@dshipp17 said:
Please present some of the evidence showing that animals and humans evolved from a common ancestor; I do not remember seeing the evidence presented in these forums. I don't know of any evidence for evolution that the scientific community sees as fact; I know the scientific community sees evolution as fact but I don't know if that is because of any evidence supporting the idea of evolution. That's what I was saying: there was a view of evolution that has been out for awhile that recent experimentation has not verified; the scientific community is trying to verify evolution through experimentation, but as the efforts are started the idea is failing to show that the postulate is actually true.
The fact that you have to ask for evidence shows clearly that you havent even tried to look for it. If you Google "evidence for common ancestry", the first page is the wikipedia page with plenty of evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
From the RationalWiki page, lines of evidence for common descent:
- Anatomical homologies - Throughout the domains of life, organisms show a distinct pattern of constraints based on homology in development and construction of the body. For example, tetrapods have five digits because the ancestor of tetrapods had five digits. When a tetrapod does not seem to have five obvious digits, a review of their development shows that they start development with five and that they fuse together later to form fewer numbers.
- DNA and RNA code - Almost all organisms use the same three-letter code for translating RNA into proteins. There are variations, such as the code used by mitochondria and some bacteria and fungi, but the differences are only minor. Regardless of the slight differences, all organisms use the same coding mechanism for translating the code into amino acid sequences.
- Endogenous retroviral insertions - Ancient retroviruses inserted inactivated viral genes into genomes. For a retrovirus to be inherited in all members of a species, a series of highly improbable events must occur. The virus must insert into a gamete cell and it must mutate so it is inactive. That gamete cell must be used to make an embryo that lives to reproduce and whose genome fixates into the population at random location in the genome. This rare event is usually species specific.
- Pseudogenes - Shared errors are a powerful argument for a common source. If two books describe the same concept in similar language, it's possible they just both converged on the same wording. However, if they both share the same grammar or spelling errors it becomes improbable to assume that they did not derive from a common source. There are genes that no longer code for a protein due to a mutation or error. Species often share the same pseudogene with the same inactivating mutation. A famous example of this is the L-gulonolactone oxidase that synthesizes vitamin C. All simians including humans share one pseudogene of inactivated L-gulonolactone oxidase, but the guinea pig has a different pseudogene indicating a different mutation.
- Embryology - The pharyngula stage of embryonic development appears to be highly conserved. At this stage, it is difficult to tell the difference between various vertebrate species. This conserved state screams common ancestry, and the field of evolutionary development has expanded our knowledge of developmental genes and their consequent embryo ontogeny to amazing levels of detail, all thanks to acknowledging common descent.
- Chromosome fusion - Gene fusion or chromosome fusion is when two chromosomes are spliced together. As an example, chimpanzees have one more chromosome than humans do. If the two species share a common ancestor, scientists should be able to figure out what happened to that chromosome. Researchers have found that chromosome 2 in humans is actually the fusion of two separate chimpanzee chromosomes. At the end of each chromosome is a marker called a telomere, which usually appears only on the ends. In human chromosome 2 it also appears in the center, marking where the two ends fused.
- Convergence - The phylogenetic trees constructed using anatomical homology, DNA homology, pseudogenes, endogenous retroviral insertions, and many other methods all converge on a similar looking tree. There are slight differences but the general relationships of the trees are intact. If any of these methods were flawed, they would not converge on the same tree.
- Uniqueness - The complex, predictive patterns of similarities and differences in the world of life have have a unique known explanation - no one has even hypothesized an alternative account for the patterns exhibited - either there is common descent or there is something which is somehow simulating common descent.
It then goes on to elaborate on each one.
The Wikipedia page on human evolution has an entire section on fossil evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Evidence
This paper talks about the fossil and DNA evidence:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.950181204/abstract;jsessionid=9E14C27A86390F203062AF11D11DB1CE.f01t04
This article talks about a fossil of Ardipithecus ramidus that was found. This is the oldest known common ancestor between humans and apes:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html
If you want to get more into it, then read some books. This one goes into detail on how humans evolved:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ITp_RnsPfzQC&pg=PA17#v=onepage&q&f=false
I could keep going. There's way too much evidence to properly discuss here. A little research goes a long way. But, the key is that you have to go to reputable sources. If you insist on getting your information from Creationist and pseudo-scientific websites, then there's no hope. They're very good at pretending to know what they're talking about, and unless you're an expert in the field you wont be able to tell the difference between good science and crap. And, of course, this is what they rely on.
