Ten Reasons Evolution is Wrong
1a Microevolution Defined
2. Reason 1 Genetics is not Evolution's Friend
2a Were Darwin's Galapagos Finches Evolution?
2b What About Mutations
2c Population Genetics Factors
2d Beneficial verses Positive Mutations
2e Molecular Biology and Irreducible Complexity
2f Do Hox (Homeotic) Genes Save Evolution?
2g Evolution Fails to Predict Genetic Complexity
3. Reason 2 Statistics is not Evolution's Friend
3a A Short Primer on Probability
3b Weasely Dawkins
4. Reason 3 Biochemistry is not Evolution's Friend
4a. Primitive Atmospheres
4b Sydney Fox's Protenoids?
4c The Problem with Chirality
4d Outer Space?
5. Reason 4 Information Theory is not Evolution's Friend
5a Complex Life Information verses Simple Information
5b Specified Complexity
6. Reason 5 Physics is not Evolution's Friend
6a The Laws of Thermodynamics
6b Entropy and Evolution
7. Reason 6 Astronomy is not Evolution's Friend
7a How Old is the Universe?
7b Strange Quasar - Galaxy Connections
7c What do Extra Solar Planets Tel us?
7d What About the Sun?
7e What do the Planets in our Solar System tel us?
7f The Oort cloud and the Kuiper belt
8. Reason Number 7 Paleontology is not Evolution's Friend
8a The Cambrian Explosion
8b Problems with the Fossil Record
8c Those Pesky Transitional Fossils
8d Bird Evolution
co nve rte d by We b2P DFC o nve rt.co m
8e Tetrapod Evolution Fact or Fancy
8f A Whale of a Tale
8g Horse Evolution
8h Hominid Evolution or Paleoanthropology
8i Hal of Hoaxes
8j Recent Finds or is Lucy Real y a Lady?
8k What Are They Thinking?
9. Reason Number 8 Radiometric Dating is not Evolution's Friend
9a What is Radiometric Dating?
9b Some Dating Games
9c What About Carbon Dating?
9d Are Decay Rates Constant?
10. Reason Number 9 Evolutionists are not Evolution's Friends
Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Sanders
George Gaylord Simpson
Stephen Jay Gould
George Gaylord Simpson
Stephen Jay Gould
co nve rte d by We b2P DFC o nve rt.co m
10c Ernst Haeckel - Apostle of Deceit
11. Reason Number 10 Morality is not Evolution's Friend
11a Is Evolution Science or Philosophy?
11b So What if Evolution is an Atheistic Philosophy?
11c The Cartesian Divide and The Kantian Contradiction
11d The Blood Drenched Century of Evolution
11e What About Hitler?
11f What About Stalin?
11g What About Mao?
12. More Issues - Under Construction
A note in end of section comments: These comments are for Christians who read this document. I am attempting to remind them to treat al
people as the Lord says we should. For you evolutionists who read those and suffer apoplexy - JUST CHILL! Don't read them if you don't like
it dudes! Oh and they are not proof the rest is wrong either.
Before we take on the ten reasons evolution is wrong we must first define what we are talking about. Evolutionists wil say the word evolution
to you and you may think you know what they are saying, but you probably don't. There are at least five concepts of evolution that the
evolutionist speaks of as one. They are:
1. Cosmic Evolution - Their Cosmology or how the Universe came into being.
2. Stel ar Evolution - How the stars, galaxies etc. formed
3. Earth's Evolution - How the Sun and the planets formed in our solar system.
4. Macroevolution - The postulate that says al life formed from earlier organized non-life and through some form of mutation, natural
selection, and enormous amounts of time.
5. Microevolution - The limited variation that takes place in a species or families complex gene pool or genome.
As creationists we may not agree with al these as being evolution and so it helps to understand what we are saying. In this article I agree that
microevolution occurs, but the other four are imminently debatable.
Now another issue needs to be face before we go on. Evolutionists are fond of talking down and attacking creationists as being less
"scientific" than they. They use ad-hominen attacks and accuse creationists as being stupid and unable to understand their "science". We
need to understand what science is and how our arguments fit in its' framework.
Science. According to the Oxford Dictionary science is "A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated
truths or with observed facts systematical y classified and more or less col igated by being brought under general laws, and which includes
trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain."
The process is for a postulate to be first formulated and then announced. Then there are three things about this postulate that must be true
before it can be considered a theory.
1. The postulate must be observable.
2. The postulate must be capable of repeatable experimental verification
3. The postulate must withstand a falsifiability test, or an experiment conceived which the failure of the experiment would disprove the
When you talk with evolutionists make sure you have these points covered. They wil talk circles around you and cal you stupid if you don't
know what they are talking about. As Evolutionists have never observed any of the first four supposed evolutions they assume are true, they
only talk about the last microevolution and try to define it as al five! The constantly point out microevolution as being the proof of al the other
four. The sooner we creationists figure this out the sooner we can win this debate.
