Make your own free website on


Life DNA protein and fossils

Home | Evolution disproved | Big Bang theory | Origin of earth | Age of earth | inaccurate dating methods | Life DNA protein and fossils | Ancient man and natural selection


rainbow2.gif (1633 bytes)

Why raw materials on earth cannot produce life


HOW THE THEORY TELLS IT—According to the evolutionary theory, life began in this way:

(1) There was just the right atmosphere—and it was totally different than the one we now have.(2) The ground, water, or ocean where life began had just the right combination of chemicals in it—which it does not now have.(3) Using an unknown source of just the right amount of energy, amino acids then formed in sufficient quantities that—(4) they could combine into lots of proteins and nucleotides (complex chemical compounds).(5) They then reformed themselves into various organs inside a main organism.(6) They did some careful thinking (as with all the other points, beyond the mental abilities of even our best scientists today), and developed a genetic code to cover thousands of different factors.(7) At this point, they were ready to start reproducing young. —Of course, this last point reveals that all the previous six had to occur within the lifetime of just one bacterium. Since microbes and bacteria do not live very long, this first one had to think and act fast.

Charles Darwin did a lot of daydreaming in his letters and in his book, Origin of the Species. Here was one of his hopeful wishes, as expressed in a letter to a close friend:

"But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes."—*Charles Darwin, in *Francis Darwin (ed.), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (1887 ed.), p. 202 (the parenthetical comment is his also).

*Darwin was totally puzzled as to how even one of the plant or animal species could have originated, much less the millions we have today. Yet he wrote a book which, according to the title, explained the problem. An ardent evolutionist refers to the difficulty:

"Since Darwin’s seminal work was called The Origin of Species one might reasonably suppose that his theory had explained this central aspect of evolution or at least made a shot at it, even if it had not resolved the larger issues we have discussed up to now. Curiously enough, this is not the case. As Professor Ernst Mayr of Harvard, the doyen [senior member] of species studies, once remarked, the ‘book called The Origin of Species is not really on that subject,’ while his colleague Professor Simpson admits: ‘Darwin failed to solve the problem indicated by the title of his work.’

"You may be surprised to hear that the origin of species remains just as much a mystery today, despite the efforts of thousands of biologists. The topic has been the main focus of attention and is beset by endless controversies."—*Gordon R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 140.

One of the greatest scientists of the last 200 years said this about the possibility of life making itself out of water and mud: DARWIN’S FAMOUS "POND" STATEMENT—Reprinted below is a page from *Charles Darwin’s letter in which he conjectured as to the possible origin of living creatures. That conjecture was about as far as he took the process; for nowhere, in his Origin of the Species, is the origin of the species discussed or even hinted at.

The present writer does not have a printed copy of the last part of the scribbled note, below. Blanks (on the left) represent portions difficult to decipher. The spelling and punctuation was revised when *Francis Darwin later (1887) placed in print an edited version of his father’s writings. (*Darwin died in the year 1882.)

EC210.jpg (366220 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGE

"Mathematics and dynamics fail us when we contemplate the earth, fitted for life but lifeless, and try to imagine the commencement of life upon it. This certainly did not take place by any action of chemistry, or electricity, or crystalline grouping of molecules under the influence of force, or by any possible kind of fortuitous concourse of atmosphere. We must pause, face to face with the mystery and miracle of creation of living things."—Lord Kelvin, quoted in Battle for Creation, p. 232.OUR WORLD BEGINS—Evolutionary theorists tell us that long ago, our world spun off from a stellar condensation or collision of some kind. At first it was a molten mass of very hot rock. Gradually this is supposed to have cooled over a period of millions upon millions of years.

THE PRIMITIVE ENVIRONMENT—(*#1/20 The Primitive Environment*) Finally it was time for life to originate by spontaneous generation from (according to which theorist is speaking) warm wet dirt, seashore, hot and dry dirt, ocean water, desert sand, lake, poisonous chemicals or fumes, electrified mud puddle, a volcanic rim, or something else. An atmosphere of some type had formed, and occasionally lightning would strike the earth.

Scientists have tried to analyze what conditions would have had to be like in order for spontaneous generation of life from non-life to occur. They call this the "primitive environment."

What were conditions like at that first moment when life is supposed to have created itself by random chance out of a mud hole or sloshing seawater? Evolutionists have figured this out. Their conclusions are not only astonishing; but, in this chapter, we will learn—they further disprove evolution!

The theorists tell us that the first life-form developed from nothing about 4.6 billion years ago. But *Steven Jay Gould of Harvard, one of the leading evolutionary thinkers of the latter part of the twentieth century, maintains that there would have been very little time for this highly improbable event to have occurred:

"We are left with very little time between the development of suitable conditions for life on the Earth’s surface and the origin of life . . Life apparently arose about as soon as the Earth became cool enough to support it."—*S.J. Gould, "An Early Start," in Natural History, February 1978.

*Fred Hoyle wrote in the November 19, 1981 issue of New Scientist, that there are 2000 complex enzymes required for a living organism,—yet not a single one of these could have been formed on earth by shuffling processes in even 20 billion years!2 - THE ERROR OF LIFE FROM NON-LIFE

SPONTANEOUS GENERATION—(*2/9 Spontaneous Generation*) Life from non-living things is the Dark Ages error of "spontaneous generation," an error which was not fully eliminated until more than a century ago. Modern evolutionists believe in and teach spontaneous generation, which they now call biopoiesis, so students will not recognize that they are still advocating spontaneous generation. (Earlier in the twentieth century, it was called abiogenesis.)

In contrast, Biogenesis is the scientific name for the important biological truth confirmed by Louis Pasteur and others, that life can only come from life.

"Biogenesis is a term in biology that is derived from two Greek words meaning life and birth. According to the theory of biogenesis, living things descend only from living things. They cannot develop spontaneously from nonliving materials. Until comparatively recent times, scientists believed that certain tiny forms of life, such as bacteria, arose spontaneously from non-living substances."—*"Biogenesis," World Book Encyclopedia, p. B-242 (1972 edition).

Spontaneous generation was believed by many scientists, prior to the careful experiments of Spallanzani (1780), and Pasteur (1860), which totally disproved that foolish idea. People thought that fruit flies spontaneously came forth from fruit, geese from barnacles, mice from dirty clothes, and bees from dead calves. Even Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon, *Hegel, and *Shilling believed it, but that did not make it right. Great people believing an error does not make the error truth.

Evolution teaches spontaneous generation. Think about that for a moment. We’re returning to the Dark Ages!

"Pasteur’s demonstration apparently laid the theory of spontaneous generation to rest permanently. All this left a germ of embarrassment for scientists. How had life originated after all, if not through divine creation or through spontaneous generation? 

"They [today’s scientists] are back to spontaneous generation, but with a difference. The pre-Pasteur view of spontaneous generation was of something taking place now and quickly. The modern view is that it took place long ago and very slowly."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science (1984), pp. 638-639.

In contrast, true science teaches biogenesis, which means, in general, that life can only come from life and, specifically, that species can only come from living parents in the same species. Speaking of *Rudolf Virchow, the Encyclopedia Britannica tells us:

"His aphorism ‘omnis cellula e cellula’ [every cell arises from a preexisting cell] ranks with Pasteur’s ‘omne vivum e vivo’ [every living thing arises from a preexisting living thing] as among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology."—*Encyclopedia Britannica, 1973 Edition, Vol. 23, p. 35.

" ‘Spontaneous generation is a chimera [illusion].’—Louis Pasteur, French chemist and microbiologist."—*Isaac Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations (1988), p. 193.INSTANT SUCCESS NECESSARY—In order for life to arise from non-life, there would have to be instant success. All the parts would suddenly have to be there, and all would have to immediately function with essential perfection.

In the next chapter (chapter 8), we will learn that, in order for life to occur, DNA and protein would have to link up with ease into long, extremely complicated coded strings. In addition, thousands of other complicated chemical combinations would have to be accomplished within a few moments. How long could you live without a beating heart? How long without blood? And on it goes, item after item. The situation would be no different for the simplest of life-forms. Everything would have to be in place, suddenly,—instantly. In structure, arrangement, coordination, coding, chemical makeup, feeding, elimination, respiration, circulation, and all the rest,—everything would have to be perfect—right at the start!

The formation of amino acids, protein, DNA, enzymes, and all the rest needed to form the first living creature had to occur within an extremely short amount of time! It would all have had to occur within far less than a single generation or even half-hour. It would have had to occur within a single moment! Otherwise the next moment the organism would be dead. Millions of functions had to come together all at once.IMMEDIATE REPRODUCTION NEEDED—Biologists are deeply concerned how that first living cell could have originated; but *Montalenti goes a step beyond that point and says "what really matters, to start life, is the faculty of reproduction" (*G. Montalenti, Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, 1974, p. 13). What good would one amoeba be, if it did not have all the needed DNA coding and fision ability to divide, or the reproduction ability—and a mate—to produce offspring?


CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND LABORATORIES—Complicated chemical compounds are prepared in well-equipped laboratories, staffed by intelligent, highly skilled workers. They do not work with the sand in the back lot, but with shipments of specialized chemicals which arrive at their loading dock.

About all that most evolutionists offer for the original primitive environment for the first amino acids, proteins, etc., is dirt or seawater. Yet when scientists want to synthesize amino acids, they go to a very well-equipped laboratory, with instruments, gauges, apparatus, chemicals, and machines costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. They use high-temperatures, special solutions, sparking devices, and glass traps. They do not go down to the seashore and start sloshing around in seawater in the hope of producing those amino acids.

Because they are intelligent and highly trained, they know to do it in million-dollar laboratories, fitted out with expensive equipment and lots of purified chemicals. Yet, according to evolutionary theory, seawater somehow did it by itself.CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND THE LAW OF MASS ACTION— Evolutionists recognize that, if a life-form suddenly appeared from nothing, it would probably have had to do it in an ancient sea. It is generally felt that water would have had to be present.

But the Law of Mass Action would immediately neutralize the procedure and ruin the outcome. This is because chemical reactions always proceed in a direction from highest to lowest concentration (assuming that the exact amount of energy is even present to perform that reaction).

"It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization."—*Richard E. Dickerson, "Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life," Scientific American, September 1978, p. 75.

We are told that amino acids miraculously formed themselves out of seawater. But the seawater needed to make the amino acids would prevent them from forming into protein, lipids, nucleic acids and polysaccharides! Even if some protein could possibly form, the law of mass action would immediately become operative upon it. The protein would hydrolyze with the abundant water and return back into the original amino acids! Those, in turn, would immediately break down into separate chemicals—and that would be the end of it.

"Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis . . [This fact is] the most stubborn problem that confronts us."—*George Wald, "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, August 1954, pp. 49-50.

The law of mass action would constitute a hindrance to protein formation in the sea as well as to the successful formation of other life-sustaining compounds, such as lipids, nucleic acids, and polysaccharides. If any could possibly form in water, they would not last long enough to do anything.

This law applies to chemical reactions which are reversible,—and thus to all life compounds. Such reactions proceed from reactant substances to compounds produced in the manner normally expected. But these reactions tend to reverse themselves more easily and quickly (*"Review of R. Shubert-Soldern’s Book, Mechanism and Vitalism," in Discovery, May 1962, p. 44).

Not just a few, but hundreds of thousands of amino acids had to miraculously make themselves out of raw seawater devoid of any life. But the amino acids would separate and break up immediately and not remain in existence long enough to figure out how to form themselves into the complex patterns of DNA and protein. The problem here is that, as soon as the chemical reaction that made the amino acids occurred, the excess water would have had to immediately be removed.

"Dehydration [condensation] reactions are thermodynamically forbidden in the presence of excess water."—*J. Keosian, The Origin of Life, p. 74.CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND CONCENTRATION—(*#3/4 The Primitive Ocean*) We never find the concentrations of chemicals in seawater that would be needed for amino acid synthesis. All the elements are there, but not in the proper concentrations. Most of what is in seawater—is just water! (*H.F. Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution (1968), p. 158).CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND PRECIPITATES—Even if water loss could occur, enzyme inhibitors would neutralize the results. The problem here is that a powerfully concentrated combination of chemicalized "primitive water" would be needed to produce the materials of life,—but those very chemicals would inhibit and quickly destroy the chemical compounds and enzymes formed (David and Kenneth Rodabaugh, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1990, p. 107).

Even if they could survive the other problems, many organic products formed in the ocean would be removed and rendered inactive as precipitates. For example, fatty acids would combine with magnesium or calcium; and arginine (an amino acid), chlorophyll and porphyrins would be absorbed by clays.

Many of the chemicals would react with other chemicals, to form non-biologically useful products. Sugars and amino acids, for example, are chemically incompatible when brought together.

The chemical compounds within living creatures were meant to be inside them, and not outside. Outside, those compounds are quickly destroyed, if they do not first quickly destroy one another.CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND FLUID CONDENSATION—In addition to synthesis problems, there are also condensation problems. Fats, sugars, and nucleic acids can come from the proteins only by very careful removal of fluid, amid other equally complicated activities conducted by the laboratory technicians. Without water loss, proteins cannot form in water.CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND WATER—So most of the chemicals needed by life could not arise in a watery environment, such as seawater. In fact, the lab technicians do their work with fluids other than water! They do not use seawater or even regular water, when they prepare dead amino acids. (That which they synthesize is always dead; it never has life in it.)

"Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND ENERGY—And then there is the problem of an energy source. Scientists know that there had to be some form of energy to work the chemical transformations. They generally think it would have had to be a bolt of lightning, since there were no wall outlets back in the beginning to plug electrical cords into. But anything struck by lightning is not enlivened, but killed!

"[Arrhenius] contends that if actual lightning struck rather than the fairly mild [electrical] discharges used by Miller [in making the first synthetic amino acids], any organics that happened to be present could not have survived."—*Report in Science News, December 1, 1973, p. 340.CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND OXYGEN—(*#4/20 Fighting It Out Over Early Environment*) Another problem is the atmosphere. It is a well-known fact among biochemists that the chemicals of life will decompose if oxygen is in the air.

"First of all, we saw that the present atmosphere, with its ozone screen and highly oxidizing conditions, is not a suitable guide for gas-phase simulation experiments."— *A.L Oparm, Life: Its Nature, Origin and Development, p. 118.

Living plants and animals only have certain proportions of the 92 elements within their bodies. These elements are arranged in special chemical compounds. Chemists say they have been reduced. When the chemicals found in living beings are left in the open air, they decompose or, as the chemists say, they oxidize. (A similar process occurs when iron is left in a bucket of water; it rusts.)

In the presence of oxygen, these chemicals leave the reduced (or chemical combination) state and break down to individual chemicals again.

"The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions [that is, with no free oxygen in the atmosphere]."—*Stanley L. Miller and *Leslie E. Orgel (1974), p. 33.

"With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have gotten started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND SUPPLY—There simply would not be enough other chemicals available to accomplish the needed task.

Since most biochemicals contain nitrogen, Gish, a biochemist, has discovered that there never has been enough concentration of nitrogen, in air and water, for amino acids to form by themselves. It does not occur naturally in rich enough concentrations.

Similar studies have been made on the availability of phosphorus by *Bernal. There would not have been enough phosphorus available for the many chemical combinations needed. Phosphorus is needed for DNA and other high-energy compounds. But phosphorus concentrations are too low.

Even worse news: *Carl Sagan found that adenosine triphosphate (high-energy phosphate) could not possibly form under the prebiological conditions.CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND RICH MIXTURES—Extremely rich mixture of chemicals would be required for the alleged formation of the first living molecule, there ought to be places in the world where such rich mixtures are found today, but they do not exist.

"If there ever was a primitive soup, then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and the like, or alternatively in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes . . In fact, no such materials have been found anywhere on earth. There is, in other words, pretty good negative evidence that there never was a primitive organic soup on this planet that could have lasted but a brief moment."—*J. Brooks and *G. Shaw, Origins and Development of Living Systems (1973), p. 360.4 - PROTEIN AND OTHER SUBSTANCES

PROTEIN SYNTHESIS—Protein is a basic constituent of all life-forms. It is composed of amino acids. There are 20 essential amino acids, none of which can produce the others. How were these made? How could they make themselves? 

First, let us examine the simplest of them: glycine. *Hull figured out that, due to inadequate chemicals and reaction problems, even glycine could not form by chance. There was only a 10-27 (minus 27) concentration of the materials needed to make it. If one glycine molecule was formed, it would have to hunt through 1029 other molecules in the ocean before finding another glycine to link up with! This would be equivalent to finding one person in a crowd that is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 times larger than all the people on earth!

But what about the other nineteen amino acids? Checking out the others, *Hull found that it was even less possible for the other 19 amino acids to form. The concentration needed for glucose, for example, would be 10-134. That is an extremely high improbability! (*D. Hull, "Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation," in Nature, 186, 1960, pp. 693-694).PROTEINS AND HYDROLYSIS—Even if protein had been made by chance from nearby chemicals in the ocean, the water in the primitive oceans would have hydrolyzed (diluted and ruined) the protein. The chemicals that had combined to make protein would immediately reconnect with other nearby chemicals in the ocean water and self-destruct the protein!

A research team, at Barlian University in Israel, said that this complication would make the successful making of just one protein totally impossible, mathematically. It would be 1 chance in 10157. They concluded that no proteins were ever produced by chance on this earth.PROTEINS AND SPONTANEOUS DISSOLUTION—Evolutionists bank on the fact that, somehow, somewhere, in some way,—a small bit of inorganic matter formed some amino acids. Yet even if such an impossible event could have happened,—it would rapidly have disintegrated away!

"In the vast majority of processes in which we are interested, the point of equilibrium lies far over toward the side of dissolution. That is to say, spontaneous dissolution [automatic self-destruct process] is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis [accidental put-together process] . . The situation we must face is that of patient Penelope waiting for Odysseus, yet much worse: each night she undid the weaving of the proceeding day, but here a night could readily undo the work of a year or a century."— *G. Wald, "The Origin of Life," in The Physics and Chemistry of Life (1955), p. 17.

In the world of biochemistry, automatic dissolution is always easier than accidental once-in-a-thousand-lifetimes putting-together. Regarding this massive obstacle to the initial formation of life, *Wald says it is "the most stubborn problem that confronts us" (ibid.).FATTY ACID SYNTHESIS—Scientists are not able to even theorize how fatty acids could originally have come into existence.

"No satisfactory synthesis of fatty acids is at present available. The action of electric discharges on methane and water gives fairly good yields of acetic and propionic acids, but only small yields of the higher fatty acids. Furthermore, the small quantities of higher fatty acids that are found are highly branched."—*S. Miller, and *L. Orgel, The Origins of Life on the Earth (1974), p. 98.OTHER SYNTHESES—There is more to a living organism than merely chemical compounds, proteins, and fatty acids. There are also enzymes, which scientists in laboratories do not know how to produce. Yet there are thousands of complicated, very different enzymes in a typical animal!

There are also massive DNA and other coding problems. Has any scientist ever synthesized even one new animal code? No, he would have no idea how to accomplish the task successfully. The emphasis here is on "successful." If he could interject a new code, it would only damage the organism. Scientists are now able to slightly adapt existing codes (genetic engineering); but they do not invent brand new ones. The list of necessities goes on and on.WHAT ABOUT LIFE ITSELF?—But what about life itself? One minute after it dies, an animal still has all its chemicals, proteins, fatty acids, enzymes, codes, and all the rest. But it no longer has life. Scientists cannot produce life; why then should they expect rocks and seawater to have that ability?5 - THE PRIMITIVE ATMOSPHERE

ATMOSPHERE WITHOUT OXYGEN—Could a non-oxygen atmosphere ever have existed on Planet Earth? It surely seems like an impossibility, yet evolutionary theorists have decided that the primitive environment had to have a "reducing atmosphere," that is, one without any oxygen. Now, the theorists do not really want such a situation, but they know that it would be totally impossible for the chemical compounds needed for life to be produced outside in the open air. If oxygen was present, amino acids, etc., could not have been formed. So, in desperation, they have decided that at some earlier time in earth’s history, there was no oxygen! And then later it somehow got it!

"At that time, the ‘free’ production of organic matter by ultraviolet light was effectively turned off and a premium was placed on alternative energy utilization mechanisms. This was a major evolutionary crisis. I find it remarkable that any organism survived it."—*Carl Sagan, The Origins, p. 253.

But there is a special reason why they would prefer to avoid a reducing atmosphere: There is no evidence anywhere in nature that our planet ever had a non-oxygen atmosphere! And there is no theory that can explain how it could earlier have had a reducing atmosphere,—which later transformed itself into an oxidizing one! As *Urey himself admitted, a non-oxygen atmosphere is just an assumption—a flight of imagination—in an effort to accommodate the theory (*Harold Urey, "On the Early Chemical History of the Earth and the Origin of Life," in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 38, 1952, p. 352).

*Stanley Miller was one of the pioneers in laboratory synthesis of non-living amino acids in bottles with a non-oxygen (reducing) atmosphere. (He was afterward hailed by the press as having "created life.") Miller later said the theory that the earth once had no oxygen is just "speculation" (*Stanley L Miller, "Production of Some Organic Compounds under Possible Primitive Conditions," in Journal of the American Chemical Society, 7, 1955, p. 2351).

A "reducing atmosphere" could have had carbon dioxide, methane, hydrogen, ammonia, and nitrogen. An oxidizing atmosphere, such as now exists, would have carbon dioxide, water, nitrogen, and oxygen.

(1) A reducing (non-oxygen) atmosphere never existed earlier on our planet; yet, without it, biological chemicals could not form. (2) If a reducing atmosphere had existed, so biological chemicals could form (and if they could somehow be injected with life), they would immediately die from lack of oxygen!

Here are some of the reasons against a reducing atmosphere:

(1) Oxidized iron. Early rocks contain partly or totally oxidized iron (ferric oxide). That proves that the atmosphere had oxygen back then.

(2) Water means oxygen. A reducing atmosphere could not have oxygen. But there is oxygen—lots of it—in water and in the atmosphere. According to *Brinkman, this fact alone disproves the origins of life by evolution (*R.T. Brinkman, "Dissociation of Water Vapor and Evolution of Oxygen in the Terrestrial Atmosphere," Journal of Geophysical Research, 74, 1969, p. 5366). Are the evolutionists daring to tell us that, anciently, our planet did not have water?

(3) No Life without it. How long would animals live without oxygen to breath? How long would plants live without carbon dioxide? Without it, they could not make chlorophyll. When plants take in carbon dioxide, they give out oxygen. But a reducing atmosphere has neither oxygen nor carbon dioxide! Therefore no plants could either live or be available for food.

(4) Deadly peroxides. In addition, a reduction atmosphere would form, through the photolysis of water, into peroxides, which are deadly to living creatures (*Abelson, "Some Aspects of Paleobiochemistry, "in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 69, 1957, p. 275).

(5) No ozone layer. If there were no oxygen in the atmosphere, there would be no ozone either. Without the ozone layer, ultraviolet light would destroy whatever life was formed.

(6) Ultraviolet light. Ironically, it could do more damage in an atmosphere without oxygen. Just as oxygen in the air would destroy the chemicals of life, ultraviolet light beaming in through a sky unshielded by ozone would be deadly!

Recent studies of the ozone layer have revealed that, without it, most living organisms now on our planet would die within an hour, and many within a second or two!

(7) Not with or without. Evolutionists are locked into a situation here that they cannot escape from. Spontaneous generation could not occur with oxygen—or without it!

FORMULA FOR THE PRIMITIVE ATMOSPHEREOur present atmosphere (the air which we breathe) is composed of carbon dioxide (C02), nitrogen (N2), oxygen (02), and water (H20).

The generally postulated primitive atmosphere would have had to have been composed of almost totally different chemicals: methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (C02), ammonia (NH3), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen (H2), and water (H20).INSTANT ATMOSPHERIC CHANGE—As you might imagine, all this bad news brought evolutionary origins to something of a crisis, especially the problem about the atmosphere.

So the intransigent evolutionists came up with the wild theory that at the very instant when life was created on earth,—at that instant it just so happened that the entire world changed its atmosphere! It dramatically shifted suddenly from reducing to oxidizing!

But this possibility collapsed when a *University of Chicago study found that the plants could not suddenly have made all that oxygen,—and the oxygen had nowhere else to come from! If all the plants NOW on earth were suddenly formed on Day One on our planet, it would still take them 5000 years to produce as much oxygen as we now have!

However, the plants were not there at that time, and whatever plants might have been there would all have died soon after, since they themselves need oxygen for their own cellular respiration.

In order to avoid the problem of mass action degradation of amino acids formed in seawater, someone else suggested that the amino acids were made in dry clays and rocks. But in that environment either the oxygen or ultraviolet light would immediately destroy those amino acids.UNUSUAL CHEMICALS—Men began to beat their brains against the wall, trying to figure out a way for those amino acids to form by themselves in the primitive environment.

*Sidney Fox suggested that the amino acids were made on the edges of volcanoes, *Melvin Calvin decided that dicyanimide (a compound not naturally occurring in nature) did the job, and *Shramm declared that phosphorus pentoxide in a jar of ether did it! Another research worker came up with an even more deadly solution: hydrogen cyanide—as the environment in which all the amino acids made themselves.

But again tragedy struck: It was discovered that the volcanic heat would ruin the amino acids as soon as they were formed. Phosphorus pentoxide is a novel compound that could not possibly be found in earth’s primitive atmosphere. The hydrogen cyanide would require an atmosphere of ammonia, which geological evidence shows never existed in our atmosphere. Dicyanimide would not work, because the original mixture in which the first amino acids were made had to have a more alkaline pH.

