X 20 = 400 possibilities. For a chain of three acids, there would be 20 X 20 X 20 = 8000 possibilities. For a protein consisting of 100 amino acids (a `simple` protein), there would be 20^100 possibilities. 20^100 is roughly equal to 10^130. Scientists have stated that there may be as many as 10^22 stars in the observable universe. Let`s be generous and assume there are 1000 times that many. Let`s generously assume that each star has 10 `Earths`; that is, 10 planets that have the conditions necessary for the support of life. We will change the water into amino acids (10^46 molecules). Thus, 10^26 * 10^46 = 10^72 amino acids on all the `earths`. A year has less than 10^8 seconds for a total of 10^78 chains per year. Let`s assume that the universe is 100 billion years old. We would have 10^78 * 10^11 chains formed in all the oceans of amino acids on all of our `earths` around all our stars, for all the years that the universe has existed. But we have seen that there are about 10^130 possibilities. Therefore, the probability of forming by chance the given protein consisting of 100 amino acids in 10^89 tries is less that 10^89/10^130, which equals 1/10^41, OR, 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000041. This is, needless to say, an infinitely small number. Thus, even if there were 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 `Earths`, instead of just the one Earth, the chances of life emerging on EVEN ONE of them are bleak, to say the least. And by the way, we looked at a `simple` protein. The average- sized protein has 500 amino acids! 10. Detailed studies of various animals have revealed certain physical equipment and capabilities that cannot be duplicated by the world's best designers using the most sophisticated technologies. A few examples include: the miniature and reliable sonar systems of the dolphins, porpoises, and whales; the frequency modulated radar and discrimination system of the bat; the efficiency and aerodynamic capabilities of the hummingbird; the control systems, internal ballistics, and combustion chambers of the bombardier beetle; and the precise and redundant navigational systems of many birds and fish. Scientists have `proven` that it is aerodynamically impossible for a bee to fly. Yet it flies. The many components of these complex systems could not have evolved in stages without placing a selective disadvantage on the animal. 11. If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of `evolution`, an absolutely unbelievable series of chance events would have had to occur. First, the complex and completely different reproductive systems of the male must have completely and independently evolved at about the same time and place as those of the female. A slight incompleteness in just one of the two would make both systems useless, and natural selection would oppose their survival. Second, the physical and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible. Third, the complex products of the male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) would have to have an affinity for and a mechanical and chemical compatibility with the eggs from the female reproductive system. Fourth, the intricate and numerous processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision the very first time it happened -- processes which scientists can only describe in an aggregate sense. And finally, the environment of the fertilized egg, from conception until it also reproduces with another sexually capable "brother or sister," would have to be controlled to an unbelievable degree. And if these processes did not occur at precisely the right time, then one must restart this incredible chain of events near zero. The odds then become so astronomical that they insult the intelligence of anyone with common sense. The `facts` of evolution are already difficult enough to believe, without stretching them any further. Either this series of incredible events occurred by random processes, or else an Intelligent Designer created sexual reproduction. ------------ WERE THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, THE EARTH, AND LIFE RECENTLY CREATED? Naturalistic explanations for the evolution of the solar system and universe are unscientific and hopelessly inadequate. According to ALL theories on the evolution of the solar system: a. The planets should all rotate on their axes in the same direction; Venus and Uranus rotate `backwards`. b. All 42 moons of the various planets should revolve in the same direction; at least 11 revolve `backwards`. c. The orbits of these 42 moons should all lie in the equatorial plane of the planet they orbit; many, including the earth's moon, are highly inclined. d. The material of the earth (and Mars, Venus, and Mercury) should almost all be hydrogen and helium -- similar to that of the sun and the rest of the visible universe; actually much less than 1% of the earth's mass is hydrogen or helium. e. The sun should have 700 times more angular momentum than the planets; the planets have 50 times more angular momentum than the sun. 1. Detailed analyses indicate that stars could not have formed from interstellar gas clouds. To do so, either by first forming dust particles or by a direct gravitational collapse of the gas, would require vastly more time than the alleged age of the universe. The ONLY alternative is that stars must have been created. 2. The sun's tidal forces are so strong that dust clouds or gas clouds lying within the orbit of Jupiter could never condense to form planets. 3. Saturn's rings could not have formed from the disintegration of a former satellite or from the capture of external material; its particles are too small and too evenly distributed throughout an orbit that is too circular. 