New in last 6 months
Visionary/Revival & Personal
Various
Bible Prophecy

 

 

 

THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF EVOLUTION

- New Edition 2006 -

by Jacques More


What is evolution?
It is an idea known as a theory that all biological life came from simpler biological ancestors over a long time: by chance molecules came together to begin biological life and these living entities went on to develop and change into all the life forms known today. Of course, I am referring to the overall ‘theory’ from beginning to end including abiogenesis: how life began from matter: All part and parcel of the general implied belief of evolution. Evolution is taught in schools, books, films, etc and is attributed as scientific fact. Nothing could be further from the truth.


Irreducible Complexity makes evolution an impossibility
The thing about life is that no matter how small or simple, it needs food to survive. So that not only does a being need to be there, but its food.


Now this life needs a mechanism in place for its food to be ingested. So to live there needs to be the food, the means to ingest this food, as well as the being.


Now this food's purpose is to provide energy for this life or material from which to allow growth. So that there needs to be a mechanism in place - a digestive system [or a conversion system: for single cell life-forms] - to convert this food into energy or useful building material. So there is food, this being, this 'in-gestive' mechanism and this digestive or conversion mechanism.


To grow or reproduce, since this is a facet of all life, this digested material then needs to be ordered in a manner to replicate part or all of the living being. So there is the food, the being's body (it's physical outer limits), its 'in-gestive' system, its digestive system and its reproductive system.


Now for a reproductive system to function there needs to be information internally contained to indicate the order in which the building blocks obtained from the food can be put together. So we have food, a being's body, its 'in-gestive' system, its digestive system, its reproductive system and its information system.


I could go on... The point is that any life form requires all of these things to exist and to function from the moment it exists to survive. Any missing part and it dies. These are scientifically observed facts.


It is thereby incongruous to suggest evolution from non-life into life is a reasonable theory or belief. It is impossible. Everything needs to be in place from the beginning. There are so many irreducible complexity combinations within living organisms let alone eco-systems all over the world, that it is a wonder these are ignored. Whether it is the sonar systems of dolphins, the blood circulatory system of a giraffe, the blood clotting mechanism itself or, a multitude of others, the analogy holds that the working watch found on the sandy deserted beach indicates not just that it was designed by an intelligent mind, nor just that it was put together by intricate means and capabilities, but also that it belongs to someone. Irreducible complexity makes evolution an impossibility.


Probability makes evolution an impossibility
What about the likelihood that there is any real possibility that the basic materials for life came together by chance over a very long period of time? What is the chance of that?


Evolutionists believe that 15 billion years is an abundance of time for random interaction of atoms and molecules to generate life (forget the question of where the atoms came from). A simple arithmetic lesson shows this amount of time and the probability of this event to be not just an irrational fantasy, but impossible.


What is probability?
It is the mathematical term for working out the odds of something happening. In a pack of 52 playing cards the probability of picking an ace, since there are 4 aces, is 1 in 13. The 4 actual aces is the maximum probable number of cards and 52 is the maximum number of possible picks from the pack. 4 in 52 is the same as 1 in 13 since 52 divided by 4 = 13.


Evolutionists say that the beginnings of biological life occurred out of the matter existing in the universe by chance. Since all biological life have cells as the smallest complete living part and the smallest known living entities are single cell life forms, let's look at the probability of one part of such a cell coming into being out of all the matter in the universe within the time frame of evolutionary thinking. As mentioned, let's forget where the matter came from. Let's just look at the probability.


A molecule is a combination of atoms which are chemically bonded together. It is the smallest particle of a substance that can exist by itself. All life consists of protein molecules and these comprise of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and often sulphur: All part of the amino acids which act as the building blocks of proteins. The most primitive form of life - a single cell life form - requires a minimal set of 1000 protein molecules.


Dr John R Baumgardner of the Los Alamos National Laboratory1 gives the following figures for the maximum possible unique molecules to have ever been formed. This compares with the number 52 of our deck of playing cards as the total possible number of picks which I gave as an initial example.


