LaVergne Church of Christ |
The Other Side of Evolution (continued)
In this chapter are to be found over two dozen arguments lodged against the theory of organic evolution. These arguments involve problems which evolutionists must face and overcome if they are to succeed on proving their theory. It is well to keep in mind that while these problems expose the absurdity of evolution, they also establish the only alternative - special creation.
The renowned biologist, John W. Klotz, in his work Genes,
Genesis and Evolution, points out that one of the greatest problems
confronting evolutionists is the origin of life.1 Evolutionists
have no explanation for how life began. The law of biogenesis
states that life comes from life. Evolution, however, by its
very nature and when forced to its logical end, demands that
life came from non-life, that at one time life arose spontaneously
of itself. Julian Huxley, one of the world's leading evolutionists,
admits the truth of this conclusion.2 To show the enormity of
the problem and the absurdity of a spontaneous origin of life,
Dr. Douglas Dewar explains what must have taken place if life
arose by accident.
Eugene Guye estimated that the odds against the formation of
one simple protein molecule by chance combinations of atoms of
hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and sulphur are one hundred
(multiplied by itself 160 times) to one.3
The smallest living thing known to man is a virus. It is made
up of 600 stands of protein molecules. Each of these strands
contains 400 amino acids. In order for this virus to live all
of the amino acids in all of the protein molecules must be lined
up in a specific order. If even one of the amino acids is out
of place the virus cannot live. Now what is the possibility of
all these amino acids coming together simultan-eously at the
same spot in the precise order needed? The chance of this happening
has been calculated to be 1 in 10240 - or 10 followed by with
240 zeros! This means that it could never happen!!
The principle of philosophical necessity states:
"Something cannot come from nothing, therefore, something always was."
There never could have been a time there was nothing! Something has always been in existence! Something is eternal! But what was it that always was? All things known to man must fall logically into one of two categories - mind or matter. One of these must be eternal, one of these is the original cause! Now which is more reasonable?
1) To conclude that matter has always existed, and that from lifeless matter life and intell-igence came?
2) To conclude that mind or intelligence has always existed, and that from this supreme intelligence matter came?
Which is more rational, logical and believable?
Evolutionists have no alternative but to say that dead matter has always existed - there is no escaping this conclusion. But such is contrary to all scientific knowledge. It is easy to see why evolutionists are uncomfortable discussing the origin of life. This illustrates the embarrassing position to which they are driven by their theory.
The question of the origin of the first protein remains unanswered by evolutionists. It constitutes an insurmountable problem.
Proteins are formed by living substance, yet living substance cannot exist without protein. They are interdependent, one cannot exist without the other. Evolutionists, however, admit that if their theory is true protein existed before living substance. So, the question is: "At a time when life did not exist how were proteins formed?" Or is it not more reasonable, and easier to conform to scientific fact, to simple conclude that both protein and living substance came into existence at the same time - perfect and complete!
Of all laws of physical science none are more basic and certain than the two laws of thermodynamics.4 The first law of thermodynamics states that while energy can be converted from one form to another the total amount remains the same. The second law states that although the total amount remains un-changed, some of this energy becomes non-reversible heat energy. Or to put it another way, it becomes less available for use. Thus, the amount of useful energy in the universe is always decreasing which means there is a tendency toward greater randomness. As expressed by the great physicist, James Jeans, the universe is like a gigantic clock that was once wound up and is now running down.
Evolution, on the other hand, suggests that instead of tendency toward greater randomness in the universe there is a tendency toward a higher degree of organization. So instead of the clock running down evolution has it winding up! This is direct contrast to the second law of thermodynamics. As Dr. Henry Morris has observed:
"It is hard to believe that the leaders in evolutionary thought, not to mention their hosts of uncritical followers, have ever really confronted this gross contradiction between their theory of evolution (which they protest overmuch to be a "fact") and the second law of thermodynamics.5
In responding to this some evolutionists have suggested that the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to the living world. However, it does, and in a very dynamic way! Such an argument shows the weakness of the evolution position. There is no possible why to reconcile evolution and the second law. Evolutionists, therefore, are remarkably silent about this problem.
EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENTIFICALLY GROUNDED
That evolution is not based on science is easily shown in the following principle:
"The theory of evolution can be denied without denying one single fact of science."
This principle has been set forth by many who disagree with the Darwinian theory and has gone unanswered. The logic in this argument is readily accepted when applied to other pseudo-scientific theories. For example, one might teach the theory that rats arise spontaneously out of old rags. Challenging that position another might say: "I can deny that theory without denying any fact of science." Since the supporter of such a theory could not show any point of science which must be rejected, it is concluded that his theory has no scientific basis! But when evolution is tested with the same logic, the conclusion is simply brushed aside. The following syllogism establishes the argument:
1) A theory is unscientific if it can be denied without denying any fact of science.
2) Evolution can be denied without denying any fact of science.
3) Therefore, evolution is unscientific.
