Evolution Essay

Evolution - True or False?

By: V.P.

     Evolution - true or false? Have you ever wondered? Are you unsure of the answer? Do you think you know the answer, but are really doubting the validity of it? Have you been taught your whole life that evolution is true, but inside, you are really doubtful? Read on to understand the problem, and find the answer you really need. In our quest for the answer,we will cover a wide range of aspects of evolution. Not all evolutionists hold all the beliefs we will look at now, but most do. We will explore: the fossil finds, natural selection, hominid finds, the geologic layers, probabilities for evolution, the primitive environment with the first evolutionary developments, vestigial organs, mutations, rock dating methods, and much more.

     So, what is evolution? Evolution is the popular belief that a unicellular organism or something even simpler evolved, over time, to form all that we see today; that being: animals, humans, plants, etc. How did it all start? The main starting point for evolution was when Darwin saw the different varieties in animals and thought that if the animals were given enough time, they could evolve and change, to the extent of being a completely different kind. So the idea caught on and developed further. There are two basic forms of biological evolution: microevolution, and macroevolution. Microevolution is just the variations within a kind of an organism. It is what we see and observe in animals and plants all of the time. We see different types of dogs, different types of cats, different types of trees, and different types of everything living. But macroevolution is the belief that one kind of an organism evolved into another one over time. Such as, fish evolved into amphibians, amphibians evolved into reptiles, and reptiles evolved into birds and mammals. This is the evolution we will be talking about and exploring. So, what does the evidence show us?

     One of the best types of evidence we have now, of the past, are the fossil finds. The fossil finds are gathered from all over the world. Now if evolution really did occur, we would expect to find many intermediate fossils; the transitional fossils between one kind of an organism to the next. But that is not the case with the finds we have now. We do not find transitional fossils between the animals. Like between fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds and to mammals; as would be the case if evolution really did occur. Because evolution was supposed to take millions of years to happen, we should have at least a couple thousand fossils to prove it, yet we don’t even have one, unquestionable, transitional fossil! For example, all animals and plants remain relatively unchanged throughout the whole fossil record. We do not see animals with partially evolved brains, eyes, legs, arms, or other organs or tissues. [1] Evolutionists claim that fish evolved into amphibians, but no transitional forms are available, there is not one fossil of a creature with part fins or part feet. [2] We find no transitional form fossils of invertebrates turning into vertebrates, as evolution requires in the beginning transformations. Fish supposedly evolved into amphibians. But amphibians have their pelvis attached to their backbone, whereas fish do not. Fish do have a small pelvis, but without it being attached to their backbone, legs would not function, if fish really did evolve into amphibians. Non-flying animals were supposed to evolve into flying animals. But we do not see this transformation in animals or in the fossil finds. Same with dinosaurs, we don’t see transitional forms in any of the dinosaur finds. All taxonomic orders, classes, phyla appear suddenly in the fossil record, there are no evolutionary connections between creatures. [3] Like in the Cambrian layer, the one before the very bottom layer of the geologic layers, there have been finds of complete trilobites, jellyfish, sponges, etc., that have no direct links to ancestors. And this is next to the very bottom of the geologic strata, but the bottom "layer", Precambrian, doesn't have any complex "transitions" to the creatures in the Cambrian, the Precambrian has some algae, bacteria, and maybe some other small organisms, but no transitions to complex creatures that are found in the Cambrian layer. All mammals are found fully developed in the fossil finds as well. Marine mammals, also, are found fully developed. For example, evolutionists believe that the dolphins’ ancestors were pigs, cattle, or buffalo. But we do not find transitional form fossils of this supposed tie. Coelacanth fossils have remained the same for the supposed million years, …interesting. Why is this so? So who/what chooses which creatures evolve and which ones don’t? Aside from big animals, we have small insects as well. Their fossils and preserved bodies are also found to be complete. Plants too, are found complete, without transitional forms. Primates? Yes, they too are complete without a tie to humans. Many evolutionists claim that we have found the remains of hominids which fill in this gap, but that is not so.

