Other Evidence Against Evolution

Introduction:

“Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses.” —*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147.

“No one has ever found an organism that is known not to have parents, or a parent. This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution.” —*Tom Bethell, “Agnostic Evolutionists,” Harper’s, February 1985, p. 61

“As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well defined species?” —*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139.

“Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life.” —*W. Kaempffert, “The Greatest Mystery of All: the Secret of Life,” New York Times.

“I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” —*H. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.

“I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity.” —*W. R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species.

“‘The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination.” —*Dr. Fleischman, quoted in F. Moldau, Why We Believe in Creation, Not Evolution, p. 10.

“The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists.” —*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p.306.

“[Darwin could] summon up enough general, vague and conjectural reasons to account for this fact, and if these were not taken seriously, he could come up with a different, but equally general, vague and conjectural set of reasons.” —*Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and Darwinian Revolution (1968), p. 319.

“The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified, professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other.” —*J. Bonner, “Book Review,” American Scientist 49:1961, p. 240.

“It was because Darwinian theory broke man’s link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times.. so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe.” —*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67. [Australian molecular biologist.]

All this talk about “scientific evolution” is wishful thinking in action. People emotionally want the assurance that they do not have to be responsible for their actions, so they cling to cobwebs instead of solid facts. Having only been confronted with the assurances of the evolutionists, it is difficult for the man on the street to realize the total lack of evidence that exists for evolutionary theory. Yet the information is available, and you will find large amounts of it in this present set of books. Learning even part of that evidence will place you on vantage ground when you discuss these issues with others.

The obvious solution to this crisis is to educate the uncommitted about the facts. You can help do that. Read, learn, and then share with others! Interest others in the subject. Tell them what you have discovered. Hold meetings. It is the earnest desire of the present writer that this material will help you help many others.

“The doctrine of [evolutionary] continuity has always necessitated a retreat from pure empiricism [actual facts and scientific testing], and contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the antievolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach.” —*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 353.

“The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory—is it then a science or faith?” —*L. H. Matthews, “Introduction” to *Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, p. x xi (1971 edition).

“So now we can see the full extent of the doubts. The transformed cladists claim that evolution is totally unnecessary for good taxonomy; at the same time they are unconvinced by the Darwinian explanation of how new species arise. To them, therefore, the history of life is still fiction rather than fact and the Darwinian penchant for explaining evolution in terms of adaptation and selection is largely empty rhetoric

“For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology. Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.” —*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 12.

“I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” —*H. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.

Introduction

The study of similarities is the study of likenesses between various types of creatures. For example, both man and a number of other animals have livers, intestines, and appendixes. Therefore, according to the evolutionary theory of similarities, they all descended from a common ancestor. Evolutionists use the term “homology” to describe these similar structures, and consider them to be an important evidence of evolution.

If you compare a human arm with the front leg of an alligator or horse, or the flipper of a whale or a bat’s skin-covered wing —-you will find they ail have a similar arrangement and number of bones.

Although similarities are considered by Darwinists to be an important evidence of evolution, in this chapter we will find that the subject really proves nothing at all.

SIMILAR STRUCTURES—The proof that Darwinists really need is evolutionary change, not similarity of structure or function. Lacking evidence of actual evolving of species from one type into another, the attempt to prove the point by appearance is shallow at best. The problem is that evolution is not occurring now, and the fossil record reveals it has not occurred in the past.

Yet there are many similarities common to different kinds of plants, and various animals which are alike in a number of ways. Since these similarities do exist, let us consider them briefly.

Such physical similarities can have two possible meanings:

(1) They either indicate that those creatures which are similar are closely related, or (2) they show that creatures with similarities were made by a single Designer that had immense intelligence, power, and ability.

Here is how an evolutionist explains similarities, also called homologies:
https://i1.wp.com/static.howstuffworks.com/gif/giraffe-neck-3.jpg

“Homo means ‘the same.’ The seven bones in the human neck correspond with the same seven, much larger, neckbones in the giraffe: They are homologues. The number of cervical vertebrae is a trait [evolutionists believe are] shared by creatures descended from a common ancestor. Related species share corresponding structures, though they may be modified in various ways.” —*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990). P- 218.

Stepping into a kitchen, you will find forks, knives, and spoons. Close examination will reveal that there are big spoons, little spoons, and even serving ladles, as well as five or six types of knives. Does this prove that the large spoons descended from the little spoons, or does it show that someone intelligent made them all? The spoons were made to hold liquids, and the knives were made to cut solids. Someone designed each of them to do a special work. They are the result of a planner and maker.

The above illustration focuses our attention on purposeful design, and on an intelligent designer. (1) There are similarities in the structure the outward appearance—of the spoons, because of the purpose they must fulfill. (2) The spoons did not make themselves by accident, nor are they the result of s chance arrangement of molecules. They were designed by someone intelligent, and then made by someone intelligent. Even if they were made by machinery, that machinery was also produced by someone very intelligent.

Whether it be similarities of spoons, similarities of eyes, or similarities of arms,—the answer is creation according to a common design. That is why Datsons and Volvos are more alike than Datsons and yachts. Automobiles have many features in common because they were all designed to roll down highways, powered by engines. Sailboats are also very similar to one another because they were designed to travel by wind power over the surface of the water.

Turning our attention from man-made things to living organisms, it is equally obvious that similarity of structure follows purposeful design here also. Neither haphazard random activity nor accidents can produce useful organs.

DIFFERENT STRUCTURES—Not only do different animals have certain similar structures—they have different ones also! If they did not, they would all look alike! So there are differences as well as similarities. For example, consider dogs and cats: There are a number of similarities between the cat and dog family. But look at all the differences! There are so many of them.

As we consider those differences, the idea of s common ancestry fades out—especially when there is no evidence in the past or present that one animal and plant type ever changes into another.

So then the differences emphasize the factor of a common Designer, just as the similarities do.

Examining these differences more closely, we find that each species, or basic type of plant or animal, has unique qualities that the others do not have. Yet even those differences were purposively designed. The world is filled with species having unusual and unique structures that exactly help them, each in a special way. Intelligent research is required merely to uncover these design factors; think of the intelligence and power it took to make them. Everywhere we turn, no structure is useless, none are purposeless. Studying natural history, we find one intricately planned characteristic after another.