@dshipp17 said:
I'm not resistant to learning science; I have two degrees in two different science fields and I studied other science fields; what I'm presenting is actual science. You're passing on a false dichotomy by implying that viewing new evidence in a way that contradicts the currently accepted view of things does not represent actual science. I've shown scientists pointing out new experimental findings and reaching a valid conclusion that the evidence is showing something other than evolution. I'm not opposing anyone who's an expert in their field and claiming to be right about something; I'm gathering evidence from other experts in said field and presenting their conclusions that say the experiments are showing that the theories by the experts for the mainstream are proving to be wrong. I'm looking over the information that I present to make sure the information is probably correct before I present it. Since I studied the life sciences but did not get a degree in the life sciences, or even a minor, I do have to lean on the experts in that field to present correct data, since the information will be peer reviewed formally or by public opinion from being exposed to their peers. I’m not so much proclaiming to be right about the data so much as I’m presenting examples of people who are presenting experiments that are looking at the science in new and different ways. You seem willing to look at the data in different ways so long as it does not involve supporting Christianity; this tells me that you would rather be in denial about what new data is actually showing rather than not finding the evidence that supports Creation science; I say this, because you claim there’s scarce to no evidence supporting creation science. The term creation science should give most rational people the image that a community of scientists are at least attempting to back scientific information that might be supporting creation. You speak of it as if creation science is only being supported by amateur historians, church goers, church pastors, and maybe theologians; if you believe this than you’re misinformed about the field. You’re showing pride by not even giving the information they present your open mind; in other words, you’re refusing to be teachable; that, or you need to concede that, given that your field of expertise is in computer science and astronomy, you cannot definitively say whether their conclusions in life science, geology, or other field outside of computer science or astronomy is correct or not; however, you want to give the impression that you know with certainty that the information is not only wrong, but irrational, not realizing that scientific journals are being quoted/cited in the information presented on their websites.
The problem here is that "Creation Science" is not a valid field of science, it's pseudo-science. When you go out and find opinions from these "experts" that you're reading, you're ignoring that the vast majority of experts in the field reject these claims. You're cherry-picking which experts to believe, which is a sure road to confirmation bias.
You are correct, biology and anthropology are not my fields of study, which is why I go with what the scientific consensus is. I read articles from reputable sources and peer-reviewed papers. Then, when I see something contradicting those findings, I do research on that too. What I've found, in every case, is that the arguments from people expounding "creation science" are usually incorrect. A little research online quickly finds how they are wrong and how they're only trying to push their agenda and ideology.
But, ok... lets see it. Give us your best evidence that disproves evolution or common ancestry.
Alternately, give us a detailed theory of Creationism, complete with predictions that we can test. Lets see if Creationism holds up to scrutiny.
This is the first part of my response to you. These are the fundamentals of creation, before I address your points individually. These are to clear up a few assumptions that have supported evolution.
“Hence, the geological, biological and cosmological sciences have been established as ivory towers, from which so-called proofs of evolution emanate, while the scientist practitioners within these disciplines are the gurus who promote, preach and publish what is regarded as scientific data supporting evolution. But there is not one single instance whereby all the tests essential to the establishment of the scientific validity of evolution have been satisfied. There are hypotheses, grandiose models, suppositions and inferences, all of which are formulated and reinforced within the collective and self-serving collaborations of the evolutionist gurus. However, none of this amounts to true scientific evidence for evolution.”, Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Circumstantial Evidence for Creation
Each chemical element, such as carbon and oxygen, consists of atoms. Each atom is thought to be made up of three basic parts. The nucleus contains protons (tiny particles each with a single positive electric charge) and neutrons (particles without any electric charge). Orbiting around the nucleus are electrons (tiny particles each with a single negative electric charge). The atoms of each element may vary slightly in the numbers of neutrons within their nuclei. These variations are called isotopes of that element. While the number of neutrons varies, every atom of any element always has the same number of protons and electrons. So, for example, every carbon atom contains six protons and six electrons, but the number of neutrons in each nucleus can be six, seven, or even eight. Therefore, carbon has three isotopes (variations), which are specified carbon-12, carbon-13, and carbon-14. Some isotopes are radioactive; that is, they are unstable because their nuclei are too large. To achieve stability, the atom must make adjustments, particularly in its nucleus. In some cases, the isotopes eject particles, primarily neutrons and protons. (These are the moving particles measured by Geiger counters and the like.) The end result is a stable atom, but of a different chemical element (not carbon) because the atom now has a different number of protons and electrons. This process of changing one element (designated as the parent isotope) into another element (referred to as the daughter isotope) is called radioactive decay. The parent isotopes that decay are called radioisotopes.
