Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu]

Mutations 4

No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors (c).

c. “There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species.” N. Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (Lund, Sweden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), p. 1157.

“It is, therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations.” [emphasis in original] Ibid., p. 1186.

“No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.” Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press, 1977), p. 88.

“I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these [evolutionary] changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations.” Lynn Margulis, as quoted by Charles Mann, “Lynn Margulis: Science’s Unruly Earth Mother,” Science, Vol. 252, 19 April 1991, p. 379.

“It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations.” Richard B. Goldschmidt, “Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist,” American Scientist, Vol. 40, January 1952, p. 94.

“If life really depends on each gene being as unique as it appears to be, then it is too unique to come into being by chance mutations.” Frank B. Salisbury, “Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene,” Nature, Vol. 224, 25 October 1969, p. 342.

“Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producing new structures for selection to work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we don’t see them: there is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system or organ.” Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (London: Rider & Co., 1984), pp. 67–68.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

 

[Pahu]

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 (a).

a. “Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [the fruit fly] usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact, lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown.” Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1955), p. 105.

“A review of known facts about their [mutated fruit flies’] ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in a population with free competition they are eliminated. Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g., not a single one of the several hundreds of Drosophila mutations), and therefore they are able to appear only in the favourable environment of the experimental field or laboratory...” Nilsson, p. 1186.

“In the best-known organisms, like Drosophila, innumerable mutants are known. If we were able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a single individual, this still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type known as a [new] species in nature.” Goldschmidt, p. 94.

“It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world—flies which produce a new generation every eleven days—they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.” Gordon Rattray Taylor (former Chief Science Advisor, BBC Television), The Great Evolution Mystery (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), p. 48.

“Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised.” Hitching, p. 61.

“The fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times.” Grassé, p. 130.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

 

[Pahu]

Complex Molecules and Organs 1


Many molecules necessary for life, such as DNA, RNA, and proteins, are so incredibly complex that claims they evolved are absurd. Furthermore, those claims lack experimental support (a).

a. “There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems.” Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 179.

“Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.” Behe, pp. 186–187.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

 

[Pahu]

Complex Molecules and Organs 2

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 (b), the ear, or the brain (c).

b. “While today’s digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina’s real-time performance goes unchallenged. Actually, to simulate 10 milliseconds (ms) of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of [1985] Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second.” John K. Stevens, “Reverse Engineering the Brain,” Byte, April 1985, p. 287.

“The retina processes information much more than anyone has ever imagined, sending a dozen different movies to the brain.” Frank Werblin and Botond Roska, “The Movies in Our Eyes,” Scientific American, Vol. 296, April 2007, p. 73.

“Was the eye contrived without skill in opticks [optics], and the ear without knowledge of sounds?” Isaac Newton, Opticks (England: 1704; reprint, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1931), pp. 369–370.

“Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye? ” Wernher von Braun (probably the rocket scientist most responsible for the United States’ success in placing men on the Moon) from a letter written by Dr. Wernher von Braun and read to the California State Board of Education by Dr. John Ford on 14 September 1972.

“What random process could possibly explain the simultaneous evolution of the eye’s optical system, the nervous conductors of the optical signals from the eye to the brain, and the optical nerve center in the brain itself where the incoming light impulses are converted to an image the conscious mind can comprehend?” Wernher von Braun, foreword to From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo by Harold Hill (Plainfield, New Jersey: Logos International, 1976), p. xi.

[continue]

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

 

[Pahu]

Complex Molecules and Organs 3


[continued]

b. “The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Dürer’s ‘Melancholia’ is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye; besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform. There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.” [emphasis in original] Grassé, p. 104.

“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so forth). However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence.” Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296.

Although Robert Jastrow generally accepts Darwinian evolution, he acknowledges that:

“It is hard to accept the evolution of the human eye as a product of chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of random disruptions in the brain cells of our ancestors.” Robert Jastrow, “Evolution: Selection for Perfection,” Science Digest, December 1981, p. 87.

[continue]

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

 

[serpentslayer]

While I dont believe in macro evolution, i certainly believe in micro and in the big bang.