There are even amazing functional structures in non-living things. For example, consider the exact specifications found in the orbiting of nuclear particles in the various elements. View the exquisite formations that various chemicals make as they crystallize. Each chemical always crystallizes in just a certain way.

SHOWING DESCENT?— But let us now return to the similarities. All kinds of diverse creatures share similarities. According to the evolutionists, the similarities prove they are descended from one another, yet closer examination reveals they are not.

Here are some examples of similarities which disprove evolution:

1- Lysozyme. Lysozyme is the enzyme in tears that bites holes in the cell walls of bacteria so that they explode. This same enzyme is also in egg white, and protects baby chicks from infection. Neither human eyes nor baby chicks become infected easily. But does this mean that man is descended from baby chicks? Does it mean they are closely related?

One researcher, *Richard E. Dickerson, wanted to locate the exact point at which humans branched off the family tree. He decided, after comparing lysozyme and lactalbumin, that we are the direct descendants of chickens, for in this one respect, people are more closely related to chickens than they are to any living creature.

2 – Eye of the Octopus. The octopus has an eye which is very similar to the one that humans have. In contrast the eyes of fish are totally different than the eyes of an octopus. Are we then descended from the octopus? I thought Dickerson said we were the offspring of baby chicks?

https://i2.wp.com/www.duq.edu/sepa/regmed/images/Human-Octopus-eye.png

3 – Specific Gravity of Blood. When certain specific gravity tests were run on the blood of various land animals, it was found that snakes and frogs are more closely related to people, than people are to apes and monkeys. So certain evolutionists would say that our grandpa, somewhere in the not too distant past, was a snake, not a monkey.

4 – Rat Disease. The plague (Pasteurella pestis) which killed millions in Europe in the Dark Ages, only attacks people and Norway rats. Does this prove that we are descended from rats?

5 – Calcium/phosphorus Ratios. One scientist, trying to figure out who we were descended from, did a test on various calcium/phosphorus ratios in bone structures. He discovered that we are directly related to turtles and elephants.

https://i2.wp.com/www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mba/lowres/mban526l.jpg

But you need not be discouraged over this news: he also found that the monkey came from the goose (or vita versa), and the dog was related not to the cat but to the horse.

8 – Brain Weights. The situation looks still worse when we compare brain weights. The weight of the brain in proportion to the body is greater in the dwarf monkey (the cottontop and golden marmoset) of South America, than in you and me. One scientist suggested that this made us their ancestors!

7 – Cytochrome C. Brilliant research was done in comparing people with animals on the basis of the amino acid sequence in Cytochrome C, a coenzyme found in most organisms. It was discovered that man is more closely related to turtles, than turtles are to rattlesnakes. But the researcher also decided that people are more closely related to bread mold than sunflowers are.

The scientists say that these close relationships reveal our origins. In reality, the similarities only reveal that we all have the same Originator.

CONVERGENCE —Then there is convergence. “Convergence” occurs when different creatures have similar organs. For example, the woody plants generally have a growing edge (cambium) between the inner part (xylem) of the plant and its outer part (phloem). But this similarity arises because it is the best way for that general type of plant to grow, so the Designer used this basic pattern for nearly all trees—even though most are totally unlike each other in many other ways. It is foolish to suggest that plants had the intelligence to make the decision themselves, for they have no brains. They do it because they were designed that way.

We already mentioned the close similarity of the human eye to the eye of the octopus. How can a person have an eye that is so similar to that eight-Legged creature—and yet be entirely different in every other way?

Convergence disproves Evolution, but reveals an intelligent Designer that made us all.

Evolutionists theorize that the whale descended from a land animal who decided to crawl into the water and make itself flippers. That land animal, in turn, is supposed to have come from a water animal who thought it best to crawl out of the water and manufacture its own legs and feet. That water animal originated from a bacteria on land who was born in an ancient rainstorm, grew up a little bit, and then crawled into the water and became a fish.

https://i2.wp.com/nl.toonpool.com/user/997/files/fish_evolution_reentry_procedure_461455.jpg

Surely, now, is that not a complicated way to explain the origin of life?

Evolutionists also explain that the wing was independently invented by animals four times, as, over the centuries, they invented their various body parts. One day an insect decided to grow wings and fly about. That was supposed to have been the first invention of flying. As we already learned in earlier chapters, that lowly insect had to design the complete wing in one generation to make it work, and in the process he had to retool his entire DNA code! It surely was an intelligent insect. Millennia later, a reptile (now extinct) kept falling over cliffs and decided that wings would be the solution. Ages later, a reptile turned its scales into feathers and reshaped its arms. Later on, while other small creatures were crawling around a cave eating worms or whatever they could find, one did it up right! He got tired of the grubby life of his nocturnal brothers —so the little thing grew wings and became a bat! But, outside in the dark, he quickly found that he needed more than eyes—so he restructured his mouth and ears and developed a radar (sonar) system.

Each of the above four, according to evolution, came from a non-winged ancestor, and developed their wings totally independently of any inheritance or outside help.

Did you ever study a wing? It is one of the most complicated of structures. It combines astounding folding and unfolding structures, with special aeronautical principles that provide the needed lift.

https://i2.wp.com/1.bp.blogspot.com/_sqGj_nWFeVE/SpvoHcUm7YI/AAAAAAAAAV4/p5UyyOPQIpM/s400/wing.jpg

What about the eye? Evolutionists cannot figure out how eyes evolved, or how creatures with one kind of eye could possibly have descended from creatures with another kind of eye. So to solve the problem, they just came up with a new name. They called it “convergent evolution,” as though that would solve the problem of how it could possibly happen! But calling an impossibility “evolution,” does not change it into a possibility. Similarities in such different creatures, that could not have descended from one another, continue to be a nagging puzzle to the evolutionists.

https://i2.wp.com/www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/images/ency/fullsize/1094.jpg

At the same time the Darwinists had to live with the opposite problem, so they tried to solve it by classifying it as another type of “evolution!”

DIVERGENCE— “Divergences” occurs when there arc very different—diverse—features in plants or animals which ought to be very “closely related.” Evolutionists call this “divergent evolution, ” but it causes just as many problems for them, for it means wide differences in creatures that should be closely related.

Have you ever looked into the face of a fly? On each side is a compound eye; which means that each one consists of thousands of separate eyes. The result is multiple images on the retina of each eye, instead of one image as we have. But there are other insects which have compound-eyes structured in totally different ways! These various eyes could not possibly have evolved from one another. They are simply too complex and too perfect.