From the points given above is shows us that both evolution and creation are postulates. Neither have much of a chance of becoming a
theory because of the difficulty of observing events that happened in the distant past and trying to have those events become repeatable.
When evolutionists become dogmatic in their speech as if evolution had been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, they are talking about
microevolution and they are bluffing because the lack real proof.
co nve rte d by We b2P DFC o nve rt.co m
What we are left to do then is look forensical y into such things as fossils, microbiology, biochemistry, information theory, etc. to try and see if
we can catch the process in its' act. We wil talk about al these things in this article.
We now need to define careful y the concept of microevolution as we and the evolutionists both understand it differently. Microevolution to the
creationist is the limited variation that can be expressed by the genome of a "species' or family of plants or animals. It is the variation in the
al eles of a genome as they are expressed in sexual reproduction and the mixing of al eles that occurs. These al eles are mostly not the
product of mutations, but rather reside in the total genome of a population. See the genetics section for a further treatment of al eles in a
The Evolutionist sees microevolution as the cornerstone of evolutionary theory. They believe that it is bil ions of microevolution mutations in the
genome, creating new al eles, and natural selection preserving those changes that is the process of evolution.
Creationists do not see microevolution as being able to drive the massive information gain that needs to occur for evolution to be possible,
that is the amoeba to man evolution concept. Microevolution changes mainly occur through the practice of selective breeding. There are no
"mutations" in selective breeding or in genome adaptation to the environment. The complex changes that occur are already in the genome
and are merely being brought out from human or environmental pressure.
For instance sugar beets in the early 1800's had a 6% sugar content, by selective breeding that sugar content had risen to 17% by 1878.
That was as far as the breeders were able to stretch the genome and they certainly didn't create a potato from the sugar beet.
Another instance of microevolution is the English peppered moth (Biston betularia). In pre-industrial England the peppered moth lived on the
white bark of the birch tree. The moth came in two basic varieties, peppered white and dark. These two varieties hatch out at about a 50%
ratio. But when the dark variety landed on the white birch bark, the birds saw them and ate them at a higher rate than the peppered white
moth. But as industrialization occurred and coal dust darkened the birch trees, the peppered white moth became rarer because the birds ate
them and the dark variety blended into the tree. But they stil hatched out at a 50% ratio. (This has since been proven to have 'staged'
photographs of the moths 'glued' to tree trunks - so much for evolutionists objectivity)
Other microevolution issues we look at are selective breeding in dogs, cats or cows for example. If we let these al breed together they would
al fal back to some common denominator animal. But you can see how far the genome wil stretch when you look at a teacup poodle and a
Rottweiler. But they never created another species.
In fact evolutionists are experimenting with microevolution experiments to see if mutations, a cornerstone in their postulate, wil real y cause
enough positive changes to move one species to another. Since 1910 there have been accelerated mutation experiments with the fruit fly. To
date no success. Since about 1950 there have been accelerated mutation experiments with bacteria and again not much success. Come to
think of it these would be real y good falsifiability experiments too wouldn't they?
So with al that said we are now ready to begin our ten reasons evolution is wrong.
Reason Number 1
Genetics is Not Evolution's Friend
1. Genome - the total genetic structure of a species or kind or its gene pool.
2. Mutation - a mistake in the copying of the DNA; can be caused by radiation, or chemicals.
3. Recombination - the genetic mixing in sexual or asexual reproduction
4. Gene - the stuff of life, the sequence of amino acids in the double helix of DNA
5. Al ele - variants of genes in the Genome that are for the same structure but that express a characteristic differently, such as brown eyes
vs. blue eyes.
6. Taxon - Category in classification such as species, phylum.
7. Phylogeny - The (supposed) evolutionary history or family tree of a species or other group.
As we stated before evolution depends on beneficial mutation, natural selection and enormous amount of time for it to occur. Therefore we
wil now look at genetics and see if this is true.
But first let us look at the comments of an amateur evolutionist.
"EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM, FOR (probably not) THE LAST TIME. Variety is there because evolution causes random mutation, hence
the variety." From a debate on talkorigins.org
Ummm a little double talk. Wel it also appears this is perilously close to evolution being an intel igent designer. But it is also a tautology or
circular reasoning to say that "evolution causes random mutation" because evolutionists say random mutation causes evolution.
