The Evolution Theory
Evolutionists have failed in every endeavor to prove that
evolution or evolutionary processes could have taken place.
By Muneeb Baig, (Grade 10)
Posted: 15 Safar 1423, 28 April 2002
The modern theory of evolution was developed by Charles Darwin,
an amateur English naturalist, in the 19th century. He proposed that all of the millions
of species of organisms present today, including humans, evolved slowly over billions of
years, from a common ancestor by way of natural selection. This idea said that the
individuals best adapted to their habitat passed on their traits to their offspring. Over
time these advantageous qualities accumulated and transformed the individual into a
species entirely different from its ancestors (e.g. birds from reptiles, whales from
bears, humans from apes, etc).
The Evolutionist Perspective on the History of Earth
According to the theory of evolution, earth was formed 4.6
billion years ago. Its atmosphere probably contained little free oxygen, but a lot of
water vapor and other gases, such as carbon dioxide and nitrogen, and was extremely hot.
By 3.9 billion years ago, earth cooled enough for water vapor to condense, allowing
millions of years of rain that formed earth's oceans.
The Origin of Life
In the 1930s, a Russian scientist, Alexander Oparin,
hypothesized that life began in the oceans on early earth between 3.9 to 3.5 billion years
ago. He suggested that first, simple organic molecules containing carbon formed. Energy
from the sun, lightning, and earth's heat triggered chemical reactions to produce small
organic molecules from substances present in the atmosphere. These molecules were
organized by chance into complex organic molecules such as proteins, carbohydrates, and
nucleic acids that are essential to life.
The Formation of Amino Acids – Miller's Experiment
Attempting to prove Oparin's hypothesis, two American
scientists, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey, carried out an experiment in which they
attempted to simulate early earth conditions according to evolutionists. They mixed water
vapor with ammonia, methane, and hydrogen gases. They then sent an electric current that
simulated lightning through the mixture. Then they cooled the mixture of gases, producing
a liquid that simulated rain. After a week, they collected the liquid in a flask and
analyzed the chemicals therein. They found that three amino acids (amino acids constitute
the basic elements of proteins, which are the building blocks of living cells) were
synthesized.
This experiment aroused great excitement among evolutionists at
that time and was claimed as proof for Oparin's hypothesis. However, there were serious
problems with Miller's experiment.
Most of the products of the experiment were right-handed amino
acids. Amino acids are right-handed or left-handed. (The difference between them is the
mirror-symmetry between their three-dimensional structures, which is similar to that of a
person's right or left hands.) Only left-handed amino acids are suitable for life.
Proteins with right-handed amino acids are useless.
In addition, Miller's experiment did not reflect the primordial
conditions on earth. Miller used a mechanism called a "cold trap" by which he
isolated the amino acids from the environment as soon as they were formed. Had he not done
so, the amino acids would have been destroyed by the conditions of their environment.
Later, Miller could not even form one amino acid without using the cold trap mechanism.
The gases that Miller used also were not realistic. Instead of
using nitrogen and carbon dioxide, which scientists believe were present in the early
atmosphere, he used methane and ammonia. Without ammonia it was impossible to synthesize
the amino acids.
Proteins cannot form in the oceans because the
reaction in which two amino acids bond together releases a water molecule. According to
the Le Châtelier Principle, it is not possible for a reaction that releases water to take
place in a hydrate environment. |
Kevin Mc Kean tells about this in an article published in
Discover magazine: "Miller and Urey imitated the ancient atmosphere of earth with a
mixture of methane and ammonia. According to them, the earth was a true homogeneous
mixture of metal, rock and ice. However in the latest studies, it is understood that the
earth was very hot at those times and that it was composed of melted nickel and iron.
Therefore, the chemical atmosphere of that time should have been formed mostly of nitrogen
(N2), carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H2O). However these are not as appropriate as
methane and ammonia for the production of organic molecules."
Miller also left out oxygen, because the presence of oxygen
would make formation of amino acids impossible. However, research has shown that the early
atmosphere did contain oxygen as proved by traces of oxidized iron and uranium in rocks
estimated to be 3.5 billion years old. Note that, on the other hand, if oxygen was not
present, life still could not have formed because of intense ultraviolet radiation that
would have killed any molecules that happened to form by chance.
The Formation of Proteins – Sydney Fox's Experiment
Though Miller's experiment in no way proved how amino acids
formed on early earth, evolutionists still refer to it as an answer as to how amino acids
formed on earth. Evolutionists faced an even greater problem in explaining the next stage
in the beginning of life: the combining of hundreds of amino acids in the correct order to
form proteins.
