Darwin is Wrong: "Top Ten List"
Written by Dr. G. Charles Jackson
"The theory of evolution has no weaknesses." Prof. Kenneth Miller, of Brown University, author of "Finding Darwin's God"
Texas on evolution: Needs further study - Salon.com
1. Spontaneous Generation
"Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow of this simple experiment. No, there is now no circumstance known in which it can be affirmed that microscopic beings came into the world without germs, without parents similar to themselves." Louis Pasteur, addressing the French Academy of Science in the 19th century
""¦the how part has everyone stumped. Nobody knows how lifeless chemicals organized themselves into the first living cell." Paul Davies, quoted in article "Born Lucky" in New Scientist, 7/12/03, p32
"I think we have to admit that we're looking through a glass darkly here . . .
We don't know how life started on this planet. We don't know exactly when it started, we don't know under what circumstances. It's a mystery that we're going to chip at from several different directions." Andrew Knoll,Harvard paleobiologist, Fisher Professor of Natural History, Dept of Earth and Planetary Sciences, author of "Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billion Years of Life," interviewed 5/3/2004 on PBS NOVA
"The chemical steps that led to life on Earth remain a matter of intense speculation." An article "Geochemical Influences of Life's Origins and Evolution," Elements, (vol 1, June 2005), p151
In order for Darwin to be right, then the most solid law of biology would have to not be right—the Law of Biogenesis—often called "the cornerstone of modern biology."
2. Prokaryote to Eukaryote (said like "pro-care-ee-oat" and "you-care-ee-oat")
"Gradual accumulation of mutations is never the way eukaryotes evolve "¦ the Cambrian Explosion was caused by symbiosis—not mutation. All symbionts are new species." Prof. Lynn Margulis, U of Mass-Amherst, in a lecture at U of Cincinnati, 3/1/07
This is a "missing link" that is second only to the origin of life, in the nightmares of the evolution-believers. How did bacteria turn into cells hundreds of times bigger than them, which have things inside them like the nucleus and other organelles? There is a giant total blank in the evolution story right here. Evolutionists will tell you and teach you that mutations did it all—but there is no way to even imagine how mutations could ever create new and original genetic information that would be needed to make the jump from bacteria to cells like amoebas, and then on to creatures made of many such cells, like fish, lizards, and people.
3. Cambrian Explosion (said like "came-bree-in" explosion)
"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs"¦" Stephen Jay Gould, in his book, The Panda's Thumb (1980) p238-9
"As Darwin noted in the Origin of the Species, the abrupt emergence of arthropods in the fossil record during the Cambrian presents a problem for evolutionary biology." American Scientist, May/June 1997, p244
The Creation Model says that all life forms were created during the same week. The Evolution Model says it took three and a half billion years. What do we find in the deepest layers that contain fossils?—just bacteria. What do we find in the deepest muds today?—just bacteria. What do we find in the fossils just above the bacteria? We find representatives from every one of the Phyla (said "fye-lah"; singular Phylum) of living things, even the vertebrates. The sudden boundary-line of so many living things, with no "missing links" leading up to them, only goes along with the Creation Model—and only goes against the Evolution Model. The data says Darwin is wrong.
4. Missing Links
"The number of intermediate varieties, which must have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." Charles Darwin, "Origin on the Species" (1859)
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." Stephen J. Gould, in article "The Return of Hopeful Monsters," Natural History, (1977) 86(6): p22-30
"The evidence for the big transformations in evolution are not there in the fossil record. It's difficult to explore a billion-year-old fossil record. Be patient!" William Provine, biology professor at Cornell University, The Washington Post, May 15, 2005, p D6
Everyone has heard the term "missing link" so many times that we tend to forget what it really says to us. Fossils that could show the evolution of any one original kind of life into any one new kind of life are—missing! Evolution requires these "missing link" fossils to be real, for the theory to have any proof from the fossils. All arguing aside—there really aren't any that have ever been found. Darwin-followers have even quit trying to find the "missing links" for land plants and for all of the many kinds of insects.
