Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu]

Handedness: Left and Right 1

Genetic material, DNA and RNA, is composed of nucleotides. In living things, nucleotides are always “right-handed.” (They are called right-handed, because a beam of polarized light passing through them rotates like a right-handed screw.) Nucleotides rarely form outside life, but when they do, half are left-handed, and half are right-handed. If the first nucleotides formed by natural processes, they would have “mixed-handedness” and therefore could not evolve life’s genetic material. In fact, “mixed” genetic material cannot even copy itself (a).

Each type of amino acid, when found in nonliving material or when synthesized in the laboratory, comes in two chemically equivalent forms. Half are right-handed, and half are left-handed—mirror images of each other. However, amino acids in life, including plants, animals, bacteria, molds, and even viruses, are essentially all left-handed (b) —except in some diseased or aging tissue (c). No known natural process can isolate either the left-handed or right-handed variety. The mathematical probability that chance processes could produce merely one tiny protein molecule with only left-handed amino acids is virtually zero (d).

A similar observation can be made for a special class of organic compounds called sugars. In living systems, sugars are all right-handed. Based on our present understanding, natural processes produce equal proportions of left-handed and right-handed sugars. Because sugars in living things are right-handed, random natural processes apparently did not produce life.

If any living thing took in (or ate) amino acids or sugars with the wrong handedness, the organism’s body could not process it. Such food would be useless, if not harmful. Because evolution favors slight variations that enhance survivability and reproduction, consider how advantageous a mutation might be that switched (or inverted) a plant’s handedness. “Inverted” (or wrong-handed) trees would proliferate rapidly, because they would no longer provide nourishment to bacteria, mold, or termites. “Inverted” forests would fill the continents. Other “inverted” plants and animals would also benefit and would overwhelm the balance of nature. Why do we not see such species with right-handed amino acids and left-handed sugars? Similarly, why are there not more poisonous plants? Why don’t beneficial mutations let most carriers defeat their predators? Beneficial mutations are rarer than most evolutionists believe. [See “Mutations” here ]

(a). “Equally disappointing, we can induce copying of the original template only when we run our experiments with nucleotides having a right-handed configuration. All nucleotides synthesized biologically today are righthanded. Yet on the primitive earth, equal numbers of right- and left-handed nucleotides would have been present. When we put equal numbers of both kinds of nucleotides in our reaction mixtures, copying was inhibited.” Leslie E. Orgel, “The Origin of Life on the Earth,” Scientific American, Vol. 271, October 1994, p. 82.

“There is no explanation why cells use L [left-handed] amino acids to synthesize their proteins but D [right-handed] ribose or D-deoxyribose to synthesize their nucleotides or nucleic acids. In particular, the incorporation of even a single L-ribose or L-deoxyribose residue into a nucleic acid, if it should ever occur in the course of cellular syntheses, could seriously interfere with vital structure-function relationships. The well-known double helical DNA structure does not allow the presence of L-deoxyribose; the replication and transcription mechanisms generally require that any wrong sugar such as L-deoxyribose has to be eliminated, that is, the optical purity of the D-sugars units has to be 100%.” Dose, p. 352.

(b). An important exception occurs in a component in cell membranes of eubacteria. There the amino acids are right-handed. This has led many to conclude that they must have evolved separately from all other bacteria. Because evolving the first living cell is so improbable, having it happen twice, in effect, compounds the improbability. [See Adrian Barnett, “The Second Coming: Did Life Evolve on Earth More Than Once?” New Scientist, Vol. 157, No. 2121, 14 February 1998, p. 19.]

(c). Recent discoveries have found that some amino acids, most notably aspartic acid, flip (at certain locations in certain proteins) from the normal left-handed form to the right-handed form. Flipping increases with age and correlates with disease, such as Alzheimer’s disease, cataracts, and arteriosclerosis. As one ages, flipping even accumulates in facial skin, but not other skin. [See Noriko Fujii, “D-Amino Acid in Elderly Tissues,” Biological and Pharmaceutical Bulletin, Vol. 28, September 2005, pp. 1585–1589.]

If life evolved, why did this destructive tendency to flip not destroy cells long before complete organisms evolved?

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Handedness: Left and Right 2

No known natural process can isolate either the left-handed or right-handed variety. The mathematical probability that chance processes could produce merely one tiny protein molecule with only left-handed amino acids is virtually zero (d).

A similar observation can be made for a special class of organic compounds called sugars. In living systems, sugars are all right-handed. Based on our present understanding, natural processes produce equal proportions of left-handed and right-handed sugars. Because sugars in living things are right-handed, random natural processes apparently did not produce life.