Deep in the ocean there are some little shrimp-like creatures with very complicated compound eyes. Their thousands-of-eyes-within-an-eye all come to a focus at one point, just as ours do! Well, the scientist that discovered that mystery did a little further study and came up with even more astounding facts: (1) He found that some of those deep-sea shrimp have “lens cylinders” which bend the light smoothly (because of smoothly-varied refractive surfaces) to focus on that one point! (2) And then he discovered that others use a “mirror system”! This includes a double-comer bounce which is complicated in the extreme!

And a shrimp is supposed to have figured that out? With abilities such as that, NASA ought to hire some of them to help design better telemetry systems in moon rockets.

We have here the work of a Designer who used complicated mathematics to figure out the angles, and then designed the structure, using equally-complicated physics and chemistry.

How did those eyes evolve? Until they worked perfectly, they would not work at all. That is a basic fact that is worth thinking about awhile. Did the shrimp design its own eyes? Until it developed them fully and perfectly, it could not see and would be caught by all its enemies. So it is another one-generation situation again. A proof is needed for that statement? We will cite that cardinal point of Darwin: “survival of the fittest.” Blind shrimp bumping into their enemies are not fit enough to survive very long.

MIMICRY—Then there is what the scientists call Mimicry. This is the scientific name for the theory that one almost-mindless creature carefully watches another awhile-and then invents structures in his own body which are similar to those which his neighbor has.

For example, the Monarch butterfly is poisonous, so birds avoid it. But the Viceroy looks just like it, so birds tend to leave it alone for that reason. Evolutionists say that the Viceroy “copied” the markings of the Monarch in order to protect itself!

Some people would like darker hair on their heads; others would like hair on their heads! Some would like to be taller, others thinner, still others would like blue eyes instead of brown. Some would like perpetually sun-tanned skin, while others would prefer whiter skin. But no one knows how to orchestrate the necessary genetic changes.

If you and I do not have the brains to redesign our bodies, how can we expect a butterfly to do it!

Thousands of other examples of so-called “mimicry” could be given. They are examples, not of almost mindless creatures copying other almost mindless ones, but of a Creator of high-tech intelligence providing for the needs of His creatures.

Evolutionary theory is mired in real problems, for it teaches that everything made itself by purest chance. It cannot even explain the design factors in butterflies. Yet if both of those butterflies had the same Master Designer who created them, then there is no problem.

Could it be that there is a super-intelligent and powerful Creator who made everything? Just look at DNA! Since all living creatures have it; the same One made them all. It was all designed by the same Being! Yes, the similarities do point to similarity of origin: God made us all.

PROTEIN SIMILARITIES—One researcher finally hit on an excellent way to tell which creatures were descended from which: He decided to analyze the similarities and differences in their blood protein. That was a shrewd decision, for if one animal is descended from another, it ought to have similar blood.

Carefully investigating this, he discovered that hemoglobin (red blood cells), for instance, is found among vertebrates,—and is also scattered, some here and some there, among a variety of animals without backbones!

https://i2.wp.com/www.clarian.org/ADAM/doc/graphics/images/en/19510.jpg

No definite pattern was found that could explain which creatures were descended from—or even related to—which. Hemoglobin is in the blood of most backboned animals, but it is scattered among some worms, starfish, clams, and insects,—while not in others. It was even found in some bacteria!

“When it comes to comparing similarities among amino acids in alpha hemoglobin sequences, crocodiles have much more in common with chickens; (17.59b) than with vipers (5.69b), their fellow reptiles. Myoglobin sequences do show one reptile/reptile pair (lizard/crocodile) with greater similarity (10.59b to 8.5%) than the reptile/bird (crocodile/chicken) pair, but it also puts the lizard as close to the chicken (10.59b) as to its fellow reptile . . The greatest similarity is between the crocodiles and chickens.” —Henry M. Morris and Gary Parker, What is Creation Science? (1987), pp. 59-80.

Research studies to identify protein similarities, produced these comments:

“The difference between turtle and rattlesnake of 21 amino add residues per 100 codons is notably larger than many differences between representatives of widely separated classes, for example, 17 between chicken and lamprey, or 16 between horse and dogfish, or even 15 between dog and screw worm fly in two different phyla.” —*T Jukes and *R. Holmquist, “Evolutionary Clock: Nonconsistency of Rate in Different Species,” in Science 177 (1972), p. 530.

“It is hard to see a common line of descent snaking in so unsystematic a way through so many different phyla.”— *Richard E. Dickerson and *Irving Geis, The Structure and Action of Proteins, 1989.

“There is simply no way of explaining how a uniform rate of evolution could have occurred in any family of homologous proteins by either chance or selection; and even ff we could advance an explanation for one particular protein family, we would still be left with the mystifying problem of explaining why other protein families should have evolved at different rates.” —*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 305.

“The difficulties associated with attempting to explain how a family of homologous proteins could have evolved at constant rates has created chess in evolutionary thought. . [As a result] the credibility of the molecular clock hypothesis is severely strained and with it the whole paradigm of evolution itself is endangered.” —*Op. cit, p. 308.

“This new era of comparative biology illustrates just how erroneous is the assumption that advances in biological knowledge are continually confirming the traditional evolutionary story. There is no avoiding the serious nature of the challenge to the whole evolutionary framework implicit in these findings.” —*Op. Cit., p. 291.

To *Schwabe, the situation appears hopeless.

“One might ask why the neo-Darwinian paradigm does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual information.” —*C. Schwabe, “On the Validity of Molecular Evolution, ” Trends in Biochemical Sciences (1986), p. 280.

DEFINITIONS AND HOPES— Lacking evidence of evolution in every aspect of nature, whether it be ancient fossils or modern wildlife, the evolutionists have pinned great hopes on indirect factors, such as “similarities.” In order to make this supposed “evidence of evolution” sound more scientific, evolutionists have given a special name to these similarities; they call them “homologies. ” Here is one definition of homologies, by the man who coined the term:

“[A homology is a] correspondence of a part or organ determined by its relative position and connections with a part a organ in a different animal, the determination of which homology indicates that such animals are constructed on a common type.” —*Sir Richard Owen, “Report on the Archtype and Homologies of the Vertebrate Skeleton, in Reports of the British Association for the advancement of Science (1846), pp. 169-340.