Obviously you are deceived because the first thing God created was a place called Heaven (the first
Heaven, where GOD is) and a place called the earth (where GOD was not), which was merely a dark
blob of 'waters'. So if there was a big bang, then it had to have happened after this first event. Believe
Paul and do not argue with those who accept the explanations of 'science', which GOD says is falsely
called so (because it is fallible). (2Tim6?)

 

[Pahu]

Complex Molecules and Organs 4


[continued]

b. Many leading scientists have commented on the staggering complexity of the human eye. What some do not appreciate is how many diverse types of eyes there are, each of which adds to the problem for evolution.

One of the strangest is a multiple-lensed, compound eye found in fossilized worms! [See Donald G. Mikulic et al., “A Silurian Soft-Bodied Biota,” Science, Vol. 228, 10 May 1985, pp. 715–717.]

Another type of eye belonged to some trilobites, a thumb-size, extinct, sea-bottom creature. Evolutionists claim that they were very early forms of life. Trilobite eyes had compound lenses, sophisticated designs for eliminating image distortion (spherical aberration). Only the best cameras and telescopes contain compound lenses. Some trilobite eyes contained 280 lenses, allowing vision in all directions, day and night. [See Richard Fortey and Brian Chatterton, “A Devonian Trilobite with an Eyeshade,” Science, Vol. 301, 19 September 2003, p. 1689.] Trilobite eyes “represent an all-time feat of function optimization.” [Riccardo Levi-Setti, Trilobites, 2nd edition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993), pp. 29–74.] Shawver described trilobite eyes as having “the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature.” [Lisa J. Shawver, “Trilobite Eyes: An Impressive Feat of Early Evolution,” Science News, Vol. 105, 2 February 1974, p. 72.] Gould admitted that “The eyes of early trilobites, for example, have never been exceeded for complexity or acuity by later arthropods.... I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.” [Stephen Jay Gould, “The Ediacaran Experiment,” Natural History, Vol. 93, February 1984, pp. 22–23.]

The brittlestar, an animal similar to a 5-arm starfish, has, as part of its skeleton, thousands of eyes, each smaller than the diameter of a human hair. Each eye consists of a calcium carbonate crystal that acts as a compound lens and precisely focuses light on a bundle of nerves. If an arm is lost, a new arm regenerates along with its array of eyes mounted on the upper-back side of the arm. While evolutionists had considered these animals primitive, Sambles admits that “Once again we find that nature foreshadowed our technical developments.” Roy Sambles, “Armed for Light Sensing,” Nature, Vol. 412, 23 August 2001, p. 783. The capabilities of these light-focusing lenses exceed today’s technology.

[continue]

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

 

[Pahu]

Complex Molecules and Organs 5


[continued]

c. “To my mind the human brain is the most marvelous and mysterious object in the whole universe and no geologic period seems too long to allow for its natural evolution.” Henry Fairfield Osborn, an influential evolutionist speaking to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in December 1929, as told by Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention (New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1987), p. 57. [Even greater capabilities of the brain have been discovered since 1929. Undoubtedly, more remain.]

“And in Man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe.” Isaac Asimov, “In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even,” Smithsonian, August 1970, p. 10.

Asimov forgot that the brain, and presumably most of its details, is coded by only a fraction of an individual’s DNA. Therefore, it would be more accurate to say that DNA is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter known in the universe.

The human brain is frequently likened to a supercomputer. In most respects the brain greatly exceeds any computer’s capabilities. Speed is one area where the computer beats the brain—at least in some ways. For example, few of us can quickly multiply 0.0239 times 854.95. This task is called a floating point operation, because the decimal point “floats” until we (or a computer) decide where to place it. The number of floating point operations per second (FLOPS) is a measure of a computer’s speed. As of this writing, an IBM computer can achieve 3,000 trillion FLOPS (3 petaFLOPS). One challenge is to prevent these superfast computers from overheating. Too much electrically generated heat is dissipated in too small a volume.

Overall, the human brain seems to operate at petaFLOPS speeds—without overheating. One knowledgeable observer on these ultrafast computers commented:

“The human brain itself serves, in some sense, as a proof of concept [that cool petaFLOPS machines are possible]. Its dense network of neurons apparently operates at a petaFLOPS or higher level. Yet the whole device fits in a 1 liter box and uses only about 10 watts of power. That’s a hard act to follow.” Ivars Peterson, “PetaCrunchers: Setting a Course toward Ultrafast Supercomputing,” Science News, Vol. 147, 15 April 1995, p. 235.