If any living thing took in (or ate) amino acids or sugars with the wrong handedness, the organism’s body could not process it. Such food would be useless, if not harmful. Because evolution favors slight variations that enhance survivability and reproduction, consider how advantageous a mutation might be that switched (or inverted) a plant’s handedness. “Inverted” (or wrong-handed) trees would proliferate rapidly, because they would no longer provide nourishment to bacteria, mold, or termites. “Inverted” forests would fill the continents. Other “inverted” plants and animals would also benefit and would overwhelm the balance of nature. Why do we not see such species with right-handed amino acids and left-handed sugars? Similarly, why are there not more poisonous plants? Why don’t beneficial mutations let most carriers defeat their predators? Beneficial mutations are rarer than most evolutionists believe. [See “Mutations” [here ]

d. Many researchers have attempted to find plausible natural conditions under which [left-handed] L-amino acids would preferentially accumulate over their [right-handed] D-counterparts, but all such attempts have failed. Until this crucial problem is solved, no one can say that we have found a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Instead, these isomer preferences point to biochemical creation.”   Kenyon, p. A-23.

Evolutionists who work in this field are continually seeking a solution. From time to time someone claims that it has been solved, but only after checking the details does one find that the problem remains. In Germany, in 1994, a doctoral candidate, Guido Zadel, claimed he had solved the problem. Supposedly, a strong magnetic field will bias a reaction toward either the left-handed or right-handed form. Origin-of-life researchers were excited. Zadel’s doctorate was awarded. At least 20 groups then tried to duplicate the results, always unsuccessfully. Later, Zadel admitted that he had dishonestly manipulated his data. [See Daniel Clery and David Bradley, “Underhanded ‘Breakthrough’ Revealed,” Science, Vol. 265, 1 July 1994, p. 21.]

James F. Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), pp. 71–79.

A. E. Wilder-Smith, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1981), pp. 15–32, 154–160.

Dickerson, p. 76.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Improbabilities

To claim life evolved is to demand a miracle. The simplest conceivable form of single-celled life should have at least 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probability that even one typical protein could form by chance arrangements of amino acid sequences is essentially zero (a)—far less than 1 in 10^450.To appreciate the magnitude of 10^450, realize that the visible universe is about 10^28 inches in diameter.

From another perspective, suppose we packed the entire visible universe with a “simple” form of life, such as bacteria. Next, suppose we broke all their chemical bonds, mixed all their atoms, then let them form new links.If this were repeated a billion times a second for 20 billion years under the most favorable temperature and pressure conditions throughout the visible universe, would one bacterium of any type reemerge? The chances (b) are much less than one in 10^99,999,999,873. Your chances of randomly drawing one preselected atom out of a universe packed with atoms are about one chance in 10^112—much better.

(a) Coppedge, pp. 71–72.

“Whether one looks to mutations or gene flow for the source of the variations needed to fuel evolution, there is an enormous probability problem at the core of Darwinist and neo-Darwinist theory, which has been cited by hundreds of scientists and professionals. Engineers, physicists, astronomers, and biologists who have looked without prejudice at the notion of such variations producing ever more complex organisms have come to the same conclusion: The evolutionists are assuming the impossible. Even if we take the simplest large protein molecule that can reproduce itself if immersed in a bath of nutrients, the odds against this developing by chance range from one in 10^450 (engineer Marcel Goulay in Analytical Chemistry) to one in 10^600 (Frank Salisbury in American Biology Teacher).”   Fix, p. 196.

“I don’t know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the Earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty at understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The ‘others’ are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles.” Fred Hoyle, “The Big Bang in Astronomy,” New Scientist, Vol. 92, 19 November 1981, p. 526.

“The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability. ... A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by chance.” Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 257.

(b) Harold J. Morowitz, Energy Flow in Biology: Biological Organization as a Problem in Thermal Physics (New York: Academic Press, 1968), pp. 2–12, 44–75.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Metamorphosis 1

Most insects (87%) undergo complete metamorphosis. It begins when a larva (such as a caterpillar) builds a cocoon around itself. Then its body inside disintegrates into a thick, pulp-like liquid. Days, weeks, or months later, the adult insect emerges—one that is dramatically different, amazingly capable, and often beautiful, such as a butterfly. Food, habitat, and behavior of the larva also differ drastically from those of the adult.

