Evolution-Fact or Fiction?In 1859, Charles Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, which proposed the theory ofevolution. This book, along with others that followed, began the longdebated dispute between evolutionist and creationist.
Were we createdby a supernatural Supreme Being, or did our creation occur purely bychance? First, lets look at the two conflicting theories. Common usage ofthe term ?evolution? is that living things in our world have come intoexistence through unguided naturalistic processes beginning from aprimeval mass of subatomic particles and radiation, over 20 billion yearsago. The idea of Creation comes from the first two chapters of Genesiswhich states that God created the heavens and the earth and all that isin them in six, twenty-four hour periods of time. Throughout this papersubstantial scientific evidence will be presented to attempt to disprovethe theory of evolution and prove that creation is the only logicalexplanation for our existence. In order for evolution to have occurred, we would have needed afavorable environment for life to evolve and be sustained. So lets beginwith the atmosphere.Order now
Our current atmosphere consists of 21% Oxygen,and 78% Nitrogen. The presence of oxygen in a hypothetical primevalatmosphere presents a problem for self-assembling molecules. If oxygenis present, there would be no amino acids, or sugars because oxygenreacts with these substances to produce carbon dioxide and water. Sobecause it is impossible for life to have evolved with oxygen, evolutionisttheorize an early atmosphere without oxygen.
Instead they propose anatmosphere consisting of free hydrogen. The problem with this theoryinvolves the layer of ozone that protects the earth from the suns ultravioletrays. Without this layer any newly developing organic molecules wouldsoon be broken down and eliminated, but if you have oxygen to beginwith this prevents life from even starting. Therefore we have a catch-22situation.
Besides, there are geological evidences that confirm theexistence of an oxidizing atmosphere as far back as can be determined. Among these are: the oxidation of ferrous iron in early rocks, and theprecipitation of limestone in great quantities. 1 Now, lets assume for a minute that the ideal environment forevolution to occur existed. We would then need a means by which thebasic building blocks of life could be constructed. Before you canassemble the large macro-molecules necessary for life you must have aready supply of basic organic molecules.
Among these would be tons ofsugars, amino acids, purines, and pyrimidines. Now assuming we had avast primitive ocean full of these molecules there are still obstacles thatwould need to be overcome to have a suitable ocean. The first problemwould be the diluting effect of the vast ocean. There would not beenough quantities of each basic molecule for molecular formationtherefore insufficient quantities would result. The second problem wouldbe that in order for chemical bonds to form there would need to be anexternal source of energy.
Unfortunately the same energy that createsthese bonds is much more likely to destroy them. The last major obstacleto overcome would be the incompatibility of different molecules witheach other. Some molecules, such as sugars and amino acids combineand destroy each other. These such molecules would need to beseparated neatly from one another. In a vast ocean, how is thispossible?3 As with any theory of the origin of life we must also include theformation of complicated macro-molecules such as DNA, and RNA. Inaddition there are other necessary components of life such as lipids,carbohydrates, hormones, enzymes, etc.
that must be formed and utilizedto produce life. In order for these macro-molecules to form, and worktogether to produce life there are a number of obstacles to overcome. The first would be the chemical environment. ? Some of the necessarycomponent chemicals react with one another in counter-productiveways. For example, phosphoric acid which would be necessary to formDNA, would form an insoluble salt with calcium, sink to the bottom of theocean, and be unavailable to make DNA. ?4 Another big problem ispolymerization.
Monomers never become polymers unless energy issupplied, they don’t just spontaneously arise. Even in lab experiments,where chemists take very deliberate steps in molecular formation, theyhave not even come close to realistic life macro-molecules. Sequencingis the foremost problem with the origin of life theory. Even if there was aready supply of molecular building blocks, how would you get the specificsequences necessary in proteins and DNA? For a each of thesemacro-molecules to perform a particular function a specific sequence isrequired. The odds of this occurring by accident are estimated to be10e130 to 1. 5 We must now go beyond proteins, DNA, and RNA and assemblethem into a working biological system that is capable ofself-maintenance and self-replication.
