Early Earth Enigmas (Part 5)

 “Irreducible complexity.”

All organisms, from cells to humans, are “irreducibly complex” – all their basic components have to be in place before they can function. Thus, all species, extinct or extant, appear fully developed. There is no known partially-developed species.

Evolution, though, is believed to work through small, gradual steps, keeping new traits that it finds functional. Will it keep in reserve anything that does not work, even if potentially useful? There are no instances of half-developed appendages or organs in any fossilized or living organism – no budding eyes that could not see or partial wings that could not fly.

Blood clotting. Vital to healing wounds, blood-clotting in animals and man involves 20–30 complex chemical steps. Omission of one step, inclusion of an abnormal step, or alteration of the timing of a step will prevent blood from clotting and lead to death. If the first few of the many blood clotting factors were not immediately useful, the body would not have kept them, unaware that the rest of the factors would also form. How did such a complex, yet precise, process fully develop?

Charles Darwin had confessed in his famous book: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”⁶⁷

The eye. As a human embryo develops in its mother’s womb, some one million optic nerves start to grow from the back of each eye, simultaneous with a corresponding one million nerves from the brain. Each of the millions of nerves from both sides has to make its way through the tissues in between and connect to its counterpart – much like two work teams digging a tunnel from opposite sides of a mountain must meet precisely at the center according to the engineer’s plan.

Most animals, invertebrates as well as vertebrates, have eyes. Even the sea wasp, a jellyfish, has eyes. Among of the strangest are multiple-lensed, compound eyes found in fossilized worms!⁶⁸

Did the eye evolve? Darwin admitted the failure of his theory to explain the development of the eye. “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.”⁶⁹

Solomon understood the matter quite well. “The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the LORD hath made even both of them” (Prov 20:12).

In the sixth edition of his book, Darwin junked the idea of natural selection or “survival of the fittest” as the driving force behind the theory of evolution: “Natural selection is incompetent to account for the incipient stages of useful structures,” he said.⁷⁰

 

Genetic pre-programming.

How does evolution explain metamorphosis -- the form-changing stages in the life cycles of insects, amphibians, and crustaceans? Most of them hatch from eggs as larvae. Were they once all larvae before they evolved into more advanced forms? One may say larvae, just like some worms, reproduced sexually in the distant past. But there is no trace of reproductive organs in any type of larva. And, if a larva could not reproduce, how could it have evolved?

Some insect larvae pass through a cocoon stage when their brains, nerves, muscles, eyes, and other organs dissolve into goo. Does it mean some larvae evolved into goo before becoming, say, butterflies? How did they survive as goo for thousands or even millions of years?

Metamorphosis exemplifies genetic pre-programming. Similarly, ants and termites have the ability to grow wings in order to migrate when their colonies become overpopulated or destroyed. The insects use their wings for just one short flight, before shedding them to seek mates.⁷¹ Obviously, these are not cases of biological evolution.

 

The Cambrian “explosion.”

For nearly 3 billion years since life first appeared on earth, organisms remained microscopic in size: bacteria, protozoan, Ediacaran spheres and discs without mouths and appendages.⁷² Then, suddenly: the Cambrian “explosion.” Time magazine’s cover story in its Dec. 4, 1995, issue tells us in graphic terms: “Creatures with teeth and tentacles and claws and jaws materialized with the suddenness of apparitions. In a burst of creativity like nothing before or since, nature appears to have sketched out the blueprints for virtually the whole of the animal kingdom. This explosion of biological diversity is described by scientists as biology’s Big Bang”⁷³

All anatomical designs. In a quantum leap, life advanced from microbial, amorphous organisms to complex multi-cellular life forms: rotifers, annelids (worms), arthropods, fish – equipped with jointed, food-gathering appendages, intestines, notochords, gills, eyes – all the anatomical designs found in the animal phyla existing today. Oddly, no new phylum has appeared since the Cambrian Explosion. Succeeding developments have been confined to variations within each phylum.⁷⁴

In fact, says Paul Chien, Biology Dept. Chair of the University of San Francisco, the number of phyla has even decreased! “A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time (Cambrian) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils, than exist now… The theory of evolution implies that things get more complex and get more and more diverse from one single origin. But the whole thing turns out to be reversed -- we have more diverse groups in the very beginning, and in fact more and more of them die off over time, and we have less and less now.”⁷⁵

He adds: “Also, the animal explosion caught people’s attention when the Chinese confirmed they found a genus now called Yunnanzoon that was present in the very beginning. This genus is considered a chordate, and the phylum Chordata includes fish, mammals and man. An evolutionist would say the ancestor of humans was present then. Looked at more objectively, you could say the most complex animal group, the chordates, were represented at the beginning, and they did not go through a slow gradual evolution to become a chordate.”⁷⁶

