More reasons Evolution didn’t occur
Once again we are examining the religion of evolution and exposing this pseudo-science for what it is. There are numerous things we can look at in the natural world that could not have been supplied by this step-by-step process of evolution. We are going to examine several more reasons that evolution did not occur and should not and isn’t a relevant theory explaining the origin of everything. Contrary to the mantra of evolutionists such as those at Talk Origins the "evidence" for evolution is so scanty that only those who religiously cling to it can see the "proof." What I mean by "religion" is that there is no proof, yet they believe it. It is the atheist’s "security blanket" so to speak. You see as a Christian I can be open to where the evidence leads. However, for the atheist evolution is the only game in town and he is stuck with it no matter how long the odds. I showed in my first article that there are sevaral facets of the macroevolutionary theory that are in fact biophysically impossible. All the evidence for this is highly circumstantial and in some cases easily refuted. If those chains in the evolutionary scenario are missing then why go further you ask? Because I feel that another exhaustive look at the facts will only further the case against the false religion of evolution. I will be going in no particular order in this article. Let’s begin with more reasons evolution is a hoax.
Reason # 1: Horsing around with the evidence: It is commonly cited by evolutionists that the fossil horse series reveals clearly the evolution of the horse. At TO (Talk Origins) you would think that this is an EMPIRICAL fact but that however, is hardly the case. In one of their articles this statement is made: "Creationism utterly fails to explain the sequence of known horse fossils from the last 50 million years. That is, without invoking the "God Created Everything To Look Just Like Evolution Happened" Theory. [And I'm not even mentioning all the other evidence for evolution that is totally independent of the fossil record -- developmental biology, comparative DNA & protein studies, morphological analyses, biogeography, etc. The fossil record, horses included, is only a small part of the story.]"
However, as I noted in my earlier article they were left with egg on their faces when they used DNA commonality pertaining to chimps and Homo sapiens. Comparative anatomy could also explain a common Creator. This doesn’t prove evolution in any sense. All those horses were probably a product of some wider "biblical kind." Of course they are all going to have similarities because they are all horses of the same "kind." As is usual with TO the evidence that demolishes their theory is not discussed. There are several finds that destroy the horse dogma completely.
This imaginary horse series does not exist in order on any continent. That should not surprise you at all. If it does not exist in order on any continent then how can they cite it as proof? The thing is, evolution is a shrinking target. Any evidence, no matter how asinine it is can be twisted to fit the evolutionary paradigm. There are no pictures of any of these findings on this web page and of course no statements about where all this evidence was found except for one brief statement: "During the first major glaciations of the late Pliocene (2.6 Ma), certain Equus species crossed to the Old World. Some entered Africa and diversified into the modern zebras. Others spread across Asia, the Mideast, & N. Africa as desert-adapted onagers and asses. Still others spread across Asia, the Mideast, and Europe as the true horse, E. caballus. Other Equus species spread into South America." This of course is stated, as I eluded to earlier, the FACT that this is never in order, much less on the same continent. Just another case of an evolutionist taking liberty with the evidence and making up his or her own scenario. Here is another interesting statement from the same URL: "A Question for Creationists; Creationists who wish to deny the evidence of horse evolution should careful consider this: how else can you explain the sequence of horse fossils? Even if creationists insist on ignoring the transitional fossils (many of which have been found), again, how can the unmistakable sequence of these fossils be explained? Did God create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc..... each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?" What sequence of horse fossils? They are NOT found in order on the same continent. (R.E. Kofahl, Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter, p.65) Moreover, the similarities of all of these horses could be easily explained as variation within the same "biblical kind," or "microevolution," not "macroevolution." A horse is still a horse. Assuming evolution occurred, which this author has gratuitously done, is not the only way to explain it. There are further problems with the horse series.
National Geographic (1/81, p.74), in an attempt to show that three-toed horses evolved into one-toed horses actually demolished that possibility when both were found buried in the same rock strata in Nebraska! That shows that the two were contemporaneous. Just as interesting, in South America the three-toed horse is found above the one-toed horse! (A.S. Romer, Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd ed. p. 260-261) The famous John Day formation in Oregon sports the three-toed Neohipparion with the one-toed Pliohippus in the same rock strata. (Stuart Nevins, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 10, 3/74, p. 196) This presents major problems because when the horses are found on the some continent, they are either intermingled in the same strata or the "older" horses are found higher in the rock strata then the "younger" ones.
This quote is also from the same TO URL: "Members of Equus still retain the genes for making side toes. Usually these express themselves only as the vestigial "splint bones" of toes 2 and 4, around the large central 3rd toe. Very rarely, a modern Equus is born with small but fully formed side toes. (see Gould, "Hen's Teeth and Horses' Toes".)" But is this true? Evolutionists are always making the claim that the horses "splint bones" are "vestigial" leftovers. It is impossible in principle to prove that an organ has NO function; rather it might have a function we don’t know about. As Scadding observes, "…vestigial organs provide no evidence of evolutionary theory." (S.R. Scadding, "Do vestigial organs provide evidence for evolution?" Evolutionary Theory 5:173–176, 1981) Even if vestigial organs did exist, that is the opposite of evolution and only proves we are losing something. It does nothing to explain the origin of the organ or apparatus in question. Furthermore, these "splint bones" are anchor points where muscles attach and function to strengthen the foot and leg bones, which undergo a lot of stress when the horse is galloping. Lastly, they also provide a protective groove for the suspensory ligament that supports the horses weight as it walks. (J. Bergman and G. Howe, Creation Research Society Books, Kansas City, p. 77, 1990; H.R. Murris, "Vestigial organs: A creationist re-investigation", Origins (Journal of the Biblical Creation Society) 5(13): 10–15, 1992) Moreover, the infamous dawn horse, Eohippus, (a.k.a. Hyracotherium) is actually a rock-badger, or Coney. (Leviticus 11:5) The very foundation of this horse hogwash is not even a horse and Richard Owen; the discoverer of Hyracotherium knew it. Gerald Kerkut comments, "... it is not clear that Hyracotherium was the ancestral horse." (Kerkut, Implications of Evolution, p. 149, 1960)
In conclusion: 1) Nowhere does this horse series exist in order on the same continent. 2) Hyracotherium isn’t a horse at all. 3) There are strata where "older" and "younger" horses are intermingled showing they lived contemporaneously and "older" horses above "younger" horses. 4) The "vestigial" splint bones aren’t vestigial at all. 5) Eohippus, the alleged "dawn horse", had 18 pairs of ribs, Orohippus (which came right after Eohippus) had 15 pairs, Pliohippus (which came between Merychippus and the modern Equus) had 19 and Equus has 18. It lost 3 pairs, then gained 4, then lost one. So much for horse evolution. (ICR, BTG No. 63b, "Vital Articles on Science/Creation" March 1994; L. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, p. 94)
In addition, John Stear still parrots the fossil horse series talking points.
Reason # 2: The Bombardier Beetle: I believe that this is one of the most interesting anomalies for evolutionists to explain. The Bombardier Beetle is a perfect example of how piecemeal evolution utterly fails. I will show conclusively that there is absolutely no way that this beetle could have evolved in a step-by-step evolutionary process and how compromised it would have been in its intermediate stages. I will not perpetuate the same old refuted argument that the beetles "blow-up." That is not the case. This amazing beetle defends itself by blasting its enemies with a scalding hot mixture of hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide.
Mark Isaak attempts to discredit the creationist claim that the beetle could not have evolved. Isaak seems to make a case in his rant but fails to deal with some of Behe’s claims against piecemeal evolution of the beetle. (M. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box) Let’s see if Mr. Isaak has established his "case."
From the aforementioned TO URL: "Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods. [Dettner, 1987]" Fair enough Mark but that alone would not prove evolution unless one gratuitously assumes that it did happen. A case of reaching the conclusion before the evidence supports it. Just simply stating "those chemicals were around" does not establish the case in any sense of the imagination. Dawkins also makes the same mistake when he says, "As for the evolutionary precursors of the system, hydrogen peroxide and various kinds of quinines are used for other purposes in body chemistry. The bombardier beetle’s ancestors simply pressed into different service chemicals that already happened to be around. That’s how evolution works." (R. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p.87) What Dawkins does is jump right to the fact that they are there without explaining how they got there in the first place.