Geologists regularly use five parent isotopes to date rocks: uranium-238, uranium-235, potassium-40, rubidium-87, and samarium-147. These parent radioisotopes change into daughter lead-206, lead-207, argon-40, strontium-87, and neodymium-143 isotopes, respectively. Thus geologists refer to uranium-lead (two versions), potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium, or samarium-neodymium dates for rocks. Note that the carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) method is not used to date rocks because most rocks do not contain carbon. Geologists can’t use just any old rock for dating. They must find rocks that have the isotopes listed above, even if these isotopes are present only in minute amounts. Most often, this is a rock body, or unit, that has formed from the cooling of molten rock material (called magma). Examples are granites (formed by cooling under the ground) and basalts (formed by cooling of lava at the earth’s surface). The next step is to measure the amount of the parent and daughter isotopes in a sample of the rock unit. Specially equipped laboratories can do this with accuracy and precision. So, in general, few people quarrel with the resulting chemical analyses. It is the interpretation of these chemical analyses that raises potential problems. To understand how geologists “read” the age of a rock from these chemical analyses, let’s use the analogy of an hourglass “clock”.
In an hourglass, grains of fine sand fall at a steady rate from the top bowl to the bottom. After one hour, all the sand has fallen into the bottom bowl. So, after only half an hour, half the sand should be in the top bowl, and the other half should be in the bottom bowl. Suppose that a person did not observe when the hourglass was turned over. He walks into the room when half the sand is in the top bowl, and half the sand is in the bottom bowl. Most people would assume that the “clock” started half an hour earlier. By way of analogy, the sand grains in the top bowl represent atoms of the parent radioisotope (uranium-238, potassium-40, etc.) (Figure 2). The falling sand represents radioactive decay, and the sand at the bottom represents the daughter isotope (lead-206, argon-40, etc). When a geologist tests a rock sample, he assumes all the daughter atoms were produced by the decay of the parent since the rock formed. So if he knows the rate at which the parent decays, he can calculate how long it took for the daughter (measured in the rock today) to form.
Most people think that radioactive dating has proven the earth is billions of years old. Yet this view is based on a misunderstanding of how radiometric dating works. No geologists were present when most rocks formed, so they cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotopes. For example, with regard to the volcanic lavas that erupted, flowed, and cooled to form rocks in the unobserved past, evolutionary geologists simply assume that none of the daughter argon-40 atoms was in the lava rocks. For the other radioactive “clocks,” it is assumed that by analyzing multiple samples of a rock body, or unit, today it is possible to determine how much of the daughter isotopes (lead, strontium, or neodymium) were present when the rock formed. Yet lava flows that have occurred in the present have been tested soon after they erupted, and they invariably contained much more argon-40 than expected.1 For example, when a sample of the lava in the Mt. St. Helens crater (that had been observed to form and cool in 1986) was analyzed in 1996, it contained so much argon-40 that it had a calculated “age” of 350,000 years!2 Similarly, lava flows on the sides of Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, known to be less than 50 years old, yielded “ages” of up to 3.5 million years. So it is logical to conclude that if recent lava flows of known age yield incorrect old potassium-argon ages due to the extra argon-40 that they inherited from the erupting volcanoes, then ancient lava flows of unknown ages could likewise have inherited extra argon-40 and yield excessively old ages. There are similar problems with the other radioactive “clocks.” For example, consider the dating of Grand Canyon’s basalts (rocks formed by lava cooling at the earth’s surface). We find places on the North Rim where volcanoes erupted after the Canyon was formed, sending lavas cascading over the walls and down into the Canyon. Obviously, these eruptions took place very recently, after the Canyon’s layers were deposited. These basalts yield ages of up to 1 million years based on the amounts of potassium and argon isotopes in the rocks. But when we date the rocks using the rubidium and strontium isotopes, we get an age of 1.143 billion years. This is the same age that we get for the basalt layers deep below the walls of the eastern Grand Canyon.4