Evolution claims that:

Mutations slightly alter an organism’s genetic material which later generations inherit. On rare occasions the alterations are beneficial, enabling the offspring to reproduce more of themselves and the improved genetic material. [Supposedly] after many generations, dramatic changes, even new organs, accumulate.

If this were true, each organism must be able to reproduce and must be superior, in some sense, to its ancestors. How then could metamorphosis evolve in many stages (a)?

a. “Certainly it [metamorphosis] demonstrates the absurdity of invoking natural selection by successive mutation to explain such an obviously, yet subtly programmed, process. Why on that basis, should the ancestral insect have survived the mutations that projected it into the chrysalid stage, from which it could not yet develop into an adult? Where was natural selection then? How could pre-programmed metamorphosis, in insect, amphibian or crustacean, ever have evolved by chance? Indeed, how could development have evolved piece-meal? The ball is in the evolutionist’s court, tangled in a net of inexplicability.”   Michael Pitman, “Adam and Evolution” (London: Rider & Company, 1984), p. 71.

“Apart from the many difficulties in understanding how such a radical change  [as metamorphosis] comes about, there is the larger question of why it should happen? Can there really be an evolutionary advantage in constructing one sort of organism and then throwing it away and starting again?”    Taylor, p. 177.

“There is no evidence of how such a remarkable plan of life  [metamorphosis] ever came about ...”   Peter Farb,   “The Insects,” Life Nature Library (New York: Time Incorporated, 1962), p. 56.

  “Does any one really believe that the ancestors of butterflies were as adults just masses of pulp enveloped in cases, having no means of procuring external nourishment? If not, it is for the evolutionist to explain how the process of metamorphosis became intercalated in the life-history of the caterpillar.”   Douglas Dewar, “The Transformist Illusion” (Murfreesboro, Tennessee: DeHoff Publications, 1957), p. 213.

Finding how metamorphosis evolved in one species, genus, family, order, or class is just the first question. Because many different larva-to-adult patterns exist, many other explanations are also needed.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Metamorphosis 2

What mutations could improve a larva? Certainly none that destroyed its nerves, muscles, eyes, brain, and most other organs, as occurs within a cocoon. So, even if a larva improved, it later ends up as “mush.” From an evolutionary standpoint, liquefying complex organs is a giant step backwards.  As Michael Pitman wryly noted:

“Maggots will more or less dissolve themselves when developing into a fly. Was the process pre-programmed from the first “production run”? Or was the ancestral fly a dissolved maggot? (b)”

The millions of changes inside the thick liquid never produce something survivable or advantageous in the outside world until the adult completely forms. How did the genetic material for both larva and adult develop? Which came first, larva or adult? What mutations could transform a crawling larva into a flying monarch butterfly that can accurately navigate 3,000 miles using a brain the size of a pinhead (c)? Indeed, why should a larva evolve in the first place, because it cannot reproduce (d)?

Charles Darwin wrote:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down   (e).”

Based on metamorphosis alone, evolution “breaks down.”

Obviously, the vast amount of information that directs every stage of a larva’s and an adult’s development, including metamorphosis, must reside in its genetic material at the beginning.  This fits only creation.


Figure 15: Metamorphosis. Many animals experience an amazing transformation that refutes evolution. One example is the monarch butterfly. As a two-week-old caterpillar (left), it builds a chrysalis around itself (center). Then its complex organs disintegrate. From an evolution perspective, this should cause the insect’s extinction—a thousand times over. Two weeks later, a beautiful butterfly emerges with different and even more remarkable capabilities (right). Some people might believe that a complex machine, such as an automobile, evolved by natural processes, but if they saw that machine disintegrate and quickly reemerge as an airplane, only the most naive and unscientific would still believe that natural processes could produce such marvelous designs.

b. Pitman, pp. 193–194.

c. Christine Merlin et al., “Antennal Circadian Clocks Coordinate Sun Compass Orientation in Migratory Monarch Butterflies,” Science, Vol. 325, 25 September 2009, pp. 1700–1704.

Jules H. Poirier, From Darkness to Light to Flight: Monarch—the Miracle Butterfly (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1995).

d. An evolutionist might claim that larvae once reproduced, but then lost that capability. If so, why is there no sign of any remnant reproductive equipment in any of the hundreds of thousands of larva types?

e. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1927), p. 179.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Symbiotic Relationships
 
Different forms of life are completely dependent upon each other. At the broadest level, the animal kingdom depends on the oxygen produced by the plant kingdom. Plants, in turn, depend on the carbon dioxide produced by the animal kingdom.