Isaak also says, "Small invaginations develop in the epidermis between sclerites (plates of cuticle). By wiggling, the insect can squeeze more quinones onto its surface when they're needed. The invaginations deepen. Muscles are moved around slightly, allowing them to help expel the quinones from some of them. (Many ants have glands similar to this near the end of their abdomen. [Holldobler & Wilson, 1990, pp. 233-237]) A couple invaginations (now reservoirs) become so deep that the others are inconsequential by comparison. Those gradually revert to the original epidermis." Why do small invaginations develop Mark? What was the catalyst for such a thing? Why did the invaginations become reservoirs and how or why would natural selection drive such a change? A good part of TO literature glazes over such things by saying "muscles move around" or "muscles adapt" and "this happened and that happened" without explaining why or how. Just a blatant generalization but we are supposed to believe it. Just because "many ants have similar glands" fails to explain how the beetle (or the original carrier of this trait) attained this attribute.
Isaak goes further: "Cells that secrete the hydroquinones develop in multiple layers over part of the reservoir, allowing more hydroquinones to be produced. Channels between cells allow hydroquinones from all layers to reach the reservoir. The channels become a duct, specialized for transporting the chemicals. The secretory cells withdraw from the reservoir surface, ultimately becoming a separate organ. This stage -- secretory glands connected by ducts to reservoirs -- exists in many beetles. The particular configuration of glands and reservoirs that bombardier beetles have is common to the other beetles in their suborder. [Forsyth, 1970]" Just because that stage "exists in many beetles" doesn’t prove Darwinian Evolution in the slightest. It utterly fails to explain how they got there but Isaak has obviously assumed that evolution occurred so it’s no problem for him to say that. When the channels became a duct how long did that take? We must remember that evolution is a slow process, so slow that we can’t see it happening, so if it took 5,000 years for the channels to become a duct how did the beetle survive in this intermediate process? Isaak fails to give us any details. Before the channels became a duct how did the beetle defend itself? Did it already have the ability to produce hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide? Did the inhibitor exist? If only the inhibitor existed then how did it defend itself because as Dawkins notes those two chemicals only become a good defense system when mixed with enzyme catalysts. (Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 87) If it had the anti-inhibitor but not the inhibitor it would have suffered a severe case of "indigestion." Perhaps nobody knows how the beetle would have handled that? Isaak really doesn’t give us a clue on what order this happened and how it could have happened but does at least admit this in his article.
Lastly Isaak comments: "This stage -- secretory glands connected by ducts to reservoirs -- exists in many beetles. The particular configuration of glands and reservoirs that bombardier beetles have is common to the other beetles in their suborder. [Forsyth, 1970] Muscles adapt which close off the reservoir, thus preventing the chemicals from leaking out when they're not needed." How long did it take for those muscles to close of the reservoir? Another "intermediate" step that could be compromising to the beetle especially if it took a long time. If it took say, 2,000 years for this to happen how would these beetles protect themselves while they "leaked" all over the place? Unless of course punctuated equilibrium is our culprit here and if that is the case then evolution clearly is out of the realm of the observable science and cannot be considered a relevant theory. Behe comments, "Dawkins didn’t give us any details on how the bombardier beetle’s defensive system might have evolved… A large number of beetle species synthesize quinines that are not even excreted, but which ‘taste bad…’ This would allow the beetle to make a large amount of the noxious chemical, and in so doing become very untasty, without causing internal problems… Unfortunately, the explanation here is no more detailed than Darwin’s nineteenth-century story about the eye… The collecting vesicle, the sphincter muscle, the explosion chamber, and the exit port are all complex structures in their own right, with many unidentified components. Furthermore, the actual processes responsible for the development of the explosive capability are unknown: What causes a collection vesicle to develop, hydrogen peroxide to be excreted, or a sphincter muscle to wrap around?" (M. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, p.34, 35, 36)
In conclusion the best a Darwinist could say is that the beetle MIGHT have evolved but there is still a long way to go with the study of it. Just as we further study the bewildering complexity of the cell and evolutionists are stonewalled, the same will come about with the Bombardier Beetle. The more info that is revealed the more Darwin’s theory will sink. We will see what science has to say about the beetle in 5 years but as of now evolution has not shown us the way.
Reason # 3: The brave little fish and cleaning symbiosis: There is an amazing phenomenon going on in an ocean near you. This phenomenon is best described as "cleaning symbiosis." Cleaning symbiosis is simply a predatory fish allowing a smaller fish to enter its mouth, yes its mouth and clean the debris and parasites out of it. After a day of feeding the predatory fish accumulates this debris and what not in its mouth so it allows a smaller fish to enter its mouth and clean out the foreign material. The smaller fish also benefits from this because he gets a free meal. Now think about it, what sort of evolutionary trial and error could have led to such a thing? Everyone knows that animal instincts are geared towards survival and looking out for number one and nothing else. Why or how would a fish decide that he was going to enter a larger fish’s mouth and "clean up?" This animal instinct to survive would surely override a suicide attempt. Furthermore, why or how would a predatory fish allow another to enter its mouth and not have lunch? Yet the smaller fish is allowed to leave unharmed after this procedure is complete. Trial and error evolution fails miserably to explain this process of cleaning symbiosis.
The Egyptian Plover is also allowed to walk right into the jaws of the Nile crocodile and clean out the parasites. This invites the same questions in the previous section. How does trial and error evolution explain this? If the Plover decides to enter the crocodile’s mouth (I can’t imagine why) then he just gave the crocodile a free meal. Evolutionary "theory" fails miserably to explain this process and under their framework it gravitates against the "survival of the fittest." (Gary Parker, Creation: The Facts of Life, p.39) Albert Szent-Gyorgi says this: "All this may sound very simple, but it involves a horribly complex underlying nervous mechanism… All this had to be developed simultaneously [like the cleaner entering the big fish's mouth at the same time the big fish suspends his normal habit of eating small fish], which as a mutation has the probability of zero. I am unable to approach this problem without supposing an innate drive in matter to perfect itself." (Albert Szent-Gyorgi, "Drive in Living Matter to Perfect Itself," Synthesis 1, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 14-26) In closing, Darwinian evolution fails miserably to explain this.
Reason # 4: Ecological relationships: The Bull’s Horn Acacia Tree has an amazing relationship with a species of stinging ants. This relationship works something like this. This tree has hollow thorns that serve as a home for these ants. Small bumps on the tree also provide the ants with food. In return for a meal and a home the ants serve as a "guardian" for the tree and eliminate any vegetation that dares to grow near it. These ants regularly eliminate any vegetation that grows near the tree. That is what makes it so amazing. This tree in turn receives plenty of sunlight and space, which is not always available in the tropical jungles of Central and South America. Tests have shown that when the ants are removed from the tree it dies in two to fifteen months. (R.E. Kofahl, Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter, p.26)
If the tree cannot survive without the ants then how did it survive before ants evolved? In the evolutionary "tree of life" plants came long before ants. How far the Bull’s Horn Acacia was behind this particular species of ant I don’t know but it still begs the question. How did this evolve? The evolutionist will inevitably answer that it was "co-adaptation" without explaining how it developed in the evolutionary process. Another impossibility for evolution.
Reason # 5: Turtles can read magnetic maps: The Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta) have exhibited some amazing abilities in lab experiments. These turtles typically have to stay in the North Atlantic Gyre (circle) that surrounds the Sargasso Sea. What has been discovered was amazing to say the least. Kenneth and Catherine Lohmann of the University of North Carolina have shown that the turtles use magnetic measurements to stay in the gyre. They generated an artificial magnetic field with computerized electric coils. They placed the turtles in a holding tank and made the field’s strength the same as the northern boundary of the North Atlantic Gyre. When this was done the turtles swam south as if they were fleeing the danger zone and back into the gyre. Not surprisingly when the strength was the same as the southern boundary of the gyre the turtles swam north-northeast away from the danger zone and back into the gyre. When the strength was the same as that of the western boundary of the gyre, the turtles swam east, again as if into the gyre and away from the danger boundary. And they swam west when the strength was the same as the eastern boundary's. (Nature Australia, Winter 1997, p. 7-8.)
How did the turtle "evolve" the ability to read the earth’s magnetic field? If the earth is the 4.57 billion years old that evolutionists believe then how would the turtle have reacted to the magnetic reversals that they allege took place many times. (Magnetic reversals do occur but they are rapid) How would the turtle have reacted to the variances of the magnetic field if the evolutionary "just-so" stories about the field are true?
