Origins, Part 4

Now we turn our attention to the evolution of the species. This assumes the existence of simple life as evolution cannot explain the origin of life itself. This is why abiogenesis and evolution are different topics. It is important to disentangle these various topics to avoid confusion. For instance, God could create life and then evolution created the species from that start. Or there could have been chemical evolution and then God guided evolution. Or He may have created species in a moment of time. Also, though evolution requires deep time, deep time does not prove evolution. Though an old Earth doesn't prove evolution, evolution does require an old Earth. Or does it? We will discuss this later in the article.

First, let's describe what evolution is. As usual, the exact definition varies somewhat even among evolutionists. But I think the following description would meet with general approval. Evolution occurs when naturally occurring mutations result in an advantage in reproduction to the organism with the mutation. That is, if the mutation makes the creature better fit to the current environment, it would out-compete its older, unmutated, brethren. "Out-compete" means it would produce more offspring than the older organisms. Over time, the older organisms would be replaced by the new, improved, version. This especially occurs when the environment changes, making older versions of the organism less fit. The older versions die off and the new version grows in population. Hence, the organism has "evolved". When this process is repeated over and over during millions of years, entirely new species are created - different mutations in different environments results in diverging lines of species.

This process of environmental changes interacting with beneficial mutations is what is called "natural selection" because it mimics the selection done by breeders. Breeders choose traits they like and then only breed individuals with those traits. Individuals with beneficial traits replace those without those traits. There are differences, of course. Breeding acts on existing DNA traits rather than mutations. Breeders choose features they want while natural selection results in individuals that thrive better in a changing environment. Mutations are often deterimental to the organism since they are breaking something that works. However, sometimes a mutation occurs which is useful to us, such as navel oranges. Those oranges must be propagated manually because they cannot reproduce on their own, which is deadly for any organism. Unless a human had noticed the mutation and propagated that tree, after it died the mutation would have died with it since it cannot reproduce. Further, a lack of genetic diversity means a disease could come along that will kill all the cloned trees. From nearly every perspective, the mutation was bad. We humans simply made good use of it. Random mutations mean that bad mutations are more likely as good mutations, but the bad ones result in less fit individuals so that they are naturally "selected" out of the population.

What are mutations? They are changes in the genetic code that are random. There is a natural "shuffling" of some genes during reproduction which is why children don't look exactly like either parent, though they usually have similarities. Some evolutionists call these changes mutations as well, but that is not how I define the term - it is simply genetics. Things that cause mutations come from either 1) errors in cell division or 2) effects outside of the organism, such as radiation, chemicals, and even viruses.

The theory of evolution was developed by Charles Darwin and put forth in his famous book "The Origin of the Species By Means of Natural Selection". His ideas were not entirely original, being discussed by various people, in various forms, over the years. What Darwin did was bring these ideas together in a holistic manner and in print. Darwin actually wanted to find a way to exclude God from the origins of species. It appears that he had a theological background that was somewhat lacking, combined with personal anger at God. Many might call him an atheist. Interestingly, there wasn't an immediate outcry against his book or theories by the church. Not everyone believed it, but the response was largely uncommitted. However, atheists used the theory as a metaphorical club to attack Christian beliefs. Not unsurprisingly, a great many Christians reacted to these attacks and thence we've had this divide between creationists and evolutionists. Which isn't to say that the split wouldn't have eventually happened anyway.

Even today, many Christians believe in evolution. Usually, they believe that God guided the process. This belief is called "God guided evolution" or "Theistic evolution". In fact, I was a theistic evolutionist for many years. I don't see an inherent disconnect between the evolution and the Bible, depending upon the way both are interpreted. I won't bother going into the ways I squared the Bible with evolutionist theory but it is largely based on the fact that God often acts through agency. In theory, I don't have a theological problem with God working through some process, such as evolution, to bring about creation. My problem with evolution is entirely a scientific one. If God used a process for creation of the species, it wasn't evolution.

