Total Pageviews

Sunday, 26 February 2012

A Small Block To The Reality Of Evolution

Although there is a lot to discuss here, I will try to keep this blog as short as possible
In my last two articles, I was approached by a commentator, Bryce (I hope he doesn't mind me using his screen name here, else I would need to edit). He discredited my views on Biblical Creation when I wrote in the first of the two blogs, Our Eternal Home when I made the suggestion that man and Dinosaurs co-existed within the same time frame, rather than millions of years apart. In my second article on this subject, Answer To An Evolutionist, I gave what was a history lesson, as Bryce called it, and reminded me that I made no referral to the subject of Evolution on a biological sense. He also challenged me to mention incidents in the Bible which could not occur in real life - such as a talking snake or someone coming back from the dead. I finished my last blog with the words, In my next blog I will show something that will shatter the entire theory of Uniformitarianism, on which evolution rests. Watch this space.

As for incidents in the Bible, I will answer that because Bryce had never seen a talking snake, or for that matter, a talking donkey (Numbers 22:28-31). Neither had he ever seen someone rise from the dead. He is walking by sight, not by faith. The Bible itself tells us that faith is believing, and hoping for things not yet seen (Hebrews 11:1-2). Like the skeptics alive during Leonardo Di Vinci's day, who laughed at his suggestion that one day man will fly, and so developed a contraption with flapping wings. When the prototype of the plane fell to the ground, people turned away, shaking their heads. And who would ever thought that one day a small box would play music and sing songs without anybody inside the box or standing near it?

I ended my last blog about Uniformitarianism, because in the days of Darwin, and in the many years to follow, Lyell's Uniformitarian Geology of stratified rocks were classified by the fossils found in them. The famous "Index Fossil" - that of the Trilobite which was found in the Cambrian rock stratum, was one classic example explaining the theory of evolution. Darwin and his followers knew nothing of microbiology, the study of the cell, as the microscope was of a later development. Had he known, it would have been most likely that Darwin would have recanted on his new evolutionary theory. As such, the topic of this blog has been changed from Uniformitarian Geology to that of Microbiology, in answer to Bryce's concern. And I hope it won't be too long for the reader.

Bryce likened my Creationist views, to my mind, to that of pseudoscience, when he asked whether I really believed "with a flick of his finger, God was able to bring life into existence" and then went back on himself when realising that it was not good for Adam to be alone, without a mate, and performed an operation using anaesthetics to put him into a deep sleep. Why not just snap his fingers and - wolla! - Eve comes into existence? Why the rib? Perhaps God did know better - that woman coming out of man would result in a much more intimate relationship. Unfortunately, sin had spoiled this relationship to the point in bringing in divorce laws. But this was not originally intended.

Pseudoscience, or false knowledge. That, I believe, is how Bryce sees my views of Creationism. As total nonsense. But it can be very popular. Author Erich von Daniken had acquired a fame with his book Chariots of the Gods? (1968), still in print today. Here, von Daniken puts forth a theory that around 40,000 years ago our planet was visited by a race of super-human space gods, who allowed primitive man to see their advanced technology. Two cases of this is found in the Bible. First, von Daniken insisted that the tabernacle built by Moses was a radio transmitter through which he can communicate with the gods. That despite the fact that this transmitter was an extremely primitive construction for a race of interstellar space travelers! Then there was this helicopter, so according to von Daniken, that was seen by the prophet Ezekiel (Chapter 1). A proof without doubt that aviation existed some 600 years BC. But unfortunately, von Daniken, when introducing the concept of such an ancient helicopter, deliberately omitted the words, And I saw visions of God, found in verse 1. Visions are not to be taken as literal sights. The author here was dishonest enough to refuse to admit that the visions Ezekiel saw was of God. But von Daniken's main thrust of his argument was that the evolution of primates was deliberately tinkered with by the space travelers for Homo Sapiens to have evolved. In other words, evolution was given a boost to further human intelligence.