The Monarch butterfly is equally as amazing. It has been shown that the Monarch has the ability to use the earth’s magnetic field in its migration technique and route. Jules Poirier, in his book From Darkness to Light to Flight: Monarch — the Miracle Butterfly give more than enough evidence to bury Darwin and his theory.
It is instructive to look at the two basic systems by which humans can fix their position using the sun. Monarchs wouldn't use exactly the same sorts of systems as humans do, but they would have to solve essentially the same basic problems.
Method # 1: To figure out the latitude of your position (the distance north or south of the Equator) you observe the time that the sun just rises over the eastern horizon and then look up the corresponding date in the Navigator’s Almanac. To figure out you longitude, you compare the time where you are with the time in Greenwich, England. Dividing the difference in minutes by four gives you your longitude.
Method # 2: This requires at least two sightings of the sun’s position relative to the horizon are taken at two different times. From the first measurement in harmony with referring to an almanac which tells you what the sun’s position is on a certain date and knowing Greenwich mean time a line can be drawn and a navigator can know that his position is somewhere on that line. The second measurement gives another line and where they intersect is the approximate locale.
A fairly recent experiment in fact, confirmed that it is the latter of the two, which the Monarch uses to navigate. ("A Sun compass in monarch butterflies" Nature 387:29, May 1, 1997) The evolutionist must believe that "somehow" the monarch has a simplified almanac of the sun’s position relative to date and time. Do monarchs know Greenwich Mean Time? This means that this butterfly also has to have an accurate internal clock. Monarchs can detect different polarizations of light, so even on a cloudy day; they can measure the angle to the sun from the horizon. The evolutionist must also believe that. Some monarchs migrate from Nova Scotia to about a dozen sites (covering a mere 40 acres) in the Neovolcanic Mountains (approx. 200 miles west of Mexico City) in Mexico. This voyage is all the more amazing considering that the monarch does not live that long. Many of them making this trip are doing it for the first time and flying "by the seat of their pants." Besides stopping for nectar and being blown of course they still make this trip every year, just like "clockwork." (F. Urquhart, The Monarch Butterfly: International Traveller; Jules Poirier, From Darkness to Light to Flight: Monarch — the Miracle Butterfly) The monarch is the only insect known to migrate annually over continental distances.
In conclusion, how could the Loggerhead Turtle or the Monarch Butterfly have "acquired" the ability to use the earth’s magnetic field? A compass, a man-made invention uses the earth’s magnetic field to give direction and it incredibly inferior to the turtle or butterfly. If I told you that I had a compass that "evolved" out of nothing what would you say? You would laugh me right out of the building. But yet evolutionists are required to believe that a monarch butterfly "evolved" an internal clock, the ability to distinguish different polarizations of light, the ability to tell the sun’s position relative to date and time all on its own. The monarch does all this and more with a brain the size of a pinhead. It is obvious; if you have a complex machine there is a designer. Nobody would believe that a compass evolved on its own but some believe that the Monarch Butterfly and Loggerhead Turtle, which are hundreds of times more complex, did. Talk about a "religious belief." The belief of the atheist is hardly rational.
Reason # 6: Mimicry: This is where Richard Dawkins, professor of zoology at Oxford does some of his best story telling. He is such a good storyteller that I think he should be a guest host on Captain Kangaroo. The kids would love it.
Mimicry is simply the ability or abilities of one organism to imitate and/or duplicate another (sometimes enemy or prey) organism and/or a specific piece of vegetation to avoid being killed or to make a kill that much easier.
One could cite dozens of examples of mimicry but I will limit it to a handful. The caterpillar of the Lobster Moth of Great Britain has "evolved" a great ability indeed. The Lobster Moth will hang its legs down like the scales surrounding the buds on the beech tree. Good thing that its legs are the proper number, length, color and shape for this amazing task. When this larva is attacked it lowers flaps on its sides, which in turn uncover "black wounds" that fool the predator into believing that it has already fallen prey to some other attacker. How would the Lobster Moth have survived before it "evolved" this amazing trait? Granting that it could survive how did this trait arise? What sort of Neo-Darwinian mutation led to this? The evolutionist is left stone walled. (E. Shute, Flaws in the Theory of Evolution, p. 108)
Certain species of female fireflies copy the flashes of females of other species and when the excited male arrives they get "invited to dinner" if you know what I mean. The Cuckoo of Europe and the Cowbird of the United States both lay their eggs in the nests of other birds and successfully manage to have their young raised by unknowing foster parents. In return for this care the ungrateful orphans push the legitimate family members out of the nest. (Helena Curtis, Biology, 1969, p. 622-623)
In Dawkins book, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life he uses the phrases "the suggestion is that… perhaps the dance is a kind of… Nobody knows why this happens but it does… It probably provided the necessary… It is not difficult to imagine… " numerous times. So many times that the reader has to see how much Dawkins clings to his vivid imagination. What if I walked up to him and said, "It is not hard to imagine that everything was designed by God." He would laugh but using his own reasoning he would see how utterly crippled his "arguments" are. I suggest highly that an interested layman get the book and see how much empirical evidence Dawkins actually employs to explain mimicry. True Origin has an excellent critique of his book.
The Viceroy butterfly looks very similar to the Monarch butterfly and because of that birds avoid it. The Monarch is distasteful to birds and thus they will not touch it either. Although this mimicry is of the Mullerian kind (meaning BOTH species are unpalatable to birds) there are examples of mimics among butterflies that are of the Batesian variety (meaning the mimic imitates an unpalatable kind while it is palatable and because of that birds avoid it).
A number of South American butterflies mimic various species, which were otherwise different. (H. W. Bates: "Contributions to an insect fauna of the Amazon Valley. Lepidoptera: Heliconidae", Transactions of the Linnaean Society of London, Vol. 22, 1862, pages 495-566) That is natural selection, not macroevolution by the way. This shows genetic heterozygousity programmed by the Creator. A butterfly is still a butterfly. What’s more, in the species Papilio dardanus, ONLY the female mimics, the males do not. (Lane P. Lester, Institute for Creation Research, Impact No. 18, Vital Articles on Science/Creation" September 1974)
In conclusion Richard Dawkins and the evolutionary theory as a whole fail miserably to explain how mimicry could have arisen despite the fact that it is advantageous because it only works when it is totally functional.
Reason # 7: The Sea Slug vs. The Sea Anemone: The sea slug and the sea anemone have an interesting relationship that absolutely demolishes the possibility of gradual evolution. The sea slug feeds primarily on sea anemones, which are not exactly the prime choice for dinner among marine life. The sea anemone is more than capable of defending itself, as it is equipped with thousands of small stinging cells on their tentacles that explode with the slightest touch spearing would-be aggressors with poisonous harpoons. After that is done the helpless victim is pulled into the anemone’s stomach. How the sea slug defends itself against the anemone is arguably the most amazing thing in the biological ecosphere. What the sea slug does is eat the anemone without being stung or exploding the stinging cells. The indigested stinging cells are then swept through ciliated tubes that are connected to the stomach and end up in pouches. The stinging cells are then arranged and stored in these pouches, which the slug ultimately uses for its own defense against predators! (R.E. Kofahl, Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter, p. 24-26)
Now think about it. How would a step-by-step evolutionary process have lead to this? It would have required several intermediate steps, none of which are present in the fossil record. What did the sea slug do while it was "evolving" this ability to utilize the anemone’s defense mechanism for its own defense? It would have fallen prey to the anemone’s stinging cells and thus not survived. How and when did these pouches that ultimately hold the anemone’s stinging cells evolve? The evolutionary process cannot account for this. How did the slug "evolve" the ability to swallow the anemone unharmed in the first place? This process would not and does not work unless it is fully functional in the first place. An absolute death knell for Darwin. I challenge any evolutionist to give any empirical evidence to support Neo-Darwinism on this issue. Of course it is also worth noting that the sea anemone, being the nice guy that he is refrained from evolving countermeasures.
Reason # 8: Blood Clotting: Blood Clotting is no doubt an "irreducibly complex" system. Without ALL the factors precipitating it its useless. Without blood clotting nothing would survive. So how did this arise in a step-by-step Darwinian fashion? Could it have arisen via this process? For an exhaustive discussion of the "irreducibly complex" system of blood clotting read Darwin’s Black Box (p. 74-97). In that section Behe shows conclusively how blood clotting could not have arisen in an evolutionary piecemeal process.