No ancestors. For new life forms to appear, it would have taken hundreds of millions of years for the thousands of mutations needed to alter existing genes. Yet, the fossil record indicates that the Cambrian Explosion transpired in 5 million years or less.⁷⁷ Further, there is no evidence of mutational evolution within the 5-million-year span of the Cambrian explosion.^78,79 Colin Patterson (Evolution, 1978) avers: "Most of the major groups of animals (phyla) appear fully fledged in the early Cambrian rocks and we know of no fossil forms linking them."⁸⁰

Paleontologist Alfred S. Romer corroborates that: “Below this (Cambrian period), there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”⁸¹

Surprisingly, even staunch evolutionist Richard Dawkins seems to agree: “If progressive evolution, from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”⁸²

Darwin had acknowledged the possibility of his theory’s demise: “If numerous species… have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.”⁸³ 

Sudden entry and exit. Many scientists have arrived at that conclusion. David M. Raup (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979): “Species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”⁸⁴ Steven M. Stanley (The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981): “The record now reveals that species typically survive for a hundred thousand generations, or even a million or more, without evolving very much… After their origins, most species undergo little evolution before becoming extinct.”⁸⁵ Harvard University paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould (“Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, May 1977): “The history of most fossils includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: (1) Stasis. Most species… appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear… (2) Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors: it appears all at once and ‘fully formed’.”⁸⁶

George Sim Johnston (“An Evening with Darwin in New York,” Crisis, April 2006) sums it all up: “This is the verdict of modern paleontology: The record does not show gradual, Darwinian evolution. Otto Schindewolf, perhaps the leading paleontologist of the 20^th century, wrote that the fossils ‘directly contradict’ Darwin.”⁸⁷

Darwin confessed to fellow-scientists in his letters: “It (the theory of evolution) is a mere rage of a hypothesis with as many flaws and holes as sound parts…” He considered the possibility that, “I… have devoted my life to a fantasy.”⁸⁸

 

Unscientific theory.

C.F. Morgan (“Evolution Not Based on Fact,” 1998) points out that “true science is limited to observable phenomena. To be truly scientific, something must be observable, documentable, repeatable, experimentally verifiable, and testable, among other things. Conversely, evolution is a philosophical belief about the past based upon subjective interpretations and opinions of scientific data which exists in the present… Evolution is not a fact. It is not even a good theory. It has never been observed, and there is no direct evidence that it has ever occurred. It is no more than a religious or philosophical belief based upon choice, not science.”⁸⁹

Mathematician I.L. Cohen (Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities, 1984) confirms that “every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong… The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake in science.”⁹⁰

Arthur L. Bruce (“Evolution Is a Creation Myth,” 1998) comments: “Actually, evolution is not even a scientific theory because it cannot be tested by the scientific method. It is an unscientific hypothesis or speculation about origins that contradicts the basic laws and facts of science. It is the ‘creation myth’ upon which the religion of secular humanism is founded. Its proper place for study in the public schools is not the science classroom but the social studies or humanities classroom where it should be examined in comparison with the classical myths and other religions of the world.”⁹¹ (In the late 1990s the states of Alabama, Arizona, and New Mexico declared that the subject of evolution can only be taught as one theory of origins and not as fact.)

Austin H. Clark (“Animal Evolution,” Quarterly Review of Biology, December 1928) concedes: “Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation.”⁹²

Sir Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe (Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism, 1981) conclude: “The speculations of The Origin of Species turned out to be wrong… It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out…”⁹³

____________________

⁶⁷Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1859, p. 179

⁶⁸Donald G. Mikulic et al., “A Silurian Soft-Bodied Biota,” Science, 10 May 1985, pp. 715–717

⁶⁹Darwin, op. cit., pp. 146,175

⁷⁰Op. cit., Sixth Edition, The Modern Library, 1872, p. 66

⁷¹Termite, World Book 2005 (Deluxe)

⁷²Schroeder, op. cit. p. 94

⁷³Madeline Nash, “When Life Exploded,” Time, Dec. 4, 1995, p. 68

⁷⁴Schroeder, op. cit. pp. 92-93

⁷⁵Paul Chien, “Explosion of Life,” 30 June 1997 Interview, origins.org/articles/chien_explosionoflife.html, p. 2

⁷⁶Op. cit., p. 3

⁷⁷S. Bowring et al., “Calibrating Rates of Early Cambrian Evolution,” Science, 1993; cited by Schroeder, op. cit., pp. 116-117

⁷⁸R. Gore, “The Cambrian Explosion of Life,” National Geographic, October 1993

⁷⁹R. Kerr, “Evolution’s Big Bang Gets Even More Explosive,” Science, 1993

⁸⁰Colin Patterson, Evolution, 1978, p. 133

⁸¹Alfred S. Romer, “Darwin and the Fossil Record,” Natural History, October 1959, p. 466