But von Daniken was not alone. Atheist author Arthur C. Clarke wrote in 1947 a short novel, The Sentinel. Where von Daniken's theories were propounded as science, Clarke made sure that his book was fiction. In it, about four million years ago, a group of primates saw a large black monolith appear suddenly overnight, in their midst. It was actually a highly complicated computer which not only analysed the primate's original intelligence, but also raised their intelligence to a degree that the primates were now able to use discarded bones as tools. The book was the basis of the 1968 award-winning movie by Stanley Kubrick, 2001 A Space Odyssey where here again, the evolution of primates into Homo Sapiens was given a massive boost. The only other difference to von Daniken's ideas was that where his gods arrived in spaceships which landed on Earth, Clarke's gods had long evolved out of their bodies and exist as pure energy. No spaceships were required.

Why have I gone into all this? Because as we shall see, we shall go back to it in the form of mainstream science as adhered to by Bryce and his ilk.

Now we shall look at on why organic evolution was impossible. No way could it have began in the first place.

I'm talking here about the evolution of a living cell, apparently a amoeba-like single cell organism floating in the primeval ocean. The amoeba today, has within its structure a long molecule known as deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) which carries the genetic code which acts as a template for the production of protein within the cell, to maintain its life. Being a single cell, the amoeba has no chromosomes in the same way as humans have, but a genophore, in which the DNA, and as such, the genetic code, is stored. The DNA is a very long double helix, or a twisted ladder, the two side chains are of sugar-phosphates. These are held together by the "rungs" of the ladder, known as bases. There are four bases, the adenine (A), the cytosine (C), the guanine (G) and the thymine (T). A, on one side of the helix, always pairs with T on the other side, thus forming a rung on the ladder, while G always pairs with C, forming another rung. Thus each rung is better known as nucleotide bases, or simply base pairs. In the amoeba, there are 290 billion nucleotide or base pairs, each arranged in a specific order for the cell to live. In humans, there are about 2.9 billion base pairs in the nucleus of each cell.

The double helix of a DNA molecule

In the nucleus of a human cell, there are 46 chromosomes, 23 from each parent. Chromosome 1, for example, has 247,199,719 nucleotide base pairs, in which there are 4,220 genes. In the two sex chromosomes, the female X chromosome has 154,913,754 base pairs within are 1,846 genes. The male Y chromosome is much smaller, with just 57,741,652 base pairs, with just 454 genes. As such, in the nucleus of each cell of a female, there are 3,022,102,095 base pairs in the DNA molecule, with 31,731 active genes. In the male, there are 2,924,929,993 base pairs with 30,339 active genes in the nucleus of each cell.

The each base pairs must be arranged exactly right for the genes to function correctly. It looks to me that the genes are a far more complex version of a computer program, which have binary numeric digits as bases, a group of eight digits of "1" and "0" making a unit known as a byte. A long chain of ones and zeroes forms the code with which the computer functions properly. If there is an inconsistency in the arrangement of the binary code, the computer will crash. Likewise, if if the DNA base pairs are not arranged correctly, the cell will die.

So far, I have dealt only with the DNA, the genetic template of protein production in the cell. The whole cell is a vastly complicated structure. If I want to go on about the complexity of the cell, this would make this blog way too long. So I will post a general illustration of the function of the cell, with a brief run on its function, then go on to reason that no way evolution by chance could have ever taken place! Yet the central core of evolution by chance was taught for decades, if not centuries after Darwin's time.

Briefly, the genetic code in the DNA is copied on to the messenger RNA (or mRNA) with one of the bases - thymine -being replaced by another base, uracil. Where the DNA is a double helix, the mRNA is a single helix with a row of nucleotide bases. The genetic code is represented here in groups of three bases, known as codons. The mRNA then passes out of the nucleus of the cell, to be decoded by the ribosome. As the ribosome moves along the mRNA, this connects a chain of amino acids, the correct sequence of the amino acids being determined by the codon sequence of the mRNA. When the ribosome had completed the decoding of the mRNA, the chain of amino acid molecules fold up to become one unit of protein, also known as polypeptide. Up to 3,000 units of polypeptides are linked up to form a protein chain. Some of these polypeptide units are enzymes, which are responsible for chemical change in the body, for example, the pancreas producing the digestive enzymes lipase, protease and amylase.