Many people such as Richard Dawkins have attempted to discredit Behe’s claims with biased reasoning. I will not go into this exhaustively but when Dawkins applies the same reasoning to his own "claims" they fall to the ground. Such as some of the statements he makes about Behe. "First, let's be clear about something. Michael Behe has not created a "Theory of Intelligent Design" (ID). He offers no general laws, models, or explanations for how design happens, no testable predictions, and no possible way to falsify his hybrid evolution/ID hypothesis." There is a lot more to come in the intelligent design realm but the same applies to this evolutionary hypothesis for blood clotting. No hypotheses put forth are testable and they cannot be falsified. For something to be a legitimate theory it has to be testable and able to be proven or falsified. Look here to see why Darwinian ineevolution in the majority of cases is NOT falsifiable, while intelligent design most certainly is. Dawkins (as usual) just waves his hand at controversy and gratuitously dismisses any other options. If we are to be fair and just we must not close the door on other options but it is painfully obvious that Dawkins will have nothing of it. Dawkins says: "Behe is not offering a way to detect design, he is offering a way to falsify gradual Darwinian evolution, and by elimination, conclude design. But there is one big problem- his falsifier has been falsified. The conclusion that an "irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system" is simply wrong." I actually see Dawkins point here but if it cannot be tested under the evolutionary Neo-Darwinian framework why do we have to continually cling to it? Unless of course we become as dogmatic as Dawkins. Intelligent design is a fact. If you have a complex machine, you have a designer. If you have a Rolex watch made in Japan you know it was designed but you don’t have to see the designer to know that it was designed. If Dawkins would throw his philosophical assumptions aside he would be a lot trustworthier, but then again if he did he would not have a case. What would Richard Dawkins consider as proof for intelligent design? Let’s get down to brass tacks and see if blood clotting is feasible under the atheistic philosophy.
Just picture yourself at work and you grab a razor blade to cut open a package. As you cut it open your hand slides off the box and the razor glides across your index finger. You grimace in pain as blood gushes out of the cut in your skin. After a few minutes of running it under cold water you go back to work thinking nothing of it. But a lot happened in the last few moments.
When you get cut this is what happens in a nutshell. The cut itself initiates the whole sequence obviously. A protein called Hageman factor sticks to the cells near the wound. Bound Hageman factor is then cleaved by a yet another protein called HMK, which in turn yields active Hageman factor. Activated Hageman factor then converts prekallikrein to its active form, kallilkrein. Kallikrein then helps HMK speed up the conversion of Hageman factor to its active form. Activated Hageman factor and HMK then convert PTA to its active form. PTA, in its active form then in turn works with the active form of preconvertin (convertin, which is activated by active Hageman factor and thrombin. Prothrombin is turned into its active form, thrombin, by activated Stuart factor. Stuart factor is made active by the protein tissue factor. ARGH!). Convertin and active PTA work together to switch yet another protein, Christmas factor, to its active form. At last active Christmas factor works with antihemophilic factor (which is activated by thrombin) to activate Stuart factor. As you can see the mechanism of blood clotting is complicated and that is only the general overview of it! If you take any one of those proteins out the whole process fails miserably. We don’t have 50,000 years to wait for this mystical process of evolution to work its magic. While everyone is waiting they are also bleeding to death. Dawkins comments: "So what does this magic Intelligent Design Detection Kit look like? Basically open the box and all it contains is a tweezer. Use it to pluck out any part of a system, and if the system stops functioning properly, it must be the product of design. Why? Because it proves that the system was "Irreducibly Complex" (IC)..." Sounds good enough Richard but there are glaring fallacies in your own reasoning. As usual Dawkins dismisses all objections with a wave of his magic wand. What good is any part of the blood-clotting cascade minus one part? Many evolutionists argue, "Science has a long way to go." Sounds like an excuse to me. The farther molecular biology goes, the further down Darwin will be buried. "Just because we can’t explain it doesn’t mean this it could not have happened." If they would only use that same reasoning when "critiquing" God’s Word. Where is the explanation? The answer is that they don’t have even a remotely feasible one at this point. I would like to see Dawkins drive to work with half an engine. What good is half an engine? Dawkins would invariably reply, "It’s 1 percent better than 49 percent of an engine." But it is still as worthless as 49 percent of an engine too. We don’t have time to wait for evolution to get this one right.
Instead of citing empirical evidence evolutionists always slog through quagmires of microevolutionary examples as "proof" for Neo-Darwinian evolution. That is simply speciation. Evolution (in the "man to molecules" sense) is an increase in information, not a manipulation of pre-existing info encoded in the genome. Let’s get back on track now and focus again on blood clotting.
There are other problems for those who believe that the blood-clotting scenario arose accidentally. For example, active Stuart factor and prothrombin don’t work fast enough to produce enough thrombin. The animal will bleed to death long before enough thrombin is produced. This where yet another protein (gasp!) accelerin, comes into the picture. Accelerin, working with active Stuart factor, produces enough thrombin fast enough to keep the animal from bleeding to death. Without accelerin getting into the act we would bleed to death. And of course, as you might have hypothesized, accelerin exists in an inactive form (proaccelerin), which is activated by thrombin, which is activated by Stuart factor, etc. One can get very dismayed when studying the blood-clotting process but that just shows you how complicated it really is. You can see how the process overlaps at several points. That is just more proof that it did not arise. It is not just a boom, boom, boom pattern. It overlaps and in a sense some proteins that are later on in the chain help out ones that occur earlier. Behe says it is like the grandchild regulating the grandmother. But that is not all, after the bleeding has stopped what keeps the clot from going and all the blood solidifying?
After the bleeding has been stopped another process begins, the process to cease the clotting of the blood, otherwise all the blood would solidify and the organism would die. First, a plasma protein called antithrombin binds to the ACTIVE forms of the clotting proteins and inactivates them. Antithrombin is essentially inactive unless it binds to heparin. Heparin occurs inside cells and undamaged blood vessels. A second way that the clotting can be stopped is via protein C. After activation by thrombin (at the right time of course) protein C destroys accelerin and activated antihemophilic factor. At last a protein called thrombomodulin lines the surfaces of the cells on the inside of the blood vessels. Thrombomodulin binds thrombin, making it less able to cut fibrinogen and simultaneously increasing its ability to activate protein C. http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/default.asp
Here is a major problem for evolutionists. I invite those who are interested to visit Dawkins’ site (this is not his "official" site but it will do) and Talk Origins and see how much actual empirical evidence that they employ to explain this process. Behe comments, "…if a protein appeared in one step with nothing to do, then mutation and natural selection would tend to ELIMINATE it. Since it is doing nothing critical, its loss would not be detrimental, and production of the gene and protein would cost other energy that animals aren’t spending." (Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, p. 96, emphasis mine) Furthermore, the introduction of a new protein would likely be detrimental because it would either automatically turn the system on or the system would not turn on at all. You would need simultaneous production of other proteins that work with it.
In closing Behe comments, "If a new protein were inserted into the thrombinless system it would either turn the system on immediately, resulting in rapid death, or it would do nothing, and so have no reason to be selected. Because of the nature of a cascade, a new protein would immediately have to be regulated. From the beginning, a new step in the cascade would require both a proenzyme at the correct time and also an activating enzyme to switch on the proenzyme at the correct time and place… Yet the objections raised so far are not the most serious. The most serious, and perhaps that most obvious, concerns irreducible complexity. I emphasize that natural selection, the engine of Darwinian evolution, only works if there is something to select, something that is useful right now, not in the future… if a protein appeared in one step with nothing to do, then mutation and natural selection would tend to eliminate it. Since it is doing nothing critical, its loss would not be detrimental, and production of the gene and protein would cost energy that other animals aren’t spending. So producing the useless protein would, at least to some marginal degree, be detrimental. Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection would actually hinder the formation of irreducibly complex systems such as the clotting cascade." (Ibid, p. 87, 95, 96)
One last point I would like to make. Dawkins, as well as many of those at TO continually criticize Behe for speaking at Christian activities and "going to bat" so to speak for Christianity and the "intelligent design" movement. They criticize him for not going to scientists to make his points. This is a complete red herring. Behe has most definitely attempted to get his work published but has been snubbed by a plethora of excuses such as the article being too long, not fitting the format of discussion, too controversial, etc. To view how those propagating "false science" have snubbed Behe just go to this link. Behe has also answered criticisms of his blood clotting critique (and other issues) at True Origin. The evolutionary process cannot account for the blood clotting cascade as well as dozens of other things. In the words of Michael Denton, "evolution is indeed a theory in crisis." Let’s move on to another one of Darwin’s death knells. The irreducibly complex macromolecule, "adenosine triphosphate," aka ATP.
