|Feature Article - May 2013|
|by Do-While Jones|
In this, our 200th newsletter, we look back at some of the most effective arguments against the theory of evolution.
We sometimes get emails asking us, “What is the single best argument that completely destroys the theory of evolution?” Perhaps that is to be expected in this age of instant gratification. People would like to have one, simple, easy-to-understand argument that instantly refutes the theory of evolution. They want a silver bullet that will slay the monster.
Asking “What is the best argument against evolution?” is like asking, “Which is the deadliest snowflake in an avalanche?” Certainly there is no single snowflake that is lethal all by itself. It is the aggregate power of all the snowflakes that demolishes the things in the path of an avalanche. The best argument against the theory of evolution is not one single fact—it is an overwhelming aggregation of many facts. So, the real answer to the question is, “The simple fact that there are so many of them!”
We realize this, by itself, isn’t a satisfactory answer because we hear evolutionists say it all the time. Evolutionists write to us, telling us that our website is full of lies, and we should take it down. When we ask them to list specific factual errors, they typically respond, “There are lots of them.” So, we ask for just one, and they generally just curse at us, if they respond at all, because there aren’t any factual errors.
If we just say, “There are so many arguments against evolution that we can’t list them all,” and leave it at that, it sounds like we are blowing the same smoke that evolutionists blow. The difference is, we have been publishing this newsletter every month for 16 years and 7 months. The previous 199 issues have included a total of 574 articles giving specific reasons why the theory of evolution can’t be true. There really are so many arguments against the theory of evolution that we can’t list them all in one newsletter—but we will list a few.
Since this is our 200th newsletter, it is appropriate to look back over our body of work and mention a few of the most compelling examples of science against evolution we have previously published. Here are just a few of the deadliest snowflakes in the avalanche of scientific data against evolution.
One of the first things students learn in their elementary school science class is the set of three necessary conditions for fire. You need to have (1) fuel, (2) oxygen, and (3) heat. Take away any one of these three things and the fire will go out.
In the same way, the theory of evolution depends upon three necessary conditions. If any one of the conditions is false, then the theory of evolution can’t be true. In fact, none of the three conditions is true, so the theory is triply false. Those three conditions are (1) life happens, (2) mutations improve it, and (3) there is enough time for the first two things to happen.
Evolutionists always try to separate the spontaneous origin of life (abiogenesis) from evolution because, if they don’t, the theory of evolution is (literally) dead on arrival. Abiogenesis is a non-starter, so evolutionists claim that anyone who includes the origin of life in the theory of evolution is stupid and doesn’t know what he is talking about. In debates, they try to define the theory of evolution so narrowly that it doesn’t involve abiogenesis; but that doesn’t stop them from including abiogenesis in the section on evolution in biology textbooks.
The theory of evolution is supposed to answer the question, “Where did we come from?” The evolutionary answer can’t begin with pre-existing life. It has to start with a barren, lifeless planet. Evolutionists aren’t shy about talking about how they think the Earth formed, and how it evolved into an inhabitable environment; but they really don’t want to talk about how life began because all of their fanciful explanations defy the laws of science. Their “scientific” arguments are foolish—and they know it.
Some evolutionists really get mad when we point out that there are only two scientifically documented cases of inanimate material coming to life—Pinocchio and Frosty the Snowman! There is truth in humor. There are no documented, or even plausible, scientific examples of how inanimate chemicals combined to form the first living thing.
In past newsletters we have not just joked about this—we have examined the evolutionary proposals and shown them to be false. We invite you to read the 30 articles we have previously published on this topic 1 (not counting the parodies like "The Wizard of Ooze" and "Comin’ To Life").
You instinctively know that life is more than just the proper mix of chemicals. All the right chemicals, contained in a membrane, are like a computer without software. Life is a process, not a material. Life requires a material substrate in which to exist; but life is more than just assembly of cells. It is a functional system that grows and reproduces.
The theory of evolution is based on the notion that the proper mix of chemicals somehow spontaneously came to life. There is no scientific basis to believe this could possibly happen, and many scientific principles explain why it could not.
For a thorough explanation of why the spontaneous origin of life is not scientifically possible, see our essay, “Looking For Life” 2 which contains a link telling how to win the still unclaimed Origin of Life Prize. 3
Since the first of the three necessary conditions is not fulfilled, the theory of evolution is disproved without further discussion. But—just for the sake of discussion—let’s imagine that the impossible did happen, and the first living thing arose through some unknown natural process so we can examine the other two criteria.
So, somehow the first living thing came to life. What did it do? Somehow, it had to process energy to grow and (this is key) reproduce itself. Without replication there can’t be any evolution. If the first living thing did not reproduce itself, it would still be the only living thing on Earth (if it could survive), and we would not be here to ponder it.