⁸²Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 1976, p. 14

⁸³Charles Darwin, op. cit., 1902 edition, Part Two, p. 54

⁸⁴David M. Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979, p. 23

⁸⁵Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p. xv

⁸⁶Stephen J. Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, May 1977, pp. 13-14

⁸⁷George Sim Johnston, “An Evening with Darwin in New York,” Crisis, April 2006, Internet

⁸⁸Adrian Desmond and J. Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, 1991, pp. 475-477

⁸⁹C.F. (Frank) Morgan, “Evolution Not Based on Fact,” May 4, 1998, “Letters to the Editor,” National Institute for Inventors tract

⁹⁰I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities, 1984, p. 209-210

⁹¹Arthur L. Bruce, “Evolution Is a Creation Myth,” May 23, 1998, “Letters to the Editor,” National Institute for Inventors tract

⁹²Austin H. Clark, “Animal Evolution,” Quarterly Review of Biology, December 1928, p. 539

⁹³Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism, 1981, pp. 96–97

 (Excerpted from Chapter 5, Early Earth Enigmas, THE DEEP THINGS OF GOD: A Primer on the Secrets of Heaven and Earth by M.M. Tauson, Amazon.com)

 

Early Earth Enigmas (Part 4)

Problems with evolution

There were a few gaps in the “evolutionary tree” when Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859. Believers in the theory expected these gaps to be filled as fossil finds increased.

We read in the Newsweek magazine issue of March 29, 1982: “Darwin, and most of those who followed him, believed that the work of evolution was slow, gradual and continuous and that a complete lineage of ancestors, shading imperceptibly one into the next, could in theory be reconstructed for all living animals… But a century of digging since then has only made their absence more glaring.”⁵¹

 

Evolutionary gaps.

David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma, said in the September 1974 issue of the journal Evolution: “Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing’ evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.”⁵²

Norman D. Newell, former Curator of Historical Geology at the American Museum of Natural History, wrote in Adventures in Earth History (1970) that “the gaps which separate the highest categories may never be bridged in the fossil record. Many of the discontinuities tend to be more and more emphasized with increased collecting.”⁵³

In Darwin’s time, all living things fell under two kingdoms: plant and animal. As science progressed and scientists recognized finer distinctions between organisms, the number of kingdoms rose to the five that we have today: Prokaryotae, Protista, Fungi, Plantae, and Animalia. As the groupings increased, the “missing links” multiplied.

 

No transitional forms.

Many one-celled life forms exist, but there are no known forms of life with 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells. Multi-celled organisms with 6–20 cells are parasites that depend on complex animals as hosts to perform functions such as respiration and digestion for them. If evolution is true, there should be transitional forms with 2–5 cells even as fossils.

Plants. Some 375,000 species of plants exist on earth today, and most have not changed from the way they first appeared as fossils. Geneticist Jerry Bergman notes in the Technical Journal (Internet): “A major problem for Neo-Darwinism is the complete lack of evidence for plant evolution in the fossil record. As a whole, the fossil evidence of prehistoric plants is actually very good, yet no convincing transitional forms have been discovered in the abundant fossil record.”⁵⁴

If plants evolved, nonvascular plants should have preceded vascular plants (with sap-carrying channels). However, there are no fossilized nonvascular plants in the rock layers formed before the earliest vascular plants appeared. Further, no traces of stages leading to the development of seeds and fruits have been found. Darwin wrote to his friend, botanist Joseph Hooker, that the sudden appearance of flowering plants in the fossil record was an “abominable mystery.”⁵⁵ 

Arthropods. Of creatures with jointed legs, the U.S. government handbook Insects states: “There is, however, no fossil evidence bearing on the question of insect origin; the oldest insects known show no transition to other arthropods”⁵⁶ like spiders, scorpions, centipedes, crustaceans, etc.

Vertebrates. A backbone distinguishes the fish, the first vertebrate, from invertebrates. For the fish to evolve into an amphibian, it had to develop a pelvic bone for legs to be attached to; but no fossil fish with an emergent pelvis has ever been found, not even the coelacanth. The fish has a heart with two chambers, an amphibian heart has three. The lungfish, which has gills plus a swim bladder it uses for breathing out of water, is often said to be the link between fish and amphibians. But the skull is entirely different. David Attenborough (Life on Earth, 1979) says that “the bones of their skulls are so different from those of the first fossil amphibians that one cannot be derived from the other.”⁵⁷ Apparently, neither the lungfish nor the coelacanth evolved into amphibians.

