Ever since Darwin, secular scientists have been
at a loss to find compelling empirical evidence for macroevolution.
The latest cause for celebration (premature as it turns out) has
been the results of the Human Genome Project. By some twisted
logic, evolutionist Arthur Caplan and others, sees this research
as a major point in favor of evolutionism, saying that Darwin
has been vindicated and that "we are descended from bacteria."
But no, as usual, upon closer inspection, the facts of science
have thrown a wet towel on evolutionary naturalism.
The human genome is made up of the chemical compound, DNA. The
building blocks of DNA are units called nucleotides, composed
of a sugar, phosphate and a nitrogenous base. All the origin of
life scenarios fail to explain how such nucleotides can form naturalistically
in the manner that would then cause them to form a string of nucleotides.
Then there's the issue of the origin of DNA molecule itself.
Sir John Maddox, former editor of the prestigious Nature
magazine, in 1994 lamented, "So it is disappointing that
the origin of the genetic code [DNA] is still as obscure as the
origin of life itself."
One scientific reason why we didn't evolve from lower life forms
over the alleged "millions of years" is the genetic
repair system found in the nucleus all living cells (and in prokaryotes
that don't have a nucleus). This complex system continuously monitors
the DNA molecule for mispaired bases and damage and is a major
roadblock in allowing genetic mistakes (mutations) to establish
themselves in DNA. Unfortunately for the materialist, it is these
random mistakes upon which the cryptic macroevolutionary process
depends. If neo-Darwinian theory were true, then natural selection
would clearly select against these efficient repair mechanisms.
Our alleged bacterial ancestry is without scientific support.
If such a bizarre progression occurred, it left no fossil evidence,
"Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups
of animals remain unknown" said evolutionist A.G. Fisher
in 1998. Editor of the American Scientist book, 'Exploring
Evolutionary Biology', stated, "The fossil record has always
been a problem." A problem for macroevolutionists perhaps,
but certainly not for the creation science model which predicts
the abrupt appearance of life in the sedimentary rock units. Humans
are a good example. According to evolutionists Villee, Solomon
& Davis, "We appear suddenly in the fossil record, or
so it seems to many paleontologists." In 2000 two evolutionists,
Collard and Wood admitted, "existing phylogenetic hypotheses
about human evolution are unlikely to be reliable. Accordingly,
new approaches are required to address the problem of hominin
[evolution]." The same can be said for animals, "Despite
a century of work on metazoan phylum-level phylogeny using anatomical
and embryological data, it has not been possible to infer a well-supported
[evolution of the animal kingdom]" Annual Review of Ecology
& Systematics, 1994.
Speaking of Darwin, we are all familiar with his infamous 1859
book The Origin of the Species. Ironically, one thing he
never addressed was the origin of the species! Indeed, over a
century later evolutionists are still mulling over the species
issue, "The formation of species has long represented one
of the most central, yet also one of the most elusive, subjects
in evolutionary biology" S.R. Palumbi, Annual Review of
Ecology & Systematics, 1994. Natural selection, usually
attributed to Darwin and Wallace, cannot explain why we have bears
and beetles, bacteria and buffalo, "Natural selection can
act only on those biologic properties that already exist [creation];
it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs
[evolution]" Parasitology, 6th ed. Noble & Noble,
Lea & Febiger publishers. British science writer Richard Milton
said the primary problem of neo-Darwinism is the improbability
of spontaneous genetic mutations leading to beneficial novelties
in form. In 1992 anti-creationists Orr & Coyne stated in American
Naturalist, "We conclude - unexpectedly - that there
is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical
foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak."
More recently, evolutionist D.L. Stern asked in the pages of Evolution
54(4), "One of the oldest problems in evolutionary biology
remains largely unsolved. Which mutations generate evolutionarily
relevant phenotypic variations? What kinds of molecular changes
do they entail?" What do secular biologists really know about
vertical evolution (macroevolution) that is true?
Throughout his article, Caplan assures the reader that evolutionism
has been validated via genome mapping with phrases like, "..
. Darwin was right - mankind evolved . . . . we are descended
from bacteria . . . our genetic instructions have evolved . .
. " etc. But there's a distressing lack of hard, empirical
evidence. Only through constant repetition does Caplan tell us
what could be said in a single sentence, 'Our genes document our
bacterial ancestry - Darwin was right.' Meanwhile, as we have
seen, science says something quite different.
What did the Human Genome Project actually show? It would be
best to go to the source, to someone who actually did the work
such as Gene Myers of Celera Genomics in Maryland. Myers put together
Celera's genome map and said, "What really astounds me is
the architecture of life . . . the system is extremely complex.
It's like it was designed . . . there's a huge intelligence there"
- from an article by Tom Abate, San Francisco Chronicle, Feb.
Creation scientists concur, if one were to go where the evidence
leads in this massive mapping project, he would indeed come away
saying there's a huge Intelligence involved.
This is the point of creation scientists everywhere. Design means
a designer; creation means a Creator. The Apostle Paul stated
in Romans 1:20 that God's creation is "clearly seen."
One would be hard pressed to explain the exquisite design features
of DNA, and the multitude of plants, animals and people that it
codes for, to mere chance, time and natural selection. There's
but one alternative to such naturalism, and that's supernaturalism,
which is anathema to the Darwinist...