But to be correct, evolution is a philosophy that masquerades as a science . So evolution isn't necessarily any more random than the
person's thoughts and it certainly cannot be some kind of force driving the random mutation. Nor can it cause mutations random or
Mutation and natural selection are the engine of evolution. Creationists believe in natural selection but we doubt the role mutations play in
evolution and know if we can show that mutations cannot be part of the engine, then evolution wil have lost its power.
Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning. Gregor Mendel and Charles Darwin were contemporaries. Mendel is the
father of modern genetics and Darwin is the father of evolution. In Darwin's day genetics was just starting and Darwin knew real y very little
co nve rte d by We b2P DFC o nve rt.co m
about how genetics worked. His idea of change in species was based on erroneous and untested ideas of inheritance. Mendel's ideas
were based on careful experimentation and showed that individual characteristics were surprisingly resilient and constant.
Darwin believed in the idea that variations caused by environment could be inherited. Thus the giraffe's long neck was a result of the
"inherited effects of the increased use of parts". The Origin of Species, 6th ed, London 1902, p 278. Darwin believed that if parent giraffes
strained their necks to reach the top leaves then the progeny would inherit longer necks. While even evolutionists today would see this a
patently false, they stil accept with apparent ease the change in the genetic structure it represents and throw that change to the magic of
mutation. It wasn't until much later that mutations were used as the change agent in evolution because it became apparent this idea of
Darwin didn't work.
In reality there are multiple mutation processes that can impact a genome but evolutionists only choose one. I wil explain why in a bit. First
the types of mutations:
1. Duplication or Amplification of a segment of DNA
2. Inversion of a segment of DNA
3. Deletion of a segment of DNA
4. Insertion of a segment of DNA
5. Transposition of a segment of DNA from one place to another.
6. Point Mutation of a single nucleotide.
The first five are interesting genetic processes. Each is a complex and precise process that has much biochemical signaling and purpose.
We don't real y know much about why the genes do this as we are stil very weak in our knowledge of how our genome works. But none of
these processes can add any data to the genome, they just move data around. I must add another point here: some evolutionists place
recombination in this list, but recombination is sexual mixing and once again cannot add any data to the genome. Recombination just takes
the genome and mixes what is there. There are tens of maybe hundreds or tril ions of combinations in our genome to recombine. We are
wonderful y and fearful y made.
The type of mutations cal ed point mutations are the only genetic processes that can actual y add information to the genome and that is why
evolutionists have chosen point mutations as the mutational driver of evolution. We wil hereafter cal point mutations simply mutations to
simplify the writing.
Were Darwin's Galapagos Finches Evolution?
What does happen in a population as the genome reacts to the environment? Darwin looks at the finches on the Galapagos Islands and
notices variations in beak size. He thought that the harder seed in the dry time was causing the beaks of the finches to grow stouter from the
use of the part. But what was happening was that natural selection or a long term drought in the islands was causing the seed cases to
harden. The heavier beaked finch al ele in the genome was favored and the lighter beaked finch al ele was not. The heavier beaked finch
became more dominant because it passed on the heavy beak al eles. The heavy beak was not the result of a mutation! It was already an
al ele in the genome and was just brought out as a result of the environment. When the rains came back the lighter beak became the more
efficient beak and the number of heavy beaks reduced. This is microevolution at its best. But there was no change in the genome of the finch
and certainly no new species has arisen from this. The genome expresses its variety by recombination of the al eles and causing the
phenotype to show its wonderful God given types.
What About Mutations?
But what about mutations then? What are they and how can they be beneficial? Mutations are mistakes in the genetic copying process.
They effect one nucleotide base at a time and are cal ed point mutations. Once in every 10,000 to 100,000 copies there is a mistake made.
Our bodies have a compare - correct process that is very efficient. In fact it is 1016 times better than the best computer code, but once in
every 1,000,000,000 or 10,000,000,000 copies a mutation "gets out" so to speak. That is equal to a professional typist making a mistake in
50,000,000 pages of typescript. You see mutations are predominately bad and the cel tries to make sure they don't happen.
The Neo-Darwinists made random mutations the engine of evolution. They claim that many very smal mutations are the basis of the "goo to
you" hypothesis of evolution. For mutations to be the driver of the massive amount of information there must be two things true of those
1. The mutations must be positive and al ow the organism to procreate and pass them on.
2. The mutations must add information to the genome of the organism.
To date no evolutionist has pointed out such a mutation and if they exist they must be exceedingly rare.
