Click and drag photo to resize.
Many Christians take evolution as a given which can not be challenged and is not worth bothering with. The facile response that God could have worked his ways through evolution or any way he pleased is totally thoughtless.
It goes against the core of Christianity, Judaism and even Islam. All religious people who hold the Bible as a sacred book and who follow its precepts know that God is the source of life.
Evolution denies this.
Some evolutionists will deny that they do not go so far as to say that life started from inanimate matter, but this is nonsense.
Evolution’s purpose is to explain all life in materialistic terms and if it were to admit that God’s intervention was necessary to start the whole process, it could not deny His intervention afterwards.
Evolution’s attack on religion goes straight to the core of religious beliefs. If man just evolved from lower species, if he is just one more mutation in the long chain of evolution, then what makes man special?
If God did not intervene in man’s creation, then where did the soul come from? Is there a gene in man which created the soul?
If man is just an advanced mutation, he can not have a soul, he can not have the gift of everlasting life which is what religion teaches us. Evolution is therefore the enemy of everything that religion teaches us.
Evolution, in spite of what it has been claiming for some 150 years has never had a scientific basis for it. It has always been a mixture of conjecture, phony evidence and bad science.
Rather than advancing scientific knowledge, evolution has been a detriment to science, especially because the evolutionists, have gone far beyond the possible claims of evolution to establish a completely materialistic view of life.
Evolution says essentially that the variation in each species is the result of natural selection. Beneficial traits in individuals are spread throughout the species by interbreeding.
Those individuals who can make better use of the limited resources of their environment will reproduce more successfully and have more offspring. Thus the traits that enhance the survival of the species and its flourishing will be passed on to succeeding generations, those traits which are detrimental will not.
In this manner, which Darwin called natural selection or the survival of the fittest, species overcome their environment in the struggle for life.
In addition, according to Darwin, by mounting numerous small changes one upon another, a species, not only adapts to the environment, but it remakes itself with enhanced capabilities which originally were not part of the species and which after enough changes have occurred turn it into a new species.
As can be seen from the above, evolution can not account for the beginning of life on earth because where there is no life there can be no evolution. This seems pretty obvious, but evolutionists, nevertheless try to expand their materialistic view to the beginning of life.
Many scientists with the tremendous tools which science has at hand and with the knowledge of what they are seeking to produce have tried to create life in a laboratory. These modern day Frankensteins have failed miserably.
The most basic components of life are amino acids. Twenty of them are used in the formation of the proteins that make up all life. These scientists have not been able to synthetically produce even these 20 amino acids in the lab.
Without this, the creation of the proteins, the biological systems and the cells which are the basis of life is impossible. They are not even close. Even with full knowledge of what needs to be done - which is in itself 99% of the task - they can not produce a single living cell.
New genes cannot be created from old genes. Each gene in a living organism already has a purpose. A mutation changing an existing gene to a new purpose would destroy the individual. In fact natural selection prevents the creation of new genes.
Natural selection, by selecting the traits already in the species which fit the individuals best to the environment, continually enhances the existing genes with the traits that will help the species survive. Creating a new gene out of an old gene will take away an already existing capability of the species, it will detract from the species and make it less successful.
Evolutionists may say that this new gene will eventually result in enhanced abilities which will make the species far more successful than it is. However, as Darwin himself admitted:
While these small steps are taking place, the species would be less fit. These small steps must take numerous generations to achieve success. Therefore, by its own terms, natural selection can not account for new genes and new genes are essential for the development of new species.
"Why should not Nature have taken a leap from structure to structure? On the theory of natural selection, we can clearly understand why she should not; for natural selection can act only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a leap, but must advance by the shortest and slowest steps."
From here on, I will call the development of new traits in existing genes micro-evolution and the creation of new genes macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is the source for the adaptability of species. Through small mutations in one of the pair of genes each individual possesses, new traits can be developed without destroying the functioning of the individual.
Such traits as coloring, shape, and height can be very useful in some circumstances and can be there ready to be used when necessary. However, each gene does a distinct job, and it can not just be thrown out and used as a laboratory for a new species.
In fact we know that the creation of new genes is indeed necessary for more advanced species. A fruit fly for example has only about half as many genes as a human being, some 15,000 fewer genes.
So how could so many new genes have arisen in order to create new species? The evolutionists would wish us to believe it comes about through the accidental duplication of existing genes and that this extra gene becomes the ‘ laboratory’ for macro-evolution. There is scientific proof that genes are accidentally duplicated.