5. Stasis of Living Things
"Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. ...The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution)." Stephen J. Gould, "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p15
Evolution-believers don't like to talk about this problem—so they usually don't mention stasis. The Creation Model says that all of the kinds of living things should stay pretty much the same, up until the time when they might go extinct and then just disappear forever. The Evolution Model says that all kinds of living things should constantly be changing! That's how worms turned into us, according to their theory. The ancient coelacanth fish (said like "see-luh-kanth") is just one example. Its fins have small bones in them. So, evolutionists thought those might have evolved into fingers by the time the coelacanth evolved into us. Then we found coelacanths alive in the Indian Ocean—and they look exactly like their fossils do! Sad and disappointed, evolutionists picked another fish-cousin of the coelacanth, to be our great grandfather. They forgot to think about one problem though. Why and how could evolution take one fish and turn it into dinosaurs, birds, rats, elephants, seagulls, turtles, whales, horses, and hummingbirds, and leave the coelacanth totally the same all through this same period of time? There is no answer—except that Darwin is wrong. As a matter of fact, all life forms on the growing list of "living fossils" cause this same contradiction for an evolutionist. These "living fossils" have never changed —never "evolved" at all—since the beginning of the world. And they are not rare. They are "overwhelmingly prevalent" in the fossil record. They are the rule, not the exception.
6. Ancient Biomolecules
"I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can't be. Red blood cells don't preserve." Mary H. Schweitzer, in an article, "Dinosaur Shocker" By Helen Fields
Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine
"I am quite aware that according to conventional wisdom and models of fossilization, these structures aren't supposed to be there, but there they are, and I was pretty shocked." Mary H. Schweitzer, evolutionary paleontologist at North Carolina State U, in Science, vol 307, no 5717, p1952-55, 3/25/2005
NOVA | T. Rex Blood?
""¦ it was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But of course I couldn't believe it"¦the bones after all are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?" from article "Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype," Science, July 9, 1993, p60
"Ohio State University geologists isolated the oldest complex organic compounds found in a fossil. They found the compounds in 350-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures known as crinoids."
Oldest Complex Organic Molecules Found in Ancient Fossils 10/23/2006
Here is another big problem for Darwin-believers. Scientists have discovered preserved bits of the original flesh, blood, and bone of forms of life that the Evolution Model says went extinct—way too long ago for these things to still be around without having petrified into rock first. Such molecules have been verified in the remains of Neanderthal humans, mammoths, moa birds, dinosaurs (t-rex, triceratops, maiasaur), and even creatures that the Evolution Model says should be five times older than the dinosaurs! Biological molecules like collagen, hemoglobin, and color pigments, should have been rotted away by now if the fossils really are very much older than the time of Noah's Flood (less than 4400 years ago). But they aren't—they're not millions of years old, and they're not decayed into dust. That's why they are still around to be discovered. Darwin is wrong about his whole time scale of things, which goes completely against the findings of science truth—and makes evolution a science-fantasy.
7. DNA fingerprinting for Adam & Eve
They ""¦looked at an international assortment of genes and picked up a trail of DNA that led them to a single (individual) woman from whom we are all descended." "We are finding that humans have very, very shallow genetic roots which go back very recently to one ancestor." Michael Hammer, University of Arizona, Newsweek, 1-11-1988
"That indicates that there was an origin in a specific location on the globe and then it spread out from there." U.S. News and World Report, 12-4-1995
"Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that 'mitochondrial Eve'—the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people—lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old. No one thinks that's the case"¦" Ann Gibbons, "Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock," Science, Jan. 2, 1998, page 28.
"By analyzing DNA from people in all regions of the world, Wells has concluded that all humans alive today are descended from a single man also known as Y-chromosomal Adam." Wells wrote the book The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey (2002).
Spencer Wells - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Darwin said we would find millions of monkey fossils showing how they all gradually evolved into humans. That's the Evolution Model. The Creation Model says the human race began with only two people (and hasn't changed much since). The science of DNA has now proven—all humans come from one man and one woman. Is that really a surprise? Biblical Creation is right!