Richard Milton (Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, 1997) notes: “Although each of these classes (fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and primates) is well represented in the fossil record, as of yet no one has discovered a fossil creature that is indisputably transitional between one species and another species. Not a single undisputed ‘missing link’ has been found in all the exposed rocks of the Earth’s crust despite the most careful and extensive searches.”⁵⁸

A “missing link”? Just a second. Have we not earlier seen the archaeopteryx, which looks like the link between reptiles and birds?

Some scientists believe birds evolved from theropods (dinosaurs that walked on hind legs). However, theropods had tiny “arms,” compared to the large wings of early birds. Moreover, their “hands” differed. Ann C. Burke and Alan Feduccia tell us in Science magazine (October 24, 1997): “Theropods have ‘fingers’ I, II, and III (having lost the ‘ring finger’ and little finger), while birds have fingers II, III, and IV.”⁵⁹ In the same issue, Richard Hinchliffe notes that “most theropod dinosaurs and in particular the birdlike dromaeosaurs are all very much later in the fossil record than Archaeopteryx (the supposed first bird).”⁶⁰ In a subsequent issue (November 14, 1997), John Ruben et. al. argue that “a transition from a crocodilian to a bird lung would be impossible, because the transitional animal would have a life-threatening hernia or hole in its diaphragm.”⁶¹

While the archaeopteryx appears like half-reptile and half-bird, no fossil remains look like an intermediate between a reptile and the archaeopteryx, or between the archaeopteryx and a true bird. W.E. Swinton (“The Origin of Birds,” Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, 1960) concluded: “The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.”⁶²  

Hybrids? There are other creatures that look like crosses between species, but are not. Whales, porpoises, dolphins, and manatees live in the water and look like fish, but they are mammals that suckle their young. Of course, the most enigmatic hybrid-looking animal is the platypus. It has a bill like a duck, feeds underwater like a fish, and lays eggs like a bird or reptile, but is actually a mammal that produces milk for its offspring. The only member of the Ornithorhynchidae (“bird-snout”) family, the platypus has neither “evolutionary” ancestors nor descendants even vaguely resembling it.

Charles Darwin had agonized: “Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?... Why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?⁶³

And why, if evolution is true, does it seem to have stopped?

 

Vestigial organs?

Several seemingly useless parts of the human body, presumed to be evolutionary “leftovers,” are cited as proofs for the theory of evolution. Are they? Here are some of the best known.

Appendix. It is most often mentioned by evolutionists as one of the so-called “vestigial organs.” But it has been found that the appendix is part of the lymphatic system, which, especially in early life, produces antibodies that fight infections in the digestive system.⁶⁴

Tonsils (adenoids).These used to be removed from children when inflamed, but are now medically known to protect the nose and throat from infection against invading bacteria and viruses. They also filter out harmful substances that could pass into the digestive system. There are indications that people who have had their tonsils removed experience more problems in the upper respiratory tract..⁶⁵

Thymus. An organ in the chest cavity that shrinks from childhood until maturity, the thymus is now recognized as the control center of the body’s defense system against germs.

Coccyx. Better known as the “tailbone,” it supposedly shows man evolved from monkeys. However, patients who have had their tailbones removed have difficulty sitting. The coccyx also holds the muscles for bowel and childbirth movements, supports internal organs, and keeps the end of the alimentary canal closed. It anchors the gluteus maximus, the large muscle along the back of the thigh, which enables us to walk upright (something monkeys cannot do).

Writers Mario Seiglie et al. tell us in The Good News magazine (November-December 2006): “The list of what were once considered vestigial organs in our body has gone down from 100 in the early 20^th century to virtually zero…”⁶⁶                       

____________________

⁵¹Enigmas of Evolution,” Newsweek, March 29, 1982, p. 39

⁵²David B. Kitts, “Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory,” Evolution, September 1974, p. 467

⁵³Norman D. Newell, “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” Adventures in Earth History, 1970, pp. 644–645

⁵⁴“The Evolution of Plants: A Major Problem for Darwinists,” Technical Journal, 2002, Internet

⁵⁵Quoted in “What About Plant Evolution,” The Good News, November-December 2009, p. 13

⁵⁶Frank M. Carpenter, “Fossil Insects,” Insects, 1952, p. 18

⁵⁷David Attenborough, Life on Earth, 1979, p. 137

⁵⁸Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, 1997, pp. 253-254

⁵⁹Ann C. Burke and Alan Feduccia, “Developmental Patterns and the Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand,” Science, 24 October 1997, pp. 666–668

⁶⁰Richard Hinchliffe, “The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaurs Halted?” Science, 24 October 1997, p. 597

⁶¹John A. Ruben et al., “Lung Structure and Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds, Science, pp. 1267–1270

⁶²W. E. Swinton, “The Origin of Birds,” Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, 1960, p. 1

⁶³Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Masterpieces of Science edition, 1958, pp. 136-137

⁶⁴David Menton, “The Human Tail and Other Tales of Evolution,” St. Louis MetroVoice, January 1994

