“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?
Solomon
understood the matter quite well. “The
hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the LORD hath made even both of them” (Prov
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
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
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
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
George
Sim Johnston (“An Evening with
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.
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
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
____________________
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