- The fossil record does not support Evolution. All over the world we find massive fossil graveyards. A hundred years ago these were thought to be evidence of evolution. However in over a century, no evolutionist has any explanation for the graveyards. Why are they found where they are found? What caused them? (When creatures (plant, animal, or human) die today, what happens to them? They may be eaten, or they may rot or decompose. They do not form fossils.) What is required for fossilization? Rapid burial in an environment free of oxygen is the most common, central mechanism. If there is oxygen, the presence of bacteria and other organisms will rapidly cause the organism to decompose. “Fossils are formed in a number of different ways, but most are formed when a plant or animal dies in a watery environment and is buried in mud and silt. Soft tissues quickly decompose leaving the hard bones or shells behind. Over time sediment builds over the top and hardens into rock.” (A) (This sounds suspiciously like a massive global flood precipitated by plate tectonics.)
Not only this, but the fossil record also shows the abrupt appearance of all sorts of animals and plants at the same time. The geological strata do not support gradual evolution. Archaeologists have almost universally agreed that life seemed to appear suddenly, more or less all at once, not gradually as predicted by evolution. This is euphemistically named the “Pre-Cambrian Explosion”. But an explosion of life, with many life forms appearing all at once is much more consistent with Creation than with evolution! As written by Casey Luskin, “ID predicts irreducibly complexity. Because irreducibly complex structures require all of their parts to function, they cannot arise in a gradual, step-by-step manner. If many characteristics of life are irreducibly complex, then ID leads us to expect that the fossil record will exhibit a pattern of abrupt appearance of novel, fully functional body plans that do not develop in a gradual, step-by-step fashion. This is precisely what we typically find in the fossil record.” (1) So in point of fact, the fossil record actually supports CREATION.
2. Molecular biology has completely failed to demonstrate Darwin’s “Tree of Life”. Remember that diagram you have seen in dozens of textbooks, some sort of “tree” or branched diagram allegedly illustrating the “inter-connectedness of all species”… It doesn’t exist in anywhere nature. In fact genetics show that species far distant on the “tree of life” often have more DNA similarities than species that appear to be closely related. Nowhere in the real world have scientists found evidence that the species actually evolved, or are evolving, one from another. And genomics has virtually destroyed any possibility that such a tree could exist by showing patterns of genetic changes completely inconsistent with any known evolutionary paths. If evolution were true it should have EASILY been proven by molecular biology and genetics. Instead the opposite is true! How do evolutionists explain this? They don’t. They merely say “Although they’re great for establishing the common origins of life, features like having DNA or carrying out transcription and translation are not so useful for figuring out how related particular organisms are. If we want to determine which organisms in a group are most closely related, we need to use different types of molecular features, such as the nucleotide sequences of genes.” (B) This is not science. This is a cop-out. Such testing (molecular biology and DNA) is of paramount importance, but to admit this would destroy the credibility of the evolutionists argument!
3. The Fossil record does not support gradual evolution. There are no proven transitional fossils. (There there should be countless billions of transitional fossils if evolution were true.) As stated in Wikipedia, “More than 99% of all species of life forms, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct. Some estimates on the number of Earth’s current species of life forms range from 10 million to 14 million, of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86 percent have not yet been described.”(2) Yet of all these millions of living and extinct species, none have been proven to be transitional! Of all the tens of millions of fossils ever found, less than 0.1 percent can be claimed in any way (even by rabid evolutionists) to represent transitional fossils, yet if evolution were true that number should be nearly 50%!
4. There is no evidence of current evolution. Why is this important? Because of the vast number of mutations that would be required between species. Since apes are only about 85% similar to Humans, it would require TENS OF MILLIONS of genetic changes in a short period of time. The rate of evolution required to transition from apes to man would have required extremely frequent changes (several positive mutations every year) in order to evolve in just a few million years. Yet in hundreds of years, no one has ever seen any current signs of evolution! And of course, this does not even account for the fact that negative mutations VASTLY outnumber any possible positive mutations, and would thus damage the species at a rate a thousand times faster than it advances!
How do the evolutionists explain this? Authors at the Genomic project write in Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: Searching for needles in a haystack, “Because of the many limitations mentioned above, we will have to arrive at many of our conclusions by considering all of the facts in aggregate, including some circumstantial evidence. In the final analysis, the best long-term approach to understanding human-chimpanzee differences is to ensure that the next generation of biologists interested in the evolution of the human phenotype is a cross-trained and collaborative one, with an interdisciplinary focus. Interactions among a great many disciplines, such as genomics, biochemistry, physiology, neurobiology, cognitive science, medicine, pathology, anthropology, ecology, primatology, and evolutionary biology, will be essential in dissecting out the key genetic features that contribute to making us human.“(C) In other words, they have no answers, but they hope someday that some future evolutionists will find an answer.
(5) Evolution cannot explain the origin of life. The law of abiogenesis states life cannot create itself.(3) This law has never been disproven. Evolution could never have occurred because life could never have begun. Even the most primitive forms of self-replicating life are incomprehensibly complex. The idea of a “primordial chemical soup” which is transformed into a living cell so completely unscientific it is laughable. (4) A single living cell is more complicated in its chemical and electrical engineering processes, as well as its manufacturing processes than the most advanced, largest city on earth! The idea of a simple self-replicating organism is preposterous. I CAN UNEQUIVOCALLY STATE THAT THERE IS NO SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD WHO HAS ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.
No “primordial soup” could have existed in the first place because (A) the proteins would have of necessity been all isomers (not a random mix) and (B) they would have been degraded by natural processes a thousand times more quickly than they could have ever formed.(5) Those ancient “experiments” from a hundred years ago which supposedly showed that the building blocks of proteins could have appeared accidentally when lightning hit ancient ponds were fundamentally flawed in dozens of ways. Even a superficial understanding of proteins, DNA, and RNA precludes any possibility that such complex molecules would spontaneously appear, or persist, or combine themselves into a living cell, let alone find a way to reproduce themselves in any manner.
(6) Evolution (and its best friend Old Earth Cosmology) have no explanation for why the earth or the universe is so perfectly fine tuned for life to occur. Things like gravity, radiation, rate of expansion, tides, temperatures, and many more universal constants are so finely tuned that even minor alterations would make life as we know it absolutely impossible. (6) The following list gives a sense of the degree of fine-tuning that must go into some of these values to yield a life-friendly universe:
- Gravitational constant: 1 part in 10^34 (that is one chance in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)
- Electromagnetic force versus force of gravity: 1 part in 10^37
- Cosmological constant: 1 part in 10^120 (one chance in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
- Mass density of universe: 1 part in 10^59
- Expansion rate of universe: 1 part in 10^55
- Initial entropy: 1 part in 10^ (10^123 (D)
“A century ago evolution was a credible theory looking for proof. Now tens of thousands of scientists have spent their lives looking for proof and found none. Evolution is no longer even a credible theory. But tragically, in the meantime it has become dogma” AN Mack MD
So, all things considered, the most plausible SCIENTIFIC explanation for life on earth is… Genesis. 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”