The smal ness of the point mutation is also in question. Dawkins seems to think that the mutation can be as smal as needed to make the
hypothesis work, but it appears that one nucleotide base is as smal as you can get. So a positive mutation cannot add but a single bit of
information to the genome or one nucleotide's worth. But is that enough? And if that truly does occur wil natural selection grab and go with
Population Genetics Factors
Population Genetics show that a positive mutation in a population has a poor chance of surviving the "noise" of random events in the
population. In a stable population of organisms each organism must reproduce one of itself to keep the stability of the population. But we
co nve rte d by We b2P DFC o nve rt.co m
see in nature that animals must produce many more than one for themselves because of the randomness of death. Even elephants produce
5 to 10 offspring to overcome this random noise factor. Some organisms produce thousands or even mil ions to assure replacing
themselves. Evolutionists want many mutations to occur so positive mutations can be captured by natural selection but a high mutation rate
for a population is not good as the overwhelming number of mutations can destroy a population.
But let's say that one point mutation occurs and gives an individual a positive value of 0.1 percent for survival and passing on that positive
gene. Let us also say that this population needs 5 offspring to keep the population stable or 20 percent growth. The survival rate increase
would be 20.02 for the mutation. Sir Ronald Fisher was a mathematician and one of the world's experts on the mathematics of evolution and
one of the founders of the field of population genetics. He was also one of the architects of the Neo Darwinian Theory. He calculated that
most mutations with positive survival values would not survive, and he believed that the answer was many positive mutations. He said: "A
mutation, even if favorable, wil have only a very smal chance of establishing itself in the species if it occurs once only." Fisher R.A. (1958).
The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, Oxford, Second revised edition, New York: Dover.
Let us continue our example above with Fisher's calculations. Our organism with a 0.1% survival factor would have one chance in 500 of
surviving. If there were 500 organisms with the mutation their odds would be about 5 out of 8. With 1000 with the same mutation their odds
would be about 6 out of 7 and with 2500 organisms with the same mutation the odds are about even. What are the odds of 2500 organisms
having the same point mutation (it has to be the same for that particular information to get into the genome) in a population? The chances
that 500 organisms would have the very same point mutation in the very same nucleotide is 1 in 3.6 x 102,738. Lee M. Spentner, Not By
Chance - Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, The Judica Press, New York, p. 103.
A mutation almost always involves a loss of information or just a copy of information. They have never added new information to the genome,
so it appears that they can never bring that genome added complexity. Are there beneficial mutations? Yes there are for certain
environments. Blind cave catfishes are the result of the mutation that lost the information of an eye. This mutation caused the eye, which was
useless and prone to disease and injury in the cave to be lost and it actual y helped the catfish survive in the cave. But the catfish genome did
not have any new information added for it to become a perch genome or any other genome. In fact the eye genes were lost to the genome. If
that blind fish were to be swept out of the cave by a flood, and that does happen, it won't survive to pass on those no eye al eles. So natural
selection, working in the cave worked to keep the eyeless catfish going, outside the cave it wil quickly die. The important thing to keep in
mind is that we al along were only working with the genome of the catfish and at no point was there any new information to change that
genome to another. Genomes are like rubber bands that you can stretch out very far, but they wil always snap back to the original when
If we look at the accelerated fruit fly experiments that used radiation to accelerate the copying errors of DNA to try to produce another
species, we have only seen fruit flies with parts missing or dead flies or flies too crippled to pass on its genes. They never got a house fly out
of the deal. Why? Because the mutation lost information in the fruit fly genome and did not add the information to become a house fly.
Beneficial verses Positive Mutations
How do we define "beneficial" mutations? It is interesting that a mutation such as an orange without seeds is considered useful, that is to
orange eaters like me, but to oranges it is not such a good idea, for the seedless orange cannot pass on its genes. It is a useful mutation, but
not a positive mutation. A positive mutation would enable the species to pass on its genes more efficiently and would add information to the
genome. Evolutionists get this definition confused too.
Another problem is that evolutionists confuse mutations with recombination and al eles. They are not the same. Some variant al eles in a
genome are the result of mutation, but most are from recombination and were there at the beginning of that species. Al al eles that arise from
mutation are either neutral or excessively deleterious. There are not real y any positive mutations in literature today, even evolution literature.
In one instance the single nucleotide substation in a genome was responsible for the resistance to a weed herbicide. This herbicide was
made to attach and deactivate a protein needed by the weed. A single change in the genetic code for this protein, in the sector used for
defining the herbicide attachment, deprived the herbicide of its attachment point and nul ified its effectiveness.
Was this a positive mutation? We have no way of knowing if this was the result of a mutated al ele or the expression of an al ele in the
genome that was already there. It may have been a very rare, neutral mutation of an al ele that had been in the genome too. But it was
specific to the man-made herbicide and had no selective value outside of that. It did not create another function and did not help the weed to
adapt any other way. It added no information to the genome and thus no new complexity. There was no evolution here.