On and on it goes, one conjecture after another; always searching for the magic mixture and fairyland environment needed to make life out of nothing.

"Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts."—*Francis Crick, Life Itself (1981), p. 153. [*Crick received a Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA.]6 - THE LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS

THE MILLER EXPERIMENT—It was *Stanley Miller in 1953 who first produced amino acids from chemicals. We want to know how he did it, for THAT is the way the so-called "primitive environment" would have had to do it by merest chance:

The laboratory apparatus he used to accomplish this consisted of two confluently interconnected, chemical flasks (or bottles), arranged one above the other. The lower flask was heated and contained boiling water. The upper flask contained a mixture of gases including ammonia, methane, hydrogen and water vapor. (The upper flask had the presumed "primitive atmosphere," since it was known that if oxygen were present, the experiment would be a failure.)

First, he boiled a mixture of water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen gases in the upper bottle, while a small electric spark continually played over them all. (That was supposed to be equivalent to a gigantic lightning ball in the primitive environment which might strike the spot once every so many years, instantly destroying everything it touched.) The lower bottle of water was kept boiling in order to keep the mixture in the upper bottle stirred up and circulating. (The "primitive ocean" must have been pretty hot!) There was a trap in the bottom of the glass apparatus to catch any soluble organic products, so they would not be broken down after formation by the spark. (Chemists knew that the Law of Mass Action would almost immediately have destroyed the amino acids that were formed, without a trap to catch them in quickly. The "primitive ocean" must have had similar bottle traps in it.)

EC228.jpg (276817 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGE


 MILLER’S LABORATORY APPARATUS—This is how *Stanley Miller simulated lightning hitting some dirty water. The few non-living amino acid specs, which he produced, had equal amounts of L and D forms, so were biologically useless.

 Here is *Miller’s simulation of a "primitive environment":

A vacuum pump to continually circulate the vapors; special tubing to seal off the outside world; special distilled water inlets and outlets; an electric element producing 212o F. [100o C.] water temperature; electrical contacts to make a continuous, very low-amperage spark; and a trap arrangement to immediately siphon off nitrogenous products before they were destroyed in the boiling water and resultant vapors.Where in the world could you find such a "primitive environment"?

After a week of this, the fluid in the traps were chemically analyzed—and were found to have microscopic traces of a few L and D (right- and left-handed) nitrogen-containing compounds—"amino acids," they called them—which had been formed. (Of course, if both L and D amino acids were formed by chemical action—as they always are when formed outside of living cells—it would be impossible for the amino acid which formed to be usable for life purposes.)

Newspapers around the world heralded the news: "Life has been created!" But no life had been created, just a few biochemical compounds. Remember that neither nitrogen compounds nor amino acids are, of themselves, living things. Just because they are in living things, does not make them living things.

In summary then, *Stanley Miller’s experiment was one of the early origin-of-life attempts. It used a reducing atmosphere (with no oxygen in it). A significant part of his experiment was a "cold trap." This was a glass cup at the bottom of the tubing that caught the products of the week-long water-chemical-spark activity. The purpose of the trap was to keep the reaction going in the right direction. If it had not been there, the simple amino acids would have been destroyed faster than they could be made!

" ‘This is the primitive atmosphere,’ said Stanley Miller, the chemistry professor at the University of California at San Diego, as he pointed to the transparent mixture of gases inside the globe. ‘And this represents the primitive ocean,’ he said, indicating a pool of water in the bottom of his apparatus."—*Rick Gore, "Awesome Worlds Within a Cell, "National Geographic Society, September 1976, p. 390.

What does that complicated lab experiment have to say about the possibility of nature doing it by accident—without the help of man? Outdoors, it could not be done without his help, or with it.

"What we ask is to synthesize organic molecules without such a machine. I believe this to be the most stubborn problem that confronts us—the weakest link at present in our argument."—*G. Wald, "The Origin of Life," in the Physics and Chemistry of Life (1955), p. 9.

The test tube attempts to "create life" have only resulted in dismal failure.

"In 1953, at the University of Chicago, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey mixed ammonia, water vapor, hydrogen and methane to simulate Earth’s early atmosphere, then crackled lightning-like electrical sparks through it . 

"Unfortunately, as Margolis admits, ‘no cell has yet crawled out of a test tube,’ and thousands of similar experiments have produced goopy organic tars, but no recognizable life. Decades of persistent failure to ‘create life’ by the ‘spark in the soup’ method (or to find such productions in nature) have caused some researchers to seek other approaches to the great enigma. [Panspermia theories—bacteria flying in from outer space—are then discussed.]"—*Richard Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 274.NOT LEFT-HANDED AMINO ACIDS—All types of proteins in the animals are left-handed (L-aminos). None are ever right-handed (D-aminos). Yet all amino acids synthesized in laboratories consist of an equal amount of left- and right-handed amino acids (a racemic mixture). It would require days of work in the laboratory to separate just a few L from D forms. Researchers cannot figure out how to produce only the L form. Yet no animals or man could live if they had any of the D form in them. This is a major problem to the evolutionists. More on this in the next chapter.NOT THE ESSENTIAL AMINO ACIDS—Out of the hundreds of possible combinations, there are 20 essential amino acids, yet laboratory synthesis of amino acids produces only a few of the 20 essential amino acids—plus a lot of non-essential or even useless ones.THE OPARIN EXPERIMENT—Prior to *Miller, *A.I. Oparin, a Russian chemist, tried to produce living cells from coacervates, which are like fat droplets in a bowl of soup. He carefully kept all oxygen away from the soup and the bowl, and he hoped that, given enough time, they would join together and, somehow, life would enter into them! But the outer film kept breaking apart, and no life entered into them. *Oparin was disappointed. No reputable chemist today considers Oparin’s theory to be of any value.THE FOX EXPERIMENTS—After Miller’s experiment, *Sydney Fox in 1960 worked out a different arrangement, but he began his with left-handed amino acids already formed. He took them from a dead animal! He claims that his method is how it was done in the primitive environment. This should have been good news for the evolutionary world; but, when we learn his complicated procedure, we can understand why few scientists have any faith in the possibility that the Fox procedure was done by chance in the ocean, near a volcano, or in a mud puddle.

Here is how nature, armed with time and chance, is supposed to have produced that first dead amino acid:

"Typical panpolymenzation: Ten grams of L. glutamic acid (a left-handed amino acid] was heated at l75o-l80o C. [347°-356° F.) until molten (about 30 minutes), after which period it had been largely converted to lactum. At this time, 10 g. [.352 ay. oz.] of DL-aspartic acid and 5 g. [.176 ay. oz.] of the mixture of the sixteen basic and neutral (BN) amino acids were added. The solution was then maintained at 170° + or -2° under an atmosphere of nitrogen for varying periods of time. Within a period of a few hours considerable gas had been evolved, and the color of the liquid changed to amber. The vitreous mixture was rubbed vigorously with 75 ml. [4.575 Cu. in.] of water, which converted it to a yellow-brown granular precipitate. After overnight standing, the solid was separated by filtration. This was washed with 50 ml. [3.05 cu. in.] of ethanol, and as substance S dialytically washed in moving Multidialyzers in water for 4 days, the water being changed thrice daily. (The term dialytic washing indicates dialytic treatment of a suspension.) In some preparations, the solid was dissolved completely in sodium bicarbonate solution and then dialyzed. The dialysis sacs were made of cellulose tubing, 27/32 in., to contain 50 ml. [3.05 cu. in.]. The nondiffusible material was ninhydrin-negative before the fourth day. The non-aqueous contents of the dialysis sac were mainly solid A and a soluble fraction B recovered as solid by concentration in a vacuum dissicator. The mother liquor of S was also dialyzed for 4 days, and then dried to give additional solid C."—*S.W. Fox and *K Harada, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 82(1960), p. 3745.

We commend *Sydney Fox and his associates for their remarkable intelligence and excellent lab equipment, days of exhausting work, and the university scientists who trained them to perform such experiments. But we can make no such commendation of sand, gravel, and seawater, which is supposed to have done the same thing by itself.

Fox began with a quantity of left-only (no right) amino acids and made sure no oxygen, sugars, etc. were present, since they would doom the experiment. Then he underwent a lot of tedious work that requires a high degree of intelligence, careful planning, and many adjustments with pH, temperature, cooking time, etc., as he proceeded with a staff of assistants to help him succeed:

Fox is modest about his abilities, for he says that random events, in a broad sea or on the slopes of a volcano, could have done it just as easily. But HE began with pure, left-handed amino acids, which are available nowhere outside of living things; he did not begin with pebbles, mud, and water.

Fox then heated the amino acids for 10 hours at 150°-180° C [302°-356°] for several hours. Pretty hot way to make amino acids!

Where would you find such conditions in nature? *Stanley Miller, who first synthesized amino acids in a laboratory later stated that his own experiment could not possibly have been done by chance outside of a modern laboratory. Other scientists have agreed.

"Such experiments are no more than exercises in organic chemistry."—*P. Mora, "The Folly Of Probability," in Origins of Prebiological Systems and their Molecular Matrices, Ed. *S. W. Fox (1965), p. 41.

Three key ingredients are (1) proper chemicals in exacting amounts, (2) a continuous energy source (such as a continuous spark), and (3) quick-dry apparatus. As soon as the amino acids are made, they must immediately be dried out. (Living tissue never contains dried out amino acids or comes from it.) Fox tells us the reaction must be "hot and dry" (op. cit., p. 378).

"To keep a reaction going according to the law of mass action, there must be a continuous supply of energy and of selected matter (molecules) and a continuous process of elimination of the reaction products."—Op. cit., p. 43.

And there is a fourth key ingredient: Whether done in nature, or by researchers in a high-tech laboratory, these life substances are always the result of careful organization with specific purposes by a high-level intelligence. No one tosses the chemicals into a pan in the laboratory, walks off, hoping it will produce amino acids all by itself.

A living organism is not just dried out ocean soup. It is highly integrated, complex, and purposive. —It has life, which no man can produce. And that living creature had to have all its parts on Day One of its existence. And it had to have a mate and be able to reproduce offspring.

Not even *Darwin could figure it out.

"Darwin never really did discuss the origin of species in his [book] On the Origin of Species."—*David Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 466.7 - THE MIRACLE OF LIFE

Reputable scientists tell us that life could neither originate nor continue without intelligence being involved.

"Any living thing possesses an enormous amount of ‘intelligence’ . . Today, this ‘intelligence’ is called ‘information,’ but it is still the same thing . . This ‘intelligence’ is the sine qua non of life. If absent, no living being is imaginable. Where does it come from? This is a problem which concerns both biologists and philosophers, and, at present, science seems incapable of solving it."—*Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 3.

A Nobel Prize laureate wrote this:

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."—*Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature (1981), p. 88 [co-discoverer of the DNA molecule].

Even *Sydney Fox, the researcher who went through so much scientific rigmarole to make amino acids out of amino acids, admits it:

"The present laws of physics . . are insufficient to describe the origin of life. To him this opens the way to teleology, even, by implication, to creation by an intelligent agent . . If he thinks he has shown conclusively that life cannot have originated by chance, only two rational alternatives remain. The first is that it did not arise at all and that all we are studying is an illusion."—*S.W. Fox, The Origins of Prebiological Systems and Their Molecular Matrices (1965), pp. 35-55.

Another Nobel Prize laureate and, like the others, a confirmed evolutionist made this comment:

"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."—*Harold C. Urey, quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4.THE MAGIC FORMULA—The formula for the evolutionary origin and development of life goes something like this:



Is this modern science or is it a fairy tale? It is an astounding thought that all modern biological, genetic, and geological science is keyed to such a mythical formulation.

One evolutionist explains in philosophical rhetoric how it all happened:

"Randomness caught on the wing, preserved, reproduced . . and thus converted into order, rule, necessity. A totally blind process can by definition lead to anything; it can even lead to vision itself."—*Bur, quoted in *Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity (1972), p. 98.

That is neither true nor scientific. If randomness can produce such living wonders as are all about us, then highly intelligent scientists, working in well-equipped laboratories, ought to be able to produce eyes, ears, and entirely new species in a few months’ time.

The Great Evolutionary Myth is that randomness plus time can do anything; the Truth is that randomness, with or without time, can accomplish almost nothing. And those changes which it does accomplish will quickly be blotted out by the next random action or two,—that is, if they are constructive changes. If they are erosional, they will remain much longer.

Throughout inorganic nature we see randomness producing decay and inertness; we do not find it building houses and, then, installing the plumbing in them.

"All the facile speculations and discussions published during the last ten to fifteen years explaining the mode of origin of life have been shown to be far too simple-minded and to bear very little weight. The problem in fact seems as far from solution as it ever was."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 68.THE EVOLUTIONARY ORIGIN OF LIFE IN A NUTSHELL—The origin of life by random means is an impossibility. Only evolutionists and the authors of children’s fairy tales say otherwise.

The following evolutionary five-step theoretical program of events consists of little more than armchair guessing combined with Alice in Wonderland hopefulness. Here it is:

"Evolution Model for the Origin of Life on the Earth:

"According to the evolution model, the story of life on the earth began some five billion years ago and gradually unfolded through a series of five stages:

"Stage 1. Evolutionists have imagined that the atmosphere of the early earth was quite different from the present atmosphere. In contrast to the present oxidizing atmosphere, which contains 21 percent free oxygen (02), 78 percent nitrogen (N2), and 1 percent of other gases, supposedly the early earth was surrounded by a reducing atmosphere made up mostly of methane (CHi), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H3), and water vapor (H20).

"Stage 2. Because of ultraviolet light, electric discharge, and high-energy particle bombardment of molecules in a reducing atmosphere, stage 2 came about with the formation of small organic molecules such as sugars, amino acids, and nucleotides.

"Stage 3. Presuming all of this happened billions of years ago in a reducing atmosphere, then stage 3 is imagined during which combinations of various small stage 2 molecules resulted in formation of large polymers such as starches, proteins, and nucleic acids (DNA).

"Stage 4. These large molecules supposedly joined together into a gel-like glob called coacervates or microspheres. Possibly these coacervates attracted smaller molecules so that new structures, called proto-cells, might have formed.

"Stage 5. Evolutionists believe that finally, at least one of these globs absorbed the right molecules so that complex molecules could be duplicated within new units called living cells. These first cells consumed molecules left over from earlier states, but eventually photosynthesis appeared in cells, in some way, and oxygen was released into the atmosphere. As the percentage of oxygen in the early atmosphere increased, most of the known forms of life on the earth today began to appear. Because of the presence of oxygen, these early life-forms destroyed all the molecules from earlier stages, and no more chemical evolution was possible."—John N. Moore, "Teaching about Origin Questions: Origin of Life on Earth," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1985, page 21.APPLYING MATH TO IT—*Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous British mathematician and astronomer, teamed up with *Chandra Wickramasinghe in an analysis of the origin of life and the possibility that it could possibly have begun by chance.

*Hoyle is an evolutionist, and *Wickramasinghe a Buddhist. They mathematically determined that the likelihood that a single cell could originate in a primitive environment, given 4.6 billion years in which to do it,—was one chance in 1040000! That is one chance in 1 with 40 thousand zeros after it! (*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, 1981, p. 28).

Everything would suddenly have to be there all at once. It would all have to work perfectly, and it would have to split and divide into new cells immediately, and reproduce offspring quickly. And, of course, it would have to be alive!

Living forms are too awesome to relegate to the tender mercies of time and chance. It took special design, special thinking, special power to make living beings.

And that brings us to our next chapter: the incredible wonders of DNA and the impossibility of it accidentally making itself out of chance, gravel, mud, and water.SEARCH FOR LIFE IN OUTER SPACE—(*#5/2 Searching for Life Elsewhere*) Evolutionists are rabid about proving their theory. For over 30 years, working through the National Science Foundation and other agencies, they have gotten the U.S. Government to spend vast amounts of money on attempts to achieve their goal. They are searching for life-forms on other planets.

First, we will tell you of the multimillion-dollar projects. Then we will give you the warning:

"Bioastronomy" and "exobiology" are the studies of life in outer space. These are the only fields of "science" without evidence or subject matter. Researchers in these fields are trying to detect signals from outer space that would imply an intelligent source. Here is a brief listing of 15 of the projects funded by the United States. The search for life was not always the sole objective of each of these projects:Ozma 1—1960 - $1 million - A Green Bank radio telescope probe of two nearby stars (Epsilon Eridoni and Tau Ceti) for signals indicating intelligent life. Result: No signals detected.Apollo—1969-1972 - $30 billion - Exploration of the moon, in the hope of finding evidences of life. Result: No life detected.Pioneer 10—1972 - Cost not available - This interspace probe was sent out beyond our solar system in the hope that intelligent beings would find it and contact us. A plaque is inside it. Result: No life/signals detected.Ozma 11—1973 - Cost not available - 500 of the closest stars have been monitored for intelligent radio signals. Result: No signals detected. Arecibo—1974 - Cost not available - This, the largest radio telescope on earth, was constructed for the purpose of continuously monitoring nearby stars for signals. Result: No signals detected. National Radio Astronomy Observatory—1974 - Cost not available - The NRAO scanned 10 nearby stars for intelligent signals. Result: No signals detected.Two Viking landers—1977 - $1 billion - These two landers were sent out in the hope of finding evidences of life on the planet Mars. Result: No life detected. Voyager 1 and 2—1977 - Voyager 1 and 2—1977 - Cost not available -Pioneer Venus—1977 - $230 million - Probes sent to planet Venus to measure atmospheric conditions and the possibility of life on its surface. Result: No life detected.Very Large Array—1980 - $78 billion - 27 radio antennas constructed in New Mexico. They are probing for evidence of organic molecules in interstellar gas. Result: No life detected.Mariner—1980 - Cost not available - This probe was specifically designed to analyze Saturn’s largest moon for signs of life. Result: No life/signals detected.Hubble Space Telescope—1990 - $1.5 billion - This newly launched orbiting telescope will be searching for planets circling other planets. Result: No life/signals detected yet.Cyclops—1990s - $20 billion - A large array of radio telescopes, each 100 meters [109 yds.] in diameter. Result: Not constructed yet. "Such an array would detect radio beams of the kind Earth, is inadvertently leaking at a distance of a hundred light-years, and should detect a deliberately aimed radio wave beacon from another civilization at a distance of a thousand light-years."—*Asimov’s New Guide to Science (1984), pp. 648-649.A WARNING FROM ROSS—Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist at Caltech, did some checking and, about the year 1989, came up with an intriguing observation. Immense pressure has been placed on the U.S. Government and NASA to fund, at enormous expense, a manned voyage to Mars. Ross has discovered a primary reason for this seemingly senseless waste of money.

As you may know, winds carry small living creatures, such as microbes and spiders, to high atmospheric levels. Ross says that solar winds are able to waft particles of formerly living substances out of our high-level atmosphere—and blow them away from the sun, outward into space. Ross declares that some of the particles, caught in Mar’s gravitational field, could well have landed on the surface of Mars.

He believes that evolutionists are well-aware of this possibility, and that they want to send that manned flight to Mars to recover those particles. The main objective of the mission would be to find dead life-forms on the surface of Mars, and then use that as "evidence" that life once must have independently evolved on Mars! It is felt that this would provide a powerful boost to the evolutionary cause.

We have here another example of evolutionary deceit at work, and such a "discovery" may be made within the next decade or two.


Scientists estimate that over 400 million-million horsepower of solar energy reaches the earth every day. Photosynthesis is the process by which sunlight is transformed into carbohydrates (the basis of all the food on our planet). This takes place in the chloroplasts. Each one is lense-shaped, something like an almost flat cone with the rounded part on the upper side. Sunlight enters from above. Inside the chloroplast are tiny cylinders, called lamelliae, that look something like the small circular batteries used in small electrical devices.

Each cylinder is actually a stack of several disk-shaped thylakolds. Each thylakold is the shape of a coin. Several of these are stacked on top of each other, and this makes a single stack, or lamelium. A small narrow band connects each stack to another stack. They look like they are all wired like a bunch of batteries. Sunlight is processed by chlorophyll in those stacks, and is then stored (!) there as chemical energy in the form of sugar molecules. 

Chlorophyll, itself, is very complicated and never exists outside of the plant, just as DNA and ten thousands of other chemical structures never exist outside plants and/or animals. If they are not found outside, how did they ever get inside? In many plants, the tiny discs containing chlorophyll move about within plant cells and adjust for different light and heat conditions. When the sunlight is too strong, the little disks turn edgewise. On an overcast day, they lie as parallel to the sky as they can in order to take in the most light. They have brains?




1 - List 3 reasons why water could not change itself into an animal.

2 - Discuss with your class the reasons why evolutionists are desperately trying to figure out a way that water could change itself into an animal.

3 - List at least 10 body organs or functions that would need to instantly be present and fully operating, in order for a living creature to not die within 3 minutes.

4 - Scientists generally agree that spontaneous generation of living creatures from non-living materials cannot happen. Is there any way, other than by spontaneous generation, that non-living materials could make themselves into a living organism?

5 - Evolutionists only offer lightning as a possible energy source for the formation of the first living creature. Why would lightning not be able to accomplish the needed task? Where would that first living creature afterward be able to find food to give it nourishment and provide it with an ongoing energy source?

6 - List six reasons why the oxygen problem (oxygen in water or oxygen in the atmosphere) would eliminate the possibility of a life-form coming into existence from non-living materials.

7 - Could the oxygen problem—alone—be enough to doom to failure the chance formation of life?

8 - Declaring that "life had been created!" the Miller experiment was said to have provided important evidence about the possibility of [non-living] proteins initially forming themselves from non-living materials. What did the Miller experiment actually reveal?

9 - The facts about left- and right-handed amino acids provide important evidence regarding the possibility of non-living materials making themselves randomly into protein. Explain why left-handed amino acids are a great wall forbidding the chance formation of living protein.

10 - List several reasons why the Miller experiment could not be duplicated by raw materials out in nature.


rainbow2.gif (1633 bytes)

Why DNA and protein could not be produced by random chanceThis chapter is based on pp. 265-313 of Origin of the Life (Volume Two of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this chapter are at least 110 statements by scientists. You will find them, plus much more, in the 3 Volume Encyclopedia on this site.

One of the most important discoveries of the twentieth century was the discovery of the DNA molecule. It has had a powerful effect on biological research. It has also brought quandary and confusion to evolutionary scientists. If they cared to admit the full implications of DNA, it would also bring total destruction to their theory.

This chapter goes hand in hand with the previous one. In the chapter on Primitive Environment, we learned that earthly surroundings—now or earlier—could never permit the formation of living creatures from non-living materials. This present chapter will primarily discuss the DNA code, the components of protein— and will show that each are so utterly complicated as to defy any possibility that they could have been produced by chance events.

Yet random actions are the only kind of occurrences which evolutionists tell us have ever been used to accomplish the work of evolution.

The significance of all this is immense. Because of the barrier of the multi-billion DNA code, not only was it impossible for life to form by accident, —it could never thereafter evolve into new and different species! Each successive speciation change would require a totally new and different—but highly exacting code to be in place on its very first day of its existence as a unique new species.

As with a number of other chapters in this book, this one chapter alone is enough to completely annihilate evolutionary theory in regard to the origin or evolution of life.


GREGOR MENDEL—(*#1/7 Gregor Mendel’s Monumental Discovery*) It was Mendel’s monumental work with genetics in the mid-19th century that laid the foundation for all modern research work in genetics. The complete story will be found on our website.

YOUR BODY’S BLUEPRINT—(*#2 The Story of DNA*) Each of us starts off as a tiny sphere no larger than a dot on this page. Within that microscopic ball there is over six feet of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), all coiled up. Inside that DNA is the entire code for what you will become,—all your organs and all your features.

The DNA itself is strung out within long coiling strips. DNA is the carrier of the inheritance code in living things. It is like a microscopic computer with a built-in memory. DNA stores a fantastic number of "blueprints," and at the right time and place issues orders for distant parts of the body to build its cells and structures.

You have heard of "genes" and "chromosomes." Inside each cell in your body is a nucleus. Inside that nucleus are, among other complicated things, chromosomes. Inside the chromosomes are genes. The genes are attached to chromosomes like beads on a chain. Inside the genes is the complicated chemical structure we call DNA. Each gene has a thousand or more such DNA units within it. Inside each cell are tens of thousands of such genes, grouped into 23 pairs of chromosomes.

EC244.jpg (429772 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGE

Inside the DNA is the total of all the genetic possibilities for a given species. This is called the gene pool of genetic traits. It is also called the genome. That is all the traits your species can have; in contrast, the specific sub-code for YOU is the genotype, which is the code for all the possible inherited features you could have. The genotype is the individual’s code; the genome applies to populations; the entire species.

(For clarification, it should be mentioned here that the genotype includes all the features you could possibly have in your body, but what you will actually have is called the phenotype. This is because there are many unexpressed or recessive characters in the genotype that do not show up in the phenotype. For example, you may have had both blue and brown eye color in your genotype from your ancestors, but your irises will normally only show one color.)

COILED STRIPS—(*#3/33 The Origin of DNA*) Your own DNA is scattered all through your body in about 100 thousand billion specks, which is the average number of living cells in a human adult. What does this DNA look like? It has the appearance of two intertwined strips of vertical tape that are loosely coiled about each other. From bottom to top, horizontal rungs or stairs reach across from one tape strip to the other. Altogether, each DNA molecule is something like a spiral staircase.