     Let us now look at the major hominid finds, and test their validity, since many evolutionists still believe that they are true transitional forms between apes and man. But some evolutionists have already acknowledged the fact that some of them are false interpretations of real man or monkey fossils. Ramapithecus is one of such finds. Based on merely some teeth, for about twenty years he was believed to be a hominid, a transition between ape and man. But he is now known to be just an extinct orangutan type of monkey. Piltdown man was an ape’s jaw placed with a human skull, but for 45 years paleontologists called it ape human, and they wrote about 500 books on it! [4] Hesperithecus was made from just a pig’s tooth! It was used as a hominid for 14 years until the truth was discovered. Orce man’s fallacy was the skull cap, it wasn’t a human or monkey skull cap, it was the skull cap of a donkey. The australopithecines' (Lucy is part of this group) inner ear structure, skull structure, and other bones show that they were most likely just apes. [41] Lucy did not even walk like humans do. In Lucy's find the distal (lower) end of the femur is severly fragmented, and this is the part that is to determine whether or not Lucy walked upright. Evolutionists use a knee joint that was found around 80m (262ft) lower than Lucy and several miles away and claim that this knee joint proves Lucy's ability to walk upright. But this does not avoid the problem! In this knee joint, that is claimed to be related to Lucy, the femur's distal end does show an upright method of locomotion, but the tibia's proximal (upper) end is the one that was used to relate this joint to Lucy! [5]. Thus the knee joint cannot be claimed to prove Lucy's upright locomotion because Lucy's main bone end in determining bipedalism was fragmented, and the supposed relationship of Lucy to the knee joint is in the other bone! Lucy did not walk upright, and she was most likely just a chimpanzee.  Boisei was based on a skull that was put together from about 400 pieces! Plus it had a large crest on the top of the skull, a characteristic which is special only to apes. It had no human characteristics to make it a hominid, it was an ape. Neanderthal man was found to be pure human, whose brain was deformed by arthritis. [6] Neanderthal had arthritis and was crippled, that is why he would have walked stooped, but not because his whole civilization was like that, and not because he came from a monkey, he was a human. [7] Neanderthal and Homo Erectus had brain sizes like those of modern humans. Neanderthal fossils were found in the same layers as modern human fossils, according to evolutionists, Neanderthal should be layers below modern humans to make him a valid ape-human transition. The skulls of Neanderthals had brow ridges, which is supposed to show it to be sub human. But, there are variations in human skulls, one of which is brow ridges. [8] Using the skull of Neanderthal man, an artist can draw either a human, or a monkey; this is not a method to rely upon, and is not proof of anything, pictures are not valid proof in the first place. There is a class of hominids called Homo Erectus. Homo Erectus was thought to be sub human because of a small brain size, but it is now known that this size of a brain is the size of an average European person’s brain. [9] So Homo Erectus is not hominid, he is just human. Another class of hominids is Homo Sapiens. Modern Homo Sapiens, Neanderthal, and older Homo Sapiens and Homo Erectus, all lived at the same time, they all lived together. [10] They could not have been various degrees of evolving monkeys changing into humans. Pliopithecus was named a hominid because it was a cross between the spider monkey and a gibbon. [11] Proconsul was just an extinct type of an ape. No human characteristics in him. Dryopithecus was based on only a lower jaw and some teeth fragments, but later those bones were known to be just an extinct ape’s bones. [12] Nothing human about him either, he is not a hominid. Oreopithecus was based on only some teeth and the remains of a pelvis, it is also an extinct ape. [13] Australopithecus Africanus was the skull of a baby ape with underdeveloped features, it had no human features. [14] It’s just that baby apes and human babies look similar when very young. Not that it is a hominid. Robustus was based on merely a skull. That skull even had a crest on it, the special feature of only apes. Cro Magnon Man is not in any way non human. It was only thought to be a hominid, because of cave drawings that were found and were thought to be something primitive. [15] A Homo Erectus, called Rhodesia Man, had tooth decay, this is something that primitive man would not have; and, he had two holes in his skull that look like modern bullet holes. [16] Java man was thought to be a hominid due to a smaller brain size, but that size is still within the range of human brain sizes. His middle ear structure is just like a human’s ear structure. He is human. Same with Peking man, brain size makes evolutionists believe he is a hominid. Homo Habilis is a mix between two classes of hominids, this is not real, and not valid. The plain rocks found by paleontologists are sometimes called the tools of hominids! [17] Many human footprints were also called the footprints of hominids. Also, due to such impossible previous dates for hominids, paleontologists have had to change their dates many times. What inaccuracy! Using the dating methods of evolutionists, modern humans were dated as about four and one-half million years old! But this is before the Australopithecines group even existed according to evolutionist dates! That makes all Australopithecines invalid for classification as hominids! Many different evolving “steps” of hominids were found together is the same layers! But this could not be possible, since each “step” of advancing hominids had to take “millions” of years according to evolutionists! Meaning that they should be many layers apart. But they aren’t! Some skulls of modern humans were found in the same layers as Ramapithecus, a supposed hominid. Which is another good reason to doubt the validity of hominids being real. Also, we have another similar situation, where fossils of modern humans were found in the same layers as Peking and Java man. So, Peking and Java man could not have been transitions from ape to man, if modern man lived in the same time span. The Australopithecines fossils are just the same as monkey fossils according to bone structures, they are apes, not hominids. As we have seen, most hominid finds were believed to be true for a long time, then the truth came out, and they were known to be false. There seems to be a pattern going here. First, paleontologists find a tooth or skull or another fossil, and they claim it is from a hominid. They draw pictures of how the hominid would look. The news spreads like wildfire. Books are written; hopes are raised. Then, the truth is found sometime later. The hominid is put down, hopes fall. This pattern may very well continue with any finds now and in the future. The truth is, fossils finds don’t help evolution. The fossil finds don’t support a pathway to man, they only mess it up and confuse scientists even more.

