<![CDATA[
</head>
<body text="#000000" link="#FF0000" vlink="#0000FF" background="offwhite1.jpg">
<center><img SRC="creationheading.gif" width="288" height="192">
<p>(The purpose of this page is to present evidence from the field of molecular
biology that cannot be explained by darwinistic evolution theory.)
<p><b><font color="#000080"><font size=+4>Evidence Against Evolutionism
From Molecular Biology</font></font></b><b><font color="#000080"><font size=+4></font></font></b>
<p><font size=+1><a href="CDS.html">(This information is now available
on audio CD!)</a></font></center>
<p><a NAME="Introduction"></a><b><font size=+2>Introduction</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>When the theory of evolution was first proposed by
Charles Darwin (his <i>Origin of Species </i>was published in 1859), scientists
knew very little about the makeup of the living cell. They assumed it to
be a relatively simple blob of protoplasm. Therefore, it did not take much
imagination to hypothesize that it might have sprung into existence by
chance through random collisions of molecules.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>However, scientific discoveries of the past few decades
have built an incredibly strong case against the hypothesis that life is
the result of random, unplanned processes.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>In fact, evidence from many areas of science has made
the theory of evolution a theory that rests, not primarily on empirical
evidence (i.e., evidence acquired through experiment and observation),
but on philosophical presuppositions (a faith based on preconceived ideas
of what the world is like). The scientific evidence itself continues to
increase in opposition to the theory.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>One of the most exciting areas of evidence to be uncovered
by scientists in recent years has been in the field of molecular biology.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>A book written by Michael Denton entitled <i>Evolution:
A Theory in Crisis </i>was published in 1986 by Adler and Adler. His book,
and others like it written by other molecular biologists (e.g., Michael
Behe), have been on the cutting edge of a movement that is presenting staggering
evidence that is making the theory of evolution less and less tenable or
defensible as time goes on.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>This brief paper is an attempt to summarize a few of
the discoveries from the field of molecular biology presented in Michael
Denton's book that demonstrate the futility of the theory of evolution
to explain the existence of life.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Denton's book is 358 pages of fascinating material
from molecular biology and other scientific fields. It would be impossible
to do it justice in a brief paper. My hope is simply that this paper will
help others to be at least slightly familiar with the discoveries of molecular
biologists, and that it will perhaps whet an appetite to read the entire
book.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>It would be helpful to put this paper in the context
of my paper on <i><a href="2ndlaw-fs.html" TARGET="_top">The Second Law
of Thermodynamics and Evolutionism</a></i> for a better understanding of
the laws of physics and mathematics that underscore the impossibility of
these things happening as a result of random chance events.</font></b>
<p><a NAME="Minimum"></a><b><font size=+2>Minimum Requirements for Self-Reproducing
Cell</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>In the days when the theory of evolution was first
proposed, it was assumed that there were certain molecules that had the
characteristics necessary for reproducing themselves. The belief was that,
over millions and millions of years, chance combinations of atoms finally
reached a point where one of these molecules could suddenly reproduce itself.
Thus began the simplest forms of "life." Gradually, more atoms were added,
the molecules got more complex, multi-celled organisms developed, etc.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>It is now known that there is no molecule that can
reproduce itself without the involvement of many other critical molecules.
Many have mistakenly believed that DNA molecules in isolation can somehow
replicate themselves. They cannot. A biochemist named Harold Morowitz has
tried to make an intelligent guess at how simple a cell could be, and still
be able to reproduce itself. He has hypothesized that it might be conceivable
for a cell to be able to reproduce itself with as few as one hundred protein
molecules, all doing their respective functions (e.g. providing a cell
membrane; synthesizing fats; providing energy; synthesizing the building
blocks of DNA--the nucleotides; and synthesizing proteins). The cell would
need a few messenger RNA molecules, ribosomes, enzymes, and, of course,
a DNA molecule.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>There is no way for scientists to conceive of a cell
reproducing itself with less complexity. These are bare minimum requirements.
In fact, no known cell reaches this degree of simplicity, but this hypothetical
cell represents the bare minimum of "ingredients" that could <i>conceivably</i>
be self-reproducing.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>However, even this bare minimum cell, the simplest
conceivable unit capable of self-replication, would be incredibly and awesomely
complex. It would not be a "blob of simple protoplasm." It would be an
exquisitely complicated living "machine." Each of the 100 or so protein
molecules is an intricate combination of thousands of atoms. The DNA molecule
is an intricate arrangement of literally <i>billions</i> of atoms.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Even in its simplicity, this cell would be made up
of billions of atoms which would have to be arranged in an extremely complex
organization. Michael Denton says it this way:</font></b>
<blockquote><b>There is no continuum of functional forms through which
the gradual evolution of the cell might have occurred--just a yawning gulf
which can only be crossed in one vastly improbable leap. (p. 260)</b></blockquote>
<b><font size=+1>He adds:</font></b>
<blockquote><b>The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so
great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been
thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event.
Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle. (p.264)</b></blockquote>
<a NAME="Protein"></a><b><font size=+2>Protein Sequences</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Scientists now know that proteins are extremely complicated
three-dimensional chains of several thousand atoms. These atoms are arranged
very precisely depending on the function of the protein. Each protein molecule
is made up of a "backbone" of amino groups and carboxyl acid groups, linked
by carbon atoms. All along the length of the molecule are amino acids,
arranged as "side groups" in a very precise fashion, depending on the function
of the protein.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>As the study of protein molecules progressed, it became
evident that proteins of similar function, but in different organisms,
had slightly different sequences of amino acids.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Now the study has progressed to the point that it is
possible to state with mathematical precision the degree of divergence
(difference) in the amino acid sequences of similar proteins from one species
to another. For example, a protein molecule that performs a certain function
in the cell of a dog might be 17% different from a protein molecule that
performs the same function in a fish.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Evolutionists expected that these differences would
support their theory. They would have predicted that the protein molecules
from the cell of yeast, for example, would perhaps be slightly different
from the proteins that performed the same functions in a bacteria cell,
but far more similar to the bacterial protein than the proteins from a
vertebrate would be. The idea was that the yeast was closer to the bacteria
on the "evolutionary ladder" than a vertebrate was, therefore their proteins
should be more alike (less divergent). Evolution theory would have predicted
that the differences between protein molecules would become gradually and
progressively larger as organisms moved up the evolutionary ladder.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>However, the evidence is now quite conclusive. The
protein from yeast, to continue the above example, is as mathematically
divergent from the bacteria protein as the protein from a human. And, in
fact, so are the proteins from birds, fish, insects, and even plants!</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Instead of a "chain" of divergences leading gradually
up from simple species to complex ones, the proteins of each subclass are
essentially "equidistant" in divergence from the proteins of the other
subclasses. There are no "intermediates" connecting the subclasses.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>This phenomenon has now been observed and cataloged
for many proteins in many different species.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>This evidence has been devastating for the theory that
species have gradually changed from simple to complex. Had that theory
been true, the divergences at a molecular level, where the changes must
have taken place, would have grown gradually and sequentially larger and
larger as the species moved up the evolutionary ladder. There should be
no "breaks" in the degree of divergence, only a smooth continuum. Instead
the differences are consistent and have startling mathematical precision.</font></b>
<p><a NAME="Interdependent"></a><b><font size=+2>Interdependent Molecular
Functions</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Another discovery that has been devastating for proponents
of Darwinism is the amazing degree of interdependency that is found in
the functions of the molecules of life.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>For example, the mechanism of protein synthesis is
dependent upon a cell membrane. But the cell membrane is dependent upon
the existence of a protein synthesis mechanism!</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Similarly, the protein synthesis mechanism requires
energy. But the provision of that energy depends upon specific proteins
that have already been synthesized.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>In the same vein, the information for the assembly
of protein components is stored in the DNA. But in order to obtain this
information, proteins must exist that have been generated by the protein
synthesis mechanism.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Cells have an accurate translational system (systems
that allow the information contained in a DNA molecule to be transferred
to other molecules) that totally depends on efficient enzymes. But these
enzymes cannot be produced without an accurate translational system.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Examples could go on. The point is that it is impossible
to conceive of a situation which gradually led to the conditions which
enable a cell to self-replicate. The functions had to exist all at once,
because each is dependent on the other.</font></b>
<br>
<br>
<p><a NAME="Fallacy"></a><b><font size=+2>The Fallacy of Homologous Structures</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1> One of the stronger arguments for macro evolution
has been the argument of homologous structures. Evolutionists use the word
"homologous" to refer to biological structures in different creatures that
seem to correspond to each other. The logic is, for example, that the arm
of a man, the leg of a dog, the leg of a horse, the wing of a bat, the
paddle of a porpoise are all built on similar basic plans. Therefore, it
seems reasonable to assume that one evolved into the other. They are, the
argument goes, powerfully suggestive of a common ancestor.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>However, now it is possible to trace these structures
to the genetic systems that lie behind them. And the fact is now known
that structures that, on the surface, seem to be homologous are based on
totally non-homologous genetic systems. In other words, the homologous
structures are arrived at by completely different genetic paths. Had it
been found that the same gene was responsible for similar structures in
different species, it might have strengthened the argument for evolutionism.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>One example of this is the case of the alimentary canal
(the passage in the body that food goes through). It seems obviously homologous
from one vertebrate to another. But it has been found to form along completely
divergent paths in different species. It forms "from the roof of the embryonic
gut cavity in sharks, from the floor in the lamprey, from the roof and
floor in frogs, and from the lower layer of the embryonic disc, the blastoderm,
in birds and reptiles." (Page 146)</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>There are many other examples of the same phenomenon.
The bottom line is that homology in different species cannot be traced
back to similar genetic events in those same species.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Also in the area of homology, it has proven to be very
difficult for Darwinists to propose a reasonable explanation for why both
the hind legs and the fore legs of vertebrates should be so strikingly
similar (homologous) when they supposedly evolved along entirely different
evolutionary paths (i.e., no one claims that forelimbs evolved from hindlimbs!).
The arms or forelegs are said to have evolved from the pectoral fins of
a fish, and the legs (hindlegs) from the pelvic fins. How could millions
of years of random accumulations of tiny changes lead to such strikingly
similar patterns in spite of the fact that the limbs are by no means identical?</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Of course, creationists would argue that similar structures
in various species simply point to the fact that these structures have
a common Designer who designed the structures for similar purposes. The
fact that He often chose different genetic paths to similar structures
could be taken as an indication that He did not intend to leave evidence
that might lead us to assume erroneously that these things simply "evolved"
on their own.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Steve Hall</font></b>
<br><b><font size=+1>February, 2000</font></b>
<br><a href="mailto:steve@aboundingjoy.com">steve@aboundingjoy.com</a>
<p><font size=-2>© 2000 Steve Hall. Permission is hereby granted to
quote from these web pages, in part or in full, as long as the following
statement is included: "© 2000 Steve Hall (steve@aboundingjoy.com).
Quoted by Permission."</font>
<center>
<p><b><font size=+2><a href="index.html" TARGET="_top">Go to Abounding
Joy Home Page</a></font></b>
<p><b><font size=+2><a href="mailto:steve@aboundingjoy.com">Send us email!</a></font></b>
<p><a href="Maintoc.html" TARGET="_top">Go to Main Table of Contents</a>
<br><a href="Maintoc.html" TARGET="_top">(For browsers without frames)</a></center>
</body>
]]>