The spiraling sides in the DNA ladder are made of complicated sugar and phosphate compounds, and the crosspieces are nitrogen compounds. It is the arrangement of the chemical sequence in the DNA that contains the needed information.

The code within each DNA cell is complicated in the extreme! If you were to put all the coded DNA instructions from just ONE single human cell into English, it would fill many large volumes, each volume the size of an unabridged dictionary!

DOUBLE-STRANDED HELIX—Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a double-stranded helix found within the chromosomes, which are located inside the nuclei of every living cell. The molecule consists of just four nucleotide units, one containing adenine, one guanine, one cytosine, and one either thymine (in DNA) or uracil (in RNA). The sides of the helix consist of alternating deoxyribose sugars and phosphates.

The illustration shows the strange shape of DNA. It has that shape because it must fit inside the chromosome. It does this by squashing an immense length into the tiny chromosome. It could not do this if it did not have a twisted shape. The four illustrations show progressively smaller views of a DNA molecule and what is in it.

DIVIDING DNA—DNA has a very special way of dividing and combining. The ladder literally "unhooks" and "rehooks." When cells divide, the DNA ladder splits down the middle. There are then two single vertical strands, each with half of the rungs. Both now duplicate themselves instantly—and there are now two complete ladders, where a moment before there was but one! Each new strip has exactly the same sequence that the original strip of DNA had.

This process of division can occur at the amazing rate of 1000 base pairs per second! If DNA did not divide this quickly, it could take 10,000 years for you to grow from that first cell to a newborn infant.

Human cells can divide more than 50 times before dying. When they do die, they are immediately replaced. Every minute 3 billion cells die in your body and are immediately replaced.

THE BASE CODE—(*#7 Coding in the Information*) The human body has about 100 trillion cells. In the nucleus of each cell are 46 chromosomes. In the chromosomes of each cell are about 10 billion of those DNA ladders. Scientists call each spiral ladder a DNA molecule; they also call them base pairs. It is the sequence of chemicals within these base pairs that provides the instructional code for your body. That instructional code oversees all your heredity and many of your metabolic processes.

Without your DNA, you could not live. Without its own DNA, nothing else on earth could live. Within each DNA base pair is a most fantastic information file. A-T-C-T-G-G-G-T-C-T-A-AT-A, and on and on, is the code for one creature. T-G-C-T-C-A-A-G-A-G-T-G-C-C, and on and on, will begin the code for another. Each code continues on for millions of "letter" units. Each unit is made of a special chemical.

The DNA molecule is shaped like a coiled ladder, which the scientists describe as being in the shape of a "double-stranded helix." Using data from a woman researcher (which they did not acknowledge), *Watson and *Crick "discovered" the structure of DNA.

UTTER COMPLEXITY—In order to form a protein, the DNA molecule has to direct the placement of amino acids in a certain specific order in a molecule made up of hundreds of thousands of units. For each position, it must choose the correct amino acid from some twenty different amino acids. DNA itself is made up of only four different building blocks (A, G, C, and T). These are arranged in basic code units of three factors per unit (A-C-C, G-T-A, etc.). This provides 64 basic code units. With them, millions of separate codes can be sequentially constructed. Each code determines one of the many millions of factors in your body, organs, brain, and all their functions. If just one code were omitted, you would be in serious trouble.

AN ASTOUNDING CLAIM—The evolutionists applied their theory to the amazing discoveries about DNA—and came up with a totally astonishing claim:

All the complicated DNA in each life-form, and all the DNA in every other life-form—made itself out of dirty water back in the beginning! There was some gravel around, along with some dirt. Nearby was some water, and overhead a lightning storm. The lightning hit the dirty water and made living creatures complete with DNA. They not only had their complete genetic code, but they were also immediately able to eat, digest food, move about, perform enzymatic and glandular functions, and all the rest.

Instantly, they automatically knew how to produce additional cells, and their DNA began dividing (cells must continually replenish themselves or the creature quickly dies), their cells began making new ones, and every new cell could immediately do the myriad of functions that the first creature, an amoeba, can and must do.

That same stroke of lightning made both a male and a female pair and their complete digestive, respiratory, and circulatory organs. It provided them with complete ability to produce offspring and they in turn more offspring. That same stroke of lightning also made their food, with all its own DNA, male and female pairs, etc., etc.

And that, according to this children’s story, is where we all came from! But it is a story that only very little children would find believable.

"Laboratory experiments show that the basic building blocks of life, the proteins and organic molecules, form pretty easily in environments that have both carbon and water."—*Star Date Radio Broadcast, January 24, 1990.

In this chapter we will not consider most of the above points. Instead we will primarily focus on the DNA and protein in each cell within each living creature.

TRANSLATION PACKAGE NEEDED AT BEGINNING—The amount of information in the genetic code is so vast that it would be impossible to put together by chance. But, in addition, there must be a means of translating it so the tissues can use the code.

"Did the code and the means of translating it appear simultaneously in evolution? It seems almost incredible that any such coincidences could have occurred, given the extraordinary complexities of both sides and the requirement that they be coordinated accurately for survival. By a pre-Darwinian (or a skeptic of evolution after Darwin) this puzzle surely would have been interpreted as the most powerful sort of evidence for special creation."—*C. Haskins, "Advances and Challenges in Science" in American Scientist 59 (1971), pp. 298.

Not only did the DNA have to originate itself by random accident, but the translation machinery already had to be produced by accident—and also immediately! Without it, the information in the DNA could not be applied to the tissues. Instant death would be the result.

"The code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell’s translation machinery consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves encoded in DNA [!]; the code cannot be translated otherwise than by products of translation. It is the modern expression of omne vivum ex ovo [‘every living thing comes from an egg’]. When and how did this circle become closed? It is exceedingly difficult to imagine."—*J, Monod, Chance and Necessity (1971), p. 143.

This translation package has also been termed an "adapter function." Without a translator, the highly complex coding contained within the DNA molecule would be useless to the organism.

"The information content of amino acid sequences cannot increase until a genetic code with an adapter function has appeared. Nothing which even vaguely resembles a code exists in the physio-chemical world. One must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of the origin of life exists at present."—*H. Yockey, "Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory," in Journal of Theoretical Biology 91 (1981), p. 13.

"Cells and organisms are also informed [intelligently designed and operated] life-support systems. The basic component of any informed system is its plan. Here, argues the creationist, an impenetrable circle excludes the evolutionist. Any attempt to form a model or theory of the evolution of the genetic code is futile because that code is without function unless, and until, it is translated, i.e., unless it leads to the synthesis of proteins. But the machinery by which the cell translates the code consists of about seventy components which are themselves the product of the code."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 147 [emphasis his].

DESIGNING CODES—*Sir Arthur Keith, a prominent anatomist of the 1930s (and co-producer of the Piltdown man hoax), said: "We do not believe in the theory of special creation because it is incredible." But life itself and all its functions and designs are incredible. And each true species has its own unique designs. A single living cell may contain one hundred thousand million atoms, but each atom will be arranged in a specific order.

Yet all this is based on design, and design requires intelligence—in this case an extremely high order of intelligence. Man’s most advanced thinking and planning has produced airplanes, rockets, personal computers, and flight paths around the moon. But none of this was done by accident. Careful thought and structuring was required. Design blueprints were carefully crafted into products.

The biological world is packed with intricate, cooperative mechanisms that depend on encoded and detailed instructions for their development and interacting function. But complexity, and the coding it is based on, does not evolve. Left to themselves, all things become more random and disorganized. The more complex the system, the more elaborate the design needed to keep it operating and resisting the ever-pressing tendency to decay and deterioration.

DNA and other substances like it are virtually unknown outside living cells. Astoundingly, they both produce cells and are products of cells; yet they are not found outside of cells. DNA is exclusively a product of the cell; we cannot manufacture it. The closest we can come to this is to synthesize simple, short chains of mononucleotide RNA—and that is as far as we can go, in spite of all our boasted intelligence and million-dollar well-supplied, well-equipped laboratories.

MESSENGER RNA—Special "messenger RNA" molecules are needed. Without them, DNA is useless in the body. Consider the story of s-RNA:

"The code in the gene (which is DNA, of course) is used to construct a messenger RNA molecule in which is encoded the message necessary to determine the specific amino acid sequence of the protein.

"The cell must synthesize the sub-units (nucleotides) for the RNA (after first synthesizing the sub-units for each nucleotide, which include the individual bases and the ribose). The cell must synthesize the sub-units, or amino acids, which are eventually polymerized to form the protein. Each amino acid must be activated by an enzyme specific for that amino acid. Each amino acid is then combined with another type of RNA, known as soluble RNA or s-RNA.

"There is a specific s-RNA for each individual amino acid. There is yet another type of RNA known as ribosomal RNA. Under the influence of the messenger RNA, the ribosomes are assembled into units known as polyribosomes. Under the direction of the message contained in the messenger RNA while it is in contact with polyribosomes, the amino acid-s-RNA complexes are used to form a protein. Other enzymes and key molecules are required for this.

"During all of this, the complex energy-producing apparatus of the cell is used to furnish the energy required for the many syntheses."—Duane T. Gish, "DNA: Its History and Potential, "in W.E. Lemmerts (ed.), Scientific Studies in Special Creation (1971), p. 312.

THE LIVING COMPUTER—DNA and its related agencies operate dramatically like an advanced computer.

"All this is strikingly similar to the situation in the living cell. For discs or tapes substitute DNA; for ‘words’ substitute genes; and for ‘bits’ (a bit is an electronic representation of ‘yes’ or ‘no’) substitute the bases adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine."—*Fred Hoyle and *C. Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 106.

Everywhere we turn in the cell we find the most highly technical computerization. Electrical polarity is a key in the DNA. This is positive and negative electrical impulses, found both in the DNA and about the cell membrane, cytoplasm, and nucleus. The result is a binary system, similar to what we find in the most advanced computers in the world, but far more sophisticated and miniaturized. In computer science, a "byte" is composed of eight bits and can hold 256 different binary patterns, enough to equal most letters or symbols. A byte therefore stands for a letter or character. In biology the equivalent is three nucleotides called a codon. The biological code (within DNA) is based on these triplet patterns, as *Crick and *Brenner first discovered. This triad is used to decide which amino acid will be used for what purpose.

THE BIOLOGICAL COMPILER—The code in both plants and animals is DNA, but DNA is chemically different than the amino acids, which it gives orders to make. This code also decides which of the 20 proteins the amino acids will then form themselves into. There is an intermediate substance between DNA and the amino acids and proteins. That mediating substance is t-DNA. But now the complexity gets worse: Each of the 20 proteins requires a different intermediate t-DNA! Each one works specifically to perform its one function; and chemically, each t-DNA molecule is unlike each of the other t-DNA molecules.

The biological compiler that accomplishes these code tasks is t-DNA. It changes DNA code language into a different language that the cells can understand—so they can set about producing the right amino acids and proteins. Without these many t-DNA molecules, the entire code and what it should produce would break down.

DNA INDEXING—Information that is inaccessible is useless, even though it may be very complete. Every computer requires a data bank. Without it, needed information cannot be retrieved and used. Large computer data banks have libraries of disc storage, but they require an index to use them. Without the index, the computer will not know where to look to find the needed information.

DNA is a data bank of massive proportions, but indexes are also needed. These are different than the translators. There are non-DNA chemicals, which work as indexes to specifically locate needed information. The DNA and the indexes reciprocate; information is cycled round a feedback loop. The index triggers the production of materials by DNA. The presence of these materials, in turn, triggers indexing to additional productions. On a higher level of systems (nervous, muscular, hormonal, circulatory, etc.), additional indexes are to be found. The utter complication of all this is astounding. The next time you cut your finger, think of all the complex operations required for the body to patch it up.

CELL SWITCHING—"What is most important; what should be done next?" Computers function by following a sequential set of instructions. "First do this, and then do that," they are told, and in response they then switch from one subroutine to another. But how does the cell switch its DNA from one process to another? No one can figure this out.

"In bacteria, for example, Jacob and Monod demonstrated a control system that operates by switching off ‘repressor’ molecules, i.e., unmasking DNA at the correct ‘line number’ to read off the correct (polypeptide) subroutines. With eukaryotes [a common type of bacteria], Britten and Davidson have tentatively suggested that ‘sensor genes’ react to an incoming stimulus and cause the production of RNA. This, in turn, activates a ‘producer gene,’ m-RNA is synthesized and the required protein eventually assembled as a ribosome. Many DNA base sequences may thus be involved, not in protein or RNA production, but in control over that production—in switching the right sequences on or off at the right time."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 124.

THE FIVE CHEMICALS IN DNA AND RNA—DNA is an extremely complex chemical molecule. Where did it come from? How did it form itself back in the beginning? How can it keep making copies of itself? There are two kinds of bases in the DNA code: purines (adenine and guanine) and pyrimidines (thymine or, in RNA, uracil; and cytosine). Where did these five chemicals come from? Charlie, you never told us the origin of the species; now help us figure out the origin of DNA!

Do you desire fame and fortune? If you want a Nobel prize, figure out how to synthesize all five DNA chemicals. If you want a major place in history, figure out how to make living, functioning DNA. If sand and seawater did it, our highly trained scientists ought to be able to do it too.

Scientists eventually devised complicated ways in expensive laboratories to synthesize dead compounds of four of these five, using rare materials such as hydrogen cyanide or cyanoacetylene. (Thymine remains unsynthesizable.) Sugar can be made in the laboratory, but the phosphate group is extremely difficult. In the presence of calcium ions, found in abundance in oceans and rivers, the phosphate ion is precipitated out. In life-forms enzymes catalyze the task, but how could enzymatic action occur outside of plants or animals? It would not happen.

Then there are the polynucleotide strands that have to be formed in exactly the fit needed to neatly wrap about the DNA helix molecule. A 100 percent exact fit is required. But chemists seem unable to produce much in the way of synthesized polynucleotides, and they are totally unable to make them in predetermined sizes and shapes (*D. Watts, "Chemistry and the Origin of Life," in Life on Earth, Vol. 4, 1980, p. 21).

If university-trained scientists, working in multimillion-dollar equipped and stocked laboratories, cannot make DNA and RNA, how can random action of sand and dirty water produce it in the beginning?

NON-RANDOM: ONLY FROM INTELLIGENCE—Non-random information is what is found in the genetic code. But such information is a proof that the code came from an intelligent Mind.

Those searching for evidence of life in outer space have been instructed to watch for non-random signals as the best evidence that intelligent people live out there. Ponnamperuma says that such a "non-random pattern" would demonstrate intelligent extraterrestrial origin (*C. Ponnamperuma, The Origins of Life, 1972, p. 195). *CarI Sagan adds that a message with high information content would be "an unambiguously artificial [intelligently produced] interstellar message" (*Carl Sagan, Cosmos, 1980, p. 314).

"To involve purpose is in the eyes of biologists the ultimate scientific sin . . The revulsion which biologists feel to the thought that purpose might have a place in the structure of biology is therefore revulsion to the concept that biology might have a connection to an intelligence higher than our own."—*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 32.

EACH CHARACTERISTIC CONTROLLED BY MANY GENES—The more the scientists have studied genetics, the worse the situation becomes. Instead of each gene controlling many different factors in the body, geneticists have discovered that many different genes control each factor! Because of this, it would thus be impossible for the basic DNA code to gradually "evolve." The underlying DNA code had to be there "all at once"; and once in place, that code could never change!

"However it gradually emerged that most characters, even simple ones, are regulated by many genes: for instance, fourteen genes affect eye color in Drosophila. (Not only that. The mutation which suppresses ‘purple eye’ enhances ‘hairy wing,’ for instance. The mechanism is not understood.) Worse still, a single gene may influence several different characters. This was particularly bad news for the selectionists, of course . . In 1966 Henry Harris of London University demonstrated, to everyone’s surprise, that as much as 30 per cent of all characters are polymorphic [that is, each character controlled several different factors instead of merely one]. It seemed unbelievable, but his work was soon confirmed by Richard Lewontin and others."—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), pp. 165-166.

(A clarification is needed here about the basic DNA code in a true species which never changes: Chapter 11, Animal and Plant Species, will explain how the DNA gene pool within a given true species can be broad enough to produce hybrids or varieties. This is why there are so many different types of dogs or why some birds, when isolated on an island—such as Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos,—can produce bills of different length. This is why there are two shades of peppered moth and various resistant forms of bacteria.)

In order to make the evolutionary theory succeed, the total organic complexity of an entire species somehow had to be invented long ago by chance,—and it had to do it fast, too fast—within seconds, or the creature would immediately die!


SCIENTIFIC NOTATION—This is a number plus a small superscript numeral. Using it, small numbers can be written to denote numbers that are so immense that they are both incomprehensible and can only with difficulty be written out. Thus, 8 trillion (8,000,000,000,000) would be written 8 x 1012, and 1 billion (1,000,000,000) would be written simply as 109. Here are a few comparisons to show you the impossible large size of such numbers:

Hairs on an average head 2 x 106

Seconds in a year 3 x 107

Retirement age (0 to 65) in seconds 2 x l09

World population 5 x 109

Miles [1.6 km] in a light-year 6 x 1010

Sand grains on all shores 1022

Observed stars 1022

Water drops in all the oceans 1026

Candle power of the sun 3 x 1027

Electrons in the universe 1080

It is said that any number larger than 2 x 1030 cannot occur in nature. In the remainder of this chapter, we will look at some immense numbers!

MATH LOOKS AT DNA—(*#4/37 More Mathematical Impossibilities*) In the world of living organisms, there can be no life or growth without DNA. What are the mathematical possibilities (in mathematics, they are called probabilities) of JUST ONE DNA molecule having formed itself by the chance?

"Now we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene in its complexity must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls.

"A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1000 links could exist in 41000 different forms.

"Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41000 is equivalent to 10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension."—*Frank Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," American Biology Teacher, September 1971, pp. 336-338.

So the number of possible code combinations for an average DNA molecule is the numeral 4 followed by 1000 zeros! That is not 4000 (4 followed by 3 zeros), but 4 followed by a thousand zeros! How could random action produce the right combination out of that many possibilities for error?

LIFE REQUIRED—In addition to DNA, many other materials, such as proteins, enzymes, carbohydrates, fats, etc, would have to be instantly made at the same time. The beating heart, the functioning kidneys, the circulatory vessels, etc. They would all need to be arranged within the complicated structure of an organism,—and then they would have to be endued with LIFE!

Without LIFE, none of the raw materials, even though arranged in proper order, would be worth anything.

One does not extract life from pebbles, dirt, water, or a lightning bolt. Lightning destroys life; it does not make it.

GOLEY’S MACHINE—A communications engineer tried to figure out the odds for bringing a non-living organism with few parts (only 1500) up to the point of being able to reproduce itself.

"Suppose we wanted to build a machine capable of reaching into bins for all of its parts, and capable of assembling from those parts a second machine just like itself."—*Marcel J.E. Goley, "Reflections of a Communications Engineer," in Analytical Chemistry, June 1961, p. 23.

Likening a living organism to a machine that merely reached out and selected parts needed to make a duplicate of itself, Goley tried to figure the odds for 1500 needed items—requiring 1500 right choices in a row. Many different parts would be needed, and Goley assumed they would all be lying around near that manufacturing machine! Goley assumes that its mechanical arm will have only a 50-50 chance of error in reaching out and grabbing the right piece! Such a ratio (1500 50.50 choices) is preposterous (it ought to be one chance in a hundred million for EACH of the correct 1500 selections from among 1500 items), but Goley then figures the odds based on such a one-in-two success rate of reaches. But even with such a high success rate, Goley discovered that there was only one chance in 10450 that the machine could succeed in reproducing itself! That is 1 followed by 450 zeros!

Far smaller are all the words in all the books ever published. They would only amount to 1020, and that would be equivalent to only 66 of those 1500 50-50 choices all made correctly in succession!

TOO MANY NUCLEOTIDES—Just the number of nucleotides alone in DNA would be too many for Goley’s machine calculations. There are not 1500 parts to work out the probabilities on—there are multiplied thousands of factors, of which the nucleotides constitute one factor.

(1) There are 5,375 nucleotides in the DNA of an extremely small bacterial virus (theta-x-174). (2) There are about 3 million nucleotides in a single cell bacteria. (3) There are more than 16,000 nucleotides in a human mitochondrial DNA molecule. (4) There are approximately 3 billion nucleotides in the DNA of a mammalian cell. (People and most animals are mammals.)

Technically, a "nucleotide" is a complex chemical structure composed of a (nucleic acid) purine or pyrimidine, one sugar (usually ribose or deoxyribose), and a phosphoric group. Each one of those thousands of nucleotides within each DNA is aligned sequentially in a very specific order! Imagine 3 billion complicated chemical links, each of which has to be in a precisely correct sequence!

NOT POSSIBLE BY CHANCE—Many similar mathematical comparisons could be made. The point is that chance cannot produce what is in a living organism, —not now, not ever before, not ever in the future. It just cannot be done.

And even if the task could be successfully completed, when it was done, that organism would still not be alive! Putting stuff together in the right combination does not produce life.

And once made, it would have to have an ongoing source of water, air, and living food continually available as soon as it evolved into life. When the evolutionist’s organism emerged from rock, water, and a stroke of lightning hitting it on the head,—it would have to have its living food source made just as rapidly.

The problems and hurdles are endless.

"Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 1050. Such a number, if written out, would read:


"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the ‘benefit of the doubt’). Any species known to us, including ‘the smallest single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations (to use the evolutionist’s favorite expression)."—*I.L. Cohen, Darwin was Wrong (1984), p. 205.

Wysong explains the requirements needed to code one DNA molecule. By this he means selecting out the proper proteins, all of them left handed, and then placing them in their proper sequence in the molecule—and doing it all by chance:

"This means 1/1089190 DNA molecules, on the average, must form to provide the one chance of forming the specific DNA sequence necessary to code the 124 proteins. 1089190 DNAs would weigh 1089147 times more than the earth, and would certainly be sufficient to fill the universe many times over. It is estimated that the total amount of DNA necessary to code 100 billion people could be contained in ½ of an aspirin tablet. Surely 1089147 times the weight of the earth in DNAs is a stupendous amount and emphasizes how remote the chance is to form the one DNA molecule. A quantity of DNA this colossal could never have formed."—R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, p. 115.

A GEM OF A QUOTATION—Evolutionists claim that everything impossible can happen by the most random of chances,—simply by citing a large enough probability number. *Peter Mora explains to his fellow scientists the truth about evolutionary theorizing:

"A further aspect I should like to discuss is what I call the practice of avoiding the conclusion that the probability of a self-reproducing state is zero. This is what we must conclude from classical quantum mechanical principles, as Wigner demonstrated.

"These escape clauses [the enormous chance-occurrence numbers cited as proof by evolutionists that it could be done] postulate an almost infinite amount of time and an almost infinite amount of material (monomers), so that even the most unlikely event could have happened. This is to invoke probability and statistical considerations when such considerations are meaningless.



EC262.jpg (177219 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGE

"When for practical purposes the condition of infinite time and matter has to be invoked [in order to make evolution succeed], the concept of probability [possibility of its occurrence] is annulled. By such logic we can prove anything, such as that no matter how complex, everything will repeat itself, exactly and innumerably."—*P.T. Mora, "The Folly of Probability," in *S.W. Fox (ed.), The Origins of Prebiological Systems and of Their Molecular Matrices (1965), p. 45.


PROTEIN NEEDED ALSO—(*#6 Amino Acid Functions*) Now let’s look at protein:

Putting protein and DNA together will not make them alive; but, on the other hand, there can be no life without BOTH the protein and the DNA. Proteins would also have had to be made instantly, and in the right combination and quantity,—at the very beginning. And do not forget the sequence: Protein has to be in its proper sequence, just as DNA has to be in its correct sequential pattern.

Proteins come in their own complicated sequence! They have their own coding. That code is "spelled out" in a long, complicated string of materials. Each of the hundreds of different proteins is, in turn, composed of still smaller units called amino acids. There are twenty essential amino acids (plus two others not needed after adulthood in humans). The amino acids are complex assortments of specifically arranged chemicals.

Making those amino acids out of nothing, and in the correct sequence,—and doing it by chance—would be just as impossible, mathematically, as a chance formation of the DNA code!

ONLY THE LEFT-HANDED ONES—We mentioned, in chapter 6 (Inaccurate Dating Methods), the L and D amino acids. That factor is highly significant when considering the possibility that amino acids could make themselves by chance.

Nineteen of the twenty amino acids (all except glycine) come in two forms: a "D" and an "L" version. The chemicals are the same, but are arranged differently for each. The difference is quite similar to your left hand as compared with your right hand. Both are the same, yet shaped opposite to each other. These two amino acid types are called enantiomers [en-anti-AWmers]. (Two other names for them are enantiomorphs and sterioisomers). (On the accompanying chart, note that they are alike chemically, but different dimensionally. Each one is a mirror image of the other. One is like a left-handed glove; the other like a right-handed one. A typical amino acid in both forms is illustrated.)

For simplicity’s sake, in this study we will call them the left-handed amino acid (the "L") and the right-handed amino acid (the "D").

Living creatures have to have protein, and protein is composed of involved mixtures of several of the 20 left amino acids. —And all those amino acids must be left-handed, not right-handed! (It should be mentioned that all sugars in DNA are right-handed.)

(For purposes of simplification we will assume that right-handed amino acids never occur in living amino acids, but there are a few exceptions, such as in the cell walls of some bacteria, in some antibiotic compounds, and all sugars.)