⁶⁵J.D. Ratcliff, Your Body and How It Works, 1974, p. 137

⁶⁶Mario Seiglie, Tom Robinson and Scott Ashley, “Evolution’s ‘vestigial organ’ argument debunked,” God, Science and the Bible, The Good News, November/December 2006, p. 11

 

(Excerpted from Chapter 5, Early Earth Enigmas, THE DEEP THINGS OF GOD: A Primer on the Secrets of Heaven and Earth by M.M. Tauson, Amazon.com)

 

 

Early Earth Enigmas (Part 3)

 The theory of evolution

The roots of the theory of evolution goes back many years before Charles Darwin. In the 17^th century, scientists like Francis Bacon and William Harvey recognized it. Darwin’s own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin (d. 1802), wrote about it. The French naturalist Chevalier de Lamarck proposed a similar theory in 1809. In 1835 and 1837, Edward Blyth, a creationist, published a treatise on natural selection.³⁶

In 1855, Alfred Russel Wallace published the theory of evolution in a brief note in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History. On March 9, 1858, he explained the theory in a letter to Charles Darwin.³⁷ Twenty months later, in 1859, Darwin published a more detailed version of the theory in his book that he had been at work on earlier: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. It became an instant sensation.

The Theory of Evolution posits that all living things changed through the ages into all the life forms today. From the first living cell, “simple” organisms evolved into fish, then into amphibians, then into reptiles, then into birds and mammals, then into primates and, eventually, man.

Darwin speculated that similarities in different species, such as the five digits of a man’s hand, a bat’s wing, and a dolphin’s flipper, which he called “homology,” constituted evidence for a common ancestry. He capitalized on the idea of “natural selection” or “survival of the fittest” – that is, nature selected the fittest organisms to survive. The “fittest” individuals supposedly had traits that enabled them to fare better than other members of their groups.

Darwin’s book led many Christians to abandon their belief in the Biblical creation by God. Almost all universities and public schools today teach Darwinian evolution, which holds that the ten million-plus species on earth evolved from a single cell that suddenly came to life around 3.5 billion years ago. We must give credit to Darwin for honesty, though, because he admitted that his theory needed to be proven.

 

“Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”?

Ernst Heinrich Haeckel helped spread Darwin's theory of evolution through lectures and books. He popularized the catchphrase “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” Accordingly, every animal’s embryonic stages (ontogeny) replicate in just a few weeks its species’ evolutionary history (phylogeny) which took millions of years. Thus, a human fetus begins life as a single cell, just like the first organisms on earth. Next, the cell multiplies as a hollow ball similar to sponges. The embryo then folds in to form a cuplike structure like jellyfish and corals. It afterward lengthens, passing through phases with gill slits, fin-like limbs, and a tail typical of fish and amphibians. The embryo then takes on a basic mammalian form, before finally assuming the shape of a primate.  

Haeckel, however, cheated. He altered illustrations to fit his theory when the similarity of embryos was not satisfactory. He was found out, charged with fraud, and convicted by a university court at Jena, Germany. Eventually, “The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Since then no respectable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel.”³⁸ Co-authors George Gaylord Simpson and William S. Beck (Life: An Introduction to Biology, 1965) confirm this: “It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny.”³⁹

Surprisingly, many modern textbooks still include the disproved idea as proof for evolution.

 

Mutation: engine of evolution?

Evolutionists claim that mutation, a change in the genetic material (DNA) inside the cells of plants and animals, is the engine of evolution. Mutational changes are said to be passed on to descendants – producing “improved” new members of the species, which gradually turn into a new distinct species.

Harmful, not helpful. For mutation to happen, new information has to be introduced in the genes of the organism. Yet, practically all mutations showed a loss, rather than a gain, of genetic information – resulting in missing eyes, limbs, wings, tails, etc. Author Lee Spetner (Not by Chance, 1996) reports:  “All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.”⁴⁰

In any case, slight mutational changes are usually insignificant, but major genetic mutations, instead of producing improved organisms, are generally harmful to the species. Author Peo C. Koller (Chromosomes and Genes, 1971) tells us: “The greatest proportion of mutations are deleterious to the individual who carries the mutated gene. It was found in experiments that, for every successful or useful mutation, there are many thousands which are harmful.”⁴¹ The Encylopedia Americana says that “mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities, and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.”⁴²

Author G. Ledyard Stebbins (Processes of Organic Evolution, 1971) relates that in laboratory experiments, mutated insects were kept with normal members of their species. “After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated.”⁴³ They were unable to compete and died off, because they had become less adapted for survival than their normal fellows.