The amoeba and paramecium are two examples of one-celled animals. Though each consists of only one cell these two minute organisms exhibit highly complex and altogether contrasting systems. The amoeba has only a thin plasma membrane around its body of protoplasm. It has no definite shape but is constantly changing to suit its surroundings. Its means of locomotion is called amoeboid move-ment describing the pushing out of a "false foot" (pseudopod) in the direction in which it is going. The rest of the body then flows along with this movement. The amoeba obtains food by an engulfing process. It approaches the food and simply flows over and around it until it is absorbed into its body.
On the other hand, in addition to a plasma membrane, the para-mecium, has a tough, yet flexible, outer covering called pellicle. In contrast to the amoeba the paramecium has a definite "slipper-shaped" body. Locomotion is caused by tiny hair-like projections called cilia (totaling about 2500). Instead of engulfing food as does the amoeba the paramecium has a definite mouth pore.
Evolutionists teach that these two forms evolved from a common ancestor. And, of course, if evolution were true there must have been a common ancestor for these two animals. Yet, there is absolutely no evidence of this - it is merely assumed by evolutionists. Considering the great differences between these two protozoa it would take a stretch of the imagination to even visualize a "common ancestor" from which both could have evolved. Then, too, the fact that there are over 30,000 different protozoa greatly amplifies the problem.
GAP BETWEEN PROTOZOA AND METAZOA
As already mentioned protozoa are animals with only one cell. They exist in abundance in the forms of sarcodina, mastigophora, spor-azoa, cilata and suctoria. Metazoa, or many-celled animals, constitute the next step in single animal complexity. However, the simplest forms of metazoa, such as the sponges and coelenterates, are made up of literally hundreds of cells! Now the remarkable thing about all this is that there are no animals to bridge the gap between the protozoa and metazoa. There are no animals with 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, etc. cells and there is no evidence that any such animals ever existed. And if evolution is still occurring, as evolutionists say is true, why are there no multi-celled animals between these two groups living today?
Fossils are the impressions or traces of plants and animals found within various layers of the earth's outer crusts. Literally millions of such remains have been unearthed. In attempting to support their theory evolutionists appeal to the fossil record. And, indeed, this is supposed to be the very best of evidence. Now if the evolution theory is true then certainly here, in the fossil record, evidence of the evolution of life should be found in abundance. For example, at the base of the fossil record we would expect to find only the simplest of life forms. However, this is not at all the case. At the very lowest point in the fossil record (Cambrian period) are to be found thousands of highly complex animals. In other words, there is no slow increase of animal complexity in the fossil record. The evidence shows that complex life forms have been here all along. The fossils reveal the sudden appearance of all sorts of life.
The earliest know sedimentary rocks contain no fossils...in the rocks laid down in the Cambrian period a host of well defined fossils occur in many parts of the world, not only of simple, one-celled animals, but also of a great variety of sea creatures, many of them quite as complex as anything to be found on the beach today. Fossils of no fewer than 5,000 different species have been found of jellyfish, corals, sea lilies and sea cucumbers, worms, numerous kinds of crustaceans and a wide range of shellfish.13
If evolution were true one would not expect to find "well defined" assortments of complex animals at the base of the fossil record. Con-sequently, for over one hundred years evolutionists have been trying to produce evidence of "pre-Cambrian" fossils, but with no success. Even Darwin understood the conflict between his theory and the facts of the geological record. He could see that for life to have reached the complexity found at the Cambrian level, life must have existed long before the it was laid down. He admitted that if the evolution theory was true then long before the Cambrian period was laid down the world must have "swarmed with living creatures."14
All this is quite embarrassing to evolutionists, and especially so since the fossil record is the only means of direct evidence. The fossils are, indeed, evidence that life appeared suddenly in all its splendor.
SUDDEN APPEARANCE OF FLOWERING PLANTS
In the previous argument it was pointed out that animals appeared suddenly in the geological record. However the same thing is also true in the plant world. Of this, Klotz says:
"One of the big problems of plant evolution, and especially of the evolution of flowering plants, is the fact that the latter appear so suddenly in the geological record...Darwin called their origin an "abominable mystery," and most evolutionists today still agree.15
There is absolutely no sign of gradual development in the flower-ing plants and no pre-existing forms from which they could have arisen. They appear suddenly without warning. Evolutionists have nothing to explain this discrepancy with their theory.
As one looks at the world about him it is obvious that there are no living forms which represent intermediate or transitional links between groups of animals. Many students of evolution are surprised to learn that the same thing is true of the fossil record. There are no missing links and in spite of the zeal of many evolutionists to produce some, they are still missing! Actually, the whole chain is missing!
If evolution is true it stands to reason that the fossil record should be full of such transitional forms - forms of animals only partially complete. But there are none. Every fossil remain exhibits an animal that was fully developed with all the features that distinguish the group to which it belongs. It should be noted also that the lack of transitional forms is not due to the imperfection of the fossil record, but rather demonstrates that such forms never did exist.
