Image result for blind leading the blind

Evolution will someday be shown to be the greatest hoax in the history of science.  It may be, as the title of Jonathan Sarfati’s book suggests, “The Greatest Hoax on Earth?”  He writes, describing pro-evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins, “Dawkins is much like his hero, Charles Darwin, who embellishes scientific observations with curious speculation to fit his own atheistic worldview.” (Note: for much more on this topic see my earlier blogs on “Differing with Dawkins”, “The Data in the Strata” and “Cambrian Explosion.)

Of course even many atheists will admit there have been numerous “hoaxes” such as Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Java man, Orce man, or Boule’s Neanderthal man.  Archeoraptor and Haeckel’s embryos were also proven fraudulent. Some evolutionary proponents will admit individual instances of a person here or there who “faked” a specimen.  A few might even acknowledge the clearly “embellished” and fanciful horse series, (which has been put forward for generations as “proof” of evolution, but is actually three different species of horses).

These are just a few examples, but this is bigger than a few dozen examples can explain.  It is a systematic, guided, planned, and intentional misleading of our youth.  It is what some call textbook fraud.  Evolutionists tolerate knowingly fraudulent pro-evolution evidence in school textbooks. New textbooks purchased by schools are filled with lies to promote evolution. School teachers and professors (at least some of them) know the material is fraudulent, but continue teach it. Materials persist in High School and University Textbooks that were exposed as fraud over 90 years ago! Everyone ignores this, because this fraudulent data is the best evidence for evolution that they have!

Evolution itself, the very idea, the inane proposition itself will someday be shown to be the greatest (and perhaps most destructive) hoax ever perpetrated on mankind.

How could such a thing have happened?  Well it is amazing just how far astray you can go with the blind leading the blind.  Jesus told his followers, “Stay away from those Pharisees! They are like blind people leading other blind people, and all of them will fall into a ditch.”  Psalm 14:1 also tells us “The fool has said in his heart there is no God.”  Unfortunately, for over a hundred years, our society has been lead by fools, blinded by their pride and arrogance. Atheistic scientists are fools by scriptural definition because they don’t believe in God.  They have moved to the forefront of social consciousness, becoming so influential on our campuses that we have entire generations of youth believing that the universe created itself out of nothing, and that life rose from a mud puddle to its current array of magnificent complexity.

Romans chapter one (NIV) in context shows parallels to today:

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

It is critical, for the sake of our youth, that a generation of scientists, teachers, pastors, and parents educate themselves on the fallacies of evolution and the Big bang.  Start from the beginning of this blog. Read my twice weekly posts starting back on July 23rd of this year.  EDUCATE YOURSELF.  Or Visit sites like the Creation Museum, or Answers in Genesis.  Join the movement. Share these blogs.  Save our kids.

The machine that built itself

silver metal round gears connected to each other
Photo by Flickr on Pexels.com

If God were small enough to be understood, He would not be big enough to be worshiped.”(1) Evelyn Underhill.

Secular scientists and institutions teach that the creation of life on earth was a random, accidental event.  Though such a thing defies all logic and probability, it is nevertheless taught as a supposed “scientific fact”.  In 1993, Michael Behe introduced the concept of irreducible complexity (IC), as a solid proof against evolution (2).  In a variety of manners secular writers have argued against (but never disproven) his initial arguments.  IC is unpopular, but its basic premise is logical, sound, and supportable.  It is in fact infinitely more probable and likely to be true than ANY version of evolution.  And Behe’s resarch is now being validated. Michael Eggnor notes that Behe’s research has contributed to recent Nobel prizes in Biochemistry, and he notes thatNo Nobel Prize has ever been awarded for Darwinian research, and there’s a reason for that. Darwinism denies purpose in biology, and denial of biological purpose is a catastrophic impediment to science.”(3) (This was true at the time it was written.  Further discussion will ensue on the 2018 Nobel Prize in Chemistry)

As science advances, we have found more, not less, evidences of the absolutely enormous complexity of living things. However the answer by secular scientists is always the same… “Evolution must have happened, we just don’t understand it yet”. And there is a certain beauty and elegance to this argument.  It assumes a  positive and growing body of human knowledge, and it assumes the eventual ability of mankind to overcome all obstacles to knowledge… even the knowledge of our very origins.  This, from a humanistic and scientific position, is very appealing. But as we can discuss later, it is also dangerous in its potential for unreasonable pride and arrogance about our limited human abilities. But the question is not whether it is appealing.  Is it true?