Secondly, DNA is the mechanism of life. It propagates life through reproduction. It "runs" the mechanism of each cell in the body, which means that it mediates all living organisms. Without DNA, there is no physical life as we know it. Over the last few decades, there has been an explosion of knowledge about DNA. There are huge areas of mystery yet, and the more we know about it, the more complex we discover that it is. We still have a long way to go before we fully understand it (if we ever do). The rush of the increase of our knowledge, however, has resulted in us throwing out, or substantially altering, old theories. A genetics textbook from 20 years ago is already out of date. The information in this article reflects the current understanding at time of writing.

I see two major scientific problems with the theory of evolution (at least in its current form). The first problem with evolution is also the same problem with abiogenesis: irreducible complexity. There are very complicated and mutually-interdependent systems in living creatures. Let us consider something as simple as blood-clotting. When you cut yourself, platelets gather at the site of the cut to clot the blood so you don't bleed to death from minor injuries. But the process that starts the clotting has to be stopped at some point or else the clotting continues throughout the body, resulting in death. In turn, the process that limits the clotting has to be controlled in another step. Biologists have identified about two dozen proteins that are involved in the steps from the initial cut to the end of the clotting process. These could not develop, step-wise over time, because once you have the step that causes clotting to start, if you don't already have the next step in place, the organism dies with the first minor injury. In fact, if you stop anywhere before the final step, clotting doesn't work - usually resulting in death. The idea of gradual accumulation of genes to control the clotting process is simply unworkable. The only way one could do this is either 1) have the entire process in place all at once, or 2) evolve the steps in the reverse direction so that the last step is the first one to develop, until you finally get the to the first step and then clotting will work without killing the organism. But what would be the advantage to an organism for all of those steps that do nothing beneficial for the organism until the last of those steps is present? Mutations may be random, but to have a string of two dozen of just the right mutations in the right order over the millions of years necessary to accumulate them, without random mutations destroying them before completion? This is another example of something so astronomical unlikely that it qualifies as impossible. And blood clotting is only one of several known complex systems in living creatures.

The second major problem with evolution is that natural selection has to work on existing genes, or mutations of those genes. But evolution requires additional genes to come into existence in the DNA. Worse, as you may recall from the previous article, DNA has a three-dimensional structure where related genes are found in spacial proximity which means they have to exist very distantly from each other, linearly. If you could come up with some mechanism to add genes over time, they would have to be added such that the order in which they were added was spread out among many different functions and precisely where the DNA strand crossed itself.

Not only that, but if these systems could conceivably be accumulated through random mutation, there would be a huge number of random genes in the DNA that had no adverse or beneficial effects. Evolutionists once thought that this was the case. They called it "junk DNA". But it turns out that the supposed junk DNA actually performs valid functions. So, we do not find random accumulated DNA. Instead all of the DNA appears to be functional or else it was functional and is now broken through mutation. Mutation doesn't add new DNA material. If it does anything, it only breaks what is already there. Someone might point out that new genes can be added through errors in cell replication. This occurs with things like XXY males (people with an extra copy of the X chromosome). But having extra chromosomes (or parts of extra chromosomes) are always detrimental to the organism. Even if there was a way to only copy a single extra gene instead of a whole chromosome (which doesn't appear possible except maybe in limited cases in bacteria), it would only be a duplicate of an existing gene and not something new.

What do evolutionists say about these things? Very little, as it turns out. Irreducible complexity is rarely even addressed and the only case where I saw that it was, the supposed counter argument fell embarrassing short. Usually these problems are simply ignored. Some honest evolutionists have recognized that there are serious issues with the theory of evolution and abiogenesis. They've admitted that 4.6 billion years is far too short for evolution to have occurred on Earth. They take one of two paths to address this. 1) Life was created by aliens and planted on Earth. But this only pushes the problem to another level - how did the aliens evolve? 2) Life evolved elsewhere in the universe and was transported here through some means, such as asteroids. This was called Panspermia, but now is called "Cosmic Ancestry". Carl Sagan¹, a popular scientist until his death in 1996, was a believer in this theory. Some Cosmic Ancestry scientists reject the Big Bang theory because they think that 13.6 billion years is also too little time for life to evolve. They are more inclined to think that the universe is much, much, older. The problem with the idea that life was transported to our planet through naturalistic means is that only single cell lifeforms could be transported this way, so it only concerns abiogenesis, but does nothing about the problems with evolution.