Because of the obvious lack of intermediate or transitional forms, some evolutionists have questioned the original "Darwinian" theory that life evolved by small steps. As far back as 1944 George Gaylord Simpson, strong proponent of evolution admitted:
"Continuous transitional sequences are not merely rare, but are virtually absent...Their absence is so nearly universal that it cannot, offhand, be imputed entirely to chance, and does require some attempt at special explanation, as has been felt by most paleontologists."6
He went on to say:
"It is thus possible to claim that such transitions are not recorded because they did not exist, that the changes were not by transition but by sudden leaps in evolution. There is much diversity of opinion as to just how such leaps are supposed to happen."7
Since then many more leading evolutionists have expressed
similar concern about the lack of intermediate fossils. In the
med 1950s Richard Goldschmidt revised Simpson's idea. By most
evolutionists his view was labeled the "Hopeful Monster"
theory. In the 1970s and 1980's Niles Eldridge of the American
Museum of Natural History and Stephen Gould of Harvard, two of
the most highly regarded men in their fields, proposed this same
theory, this time calling it "punctuated equilibria"
or "explosive" evolution.
So, according to this newer theory we are expected to believe
that radically new and different forms of life were produced
by "sudden leaps" from one generation to the next.
After all, what else can be offered to explain why there are
no intermediate fossils? Though this new idea is almost laughable,
yet, it is being widely accepted.
To any thinking person it should be obvious that the lack of intermediate fossils has caused evolutionists to scramble for an alternative explanation for how evolution could have occurred.
UNBRIDGED GAPS BETWEEN BODY STRUCTURES
The theory of gradual change from one generation to the next is the backbone of standard evolution. For example, within the frame-work of evolution we are told there was gradual change from reptile to mammal and also from mammal to the cetacean (marine mammals such as the whale). However, such supposed transformations are shown to be impossible by the broad gaps between the body structure of these animals.
Concerning the "change" from reptile to mammal, the lower jaw of the reptile, with as many as six bones on either side, articulates with the skull by means of the quadrate bone. In the mammal, however, the lower jaw, with one bone on each side, articulates directly with the skull. What possible steps could there have been to bridge this gap? It should be noted that there are no fossils revealing such intermediate stages. Furthermore, it is impossible to even imagine how this structural gap could have been bridged. And this is not to mention the difficulty this creature would have had in eating! Regarding the so-called change from land mammal to marine mammal, Dewar says:
"Such a transformation would have involved a line of intermediate types in which the pelvis was too small to enable the creature walk on land, while too large to permit it to swim (as does the whale) by the up and down movement of its tail."8
He further states that such a hypothetical structure would demand a movement of the tail which would "crush the reproductive opening of the animal against the back of the pelvis."9 And again there are no fossils of such intermediate stages between land and marine mammals. It would be interesting, however, to see sketches of the skeletons of such intermediate forms at the quarter, half and three-quarter stages. But, of course, this gap, as well as the gap between reptile and mammal, involves a structural impossibility!
Another extremely difficult problem evolutionists are unable to explain is the origin of the vertebrates (or animals with backbones). Evolution teaches that vertebrates evolved from invertebrates (animals without backbones), and this would seem to be the case if evolution were true. But the differences between the two are so pronounced that it is impossible to conceive how one could have arisen from the other. As Dr. Klotz points out:
"However, there is a tremendous gap between the highest invertebrate and the lowest vertebrate. None of the invertebrates has anything which remotely resembles the vertebral column, which is one of the outstanding characteristics of the vertebrate.
Furthermore, the body plan of the invertebrates is quite different from the body plan of the vertebrates. For one thing, the annelids and arthropods have a ventral nerve cord. The vertebrates all have a dorsal nerve cord. The invertebrate nerve cord is solid; the vertebrate nerve cord is hollow. The invertebrate heart is dorsal; the vertebrate heart is ventral. Indeed, it would seem that a vertebrate is an many ways an invertebrate turned inside out."10
No fewer than a half dozen different theories have been suggested attempting to explain how this change might have taken place, which in itself shows evolution at this point to be nothing short of guesswork. And it should be noted also that the fossil record contains no evidence whatever which bridges these two broad categories of life.
NECESSITY OF PERFECTION IN ANIMAL ORGANS
Bodies cannot properly function unless they are essentially complete. All complex animals have organs which are useless unless fully developed and, which, if not fully developed, make survival of these animals biologically impossible. Throughout the world there are millions of examples that clearly illustrate this.
SPINNERETS OF SPIDERS
The web-spinning organ of the spider is essential for its survival and continued reproduction. It does not seem possible that at one time this organ was only partially complete, yet, evolutionists are forced to assume that very thing. But what useful function could there be in a one fourth or one half evolved web-spinning organ? During all those millions of years of so-called evolution while the organ was develop-ing, how did this little creature survive? That this organ had to be perfect and complete from the very beginning is the only reasonable conclusion.