However, there are a few problems with this theory. We must remember from basic genetics that genes come in pairs, and that half of those genes are passed to the next generation. Since this gene is not a part of the species, the mate will not have this extra gene and the chances of this extra gene being passed to the next generation are just 1 in 4.
Unless this gene is extremely lucky (let’s remember, it is just a copy of an existing gene with no purpose at all yet) it will likely disappear if not in the first generation within 2 or 3 more generations.
There are even more problems to be encountered though even if this gene somehow manages to spread itself throughout the species and survives to be able to mutate into something else. As we may remember, this gene is a copy of an existing gene. Now genes are not all the same, they can perform different tasks because they have different characteristics. They are composed of different amino acids and also have different lengths.
Length is a problem for creating new genes out of old genes. Genes vary in length from less than 100 amino acid residues to over 1000. At the end of each gene there is a stop marker that says, this is the end of the gene, there is no more to be had. Therefore this gene could only create a new one of the exact same length.
Since macro-evolution requires completely new capabilities to be created, this is a serious limitation on the capacity of duplicated genes to create something completely new. This however is not the end of the problems for macro-evolution.
What does it take to create a successful gene? Let’s take one example - DNA Polymerase III. This is the main gene involved in DNA replication in one celled organisms. This gene is made up of seven sections each 300 to over 1000 amino acids long. Now what are the odds of through random mutation such a gene arising?
Let’s see we would need a chain some 2000 amino acids long with the proper amino acid (one of 20) in each link.
Now the chances of this occurring, even if we were to agree that there can be some amino acid substitution at each position, let’s say one of any 5 could fit in each one and still be effective (this is very optimistic and gives lower odds than in reality) the odds would still be 4 to the 2000th power.
That yields a number larger than a 1 with some 1500 zeros behind it. An evolutionist would say given enough generations and enough individuals, such a thing could happen. The answer is an absolute no.
In a species that replicated on a daily basis for the last 3.5 billion years since life is supposed to have begun on earth there would have been 1,277,500,000,000 generations. That takes care of 12 zeros, we still need to get rid of 1488.
Let’s say there was a large population of these creatures, let’s say there were a trillion trillion of these species (is that generous enough?) . Now a trillion is 12 zeros times another trillion is 24 zeros. So now we have only 1464 zeros to go!
To some this may not sound impossible, but science defines as impossible an event which would take a 1 with some 100 zeros behind it. So scientifically, this new gene is totally impossible. Evolutionists like to say that evolution would cut the odds, because it could “fix” an amino acid that through random mutation landed in the right spot.
This is the theory of one of the most popular hacks of evolution, Richard Dawkins. Problem with saying that is that evolution can not “fix” a gene until it has successfully achieved an improvement.
Since the gene has not been completed yet, since it has not achieved its purpose (in this case the replication of the cell) the gene is at all the intermediate points just plain junk DNA. Even worse, perhaps it is totally inimical of the individual and it may kill it.
So Dawkins’s solution to the problem is total nonsense. In fact the odds are much worse than stated above. DNA Polymerase III is just one of three genes required for cell replication, without the other two it is useless. So the odds are actually much greater than stated.
Many of our systems require more than one gene working together to achieve a necessary function. This increases the odds of a new function arising to totally impossible odds.
Now, let’s go back to the beginning. Back to the beginning of life, where even evolution did not exist. Where there were no plants or animals to feed on. Where there were no genes to copy because there were not any to begin with. Where there was not a single living thing around to lend a hand. Where there was only rocks and minerals.
How to get food for this new life? Well, the only known way for obtaining food by living organisms on earth aside from plants and animals is from the sun through photosynthesis - a very complicated process requiring numerous genes working together. Then we need meiosis to replicate the cell, of which our friend Polymerase III is only one of the requirements.
The simplest cell also requires a membrane to hold itself together and allow for the taking of nourishment and excretion of wastes. It also needs a digestive system and a system for turning food into energy. Of course all this had to happen all at once through completely random chance.
As Darwin said in the Origin of the Species page 154:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
It should be clear by now that there is no natural way a cell could have arisen in the first place. It seems that the systems in living species could not have arisen through evolution when even one gene is a totally impossible improbability. So the only rational conclusion to be derived of the origin of life and the many wonderful species in it is: IT’S A MIRACLE.