     “In fact, it has even been suggested that apes evolved from man!” [18]

     How strange! But there are other ideas to which evolutionists hold on to, like similarities between apes and man.

     Evolutionists say that apes and humans are very similar, this is supposed to support their belief that apes evolved into humans. Let us look at this idea. Henry Morris wrote,

     “Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chimpanzee is people’s closest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe the following: “Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man’s closest relative.” “Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man’s closest relative.” “Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man’s closest relative.” “On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man’s closest relative.”” [19]

     So, who are we really related to? The monkey, the donkey, the chicken, the garter snake, or the butter bean? Hmmm? How about non of those? Another thought - if we are 99% similar to apes, why do we rule over them as if they were lower than us by so much? I mean, if the ape is so related to us, how come we as humans have so much power over them? Why do we act like kings over all animals, if the ape was our great, great ancestor? Shouldn’t the ape have great power if it’s descendants a long way down are humans, the ones with power over the whole animal kingdom? When did the great power feature evolve? We as humans have morality, a characteristic no monkey or any other animal has. We also have intelligence, a complex spoken language, and ethical values. [20] So how is this? When humans evolved, morality evolved as well?!? Intelligence? A very complex spoken language? Ethical values? The ability to read and write? Excellent comprehension? Great reasoning skills? Mathematical comprehension? Everything else? Yet another fact, apes have 48 chromosomes, but humans have 46 chromosomes. This is a very big difference, and a very important one. Chromosomes play a big role in animals and humans. Also, aside from all this, there are many other differences between apes and humans, too many to count! The change from ape to man is too great to have ever occurred. Even more so, for a single cell to evolve into humans! But similarities between apes and man are not the only similarities that evolutionists bring up.

     Evolutionists also like to mention the fact that many animals have similar structures like lungs, stomachs, brains, bones, etc., and they use this as support for their theory of common ancestry. But let us reason. If animals are similar, wouldn’t the belief that they had one Creator account for this better? A Creator who used a similar pattern when creating all the animals? One Creator, one basic pattern? Isn’t that a much better explanation? Let’s look at it this way. Why do all houses have roofs? Or walls? Or other parts? Because those parts work well in protection from harsh weather, from insects, from rain pouring in, etc. Same here. God used similar patterns in creation because they are most practical, and they work well. Or, another explanation could be, the fact that we have one major environment and we have similar needs. Like we all live in basically one major environment with the same oxygen, so we have lungs to use that oxygen and keep our bodies alive. Or, we have water, salt and fresh kinds, so we have organs in our bodies that absorb the water and replenish our cells with it. Or we also have one sun, so plants have mechanisms and chlorophyll to turn solar energy into food. We have similar structures, because we have one basic environment, not because we had a common ancestor. But we do have various habitats and climates all over the world, so we have variation, to better adapt to those specific habitats and climates. Wouldn’t the belief that we were all created into our environment to suit our need for survival in it, be a better explanation than evolving into our environment, for the similarities we see? Because evolution is unguided, how would evolution make a creature know to evolve a stomach and teeth for the specific foods, and the right size of a mouth for the sizes of fruits and vegetables? Or hands the perfect size and shape to grasp fruits, vegetables, branches, etc? Or legs, with the right bones, muscles, ligaments, to allow us to walk on flat ground, rocky plains, or to climb a mountain, or a tree? Or lungs to utilize the oxygen in our environment? Or anything else? Similarities do not show having a common ancestor. For example, the eye of a human is very similar to the eye of an octopus. Yet no one is claiming that they had a common ancestor! Why not?!? So who decides when similarities show common ancestry and when they don’t?!? Now, if we did evolve from one cell, why do we have all of this variation? Why do we have so many different kinds of animals and plants? Evolution is supposed to be unguided, random, and without a controlling outside force. How would the fish know to evolve, or start evolving legs to climb out onto land? What would make it know that legs would work well on land? Remember, there is no outside guiding force in evolution. Also, why would some organisms evolve into animals, while others into plants that are eaten by the animals? WHY? Why did some monkeys stay monkeys, while others evolved into intelligent humans who rule over the monkeys? But evolution is not just based upon similarities, evolution also has some mechanisms with which it is said to have worked and to be working now.