POLLEN "BASKETS" OF THE BEE
As the little bee flies from flower to flower pollen clings
to the hairs on its legs and body and is transferred to pollen
"baskets" on its hind legs. These baskets are made
by a peculiar arrangement of hairs surrounding a depression on
the outer surface of the legs. On the middle pair of legs at
the joint is a short, projecting spur used to pack
pollen into the pollen baskets. The hind legs have "combs"
used to scrape pollen from the hairy body while the middle pair
of legs are used to scrape pollen from the abdomen and second
pair of legs. When the bee reaches its hive it uses a spur at
the tip of each front leg to push the pollen out of the pollen
baskets and into the cells of the hive. The whole procedure is
efficient and practical - a wondrous design indeed!
Pollen is necessary for the survival of the bee. Had there been a time when the basket was only half evolved, survival of the bee would have been impossible. It had to be complete at the start. And to this is added the fact that the wings and legs of the bee had to be complete from the start. What good would only partially competed baskets, wings and legs have been to this little creature?
Literally millions of similar and even more complex examples could be cited demonstrating the necessity of original perfection in animals organs.
NECESSITY OF PERFECTION IN BOTH PLANTS AND ANIMALS FOR CROSS-POLLINATION
On the basis of the preceding argument it should be obvious that cross-pollination is many plants would be impossible without the com-pleted organs of various animals. The following examples serve to illustrate this even further.
YUCCA PLANT AND PRONUBA MOTH
The Pronuba moth flies to the Yucca plant (a bush of the western states), scrapes together a wad of pollen about three times the size of its head, and carries it to another Yucca plant. Here the Pronuba lays eggs among the seed cells of the plant and packs this all down with the pollen wad which, in turn, cross-pollinates the plant. The eggs soon hatch and the young moths eat approximately one fifth of the seeds. The remaining seeds than supply the new Yucca plants. The survival and existence of the yucca plant depends on the proper function of the perfect and complete organs of the Pronuba Moth. Likewise, the Pronuba could not survive without the proper function of the yucca plant, since it is dependent on the Yucca for reproducing offspring. Now, the question is, "What good would an incomplete Yucca plant be to the Pronuba moth?" Likewise, "What good would an incomplete Pronuba moth be to the Yucca plant? The fact is that both of them had to be complete and functioning with perfection from the beginning.
LADY'S SLIPPER AND FLYING INSECTS
This is a flower shaped like a moccasin with a small hole at the "heel." The insect goes into the flower but can only get out by way of the heel. Here it brushes against the pollen grains and carries some with it when leaving. The insect then flies to another Lady's Slipper and enters. Here the pollen is rubbed off and cross-pollination takes place. In order for this to occur it is obvious that the Lady's Slipper must be perfect and complete and that the insects must, likewise, be complete, able to fly from flower to flower. However, according to evolution, both this flower and flying insects were at one time incomplete. But of what use would a half-evolved heel be to the Lady's Slipper and what good would partially developed wings be to the insects. Is it not more reasonable to conclude that both were perfect from the beginning?
SALVIA AND BUMBLEBEE
Upon entering one of these flowers for nectar the bumblebee strikes the lower part of the stamen which brings the anther down on its back. Pollen is dusted on its back and when it flies to another flower the pollen is scraped off by the same method, thus enabling cross-pollination to occur. Had there ever been a time when the Salvia had no stamen and anther the survival of the plant would have been impossible. Likewise, it would have been impossible had the bumble-bee had only partially evolved wings. And, yet, evolution demands that at one time this flower was not complete and the bumblebee did not have fully developed wings. But what good is a bumblebee without wings or wings only half-evolved? Reason forces one to conclude that these forms of life worked together with perfection from the beginning.
PITFALL FLOWER AND INSECTS
This flower traps the insect in its bottle-shaped frame. It then dusts the insect prisoner with pollen and releases it. The insect then flies to another Pitfall flower where cross-pollination occurs. But, this could never be accomplished if either the insect or flower were incomplete. It can be clearly seen that perfection of organs in many plants and animals was necessary from the very beginning or survival or either of them would have been impossible.
NECESSITY OF PERFECTION IN ANIMALS FOR COLONIAL LIVING
Nature abounds with cases where two or more animals are found living together in what is termed colonial living. A great many of these arrangements are highly intricate and cannot be explained in terms of evolution.
PORTUGUESE "MAN OF WAR" AND NOMEUS FISH
The Man of War (or physalia) is a marine animal which has an air-filled membrane acting as a float that stays on top of the water. Long poisonous, tentacles hang down several feet beneath the water's surface. The Nomeus fish lives among these tentacles and lures larger fish into this deadly trap. The Man of War devours the "meal" and the Nomeus gets the scraps. Never is the Nomeus harmed by the Man of War. Of this complex system, Meldau says:
The thinking person who is honest must admit that such an involved mechanism of symbiosis (such an ingenious stratagem) must be the work of a master mind and could NOT be developed by "gradual" or "random" mutations. Evolution could work in the dark for a billion years and not come up with such an amazing mechanism. Note, further, that to work the system HAS to be perfected from the beginning. A gradual evolution into such an intricate arrangement would not work until completely "evolved." And so throughout the ages of "evolvement" one would be confronted with a meaningless and incomplete "nothingness." But such impractical incompleteness is never found in nature."11
NECESSITY OF PERFECT AND COMPLETE INSTINCTS
There are literally thousands of animals possessing highly complicated instincts which could not have possibly developed gradually. Following are a few examples.