There are thousands of incomprehensibly complex systems at the cellular level. Complexity is a hallmark of the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, “Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.” [4]

Perhaps since the secular academic community has learned to pat itself on the back for mounting a few (albeit weak and insufficient) arguments to Behe’s theory of Irreducible Complexity, we should introduce another concept.  I will call it Absolutely  Incomprehensible Complexity.

You see, the entire idea that humanity can comprehend life or the cosmos is absurd. It is as ridiculous as a machine talking back to it’s maker.  The layers upon layers of complexity represented at every level by DNA, RNA, proteins, fats, glycogen, mitochondria, cell membranes, plasma, electrolytes, semipermeable membranes, and all the necessary substrates for life and growth are quite literally incomprehensible.  Every time biologists find an explanation for one thing, another layer of complexity is found. Science has not brought us closer to understanding the mystery of life.  Science just makes us much more aware of the mysteriousness of life.

When microbiologists and biochemists began to sequence proteins, they found that the proteins function was more from its shape than from its chemical content.  This discovery tell us that minor modifications (evolutionary steps) are virtually impossible in proteins. (Because  one could alter a protein’s shape tens of thousands of ways that make it dysfunctional or even lethal, before finding a single alteration that might have a “new and improved” function.)

Recently it has been discovered that the genetic code of DNA is almost a Rubik’s cube of complexity.  It is so complex that one area of DNA can code for more than one protein, or have multiple expressions.(5)  One cannot randomly alter one, or a few atoms via mutation, without having adverse effects on multiple biologic systems.  If a frog wanted to evolve into a lizard, each step forward could quite literally cause two or three steps backward!  Evolution, as always, cannot withstand the facts.  Life is not just Irreducibly Complex, it is Absolutely Incomprehensibly Complex.

And this is exactly  what we would expect from an infinite, omniscient, and omnipotent Creator God. As the Bible states in John 1: 3 “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.


(1) https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/14545-if-god-were-small-enough-to-be-understood-he-would

(2) Behe, Michael J. (1996). Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: Free PressISBN 0-684-82754-9LCCN 96000695OCLC 34150540.

(3) evolutionnews.org/2018/10/behes-irreducible-complexity-validated-by-chemistry-nobel/

(4)Michael Denton, “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,” 1986, p. 250.

(5) https://www.quora.com/How-can-one-gene-code-for-more-than-one-protein-and-how-is-that-process-regulated


Natural Sexlection

No, I am not dyslexic, and this is not a typo. Natural selection is totally dependent on sex. For in order to occur, natural selection needs two advanced (positively mutated) individuals to find one another and procreate. This topic has been discussed by many critics of evolution, and no satisfactory answer has been forwarded. If by some billions to one chance there occurred some form of genetic damage that resulted in a positive mutation (the impossibility of this is discussed elsewhere), then we arrive at another massive barrier to “advancement of the species”. For in all likelihood one of two things would occur. First, the two individuals may now be incompatible for mating (due to differences in DNA) and a damaged progeny or infertile condition arises. Second, the two mate but the genetic damage is erased by the scavenger RNA that monitors and corrects damaged DNA. In this case they remain exactly as before.

During DNA synthesis, DNA polymerases fix the majority of mispaired bases in a process called proofreading. If DNA gets damaged, it can be repaired by various mechanisms, including chemical reversal, excision repair, and double-stranded break repair. So in the event of damaged DNA the cell protects itself. The most likely reason for this mechanism is the prevention of cancer, for as many have stated, the vast, overwhelming majority of mutations are negative or destructive.

Many evolutionist sites will attempt to say that evolution does not occur in spite of sexual reproduction, it occurs because of sexual reproduction. This is false. When two members of the same species reproduce sexually, the product may appear different than either parent but it is still the same species. A cross between a Labrador and a Poodle is still a dog, just like its parents. A cross between an Irishman and an African is still a human. Mixing genetic material does NOT create new species. It does NOT create new genetic material.  It only mixes existing material differently. Those who call this evolution are either misled, or are intentionally misleading others.