4. The moon was not torn from the earth, nor did it congeal from the same material as the earth since the relative abundance of its elements are too dissimilar from those of the earth. If the moon formed from particles orbiting the earth, other particles should be easily visible inside the moon's orbit; none are. The moon's circular, highly inclined orbit is strong evidence that it was never captured by the earth. If the moon was not pulled from the earth, was not built up from smaller particles near its present orbit, and was not captured from outside its present orbit, only one possibility remains. The moon must have been created in its present orbit. 5. No scientific theory exists to explain the origin of matter, space, or time. Since each is intimately related and defined in terms of the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the others. Naturalistic explanations have completely failed. 6. One Postulation of The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the energy of our universe is constant, or `conserved`. Countless experiments have shown that regardless of the energy conversion process, the total amount of energy (or its mass equivalent) remains constant. A corollary of the First Law is that no energy can be created. Sin ce the universe obviously has energy, that energy must have been created in the past when The First Law was not operating. Since the energy of the universe could not have created itself, Something external must have created it. 7. Stellar evolution is assumed in estimation the age of stars. These age estimates are then used to establish a framework for `stellar evolution`. This is CIRCULAR reasoning. 8. There is NO evidence that galaxies `evolved`. -------------- IS THE EARTH REALLY AS OLD AS EVOLUTIONISTS SAY IT IS? 1. Any estimated date prior to the beginning of written records must necessarily assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the initial setting of the clock is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed. These assumptions are not verifiable, and are not necessarily reliable. 2. A major assumption that underlies all radioactive dating techniques is that the rates of decay, which have been essentially constant over the past 70 years, have also been constant over the past 200,000,000 years. This bold, critical, and untestable assumption is made even though no one knows what causes radioactive decay. 3. The public has been greatly misled concerning the reliability and trustworthiness of radiometric dating techniques (the Potassium-Argon method, the Rubidium-Strontium method, and the Uranium-Thorium method). Many of the published dates can be checked by comparisons with the assumed ages for the fossils that sometimes bracket radiometrically dated rock. In over 300 (or almost half) of these PUBLISHED checks, the radiometrically determined ages were at least one geologic age in error -- indicating major errors in methodology. An unanswered question is, "How many other dating checks were not published because they too were in error?" 4. Pleochroic halos, tiny spheres of discoloration produced by the radioactive decay of particles that are encased in various crystals, show that the earth's crust was NEVER in a molten state. Furthermore, these halos suggest that the rate of radioactive decay was NOT constant, and in fact, varied by MANY orders of magnitude from that observed today. 5. Geological formations are almost always dated by their fossil content, especially by certain INDEX FOSSILS of extinct animals. The age of the fossil is derived from the ASSUMED evolutionary sequence, but the evolutionary sequence is based on the fossil record. This reasoning is CIRCULAR! Furthermore, this procedure has produced many contradictory results. 6. Human footprints are found alongside dinosaur footprints in the rock formations of the Paluxy riverbed in Texas. This obviously shows that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time and the same place. But evolutionists claim that dinosaurs became extinct about 30 million years before `man` supposedly began to `evolve`. 7. Many different people have found at different times and places man-made artifacts encased in coal! Examples include an 8-carat gold chain, a spoon, a thimble, an iron pot, a bell, and other objects of obvious human manufacture. Many other "out-of-place artifacts" such as a metallic vase, a screw, nails, a strange coin, and a doll have been found buried deeply in solid rock. By evolutionary dating techniques, these objects would be hundreds of millions of years old; but man supposedly didn't begin to evolve until 2-4 million years ago. This casts more doubt on the dating methods used. 8. In rock formations in Utah, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Kentucky, human footprints that are supposedly 150-600 million years old have been found and examined by many different authorities. Obviously, there is a major error in chronology. 9. The fact that there is no worldwide unconformity in the earth's sedimentary strata implies that this entire geologic record must have been deposited rapidly. (An "unconformity" is an erosional surface between two adjacent rock formations representing a time break of unknown duration. "Conformities" imply a continuous and rapid deposition. Since one can always trace a continuous path from the bottom to the top of the geologic record that avoids these unconformities, the sediments along that path must have been deposited continuously.) 