IN THE BEGINNING
From the book by the same name (Water Brown - 2008)
As a reader of this book, you may have several questions: Why was the book written? How is it organized and why? For whom is it intended? Where is the creation-evolution issue headed?
This study began unexpectedly in June 1970. I was a Christian, an evolutionist, and a new professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy. I heard surprising claims that Noah's Ark rested near the 14,000-foot level of Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey. If a gigantic boat had ever been at that elevation, a huge flood must have occurred. However, the biblical flood was always hard for me to imagine. After all, where could so much water come from? Where did it all go? Every attempt I had heard to answer the first question was shallow at best. Few, if any, ever tried to adequately answer the second.
For two years I pondered these issues, reading most of what was written about claimed Ark sightings and talking with many "Ark hunters." Almost daily I gazed up at 14,000-foot Rocky Mountain peaks and tried to imagine, at one of their summits, an object large enough to fill a football stadium. The case for the Ark's existence grew stronger as many of my questions were answered.
With this growing possibility came a problem. If that much water sloshed over the earth for a year, many dead animals and plants would have been buried in vast amounts of mud and other sediments. This could explain how almost all fossils formed, especially those on the highest mountains. But the fossil record was supposedly the best evidence for evolution, a theory I had passively accepted. If a global flood produced most fossils, where was the evidence for evolution? The more I struggled with this question, the more amazed I became at the lack of evidence supporting evolution and the abundant evidence supporting creation. By 1972,1 had become a creationist.
(THE WORLD-WIDE FLOOD WAS NOT AT NOAH'S TIME BUT IN GENESIS 1:1-2 - Keith Hunt)
As I began to talk with friends and colleagues about origins, invitations to speak arose. Speaking publicly on the subject forced me to organize my thoughts. In this way, the first edition of this book began to "evolve." In 1978, my wife and I decided the subject was so broad and important that I should pursue it full time, and, therefore, leave a demanding, interesting, and successful military career at the first opportunity. That came in 1980. Since then, study, research (particularly development of the hydroplate theory, which deals with the flood), writing, debates, "In the Beginning" Seminars, and other speaking engagements have kept me busy. It has been exciting to see how greater awareness of creation profoundly affects so many people. You may experience this yourself.
Initially, those attending the full-day "In the Beginning" Seminar were given material summarizing the seminar content and answering many frequently asked questions. The first three editions of this book served that purpose. Later, outside requests for the book grew to the point that it had to be modified for those who had not attended. However, the book's basic organization still follows the seminar format—an ideal format for learning this subject.
Part I of this book begins with a summary of the scientific evidence dealing with origins. That evidence falls into nine areas: three in the life sciences, three in the astronomical and physical sciences, and three in the earth sciences. Figure 1 on page viii shows this organization. Part II contains the most popular of those nine areas, as demonstrated in 200 seminars and by letters, emails, and phone calls we receive daily. Scientists, in particular, are struck by the number and diversity of problems the hydroplate theory easily solves. Part III contains 37 questions most frequently asked during question-and-answer sessions at seminars and in media interviews-questions not already answered in Parts I and II.
This format and a comprehensive index allow a reader to focus on areas of primary interest while keeping the "big picture" in mind. Parts I, II, and III, which are quite different, may be read independently and in any order. Difficult parts can be skipped. Readers are often amazed at the endnotes, which contain many revealing and surprising quotations—usually from evolutionists.
The intended reader is anyone interested in the subject of origins—from high school students with little scientific background to people with multiple PhD's in science. Parents have even paraphrased topics for their children at mealtime or bedtime.
Here is an offer for students, parents, and educators who read the entire book. Rather than place you in the awkward position of debating with science teachers or professors who are evolutionists, let me suggest an interesting alternative. As you read this book, identify questions to ask educators. If they object to any scientific information or conclusion in the book, I will be happy to discuss it with them by telephone, provided you are part of our three-way conversation. With their permission, you may record our conversation for the entire class. If nothing else, this will sharpen everyone's critical thinking skills, put more information "on the table," and move us a little closer to the truth.
Where is the creation-evolution controversy headed? I believe the battle will be won—not in courts, legislatures, boards of education, or church councils—but by grassroots science education. Yes, today evolutionists generally control higher education, science journals, and the media, but the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports creation and a global flood. (If you find someone who disagrees, please refer them to the preceding paragraph and to pages 409-412. Challenge them—-then watch what happens.) Throughout the history of science, controversies have raged. Perhaps none has had the profound social consequences—and, therefore, the interest and emotion— of this origins debate. In the end, the side with the scientific evidence has always prevailed. The Galileo episode is one example.
Our task, then, is to educate the public, including students. People who are aware of this evidence will inevitably bring pressure and embarrassment on the entrenched interests, starting in the classroom. This is already happening. How can more be done? Many of the pictures in this book could be fascinating subjects for a grade-school child's classroom report. High school students could go farther by reading and analyzing articles and reports related to such pictures. College students could extend this by interviewing and critiquing scientists specializing in the subject. Adults will enjoy explaining these and hundreds of other points of evidence to friends. (Many conduct courses using this book.) As more people learn, more will want to learn. Increasingly, the public will ask—or tell—educators, publishers, museums, and the media to educate themselves and stop perpetuating misinformation and bad science.
Although many people helped with this book and offered constructive suggestions, six should be mentioned. Brad Andersons creativity and unparalleled expertise with computers and book design are seen on each page. Jon Schoenfield skillfully and meticulously checked and frequently improved all parts of the text. Also of great assistance were Peggy Brown, David Hull, Kevin Lea and Stuart Patterson. My family's support has been invaluable. To them and many others who helped, I am immensely grateful. The mistakes, of course, are mine alone.
My hope is that In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood will help you, the reader, as you explore the amazing events "in the beginning."
The scientific evidence showing the hand of the Creator fells into three major areas: life sciences, astronomical and physical sciences, and earth sciences. Generally speaking, lie life sciences relate to the biosphere (the atmosphere, oceans, and other surface waters); astronomical sciences deal with phenomena above the biosphere; and earth sciences deal with phenomena below the biosphere.
Three fascinating objects are depicted on the opposite page—one representing each of these three areas of science. Each involves new discoveries which excite layman and scientist alike. Each object is an amazing reminder of a designer whose attributes are too big, too complex and too powerful for the mind of man to grasp.
Shown in the circular inset near the bottom of Figure 2 is the double helix representing DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). Duplicate copies of this long tape of coded information are coiled up in each of the 100,000,000,000,000 (one hundred trillion) cells in your body. You have 46 segments of DNA in almost all of your cells. You received 23 segments from your mother and 23 from your father. DNA contains the unique information that determines what you look like, much of your personality, and how every cell in your body is to function throughout your life.
THE MARVEL OF DNA
If all the DNA in one of your cells were uncoiled, connected, and stretched out, it would be about 7 feet long. It would be so thin its details could not be seen, even under an electron microscope. If all this very densely coded information from one cell of one person were written in books, it would fill a library of about 4,000 books. If all the DNA in your body were placed end-to-end, it would stretch from here to the Moon more than 500,000 times! In book form, that information would fill the Grand Canyon almost 100 times. If one set of DNA (one cell's worth) from every person who ever lived were placed in a pile, the final pile would weigh less than an aspirin! Understanding DNA is just one small reason for believing that you are "fearfully and wonderfully made" (Ps 139:14) [See "Genetic Information" on page 75 for the above calculations.]
Astronomical and Physical Sciences
Space exploration has brought into our living rooms some of the marvels of the universe. Few people, however, appreciate how many of these recent discoveries were not what evolution theory had predicted. The phrase "back to the drawing board" often follows discoveries in space. Saturn, shown on the opposite page, has provided many such examples.