WATER SPIDER
This little spider has the remarkable instinct of building a nest under water. It spins a silken airtight sheet near the bottom of a pond and fastens it to some stationary object. The nest is then connected to a surface object by a silken cord. However, before the new nest can be inhabited it must be filled with air. The spider entangles bubbles of air among the hairs of its body and pulls itself down the cord to the sheet of silk, under which the air is released. This process is repeated many times until the water in the nest is replaced with air. It is in this under-water nest that the young spiders are hatched.
The Water Spider's survival depends on this remarkable instinct to build an underwater nest. Could there have ever a time when this instinct was only half-evolved? No rational person could entertain such an idea.
And another amazing thing is that the young spiders carry on with this remarkable process, and do it without flaw the very first time, even though they never see their mothers building the nests. If this instinct evolved, how did the water spider manage to survive through all those millions of years during which this transition was supposed to have been occurring?
SOLITARY WASPS
Such wasps have an expert way of providing fresh meat for their offspring. The wasp paralyses its victims and stores them among the her unhatched offspring, which, incidentally, she never sees. When the young wasps hatch they live on the fresh meat. When matured, these new wasps will duplicate this amazing procedure. This instinct could not have come about gradually by the blind forces of nature. Neither could the wasp have learned this instinct, for it never sees the parent paralyzing a victim.
MARTIN'S NEST
Dewar gives the following description of the Martin's nest building ability.
"The nest, which is attached to a perpendicular wall, is composed of mud collected by the bird in its bill from a puddle, mixed with bits of straw to toughen the mud. In order to get a foothold on the side of the wall, and maintain its position and plaster the mud to the face of the wall, the bird not only clings with its claws but also uses its tail as a fulcrum by pressing its tip against the wall. When a layer of about half-an-inch has been attached to the wall the bird ceases work for the day, to enable the mud to harden before more is added. Next morning the work is resumed."12
In about ten days the nest is completed and perfectly suited for all the Martin's needs. This nest building instinct, if only partially devel-oped, would result in disaster. What good would such an instinct be if only half-evolved? Through the longs ages, while this instinct was supposedly evolving, how did the Martin continue its life process? There is no way to explain how such a unique instinct came about gradually. It had to be complete from the beginning.
Evolutionists often cite so-called vestigial (degenerate) organs as evidence of evolution. The claim is made that as life evolved various organs within animals became useless and, as time passed, degenerated. Obviously, if evolution occurred this would seem to be the case, for this is fundamental to the theory. (Vestigial organs will be taken up in the next chapter.)
However, just as important to the theory of evolution is the devel-opment of nascent (newly appearing) organs. It stands to reason that if animals evolved, and in the process lost various organs, they would also have developed new and more useful organs. After all, how could new and different animals have come about? And this is the very point at issue - whether or not animals evolved into more complex forms. But where are these nascent organs? There are no examples of such in any living specimens. Indeed, it would seem that evolution, if it ever occurred, has somehow stopped. In addition, there is no evidence of nascent organs in any animals of the fossil record.
One evolutionist, defending his theory in debate, when pressed on this point, made the brilliant discovery that the corns on his toes were nascent organs.16 Into what could these corns possibly evolve?
To many evolutionists the problem of the lack of nascent organs has proved fatal. It is significant that evolutionary indoctrinated textbooks have very little or nothing to say about such organs.
TESTIMONY OF THE ENDOPARASITES
There are many animals which spend most of their lives inside other animals. One such example is the Taemia Solium (tape-worm) which normally spends its adult life in the human intestine. Of the tapeworm, Dewar says:
"Its flat tape-like body is many feet long and is composed, for most of its length, of loosely connected segments, which in the forepart of the creature become small and narrow, terminating in a rounded head provided with a crown of hooks and four suckers, by means of which it firmly attaches itself to the wall of the intestine of its victim (or so-called "host"). Each of the segments holds male and female organs, which produce the eggs. These eggs cannot develop while they remain in the intestine of the host. As soon as the eggs in any segment mature, this breaks off and passes out of the host with the faeces. After being ejected the segment decomposes and sets free the eggs it contains. These eggs perish unless they are eaten by a pig. As soon as an egg finds itself in the stomach of a pig it begins to develop into a larva which is provided with six spines, and is called a pre-solex. This, by means of its spines, forces its way through the wall of the pig's stomach, its leathery covering having by this time become dissolved by the juices in the pig's stomach, which do not harm the pre-solex. On leaving the stomach the pre-solex forces itself into the muscles of its host, in which it takes up its abode and sur- rounds itself with a protecting case and then develops at its hinder end a bladder filled with fluid. In this condition it is called a solex. This is the final stage of the tapeworm, unless the part of the pig in which it is located is eaten by a human being. When it finds itself in the intestines of a man the solex breaks out of its case, and by means of its hooks and suckers attaches itself to the wall of the intestine, where it grows into an adult tapeworm."17
The problem for evolution created by this endoparasite is enormous. It must be explained how the tapeworm, living inside another animal, slowly evolved over aeons of time from a worm which lived in the open. So much is involved here that such a transition would have been impossible. For example:
1) How could a free-living worm have entered into the stomach
of another animal and continued there alive, surviving the body
acids?