How could both lavas—one at the top and one at the bottom of the Canyon—be the same age based on these parent and daughter isotopes? One solution is that both the recent and early lava flows inherited the same rubidium-strontium chemistry—not age—from the same source, deep in the earth’s upper mantle. This source already had both rubidium and strontium. To make matters even worse for the claimed reliability of these radiometric dating methods, these same basalts that flowed from the top of the Canyon yield a samarium-neodymium age of about 916 million years,5 and a uranium-lead age of about 2.6 billion years!6
The problems with contamination, as with inheritance, are already well-documented in the textbooks on radioactive dating of rocks.7 Unlike the hourglass, where its two bowls are sealed, the radioactive “clock” in rocks is open to contamination by gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes because of waters flowing in the ground from rainfall and from the molten rocks beneath volcanoes. Similarly, as molten lava rises through a conduit from deep inside the earth to be erupted through a volcano, pieces of the conduit wallrocks and their isotopes can mix into the lava and contaminate it. Because of such contamination, the less than 50-year-old lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, yield a rubidium-strontium “age” of 133 million years, a samarium-neodymium “age” of 197 million years, and a uranium-lead “age” of 3.908 billion years!
Physicists have carefully measured the radioactive decay rates of parent radioisotopes in laboratories over the last 100 or so years and have found them to be essentially constant (within the measurement error margins). Furthermore, they have not been able to significantly change these decay rates by heat, pressure, or electrical and magnetic fields. So geologists have assumed these radioactive decay rates have been constant for billions of years. However, this is an enormous extrapolation of seven orders of magnitude back through immense spans of unobserved time without any concrete proof that such an extrapolation is credible. Nevertheless, geologists insist the radioactive decay rates have always been constant, because it makes these radioactive clocks “work”! New evidence, however, has recently been discovered that can only be explained by the radioactive decay rates not having been constant in the past.9 For example, the radioactive decay of uranium in tiny crystals in a New Mexico granite yields a uranium-lead “age” of 1.5 billion years. Yet the same uranium decay also produced abundant helium, but only 6,000 years worth of that helium was found to have leaked out of the tiny crystals. This means that the uranium must have decayed very rapidly over the same 6,000 years that the helium was leaking. The rate of uranium decay must have been at least 250,000 times faster than today’s measured rate! For more details see Don DeYoung’s Thousands . . . Not Billions (Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2005), pages 65–78.
It is immediately apparent that the ages for each rock unit do not agree. Indeed, in the Cardenas Basalt, for example, the samarium-neodymium age is three times the potassium-argon age. Nevertheless, the ages follow three obvious patterns. Two techniques (potassium-argon age and rubidium-strontium) always yield younger ages than two other techniques (uranium-lead and samarium-neodymium). Furthermore, the potassium-argon ages are always younger than the rubidium-strontium ages. And often the samarium-neodymium ages are younger than the uranium-lead ages. What then do these patterns mean? All the radioactive clocks in each rock unit should have started “ticking” at the same time, the instant that each rock unit was formed. So how do we explain that they have each recorded different ages? The answer is simple but profound. Each of the radioactive elements must have decayed at different, faster rates in the past! In the case of the Cardenas Basalt, while the potassium-argon clock ticked through 516 million years, two other clocks ticked through 1,111 million years and 1,588 million years. So if these clocks ticked at such different rates in the past, not only are they inaccurate, but these rocks may not be millions of years old. Why then should we expect the radioactive clocks to yield relative ages that follow a logical pattern? (Actually, younger sedimentary layers yield a similar general pattern). The answer is again simple but profound! The radioactive clocks in the rock units at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, formed during Creation Week, have been ticking for longer than the radioactive clocks in the younger sedimentary layers higher up in the sequence that were formed later during the Flood.