Early space exploration programs were attempts to learn how the Earth, Moon, and solar system evolved. Ironically, not one of these questions has been answered, and for scientists who start with evolutionary assumptions, many perplexing problems have arisen. For example, after the $20,000,000,000 lunar exploration program, no evolutionist can explain with any knowledge and confidence how the Moon formed. Those who try either encounter a barrage of scientific objections or resort to philosophical speculations. Isn't it ironic that many science teachers and professors uncritically teach outdated and illogical theories in the very subject—science—that should encourage critical thinking? Far too many textbook authors and popular science commentators, who influence teachers and students alike, do not understand that "the heavens are telling of the glory of God'.' (Ps 19:1)
The center object on the opposite page represents Noah's Ark. This drawing is based on a detailed and convincing description by a man who claimed to have walked on the Ark twice in the early 1900s. His information has been checked in ways he could never have imagined. Every known detail has supported his story. We must emphasize, however, there is no proof the Ark exists, although there have been many alleged sightings. We must patiently wait for a verifiable discovery of this huge object that may be buried under rock and ice near the 14,000-foot level of rugged Mount Ararat in a remote part of eastern Turkey.
(YES IT DOES NOT EXIST!! SEE THE STUDIES THAT PROVE NOAH'S FLOOD WAS REGIONAL NOT WORLDWIDE ON THIS WEBSITE UNDER THIS SECTION - Keith Hunt)
The implications of a worldwide flood for the earth sciences, for the theory of evolution, and for mankind in general, deserve the serious reflection of every thoughtful person. Earth has many features which scientists with evolutionary presuppositions cannot explain. But these features can be explained by a gigantic flood—the most cataclysmic and literally earthshaking event the world has ever experienced—which also formed deep ocean trenches, most mountains, and many other amazing features.
(YES WORLDWIDE IN GEN. 1:1-2 - Keith Hunt)
A detailed and scientific reconstruction of these events now can be made independently of Scripture. This reconstruction, based only on what is seen on Earth today, is explained in Part II, "The Fountains of the Great Deep," on pages 103-313. If you study both this explanation and the biblical descriptions of the flood—two completely different perspectives—you may be startled by their agreement and the sheer power and violence of that event. Both biblical scholars and scientists have been surprised at the extent to which each perspective illuminates the other. After reading "The Fountains of the Great Deep," you will more deeply appreciate what the psalmist wrote 3,000 years ago: "The waters were standing above the mountains. At Thy rebuke they fled; at the sound of Thy thunder they hurried away. The mountains rose; the valleys sank down ... [so the waters] may not return to cover the earth'.''(Ps 104:6-9)
Before considering how life began, we must first understand the term "organic evolution." Organic evolution, as I theorized, is a naturally occurring, beneficial change that (produces increasing and inheritable complexity, [increased complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form of life had a different and improved set of vital organs. This is sometimes called the molecules-to-man theory—or macro evolution]. Microevolution, on the other hand, does not involve increasing complexity. It involves changes only in size, shape, or color, or minor genetic alterations caused by a few mutations. Macro-evolution requires thousands of "just right" mutations. Microevolution can be thought of as "horizontal" (or even downward) change, whereas macroevolution, if it were ever observed, would involve an "upward," beneficial change in complexity. Notice that microevolution plus time will not produce macroevolution. (micro + time = macro)
Creationists and evolutionists agree that microevolution occurs. Minor change has been observed since history began. But notice how often evolutionists give evidence for microevolution to support macroevolution. It is macroevolution—which requires new abilities and increasing complexity, resulting from new genetic information—that is at the center of the creation-evolution controversy. Therefore, in this book, the term "organic evolution" will mean macroevolution.
(Most readers will want to read the accompanying references, quotations, and notes beginning on page 49.)
The Theory of Organic Evolution Is Invalid.
Organic Evolution Has Never Been Observed.
1. The Law of Biogenesis
Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes. Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis. However, some say that future studies may show how life could come from lifeless matter, despite the virtually impossible odds. Others say that their theory of evolution doesn't begin until the first life somehow arose.
Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life comes only from life.
2. Acquired Characteristics
Acquired characteristics—characteristics gained after birth—cannot be inherited.3 For example, large muscles acquired by a man in a weight-lifting program cannot be inherited by his child. Nor did giraffes get long necks because their ancestors stretched to reach high leaves. While almost all evolutionists agree that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, many unconsciously slip into this false belief. On occasion, Darwin did. However, stressful environments for some animals and plants cause their offspring to express various defenses.
(AS LIKE VIRUSES [FLU VIRUS] CAN MOVE INTO VARIOUS STRAINS; THERE ARE RIGHT NOW AT LEAST 100 FLU VIRUSES. SOME GERMS ETC. CAN BECOME IMMUNE TO ANTI-BIOTICS, THEY LEARN TO RESIST THEM AND MOVE INTO ANOTHER FORM - Keith Hunt)
New genetic traits are not created; instead, the environment can switch on genetic machinery already present. The marvel is that optimal genetic machinery already exists to handle some contingencies, not that time, the environment, or "a need" can produce the machinery,
Also, rates of variation within a species (microevolution, not macroevolution) increase enormously when organisms are under stress, such as starvation. c Stressful situations would have been widespread in the centuries after a global flood.
NOT SO AS THE WORLDWIDE FLOOD WAS NOT AT THE TIME OF NOAH - Keith Hunt)
3. Mendel's Laws
Mendel's laws of genetics and their modern-day refinements explain almost all physical variations occurring within species. Mendel discovered that genes (units of heredity) are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different combinations are formed, not different genes. The different combinations produce many variations within each kind of life, as in the dog family. [See Figure 3 on page 4.] A logical consequence of Mendel's laws is that there are limits to such variation. Breeding experiments and common observations also confirm these boundaries.
4, Bounded Variations
Not only do Mendel's laws give a theoretical explanation for why variations are limited, broad experimental verification also exists. For example, if evolution happened, organisms (such as bacteria) that quickly produce the most offspring should have the most variations and mutations. Natural selection would then select the more favorable changes, allowing organisms with those traits to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes. Therefore, organisms that have allegedly evolved the most should have short reproduction cycles and many offspring. We see the opposite. In general, more complex organisms, such as humans, have fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles. Again, variations within organisms appear to be bounded.
Organisms that occupy the most diverse environments in the greatest numbers for the longest times should also, according to macroevolution, have the greatest potential for evolving new features and species. Microbes falsify this prediction as well. Their numbers per species are astronomical, and they are dispersed throughout almost all the worlds environments. Nevertheless, the number of microbial species is relatively few. New features apparently don't evolve.
5. Natural Selection
An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from those of its "parents."
Figure 4; Microevolution vs. Macroevolution. Notice that macroevolution would require an upward change in the complexity of certain traits and organs. Microevolution involves only "horizontal" (or even downward) changes—no increasing complexity. Science should always base conclusions on what is seen and reproducible. So what is observed? We see variations in lizards, four of which are shown at the bottom. We also see birds, represented at the top. In-between forms (or intermediates), which should be vast in number if macroevolution occurred, are never seen as fossils or living species. A careful observer can usually see unbelievable discontinuities in these claimed upward changes. Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have made excuses for why the world and our fossil museums are not overflowing with intermediates.
Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So, a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more "children." In this sense, nature "selects" genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism's gene pool is constantly decreasing. This is called natural selection.
Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it selects only among preexisting characteristics. As the word "selection" implies, variations are reduced, not increased.
For example, many mistakenly believe that insect or bacterial resistances evolved in response to pesticides and antibiotics. Instead.
a lost capability was reestablished, making it appear that something evolved, or a mutation reduced the ability of certain pesticides or antibiotics to bind to an organism's proteins, or a mutation reduced the regulatory function or transport capacity of certain proteins, or a damaging bacterial mutation or variation reduced the antibiotic's effectiveness even more, or a few resistant insects and bacteria were already present when the pesticides and antibiotics were first applied. When the vulnerable insects and bacteria were killed, resistant varieties had less competition and, therefore, proliferated.
While natural selection occurred, nothing evolved and, in fact, some biological diversity was lost.
The variations Darwin observed among finches on different Galapagos islands is another example of natural selection producing micro- (not macro-) evolution. While natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest. Today, some people think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct. Actually, natural selection prevents major evolutionary changes.
Mutations are the only known means by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution. Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal. No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors.
7. Fruit Flies
A century of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 consecutive generations, gives absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed in any form of life, despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates.
8.Complex Molecules and Organs
Many molecules necessary for life, such as DNA, RNA, and proteins, are so incredibly complex that claims they evolved are questionable. Furthermore, those claims lack experimental support.