How, then, could the brain have evolved?

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

 

[Pahu]

Complex Molecules and Organs 6


An adult human brain contains over 10^14 (a hundred thousand billion) electrical connections (d), 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 (e).

d. “The human brain consists of about ten thousand million nerve cells. Each nerve cell puts out somewhere in the region of between ten thousand and one hundred thousand connecting fibres by which it makes contact with other nerve cells in the brain. Altogether the total number of connections in the human brain approaches 10^15 or a thousand million million. ... a much greater number of specific connections than in the entire communications network on Earth.” Denton, pp. 330–331.

“... the human brain probably contains more than 10^14 synapses ...” Deborah M. Barnes, “Brain Architecture: Beyond Genes,” Science, Vol. 233, 11 July 1986, p. 155.

e. Marlyn E. Clark, Our Amazing Circulatory System, Technical Monograph No. 5 (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1976).

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

 

[Pahu]

Fully-Developed Organs 1


All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design (a). 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. Also note that all creationists agree that natural selection occurs. While natural selection does not result in macroevolution, it accounts for many variations within a very narrow range.

Science should always base conclusions on what is seen and reproducible. So what is observed? We see variations in lizards. We also see birds. 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.

a. William Paley, Natural Theology (England: 1802; reprint, Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1972).

This work by Paley, which contains many powerful arguments for a Creator, is a classic in scientific literature. Some might feel that because it was written in 1802, it is out of date. Not so. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe compared Darwin’s ideas with those of Paley as follows:

“The speculations of The Origin of Species turned out to be wrong, as we have seen in this chapter. It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the ultimate winner.” Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), pp. 96–97.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

 

[Pahu]

Fully-Developed Organs 2


There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes (b), 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 (c).

b. Asa Gray, a famous Harvard botany professor, who was to become a leading theistic evolutionist, wrote to Darwin expressing doubt that natural processes could explain the formation of complex organs such as the eye. Darwin expressed a similar concern in his return letter of February 1860.

“The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations [Darwin believed possible if millions of years of evolution were available], my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder.” Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1899), pp. 66–67.

And yet, Darwin admitted that:

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 175.

Darwin then proceeded to speculate on how the eye might nevertheless have evolved. However, no evidence was given. Later, he explained how his theory could be falsified.

“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.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 179.

“It’s one of the oldest riddles in evolutionary biology: How does natural selection gradually create an eye, or any complex organ for that matter? The puzzle troubled Charles Darwin, who nevertheless gamely nailed together a ladder of how it might have happened—from photoreceptor cells to highly refined orbits—by drawing examples from living organisms such as mollusks and arthropods. But holes in this progression have persistently bothered evolutionary biologists and left openings that creationists have been only too happy to exploit.” Virginia Morell, “Placentas May Nourish Complexity Studies,” Science, Vol. 298, 1 November 2002, p. 945.

David Reznick, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California (Riverside), explained to Virginia Morell:

“Darwin had to use organisms from different classes, because there isn’t a living group of related organisms that have all the steps for making an eye.” Ibid.

To solve this dilemma, Reznick points to different species of a guppylike fish, some of which have no placenta and others that have “tissues that might become placentas.” However, when pressed, “Reznick admits that the [guppylike fish’s] placenta might not be as sophisticated as the mammalian placenta” [or the eye of any organism]. Ibid.

“The eye, as one of the most complex organs, has been the symbol and archetype of his [Darwin’s] dilemma. Since the eye is obviously of no use at all except in its final, complete form, how could natural selection have functioned in those initial stages of its evolution when the variations had no possible survival value? No single variation, indeed no single part, being of any use without every other, and natural selection presuming no knowledge of the ultimate end or purpose of the organ, the criterion of utility, or survival, would seem to be irrelevant. And there are other equally provoking examples of organs and processes which seem to defy natural selection. Biochemistry provides the case of chemical synthesis built up in several stages, of which the intermediate substance formed at any one stage is of no value at all, and only the end product, the final elaborate and delicate machinery, is useful—and not only useful but vital to life. How can selection, knowing nothing of the end or final purpose of this process, function when the only test is precisely that end or final purpose?” Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1959), pp. 320–321.

c. “Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing?” Stephen Jay Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” p. 23.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

 

[Pahu]

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 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. 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. Such “patchwork” animals and plants, called mosaics, have no logical place on the so-called “evolutionary tree.”

