CONE OF EVOLUTION

By O. R. Adams Jr.

O. R. Adams Jr., 2007

(BACK TO ARTICLES)

Origin of Life

Why would anyone propose the implausible, unsupported, and improvable theory that elephants and roses both evolved from the same source of life?

This came about because a number of people first assumed, without evidence or support, that God did not exist and did not create the heavens and the earth, and then set out to try to explain how all of the living things came about. It is poor science indeed that excludes a possibility that it cannot prove one way or the other. The origin of life cannot be proved one way or the other, so why do research on that?

The improvable and implausible theory developed was that somehow all of the necessary elements to life came together in just the right atmosphere, and that some kind of a one-celled amoeba developed in some kind of "primeval soup."

Although he did not present the one-celled amoeba theory in his book, The Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin is credited with the theory. Phillip E. Johnson, in his book, Darwin on Trial, states:

Speculation about prebiological evolution began to appear as soon as The Origin of the Species had made its impact, with Darwin's "German Bulldog" Ernst Haeckel taking the leading role at first. Darwin himself made a famous contribution to the field in an 1871 letter [to Joseph Dalton Hooker]:

It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

In an article, Origin of Life, the Wikipedia online encyclopedia refers to the above mentioned letter, and some of the things that followed. The article notes that an experimental approach to the question was beyond the capability of science in Darwin's day, but that in 1936 Alexander Ivanovich Oparin demonstrated that it was the presence of oxygen and other life forms that prevented the chain of events that would lead to the evolution of life. I don't agree that this was "demonstrated," because there has never yet been any evidence that, even under such unheard of conditions, life would evolve. So how can it be said that it was the presence of oxygen and other forms of life that prevented it? Wikipedia also states: "All modern theories of the origin of life take Oparin's ideas as a starting polnt."

The article then goes on to outline models and experiments that have been unsuccessfully tried. The article also frankly admits: "The question 'How do simple organic molecules form a protocell?' is largely unanswered but there are many hypotheses."

I do not believe that any form of life will ever be created in a laboratory by these many efforts to show the possibility of the theories. And if it could be done, I would point out that it was done through much purposeful planning and work, and that the result came about by Intelligent Design. And even then, there is no evidence whatsoever that whatever it was that was created would have the DNA to pass on to any progeny any new design of life. This is not how DNA works.

I also do not believe that there is any evidence that this earth ever existed without oxygen, or with any other conditions that would result in spontaneous life. The number of things that would have to be present and happening at the same time are far beyond any reasonable possibility.

If there could be some kind of accident resulting in some primitive form of life, then there could also be the possibility of more that one such accidents. So, why do the evolutionists try to carry everything back to the one form? Because they well know that the odds of all of the many necessary things occurring at the same time are beyond reasonable possibility, and more than once would be unthinkable.

Let us consider simple definitions from Wikipedia:

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions for the development and function of living organisms.

Ribonucleic acid (RNA) is a nucleic acid polymer consisting of nucleotide monomers. RNA nucleotides contain ribose rings and uracil unlike deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), which contains deoxyribose and thymine. It is transcribed (synthesized) from DNA by enzymes called RNA polymerases and further processed by other enzymes. RNA serves as the template for translation of genes into proteins, transferring amino acids to the ribosome to form proteins, and also translating the transcript into proteins.

A gene is the unit of heredity and carries inherited information. Genes interact with each other to influence physical development and behavior.

As I understand it, all three of the above, plus some more elements, are necessary to a living organism that can reproduce. We see here the circular impossibility of spontaneous life. It is the old "which came first, the chicken or the egg" problem.

If a gene is a unit of heredity and carries inherited information, then the first one would necessarily receive this intelligent information from something. It could not be by accident.

The DNA "contains the genetic instructions." Can you have instructions without purpose in this vital aspect of life? I don't see how. Also, instructions have to come from somewhere.

All of these things occurring by some kind of accident, as the evolutionists postulate, not only is not supported by any evidence, but it is beyond reason. In truth, it cannot be done intentionally and by design by man. They having been trying to do so, without success, ever since Darwin's time. Jonathan Wells, a postdoctoral biochemist with PhDs from both Yale and the University of California, explains this in the first chapter of his book, Icons of Evolution Science or Myth? He says (p. 23): "A biochemist can mix all of the building blocks of life in a test tube and still not produce a living cell."