Statistically improbable. Researchers often conduct experiments with fruit flies, chosen for their short life spans. Gordon Rattray Taylor, former chief science advisor of BBC TV (The Great Evolution Mystery, 1983), observed: “It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world -- flies which produce a new generation every eleven days -- they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.”⁴⁴ Although fruit flies can be made to mutate into deformed specimens, they are all still fruit flies.

Co-authors P. Moorhead and M. Kaplan (“Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution,” 1967) report: “The Wistar Institute symposium in 1967 brought together leading biologists and mathematicians in what turned out to be a futile attempt to find a mathematically reasonable basis for the assumption that random mutations are the driving force behind evolution. Unfortunately, each time the mathematics showed the statistical improbability of a given assumption…”⁴⁵

Pierre-Paul Grasse, former French Academy of Sciences president and an evolutionist, admits: “No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”⁴⁶

 

Anti-mutation mechanisms.

Two British scientists, Dr. A.R. Fersht and Dr. G.R. Lambert, made an important “discovery that enzymes exist within living cells that have just one assignment in nature. They find and correct any errors in the genetic code. These errors can creep into the code because of radiation, some chemicals, or for other reasons. However, these enzymes faithfully correct any errors, preventing mutations.”⁴⁷ Francis Hitching (The Neck of the Giraffe, 1982) adds: “Genes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism whose main function is to prevent new forms evolving.”⁴⁸

The law of genetics dictates that the offspring of the parent organism shall be of the same species. This is exactly what the Bible teaches: “But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds” (1 Cor 15:38-39).

 

Microevolution vs. macroevolution

 

Pierre-Paul Grasse, a zoologist, observed that adaptations within species have nothing to do with evolution. They are just minor changes around a stable genotype. For example, there are no less than 200 breeds of dog today, descended from just a few ancient dogs and wolves. They range from tiny Chihuahuas to burly St. Bernards, from cuddly Pomeranians to vicious pit bulls. Yet, they are all still dogs. Citrus fruits vary greatly – from sweet nectarines to sour lemons, little limes to large pomelos -- but each one is still a citrus. They are examples of “microevolution.” What Darwin “discovered” – such as the variations in the beaks of finches in the Galapagos Islands -- were limited biological principles that govern microevolution (change within a species), not those governing “speciation” or “macroevolution” (change from one species to another).

In breeding experiments, scientists have tried to keep modifying selected plants and animals indefinitely by crossbreeding to see if they could develop new species. Result? “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.”⁴⁹

Microevolution in reverse. In the 1930s brothers Heinz and Lutz Heck, Munich Zoo and Berlin Zoo directors, respectively, recreated extinct animals. First was the tarpan, a Stone Age horse whose drawings were on the walls of caves in France and the last of which died in captivity in 1887. They crossed stallions known to have descended from the tarpan with modern mares. After just two breedings, a foal with all the tarpan characteristics was born.

They had actually followed their father, who, while running the Berlin Zoo, crossed the ibex (a wild goat) with domesticated goats. The older Heck produced animals with the exact color of the bezoar, the Middle Eastern wild goat that was the progenitor of all goats today. 

The Heck brothers also recreated the auroch, the ancestor of modern cattle. The last of the huge auroch, which weighed up to a ton, died in a game preserve in Poland in 1627. After ten years of crossbreeding, they obtained a calf with all the traits of an auroch.⁵⁰

 ____________________

³⁶Loren C. Eiseley, Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X, 1979, pp. 45–80

³⁷Wallace, Alfred Russell, Encyclopaedia Britannica 2009 Student and Home Edition

³⁸Ashley Montagu, quoted by Luther D. Sunderland in Darwin’s Enigma, 1984, p. 119

³⁹George Gaylord Simpson and William S. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology, 1965, p. 241

⁴⁰Lee Spetner, Not by Chance, 1996, p. 138

⁴¹Peo C. Koller, Chromosomes and Genes, 1971, p. 127

⁴²Encyclopedia Americana, 1977, Vol. 10, p. 742

⁴³G. Ledyard Stebbins, Processes of Organic Evolution, 1971, pp. 24-25

⁴⁴Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, 1983, p. 48

⁴⁵P. Moorhead and M. Kaplan, “Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution,” Proceedings of the Symposium, Wistar Institute of Biology, 1967; cited by Schroeder, op. cit. p. 119

⁴⁶Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, 1977, pp. 88,103

⁴⁷Martin Hunter, “There’s a Lot of Holes in Evolutionary Theory,” May 12, 1998, tract

⁴⁸Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe, 1982, p. 103

⁴⁹On Call, July 3, 1972, pp. 8,9

⁵⁰“Turning Back Nature’s Clock,” Strange Stories, Amazing Facts, 1975, pp. 104-105

 

(Excerpted from Chapter 5, Early Earth Enigmas, THE DEEP THINGS OF GOD: A Primer on the Secrets of Heaven and Earth by M.M. Tauson, Amazon.com)

 

Early Earth Enigmas (Part 2)

First life forms

Scientists believe life on earth began in the water. Charles Darwin, who advanced the theory of evolution in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, once wrote to a friend that life might have begun in “some warm little pond.” His evolutionary theory assumes that, billions of years ago, microscopic life spontaneously appeared.