But don't scientists all agree that evolution is true? No. There is a general consensus, but there are creation scientists that disagree. These are people with PhDs in fields like genetics, geology, chemistry, astronomy, etc. So, there are smart and educated people that don't believe evolution is true. Remember what we talked about a few articles ago: consensus is not always correct. Why, then, is evolution taught in schools and not creationism? The argument is that creationism isn't a science. This is correct! It cannot be proven or dis-proven through experiment, which means it isn't science. However, evolution cannot be proven or disproven either. It is forensic science based on unprovable theories about unobserved phenomena. With the turning of academia from the Bible and Christianity over the last century or so, we've reached a point where only evolution is taught. When people find problems with the theory, their first response is to assume they did something wrong and they fear to air their observations lest they incur ridicule from other scientists - and possibly even some form of blacklisting. The scientific journals are also managed by people who are committed to the theory, so that even if a scientist wanted to publish something damaging to the theory of evolution, they are unlikely to get published in said journals. The journals they do get published in are marginalized by the general scientific community. I'm not saying there is a great conspiracy. It is simply that people don't like to have their dearly-held beliefs murdered by a merciless gang of facts. Evolutionary thought has grabbed a hold of academia and group think keeps it that way.

But what about all the "proofs" of evolution that we've all heard over the years? To address every argument from evolutionists would take several books (and many books have been written), but I'll point out the flaws of some of the common arguments you have likely heard. Before that, however, it is important to note that creationists and evolutionists often have a lot of common ground when it comes to specifics. Where they differ is in how they interpret those specifics. Reasonable people in either camp can look at the same evidence and come to reasonable, but different, conclusions. It all depends upon the worldview that each person starts with. This is called "confirmation bias" and it affects all humans. The problem is that we tend to fit what we learn into the framework that we have built in our minds. A creationist sees evidence of God creating life and the species. An evolutionist sees evidence of gradual evolution over time. And they are looking at the same facts! I started out as an evolutionist long ago, then became a theistic evolutionist, and now I do not believe there is any truth in Darwinism. So I have understanding of, and sympathy for, people holding any of these views. Now let's look at some specifics.

Transitional Fossils
If animals evolve over millions of years, gradually accumulating changes, we would expect to see a lot of intermediate steps between the original form and the evolved form. In fact, we do not. You may recall that I've stated that a lack of evidence does not qualify as an evidence of a lack. You cannot disprove evolution from a lack of transitional forms, even though Darwin said that such a lack would disprove his theory. He was wrong. A lack of evidence is not how you disprove a theory. You have to disprove it through proving something that is mutually exclusive of it. A lack of evidence is, however, a lack of proof. Darwin makes a bold statement that has no supporting evidence. The lack of evidence may not prove him wrong, but that lack definitely does not prove him correct. Nevertheless, there have always been evolutionists who claim to have found some transitional fossils. I cannot cover every possible example of this, but none of these claims have survived the test of time. The most recent example of this is the supposed discovery of "protofeathers" on dinosaurs, which is used as proof that dinosaurs evolved into birds. The fact is that these protofeathers are nothing more than frayed collagen fibers from dead skin. We can even observe it in dead animals today. Combined with the fact that there are no other anatomical features in common between birds and dinosaurs (that is, which aren't in common with all vertebrates), there is no reason to believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Another favorite of evolutionists are the supposed intermediates between apes and humans that prove that humans evolved from primitive primates. There are three classes of this: 1) Fraud. A classic example of this is Piltdown man, which was a combination of ape and human bones that the "discoverer" had actually filed down to fit together, and stained to make them appear aged the same. Evolutionists considered it such a major proof that it took them 40 years to realize they had been fooled. 2) Mistakes. Because they are so desperate to find a transitional form, even when they are not committing fraud, they ignore evidence to the contrary of their views and believe what they want. Like the skeleton named "Lucy", which was supposedly a intermediate between ape and man. It had an ape-like body and human-like feet. Except that no feet were found with the skeleton. Instead, human bones were found in the general vicinity and assumed to be part of the skeleton. But this is just a chimera: the mixture of two different species - not a skeleton of a transitional form. Lucy is simply an extinct primate that someone associated with separate human foot bones. 3) The skeleton is either entirely an extinct primate, or it is entirely a human. In fact, there are no undisputed finds of any human/ape intermediate. These finds are disputed by secular scientists as well as creationists.