     One of such mechanisms of evolution is natural selection. Natural selection is the mechanism by which one kind of animal or plant is supposed to evolve into another one. There are some problems with this mechanism though. First of all, it is worth mentioning that evolutionists believe natural selection worked with mutations to make animals and plants evolve. Natural selection only gets rid of information and certain organisms, it doesn’t add information to the genetic code, or new organisms into the world. But that is exactly what we would need to get a single cell or something even simpler, to evolve into a human over time, great increases of information in the DNA. We do not see this with natural selection. Natural selection uses circular reasoning in its logic as applied to evolution. A species of animal or plant now existing has survived due to the fact that it was fit. Yet it has to be fit, because it has survived, as it can obviously be seen. In all animals and plants, we see that they reproduce after their own kind. Cows produce cows, parrots produce parrots, oak trees produce oak trees. This is what we observe, not one kind evolving into another one. Dogs produce dogs, and haven’t turned into another kind of animal, and they can’t! [21] Now even if mutations did work, they wouldn’t work like evolutionists claim they did for evolution of one kind to the next. Because mutations are merely tiny, usually harmful or neutral, random changes to the DNA code. They most often give off either a neutral effect, or a negative effect. They alter the DNA code just slightly. That is all mutations can do. Mutations are not capable of adding any new information to the genetic code, as would be needed to make a single cell evolve into a human over time. Mutations only alter the information that is already in the genetic code, they do not, and cannot, add any new information. Thus mutations would not make evolution possible. About 99.9% of mutations are neutral or harmful! They would only make the case worse for evolution by destroying the organism. Plus, mutations that actually have their effect on organisms are rare. But evolution would require almost an infinite amount of changes to produce man from a single cell, and mutations don’t even make the proper changes for evolution to occur! It is impossible! For example, an earthquake ruins a city, it doesn’t build it. But that is what evolutionists are believing in when they discuss mutations and natural selection. [22] But, even if one beneficial mutation were to occur, many hundreds of harmful one would follow it, overruling the beneficial one, and then leading the organism to its ultimate destruction. [23] Also, mutations in the reproductive cells are the only ones to pass on to offspring. Any mutations in other body cells do not pass on to offspring. So even IF a monkey did learn to walk upright, its descendants wouldn’t walk upright. [24] Animals only reproduce after their own kind. The descendants can only take the information from their parents, the information that is embedded in their DNA from birth. They cannot change into a different kind, they already have their DNA code preprogrammed, and that’s how it will be for them, not in any different way. In the animals and plants, new varieties of the same kind are produced, not different kinds! [25] Most of us have probably heard of “survival of the fittest,” used when discussing about evolution. But “survival of the fittest” only shows us how an organism has survived, not how it has evolved! [26] We all know that the strongest animals of the pack survive. But that does not show evolution! The “urge” for an animal or plant to evolve does not exist anywhere in chemistry. [27] The cells in our bodies need each other to survive, they are dependant upon one another. As with organs in a system. For example, in order for food to get from our mouths to our stomachs, we need a tube connecting them. Or to breathe, we need not only lungs, but also a nose or a mouth, and an expanding rib cage, and a diaphragm. But if the cells or organs were evolving, how could we have survived? Our body parts need interdependency to survive, but if they were at different stages of evolving, we wouldn’t be able to survive. How could a human or an animal survive with underdeveloped vital organs or systems, like the systems needed for eating, digesting food, breathing, excreting, sending impulses through the nervous system, etc.? We wouldn’t survive! Or how could mankind even reproduce, if the reproductive organs were still evolving? How could a bird eat and live, if the beak and stomach were still evolving? Besides, natural selection is supposed to only help evolve that which is necessary for our survival. So how did we obtain social skills, love, care, feeling sorrow for others, friendship, and other feelings and emotions? How could those feelings and emotions, not necessary for survival, evolve! Socially, natural selection would require selfish behavior to survive. Meaning, only those who are strongest will, and should, live. It proclaims that those who have power and get their way by force are good, worthy of survival. Natural selection requires barbarianism; with mercy, pity, morality, socialism, and non-harm lacking. [28] Natural selection gives praise to those who kill and conquer. Natural selection is also unplanned, making evolution of any part of our bodies or other organisms impossible, because evolution cannot form fingers starting from the wrist, if the whole process is unplanned. How would it know when to proceed and what to do next, if it is all unguided? Aside from natural selection, there are other problems with evolutionary thought.