To know the maximum number of unique molecules what is needed is the total number of atoms which make up molecules, the number of interactions between atoms to form a molecule and, finally, the length of time assumed for the existence of the universe. I mentioned the latter as 15 billion years - as a figure often mentioned by evolutionists - Dr Baumgardner has opted for a generous doubling of that time:


Taking 1080as a generous upper bound for the total number of atoms in the cosmos,2 1012 for a generous upper bound for the average number of inter-atomic interactions per second per atom, and 1018 seconds (roughly 30 billion years) as an upper bound for the [evolutionists'] age of the universe3, we then get 10110 as a very generous upper limit on the total number of interactions which could have ever occurred during the long cosmic history the evolutionist imagines. Now if we make the extremely generous assumption that each inter-atomic interaction always produces a unique molecule, then we conclude that no more than 10110 unique molecules could have ever existed in the universe during its entire history.

The symbols and figures used mean as follows. Instead of writing 100 or 10 X 10, 102 is given to mean 100. So 1,000 is shown by 103 and so on. So that 1080 (as the first quantity) means 1 with 80 zeros behind it (if 1 million is 1,000 X 1,000 [103 X 103 = 106] and 1 billion is 1,000 X 1 million [= 109]), then 1080 is One hundred, million, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion).


I introduced that the most primitive form of life requires a minimal set of 1000 protein molecules with the prior explanation of what amino acids are. Here Dr Baumgardner continues:


To simplify the problem dramatically, suppose somehow we already have found 999 of the 1000 different proteins required and we need only to search for that magic sequence of amino acids which gives us that last [one] special protein. Let us restrict our consideration to the specific set of 20 amino acids found in living systems and ignore the hundred or so that are not. Let us ignore the fact that only those with left-handed symmetry appear in life proteins. Let us also ignore the incredibly unfavourable chemical reaction kinetics [the immediate hostile setting] involved in forming long peptide chains in any sort of plausible non-living chemical environment. . . For a relatively short protein consisting of 200 amino acids, the number of random trials needed for a reasonable likelihood of hitting a useful sequence is then in the order of 20100 (100 amino acid sites with 20 possible candidates at each site), or about 10130 trials. [BUT] This is a hundred billion billion times the upper bound we computed for the total number of molecules ever to exist in the history of the cosmos!! No random process could [therefore] ever hope to find even one such protein structure, much less the full set of roughly 1000 needed in the simplest forms of life. It is therefore sheer irrationality for a person to believe random chemical interactions could ever identify a viable set of functional proteins out of the truly staggering number of candidate possibilities. . . In the face of such stunningly unfavourable odds, how could any scientist with any sense of honesty appeal to chance interactions as the explanation for the complexity we observe in living systems? To do so, with conscious awareness of these numbers, in my opinion represents a serious breach of scientific integrity.


The number of probable candidates far exceeds the number of possible candidates by 1020. With the example of our pack of cards it is like the cards we wanted was a minus figure which does not exist at all!


This is just one example of many relating to mathematical probability. An area of science which governs insurance in the commercial world and determines the premiums people pay for cover. The odds here would not produce a backer in the real world. Probability makes evolution an impossibility.
Not just here on earth but anywhere in the universe.


The length of time for earth's existence makes evolution an impossibility
I have wondered about which example to give to best demonstrate the age of the earth in terms of thousands of years rather than millions. However the evolutionist common teaching found of 4.5 billion years only requires me to show an age of a few million years based on current available scientific data to show the nonsense of the common evolutionist timetable.