More local and specific examples include fig trees and the fig gall wasp (a), the yucca plant and the yucca moth  (b), many parasites and their hosts, and pollen-bearing plants and the honeybee. Even members of the honeybee family, consisting of the queen, workers, and drones, are interdependent. If one member of each interdependent group evolved first (such as the plant before the animal, or one member of the honeybee family before the others), it could not have survived. Because all members of the group obviously have survived, they must have come into existence at essentially the same time.  In other words, creation.

a. Oscar L. Brauer, “The Smyrna Fig Requires God for Its Production,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 9, September 1972, pp. 129–131.

Bob Devine, Mr. Baggy-Skin Lizard (Chicago: Moody Press, 1977), pp. 29–32.

b. Jerry A. Powell and Richard A. Mackie, Biological Interrelationships of Moths and Yucca Whipplei (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1966).

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Sexual Reproduction 1

If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must have occurred at each stage.

A. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.

B. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible (a).

C. The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical (b) and electrical (c) compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system.

D. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision—processes scientists can describe only in a general sense (d)

E. The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also “accidentally” evolved), would have to be tightly controlled.

F. This remarkable string of “accidents” must have been repeated for millions of species.

a.    In humans and in all mammals, a mother’s immune system, contrary to its normal function, must learn not to attack her unborn baby—half of whom is a “foreign body” from the father. If these immune systems functioned “properly,” mammals—including each of us—would not exist.

“The mysterious lack of rejection of the fetus has puzzled generations of reproductive immunologists and no comprehensive explanation has yet emerged.” [Charles A. Janeway Jr. et al., Immuno Biology (London: Current Biology Limited, 1997), p. 12:24.]

b. N. W. Pixie, “Boring Sperm,” Nature, Vol. 351, 27 June 1991, p. 704.

c. Meredith Gould and Jose Luis Stephano, “Electrical Responses of Eggs to Acrosomal Protein Similar to Those Induced by Sperm,” Science, Vol. 235, 27 March 1987, pp. 1654–1656.

d. For example, how could meiosis evolve?

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

   
Sexual Reproduction 2


Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by intelligence.

Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved even once, the steps by which an embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals (e).

Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than sexual reproduction (f). But if asexual reproduction (splitting an organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise—or survive?

If life evolved, why would any form of life live long beyond its reproductive age, when beneficial changes cannot be passed on? All the energy expended, supposedly over millions of years, to allow organisms to live beyond reproductive age would be a waste. In other words, why haven’t all organisms evolved reproductive systems that last a lifetime?
 
Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. But for natural processes to produce life that immediately had the capability to reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle (g).


Figure 16: Male and Female Birds. Even evolutionists admit that evolution seems incompatible with sexual reproduction. For example, how could organisms evolve to the point where they could reproduce before they could reproduce?

e. “But the sex-determination genes in the fruit fly and the nematode are completely unrelated to each other, let alone to those in mammals.” Jean Marx, “Tracing How the Sexes Develop,” Science, Vol. 269, 29 September 1955, p. 1822.

f. “This book is written from a conviction that the prevalence of sexual reproduction in higher plants and animals is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory.” George C. Williams, Sex and Evolution (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. v.

“So why is there sex? We do not have a compelling answer to the question. Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians (notably G. C. Williams 1975; John Maynard Smith 1978), there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction. However, evolutionary theorists believe that the problem will be solved without abandoning the main Darwinian insights—just as early nineteenth-century astronomers believed that the problem of the motion of Uranus could be overcome without major modification of Newton’s celestial mechanics.” Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1982), p. 54.

“The evolution of sex is one of the major unsolved problems of biology. Even those with enough hubris to publish on the topic often freely admit that they have little idea of how sex originated or is maintained. It is enough to give heart to creationists.” Michael Rose, “Slap and Tickle in the Primeval Soup,” New Scientist, Vol. 112, 30 October 1986, p. 55.

“Indeed, the persistence of sex is one of the fundamental mysteries in evolutionary biology today.” Gina Maranto and Shannon Brownlee, “Why Sex?” Discover, February 1984, p. 24.

“Sex is something of an embarrassment to evolutionary biologists. Textbooks understandably skirt the issue, keeping it a closely guarded secret.” Kathleen McAuliffe, “Why We Have Sex,” Omni, December 1983, p. 18.

“From an evolutionary viewpoint the sex differentiation is impossible to understand, as well as the structural sexual differences between the systematic categories which are sometimes immense. We know that intersexes [organisms that are partly male and partly female] within a species must be sterile. How is it, then, possible to imagine bridges between two amazingly different structural types?”   Nilsson, p. 1225.

