Evolution

During his visit to the Galapagos Islands, did Charles Darwin (1809-1882) come across a great variation of Finches and Turtles. That made him think that the present kinds did proceed out of earlier species, through a gradual process, called Natural Selection. In 1859 Darwin published his ideas in the book "The origin of species by means of natural selection".

What Darwin had observed was micro-evolution: a gradual change of certain races and species. This evolution took place within certain boundaries; the finches remained finches and turtles remained turtles. Here his perception stopped.

Yet Darwin drew a previous conclusion that the life forms continually develop to higher live form: macro-evolution. Thus invertibrate animals would have brought forth vertebrates, reptiles would have been evolved to mammillae, etc. But for this macro-evolution is no evidencing whatsoever.

Darwin wrote in his book:
Why don’t we find many intermediate forms in every geological period? Why is there a lack of sufficient evidence in every fossil collection that intermediate forms slowly and gradually have evolved? This evidence is not found which is the major objection that can be made against this theory.

For example, there are many differences between reptiles and mammals:

	Reptiles	Mammals
	coldblooded	warmblooded
	1 earbone	3 earbones
	jawhalf in four pieces	jawhalf in one piece
	drinks no milk	drinks milk of its mother

There are no (fossil) transitional forms known between reptiles and mammals. There is a missing link. So is a gradual transitional from not drinking milk towards milk drinking not imaginable. A real scientific conclusion founded on perceptions would have to be that these transitional forms there never have been. But many scientists don’t want to conclude this, because there is only one alternative; a creator of living creatures, and that they don’t like.

Biologist Prof. Dr.Bruinsma commented on this:
During a paleontologist congress in 1998 in the U.S.A. the chief of the richest fossil collection of the world, which is situated in the British museum in London, Dr. Colin Paterson, asked his colleagues openly whether there has been someone who had one, just one real transitional form had found. It remained deadly silent. After a while one of the attendants commented: it ought not to be taught in high school. The most famous paleontologist at the present Dr Stephen Gould of the Harvard University, who calls this problem 'the trade secret of Paleontology', suggests such transitional forms are found in a small part of the population, that will be the reason for not being able to find it. From this view it would be logical to quit looking for missing links, but that would be unscientifically. This would be committing science without collecting evidential materials. With the scientifical theory looses its status and becomes a dogma, an article of belief. The alternative is to accept the fact that transitional forms have never existed.¹

The micro-evolution exists, that is a proven fact. But Gregor Mendel explains the theoretical basis. Our hereditary qualities are in our genes. By natural selection or breed certain genes shall be super-represented in the descendants. But actually what happens is impoverishment of the variation of the genes. This is called degeneration. In breeding dogs we observe that there are races with relatively short paws. These are actually a hereditary defect. Pedigree dogs run the danger of becoming extinct by the fact that inbreeding causes sickly qualities. A natural example of degeneration in nature is the cheetah. Cheetah’s look very much alike genetically, which enlarges the danger of becoming extinct.
With micro-evolution one cannot speak of evolution in the sense in which Darwin pointed out. In that process no new genes are originated. If ever a "new" gene would originate by mutation, then this is always a weakening or a pointless change of an existing gene. Various congenital sicknesses are the result of defect genes.

For a further discussion on evolution or degeneration the home page of Peter M. Scheele can be a worthwhile visit.

In free nature amino acids exist. The amino acids are components of albumen molecules and as such components of living organism. Evolutionists presume that amino acids came into being in the "proto-soup", after that albumen and, thereafter DNA the ever so necessary elements for living creatures.
The problem however is that amino acids exist in two forms in free nature, namely left- and right-turning. In albumen though generally only left turning are found. With this in mind the transition from amino acids to albumen becomes very vague. But the evolution at cell level also poses big problems.

Theoretical biologist Dr. H. van Waesberghe described a number of problems with regard to evolution of the cell in Intermediair:
Whatever way it is approached, our problem is not to know how the first biomolecule came into being, but rather how the first cell originated. The biologists justly criticize the pure biochemists, who know too little about the cell...
DNA will not last for millions of years in the "proto-soup" when a membrane does not protect it. The lifespan of unprotected DNA can be estimated in hours, maximally days. Nowadays more research is put into the origination of single-braided RNA rather than double-braided DNA. Naked RNA is just as vulnerable to destructive environmental influences as naked DNA. Precisely the millions of years, with which the darwinistic scenario is jubilant, are of fatal influence on DNA.
It is estimated that there are 2000 enzymes. Eventhough each cell requires less, the pure coincidental origination of so many enzymes at the proper location, at the right time and in the exact quantity, is not at all plausible.
Finally, coincidence is not an explanation, but rather the lack of a scientific explanation....
Based on these and other identical objections colleagues are no longer interested in the proto-soup model, which is still taught in secondary and high schools. ... According to Yokey we don’t have the faintest idea how life has originated, and it would only be fair to admit this to the financiers of scientific research and to the public in general.²

Another interesting objection against the evolution theory is the description of a. dinosaur in the Bible. According to the evolution theory this animal was extinct long ago, even before humans became alive. But if such were the case, then job would not have been able to describe them.

Conclusion.

Evolution at macro level is not a proven fact, only a theory that has been hollowed out in such a way that it is now impossible to even verify it. Thus this theory looses its scientific status. Paul wrote about this:
For these people can very well know that God exists. He made this known to them Himself. God eventhough He is invisible can be known in all His works, in all He has created. In that He show His eternal power. For since the origination of the earth His existence can clearly be know out of His works. For this reason people have no excuse. (Romans 1:19,20 - the Bible)

1) Christendom Onwijs - Uitgeverij Kok Voorhoeve - Kampen, 1996
2) Intermediair 44, 1988.

Back to Homepage