Reason # 9: Adenosine Triphosphate: If you are alive, your body has ATP. ATP is probably second only to DNA in importance. In my Fallacies of Evolution: 40 Reasons Evolution Didn’t Occur we discussed the unlikliness of DNA and/or the RNA bases being produced spontaneously, and even if they did (which they do not) they would not survive. I thought it very important to discuss ATP also. ATP is the energy current for the cell and is the most prevalent high-energy compound in the human body. Without it you would die. This macromolecule is also used to build complex molecules, contract muscles, generate electricity in nerves, etc. Every organism from the simplest bacterium to humans use ATP as their primary energy source. ATP contains the pure base adenine and the sugar ribose, (both of which are precursors of RNA [ribonucleic acid) and a tail consisting of three phosphates. ATP is typically defined as "a compound consisting of the nucleotide adenosine attached through its ribose group to 3 phosphoric acid molecules. It serves to store energy in muscles, which is released when it is hydrolyzed to adenosine diphosphate." (Mosby’s Medical, Nursing, and Allied Health Dictionary, 4th Edition) Adenosine diphosphate (ADP) is simply the same thing as ATP but there are only two phosphates attached and not three. Adenosine monophosphate (AMP) contains only one phosphate.
Now let’s explore what ATP does. ATP moves substances across cell membranes, supplies energy needed for muscle contraction, energy to the heart (blood circulation) and skeletal muscles and the chromosomes and flagella enabling them to carry out their important functions. As Hoagland and Dodson observe: "The ATP molecule can bond to one part of a protein molecule, causing another part of the same molecule to slide or move slightly which causes it to change its conformation, inactivating the molecule. Subsequent removal of ATP causes the protein to return to its original shape, and thus it is again functional. The cycle can be repeated until the molecule is recycled, effectively serving as an on and off switch." (Hoagland and Dodson, 1995, p.104) Now let’s see how ATP is produced.
ATP is manufactured as a result of several cell processes including fermentation, respiration and photosynthesis. Most commonly the cells use ADP as a precursor molecule and then add a phosphorus to it. In eukaryotes (An organism having cells that contain a true nucleus. Prokaryote cells do not contain a true nucleus, such as bacteria, viruses, and blue-green bacteria) this can occur either in the soluble portion of the cytoplasm (all of a substance of a cell OTHER THAN the nucleus) or in special energy-producing structures called mitochondria. Charging ADP to form ATP in the mitochondria is called "chemiosmotic phosphorylation". This process occurs in specially constructed chambers located in the mitochondrion’s inner membranes. The image below should help explain what occurs in the production of ATP.
Hydrogen ions are accumulated in the space between the inner and outer membrane. This energy comes from the estimated 10,000 enzyme chains in the membranous sacks on the mitochondrial walls. Cellular oxidation in the Krebs Cycle (a sequence of enzymatic reactions involving metabolism of carbon chains of sugars, fatty acids, and amino acids to yield carbon dioxide, water, and high-energy phosphate bonds. The Krebs cycle provides and major source of adenosine Triphosphate energy and also produces intermediate molecules that are starting points for a number of vital metabolic pathways including amino acid synthesis. (Mosby’s Medical, Nursing, and Allied Health Dictionary, 4th Edition) cause an electron build-up that is used to push positive hydrogen ions outward across the inner mitochondrial membrane. (Hickman, 1997, p.31) As the charge builds up it provides an electrical potential that releases its energy by causing a flow of hydrogen ions (see picture below) across the inner membrane of the mitochondria and into the inner chamber. This energy in turn causes an enzyme (ATP synthase) to be attached to ADP and produce a third phosphate, which attaches itself and viola, we have ATP again and it is ready to be recycled once more. This process happens over and over again every day. The more positive hydrogen ions there are, the more they repel each other obviously, and the more that they repel each other the more are forced out of the "revolving door" structure mounted (see bottom of picture) on the inner mitochondria membrane called "ATP synthase" complexes. This aforementioned enzyme reattaches the third phosphate.
This "revolving door" regulates the flow of hydrogen ions in order to recycle ADP into ATP so it can be re-used and the cycle repeated again. The return of nine hydrogen ions to the inner membrane is required for one revolution of the wheel. (Goodsell, 1996, p. 74) Every time this wheel turns ADP is recycled into ATP this wheel can turn up to 200 times a second, producing 600 ATPs in that short time frame. (The ATP synthase contains 3 active sites) At times more energy is needed and ATP releases two phosphates instead of one. How it reacts next might surprise you. Instead of somehow reattaching 2 phosphates to what is now AMP, a phosphate is transferred from another ATP to the AMP, producing two ADPs. The enzymes used in glycolysis, the citric acid cycle, and the electron transport system are designed to replace only one phosphate, not two. This is how that problem is solved. The enzyme adenylate kinase is what transfers a single phosphate from the ATP to the AMP. After that is accomplished the normal cycle can occur to transform ADP to ATP. This shows the staggering design and efficiency of ATP and its processes.Without ATP life would cease to exist. It either was fully functional from the start (which leaves a dilemma for the evolutionist) or somehow life survived without it. How it could have survived without it is beyond my capabilities. We know of no organism on this planet that survives without producing ATP. How could have ATP evolved since there would have had to been several intermediate stages? How did life survive before ATP was "perfected?" Only when ATP is fully functional does it serve its purpose. No functional intermediates exist, which should not surprise someone without a philosophical presupposition. Behe comments: "In addition, a potential ATP candidate molecule would not be selected for by evolution until it was functional and life could not exist without ATP or a similar molecule that would have the same function. ATP is an example of a molecule that displays irreducible complexity which cannot be simplified and still function." (Behe, 1996)
Prokaryotes and eukaryotes are so much more different it is hard for the evolutionists to hypothesize how a hypothetical prokaryote gradually evolved into a eukaryote. Their ATP production is vastly different and the gulf between the two is large. As Bergman says, "A crucial difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is the means they use to produce ATP. All life produces ATP by three basic chemical methods only: oxidative phosphorylation, photophosphorylation, and substrate-level phosphorylation (Lim, 1998, p. 149). In prokaryotes ATP is produced both in the cell wall and in the cytosol by glycolysis. In eukaryotes most ATP is produced in chloroplasts (for plants), or in mitochondria (for both plants and animals). No means of producing ATP exists that is intermediate between these four basic methods and no transitional forms have ever been found that bridge the gap between these four different forms of ATP production. The machinery required to manufacture ATP is so intricate that viruses are not able to make their own ATP. They require cells to manufacture it and viruses have no source of energy apart from cells." Here is an interesting enigma for evolutionists to explain. In eukaryotes the mitochondria (as we have gone over) produce the majority of the ATP, although anaerobic glycolysis (a process in which enzymes initiate a series of reactions in the cell that break down glucose and other sugars which in turn yield lactic or pyruvic acid, releasing energy in the form of ATP) does produce some. In plants the chloroplasts can also serve this same function. As we discussed earlier the mitochondria produce ATP in their internal membrane system called the cristae. This is where the evolutionist creates a great dilemma for himself. "Since bacteria lack mitochondria, as well as an internal membrane system, they must produce ATP in their cell membrane which they do by two basic steps. The bacterial cell membrane contains a unique structure designed to produce ATP and no comparable structure has been found in any eukaryotic cell." (Jensen, Wright, and Robinson, 1997).
Talk Origins has attempted to answer this claim and state that the Krebs cycle, which in turn was established via "pathways for amino acid biosynthesis", could synthesize ATP. As discussed over and over before Miller’s experiment falls well short and it is highly unlikely that amino acids would be produced in the first place. The reducing atmosphere holds no water as we should find methane stuck to ancient sedimentary clays but do not. Geologists find oxidized rocks as far down as they dig so the geological evidence gravitates against the reducing atmosphere. It was also stated in the aforementioned URL: "…evolution does not produce novelties from scratch: It works on what already exists. The most novel result of our analysis is seeing how, with minimal new material, evolution created the most important pathway of metabolism, achieving the best chemically possible design. In this case, a chemical engineer who was looking for the best design of the process could not have found a better design than the cycle which works in living cells." Excuse me but "the process could not have found a better design than the cycle which works in living cells?" Give me a break. No explanation is given of how these "living cells" got there but I guess we have to start somewhere right? How did the process continue before the Krebs cycle evolved? How did "what already exists" get there?