“One idea those attending the sex symposium seemed to agree on is that no one knows why sex persists.” [According to evolution, it should not. W.B.] Gardiner Morse, “Why Is Sex?” Science News, Vol. 126, 8 September 1984, p. 155.

g. “In the discipline of developmental biology, creationist and mechanist concur except on just one point—a work of art, a machine or a body which can reproduce itself cannot first make itself.”   Pitman, p. 135.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Immune Systems

How could immune systems of animals and plants have evolved? Each immune system can recognize invading bacteria, viruses, and toxins. Each system can quickly mobilize the best defenders to search out and destroy these invaders. Each system has a memory and learns from every attack.

If the many instructions that direct an animal’s or plant’s immune system had not been preprogrammed in the organism’s genetic system when it first appeared on earth, the first of thousands of potential infections would have killed the organism. This would have nullified any rare genetic improvements that might have accumulated. In other words, the large amount of genetic information governing the immune system could not have accumulated in a slow, evolutionary sense (a). Obviously, for each organism to have survived, this information must have all been there from the beginning.  Again, creation.


Figure 17: White Blood Cell. A white blood cell is stalking the green bacterium, shown at the lower right. Your health, and that of many animals, depends on the effectiveness of these “search-and-destroy missions.” Consider the capabilities and associated equipment the white blood cell must have to do its job. It must identify friend and foe. Once a foe is detected, the white blood cell must rapidly locate and overtake the invader. Then the white blood cell must engulf the bacterium, destroy it, and have the endurance to repeat this many times. Miniaturization, fuel efficiency, and compatibility with other parts of the body are also key requirements. The equipment for each function requires careful design. Unless all this worked well from the beginning of life, a requirement that rules out evolution, bacteria and other agents of disease would have won, and we would not be here to marvel at these hidden abilities in our bodies.

A few “stem cells” in your bone marrow produce more than 100 billion of these and other types of blood cells every day. Each white blood cell moves on its own at up to 30 microns (almost half the diameter of a human hair) each minute. So many white blood cells are in your body that their total distance traveled in one day would circle the earth twice (© Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH).

(a.) “We can look high or we can look low, in books or in journals, but the result is the same. The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system.” Behe, p. 138.

“Unfortunately, we cannot trace most of the evolutionary steps that the immune system took. Virtually all the crucial developments seem to have happened at an early stage of vertebrate evolution, which is poorly represented in the fossil record and from which few species survive. Even the most primitive extant vertebrates seem to rearrange their antigen receptor genes and possess separate T and B cells, as well as MHC molecules. Thus has the immune system sprung up fully armed.” Avrion Mitchison, “Will We Survive?” Scientific American, Vol. 269, September 1993, p. 138.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Living Technology 1

Most complex phenomena known to science are found in living systems—including those involving electrical, acoustical, mechanical, chemical, and optical phenomena. Detailed studies of various animals also have revealed certain physical equipment and capabilities that the world’s best designers, using the most sophisticated technologies, cannot duplicate. Examples of these designs include molecular-size motors in most living organisms (a); advanced technologies in cells (b); miniature and reliable sonar systems of dolphins, porpoises, and whales; frequency-modulated “radar” and discrimination systems of bats (c); efficient aerodynamic capabilities of hummingbirds; control systems, internal ballistics, and the combustion chambers of bombardier beetles (d); precise and redundant navigational systems of many birds, fish, and insects  (e); and especially the self-repair capabilities of almost all forms of life. No component of these complex systems could have evolved without placing the organism at a selective disadvantage until the component’s evolution was complete.  All evidence points to intelligent design.

a.    “Life implies movement. Most forms of movement in the living world are powered by tiny protein machines known as molecular motors.” Manfred Schliwa and Günther Woehlke, “Molecular Motors,” Nature, Vol. 422, 17 April 2003, p. 759.

b.    “We would see [in cells] that nearly every feature of our own advanced machines had its analogue in the cell: artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction. In fact, so deep would be the feeling of deja-vu, so persuasive the analogy, that much of the terminology we would use to describe this fascinating molecular reality would be borrowed from the world of late twentieth-century technology.