The evolutionary timetable goes something like this (just a quick broad view)

15,000 million years - the beginning of the universe

4,600 million years - formation of earth

3,800 million years - earth crust solidifies

3,500 to 2,800 million years - single cell organisms develop

1,500 to 600 million years - multi cell organisms develop

545 million years - hard bodied organisms

500 to 450 million years - first fish

420 million years - first land animals

350 to 300 million years - rise of the amphibians

250 million years - dinosaurs appear

200 million years - appearance of mammals

65 million years - age of dinosaurs ends

20 to 12 million years - chimpanzees and hominids develop

1.6 million years to present - Homo series develops


For any of this to be true for the 'evolution' of water organisms to land organisms then the land areas and the mountain ranges that make up the significant mass of land above sea level need to have been around for at least hundreds of millions of years. Since land needs to be there for land creatures to exist. Now the tallest mountain range on earth is the Himalayas with Mount Everest (Chomolangma in Tibet and Sagamartha in Nepal) as the tallest at 8,850 metres: 8.85 km (29,035 feet).


The current observed erosion rate of this range of mountains is "height - 2-4 km (or more) of rock is removed from the surface of the Himalayas every 1 million years"4. So taking 3 km per million years as a reasonable rate from this, there will be no mountains there in 3 million years time: 3 km X 3 million years = 9 km erosion of more than the present height of the world's tallest mountain range.


My 1st edition of this article contained this sentence:
This erosion rate has taken into account the uplift of the mountains due to the continents colliding with each other on their tectonic plates: the plates that are understood to carry the major land masses as the surface of the earth.


I have since discovered that I misread my research and correspondence and the uplift mentioned is not taken into account. This influences things fractionally. My ongoing argument is unchanged. Any uplift is already in part covered by my doubling the possible original height in any possible prior history, but even if that were to be - say - doubled again, would there still be time with the erosion rate for the alleged 'evolutionary' events? As you will see, a definite no.


Of course we do not know how high Everest was when it was at its tallest in history, but in line with common sense, it is like the hot mug of tea discovered in the kitchen. The current temperature can be measured as well as the ambient temperature in the room, so we can observe how quick it is cooling down. But we do not know how long the tea has been in the mug since we do not know the temperature of the water when it was filled. But we know that water cannot be hotter than 100 degrees centigrade in its liquid state. So that there is a limit to how far back you can suggest the water was poured: hours at the most not days. This is similar with Mount Everest and the surrounding mountains. There is a limited amount of material to make up the mountains. So for argument's sake, let us assume the possibility that the mountains at their highest were twice their current height. This still means then that it is less than 10 million years ago that they were that height to reach now their current height through erosion: (8.85 km X 2) - (9+ km of erosion) = 9 million years. It is inconceivable therefore to suggest the land masses were around hundreds of millions of years ago: Especially with the distinct possibility that the height has never been twice (no deposits sufficient to suggest that) and the erosion rates were also possibly far greater in its earlier history (plenty of signs of that e.g. the Grand Canyon). So that here is empirical scientific data to indicate the age of the land masses above sea level as not significantly older than 10 million years. Remember the evolution dogma requires land animals to have begun 420 million years ago.


However by radiometric dating techniques the earth is said to be millions of years old by the examination and testing of rocks or fossils. But radiometric dating methods are flawed by their inherent un-provable assumptions within the calculating formulas, and time and again when checked against known historical data have proved to be in error. I challenge any serious media organisation - so things can be in the 'open' - to obtain rocks from Mount Vesuvius, Krakatau and Mount St Helens, all of which are volcanoes with historically recorded eruptions, and sending these to labs of their choice (without mentioning their source of course), and then not see that the figures returned will be in the millions of years as opposed to the actual fraction known. Such things have already been demonstrated.


In starting this section I mentioned that I was wondering which example to highlight as a means of demonstrating that the earth is young. A few other pointers to a young earth are as follows: comets disintegrate too quickly since there should be none if they and the solar system are as old as predicted by evolutionists, yet they are still here. There is not enough mud on the sea floor which is a parallel issue to the erosion of the mountains. There is not enough sodium (salt) in the sea. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast. Many strata are too tightly bent [the whole topic of (the) Flood Geology better explains this]. Helium is in the wrong places due to the natural radioactive decay of various rocks. And others still. So in this section we see that the age of land and the earth thereby is inconsistent with evolution and makes evolution as taught an impossibility.