Collossians 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

(See also blog on “Natural Selection is Magic”)

Evolution, God, and Probability

When evolutionary thinking was in its ascendancy, the arguments were often augmented with “anti-creation” factoids. One of the most common was “where did the universe come from?”  Another was “you can’t even explain where God came from!” Of course, if any creationist is honest and forthright, it seems impossible to “prove” creation or “prove” the existence of God. (Nor could any being on earth (created or evolved) ever be expected to understand or explain the origin of an almighty, ever-present, omniscient being such as God.)

This “where did God come from” argument seemed to blossom into a full-blown “anti-God movement” as society (and particularly the West) became ever more affluent and less dependent on God’s daily provision. There is something about living on a farm, or in the country, where you can see the summer rains come and watch the crops grow, that suggests a dependency on something higher. There is something about sunrises and sunsets, spring and fall, summertime and harvest, crickets and whippoorwills, that suggests we are not here by accident.

Nevertheless, at this time in history, in the fast-paced, fast food, fast internet 21st century, everyone fancies themselves a “scientist”. Everyone who has watched Star Trek or Star Wars fancies themselves an expert on black holes and quantum physics. We don’t need God. We have Science. We don’t need farms and rain, we can create our food in a lab. We don’t need marriage and monogamy. We can treat our STD’s with antibiotics and grow our babies in a test tube… if not now, in just a few years. We don’t want restrictions or responsibilities. We want freedom.

So if we are indeed scientists, and if we indeed believe in the power of the human mind to understand all things, we must believe all our scientific findings. Including those that do NOT support our presuppositions. Open-minded scientific inquiry is the basis of scientific advancement. Always. Foundationally. Except when it comes to evolution.

Evolutionists are quick to disallow the Law of Biogenesis (life only comes from life), proven by Louis Pasteur, stating it is only applicable today (not in the past). They will inevitably, when faced with the impossibility of their position (scientifically, biochemically, or statistically) resort to TIME as the explanation. TIME it seems can do the impossible. Life cannot come from non-life… unless you wait a really long TIME. Positive mutations are vastly outnumbered by neutral, negative, and lethal mutations, making evolution (of even ONE SINGLE organism) statistically impossible, unless you wait a really long TIME. The complexity of 3D folding proteins makes repeated sequential DNA point mutations incapable of advancing any organism with more and more complex features, unless, you guessed it… you wait a really long TIME. Time, it seems, can do anything.

There are just two areas that are absolutely out of bounds in modern institutes of higher learning. We are encouraged to study and advance virtually every possible area of inquiry except these two. We must keep our minds open to every possibility and aggressively pursue knowledge (with these two glaring exceptions.) We must not under any circumstances invoke the possibility of God, or a Creator, or a Higher power, and we must NEVER question the doctrine of evolution. We are our own gods. We created ourselves and raised ourselves up from the muck. We make our own rules. We bow to no one. Even when the evidence points to God, we cannot allow our minds to bend in that direction. God is anathema.

The trouble with this approach is it is unscientific. Even if you worship at the altar of the god of science, you will find the god of science pointing to a higher God. Take for example the writing of Julian Huxley, one of the most prominent evolutionists of the last century. He notes that at least a million positive mutations were required for the modern horse to evolve (although in reality, his understandably minuscule understanding of genomics and proteins resulted in a woefully gross under-estimation of this number of mutations, in reality, it is in the tens or hundreds of millions). Nevertheless, using this number he calculated the probability of a single cell to horse evolution to be “impossible” Of course he believed that Natural Selection was the answer (See prior post on Natural Selection). And thousands of “true believers” in evolution have done the same. For decades we have heard that although evolution would have been impossible otherwise… Natural Selection is the answer.

But can Natural Selection operate without mutation? No. It would still require single point DNA mutations (which it has been shown cannot bring about evolution). (See prior blog) What would it “select”? Those who attribute such power to natural selection understand neither natural selection nor mutations. Of course, for generations, scientists have been loath to admit that the ratio of positive to negative mutations is so astoundingly, infinitesimally small that this statistic alone should disallow evolution. But that is another topic entirely. In fact, negative, neutral, and lethal mutations are vastly more likely than positive mutations. Yet “science” believes in the process of evolution NOT because of the evidence, but IN SPITE of the evidence.