“What we would be witnessing would be an object resembling an immense automated factory, a factory larger than a city and carrying out almost as many unique functions as all the manufacturing activities of man on earth. However, it would be a factory which would have one capacity not equalled in any of our own most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours. To witness such an act at a magnification of one thousand million times would be an awe-inspiring spectacle.” Denton, p. 329.

c.    “Ounce for ounce, watt for watt, it  [the bat] is millions of times more efficient and more sensitive than the radars and sonars contrived by man.” Pitman, p. 219.

d.   Robert E. Kofahl and Kelly L. Segraves, The Creation Explanation (Wheaton, Illinois: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1975), pp. 2–9.

Thomas Eisner and Daniel J. Aneshansley, “Spray Aiming in Bombardier Beetles: Jet Deflection by the Coanda Effect,” Science, Vol. 215, 1 January 1982, pp. 83–85.

Behe, pp. 31–36.

e.   Jason A. Etheredge et al., “Monarch Butterflies (Danaus plexippus L.) Use a Magnetic Compass for Navigation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 96, No. 24, 23 November 1999, pp. 13845–13846.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Living Technology 2



Figure 18: Arctic Tern Migration Routes and Cockpit. The Arctic Tern, a bird of average size, navigates across oceans with the skill normally associated with navigational equipment in modern intercontinental aircraft. A round trip for the Tern might be 22,000 miles. The Tern’s “electronics” are highly miniaturized, extremely reliable, maintenance free, and easily reproduced. Furthermore, this remarkable bird needs no training. If the equipment in modern intercontinental aircraft could not have evolved, how could the Tern’s more amazing “equipment” have evolved?

Equally amazing is the monarch butterfly that flies thousands of miles from breeding grounds as far north as Canada to wintering grounds as far south as Mexico. Processing information in a brain the size of a pin head, it navigates using a magnetic compass and, to a lesser extent, the Sun.

Many bacteria, such as Salmonella, Escherichia coli, and some Streptococci, propel themselves with miniature motors at up to 15 body-lengths per second (f), equivalent to a car traveling 150 miles per hour—in a liquid. These extremely efficient, reversible motors rotate at up to 100,000 revolutions per minute (g). Each shaft rotates a bundle of whiplike flagella that acts as a propeller. The motors, having rotors and stators, are similar in many respects to electrical motors (h). However, their electrical charges come from a flow of protons, not electrons. The bacteria can stop, start, and change speed, direction, and even the “propeller’s” shape (i). They also have intricate sensors, switches, control mechanisms, and a short-term memory. All this is highly miniaturized. Eight million of these bacterial motors would fit inside the circular cross section of a human hair (j).

 Evolutionary theory teaches that bacteria were one of the first forms of life to evolve, and, therefore, they are simple. While bacteria are small, they are not simple. They can even communicate among themselves using chemicals (k).

Some plants have motors that are one-fifth the size of bacterial motors (l). Increasing worldwide interest in nanotechnology is showing that living things are remarkably designed—beyond anything Darwin could have imagined.


Figure 19: Bacterial Motor. Drawing based on a microphotograph of the flagellum of a salmonella bacterium.


Figure 20: Illustration of a Bacterial Motor. Although no one completely understands how these tiny motors work, many studies have deduced the presence of the above components.

f.   David H. Freedman, “Exploiting the Nanotechnology of Life,” Science, Vol. 254, 29 November 1991, pp. 1308–1310.

Tom Koppel, “Learning How Bacteria Swim Could Set New Gears in Motion,” Scientific American, Vol. 265, September 1991, pp. 168–169.

Howard C. Berg, “How Bacteria Swim,” Scientific American, Vol. 233, August 1975, pp. 36–44.

g.   Y. Magariyama et al., “Very Fast Flagellar Rotation,” Nature, Vol. 371, 27 October 1994, p. 752.

h.   Could a conventional electrical motor be scaled down to propel a bacterium through a liquid? No. Friction would overcome almost all movement. This is because the ratio of inertial-to-viscous forces is proportional to scale. In effect, the liquid becomes stickier the smaller you get. Therefore, the efficiency of the bacterial motor itself, which approaches 100% at slow speeds, is remarkable and currently unexplainable.

i.   C. Wu, “Protein Switch Curls Bacterial Propellers,” Science News, Vol. 153, 7 February 1998, p. 86.

j.   Yes, you read this correctly. The molecular motors are 25 nanometers in diameter while an average human hair is about 75 microns in diameter.

k.    “Bacteria can organize into groups, they can communicate. ... How could this have evolved?” E. Peter Greenberg, “Tiny Teamwork,” Nature, Vol. 424, 10 July 2003, p. 134.