     The law of biogenesis states that life must come from life, but evolutionists say, that in the early history of the earth, life came from non-life. [29] What absurdity! Also, the cell principle states that all existing cells had to have come from earlier, already existing cells. So if the first cell didn’t come from a preexisting cell, that is going against the cell principle. How could the first cell have even come together? There is no outside guiding force in evolution, so what told the first cell to gather its parts together and function and continue evolving and getting more complex? What told the cells to combine into the various tissues we see in animals? Or what told the cells to differentiate into those different kinds of cells neccessary for the survival of the organism?

     How about the chances for evolution to occur? Can we put any hopes in that? Let’s see: Professor Morowitz in his book Energy Flow in Biology estimates that the probability of even the most simple living organism forming by chance is one chance in about ten to the 340,000,000^th power! [30] How about the formation of the genetic code? Any chance there? Well, let’s see. The probability for the genetic code being made by chance is… well, not even mathematically possible! How about DNA? Same story! Mathematically impossible! You can imagine how much faith it takes to believe in something that is mathematically impossible! Not even five million years will help! There would not be nearly enough time for a single cell or something even simpler, to form into a complete, fully developed human, even if we gave it that ridiculously low chance of forming the single cell! Now let us observe this, if in the past four or so thousand years, no evolution of any organisms has occurred, all kinds of organisms have remained relatively unchanged, the only changes being slight variations within kinds, then what is the chance that it would happen in the time evolutionists give it? By the way, the simple cell is not so simple! It is like a miniature factory that produces products, maintains itself, and works together with other cells to make tissues, organs, systems, and in the end result, a body. Take a plant cell, it should be simpler than an animal cell, right? Yet man still doesn’t fully understand how the chlorophyll converts solar energy into chemical energy! Or, exactly how meiosis of the cell works. Also, the cell needs so many interrelated parts to function, like: proteins, DNA, RNA, nucleotide molecules, lipids, sugars, amino acids, cell membrane or wall, phosphorous, calcium, sodium, potassium and other elements. How could all of this have originated by chance? I think the answer is simple. Yet, there are still some more difficulties with evolution, aside from probabilities.

     A few problems exist with the early atmosphere of the earth, where the first cell parts, by common evolutionary thought, were to come together in a body of water. Such as the fact that amino acids are destroyed by oxygen. So, in order for these “building blocks of life” to survive, the early atmosphere of the earth would have to have been oxygen free. But then another problem arises, if there was no oxygen, there would be no ozone layer. No ozone layer means that ultraviolet rays of the sun would reach the earth. Then these ultraviolet rays of the sun would inevitably destroy any amino acids. Therefore making the whole idea of amino acids living and joining to form a cell impossible! To add on to the whole problem, if oxygen didn’t exist, then ultraviolet rays of the sun would break apart hydrogen molecules, releasing oxygen, which would, in effect, destroy the surrounding amino acids floating in the water! Also, as a part of this idea of cell parts forming in the early atmosphere, scientists say that certain gases, such as methane, ammonia, and others, had to exist with no oxygen, to help out the formation of the first living cell. But, this is just an idea to help this theory work, it has no evidence that it actually was this way in the early atmosphere of the earth. Again, without oxygen, we see the destructive powers of ultraviolet rays of the sun, which would make ammonia powerless to do its job. Ultraviolet rays of the sun would turn methane gas into some heavier hydrocarbons. [31] Also making it unsuitable for the job. In addition, the atmosphere scientists used to make a few amino acids in labs is not the type of atmosphere which would be of the early earth.

     We have probably heard of the event when Claudia Huber and Gunter Wachterhauser supposedly "made life." But the real story is, they only made a few amino acids, some linked in small groups. This is not even nearly close to being a simple living cell! Also, chemical compounds composed of molecules tend to change and act up when in water, so how could the first cell parts have originated and combined in water? Also worthy of mention is, that the amounts of carbon monoxide used in those experiments were much larger than actual amounts found in nature. [32] Plus the amounts of right and left handed molecules used in those experiments were not equal, as would be the real case with real water in the early environment. So those conditions were not like the ones that would be in the real atmosphere of the earth. Therefore, cell parts would not have been able to form and come together in the real early earth’s atmosphere.