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.

There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arose from any other major group (a). Species are observed only going out of existence (extinctions), never coming into existence (b).

a. “And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85–1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16. Kenyon has repudiated his earlier book advocating evolution.

“Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation.” Austin H. Clark, “Animal Evolution,” Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.

“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution].” Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 1, p. 210.

“The fact that all the individual
species must be stationed at the extreme periphery of such logic [evolutionary] trees merely emphasized the fact that the order of nature betrays no hint of natural evolutionary sequential arrangements, revealing species to be related as sisters or cousins but never as ancestors and descendants as is required by evolution.” Denton, p. 132.

b. “...no human has ever seen a new species form in nature.” Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), p. 73.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

 

[Williamhenrythe8th]

Macro evolution is micro evolution. It's the same thing. Saying you accept one and refuse the other is like saying you accept Jesus but deny God.

micro evolution and macro evolution are definitely very different. Micro evolution is the evolution within a species. Such as a snake developing poisons over many years. As long as the species doesn't change it's considered micro.

Macro on the other hand is the evolution of one species into the other over said millions of year. One example would be a single celled bacterium evolving into a human over millions of years, which is what scientists basically want us to believe.

 

[mori]

If so, how do you answer those who say you can't accept evolution if you're Christian?

I say that people should be careful with wantonly tossing out stumbling blocks. They've set up a system in which, in a person accepts evolution, they think they must necessarily be denying Christ. There are very few things a Christian cannot do or believe - we have a great deal of freedom, even though not everything is profitable.

We may pay for it later, but we are allowed to make mistakes. I would remind the person that God has forgiven far worse than reading the creation story as allegory. Insisting otherwise, especially on something like this, is dangerous.

 

[Pahu]

Altruism 1


Humans and many animals will endanger or even sacrifice their lives to save another—sometimes the life of another species (a). 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 (b)?

a. “...the existence of altruism between different species—which is not uncommon—remains an obstinate enigma.” Taylor, p. 225.

Some inherited behavior is lethal to the animal but beneficial to unrelated species. For example, dolphins sometimes protect humans from deadly sharks. Many animals (goats, lambs, rabbits, horses, frogs, toads) scream when a predator discovers them. This increases their exposure but warns other species.

b. From an evolutionist’s point of view, a very costly form of altruism occurs when an animal forgoes reproduction while caring for another individual’s young. This occurs in some human societies where a man has multiple wives who share in raising the children of one wife. More well known examples include celibate individuals (such as nuns and many missionaries) who devote themselves to helping others. Such traits should never have evolved, or if they accidentally arose, they should quickly die out.

Adoption is another example:

“From a Darwinian standpoint, going childless by choice is hard enough to explain, but adoption, as the arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins notes, is a double whammy. Not only do you reduce, or at least fail to increase, your own reproductive success, but you improve someone else’s. Since the birth parent is your rival in the great genetic steeplechase, a gene that encourages adoption should be knocked out of the running in fairly short order.” Cleo Sullivan, “The Adoption Paradox,” Discover, January 2001, p. 80.

Adoption is known even among mice, rats, skunks, llamas, deer, caribou, kangaroos, wallabies, seals, sea lions, dogs, pigs, goats, sheep, bears, and many primates. Altruism is also shown by some people who have pets—a form of adoption—especially individuals who have pets in lieu of having children.

Humans, vertebrates, and invertebrates frequently help raise the unrelated young of others:


“...it is not clear that the degree of relatedness is consistently higher in cooperative breeders than in other species that live in stable groups but do not breed cooperatively. In many societies of vertebrates as well as invertebrates, differences in contributions to rearing young do no t appear to vary with the relatedness of helpers, and several studies of cooperative birds and mammals have shown that helpers can be unrelated to the young they are raising and that the unrelated helpers invest as heavily as close relatives.” Tim Clutton-Brock, “Breeding Together: Kin Selection and Mutualism in Cooperative Vertebrates,” Science, Vol. 296, 5 April 2002, p. 69.