Bonnie L. Bassler, “How Bacteria Talk to Each Other: Regulation of Gene Expression by Quorum Sensing,” Current Opinion in Microbiology, Vol. 2, No. 6, 1 December 1999, pp. 582–587.

l.    “...the smallest rotary motors in biology. The flow of protons propels the rotation...” Holger Seelert et al., “Proton-Powered Turbine of a Plant Motor,” Nature, Vol. 405, 25 May 2000, pp. 418–419.

“The ATP synthase [motor] not only lays claim to being nature’s smallest rotary motor, but also has an extremely important role in providing most of the chemical energy that aerobic and photosynthetic organisms need to stay alive.” Cross, Richard L. “Turning the ATP Motor,” Nature, Vol. 427, 29 January 2004, pp. 407–408.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

The Validity of Thought 1

If life is ultimately the result of natural processes or chance, then so is thought. Your thoughts—including what you are thinking now—would ultimately be a consequence of a long series of irrational causes. Therefore, your thoughts would have no validity, including the thought that life is a result of chance or natural processes (a).

a. “But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems.” Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters,
 Vol. 1, p. 313.

“For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.” J. B. S. Haldane, Possible Worlds (London: Chatto & Windus, 1927), p. 209.

“If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i. e. of Materialism and Astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents.” C. S. Lewis, God In the Dock (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), pp. 52–53.

“Each particular thought is valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Obviously, then, the whole process of human thought, what we call Reason, is equally valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Hence every theory of the universe which makes the human mind a result of irrational causes is inadmissible, for it would be a proof that there are no such things as proofs. Which is nonsense. But Naturalism [evolution], as commonly held, is precisely a theory of this sort.” C. S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1947), p. 21.

C. S. Lewis, “The Funeral of a Great Myth,” Christian Reflections (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1968), p. 89.

“If the universe is a universe of thought, then its creation must have been an act of thought.” James H. Jeans, The Mysterious Universe, new revised edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1932), p. 181.

“A theory that is the product of a mind can never adequately explain the mind that produced the theory. The story of the great scientific mind that discovers absolute truth is satisfying only so long as we accept the mind itself as a given. Once we try to explain the mind as a product of its own discoveries, we are in a hall of mirrors with no exit.” Phillip E. Johnson, Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1995), p. 62.

“One of the absurdities of materialism [the belief that nothing exists except the material] is that it assumes that the world can be rationally comprehensible only if it is entirely the product of irrational, unguided mechanisms.” Phillip E. Johnson, “The Wedge in Evolutionary Ideology: It’s History, Strategy, and Agenda,” Theology Matters, Vol. 5, No. 2, March/April 1999, p. 5.

Phillip E. Johnson has also made the point that intelligence might produce intelligence. However, for lifeless, inorganic matter to produce intelligence, as the theory of evolution claims, would be an astounding miracle.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

The Validity of Thought 2

By destroying the validity of ideas, evolution undercuts even the idea of evolution. “Science itself makes no sense if the scientific mind is itself no more than the product of irrational material forces” (b).

A related issue is the flexibility and redundancy of the human brain, which evolution or natural selection would not produce. For example, every year brain surgeons successfully remove up to half of a person’s brain. The remaining half gradually takes over functions of the removed half. Also, brain functions are often regained after portions of the brain are accidently destroyed. Had humans evolved, such accidents would have been fatal before these amazing capabilities developed. Darwin recognized an aspect of this phenomenal capability of the brain (c).

Thoughts are not physical, although they use physical things, such as the brain, oxygen, electrons, and sensory inputs. The mind thinks, but the brain, like a powerful computer, can’t really “think.” Nor can any physical substance. Albert Einstein put his finger on this profound issue:

“I am convinced that ... the concepts which arise in our thought and in our linguistic expressions are all—when viewed logically—the free creations of thought which cannot inductively be gained from sense experiences. ... we have the habit of combining certain concepts and conceptual relations (propositions) so definitely with certain sense experiences that we do not become conscious of the gulf—logically unbridgeable—which separates the world of sensory experiences from the world of concepts and propositions” (d).