There is no reason to believe that mutations or any natural process could ever produce any new organs—especially those as complex as the eye, the brain. For example, an adult human brain contains over 10/14, (a hundred thousand billion) electrical connections, more than all the soldered electrical connections in the world. The human heart, a ten-ounce pump that will operate without maintenance or lubrication for about 75 years, is another engineering marvel.
9. Fully-Developed Organs
All species appear fully developed, not partly developed. They show design. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of the vital organs (dozens in humans alone). Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing. [See Figure 4.]
Figure 5: Duckbilled Platypus. The duckbilled platypus is found only in Tasmania and eastern Australia. European scientists who first studied platypus specimens thought that a clever taxidermist had stitched together parts of different animals—a logical conclusion if one believed that each animal must be very similar to other animals. In fact, the platypus is perfectly designed for its environment.
10. Distinct Types
If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats. In fact, some animals, such as the duckbilled platypus, have organs totally unrelated to their alleged evolutionary ancestors. The platypus has fur, is warm-blooded, and suckles its young as do mammals. It lays leathery eggs, has a single ventral opening (for elimination, mating, and birth), and has claws and a shoulder girdle as most reptiles do. The platypus can detect electrical currents (AC and DC) as some fish can, and has a bill somewhat like a that of a duck—a bird. It has webbed forefeet like those of an otter and a flat tail like that of a beaver. The male platypus can inject poisonous venom like a pit viper. Such "patchwork" animals and plants, called mosaics, have no logical place on the so-called "evolutionary tree."
There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arose from any other major group. Species are observed only going out of existence (extinctions), never coming into existence?
Humans and many animals will endanger or even sacrifice their lives to save another—sometimes the life of another species. Natural selection, which evolutionists say selects individual characteristics, should rapidly eliminate altruistic (self-sacrificing) "individuals." How could such risky, costly behavior ever be inherited? Its possession tends to prevent the altruistic "individual" from passing on its genes for altruism?If evolution were correct, selfish behavior should have completely eliminated unselfish behavior. Furthermore, cheating and aggression should have "weeded out" cooperation. Altruism contradicts evolution.
12. Extraterrestrial Life?
No verified form of life which originated outside of earth has ever been observed. If life evolved on earth, one would expect that the elaborate experiments sent to the Moon and Mars might have detected at least simple forms of life (such as microbes) that differ in some respects from life on earth.3 [See "Is There Life in Outer Space?" on page 383.]
Figure 6: Mars Lander. Many people, including Carl Sagan, predicted the Viking landers would find life on Mars. They reasoned that because life evolved on Earth, some form of life must have evolved on Mars. That prediction proved to be false. The arms of the Viking 1 Lander, shown above, sampled Martian soil. Sophisticated tests on those samples did not find even a trace of life.
If traces of life are found on Mars, they may have come from comets and asteroids launched from Earth during the flood'—as did salt and water found on Mars. [A prediction, later supported by a NASA discovery, is found on page 275. For a full understanding, see pages 263-313.]
Children as young as seven months can understand and learn grammatical rules.3 Furthermore, studies of 36 documented cases of children raised without human contact (feral children) show that language is learned only from other humans; humans do not automatically speak. So, the first humans must have been endowed with a language ability. There is no evidence language evolved.
Nonhumans communicate, but not with language. True language requires both vocabulary and grammar. With great effort, human trainers have taught some chimpanzees and gorillas to recognize a few hundred spoken words, to point to up to 200 symbols, and to make limited hand signs. These impressive feats are sometimes exaggerated by editing the animals' successes on film. (Some early demonstrations were flawed by the trainers hidden promptings.)
Wild apes have not shown these vocabulary skills, and trained apes do not pass their vocabulary on to others. When a trained animal dies, so does the trainers Investment. Also, trained apes have essentially no grammatical ability. Only with grammar can a few words express many ideas. No known evidence shows that language exists or evolves in nonhumans, but all known human groups have language.
Furthermore, only humans have different modes of language: speaking/hearing, writing/reading, signing, touch (as with Braille), and tapping (as with Morse code or tap-codes used by prisoners). When one mode is prevented, as with the loss of hearing, others can be used.
If language evolved, the earliest languages should be the simplest. But language studies show that the more ancient the language (for example: Latin, 200 B.C.; Greek, 800 B.C.; Linear B, 1200 B.C.; and Vedic Sanskrit, 1500 B.C.), the more complex it is with respect to syntax, case, gender, mood, voice, tense, verb form, and inflection. The best evidence shows that languages devolve; that is, they become simpler instead of more complex/Most linguists reject the idea that simple languages evolve into complex languages.8 [See Figure 167 on page 319.]
If humans evolved, then so did language. All available evidence indicates that language did not evolve, so humans probably did not evolve either.
Speech is uniquely human.3 Humans have both a "prewired" brain capable of learning and conveying abstract ideas, and the physical anatomy (mouth, throat, tongue, larynx, etc.) to produce a wide range of sounds. Only a few animals can approximate some human sounds.
Because the human larynx is low in the neck, a long air column lies above the vocal cords. This helps make vowel sounds. Apes cannot make clear vowel sounds, because they lack this long air column. The back of the human tongue, extending deep into the neck, modulates the air flow to produce consonant sounds. Apes have flat, horizontal tongues, incapable of making consonant sounds.
Even if an ape could evolve all the physical equipment for speech, that equipment would be useless without a "prewired" brain for learning language skills, especially grammar and vocabulary.
15. Codes, Programs, and Information
In our experience, codes are produced only by intelligence, not by natural processes or chance. A code is a set of rules for converting information from one useful form to another. Examples include Morse code and Braille. Code makers must simultaneously understand at least two ways of representing information and then establish the rules for converting from one to the other and back again.
The genetic material that controls the physical processes of life is coded information. Also coded are complex and completely different functions: the transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems, without which the genetic material would be useless, and life would cease. It seems most reasonable that the genetic code and the accompanying transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems were produced simultaneously in each living organism by an extremely high intelligence.
Likewise, no natural process has ever been observed to produce a program. A program is a planned sequence of steps to accomplish some goal. Computer programs are common examples. Because programs require foresight, they are not produced by chance or natural processes. The information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs.
Life contains matter, energy, and information. All isolated systems, including living organisms, have specific, but perishable, amounts of information. No isolated system has ever been shown to increase its information content significantly. Nor do natural processes increase information; they destroy it. Only outside intelligence can significantly increase the information content of an otherwise isolated system. All scientific observations are consistent with this generalization, which has three corollaries:
* Macroevolution cannot occur
* Outside intelligence was involved in the creation of the universe and all forms of life.
* Life could not result from a "big bang."
16. Compatible Senders and Receivers
As explained above, only intelligence creates codes, programs, and information (CP&I). Each involves senders and receivers. Senders and receivers can be people, animals, plants, organs, cells, or certain molecules. (The DNA molecule is a prolific sender.) The CP&I in a message must be understandable and beneficial to both sender and receiver; otherwise, the effort expended in transmitting and receiving messages (written, chemical, electrical, magnetic, visual, and auditory) will be wasted.
Consider the astronomical number of links (message channels) that exist between potential senders and receivers: from the cellular level to complete organisms, from bananas to bacteria to babies, and across all of time since life began. All must have compatible understandings (CP&I) and equipment (matter and energy). Designing compatibilities of this magnitude requires one or more superintelligences. Furthermore, these superintelligence(s) must completely understand how matter and energy behave over time. In other words, the superintelligence(s) must have made, or at least mastered, the laws of chemistry and physics wherever senders and receivers are found. The simplest, most parsimonious way to integrate all of life is for there to be only one superintelligence.
Also, the sending and receiving equipment, including its energy sources, must be in place and functional before communication begins. But the preexisting equipment provides no benefit until useful messages begin arriving. Therefore, intelligent foresight (planning) is mandatory-something nature cannot do.
The Arguments for Evolution Are Outdated and Often Illogical.
17. Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design?
When the same complex capability is found in unrelated organisms but not in their alleged evolutionary ancestors, evolutionists say that a common need caused identical complexities to evolve. They call this convergent evolution.