The mechanics of the biological genes of life make evolution an impossibility
The information contained in the DNA of every cell determines the order in which new cells are formed and their function. This is the information system I was referring to in my irreducible complexity argument. Evolution is also defined as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. An allele is an inherited gene. This is instantly recognised as untrue in terms of the fact that evolution is taught universally as an increase in the changes of alleles in a population thus adapting that population to suit the world better wherein it lives: new information is required for new mechanisms to be formed in any living population of a biological life. The change therefore is of an increase in DNA encoding in the gene pool.


But, there is no case of empirical scientific evidence where genes in any particular population have ever been observed to have an increase in new information thus producing a new species.

Yes, there are mergers of genes of 2 life forms observed to make up a third, but there is no new information here, but a mixture of information already existing in the 2 separate life forms. Also in the case of so-called super resistant bugs, the changes that occur are not due to new information, but a loss of old information. For if a drug or antibiotic acted as a sieve to inhibit the passage of a bug, then if the bug loses its ability to grow to its normal size - a loss of information - then it becomes able to go through the holes of the sieve it once did not: Thus making that drug ineffective. No new information is in its gene pool, but a loss. It has not become 'better' in a particular environment by new information, but by loss of it.


This is observed in the many attempts to produce better strains of corn or other vegetation by breeding. Over many years, the resistance to disease and other assets of the plant are lost due to interbreeding and therefore older stock and source of plants are sought out to obtain information lost due to generations of breeding. There never was any new information, but re-arrangements in the gene pool and instead a loss of assets previously unrecognised. This is so in all breeding and testifies to the mechanics of genes and DNA information storage demonstrating the impossibility of evolution.


To summarise the above:

Irreducible complexity makes evolution an impossibility

Probability makes evolution an impossibility

The age of the mountains make evolution an impossibility

The mechanics of genes makes evolution an impossibility


The dinosaurs
Often when the issue of a young earth is discussed or that evolution is untrue, a question is asked about the dinosaurs. What is not so well known but is well documented is the evidence for man having co-existed with dinosaurs.


A plesiosaurus is said to be 180 million years old. But on the 10th April 1977 the Japanese ship the Zuiyo Maru caught one in its fishing net and they photographed it and took samples from it. In inauguration of this event later that year a Japanese postage stamp was printed depicting a plesiosaurus.


The Paluxi river bed in Texas has been a great source of footprints of dinosaurs encased in stone. But on the same strata has been found human footprints in cretaceous rock.


There are cave drawings of dinosaurs, one of the earliest discovered in 1879 by E.L Doheny was of a dinosaur in the Grand Canyon and documented by a scientific expedition in 1924 with Dr Charles W. Gilmore curator of the Vertebrate Palaeontology U.S. National Museum.


There are thousands of clay figurines of animals made by the pre-classical Chupicauro Indians in Mexico (800BC to 200AD) and about 1 in 14 of these are of dinosaurs all found at Acambaro, Guanajuato, Mexico.


Peru stone drawings of Triceratops, Stegosaurus, Pterosaurs, etc. as well as tapestry depictions of dinosaurs interacting with men have been found in burial sites of the ancient Nasca culture of Peru many of which are now in the museum at Nica, Peru. These were first discovered by the Spanish 16th century expeditions and documented. But dinosaurs were not known then as a type of animal - the name was coined in the 19th century - so the importance of the find not understood.


So there is ample evidence to show that man and dinosaurs co-existed. I wrote to the Natural History Museum, London last year and was told the age of a dinosaur is known from the age of the strata in which the bones are dug up. But, later in the correspondence I was then told that "[a strata's age] is characterised by their associated fossils in sedimentary rock". Strange how the fossil's age is determined by the strata's assumed age which in turn is recognised by the type of fossil found in it! Do you know of a better example of circular (and false) reasoning? Built upon an assumed factual position that this time 'must' be great for evolution 'must be' true. Are you happy to go on hearing this repeated un-scientific falsehood? I'm not.