     Now let’s examine a little different view. What do the fossil finds have to say about something like, a universal flood, such as Noah’s flood? For example, there are over 500 cases in the fossil finds, where “simpler” organisms were found in “more recent” layers, then some “more advanced” organisms. [33] Now evolution cannot account for this. But in a universal flood, this could very well happen, with all the swirling water and sediments settling in various places at various depths. But why would most “lower” species be under the “more advanced” ones? Simple. Since the “lower” species are typically smaller and less capable of swimming against large currents of water, they would be pulled down to settle lower and quicker in the dirt and sand at the bottom of the body of water. But the more “advanced” creatures are typically stronger and larger, and can swim against the currents and find temporary safe places, so they would settle later, and higher, since the sediments would be building up higher and higher with time during the flood. Humans, they could maybe reach higher ground if they saw the flood coming, and when the flood would come, they could grab on to logs and float for awhile, until they gave in and couldn’t hold on much longer, or some could swim searching for higher ground, and sink when they wouldn’t have the strength to keep above the waters. Thus they would settle later than most animals, and they would be higher in the sediments. Natural settling action and fighting for life, not evolution! Also, in many places of the earth, we have found trees and animals that were fossilized upright, and going through several geologic layers. So does this mean they were “millions and millions” of years old?!? Of course not! But, if there was a great flood, this would naturally happen! The great flood waters would rip trees out of the ground, and then the trees would get stuck in the mud in any position, even upright. Same with animals. A universal flood explains it, but evolution can’t! There is much evidence that the geologic layers formed suddenly, and that is what a universal flood would do, form many layers of sediments quickly, one on top of the other. Another interesting observation, in many places of the earth, we find groups of fossils; meaning that the animals were fossilized in groups. Now tell me, can evolution explain this? Why would animals pile together, die, and get fossilized one on top of the other? In nature, the opposite happens, when animals die slowly, they usually go off alone to die somewhere away from the rest of the animals. But say there was a universal flood? Imagine this, a flock of sheep or some other animals are peacefully grazing, and then they look up and see a huge wave coming at them. What do they do? They would most likely huddle together for protection and to shield their young. Then the waves would hit, all the dirt and trees and other matter would cover the sheep, and they would get stuck in mud, with most of them close by each other, as they were before the waves hit. So formed these groups of fossilized animals in piles. Here is the big proof though, fossils form when there is quick, tremendous pressure. Sound like a universal flood? Yes. Because without the pressure, the creatures would not fossilize. As an experiment, find some semi-hard mud and take an object, such as a tennis ball. Then, to represent evolution, set the object in the mud, toss some sand on it, and blow on it with a fan. Now pick up your object, did it leave a noticeable imprint? Probably not. Now, to represent the force of a universal flood, set the object in the mud, and get out your hose. Set the nozzle to full pressure, and turn it on. Direct the spray at your object. Now, pick up your object, did it leave an imprint? Most likely. See? Great force was needed. But it you have a local flood or just wind and dust, that would not have the pressure to leave an imprint in rock. Another point, if dead animals were just lying around, waiting to be covered by dust, then they would most likely be eaten, or decomposed by bacteria, and they would rot away; long before being covered. Then we wouldn’t get our fossil fuels! But in a universal flood, fossil fuels would be possible, and we have fossils fuels… so I think the evidence is clear. Plus, most fossils have been found to have water markings on them, and in a universal flood, water is plenty! Fossils would form by the minute! We have a similar situation with coal. Coal, in the U.S., consists of tree bark in mud. Now calculate how much tree bark in mud you would find if a universal flood came by and ripped trees out of the ground, and they would become stuck in mud. Another observation, the majority of our planet’s surface doesn’t even have the geologic layers in the order that scientists gave them to support evolution. Also, Roger Lewin, a paleontologist, acknowledges that the mitochondrial DNA method is in support for Noah’s Ark story. [34] It is interesting to note as well, that in almost every nation and tribe on this earth we find the occurrence of a universal flood in their history. [35]

