Topics:
Creating Life In a Test-tube - DNA and Information - Early Atmosphere - Fossil Evidence - Fruit Fly Experiment - Geologic Column - Origin of Life - Radioactive Dating - Theories - Thermodynamics - Time
Fossil Evidence
“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our ability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” Stephen Jay Gould (Deceased Professor of Geology and Paleontology,
"Undeniably, the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series. The origins of many groups are still not documented at all." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 190-191)
"The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace the gradual transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded sequence of intermediary forms." (Gould, S.J. Luria, S.E. & Singer, S., A View of Life, 1981, p. 641)
"Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95)
"Many fossils have been collected since 1859, tons of them, yet the impact they have had on our understanding of the relationships between living organisms is barely perceptible. ...In fact, I do not think it unfair to say that fossils, or at least the traditional interpretation of fossils, have clouded rather than clarified our attempts to reconstruct phylogeny."
(Fortey, P. L., "Neontological Analysis Versus Palaeontological Stores," 1982, p. 120-121)
"Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that of G. G. Simpson and S. J. Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution, like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex of particular and general preconceptions not the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has occurred. ...The fossil record doesn't even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories and special creationist theories and even historical theories." (Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation," review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P. Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, p. 353-354)
"The fossil record had caused
(Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 238-239)
"The majority of major groups appear suddenly in the rocks, with virtually no evidence of transition from their ancestors." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 82)
"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23)
"But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition." (Woodroff, D.S., Science, vol. 208, 1980, p. 716)
"Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. ...The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution).
(Gould, Stephen J., "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p. 15)
"The geological record has provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes."
(Norman, J., A History of Fishes, 1963, p. 298)
"A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." (Dr. Tim White, anthropologist, University of
Fruit Fly Experiment
“Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised.” Lane Lester, Ph.D. in genetics, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, 1989, p. 89.
“If one believes in evolution, then one has to also account for the origin of life – the very first step. Without this, the whole subject of evolution hangs on nothing.” Stephen Grocott (Ph.D. Organometallic Chemistry), In Six Days, 2000, p. 148.
One philosopher of science put it this way: “origin of life research consists in looking for a naturalistic alternative to the idea of the creation of life by a designer.” Iris Fry, The Emergence of Life on Earth, 2000, p. 184.
“…life requires structures of incredible complexity, not just high energy levels. The most basic processes of living things are accomplished by molecular engines as complex as man’s greatest inventions.” Jeremy L. Walter (Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering), In Six Days, 2000, p. 17.
“The question ‘How did life originate?’ which interests us all, is inseparably linked to the question ‘Where did the information come from?’ Since the findings of James D. Watson and Francis H. C. Crick, it was increasingly realized by contemporary researchers that the information residing in the cells is of crucial importance for the existence of life. Anybody who wants to make meaningful statements about the origin of life, would be forced to explain how the information originated. All evolutionary views are fundamentally unable to answer this crucial question.” Dr. Werner Gitt, (Gitt is the director and a professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology.) In the Beginning was Information, 1997, p. 99.
“Since science does not have the faintest idea how life on earth originated, … it would only be honest to confess this to other scientists, to grantors, and to the public at large. Prominent scientists speaking ex cathedra, should refrain from polarizing the minds of students and young productive scientists with statements that are based solely on beliefs.” Hubert Yockey (Ph.D. from
"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We 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."
(Urey, Harold C., quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4)
"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." (H.J. Lipson, F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A physicist looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31, p. 138)
"The origin of life is still a mystery. As long as it has not been demonstrated by experimental realization, I cannot conceive of any physical or chemical condition [allowing evolution]...I cannot be satisfied by the idea that fortuitous mutation...can explain the complex and rational organization of the brain, but also of lungs, heart, kidneys, and even joints and muscles. How is it possible to escape the idea of some intelligent and organizing force?"
(d'Aubigne, Merle, "How Is It Possible to Escape the Idea of Some Intelligent and Organizing Force?" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 158)
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law. They ask themselves, "How did life arise out of inanimate matter? And what is the probability of that happening?" And to their chagrin they have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened, and furthermore, they do not know the chance of its happening. Perhaps the chance is very small, and the appearance of life on a planet is an event of miraculously low probability. Perhaps life on the earth is unique in this Universe. No scientific evidence precludes that possibility."
(Jastrow, Robert, The Enchanted Loom: Mind In the Universe, 1981, p. 19)
"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy."
(Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)
"When the blood of a seal, freshly killed at
"The hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was found to have a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years but the peaty soil in which is was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years." (Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 8, 1966.)
Theories
Karl Popper, the greatest philosopher of science in the last century, put it this way, “Science seeks true theories, but can never be certain which theories are true.”
“Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus ‘outside of empirical science’ but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it.” Paul Ehrlich (Professor of Biology,
“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.” Personal letter (written 10 April 1979) from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to Luther D. Sunderland; as quoted in Darwin’s Enigma by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Books, San Diego, USA, 1984, p. 89.
“Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.” Professor Whitten (Professor of Genetics,
“The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory – is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation – both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.” L. Harrison Mathews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin’s The Origin of Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p. 11.
“All the many forms of life on earth today descended from a common ancestor, found in a population of primitive unicellular organisms. What were those first cell like? What events led up to their formation? No traces of those events remain, and scientists can’t travel backward in time to witness what happened.” Glencoe Biology, 1994, p. 324.
“Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school.” Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Palaeontologist, British
“Durant concludes that the secular myths of evolution have had ‘a damaging effect on scientific research’, leading to ‘distortion, to needless controversy, and to the gross misuse of science”. Dr. John Durant (University College Swansea,
"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."
(More, Louis T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160)
"I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb. In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe."
(Wolfgang, Smith, "The Universe is Ultimately to be Explained in Terms of a Metacosmic Reality" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 113)
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA.
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research, as quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.
Time
“Time is the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years… Given so much time the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs miracles.” Dr. George Wald, Harvard biology professor, “The Origin of Life,” in The Physics and Chemistry of Life, 1955, p. 12.
“Time, however, does not increase the chance that the penny would turn into a nickel, a dime, a quarter, and a silver dollar which would then sprout wings and fly off together into the sunset doing aerobatic stunts in a tight formation. Time does increase the probability of something happening if it can happen, but the statement ‘time itself performs miracles’ is false.” Thomas F. Heinze, “How Life Began,” Chick Publications, 2002, p. 22.