You hear it on television, you see it in periodical print, and perhaps you have even said it yourself, “ evolution is a fact”. Of course we all know that evolution has happened in the past and continues to happen today – right? But has it really happened in the past? Do we know for certain that it is taking place right now? Before we can answer these questions we must first agree up on the definition of “evolution”. Often when I am speaking about evolution, my listeners may have a very different concept of the meaning of evolution than I do. I find it helpful to agree upon what we mean by the word before discussing the evidence for – or against it.

First, we must understand that the origin of life is unknown to evolutionary thinking and has not been discovered – according to Harvard University.[1] No scientist has ever produced something out of nothing in order to observe, test, and measure how a big bang could accomplish such a miraculous feat. The famous Miller experiments in the 1950’s also fail to answer the big question of how life began.[2] In fact every similar experiment that followed Miller’s has not been able to answer this fundamental question David Liu tacitly admits.

“Like intelligent design, the Harvard project begins with awe at the nature of life, and with an admission that, almost 150 years after Charles Darwin outlined his theory of evolution in the Origin of Species, scientists cannot explain how the process began.” – David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard University

Since any definition of evolution offers no scientific explanations for how life suddenly appeared (observable, testable, falsifiable, repeatable, etc), we will exclude the origin of life from our definition as well. In fact, Darwin’s Origin of Species makes no concession for how life first began. Instead, he fast forwards through the unknown and begins with the first life forms already in existence.

Every living organism contains an embedded code which when translated, reveals the building blocks for every single protein necessary for life. But that is only the tip of the iceberg as it represents less than 2% of the entire code. The remaining 98% is responsible for cellular housekeeping, structural maintenance, code redundancy, and interacts with the protein-coding regions in ways that science is just beginning to learn. Something I find amazing about this incredible code is that no one knows where it came from! If you were to find a manual on how to build a jet airplane, you would instantly recognize that this was the product of an intelligent source. No one would believe that the manual assembled itself over many millennia. Yet, evolutionists would have you believe that is exactly what happened in the case of the DNA code which all organisms possess (3 billion lines of paired-code in humans).

But, the problem gets worse. Once you have the manual, how long does it take for the manual to actually build the airplane? The answer is never! This is regardless of how much time you allow. Just as there needs to be skilled workers who understand how to read the manual to assemble the jet, there must be skilled workers ( enzymes) that know where to go in the massive code of DNA, find the exact section needed and follow the directions for assembling each of the required parts. But then you have to ask, where do the workers come from? Surprisingly, the instructions for how to make the workers are also embedded in the DNA code!

Which came first – the code or the workers? We have already seen that science has no explanation on how the first life forms suddenly appeared[3] – complete with millions of tiny little workers all doing their part within the cell from day one. We also know that matter does not give rise to information, codes, or languages. Nobel laureate Roger Sperry stated, “The meaning of the message will not be found in the physics and chemistry of the paper and ink”. In other words, the information we get from languages and codes does not come from the material itself. The ink on the page has no clue that it represents information. Whatever information is carried in the formation of letters and numbers on a page must have originated from an outside source.

Further, we can state this in a simple 3-line syllogism:

• All languages, codes, protocols and encoding / decoding mechanisms that we know the origin of come from a mind – there are no known exceptions

• DNA is a language, a code, a protocol, and an encoding / decoding mechanism

• Therefore DNA came from a mind.

Any definition we come up with for evolution should exclude the origination of the DNA code as codes have never been observed to spontaneously arise nor are they self-inventing in nature. Where are we at in our definition? At this point we see that evolution must be a mechanism that works on existing life forms, and existing information. After all, if life is to evolve in any way at all, then the code for life (DNA) must be modified. Otherwise, living organisms will continue to produce after their kind and we will never see anything brand new. But I think we can further define the boundaries of evolution.

Some argue that 800 breeds of dogs would be proof of evolution. My first response is that the only discipline of science where we are offered a proof is mathematics. All other fields are based on evidence and observation – and can be falsified! Secondly, aren’t they still dogs? The fact that we can cross-breed among the various dog kinds testifies to the fact that they are all – dogs. Darwin was fascinated by the various finches he observed, but they were all finches! Today, we can breed lions and tigers, lamas and camels, zebras and donkeys, potatoes and peppers, Europeans and Aborigines, etc. But this is not proof of evolution – in fact it’s just the opposite. The reason we can still breed within the various kinds of horses, dogs, cats, and potatoes is because each group must have been separated from their biological parents in the very recent past! If hundreds of millions of years really has elapsed, with each species going its own way during that immensity of time, they would no longer be able to cross-breed because of spetiation. Traditionally, speciation was thought to take hundreds of thousands of years, but scientists are learning through observation that this process occurs very rapidly (in as little as 4 years)[4]! Therefore, these animal and plant relatives have not been separated long enough to become genetically isolated. They have only been separated long enough to show variety – such as in Darwin’s finches.