10. Radiocarbon dating, which has been accurately calibrated by counting the rings of living trees that are up to 3,500 years old, is unable to extend this accuracy and date organic remains that are more ancient. A few people have claimed that ancient wood exists which will permit this calibration to be extended even further back in time, but these people have not let outside scientists examine their data. On the other hand, measurements made at hundreds of sites worldwide indicate that the concentration of radiocarbon in the atmosphere rose quite rapidly at some time prior to 3,500 years ago. If this happened, a radiocarbon age of 40,000 years could easily correspond to a true age of 5,000 years. ----------- MANY DATING TECHNIQUES SHOW THE EARTH AND SOLAR SYSTEM TO BE YOUNG 1. Direct measurements of the earth's magnetic field over the past 140 years show a steady and rapid decline in its strength. This decay pattern is consistent with the theoretical view that there is an electrical current inside the earth which produces the magnetic field. If this view is correct, then 25,000 years ago the electrical current would have been so vast that the earth's structure could not have survived the heat produced. This would imply that the earth could not be older than 25,000 years. 2. The atmosphere has less than 40,000 years worth of helium, based on just the production of helium from the decay of uranium and thorium. There is no known means by which large amounts of helium can escape from the atmosphere. The atmosphere appears to be young. 3. The rate at which elements such as copper, gold, tin, lead, silicon, mercury, uranium and nickel are entering the oceans is very rapid when compared with the small quantities of these elements already in the oceans. Therefore, the oceans must be very much younger than a million years. 4. Evolutionists believe that the continents have existed for at least 1 billion years. However, the continents are being eroded at a rate that would have leveled them in a relatively short 14 million years. 5. The occurrence of abnormally high gas and oil pressures within relatively permeable rock implies that these fluids were formed or encased less than 10,000 years ago. If these hydrocarbons had been trapped over 10,000 years ago, there would have been leakage which would have dropped the pressure to a level far below what it is today. 7. There have been no authenticated reports of the discovery of meteorites in sedimentary material. If the sediments, which have an average depth of 1 1/2 miles, were laid down over hundreds of millions of years, many of these steadily falling meteorites should have been discovered. Therefore, the sediments appear to have been deposited rapidly; furthermore, since there have been no reports of meteorites beneath the sediments, they appear to have been deposited recently. 8. Since 1836, over one hundred different observers at the Royal Greenwich Observatory and U.S. Naval Observatory have made direct visual measurements which show that the diameter of the sun is shrinking at a rate of about .1% each century or about 5 feet per hour! Furthermore, records of solar eclipses indicate that this rapid shrinkage has been going on for at least the past 400 years. Several indirect techniques also confirm this gravitational collapse, although these inferred collapse rates are only about 1/7th as much. Using the most conservative data, one must conclude that had the sun existed one million years ago, it would have been so large that it would have heated the earth so much that life could not have survived. Yet, evolutionists say that a million years ago all the present forms of life were essentially as they are now, having completed their `evolution` that began 200 million years ago. 9. Short period comets "boil off" some of their mass each time they pass the sun. Nothing should remain of these comets after about 10,000 years. There are no known sources for replenishing comets. If comets came into existence at the same time as the solar system, the solar system must be less than 10,000 years old. 10. Jupiter and Saturn are each radiating more than twice the energy they receive from the sun. Calculations show that it is very unlikely that this energy comes from radioactive decay or gravitational contraction. The only other conceivable explanation is that these planets have not existed long enough to cool off. 11. The sun's gravitational field acts as a giant vacuum cleaner which sweeps up about 100,000 tons of micrometeorites per day. If the solar system were just 10,000 years old, no micrometeoroids should remain since there is no significant source of replenishment. A large disk shaped cloud of these particles is orbiting the sun. Conclusion: the solar system is less than 10,000 years old. 12. Stars frequently travel in closely spaced clusters, moving in the same direction at nearly the same speed. This would not be the case if they had been traveling for billions of years, because even the slightest difference in their velocity would cause their dispersal after such great periods of time. 13. If man and languages `evolved`, the earliest languages should be the simplest. On the contrary, as one studies languages that are increasingly ancient, such as Latin (200 B.C.), Greek (800 B.C.), and Vedic Sanskrit (1500 B.C.), they become INCREASINGLY COMPLEX with respect to syntax, cases, genders, moods, voices, tenses, and verb forms. The evidence indicates that languages do not Evolve, they DEvolve. ------------------------------------------------------- PART TWO ------------------------------------------------------- This lecture composed by Dr. L., D.D.S I request that the reader `pretend` that the material below, being derived from an audio tape, is entirely enclosed in quotes. I have not included them because I am not a very good typist, and to have added them would have required quite a bit more time to put this information into print. Also, please forgive me for any typing, spelling, or grammatical errors that I may have