Using the vastly complex cell as a yardstick, there is no way that evolution by chance could have ever taken place. For a demonstration, take the letters of the alphabet, say from a Scrabble board. There are 26 letters in the alphabet, each represented by at least one piece in the game. Take one of each letter, place in a bowl and mix thoroughly. Then carefully empty the bowl onto the floor, making a straight a line as you can. The chance of all 26 letters falling in perfect alphabetical order, including each the right side up and the right way round, is 1 in 26! - that is the factors making what is sometimes known as 26 Bang! It consists of 26 x 25 x 24 x 23 x 22 x 21 x 20... down to 2, which would give a result as one chance in 400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 that all the pieces would fall in a perfect alphabetical order on the first throw. If the letters represent the genes of a cell, they must all be in the correct sequence, or the cell cannot function and it will die. Yet the genetic code in the cell can produce a protein structure consisting of up to 3,000 proteins joined together in a long chain. In turn, as already mentioned in the paragraph above, each protein consists of up to 3,000 amino acid residues folded together into precise structures and arranged in proper sequence as directed by the genetic code. With the possibility of a single cell forming by chance, without intelligent design, by means of the protein chain alone would be 1 in 9,000,000 bang! - which would give a result which the entire age of the Universe would not be able to accommodate.

For example, mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle had calculated that the odds of producing just the basic enzymes by coincidence resulted in just one chance in one, with 40,000 zeros after it. By comparison, the chance of picking just one electron out of the entire Universe is one out of one with 80 zeros after it. If every electron in the Universe in itself becomes a Universe of its own, then the odds of picking out an electron out of all these Universes is one in one with 160 zeros after it. On this, Hoyle comments:

This situation is well known to geneticists and yet nobody seems to blow the whistle decisively on the theory...
Most scientists still cling to Darwinism because of its grip on the educational system...You either have to believe in the concepts, branded a heretic.

Source: From an interview by AP Correspondent George W. Cornell, quoted from Times Advocate, Escondido, California, 1982. PP. A10-11.

The Universe simply can't wait for the cell to evolve, for its sheer mathematical impossibility. But there does look to be an evolutionary saviour - extraterrestrial origin. And this is taken seriously by evolutionary scientists.

One example from outer space origins is the meteorite which fell in Murchison, in Victoria, Australia in September 28th, 1969. Because of the location on which it fell, this rock became the Murchison Meteorite.

A fragment from the Murchison Meteorite

This rock contains some amino acid molecules, and it is now become the basic clue to the evolution of the cell, particularly the amoeba. Of course, evolutionists would rather see the whole group of living cells within the meteorite, but some amino acid molecules, which is the building blocks for protein, would have to do. Although there is still an unbridgeable gap between some amino acid molecules and a fully functional living cell, it lends to a very attractive theory that some living cells might have arrived on the primeval Earth billions of years ago. It is a bit like Erich von Daniken's theory of an invading race of space travelers, the only difference was that instead of spaceships, they hitched a ride on a passing meteorite instead! But such absurdity must evolutionists rely upon - otherwise the only alternative is Biblical Creation.

Erich von Daniken pushed as fact that what we call pseudoscience. It was rejected by every mainstream scientist. Could the idea of extraterrestial invasion of cells on an ancient meteorite also be false knowledge?

Erich von Daniken may not be that alone in the scientific world after all.


  1. Thanks for the biology 101 intro on the cell. It looks like when you picked up that book on the history of evolution, you also grabbed an intro to biology textbook. I’m well versed on the makeup of a cell; I only received a Bachelor’s of Science degree in the field of general biology.

    I’m surprised you didn’t use the other cliché about the unlikeliness of evolution. You know, the one that sounds like this: The likeliness for evolution to occur is like a tornado tearing through a junkyard and results in the creation of a 747.

    Again, in your most recent blog, you didn’t reveal anything really significant. I as well am familiar with Chariots of the Gods, along with the ancient astronaut theory. I am a little bothered by you, however, as you have made general assumptions about me that are just untrue. What have I said in any of my posts that would lead you to believe I’m a subscriber to the ancient astronaut theory? Don’t answer that, it’s rhetorical.

    Again, you made sweeping generalizations suggesting that people subscribing to evolution must also believe in ancient astronauts as well. To be honest, the idea that we were visited by aliens in our recent past sounds more plausible than a talking snake, a global flood, a virgin pregnancy and birth, and a resurrection.

