Science Disproves Evolution

Chemical Elements of Life 1

The chemical evolution of life 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 (a). However, the closer one examines these elements, the more unlikely evolution appears.

Carbon. Rocks that supposedly preceded life have very little carbon (b). 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.

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 (c). 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 (d). 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 (e). 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.

a. The four most abundant chemical elements, by weight, in the human body are oxygen (65%), carbon (18%), hydrogen (10%), and nitrogen (3%).

b. Carbon is only the 18th most abundant element, by weight, in the earth’s crust. Furthermore, almost all carbon is tied up in organic matter, such as coal and oil, or in sediments deposited after life began, such as limestone or dolomite.

c. “The cause of the initial rise in oxygen concentration presents a serious and unresolved quantitative problem.” Leigh Van Valen, “The History and Stability of Atmospheric Oxygen,” Science, Vol. 171, 5 February 1971, p. 442.

d. Since 1930, knowledgeable evolutionists have realized that life could not have evolved in the presence of oxygen. [See ]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 29.** Proteins If no oxygen was in the atmosphere as life evolved, how did the atmosphere get its oxygen?

Cyanobacteria break down carbon dioxide and water and release oxygen. In 1987, William J. Schopf claimed that he and his graduate student had discovered fossils of 3.4-billion-year-old cyanobacteria. This, he said, is how the atmosphere gained its oxygen after these bacteria—shielded by a shallow sea from ultraviolet radiation—evolved. Evolutionists eagerly accepted this long-awaited discovery as a key part of their theory of how life evolved.

Schopf’s former graduate student and other experts have now charged Schopf with withholding evidence that those fossils were not cyanobacteria. Most experts feel betrayed by Schopf, who now accepts that his “specimens were not oxygen-producing cyanobacteria after all.” [See Rex Dalton, “Squaring Up over Ancient Life,” Nature, Vol. 417, 20 June 2002, pp. 782–784.] A foundational building block in the evolution story—that had become academic orthodoxy—has crumbled.

e . Hitching, p. 65.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Chemical Elements of Life 2
​

​

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 [f].

Basic chemistry does not support the evolution of life [g].

f. “If there ever was a primitive soup [to provide the chemical compounds for evolving life] , then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines and the like, or alternatively in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes. In fact no such materials have been found anywhere on earth. Indeed to the contrary, the very oldest of sediments ... are extremely short of nitrogen.” J. Brooks and G. Shaw, Origin and Development of Living Systems (New York: Academic Press, 1973), p. 359.

“No evidence exists that such a soup ever existed.” Abel and Trevors, p. 3.

g. “The acceptance of this theory [life’s evolution on earth] and its promulgation by many workers [scientists and researchers] who have certainly not always considered all the facts in great detail has in our opinion reached proportions which could be regarded as dangerous.” Ibid., p. 355.

Certainly, ignoring indisputable, basic evidence in most scientific fields is expensive and wasteful. Failure to explain the evidence to students betrays a trust and misleads future teachers and leaders.

Readers should consider why, despite the improbabilities and lack of proper chemistry, many educators and the media have taught for a century that life evolved on earth. Abandoning or questioning that belief leaves only one strong contender—creation. Questioning evolution in some circles invites ostracism, much like stating that the proverbial emperor “has no clothes.”

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Proteins 1


Proteins 1

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 the earth had oxygen before the earliest fossils formed [a]. 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 .

a. An authoritative study concluded that the early biosphere contained oxygen before the earliest fossils (bacteria) formed. Iron oxides were found that “imply a source of oxygen enough to convert into insoluble ferric material the ferrous solutions that must have first formed the flat, continuous horizontal layers that can in some sites be traced over hundreds of kilometers.” Philip Morrison, “Earth’s Earliest Biosphere,” Scientific American, Vol. 250, April 1984, pp. 30–31.

Charles F. Davidson, “Geochemical Aspects of Atmospheric Evolution,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 53, 15 June 1965, pp. 1194–1205.