"Many researchers have attempted to find plausible natural conditions under which L-amino acids would preferentially accumulate over their D-counterparts, but all such attempts have failed. Until this crucial problem is solved, no one can say that we have found a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Instead, these isomer preferences point to biochemical creation."—Dean H. Kenyon, affidavit presented to U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-15, 13, in "Brief of Appellants," prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-23.

TOTAL IGNORANCE—(*#5/29 DNA, Protein and the Cell*) Scientists have a fairly good idea of the multitude of chemical steps in putting together a DNA molecule; but, not only can DNA not be synthesized "by nature" at the seashore, highly trained technicians cannot do it in their million-dollar laboratories!

"The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence we can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts."— *R. Dickerson, "Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life," in Scientific American, September 1978, p. 70.

Dozens of inherent and related factors are involved. One of these is the gene-protein link. This had to occur before DNA could be usable, yet no one has any idea how it can be made now, much less how it could do it by itself in a mud puddle.

"None has ever been recreated in the laboratory, and the evidence supporting them all [being produced by random chance in the primitive environment] is very thin. The emergence of the gene-protein link, an absolutely vital stage on the way up from lifeless atoms to ourselves, is still shrouded in almost complete mystery."—*A. Scott, "Update on Genesis," in New Scientist, May 2, 1985, p. 30.


THE MILLER EXPERIMENTS—In 1953, a graduate biochemistry student (*Stanley Miller) sparked a non-oxygen mixture of gases for a week and produced some microscopic traces of non-living amino acids. We earlier discussed this in some detail in chapter 7, The Primitive Environment (which included a discription of the complicated apparatus he used), showing that *Stanley’s experiment demonstrated that, if by any means amino acids could be produced, they would be a left-handed and right-handed mixture—and therefore unable to be used in living tissue.

"Amino acids synthesized in the laboratory are a mixture of the right-and left-handed forms."—*Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution (1968), p. 159.

Even if a spark could anciently have turned some chemicals into amino acids, the presence of the right-handed ones would clog the body machinery and kill any life-form they were in.

(1) There are 20 amino acids. (2) There are 300 amino acids in a specialized sequence in each medium protein. (3) There are billions upon billions of possible combinations! (4) The right combination from among the 20 amino acids would have to be brought together in the right sequence—in order to make one useable protein properly.

(5) In addition to this, the ultra-complicated DNA strands would have to be formed, along with complex enzymes, and more and more, and still more.

IMPOSSIBLE ODDS—What are the chances of accomplishing all the above—and thus making a living creature out of protein manufactured by chance from dust, water, and sparks? Not one chance in billions. It cannot happen.

Evolutionists speak of "probabilities" as though they were "possibilities," if given enough odds. But reality is different than their make-believe numbers.

There are odds against your being able to throw a rock with your arm—and land it on the other side of the moon. The chances that you could do it are about as likely as this imagined animal of the evolutionists, which makes itself out of nothing and then evolves into everybody else.

A mathematician would be able to figure the odds of doing it as a scientific notation with 50 or so zeros after it, but that does not mean that you could really throw a rock to the moon! Such odds are not really "probabilities," they are "impossibilities!"

The chances of getting accidentally synthesized left amino acids for one small protein molecule is one chance in 10210. That is a number with 210 zeros after it! The number is so vast as to be totally out of the question.

Here are some other big numbers to help you grasp the utter immensity of such gigantic numbers: Ten billion years is 1018 seconds. The earth weighs 1026 ounces. From one side to the other, the universe has a diameter of 1028 inches. There are 1080 elementary particles in the universe (subatomic particles: electrons, protons, neutrons, etc.). Compare those enormously large numbers with the inconceivably larger numbers required for a chance formulation of the right mixture of amino acids, proteins, and all the rest out of totally random chance combined with raw dirt, water, and so forth.

How long would it take to walk across the 1028 inches from one side of the universe to the other side? Well, after you had done it, you would need to do it billions of times more before you would even have time to try all the possible chance combinations of putting together just ONE properly sequenced left-only amino acid protein in the right order.

After *Miller’s amino acid experiment, researchers later tried to synthesize proteins. The only way they could do it was with actual amino acids from living tissue! What had they accomplished? Nothing, absolutely nothing. But this mattered not to the media; soon newspaper headlines shouted, "SCIENTISTS MAKE PROTEIN!"

"The apparatus must consist of a series of proteins as well as nucleic acids with the ‘right’ sequences."—*R. W. Kaplan, "The Problem of Chance in Formation of Protobionts by Random Aggregation of Macromolecules," ín Chemical Evolution, p. 320.


ALL 20 - BUT IN 39 FORMS—The evolutionists tell us that, at some time in the distant past, all the proteins made themselves out of random chemicals floating in the water or buried in the soil.

But there are approximately 20 different essential amino acids. Each of them, with the exception of glycine, can exist in both the L (left-handed) and D (right-handed) structual forms. In living tissue, the L form is found; in laboratory synthesis, equal amounts of both the L and D forms are produced. There is no way to synthesize the L form by itself. TRYPTOPHAN SYNTHETASE A—Here is the amino acid sequence of just one protein in your body. The amino acid units (written from left to right) are connected. If separated, they would read like this: methionyl, glutaminyl, arginyl, etc.


EC268.jpg (352114 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGE

Here are all 39 forms. What a hodgepodge for the random accidents of evolution to sort through—and come up with only the L forms. Each one has its own complicated sequence of amino acids:1 - Glycine

2a - L-Alanine 2b - D-Alanine

3a - L-Valine 3b - D-Valine

4a - L-Leucine 4b - D-Leucine

5a - L-Isoleucine 5b - D-Isoleucine

6a - L-Serine 6b - D-Serine

7a - L-Threonine 7b - D-Threonine

8a - L-Cysteine 8b - D-Cysteine

9a - L-Cystine 9b - D-Cystine

10a - L-Methionine 10b - D-Methionine

11a - L-Glutamic Acid 11b - D-Glutamic Acid

12a - L-Aspartic Acid 12b - D-Aspartic Acid

13a - L-Lysine 13b - D-Lysine

14a - L-Arginine 14b - D-Arginine

15a - L-Histidine 15b - D-Histidine

16a - L-Phenylalanine 16b - D-Phenylalanine

17a - L-Tyrosine 17b - D-Tyrosine

18a - L-Tryptophan 18b - D-Tryptophan

19a - L-Proline 19b - D-Proline

20a - L-Hydroxyproline 20b - D-Hydroxyproline

WHY ONLY THE L FORM—You might wonder why the D form of protein would not work equally well in humans and animals. The problem is that a single strand of protein, once it is constructed by other proteins (yes, the complicated structure of each protein is constructed in your body cells by other brainless proteins!), it immediately folds into a certain pattern. If there was even one right-handed amino acid in each lengthy string, it could not fold properly.

(See our special study on Protein on our website. It is fabulous, and shows the astoundingly complex activities of proteins inside the cell.)


We are omitting this section from this paperback. It consists of detailed information on the step-by-step requirements needed to produce proteins, sugars, enzymes, fats, and DNA. The complexity of all this is fabulous. Over three large pages are required just to list the steps! You will find this on pp. 280-283 of Vol. 2 of the three-volume Evolution Disproved series set or on our internet site, - ADDITIONAL MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITIES

ALL BY CHANCE—Earlier in this chapter, we said that the possible combinations of DNA were the number 4 followed by a thousand zeros. That tells us about DNA combinations; what about protein combinations?

The possible arrangements of the 20 different amino acids are 2,500,000,000,000,000,000. If evolutionary theory be true, every protein arrangement in a life-form had to be worked out by chance until it worked right—first one combination and then another until one was found that worked right. But by then the organism would have been long dead, if it ever had been alive!

Once the chance arrangements had hit upon the right combination of amino acids for ONE protein—the same formula would have to somehow be repeated for the other 19 proteins. And then it would somehow have to be correctly transmitted to offspring!

THE STREAM OF LIFE—The primary protein in your red blood cells has 574 amino acids in it. Until that formula was first produced correctly by chance, and then always passed on correctly, your ancestors could not have lived a minute, much less survived and reproduced.

You have billions upon billions upon billions of red blood cells ("RBCs," the scientists call them) in your body. This is what makes your blood red. Each red blood cell has about 280 million molecules of hemoglobin, and it would take about 1000 red blood cells to cover the period at the end of this sentence. (Hemoglobin is the iron-carrying protein material in RBCs, which carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues, and carbon dioxide from the tissues to the lungs.) Both in complexity and in enormous quantity, your red blood cells are unusual. Several large books could be filled with facts about your red blood cells.MAKING PROTEIN BY CHANCE—The probability of forming 124 specifically sequenced proteins of 400 amino acids each by chance is 1 x 1O64489. THAT is a BIG number! If we put a thousand zeros on each page, it would take a 64-page booklet just to write the number!

The probability of those 124 specifically sequenced proteins, consisting of 400 all-left-amino acids each, being formed by chance, if EVERY molecule in all the oceans of 1031 planet earths was an amino acid, and these kept linking up in sets of 124 proteins EVERY second for 10 billion years would be 1 x 1078436. And THAT is another BIG number! That is one followed by 78,436 zeros!

As mentioned earlier, such "probabilities" are "impossibilities." They are fun for math games, but nothing more. They have nothing to do with reality. Yet such odds would have to be worked out in order to produce just 124 proteins! Without success in such odds as these, multiplied a million-fold, evolution would be totally impossible.

Throughout this and the previous chapter, we have only discussed the basics at the bottom of the ladder of evolution. We have, as it were, only considered the first few instants of time. But what about all the development after that?

More total impossibilities.

ENZYMES—*Fred Hoyle wrote in New Scientist that 2000 different and very complex enzymes are required for a living organism to exist. And then he added that random shuffling processes could not form a single one of these in even 20 billion years! He then added this:

"I don’t know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolyers [enzymes, proteins, hormones, etc.] on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the earth.

"Astronomers will have a little difficulty in understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so; the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The ‘others’ are a group of persons [the evolutionary theoreticians] who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles.

"They advocate the belief that, tucked away in nature outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations . . The modern miracle workers are always found to be living in the twilight fringes of [the two laws of] thermodynamics."—*Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang in Astronomy," in New Scientist, November 19, 1981, pp. 521-527.

*Taylor says that proteins, DNA, and enzymes—all of which are very complicated—would all be required as soon as a new creature was made by evolution.

"The fundamental objection to all these [evolutionary] theories is that they involve raising oneself by one’s own bootstraps. You cannot make proteins without DNA, but you cannot make DNA without enzymes, which are proteins. It is a chicken and egg situation. That a suitable enzyme should have cropped up by chance, even in a long period, is implausible, considering the complexity of such molecules. And there cannot have been a long time [in which to do it]."—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 201.

Enzyme systems do not work at all in the body—until they are all there.

"Dixon [a leading enzymologist] confesses that he cannot see how such a system could ever have originated spontaneously. The main difficulty is that an enzyme system does not work at all until it is complete, or nearly so. Another problem is the question of how enzymes appear without pre-existing enzymes to make them. ‘The association between enzymes and life,’ Dixon writes, ‘is so intimate that the problem of the origin of life itself is largely that of the origin of enzymes.’ "—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), pp. 144-145.DIXON-WEBB CALCULATION—In 1964 *Malcolm Dixon and *Edwin Webb, on page 667 of their standard reference work, Enzymes, mentioned to fellow scientists that in order to get the needed amino acids in close enough proximity to form a single protein molecule, a total volume of amino-acid solution equal to 1050 times the volume of our earth would be needed! That would be 1 with 50 zeros after it multiplied by the contents of a mixing bowl. And the bowl would be so large that planet earth would be in it!

After using the above method to obtain ONE protein molecule, what would it take to produce ONE hemoglobin (blood) molecule which contains 574 specifically coded amino acids? On page 279 of their Introduction to Protein Chemistry, *S.W. Fox and *J.F. Foster tell how to do it:

First, large amounts of random amounts of all 20 basic types of protein molecules would be needed. In order to succeed at this, enough of the random protein molecules would be needed to fill a volume 10512 TIMES the volume of our entire known universe! And all of that space would be packed in solid with protein molecules. In addition, all of them would have to contain only left-handed amino acids (which only could occur 50 percent of the time in synthetic laboratory production).

Then and only then could random chance produce just the right combination for ONE hemoglobin molecule, with the proper sequence of 574 left-handed amino acids!

Yet there are also thousands of other types of protein molecules in every living cell, and even if all of them could be assembled by chance,—the cell would still not be alive.BEYOND DNA AND PROTEIN—We have focused our attention on DNA and protein sequence in this chapter. Just for a moment, let us look beyond DNA and protein to a few of the more complicated organs in the human body. As we do so, the requirements which randomness would have to hurdle become truly fabulous. Consider the human brain, with its ten billion integrated cells in the cerebral cortex. How could all that come about by chance? Ask an expert on ductless glands to explain hormone production to you. Your head will swim. Gaze into the human eye and view how it is constructed, how it works. You who would cling to evolution as a theory that is workable give up! give up! There is no chance! Evolution is impossible!COMPUTER SIMULATION—Prior to the late 1940s, men had to work out their various evolutionary theories with paper and pencil. But then advanced computers were invented. This changed the whole picture. By the 1970s, it had become clear that the "long ages" theories just did not work out. Computer calculations have established the fact that, regardless of how much time was allotted for the task,—evolution could not produce life-forms!

Evolutionists can no longer glibly say, "Given enough time and given enough chance, living creatures could arise out of seawater and lightning, and pelicans could change themselves into elephants." (Unfortunately, evolutionists still say such things, because the ignorant public does not know the facts in this book.)

But computer scientists can now feed all the factors into a large computer—and get fairly rapid answers. Within a dramatically short time they can find out whether evolution is possible after all!

Unfortunately, the evolutionists prefer to stay away from such computer simulations; they are afraid to face the facts. Instead they spend their time discussing their dreamy ideas with one another and writing articles about their theories in scientific journals.

A computer scientist who spoke at a special biology symposium in Philadelphia in 1967, when computers were not as powerful as they are today, laid out the facts this way:

"Nowadays computers are operating within a range which is not entirely incommensurate with that dealt with in actual evolution theories. If a species breeds once a year, the number of cycles in a million years is about the same as that which one would obtain in a ten-day computation which iterates a program whose duration is a hundredth of a second . . Now we have less excuse for explaining away difficulties [via evolutionary theory] by invoking the unobservable effect of astronomical [enormously large] numbers of small variations."—*M.P. Schutzenberger, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (1967), pp. 73-75 (an address given at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology Symposium).

*Schutzenberger then turned his attention to the key point that scientists admit to be the only real basis of evolution: gradual improvements in the genetic code through beneficial mutations, resulting in new and changed species:

"We believe that it is not conceivable. In fact, if we try to simulate such a situation by making changes randomly at the typographic level—by letters or by blocks, the size of the unit need not matter—on computer programs, we find that we have no chance (i.e., less than 1/101000) even to see what the modified program would compute; it just jams!’

"Further, there is no chance (less than 1/101000) to see this mechanism (this single changed characteristic in the DNA) appear spontaneously and, if it did, even less [chance] for it to remain!

"We believe that there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology."—*Ibid.

There is a one in 1/101000 chance that just one mutation could be beneficial and improve DNA. Now 1/101000is one with a thousand zeros after it! In contrast, one chance in a million only involves six zeros! Compare it with the almost impossible likelihood of your winning a major multimillion-dollar state lottery in the United States: That figure has been computed, and is only a relatively "tiny" number of six with six zeros after it. Evolution requires probabilities which are totally out of the realm of reality.THE DNA LANGUAGE—Another researcher, *M. Eden, in attendance at the same Wistar Institute, said that the code within the DNA molecule is actually in a structured form, like letters and words in a language. Like them, the DNA code is structured in a certain sequence, and only because of the sequence can the code have meaning.

*Eden then goes on and explains that DNA, like other languages, cannot be tinkered with by random variational changes; if that is done, the result will always be confusion!

"No currently existing formal language can tolerate random changes in the symbol sequences which express its sentences. Meaning is invariably destroyed."—*M. Eden, "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory," in op. cit., p. 11.

And yet evolutionary theory teaches that DNA and all life appeared by chance, and then evolved through random changes within the DNA!

(For more information on those special evolutionary conferences, see chapter 1. History of Evolutionary Theory.)THE MORE TIME, THE LESS SUCCESS—Evolutionists imagine that time could solve the problem: Given enough time, the impossible could become possible. But time works directly against success. Here is why:

"Time is no help. Biomolecules outside a living system tend to degrade with time, not build up. In most cases, a few days is all they would last. Time decomposes complex systems. If a large ‘word’ (a protein) or even a paragraph is generated by chance, time will operate to degrade it. The more time you allow, the less chance there is that fragmentary ‘sense’ will survive the chemical maelstrom of matter."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 233.ALL AT ONCE—Everything had to come together all at once. Within a few minutes, all the various parts of the living organism had to make themselves out of sloshing, muddy water.

"However, conventional Darwinian theory rationalizes most adaptations by assuming that sufficient time has transpired during evolution for natural selection to provide us with all the biological adaptations we see on earth today, but in reality the adaptive process must by necessity occur rather quickly (in one or at the most two breeding generations)."—*E. Steele, Somatic Selection and Adaptive Evolution (2nd ed. 1981), p. 3.

"So the simultaneous formation of two or more molecules of any given enzyme purely by chance is fantastically improbable."—*W. Thorpe, "Reductionism in Biology," in Studies in the Philosophy of Biology (1974), p. 117.

"From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life."—*Homer Jacobson, "Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life," American Scientist, January 1955, p. 125.

"To form a polypeptide chain of a protein containing one hundred amino acids represents a choice of one out of 1O130 possibilities. Here again, there is no evidence suggesting that one sequence is more stable than another, energetically. The total number of hydrogen atoms in the universe is only 1078. That the probability of forming one of these polypeptide chains by change is unimaginably small; within the boundary of conditions of time and space we are considering it is effectively zero."—*E. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World (1982), p. 135.

"Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanism translating instruction into growth—all had to be simultaneously present at that moment. This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance, and has often been ascribed to divine intervention."—*Homer Jacobson, "Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life," American Scientist, January 1955, p. 121.BACTERIA DISPROVE EVOLUTION—Let us go beyond DNA molecules and pieces of protein, and consider one of the simplest of life-forms. Scientists have studied in detail the bacterium, Escherichia coli. These bacteria are commonly found in the large bowel.

Under favorable conditions bacterial cells can divide every 20 minutes. Then their offspring immediately begin reproducing. Theoretically, one cell can produce 1020 cells in one day! For over a century researchers have studied E-coli bacteria. All that time those bacteria have reproduced as much as people could in millions of years. Yet never has one bacterium been found to change into anything else. And those little creatures do not divide simply. The single chromosome replicates (makes a copy of itself), and then splits in two. Then each daughter cell splits in two, forming the various cells in the bacterium. These tiny bacteria can divide either sexually or asexually.

Escherichia coli has about 5000 genes in its single chromosome strand. This is the equivalent of a million three-letter codons. Yet this tiny bacterium is one of the "simplest" living creatures that exists.

Please, do not underestimate the complexity of this, a creature with only ONE chromosome: First, that one chromosome is a combination lock with a million units, arranged in a definite sequence. Second, each unit is made up of three sub-units (A-C-C, G-T-A, etc.). Third, the sub-units are combined from four different chemical building blocks: A, G, C, and T. What are the possible number of combinations for that one chromosome? Get a sheet of paper and figure that one out for yourself.FRAME SHIFTS—Then scientists discovered an even "simpler" creature that lives in the human bowel. It is called the theta-x-174, and is a tiny virus. It is so small, that it does not contain enough DNA information to produce the proteins in its membrane! How then can it do it? How can it produce proteins without enough DNA code to produce proteins! Scientists were totally baffled upon making this discovery. Then they discovered the high-tech secret: The answer is but another example of a super-intelligent Creator. The researchers found that this tiny, mindless creature routinely codes for that protein thousands of times a day—and does it by "frame shift."

To try to describe it in simple words, a gene is read off from the first DNA base to produce a protein. Then the same message is read again—but this time omitting the first base and starting with the second. This produces a different protein. And on and on it goes. Try writing messages in this manner, and you will begin to see how utterly complicated it is: "Try writing messages / writing messages in / messages in this / in this manner." That is how the simplest of viruses uses its DNA coding to make its protein!

Does someone think that the virus was smart enough to figure out that complicated procedure with its own brains? Or will someone suggest that it all "just happened by chance?"

With all this in mind, *Wally Gilbert, a Nobel prize winning molecular biologist, said that bacteria and viruses have a more complicated DNA code-reading system than the "higher forms of life."THE CENTRAL DOGMA—*Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, prepared a genetic principle which he entitled, "The Central Dogma":

"The transfer of information from nucleic acid to nucleic acid, or from nucleic acid to protein may be possible, but transfer from protein to protein, or from protein to nucleic acid is impossible."—*Francis Crick, "Central Dogma," quoted in *Richard Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 77.

The Central Dogma is an important scientific principle and means this: The complex coding within the DNA in the cell nucleus decides the traits for the organism. But what is in the body and what happens to the body cannot affect the DNA coding. What this means is this: Species cannot change from one into another! All the members in a species (dogs, for example) can only be the outcome of the wide range of "gene pool" data in the DNA, but no member of that species can, because of the environment or what has happened to that individual, change into another species. Only changes in the DNA coding can produce such changes; nothing else can do it.

"It [the Central Dogma] has proved a fruitful principle, ever since James Watson and Crick discovered the double-helix structure of DNA in the 1950s. DNA is the blueprint; it gives instructions to the RNA and to proteins about how to arrange themselves."—*Richard Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), ibid.

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."—*Francis Crick, Life Itself (1981), p. 88.

BLUE GENE—As we near press time on this paperback, announcement has been made that IBM has begun work on their largest computer to-date. It is called "Blue gene"; and it must be powerful, for they have been building ever larger supercomputers since the 1940s. This one will be 100 times more powerful than Big Blue, the computer used to defeat Kasperson in chess several years ago.

They are trying to figure out something which is so utterly complicated that no lesser computer can handle the task. No, not something simple like computing a trip to Saturn and back. Their objective is solving something far more complicated. —It is figuring out how a protein folds!

In every cell in your body, brainless proteins assemble more proteins from amino acids. They put them into their proper sequence (!), and then, as soon as the task is ended, the new protein automatically folds down into a clump, as complicated as a piece of steel wool. IBM is trying to figure out the fold pattern instantly made by this microscopic piece of mindless, newborn protein!

The computer will cost $100 million, and Stanford University is trying to get people to let them use their home computers to help with the task (go to for details). They say they need the information to figure out drugs to counteract HIV and other viruses. So far, they can only get the protein to wiggle; they cannot get it to fold (NPR, Wednesday evening, September 27, 2000).

As we go to press: It has recently been discovered that the terrible plague of mad cow disease (initially brought into existence by cannibalism) is caused by eating meat containing proteins that do not fold correctly, or by being injected with raw glandulars containing them.

For more on proteins and how they do their work in the cell, go to our website,, and locate a special study on protein which we have prepared. It contains a remarkable collection of facts.


The teeth of a rat are designed so the top two front teeth go behind the bottom two, at just the right angle to produce self-sharpening teeth. Engineers at General Electric wanted to design a self-sharpening saw blade in order to obtain exactly the right angle in relation to the metal it is cutting; so they studied the teeth of a rat. They found there was no other way it could be done as efficiently. As it slices through the metal, small pieces of the new blade are cut away by the metal, thus always keeping the blade sharp. That self-sharpening blade lasts six times longer than any other blade they had previously been able to make. All because the trained researchers studied the teeth of a rat.




1- Prepare a diagram of a DNA molecule. Use different colors to show the different parts.

2 - Research the story of how DNA was discovered and write a report on it.

3 - Would it be easier for DNA to be made by randomness or by researchers in a laboratory? Could living DNA be made in either place?

4 - Research into what is in a blood cell, and then write about the different parts. Underline those parts which could be produced by random action (called "natural selection").

5 - There are 20 essential amino acids, 300 special-sequence amino acids in each medium-sized protein, and billions of possible sequences. What do you think would happen in your body if just one of those sequences was out of place?

6 - Can "non-random patterns" be produced randomly? Codes are made by intelligent people. Can they be produced by chance?

7 - Find out how DNA divides, and write a brief report on how it happens.

8 - Random production of amino acids always produce a 50-50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms of them. Could the randomness of evolution produce living tissue with only left-handed amino acids?

9 - Why is it that evolutionists do not give up trying to prove that impossible things can happen?

10 - There are 26 reasons why DNA cannot be originated outside of living tissue. List 10 which you consider to be the most unlikely to be accomplished synthetically.

11 - Briefly explain one of the following: translator package, messenger RNA, biological compiler, codon, nucleotide, t-DNA.

12 - Write a report on the mathematical possibilities (probabilities) that amino acids, protein, or DNA could be accidently produced by random activity in barrels of chemicals which filled all of space throughout the universe.

Fossils and Strata

Why The fossil/strata theory is a remarkable hoax

Fossil remains provide evolutionists with their only real evidence that evolution might have occurred in the past. If the fossils do not witness to evolution in the past, then it could not be occurring now either.