The light and stars
The other question that often crops up is if the universe is so young, then how come the light from the stars has taken millions of years to get here? This is a good question since we know the speed of light and though experiment has enabled scientists to slow light down it has not been observed to go faster. Indeed it is claimed to be the fastest travelling entity in the universe, except of course that gravity is observed as operating faster. But I am side-tracking now... If the earth and the heavens were made in six days as explicit in the bible,


For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day . . .

Exodus 20:11


And, if as the genealogies in the bible indicate all this occurred less than 10,000 years ago then, the distance of the stars and the time the light takes to get here would indicate this is not so, at first glance. One solution to this has been to say that God made the light from the stars as well as the stars so far away. This implies that God wrote a history of what we see out there and equally suggests that He is then hiding the truth about the stars and what we see coming from them. What we see is false and never happened in this scenario.


However the bible says much more about this aspect of creation. It mentions that God is He "Who stretch out the heavens like a curtain" (Psalm 104:2).


Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out . . .

Isaiah 42:5

(See also Isaiah 44:24 and 45:12)


In this view then we find God not only made the stars and positioned them as if the heavens were a curtain all folded up and thus very close to the earth, and our seeing them was the light emitting from them. The sun's light takes 7 minutes to reach the earth. It may be these stars and their light took several hours to reach earth but this was on the day they were created. Here-after the Lord is described as stretching out the heavens like a curtain. With everything in place but then distanced to their later homes as witnessed by the light reaching earth today. What we then see actually happened, but it is not millions of years ago but at a fraction of that due to the stretching out of outer space, 'the heavens'.



Credit

I wish to give credit to the many books and research I have read in preparation for this article. Many over the years, but in particular here is the quotes from In six days: why 50 scientists choose to believe in Creation edited by John F Ashton PhD and published by New Holland Publishers (Sydney - Auckland - London - Cape Town): Copyright © John F Ashton, 1999 used by kind permission of the publisher obtained 1st march 2004. The book is a collection of 50 essays from scientists with a PhD. And here from this book I wish to make my final quote:


The doctrine of evolution is popular, but I estimate that in the United States [alone] there are probably more than 25,000 scientists who reject the evolutionary doctrine that all living organisms are related. 5


Of course, although the number of these learned scientists is not insignificant (and growing) they represent a fraction of the overall 'scientific community'. However where they differ significantly is in the fact that they can say they have seriously looked at the evidence for evolution and found it wanting and, like Galileo of old having looked and looked again, are not prepared to follow the pack. Can all the other scientists honestly say they have looked for themselves?


For further reading I recommend my article Great Scientists and Creation, a look at Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and (William Thomson) Lord Kelvin's words on the matter: Definite believers in creation.



Notes
1Dr John R Baumgardner's words are taken from his chapter in the book In six days - Pages 207-208.

2C.W. Allen, Astrophysical Quantities, 3rd ed., University of London, Athlone Press, 1973, p.293; M. Fukugita, C.J. Hogan and P.J.E. Peebles, 'The Cosmic Baryon Budget'. Astrophysical Journal, 503 (1998), 518-30.

3H.P. Yockey, 'A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory', Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67 (1978) 3778-398; Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge University Press, 1992.

4Information taken from the University of Santa Barbara's web site: article entitled Himalaya erosion found uniform by Gail Gallessich quoting work done by Dr Ann Blythe of the University of Southern California who confirmed to me by e-mail 24th February 2004 (from which I make my quote) this was 2-4 km (or more) of height per million years.

5Dr Wayne Frair, Professor Emeritus of Biology at King's College, Tuxedo, New York, In six days. Page 315.


VISIT TO 10 DOWNING STREET


Ref. M.022

Unless otherwise stated Bible quotes are from the New King James Version

© copyright Thomas Nelson Inc. 1979,1980,1982.

© copyright Jacques More 2004, 2006. All Rights Reserved.

· The Early Church Fathers and Predestination
· The Impossibility of Evolution
· Harry Potter - The Catalyst
· Wolf in Sheep's Clothing?
· The Characteristics of Deception
· What About Tithing?