Steven A. Austin, “Did the Early Earth Have a Reducing Atmosphere?” ICR Impact, No. 109, July 1982.

“In general, we find no evidence in the sedimentary distributions of carbon, sulfur, uranium, or iron, that an oxygen-free atmosphere has existed at any time during the span of geological history recorded in well-preserved sedimentary rocks.” Erich Dimroth and Michael M. Kimberley, “Precambrian Atmospheric Oxygen: Evidence in the Sedimentary Distributions of Carbon, Sulfur, Uranium, and Iron,” Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Vol. 13, No. 9, September 1976, p. 1161.

“What is the evidence for a primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere on earth? The answer is that there is no evidence for it, but much against it.” Philip H. Abelson, “Chemical Events on the Primitive Earth,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 55, June 1966, p. 1365.

b. R. T. Brinkmann, “Dissociation of Water Vapor and Evolution of Oxygen in the Terrestrial Atmosphere,” Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 74, No. 23, 20 October 1969, pp. 5355–5368.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Proteins 2


To form proteins, amino acids must also be highly concentrated in an extremely pure liquid (c). 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 (d). Besides, amino acids do not naturally link up to form proteins. Instead, proteins tend to break down into amino acids (e).

c. “It is difficult to imagine how a little pond with just these components, and no others [no contaminants], could have formed on the primitive earth. Nor is it easy to see exactly how the precursors would have arisen.” Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p. 85.

d. “But when multiple biopolymers must all converge at the same place at the same time to collectively interact in a controlled biochemical cooperative manner, faith in ‘self-organization’ becomes ‘blind belief.’ No empirical data or rational scientific basis exists for such a metaphysical leap.” Abel and Trevors, p. 9.

e. “I believe this [the overwhelming tendency for chemical reactions to move in the direction opposite to that required for the evolution of life] to be the most stubborn problem that confronts us—the weakest link at present in our argument [for the origin of life].” George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” p. 50.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Proteins 3


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 (f). The many attempts to show how life might have arisen on earth have instead shown
(a) the futility of that effort (g),
(b) the immense complexity of even the simplest life (h), and
(c) the need for a vast intelligence to precede life.

f. “The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation. First, thermodynamic calculations predict vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds. Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them.” D. E. Hull, “Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation,” Nature, Vol. 186, 28 May 1960, p. 694.

Pitman, p. 140.

Duane T. Gish, Speculations and Experiments Related to Theories on the Origin of Life, ICR Technical Monograph, No. 1 (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1972).

g. “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” Crick, p. 88.

Francis Crick, a Nobel Prize winner and the co-discoverer of the DNA molecule, did not give up. He reasoned that if life could not have evolved on earth, it must have evolved somewhere else in our galaxy and been transported to earth—an old theory called panspermia. Just how life evolved on a distant planet is never explained. Crick proposed directed panspermia—that an advanced civilization sent bacteria to earth. Crick (p. 15) recognized that “it is difficult to see how viable spores could have arrived here, after such a long journey in space, undamaged by radiation.” He mistakenly thought that a spacecraft might protect the bacteria from cosmic radiation. Crick grossly underestimated the problem. [See Eugene N. Parker, “Shielding Space Travelers,” Scientific American, Vol. 294, March 2006, pp. 40–47.]

h. Robert Shapiro, Origins (New York: Bantam Books, 1986).

The experiments by Harold Urey and Stanley Miller are often mentioned as showing that the “building blocks of life” can be produced in the laboratory. Not mentioned in these misleading claims are:

Organic molecules in life are of two types: proteins and nucleic acids (DNA and RNA). Nucleic acids, which are incredibly complex, were not produced, nor would any knowledgeable person expect them to be produced.

The protein “building blocks” were merely the simpler amino acids. The most complex amino acids have never been produced in the laboratory. (In 2011, several more amino acids were found in Miller’s old experimental materials, but the more complex amino acids found in life were still missing. See Eric T. Parker et al., “Primordial Synthesis of Amines and Amino Acids in a 1958 Miller H2S-Rich Spark Discharge Experiment,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 21 March 2011, pp. 1–6.)