Six different studies were cited in support of the conclusions above.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

 

[Pahu]

Altruism 2

If evolution were correct, selfish behavior should have completely eliminated unselfish behavior (c). Furthermore, cheating and aggression should have “weeded out” cooperation. Altruism contradicts evolution (d).

c. “Ultimately, moral guidelines determine an essential part of economic life. How could such forms of social behavior evolve? This is a central question for Darwinian theory. The prevalence of altruistic acts—providing benefits to a recipient at a cost to the donor—can seem hard to reconcile with the idea of the selfish gene, the notion that evolution at its base acts solely to promote genes that are most adept at engineering their own proliferation. Benefits and costs are measured in terms of the ultimate biological currency—reproductive success. Genes that reduce this success are unlikely to spread in a population.” Karl Sigmund et al., “The Economics of Fair Play,” Scientific American, Vol. 286, January 2002, p. 87.

d. Some evolutionists propose the following explanation for this long-standing and widely recognized problem for evolution: “Altruistic behavior may prevent the altruistic individual from passing on his or her genes, but it benefits the individual’s clan that carries a few of those genes.” This
hypothesis has five problems—the last two are fatal.

Observations do not support it. [See Clutton-Brock, pp. 69–72.]

“...altruistic behavior toward relatives may at some later time lead to increased competition between relatives, reducing or even completely removing the net selective advantage of altruism.” Stuart A. West et al., “Cooperation and Competition between Relatives,” Science, Vol. 296, 5 April 2002, p. 73.

If individual X’s altruistic trait was inherited, that trait should be carried recessively in only half the individual’s brothers and sisters, one-eighth of the first cousins, etc. The key question then is: Does this “fractional altruism” benefit these relatives enough that they sire enough children with the altruistic trait? On average, one or more in the next generation must have the trait, and no generation can ever lose the trait. Otherwise, the trait will become extinct.

From an evolutionist’s perspective, all altruistic traits originated as a mutation. The brothers, sisters, or cousins of the first person to have the mutation would not have the trait. Even if many relatives benefited from the altruism, the trait would not survive the first generation.

The hypothesis fails to explain altruism between different species. Without discussing examples that require a knowledge of the life patterns of such species, consider the simple example above of humans who forgo having children in order to care for animals.

Edward O. Wilson, an early proponent of this evolutionary explanation for altruism, now recognizes its failings:

“I found myself moving away from the position I’d taken 30 years ago, which has become the standard theory. What I’ve done is to say that maybe collateral kin selection is not so important. These ants and termites in the early stages of evolution—they can’t recognize kin like that. There’s very little evidence that they’re determining who’s a brother, a sister, a cousin, and so on. They are not acting to favor collateral kin.” Edward O. Wilson, “The Discover Interview,” Discover, June 2006, p. 61.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

 

[Pahu]

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 (a). [See “Is There Life in Outer Space?”]

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 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 on page 281. For a full understanding, see pages 270-321]

a. The widely publicized claims, made by NASA in 1996, to have found fossilized life in a meteorite from Mars are now largely dismissed. [See Richard A. Kerr, “Requiem for Life on Mars? Support for Microbes Fades,” Science, Vol. 282, 20 November 1998, pp. 1398–1400.]

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

 

[Pahu]

Language 1


Children as young as seven months can understand and learn grammatical rules (a). 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 (b).

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 trainer’s hidden promptings (c)).

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 trainer’s 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 (d).

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 (e).

a. G. F. Marcus et al., “Rule Learning by Seven-Month-Old Infants,” Science, Vol. 283, 1 January 1999, pp. 77–80.

b. Arthur Custance, Genesis and Early Man (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975), pp. 250–271.

“Nobody knows how [language] began. There doesn’t seem to be anything like syntax in non-human animals and it is hard to imagine evolutionary forerunners of it.” Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998), p. 294.

c. “Projects devoted to teaching chimpanzees and gorillas to use language have shown that these apes can learn vocabularies of visual symbols. There is no evidence, however, that apes can combine such symbols in order to create new meanings. The function of the symbols of an ape’s vocabulary appears to be not so much to identify things or to convey information as it is to satisfy a demand that it use that symbol in order to obtain some reward.” H. S. Terrance et al., “Can an Ape Create a Sentence?” Science, Vol. 206, 23 November 1979, p. 900.