So you see, mutations can produce an al ele of a gene that is neutral (rarely) or produce al eles that are dangerous, but cannot be the driver of
massive amount of change that needs to occur to change one species into another. Most people don't appreciate the massive amount of
point change that must occur. For that to occur we should be seeing many positive mutations in the population. Instead we are seeing
massive information loss mutations in the population. The X-Men just couldn't happen outside of the movies.
Molecular Biology and Irreducible Complexity
Even molecular biology has not helped as the evolutionists have hoped. Molecular genetics have found that genomes have supported
Taxonomy and not Phylogeny. It has also been found in molecular genetics that genomes have multiple copies of genes or of non-coding
sequences that are very homogeneous within species, but heterogeneous between species. Such `repeats' could not have been formed by
random mutations acting on a common genome of a postulated ancestor. Evolutionists suggest an unexplained `molecular drive' to account
for these copies. It is simpler to assume there is no common ancestral genome.
Michael Behe in his book "Darwin's Black Box" speaks of the irreducible complexity of several biological systems that cannot be created in a
manner where there are non-functional intermediates because they wouldn't exist long enough to pass on their structure. He uses the
co nve rte d by We b2P DFC o nve rt.co m
common mousetrap as his analogy, none of the parts can catch a mouse, and they al have to be present and functional y joined together to
work. The cel is an example that had to be created in situ and not from an intermediate that couldn't function much like the parts of the
There have been arguments from evolutionists that the parts of the mousetrap could be used for other uses, like fish hooks or paperweights,
but that is missing the point entirely. That cel ular systems are useful in other places does not say they would be useful in the cel by them
selves, just as a paperweight won't catch a mouse! It is a MOUSETRAP we are interested in, not a paperweight! One even said that a simple
spring could catch a mouse. Ummmm yeah, right!
Do Hox (Homeotic) Genes Save Evolution?
Another microbiological issue is the Hox gene that seemed to fit in the "punctuated equilibrium" of Gould, because a smal mutation in a Hox
gene could have a profound effect on the organism. But further research on the Hox gene proved this not to be Evolution's Savior. Dr.
Christian Schwabe, a non-creationist critic of Darwinian evolution said this:
"Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that
the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. ... Homeotic changes
induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila
constructs." (Mini Review: Schwabe, C., 1994. Theoretical limitations of molecular phyolgenetics and the evolution of relaxins. Comp.
Biochem. Physiol. 107B: 167-177
In the eleven years since this quote research has born out this quote. Changes to homeotic genes cause monstrosities; they do not change
an amphibian into a reptile. And the mutations do not add any information; they just cause the existing information to be misdirected to create
fruit fly legs where fruit fly antenna needs to be for instance.
Do not be misled by the Evolutionists. They constantly try to find the mutation that is positive (I don't blame them either) and try to find the new
thing that supports their theory. I have concerned Christians coming to me al the time with a newspaper article saying what about this?! I just
tel them not to panic and wait because it too wil fal and be found as nothing. Truly God is in control and al striving wil cease. Pray for your
evolutionist friends, don't get into a mad argument with them, and love them as Christ cal ed us to. Don't cal them names and don't talk about
them in bad ways, that is not Jesus in you.
Remember Evolution is a philosophy masquerading as a science. You are talking with someone who thinks "science" is total y on their side,
but don't real y know it isn't. They don't believe in Creation because that would make them have to answer to God.
Evolution Fails to Predict the Genetic Complexity
Any scientific theory, which evolution is purported to be, has to be able to predict to be a good theory. But evolution in its' need to connect
mutation in the genome to the massive change needed for evolution incorrectly predicted the direct gene to morphology connection. Only
with this connection can smal mutations actual y have the ability to make massive morphological changes necessary for evolution to be
The Darwin concept:
One gene - One Protein - One Function
But we are learning more about the genetic package and are finding that contrary to the evolutionist's wish's the genetic structure has always
been surprisingly resilient. I must mention again the accelerated fruit fly experiments and the extraordinary resilience of the fruit fly genome. I
believe that this would be a great falsifiability test for evolution.
What evolutionist say is that evolution is a theory that can absorb al new data and take it in and make it part of the theory. When they say that,
they are not describing a scientific theory, but a philosophy.
We have recently discovered the incredible complexity of the genome and how it reacts and moves its' instructions to create the morphology
or the phenotype of the organism. It is not a one to one correlation, but the complexity is much beyond that.
Bent proteins have had much interest in science for a couple of decades. Many first heard of them in some rather strange diseases such as
the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease or the Mad Cow disease that was caused by a prion or a badly bent protein. We al wondered how could a
bent protein cause morphological change in a brain?