What about Neanderthals? Supposedly, these have some ape-like features while being "early humans". But the DNA recovered from Neanderthals is modern human DNA and the supposedly ape-like features are not unique to Neanderthals but are found in modern humans as well, such as pronounced brow ridges and sagittal crests. This has led some evolutionists to conclude that humans and Neanderthals interbred. Well, that's true, since Neanderthals were human. The similarity in skull features probably just indicate an ethnic group that no longer exists as a distinct group. But this begs the question...

What is a species?
Species is a word that has varied in definition over the years and which still has some disagreement among scientists. Originally, species was defined by how the animal looked. If it looked different enough from other animals, it was a species. But some animals look different when they are juvenile opposed to adult. In some species, male and female look different. By observation, we could figure out the variation in a species and clearly delineate them. So then it was that if two plants or animals could interbreed, they were considered the same species, despite how they look. However this was problematic because many different species of plant can hybridize, and different species of animals can also produce offspring. In the case of animals, like tigers and lions, the results of interbreeding are called chimeras. And then there is the case of single-cell animals that reproduce asexually so the only way to tell species apart is by whether they look different enough. Chimeras are not always the result of breeding efforts facilitated by humans. Sometimes they happen naturally when two species overlap in range. There was some hope when we started mapping the genetics of various species that we could determine species by how similar their DNA was. However, that effort failed because comparing the DNA of quite different species was sometimes more similar than the DNA between species that could interbreed.

So, then, what is a species? The current species have been defined by international standards bodies. But I think that defining a species as all individuals that can interbreed is actually the correct one (recognizing that asexual creatures must still be categorized by appearance). This means that lions and tigers are the same species because they can interbreed. But how can this be? They look so different! Consider how different a Great Dane and a chihuahua look. Yet they are the same species and can interbreed. So why consider lions and tigers separate species other than tradition and the declaration of a standards body? There is such a thing as natural selection, but it acts on the characteristics already in DNA - it doesn't create new DNA and evolve a creature. The "great cat species" DNA originally had all the genes necessary to produce individuals that resembled either lions or tigers, for instance. But local groups adapted to different environments by exhibiting those DNA traits that were beneficial to their environment. Over time, genetic diversity was lost (essentially a mild form of inbreeding) and all tigers look like tigers and all lions look like lions, but they are simply the same species, living in different environments. In plants, we call these "ecotypes" or "subspecies". In domesticated animals, we call then "breeds." They are members of a species that look different from "typical" members of the same species.

Thus, if humans and Neanderthals interbred, they are the same species and the only reason to assert differently is because one wants to use them as support for evolution. So, when we look at the evidence holistically, we see either apes or humans in the fossil record - nothing in-between.

Humans and Chimpanzees Share 95% of genes
This was big news a few years ago, but it is misleading. First, the comparison was made on a subset of the whole genome. The actual similarity is about 84%. Second, it makes sense that we would have many of the same protein encoding regions as primates given our similar diets, the fact that we are mammals, and comparable body shape. In fact, we have genes in common with every living thing. For instance, some studies say that we share 60% of our genome with bananas. Supposedly, chimpanzees and humans share a common evolutionary ancestor about 6 million years ago. If it took 6 million years for a 5% change in genome (assuming the 95% comparison), then the common ancestor would be closer to 18 million years go (with an 84% comparison), which doesn't agree with the assertions of evolutionists. Not to mention that using that logic, we shared a common ancestor with bananas about 50 million years ago. Obviously, a 16% difference makes all the difference. The comparison simply doesn't support an evolutionary view. Evolutionists see part of the genome in common and assume things evolved. Creationists see the same thing and assume a Creator that used a common set of building blocks for living things.