But variety within species is not the same as evolution of one species to another. The variety within the different animal kinds is mostly attributed to the enormous potential for variety contained within the DNA code itself.[5] Again, this is not evolution. It is simply built-in variety that every living organism contains within its DNA. In the same way the DNA code permits variety within a kind, it also prohibits cross-breeding between the animal kinds. A horse cannot breed with a cat, for example. So DNA is both a producer of variety (within kinds) and a barrier between the kinds. No scientist has ever observed an animal species become something else entirely different through genetic variety. In fact, no scientists has ever observed this phenomenon to take place through force either – in spite of many efforts![6]

The small successive changes noted by Darwin are now well known to be the product of genetic variability that was pre-existent within the DNA code. Therefore based on observational data, any definition of evolution must exclude genetic variability.

-“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.”  – Charles Darwin

If we exclude the origin of life, the origin of the genetic code, and variety within the species, we are left with a more precise definition of evolution. It is not the horizontal change or differences within a species, but it is the vertical change from one species to some other entirely different species. There are a great variety of fish, but they are all still fish. How did fish evolve into amphibians, for example? Just how does a reptile evolve into a mammal? This is what we are after. Variety within the species does not help us because of the DNA barrier. What we want to know is how does evolution evade the genetic barrier of DNA? If a fish is to become a philosopher over millions of years, there must be a mechanism to accomplish this. Otherwise, fish would always produce fish – according to the genetic code within fish.

Consider our jet airplane manual that we have stumbled upon. As previously stated, we can instantly recognize that it is the product of intelligence. It is carefully written to produce the finely tuned and crafted flying machine. But we need to change (evolve) this marvelous production into something else. How do we do it? We send a three year-old to do the task – armed with ink pens, erasers, scissors, and tape – and wearing a blindfold. What do you think the results will be? Will the plane even fly after the three year-old is finished modifying the instructions? What are the odds that the plane would be better than it was before the modifications? Even if the child was only allowed to make a single change to the manual, chances are that the end result would not be advantageous to the overall system. Evolutionists may cry foul at this point because of the blindfolded child with detrimental tools heading for the manual. But on what grounds can you cry foul? Isn’t this the process of evolution? It is a blind, unguided, random, chance process that has no inclination of the past, present, or future – or even of itself! As it modifies (mutates) the DNA code in complete randomness, it most certainly resembles a blindfolded 3 year-old with a jet airplane manual. But even a child possesses characteristics that evolution will never know – consciousness, rationale, ability to learn, foresight, etc. Even a 3 year-old’s actions would have some semblance of rationale and guided intentions (the 3 year old has a brain – evolution does not)!

As bad as this is, the problem is worse than that for evolutionists. The random changes made by the child must also simultaneously be understood by the workers. They must know where the modified information exists, where it starts, where it stops, how to read it, how to build it, and where to place this ‘new’ part once it is built. All of this must happen at the same time as the change. But that’s not all. Having a ‘new’ part does absolutely no good at all if the system as a whole does not know how to communicate with and control it (i.e. make use of it). This involves electrical communications (signals) as well as mechanical (rods, levers). For example, the airplane’s computer must know about the new part, what it is supposed to do, how to communicate with it, which mechanical systems are involved, how to diagnose it when it fails, what its operational parameters are, and on and on. All of the parts in between must be able to cohesively work together to make use the part as well.

All of these factors seem to be overlooked by proponents of evolution. But even the trivial act of a human pushing a button with their finger “is the result of a complex neuro-motor-mechanical process orchestrated with precision timing by the brain, nervous system and muscles of the hand... require a sophisticated coordination and messaging system between the brain, the nervous system and 30 muscles of the hand”[7] The fact that these concepts are suspiciously absent from evolutionary writings should no longer be accepted by critical readers. If the idea of molecules-to-man is to have any scientific foundation at all, these things must be accounted for! As it is, it appears that any attempt to modify the genetic code does not achieve the desired results – whether it’s done intentionally or through the blind, unguided, brainless process of evolution.

"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.“
  – Pierre Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, p. 88.