For example, wings and flight occur in some birds, insects, and mammals (bats). Pterosaurs, an extinct reptile, also had wings and could fly. These capabilities have not been found in any of their alleged common ancestors. Other examples of convergent evolution are the three tiny bones in the ears of mammals: the stapes, incus, and malleus. Their complex arrangement and precise fit give mammals the unique ability to hear a wide range of sounds. Evolutionists say that those bones evolved from bones in a reptiles jaw. If so, the process must have occurred at least twice—but left no known transitional fossils. How did the transitional organisms between reptiles, and mammals hear during those millions of years? Without the ability
Figure 7: Fish-in-Long-Fish. In the belly of the above 14-foot-long fish is a smaller fish, presumably the big fish's breakfast. Because digestion is rapid, fossilization must have been even more so.
Figure 8: Fish-in-Curved-Fish. The curved back shows that this fish died under stress.
Figure 9: Dragonfly Wing. This delicate, 1 and 1/2-foot-long wing must have been buried rapidly and evenly to preserve its details. (Imagine the size of the entire dragonfly!)
Figure 10: Fossil of Fish Swallowing Fish. The fossilization process must have been quite rapid to have preserved a fish in the act of swallowing another fish. Thousands of such fossils have been found.
to hear, survival—and reptile-to-mammal evolution— would cease.
Concluding that a miracle—or any extremely unlikely event—happened once requires strong evidence or faith; claiming that a similar "miracle" happened repeatedly requires either incredible blind faith or a cause common to each event, such as a common designer.
Furthermore, it is illogical to maintain that similarities between different forms of life always imply a common ancestor; such similarities may imply a common designer and show efficient design. In fact, where similar structures are known to be controlled by different genes or are developed from different parts of embryos, a common designer is a much more likely explanation than evolution.
18. Vestigial Organs
Some structures in humans were once thought to have no function but to have been derived from functioning organs in claimed evolutionary ancestors. They were called vestigial organs. As medical knowledge has increased, at least some function has been discovered for all alleged vestigial organs. For example, the human appendix was once considered a useless remnant from our evolutionary past. The appendix seems to play a role in antibody production and protects part of the intestine from infections and tumor growths. Indeed, the absence of true vestigial organs implies evolution never happened.
19. Two-Celled Life?
Many single-celled forms of life exist, but no known forms of animal life have 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells. Known forms of life with 6-20 cells are parasites, so they must have a complex animal as a host to provide such functions as respiration and digestion. If macro evolution happened, one should find many transitional forms of life with 2-20 cells—fining the gap between one-celled and many-celled organisms.
Evolutionists have taught for over a century that as an embryo develops, it passes through stages that mimic an evolutionary sequence. In other words, in a few weeks an unborn human repeats stages that supposedly took millions of years for mankind. A well-known example of this ridiculous teaching is that embryos of mammals have "gill slits," because mammals supposedly evolved from fish. (Yes, that's faulty logic.) Embryonic tissues that resemble "gill slits" have nothing to do with breathing; they are neither gills nor slits. Instead, those embryonic tissues develop into parts of the face, bones of the middle ear, and endocrine glands.
Embryologists no longer consider the superficial similarities between a few embryos and the adult forms of simpler animals as evidence for evolution. Ernst Haeckel, by deliberately falsifying his drawings, originated and popularized this incorrect but widespread belief. Many modern textbooks continue to spread this false idea as evidence for evolution.
21. Rapid Burial
Fossils all over the world show evidence of rapid burial. Many fossils, such as fossilized jelly-fish, show by the details of their soft, fleshy portions that they were buried rapidly, before they could decay. (Normally, dead animals and plants quickly decompose.) The presence of fossilized remains of many other animals, buried in mass graves and lying in twisted and contorted positions, suggests violent and rapid burials over large areas. These observations, together with the occurrence of compressed fossils and fossils that cut across two or more layers of sedimentary rock, are strong evidence that the sediments encasing these fossils were deposited rapidly—not over hundreds of millions of years. Furthermore, almost all sediments that formed today's rocks were sorted by water. The worldwide fossil record is, therefore, evidence of rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide, catastrophic flood. The fossil record is not evidence of slow change.
22. Parallel Strata
The earths sedimentary layers are typically parallel to adjacent layers. Such uniform layers are seen, for example, in the Grand Canyon and in road cuts in mountainous terrain. Had these parallel layers been deposited slowly over thousands of years, erosion would have cut many channels in the topmost layers. Their later burial by other sediments would produce nonparallel patterns. Because parallel layers are the general rule, and the earth's surface erodes rapidly, one can conclude that almost all sedimentary layers were deposited rapidly relative to the local erosion rate—not over long periods of time. (The mechanism involved is explained on pages 169-181.)
Figure 11: Polystrate Fossil. Fossils crossing two or more sedimentary layers (strata) are called poly- (many) state (strata) fossils. Consider how quickly this tree trunk in Germany must have been buried. Had burial been slow, the tree top would have decayed. Obviously, the tree could not have grown up through the strata without sunlight and air. The only alternative is rapid burial. Some polystrate trees are upside down, which could occur in a large flood. Soon after Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, scientists saw trees being buried in a similar way in the lake-bottom sediments of Spirit Lake. Polystrate tree trunks are found worldwide. (Notice the 1 -meter scale bar, equal to 3.28 feet, in the center of the picture.)
23. Fossil Gaps
If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers. Actually, many gaps or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record. At the most fundamental level, a big gap exists between forms of life whose cells have nuclei (eukaryotes, such as plants, animals, and fungi) and those that don't (prokaryotes such as bacteria and blue-green algae). Fossil links are also missing between large groupings of plants, between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates (animals without backbones), among insects, between invertebrates and vertebrates (animals with backbones), between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates and other mammals, and between apes and other primates. In fact, chains are missing, not links. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled.
Figure 12: Insect in Amber. The best-preserved fossils are encased in amber, protected from air and water and buried in the ground. Amber, a golden resin (similar to sap or pitch) usually from conifer trees such as pines, may also contain other preservatives. No transitional forms of life have been found in amber, despite evolutionary-based ages of 1.5-300 million years. Animal behaviors, unchanged from today, are seen in three-dimensional detail. For example, ants in amber show the same social and work patterns as ants today.
Experts bold enough to explain how these fossils formed say that hurricane-force winds must have snapped off trees at their trunks, causing huge amounts of resin to spill out and act like flypaper. Debris and small organisms were blown into the sticky resin, which was later covered by more resin and finally buried. (Part II of this book will show that such conditions arose during the flood.)
In a clean-room laboratory, 30-40 dormant, but living, bacteria species were removed from intestines of bees encased in amber from the Dominican Republic. When cultured, the bacteria grew! [See "Old DNA, Bacteria, and Proteins?" on page 35.] This amber is claimed to be 25— 40 million years old, but I suspect it formed at the time of the flood, only thousands of years ago. (INCORRECT HERE AS THERE WAS NO WORLDWIDE FLOOD IN NAOH'S DAY; THE WORLDWIDE FLOOD WAS GEN. 1:1-2 - Keith Hunt) Is it more likely that bacteria can be kept alive thousands of years or many millions of years? Metabolism rates, even in dormant bacteria, are not zero.
24. Missing Trunk
The "evolutionary tree" has no trunk. In what evolutionists call the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the lowest sedimentary layers of Cambrian rock), life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, diversified, and dispersed—worldwide. Evolution predicts that minor variations should slowly accumulate, eventually becoming major categories of organisms. Instead, the opposite is found. Almost all of today's plant and animal phyla—including flowering plants, vascular plants and vertebrates—appear at the base of the fossil record. In fact, many more phyla are found in the Cambrian than exist today. Complex species, such as fish, worms, corals, trilobites, jellyfish, sponges, mollusks, and brachiopods appear suddenly, with no sign anywhere on earth of gradual development from simpler forms. Insects, a class comprising four-fifths of all known animal species (living and extinct), have no known evolutionary ancestors. The fossil record does not support evolution.
25. Out-of-PIace Fossils
Frequently, fossils are not vertically sequenced in the assumed evolutionary order. For example, in Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs. Hoofprints of some other animal are alongside 1,000 dinosaur footprints in Virginia. A leading authority on the Grand Canyon published photographs of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, according to the theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more than 100 million years. Dinosaur and humanlike footprints were found together in Turkmenistan and Arizona. Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock. Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and other fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina. Coal beds contain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed. In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, in Kashmir, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrian rocks—rocks supposedly deposited before flowering plants evolved. Pollen has also been found in Precambriank rocks deposited before life allegedly evolved.