So much for an open-minded scientific approach. Even when all the scientific evidence says that the complexity of living systems could NEVER evolve by chance, that there are thousands of systems and proteins which are examples of irreducible complexity, and that life absolutely cannot evolve from non-life… our schools teach evolution.

As written by Brian Thomas, “Coded information in living things gives the full appearance of being purposefully programmed to resist just the kinds of DNA alterations that would harm organisms. Unfortunately for evolution, these are also just the kinds of DNA changes that would be required to turn microbes into man. Evolutionists have yet to find any realistic resolution to this problem, but for creationists it is no paradox at all. Instead, it is another cellular signature from the Creator.“(1)

Psalm 8:3-8  When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained; What is man that You take thought of him, And the son of man that You care for him? Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty!
2 Peter 3:5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God,

Vestigial Organs (Vestiges of Evolutionary Arguments)

nature walking animal strong
Photo by Gratisography on Pexels.com

For over a century evolutionists have argued that vestigial organs are proof of evolution. Using classic circular logic, they say an organ is vestigial because they believe we have “evolved’ past it and then they use the organ as “proof” of evolution. Of course many of their most touted example have since been found to be functional, but don’t expect to find formal retractions in the textbooks any time soon.

Take as an example, the human male nipple and breast. It is still listed on evolutionary websites as evidence of evolution. But in reality it is merely an example of sexual dimorphism. (In many species the male is readily identifiable as different from the female.) Do evolutionists actually believe that males are a separate species, or that males thousand of years ago used to nurse their young? No, certainly not. So even by their own definitions male nipples cannot be vestigial.  This is yet more evidence of the shallow thinking of evolutionists in this area.

Vestigial structures are NOT leftovers. They do NOT prove evolution. In fact over 150 structures in humans were once thought to be vestigial. Most are now known to be functional. It should be an embarrassment to evolutionists. The only thing vestigial structures have proven so far is the anatomical, physiological and embryological ignorance of evolutionary proponents.

At one time the tonsils, thymus, and appendix (and in some circles still…) were declared to be vestigial. Any modern day surgeon will tell you that they are not going to rush to take out these organs, as modern thinking has “evolved” (pardon the pun) into an understanding that only an emergency warrants removal. In fact, many are now recommending a trial of antibiotics rather than immediate appendectomy even for appendicitis!

Another important example of a so-called vestigial organ is the tailbone.  For probably a hundred years evolutionists claimed that the tailbone is a vestigial remnant, left over from the time when we were monkeys with tails.  However, I would challenge ANY evolutionist to voluntarily give up their tailbone.  It is a critical component of the pelvis.  Without it, our ability to lift heavy objects and control our bowels and bladder are impaired.  Without it, our pelvic floor would be greatly weakened.  In fact, it is critical in our sex life, due to the attachment of the pubococcygeus muscle.  Once again, the tailbone is not a vestige of a tail.  It is a critical part of our “modern” human anatomy!

One more thing evolutionary scientists cannot explain is why so many features that should have aided in our “survival of the fittest” have been lost during the evolutionary process. Thick skulls, brow ridges, the ability to digest cellulose, just to name a few. If evolution favors survival of the fittest, why have humans “evolved” with such frailties as thinner skulls and inability to digest cellulose, when our more robust predecessors had such obvious survival advantages. Why are we now subject to brain damage and starvation? Is this not evidence for survival of the weakest?

All the evidence from genome-sequencing projects shows that virtually all of an organism’s DNA is transcribed into RNA.  That means that even though most of that RNA is not translated into proteins, it performs essential regulatory functions. Science journals continue to publish articles describing more and more such functions. The evidence has been accumulating since scientists finished sequencing the human genome that “pseudogenes” and other so-called “junk DNA” sequences are not useless after all.(1) 

Finally, let me say in the way of a compliment, Darwin was no dummy. Even he knew he had a problem with vestigial organs. He wondered why, once an organ was useless it would continue to atrophy. What would make it do so? What process would cause the shrinkage? Anatomic changes require genetic changes over successive generations, and that means alterations in DNA. What possible explanation is there for genetic modifications that serve absolutely no function, like further shrinking an already atrophied organ? Darwin had no clue, and still today there is no explanation.


Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.


1. A few of the many scientific articles published since 2003 that document the function of so-called “junk” DNA are:

  • E.S Balakirev & F.J. Ayala, “Pseudogenes: are they ‘junk’ or functional DNA?” Annual Review of Genetics 37 (2003): 123-151.
  • A. Hüttenhofer, P. Schattner & N. Polacek, “Non-coding RNAs: hope or hype?” Trends in Genetics 21 (2005): 289-297.
  • J.S. Mattick & I.V. Makunin, “Non-coding RNA,” Human Molecular Genetics 15 (2006): R17-R29.
  • R.K. Slotkin & R. Martienssen, “Transposable elements and the epigenetic regulation of the genome,” Nature Reviews Genetics 8 (2007): 272-285.
  • P. Carninci, J. Yasuda & Y Hayashizaki, “Multifaceted mammalian transcriptome,” Current Opinion in Cell Biology 20 (2008): 274-80.
  • C.D. Malone & G.J. Hannon, “Small RNAs as Guardians of the Genome,” Cell 136 (2009): 656–668.
  • C.P. Ponting, P.L. Oliver & W. Reik, “Evolution and Functions of Long Noncoding RNAs,” Cell 136 (2009): 629–641.

Psalm 139:13  For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.

What is Natural Selection?


Fact. Natural Selection (NS) exists.

Fact.  NS does not, has not, and will never cause evolution.

In reality it has nothing to do with Evolution.  Natural selection is conservative (of genetic material) not creative. Natural selection can only increase or decrease the number of certain cats, dogs, moths, or bacteria in a larger population. It cannot alter, evolve, or morph them into different creatures. Scientifically studying natural selection will not lead to a conclusion of Darwinism or evolution being true. It is merely an observation which can be thought of as equally as supportive of a created world or an evolved world.

For decades, evolutionists and liberal educators have used the peppered moth as “proof” of evolution. Sewall Wright called it “a conspicuous evolutionary process”. But while the peppered moth does provide evidence of natural selection, it in no way supports evolution.

Creation and Evolution advocates can agree, the light colored phenotype (of the moth) may confer a survival advantage where light colors blend in, and the dark phenotype may be beneficial in a darker or more polluted environment. However, that is where the agreement (and the science) ends and the conjecture begins. The dark and light alleles may just as easily have been created or evolved, and neither side can scientifically prove (to the satisfaction of unbiased observers) that their side must be correct. But every scientist should readily agree that when the light phenotype becomes more prominent, NO NEW GENETIC MATERIAL is produced or created.

Isaiah 45:7 states, “The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.”

It should be noted that whatever you believe about evolution and the tree moth, the dark and light alleles have never changed or evolved. No new moth has been created, and no new color has been documented. Both colors have been present through all of the recorded history of the tree moth. Thus Natural Selection is NOT Evolution. Evolution requires a gradual change in the genetic material over time. Natural selection is simply a mechanism by which members of a population best suited to the environment may survive and pass on their genetic material. These are vastly different concepts.

Or as written by Biochemist John Marcus, “The key fact to note here is that natural selection simply cannot act unless there are functional, self-replicating molecules present to act on.”(1) NS does not create life, or create molecules, or create DNA.  NS simply allows one already created creature to thrive over another created creature. There is much more we will discuss about NS.  But for know just know this.

NS is real.  Evolution is not.


Job 12:7-9 “But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you; or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you. Who among all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this?
(1) John P. Marcus, in six days, New Leaf Publishing, 2017.

Evolution: Just the facts

Evolution is not plausible.  I am a practicing physician and I depend on science daily in the practice of medicine. Why would I not “believe science” and why would I trust instead in a “fairy tale” story from the Bible? Because facts matter.  Truth matters. And the facts are decidedly NOT on the side of evolution.