The cells in your body are definitely "irreducibly complex," complete with the endoplasmic reticulum (an extensive network of membrane-enclosed tubules in the cytoplasm of cells. This ultramicroscopic organelle is classified as granular or rough-surfaced when ribosomes are attached to the surface of the membrane and agranular or smooth-surfaced when ribosomes are absent. The structure functions in the synthesis of proteins and lipids and in the transport of these metabolites within the cell), golgi body (one of many small membranous structures found in most cells, composed of various elements associated with the formation of carbohydrate side chains of glycoproteins, mucopolysaccharides, and other substances. Saccules within each structure migrate through the cell membrane and release substances associated with external and internal secretion. How could a hypothetical intermediate cell survive without the Golgi body?), lysosomes (a cytoplasmic, membrane-bound particle that contains hydrolytic enzymes that function in intracellular digestive processes. The organelles are found in most cells but are particularly prominent in white blood cells and in the cells of the liver and kidney. If the hydrolytic enzymes are released into the cytoplasm, they cause self-digestion of the cell so that lysosomes may play an important part in certain self-destructive diseases characterized by the wasting of tissue, such as muscular dystrophy), and of course the nucleus (the "power plant" of the cell in which the chromosomes are contained and they in turn contain the "library" of the DNA of the organism. Every cell contains far more than the thirty-volume set of the encyclopedia Britannica. The nucleus is the "brain" of the cell and governs all cell activity). This begs yet another question, prokaryotes do not contain a nucleus, so how in the world did the cell "evolve" a nucleus in a step by Darwinian step fashion? I would like to see an evolutionist propose a hypothetical model (void of "just so" stories though) of how this vast gulf was crossed from pro to eukaryotes. As you can see the statement "the process could not have found a better design than the cycle which works in living cells" is just a way of weaseling out of a problem. ATP stands as irreducibly complex and another nail in the Darwinian coffin.
A true sensationalist indeed, Dr. Ken Miller has attempted (and failed) to discredit Behe’s claims of irreducible complexity. In his book Finding Darwin’s God, Miller has allegedly disproven the claim that Neo-Darwinian evolution cannot replace such "irreducibly complex" systems. Miller cites as one prime example the experiments of Dr. Barry Hall. Miller contends that Hall’s experiments have debunked Behe’s claims. Let’s see if it really has. Miller’s criteria for defeating Behe is to use "… the tools of molecular genetics to wipe out an existing multipart system and then see if evolution can come to the rescue with a system to replace it." (K. Miller, Finding Darwin’s God, p. 145) He then refers to Hall’s experiments with E. coli bacteria and states, "Think for a moment—if we were to happen upon the interlocking biochemical complexity of the reevolved lactose system, wouldn’t we be impressed by the intelligence of its design? Lactose triggers a regulatory sequence that switches on the synthesis of an enzyme that then metabolizes lactose itself. The products of that successful lactose metabolism then activate the gene for the lac permease, which ensures a steady supply of lactose entering the cell. Irreducible complexity. What good would the permease be without the galactosidase?… No good, of course. By the very same logic applied by Michael Behe to other systems, therefore, we could conclude that the system had been designed. Except we know that it was not designed. We know it evolved because we watched it happen right in the laboratory!" (Ibid, p. 146) In the mid seventies Hall produced a strain of E. coli bacteria and deleted only the ß-galactosidase gene of the lac operon. Hall comments, "All of the other functions for lactose metabolism, including lactose permease and the pathways for metabolism of glucose and galactose, the products of lactose hydrolysis, remain intact, thus re-acquisition of lactose utilization requires only the evolution of a new ß-galactosidase function. (Hall 1999) This gravitates against Miller’s own criteria for disproving Behe. Behe comments, "A critical caveat not mentioned by Kenneth Miller is that the mutants that were initially isolated would be unable to use lactose in the wild—they required the artificial inducer IPTG to be present in the growth medium. The reason is that a permease is required to bring lactose into the cell. However, ebg only has a ß-galactosidase activity, not a permease activity, so the experimental system had to rely on the pre-existing lac permease. Since the lac operon is repressed in the absence of either allolactose or IPTG, Hall decided to include the artificial inducer in all media up to this point so that the cells could grow. Thus the system was being artificially supported by intelligent intervention." Hall just reiterates that by saying "at this point it is important to discuss the use of IPTG (isopropylthiogalactoside) in these studies. Unless otherwise indicated IPTG is always included in the media containing lactose or other ß-galactoside sugars. The sole function of the IPTG is to induce synthesis of the lactose oermease, and thus to deliver lactose to the inside of the cell. Neither the constitutive nor the inducible evolved strains grew on lactose in the absence of IPTG." (Hall 1982b) There you have it. Neo-Darwinian evolution did not build up this system from scratch but if you ask Miller it did. Without IPTG being introduced (sounds like a "designer" helping the experiment out) the process would have failed right there. Irreducible complexity still stands.
Reason # 10: Human population growth: It is commonly testified by evolutionists and materialists alike that man, under the evolutionary scenario has been around for 3-3.5 million years. This I would say the Bible vehometly disagrees with. Add up the ages given in Adam’s genealogy and you come to a date of roughly 6,000 years. Although the Hebrew word "yalad" translated "begat" does not mean "fathered" (only to show lineage), man is still a recent creation. If you assumed that every name in Genesis 5 was the TENTH generation you could only extend man’s existence out to about 17,500 years. A blink in geological time. If every name was the tenth generation and 90 % of the genealogy is missing what is the point of a genealogy in the first place? Furthermore, we know that there are no gaps between Adam and Enoch. (Jude 14) Man is surely less than 10,000 years old. Now 3 million years and 10,000 are vastly different. Obviously, someone is wrong and someone is right. They both could be wrong but they can’t both be right.
Taking into account the world population figures, it is clear that man has been here a relatively short period of time and not 3 million years. (U.S. Bureau of the Census, International Database) In 1950 the world population was 2,556,053. In 1960 it was 3,039,451023 with a growth rate of 22 % over the last ten years. To conserve space the world population will follow the decade with the ten-year growth rate in parentheses. 1970: 3,706,618,163 (20.2) 1980: 4,453,831,714 (18.5) 1990: 5,278,639,789 (15.2) 2000: 6,082,966,429 (12.6) PROJECTED 2010: 6,848,932,929 (10.7) 2020: 7,584,821,144 (8.7) 2030: 8,246,619,341 (7.3) 2040: 8,850,045,889 (5.6) 2050: 9,346,399,468 As you can see the earth’s population has one common denominator, it is skyrocketing and by 2050 we will be closing in on 10 billion. It is estimated that the earth had a population of 1 billion in 1800. In less than 200 years the population increased six-fold. Between 1980 and 1990 the population increased by almost 800 million. It is plainly obvious that man has been around about 5,000 years (from the time of the Noachian Deluge). It seems very plausible that the entire human race descended from eight people off of Noah’s Ark.
Kenneth Fair of Talk Origins attempted to get around this by saying, "Some people would say that the Earth is overpopulated. Regardless, humans remedy overpopulation in the same four ways they always have: war, disease, starvation, and technology." There are glaring problems in that hypothesis. Despite all the wars that we have had, all the pestilences, starvation, abortions, the global population (see above) continues to skyrocket. With all the wars that we have had such as the Revolutionary War (25,000 casualties), Civil War (498,000), WW I (116,000), Korean War (54,000), Vietnam (58,000), WW II (407,000). There have also been over 40 million murders performed in abortion clinics in the U.S. We also have contraception today. Most of those casualties in those wars were young males in the reproductive prime of their lives. Granted we have a lot more technology today and man is living longer, but we also have extreme epidemics such as Aids, syphilis, and many other STD’s and many other diseases. It is very hard for the evolutionist to rationalize that man has been around 3 million years. Taking Mr. Fair’s comments literally, despite all the wars, starvation, diseases, and technology, the world population continues to skyrocket. Mr. Fair’s comments are erroneous.
Reason # 11: The famed Geological Column: It is widely acclaimed amongst evolutionists that the geological column is a fact and found everywhere in the world. The fact is, all ten "eras" are not found in order in but 1 % of the world. So they say that the 1 % overrides the 99 % that contradict it. Doesn’t make much sense to me. However, there are numerous examples that show that the "geologic column" to be nothing but utter fantasy. I will try to show three basic things here: Examples of 1) "Older" layers on top of "younger" layers. 2) Organisms that are either too old or too young for the rock strata that they are in 3) Organism with well-preserved soft parts, skin, collagen, etc in layers that are allegedly millions of years old or organisms that are allegedly millions of years extinct with soft parts, etc intact. Now let’s begin.