     Now for another look at evolution. Many evolutionists claim that the human body has vestigial organs which were “leftovers” from our supposed previous forms, on the pathway from a single cell to our state now. This has some difficulties, and we will now examine some. It was once believed that humans had 180 vestigial organs. Now, with better knowledge and research techniques, there are only a few listed vestigial organs, with even those being debatable. See, the further we progress in knowledge, the more we figure out that those “vestigial” organs actually have jobs and functions, some that you could not live without! Let’s take a few examples. Like the coccyx, or tailbone. Many evolutionists have claimed that this tailbone is vestigial. But in reality, there are nine muscles attached to it! They help us move, sit, and excrete wastes. Without it, you would have no attachment point for these muscles, and that would not be good! Another vestigial organ that many evolutionists have listed is the appendix. So they go by that idea and remove your appendix if it is diseased, just like they did with the tonsils. But the appendix is actually a part of our immune system. It helps in the fighting of infections in the intestines. At one point in history, evolutionists thought that the human embryo had vestigial organs. But each of these has been shown to have important functions in our body. Now let’s examine the reasoning behind vestigial organs. If we indeed do have vestigial organs today, then that means they had to have been functioning in our supposed ancestors. But that means we are degrading, losing the functioning of our organs. But evolution requires just the opposite, upgrading, from a single cell to a human. So are we upgrading, degrading, or neither?

     Next, we will examine the dating methods. Many evolutionists use certain dating methods to tell the age of fossils, and come up with results just like their theory would propose, some ages around millions of years old or more. Let’s examine how valid these dating methods really are. One rock, found in Nigeria, was dated to be 30 million years old with the dating method - fission track dating. Then, this same rock, was dated to be 95 million years old with the dating method of Potassium-Argon dating. Yet with Uranium-Helium dating, this same rock was dated to be 750 million years old! [36] Using carbon-14 dating, a freshly killed seal was dated to have died 1,300 years ago! [37] Also using carbon-14 dating, presently living mollusk shells were dated to be 2,300 years old! [38] Using carbon-14 dating as well, the shells of living snails were dated to have died 27,000 years ago!!! [39] What absurdity! See also, that the various dating methods give various ages to the same fossil or geologic layer. Using this, an evolutionist can use the method he desires that would give him the age he desires, when another test would show the specimen being dated to be millions of years older or younger! Plus, carbon-14, as well as some other radioactive dating methods, rely on unprovable assumptions about the rate of decay, the environment condition and others - things we cannot know for certain if they were truly this way. This is why the dating methods are inconsistent and false. But there is also circular reasoning involved in dating geologic layers and fossils. When the scientists are asked to tell the age of a certain fossil, they check the date for the geologic layer in which the fossil was found, and give that age to the fossil. Then, if asked to tell the age of a certain geologic layer, they look at the dates of the index fossils, found within that geologic layer, and give that age to the geologic layer! This is circular reasoning!

     In addition to all this, evolutionists often claim that evolution or its processes has been observed in one or another example. Let us examine what was really observed in these examples. One popular example of natural selection is the pepper moth. With the photo of a white one sitting on a tree and a black one sitting on a tree. The claim is that the white pepper moths and black ones survived by natural selection as the tree color changed from white to black, due to pollution and smog. But this is not an example of natural selection working for macroevolution! This is an example of natural selection in two types of moths, not showing how natural selection would work to make macroevolution any more plausible. What we have here is the change of amounts of different colored moths, from white to black, in order to camouflage and not be seen by predators. No new information was added to the genetic code, as evolution would require in evolving a single cell to a human over time. Also, the pepper moths stayed pepper moths, they didn’t evolve into, say, butterflies, or any other creatures of different kinds, but that is what would really be natural selection for evolution in action. Another example often used is wingless beetles. Because on an island, these beetles wouldn’t be blown off by the strong winds. So in this case, the mutation’s effect was beneficial. But, the mutation itself was still a defect, it was a loss, a loss of code for wings. This was a negative mutation, it removed information, it didn’t add any new information to the genetic code, as evolution would require. So this example does not show evolution or help it. Yet another example often brought up is viruses that have adapted from harming one animal type to harming humans. But even this is not evolution. Why? Because no new information was added to the genetic code, and because the virus stayed a virus. Yes, it may have mutated to do harm in another creature or humans, but no new code was added; and the virus didn’t evolve into, say, a bacteria or any other organism; the virus stayed a virus. This is why viruses don’t show evolution. Same with AIDS or HIV, not evolution; for the same reasons as with the virus. Also, with antibiotic resistance, we observe something similar. Loss of information may have caused the antibiotic resistance in a certain organism, but this was a loss of information, not a gain, as evolution would require. Never has it been observed in nature that new information was added to the genetic code of an organism, only loss. So evolution has not been observed in any of these or other examples.