As researchers dove deeper into this issue and looked a past research going back into the 1970s they started seeing that there appeared in
cel s an incredibly complex dance between the genes and protein and RNA folds to transmit data to assemble extremely complex protein
machines in the cel as wel as transmit data to assemble cel structures as wel as create the macro morphology of an organism. This
answered some questions that arose in genetic research where it appeared the genes didn't always have a one to one correspondence with
morphological structure. In fact some genes seemed to be connected to multiple structures and some genes seemed to be unconnected. As
it turns out the bent proteins provide another layer of highly organized information in the cel . The appear to be bent in non-random ways
based on the molecular structure and the bends are actual y a function of physics and not biology. We have discovered around 200 of these
protein bends and have seen how they actual y provide more information to the cel than the genes themselves.
co nve rte d by We b2P DFC o nve rt.co m
The folding process has been found to be absolutely necessary for the protein to function in the cel and occurs right out of the ribosome. The
folded shape is determined by several factors.
1. Internal covalent bonds such as disulfide bridges between cysteine units in the chains.
2. Hydrogen bonds.
3. Hydrophilic and hydrophobic interaction with the surrounding solvent.
4. The interaction with other with other molecules large and smal that help carry on cel ular function.
In fact two different proteins can fold into similar shapes and perform the same cel ular function. But this is al made possible by a process
that is guided. Random folds wouldn't work. The prions of the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease prove that. There are protein complexes that
provide a chaperone that help the proteins to bend in the proper way, and there are chaperones that help the protein to stay in its proper
bend. These chaperones are also responsible for metal ions movement in the cel .
This is something evolutionists may claim as "part of the great universal acid" of their theory, but evolutionary theory actual y prevented
researchers from discovering these protein machines because of the assumptions built into evolution. Another failure and another nail in the
Reason Number 2
Statistics are not Evolution's Friend
Statistics and probability are great enemies of Evolution. Because Evolution utilizes random mutations as the main engine of their postulate,
we can then use the laws of probability to exam their claims. Many evolutionists cry foul here, but they have no reason to do so as they also
use probability to lay out their claims.
Here is another quote from an amateur evolutionist.
"Al this complexity can easily come about through evolution, as is explained in `The Blind Watchmaker' (a book by neo-Darwinist Richard
Dawkins). This is because it is often cumulative, and so more likely and more efficient. . . . Nothing betrays a lack of understanding of natural
selection quite like saying that the chance (of Evolution being correct) is too smal . Natural selection is an algorithmic process, it the
complete OPPOSITE of chance. The author states that there hasn't been enough time. This is al too human thought of our own significance.
The Earth was formed; it is estimated, around 4,600,000,000 years ago. In comparison, Homo Sapiens are thought to have emerged around
100,000 to 200,000 years ago. Four and a half bil ion years ago seems more than enough."
I am real y intrigued by evolutionist's ideas of natural selection. As we discussed above natural selection cannot operate on something that is
not there. It has no intel igence to drive anything. It is a predator, it is a storm, it is a drought, it is a thousand other things that wil either
destroy an animal that has the wrong al eles in its phenotype or al ow a "superior" animal to thrive. In fact natural selection is not algorithmic
but it is digital. Either alive or dead. Natural selection is not the opposite of chance, it just makes sure the good al eles last and the bad ones
disappear, that is al . But natural selection is also blind and may also just snuff out a real y good al ele that had its head down at the water hole
too long. As we spoke above in the genetics section the mutations are decidedly bad and lose information and lead to bad al eles, so natural
selection usual y limits their existence in a population. But natural selection is also "noise" in a population that doesn't al ow a single point
mutation a very good set of odds for surviving and passing on those genes. Evolutionist speak of natural selection like it is intel igent or
something and can spot a mutation that it needs to save. That is utter nonsense.
Short Primer on Probability
Now we wil look at the "cumulative" idea and see if that is a go or not. For Evolution to be true there has to be a large amount of cumulative
organization of positive mutations. In fact Evolution says that al life came out of prior non-life. Darwin's warm pond or the lightning charged
primordial soup of other evolutionists. Could that real y happen? What do statistics say?
The amateur evolutionist above thinks that four and a half bil ion years seems to be enough, but is it?
We wil give him not the 4.6 bil ion years for life but the whole supposed age of the universe of 20 bil ion. We wil even assume that ALL of the
20 bil ion years are good and that al the precursors to life are in some warm primordial soup (we wil discuss this in the Biochemistry section
below) somewhere just waiting to do their thing.
Let's talk briefly about probability which is a subset of Statistics. What is the chance if you toss a coin you get heads? Assuming the coin is
equal y weighted, and not a trick coin, it is 1/2. On a die the probability of rol ing a six is 1/6. The probability of tossing a coin and getting
heads and rol ing a die and getting a six is 1/2 x 1/6 = 1/12. Now this doesn't mean that in twelve tosses and throws you wil get
simultaneously a head and a six, it means that if you throw long enough 1/12 of al throws wil have both a head and a six.