Evolutionists experience some sort of "enigma" when it comes to the so-called Cambrian explosion. Many of these organisms (brachiopods, mollusks, crustaceans, worms, sponges, trilobites, etc) leave no trace of ancestry. The Early Cambrian was supposed to have occurred 600 million years ago. However, spores and fragments of vascular (woody) plants have indeed been found in the Cambrian era. (S. Leclerq ("Evidence of Vascular Plants in the Cambrian," Evolution, Vol. 10, p. 109, June 1956; Daniel Axelrod ("Evolution of the Psilophyte Paleoflora," Evolution, Vol. 13, p. 264, June, 1959) It is now known that complex plants existed in the Cambrian (200 million years BEFORE these plants were alleged to have evolved). That just leaves the evolutionary scenario a little bit to be desired when we find more and more complex organisms in the Cambrian without them leaving a trace of ancestry.
The same problem can bee seen with Lystrosaurus, a "mammal-like" reptile found predominantly in Early Triassic rocks (245-234 MYA). This quite common fossil is used to date Early Triassic beds throughout much of the southern hemisphere. (Dingle, R.V. et al., Mesozoic and Tertiary Geology of Southern Africa. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, p. 26-27, 1983) However, it is now known that Lystrosaurus existed in the Later Permian (245-259 MYA) which pushes its existence back some 25 MYA (million years ago). Lystrosaurus was found in Late Permian rock in Zambia. (King, G.M. and Jenkins, I., The dicynodont Lystrosaurus from the Upper Permian of Zambia: evolutionary and stratigraphical implications, Paleontology 40(l): 149-156, 1997) There are several implications to this. Because it was in existence tens of millions of years before once thought, rocks containing Lystrosaurus can no longer be assumed as being Early Triassic and the mythical evolution of the reptile to the mammal (placed in sequence largely because of Lystrosaurus) is put under great duress. This imaginary chain of mammal-like reptiles and their transition to mammals will come crashing down as it becomes more and more apparent that these organisms lived contemporaneously. The more mammal-like reptiles that are found with less mammal-like reptilians will make the case of abrupt appearance more likely and the evolutionary scenario of gradualism less likely. The Permian-Triassic "boundary" is less and less clear because of this. (Ibid, 149, 153-154)
Another example would be the gastropod (A mollusk that has a head with eyes, a large flattened foot, and often a single shell. Limpets, snails, and slugs are types of gastropods) Parafusus. Supposedly confined to the Late Cretaceous (91-65 MYA) period, Parafusus has been found in large numbers in the Tertiary period (2-65 MYA) in northeastern Mexico. This pushes its existence up some 26 million years. Finds such as these and others just show that these animals lived contemporaneously. This provides problems for the gradualistic scenario. If they lived at the same time then that means that they could not have evolved. (Vega, F.J. and Perrilliat, M.C., Molluscan survivors of the K/T (Cretaceous-Tertiary) event in Paleocene strata at La Popa Basin, northeastern Mexico, Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 31(l): A-36, 1999) Keep in mind that if these animals are found in "later" and "earlier" layers that puts radiometric dating in jeopardy as well as the whole scenario of long periods of time that evolutionists are always yapping about. A question for evolutionists: If these animals became extinct in the periods in question as evolutionists commonly claim, then what are they doing found (sometimes in great abundance) in "later" and "earlier" layers when they were supposed to have already "evolved" and/or become extinct? It put the whole basis of their belief in question and since these periods are now known to have overlapped then evolution can be disqualified as a possible explanation of this and we must start looking elsewhere.
Vertebrate fish have now been found as early (Stearn, C.W. and Carroll, R.L., Paleontology: The Record of Life, p. 184, 1989; Shu, D., "Lower Cambrian vertebrates from south China," Nature 402(6757), p. 42, 1999) as the Early Ordovician (483-505 MYA) when they were supposed to have "evolved" sometime between the Middle Ordovician (483-461 MYA) and the Silurian (438-408 MYA). But it was also confirmed in 1999 that vertebrate fish fossils were found in EARLY CAMBRIAN (570-548 MYA) strata along with other multi-celled organisms. (Shu, D., "Lower Cambrian vertebrates from south China, Nature 402(6757), p. 42-46, 1999; Janvier, P., Catching the first fish, Nature 402(6757): 21–22, 1999) In the latter article the fossils that were discovered were described as "the most convincing Early Cambrian vertebrates ever found." That means that vertebrate fish existed well over 500 million years ago and they leave absolutely no trace of ancestry when we should find millions of them. The fact that they leave no trace proves that they did not evolve and therefore evolution is discarded. This is one of the earliest chains in the Darwinian scenario and if has no proof then that means that there is no proof elsewhere. It is like building a house without a foundation, it will not stand for long.
There are other finds, aptly described as "living fossils" that propose another problem for evolutionists. Graptolites (free-floating colonial animals that lived in oceans and seas. They floated throughout the world's oceans so their remains were widely distributed), which were supposed to become extinct in the Ordovician (505-438 MYA), have been found alive and well in the South Pacific. Graptolites are frequently used for identification of Devonian strata. If it used in that sense quite often and it is still alive and well then how accurate do you think the "dating" game really is? (Sue Rigby, "Graptolites Come to Life," Nature, vol. 362, March 18, 1993, p. 209-210)
Everyone knows about the infamous Coelacanth. The fish was supposedly extinct over 70 million years ago, but yet it was caught off of the coast of Madagascar. Evolutionists postulated that it used its deft fins for "walking" but when it was found all those hypotheses went down the drain.
The Tuatara, a lizard-like reptile, allegedly extinct 150 MYA during the Jurassic, have been found in several islands near New Zealand. Other "living fossils" include the Lepidocaris crustacean (found only in Devonian rocks), the Metasequoia conifer tree (thought extinct for the past 20 million years), the Neopilina mollusk (supposedly extinct for 280 million years), the lingula brachiopod (allegedly extinct since the Ordovician), and even the trilobite (chief index fossil of the even more ancient Cambrian Period). (Science Digest, "Living Fossil Resembles Long-Extinct Trilobite," vol. 42, December 1957, p. 59)
In New Scientist 1/20/84 there is a picture of a "400 MYO" shark. It’s skeletal make-up looks just like sharks alive today with little change. Why after 400 MY is the shark relatively unchanged? Volume 152 of National Geographic sports a picture of a 40 MYO (MYO=Million Years Old) grasshopper that looks identical to today’s grasshoppers. Maybe grasshopper’s circumvented the force of evolution? Ants and cockroaches have remained unchanged for the last 100 and 320 MY respectively. (National Geographic, Vol. 159)
In an e-mail exchange with Ken Harding of Talk Origins sometime ago I questioned him about the improbability of a 3-chamber 2-aorta heart (reptilian heart) evolving in a step-by-step process to a 4-chamber 1-aorta heart (mammalian heart). I asked him to give me any fossil proof of this and what an "intermediate" stage would look like. After all, evolution is a "fact" and this should be easy to prove. He failed to give any fossil evidence for this or what a hypothetical "intermediate" would look like. He simply used the worn out "I will side with the majority of the scientific community" argument. However, shortly thereafter he sent me this link. (That link is now broken, this one will suffice) He basically stated that this is proof. Actually, what Ken did was undermine his own argument. The heart was well enough preserved on this dino that scientists were able to discern that it had a 4-chamber 1-aorta heart. From that evidence it would seem that dinos might have been warm-blooded. (NOTE: That doesn’t unequivocally "prove" that they were indeed warm-blooded) However, modern reptiles are cold-blooded and the majority of them have a 3-chamber 2-aorta heart. It would be advantageous for a dino to be warm-blooded because then they would not be so slow and cumbersome. But to evolve to a status of being warm-blooded they would have to "evolve" a complex temperature control system because their body temperature must remain constant. So dinos MAY have been warm-blooded, then of course modern reptiles are cold-blooded, which makes no sense in the scenario, and then finally, mammals are warm-blooded. So the scenario goes from warm to cold-blooded, and then of course back to warm-blooded again. Natural selection would work for the preservation of the dinos being warm-blooded and would work against any process of the animal "evolving" to become cold-blooded.