Although it is a mistake to accept radioactive dates of millions of years, the clocks can still be useful to us, in principle, to date the relative sequence of rock formation during earth history. The different clocks have ticked at different, faster rates in the past, so the standard old ages are certainly not accurate, correct, or absolute. However, because the radioactive clocks in rocks that formed early in earth history have been ticking longer, they should generally yield older radioactive ages than rock layers formed later. So it is possible that relative radioactive ages of rocks, in addition to mineral contents and other rock features, could be used to compare and correlate similar rocks in other areas to find which ones formed at the same time during the events detailed in Genesis, God’s eyewitness account of earth history.
The properties of certain elements on the Periodic Table of the Elements is evidence for Creation. Carbon has some of the most unique properties of the chemical elements. Carbon is the element most likely found in biological life forms. Carbon can participate in all know forms of covalent bonding. This feature of carbon is called catenation. Although silicon, nitrogen, sulphur, and phosphorous have a limited ability for catenation, their abilities do not come close to carbon. Without carbon’s strong ability for catenation, the formation of proteins, DNA, RNA, and cellulose would be impossible. There is no other element that can replace carbon in biomolecules, without destroying its biological integrity. Additionally, carbon only makes up 0.0017% of the earth’s composition.
Elements such as carbon, nitrogen, sulphur, and phosphorus are called main group elements. With the exception of oxygen, atoms of these elements are stable only when even numbers of their electrons unite in pairs. Atoms with unpaired electrons are usually unstable, chemically speaking. Oxygen’s singular exception to the electron pair rule of stability for the main group elements has no know explanation. Oxygen exists in nature as a diatomic molecule. The only other diatomic element with unpaired electrons, sulphur, is very unstable and does not occur as a diatomic molecule naturally. Metallic elements such as chromium, iron, and nickel are called transition metals. Transition metals contain unpaired electrons and are stable, chemically speaking. Oxygen would not be capable of binding to the iron atoms in hemoglobin, with precisely the amount of energy needed to carry diatomic oxygen into the bloodstream and release it, if it were not for the two unpaired electrons. Although carbon monoxide and nitrogen monoxide can replace diatomic oxygen in binding to hemoglobin, they will completely destroy the function of hemoglobin. Similarly, binding between a transition metal and oxygen, other than iron, in hemoglobin, would either be too strong or too weak. Transporting oxygen through blood by hemoglobin is apart of metabolism.
Proteins are composed of amino acids bonded together by polypeptide bonds. Amino acids are organic molecules containing amines or hydrocarbons containing a nitrogen element, plus a carboxylic acid group. Although amino acids can come in thousands of varieties, only 20 amino acids are involved in all protein structures. Amino acids exists in the D and L forms, yet all proteins are made of only in the L form amino acids. Sugars are made up of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen and exists in the form of D and L isomers. While sugars can come in many varieties, only the simplest, 5-member ring structures called ribose, in only its D form, is present as one of three fundamental molecular components in the structures of DNA and RNA. The molecules that make of DNA and RNA are also called nucleosides. Each nucleotide is bound to one specific carbon atom on each ribose unit. In the case of RNA, the structure is a single-stranded right-handed helix containing four different nucleotides (adenine, cytosine, guanine, uracil) arranged in very specific repeating sequences throughout the length of the chain. Each type of RNA has a different pattern in the sequencing of the four nucleotides. The DNA structure consists of a right-handed double helix, also containing four nucleotides. Three of these are the same as in RNA, but one is different: thymine replaces uracil. Nucleotides belong to two classes of molecules called purines and pyrimidines. Adenine and guanine are purines, while cytosine, thymine and uracil are pyrimidines. There are many hundreds of varieties of purines and pyrimidines, but only these select five determine the structures and functions of DNA and RNA. These few examples contain clear evidence of complex design imparting tailor-made functions. Such characteristics defy the probability that any random evolutionary process could account for such unique specificity in design. Consequently, it should take considerably more faith to believe in evolution rather than divine creation.
It was found that the amino acid sequences for myoglobin and hemoglobin from various species of kangaroo, echidna, and platypus were different, and the sequence information could be used to evaluate the phylogenetic relationship of these animals.