So Who or what provided humans (and to a much lesser extent animals) with the ability and freedom to think? It certainly wasn’t dead matter, chance, evolution, or time.

b. Phillip Johnson, “The Demise of Naturalism,” World, 3 April 2004, p. 38.

c. “Behind Darwin’s discomfiture [on how the human brain evolved] was the dawning realization that the evolution of the brain vastly exceeded the needs of prehistoric man. This is, in fact, the only example in existence where a species was provided with an organ that it still has not learned how to use.” Richard M. Restak, The Brain: The Last Frontier (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1979), p. 59.

d. Albert Einstein, “Remarks on Bertrand Russell’s Theory of Knowledge,” The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell, Vol. 5 of The Library of Living Philosophers, editor Paul Arthur Schilpp (LaSalle, Illinois, Open Court, 1944), pp. 279–291.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Life Science Conclusions 1


When Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859, the “evolutionary tree” had only a few gaps. Believers in his new theory thought that these gaps would be filled as scientific knowledge increased. Just the opposite has happened. As science has progressed, these “missing links” have multiplied enormously, and the obstacles to “bridging” these gaps have become even more obvious. For example, in Darwin’s day, all life fell into two categories (or kingdoms): animals and plants. Today, it is generally accepted that life falls into five radically different kingdoms, of which animals and plants comprise only two. (None of the five include viruses, which are complex and unique in their own way.) In the 1800s, the animal kingdom was divided into four animal phyla; today there are about forty.

Darwin suggested that the first living creature evolved in a “warm little pond.” Today, almost all evolutionary biologists will privately admit that science has no explanation for how life evolved. We now know that the chance formation of the first living cell is a gigantic leap, vastly more improbable than for bacteria to evolve into humans. In Darwin’s day, a cell was thought to be about as simple as a ping-pong ball. Even today, many evolutionists say that bacteria are simple and one of the first forms of life to evolve. However, bacteria are marvelously integrated and complex manufacturing facilities with many mysteries yet to be understood, such as bacterial motors and communication among bacteria. Furthermore, cells come in two radically different types—those with a nucleus and those without. The evolutionary leap from one to the other is staggering to imagine.

The more evolutionists learn about life, the greater complexity they find. A century ago there were no sophisticated microscopes. Consequently, gigantic leaps from single- to multiple-cell organisms were grossly underestimated. Each type of cell in a multicellular organism has a unique job that is controlled by only part of the organism’s DNA. If that organism evolved, its delicate controls (directing which of the myriad of DNA instructions to follow, which to ignore, and when) must also have evolved. Had it not evolved perfectly the first time, that organism would have been diseased. If that first unique cell could not reproduce, the new function would disappear. If just one reproducing cell is out of control, the organism would have one type of cancer.

Development of the computer has also given us a better appreciation of the brain’s intricate electronics, extreme miniaturization, and vast storage capabilities. The human eye, which Darwin admitted made him shudder, was only a single jump in complexity. [See Endnote 9b on page 57.] We now know there are at least a dozen radically different kinds of eyes, each requiring similar jumps if evolution happened. Likewise, the literal leap we call “flight” must have evolved not once, but on at least four different occasions: for birds, some insects, mammals (bats), and reptiles (pterosaurs). Fireflies produce light without heat, a phenomenon called bioluminescence. Other species, including certain fish, crustaceans, squids, plants, bacteria, and fungi, also have lighting systems. Did all these remarkable capabilities evolve independently?

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Life Science Conclusions 2


Figure 21: Integration and Compatibility. An organ is a complex structure of different types of tissues and cells, all of which work together to perform a specific function such as seeing, hearing, digesting, or pumping.  A system, such as the nervous system, circulatory system, skeletal system, or reproductive system, consists of related organs and other tissues
 and cells that have even broader functions. In a healthy body, all systems work properly. Life depends on a broad, compatible, and complex hierarchy: molecules --> cells --> tissues --> organs --> systems --> body --> other organisms --> the environment.  All are carefully balanced and integrated with each other.

Arbitrarily changing one component at any level will often be harmful at that level and to the vertical hierarchy. For example, change one type of molecule throughout a category of cells, and the result may be damaged cells and a diseased body. Environmentalists and ecologists are aware of this critical balance (regarding, say, the spotted owl and the environment), but often they fail to ask, “Who or what created this balance?” Some fail to see the incredible complexity, integration, and systems engineering that extends throughout the universe—from carbon atoms to galaxies to physical laws.

Humans are only one of millions of different organisms. To integrate all organisms into a living ecosystem requires stupendous design and balance. If evolution happened, time and natural processes alone must have maintained a livable environment for most forms of life as each new organism came into existence and proliferated. No global contaminants, plagues, predators, or famines could be allowed for billions of years. Imagine what would happen if a few organisms at the base of the food chain became extinct.

Who or what has the ability to design, construct, and harmoniously integrate and maintain all of life? Time and natural processes, as evolution states, or an infinitely intelligent Creator?

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]