The only substantial evidence that evolution has taken place in past ages, if there is such evidence, is to be found, in the fossils. The only definite evidence from the present, that there is a mechanism by which evolution could occur—past or present—if there is such evidence, is to be found in natural selection and mutations. The subject may seem to be complicated, but it is not. We will begin this present chapter with an introduction and overview of some of the fossil problems. Then we shall give enough attention to each of those problems—and more besides—to provide you with a clear understanding of principles and conclusions.

And when you obtain it, you will be astounded at the amount of overwhelming evidence supporting the fact that there is absolutely no indication, from the fossil record, that evolution has ever occurred on our planet!

"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, ‘Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.’ "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).


DEFINITIONS—(*#1/9 Introduction*) Most people know very little about any aspect of geology. Here are some of the major areas of geologic study. Of the geologic terms defined below, you will want to give special attention to those in bold italic:Here are several of the major branches of Physical Geology: (1) Geochemistry is the study of the substances in the earth and the chemical changes they undergo. (2) Petrology is the study of rocks, in general. (3) Minerology is the study of minerals, such as iron ore and uranium. (4) Geophysics is the study of the structure, composition, and development of the earth. (5) Structural geology is the study of positions and shapes of rocks very deep within the earth.Both physical and historical geology include three areas: (1) Geochronology is the study of geologic time. (2) Earth Processes is the study of the forces that produce changes in the earth. (3) Sedimentology is the study of sediment and the ways it is deposited. 

Historical geology has at least four main fields: (1) Paleontology is the study of fossils, and paleontologists are those who study them. (2) Stratigraphy is the study of the rock strata in which the fossils are found. (3) Paleogeography is the study of the past geography of the earth. (4) Paleoecology is the study of the relationships between prehistoric plants and animals and their surroundings. 

Fossils are the remains of living creatures, both plants and animals, or their tracks. These are found in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is composed of strata, which are layers of stone piled up like a layer cake. (Strata is the plural of stratum.) Sedimentary rock is fossil-bearing or fossiliferous rock.  

Fossil hunters use the word taxa (taxon, singular) to describe the basic, different types of plants and animals found in the fossil record. By this they generally mean species, but sometimes genera or more composite classifications, such as families or even phyla. Taxa is thus something of a loose term; it will be found in some of the quotations in this chapter. Higher taxa would mean the larger creatures, such as vertebrates (animals with backbones).

"The part of geology that deals with the tracing of the geologic record of the past is called historic geology. Historic geology relies chiefly on paleontology, the study of fossil evolution, as preserved in the fossil record, to identify and correlate the lithic records of ancient time."—*O.D. von Engeln and *K.E. Caster, Geology (1952), p. 423.

These fossil remains may be shells, teeth, bones, or entire skeletons. A fossil may also be a footprint, bird track, or tail marks of a passing lizard. It can even include rain drops. Many fossils no longer contain their original material, but are composed of mineral deposits that have infiltrated them and taken on their shapes.

Fossils are extremely important to evolutionary theory, for they provide our only record of plants and animals in ancient times. The fossil record is of the highest importance as a proof for evolution. In these fossils, scientists should be able to find all the evidence needed to prove that one species has evolved out of another.

"Although the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more complex forms."—*Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology (1949), p. 52.

"Fortunately there is a science which is able to observe the progress of evolution through the history of our earth. Geology traces the rocky strata of our earth, deposited one upon another in the past geological epochs through hundreds of millions of years, and finds out their order and timing and reveals organisms which lived in all these periods. Paleontology, which studies the fossil remains, is thus enabled to present organic evolution as a visible fact."—*Richard B. Goldschmidt, "An Introduction to a Popularized Symposium on Evolution," in Scientific Monthly, Vol. 77, October 1953, p. 184.

PALEONTOLOGISTS KNOW THE FACTS—(*#3/25 The Experts Speak*) The study of fossils and mutations ranks as the two key evidences of evolution: The fossil evidence proves or disproves whether evolution has occurred in the past; mutational facts prove or disprove whether it can occur at all.

This is probably why, of all scientists, paleontologists and geneticists are the most likely to publicly repudiate evolutionary theory in disgust (*A.H. Clark, *Richard Goldschmidt, *Steven Gould, *Steven Stanley, *Colin Patterson, etc.). They have spent their lives fruitlessly working, hands on, with one of the two main factors in the very center of evolution: the evidence (fossils) or the mechanism by which it occurs (mutations), and that part of the body within which it must occur (DNA). 

THE FOSSIL HUNTERS—(*#2 The Fossil Hunters"). For over a century, thousands of men have dedicated their lives to finding, cleaning, cataloguing, and storing millions of fossils. The work they do is time-consuming, exhausting, yet it has not provided the evidence they sought.

NO EVOLUTION TODAY—Evolution (one type of animal changing into another) never occurs today.

"No biologist has actually seen the origin by evolution of a major group of organisms."—*G. Ledyard Stebbins, Process of Organic Evolution, p. 1. [Stebbins was a geneticist.]

EVERYTHING HINGES ON FOSSILS—Clearly, then, because no evolution is occurring now, all that the evolutionists have to prove their theory is fossil evidence of life-forms which lived in the past. If evolution is the cause of life on earth, then there ought to be thousands of various partly evolved fossil life-forms. For evolution to occur, this had to occur in great abundance. The fossils should reveal large numbers of transmuted species—creatures which are half fish-half animal, etc.

Throughout these studies, we shall refer to the basic types or kinds of plants and animals as "species." However, as discussed in chapter 11, Animal and Plant Species, biologists frequently classify plants and animals as "species," which are subspecies.

UNIFORMITARIANISM—(*#4/29 Uniformitarianism vs. Catastrophism*) A basic postulate of evolution is the concept of uniformitarianism.A basic postulate of evolution is the concept of uniformitarianism According to this theory, the way everything is occurring today is the way it has always occurred on our planet. This point has strong bearing on the rock strata. Since no more than an inch or so of sediment is presently being laid down each year in most non-alluvial areas, therefore no more than this amount could have been deposited yearly in those places in the past. Since there are thick sections of rock containing fossils, therefore those rocks and their contents must have required millions of years to be laid down. That is how the theory goes.Naturalists, working in Paris a few years before *Charles Lyell was born, discovered fossil-bearing rock strata. *Lyell used this information in his important book, Principles of Geology, and divided the strata into three divisions. He dated one as youngest, another as older, and the third as very ancient.

*Lyell and others worked out those strata dates in the early 19th century, before very much was known about the rock strata and their fossils! Some strata in England, Scotland, and France were the primary ones studied. *Lyell based his age-theory on the number of still-living species represented by fossils in each stratum. If a given stratum had few fossils represented by species alive today, then *Lyell dated it more anciently.

It has since been established that *Lyell’s theory does not agree with reality; the percentage of still-living species is very, very high throughout all the strata, and varies from place to place for each stratum in different localities. Nevertheless, after quarreling over details, Lyell’s followers extended his scheme; and, though they changed his initial major strata names, they held on to his mistake and elaborated on it. Although some of the strata names changed later in the 19th century, scientists in the 20th century have been stuck with this relic of early 19th-century error. It is what they are taught in the colleges and universities.

THE ERAS—The fossil-bearing rock strata are said to fall into three major divisions, called "eras."

At the top are the Cenozoic Era rocks. Below that comes the Mesozoic Era levels. Next comes the Pa!eozoic Era strata. At the bottom we find the Cambrian, which contains the lowest fossil-bearing rocks. Beneath that is the Precambrian. (Cenozoic means "recent life," mesozoic means "middle life," and paleozoic means "ancient life.")

DATES WHEN GEOLOGICAL TIME SCALES ORIGINATED—This fossil/strata theory is genuinely archaic. The basics of the theory were devised when very little was known about strata or fossils. But geology and paleontology have been saddled with it ever since. Here are the dates when the various geological time scales were first developed:


Quaternary - 1829

Tertiary - 1759

Cretaceous - 1822

Jurassic - 1795

Triassic - 1834

Permian - 1841

Carboniferous - 1822

Devonian - 1837

Silurian - 1835

Ordovician - 1879

Cambrian - 1835


Cenozoic - 1841

Mesozoic - 1841

Paleozoic - 1838

Perhaps the most ridiculous part of this is that radiodating of rocks, which did not exist when the 19th-century theories were devised, is forced to fit those 19th-century strata dates! It is done by using only a few test samples which fit the 19th century dates. The rest are discarded. (See chapter 6, Inaccurate Dating Methods, for more on this.)

EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION—If evolution was a fact, we should find in present events and past records abundant evidence of one species changing into another species. But, throughout all past history and in present observations, no one has ever seen this happen. Prior to written history, we only have fossil evidence. Scientists all over the world have been collecting and studying fossils for over a hundred years. Literally millions have been collected!

THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN—Much of this, especially the dates, are imaginary. The complete column almost nowhere. The laying down of fossil strata primarily occurred below the Pleastocene, mountain building during it, and post-Flood after it. Coal is mainly in the Carboniferous.

Geologic time scale Macmillan Dictionary, p. 430

EC418.jpg (156711 bytes)  EC418a.jpg (161449 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGEIn all their research, this is what they discovered: (1) There is no evidence of one species having changed into another one. (2) Our modern species are what we find there, plus some extinct ones. (3) There are no transitional or halfway forms between species.

Yes, there are extinct creatures among the fossils. These are plants and animals which no longer live on the earth. But even scientists agree that extinct species would not be an evidence of evolution.Yet evolutionists parade dinosaur bones as a grand proof of evolution—when they are no proof at all! Extinction is not evolution!

Before proceeding further in this study, we should mention two points that will help clarify the problem:

WHY SO VERY COMPLEX AT THE BOTTOM?—As we already mentioned, the lowest strata level is called the Cambrian. Below this lowest of the fossil-bearing strata lies the Precambrianthe lowest strata level is called the Cambrian. Below this lowest of the fossil-bearing strata lies the Precambrian

The Cambrian has invertebrate (non-backbone) animals, such as trilobites and brachiopods. These are both very complex little animals. In addition, many of our modern animals and plants are in that lowest level, just above the Precambrian. How could such complex, multicelled creatures be there in the bottom of the Cambrian strata? But there they are. Suddenly, in the very lowest fossil stratum, we find complex plants and animals—and lots of them, with no evidence that they evolved from anything lower.

"It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the [fossil] record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."—*George G. Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, p. 360.

Paleontologists (the fossil hunters) call this immense problem "the Cambrian Explosion," because vast numbers of complex creatures suddenly appear in the fossil strata—with no evidence that they evolved from any less complicated creatures!

We will discuss the Precambrian/Cambrian problem later in this chapter.

What caused this sudden, massive appearance of life-forms? What caused the strata? Why are all those fossils in the strata? What is the solution to all this?

THE GENESIS FLOOD—The answer is that a great Flood,—the one described in the Bible in Genesis 6 to 9—rapidly covered the earth with watera great Flood,—the one described in the Bible in Genesis 6 to 9—rapidly covered the earth with water. When it did, sediments of pebbles, gravel, clay, and sand were laid down in successive strata, covering animal and plant life. Under great pressure, these sediments turned into what we today call "sedimentary rock." (Clay became shale; sand turned into sandstone; mixtures of gravel, clay and sand formed conglomerate rock.) All that mass of water-laid material successively covered millions of living creatures. The result is fossils, which today are only found in the sedimentary rock strata.

IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE AVAILABLE?—Before we proceed further, it is vital that we know whether there is enough evidence available to decide the fossil problem? Can we at the present time really know for sure whether or not, according to the fossil record, evolution has or has not occurred?

Yes, we CAN know! Men have worked earnestly, since the beginning of the 19th century, to find evidences of evolution in the fossil strata.

"The adequacy of the fossil record for conclusive evidence is supported by the observation that 79.1 percent of the living families of terrestrial vertebrates have been found as fossils (87.7 percent if birds are excluded)."—R.H. Brown, "The Great Twentieth-Century Myth," in Origins, January 1986, p. 40.

"Geology and paleontology held great expectations for Charles Darwin, although in 1859 [when he published his book, Origin of the Species] he admitted that they [already] presented the strongest single evidence against his theory. Fossils were a perplexing puzzlement to him because they did not reveal any evidence of a gradual and continuous evolution of life from a common ancestor, proof which he needed to support his theory. Although fossils were an enigma to Darwin, he ignored the problem and found comfort in the faith that future explorations would reverse the situation and ultimately prove his theory correct.

"He stated in his book, The Origin of the Species, ‘The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views, on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.’ [Quoting from the sixth (1901) edition of Darwin’s book, pages 341-342.]

"Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track."—Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 9 [italics ours].

"There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.—*Porter Kier, quoted in New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129.

There are one hundred million fossils housed in museums and other collections! That ought to be enough to locate the missing links and prove evolutionary theory! That ought to be enough to locate the missing links and prove evolutionary theory!

Yes, enough information is now available that we can have certainty, from the fossil record, whether evolution ever did occur in our world! The present chapter will provide you with a brief summary of those facts.

"The reason for abrupt appearances and gaps can no longer be attributed to the imperfection of the fossil record as it was by Darwin when paleontology was a young science. With over 200,000,000 catalogued specimens of about 250,000 fossil species, many evolutionary paleontologists such as Stanley argue that the fossil record is sufficient."—W.R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited (1954), p. 48 [italics ours].

"In part, the role of paleontology in evolutionary research has been defined narrowly because of a false belief, tracing back to Darwin and his early followers, that the fossil record is woefully incomplete. Actually, the record is of sufficiently high quality to allow us to undertake certain kinds of analysis meaningfully at the level of the species."—*S. Stanley, "Macroevolutíon," p. 1 (1979).

"Over ten thousand fossil species of insects have been identified, over thirty thousand species of spiders, and similar numbers for many sea-living creatures. Yet so far the evidence for step-by-step changes leading to major evolutionary transitions looks extremely thin. The supposed transition from wingless to winged insects still has to found, as has the transition between the two main types of winged insects, the paleoptera (mayflies, dragonflies) and the neoptera (ordinary flies, beetles, ants, bees)."—*Fred Hoyle, "The Intelligent Universe: A New View of Creation and Evolution," 1983, p. 43.

150 YEARS OF COLLECTED EVIDENCE—In spite of such an immense amount of fossil evidence, *Heribert-Nilsson of Lund University in Sweden, after 40 years of study in paleontology and botany, said the deficiencies—the missing links—will never be found.

"It is not even possible to make a caricature [hazy sketch] of an evolution out of paleobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled."—*N. Heribert-Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (The Synthetic Origin of Species) (1953), p. 1212.

More than a century ago, enough evidence had been gathered from the study of fossils that it was already clear that the fossil gaps between Genesis kinds was unfillable. Even *Charles Darwin admitted the problem in his book.. Even *Charles Darwin admitted the problem in his book.

". . intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution]."—*Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, quoted in *David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," in Field Museum Bulletin, January 1979.

For over a century, hundreds of men have dedicated their lives, in an attempt to find those missing links! If the transitional forms, connecting one species with another, are really there—they should have been found by now!

Sunderland, quoted above, said "Our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species." Here, in two brief paragraphs, is a clear description of the enormity of this missing link problem:

"The time required for one of these invertebrates to evolve into the vertebrates, or fishes, has been estimated at about 100 million years, and it is believed that the evolution of the fish into an amphibian required about 30 million years. The essence of the new Darwinian view is the slow gradual evolution of one plant or animal into another by the gradual accumulation of micro-mutations through natural selection of favored variants.

"If this view of evolution is true, the fossil record should produce an enormous number of transitional forms. Natural history museums should be overflowing with undoubted intermediate forms. About 250,000 fossil species have been collected and classified. These fossils have been collected at random from rocks that are supposed to represent all of the geological periods of earth’s history. Applying evolution theory and the laws of probability, most of these 250,000 species should represent transitional forms. Thus, if evolution is true, there should be no doubt, question, or debate as to the fact of evolution."—Duane T. Gish, "The Origin of Mammals" in Creation: the Cutting Edge (1982), p. 76.

The above quotation provides an excellent summary of the fossil gap problem. The fossil record purportedly contains a record of all the billions of years of life on earth. If it takes "100 million years" for an invertebrate to evolve through transitional forms into a fish, the fossil strata should show vast numbers of the in-between forms. But it never does! Scientists discuss these facts among themselves; they have a responsibility to tell them to the public.

The evidence supports the information given in the oldest extant book in the world: the book of Genesis.


HOW ARE ROCKS DATED?—There are vast quantities of fossils, scattered in various sedimentary strata throughout the world. Yet how are the rocks and the fossils dated? In this section we are going to learn that the rocks, from the fossils, and the fossils are dated from their theories about the dating of the rocks!

"We can hardly pick up a copy of a newspaper or magazine nowadays without being informed exactly how many million years ago some remarkable event in the history of the earth occurred."—*Adolph Knopf, quoted in Isaac Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 62 [Knopf was an American geologist].

Let us examine this dating process more closely:

REAL HISTORY—Real history only goes back about 4,500 years. The First Dynasty in Egypt has left us records that date back to about 2200 B.C. (that is the corrected date as determined by scholars; Manetho’s account reaches to 3500 B.C. See chapter 21, Archaeological Dating. [Due to a lack of space, we had to omit nearly all of the chapter from this book, but it is on our website.]). Moses began writing part of the Bible about 1480 B.C. He wrote of events going back to about 4000 B.C.

NOT DATED BY APPEARANCE—Rocks are not dated by their appearance, for rocks of all types (limestones, shales, gabbro, etc.) may be found in all evolutionary "ages." Rocks are not dated by their mineral, metallic, or petroleum content; for any type of mineral may be found in practically any "age."

NOT DATED BY LOCATION—Rocks are not dated by the rocks they are near. The rocks above them in one sedimentary sequence may be the rocks below them in the next. The "oldest rocks" may lie above so-called "younger rocks." Rocks are not dated by their structure, breaks, faults, or folds. None of this has any bearing on the dating that evolutionists apply to rocks. Textbooks, magazines, and museum displays give the impression that it is the location of the strata that decides the dating, but this is not true.

"It is, indeed, a well-established fact that the (physical-stratigraphical) rock units and their boundaries often transgress geologic time planes in most irregular fashion even within the shortest distances."—*J.A. Jeletzsky, "Paleontology, Basis of Practical Geochronology," in Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, April 1956, p. 685.

NOT DATED BY VERTICAL LOCATION—Rocks are not dated by their height or depth in the strata, or which rocks are "at the top," which are "at the bottom," or which are "in the middle." Their vertical placement and sequence has little bearing on the matter. This would have to be so, since the arrangement of the strata shows little hint of uniformity anywhere in the world. (Much more on this later in this chapter.)

NOT DATED BY RADIOACTIVITY—The rock strata are not dated by the radioactive minerals within them. The dating was all worked out decades before anyone heard or thought of radioactive datingThe rock strata are not dated by the radioactive minerals within them. The dating was all worked out decades before anyone heard or thought of radioactive dating. In addition, we learned in the chapter on Dating Methods, that there are so many ways in which radiometric dating can be incorrect, that we dare not rely on uranium and similar minerals as reliable dating methods.

Index Fossils

EC428.jpg (385633 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGE

INDEX FOSSILS—Are you able to pick up a seashell, and know it died 52½ months earlier? Evolutionists can pick up a fossil shell and tell you it died 525 million years ago!

The fact is that rocks are not dated by any physical characteristic at all. What then ARE they dated by?

DATED BY FOSSILS?—The strata are said to be dated by FOSSILS! Well, now we have arrived at something concrete. The strata are all mixed up, piled on top or under where they should go, or totally missing. But at least we can date by all their fossils.

But wait a minute! We cannot even use 99 percent of the fossils to date them by, since we can find the same type of fossils in one stratum as in many others! And in each stratum are millions of fossils, representing hundreds and even thousands of different species of plant and/or animal life. The result is a bewildering maze of mixed-up or missing strata, each with fossil prints from a wide variety of ancient plants and animals that we can find in still other rock strata.

Yet, amid all this confusion, evolutionists tell us that fossil dating is of extreme importance. That is very true, for without it the evolutionary scientist would have no way to try to theorize "earlier ages" on the earth. Fossil dating is crucial to their entire theoretical house of cards.But if rocks cannot be dated by most of the fossils they contain,—how are the rocks dated?

ROCKS ARE DATED BY INDEX FOSSILS—(*#5/6 Index Fossils*) The strata are dated by what the evolutionists call "index fossils." in each stratum there are a few fossils which are not observed quite as often in the other strata. As a pretext, these are the fossils which are used to "date" that stratum and all the other fossils within it!

It may sound ridiculous, but that is the way it is done. What are these magical fossils that have the power to tell men finding them the DATE—so many millions of years ago—when they lived? These special "index" fossils are generally small marine invertebrates— backboneless sea animals These special "index" fossils are generally small marine invertebrates— backboneless sea animals that could not climb to higher ground when the Flood came! These special "index" fossils are generally small marine invertebrates— backboneless sea animals that could not climb to higher ground when the Flood came! Their presence in a sedimentary stratum is supposed to provide absolutely certain proof that that stratum is just so many millions of years "younger" or millions of years "older" than other strata! These special "index" fossils are generally small marine invertebrates— backboneless sea animals that could not climb to higher ground when the Flood came! Their presence in a sedimentary stratum is supposed to provide absolutely certain proof that that stratum is just so many millions of years "younger" or millions of years "older" than other strata!

But then, just as oddly, the magic disappears when the index fossil is found alive:

"Most of the species of maidenhair are extinct; indeed they served as index fossils for their strata until one was found alive." "The youngest fossil coelacanth is about sixty million years old. Since one was rediscovered off Madagascar, they are no longer claimed as ‘index fossils’—fossils which tell you that all other fossils in that layer are the same ripe old age."—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), pp. 186, 198.

In reality, within each stratum is to be found an utter confusion of thousands of different types of plants and/or animals. The evolutionists maintain that if just one of a certain type of creature (an "index fossil") is found anywhere in that stratum, it must automatically be given a certain name,—and more: a certain date millions of years ago when all the creatures in that stratum are supposed to have lived. Yet, just by examining that particular index fossil, there is no way to tell that it lived just so many millions of years ago! It is all part of a marvelous theory, which is actually nothing more than a grand evolutionary hoax. Experienced scientists denounce it as untrue.

Any rock containing fossils of one type of trilobite (Paradoxides) is called a "Cambrian" rock, thus supposedly dating all the creatures in that rock to a time period 120 million years long and beginning 60 million years in the past. But rocks containing another type of trilobite (Bathyurus) are arbitrarily classified as "Ordovician," which is claimed to have spanned 45 million years and begun 480 million years ago.

—But how can anyone come up with such ancient dates simply by examining two different varieties of trilobite? The truth is that it cannot be done.

Add to this the problem of mixed-up index fossils—when "index fossils" from different levels are found together! That is a problem which paleontologists do not publicly discuss. As we analyze one aspect after another of evolution (stellar, geologic, biologic, genetic, etc.), we find it all to be little more than a carefully contrived science fiction storybook.

FOSSILS ARE DATED BY A THEORY—But now comes the catch: How can evolutionary geologists know what dates to apply to those index fossils? The answer to this question is a theory! How can evolutionary geologists know what dates to apply to those index fossils? The answer to this question is a theory! Here is how they do it:

Darwinists theorize which animals came first—and when they appeared on the scene. And then they date the rocks according to their theory—not according to the wide mixture of fossils creatures in it—but by assigning dates—based on their theory—to certain "index" fossils.

—That is a gigantic, circular-reasoning hoax!

"Fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms."—*Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology, 2nd edition (1960), p. 47.

The conclusions about which fossils came first are based on the assumptions of evolution. Rock strata are studied, a few index fossils are located (when they can be found at all), and each stratum is then given a name. Since the strata are above, below, and in-between one another, with most of the strata missing in any one location,—just how can the theorists possibly "date" each stratum? They do it by applying evolutionary speculation to what they imagine those dates should be.

This type of activity classifies as interesting fiction, but it surely should not be regarded as science. The truth is this: it was the evolutionary theory that was used to date the fossils; it was not the strata and it was not "index fossils."

"Vertebrate paleontologists have relied upon ‘stage of evolution’ as the criterion for determining the chronologic relationships of faunas. Before establishment of physical dates, evolutionary progression was the best method for dating fossiliferous strata."—*J.F. Evernden, *O.E. Savage, *G.H. Curtis, and *G.T. James, "K/A Dates and the Cenozoic Mammalian Chronology of North America," in American Journal of Science, February 1964, p. 166.

"Fossiliferous strata" means fossil-bearing strata. Keep in mind that only the sedimentary rocks have fossils, for they were the sediments laid down at the time of the Flood, which hardened under pressure and dried into rock. You will find no fossils in granite, basalt, etc.

"The dating of each stratum—and all the fossils in it—is supposedly based on index fossils, when it is actually based on evolutionary speculations, and nothing more.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone."—Randy Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1976), p. 31.

The "index fossils" are dated by the theory. Amid all the confusion of mixed up and missing strata, there would be no possible way to "date" rocks—or fossils—by the catastrophic conditions found in sedimentary strata. It is all utter confusion. So the evolutionists apply a theory to the strata.They decided that certain water worms in one stratum are 80,000 years older than certain water worms in another stratum,—and then they date all the other fossils in those same strata accordingly! (That is a little foolish, is it not? How can you date a water worm as being so many hundred million years ago?)