Recent advances in biology permit us to ask whether it is still reasonable to suppose that living organisms evolved on a hypothetical primordial earth from mixes of organic chemicals. At the time when the modern versions of these theories were first entertained, in the 1920s, so little was known about the biochemical realities that undergird living organisms that such proposals seemed reasonable. But now we know that even the simplest of living cells, bacteria (that are not parasitic), must contain thousands of complex structural and catalytic proteins, a variety of nucleic acids, hundreds of small bio-molecules, all in a dynamic nonequilibrium steady state. Within live cells, we see numerous series of interconnected chemical conversions (“pathways”) that are functioning uninterrupted. Their continuous activities are due to steady supplies of starting material and the ongoing utilization of end products. The recycling of waste to biosynthetic precursors completes the cycling of matter through living systems. The absence of any component of these complex series of chemical changes will cause defective operation or even death to the cell. Is it reasonable, then, to suppose that when living cells were first brought into existence, all of their components must have been present and functioning? If this is so, then living cells had to be made rapidly. The same suggestion may be made for all of the components of the ecological system, where mutual support and interdependence exist. It is sensible to suppose that these were created simultaneously.
DNA1 evidence is often claimed to give support to the evolutionary theory; in reality, DNA illustrates God’s handiwork of design in a powerful way. Let us consider the complexity of this important component of living systems in order to see how absurd it is to believe that life could come about by chance. DNA is the primary information-carrying molecule of living organisms. The beauty and wonder of this molecule can hardly be overstated when one considers its properties. Being the blueprint of living cells, it stores all the information necessary for the cell to feed and protect itself, as well as propagate itself into more living cells, and to cooperate with other living cells that make up a complex organism. If the DNA of one human cell were unraveled and held in a straight line, it would literally be almost one meter long and yet be so thin that it would be invisible to all but the most powerful microscopes. Consider that this string of DNA must be packaged into a space that is much smaller than the head of a pin2 and that this tiny string of human DNA contains enough information to fill almost 1,000 books, each containing 1,000 pages of text.3 Human engineers would have a most difficult time trying to fit one such book into that amount of space; one thousand books in that amount of space boggles the mind! For compactness and information-carrying ability, no human invention has even come close to matching the design of this remarkable molecule. Amazing as the DNA molecule may be, there is much, much more to life than DNA alone; life is possible only if the DNA blueprint can be read and put into action by the complex machinery of living cells. But the complex machinery of the living cell requires DNA if it is going to exist in the first place, since DNA is the source of the code of instructions to put together the machinery. Without the cellular machinery, we would have no DNA since it is responsible for synthesizing DNA; without DNA we would have no cellular machinery. Since DNA and the machinery of the cell are codependent, the complete system must be present from the beginning or it will be meaningless bits and pieces.
In order to emphasize this codependence of the cellular machinery and DNA, let us examine some proteins (i.e., the machinery) that are directly involved in the conversion of the DNA blueprint into more proteins. Before we list the processes and proteins associated with converting DNA information into proteins, we should emphasize the following points: (1) each and every step in the overall process absolutely requires protein(s) that are unique and extremely complex; and (2) these unique and complex proteins can only be produced by the overall process in which they themselves are critically involved. The making of RNA4 from a DNA template is a critical first step in the process of protein formation. For RNA to be synthesized, no fewer than five different protein chains5 must cooperate. Four of these proteins form the RNA polymerase complex and the last one tells the RNA polymerase where to start reading the DNA template. This enzyme complex must recognize where to start transcribing DNA into RNA; it must then move along the DNA strand, adding individual building blocks6 to the growing RNA chain; and lastly, it must know where to finish the transcription process. It is not enough, however, simply to make one kind of RNA; three different types of RNA are required in the process of making proteins: messenger RNA (mRNA), ribosomal RNA (rRNA) and transfer RNA (tRNA). Molecules of mRNA carry the information extracted from the DNA blueprint which encodes the protein to be synthesized; rRNA molecules make up a critical component of ribosomes; and tRNA is responsible for carrying individual amino acids to the site where they will be added to a new protein. Before tRNA molecules can serve their proper function, however, they must be charged with a suitable amino acid in order that it can be added on to a growing protein chain at the appropriate time. At least 20 different aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase proteins are necessary to attach individual amino acids to the corresponding tRNA molecules (at least one for each type of amino acid). Once mRNA, tRNA and rRNA molecules have been synthesized, it is then necessary to translate the information from the mRNA into a protein molecule. This process is carried out by a huge complex of proteins called the ribosome. These amazing protein synthesis “machines” contain multiple different proteins, together with various ribosomal RNA molecules all associated into two main subunits. In a simple bacterium such as E. coli, ribosomes are composed of some 50 different proteins7 and three different rRNAs! The reactions mentioned above are only the core reactions in the process of synthesizing proteins; we have not even discussed the energy molecules that must be present for many of these reactions to proceed. Where is the energy going to come from to produce these energized molecules? How will the cell harvest energy unless it has some sort of mechanism for doing so? And, where is an energy-harvesting mechanism going to come from if not from pre-encoded information located in the cell?