What did the first living thing eat? Why did it reproduce? How did it reproduce? These are just a few of the unanswerable questions about the first living thing. An evolutionist has to accept, by faith, that the first living thing did somehow stumble upon some metabolic process and reproductive process. Those are pretty big snowflakes all by themselves, but let’s not worry about them.
If it replicated itself perfectly, it would still be the only KIND of living thing on the Earth. There would be more than one of them; but they would all be the same thing. So, evolution depends upon imperfect replication. The foundational principle of the theory of evolution is that mutations produce lots of different random variations, and natural selection filters these variations, keeping the most beneficial ones.
So, evolutionists make up stories about how a light-sensitive spot accidentally appeared on a primitive living thing. Even though it had no imaging capability, and no image processing capability in its rudimentary brain, it somehow provided a survival advantage. Eventually, a bunch of lucky accidents cause it to form a lens over the light-sensitive cells, and an optic nerve accidentally sent data to the brain, and image-processing algorithms accidentally evolved so that the living thing could see and recognize food, and move toward it, and see and recognize predators, and move away from them. It was just a lucky accident that the brain guessed which was food and which was foe. The lucky ones lived long enough to reproduce. The unlucky ones didn’t.
It was just a lucky accident that we evolved blood, and a heart to pump it through the accidental lungs, to all the rest of the body. It was just luck that blood has the characteristics that it clings to oxygen in an oxygen-rich environment, and releases oxygen in an oxygen-poor environment. And clotting just happened to evolve so that the blood doesn’t flow out through small wounds, but doesn’t clot in the arteries and veins preventing the blood to flow internally. And the circulatory system just happened to cooperate with the immune system, carrying white blood cells to the infection site.
The more you think about all the lucky things that had to happen to produce all the components of every biological system, which accidentally work together to provide needed functionality, the more ridiculous it becomes. If you really believe in that much luck, you should buy a lottery ticket. (It just takes one! )
It is a statistical fact that, given enough time, improbable things will happen. If someone honestly shuffles a deck of cards and asks you to guess which card is on top, you probably won’t guess what it is. But, if you have thousands of people all trying to guess the top card, some of them will. Some of them will even guess the top two cards correctly. If many millions of people tried to guess all 52 cards in order, sooner or later, someone would. Actually, it would probably be much later! But given enough time, it certainly would happen.
Of course, this experiment depends upon the ability of the subjects to communicate their guesses to the person conducting the experiment. Suppose they use a telephone to do that (to eliminate any chance of peeking). What is the probability that a subject could tell the experimenter over the telephone all 52 cards in order if the telephone didn’t work? In this circumstance, probability no longer matters. The subject can’t even tell the first card correctly if the phone doesn’t work.
It is foolish to try to compute the probability that a cell will spontaneously form and come to life, or that an optical system, or circulatory system, will evolve on its own, because it isn’t a question of probability. It simply isn’t possible. It can’t happen by chance.
Evolutionists believe (by faith) that innumerable impossible things aren’t really impossible—they are just improbable. And, given enough time, even the most improbable thing will happen. So, if we grant the false premise that impossible things are actually possible (but extremely improbable), the Earth has to be very old for all these improbable things to happen by chance. Is the Earth old enough?
That’s a difficult question for several reasons. The time required depends upon how improbable an outcome is, and how often experiments are conducted. What’s the probability that a cell will accidentally become light-sensitive? How many cells are produced per minute? One has to guess these things. The time required will depend upon the guesses. So, creationists and evolutionists argue about mutation rates, and the number of mutations necessary, because they make different guesses about how improbable impossible events are. Since it is foolish to try to calculate the probability of something that is impossible, we don’t even try.
Evolutionists seem to be comfortable with the notion that the universe is about 15 billion years old, and the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old. Is that enough time for the impossible to happen? Of course not. Things that are impossible won’t happen no matter how long one waits. So, the age of the universe, and the age of the Earth, are irrelevant.
But evolutionists think that billions of years have gone by, and that billions of years are sufficient for all the required mutations to happen by chance, so we must address the issue. Is it plausible that the universe and the Earth are that old? In the past we have published nearly 60 articles about the age of the Earth 4 showing that the Earth isn’t that old.