Evolution (by definition) requires increases in the complexity of the genetic code. Evolution as an explanation for life on earth as we know it would have required trillions of trillions of trillions of increases in the complexity of the genetic code. The massive information content of DNA could never have happened (evolved) by chance. As an example, a pinhead-sized amount of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4 gig hard drive. In fact “we would need only about 4 grams (about a teaspoon) of DNA to hold everything from Plato through the complete works of Shakespeare to Beyonce’s latest album (not to mention every brunch photo ever posted on Instagram”. (1)

Yet as of this writing there has not been one single example of any mutation at any time, in any living thing, that has increased or added to the complexity of the DNA. Not One! I have of course read many vague imprecise, pseudo-scientific articles on websites that claim the contrary. However their examples are usually at the macro level (living systems or organisms) and not at the molecular or genetic level, and their arguments are always “presumed”, not proven. We live in a society in which you can send off  a packet in the mail to find out about your genes (23 and me), yet all the scientists in the world cannot find ANY genetic proof of evolution!

On the factual side, a study by Axe and Ann Gauger showed that one of the very simplest “evolutionary” changes, the conversion of one enzyme to a closely related enzyme, would require seven simultaneous genetic changes.(2) This is so improbable that statisticians calculate the probability at less that one chance in a trillion trillion. Such an unlikely event has probably (statistically) not happened even once in the history of the earth. Yet for even the simplest example of evolution to be possible it would have of necessity happened countless times!  Or as explained by Dr John Baumgardner (Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics) the mere formation of a relatively short sequence of 200 amino acids to form a simple protein is 20 to the 100th power.  He explains that “this is a hundred billion times the upper bound we computed for the total number of molecules ever to exist  in the history of the cosmos.” (3)

Or for another example, the simplest free living organism is Mycoplasma genitalium.  It has 470 genes with 580,070 nucleotide base pairs. (4) The average protein molecule coded for by these genes contains about 347 amino acids.  The probability of forming just ONE such protein by random assembly is 1/10 to the 451st power.  The total number of atoms in the known universe is estimated to be 10 to the 80th power.  This is beyond improbable. It is statistically impossible.

Sites like TalkOrigins.org or NewScientist.com will obfuscate, and try to confuse the reader by changing the subject or the terms of the conversation. They will give examples like Trisomy (which involves transferring genetic material that already exists) or use code words like “increased genetic variation”or “creating diversity”, which have no relation to the question of an increasingly complex genome (they may result from, but cannot be the cause of such variation). The bottom line is that after over a hundred years of lab scientists radiating the poor, rapidly reproducing fruit fly, all we have is normal, dead, or deformed fruit flies. And after studying hundreds of thousands of generations of bacteria, not one evolutionary scientist has shown the addition of new genomic material.

Even Wikipedia admits that Biologists “used to believe” that evolution was progressive.(7) The claim of progressive evolution is scientifically absurd now in the age of genomics.  Genomics has shown, in fact, proven, that the supposed evolutionary Tree of Life cannot be real. It exists only on paper.  Scientists have rearranged it, diversified it, changed it, and even cut and pasted it to no avail.  The Tree of Life is dead.  Belief in evolution should have died with it.

  1. qz.com/345640/scientists-say-all-the-worlds-data-can-fit-on-a-dna-hard-drive-the-size-of-a-teaspoon/
  2. Casey Luskin, 2012, Can Random Mutations Create New complex Features? Evolution News and Science Today
  3. creation.com/john-r-baumgardner-geophysics-in-six-days
  4. http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/data/genomes/270-5235-397.pdf
  5. Casey Luskin, 2012, Can Random Mutations Create New complex Features? Evolution News and Science Today
  6. Dr. Gary Parker, Mutations, Yes; Evolution, No 3/28/2016
  7. Wikipedia, Evolution of Biological Complexity.
  8. Nüsslein-Volhard, C. and E. Wieschaus. 1980. Mutations affecting segment number and polarity in Drosophila. Nature. 287 (5785): 795-801.
  9. Barrick, J. E. et al. 2009. Genome evolution and adaptation in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli. Nature. 461 (7268): 1243- 1247
  10. Jacob Aron, 11 February 2015 Glassed in DNA makes the ultimate time capsule, New Scientist

Isaiah 66:2  “For My hand made all these things, Thus all these things came into being,” declares the LORD “But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.”