Petrified trees in Arizona's Petrified Forest National Park contain fossilized nests of bees and cocoons of wasps. The petrified forests are reputedly 220 million years old, while bees (and flowering plants, which bees require) supposedly evolved almost 100 million years later. Pollinating insects and fossil flies, with long, well-developed tubes for sucking nectar from flowers, are dated 25 million years before flowers are assumed to have evolved. Most evolutionists and textbooks systematically ignore discoveries which conflict with the evolutionary time scale.
(SOME OF THE STRATA HAVE BEEN DELIBERATELY PUT UPSIDE-DOWN BY GOD WHEN AFTER THE WORLDWIDE FLOOD OF GEN. 1:1-2 THE LAND WAS RAISED FROM THE WATERS. DELIBERATELY DONE BY GOD JUST TO CONFUSE AND BLIND THE MINDS OF MEN. IN ALBERTA THE GREAT DINOSAUR SECTION THAT IS WORLD-FAMOUS, WAS NOT THAT LOW DOWN IN THE GROUND. SOME CREATURES IN THE DINOSAUR AGE MAY VERY WELL HAVE BEEN THE SAME CREATURES GOD MADE AGAIN IN GENESIS ONE. SOME LOCAL QUICK NATURAL BURIALS FROM LOCAL DISASTERS [THINK OF POMPEII - SEE WIKIPEDIA] AND MOVEMENT OF EARTHQUAKES AND STRATA THRUSTS, COULD PUT UPSIDE-DOWN STRATA. SOME DINOSAUR TYPE CREATURES MAY HAVE BEEN CREATED WITH ADAM AND EVE; AND HAVE NOW BECOME EXTINCT; TWO CREATURES MENTIONED IN THE BOOK OF JOB DO NOT SOUND LIKE ANY CREATURES WE HAVE ON EARTH TODAY. THE LEGENDS OF THE FIARY DRAGON MAY HAVE BEEN BASED ON FACT - Keith Hunt)
Figure 13: Ramapithecus. Some textbooks still claim that Ramapithecus is man's ancestor, an intermediate between man and some apelike ancestor. This mistaken belief resulted from piecing together, in 1932, fragments of upper teeth and bones into the two large pieces shown in the upper left. This was done so the shape of the jaw resembled the parabolic arch of man, shown in the upper right. In 1977, a complete lower jaw of Ramapithecus was found. The true shape of the jaw was not parabolic, but rather U-shaped, distinctive of apes.
For over a century, studies of skulls and teeth have produced unreliable conclusions about man's origin. Also, fossil evidence allegedly supporting human evolution is fragmentary and open to other interpretations. Fossil evidence showing the evolution of chimpanzees, supposedly the closest living relative to humans, is nonexistent.
Stories claiming that fossils of primitive, apelike men have I been found are overstated.
* It is now universally acknowledged that Piltdown "man" was a hoax, yet Piltdown "man" was in textbooks for more than 40 years.
* Before 1977, evidence for Ramapithecus was a mere handful of teeth and jaw fragments. We now know these fragments were pieced together incorrectly by Louis Leakey and others into a form resembling part of the human jaw. Ramapithecus was just an ape. [See Figure 13.]
* The only remains of Nebraska "man" turned out to be a pig's tooth. [See Figure 14.]
* Forty years after he discovered Java "man," Eugene Dubois conceded that it was not a man, but was similar to a large gibbon (an ape). In citing evidence to support this new conclusion, Dubois admitted
Figure 14: Nebraska Man. Artists' drawings, even those based on speculation, powerfully influence the public. Nebraska man was mistakenly based on one tooth of an extinct pig. Yet in 1922, The Illustrated London News published this picture showing our supposed ancestors. Of course, it is highly unlikely that any fossil evidence could support the image conveyed here of a naked man carrying a club.
that he had withheld parts of four other thigh bones of apes found in the same area.
* Many experts consider the skulls of Peking "man" to be the remains of apes that were systematically decapitated and exploited for food by true man. Its classification, Homo erectus, is considered by most experts to be a category that should never have been created.
* The first confirmed limb bones of Homo habilis were discovered in 1986. They showed that this animal clearly had apelike proportions and should never have been classified as manlike (Homo).
* The australopithecines, made famous by Louis and Mary Leakey, are quite distinct from humans. Several detailed computer studies of australopithecines have shown that their bodily proportions were not intermediate between those of man and living apes. Another study, which examined their inner ear bones, used to maintain balance, showed a striking similarity to those of chimpanzees and gorillas, but great differences from those of humans. Likewise, their pattern of dental development corresponds to chimpanzees, not humans.
Claims were made—based on one australopithecine fossil (a 3 and 1/2 foot-tall, long-armed, 60-pound adult called Lucy)—that all australopithecines walked upright in a human manner. However, studies of Lucy's entire anatomy, not just a knee joint, now show that this is very unlikely. She likely swung from the trees and was similar to pygmy chimpanzees. The australopithecines are probably extinct apes.
* For about 100 years the world was led to believe that Neanderthal man was stooped and apelike. This false idea was based upon some Neanderthals with bone diseases such as arthritis and rickets. Recent dental and x-ray studies of Neanderthals suggest that they were humans who matured at a slower rate and lived to be much older than people today. Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man are now considered completely human. Artists' drawings of "ape-men," especially their fleshy portions, are often quite imaginative and are not supported by the evidence. Furthermore, the techniques used to date these fossils are highly questionable. [See pages 34-41.]
27. Fossil Man
Bones of modern-looking humans have been found deep in undisturbed rocks that, according to evolution, were formed long before man began to evolve. Examples include the Calaveras skull, a the Castenedolo skeletons, Reek's skeleton, and others. Remains such as the Swanscombe skull, the Steinheim fossil, and the Vertesszollos fossil present similar problems. Evolutionists almost always ignore these remains.
Life Is So Complex That Chance Processes, Even over Billions of Years, Cannot Explain Its Origin.
28. Chemical Elements of Life
The chemical evolution of life, as you will see in the next few pages, is ridiculously improbable. What could improve the odds? One should begin with an earth having high concentrations of the key elements comprising life, such as carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen. However, the more closely one examines these elements, the more unlikely evolution appears.
Carbon. Rocks that supposedly preceded life have very little carbon. One must imagine a toxic, carbon-rich atmosphere to supply the needed carbon if life evolved. For comparison, today's atmosphere holds only 1/80,000 of the carbon that has been on the earth's surface since the first fossils formed. [See Table 7 on page 222.]
Oxygen. No evolutionary theory has been able to explain why earth's atmosphere has so much oxygen. Too many substances should have absorbed oxygen on an evolving earth. Besides, if the early earth had oxygen in its atmosphere, compounds (called amino acids) needed for life to evolve would have been destroyed by oxidation. But if there had been no oxygen, there would have been no ozone (a form of oxygen) in the upper atmosphere. Without ozone to shield the earth, the sun's ultraviolet radiation would quickly destroy life. The only known way for both ozone and life to be here is for both to come into existence simultaneously-—in other words, by creation.
Nitrogen. Clays and various rocks absorb nitrogen. Had millions of years passed before life evolved, the sediments that preceded life should be filled with nitrogen. Searches have never found such sediments.
Basic chemistry does not support the evolution of life.
Living matter is composed largely of proteins, which are long chains of amino acids. Since 1930, it has been known that amino acids cannot link together if oxygen is present. That is, proteins could not have evolved from chance chemical reactions if the atmosphere contained oxygen. However, the chemistry of the earth's rocks, both on land and below ancient seas, shows that the earth had oxygen before the earliest fossils formed. Even earlier, solar radiation would have broken water vapor into oxygen and hydrogen. Some hydrogen, the lightest of all chemical elements, would then have escaped into outer space, leaving behind excess oxygen.