Proteins cannot form in the oceans because the reaction in which
two amino acids bond together releases a water molecule. According to the Le Châtelier
Principle, it is not possible for a reaction that releases water to take place in a
hydrate environment. Because of this problem, an American scientist, Sydney Fox, suggested
that the first amino acids might have been dragged to some cliffs near a volcano right
after their formation. Then the amino acids would have been dried when the temperature
rose over the boiling point, after which they could have joined to form proteins (though
research has shown that amino acids cannot endure such high temperatures).
Sydney Fox tried to prove his hypothesis by carrying out an
experiment in which he combined purified amino acids in the laboratory by heating them in
a dry environment. Though the amino acids combined, no proteins were obtained and the
protocells formed were nothing but useless and disordered loops of amino acids combined
together.
In the article "Chemical Origin of Cells" (June 22,
1970) in the magazine Chemical Engineering News Sydney Fox's experiment was mentioned as
follows:
Neither could they produce a single useful
amino acid or protein, nor could they prove – despite thousands of experiments –
that mutations can have beneficial effects and cause evolution. |
Sydney Fox and the other researchers managed to unite the amino
acids in the shape of 'proteinoids' by using very special heating techniques under
conditions which in fact did not exist at all in the primordial stages of the earth. Also,
they are not at all similar to the very regular proteins present in living things. They
are nothing but useless, irregular stains. It was expressed that even if such molecules
had formed in the early ages, they would definitely be destroyed.
These experiments showed that not only proteins could not have
formed under the primordial conditions, but also amino acids could not have formed.
Formation of Cells
According to evolutionists, the organic compounds evolved into
the first true cells, which evolved into more complex cells, (some of which began
photosynthesis and produced the oxygen and ozone present in the atmosphere).
Modern technology has allowed humans to discover some aspects of
the cell. What was thought to be a murky lump during the time of Darwin has been
discovered to be an unimaginably complex system. In the cell, there are power stations,
complex factories, a huge data bank (with data enough to fill a 900-volume encyclopedia),
storage systems, advanced refineries, and complex transportation systems.
As W. H. Thorpe commented, "The most elementary type of
cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up,
let alone constructed, by man."
The Process of Evolution
According to evolutionists, the early cells evolved into the
millions of species of organisms that have ever lived.
In the process of evolution, a change, called a mutation, in the
genetic code of an organism occurs because of radiation, chemicals, or a chance event.
This change is then either kept or removed by natural selection. If the organism survives,
it passes its traits on to its offspring. Over time, these changes accumulate in the
population and another species evolves, which is totally different from its ancestors.
However, scientists have questioned this explanation for the
variety of organisms on earth. Professor E. W. Bride wrote in "Nature":
'Natural Selection' affords no explanation…of any…form
of evolution. It means nothing more than 'the survivors survive.' Why do certain
individuals survive? Because they are the fittest. How do we know they are the fittest?
Because they survive.
Neither natural selection nor mutations introduce any new
genetic data into the organism's DNA. Natural selection only selects out the disfigured,
weak, or unfit individuals of a population. It cannot produce new species, new genetic
information, or new organs and thus cannot make anything evolve.
Mutations have never been observed to have any useful effect
despite thousands of experiments. Just as earthquakes bring destruction to a city, so do
mutations bring harm to an organism.
The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver wrote in Genetic
Effects of Atomic Radiation:
How can a good effect - evolution to higher
forms of life - result from mutations practically all of which are harmful? |
Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all
known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of
evolution. How can a good effect - evolution to higher forms of life - result from
mutations practically all of which are harmful?
In addition, mutations add no new data to the organism's DNA.
They only cause data to be torn from their places and destroyed or moved to new places.
They cannot make an organism acquire a new organ.
Even if a mutation occurs in an organism, it has to occur in the
reproductive cells of the organism. For example, a human eye altered by the effects of
radiation or other causes will not be passed onto subsequent generations.
The Fossil Record
The lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record is a
challenge for the evolution theory. According to the theory of evolution, every living
species has sprung from a predecessor. Small, gradual changes over millions of years have
transformed previously existing species into new ones.
If this is the case, then numerous intermediary species must
have lived and left behind fossils. In fact, the number of fossils of intermediary species
should be greater than that of remains of present species of animals. For instance, many
half-fish/half-reptile or half-ape/half-human fossils should have been found. Yet, more
than 140 years of searching has not even revealed one transitional species. In contrast to
evolutionists' claims, life has always appeared suddenly and fully formed in the fossil
record.
A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, writes in
"The Nature of the Fossil Record" even though he is an evolutionist:
The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in
detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not
gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.
Another evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki comments in
his book "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade" as follows:
A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil
record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the earth's geological formations.