Fossil stratification
As we briefly mentioned in a previous article, the geologic column (the layers of sediment found around the world) has been used as a means of determining the age of the Earth. Similar fossils are found in the same layer around the world, but they differ from the fossils found in other layers. Actually, there are instances where fossils from multiple layers are found in a single layer. There is no good evolutionary explanation for this - and such things are mostly ignored by evolutionists. Not only are there no transitional forms, but the way the strata are laid down is more consistent with quick deposition - not gradual over millions of years.

Evolutionists look at the geologic column and see a gradual evolution from simpler marine animals into more complex land animals as we go up the column. Many creationists see the results of a progressive flood that first scoured the sea bottoms and deposited the bodies of creatures from that area in the first layer, then an increase of flood waters that deposited the bodies of creatures from higher levels of the oceans, then an increase that affected low-lying swampy areas, and so forth. In other words, the layers represent not different time periods, but different environments affected as the flood waters increased. This is example of how one's worldview affects the way evidence is interpreted: same evidence - different explanations.

One of the most inexplicable things (from an evolutionary perspective) in the fossil record and geologic column is what scientists call the "Cambrian explosion". The name comes from the fact that at the lowest rock layers, we find algae and a few "simple" animals. Then in the next layer there are suddenly complex animals, such as trilobites with compound eyes, with no intermediate forms. A progressive global flood which rapidly lays down the same layers across the whole world explains it. Evolution cannot.

Soft tissue
Another example of the problems with evolution is the discovery of soft tissues in petrified dinosaur bones (apparently including DNA), and DNA found in the remains of extinct animals such as woolly mammoths. According to the dating methods used by evolutionists, these remains date back hundreds of thousands or many millions of years. In fact, the theory of evolution requires such time periods. The problem is that - even under the best laboratory conditions - DNA only has a half-life of about 512 years. It is much shorter under natural conditions. This means that any DNA we find in remains cannot be hundreds of thousands, or millions, of years old. In fact, it can't even be tens of thousands of years old. DNA is a very unstable molecule that needs repair mechanisms in living cells. But even the much more stable proteins that comprise the soft tissues found in dinosaur bones simply cannot last tens of millions of years - even in ideal conditions. This was well-known by scientists. The first scientist to discover these soft tissues was hesitant to even report it because the discovery should have been impossible given the generally-accepted time scales. There have been some attempts to explain how these proteins could be preserved so long, but none of them have stood up under cross-examination. However, these discoveries fit well with an act of creation some 6,000 years ago.

Micro-evolution
Some people make a distinction between "macro-evolution" and "micro-evolution". In fact, I once held this view. Macro-evolution is defined as the evolution of one type of animal into a completely different type (such as dinosaurs into birds). Micro-evolution is defined as the development of new species within a given "type" of animal. For instance, Zebras evolved from primitive horses through micro-evolution.

The problem with holding to the idea of micro-evolution without macro-evolution is that if there is evolution on a "micro" scale, then with enough time, there will be evolution on a "macro" scale. There are also still the problems of how any form of evolution can happen at all. Also, we've noted the fact that many supposedly different species can interbreed. All things considered, it seems obvious to me now that micro-evolution does not happen at all. Rather, the genetic diversity we see that makes up different species is better explained by the idea that much of what we see is merely a loss of genetic diversity in the same species in different environments. Zebras and modern horses are merely the same species which have lost genetic diversity over time. The original horse had genes for stripes and genes for spots, and genes for solid colors. Stripes had an advantage in certain parts of Africa and other genes were "selected out". That is, instead of natural selection resulting in new genes and a new species, it resulted in a loss of genes that did not produce stripes. If horses and zebras interbreed (and they can), the offspring have more genetic diversity and can produce offspring with or without stripes. Likewise, tigers and lions have each lost genetic diversity resulting in different appearance. Crossbreeding restores that lost diversity. Just as different breeds of dogs (created through artificial selection) look different, cross-breeding results in a generic dog that can produce offspring with specific genes of either parent.