Evolutionists have consistently given the term an evolutionary flavor:

“By definition, this similarity is due to an inheritance from a common ancestor.” —*C.A. Ville, et. al., General Zoology (1978).

“Similarity [is] due to common ancestry.” —*Colin Patterson, Evolution (1978), p. 189.

“[These are] characters that resemble each other because they are descended from a common ancestor.” —*F.J. Ayala, and *J.W. Valentine, Evolving: the Theory and Process of Organic Evolution (1979).

*Darwin maintained that similar structures could only show ancestry and nothing else. He had something of a pathologic fear of the thought of intelligent design in plants and animals. To admit that, would be to admit a super-intelligent and powerful Designer.

“On any other view the similarity of pattern . . is utterly inexplicable.” —*Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man in Relation to Sex, Vol. 1(1871).

A learned entomology journal comments on the circularity of the argument from similarities.

“When Professor Simpson says that homology is determined by ancestry and concludes that homology is evidence of ancestry, he is using the circular argument so characteristic of evolutionary reasoning. When he adds that evolutionary developments can be described without paleontological evidence, he is attempting to revive the facile and irresponsible speculation which through so many years, under the influence of the Darwinian mythology, has impeded the advance of biology.” —*”Evolution and Taxonomy,” Studia Entomologica, Vol. 5, October 1962, p. 567.

*Blackwalder, a leading scientist, recognized the lack of a logical or scientific basis for the evolutionary claims made for similarities. He was at a loss to explain it otherwise. He tacitly recognized that if similarities do not imply ancestry—then they must provide evidence of a Creator who made everything.

“Taxonomists [those who classify plants and animals according to their appearance] have never had an objective basis for homology. . they cannon at present give it any objective basis, even though it is a logical necessity in the evolution of animals.” —*R.E. Blackwalder, Taxonomy: A Text and Reference Book (1967).
https://i0.wp.com/click4biology.info/c4b/5/images/5.4/homologousllimb.gif

THE PENTADACTYL LIMB—The most common similarity pointed to by evolutionists is called the “pentadactyl limb.” This is the “five-boned” arm and leg found on all land vertebrates. (there are actually more bones than that, but the pattern is simplified to upper arm, two-boned lower arm, wrist “bone,” and hand “bone.”) Why would all vertebrate arms and legs be composed of five principal sections of bones?

Consider your arm for a moment.

Bone 1: Swing your upper arm; it can go around in a wide circle. Without that upper arm (the humerus bone) attached by a ball-and-socket joint to the shoulder (the clavicle), you could not have such a large range of motion. The length of the upper arm enables you to reach out a distance, and its connection by a hinge joint to the upper arm enables you to bend your elbow in the only direction you need: forward.

Bone 2 and 3: Feel your forearm; it is composed of two bones (the radius and the ulna below it). Without moving your wrist, turn your hand in a circle. It can be done because the radius moves per the ulna. Excellent craftsmanship! The length of the forearm gives you more “reach-out” ability.

“Bone” 4: You have 8 bones in your wrist. They enable you to bend your hand not only down but sideways as well.

https://i0.wp.com/media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/94/99194-004-1EA8AA01.jpg

“Bone” 5: You have 19 bones in your hand. Keeping your wrist stiff, wiggle your hand and fingers around. It is truly astounding what you can do with your hand!

Including the shoulder blade (scapula) and collar bone (clavicle), you have 64 bones in both upper limbs. Another 62 are in your lower limbs. —That totals more than half of the 206 bones in your body!

Seriously now, what does your arm and hand tell you? It proclaims loudly that you were created by God! Random molecules surely did not make it. What about the fact that all other vertebrates have the very same basic “pentadactyl limb” pattern—even the flippers of whales and seals? It tells you that (1) there is no better way to design a simpler limb with such a wide range of movement, and (2) the same Master Craftsman made them also.

THE “FIVE-BONE LIMB”

The fact that all land animals with backbones have the basic pattern of “five-boned” arms and legs is considered a most marvelous evidence of evolutionary theory. But this surely is not much in the way of evidence. Each species is different from each other species in thousands of different ways, and all those differences exquisitely fit its peculiar needs.

We could also say that all land vertebrates have a common origin because they all have two eyes. But what kind of evidence would that be? It actually is a far more powerful evidence that a Creator of highest intelligence, not only made those marvelously functioning eyes, but that He also knew that without two of them those creatures could not have binocular vision—and be able to differentiate distance.

Actually, that which taxonomists (the men who classify plants and animals) do, is to look for such similarities and then use them to classify life forms in groups with one another. For example, all creatures with wings and feathers are called birds; other animals with certain features in common are called rodents. All creatures which nurse their young are placed with the mammals. But these similarities do not indicate common descent. Often the creatures in a certain category have very little in common. Whales, rats, giraffes, platypuses, kangaroos, and man all nurse their young, but that does not mean they have a lot else in common. Pigeons and certain fish nurse their young with milk secretions also.

Man tries to simplify things so his mind can grasp the topic, and he ends up oversimplifying. Because whales, zebras, and mice all have the “pentadactyl limb,” they are said to come from a common ancestor. Never mind the impossibilities imposed by the DNA barrier; just ignore that. The “pentadactyl limb” proves all; they “evolved”.

The truth is that evolutionary theory is based on the shallow scientific knowledge of the mid19th century. About all they had back then was arms and legs to examine. Now they have a vast number of additional biological discoveries and research techniques. But the evolutionists cling to arms and legs as a primary evidence of evolution, because 20th century science has provided no additional evidence that is any better.

“A great darkness had settled on the majority of British zoologists in the early decades of this century.” —*G.P. Wells, quoted in Perspectives in Experimental Biology (1976).

THE ARM AND HAND OF A BAT

One of the supposed best evidences of evolution is the fact that the bones in your arm and hand are similar to those of other mammals.

Well, for a moment, let us examine the bones in the arm and hand of the bat. Look at the illustration closely. Do the bones in the bat look similar to those in your own arm and hand?