This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants -
instead species appear and disappear abruptly…
Evidences for Evolution
Bacteria's Immunity to Antibiotics
One commonly cited evidence for evolution is the development of
resistance in bacteria against antibiotics. Fifty years ago, penicillin killed many types
of disease-causing bacteria. However, it is not that effective today. The development of
resistance against antibiotics is supposedly direct evidence for evolution.
However, this is not the case. Before the development of
penicillin, some bacteria species were already resistant. Many were not. After penicillin
was used against the bacteria, the non-resistant bacteria were killed. The resistant
bacteria survived and reproduced to produce more resistant bacteria. The population
increase of resistant bacteria is not evolution. A new species of bacteria did not evolve.
The bacteria are still the same species as they were before. What happened was only a
weeding out of non-resistant bacteria.
The magazine Scientific American has to say the following in its
March 1998 issue: "Many bacteria possessed resistance genes even before commercial
antibiotics came into use."
Homologous Structures
Another "evidence" for evolution is homologous
structures. Homologous structures are structures that are similar in arrangement or
function. Evolutionary biologists view homologous structures as evidence that organisms
with similar structures evolved from a common ancestor.
However, this idea is only based on apparent physical
resemblance. Homologous structures are found in creatures of completely different species
among which evolutionists have not been able to establish any evolutionary relationship.
In addition to birds, we find wings on bats (which are mammals) and insects. These
organisms have no evolutionary relationship among each other. Similarly, the octopus and
man have similar eyes, though they have no evolutionary relationship.
Though homologous structures should be coded with similar DNA
codes, we find that in most cases the genetic coding is quite different. Furthermore,
similar genetic codes in the DNAs of different creatures are often associated with
completely different organs. Michael Denton, an Australian professor of biochemistry,
describes in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis the genetic impasse of the
evolutionist interpretation of homology: "Homologous structures are often specified
by non-homologous genetic systems."
Also, the development of homologous structures in the egg or
mother's womb should parallel one another. However, embryological development of
homologous structures is completely different in every living species.
Vestigial Structures
Vestigial structures, as defined by evolutionists, are body
structures that have no function in a present-day organism but were probably useful to an
ancestor. Evolutionists say that these structures are evidence for evolution as they show
structural change over time.
However, S.R. Scadding, an evolutionist himself, wrote in his
article titled "Can vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?"
published in the magazine Evolutionary Theory
Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless
structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I
conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.
In 1895, the German Anatomist R. Wiedersheim, made a list of
vestigial structures in humans that included approximately 100 organs. As science
progressed, it was discovered that each of the organs in the list had important functions
in the body.
For instance, it was discovered that the appendix is in fact a
lymphoid organ that fought against infections in he body. It was discovered, among others,
that tonsils have a significant role in protecting the throat against infections,
particularly until adolescence; that the thymus sparks the immune system by activating T
cells; that the thyroid gland is effective in providing steady growth in babies and
children; and that the pituitary gland controlled the correct functioning of many hormone
glands.
There is another problem with vestigial structures. Though they
are supposed to have been inherited from their ancestors, some of these structures are not
even found in the living species claimed to be the ancestors of human beings! The
appendix, for instance, does not exist in some ape species that are said to be the
ancestors of man.
Embryology
Another argument of evolutionists is that the embryos (the
earliest stage of growth and development of both plants and animals) of fish, reptiles,
birds, and mammals are very similar and thus are evidence that they evolved from a
distant, common, ancestor. They claim that all have gill slits and tails in their embryos.
However, the similarities are just based on appearance. Research
has shown that the "gills" in the humans are in fact the initial phases of the
middle-ear canal, parathyroid, and thymus. The "tail" is in fact the backbone,
which resembles a tail only because it takes shape before the legs do.
Conclusion
As more discoveries are made, scientists learn more about the
complexity of all living systems. Each new discovery refutes the theory of evolution ever
more and shows the great design of the Creator Who has created everything from nothing.
Modern technology has allowed humans to
discover some aspects of the cell. What was thought to be a murky lump during the time of
Darwin has been discovered to be an unimaginably complex system. |
Evolutionists have failed in every endeavor to prove that
evolution or evolutionary processes could have taken place. Neither could they produce a
single useful amino acid or protein, nor could they prove – despite thousands of
experiments – that mutations can have beneficial effects and cause evolution. In fact
they have proved that God's design is perfect and that mutations only have negative
effects.
The lack of evidence for the theory in the fossil record or
anywhere else other than superficial "similarities" in organisms shows that the
theory has no solid scientific basis.
This theory functions more like an ideology, as Sir Arthur Keith
admits in the forward to the 100th anniversary edition of Darwin's book, Origin of Species
in 1959: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only
alternative is special creation which is unthinkable."
A great deal of time and energy has been wasted on attempting to
prove this fallacious theory and denying the existence of God. Science must be liberated
from this unprovable fairy tale for grownups.
Further Reading
Science