?One approach, Oparin’sCoacervate Theory, is to try and construct coacervates (large blobs ofcolloidal particles) from molecules. Unfortunately this only holds togetherrandom molecules by electrostatic chemical bonds. Another schemeuses microspheres (Fox’s Protienoid Microsphere Theory) by thepyrocindensation of amino acids. But these are only random polymers ofamino acids that are inherently unstable. There are no energy-utilizingsystems, no replicating systems, ect.
?6 A biological system is more than abunch a molecules thrown together. They must be able to so something. ?They must be able to act a little machines with input and output relatedto some greater purpose in the cell. Finally, all of the molecules and systems must be assembledtogether to form a highly complex living cell. Whether bacteria, animals,plants or people, we all have cells.
All cells are tremendously complex. Even the smallest bacteria cell has 100 proteins, DNA, RNA, and containsone-hundred billion atoms. The biggest problem in the development ofcells is either it all works or nothing works. So how do you get everythingto work at once? In order to try and explain the evolution of the cellscientists such as Francis Crick use simpler cells called ?proto-cells?.
Aproto-cell is allowed to make mistakes in protein formation in order tocreate new systems. The problem with this theory is that even small errorsare known to cause devastating biological consequences. Now that we have looked at the main problems of the origin of life,we will examine other evidences that discredit the evolutionary theory. First, ?there are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either thefossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidencethat evolution has occurred either in the past or the present. ?7 The fossilrecord readily supplies us with representation of almost all species ofanimals and plants but none of the supposed links of plant to animal, fishto amphibian, amphibian to reptile, or reptile to birds and mammals.
Next, ?natural selection is incapable of advancing an organism to ahigher arder. ?8 Natural selection is said to have caused organisms toevolve from one basic kind into another basic kind. Because all of theinformation for the development of an organism has already beenencoded into the DNA of its parent this would be prohibited genetically. An organism can vary within its kind, but it cannot become anythingmore than what it is. Third, ?the supposed hominids bone and skullrecords used by evolutionist often consists of finds which are thoroughlyunrevealing and inconsistent.
They are neither clear nor conclusive eventhough evolutionists present them as if they were. ?9 Many discoveries ofsupposed hominids consist of only a mouth fragment, a leg bone, a hipbone, or a knee joint. Evolutionist reconstruct what the ?supposed?hominid looked like, name it, and present it to the public as fact. Some ofthese finds have turned out to be the result of a pig, donkey, or even ahoax.
While still other finds consist of assorted fragments found milesapart, and yet are made to look as they came from the same individual. Finally, ?the rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explainedby a universal flood than by gradual normal death of organisms overmillions of years recorded in the rock as evolutionists assert. ?10 In order forthe formation of fossils to occur a large flood is necessary. Fossils needquick and tremendous pressure to form. Without this, a carcass could notform a fossil over time. It would be eaten by scavengers and decayed bybacteria.
The circulating water of the flood along with gravity wouldcause the smaller organisms as well as fish to be buried lower within thestrata, while larger more mobile organisms would be buried higher in therock strata. A universal flood has been well documented as havingoccurred. And although evolutionist have used fossils to ?prove? thatsmaller organisms evolved first millions of years ago because they arelower in the rock strata, and larger organisms evolved later because theyare higher in the rock strata, they ignore the rock strata were objectssuch as large trees are seen protruding through several layers whichsupposedly formed over millions of years. The goal of this paper was to present the major weaknesses of theevolutionary theory. So far there are only to theories for how we got here,evolution and creation.
If evolution has so many flaws and missing linksthen that leaves one option, creation. In my opinion it takes more faith tobelieve that we evolved from nothing than to believe that God createdus, and everything around us. When you step back and take a look atthe complexity of the whole universe, not to mention we as humans, aSupreme Creator is the only logical explanation. C. S.
Lewis once stated ?You have to go outside the sequence of engines, into the would of men,to find the real originator of the Rocket. Is it not equally reasonable tolook outside Nature for the real originator of natural order??11Sociology