Of course, I have a completely different opinion of the situation. I am convinced that, if more people understood evolution, fewer people would believe it. The more I’ve studied evolution, the more impossible I see that it is. It’s not a question of how something evolved but rather, how could anything evolve! Here are seven, simple facts that I believe show why the theory of evolution is impossible.
1) ABIOGENESIS
Evolution theorizes that all biodiversity on earth is descended from a single, common ancestor. The question then becomes, where did this common ancestor come from? Evolutionists try to dismiss the question saying that’s not part of the theory but, for something that’s not part of the theory, they spend a lot of time obsessing over it. I don’t believe a biology textbook exists that doesn’t contain a paragraph about the origin of life, prebiotic soup, or the failed Miller-Urey experiment.
Once upon a time, people believed in spontaneous generation. It’s the belief that living things could rise spontaneously from nonliving matter. They used to think, for example, that maggots grew out of rotting meat. Evolutionists still cling to the long discarded idea that life did indeed come from nonliving matter only now they call it abiogenesis.
Scientists have struggled for decades to create life in a lab yet still haven’t. They don’t even have a plausible story about how it could have happened. If all life has descended from a common ancestor, there must necessarily have been a common ancestor. If the first living thing could not have risen from nonliving matter, then the entire rest of the theory could not have followed!
2) ORGANIZATION AND DESIGN IN NATURE
Darwin was a believer in the pseudo-science of spontaneous generation. While most examples of the spontaneous generation of higher life forms (like maggots or mice) had been debunked by his time, he still believed that “simple” life forms, like single cells, could form spontaneously. We know now that even the “simplest” cell is incredibly complex - far too complex to be the fortunate arrangement of pond scum. This is why we’ve not been able to recreate life in a lab. Imagine trying to build something as complex as the space shuttle only making it too small to see with your naked eye, and then you’ll have an idea of how complex a single cell is.
Amino acids are considered the “building blocks” of life. When scientists found amino acids could be formed naturally, they believed they were one step closer to solving the elusive problem of abiogenesis. However, believing amino acids could arrange themselves into a DNA molecule is like believing rocks could arrange themselves to build the pyramids. Life is not about materials but, rather, is about organization. All living systems are characterized by their complexity.
Think about our circulatory system. We have a heart to pump our blood, veins and arteries to carry the blood, and there’s the blood itself. Have you ever asked which evolved first? I mean, what’s the use of having a heart unless there’s blood to pump and veins to carry it. But why have blood before there’s a heart or veins? What a pickle! Remember too that blood has a purpose; it delivers food and oxygen to all the cells in our bodies so you also must have a respiratory system and a digestive system. But again, why even have these other systems until there’s a circulatory system?!
Life is complex. Even the simplest living thing is far too complex to have formed naturally. Yet that “simple” thing didn’t have a heart or lungs or a stomach. For that first living thing to evolve to become us, it would require entire systems (like circulatory, respiratory, etc) to arise simultaneously and function together perfectly. I’m sorry, but that’s impossible!
3) THE STASIS OF KINDS
For evolution to occur, populations must acquire novel traits. To turn a dinosaur into a bird, it would have to acquire feathers. To turn a reptile into a mammal, it would have to acquire hair. Remember that the alleged first-living-thing didn’t have feathers or hair. Neither did it have skin or cells, bones or blood, nor any organ of any kind. For a molecule to turn into a man, it would require a billions of years long parade of novel features being added generation after generation. If evolution were true, new traits would have to appear in populations with a fair amount of frequency. They don't.
I like the color blue. I also like dogs. There are blue birds, flowers, reptiles, fish, and insects but there aren’t any blue dogs. Could I selectively breed dogs to create a blue dog? What if I did it for 50 years? 100 years? 1,000,000 years? It still wouldn’t matter. Dogs come in a lot of colors but they don’t come in new colors. Just as the term implies, natural selection can only select from traits already present in the population. Since there aren't blue dogs already, I could never selectively breed dogs and end up with a blue dog - not even in a million years.
Since populations need new traits to evolve, the theory has a problem. Natural selection can’t ever add anything. What we observe is that dogs remain dogs, birds remain birds, and people remain people.
4) GENETIC BURDEN
As DNA duplicates itself, successive generations will contain errors. It’s an observed fact. Most of these errors are considered “neutral” because even though they exist in the DNA, the host animal won’t appear to have any deleterious effects from them. DNA mutations sometimes express in ways that are harmful to the host. They can range in severity from something as mild as color-blindness to extreme conditions that are not compatible with life.