To form proteins, amino acids must also be highly concentrated in an extremely pure liquid. However, the early oceans or ponds would have been far from pure and would have diluted amino acids, so the required collisions between amino acids would rarely occur. Besides, amino acids do not naturally link up to form proteins. Instead, proteins tend to break down into amino acids. Furthermore, the proposed energy sources for forming proteins (earth's heat, electrical discharges, or solar radiation) destroy the protein products thousands of times faster than they could have formed. The many attempts to show how life might have arisen on earth have instead shown (a) the futility of that effort (b) the immense complexity of even the simplest life and (c) the need for a vast intelligence to precede life.
30. The First Cell
If, despite virtually impossible odds, proteins arose by chance processes, there is not the remotest reason to believe they could ever form a membrane-encased, self-reproducing, self-repairing, metabolizing, living cell.
There is no evidence that any stable states exist between the assumed formation of proteins and the formation of the first living cells. No scientist has ever demonstrated that this fantastic jump in complexity could have happened—even if the entire universe had been filled with proteins.
31 Barriers, Buffers, and Chemical Pathways
Living cells contain thousands of different chemicals, some acidic, others basic. Many chemicals would react with others were it not for an intricate system of chemical barriers and buffers. If living things evolved, these barriers and buffers must also have evolved—but at just the right time to prevent harmful chemical reactions. How could such precise, seemingly coordinated, virtually miraculous events have happened for each of millions of species?
All living organisms are maintained by thousands of chemical pathways, each involving a long series of complex chemical reactions. For example, the clotting of blood, which involves 20-30 steps, is absolutely vital to healing a wound. However, clotting could be fatal if it happened inside the body. Omitting one of the many steps, inserting an unwanted step, or altering the timing of a step would probably cause death. If one thing goes wrong, all the earlier marvellous steps that worked flawlessly were in vain. Evidently, these complex pathways were created as an intricate, highly integrated system.
32 Genetic Distances
Similarities between different forms of life can now be measured with sophisticated genetic techniques.
Proteins. "Genetic distances" can be calculated by taking a specific protein and examining the sequence of its components. The fewer changes needed to convert a protein of one organism into the corresponding protein of another organism, supposedly the closer their relationship. These studies seriously contradict the theory of evolution.
An early computer-based study of cytochrome, a protein used in energy production, compared 47 different forms of life. This study found many contradictions with evolution based on this one protein. For example, according to evolution, the rattlesnake should have been most closely related to other reptiles. Instead, of these 47 forms (all that were sequenced at that time), the one most similar to the rattlesnake was man. Since this study, experts have discovered hundreds of similar contradictions.
DNA and UNA. Comparisons can also be made between the genetic material of different organisms. The list of organisms that have had all their genes sequenced and entered in databases, such as "GenBank," is doubling each year. Computer comparisons of each gene with all other genes in the database show too many genes that are completely unrelated to any others. Therefore, an evolutionary relationship between genes is highly unlikely. Furthermore, there is no trace at the molecular level for the traditional evolutionary series: simple sea life — fish — amphibians — reptiles — mammals. Each category of organism appears to be almost equally isolated.
Humans vs. Chimpanzees. Evolutionists say that the chimpanzee is the closest living relative to humans. For two decades (1984-2004), evolutionists and the media claimed that human DNA is about 99% similar to chimpanzee DNA. These statements had little scientific justification, because they were made before anyone had completed the sequencing of human DNA and long before the sequencing of chimpanzee DNA had begun.
Chimpanzee and human DNA have now been completely sequenced and rigorously compared. The differences, which total about 4%, are far greater and more complicated than evolutionists suspected. Those differences include about "thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertions/deletions, and various chromosomal rearrangements." Although its only 4%, a huge DNA chasm separates humans from chimpanzees.
Finally, evolutionary trees, based on the outward appearance of organisms, can now be compared with the organisms' genetic information. They conflict in major ways.
33. Genetic information
The genetic information in the DNA of each human cell is roughly equivalent to a library of 4,000 books. Even if matter and life (perhaps a bacterium) somehow arose, the probability that mutations and natural selection produced this vast amount of information is essentially zero. It would be analogous to continuing the following procedure until 4,000 books were produced:
a. Start with a meaningful phrase.
b. Retype it, but make some errors and insert a few
c. See if the new phrase is meaningful.
d. If it is, replace the original phrase with it.
e. Return to step "b."
To produce just the enzymes in one organism would require more than 10-40'000 trials. (To begin to understand how large 10-40,000 is, realize that the visible universe has fewer than 10-80 atoms in it.)
Since 1970, evolutionists have referred to large segments of DNA as "junk DNA," because it supposedly had no purpose and was left over from our evolutionary past. We now know this "junk" explains much of the complexity of organisms. Use of the term "junk DNA" reflected past ignorance.
The Elephant in the Living Room
Writer George V. Caylor interviewed Sam, a molecular biologist. George asked Sam about his work. Sam said he and his team were scientific "detectives," working with DNA and tracking down the cause of disease. Here is their published conversation.
G: "Sounds like pretty complicated work."
S: "You can't imagine how complicated!"
G: "Try me."
S: "I'm a bit like an editor, trying to find a spelling mistake inside a document larger than four complete sets of Encyclopedia Britannica. Seventy volumes, thousands and thousands of pages of small print words."
G: "With the computer power, you can just use spell check'!"
S: "There is no spell check because we don't know yet how the words are supposed to be spelled. We don't even know for sure which language. And it's not just the spelling error we're looking for. If any of the punctuation is out of place, or a space out of place, or a grammatical error, we have a mutation that will cause a disease."
G: "So how do you do it?"
S: "We are learning as we go. We have already read over two articles in that encyclopedia, and located some 'typos'. It should get easier as time goes by."
G: "How did all that information happen to get there?"
S: "Do you mean, did it just happen? Did it evolve?"
G: "Bingo. Do you believe that the information evolved?"
S: "George, nobody I know in my profession truly believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book. Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise. A bit like Neil Armstrong believing the moon is made of green cheese. He's been there!"
G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"
S: "No. It all just evolved."
G: "What? You just told me —?"
S: "Just stop right there. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold on to two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe in evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living."
G: "I hate to say it, Sam, but that sounds intellectually dishonest."
S: "The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living room'."
G: "What elephant?"
S: "Design. It's like the elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up an enormous amount of space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there!"
George V. Caylor, "The Biologist," The Ledger, Vol. 2, Issue 4, No.92, 1 December 2000,p.2. (www.ontherightside.com)
Printed with permission.
34. DNA Production and Repair
DNA cannot function without at least 75 preexisting proteins, but proteins are produced only at the direction of DNA. Because each needs the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the other. The components of these manufacturing systems must have come into existence simultaneously. This implies creation.
When a cell divides, its DNA is copied, sometimes with errors. Each animal and plant has machinery that identifies and corrects most errors; if it did not, the organism would deteriorate and become extinct. If evolution happened, which evolved first, DNA or its repair mechanism? Each requires the other.
35. Handedness: Left and Right
Genetic material, DNA and RNA, is composed of nucleotides. In living things, nucleotides are always "right-handed." (They are called right-handed, because a beam of polarized light passing through them rotates like a right-handed screw.) Nucleotides rarely form outside life, but when they do, half are left-handed, and half are right-handed. If the first nucleotides formed by natural processes, they would have "mixed-handedness" and therefore could not evolve life's genetic material. In fact, "mixed" genetic material cannot even copy itself.
Each type of amino acid, when found in nonliving material or when synthesized in the laboratory, comes in two chemically equivalent forms. Half are right-handed, and half are left-handed—mirror images of each other. However, amino acids in life, including plants, animals, bacteria, molds, and even viruses, are essentially all left-handed. No known natural process can isolate either the left-handed or right-handed variety. The mathematical probability that chance processes could produce merely one tiny protein molecule with only left-handed amino acids is virtually zero.
A similar observation can be made for a special class of organic compounds called sugars. In living systems, sugars are all right-handed. Based on our present understanding, natural processes produce an equal number of left-handed and right-handed sugars. Because sugars in living things are right-handed, random natural processes apparently did not produce life.
If any living thing took in (or ate) amino acids or sugars with the wrong handedness, the organisms body could not process it. Such food would be useless, if not harmful. Because evolution favors slight variations that enhance survivability and reproduction, consider how beneficial a mutation might be that switched (or inverted) a plant's handedness. "Inverted" (or wrong-handed) trees would proliferate rapidly, because they would no longer provide nourishment to bacteria, mold, or termites. "Inverted" forests would fill the continents. Other "inverted" plants and animals would also benefit and would overwhelm the balance of nature. Why do we not see such species with right-handed amino acids and left-handed sugars? Similarly, why are there not more poisonous plants? Why don't beneficial mutations let most carriers defeat their predators? Beneficial mutations are rarer than most evolutionists believe. [See "Mutations" on page 7.]