2) How did it continue to breathe and nourish itself during this
long period of transition?
3) What is the explanation for the change from a free-living
worm with a digestive system, to this endoparasite which has
no digestive system?
But the problem for evolutionists is multiplied when noting the complexity of the life cycle of the tapeworm. Evolution cannot explain the change from the reproduction process of a worm living in the open, to a tapeworm which depends on two different animal hosts for reproduction? The gap between the free-living worm and the tapeworm is too broad for evolution to close. And this is only one of hundreds of endoparasites all of which present equally difficult problems.
Most evolutionists believe that armored animals evolved from soft, naked animals. It is assumed that somehow these naked forms developed a need for protection, and that by gradual change over long periods of time armor appeared. But how and why did these animals develop such a need? And does not the concept of need imply purpose? And how can this be made to harmonize with the evolutionary principle of blind chance working in nature?
Then there are some evolutionists who take an altogether different position, saying that armored animals came first and that from these the soft, naked forms evolved.18
Now who is to be believed? And, remember, this constitutes a gigantic step in the evolution story. If the fossil record contained any information as to which evolved first then there would be no disagreement among evolutionists, which points out that the fossil record contains no evidence of any such evolving. If evolution is so clear-cut and if the evidence is so overwhelming, as we are sometimes led to believe, why this glaring discrepancy? (Similarly, there is disagreement over which came first, thin-skinned or armored fish.)19
Photosynthesis is the means by which green plants convert sun energy into food. This process is carried on throughout practically the entire plant world, even in the very simplest one-cell forms. Photosynthesis involves, in the words of Winchester:
"A long sequence of very complicated steps with many intermediate products being formed before the overall equation is completed."20
Without laboring a detailed description of photosynthesis, let us simply point out that it is virtually impossible to imagine how this complex mechanism could have gradually evolved into existence. It is such a remarkable system of processes that in order for it to work every step must be functioning with perfection. It would be interesting to hear an explanation of how this profoundly complex network of processes evolved.
Metamorphosis is a word describing the various stages through which certain animals pass before reaching their adult forms. The common butterfly is a classic example. This little animal goes through four distinct stages: egg, larva, pupa and adult butterfly. It begins as an egg which, in turn, develops into a worm like larva. The larva has a tremendous appetite eating almost constantly. When the larva reaches its potential growth it goes into the pupa stage by spinning threads of silk around itself forming a cocoon. The transformation which occurs within the cocoon is truly amazing, so amazing, in fact, that science has no adequate explanation for it. Meldau writes:
"The encased caterpillar seems gradually to melt into a jellied, shapeless mass; and before long, out of this melted caterpillar comes a gorgeous butterfly, having large, dainty, colored wings, instead of the crawling, ugly caterpillar!"21
The entire system of metamorphosis is an embarrassing problem for evolutionists, for it is impossible for them to describe, or even visualize, how such a process could have gradually evolved. Evolution simply has no explanation for metamorphosis as witnessed by the following:
"The metamorphosis of the butterfly cannot reasonably be explained by any mechanical theory of evolution. The idea that this mysterious process, by which a certain form of animal is changed comparatively suddenly into something entirely different, and which goes on with undeviating regularity generation after generation, could have come about by the chance selection of chance variations or mutations, without plan and without directing force, is so contrary to intelligence and so basically unscientific that it is...manifestly absurd."22
Informed evolutionists believe that evolution is inevitable, that it is a process of nature that cannot be helped, that there is a tendency in nature for all life to evolve to higher forms. And this is certainly con-sistent with the overall picture of evolution. But, is evolution really inevitable? Is there really a tendency in nature for life to evolve to higher forms? The answer is "No." Abundant evidence substantiates the fact that from the beginning many animals have not changed. At the base of the fossil record (Cambrian period, which evolutionists say was laid down about 500 million years ago) are found thousands of animals which are no different than their offspring living today. In view of this testimony one is forced to ask: "Have animals ever really been subject to the organic change required by evolution?" Again, the fossil record and evolutionary claims do not harmonize and the Darwinian theory has no explanation for this obvious inconsistency!