Sometimes the loss of diversity is only apparent rather than actual. DNA has the ability to only express certain genes under certain conditions. Blind cave fish have been moved into lighted environments, resulting in the offspring having colors not found in their pinkish-only parents. The gene having to do with color was there all along, it simply wasn't expressed in the cave environment. Rather than two separate species, it is the same species looking very different in different environments. The evolutionists insist that the blind cave fish evolved from other fish over millions of years and lost their color through mutations, but experiments indicate otherwise.

Genetic entropy
Another problem with evolution is something called "genetic entropy". Each generation of individuals of all species, including humans, accumulate mutations. These mutations are how we can measure how related people are via DNA tests. Our biology is very resilient and some mutations don't cause problems while others are compensated for through redundancies in our DNA. However, the accumulation of mutations over time means that our genetics are devolving, not evolving. It explains the long life of the early patriarchs in Genesis and the much shorter lifespan of humans today. At some point, the "mutational load" will become so great that we won't be able to reproduce very well. Some geneticists are surprised that we humans haven't already gone extinct. Others give us less than two thousand years before we can no longer propagate the species. The scourge of cancer might be a result of this genetic entropy. Recently, the fertility of men has been dropping worldwide. This could be due to any number of phenomena, from environmental factors to social pressures. But it also fits well with a genome that is accumulating more and more mutations with each generation. In any case, it appears that 10,000 years is about the limit of how long any species can survive this entropy. That is far less than is necessary for a new species to evolve. Species go extinct faster than they can evolve, if evolution was even otherwise possible. But it fits well with the age of the species from a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Benefits of the Theory of Evolution
So, what benefits derive from the theory of evolution upon which so much effort and money has been spent? I cannot think of a single one. I can see several problems, though. First, it has actually inhibited scientific advancement. Evolutionists were so eager to find proof of their theory that they dismissed several organs as vestigial. As it turns out, that merely delayed the discovery of what those organs were for. Likewise, they wanted there to be junk DNA and dismissed much of the DNA as unused junk. Again, it only delayed scientific inquiry that is now revealing that the "junk" is essential to the function of the cells. As noted, it also makes them more subject to pranks or fraud.

Even worse, the idea that we are merely evolved animals has led to a host of social ills. Some consider that we might as well live like animals since we are no more than that. It has led to euthanasia, forced sterilization, and eugenics. Darwin was a racist and implicit in his theory is that some humans are less evolved than others, which has led to a tacit racism that exists even today. Consider that all of the reconstructions of our supposed evolutionary ancestors are dark-skinned like Africans. I should note that things were hardly perfect before evolution was invented. It simply gave some human misbehavior a "scientific" excuse. Hitler may have still arisen, but perhaps the Germans would have realized the monstrosity of the Nazi "science" and stopped him before he killed six million Jews and other minorities (not to mention helpless disabled people).

Conversely, a literal Biblical perspective teaches that all people descended from one man, Noah, about 4,500 years ago. All races date back to that man - not an ape-like ancestor. There is only one race: the human race. We are called to live up to the image of God that we were created in, not live down to the level of brute beasts. We are encouraged to look into the wonders of creation - not ignore things because they serve to support a fantasy. So we see that our worldview has a huge effect on our behavior. Evolution leads to very dark places. Not to mention the huge amount of money spent on it over the last century with no practical benefits to humankind. That has undoubtedly slowed down actual scientific progress because the huge amounts of resources could have been spent on other, observable and experimental, science.

These are a few of the reasons why I find the theory of evolution to be unscientific and unsupportable. The evidence seems to support the Biblical narrative far better than evolution.

1 Carl Sagan was like Bill Nye "the Science Guy" except that he had actual bona fides in the form of a PhD in Astronomy.

Contents copyright © 2025 by Alan Conroy. Duplication is allowed as long as this copyright notice is included.

Original design by G. Wolfgang | Adapted by Alan Conroy | W3C XHTML 1.0 | W3C CSS 2.0