To claim that life evolved is to demand a miracle. The simplest conceivable form of single-celled life should have at least 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probability that even one typical protein could form by chance arrangements of amino acid sequences is essentially zero—far less than 1 in 10-450. To appreciate the magnitude of 10-450, realize that the visible universe is about 10-28 inches in diameter.
From another perspective, suppose we packed the entire visible "universe with a "simple" form of life, such as bacteria. Next, suppose we broke all their chemical bonds, mixed all their atoms, then let them form new links. If this were repeated a billion times a second for 20 billion years under the most favorable temperature and pressure conditions throughout the visible universe, would even one bacterium of any type reemerge? The chances are much less than one in 10-99,999,999,873. Your chances of randomly drawing one preselected atom out of a universe packed with atoms are about one chance in 10-112—much better.
Most insects (87%) undergo complete metamorphosis. It begins when a larva (such as a caterpillar) builds a cocoon around itself. Then its body inside disintegrates into a thick, pulplike liquid. Days, weeks, or months later, the adult insect emerges—one that is dramatically different (as shown in Table 1), amazingly capable, and often beautiful, such as a butterfly. Food, habitat, and behavior of the larva also differ drastically from those of the adult.
Table 1. Contrast between a Typical Larva and Adult
a chewing mouth
a sucking tube
a few simple eyes
two compound eyes (often with thousands of lenses capable of seeing all colors and ultraviolet light in almost all directions)
no true legs
six segmented legs
a capable flyer
Evolution claims that:
Mutations slightly alter an organism's genetic
material, which later generations inherit. On rare
occasions the alterations are beneficial, enabling
those offspring to reproduce more of themselves and
the improved genetic material. [Supposedly] after
many generations, dramatic changes, even new
If this were true, each organism must be able to reproduce
and must be superior, in some sense, to its ancestors. How
then could metamorphosis evolve in many stages?
What mutations could improve a larva? Certainly none that destroyed its nerves, muscles, eyes, brain, and most other organs, as occurs within a cocoon. So, even if a larva improved, it later ends up as "mush." From an evolutionary standpoint, liquefying complex organs is a giant step backwards. As Michael Pitman wryly noted: Maggots will more or less dissolve themselves when developing into a fly. Was the process preprogrammed from the first "production run"? Or was the ancestral fly a dissolved maggot?
The millions of changes inside the thick liquid never produce something survivable or advantageous in the
Figure 15: Metamorphosis. Many animals experience an amazing transformation that refutes evolution. One example is the monarch butterfly. As a 2-week-oId caterpillar, it builds a chrysalis around itself. Then its complex organs disintegrate. From an evolution perspective, this should cause its extinction—a thousand times over. Two weeks later, a beautiful butterfly emerges with different and even more remarkable capabilities. Some people might believe that a complex machine, such as an automobile, evolved by natural processes, but if they saw that machine disintegrate and quickly re-emerge as an airplane, only the most naive and unscientific would still believe that natural processes could produce such marvelous designs.
outside world until the adult completely forms. How did the genetic material for both larva and adult develop? Which came first, larva or adult? What mutations could transform a crawling larva into a flying monarch butterfly that can accurately navigate 3,000 miles using a brain the size of a pin head? Indeed, why should a larva evolve in the first place, because it cannot reproduce?
Charles Darwin wrote:
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.
Based on metamorphosis alone, evolution "breaks down."
Obviously, the vast amount of information that directs every stage of a larva's and an adults development, including metamorphosis, must reside in its genetic material at the beginning. This fits only creation.
38. Symbiotic Relationships
Different forms of life are completely dependent upon each other. At the broadest level, the animal kingdom depends on the oxygen produced by the plant kingdom. Plants, in turn, depend on the carbon dioxide produced by the animal kingdom.
More local and specific example's include fig trees and the fig gall wasp, the yucca plant and the yucca moth, many parasites and their hosts, and pollen-bearing plants and the honeybee. Even members of the honeybee family, consisting of the queen, workers, and drones, are interdependent. If one member of each interdependent group evolved first (such as the plant before the animal, or one member of the honeybee family before the others), it could not have survived. Because all members of the group obviously have survived, they must have come into existence at essentially the same time. In other words, creation.
39. Sexual Reproduction
If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must have occurred at each stage.
a. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.
b. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the
male and female would also need to be compatible.
c. The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical, and electrical compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system.
d. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision—processes that scientists can describe only in a general sense.
e. The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also "accidentally" evolved), would have to be tightly controlled.
f. This remarkable string of "accidents" must have been repeated for millions of species.
Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by intelligence.
Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved even once, the steps by which an embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals.
Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than sexual reproduction. But if asexual reproduction (splitting an organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise—or survive?
Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. But for natural processes to produce life that could reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle.
40. Immune Systems
How could immune systems of animals and plants have evolved? Each immune system can recognize invading bacteria, viruses, and toxins. Each system can quickly mobilize the best defenders to search out and destroy these invaders. Each system has a memory and learns from every attack.
Figure 16: Male and Female Birds. Even evolutionists admit that evolution seems incompatible with sexual reproduction.
If the many instructions that direct an animal's or plant's immune system had not been preprogrammed in the organism's genetic system when it first appeared on earth, the first of thousands of potential infections would have killed the organism. This would have nullified any rare genetic improvements that might have accumulated. In other words, the large amount of genetic information governing the immune system could not have accumulated in a slow, evolutionary sense. Obviously, for each organism to have survived, all this information must have been there from the beginning. Again, creation.
41. Living Technology
Most complex phenomena known to science are found in living systems—including those involving electrical, acoustical, mechanical, chemical, and optical phenomena. Detailed studies of various animals also have revealed certain physical equipment and capabilities that the world's best designers, using the most sophisticated technologies, cannot duplicate. Examples of these designs include molecular-size motors in most living organisms, advanced technologies in cells; miniature and reliable sonar systems of dolphins, porpoises, and whales; frequency-modulated "radar" and discrimination systems of bats; efficient aerodynamic capabilities of hummingbirds; control systems, internal ballistics, and the combustion chambers of bombardier beetles; precise and redundant navigational systems of many birds, fish, and insects; and especially the self-repair capabilities of almost all forms of life. No component of these complex systems could have evolved without placing the organism at a selective disadvantage until the component's evolution was complete. All evidence points to intelligent design.
Many bacteria, such as Salmonella, Escherichia coli, and some Streptococci, propel themselves with miniature
Figure 17: White Blood Cell. A white blood cell is stalking the green bacterium, shown at the lower right. Your health, and that of many animals, depends on the effectiveness of these "search-and-destroy missions." Consider the capabilities and associated equipment this white blood cell must have to do its job. It must identify friend and foe. Once a foe is detected, the white blood cell must rapidly locate and overtake the invader. Then the white blood cell must engulf the bacterium, destroy it, and have the endurance to repeat this many times. Miniaturization, fuel efficiency, and compatibility with other parts of the body are also key requirements. The equipment for each function requires careful design. Unless all this worked well from the beginning of life, a requirement that rules out evolution, bacteria and other agents of disease would have won, and we would not be here to marvel at these hidden abilities in our bodies.
A few "stem cells" in your bone marrow produce more than 100 billion of these and other types of blood cells every day. Each white blood cell moves at up to 30 microns (almost half the diameter of a human hair) each minute. So many white blood cells are in your body that their total distance traveled in one day would circle the earth twice. © Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH; photo by Lennart Nilsson.
motors at up to 15 body-lengths per second, equivalent to a car traveling 150 miles per hour—in a liquid. These extremely efficient, reversible motors rotate at up to 100,000 revolutions per minute. Each shaft rotates a bundle of whiplike flagella that acts as a propeller. The motors, having rotors and stators, are similar in many respects to electrical motors. However, their electrical charges come from a flow of protons, not electrons. The bacteria can stop, start, and change speed, direction, and even the "propellers" shape. They also have intricate sensors, switches, control mechanisms, and a short-term memory. All this is highly miniaturized. Eight million of these bacterial motors would fit inside the circular cross section of a human hair.