 

Spontaneous generation?

Richard Dawkins, an atheist, summarizes the idea in his book, The Selfish Gene (1976): “The newly formed Earth had an atmosphere made up of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia, and water. These simple compounds were broken up by energy from sunlight, lightning, and exploding volcanoes, then reformed into amino acids. These accumulated in the sea and combined into protein-like compounds, producing a potentially ‘organic soup.’ Then, ‘a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident’ – a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself.” (The accident, the author admitted, was exceedingly improbable.) Similar molecules clustered together, and then, by an exceedingly improbable accident again, wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. Thus, it is thought, the first “living” cell generated itself. (In the preface to his book, Dawkins says: “This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction.”)¹⁷

The first organic molecules are said to have been simple sugars and amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. Proteins, in turn, are the building blocks of living cells. The first living cell is presumed to have been anaerobic (surviving without oxygen), using methane for energy.¹⁸ 

The sudden appearance of life all by itself from non-living matter is called “spontaneous generation” or abiogenesis, which comes from the Greek words a (“without”), bio (“life”) and genesis (“birth”). However, this theory violates the law of biogenesis, which states that all life must come from preceding life of its kind.

Spontaneous dissolution. “Spontaneous generation” has serious problems. First, the same energy from sunlight, lightning, and volcanic explosions that split up the compounds in the atmosphere would have even more quickly destroyed any amino acids that formed. So, the amino acids had to reach the oceans quickly for protection. However, science writer George Wald observes that in the water “spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis.”¹⁹ Mike Riddle, a creationist, explains that water immediately destroys amino acids by hydrolysis (“water splitting”). The entry of a water molecule between two bonded molecules (such as amino acids) causes them to split. The “water tends to break chains of amino acids apart. If any protein had formed in the oceans 3.5 billion years ago, they would have quickly disintegrated.”²⁰

“Catch 22” situation. If there was no oxygen in the atmosphere, there would have been no ozone layer, and the ultraviolet rays from the sun would have instantly destroyed any newly forming amino acids. If there was oxygen, it would have soon oxidized and destroyed any self-organizing amino acids. Either way, the emergence of life was doomed from the start. Author Michael Denton notes in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985): “What we have is a sort of a ‘Catch 22’ situation. If we have oxygen we have no organic compounds, but if we don’t have oxygen we have none either”²¹ It was a no-win situation. But then something, or Someone, intervened.

 

Biogenesis vs. Abiogenesis

In the 1600s scientists believed life could arise from decaying matter, because maggots and flies emerged from dung, rotting meat, and garbage. Italian biologist Francesco Redi demonstrated in 1668 that maggots did not appear in meat if kept away from flies.²² In 1768 another Italian, naturalist Lazzaro Spallanzani, proved that substances originally containing microorganisms, when boiled and then sealed, remained microbe-free.²³

It did not keep German biologist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), a rabid Darwinian, from promoting abiogenesis. Biochemist Michael Behe says: “From the limited view of cells that microscopes provided, Haeckel believed that a cell was a ‘simple little lump of albuminous combination of carbon,’ not much different from a piece of microscopic Jell-O. So it seemed to Haeckel that such simple life, with no internal organs, could be produced from inanimate material.”²⁴

Famous French microbiologist Louis Pasteur refuted abiogenesis in 1862 in his “On the Organized Particles Existing in the Air.” He showed that microbes would grow only if a solution was exposed to air with spores of bacteria. In 1869, British physicist John Tyndall demonstrated that when dust was present putrefaction occurred; in the absence of dust, no decay took place.²⁵

 

Lab-created “life”?

In 1953 chemist Stanley Miller, a graduate student at the University of Chicago, and Nobel laureate Harold Urey, put a mixture of gases through heat and electricity and produced a tar-like substance with some amino acids in it. The Miller-Urey result rocked the world: the “building blocks of life,” it was claimed, could be produced in the laboratory!

However, the experiment used a manmade “atmosphere” that did not include oxygen, which would have produced a different result. The process also had “unnatural” components such as a “trap” (which quickly removed chemical products from the destructive energy sources that made them). Further, biologist Gary Parker notes: “The molecules Miller made did not include only the amino acids required for living systems; they included even greater quantities of amino acids that would be highly destructive to any ‘evolving’ life.”²⁶

Besides, half the amino acids produced were chemically “right-handed.” Every living protein, whether in animals, plants, molds, bacteria, and even viruses -- except in some diseased or aging tissue – is made up of at least 300 amino acids, practically all of them structurally “left-handed.” Hence, the probability of a living protein being formed through sheer chance is equal to unerringly getting 300 “heads” in a row from the toss of a coin.