"Because of the sterility of its concepts, historical geology, which includes paleontology [the study of fossils] and stratigraphy [the study of rock strata], has become static and unreproductive. Current methods of delimiting intervals of time, which are the fundamental units of historical geology, and of establishing chronology are of dubious validity. Worse than that, the criteria of correlation—the attempt to equate in time, or synchronize, the geological history of one area with that of another—are logically vulnerable. The findings of historical geology are suspect because the principles upon which they are based are either inadequate, in which case they should be reformulated, or false, in which case they should be discarded. Most of us [geologists] refuse to discard or reformulate, and the result is the present deplorable state of our discipline."—*Robin S. Allen, "Geological Correlation and Paleoecology," Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, January 1984, p. 2.

Big names and big numbers have been assigned to various strata, thus imparting an air of scientific authority to them. Common people, lacking expertise in the nomenclature of paleontology, when faced with these lists of big words tend to give up. It all looks too awesome to be understood, much less challenged. But the big words and big numbers just cover over an empty theory which lacks substantial evidence to support it.

CIRCULAR REASONING—(*#6/10 Circular Reasoning*) When we examine it, we find that the strata-dating theory is based on circular reasoning."Circular reasoning" is a method of false logic, by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this." It is also called "reasoning in a circle." Over a hundred years ago, it was described by the phrase, circulus in probando, which is Latin for "a circle in a proof."

There are several types of circular reasoning found in support of evolutionary theory. One of these is the geological dating position that "fossils are dated by the type of stratum they are in while at the same time the stratum is dated by the fossils found in it." An alternative evolutionary statement is that "the fossils and rocks are interpreted by the theory of evolution, and the theory is proven by the interpretation given to the fossils and rocks."

Evolutionists (1) use their theory of rock strata to date the fossils, (2) and then use their theory of fossils to date the rock strata!  

A number of scientists have commented on this problem of circularity.

"The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity."—*David M. Raup, "Geology and Creationism," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, March 1983, p. 21.

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."—*J.E. O’Rourke, "Pragmatism versus Materialism and Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 48.

"Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and on the other hand, that geology is documented by evolution? Isn’t this a circular argument?"—*Larry Azar, "Biologists, Help!" BioScience, November 1978, p. 714.

The professor of paleobiology at Kansas State University wrote this:

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution, because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."—*Ronald R. West, "Paleontology and Uniformitarianism," in Compass, May 1968, p. 216.

*Niles Eldredge, head of the Paleontology Department at the American Museum of Natural History, in Chicago, made this comment:

"And this poses something of a problem. If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?"—*Niles Eldredge, Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution, 1985, p. 52.

The curator of zoological collections at Oxford University wrote this:

"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it?"—*Tom Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist 108, December 5, 1985, p. 66.

A DOUBLE CIRCLE—Circular reasoning is the basis, not only of the fossil theory,—but of the whole theory of evolution!

First, reasoning in a circle is the basis of the "evidence" that evolution has occurred in the past. (The fossils are dated by the theory of strata dating; the strata are then dated by the fossils are dated by the theory of strata dating; the strata are then dated by the fossils).

Second, reasoning in a circle is the basis of the "mechanism" by which evolution is supposed to occurred any time. (The survivors survive. The fittest survive because they are fittest,—yet, according to that, all they do is survive! not evolve into something better!) (See chapter 9, Natural Selection).

Throughout this set of books, we shall find many other examples of strange logic on the part of the evolutionists: (1) Matter had to come from something, therefore it somehow came from nothing (chapter 2, The Big Bang and Stellar Evolution). (2) Living creatures had to come from something, therefore they somehow came from dirt that is not alive (chapter 7, The Primitive Environment).By the use of circular reasoning, evolutionary theory attempts to separate itself from the laws of nature! Limiting factors of chemical, biological, and physical law forbid matter or living creatures from originating or evolving,Actually, the entire theory of evolution is based on one vast circularity in reasoning! Because they accept the theory, evolutionists accept all the foolish ideas which attempt to prove it.

"But the danger of circularity is still present. For most biologists the strongest reason for accepting the evolutionary hypothesis is their acceptance of some theory that entails it. There is another difficulty. The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation, which necessarily presupposes the nonrepeatability of organic events in geologic history. There are various justifications for this assumption but for almost all contemporary paleontologists it rests upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis."—*David G. Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," in Evolution, September 1974, p. 466.

FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS—As we study the fossil record, we come upon a variety of very serious problems which undermine the strata/fossil theory. Three of the most important are these: (1) At the very bottom of all the strata (the geologic column) is the Cambrian strata, which is filled with complex, multi-celled life. This is termed the "Cambrian explosion" of sudden life-forms all at once. (2) There are no transitional species throughout the column. This problem is also called fossil gaps or missing links. (3) (3) Mixed-up and out-of-order strata are regularly found. Singly or together, they destroy the evolutionary argument from the rock strata. But there are many more problems.


SIMPLEST JUST AS COMPLEX—Because the waters of the Flood first covered the creatures which were not able to rapidly escape to higher ground, some of the "simplest animals" are found in the lowest of the sedimentary strata. Yet those creatures have complicated internal structuresBecause the waters of the Flood first covered the creatures which were not able to rapidly escape to higher ground, some of the "simplest animals" are found in the lowest of the sedimentary strata. Yet those creatures have complicated internal structures.

One of the most common creatures found in the lowest—the Cambrian—strata, are the trilobites. These were small swimming creatures belonging to the same group as the insects (the arthropods). Yet careful study reveals that they had extremely complex eyes. The mathematics needed to work out the lens structure of these little creatures is so complicated, that it was not developed until the middle of the last century!

Here is how an expert describes it. *Norman Macbeth, in a speech at Harvard University in 1983, said this:

"I have dealt with biologists over the last twenty years now. I have found that, in a way, they are hampered by having too much education. They have been steeped from their childhood in the Darwinian views, and, as a result, it has taken possession of their minds to such an extent that they are almost unable to see many facts that are not in harmony with Darwinism. These facts simply aren’t there for them often, and other ones are sort of suppressed or distorted. I’ll give you some examples.

"First, and perhaps most important, is the first appearance of fossils. This occurs at a time called the ‘Cambrian,’ 600 million years ago by the fossil reckoning. The fossils appear at that time [in the Cambrian] in a pretty highly developed form. They don’t start very low and evolve bit by bit over long periods of time. In the lowest fossil-bearing strata of all [the Cambrian, they are already there, and are pretty complicated in more-or-less modern form.

"One example of this is the little animal called the trilobite. There are a great many fossils of the trilobite right there at the beginning with no buildup to it [no evolution of life-forms leading to it]. And, if you examine them closely, you will find that they are not simple animals. They are small, but they have an eye that has been discussed a great deal in recent years—an eye that is simply incredible.

"It is made up of dozens of little tubes which are all at slightly different angles so that it covers the entire field of vision, with a different tube pointing at each spot on the horizon. But these tubes are all more complicated than that, by far. They have a lens on them that is optically arranged in a very complicated way, and it is bound into another layer that has to be just exactly right for them to see anything . . But the more complicated it is, the less likely it is simply to have grown up out of nothing.

"And this situation has troubled everybody from the beginning—to have everything at the very opening of the drama. The curtain goes up [life-forms first appear in the Cambrian strata] and you have the players on the stage already, entirely in modern costumes."—*Norman Macbeth, Speech at Harvard University, September 24, 1983, quoted in L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 150.

Remember, we are here discussing one of the most common creatures at the very bottom of the fossil strata. Science News declared that the trilobite had "the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature." (*Science News 105, February 2, 1974, p. 72). Each eye of the trilobite had two lenses! Here is what one of the world’s leading trilobite researchers wrote:

"In fact, this optical doublet is a device so typically associated with human invention that its disovery in trilobites comes as something of a shock. The realization that trilobites developed and used such devices half a billion years ago makes the shock even greater. And a final discovery—that the refracting interface between the two lense elements in a trilobite’s eye was designed ["designed"] in accordance with optical constructions worked out by Descartes and Huygens in the mid-seventeenth century—borders on sheer science fiction . . The design of the trilobite’s eye lens could well qualify for a patent disclosure."—*Riccardo Levi-Setti, Trilobites, 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press, 1993, pp. 54, 57.

Extremely complicated creatures at the very beginning, with nothing leading up to them; that is the testimony of the strata. The rocks cry out; they have a message to tell us. Are we listening?

THOSE MARVELOUS TRILOBITES—There are enormous numbers of complex trilobites in the Cambrian strata, yet below the Cambrian there is hardly anything that resembles a fossil. As mentioned above, these little creatures had marvelously complicated eyes. But they also had other very advanced features: (1) Jointed legs and appendages, which indicate that they had a complex system of muscles. (2) Chitinous exos`````````keleton (horny substance as their outer covering), which indicates that they grew by periodic ecdysis, a very complicated process of molting. (3) Compound eyes and antennae, which indicate a complex nervous system. (4) Special respiratory organs, which indicate a blood circulation system. (5) Complex mouth parts, which indicate specialized food requirements.

(Another of the many types of creatures, found in great numbers in the Cambrian strata, are segmented marine worms. As with trilobites, we find that they also had a complex musculature, specialized food habits and requirements, blood circulatory system, and advanced nervous system.)

NOT SIMPLE TO COMPLEX—The evolutionists maintain that the fossil record goes from the simple to the complex. But researchers have discovered that the simple creatures were also complexThe evolutionists maintain that the fossil record goes from the simple to the complex. But researchers have discovered that the simple creatures were also complex. In fact, there are actually few examples in the fossil record of anything like "from simple to complex" progression. This is partly due to the fact that the fossils suddenly appear in great numbers and variety,—too much so for much simple-to-complex progression to be sorted out.Included here are complex organs, such as intestines, stomachs, bristles and spines. Eyes and feelers show the presence of nervous systems. For example, consider the specialized sting cells (nematocysts) in the bodies of jellyfish, with their coiled, thread-like harpoons which are explosively triggered. How could this evolve?, such as intestines, stomachs, bristles and spines. Eyes and feelers show the presence of nervous systems. For example, consider the specialized sting cells (nematocysts) in the bodies of jellyfish, with their coiled, thread-like harpoons which are explosively triggered. How could this evolve?

EVERY PHYLUM IN THE CAMBRIAN—The startling fact is that every phylum is represented in the lowest sedimentary strata of all: the Cambrian. The "Cambrian explosion" is, for evolutionary theory, a catastrophe from which it will never recover.

Every phylum in the Cambrian

Let no one say that the Cambrian level only has "simple, primitive," or "half-formed" creatures.

EC440.jpg (391921 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGE


CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION—(*#7/52 The Cambrian and Precambrian Problem*) The lowest strata that has fossils is the Cambrian. Below that is the Precambrian which has no fossils, other than an occasional algae on its surface. Paleontologists call that amazing situation the "Cambrian explosion."

Beginning with the very lowest of the fossil strata—the Cambrian,—we find a wealth of fossil types. But each type—each species—of fossil in the Cambrian is different from the others. There is no blending between them! It requires evolving—blending across species—to produce evolution, but this never occurs today, and it never occurred earlier. Look at the fossils: in the ancient world there were only distinct species. Look at the world around you: in the modern world there are only distinct species.

There are vast numbers—billions—of fossils of thousands of different species of complex creatures in the Cambrian,—and below it is next to nothing. The vast host of transitional species leading up to the complex Cambrian species are totally missing!

EVERY MAJOR LIFE GROUP HAS BEEN FOUND IN THE CAMBRIAN—In the Cambrian we find sponges, corals, jellyfish, mollusks, trilobites, crustaceans, and, in fact, every one of the major invertebrate forms of life. In 1961, *Kai Peterson wrote:

"The invertebrate animal phyla are all represented in Cambrian deposits."— *Kai Peterson, Prehistoric Life on Earth, p. 56.

That means there, in the Cambrian fossil strata, is to be found at least one species from every phyla of backboneless animal. Only one phylum had been missing: the vertebrates.

At the time when Peterson wrote, it was believed that no vertebrates (animals with backbones) appeared until the Lower Ordovician (just above the Cambrian). But in 1977 that belief was shattered, when fully developed fish (heterostracan vertebrate fish fossils) were discovered in the Upper Cambrian strata of Wyoming. Reported in Science magazine for May 5, 1 978,this discovery placed every major animal phylum group in the Cambrian rocks! Although never discussed in school textbooks, this news came as a distinct shock to the professional world. For evolutionists, the situation continues to get worse.

With the "Cambrian Explosion" suddenly appears every major type of living thing. This fact totally devastates the basis of evolutionary theory. Plants and every type of animal have been found in the Cambrian strata. Although evolutionists prefer not to discuss it, the truth is that at least one representative of EVERY PHYLUM has been found in the Cambrian!

"Until recently, the oldest fish fossils known were from the Middle Ordovician Harding Sandstone of Colorado. These were of ‘primitive’ heterostracan fishes (Class Agnatha) which are jawless. The Vertebrates were the only major animal group not found as fossils in Cambrian rocks.

"[The 1976 discovery of heterostracan fish fossils in Cambrian is discussed in detail] . . This discovery of fishes (vertebrates) in the Cambrian is without question the most significant fossil discovery in the period 1958-1979. The evidence is now complete that all of the major categories of animal and plant life are found in the Cambrian."—Marvin L. Lubenow, "Significant Fossil Discoveries Since 1958," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1980, p. 157.

Not only complex animal life, but complex plant life is represented in the Cambrian! Flowering plants are generally considered to be one of the most advanced forms of life in the plant kingdom. Spores from flowering plants have also been found in Cambrian strata.

"Spores attributed to terrestrial plants have been found in Precambrian and Cambrian rocks in the Baltic. Whether some of these are from bryophytes is uncertain."—*Robert F. Scagel, et. al., Plant Diversity: an Evolutionary Approach (1969), p. 25.

During the Genesis Flood, plants would tend to have washed into higher strata, but their pollen could easily have been carried into the earliest alluvial layers: the Cambrian and even the Precambrian.

"Just as fossils of most of the other land plants have been discovered in Cambrian deposits, so it is with the flowering plants. In 1947, Ghosh and Bose reported discovering angiosperm vessels with alternate pitting and libriform fibres of higher dicotyledons from the Salt Pseudomorph Beds and the Dandot overfold, Salt Range, Punjab, India. These are Cambrian deposits. They later confirmed that further investigation confirmed their original report, and the same results were obtained from the Cambrian Vindbyan System, and the Cambrian of Kashmir—these Kashmir beds also contained several types of trilobites. The review articles of Axelrod and Leclercq acknowledge these findings."—Marvin L. Lubenow, "Significant Fossil Discoveries Since 1958," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1980, p. 154.


PRECAMBRIAN—In contrast, there is next to nothing answering to life-forms beneath the Cambrian!

The Cambrian rocks contain literally billions of the little trilobites, plus many, many other complex species. Yet below the Cambrian—called the "Precambrian,"—we find almost nothing in the way of life-forms. The message of the rock strata is "SUDDENLY abundant life; below that, NO LIFE!" Where this terrific explosion of abundance of life begins—in the Cambrian,—we find complexity, not simplicity of life-forms.

Multicellular animals appear suddenly and in rich profusion in the Cambrian, and none are ever found beneath it in the Precambrian (*Preston Cloud, "Pseudofossils: A Plea for Caution," in Geology, November 1973, pp. 123-127).

It is true that, in a very few disputed instances, there may be a few items in the Precambrian, which some suggest to be life-forms. But a majority of scientists recognize that, at best, these are only algae. Blue-green algae, although small plants, are biochemically quite complex; for they utilize an elaborate solar-to-chemical energy transformation, or photosynthesis. Such organisms could have been growing on the ground when the waters of the Flood first inundated it.

STROMATOLITES—The only macrofossils that are of widespread occurrence in the Precambrian are stromatolitesThe only macrofossils that are of widespread occurrence in the Precambrian are stromatolites. These are reef-like remnants usually thought to have been formed from precipitated mineral matter on microbial communities, primarily blue-green algae, growing by photosynthesis. So stromatolites are remnants of chemical formations—and never were alive!

"Further analysis of the world’s oldest rocks has confirmed that microscopic inclusions are not the fossilized remains of living cells; instead they are crystals of dolomite-type carbonates, rusted by water that has seeped into the rock."—*Nigel Henbest, "‘Oldest Cells’ are Only Weathered Crystals," in New Scientist, October 15, 1981, p. 164.

Two years later, an update report in New Scientist on "the world’s oldest (Precambrian) rocks" in Greenland said this:

"Geologists have found no conclusive evidence of life in these Greenland rocks."—*Chris Peat and *Will Diver, "First Signs of Life on Earth," in New Scientist, September 16, 1983, pp. 776-781.

Scientists have remarked on how there seems to be a sudden vast quantity of living creatures as soon as the Cambrian begins. All this favors the concept of Creation and a Genesis Flood, not that of slowly occurring evolution over millions of years.


THE GAP PROBLEM—(*#8/55 No Transitions: Only Gaps*) In this section we will deal with three specific problems, but we will frequently intermingle them in the discussion:

(1) There are no transitional species preceding or leading up to the first multi-celled creatures that appear in the Cambrian, the lowest stratum level.

(2) There are no transitional species elsewhere in the fossil record.

(3) The species that appear in the fossils are frequently found in many different strata.

(4) The great majority of the species found in the fossils are alive today.

NO TRANSITIONS—The Cambrian explosion is the first major problem with the fossil record. The lack of transitions is the second. But of all the problems, this lack of transitional creatures—halfway between different species—is, for the evolutionist, probably the biggest single crisis in the geologic column. Indeed, it is one of the biggest of the many crises in evolutionary theory!

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide them."—*D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory (1974), p. 467.

Throughout the fossils, we find no transitions from one kind of creature to another. Instead, only individual, distinctive plant or animal kinds..

"It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptible changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution."—*G.G. Simpson, in The Evolution of Life, p. 149.

To make matters worse, in the fossil record we find the very same creatures that we have today, plus a few extinct types which died out before our time! Neither now nor earlier are there transitional forms, halfway between true species.

"When we examine a series of fossils of any age we may pick out one and say with confidence, ‘This is a crustacean’—or starfish, or a brachiopod, or annelid, or any other type of creature as the case may be."—*A.H. Clark, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis, p. 100.

In the rock strata, we find horses, tigers, fish, insects, but no transitional forms. For example, we find large horses and small horses, but nothing that is part horse and part something else.

After giving years to a careful examination of the fossil record, comparing it with that of species alive today, a famous biologist on the staff of the Smithsonian Institute wrote these words:

"All the major groups of animals have maintained the same relationship to each other from the very first [from the very lowest level of the geologic column]. Crustaceans have always been crustaceans, echinoderms have always been echinoderms, and mollusks have always been mollusks. There is not the slightest evidence which supports any other viewpoint."—*A.H. Clark, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis (1930), p. 114.

"From the tangible evidence that we now have been able to discover, we are forced to the conclusion that all the major groups of animals at the very first held just about the same relation to each other that they do today."—*Op. cit., p. 211.

FOSSIL GAPS—This glaring fact is a repudiation of evolutionary theory. Evolutionists even have a name for the problem: they call it "fossil gaps." No creatures that are half fish and half bird, or half pig and half cow are to be found—only distinct animal and plant types such as we know today.

A related problem is the fact that great numbers of fossils span across many strata, supposedly covering millions of years. This means that, throughout the fossil record, those species made no changes during those "millions of years."

THE OCTOPUS—Here is an excellent example of what we are talking about: the squid and octopus are the most complex of the invertebrates the squid and octopus are the most complex of the invertebrates the squid and octopus are the most complex of the invertebrates (animals without backbones). The eye of the octopus is extremely complicated, and equal to the human eye! Checking carefully through the fossil record, you will find only squid and octopi, nothing else. There was nothing evolved or evolving about them; they were always just squid and octopi. (You will also find an extinct species, called the nautiloids. But they seem to have been even more complex!)

Checking into this more carefully, you will find that octopi first appear quite early in the fossil strata. The reason for that would be simple enough: When an octopus is frightened, it may curl up in a cave or corner someplace, or it may shoot out quickly using jets of water. For this reason, some octopi would be buried early while others would be buried in higher strata. Checking still further, you will find that the octopus is found in nearly every stratum, from bottom to top! Many octopi continued to jet their way to the top of the waters as they rose.

(Later, after the Flood was finished, the balance of nature worked against the nautiloid and they were devoured by their enemies. Today there are none. Darwin’s "survival of the fittest" [the fittest will survive better than the others] apparently did not apply to the nautiloids, which were distinctly different than the octopi and squid, but apparently more capable than either.)

Checking still further, you will find that octopi and squid in all strata are identical to octopi and squid today.

MISSING LINKS—(*#11/133 Searching for Transitions [over a hundred quotations!]*) (*#11/133 Searching for Transitions [over a hundred quotations!]*) [It should be mentioned here that Appendix 11, at the back of our Fossils and Strata chapter on our website (, is the largest quotation appendix of all. It has 25 categories and 133 quotations. There are enough quotations here to form the basis for a major thesis.]

The links are missing. Nearly all the fossils are just our present animals, and the links between them are just not there. Few scientists today are still looking for fossil links between the major vertebrate or invertebrate groups. They have given up! The links just do not exist and have never existed.. 

Evolutionists know exactly what those transitional forms should look like, but they cannot find them in the fossil record! They are not to be found, even though thousands of men have searched for them since the beginning of the 19th century! Everywhere they turn, the paleontologists (the fossil hunters) find the same regular, distinct species that exist today, plus some that are extinct. The extinct ones are obviously not transitional forms between the regular species. For example, the large dinosaurs are not transitional forms, but are just definite species which became extinct in ancient times—probably by the waters of the Flood.

(Contrary to the lurid paintings of dinosaurs which evolutionists like to display as proof of their theory—extinction of a distinct species is not evolution, and provides no evidence of it.)

The search to find the missing links and fill the gaps between the distinct kinds has resulted in enormous collections of fossils. Recall to mind the earlier statements by Sunderland and *Kier, that 100 million fossils have been examined by paleontologists around the world.

"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is outpacing integration . . The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps."—*T. Neville George, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," in Science Progress, January 1960, pp. 1, 3.

If there are no transitional forms in the fossil record, there has been no evolution

Fossils and Strata continued

rainbow2.gif (1633 bytes)


ABRUPT APPEARANCE OF THE HIGHER TAXA—(*#9/22 Abrupt Appearance*) The smaller, slower-moving creatures appear suddenly in the Cambrian. Above the Cambrian, the larger, faster creatures appear just as suddenly! And when these life-forms do appear—they appear by the millions! Tigers, salmon, lions, pine trees, gophers, hawks, squirrels, horses, and on and on!Evolution cannot explain this sudden emergence, and competent scientists acknowledge the fact.

"The abrupt appearance of higher taxa in the fossil record has been a perennial puzzle. Not only do characteristic and distinctive remains of phyla appear suddenly, without known ancestors, but several classes of a phylum, orders of a class, and so on, commonly appear at approximately the same time, without known intermediates."—*James W. Valentine and *Cathryn A. Campbell, "Genetic Regulation and the Fossil Record," in American Scientist, November-December, 1975, p. 673.

"In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories about the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."—*G.G. Simpson, The Major features of Evolution (1953), p. 360.

"The sudden emergence of major adaptive types as seen in the abrupt appearance in the fossil record of families and orders, continued to give trouble. The phenomenon lay in the genetic no-man’s land beyond the limits of experimentation. A few paleontologists even today cling to the idea that these gaps will be closed by further collecting . . but most regard the observed discontinuities as real and have sought an explanation."—*D. Dwight Davis, "Comparative Anatomy and the Evolution of Vertebrates," in Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution (1949), p. 74.


UNCHANGING SPECIES—(*#13/17 Stasis*) An important principle noted by every paleontologist who works with fossils is known as stasis. Stasis means to retain a certain form, to remain unchanged; in other words, not to change from one species to another! An important principle noted by every paleontologist who works with fossils is known as stasis. Stasis means to retain a certain form, to remain unchanged; in other words, not to change from one species to another! An important principle noted by every paleontologist who works with fossils is known as stasis. Stasis means to retain a certain form, to remain unchanged; in other words, not to change from one species to another! The problem for the evolutionists is the fact that the animals in the fossil record did not change. Each creature first appears in the record with a certain shape and structure. It then continues on unchanged for "millions of years"; and is either identical to creatures existing now or becomes extinct and disappears. But all the while that it lived, there was no change in it; no evolution. There were no evidences of what paleontologists call gradualism, that is, gradual changes from one species to another. There was only stasis. The gap problem (no transitional forms between species) and the stasis problem (species do not change) ruin evolutionary theories.

"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

"Stasis: Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 

"Sudden appearance: In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’ "—*Steven Jay Gould, "Evolution’s Eratic Pace," in Natural History, May 1977, p. 14.


FOSSILS SAME AS THOSE NOW ALIVE—All of the fossils can be categorized into one of two groups: (1) Plants and animals which became extinct and (2) Plants and animals which are the same as those living today. Neither category provides any evidence of evolution, for there are no transitional forms leading up to or away from any of them. All are only distinct species.

Some creatures became extinct at the time of the Flood or shortly afterward. But all creatures which did not become extinct are essentially identical—both in fossil form and in their living counterparts today! This is a major point. No species evolution has occurred! The fossils provide no evidence of species evolution!


SHOULD BE MORE SPECIES—According to evolutionary theory, a massive number of species changes had to occur in ancient times, but we do not find evidence of this in the rocks. In order for one species to change into another, we should find large numbers of transitional species, partway between one species and another. But this is not found. A leading paleontologist explains:

"There are about 250,000 different species of fossil plants and animals known . . In spite of this large quantity of information, it is but a tiny fraction of the diversity that [according to the theory] actually lived in the past. There are well over a million species living today and . . [it is] possible to predict how many species ought to be in our fossil record. That number is at least 100 times the number we have found."—*David M. Raup, "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology," in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979, p. 22.