made. Thank you. ------------------------------------------------------- "I would like to approach the theory of evolution from an academic standpoint. I have personally paid my dues....as most of you know, I have a degree of dentistry, which requires a study of many courses in the biological sciences, in college and dental school, to get that type of degree. One of the optional courses I took while going to ------- college was a course entitled `evolution`. After a creationist-oriented child and teen years, I went to college, and that`s when I started getting REALLY smart. Looking back now, I realize that I had fallen victim to a great deal of scientific deception. I want you to know that the theory of evolution looks pretty good if you look at it from a distance. When you get right down to the `nuts and bolts` of evolution, it is in deep trouble. One of the leading scientists of this age has called evolution `incredible`. The definition of `incredible` is not `amazing`. `Incredible` literally means `without credibility`. He said that "the problem is, the only alternative is creation." In effect he meant that since he `knew` creation is `wrong`, he HAD to believe evolution. This was not a man making fun of creationism. This is a scientist, and true scientists all over the world realize that the theory of evolution is in deep trouble. Yet they cling to it, because to do otherwise would be to admit the existence of God. In the 1800`s and in the past, we knew so little about the life process that scientists could make a case for the theory of evolution. However, as our knowledge of genetics and the human body as a whole progressed, facts began emerging that cause the theory of evolution to be in doubt. The same goes for our knowledge of the universe. I believe it was Karl Marx that said that `religion is the opiate of the masses`. In other words he meant that the masses use religion as an opiate to mollify their existence. I say that evolution is the opiate of the scientist. I believe that every person has seen enough evidence to realize that sooner or later they will come face-to-face with a holy God. In order to pacify their conscience concerning that inevitable meeting, the scientists have come up with a theory that, in effect, says `there is no God`. The theory of evolution basically says that we made ourselves. Creationism says that a Creator made us. I went through a stage of theistic evolution, trying to combine creationism with the theory of evolution, because I had been taught that the theory of evolution is an absolute law. But I soon learned that the theory of evolution is totally contrary to the Scriptures. So I`ve come full circle. We will now explore the theory of evolution to see `what makes it tick`, to see what the scientific basis is for the theory of evolution. We will see how sound the foundation is for the theory of evolution. We need to differentiate between ORGANIC evolution and INORGANIC evolution. ORGANIC evolution concerns LIVING matter; INORGANIC means non-living matter. We will be concerned only with ORGANIC evolution. There are those that say that the universe `evolved`. That subject would require a separate study. For now we are concerned only with `organic evolution. First, a definition of `evolution`. Simply stated, evolution is the theory that living matter arose from chemicals. When I was in college, one of the first laws I was taught was the `Law of Biogenesis`. This law states that life does NOT arise spontaneously from non-living materials. Needless to say, the theory of evolution is in direct conflict with this law. The theory of evolution says that life emerged spontaneously from dead matter. The origin of the theory of evolution was, of course, Charles Darwin. He was not the only scientist who postulated the theory, however. Lamar was another scientist who was a believer in the theory of evolution. What is the `motor` that propels the theory of evolution? To understand the `motor`, we need to discuss the concepts that are necessary to the theory of evolution. Those are natural selection, mutations, and lengthy (or epochal) time periods. We want to look at these things individually, to see "where the evolutionist is coming from", and to see how steady the foundation of the theory of evolution is. NATURAL SELECTION is the tendency of nature to perpetuate the `survival of the fittest`. It says that as we `evolved` over the millions of years, the strongest of each of the species has survived, and have gradually changed into a new and different life-form. It is also the `natural selection` tendency to eliminate the inferior species, those unfit to live in a changing world. Natural selection is NOT a method of `macro mutation`, and we need to differentiate between `macro mutation` and `micro mutation`. `MACRO MUTATION` is a major postulate of the theory of evolution. It says that species are able to `evolve`, and to change into A NEW AND DIFFERENT SPECIES. Natural Selection is NOT a method of `macro mutation`. `MICRO MUTATION` is the ability of members of a given species to exist in different forms. For instance, a poodle and a saint bernard are examples of `micro mutation`. They are of course both dogs, but have different appearances. But you must remember that no matter what the color, no matter what the size, they are STILL dogs. They are not `evolving` into horses. I believe in micro mutations, but I do not believe in macro mutations. There is simply no evidence whatsoever that macro mutations have ever produced a more viable life-form. An example of a micro mutation is the `peppered moth` of the eastern seaboard. Evolutionists love to say that this moth is `proof` of evolution, because the color of this moth has changed from light colors to dark