Co-authors Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe calculated the odds for a living protein to form solely by chance in one place as just one chance in 10^40,000. In comparison, statisticians regard a probability of less than 1 in 10⁵⁰ to be an absolute impossibility. They concluded that it was “an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.”²⁷

The Miller-Urey experiment (and all other experiments after it) failed to produce even one single living protein – never mind that a protein still has a long, long way to go before becoming a complete living cell.

 

Enough time and chance?

Some scientists argue that, given enough time, as well as chance, all things are possible – even the emergence of the first living things from inanimate matter. Writer C. Folsome asked them in the magazine Scientific American: “Can we really form a biological cell by waiting for chance combinations of organic compounds? Harold Morowitz, in his book Energy Flow and Biology, computed that merely to create a bacterium would require more time than the Universe might ever see if chance combinations of its molecules were the only driving force.”²⁸

Chemist Ilya Prigogine, 1977 Nobel Prize laureate, sums it up in Physics Today: “The idea of the spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore improbable, even on the scale of billions of years.”²⁹ Gerald Schroeder informs us that: “Since 1979, articles based on the premise that life arose through chance random reactions over billions of years are not accepted in reputable journals.”³⁰

 

The “simple” cell.

Charles Darwin believed that single-celled organisms were most primitive. Until the first half of the 20^th century, scientists called the most basic living unit the “simple cell” -- made up of nothing more than a jelly-like “protoplasm.”

In 1963 Dr. George Palade of the Rockefeller Institute discovered a complex network of minuscule tubes and sacs within the protoplasm, now called the “endoplasmic reticulum.”³¹ It became evident that there is no such thing as a “simple” cell. Even the earliest unicellular organisms on earth were unimaginably complex. Molecular biologist Jonathan Wells and mathematician William Dembski concur that “the simplest life forms we know, the prokaryotic cells (such as bacteria, which lack a nucleus), are themselves immensely complex. Moreover, they are every bit as high-tech as the eukaryotic cells…”³² Single-celled animals can “catch food, digest it, get rid of wastes, move around, build houses, engage in sexual activity… with no tissues, no organs, no hearts and no minds…”³³ They even communicate with each other using chemicals.

We read in the National Geographic: “Each cell is a world brimming with as many as two hundred trillion tiny groups of atoms called molecules.”³⁴ Newsweek is quite graphic: “Each of those 100 trillion cells functions like a walled city. Power plants generate the cell’s energy. Factories produce proteins, vital units of chemical commerce. Complex transportation systems guide specific chemicals from point to point within the cell and beyond. Sentries at the barricades control the export and import markets, and monitor the outside world for signs of danger. Disciplined biological armies stand ready to grapple with invaders. A centralized genetic government maintains order.”³⁵

In addition, the “simple” cell has one capability not even today’s most advanced machines can do: It can replicate its entire structure within a matter of a few hours.

____________________

^17.Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 1976, p. 16

^18.ScienceDaily, Mar. 22, 2006, Internet

^19.George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, August 1954, pp. 49-50

^20.Mike Riddle, “Can Natural Processes Explain the Origin of Life?”, The New Answers Book 2, 2008, p. 66

^21.Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1985, p. 261

^22.Spontaneous Generation, World Book 2005 (Deluxe)

^23.Spontaneous Generation, Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia Deluxe 2004

^24.Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, 1996, pp. 23-24

^25.Spontaneous Generation, op. cit.

^26.Gary Parker and Henry Morris, What Is Creation Science, 1982, p. 40

^27.Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, 1981, p. 24

^28.C. Folsome, “Life: Origin and Evolution, Scientific American, 1979; quoted by Schroeder, op. cit., p. 89

^29.I. Prigogine, et al. , “Thermodynamics of Evolution,” Physics Today, Nov. 1972, pp. 25:23, and Dec. 1972, pp. 25:38

^30.Schroeder, op. cit., p. 89

^31.Petersen, op. cit., p. 92

^32.Jonathan Wells and William Dembski, How to Be an Intellectually Fulfilled Atheist (or Not), 2008, p. 4

^33.L.L. Larison Cudmore, The Center of Life, 1977, pp. 13-14

^34.Rick Gore, “The Awesome Worlds Within a Cell,” National Geographic, September 1976, pp. 357-360

^35.Peter Gwynne, Sharon Begley and Mary Hager, “The Secrets of the Human Cell,” Newsweek, August 20, 1979, p. 48

 

(Excerpted from Chapter 5, Early Earth Enigmas, THE DEEP THINGS OF GOD: A Primer on the Secrets of Heaven and Earth by M.M. Tauson, Amazon.com)