Now let us get a little more complicated. Let's figure the odds or probability of randomly spel ing the phrase "the theory of evolution". There
are 26 letters and one space possible adding to 27 possible selections. There are 20 letters in the phrase and 3 spaces. Therefore the
odds, on the average, spel out the phrase correctly only once in 2723 outcomes! That is only one success in 8.3 quadril ion, quadril ion
attempts or 8.3 x 1032. Now suppose `chance' uses a machine which removes, records and replaces al the letters randomly at the fantastic
speed of one bil ion per microsecond (one quadril ion per second). On the average the phrase would happen once in 25 bil ion years by this
co nve rte d by We b2P DFC o nve rt.co m
Whoops! We ran out of time just trying to randomly recombine correctly a 23 letter and space phrase. You see the probability multiplication
rule is not so kind to the randomness of evolution thought.
But let's look at biological beginnings. You see in that warm pond or primal soup we just assume that there were amino acids there and we
wil assume that there were al the L type necessary for life. We wil look later at Biochemistry and see it those assumptions are safe, but for
now we wil just assume them. One thing we wil have to turn off is natural selection, because natural selection won't work here. We are just
trying to polymerize a self replicating organic structure like a DNA or RNA molecule, and natural selection assumes that a good al ele wil be
safe and a bad al ele won't, and we don't have any good or bad al eles yet. We are just trying to get the genes now in the right sequence. If
they are not in the right sequence they won't work and if they are, they wil . And there is no way for evolution or natural selection or whatever
other magic driver the evolutionists can come up with to know if the sequence is right until it replicates. There is no cumulative process here
as a partial y correct complex molecule won't work and would be discarded until one does.
The odds of forming a chain of 124 specifical y sequenced proteins of 400 amino acid bases is 1 x 1064,489! Now that is just one complex
molecule and life requires much, much more. Mycoplasma genitalium has the smal est known genome of the free living organisms,
containing 482 genes comprising 580,000 bases. A human DNA molecule can contain three bil ion amino acid bases. That is not counting
al the other enzymes, proteins, hormones and other life chemistry needed. These odds are utterly impossible and shows that evolution being
the source of life's beginning is not even remotely possible.
Fred Hoyle stated this: "Two thousand different and very complex enzymes are required for a living organism to exist. And random shuffling
processes could not form a single one of these even in 20 bil ion years. I don't know how long it is going to be before astronomers general y
recognize that the arrangement of not even one of the many thousand of biopolymers (Life molecules) on which life depends could have been
arrived at by natural processes here on earth.
"Astronomers wil have little difficulty in understanding this because they wil be assured by biologists that it is not so; the biologists having
been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The `others' are groups of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles.
"They advocate the belief that, tucked away in nature outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles
are in the aid of biology). The curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical
explanations. . . The modern miracle workers are always found to be living in the twilight fringes of thermodynamics."
Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang in Astronomy," in New Scientist, November 19, 1981, pp 521-527
We wil now look briefly at a case of weaseling by a master weasel Richard Dawkins of "The Blind Watchmaker" and "The Selfish Gene" etc.
(Yes I have read them both!). Richard Dawkins is a neo-Darwinist who has championed the Evolution of random mutations and natural
selection which was fal ing awry in evolutionary thought in recent years. Mr. Dawkins in "The Blind Watchmaker" developed a program on
computer to generate the phrase "methinks it is like a weasel" in about 164 supposedly random iterations. This computer program was quite
a novelty in the early 80's when it was written, but today it is quite primitive.
But the program has some problems.
1. The outcome is known and targeted, whereas in life chemistry there is no target, there is only something that may work when the sequence
is right and there is no way of knowing it might work until you get it complete. No near guesses al owed.
2. Correct guesses are saved. In life chemistry there is no way of knowing if any iteration has protein sequences that wil be useful later as the
only way of knowing they are right is when the whole complex molecule works.
3. It is a computer program with the parameters careful y chosen by Dawkins to make sure the outcome is what he wanted. If the parameters
are tweaked another way the real probability comes back normal y. Dawkins sped up the random mutation rate to accelerate the evolution
rate and tried to use these figures to prove evolution could happen with a mutation rate that would destroy a population. Weak thinking in a
Remember to love those evolutionists out there whom you know, and do not use this to just to whack them. Lovingly query them and even if
they revile you as a cretin in science, pray for them.
Reason Number 3
Biochemistry is not Evolution's Friend
Words you may need to know.