colors over the past several hundred years. They say that since the trees of that area have darkened in color due to air pollution, the moth has `evolved` into a darker color to evade their natural predators by `matching` the color of the tree bark. They neglect to mention that the moth has changed color for the SAME REASON that the trees have, due to air pollution and smog. Yet evolutionists point to this as the `greatest proof` of the theory of evolution ever witnessed. If this is `evidence` of evolution, I say that they have not witnessed evolution at all, BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL MOTHS. They still have the genetic material of a moth. Thus there are limits to the extent of change within the many different species. It is amazing how far these limits extend. The genetic material has variations, but a dog will always be a dog. No dog has `evolved` into a horse. If one ever did, the theory of evolution would have at least a reprieve. But no solid evidence of such an incident exists. --------- I recently read that if you took one chromosome from a human and stretched it out, it would be seven feet long. ONE chromosome. It would be so thin you could not see it even with an electron microscope. If you took ALL of the chromosomes in the average human body and stretched them in a chain, they would extend back and forth to the moon 200,000 times. I want you to know that there is an enormous amount of genetic information in the human body. If you took the genetic information in your body and entered it into your computer word processor, it would require enough paper to more than fill the Grand Canyon. It takes an enormous amount of information to produce a human from the sperm and ovary. It takes a gigantic amount of genetic `instructions` to produce a human. The theory of evolution says that by mutations, `accidents` can happen to that instruction bank, and then as that organism grows into adulthood, that `accident` will produce a `better` life form. Now, the human body is infinitely more complex than an automobile. What if, during the construction of an automobile, someone at the factory changes something? What if they connected a spark plug wire to the gas tank? What if they miswired the electrical system? What if they installed the pistons backwards? What if they installed the distributor where it was not in sequence with the crankshaft? Would the result ever be an improvement in any of these cases? Of course not. The same results are produced when genetic material mutates. Mutations are virtually always detrimental. The results are usually fatal. Sometimes the subject is merely crippled. Sometimes there is simply a malformed form of the same creature. But there is NO evidence of a mutation ever producing a more viable life-form. Thus we have now discussed both natural selection and mutations. These, remember, are the cornerstones of the theory of evolution. But mutations are the only means of producing `evolution` as we know it. I would like to read an excerpt from a book written by Dr. Walter T. Brown. Dr. Brown is a retired Colonel from the Air Force, a West Point graduate, and has a Phd in engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It is my understanding that MIT does not give degrees to persons who do not have the credentials necessary to obtain one. He has been a Fellow of the National Science Foundation, and so on. In his book, Dr. Brown says that "the process of mutation is the only known source of raw materials of genetic viability, and hence, evolution." He is quoting here from a man named Theodosus Dzenski [sp], who is one of the most famous teachers of the theory of evolution. Dzenski [sp] says, "The mutants which arise are, with rare exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in the environments which the species normally arise." In other words, he is saying that if these mutants are produced in a laboratory setting, a scientist can sometimes manage to keep them alive. In the environments where the species normally lives, these mutants usually die. A quote from the magazine `Origin of The Species` says, "If we say that if only by chance the mutants are useful, we are still speaking too leniently. In general, they are useless, detrimental, or lethal." Why that quote was in that magazine is a mystery, because if you`re trying to sell the theory of evolution, that statement is not conducive to your cause. -------------- Paul Moorehead has written a book, "Mathematical Challenges to the Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution." In it, he says he decided "to find out whether a single amino acid change in a hemoglobin mutation is known that doesn`t produce a result harmful to the function of that hemoglobin." He was studying the changes necessary in a hemoglobin to improve it. He says, "One is hard put to find such an instance." Yet evolutionists have taught for years that Alpha Hemoglobin A changed through mutations into Beta Hemoglobin A. Mr. Moorehead learned that such a mutation would require A MINIMUM of 10^120 mutations. How large is 10^120? There are "only" 10^80 electrons in the entire universe. Now this man is telling us that it would take 10^120 micro mutations to change this one hemoglobin? How many of you believe that evolution accomplished this feat? To continue this story, scientists say that there is enough room in the space around an atom so that the electrons of an atom have the same amount of space as two bees flying in Saint Peter`s Cathedral. Thus there is a large amount of space between the electrons that orbit around an atom. How many electrons do you think you could `pack` into the universe if you disregarded the electrical repulsion of the electrons? We know that there are 10^80 