It should be clear to anyone that there is more to life, even in its most simple forms, than the mere combination of chemicals.

In a 2005 article, Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis, Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D., makes a comprehensive review of the origin of life research. Chadwick is a professor of Biology and Geology at Southwestern Adventist College. He concludes:

Spontaneous origin of life on a prebiological earth is IMPOSSIBLE! http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/chadwick/default.html

Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at LeHigh University, states in his book, Darwin's Black Box The Biochimical Challenge to Evolution. p.185:

Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations.

The University of California, Santa Barbara, library has a collection of observations from a large number of reputable scientists, under the title, Origin of Life, that are consistent with the above statements of Professors Chadwick and Behe and Dr. Wells.

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/OL.html

Even without the additional things necessary for a living entity, and its ability to reproduce, it appears that just the chance coming together of the elements and proteins of an amoeba exceed the realm of possibility. A well known mathematician and astronomer, Sir Frederick Hoyles, calculates the chances to be 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power. Try putting that figure down on paper with the 40,000 zeros!

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/discussion.asp?id=4299&pageno=11

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/OL.html

Nevertheless, our students in our colleges and universities today, and even in many of our public schools and high schools, are being taught that the theory of evolution is proved. Those teaching such things ordinarily do not eliminate the origin of life theories from such teaching. This is a terrible thing for those who would consider themselves teachers of science to engage in. Such teaching is severly criticized in Icons of Evolution, supra, and Darwinism, Design, and Public Education (2003), edited by John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer. This is a large book containing a collection of writings by reputable scientists.

The Cone

Let us suppose, however, for sake of argument, that the theories of evolution and common descent are all true. What would a graph of life on earth look like? It would be in the shape of a cone, beginning at nothing, and rising to the unknown billions or trillions of forms of life in existence today, such as the following:

Today we are at the top of the cone.

There are a number of problems with the idea, however. It just hasn't happened that way and all evidence is to the contrary. When we look at the evidence, this idea of life rising from nothing to what is is now (which scientists have called micro-evolution) falls completely apart.

The Cambrian Explosion. First we have what is called the Cambrian explosion from the paleontological and geological evidence. It is called "explosion" because of the sudden occurrence of life in that period of geological history.

Jonathan Wells, in Icons of Evolution, gives a good explanation of the Cambrian explosion and its significance. (pp, 29-45) He states:

Samuel Bowring and his collegues summarized the available evidence from the rock strata and radioactive dating methods, and concluded that the Cambrian period began about 544 million years ago. The major increase in animal fossils that marks the Cambrian explosion began about 530 million years ago, and lasted a maximum of 5 to 10 million years. (although 10 million years is a long time in human terms, it is short in geological terms, amounting to less that 2 percent of the time elapsed since the beginning of the Cambrian.) The Cambrian explosion gave rise to most of the animal phyla alive today as well as some that are now extinct. ***

... (A) In Darwin's theory, the number of animal phyla gradually increases over time. (B) The fossil record, however, hows that almost all of the animal phyla appear at about the same time in the Cambrian explosion, with the number declining slightly thereafter due to extinctions.

Keep in mind the age of the earth is 4.567 billion years (4.567109 years). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_earth

The earth existed an awfully long time before the Cambrian period. It is no wonder that the development of life in that short period is called an "explosion."

Darwin, Design, and Public Education, supra, contains a long article by four authorities, Stephen C. Meyer, Marcus Ross, Paul Nelson, and Paul Chien, The Cambrian Explosion: Biology's Big Bang, that is a comprehensive explanation of the Cambrian explosion and its significance. (pp. 323-402)

This has caused quite a stir and shifting of ideas among the evolutionists. In an attempt to salvage their theories they have changed from "micro-evolution" to "macro-evolution." Their problem is that they do not have evidence that the Cambrian explosion came about by evolution. All they have are more unsupported and unreasonable theories that are contrary to the evidence.