A quick summation will reveal that the process of converting DNA information into proteins requires at least 75 different protein molecules. But each and every one of these 75 proteins must be synthesized in the first place by the process in which they themselves are involved. How could the process begin without the presence of all the necessary proteins? Could all 75 proteins have arisen by chance in just the right place at just the right time? Could it be that a strand of DNA with all the necessary information for making this exact same set of proteins just happened to be in the same place as all these proteins? And could it be that all the precursor molecules also happened to be around in their energized form so as to allow the proteins to utilize them properly? Needless to say, without proteins life would not exist; it is as simple as that. The same is true of DNA and RNA. It should be clear that DNA, RNA and proteins must all be present if any of them are going to be present in a living organism. Life must have been created completely functional, or it would be a meaningless mess. So, we truly have a “which came first?” problem on our hands. I believe the answer is, of course, that none of them came first! God came first; He designed and then created all of life with His spoken Word. DNA, RNA and protein came all at exactly the same time. It is extremely difficult to understand how anyone could believe that this astoundingly complicated DNA-blueprint translation system happened to come about by chance.
Now let us consider the probability of just one of the above 75 proteins coming about by chance. Consider a smaller than average protein of just 100 amino acid residues. If all the necessary left-handed amino acids were actually available, and if the interfering compounds, including right-handed amino acids, were somehow eliminated, and if our pool of amino acids were somehow able to join individual amino acids together into protein chains faster than the proteins normally fall apart, then the chances of this random 100 amino-acid protein having the correct sequence would be 1 in 20^100 possible sequence combinations; 20 available amino acids raised to the power of the number of residues in the protein, i.e., 1 in 1.268 x 10^130, or 1 in 12, 680, 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, 000, 000.
To put this number in some perspective, we must do some calculations. The reader may wish to skip ahead if the absurdity of chance giving birth to order is already appreciated. Let us take a more-than-generous scenario and see how desolate the theory of evolution becomes in view of the probabilities. The earth has a mass of around 5.97 x 10^27 grams. If the entire mass of the earth were converted to amino acids, there would be in the order of 3.27 x 10^49 amino acid molecules available.8 If all of these molecules were converted into 100-residue proteins,9 there would be 3.27 x 10^47 proteins. Since there are 1.27 x 10^130 possible combinations of amino acids in a 100-mer protein (see above), a division of the number of possibilities by the number of proteins present on our hypothetical globe shows that the chances of having just one correct sequence in that entire globe of 100-mer proteins is 1 in 3.88 x 10^82.
Even if each of these 3.27 x 10^47 100-mer proteins could be rearranged many times over into different sequences during the timespan of the earth, the chances that one correct sequence would be produced are still not close to being realistic. Consider that there are “only” 1.45 x 10^17 seconds in the mythical evolutionary age of the earth.11 It can be calculated that each and every 100-mer protein in that hypothetical earth would need to rearrange itself an average of 2.67 x 10^65 times per second in order to try all possible combinations!12 The 100-amino-acid molecules could not even come close to assembling and disassembling that quickly. It is physically impossible.
An age of 4.6 billion years is an extremely long time, to be sure, but I suspect evolutionists wish they had picked a much larger number for the age of the earth and of the universe. It becomes obvious why evolutionists are never quick to point out the actual numbers associated with the probabilities of life coming about by chance. Remember, we have only examined a small protein of 100 amino acids. The very same calculations could be performed considering that we need at least the 75 proteins mentioned above in order to have a self-replicating system. For 75 proteins of the same size, the probability of obtaining the correct sequences for all of them comes to 20^7500 or 3.7779 x 10^9700. (That is correct, almost 9,700 zeros.).