Evolutionary theory teaches that bacteria were one of the first forms of life to evolve, and, therefore, they are simple. While bacteria are small, they are not simple. They can even communicate among themselves using chemicals.
Some plants have motors that are one-fifth the size of bacterial motors. Increasing worldwide interest in nano-technology is showing that living things are remarkably designed—beyond anything Darwin could have imagined.
42. The Validity of Thought
If life is the result of natural processes or chance, then so is thought. Your thoughts—including what you are thinking now—would ultimately be a consequence of a long series of irrational causes. Therefore, your thoughts would have no validity, including the thought that life is a result of chance or natural processes. By destroying the validity of ideas, evolution undercuts even the idea of evolution. "Science itself makes no sense if the scientific mind is itself no more than the product of irrational material forces." b
A related issue is the flexibility and redundancy of the human brain, which evolution or natural selection would not produce. For example, every year brain surgeons successfully remove up to half of a person's brain. The remaining half gradually takes over functions of the removed half. Also, brain functions are often regained after portions of the brain are accidentally destroyed. Had humans evolved, such accidents would have been fatal before these amazing capabilities developed. Darwin recognized an aspect of this phenomenal capability of the brain.
Life Science Conclusions
When Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859, the "evolutionary tree" had only a few gaps. Believers in his new theory thought that these gaps would be filled as scientific knowledge increased. Just the opposite has happened. As science has progressed, these "missing links" have multiplied enormously, and the obstacles to
Figure 18: Arctic Tern Migration Routes and Cockpit. The Arctic Tern, a bird of average size, navigates across oceans, as shown above, with the skill normally associated with navigational equipment in modern intercontinental aircraft. A round trip for the Tern might be 22,000 miles. The Tern's "electronics" are highly miniaturized, extremely reliable, maintenance free, and easily reproduced. Furthermore, this remarkable bird needs no training. If the equipment in the lower picture could not have evolved, how could the tern's more amazing "equipment" have evolved? Equally amazing is the Monarch Butterfly which flies thousands of miles from breeding grounds as far north as Canada to wintering grounds as far south as Mexico. Processing information in a brain the size of a pin head, it navigates using a magnetic compass and, to a lesser extent, the Sun.
Figure 19: Bacterial Motor. Drawing based on a microphotograph of the flagellum of a salmonella bacterium.
"bridging" these gaps have become even more obvious. For example, in Darwin's day, all life fell into two categories (or kingdoms): animals and plants. Today, it is generally accepted that life falls into five radically different kingdoms, of which animals and plants comprise only two. (None of the five include viruses, which are complex and unique in their own way.) In the 1800s, the animal kingdom was divided into four animal phyla; today there are about forty.
Figure 20: Illustration of a Bacterial Motor. Although no one completely understands how these tiny motors work, many studies have deduced the presence of the above components.
Darwin suggested that the first living creature evolved in a "warm little pond." Today, almost all evolutionary-biologists will privately admit that science has no explanation for how life evolved. We now know that the chance formation of the first living cell is a gigantic leap, vastly more improbable than for bacteria to evolve into humans. In Darwin's day, a cell was thought to be about as simple as a ping-pong ball. Even today, many evolutionists think bacteria—one of the first forms of life to evolve— are simple. However, bacteria are marvelously integrated and complex manufacturing facilities with many mysteries yet to be understood, such as bacterial motors and communication among bacteria. Furthermore, cells come in two radically different types—those with a nucleus and those without. The evolutionary leap from one to the other is staggering to imagine.
The more evolutionists learn about life, the greater complexity they find. A century ago there were no sophisticated microscopes. Consequently, gigantic leaps from single to multiple-cell organisms were grossly underestimated. Development of the computer has also given us a
Figure 21: Integration and Compatibility. An organ is a complex structure of different types of tissues and cells, all of which work together to perform a specific function such as seeing, hearing, digesting, or pumping. (Shown are a few of the amazing human organs; eye, ear, stomach, heart, skin, and brain.) A system, such as the nervous system, circulatory system, skeletal system, or reproductive system, consists of related organs and other tissues and cells that have even broader functions. A healthy body has all its systems working properly. Life depends on a broad, compatible, and complex hierarchy: molecules —cells —tissues —organs —systems -body - other organisms —the environment. All are carefully balanced and integrated with each other. Arbitrarily changing one component at any level will often be harmful at that level and to the vertical hierarchy. For example, change one type of molecule throughout a category of cells, and the result may be damaged cells and a diseased body. Environmentalists and ecologists are aware of this critical balance (regarding, say, the spotted owl and the environment), but often they fail to ask, "Who or what created this balance?" Some fail to see the incredible complexity, integration, and systems engineering that extends throughout the universe—from carbon atoms to galaxies to physical laws. Humans are only one of millions of different organisms. To integrate all organisms into a living ecosystem requires stupendous design and balance. If evolution happened, time and natural processes alone must have maintained a livable environment for most forms of life as each new organism came into existence and proliferated. No global contaminants, plagues, predators, or famines could be allowed for billions of years. Imagine what would happen if a few organisms at the base of the food chain became extinct. Who or what has the ability to design, construct, and harmoniously integrate and maintain all of life? Time and natural processes, as evolution states, or an infinitely intelligent Creator?
better appreciation of the brains intricate electronics, extreme miniaturization, and vast storage capabilities. The human eye, which Darwin admitted made him shudder, was only a single jump in complexity. [See Endnote 9b on page 55.] We now know there are at least a dozen radically different kinds of eyes, each requiring similar jumps if evolution happened. Likewise, the literal leap we call "flight" must have evolved not once, but on at least four different occasions: for birds, some insects, mammals (bats), and reptiles (pterosaurs). Fireflies produce light without heat, a phenomenon called bioluminescence. Other species, including certain fish, crustaceans, squids, plants, bacteria, and fungi, also have lighting systems. Did all these remarkable capabilities evolve independently?
Before 1977, it was thought that sunlight provided the energy for all life. We now know that some organisms, living at widely separated locations on the dark ocean floor, use only chemical and thermal energy. For one energy-conversion system to evolve into another would be like changing, by thousands of rare accidents, the wood-burning heating systems of widely separated homes to electricity—but slowly, one accident each year. The occupants would risk freezing every winter. How such a system could evolve on different ocean floors, without solar energy, and in a cold, diluting environment has yet to be explained.
If evolution happened, many other giant leaps must also have occurred: the first photosynthesis, cold-blooded to warm-blooded animals, floating marine plants to vascular plants, placental mammals to marsupials, egg-laying animals to animals that bear live young, insect metamorphosis, the transition of mammals to the sea (whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, sea lions, and manatees), the transition of reptiles to the sea (plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs), and on and on.
Gaps in the fossil record are well known. A century ago, evolutionists argued that these gaps would be filled as knowledge increased. The same gaps persist, and most paleontologists now admit that those predictions failed. Of course, the most famous "missing link" is between man and apes, but the term is deceiving. There is not merely one missing link, but thousands—a long chain—if the evolutionary tree were to connect man and apes (with their many linguistic, social, mental, and physical differences).
Scientific advancements have shown that evolution is an even more ridiculous theory than it seemed in Darwin's day. It is a theory without a mechanism. Not even appeals to long periods of time will allow simple organisms to "jump gaps" and become more complex and viable. In fact, as the next section will show, long periods of time make such leaps even less likely.
All the breeding experiments that many hoped would demonstrate macroevolution have failed. The arguments used by Darwin and his followers are now discredited or, at best, in dispute, even among evolutionists. Finally, research during the last several decades has shown that the requirements for life are incredibly complex. Just the design that most people can see around them obviously implies a designer. Oddly enough, evolutionists still argue against this design by using arguments which they spent a great deal of time designing. The theory of organic evolution is invalid.
As we leave the life sciences and examine the astronomical and physical sciences, we will see many other serious problems with evolutionary theories. If the Earth, the solar system, our galaxy, the universe, or even the heavier chemical elements could not have evolved, as now seems to be the case, then organic evolution could not even have begun.
TO BE CONTINUED