Another difficulty closely related to the previous argument is the fact that in the modern world several living specimens have been dis-covered which, according to the evolutionary timetable, were supposed to have become extinct millions of years ago. This is true of both plants and animals. In the plant world, for example, evolutionists once taught that the redwood, Metasequoiam, became extinct about 200 million years ago. However, in 1944 a Chinese forester discovered living specimens of this tree in Central China.23 Likewise, for years it was thought that the Coelacanth, a fish, became extinct at least 50 million years ago. However, in 1937 a specimen of the Coelacanth was taken alive off the coast of west Africa.24 Since then many more of these have been discovered. And an even more amazing discovery is that of a mollusk, Neopilino Galatheae. It was found in 1957 off central America at a depth of 11,700 feet.25 Evolutionists have claimed that this mollusk became extinct over 200 million years ago!
Burdened with an already overworked theory, evolutionists are now forced to conclude that these forms, according to their own time-tabletable, remained unchanged for multiplied millions of years, while the rest of the organic world evolved. This conclusion is just a little hard to swallow, and before these discoveries even evolutionists would have rejected such reasoning. How inconsistent can one be? Discoveries of these so-called extinct forms have raised great suspicion regarding the extreme dates set by evolutionists.
Chromosomes are the threadlike structures in the nucleus of the cell. These microscopic threads are the determining factors of inherited characteristics. Assuming evolution to be true, when ascending the evolutionary timetable, one would expect to see a gradual increase in the number of chromosomes of plants and animals. However, this is not at all the case. The following lists show some plants and animals in the ascending order in which they are supposed to have evolved, along with their corresponding chromosome number. Note the great fluctuations.
| PLANTS | ANIMALS | |
| An algae - - - - - - 48 A moss - - - - - - - 40 Pine - - - - - - - - - 24 Onion - - - - - - - - 16 Lily - - - - - - - - - 48 Peas - - - - - - - - - 14 |
Earthworm - - - - - 32 A crayfish - - - - - 208 Chicken - - - - - - - 18 Horse - - - - - - - - 60 Cow - - - - - - - - - 16 Man - - - - - - - - - 46 |
Evolutionists are heard to say that this reasoning is irrelevant, that it has no bearing on the issue. But we can rest assured that had there been, by some twist of circumstance, a gradual increase in the chromosome number of plants and animals corresponding to the evolutionary timetable, evolutionists would be preaching it as proof of their theory! It is amazing how often unfavorable evidence is so easily avoided.
All species of both plants and animals have fixed chromosome numbers.26 Man has forty-six chromosomes and each generation of man has the same number. The horse has sixty and its offspring also has sixty. And this is consistent throughout the entire biological world.
Evolutionists rely heavily on the idea of inherited characteristic. However, since chromosomes determine the inherited characteristics of plants and animals, and since the chromosome number of each specie is fixed, how, then, could evolution have ever occurred? What is the strange force that keeps the seed within its bounds?
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth, and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind, and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after their kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and God saw that it was good."27
Evolution cannot consistently conform to this principle, and, need-less to say, evolutionists refuse to even consider it.
Though it may at first seem to be insignificant, the balance of nature creates another real setback to the evolution position. The force of this argument is best seen by noting that the world is full of small animals which, if not kept in check by higher forms of life, would reproduce to such an extent that no life could exist. To put it another way, there never could have been a time when these animals existed without higher forms of animal life existing at the same time! The following examples illustrate the point.
Most insects multiply at a tremendous rate. For example a single housefly can, in one season, lay as many as 500 eggs. Left unchecked, at the end of one season the offspring of that single fly would number 200,000,000,000,000,000,000 or two hundred quintillion!
If all the offspring of a single pair of common houseflies lived to mature and reproduce, the earth would be covered beneath a layer of flies nearly fifty feet deep in less than six months.28
Now the question is this: Could there have ever been a time when there were no higher animals to keep the housefly in "check"? It is reported that a single spider will kill as many as 200 flies in its lifetime, and there are thousands of species of fly eating spiders. A single toad may eat as many as 30 flies an hour. And a single swallow will eat hundreds of flies every day. But what if there were no spiders, toads, swallows or other insect eaters? Surely disaster would soon overtake the world. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that there was never a time when the fly was among the most advanced animals. And the fly is just one example among thousands in the insect world.
The one-celled amoeba reproduces itself by means of fission.
That is, it goes through mitosis and forms two cells of equal
size. The time required for this is about ninety minutes. Can
we imagine how many amoebas there would be if such rapid means
of reproduction were left unchecked? In less than five years
they would cover all known space (if that were possible). Could
there have ever been a time when the amoeba existed without higher
forms of animal life to feed on them?
And this is only one example of thousands in the protozoan world.
But this is just a beginning. The argument based on nature's balance extends throughout the entire animal world and would require volumes for a complete review.
It is assumed by evolutionists that birds arose from the reptile world. However, this position faces several serious problems.