Amino acids are as far from a living cell as bricks are from the Empire State Building.

Half the amino acids produced have the wrong handedness. [See: [Handedness: Left and Right ]

Urey and Miller’s experiments contained a reducing atmosphere, which the early earth did not have, and components, such as a trap, that do not exist in nature. (A trap quickly removes chemical products from the destructive energy sources that make the products.)

All of the above show why intelligence and design are necessary to produce even the simplest components of life.

“The story of the slow paralysis of research on life’s origin is quite interesting, but space precludes its retelling here. Suffice it to say that at present the field of origin-of-life studies has dissolved into a cacophony of conflicting models, each unconvincing, seriously incomplete, and incompatible with competing models. In private even most evolutionary biologists will admit that science has no explanation for the beginning of life.” Behe, “Molecular Machines,” pp. 30–31.

Rick Pierson, “Life before Life,” Discover, August 2004, p. 8.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

The First Cell 1

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 (a).

a . “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. ... We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully ‘designed’ to have come into existence by chance.” Dawkins, pp. 1, 43.

Yet, after such acknowledgments, Dawkins, an avowed atheist and perhaps the world’s leading Darwinian, tries to show that life came about by chance without an intelligent designer. Dawkins fails to grasp the complexity in life.

“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.” Denton, p. 264.

“Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which—a functional protein or gene—is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of twentieth-century technology. It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate.” Ibid. p. 342.

“We have seen that self-replicating systems capable of Darwinian evolution appear too complex to have arisen suddenly from a prebiotic soup. This conclusion applies both to nucleic acid systems and to hypothetical protein-based genetic systems.” Shapiro, p. 207.

“We do not understand how this gap in organization was closed, and this remains the most crucial unsolved problem concerning the origin of life.” Ibid. p. 299.

“More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.” Klaus Dose, “The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers,” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1988, p. 348.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Hello, and thank you for this great thread and really interesting comments!
Evolution has certainly got a lot of holes and gaps in it. Time will tell whether its right or not, but as a Christian, I dont feel its contradictory to believe in both Jesus and evolution. Evolution may just be an explanation of how God created and grew life. In fact, evolution may be nothing more than a log of events, a record of a system used by God to create living beings.
Its no less of a miracle to me if that turns out to be the case.
However, Im still sitting on the fence as regards evolution. A lot of scientists have jumped all over it because they love a theory which ticks all the boxes.
Whether evolution is Gods pattern of creation, or whether God went about it in a completely different way, its still pretty amazing, and no less of a miracle.
But Im not as educated in biology as some of the people commenting here, so thanks for the very interesting read!

I appreciate your comments. The reason I believe Christianity and evolution cannot coexist is because evolution teaches the cause of everything is strictly natural without any intelligence. Christianity teaches everything is caused by an intelligent designer God. It can only be one way, not both.

Hello again Pahu,
I am certainly camped in the "intelligent design" opinion, as you obviously are too!
I just wonder sometimes if the theory of evolution is simply a twisted version of the order and method God used to create and grow all living creatures. I mean, without taking evolution literally, it is possible that God had an order and method to his creation.
Science and Christianity can go hand in hand, if we accept that natural occurences and things that can be proven in a lab are only that way because God deemed it so.
A very interesting subject, and one that interests me as I grew up in a house of scientists. My own father was an atheist until about 5 years ago. Thanks for all the great info!

There is mountains of proof for evolution, a lot of what this book you are writing off is warped and distorted.
Just by reading your first post -

"Acquired characteristics—characteristics gained after birth—cannot be inherited . 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..."

You are confusing natural selection here, giraffe example is classic example- the giraffes with longer necks survive because they can reach the high leaves, and they reproduce, while the ones with shorter necks (unfortunately) don't.

This is just one example of many of your posts, they are mostly out of concept quotes, you are not giving any explanation, or providing any valuable proof against evolution. If you cannot comprehend something as simple as Natural Selection, or the Laws of Mendel, you can't make the claim that Science is disproving evolution. Not to mention you have copied most of your posts from an incredibly bias book.