    Now to address your concerns about the origin of the cell. Life is estimated to have originated around 2 billion years ago, which certainly is enough time for DNA to develop and reach its current stage. I will admit, like most rational evolutionists, that we don’t know exactly how it happened. We don’t claim we can prove how life began; but we have suggestions and theories. But just because we don’t know as of now how it began, doesn’t discredit the endless amount of data and proof we currently have to support evolution.

    What’s worse about your argument is that you do nothing to support your claims about creationism. Saying that evolution is not possible to happen does nothing to support creationism. You can’t simply discredit evolution, and then say ‘see, evolution cannot happen, so it must be creationism.’ Creationists claim that it is a science, and can withstand the scrutiny. So then you must also use evidence and proof to support it. Like I said before, just because you personally exclude the possibility that evolution can happen doesn’t support your ‘faith’ in creationism. The world simply doesn’t work that way.

    You didn’t really say much in this post. You tried to paint me as ancient astronaut subscriber, and then you explained the workings of a cell, and claim that it’s just not possible to happen. Most credible and practical evolutionists don’t believe aliens sparked evolution some 40,000 years ago. We aren’t completely certain how it all began, but we’re certain the mechanisms in place are working, and we can prove that. Don’t try and paint me as the wackjob believer in in meteorites with ET’s and aliens sparking evolution. That is NOT what I believe. You’re the one that believes the talking snake, virgin birth, resurrection, and zombie. Lastly, saying evolution is wrong doesn’t automatically mean creationism is right.

  2. Thanks, Frank, for the fascinating and thorough post. As you point out, the odds of even the simplest biological structure forming by chance are astronomically low.

    Evolution also flies in the face of clearly observable laws of thermodynamics -- order does not arise from disorder, nor does complexity arise from simplicity. In fact, the opposite is true -- if you empty a box of Scrabble tiles on the floor, they are not going to arrange themselves into sentences. At the end of a Scrabble game, if you knock the board onto the floor, the words will disappear and become a random assortment of letters.

    Yet another problem with evolution is its inability to explain how complementary structures developed together. Which "evolved" first -- bones to support muscles, or muscles to move bones? This problem becomes even more troubling when we look at highly specific, complex enzymes acting on equally specific proteins, or specific molecules activating cellular receptors.

    I think Bryce sums up the biggest problem of evolution: "we aren’t completely certain how it all began." The bottom line is that something doesn't arise from nothing. I would be interested in Bryce's "proof" that "we’re certain the mechanisms in place are working." No one is doubting laws of natural selection, as are clearly observable in, for example, bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics, or laws of genetics that are manipulated by horticulturists to select for desirable colors in flowers. But it has never been observed that one species gives rise to another. Through selective breeding we may see a red rose become more purple or even blue in color, but we have never seen a rose become a lilac, let alone a fish become a frog. While closely related species such as a horse and a donkey may mate and produce offspring, those offspring are inevitably infertile (which, actually, is how the concept of a species is defined).

    As you say, Frank, we walk by faith and not by sight. I have a BA in biochemistry from Princeton, did my thesis on molecular biology, have an MD from Cornell, and was the recipient of many research grants and was widely published in academic neurology. I have seen scientific theories come and go, but the Word of God does not change, and He is the same, yesterday, today and forever.

    Laurie Collett, Saved by Grace

  3. Hey Frank!

    I want to commend you for your post. I found it VERY interesting.

    You sound like a very educated man. This person who is debating with you would probably have a "field day" with my blog. Just because it is a Christian Blog and says Prayer Line, does not mean I can't have a variation of different thoughts. They don't always have to refer to the Bible. Just as your thoughts about DNA and such.

    I will admit, some of it was WAY above my head, but I enjoy learning new things so I was very interested. I am not a very educated lady but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be able to speak about things the way you know and understand them. If we will read, contemplate and maybe even delve into deeper reading, we might learn something ourselves.

    You do like I do. You put things out there for "food for thought" hoping that we will take the initiative and gain a deeper level of understanding of the Word, and even DNA or other such subjects. I do the same thing with my Bible Challenges and Trivia. While you use advanced educational techniques, my speed is Trivia and small quizzes.