(1) The fossil evidence does not have enough different species, and (2) it reveals no successively evolving species in ancient times.

But, in addition, the fossil experts admit that far too many "new species" names have been applied to fossils which have been found. Consider this:

CONFUSION IN NAMES—At this point we shall mention a technical point that only adds to the confusion as paleontologists try to search for the truth about the fossils. It also gives the impression of far more extinct species in the fossil record than there actually are.Fossil hunters have the practice of giving different names to the same species if it is found in rocks of different periods! *Dr. Raup, head paleontologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, says that as much as 70 percent of all the "new" fossil species found, are misnamed.

"Dr. Eldredge [American Museum of Natural History, New York City] was asked, ‘Do paleontologists name the same creatures differently when they are found in different geological periods?’ He replied that this happens, but they are mistakes. When asked the same question, Dr. Patterson [British Museum, London] replied, ‘Oh, yes, that’s very widely done.’ Next he was asked, ‘That doesn’t seem quite honest. You wouldn’t do that, would you?’ He said that he hoped he wouldn’t . .

"Would not this practice make a lot more species? Dr. Raup [Chicago Museum] said it would; perhaps 70 percent of the species described [in the fossil rocks] are later found to be the same as existing species. So 70 percent of the new species named should not have been [given new names but were], either through ignorance or because of the ground rules used by the taxonomists."—L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), pp. 130-131.

Obviously, such a practice deepens the problem for the experts. In this chapter our concern will be with underlying facts and principles, yet the doubling and tripling of names for the same fossil species only makes it harder for the experts to extract themselves from their Darwinian muddle.

"An assistant of Dr. Eldredge, who was studying trilobite fossils at the American Museum, explained to the author how he made the decision on naming a new species: ‘I look at a fossil for about two weeks and then if I think it looks different enough, I give it a new name.’ So it is simply a mailer of judgment with no firm ground rules."—Op. cit., p. 131.

The experts tell us there are "millions of species," when there are not that many. Taxonomists are the men who classify and give names to plants and animals. Among them, the "splitters" are the ones who find it easier to make up new names than to go to the trouble of properly identifying a specimen in hand.

"We all know that many apparent evolutionary bursts are nothing more than brainstorms on the part of particular paleontologists. One splitter in a library can do far more than millions of years of genetic mutation."—*V. Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record," Proceedings of the Geological Association, Vol. 87, No. 2, 1976, p. 132 [Chairman of the Geology Department, Swansea University].

(See chapter 11, Plant and Animal Species, for more on this.) It is well-known among the experts that there are far more splitters out there than lumpers,—simply because applying a new name for a fossil is easier and brings more fame than going through all the drudgery of researching into who had earlier named it.

*Edward Cope and *Othniel Marsh were two major museum fossil collectors in Western U.S. They fiercely hated one another, and for decades consistently double-named specimens—which had already been named earlier. (See chapter 11, Animal and Plant Species, for more.)

"Sadly, in the later bitter rivalry between Cope and Marsh, Leidy [an earlier fossil collector] was all but forgotten. Paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn, director of the American Museum of Natural History, recalled that many of the Eocene and Oligocene animals had been given three names in the scientific literature: the original Leidy name and the Cope and Marsh names."—*Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), pp. 272-273.


LARGER FOSSILS ANCIENTLY—It is an intriguing fact that, if the fossil evidence supported any species modification, it would be devolution—not evolution! Ancient plants and animals were frequently much larger than any now living. Not only do we find no crossing over the species line among fossils, but we also discover that species are not evolving, but degenerating with the passing of time.A cardinal principle of evolutionary theory is that creatures must evolve into more complexity as well as bigger size. But the fossil record bears out neither theory. There is clear evidence of the complexity to be found in invertebrates, the supposedly "lowest" form of life. But there is a size differential as well:

"[Edward Drinker] Cope is known to many students only for ‘Cope’s Law,’ which asserts, roughly speaking, that everything goes on getting bigger . . Alas, it is not generally true. The modern tiger is smaller than the sabre-toothed tiger of the last ice age . . The horsetails of our ditches are tiny compared with the sixty-foot [18 m] horsetails of the Carboniferous. And where are the giant snails of the early Cambrian or the giant oysters of the Tertiary?"—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p 122.

The Bible indicates that in ancient times, people lived longer and were much larger. So it should not be surprising that extinct creatures were frequently larger than those alive today. They probably lived longer too. Among the fossils we find the following:

Plants: (1) Enormous plants once existed, far exceeding anything alive today. (2) Fifty-foot [152 dm] high ferns with 5-6 foot [15-18 dm] fronds. (3) Scouring rushes grew to a width of 12 inches [30.48 cm] in diameter. (4) One-hundred-foot [30.4 dm] high scale trees, with trunks 4-6 feet [12-18 dm] in diameter are found only in fossil form. None are alive today.

Small sea life: (5) Giant trilobites up to 18 inches [45.72 cm] long, with none alive today, and the creatures now living and most similar to them are quite small. (6) Fifteen-foot [457 cm] long straight-shelled cephalopods (Enckiceras proteiforme), and [9-foot 1274 cm] sea scorpions (Euryprids) once lived. Nothing of such immense sizes is found among them today. Those fossil Euryprids were the largest arthropods that ever lived. 

Insects: (7) Some insects were 4 to 8 inches [10.16-20.32 cm] in length. Dragonflies had a wingspread of 29 inches [73.66 cm], and some centipedes were 12 inches [30.48 cm] in length. 

Amphibians: (8) Today’s amphibians are small salamanders or frogs. But in the past, there were the giants of Stegocephalia, of which Onychopus gigas alone weighed 500 pounds [226.8 kg].

Larger marine life: (9) How would you like to meet a shark with jaws 6 feet [183 cm] across? That is what sharks were like in ancient times. (10) Basilosaurus was a marine mammal with a 4-foot [12 dm] head, 10-foot [30 dm] long body, and 40-foot [12.2 m] tail. 

Birds: (11) Diatiyma looked somewhat like an ostrich, but was 7 feet [21 dm] tall and had a head as big as a horse. (12) The Phororhacos was nearly 8 feet [24 dm] tall with a skull 23 inches [58.42 cm] across. (13) Dinornis was 10-feet [30.5 dm] tall, and was the largest bird that ever lived. 

Larger mammals: (14) The Mongolian Andresarchus had a skull 2½ feet [76 dm] long, and was one of the largest carnivores ever to live. (15) Imagine meeting a long-horned rhinoceros 14 feet [4.3 m] tall? Another rhinoceros, Baluchiterium, was 13 feet [40 dm] high and 25 feet [76 dm] long. (16) There were huge wooly mammoths, gigantic hairy mastodons, and 14-foot [43 dm] tall imperial mammoths. (17) Giant armadillos once lived, and ground sloths as big as elephants. (18) Pigs (Entelodonts) were 6 feet [18dm] high. (19) One bison (Bison latifrons) had a 6-foot [18 dm] horn spread. 

Reptiles: (20) Crocodile-like phytosaurs were 25 feet [76 dm] long, and dolphin-like ichthyosaurs were 30 feet [91 dm] in length. (21) There were 35-foot [171 dm] long marine reptiles (Mosasaurs) and 11-foot [34 dm] marine turtles (Archelon). (22) The Pteranodon had a 25-foot [76 dm] wingspread. (23) And then there were gigantic land reptiles, including the 45-foot [137 dm] Tyrannosaurus Rex, the 65-foot [189 dm] long Brontosaurus, the 10-ton [9,072 kg] Stegosaurus, and the 80-foot [244 dm] long Diplodocus. The Brachiosaurus was 50 feet [152 dm] tall, 100 feet [305 dm] in length, and weighed 80 [72.5 mt] tons. That would make it approximately three times as large as the largest dinosaur now known, and place it in the range of size of the blue whale—called the largest creature on earth.

In 1971, three specimens of the largest bird were found in Texas by *Douglas Lawson. The Pterosaur had an estimate wingspan of 51 feet [155 dm], twice as large as any flying reptile previously discovered. By way of contrast, the bird with the largest wingspan, the wandering albatross, measures 11 feet [33.5 dm], and the McDonnell Douglas F-15A jet fighter has a wingspan of 43 feet [131 dm].


THE MISSING TREE—The fossil record does not present a "family tree"; for there is no trunk and no branches; only twigs! The fossil record does not present a "family tree"; for there is no trunk and no branches; only twigs! If you remove the connecting links of a tree—the trunk and the branches,—what will you have left? only twigs lying all over the ground! That is the picture we find in plant and animal species living today. That is the same picture we find in the geologic column. No trunk, no branches—only distinct twigs, each one different than the others.

"So far as we can judge from the geologic record, large changes seem usually to have arisen rather suddenly, in terms of geologic time. Fossil forms intermediate between large subdivisions of classification, such as orders and classes, are seldom seen."—*Paul A. Moody, Introduction to Evolution (1962), p. 503.

WOODMORAPPE’S WORLD RESEARCH PROJECT—Since early childhood, we have all been exposed to these charts of rock strata and fossils, with the impressive dates alongside. It is called a "Geologic Column" chart.A correlative scientific analysis, remarkable for its in-depth thoroughness and worldwide coverage, was published in the December 1983 issue of Creation Research Society Quarterly. Authored by John Woodmorappe, the 53-page article contains 807 references, 17 very detailed charts and graphs, 35 world maps, and 2 regional maps.

In this lengthy article, Woodmorappe validates several interesting points, among which are the following:

(1) Fossils do not tend to overlay one another in successive strata; instead they tend to be mixed together in successive strata. One third of them span three or more strata levels.

(2) There is not an orderly progression of strata, from bottom to top. Successively "higher" index fossils are not found in "higher" strata as they are supposed to be. Index fossils do not tend to overlay one another in successive strata; instead they are generally found here and there on what approximates a chance arrangement! Such fossils are often clumped at a great horizontal distance from the index fossils they are supposed to overlay. More than 9500 global occurrences of major index fossils were marked on 34 world maps in order to analyze overlay occurrences. Great care was taken to be sure that the data on these maps would be as accurate as possible. After preparing maps for each type of index fossil, Woodmorappe overlaid them on a light table in order to compare and tabulate instances in which index fossils were above each other in harmony with classical evolutionary rock strata theory.

Table 3 was then prepared to compare the 34 world maps of index fossils. Using it, you can make xeroxes of these maps and make your own overlay analyses on a light table. Or you can make copies onto overhead projector transparencies—and show them to students and other audiences.

"Table 3 has been drafted to show the results of superposing Maps 1-34 against each other. There are 479 cross-comparisons; every fossil versus every other that belongs to another geologic period. It can be seen that only small percentages of all localities of any given fossil overlie, or are overlain by, any other single fossil of another geologic period. Thus fossils of different geologic periods invariably tend to shun each other geographically, and this in itself may be taken as prima facie evidence that all fossils are ecological and/or biogeographic equivalents of each other—negating all concepts of evolution, geologic periods, and geologic time. To the Diluviologist, this tendency of any two different-‘age’ fossils to be geographically incompatible allows an understanding of fossils in light of the Universal Deluge [the Genesis Flood]."—John Woodmorappe, "A Diluviological Treatise on the Stratigraphic Separation of Fossils," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1983, p. 150 [bold type ours].

Table 4 was prepared to show possible multiple fossil overlays rather than just two as with Table 3. The results of this presentation are disastrous for evolutionary theory.

"There does not appear to be any trend for individual fossils to be exceptionally commonly juxtaposed or non-juxtaposed with others."—Op. Cit., p. 151.

As we have earlier explained, it is the "index fossils" which are relied on as the proof of the evolutionary theory of fossil strata placement and dating. Here is Woodmorappe’s conclusion in regard to these so-called "index fossils":

"A total of over 9500 global occurrences of major index fossils have been plotted on 34 world maps for the purpose of determining superpositional tendencies. 479 juxtapositional determinations have shown that only small percentages of index fossils are juxtaposed one with another. Very rarely are more than one-third (and never more than half) of all 34 index fossils simultaneously present in any 200 mile (320 kilometer) diameter region on earth."—Op. cit., p. 133 [bold type ours].

(3) Beginning on page 151 of his article he considers possible causes and Flood mechanisms, as possible solutions to why these fossils are to be found in such a confused pattern.

(4) Woodmorappe concludes with an extensive discussion, on pages 167-171, of why so few mammal, bird, and human fossils have been found.

You may wish to obtain a copy of his article to read through and make transparency charts to share with others. The Creation Research Society Quarterly is one of the best publications in its field.

ASKING THE EXPERTS—Let us briefly pause in our examination of the strata/fossil evidence and what it reveals. We will now journey to three of the largest paleontological museum holdings in the world:

We will first go to the British Museum of Natural History. *Dr. Colin Patterson is in charge of its large paleontology (fossil) collection.

After publishing his 1978 book, Evolution, *Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History was asked why he did not include a single photograph of a transitional fossil. In reply, Dr. Patterson said this:

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise [portray] such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it.

"[Steven] Gould [of Harvard] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."—*Dr. Colin Patterson, letter dated April 10, 1979 to Luther Sunderland, quoted in L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, p. 89.

Let us now leave *Dr. Colin Patterson in London, and go to the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. It is one of the largest and oldest natural history museums in America—and probably in the world, and houses 20 percent of all fossil species known. Having had opportunity to carefully study these materials for years, *Dr. David Raup the leading paleontologist at this Field Museum, is in a position to speak with authority. He begins a key article summarizing what the fossil evidence reveals by saying:

"Most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument made in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true."—*David Raup, "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology," in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979.

*Dr. Raup then quotes a well-known statement by *Charles Darwin that he (*Darwin) was "embarrassed" by the lack of fossil evidence for origins (the Cambrian problem) and transitions (the gap problem) in his day. Then *Raup declares that the situation today is even worse—for we now have so much more fossil evidence which tells us the same message it told *Darwin! Noting that *Darwin wrote that he hoped that future discoveries would unearth fossils which would fill the gaps and provide the missing links, *Raup then says:

"We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time! By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."—*Dr. David Raup, in op. cit.

We will now leave Chicago and journey to one of the largest museums in the nation, the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, where *Dr. Niles Eldredge is in charge of its massive fossil collection.

While attending a science writers’ convention in Gatlinburg, Tennessee in November 1978, *Dr. Eldridge was asked by a reporter for evidence from the fossil record of transitional changes from one species to another. A report of his reply was printed shortly afterward in the Los Angeles Times:

"No one has found any such in-between creatures. This was long chalked up to ‘gaps’ in the fossil records, gaps that proponents of gradualism [gradual evolutionary change from species to species] confidently expected to fill in someday when rock strata of the proper antiquity were eventually located. But all the fossil evidence to date has failed to turn up any such missing links.

"There is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed."—*Niles Eldredge, quoted in "Alternate Theory of Evolution Considered," in Los Angeles Times, November 19, 1978.

Drs. *Patterson, *Raup, and *Eldredge spent a lifetime in fossil analysis before giving the above statements. Together, they have been in charge of at least 50 percent of the major fossil collections of the world. They have the evidence, they know the evidence, they work with it day after day. 

Figuratively, they sit on top of the largest pile of fossil bones in the world! They know what they are talking about. Their conclusion: "There are no transitional forms."

But WITHOUT transitional forms there can be NO evolution—for THAT IS what evolution is all about! Evolution is not copper changing into sulphur, it is not air changing into sunlight, nor is it wolves changing into German shepherds. It would be a true species change.

Evolution is one basic type of plant or animal changing into another basic type of plant or animal (apple trees into oak trees or goats into cows). There should be fossil evidence of those changes. The evidence would be "transitional forms" filling the "gaps" between the basic types. But such transitions are nowhere to be found. 

THE FISH THAT BECAME OUR ANCESTOR—(*#10 From Fish to Amphibian*) According to one of the legends of evolutionary theory, a critical point in our ancestry came one day, when a fish decided to crawl out of the water and start walking. He found it all so exciting that he turned into a land animal. The rest is evolutionary history: amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, and man resulted. So you have a lot to thank that fish for.

In the 1980s, Luther Sunderland interviewed the head paleontologists of five of the largest natural history museums in the United States, overseeing at least 60 percent of the fossil collections in the world. One of the questions he asked them was about that fish that came out on land and began walking around. Another question was about whether they knew of any transitional species. The answer to both questions, by the five men, was either studied silence or an embarrassed sidestepping of the matter. For the story of his interviews, go to (*#10 From Fish to Amphibian*), which means go to our website,; then to Appendix 10 at the back of this chapter (Fossils and Strata). For more on this wonderful fairy tale, read chapter 22, Evolutionary Science Fiction.

DARWIN’S GREAT CONCERN—Over a hundred years ago, *Charles Darwin recognized the importance of the problem of fossil gaps (lack of transitional halfway species) in the strata. The gaps were already well-known in his time. Charles Darwin recognized the importance of the problem of fossil gaps (lack of transitional halfway species) in the strata. The gaps were already well-known in his time. Realizing that those gaps immensely weakened his general theory, he wrote this:

"This perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."—*Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, 6th edition (1956), pp. 292-293.

But *Darwin expressed hope that the gaps would later, after his death, be filled.

Since his time (*Darwin died in 1882), a major campaign has been underway for over a century to close up those "imperfections." But the hundreds upon thousands of fossils which have been found and examined only reveal with deeper clarity and distinctness merely the species we now have today, plus some extinct ones.

WORSE THAN BEFORE—*Charles Darwin speculated that, in our modern world, natural selection is changing species into brand new ones. But we find that *Darwin was wrong (see chapters 9, 10, and 11, Natural Selection, Mutations, and Plant and Animal Species).

*Darwin also said that the fossil record ought to show that natural selection had being doing this in the past, and that later discoveries of additional fossils would show his idea to be true. But the fossils show that *Darwin was wrong. *Raup says that the fossil situation is now even worse than it was in the days of *Darwin. Other experts agree with him.The desperate straits of the evolutionists are caused by their frenzied search to prove evolution true! It has only brought to view a vast wealth of fossil data able to bury the theory. And it would bury it too, IF we all knew the truth of the situation. But the textbook and popular magazines continue churning out the statement, "evolution has now been proven to be a fact," and then vindicating those statements by referring to the peppered moth and recapitulation as proofs of evolution! (See chapter 9, Natural Selection for the peppered moth; and chapter 16, for Recapitulation. Also see chapter 17, Evolutionary Showcase. That chapter is astounding.)Whether it be the fossil past or the natural world around us today; the only variations are within the true species, never across them. We can breed new varieties of roses, pigeons, or dogs, but they remain roses, pigeons, and dogs. Genetic studies clearly show that mutation and natural selection—working alone or together— cannot produce evolutionary change. Fossil evidence confirms this.

WHAT IT TAKES TO SURVIVE—Speak of "survival of the fittest"! The long survival of evolutionary theory disproves the phrase!of "survival of the fittest"! The long survival of evolutionary theory disproves the phrase! Here we have survival of the weakest, most foolish, and most easily disproved of "scientific" concepts.

Evolution as a theory survives because (1) the public does not know what is going on, (2) most scientists are working in very narrow fields and do not see the overall picture that you are learning in this book, and (3) many conscientious researchers dare not speak up lest they be relieved of their positions and salaries.

Yes, the scientists are working in narrow fields—

• The biologists and geneticists bemoan the lack of evolutionary evidence in their fields (living species and genetic research), but then comfort themselves that, perhaps, the fossil evidence has established it.

• The paleontologists and stratigraphers bemoan the void of evolutionary evidence in the fossil strata (species which earlier lived on the earth) but conclude that, surely, the startling advances in species discoveries and genetics research upholds it.

The scholars and researchers attend their own narrowed scientific meetings and rarely have time to check with those in other fields of study. The experts in each scientific specialty imagine that other experts elsewhere have solidly proven evolution, even though in their field of study it is ready to fall through the floor.So much is known about so little in the sciences today that few experts can see the BIG picture. And the general public is given the WRONG picture. Evolution is as dead as the Dodo bird of the Mascarene Islands that died nearly two hundred years ago, and most people in the modern world are not aware of it.

SOME OF THE PROBLEMS—Here are a few of the key problems with the fossils in the strataHere are a few of the key problems with the fossils in the strata. These problems are serious enough that any one of them is enough to overthrow the evolutionary theory in regard to paleontology and stratigraphy:

(1) Life suddenly appears in the bottom fossil-strata level, the Cambrian, with no precursors.

(2) When these lowest life-forms appear (they are small slow-moving, shallow-sea creatures), they are extremely abundant, numbered in the billions of specimens, and quite complex.

(3) No transitional species are to be found at the bottom of the strata, the Cambrian.

(4) Just below the Cambrian, in the Precambrian, there are no fossil specimens.

(5) No transitional species are to be found below the lowest stratum, in the Precambrian.

(6) No transitional species are to be found above the bottom stratum, from the Ordovician on up.

(7) Higher taxa (forms of life) appear just as suddenly in the strata farther up. These higher types (such as beavers, giraffes, etc.) suddenly appear with no hint of transitional life-forms leading up to them.

(8) When they appear, vast numbers of these life-forms are to be found.


IMMENSE NUMBER OF FOSSILS—One of the most startling facts about the sedimentary strata around the world is the vast quantities of fossils they contain. Without a worldwide Flood, it would be impossible for such huge amounts of plants and animals to have been rapidly buried. And without rapid burial they could not have fossilized.

Yes, there are immense numbers of rapidly buried fossils; read this:

About one-seventh of the earth’s surface is tundra—frozen mud,—containing the fossil remains of millions of mammoths and other large and smaller animals. Then there are the log jams of dinosaur bones found in many places in the world. Over 300 different kinds of dinosaurs have been excavated from one place in Utah. Vast fossil beds of plants exist in various places. We today call them coal beds. In Geiseltal, Germany, were found the remains of 6,000 vertebrates. Great masses of amphibians have been found in the Permian beds of Texas. Elsewhere in Texas huge masses of fossil clams have been unearthed—yet never are living clams so tightly packed together as we find here. Examining them, we find clamshells that are closed! When a clam dies, its shell opens—unless before death it is quickly buried under the pressure of many feet of soil and pebbles. In one area alone in South Africa, there are about 800 billion fossils of amphibians and reptiles in an area 200,000 miles square [517,980 km2].

Old Red Sandstone in England has billions upon billions of fish, spread over 10,000 square miles [25,899 km2], with as many as a thousand fish fossils in one square yard. Trilobites are among the smallest of the fossils. They are found at the bottom of the strata, in the Cambrian. And the Cambrian—with its trilobites—is also found 7,000 feet high in the mountains. Yet trilobites were small shallow-sea creatures! What flood of waters carried them up there?These vast beds of sedimentary fossil-bearing strata cover about three-fourths of the earth’s surface, and are as much as 40,000 feet thick.

COLLECTED HEAPS—There are heaps and heaps of fossil specimens in the collections of paleontologists and museumsThere are heaps and heaps of fossil specimens in the collections of paleontologists and museums.

Men have searched for fossils since the beginning of the 19th century, and the facts are now available: there is no evidence of evolution in the fossil record.Forty-three hundred years ago, a great catastrophe, the Flood, overspread the world.

In our own day, a great catastrophe has inundated evolutionary theory. No less an authority than a Smithsonian paleontologist describes the basis of the problem:. 

"There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world."—*Porter Kier, quoted in New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129 [Smithsonian scientist].

*David Raup, head paleontologist of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, describes the heart of the problem:

"So the geological time scale and the basic facts of biological change over time are totally independent of evolutionary theory. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found—yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks."—*David M. Raup, "Evolution and the Fossil Record," in Science, July 17, 1981, p. 289.

NOT MADE NOW—Several years ago, two scientists tried to make some fossilsSeveral years ago, two scientists tried to make some fossils. According to the school textbooks, it should not be hard to do. *Rainer Zangerl and *Eugene S. Richardson, Jr., placed dead fish in wire cages and dropped them into several Louisiana lagoons and bayous. When the men returned six and a half days later, they found that bacteria and scavengers had consumed all the soft parts of the fish and had scattered the bones in the cages.Sedimentary strata are filled with fish fossils, yet when a fish dies today, it never fossilizes; it bloats, floats, and then is eaten by scavengers and other small creatures.

"When a fish dies its body floats on the surface or sinks to the bottom and is devoured rather quickly, actually in a matter of hours, by other fish. However, the fossil fish found in sedimentary rocks is very often preserved with all its bones intact. Entire shoals of fish over large areas, numbering billions of specimens, are found in a state of agony, but with no mark of a scavenger’s attack."—*lmmanuel Velikovsky, Earth in Upheaval (1955), p. 222.

The strata have lots of animals in them, but when an animal dies today, it never fossilizes; it rots if the buzzards do not find it first. Dead animals do not normally produce fossils.

"The buffalo carcasses strewn over the plains in uncounted millions two generations ago have left hardly a present trace. The flesh was devoured by wolves or vultures within hours or days after death, and even the skeletons have now largely disappeared, the bones dissolving and crumbling into dust under the attack of weather."—*Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology (1949), p. 39.

There is an abundance of fossilized plant life in the strata; yet, when a weed, bush, or tree dies, it turns back to soil; it does not harden into a fossil.

It requires some very special conditions to produce fossils. Those conditions occurred one time in history. The evidence is clear that it was a worldwide phenomenom, and that it happened very, very quickly...