Every once in a while, however, a mutation could add a benefit to the host. An example of this is the blind cave fish. In a cave where there is no light, eyes don’t offer a benefit. In fact, while swimming around in the dark, a fish could bump into a rock and injure its eye which could lead to dangerous infections. In this type of environment, a mutation causing the fish to be born without eyes actually gives the fish a slight advantage over seeing fish.
It is these “beneficial” mutations that evolutionists claim are the source for novel features appearing in populations. They consider the eye-less cave fish to be a new species that have evolved from seeing fish. I see a lot of problems with this. First, a mutation that removes the fish’s eyes doesn’t explain how a single celled creature evolved eyes in the first place. Also, the blind fish are less fit overall. They might thrive in a specialized environment but they can’t compete with unmutated fish in most other environments.
The biggest problem I see with mutations driving evolution is the cumulative effect the mutations will have over many generations. How often do “beneficial mutations” occur? Maybe once in 100,000 mutations or maybe every 10,000 or even as little as once in every 1,000. Remember that evolutionists claim life has been evolving for billions of years so they don’t concern themselves with how slow it might go. They don’t see the problem. How long could life be sustainable when DNA deteriorates thousands of times faster than it’s improving?! When one evolutionist realized this he speculated, “Why are we not dead a hundred times over?” I say, Why indeed!!
5) THE SCARCITY OF FOSSIL SPECIES
Have you ever heard that 99% of all the species that have ever existed are extinct? Probably. I’ll bet you haven’t heard that there are more living species than there are species found only in fossils! Estimates vary but there are between 2-10 million species living (about 1.5 million have been identified and named). There are only about 200,000 - 500,000 species only known from fossils.
In his book, Charles Darwin speculated, “innumerable transitional forms must have existed.... [J]ust in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous.” He was curious why every rock layer wasn’t full of such intermediate links. He believed that since fossilization seems to happen rarely, most of the species just didn’t leave fossils. This is usually the defense most evolutionists propose.
We have found fossils of many living species. Just google the term “living fossil” and see hundreds of examples for yourself. Think about this too: we find trilobite fossils by the millions. We’ve found hundreds of Australopithecus afarensis fossils. We’ve also found dozens of T-rex fossils. Why do we find lots of species abundantly represented in the fossil record but no fossils of the billions of other species evolutionists claim have existed?
What we observe is relatively few species abundantly represented in the fossil record. Evolutionists claim there have been billions of species that have left no fossil trace. I say there are no fossil remains because billions of other species simply never existed!
6) ORIGINAL BIOMATTER IN SUPPOSEDLY ANCIENT FOSSILS
Some years back, Dr. Mary Schweitzer – entirely by accident – discovered red blood cells in a t-rex fossil believed to be 68 million years old. At first, her discovery was met with disbelief by the majority of the scientific community. However, since her initial find, other specimens have been found. From Science News Explores we read, “Researchers from London have found hints of blood and fibrous tissue in a hodgepodge of 75-million-year-old dinosaur bones. These fossils had been poorly preserved. That now suggests residues of soft tissues may be more common in dino bones than scientists had thought.”
Think about that quote: soft tissues may be more common in dino bones than scientists had thought. What exactly do you think scientists thought about the possibility of soft tissue being found in dino bones? Obviously they thought it was impossible for soft tissue to be preserved for 65 million years! In an article about Dr. Schweitzer's find, Smithsonian.com wondered, “If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization.”
Hmm. Maybe the textbooks are right about fossilization. It does seem totally impossible for red blood cells to remain intact for 65 million years. Evolutionists refuse to give up their long ages so would rather search for some fantastic, natural mechanism that could preserve biomatter for millions of years. In the meantime, the rest of us resort to the common sense solution - the bones aren’t really millions of years old!
7) THE BIBLE SAYS WE ARE CREATED
Have you ever heard a rock talk? I ask because I read this quote online once:
When the rocks say they are 4 billion years old and the Bible says they are less than 10,000 years old; who do you believe: the author of the Bible or the author of the rocks?
I thought it was strange because my family is from eastern Kentucky and I grew up visiting the hills of Appalachia. I've literally seen mountains of rocks and in all my life, I've never heard any of them “say” anything.
You see, rocks don’t talk. Fossils don’t talk. “Science” doesn’t talk. Only people talk. And when people are telling you things about the rocks, fossils, and evolution, it’s the people, not the evidence, that’s doing the talking. Call me simple, call me dogmatic, call me any name you want but I will choose the clear meaning of the words of the Bible over the fanciful theories invented by men with corrupt minds and deceitful hearts.
God spoke the universe into existence. Jesus commanded the wind and waves to be still and they obeyed Him. Even the dead hear His voice and it was He who called Lazarus out of the tomb. So when God says He created the world in 6 days, I will believe Him!!