electrons, and there is the same amount of space between electrons as two bees flying in Saint Peter`s Cathedral. What exponent do we put on the 10 now? The answer is 10^120, the same as the number of mutations required to change that single hemoglobin. The more you think about this comparison, the more you will begin to realize that the theory of evolution is on shaky ground. What are some of the mutations present in the human species? Well, there is albinism, dwarfism, color blindness, and Down`s Syndrome. These are genetic mutations, the `stuff` that evolutionists say produced modern man. How many of those would you like to have? How many of those mutations have benefitted the people that they happened to? The motor that drives the theory of evolution is mutations. Yet there has never been a documented example of a beneficial mutation. ------------- One of the things we have been pounded with is the amount of time necessary to allow mutations to produce modern-day species. The evolutionists are desperately looking for time, because if you can produce enough time, you can hide the many weaknesses of the theory of evolution. But eons of time are an absolute necessity, simply because of the amount of mutations necessary, as we saw a few minutes ago. There are a number of `clocks` that are used to judge the age of the universe. We will see whether or not these `clocks` are reliable. We will see whether or not the universe is really as old as the theory of evolution postulates. The first is radio-metric dating. Potassium argon or uranium lead is used to determine how old something is. Carbon-14 is radioactive carbon. Carbon normally has 12 electrons, but occasionally a carbon atom has 14 electrons. When it has 14, it is unstable. If you took ten pounds of Carbon-14 and came back 1,000 years later, if there was only five pounds of Carbon-14 left, and the rest was Carbon-12, that is how you would at least theoretically determine the age of the carbon. If that is over your head, just let it go; but that is how that `clock` works. When a creature is alive it of course breathes. Even plants breathe. Thus Carbon-14 enters the creature or plant. When an animal dies, you should be able to measure the amount of Carbon-14 remaining in the specimen and thus to determine the age of that specimen. You should be able to use a scale to determine how much Carbon-14 it should have had, and then the specimen`s age should be measurable. This dating method, incidentally, is only good for organic material, and it is only reliable for a timespan of about 40,000 years. For a longer period of time, potassium argon or lead uranium dating must be used. These latter materials have half-lives (supposedly) in the millions of years. This is a pretty good theory; we shall now see how shaky its foundation is. To make these clocks work, you have to assume that the rate of radioactive decay is the same today as it has been for the last 40,000 years. However, scientists have recently discovered that the rate of radioactive decay can be changed, not in tiny amounts, but in significant amounts. Yet we have been deceived into believing that radioactive decay is an absolutely steady process. That is not true. Another necessity for this clock is that the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere would have to have been the same for the last 40,000 years. How many of you believe that the concentration of C-14 in the atmosphere 20,000 years ago was the same as it is today? How many of you believe that it was the same 50 years ago? It wasn`t. We`ve been measuring it for about 50 years, and it has changed in `only` 50 years. What does that tell you about the reliability of the Carbon-14 dating system? How many of you believe that the concentration of radioactive argon or potassium is the same as it was two million years ago? That is a very shaky presumption for the theory of evolution. The point that I am trying to make is that the `facts` that we have been bombarded with are not necessarily true. We assume, since a theory comes from a `distinguished` scientist, it is a law. That is an absolute falsehood. These `clocks` are NOT as reliable as we have been led to believe. A scientist who won the Nobel Peace Prize once said, at a meeting with other Nobel Prize winners, concerning radio-metric dating, "if it corroborates our theory and our work, we print it. If it comes close, we put it in a footnote. If it is contradictory, we don`t mention it at all." How`s that for scientific honesty? A quote from `Common Problems With Radio-Metric Dating`: "The fact that erroneous results can be and often are derived from radio-metric dating techniques has been experimentally verified. For instance living snails have been dated at 2,300 years old by the carbon-dating method." How many of you believe that a living snail could be 2,300 years old? Wood from living trees has been dated at being 10,000 years old. How many of you believe that a tree can live 10,000 years? Hawaiian lava flows known to be about 200 years old have been dated by potassium argon dating as being 3,000,000,000 years old. These scientists would do well to consider the question put to Job by God: "Where were YOU when I laid the foundation of the earth?" I have a total of 69 points that indicate a young earth. We will not have time to cover them all, but I will haln source of raw materials of genetic viabilition is known that doesn`t produce a result harmful to the functÿrials[sp?](?) I have been dated by potassium argon dating as being 3,000,000,000 years old. These scientists would do well to consider the question put to Job by God: "Where were YOU when I laid the found years. However, scientist we have been deceived into believing that radioactive decay is ." |