But there is yet another problem for the ideology of evolution. When has science ever seen evolution produce anything new? Could the 3 year-old ever produce a new jet engine, a new wing, new landing system, new fuel mixture, or even a new windshield wiper? Or better yet, could the child create some entirely new structure which enabled the plane to do something that it could not previously do? How did the first single-celled organism evolve into a multi-cellular fish? That single cell (bacteria) had no genetic code (instructions) on how to build the complex structures of the fish (eyes, skeleton, muscular system, scales, reproductive organs, heart, fins, brain, ears, labyrinth organ, mouth, gills, digestive system, nostrils, kidney, air bladder, liver, sensory reception, spleen, pancreas, waste vent, pigmentation, taste buds, circulatory system, blood, nervous system, etc). Yet, we are to believe that a blind, unguided, brainless, random, chance process wrote new, useful, information to a bacteria’s DNA over millions of years until it became a fish? From what observational scientific evidence is this claim made? None. You are asked to believe it because we are here! Sounds like blind faith to me.

"Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producing new structures for selection to work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory.”
– Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, pp. 67-68.

There are an estimated 100 trillion cells in the average adult. Just one of those cells is far more complex than a jet airplane or even the space shuttle![8] Yet scientists have never observed a single process within nature that can create even a single new organ! Obviously, any definition of evolution must exclude the capability to add new, useful, coded-information for brand new organs to DNA. This further narrows our definition of evolution. Where does that leave us for a functional definition of evolution that is scientifically sound, based on empirical and observational data?

What Evolution is not: it is not a process which can explain the origin of life; it is not a process which can explain how the code necessary for life came about (DNA); it is not variation within a species; it is not responsible for producing the new complexity required for bacteria-to-banker transformations.

This leaves evolution without any explanatory power! By removing hypothesis and speculation while inserting observations and fact, evolution can only be defined as the be-all, end-all, fairy-tale that can produce miracles, become a causal agent, organize, guide, direct, and answer all of life’s great mysteries – without requiring a single observational confirmation whatsoever. All of this from a blind, unguided, brainless, random, chance process! It truly is miraculous.

Evolution is a fact? I guess that all depends on how you define evolution. Observational evidence says, ‘no’. But perhaps your definition is different!

 

Source: literalgenesis.org

 

References:

1. Project on the origins of life launched, The Boston Globe, August 14th 2005, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/14/project_on_the_origins_of_life_launched/ 
2. Origin of life: the polymerization problem, Jonathan Sarfati, Technical Journal, 12(3):281–284, December 1998, http://66.42.196.197:50002/tj/v12/i3/polymerization.asp 
3. The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins, 1986, p229-230 "And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists....the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation...”
4. Rapid Speciation and Chromosomal Evolution in Mammals, G. L. Bush, S. M. Case, A. C. Wilson, and J. L. Patton, PNAS, September 1, 1977 vol. 74 no. 9 1. Speedy species surprise, David Catchpoole and Carl Wieland, Creation ex nihilo 23(2):13–15, March 2001 http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i2/speciation.asp 2. Predator-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward, Morell, V.,, Science 275(5308):1880, 1997
5. The number of possible combinations of maternal and paternal chromosomes in the nuclei produced by meiosis equals 2 raised to the power of n, where n is the number of pairs of chromosomes. For the 23 pairs of human chromosomes this amounts to over 8 million combinations!
6. Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (1983), p. 134, "Even with this tremendous speedup of mutations, scientists have not been able to come up with anything other than another fruit fly. Most important, what all these experiments demonstrate is that the fruit fly can vary within certain upper and lower limits but will never go beyond them.” (1) The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, Francis Hitching, (1982), p. 61, "Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised." (2) Robustness-epistasis link shapes the fitness landscape of a randomly drifting protein, Weizmann Institute, Nature 444, 929-932 (14 December 2006) doi:10.1038/nature05385, http://creationsafaris.com/crev200612.htm#20061214a
7. Getting a Hand on Facts and Meanings, Creation Evolution Headlines, 01/24/2008, http://creationsafaris.com/crev200801.htm#20080124a 
8. What Darwin Didn't Know: A Doctor Dissects the Theory of Evolution, Geoffrey Simmons and William Dembski, 2004

Additional Resources:

1. Harvard Out To Uncover Life's Origin, The Harvard Crimson, September 12th 2005, http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=508427
2. The origin of life—did it occur at high temperatures?, Miller, S.L. and Lazcano, A., 1995. J. Mol. Evol. 41:689–692.
3. The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, London: John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1859, http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/index.html
4. The Problem of Information for the Theory of Evolution – Has Dawkins really solved it?, Royal Truman, 24 January 2008, http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp
5. Modern Language Association (MLA): "syllogism." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 24 Jan. 2008. <Dictionary.com   http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/syllogism
6. Critical Thinking. An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method, Max Black, Englewood Cliffs 1953, "We know well that a fallacy that would be obvious to all in a three-line syllogism may deceive the elect in 400 pages of crowded fact and argument ... I think it is a useful exercise for any of us ... to reduce any book of whose conclusions we are doubtful into a set of formal syllogisms and lay bare the bones of the argument."