Evolution

Microbiology, genetics and biochemistry suggest that evolution cannot happen.

In the science of genetics Natural Selection cannot be regarded as the mechanism for evolution since all the information for the development of an organism has already been encoded in the DNA of its parent.[1] DNA design only allows variety within species. And at the tiniest level of life forms there exists such irreducible complexity that the possibility of earlier intermediate stages is ruled out.[2] Genetic mutations only occur within species. Darwin had no concept of the complex biochemical relations that exist between structures at the molecular level. He did not know that for evolution to occur those relations would have to change. Research into this very question over the past decade has found no evidence that such radical biochemical changes exist or (more importantly) are even possible.[3]

One of the most striking discoveries of recent genome research is the extent to which organisms differ from each other. As the genomes of more species are deciphered, researchers are finding that about 30 to 40 percent of the proteins in each species' genes are unique to that species. For humans that figure is a little higher. These differences are so profound that microbiologists may have to adopt new methods for their research. Until recently, microbiologists have assumed that by studying one or two 'model' organisms, such as E. coli (the most studied bacterium) and S. cerevisiae (yeast), they could learn about many other organisms. But that assumption is now being seriously challenged.

According to the biologist and philosopher of science, Paul Nelson, "This is a remarkable, remarkable result." Nelson's astonishment is based on the conclusions that he draws from these findings. If, as appears to be the case, these unique genes have important functions and can't be altered without harming the organism, this would be a major blow to evolution. "If that's the case" Nelson said, "then these genes have no evolutionary predecessors, and naturalistic evolution is in deep, deep trouble - and not because somebody wants the Bible to be true." Macro evolution supposedly works by accumulating small genetic changes. It suggests that each gene had to be crafted one small step at a time. But if a gene can tolerate little or no change, there can be no line of evolutionary predecessors, and hence evolution cannot, therefore, happen.[4]

So, how do evolutionists explain evolution?

Because of the inherent flaws in the 'small step at a time' hypothesis, some evolutionists have come up with what they call Punctuated Equilibrium. PE is a model which holds that a particular species would remain fairly constant for many thousands of years, but would occasionally be punctuated by bursts of evolution - and thus a new species with a "higher" genetic structure would appear in the fossil record, pointing to a series of progressive changes. On the one hand, this idea has the advantage for evolution theory of explaining the ABSENCE of transitional or intermediate forms. But, on the other hand, there is no observable EVIDENCE for such an hypothesis. The concept of Punctuated Equilibrium stakes everything on beneficial mutations and chance events occurring at rapid, unknown rates, and so is really an altogether baseless notion. Proponents of PE such as Richard Goldschmidt, Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge can only offer an explanation for the ABSENCE of transitional forms but the major weakness of PE is that there is no EVIDENCE for it (none in the fossil record) and no conceivable mechanism for it (microbiology is proving that no species can GAIN GENETIC INFORMATION), and so it remains hypothetical. And finally, PE needs a lot of time. But, lots of scientific evidence is now pointing to a YOUNG age for the Earth, and hence not enough time for PE to happen.

Geology suggests that the world cannot be millions of years old.

Robert Gentry's study of polonium-218 radiohalos which exist in huge numbers "frozen" in granites around the world, directly challenges the idea that the Earth cooled over eons of time from hot magma.[5] Polonium-218 has a fleeting existence, it has a half-life of 3 minutes. In its short life it gives off radiation and this radiation leaves haloes of discolouration in granite provided that the rock cools and chrystalises within the time that the polonium is emitting radiation. No radiohaloes can occur if the radiation that Polonium-218 emits is being given off in molten rock. If you accept radioactive decay rates, then, Polonium-218 radiohaloes prove that granites cooled very quickly, and not over millions of years as evolutionists claim.[6]

Guy Berthault has shown that rock strata can form vertically and laterally at the same time in the presence of a water current and not over the millions of years claimed by evolutionists.[7]

Ayers Rock (Ulluru) suggests that the world is young.

Ayers Rock in central Australia is composed of sharp-edged sand crystals in vertical strata. It could not have survived millions of years because wind erosion would have worn it down.[8]

Physics suggests that the world is young.

The decaying strength of Earth's magnetic field suggests an upper limit of age far below evolutionary requirements (eg Barnes claims that only 10,000 years ago, Earth would have been impossibly hot [9]).

Astronomy suggests that the universe is young.

Short period comets only have a life-span of approximately 10,000 years. If the universe is millions of years old there would be no short period comets left in the Solar System. But short period comets do exist, thus pointing to a young universe.[10]

Polystrate fossilised tree trunks suggest that the Earth is young.

Stripped of branches and showing evidence of water-borne deposition, fossilised polystrate tree trunks are compelling evidence for the rapidly occurring global Flood depicted in the book of Genesis. They have been found standing vertically through various strata, including layers of coal. If the strata were deposited over millions of years, the tree trunks would have decayed long before the uppermost strata could have been deposited. For such specimens to have become fossilised, the strata MUST have been deposited rapidly - in less time than it would take for the tree to have rotted away. Evidence of this sort debunks an old age Earth.[11]

Radiometric Dating Methods are not infallible.

Various dating methods give widely varying ages for the same object. No-one can be sure of the exact isotopic composition of certain elements in rocks in ancient times, nor of any impact since ancient times of environmental factors. It can be shown that radioactive decay rates, believed to be constant, actually varied in the past. Such evidence exposes the presently calculated ages as invalid.[12] [See also The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods by J. Woodmorrape.]

Conclusion.

The idea that the vast distances in the universe mean that the universe must be billions of years old is clouded by the evidence above which points to a universe that is much younger than we have been led to believe. The formation and workings of the Solar System still remain an unsolvable mystery to scientists (eg the speed of light may not be a constant [13]), so how can anyone be certain that the universe is billions of years old? And without the long ages, evolution is left without its major ally, namely: lots of time. Evolution needs lots of time to happen. But it appears that evolution might not have happened because 1) geology suggests it doesn't have the time and 2) modern-day genetics suggests that it is conceptually impossible.

References:

[1] http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid2.htm

[2] Keane, G. 1999, Creation Rediscovered,Tan Books, p. 268 and 158-4

[3] Welborn, A. Prove It God, Our Sunday Visitor, p. 48.

[4] Nickson, E. The Odds are On God, THE SPECTATOR, 12 May 2000, pps. 14, 15.

[5] Gentry, R. The video: The Young Age of the Earth.

[6] Keane, G. 2004, Special Creation Rediscovered, p. 73 (www.kolbecenter.org)

[7] Berthault, G. The video: Fundamental Experiments on Stratification and Evolution - fact or belief?

[8] Keane, G. 2004, Special Creation Rediscovered, p. 73

[9] Barnes, T. 1973, "Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field. ICR Technical Monograph, No 4.

[10] Wysong, R. 1980, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, Midland, MI: Inquiry Press, pp. 159 - 179.

[11] Austin, S. The video: Mount St Helen's Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe! (N. Santee, CA)

[12] Baker, S. 1981 Bone of Contention, Evan. Press, Herts, England. p. 22.

[13] answersingenesis.org contains up to date technical articles suggesting that the speed of light is not a constant. This means that the formula: time = distance / speed cannot give an accurate age of the Earth.



* Please note that this text should be read in the context of the whole work and in recognition of the appropriate paragraphs of the Catechism of the Catholic Church highlighted in the index.