RAPID BURIAL—A striking fact about the fossils is that they were obviously all laid down at the same time—and very, very rapidly!

Where are the bison today? As we just read, most were slain by buffalo hunters in the Plains States of America over a hundred years ago. But where are their fossils? None are to be found. Millions of bison died, but there are no fossil remains. They rotted, were eaten by scavengers, decayed, and slowly returned back to the earth.The fact is that fossils never form at the present time, yet in the sedimentary strata we find literally billions of them! Examination of the strata bearing them reveals it was obviously laid down by a massive flood of water.The sheer immensity of these fossil graveyards is fantastic. And to think that it never happens today! Speaking about sedimentary deposits that he found in the Geiseltal, in central Germany, *Newell says:

"More than six thousand remains of vertebrate animals and a great number of insects, molluscs, and plants were found in these deposits. The compressed remains of soft tissues of many of these animals showed details of cellular structure [with] well-preserved bits of hair, feathers and scales . . The stomach contents of beetles, amphibia, fishes, birds and mammals provided direct evidence about eating habits."—*N.O. Newell "Adequacy of the Fossil Record," in Journal of Paleontology, May 1959, p. 496.

It would be impossible for vast numbers of plants and animals to be suddenly buried under normal circumstances. Yet we find that the fossils were buried so quickly that the food could be seen in many of their stomachs. Even the delicate soft parts of their bodies are visible, so rapid had been the burial. Quick, high compression adds to the evidence for extremely rapid burial. All of the life-forms were suddenly flattened out. Sharks have been found flattened to ¼ inch in thickness with the tail still upright, suggesting sudden catastrophic burial. It took rapid action to do that.

"Robert Broom, the South African paleontologist, estimated that there are eight hundred thousand million skeletons of vertebrate animals in the Karro formation."—*Op. cit., p. 492.

Describing herring fossils in the Miocene shales of California, a U.S. Geological Survey expert tells us:

"More than a billion fish, averaging 6 to 8 inches in length, died on 4 square miles [10.36 km2] of bay bottom."—*Harry S. Ladd, "Ecology, Paleontology, and Stratigraphy," in Science, January 9, 1959, p. 72.

What happened? Some terrible catastrophe occurred that suddenly overwhelmed the earth! Fossil seashells have been found in the highest mountains of the planet, including the highest range of them all, the Himalayas, which reaches in an arc across central Asia.

FISH SWALLOWING FISH—Princeton University scientists were working in Fossil Lake, Wyoming, when they found a fossil fish that was swallowing another fish. Because both fish had been pressed flat by the sudden burial, the paleontologists could see one fish inside the other with only the tail sticking out of the larger one’s throat. It was a perch swallowing a herring.

Obviously, this required a very sudden event to capture and kill a fish swallowing a fish! Nothing like this happens today.

In the Hall of Paleontology, at Kansas State University, can be seen a 14-foot fish that has swallowed a 6-foot fish. The fish that was swallowed was not digested,—and then both had been suddenly entombed.

FOSSIL FOOTPRINTS—Leonard Brand and James Florence did some excellent research! They gathered together the great majority of fossil footprint records from approximately 800 published papers, as well as from data in five major paleontological museums. This information was then correlated with burial records on the fossils themselves.

Comparing it all, they came up with some surprising conclusions:

(1) Birds and mammals were buried on about the same levels as the footprints of their species were found. This was in the Quaternary and Tertiary at the very end of the Flood.

(2) But, below these top strata, the footprints of amphibians, non-dinosaur reptiles, and dinosaurs were made well below the levels where the bulk of their bodies were buried!

That second discovery is rather astounding. If long ages had occurred during each strata, then the footprints and bodies should be found together. But if a worldwide single Flood was responsible for all the strata, then we would expect to find large numbers of amphibians, reptiles, and dinosaurs walking around earlier in the Flood, yet buried later in it!

For further data and charts on this, see the reference given below:

"During the early to middle part of the Flood large numbers of amphibians and reptiles were moving about, and thus producing footprints. Later as the Flood progressed (upper Jurassic and Cretaceous) there were very few live amphibians or reptiles to produce footprints, except for the large dinosaurs. During the Cretaceous when the only footprints preserved were the large dinosaur tracks, there were many amphibian and reptile bodies that were being buried to produce the abundant Cretaceous body fossils. During the Cenozoic almost no amphibian or reptile footprints were preserved.

". . During the flood the birds and mammals were in the uplands, away from the depositional basins, because of ecological differences and/or more adaptable behavioral responses to the unusual biological crisis caused by the flood."—Leonard Brand and James Florence, "Stratigraphic Distribution of Vertebrate Fossil Footprints Compared with Body Fossils" in Origins, Vol 9, no. 2 (1982), p. 71.

PLANTS AND ANIMALS NOT TOGETHER—According to the theory, over a period of millions of years, plants and animals died, dropped to the ground and changed into fossils (even though such fossilization never occurs today). Gradually, they were covered with dirt as, over the centuries, falling leaves turned into dirt.

But in reality, it is only rarely that we find plants and animals together in the fossil beds! That is why "Minium’s Dead Cow Quarry" in Kansas is so very much appreciated by paleontologists: it is an exception to the rule and does have plants and plant seeds in the same rock with animals (*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution 1990, p. 307).

Why would plants and animals normally not be found together in the fossil strata? The reason is simple enough. They were all washed into place by the worldwide Flood. The water tended to sort them out, resulting in rafts of vegetation being floated into place, which became our present coal beds, while other pockets in the strata became filled with "fossil graveyards" as animals were washed into other locations. 

IN WHAT FORM ARE THE FOSSILS?—There are millions upon millions of fossils. You may wonder what those fossils are like. Here are the seven primary types of fossils:

(1) Hard parts (the bones and shells) of some plants and animals were preserved.

(2) Carbon alone was preserved. This is where our coal beds came from.

(3) The original form is preserved only in casts and molds. The original material dissolved away and a cast of its shape was preserved. This would also require sudden burial.

(4) Sometimes petrification of wood occurred. An excellent example of this would be the Petrified Forest in Arizona, where we find entire tree trunks that have turned to stone. After sudden burial, each cell in the wood was gradually replaced by minerals from an underground flow of water.

(5) There are prints of animal tracks. Thousands of animal tracks have been found preserved in stone, and the prints are always shown running away from something. In Glen Rose, Texas, and several other places, prints of giant humans have been found. In the same bed with the human footprints have been found dinosaur tracks! This shows that the dinosaurs lived when man did, and not millions of years earlier, as the evolutionists claim. (Much more information on this will be found in chapter 13, Ancient Man.)

(6) Ripple marks and rain drop splashes. Ancient hail imprints (which are quite different than raindrops) have never been found. The weather must have been consistently warm when the Flood began (*W.H. Twenhofel, Principles of Sedimentation (1950), p. 621).

(7) Worm trails, droppings, feathers, chemicals, and even fish odor were preserved by sudden burial!

CAMBRIAN FOSSILS IN FINE DETAIL—Before concluding this section on what is included in "fossils," we should mention that the soft parts of the plants and animals are at times clearly traced in the rocks. One excellent example of this is the Burgess Pass fossils.

In 1910, a pack train loaded with supplies was struggling over a mountain path high in the Rocky Mountains of British Columbia, near the Burgess Pass, when a horse kicked a dark rock and stumbled. One of the men examined the rock and found that it had fine, exquisitely detailed fossil markings. Later, the Smithsonian Institute sent out paleontologists and workmen who quarried out tons of rock from the side of that and nearby mountains, and sent 35,000 fossils to be analyzed and housed in our national museum in Washington, D.C.

These specimens were primarily bottom-dwellers from ancient seas, such as worms, trilobites, brachiopods, lampshells, and more. Here, in these very high mountains, the soft parts of these creatures are from Cambrian deposits (the lowest of all strata) were clearly visible. Even delicate internal organs were traced on the stone. The transitional species leading up to those common Cambrian specimens ought to have been found, but they were not. Yet Burgess Pass, and nearby digging sites (such as Mount Stephen), ultimately yielded almost copious amounts of fossils of nearly every major type of life-form.

POLYSTRATE TREES—Here are two views of upright, fossilized trees in sedimentary strata. One is a drawing; the other a photograph.

Polystrate trees could not possibly occur if the strata were slowly laid down over millions of years, as the evolutionists claim.

Polystrate trees

EC474.jpg (296497 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGE

"These went further [than merely including fossil bones]—with the outline of the body, even the soft internal organs were often traceable like miniature X-ray films. Among the many fossils found are a wide range of major kinds. I already referred to three main kinds—brachiopods, worms and arthropods (the trilobites). Almost every major kind of animal has been found there, except those with backbones."—Harold O. Coffin, "Famous Fossils from a Mountaintop," in Origins, January 1, 1974, p. 46.

BURIED FORESTS—Another dramatic evidence of a catastrophic flood of massive proportions—as the cause of the sedimentary strata—is the buried forests.

Coal beds, of course, are one such example of buried forests. They will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter.

One of the best places to see buried forests is Specimen Ridge in Yellowstone Park, in Montana. You will there find a succession of petrified tree layers. The uniformitarian evolutionists claim that the trees grew there, died, and were gradually covered by soil deposits over oncoming ages as the dead trees stood there. Gradually, after tens of thousands of years, additional trees died and were covered over by more millennia of soil deposits!

But careful analysis of the entire ridge reveals a unity of age, burial conditions, and surrounding deposits. A succession of strong currents, interspersed with flows and volcanic showers from another direction, washed the sedimentary strata into place.

(Both later in this chapter, in chapter 14, and somewhat in chapter 6, we give more attention to the implications of these fossil upright trees, also called polystrate trees.))

Stop and think of it a minute: Would a vertical tree die and stand there for half a million years while rock strata gradually covered it? Yet we find polystrate trees in the strata and even in coal beds.

NON-EXTINCT FOSSILS—The great majority of animals and plants that lived long ago were just like those alive today, with the exception of some extinct species. Here is a sampling of what you will find in the complete strata of the "geologic column"—but remember that this "complete" strata is to be found in its entirety nowhere in the world. Beginning at the bottom, and proceeding to the top, this is what we find:

Precambrian . . . . . . algae, bacteria, fungi

Cambrian . . . . . . . . sponges, snails, jellyfish 

Ordovician . . . . . . . . clams, starfish, worms . 

Silurian . . . . . . . . . . . scorpions, corals 

Devonian . . . . . . . . . sharks, lungfish 

Carboniferous . . . . . ferns, cockroaches 

Permian . . . . . . . . . . beetles, dragonflies

Triassic . . . . . . . . . . pines, palms 

Jurassic . . . . . . . . . . crocodiles, turtles 

Cretaceous . . . . . . . . ducks, pelicans 

Paleocene . . . . . . . . . rats, hedgehogs 

Eocene . . . . . . . . . . . lemurs, rhinoceroses 

Oligocene . . . . . . . . . beavers, squirrels, ants 

Miocene . . . . . . . . . . camels, birds 

Pliocene . . . . . . . . . . horses, elephants 

Pleistocene . . . . . . . . man

(Later in this chapter, under the section, "Mixed-up Fossils," we will learn that the fossils are not neatly contained in certain strata; they are often far above or below their assigned strata.)

It is obvious from the above list, that the species we had before, we have now. Those fossils are just like their counterparts living today. Yes, there are some extinct species, for some kinds have died out. But it is of interest that even a number of the anciently extinct species—have in recent years been found to be still living!

Here are some of the thousands of creatures alive today that are totally identical to what they looked like millions of years ago: Cockroach (250 million years); starfish (500 million years); shark (181 million years); sea urchin (100 million years); ginkgo tree (200 million years); dragonfly (170 million years); bacteria (600 million years).

Consider the bat: All the fossil bats look just like the ones that fly around now. It was reported that *Jepsen had found the oldest fossil bat ever! (*G.L. Jepsen reported in Science, for December 9, 1966). A photograph of its skeleton, plus an accompanying sketch are shown in the article. That oldest-known bat is supposedly 50 million years old, and yet it is just like a modern bat skeleton. And below it? not one transitional fossil anywhere that leads us from "lower forms of life" to the bat. When the bat first appears, it is all bat, and nothing but bat!

LIVING FOSSILS—(*#17 Living Fossils [coelacanth and plesiosaur]*) [Appendix 17 on our website has stories, four photographs, and more, but no quotations.]There are species found only in rock strata, and supposedly millions of years old, which have been declared "extinct for millions of years." This has been considered another "proof" of evolution, although extinction is no evidence of evolution; evolving into new life-forms is. Yet in recent decades a number of these "extinct for millions of years" species have been found to not be extinct after all!

The BIG question is this: Where then were they all those "millions of years" they were missing from the upper rock strata?

"Long before I began to research the subject in any detail, I had brooded about a number of puzzling features—things which didn’t seem to fit the [evolutionary] argument—which the textbooks largely ignored.

"There is, for example, the fact that some creatures fail to evolve but chunter on quite successfully as ‘living fossils.’ Bees preserved in amber from the Tertiary period are almost identical with living bees. And everyone has heard of the coelacanth, supposed to have been extinct since the beginning of the Cretaceous period. The plant world also offers living fossils, such as the gingko, with a leaf unlike that of any modern tree."—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), pp. 25-26.

So many of these "living fossils" have been found that scientists have given a name to the study: Cryptozoology, the study of "hidden animals." According to evolutionary theory, they were once alive, then got hidden for millions of years, and continue living today. Here are some of these "living fossils," all of which are alive today:

(1) Coelacanth fish: The crossopterygian fish—"extinct" since Cretaceous. It has not been found in the strata for the past "50 million years"—yet is alive today.

(2) Metasequoia: The "dawn redwood"— "extinct" since Miocene; not in the strata for the past "60 million years," yet it is alive today.

(3) Tuatara: A beakheaded reptile—"extinct" since Cretaceous; not found in the strata for the past "135 million years"—but today is alive.

(4) Neopilina: A segmented deep-sea mollusk— "extinct" since Devonian. Although missing from the strata for the past "500 million years," it is alive now.

(5) Lingula: A brachiopod shellfish—"extinct" since Ordovician; not in the strata for the past "500 million years," yet it is happily living today.

The now-famous Coelacanth was a large fish known only from its fossil and allegedly extinct for 50 million years. Extinct, that is, until several specimens were found in the ocean! The first was found in a fisherman’s net off the coast of Madagascar on December 24, 1938. Since then eight more specimens have been found alive.

It only requires a moment’s thought to arrive at a startling fact: How could the Coelacanth have become extinct 50 million years ago, and then be found now? In order to be declared "extinct" such a long time ago, the creature would obviously have had to have been found by paleontologists in older strata—and then not found at all in more recent strata. Why is the Coelacanth not in those more recent strata? Did it decide to hibernate for 50 million years?This is clear-cut evidence that the sedimentary strata was the result of a rapid laying down of sediments during the Flood,—rather than the tortuously slow "inch a hundred years" deposition pattern theorized by the evolutionists.Interestingly enough, some of these "living fossils" formerly were used by evolutionists as "index fossils" to prove the ancientness of certain rock strata! As you will recall, most index fossils are small marine organisms. They live so deep in the ocean that many of them (trilobites, graptolites, ammonites, etc.) may still have living representatives alive today, since we have but only slightly explored the ocean bottoms. There are scientists who believe they will find living trilobites before long (see "Start Search for Living Trilobites," Science Digest, September 1959), and one living fossil, very close to the trilobite has already been discovered (see "Living Fossil Resembles Long-extinct Trilobite," Science Digest, December 1957). 

Many other examples could be cited. Here are two:

"In the 19th century, hunters reported tales among Congo tribesmen of a large, cloven-hoofed animal with a giraffe-like head and zebra stripes on its hindquarters and legs. Most zoologists dismissed it as a local legend, but Sir Harry H. Johnston was fascinated when he read about this unknown beast of the deep forest. Years later, he launched an expedition in search of the creature, which the natives called okapi (o-CAP-ee).

"After a nearly disastrous series of misadventures, he finally captured an okapi in 1906. One of the few large mammals discovered in the 20th century, the okapi turned out to be a living representative of a genus (Palaeofragus) known from fossils and believed by zoologists to have been extinct for 30 million years."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 102.

"According to Science News (June 9, 1990, p. 359), a species of dogwood tree, the Diplopanax stachyanthus, was believed by botanists to have died out about 4 million years ago. Apparently only fossil records remained of this tree.

"But now a botanist at Washinton State University has examined the fossil fruit of trees believed to be 15 million years old and found them to be essentially identical to the fruit of a dogwood family discovered in China in 1928.

"But wait a minute. If evolution is driven by the survival of the fittest, then I would expect older and inferior species to die out and be replaced by newer and better evolved species. If that be the case, what is a 15 million year old tree doing hanging around today? It should have died out long ago. Or else the figure of 15 million years is grossly wrong. In either case, something is evidently wrong with the theory of evolution."—Bob Vun Kannon, "A Living Fossil," The Adventure, September 1990.

The existence of "living fossils" is a serious one for the evolutionist. Evolutionary theory is based on several concepts, two of which are violated here: (1) If a species becomes extinct, it cannot come back to life. (2) Species evolve upward, and can never return back to an earlier form. If that particular species has not existed for the past 15 million years, how then could it exist today?

THE EXTINCT DINOSAUR—Ever since *Charles Lyell, the extinct dinosaur has been considered an outstanding example of evolution. Yet all that it proves is that animals can become extinct;  there are no facts related to dinosaurs which prove evolution (species change) in life-forms. That which extinct dinosaurs do prove is that the uniformitarian theory (which is the basis of evolution) is incorrect. Some massive catastrophe overwhelmed and destroyed the dinosaurs.In order for the dinosaur to prove evolution, there would have to be transitional forms leading up to them. But the dinosaurs are like everything else: distinct species.

LIVING DINOSAURS—Evolutionists are anxious that it be thought that no dinosaurs are alive todayEvolutionists are anxious that it be thought that no dinosaurs are alive today. According to their theory, dinosaurs lived during the Mesozoic era—from about 225 million years ago to 65 million years ago. If some of them were to be found alive today, then evolutionists think this would weaken their theory. But actually that would neither prove nor weaken their theory, since dinosaurs—past or present—present no evidence of the evolutionary process.In museums all over the world, dinosaur-bone displays are exhibited as a proof of evolution. Their very extinction is supposed to establish it. —But did you know that a living dinosaur has been found?

In April 1977, a Japanese fishing vessel caught a 4,000 pound [1814 kg] dead creature in its nets off the east coast of New Zealand. It was photographed, sketched, carefully measured, and flipper samples were kept for tissue analysis. It has every appearance of being a Plesiosaur, or sea-dwelling dinosaur—which prior to 1977 had only been found in fossil form! Japanese scientists are convinced it was indeed a Plesiosaur. Japan even printed a postage stamp of the creature, in honor of the find. (A photograph and sketch of one is shown on page 107 of Ian Taylor’s excellent book, In the Minds of Men.)

But there are other living creatures which answer to the description of "dinosaurs." What is a dinosaur? Very simply, it is a large reptile. Crocodiles, alligators, and caiman are large reptiles.

"Although they are now 99 percent extinct and seldom exceed twelve feet in length, the American alligator attained lengths of nearly twenty feet as recently as the turn of the century (see National Geographic Magazine, January 1967, p. 137). Only about 500 years ago the aepyornis, a dinosaur bird nearly ten feet [30 cm] tall and weighing half a ton [456 kg], still lived on the island of Madagascar (see National Geographic Magazine, October 1967, p. 493)."—John C. Whitcomb, World that Perished (1988), p. 30.

"Because the huge skeletons that were built up out of fossilized remnants were clearly reptilian in nature, they were called ‘terrible lizards,’ which in Greek is dinosauria, by the nineteenth-century zoologist Sir Richard Owen. But the ancient giant reptiles are more closely related to alligators than to lizards, and should have been named dinocrocodilia."—*Asimov’s Book of Facts (1979), p. 136.

We have both small and large alligator-type creatures alive today. Some extinct dinosaurs were as small as a chicken, but some modern alligator-type creatures are quite large. Some crocodiles alive today (Crocodylus porosus), can reach a length of 33 feet [100.6 dm]; all are large, heavy, fierce reptiles. 

The komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis) is another large reptile and looks very much like a dinosaur. It was discovered in 1912; and, although evolutionists tried to explain it away by calling the komodo a "lizard," it surely is more than that! Consider the following description:

"The body is covered with small scales; the neck is thick and the head broad and elongated. The huge mouth contains teeth ½ in [1 cm] long and deeply cleft tongue 12-16 in [30-40 cm] long. The legs are well developed and there are long claws on the toes. The muscular tail has no fracture planes and is somewhat laterally compressed.

"The Komodo dragon is the biggest predator on the islands [in Indonesia] where it lives. It hunts hog, deer, wild pig, macaques, and rats, and digs up the eggs of mound birds . . It can run as fast as a man for short stretches. Smaller specimens are said to lurk in trees above tracks used by game and jump onto the backs of deer or pigs."—*Great Book of the Animal Kingdom (1988), p. 152.

The komodo dragon, truly a reptilian giant, attacks and kills large hogs has a lifespan of 25 years, is 10 feet [30 dm] long, and has a weight of 350 pounds [158.76 kg]! It is decidedly larger than some of the extinct reptiles, called "dinosaurs." (There was a wide variety of extinct dinosaurs: some of the extinct ones were quite small; some ran rapidly like ostriches and caught birds with their front paws, and some flew like birds.) 

The komodo dragon is the biggest of the monitors, of which there are 31 species. Some are quite large. Most live in the islands north of Australia. One of these, the Papua monitor (Varanus salvadori) is longer than the komodo dragon—over 13 feet in length—although it is not as bulky.A number of prominent scientists, including *Myer, consider crocodiles and alligators to be "living fossils."

"Nile crocodiles and American alligators belong to a group of reptiles called broad-nosed crocodilians. In the warmer parts of the world, broad-nosed crocodilians are the largest predators to walk on land. They are living fossils in the sense that they resemble ancient forms in the shapes and the ruggedness of their heads and bodies."—*Ernst Myer, "Crocodilians as Living Fossils," in Living Fossils (1984), p. 105.

EXTINCT FOSSILS—What about the fossilized creatures which are now extinct? All that extinct fossils—such as dinosaurs—prove is that animals can die out. Extinction is not evolution, and provides no evidence of evolution.

In addition to the dinosaurs, a number of other animal and plant species became extinct also. Interestingly enough, the extinct species were generally more complex than plants and animals now living!

NONE OF THE FOSSILS OR STRATA ARE ANCIENT—Fossils from every level of sedimentary strata have been analyzed by amino acid dating methods (see chapter 6, Inaccurate Dating Methods.)

Scientists have been shocked to discover that both the "youngest" as well as the "oldest" fossils (even those of the Cambrian!) reveal traces of amino acids! This is astounding news, and runs counter to evolutionary theory. This means that, instead of being hundreds of millions of years apart, ALL of the fossil-bearing strata were laid down fairly recently at about the same time! In order to "save the fossils" as a trophy of evolution, there has been speculation that amino acids in the "oldest" fossils are merely contaminants that somehow got there at some recent time.Shells from as far back as the Jurassic strata, which is supposed to be 135-180 million years old, have been found to have amino acids still locked into protein structures. Shells from as far back as the Jurassic strata, which is supposed to be 135-180 million years old, have been found to have amino acids still locked into protein structures. The amino acid residues came from inside those shells—so the shells cannot be more than a few thousand years old!

Amino acid studies in the fossil-bearing sediments reveal that there are no ancient fossil strata!

HUMAN REMAINS IN ANCIENT DEPOSITS— Near the end of chapter 13, Ancient Man, we will describe a number of instances in which evidences of human beings have been found in what evolutionists consider to be extremely ancient rocks and coal. That information clearly disproves the geologic column dating theories, so we will summarize some of that information here. For more detailed coverage, we refer you to the chapter on Ancient Man.Evidence from chapter 4, Age of the Earth, and the last part of chapter 13, Ancient Man, reveals that both the planet and mankind are quite young—and have not been here over 6,000-10,000 years.

Here is a summary of some of the data found near the end of the Ancient Man chapter:  

(1) Guadaloupe Woman: The almost-complete skeleton of a woman was found in limestone which is supposed to be 28 million years old. The limestone sheet, in which the skeleton was encased, was hard, thick, and over a mile [1.609 km] in length.

(2) Calaveras Skull: A completely mineralized human skull was found in Pliocene stratum which dates to over 2 million years old.

(3) Human footprints: Human footprints have been found in various sites in the United States, as well as in Laetoli, Africa. These would include:

[1] Glen Rose tracks: Children’s and adult footprints, up to 15 and 21½ inches [38-54.6 cm] in length, have been regularly found in Early Cretaceous rock throughout most of this century on the former riverbed of the Pulaxy River in Texas. Children’s tracks always accompany those of adults, tracks go across very large dinosaur tracks and have been found above them, and all tracks are running. These tracks are in Early Cretaceous formations, which date to 120 million years ago.

[2] Antelope Springs tracks: William Meister and others have found sandaled human tracks stepping on trilobites in Cambrian strata (570 million years old), in Utah.

(4) Evidence in coal: Human remains and relics of various kinds have been found in coal, dating to millions of years ago. This includes a human skull, two giant human teeth, a gold chain, gold thread, steel nail, metal screw, wedge-shaped object, and an iron pot.

Enter main content here

Enter secondary content here

Enter secondary content here

Enter supporting content here