8. Four Human Gene Pools
The evolutionist book and documentary mentioned above in #7 by Darwin-believer Spencer Wells, also contains the finding that all humans come from only one of four distinct gene pools. The significance of this has slipped past the evolutionists. It has not slipped past the creationists. Think about our ancestors. There was one time in the history of mankind when everybody was killed—all except for just eight humans. These were Noah's family—including his three sons and their wives. The Noah gene pool was on the Ark—plus the three extra family blood lines from the three wives. That makes four. DNA proves that the Biblical history of Noah's Ark is right.
Not only human DNA, but also goat and sheep DNA—all living goats are descended from five ancient females. All sheep come from four ancestral ewes (Science News, 10/14/06, p245). But didn't Noah take "two of every kind" on the Ark? No—not all. He took more of the "clean" animals. If all goats came from just one female, it might make the Ark history seem to be in question. If all came from twenty goats, then it could actually prove that Noah's Ark was just a fairy tale. But science truth verifies the claims of the Creation Model time and time again. So Bible-believers need not fear the newest scientific findings. Science truth is on our side! Science truth shows Darwin-believers are wrong. "They did not like to retain God in their knowledge." Romans 1:28
9. Phylogerontology (said like "fye-loh-jaron-tah-loh-jee")
The terms "geriatrics" or "gerontology" might sound familiar. They involve the study of old age. Phylogerontology is the study of the aging of family lines. In biology, this means the aging and the decaying of the DNA in any line of ancestors leading up to the living members of any kind of living thing existing today. The DNA of Adam & Eve was perfect. But since the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, decay has been happening. Not only did humans gradually begin to experience sickness and death, but the DNA of the entire human race soon began to become filled up with mutations—in the form of copy-mistakes in the DNA of every new generation. Since everyone has two versions of most of their chromosomes, we've all got a "spare" for most of our genes. So if one becomes non-functional because of the gradual buildup of mutations in the human genome, the other one can do the whole job alone. Since people in the same families will have more of the same mutations, it is not good to marry a close relative and have children with them. This is called "inbreeding." Until there were large numbers of bad mutations in the genome, inbreeding would not have been so much of a medical problem. In early Bible times, inbreeding was not forbidden until the time of Moses. Before that, Abraham married his half-sister Sarah. All of Adam & Eve's children married their brothers and sisters (or at least their nieces and nephews). It was not forbidden before Moses, and it would not have been medically dangerous yet, either. Now today, people cannot even marry their distant cousins without being in danger of expressing lethal mutations in their children. This would be true after only 600 generations. That's how many there have been in the 6000 years since Adam & Eve. According to the Evolution Model, there has been 200,000 years of time for humans to buildup bad mutations in their DNA—and over three billion years of us evolving and mutating from bacteria before that! None of our DNA should still be able to work if that was true. The wear-and-tear from mutations would have ruined it all by this time—if Darwin was right.
10. Information in DNA
"Information is information, neither matter nor energy. Any materialism that fails to take account of this will not survive one day." Norbert Weiner (1894-1964), MIT mathematician and the "Father of Modern Cybernetics"
"DNA is like a computer program, but far far more advanced than any software we've ever created." Bill Gates, in the book "The Road Ahead" (Boulder: Blue Penguin, 1996), p228
Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook: Dewolf, Meyer, and DeForrest
Most people have heard of DNA, and many know that it is a complex molecule found in our chromosomes, deep inside the nucleus of every cell in our bodies. It was a great breakthrough in science when we finally discovered the structure of the DNA molecule. It was an even greater breakthrough when we translated the code for the information storage system in DNA. These things are amazing. But there is something hundreds of times more impressive about the DNA molecules in the chromosomes of all living things—they contain information! The molecule and its code have been used to do a job "by someone"—to carry a message. That message contains instructions on how to make protein molecules and how to coordinate their manufacture throughout the life-stages of all of the living things known to man. It is against all of the known principles of information science that these instructions might have happened all by themselves, and by accident. That is impossible. That is illogical. This is perhaps the most scientifically important proof of all of the Top Ten that—Darwin is wrong.