THE AORTIC ARCH—Although evolutionists point to the arm and leg as evidence of ancestry, they avoid mentioning the aortic arch. This is the arrangement of the blood-vessel tubing as it takes blood out of the heart. The aorta is the largest artery in the body. (Arteries carry blood away from the heart; veins return the blood to the heart.) The aorta arises out of the top of the heart, turns to the right (when you look at a diagram of it, but to the left within your body), and then curves downward—forming an “arch.” At one, two, or three places in the top of this arch (according to the animal it is in), arteries lead out of it carrying blood upward. One of those five aortic arch patterns is found in all vertebrates and certain other creatures.

https://i0.wp.com/www.teamt.us/images/Aorta_Structure.jpg

Just for a moment, look at the aortic arch diagram study it. This diagram, and its accompanying explanation, will help explain the five basic types of mammalian aortic arches.

THE MAMMALIAN AORTIC ARCH

With hardly an exception. all mammals have one of five different aortic arch arrangements. The chart below illustrates each of these five patterns.

(11 Each arrangement !s actually strikingly different than all the others, there is no possibility that one could have evolved from another type. Imagine trying to tinker with your house plumbing and change its arrangement while the water pressure is on! You would flood your house! How could an animal change the shape of its aortic arch from one of these five patterns to another—all the while its blood was still flowing under pressure from the heart? It simply could not be done.

(21 Each arrangement has certain remarkable similarities to the others; random selection (which is all that “natural selection” is) would never have produced an arch over each one. It was the hand of the Creator which produced that thoughtful pattern. Thoughtful? in what way? Indeed, why is there a need for an arch?

It is supple enough: If you have ever seen a living heart in action, you will understand. It shakes back and forth wildly. If the aorta did not go out from it in a semicircle, that pounding action would quickly wear through the side of the aorta! Yet the descending aorta must go down past the heart, it was designed to first go out in a wide arch and then separate into two branches, one going upward and the other downward.

As usual, perfect planning by the Master Designer.

Now, if evolution be true, it is clear that all animals in each of those five basic aortic arch types would have to be closely related to one another. Indeed, that fact is loudly proclaimed by the evolutionists:

“The only postulate the evolutionist needs is no more a less than [this] . . The degree of structural resemblance runs essentially parallel with closeness of relationship. Most biologists would say that this is not merely a postulate, but one of the best established laws of life . . If we cannot rely upon this postulate . . we can make no sure progress in any attempt to establish the validity of the principle of evolution.” —*Horatio Hockett Newman, Evolution, Genetics, and Eugenics (1932), p. 53

That last sentence says this: If we are denied making the homology assumption (that similarity of structure evidences common ancestry), then we are NOT able to make other assumptions which “establish the validity” of evolution. Thus, evolutionary theory is built solely on assumptions, which in turn are built on other assumptions. The eminent *Thomas Hunt Morgan repeated the same fear about losing evolution’s wobbly foundations:

“If, then, it can be established beyond dispute that similarity a even identity of the same character in different species is not always to be interpreted to mean that both have arisen from a common ancestor, the while argument from comparative anatomy seems to tumble in ruins.” —*Thomas Hunt Morgan, “The Bearing of Mendelism on the Origin of the Species,” in Scientific Monthly 18(3):237 (1923).

So then it is clear that, if evolutionary theory be true, all life forms sharing the same type of aortic arch evolved from a common creature which bequeathed to its descendants their various features:

“The most important kind of evidence is that based on a comparative study of the structure and development of various groups. The use of such evidence is based on the assumption that the more closely the body plans of two phyla [taxa) resemble each other, the closer their relationship and the more recent their common ancestor.” —*Ralph Buchsbaum, Animals without Backbones (1948), p. 335.

That is simple enough: the closer the structural similarity, the closer the relationship, according to the evolutionist.

Now, on the basis of similarities, let us consider our ancestors. Here is a sampling of the five groups:

Those animals which share the FIRST type of aortic arch are these: horses, goats, donkeys, zebras, cows, sheep, pigs, and deer.

Those animals which share the SECOND type of aortic arch are these: whales, moles, shrews, porpoises, and hedgehogs.

Those animals which share the THIRD type of aortic arch are these: skunks, bears, kangaroos, rats, raccoons, dogs, opossums, squirrels, beavers, wombats, mice, porcupines, cats, and weasels.

Those animals which share the FOURTH type of aortic arch are these: dugongs, some bats, sea cows, duck-billed platypus, echidna, and human beings.

Those animals which share the FIFTH type of aortic arch are these: walruses and African elephants.

Study the diagram above. It is truly incredible. All the blood which flows OUT from the heart first enters the aortic arch. From there some of it flows upward through ascending arteries, while the rest flows downward through the aorta, the largest artery in the body. The blood flowing upward branches off into one of four major arteries: the right carotid (RC), left carotid ILCJ, right subclavian (RS), and left subclavian as). It is the way those four arteries branch off that produce five different aortic arch patterns. There is no way one pattern could evolve from one into another—while the animal was alive. And dead animals—with the blood pump turned off—do not evolve into anything!

Does all that make sense? No it does not. Any number of other structural, chemical or other comparisons could be cited (several are in this chapter) which would yield totally different groupings. But the simple fact, that each such grouping of similarities is always vastly different than all the other similarity groupings, falsifies the usefulness of similarities as an evidence favoring evolution.

But there is more to the story: Note that there are only five types of aortic arches. This points us to a single Planner; a highly-intelligent Being who made all those various living creatures. He gave each of them an aortic arch because they needed them, but only five variant arrangements were needed.

THE GENE BARRIER—In spite of efforts to see similarities in structures of various animals, the DNA barrier continues to defy the evolutionists. Even the genes themselves are totally different in mankind than in other animals, each of which has unique gene arrangements.

“It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find ‘homologous’ genes, except in closely related species, has been given up as hopeless.” —*Sir Gavin De Beer, Homology, an Unsolved Problem, (1971).

*De Beer then asks a penetrating question:

“But if it is true that through the genetic code, genes code for enzymes that synthesize proteins which are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts in their normal manner,—what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same ‘patterns,’ in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked that question in 1938, and it has not yet been answered.” —*Op. cit., p. 18.

Thus, according to ‘De Beer, since it is the genes that control structure, function, and appearance —how can different animal types have similar appearance when they have different genes?

This point is extremely important!