1. Biogenesis - A term in biology that states the life only descends from life.
2. Spontaneous Generation - The belief that life can come spontaneously from non-life. Many in Darwin's day believed that bacteria
would just appear from non-life in a water cask. Today we know this is not true.
3. Law of Mass Action - Chemical reactions always proceed in a direction from the highest to lowest concentration.
4. Polymerization - Linking together of organic molecules to make bigger molecules.
5. Chirality - The `handedness of life molecules. Nearly al amino acids are `left-handed' and nucleic acids, starch, glycogen, etc. contain
sugars that are al `right-handed.
co nve rte d by We b2P DFC o nve rt.co m
6. Homochirality - Al having the same handedness
7. Heterochirality - Having a mixture of handedness, also cal ed "racemic".
8. Enantiomers - Having a 50/50 mixture of handedness, or having mirror image oppositeness.
You remember the warm little pond of Darwin? Wel it didn't exist and neither did the primal soup we are supposed to come from. You see
these ideas have terrible problems in coming up with the proper compounds to produce life. You remember my parameters in the statistics
section above, I al owed there to be plenty of substrate compounds available to see if we could actual y randomly organize them into a self-
replicating molecule and found we couldn't. Wel in looking at evolutionists ideas of the primitive atmosphere we wil put some more nails in
the Evolution coffin.
What do the evolutionists need in a primitive atmosphere to have life generate from non-life. Remember if we cannot do this step the rest of
Evolution is kind of moot. Mutations and natural selection don't work on non-life chemicals.
Evolutionists tel us our planet was spun of from some kind of col ision, or was some kind of rocky col apse or something spun out of the sun.
Pick your favorite. And they say the earth was molten for mil ions and mil ions of years. This should have sterilized the early earth of just
about anything organic. So where did the organic substances come from. Evolutionists believe they came from spontaneous generation
maybe, or maybe outer space! We'l just see if any of these make any sense.
Some evolutionists say that amino acids just formed out of seawater. If they did then mass action would have wiped them out. Richard E.
"It is therefore hard to see how polymerization could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence
of water favors depolymerization rather than polymerization." Richard E. Dickerson, "Chemical Evolution and the Origen of Life." Scientific
American, September 1978, p. 75
Another problem with the primitive atmosphere is the presence of oxygen. Oxygen would destroy much of the organic compounds so the
evolutionists came up with a reducing atmosphere or one without O2 and with CH4 as the main carbon carrier.
The trouble with this primitive atmosphere concept is that once life did occur, the reducing atmosphere would kil it as life needs oxygen.
Evolutionists try to say that plants produced the oxygen, but plants need oxygen for respiration. There would have to been a very rapid
change from reducing to oxidizing atmosphere once life appeared for life to have occurred in this manner. There is no mechanism or process
that could do that quickly. The current plant oxygenizing of the atmosphere today couldn't do that in less than 5000 years. Primitive life would
not have even the capability as there wouldn't be nearly as many of the plants in the brand new world.
Harold Urey admitted "that the non-oxygen atmosphere is just an assumption - a flight of imagination - in a effort to accommodate the theory.
Harold Urey, "On the Early Chemical History of the Earth and the Origin of Life," in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 38,
1952, p. 352
Stanley Mil er, who was a pioneer in the laboratory synthesis of non-living amino acids in bottles created in a reducing atmosphere, said that
the theory that the earth once had no oxygen is just "speculation".
Stanley Miller, "Production of Some Organic Compounds under Possible Primitive Conditions," in Journal of the American Chemical
society, 7, 1955, p. 2351.
A recent Scientific American summary article on the origin of life admits that:
The classic `chicken and egg' problem of `which came first, protein or DNA' (since both need each other to reproduce) has not been
solved by the 1980s idea of `self-reproducing' RNA, as many textbooks imply. This is because the laboratory simulations are highly
artificial with a `great deal of help from the scientists'.
Stanley Mil er's classic 1953 synthesis of life's `building blocks' in the test tube, as wel as Sydney Fox's `proteinoids' (which produced
circular blobs claimed to be `protocel s') are now largely regarded as dead ends.
Cleverly designed artificial self-reproducing molecules have no relevance to the origin of life.
Highly speculative ideas about life's beginning on clay, floating in from outer space, forming on the surface of fool's gold, in mid-ocean
vents, and so forth, are just that. Stanley Mil er, who is now a chemistry professor stil leading in this area, himself says, `I come up with a
dozen ideas a day, and I usual y discard the whole dozen.'
The chairman of a recent National Academy of Sciences committee reviewing al origin-of-life research (which concluded that `much
more research is needed'), stated that `the simplest bacterium is so [expletive] complicated from the point of view of a chemist that it is
co nve rte d by We b2P DFC o nve rt.co m