If this is just about believing what you want to believe, be my guest! Nothing wrong with it, but manipulating the information like this you will only confuse and give wrong information out to people who are a bit more open minded.


I suggest reading a less bias book if you are interested in learning about evolution!


Thank you.
-Siper.

Where are those mountains of proof?

You assume there was a time when the only food available was in the form of leaves. First, when was this period of time? Second, why are giraffes the only animals with long necks? Third, how did the other animals with shorter necks survive? Why didn’t they also grow long necks?

Every post disproves evolution and the scientists quoted confirm the facts. Perhaps the bias is with you.

Perhaps you would profit by examining your own biases, which you call open mindedness. When it comes to manipulating information, evolutionism ranks very high.

Sniper-
Im certainly no expert in evolution, but it is fair to say that there are many, many holes and gaps in it.
And I know scientists who share my view that the essence of the theory could point to intelligent design. When I hear "natural selection" I automatically think that God made nature, and all that is natural.
I know that most mainstream scientists believe in evolution, but who/what do they believe made evolution so? If nature, then where did nature itself come from?
God.
Just because we are slowly becoming sophisticated enough to see a pattern in Gods creation doesnt mean it all happened automatically.

The First Cell 2

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 (b).

b . “The events that gave rise to that first primordial cell are totally unknown, matters for guesswork and a standing challenge to scientific imagination.” Lewis Thomas, foreword to The Incredible Machine, editor Robert M. Pool (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Book Service, 1986), p. 7.

“No experimental system yet devised has provided the slightest clue as to how biologically meaningful sequences of subunits might have originated in prebiotic polynucleotides or polypeptides.” Kenyon, p. A-20.

“If we can indeed come to understand how a living organism arises from the nonliving, we should be able to construct one—only of the simplest description, to be sure, but still recognizably alive. This is so remote a possibility now that one scarcely dares to acknowledge it; but it is there nevertheless.” George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” p. 45.

Experts in this field hardly ever discuss publicly how the first cell could have evolved. However, the world’s leading evolutionists know this problem exists. For example, on 27 July 1979, Luther D. Sunderland taped an interview with Dr. David Raup, Dean of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. This interview was later transcribed and authenticated by both parties. Sunderland told Raup, “Neither Dr. Patterson [of the British Museum (Natural History)] nor Dr. Eldredge [of the American Museum of Natural History] could give me any explanation of the origination of the first cell.” Dr. Raup replied, “I can’t either.”

“However, the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet.” David E. Green and Robert F. Goldberger, Molecular Insights Into the Living Process (New York: Academic Press, 1967), pp. 406–407.

“Every time I write a paper on the origins of life I swear I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts, though I must confess that in spite of this, the subject is so fascinating that I never seem to stick to my resolve.” Crick, p. 153.

This fascination explains why the “origin of life” topic frequently arises—despite so much evidence showing that it cannot happen by natural processes. Speculations abound.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Pahu, you aren't providing any evidence or proof against evolution, in fact you are saying that "the lack of evidence" is the evidence that is disproving it. In this kind of mindset I could say there is not enough evidence that support the existence of god, and that there is many holes.

The worst part is, you are wrong about most information you've posted, there is a lot of proof leading to evolution.

AGAIN- back to the giraffe example (if you can't understand a simple concept like this, how can you argue anything)?

There is a population of giraffes, there is variation as we can see in all species, some are tall, some are small, some are stronger, some are faster, etc. Then there is a strong change to their environment, for example - There is lack of rain, the bigger trees tend to survive longer without water. The giraffes which happened to have longer necks were able to feed themselves and survive, while the other ones couldn't. Now that is Natural Selection.

Natural Selection is very dependant on the Variation in a Specie, like you already know all living things contain genetic material which is like a blueprint of ourselves. DNA changes, yes mutations is one way, but it is quite rare like you have mentioned (but still happens), but there is also variation through sexual reproduction, when the DNA of the male and the female "combine" to make a new different "blueprint".