“...human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world.” Noam Chomsky, Language and Mind (Chicago: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1968), p. 59.

d. “No languageless community has ever been found.” Jean Aitchison, The Atlas of Languages (New York: Facts on File, Inc., 1996), p. 10.

“There is no reason to suppose that the ‘gaps’ [in language development between apes and man] are bridgeable.” Chomsky, p. 60.

e. “...[concerning imitation, not language] only humans can lose one modality (e.g., hearing) and make up for this deficit by communicating with complete competence in a different modality (i.e., signing).” Marc D. Hauser et al., “The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?” Science, Vol. 298, 22 November 2002, p. 1575.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

 

[Pahu]

Language 2


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 (f). Most linguists reject the idea that simple languages evolve into complex languages (g). [See Figure 208 ]

If humans evolved, then so did language. All available evidence indicates that language did not evolve, so humans probably did not evolve either.

f. David C. C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (Chicago: Moody Press, 1976), pp. 83–89.

George Gaylord Simpson acknowledged the vast gulf that separates animal communication and human languages. Although he recognized the apparent pattern of language development from complex to simple, he could not digest it. He simply wrote, “Yet it is incredible that the first language could have been the most complex.” He then shifted to a new subject. George Gaylord Simpson, Biology and Man (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1969), p. 116.

“Many other attempts have been made to determine the evolutionary origin of language, and all have failed....Even the peoples with least complex cultures have highly sophisticated languages, with complex grammar and large vocabularies, capable of naming and discussing anything that occurs in the sphere occupied by their speakers....The oldest language that can reasonably be reconstructed is already modern, sophisticated, complete from an evolutionary point of view.” George Gaylord Simpson, “The Biological Nature of Man,” Science, Vol. 152, 22 April 1966, p. 477.

“The evolution of language, at least within the historical period, is a story of progressive simplification.” Albert C. Baugh, A History of the English Language, 2nd edition (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957), p. 10.

“The so-called primitive languages can throw no light on language origins, since most of them are actually more complicated in grammar than the tongues spoken by civilized peoples.” Ralph Linton, The Tree of Culture (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1957), p. 9.

g. “It was Charles Darwin who first linked the evolution of languages to biology. In The Descent of Man (1871), he wrote, ‘the formation of different languages and of distinct species, and the proofs that both have been developed through a gradual process, are curiously parallel.’ But linguists cringe at the idea that evolution might transform simple languages into complex ones. Today it is believed that no language is, in any basic way, ‘prior’ to any other, living or dead. Language alters even as we speak it, but it neither improves nor degenerates.” Philip E. Ross, “Hard Words,” Scientific American, Vol. 264, April 1991, p. 144.

“Noam Chomsky...has firmly established his point that grammar, and in particular syntax, is innate. Interested linguistics people ... are busily speculating on how the language function could have evolved...Derek Bickerton (Univ. Hawaii) insists that this faculty must have come into being all at once.” John Maddox, “The Price of Language?” Nature, Vol. 388, 31 July 1997, p. 424.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

 

[Pahu]

Speech


Speech is uniquely human (a). 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 airflow to produce consonant sounds. Apes have flat, horizontal tongues, incapable of making consonant sounds (b).

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.

a. Mark P. Cosgrove, The Amazing Body Human (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), pp. 106–109.

“If we are honest, we will face the facts and admit that we can find no evolutionary development to explain our unique speech center [in the human brain].” Ibid., p. 164.

b. Jeffrey T. Laitman, “The Anatomy of Human Speech,” Natural History, Vol. 93, August 1984, pp. 20–26.

“Chimpanzees communicate with each other by making vocal sounds just as most mammals do, but they don’t have the capacity for true language, either verbally or by using signs and symbols. ... Therefore, the speech sound production ability of a chimpanzee vocal tract is extremely limited, because it lacks the ability to produce the segmental contrast of consonants and vowels in a series....I conclude that all of the foregoing basic structural and functional deficiencies of the chimpanzee vocal tract, which interfere or limit the production of speech sounds, also pertain to all of the other nonhuman primates.” Edmund S. Crelin, The Human Vocal Tract (New York: Vantage Press, 1987), p. 83.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]