Even if there were oceans full of amino acids just trying all kinds of different combinations, a correctly formed molecule in the Indian Ocean is not going to be able to cooperate very easily with another correctly formed molecule in the Atlantic Ocean. Nor would a correct sequence of amino acids be able to interact with another functional protein which happened to occur in the same physical location but a mere one year later. Truly, the thought of even one single functional protein arising by chance requires blind faith that will not or cannot grasp the numbers! Such thoughts are pure fantasy and have nothing to do with science.
It is no wonder that evolutionists have not come up with any specific scenarios that would explain how life arose from nonliving chemicals. The stories that are put forward are like fairy tales with some science thrown in to make them sound educated. One popular biochemistry textbook admits that there is no physical evidence for the transition of life from nonlife:
“Our hypothetical nucleic acid synthesis system is therefore analogous to the scaffolding used in the construction of a building. After the building has been erected the scaffolding is removed, leaving no physical evidence that it was ever there. Most of the statements in this section must therefore be taken as educated guesses. Without having witnessed the event, it seems unlikely that we shall ever be certain of how life arose” Donald Voet and Judith G. Voet, Biochemistry, John Wiley and Sons, New York, p. 23, 1995. Far from being educated guesses, the many deceptive evolutionary scenarios seem to be nothing short of biased myths arising from the desperate desire to exclude God from lives and consciences. How do evolutionists respond to the zero likelihood of life arising by chance? The biochemistry text quoted above asks and then answers the question: “How then did life arise? The answer, most probably, is that it was guided according to the Darwinian principle of the survival of the fittest as it applies at the molecular level.”14 The key fact to note here is that natural selection simply cannot act unless there are functional, self-replicating molecules present to act on. We have already seen that no such system could possibly appear by chance. Life in its totality must have been created in the beginning, just as God told us.
It is clear that the whole cell system is a minimum unit of organism heredity. Genic processes have much to do with variation within kinds, but probably little to do with the distinction of kinds. Genes are best regarded as triggers in complex developmental systems rather than as creators or causes of organic structures. In this regard I found that there had been a vibrant creationist research program in developmental biology before Darwin that has been partly taken up again by the modern “structuralist” biologists (e.g., Stuart Kauffman and Brian Goodwin). Not surprisingly, the latter evolutionists are anti-Darwinian and anti-Dawkins. However, their work can readily be interpreted in creationist terms. It may, of course, ultimately prove wrong (our science is always approximate and liable to error), but it at least makes the point that creationism is not a science stopper. In my view, evolutionary explanations turn out to be fatally inconsistent, A Creationist Critique of Homology, Creation Research Society Quarterly 19(3):166–75, 1982 and 20(2):122, 1983, Developmental Studies and Speciation in Cichlid Fish. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Zoology and Comparative Physiology, Birmingham University, United Kingdom, 1972, Diss S2 B72, and The Genetic Integrity of the “Kinds” (Baramin)—A Working Hypothesis, Creation Research Society Quarterly 19(1):13–18, 1982.
In Miller’s experiment, amino acids were produced only because they were removed from the experiment as soon as they were formed. Had they been left in the apparatus, then they would have been destroyed by the same electrical discharge that caused them to be synthesized. Furthermore, the amino acids that are produced in all such experiments are in the right-handed as well as the left-handed forms, whereas living systems contain only left-handed amino acids. Additionally, had oxygen been present in the mixture of gases, the amino acids would not have formed in such experiments. This point is extremely important because the evidence from geology indicates that the earth’s atmosphere has always contained oxygen. Hence, the mixture of gases in such experiments does not mimic the composition of the earth’s atmosphere. This means that the experiments have absolutely nothing at all to do with what may or may not have happened on the so-called prebiotic earth. The fossil record does not show the gradual evolution of one life-form into another as predicted and demanded by evolution. The missing links are called that because they are truly missing—none has ever been found. There are gaps in the fossil record at all the major breaks: fish to amphibian, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, and reptiles to mammals. Furthermore, no fossil remains of any creature linking humans to ape-like ancestors have ever been discovered; half-ape/half-human creatures are figments of the imagination of the artists who draw them for the books in which they appear.
Log in to comment