    Both types of thought processes encourage people to get into deeper thought and develop a hunger for more.

    Please keep in mind when people such as the other person commenting come against your post, Jesus says that we as Christians WILL be persecuted and mocked for His name's sake, and we are to count it a privilege.

    I must say, this person makes me laugh. How can he debate something he knows NOTHING about? If he were to read it, God would open his eyes and show him some truth. He would see that the serpent didn't always slither on the ground. After beguiling Eve, God CURSED the serpent to crawl on His belly.

    As far as the reference to the "zombie", according to Webster's dictionary, a zombie has no emotion or perception. Jesus had both when He was resurrected, as did Lazarus.

    Now as far as ancient astronauts, whose to say? After all, the Bible talks about WORLDS,and says he created the universe which consist of more than just our planet. Also God has NO BEGINNING AND NO END, so we really don't know what He did or created before the earth. We might not have been His first creation.

    All we have to go by is what God tells us in His Word. He may consider His other creations none of our concern. (I'm just speculating there.) Anyway, Frank my dear friend and fellow Christian, as I know well, people who don't believe or cannot understand the value of faith in God, can get under one's skin, (my hubby loves to debate with me all the time and gets me riled. (He does it because he thinks its funny). We must count it as a blessing, as I said before because we are doing it in the Name of Jesus' Christ. Remember, for every one doubter, there are probably many Believers who are out here to encourage our brothers and sisters in Christ.

    God Bless,

  4. Hey Frank!

    I know I just finished writing a "comment book" a few minutes ago on here, but that was not my original thought for my comment! LOL! He (your other commenter) just got me side tracked!LOL!

    Anyway, I wanted to tell you that I think we are all overzealous when we first come to Christ because of our newly found love for Him. We want everyone to feel the way we feel and understand what we now understand. I consider that to be a good thing, but we just have to be careful not to push people away instead of toward Him.

    When I read your comment, I felt like I was reading something I had written because I had the same feelings long ago. Since then I feel like God has shown me that when we are witnessing or evangelizing, when we are giving testimony. We may have a bit of pride, but it is not pride in ourselves, it is pride in what GOD has done for us. As long as we make sure that people understand that we had no power and that God did the work in us and for us, GOD GETS THE GLORY. We can do nothing for ourselves we can't even breathe on our own.

    I say, Do what you love best! Get out there and witness, testify to the Goodness and the Glory of God and don't let the devil put thoughts in your head to shy you away from what God is telling you to do.

    We must remember, D I A L the (Devil Is A Liar). He has NO power except to lie cheat, steal and deceive us. He is the most subtle beast in the field. Don't let him take away your joy of spreading God's News to everyone you meet.

    God knows what is in your heart. He knows you are not prideful as long as you GIVE HIM the GLORY.

    God Bless!

  5. Unfortunately, Hoyle's comments are very accurate. As is so often true, academics depend solely on the claims of others without testing the theories in real life. consequently they often accept theories that those involved in real life have already discarded. They then teach those theories as fact, hampering the progress of their students.

    Pride makes it hard to admit that there are problems with a position,especially for those who consider themselves experts, evidence of error is ignored.

    Good post.

  6. Great post Frank, and more importantly it is food for thought. I expect that we all have different opinions on this topic, but certainly what can't be up for grabs so to speak is whether we believe in Creation or Evolution; I don't think it's possible to believe both wholeheartedly although I recall some Christians somewhere espousing evolution as fact and part of God's plan. In the end however, you either believe man was created specifically and purposely by God or you believe we are descended from lesser beings, animals no less.

    As you have written, the sheer complexity of life could not have happened by accident or random occurrences all happening in the right order all at the right time; no way! You need more faith to believe that blind chance created everything than a loving Creator created everything.

    It would be good if sceptics and non-believers actually read a Bible, rather than just dismissing it out of hand. It is also good to debate these issues because we are by nature questioning, and that's no bad thing.

    For me, the world is billions of years old, but I am prepared to listen to other points of view and even see my views challenged. What is important to remember is that our faith in Jesus Christ doesn't depend on believing or not believing in science or anything else, it is faith in Jesus alone that makes us Christians! Thanks for the post, I look forward to many more on this topic.