The entire matter is a great mystery which evolutionists cannot fathom. How can there be similarities among life forms with different genes—different DNA codes? In desperation, *S.C. Harland, in Biological Reviews (11:8311936), suggests an answer from fantasyland: As an example, he discussed the eye. Harland says that, yes, it is true that genes are different for each creature, but for some mysterious reason many of their eyes are still very much alike! The solution is obvious, he explains: When each species evolved into new species, its genes changed but its eye structures did not change! It has eyes that are different than what its genes say they should be!

Harland is here theorizing that genes do not control the inheritance of characteristics! The science of genetics began when Gregor Menders 1866 research was discovered in 1900. By 1907, Columbia University scientists had established that the genes controlled heredity. Yet, after decades of fruit fly and other genetic experiments, Harland says it cannot be true—for if it were, it would destroy evolutionary theory! With every speculation they offer, evolutionists get themselves more deeply into trouble. Thus it has been for over a hundred years. But, fortunately, there are open-minded scientists who are willing to face the facts:

“The older text-books on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the ‘pentadactyl’ [five bone] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and the flipper of a whale, and this is held to indicate their common origin.

“Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene-complex, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down.” —*Randall, quoted in *William Fix, The Bone Peddlers, p. 189.

PERFECT DIVERSITY— *Michael Denton’s 1985 book, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis is a powerful attack on evolutionary theory. You will find the previously-mentioned studies comparing Cytochrome C, hemoglobin, etc., in the chapter, “A Biological Echo of Typology,” in Denton’s book. At one point he says this:

“There is not a trace at a molecular level of the traditional evolutionary series: fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal. Incredibly, man is closer to lamprey [in his hemoglobin] than are fish!” —*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985).

Everything in nature is organized —but it is organized in the midst of intertwined diversity! One chemical test will fit one sequence, and another will fit another. Everywhere in nature is to be found carefully arranged DIVERSITY! Everything is different, but perfectly so. Denton concludes the chapter with the following scathing comment:

“Despite the fact that no convincing explanation of how random evolutionary processes could have resulted in such an ordered pattern of diversity, the [totally opposite] idea of uniform rates of evolution is presented in the literature as if it were an empirical discovery. The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth-century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists . . Yet in the face of this extraordinary discovery [of structures so totally diverse], the biological community seems content to offer explanations which are no more than apologetic tautologies.” —*Ibid.

Homologies (similarities) are desperately needed by evolutionists, since they have little else on which to base species evolution. But homologies are just not scientific! Here is a frank admission by a well-known British scientist:

“The concept of homology is fundamental to what we are talking about when we speak of evolution, yet in truth we cannot explain it at all in terms of present-day biological theory.” —*Sir A. Hardy, The Living Stream (1985), p. 211.

MOLECULAR SIMILARITIES—Major advances have been made in molecular biology. Some of the most devastating new scientific information falsifying evolutionary theory comes from this field. In his 1985 book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, *Michael Denton presents several points. Some have been mentioned earlier in this chapter. Here are more:

From the founding of biology in the 1700s until the 1960s, the only way biologists could compare and classify organisms was at the gross morphological level; that is, shape and structure. But in the 19509, DNA and amino acid discoveries were made. DNA sequences were compared. RNA was discovered. A host of new insights about the cell were uncovered.

Evolutionists had hoped that discoveries in molecular biology would provide homologies (similarities) that would vindicate evolutionary theory. But this hope was soon shattered.

“However, as more protein sequences began to accumulate during the 1960s, it became increasingly apparent that the molecules were not going to provide any evidence of sequential arrangements in nature [from amoeba through its “descendants” on to man] but were going to reaffirm the view that the system of nature conforms fundamentally to a highly ordered hierarchic scheme from which all direct evidence of evolution is emphatically absent Moreover, the divisions turned out to be more mathematically perfect than even most die-hard typologists would have predicted.” —*M. Denton, Evolution. A Theory in Crisis (1985), chapter entitled, “A Biochemical Echo of Typology.”

(Taxonomists, also called Typologists, are the scientists who classify plants and animals by grouping them into genus and species on the basis of their more obvious structural similarities and differences. Cladists are the taxonomists who maintain that the true species are totally unrelated to each other, and did not descend from one another; in other words, they have given up on evolution. Their studies into plant and animal species provide no indication of evolutionary relationships or descent. Each species is distinctly different from the others.)

Such topics as Cytochrome C research (mentioned earlier in this chapter) have been intensively analyzed. Summarizing the data, Denton says that it annihilates traditional evolutionary theory:

“Every sequence can be unambiguously assigned to a particular subclass. No sequence or group of sequences can be designated as intermediate with respect to other groups. All the sequences of each subclass are equally isolated from members of another group. Transitional or intermediate losses are completely absent from the matrix.”— ‘Ibid.

BLOOD PROTEIN COMPARISONS—Here are some of those sequences. You will note that there is simply no way to say that any two species are closely related to another species. It is all just one big jumble.’

According to evolutionary theory, bacteria should be closely related to yeast, silk moth, tuna, pigeon, and horse, in that order. Comparing Cytochrome C differences, a bacterium is closest to the following species, in this sequence of closeness of relationships: horse, pigeon, tuna, silk moth, wheat, yeast. —That would mean that bacteria are more closely related to horses than they are to yeast! Commenting on this discovery, Denton says:

“Considering the enormous variation of eucariotic spades [those containing a cell nucleus] from unicelled organisms like yeasts to multicellular organisms, such as mammals, . . this must be considered one of the most astonishing findings of modem science!” —*Ibid.

The jawless fishes are supposed to be very ancient and the earliest vertebrates. Evolutionary theory would dictate that it would be the closest to carp, frogs, chicken and kangaroo, and humans, in that approximate order. How does the jawless lamprey compare with those vertebrates? It is closest in hemoglobin similarities to humans, carp, kangaroo, frog, and chicken. Figure that one out. We quoted *Denton’s comment on this earlier:

“There is not a trace at a molecular level of the traditional evolutionary series: fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal. incredibly man is closer to lamprey than are fish!” —Ibid.

Next we will compare fish with terrestrial vertebrates. The carp should, according to evolutionists, be closest to bullfrog, turtle, chicken and rabbit, horse, in that approximate order. Cytochrome C differences places the carp as equally related to horse, rabbit, turtle, and bullfrog, and less closely related to the chicken.

“One of the moat remarkable features of these new biochemical discoveries is undoubtedly the way in which the pattern of molecular diversity seems to correspond with the predictions of typology. With very few exceptions the members of each defined taxa are always equally divergent whenever an outgroup comparison is made.” —*Ibid.