This dino found in South Dakota at the aforementioned link is allegedly 66 million years old. There is no way that this dinosaur heart could have been preserved for 66 million years. Some may argue that organs when submerged in wet, oxygen-free environments they can be preserved for "eons." As I stated in my Fallacies of Evolution: 40 Reasons Evolution Didn’t Occur article (reason # 20), petrification and fossilization can and do occur rapidly. Of course this is observed, not hypothesized like the majority of evolutionary arguments. The evolutionist will ultimately say "nobody could live long enough to see if it can happen for millions of years" but that actually demolishes their own argument. You see for something to be a viable theory it has to be observable and falsifiable and the millions of years scenario is not observed and is not falsifiable, therefore it is not a theory, just a religious belief. Also as talked about in the aforementioned article is the fact that RNA bases, collagen, proteins, etc, don’t last millions of years so we can discard that also. Svante Paabo also stated that background microwave radiation alone would erase all traces of DNA in 50,000 years. (See Fallacies of Evolution: 40 Reasons Evolution Didn’t Occur, reason # 12) If DNA won’t last that long how can one think that a dino heart can last 66 million years? The fact is, that dino heart is much less than 50,000 years old. If it is less than 50,000 years old then that means that the dinosaurs did not die out 65 million years ago and they didn’t evolve into birds or anything else, which pretty much dismisses evolution. If anyone has ever been to South Dakota they will see how harsh that climate is and the impossibility of preservation for millions of years. Also as noted in reason # 12 was the fact that fish will decay relatively quick even in low-oxygen environments. So much for that argument.
It is now apparent from arguments of other scientists that this "heart" is just a "lump of mud." Click here or here (May 1, 2000 article) for more details. Dino/bird evolution just flew out the window. With numerous examples of soft parts of organisms that were to supposed to have lived millions of years ago, coupled with the fact that these parts would not survive millions of years it becomes obvious that the layers they are contained in as well as the animals are not millions of years old. Furthermore, as shown by Dr. Pierre Julien, a sedimentologist from Colorado State University, laminated strata can be deposited rapidly. It will also exhibit the features of dunes, bedding planes, etc. Coarse and fine particles will automatically separate out in the current. If laminated strata can be deposited rapidly as demonstrated by Dr. Julien, then that puts the uniformitarian scenario under great duress. If these layers were deposited over millions of years then we would not have good preservation of soft parts, muscle tissue, etc. Score another one for catastrophism and put another nail in the uniformitarian coffin. (Julien P, Lany, Berthault G., 1993, "Experiments on stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures," Bulletin of the Geological Society, France, 164-5, 649-660. Also see Berthault G. 1986, "Sedimentology—experiments on lamination of sediments," C.R. Acad. Sc. Paris, 303 II, 17, 1569-1574. Berthault G. 1988, "Sedimentation of heterogranular mixture—experimental lamination in still and running water," C.R. Acad. Sc. Paris, 306, II, 717-724; ICR, Impact no. 328)
I think that we have gone over enough cases of soft parts and flesh being intact in animals that are allegedly millions of years old as well as what is known as "stratigraphic extension." (An organism now proven to be in existence much earlier and/or later than once thought. See above sections this same reason) Now let’s focus on some geological unconformities (where an "older" layer of strata is found above a "younger" layer of strata).
Marvin Lubenow has an excellent section in his book Bones of Contention, entitled "The Dating Game" on the now dubious KBS Tuff (Africa) that was once thought to be 280 million years old. Although this isn’t an "unconformity" you will see the point. This was a "fact" for sure. Highly accurate radio-metric dating established this concretely, until a human skull was found just below it. You want to put humans at 280 million years? The evolutionist has a major problem. That would upset the precious "geological column" as well as the entire Darwinian fantasy of what evolved into what and when. Of course, as Brown demonstrates the entire column was reworked at that point to accommodate the human skull find. But I thought these dates were so accurate? Obviously not, and if that is true then why do people remain so gullible as to trust the rest of these "dates?" The truth is that only dates that correlate with the Darwinian scenario are accepted and all other "dates" are thrown out.
Walt Brown also has some interesting information concerning geological unconformities in his In the Beginning, which is available online.
There is the famous unconformity, the Lewis Overthrust in Montana and Alberta, including all of Glacier National Park. Talk Origins has attempted to answer the claim that the Lewis Overthrust is exactly that, an overthrust and not an unconformity. It is worth noting that the article on TO is very generalized and without even one reference. The author makes a good attempt but in the end drowns himself in a quagmire of generalization. The TO article says nothing about the possible presence of brecciation, splay thrusts, striations, basal tongues, rock powder, or striations which would bolster the evolutionists’ case for explaining this as an overthrust. Incredible rock strengths as well as enormous compressive forces must be generated to complete this feat. Furthermore, the permeability of the cap rock would have to be substantially low to provide a good seal against escaping water under the enormous pressure gradient that it is being subject to. ICR has demolished TO’s sketchy claim about the Lewis Overthrust. Walt Brown also has an article that is relevant to this topic. Click on the "technical ?’s" subsection of his online book.
As Henry Morris exhibits on p.71 of his revised and expanded book Science and the Bible, there are other geological unconformities that uniformitarians must deal with. In Tennessee and Georgia a great "fault" running for hundreds of miles consists of Cambrian deposits resting quite normally on Carboniferous. The whole Appalachian region consists of great thicknesses of Paleozoic rocks on top of much "younger" beds. In the Rockies there are the extensive Bannock, Heart Mountain, and other low-angle thrust faults. Much of the Swiss Alpine region, including the Matterhorn is in this upside-down position. The same is true of the Scottish Highlands and the mountains of India. One of the "displacements" in China has been followed for more than 500 miles! A similar area of 85,000 square miles is known in Scandinavia. Every part of the world yields other examples. This is by no means exhaustive but these examples and scores of others put the mythical "geological column" to rest.
Reason # 12: How old is the earth anyway: Some questions for evolutionists. If the earth is 4.57 billion years old then why is the oldest desert in the world (Sahara) only 4,000 years old? (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, 7/15/99, Geophysical Research Letters) If the earth were 4.57 billion years old shouldn’t we have an older desert somewhere? But the fact is that the earth is not billions of years old. It is kind of difficult to have a desert under a global flood.
It is commonly cited (and parroted) by many evolutionists that ice core drillings from Greenland exhibit over a hundred thousand "annual" rings, proving that the earth is old. A tragic blunder for science. The fact is that they forgot about the Lost Squadron. Bob Cardin (Kentucky) raised and is restoring one of the planes. These planes crash-landed in Greenland in 1942. They were underneath 263 feet of ice after only 48 years! Get your calculator going and you get an AVERAGE of 5 and one-half feet of ice per year! Seems to me from the EMPIRICAL (there is that dirty word again) evidence that these "annual" rings are not annual at all. Each ring is not summer-winter, it is simply freeze and thaw, many of which can happen in a year. From the observable evidence the long ages assigned to ice core drillings are very erroneous. But evolutionists continue to regurgitate this. It also becomes apparent that all the ice at the poles (app. 10,000 ft.) could have formed in 1,800-1,900 years. Bob Cardin will testify to the fact that there were many layers of ice on top of these planes. So much for that pathetic argument. (Creation Ex Nihilo, June-August, 1997, p. 10)
The Great Barrier Reef of Australia is the largest reef in the world but yet, from an extensive 20-year study, the reef was estimated at being less than 4,200 years old. I have a question. If the earth is billions of years old, then why don’t we have an older reef somewhere? The answer is that the earth isn’t billions of years old. That idea is pure fantasy. Scientists started studying the reef to see how fast it would grow back from the damage inflicted on it during WW II. (Creation Ex Nihilo, Volume 8 No.1, p.6)
How old do you think the oldest living part of the biosphere is? 25,000 years? 20,000 years? 15,000 years? The answer is 4,300 years. The bristle cone pine tree of California is the oldest living part of the biosphere. It has very little active tissue, but nonetheless some is active. (Allyn and Bacon, Biology, 1977, p.180) I have a question, if the earth is billions of years old, then why don’t we have an older tree somewhere? You get the point by now.
This article, a sequel to Fallacies of Evolution: 40 Reasons that Evolution Didn’t Occur, just shows some more of the numerous gaping holes in the evolutionary theory. I will close with a quote from Michael Denton: "Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century." I could not have said it better myself.