Since birds are supposed to have evolved from reptiles, evolution- ists maintain that there was some kind of transition between reptilian scales and feathers of birds. However, there is no evidence in the fossil record of such a transition having ever occurred, and no plausible explanation for how such could have ever happened. In fact, the earliest known fossil remains of birds (which, incidentally, evolutionists place at about 165 million years) show fully developed feathers. Such evidence is admitted by knowledgeable evolutionists.29
In addition to this there is wide disagreement among evolutionists as to just how birds developed. Some contend that they came from two-footed, long tailed reptiles. It is believed that these reptiles:
...while running, oared along in the air by flapping their front feet, which were, of course, not in contact with the ground. This oaring movement could become more effective if the breadth of these anterior extremities were increased to give a greater bearing surface. This is believed to have been accompanied by increasing the size of the scales along the arm margin, and these gradually developed into the feathers. Similarly scales are thought to have developed along the marginal of the tail for the same reason, and these, too, gradually developed into feathers.30
Other evolutionists, however, believe that birds evolved from tree-dwelling lizards, that these lizards developed wings and feathers for gliding. Now which view is to be believed? Did birds evolve from two-footed, long tailed reptiles or tree lizards? This, together with the fact that there is no fossil evidence of any transitions from reptile to bird, illustrates the guesswork so prevalent among evolutionists.
Reptiles are cold-blooded while birds are warm-blooded. The reptile has three chambers in its heart and its temperature varies with the temperature of its environment. The bird's heart, however, has four chambers (as does the mammal) and has a built-in "thermostat" or heat control devise by which it maintains a rather constant body temperature. Quite obviously the problem here is to explain this transition in terms of evolution. But is such a transition possible? And how could an animal undergoing this drastic change even survive? How did a cold-blooded animal with three heart chambers develop a bird heart with four chambers? What good would there be to a half-evolved "thermostat"? Theorists are at loss for an explanation.
The required change from scales to feathers and from cold blood to warm blood places before the evolutionist another rather uncomfortable difficulty.
Standard evolution teaches that mammals evolved from reptiles. There are, however, great differences between these two areas of life. For example, mammals have hair, mammary glands and are warm-blooded, while reptiles have none of these characteristics. The gap between these animal groups is too broad even for evolutionists to bridge. The fossil record shows no evidence of a transformation between reptile and mammal and honest evolutionists admit this.
Nature is full of odd creatures which seem to have no place
in the world around them. These animals are so unlike even their
nearest "relatives" on the evolutionary timetable they
are profoundly confusing to evolutionists.
AUSTRALIAN PLATYPUS
This is one of the strangest animals known to man. It has a heavy, squatty body about a foot and a half long, weighs about four pounds and lives in burrows which start beneath water level. It has fur like a beaver, a bill and webbed feet resembling those of a duck, spurs with venom like a snake, large cheek pouches for holding food like a monkey or squirrel, short legs parallel to the ground like a lizard, lays eggs like a bird and nurses it young like a mammal.
Now, from what type animal did the Platypus evolve? From a mammal? But mammals don't lay eggs. Did it come from a lizard? But lizards don't have fur. Maybe it came from a duck. But ducks don't nurse their young. Could it have evolved from a snake? But snakes don't have webbed feet. Did it come from a squirrel. But squirrels don't have duck bills. Actually it seems to be a combination of them all! Clearly, the Platypus defies the theory of evolution. It just doesn't fit in! It appears as a distinct creation.
PRAYING MANTIS
The so-called Praying Mantis is an "insect nightmare" if there ever was one. It is commonly about 2 inches long. It's spiny, ferocious forelegs, its protruding eyes that pop out from its head that appears to be a caricature of a snake's head, its long body and ambling gait, and its bony "armor" suggest "a prehistoric reptile in miniature." It has no voice, and lacks real ears.32
In nature the closest "relative" to the Praying Mantis is the grasshopper. But it is so far removed from even the grasshopper that no evolutionary kinship can be claimed. It seems to be completely out of place in nature. From what did it evolve? The answer! Nothing! Nature displays many such remarkably odd creatures: the cicadas, sea horse, plankton, sting ray, oyster, grunion, palolo worm, electric eel, tilapia, deep-sea squid and climbing perch, to mention only a few. There is simply no place for these animals on the evolutionary tree.
The theory of evolution is built on assumption. It is somewhat like an inverted pyramid made of blocks, with one block at the base followed by two, these followed by three, and so on, with each block representing a step in the theory.
From the very base this inverted pyramid is weak because it begins with assumption. It is assumed that life somehow just sprang into existence. One widely distributed high school biology textbook, when explaining of how life was supposed to have begun, in two short paragraphs uses over a dozen expressions such as "could have come," "might have been," "assumed," "might have produced," "we can imagine," and so on.33 The idea of an accidental beginning of life is the foundation block upon which the entire pyramid rests, yet even that block is made of guesswork!
Ascending the pyramid one can see many additional assumptions, a few of which have already been discussed. Time a space would be exhausted if every argument unfavorable to evolution was presented.
As Morris says:
"Its nature is coming more plainly into focus and can be discerned as that of a vast framework of deductions built upon the foundation of a false premise."34