SERUM COMPARISONS—You may recall how, in chapter  Dating Methods, and chapter  Fossils and Strata, it was disclosed that, out of hundreds of thousands of radio-dating tests on rock strata, only three were found to be in agreement with the 19th century dating theory of rock strata which continues to dominate the fields of geology and paleontology. In regard to confirming classical stratigraphy and fossil dating, the three were retained and the hundreds of thousands of other uranium and thorium tests were thrown out. It was then stated in textbooks that “radio-dating substantiates geological column dating.”

Well, evolutionary scientists are doing the same with the new molecular discoveries as they relate to similarities. One type of test appears to agree with evolutionary theory, so that ONE is trumpeted in the textbooks and the others are ignored. This is the serum test for antibodies. Serological tests made with non-human blood serum give varying percentages of precipitation: Tests run on a wide variety of animals reveal that a few provide an ascending stepladder up to man. At the bottom is the kangaroo, 0.0 percent; at the top is man with 100 percent. That sounds great for evolution, but what does it actually prove when one stops to think about it? According to this evolutionary “proof,” man descended from apes, which descended from sheep, which descended from deer, which descended from horses, which descended from kangaroos, which descended from nothing. (There is nothing below kangaroos in the line of descent, since it registers 0.0 percent).

But the findings from large numbers of other molecular tests are totally ignored. The public is not told about them.

CHROMOSOME COMPARISONS—As mentioned earlier, homology is the name given to the effort of science to prove evolutionary theory on the basis of shallow physical similarities between various creatures. (“Shallow,” that is, because “five bones” in the arm and hand are emphasized, while crucial factors, such as chromosome counts, are ignored.)

But the creatures thought to be more closely related have been found, in fact, to be totally different in a number of ways, when exacting 20th century molecular comparisons have been made. We have already considered several examples of that.

If you wanted to really KNOW which species were the closest to each other, what method would you use? If you stop to think about it, the very best way would be to compare chromosome counts. What genetic factor could be more basic than chromosomes and its DNA?

Each species has a specific number of chromosomes in each cell in its body. Human beings, for example, have 46 chromosomes in each body cell, while in their reproductive cells (the egg and the sperm) there are only half that number (23). In this way, when the sperm and egg unite, the full number of 46 will be made up again.

Is there any factor more basic to a species than its chromosome count? Knowledgeable scientists seriously doubt it.

Several chromosome count lists are available in scientific books. A comparison of them would provide us with the very best “similarities” analysis that we could possibly hove!

Let us now consider this matter of chromosome count “similarities.” John N. Moore has done a great service for us all. He took chromosome counts for various species, and then placed them into a “family tree” arrangement, such as evolutionists like to display in school textbooks. (John N. Moore, “On Chromosomes, Mutations, and Phylogeny,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1972, pp. 159-171.)

The result is not numerical similarities in each “family branch,” —but rather something of a confusion of numbers on all leveisl Keeping in mind that one of the most important factors in any given species is its chromosome court, this lack of numerical similarity is highly revealing. It is clear that there cannot possibly be any relationship between the various species—even those supposed to be “closely related.”

To say it again: Chromosomes contain the genes which themselves are the DNA spirals. It would be impossible to change the chromosome count of a species, or an individual in that species, without totally destroying that species or that individual No respectable biologist would suggest that by removing one or several chromosomes, a new species would be produced. That could not be, for the gene factors containing the millions of DNA codes are to be found all along those chromosome strings. To remove even one chromosome would be to remove millions of vital body factors.

“Chromosome number is probably more constant, however, than any other single morphological characteristic that is available for species identification.” —*Eldon J. Gardner, Principles of Genetics (1968), p. 211.

Because the genes determine all body parts and functions, we would expect that the smaller life forms would have fewer chromosomes, and there is a tendency in this direction, but even in this there are striking exceptions as will be seen below. (The Cosmarium, a simple algae, can have as many as 140 chromosomes, and Radiolaria, a simple protozoa, has over 800, whereas human beings only have 46.)

Here is part of Moore’s findings. (In all the following, the duplex or double chromosome count [2n [found in most body cells is given; exceptions will be marked “n = “[1 n].) When several different numbers are listed, each is for a separate species.

First, we will look at the chromosome counts of several branches of the PLANT KINGDOM:

At the bottom of the evolutionary plant tree are the ALGAE: What similarity do you find in any of these numbers? Chlamydomonas, 16 / Chords, 56 / Cladophora, 22,24 / Closterium, (n =194) l Cosmarium, 40,120-1401 Cystophyllum, 32-48 / Laminaria, 62 / Nitella, (n = 9,18) l Spirogyra, (n =16,32,50).

Just up the trunk from the algae, we come to the FUNGI: Bacillus, 1 / Clavaria, (n=8) l Escherichia, 1 l Neurospora, (n =7) I Phytophthora, 8-10 / Saccaromyoes, 30.45,60.

Further up the plant kingdom trunk we go out onto the branch marked PTERIDOPHYTES: Adiantum, 60,120,116 / Diphasium, 46 / Diplazium, 82,123 / Dryopteris, 82,123 / Elaphoglossum, 82 / Isoetes, 33,4.4 / Ophioglossum. 960.1100 / PoHpoafum, 72,111,148 / Aolystichum, 82,164 / Paimtum, 208 / Lycopodium, 46,340,528 / Pteris, 58,76.87,115 / Selaginella, 20,36 l Thelypteris, (n = 29,36,62,72).

At the top of the imaginary tree of plant evolution are the DICOTYLEDONS: Brassica, 18,20 / Chrysanthemum, 18,36,56,138,198 / Clematis, 16 / Helianthus, 34 l Phaseolus, 22 / Primula, 16,22,36 / Ranunculus, 16,32,48 / Rumex, 20,40,60 / Salix, 40,63 / Sodium, 20,44,54,68 / Petunia, 14 / Raphanus, 16,18,20,38.

Now we go to the second of the two trees: It is called the ANIMAL KINGDOM. Moving upward from bottom to top, here are the chromosome counts of a few of its branches:

PROTOZOA: Euglena, 45 / Radiolaria, (over 800) /Amoeba, 30-40.

NEMATHELMINTHES: Ascaris, 2,4,22,48-50 / EchinOlIIynCUB, 8.