Perhaps the most compelling article showing the Earth can’t possibly be as old as evolutionists say is our article on U-Series Dating. 5 Our U-Series Dating article showed that, after 1.7 million years, all of the uranium-234 (234U) that exists today should be the result of decay from uranium-238 (238U), so the ratio of 234U to 238U should be the same value (specifically, 1 to 18,089) because equilibrium between decay rates of the two uranium isotopes should have been reached by now. But a peer-reviewed article about an attempt to date cave paintings using uranium isotope ratios reported that the ratios range from 74% to 786% of what they should be. Further investigation showed that this was not an isolated incident. The usual explanations for the unexpected values are “contamination,” or unknown “natural processes” which have caused the ratio of uranium isotopes to be out of equilibrium.
Of course, the most reasonable explanation for disequilibrium is that there has not been sufficient time since both were created (by whatever process) for 234U and 238U to reached equilibrium. In other words, the age of the Earth must be MUCH LESS than 1.7 million years. That’s not nearly enough time for all the various kinds of living things to have evolved from the first living organism.
Students are routinely told that radiometric ages are consistent and accurate. Neither of these statements is true. The methods aren’t accurate because they depend upon assumptions about initial concentrations which cannot be independently verified (except for carbon 14 dating of items of known historical age). The methods aren’t consistent because the measured ratios of isotopes are not the result of the passage of time—they are the result of initial concentrations.
Inconsistencies in radiometric dates are often blamed on contamination or human error. But the moon rocks brought back by the Apollo 11 astronauts were among the most carefully analyzed rocks in the history of science. The age of the Moon is said to be 4.43 billion years old. But the rocks brought back by Apollo 11 were dated a total of 116 times. Of those 116 dates, only 10 of them fall in the range of 4.3 to 4.56 billion years, and 106 don’t. The dates ranged from 40 million years to 8.2 billion years. 6 The 10 dates that fell in the 4.3 to 4.56 billion year range were declared to be valid (and the 106 other dates were ignored) because of evolutionary prejudice.
If you don’t think about it too carefully, the explanation of how the sun formed might seem plausible; but it doesn’t really stand up to critical examination. We went through the math in our article titled, “Young Earth Astronomy.” 7 Here is the short, nearly math-free explanation.
It is possible to compute the mass of the Sun based on planetary orbital mechanics. It is possible to compute the rate of mass loss of the Sun based on measurements of energy produced by the Sun, and Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2. Knowing the mass of the Sun, and how rapidly it is expending energy (that is, losing mass), one can extrapolate that all the mass of the Sun will be gone in 14,658 billion years (at the present rate). Since the universe is supposedly about 14.6 billion years old, it will take 1,000 times the current age of the universe to burn out at the present rate; but that’s not where this argument is going. (We don’t expect the rate to remain constant, anyway.) We want to go the other direction in time.
How fast would the Sun have had to have gained mass to get from 0 kilograms to its present mass in 14.6 billion years? The mass would have to accumulate 1000 times faster than it is losing mass right now. What would cause all that hydrogen to clump together so quickly? Evolutionists will say, “Gravity.” Let’s think about that.
Why isn’t there any air on the Moon? It’s because the Moon has only about 1/6th of the mass of the Earth, so its gravity is only 1/6th that of the Earth. The gravity of the moon is too weak to hold on to nitrogen gas (which is 7 times heavier than hydrogen gas) or oxygen gas (which is 8 times heavier than hydrogen gas).
Suppose the Sun started out (somehow) as a clump of hydrogen atoms about the size and weight of a basketball. How could the infant Sun attract any hydrogen to it if something as heavy as the Moon can’t hold onto gas that is 8 times heavier than hydrogen?
Pardon the math, but its gravity would have to be sucking in hydrogen gas at an average rate of more than 4,300 billion kilograms of mass every second to reach its present mass in 14.6 billion years that the universe has supposedly existed. (Yes, we know the Sun supposedly had already formed about 5 billion years old, so it supposedly had only about 10 billion years to form. That means it had to accumulate hydrogen gas at a rate closer to 6,000 billion kilograms per second; but when numbers get that incredibly high, does it really matter?) The Sun could not have formed when and how the evolutionists say it did.
When you put it all together, and realize that life doesn’t happen spontaneously, complex biological systems don’t arise by chance, and the Earth can’t possibly be as old as evolutionists would need it to be, it is clear that all three of the necessary conditions for the theory of evolution to be true are false.
If any one condition is false, evolution can’t be true. In this case, it’s one strike and you are out. But evolution swings and misses all three times. No runs, no hits, just error after error. The theory of evolution loses.
|Quick links to|
|Science Against Evolution
|Back issues of
of the Month
2 Disclosure, August 2005, “Looking For Life”, http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v9i11f.htm
5 Disclosure, July 2012, “U-Series Dating”, http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v16i10f.htm
6 Disclosure, June 2008, “The Age of the Moon”, http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v12i9f.htm
7 Disclosure, November 2006, “Young Earth Astronomy”, http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v11i2e.htm