And this is a huge simplification, which you don't even seem to understand, and you should at least read a book or two on biology.


Sources-
The Variation of Animals- Charles Darwin
Genetics- By Daniel L. Hartl

Wheres the evidence showing it cannot happen by a natural process? You just said there wasn't evidence that said the first cell couldn't have happened by natural processes, you just can't claim something is impossible just because YOU don't have enough evidence... I thought you said you were open minded?

4. How life began - YouTube, here is a nice documental vid on how Life might of started, there has been a lot of experiments done, and it is quite likely primitive cells formed by natural processes. Cells aren't made up of just proteins FYI.

Bounded Variations

Not only do Mendel’s laws give a theoretical explanation for why variations are limited, broad experimental verification also exists.a 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.b 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 world’s environments. Nevertheless, the number of microbial species is relatively few.c New features apparently don’t evolve.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 4.** Bounded Variations

Natural Selection

Like so many terms in science, the popular meaning of “natural selection” differs from what the words actually mean. “Selecting” implies something that nature cannot do: thought, decision making, and choice. Instead, the complex genetics of each species allows variations within a species. In changing environments, those variations give some members of a species a better chance to reproduce than other members, so their offspring have a better chance of surviving. The marvel is not about some capability that nature does not have, but about the designer who designed for adaptability and survivability in changing environments. With that understanding, the unfortunate term “natural selection” will be used.

An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from those of its “parents.” Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So, members of a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more “children.” Only in this sense, does nature “select” genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing.a

Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it “selects” only among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased.b
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,c 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,d 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.e

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.f Today, some people think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct. Actually, natural selection prevents major evolutionary changes.g

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 5.** Natural Selection

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, almost miraculous, events have happened for each of millions of species (a)?

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 marvelous steps that worked flawlessly were in vain. Evidently, these complex pathways were created as an intricate, highly integrated system (b).

a. This delicate chemical balance, upon which life depends, was explained to me by biologist Terrence R. Mondy.

b. Behe, pp. 77–97.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Genetic Distances 1

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 (a).

An early computer-based study of cytochrome c, 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 (b). Since this study, experts have discovered hundreds of similar contradictions (c).

a. Dr. Colin Patterson—Senior Principal Scientific Officer in the Palaeontology Department at the British Museum (Natural History)—gave a talk on 5 November 1981 to leading evolutionists at the American Museum of Natural History. He compared the amino acid sequences in several proteins of different animals. The relationships of these animals, according to evolutionary theory, have been taught in classrooms for decades. Patterson explained to a stunned audience that this new information contradicts the theory of evolution. In his words, “The theory makes a prediction; we’ve tested it, and the prediction is falsified precisely.” Although he acknowledged that scientific falsification is never absolute, he admitted “evolution was a faith,” he was “duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way,” and “evolution not only conveys no knowledge but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is harmful to systematics [the science of classifying different forms of life].” “Prominent British Scientist Challenges Evolution Theory,” Audio Tape Transcription and Summary by Luther D. Sunderland, personal communication. For other statements from Patterson’s presentation see: Tom Bethell, “Agnostic Evolutionists,” Harper’s Magazine, February 1985, pp. 49–61.

“... it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies ...” Christian Schwabe, “On the Validity of Molecular Evolution,” Trends in Biochemical Sciences, July 1986, p. 280.

“It appears that the neo-darwinian hypothesis is insufficient to explain some of the observations that were not available at the time the paradigm [the theory of evolution] took shape….One might ask why the neo-darwinian paradigm does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual information. The reasons are not necessarily scientific ones but rather may be rooted in human nature.” Ibid., p. 282.

“Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don’t resemble those drawn up from morphology.” Trisha Gura, “Bones, Molecules ... or Both?” Nature, Vol. 406, 20 July 2000, p. 230.

b. Robert Bayne Brown, Abstracts: 31st International Science and Engineering Fair (Washington D.C.: Science Service, 1980), p. 113.

Ginny Gray, “Student Project ‘Rattles’ Science Fair Judges,” Issues and Answers, December 1980, p. 3.

While the rattlesnake’s cytochrome c was most similar to man’s, man’s cytochrome c was most similar to that of the rhesus monkey. (If this seems like a contradiction, consider that City B could be the closest city to City A, but City C might be the closest city to City B.)

c. “As morphologists with high hopes of molecular systematics, we end this survey with our hopes dampened. Congruence between molecular phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and as it is between molecules and morphology.” Colin Patterson et al., p. 179.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Genetic Distances 2

DNA and RNA. Comparisons can 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 (d). 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 (e). Each category of organism appears to be almost equally isolated (f).

(d). Gregory J. Brewer, “The Imminent Death of Darwinism and the Rise of Intelligent Design,” ICR Impact, No. 341, November 2001, pp. 1–4.
Field, pp. 748–753.

(e). Denton, p. 285.

(f). “The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the proteins’ amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of evolutionary series.” Ibid. p. 289.

“Thousands of different sequences, protein and nucleic acid, have now been compared in hundreds of different species but never has any sequence been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor of any other sequence.” Ibid. pp. 289–290.

“Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology.” Ibid. p. 290.

“There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available one century ago it would have been seized upon with devastating effect by the opponents of evolution theory like Agassiz and Owen, and the idea of organic evolution might never have been accepted.” Ibid. pp. 290–291.

“In terms of their biochemistry, none of the species deemed ‘intermediate’, ‘ancestral’ or ‘primitive’ by generations of evolutionary biologists, and alluded to as evidence of sequence in nature, show any sign of their supposed intermediate status.” Ibid., p. 293.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Genetic Distances 3

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 compared. The overall differences are far greater and more complicated than evolutionists suspected (g). Divergencies include about “thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertions or deletions, and various chromosomal rearrangements (h).” Although it is only 4% of the DNA, a vast DNA chasm of critical differences separates humans from chimpanzees.

Moreover, differences between the male portion of the human and chimpanzee sex chromosome are huge! More than 30% of those sequences, in either the human or the chimpanzee, do not match the other at all, and those that do, contain massive rearrangements (i). The genetic differences are comparable to those between the nonsex chromosomes in chickens and humans (j).

Finally, evolutionary trees, based on the outward appearance of organisms, can now be compared with the organisms’ genetic information. They conflict in major ways (k).

g. After sequencing just the first chimpanzee chromosome, surprises were apparent.

“Surprisingly, though, nearly 68,000 stretches of DNA do differ to some degree between the two species…Extra sections of about 300 nucleotides showed up primarily in the human chromosome…Extra sections of other sizes—some as long as 54,000 nucleotides—appear in both species.” Bruce Bower, “Chimp DNA Yields Complex Surprises,” Science News, Vol. 165, 12 June 2004, p. 382.

“Indeed, 83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences [even] at the amino acid sequence level….the biological consequences due to the genetic differences are much more complicated than previously speculated.” H. Watanabe et al., “DNA Sequence and Comparative Analysis of Chimpanzee Chromosome 22,” Nature, Vol. 429, 27 May 2004, pp. 382, 387.

h. Tarjei S. Mikkelsen et al., “Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome and Comparison with the Human Genome,” Nature, Vol. 437, 1 September 2005, p. 69.

i. “Surprisingly, however, >30% of chimpanzee MSY [male-specific portion of the Y chromosome] sequence has no homologous, alignable counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa. ... Moreover, the MSY sequences retained in both lineages have been extraordinarily subject to rearrangement ... .” Jennifer F. Hughes et al., “Chimpanzee and Human Y Chromosomes Are Remarkably Divergent in Structure and Gene Content,” Nature, Vol. 463, 28 January 2010, p. 537.

j. “... the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation.” Ibid. p. 538.

k. “Instead, the comparisons [using DNA] have yielded many versions of the tree of life that differ from the rRNA tree and conflict with each other as well.” Elizabeth Pennisi, “Is It Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?” Science, Vol. 284, 21 May 1999, p. 1305.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]