     Now we will examine a few more difficulties with evolution. Life has many interdependent cycles. Each cycle relies heavily on its own parts working together, and on other cycles functioning with it. There is a perfect harmony in nature, and many intelligently made cycles exist. Take for example the water cycle: evaporation, condensation, and precipitation. It works out very well and even recycles, to an extent, our water. How could random, chance, unguided processes do this? Or take ecology. There is a relationship between animals and their environments, and the climates. All of this is connected, and if you remove or change one, it may affect the whole cycle, and it may end in the extinction of certain animals. Or take the food chain. A very close relationship exists here. Remove one species of animals, and the effect can be devastating! Everything is so dependent upon something else. How could evolution do this? Yet another problem. If the time dates of evolutionists are true, the world would be overflowing with humans now. But that’s not the case. Also, according to the studies of biochemists Allen Wilson and Vincent Sarich, the first people had to have come originally from only two people, and had to appear less that 200,000 years ago. [40] Creation fits this description perfectly; whereas evolution cannot speak. Look at nature. Look at the animals, the plants. Look at the symmetry of a flower. Look at yourself, marvel at how you can balance yourself and walk upright. Look at your hand, think of all the actions you can perform, think how precisely you can control it to put a thread through the eye of a needle. Think about your brain, the many tasks you can do, and what you can control with your brain. Was all of this a product of mere chance? Of unguided, random processes?

     In conclusion, we have seen and learned much about evolution. We have learned about natural selection, mutations, fossil finds, hominids, chances for evolution, the geologic layers, popular examples for evolution, vestigial organs, rock dating methods, the primitive environment, and much more. We have explored many things from an angle no often used. The final question is left to you: is evolution true, or false?  

Works Cited

(Other works used listed in Bibliography)

1. Ranganathan, B.G. Origins?, Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988, pp. 19-20

2. Same as #1, p. 19

3. Morris, Henry M. Evolution and the Modern Christian, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1988, p.33

4. Howell, F. Clark. Early Man, NY: Time Life Books, 1973, pp. 24-25

5. Bowden, Malcolm. Ape-Men - Fact or Fallacy? Sovereign Publications, Bromley, Kent (2nd edition, 1981), pp.220-221

6. Johanson, David and Shreve, James. Lucy’s Child, NY: William Morrow and Co., 1989, p.47

7. Same as # 6, p. 47

8. Pinchot, Rod, ed. The Human Body, “The Skeleton,” NY: Torster Books, 1985, p. 112

9. Same as #4, p. 42

10. Lubenow, Marvin L. Bones of Contention: A Creationists Assessment of Human Fossils, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992, pp. 180-181

11. Same as #4, p. 41

12. Same as #4, p. 42

13. Same as #4, p. 42

14. Falk, Dean. Brain Dance, NY: Henry Holt and Co., 1992, pp. 12-13

15. Same as #14, p. 42

16. Pfieffer, John. The Emergence of Man, NY: Harper and Row, 1969, p. 155

17. Leakey, Richard, and Lewin, Roger. Origins, NY: E.P. Dutten, 1977, pp. 100, 105

18. Gish, Duane T. Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record, San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1985, pp. 207-209

19. Morris, Henry M. The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967, p. 362

20. Lewin, Roger. In the Age of Mankind, Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Books, 1988, p. 22

21. Same as #1, p.7

22. Same as #1, p. 7 and same as #3, p. 27

23. Same as #1, p. 8

24. Same as #1, p. 9

25. Same as #3, p. 26

26. Same as #1, p. 11

27. Graham, Keith, et al. Biology Pensacola, FL: A Beka Book Publications, 1986, p. 357

28. Same as # 27, p. 350

29. Same as #1, p. 145

30. Morowitz, H.J., Energy Flow in Biology (Academic Press, New York, 1968), p. 99

31. Lasaga, Antonio C., Science, 174, 1 Oct. 1974, pp. 53-55

32. G. Vogel, ‘A sulfurous start for protein synthesis?’ Science 281 (5377): pp. 627-629, 31 July, 1988

33. Same as #19, p. 54

34. Same as #20, pp. 130-131

35. Same as #19, p. 65

36. Bowden, Malcolm (1991) Science vs. Evolution, Sovereign Publications, Kent, p. 116- referring to the article by Fisher, D.E. Nature Physical Science 19 July, 1971, v. 232, pp. 60-61

37. Antarctic Journal, vol.6, [Sept.-Oct. 1971], p. 211

38. Science, vol.141, 1963, pp. 634-637

39. Science, vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61

40. Same as #20, pp. 130-131

41. Harrub, Brad. Lunatics, Lucy and a little book for the school library, Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0825lawrence.asp.

Bibliography