Darwin understood how the evidence failed to support his theories, including the problem with the Cambrian period and the sudden appearance of the phyla, and dedicated Chapter X of The Origin of the Species to it. He stated: "The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." He frankly admitted as to the problem with the Cambrian in particular: "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer." (Emphasis supplied)

Darwin's Chapter VI was on the evidentiary difficulties of his theory, including the lack of evidence of one species developing into another species. In several chapters he recognized the difficulty even in intentional breeding of different kinds of animals. Different species cannot even be intentionally interbred and get offspring. You also have a problem of sterility even with interbreeding of animals within the same group, brought about through the actions of people.

Consider a common and well-known problem of modern time. The equine family includes horses and asses (donkeys). You can obtain a mule by breeding a mare (horse) to a donkey. But the mule is sterile, and cannot produce offspring.

We see that nature has set up its own bar to the interbreeding of species. Offsprings are not produced. It seems to me that this is quite an intelligent aspect of nature.

Darwin's ideas of natural selection and survival of the fittest present a contradiction to the common origin theory. Natural selection and survival of the fittest tend to stabilize and improve the species not mutate or change it into something else.

In Chapter X, Darwin admitted the lack of evidence showing transitions between species, but blamed it on the imperfection of geological records, stating:

Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

He frankly admitted:

The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.

He went on to hypothesize how it "might be explained in the future." But subsequent real evidence has gone the other way. As has been explained by many of our modern scientists, referred to above, the evidence has only shown the lack of support for the theories.

The following is from Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe, by Michael J. Behe, William A. Dembski, and Stephen C. Meyer (1999), regarding a letter of Charles Darwin (p. 171):

As he explained to Joseph Hooker: "I am actually weary of telling people that I do not pretend to adduce direct evidence of one species changing into another, but that I believe that this view in the main is correct because so many phenomena can be thus grouped and explained.69 (emphasis supplied)

Here we have the clear admission of making unsupported assumptions to support the theories adopted. Actually, it appears that there was more to that letter than the above. It appears that it was written in April of 1861, after The Origin of the Species was first published in 1859. Apparently, an F. W. Hutton had made a review of Darwin's book in The Geologist, and that besides the above quote, there is the following information:

Darwin refers to Hutton's review as "very original," and adds that Hutton is "one of the very few who see that the change of species cannot be directly proved..." ("Life and Letters," II., page 362).

http://www.fullbooks.com/More-Letters-of-Charles-Darwin-Volume4.html

Although Darwin had hopes that his theories of one species changing to another could be supported by later evidence, the evidence is to the opposite. There have been many theories and attempts to supply the missing links (some of them fraudulent, such as the Piltdown man), but the evidence is not there. This is well explained in Icons of Evolution, supra.

There is something more that is rather conclusive. Even though we may today have fewer animal forms than during the Cambrian era, due to extinction, we still have untold forms of life that are too great to even count. If the basic evolutionary theories have any truth to them at all, we should have ample and concrete evidence today of many species actually changing to other species, but we do not have real evidence of one such change, and certainly not the evidence of the great many of changes we would have if the theories were true. We have now had recorded history for thousands of years. It clearly is just not happening.

Certainly, we have provable evolution within species, and it appears that acquired characteristics can be passed on to progeny, at least after long periods of time. It appears to me that we have observable evolution in humans. It looks like people are getting bigger and better looking. Perhaps science should dwell more on provable evolution, and less on presenting unsupported theories, that are actually quite contrary to the evidence, as facts to young students.

What about Humans?

Why is it that humans are the only ones pondering these problems of evolutionary theory? Why aren't apes and monkeys and other animals doing the same thing? Why is it that only humans have evolved to where they write books, paint pictures, invent boats, automobiles, airplanes, and computers? When I was in high school, I heard the theory advanced that it was because people walked upright and had well developed thumbs. The evolutionists seem to have left those theories and tried to develop ideas and theories on humans having a rather sudden and large increase in their brain sizes. None of them really answer these questions at all.

There is only one explanation that I have ever found that fits the facts, and it is not science at all. It is the following from Genesis, 1:27-28, King James Version of the Bible:

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

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

(BACK TO ARTICLES)