PORIFERA: Grantia, 8,26 / Sycandra, 16.

ARACHNIDA: Argas, 26 / Agalena, 44 / Heptaihela, e0 / Eu90opi63, 70-64 / 711yus, 6,10,20.

CRUSTACEA: Anemia, 84 / Daphnia, 8,20 / Cambarus, 208 / Cypris, 24 / Notodromas, 16.

INSECTA: Acrida, 23 / Aphid, 5,6,8,12 / Musca, 12 / Lethooerus, 8.30 / Cimex, 29-24 / Lysandra, 380 / Bombyx, 50-71 I Cicindela, 20•24 / Calliphora, 12 / Drosophila, 8-12 / MetapooVus, 22-26.

PICES: Salmo, 80-96 / Coregonus, 80 / Mollienisia, 36-48 / Lepidosiren, 360 / Nioorhynchus, 74 / Betta, 42 / Cyprinus, 99.

AMPHIBIA: Rang, 16,24,26,39 / Salamandra, 24 / Cryptobranchus, 56,62 / Bolo, 22 / Triton, 18-24.

REPTILA: Elaphe, 36 / Hemidactylus, 46 / Alligator, 32 / Chamaeleon, 24 / Lacena, 36,38 / Emys, 50 / Anguis, 36,44.

AVES: Rhea, 42-68 / Passer, 40-48,54-60 / Melopstittacus, 50-60 / Gallus, 12-44 / Anal, 43-49,80 / Columba, 50,31-62 / Lams, 60.

MAMMALIA: Omlthorhynchus, 70 / Didelphys, 1722 / Erinaceus, 48 I Sorex, 23 / Lepus, 36-46 / Peromyms, 48,52 / Microtus, 42.46.50 / Apoafemus, 46,48.50 l Mus. 40,44 / Ratus, 46,62 / Cams, 50,64,73 / Fells, 35,38 / Boa, 16,20,60 / Capra, 60 / Ovis, 33,48,54.60 / Sus, 18,38,40 / Equus, 60,66 / Rhesus, 42,48 / Homo, 46.

CHROMOSOME COUNT IN RELATION TO SIZE—It is obvious that each branch of the ancestral trees is but a jumbled maze of chromosome numbers, having little mutual correspondence. What about size of organism, from small to large? We already referred to the fact that even here we do not find a clear-cut pattern. The smallest life form ought to have the fewest chromosomes, and the largest ought to have the largest. That would be a fact which would encourage the evolutionists, but consider the following list:

Aulacantha (protozoa): 16W / garden pea: 14 / maize: 20 / alfalfa: 40 / Barley: 14 / oats: 42 / trillium: 10 / 1!0mato: 24 / mouse: 40 / copepods-crab: 6 / man: 46 / deer mouse: 48 / striped skunk: 50 / mink: 30 / dog: 78 / fox: 34 / pig: 38 / donkey: 62 / small monkey (Maraca rhesus): 42 / cow: 60 / gorilla: 48 / Gypsy moth: 62.

That list may have some relation to size, but actually not very much. Thus, analyzing the number of chromosomes a creature has, in relation to the size of that creature, provides no tangible help in ascertaining evolutionary descent. Just below, we will learn that DNA count in relation to size is equally meaningless, as far as helping to establish evolutionary theory.

DNA COUNT IN RELATION TO SIZE—Before concluding this section, let us consider estimated DNA counts for various creatures. As you know, it is the DNA within the cell which contains all the codes needed for all structures and functions within each organism.

“It might reasonably be thought that the amount of DNA in the genome would increase pretty steadily as we advance up the evolutionary scale. But in fact measurements of total DNA content are quite contusing. While the mammalian cell seems to have about 800 times more DNA than a bacterium, toads (to take an example) have very much more than mammals, including man, while the organism with most DNA (of those so far studied) is the lily, which can have from 10,000 to 100,000 times as much DNA as a bacterium!” —*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 174.

The following sample listing will begin with those creatures having the smallest amount of DNA, and will progressively move on up to those with the most. You will note that man is only about 2/3s up the list, yet he should be at the top!

baccerophage-0X174: 0.000,003,6 / bacteriophage1’2: 0.000,2 / colon bacteria: 0.004,7 / yeast: 0.07 / snail: 0.67 / sea urchin: 0.90 / chicken: 1.3 / duck: 1.3 / carp: 1.6 / green turtle: 2.6 / cattle: 2.8 / man: 3.2 / toad: 3.7 / frog: 7.5 / protapterus: 50 / amphiuma: 84.

Here is what *Dobzhansky had to say about that table!

“More complex organisms generally have more DNA per cell than do simpler ones, but this rule has conspicuous exceptions. Man is far from the top of the list, being exceeded by Amphiuma Ian epode amphibian], Propterus [a lungfish], and even ordinary frogs and toads. Why this should be so has long been a puzzle.” —*Theodosius Dobraransky, Genefts of the Evolutionary Process (1970), p. 17-18.

It appears that the Designer of everything arranged matters so that, on not one single point, could man say, “I am smart enough to be able to fully understand and explain it.”

PATTERSON’S CONCLUSION—Colin Patterson is senior paleontologist at the British Museum. He is an expert in fossil species, and has spent most of his lifetime comparing them with living species. Throughout all those years of research, he has tried to figure out this imaginary evolutionary “family tree” of who-was-descended-from-whom. In an address given at the American Museum of Natural History on November 5, 1981, he expressed regret that he had been asked to speak on the topic, “Creation and Evolution,” for, he said, he had become so puzzled over his findings that he was ready to give up evolution. He said that after 20 years of evolutionary research, he was unable to come up with even one thing that proved evolutionary theory. When he had asked other leading evolutionists for solutions, they glibly told him, “Oh, its just convergence; convergence is everywhere,” as if that answered the evolutionary problem: Different creatures, totally unrelated to one another, having features in common—which it should be impossible for them to have! The problem is then solved by calling it “merely another form of evolution,” and a disproof is magically changed into a proof.

Patterson concluded his talk by saying that evolution was an “anti-theory” that produced “antiknowledge. ” He elaborated on this by saying that evolution is full of special words that explain nothing, yet give the impression that they explain everything. Something that produces “anti-knowledge,” really produces ignorance. And surely we do not want that!

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Evolution Cruncher

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: