Part 2: Forbidden Secret.. How did the First Information Evolve?...Mutations, Natural Selection, and Variations... -Fossils and Evolution

THE FORBIDDEN SECRET 

HOW TO SURVIVE WHAT THE 

ELITE HAVE PLANNED FOR YOU 

Jonathan Gray

3 

How did information evolve? - 

ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE 

“Keep it up, boy!” Little Jamie bent down again and tugged on his shoe laces. He pulled and pulled until he was out of breath. 

“Why can’t I pull myself off the ground?” he cried in frustration. 

Well, you know the answer to that. If you pull up on your boot straps for ten trillion years you still won’t lift yourself off the ground. The law of gravity stops you. 

So here were two questions niggling at my mind: 

1. Firstly, were the Laws of the Conservation of Energy and of Matter suspended long enough for Empty Space to give birth to a.rock? 

2. Secondly, would the rock get wet (for no reason), and then give birth to an amoeba? 

Er, yeah… sure it would, if you sort of screwed up your eyes and crossed your fingers!? 

No one disputes that the origin of the universe involved physical matter appearing from nothing. Yet there is no scientific mechanism that could have caused it to occur.  

But physical matter has appeared. Because we are here! 

Pure lottery. What if a billion, billion, billion black balls were mixed together with one white ball, and I had to reach, blindfolded, and pick out the white one? What if my life depended on it? Pick out that white one or be killed. 

If I reached, blindfolded into those zillions of black balls and discovered I had pulled out the one and only white ball… yes, I would rightly suspect that the whole thing was rigged. 

I pulled it out by pure accident? What do you think? Wouldn’t you call me nuts if I told you I picked it first time by chance! 

Origin of life 

But that’s not all. What about the odds of life happening? Mathematically, it was simply impossible. When you consider the hundreds of factors required to produce life or even a planet capable of sustaining life as we know it – factors as diverse as the decay rates of elements and the distance of a planet’s orbit to its sun – and multiply them by the scientific and mathematical odds of those factors being right, it just doesn’t work. We shouldn’t be here. 

That brings to mind something that Sir Fred Hoyle said. That honoured British astronomer calculated that the odds of only one factor necessary for life coming together by chance – the enzymes needed to perform the chemical functions needed to produce the most simple living creature – were one in 1040,000 . That’s mathematical shorthand for 10 followed by 40,000 zeros, enough to fill 20 pages of this book…000000000000 and so on. 

(For perspective, mathematicians consider any probability of less than one in 1050 to be impossible.) 

1. Did DNA just evolve? 

Now just consider the origin of one living cell. 

What were the odds of the first simple cell forming? Just ask a statistician. Produce a simple cell by chance? You are living in a dream world, he’ll reply. Do you know what you’re asking?

Even the simplest cell you can conceive of would require no less than 100,000 DNA base pairs and a minimum of about 10,000 amino acids, to form the essential protein chain. Not to mention the other things that would also be necessary for the first cell. 

Bear in mind that every single base pair in the DNA chain has to have the same molecular orientation (“left-hand” or “right hand”)? As well as that, virtually all the amino acids must have the opposite orientation. And every one must be without error. Every single one of the ten thousand. 

Now, to randomly obtain those correct orientations, do you know your chances? It would be 1 chance in 2110,000, or 1 chance in 1033,113! 

To put it another way, if you attempted a trillion, trillion, trillion combinations every second for 15 billion years, the odds you would achieve all the correct orientations would still only be one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion ... and the trillions would continue 2755 times! 

It would be like winning more than 4700 state lotteries in a row with only a single ticket purchased for each. In other words…impossible. Would you please read that over again carefully and think about it?

2. How is ‘life’ added? 

But to orientate the molecules correctly is just one of the hurdles to be overcome for life to appear randomly. 

Here’s another: How do you add ‘life’ to non-living matter? 

And that’s only for the first, simplest cell. You still have the problem of the developing of more than 1.7 million highly complex species…. With even greater odds against it happening. As a statistician will assure you, random evolution is utterly impossible. 

At school we were taught about the “simple cell”… Oh go on!… we have now discovered it to be more complex than New York’s vast transportation network at rush hour. To appear accidentally was a mathematical absurdity. 

We’ve already noted this, but a brief review is in order here. 

The DNA machinery inside each cell had to be totally 100 percent intact with all its interlocking, working parts, before one living cell could even exist. 

Fascinating, you might say. But just wait till its implications hit you… 

Firstly, DNA comes in intelligently designed sentences. It is not LIKE a language. It IS a language. Much thought has gone into the design of the DNA code. 

Secondly, this molecular machine has the ability to make functional copies of itself. And to do this it would have to be extremely complex. 

Thirdly, the DNA molecule which tells every part of the cell “city” which different job to do, is the most complex storage system in the known universe. 

Fourthly, in every cell, microscopic-sized factories endlessly retrieve, process and store food. And highly efficient power plants burn the food to produce and store energy – all without over-heating the delicate temperature-sensitive machinery. 

3. How did the first information evolve? 

Each of these things needs to receive information on how to do its job. That’s a gigantic hurdle… information. 

How did genetic information evolve? And where did it come from, in the first place? From dead matter? That was the very question that would finally stump me. 

I ask you, how on earth could this complex coded information evolve, instantly perfect? Do you have the answer to that? 

A world leader in the field of “information science” was Dr Werner Gitt, a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology. According to Dr Gitt, science makes one fact absolutely certain: information cannot emerge from disorder by chance. It always takes a greater source of information to produce information. And ultimately, information is the result of intelligence. (“How Would You Answer?” , March 13, 2003) 

A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor)…. It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required. (Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information. Bielenfeld, Germany: Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung, pp. 64-67. Emphasis mine) 

There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this. (Ibid., p. 79) 

Bad news for evolution? 

As if that wasn’t enough... Just factor this in. Simultaneously, you would need a totally functional system able and ready to write, read and use that information. In other words,

• the writing mechanism,

• the reading mechanism, and

• the mechanism to use it, 

these must all be present at the same very first moment that the information appears. If one of these components is missing, the whole system will fail to work. Here was a case of “irreducible complexity”. 

Could this just happen? Could mere chemicals just on their own change into living systems? Not a snowflake’s chance. 

How much information? 

Do you have any idea as to how much information is continuously programming, constructing and reproducing your body? 

For starters, your body contains 75 trillion or more cells. Just suppose that you could stretch out and join up all the DNA in those cells end to end, do you know how far that would reach? Get this: 94 billion (not million, but billion) miles. Or 150 billion kilometres. That’s a thousand times the distance from the earth to the sun. Or 3½ million times around our earth’s equator! It would take a beam of light 5½ days to travel that far. 

Does that make your head spin? If all the DNA in just your body was placed end to end, that’s how far it would reach! No kidding. Read the last paragraph again. 

Okay, then, what is the probability of just one – just one – just one – of those DNA molecules forming by chance? The late astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle put it this way: 

Now imagine 1050 blind persons [that’s 100,000 billion billion billion billion billion people – standing shoulder to shoulder, they would more than fill our entire solar system] each with a scrambled Rubik cube and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling [random variation] at just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. (Fred Hoyle, “The Big Bang in Astronomy,” New Scientist, vol. 92, no. 1280, November 19, 1981, p. 527) 

It has been estimated that the 3 billion letters of information in just one human cell of DNA are equivalent to 1,000 encyclopedia-sized books of information. (“Human/Chimp DNA Similarity,” , March 13, 2003) 

Optimum design perfection 

Oh, something else. The DNA code for information storage and translation, contains the ideal number of genetic letters. 

This threw me. You see, the copying mechanism of DNA, to meet maximum effectiveness, requires the number of letters in each word to be an even number. Of all possible mathematical combinations, the ideal number for storage and transcription has been calculated to be four letters.  

And this is exactly what has been found in the genes of every living thing on earth – a four-letter digital code. “The coding system used for living human beings is optimal from an engineering standpoint. This suggests it is a case of purposeful design rather than a [lucky] chance.” (Dr Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, p. 95. Emphasis mine) 

Here, then, is what I have found myself needing to face: 

1.Scientists have never observed chemicals forming themselves into complex DNA molecules. 

2.Life cannot arise spontaneously from non-life. 

3.The simplest living organisms show irreducible complexity. 

4.DNA molecules do not produce new genetic information. They only reproduce it. 

The bottom line is this: There are no natural processes that could account for it… no scientific mechanism that could have caused it to occur. 

Sorry, skeptics. That leaves you and me with only one rational alternative… that the first life must have been designed, then created. 

1. Such organisms were fully formed from the first moment they appeared. 

2. The first life must have been programmed, like a computer chip, with the original code (or life information) loaded into it by the designer. 

So life was deliberately created? 

Well, then, after life was created, did evolution follow? Did an original living organism evolve upward into the many varieties we have today? 

Let’s investigate…

4 

Mutations, natural selection, and variations - 

MAKING EVOLUTION POSSIBLE? 

Jack’s business was selling raincoats. He bought them for $69, then sold them for $62.50 

“If I sell enough of them, I’ll be able to upgrade to a new car,” he said. 

What was wrong with Jack’s plan? Of course you know! A business can’t make money by losing a little at a time. 

And what has this to do with our subject? You’ll see… 

The thought arises, perhaps DNA was created, but then after that evolution took over? 

How? By mutations, dummy! Isn’t that what we were taught in school? 

Mutations do not add 

information needed for evolution 

Okay, stop right there. Mutations? What are they, anyway? If you didn’t know, mutations are genetic copying mistakes!

Mistakes? That’s right. Copying mistakes. Now, please help me here, if I’m missing something. Do you honestly think that mistakes would produce the intelligent organized information required for evolution? 

You want it straight? There’s no need to guess. There is observational evidence. And it says no. 

OBSERVED FACT ABOUT MUTATIONS: In every case known to science, there has been a loss of genetic information. 

Wake up, Suzie! We now know that DNA molecules do not produce new genetic information. They only reproduce it. 

Confirmed? Yes. As Dr Lee Spetner, biophysicist and information theory specialist, and a former professor at John Hopkins University, reveals: 

All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it. (Lee Spetner, Not by Chance. Brooklyn, NY.: The Judaica Press Inc., 1997, p. 138) 

Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business can’t make money by losing a little at a time. (Ibid., p. 143. Emphasis added) 

Well, who could argue with that? 

Inherited back-up template 

can correct mutations 

As I was mulling over this, there came the shocking news of a discovery made by plant scientists at Purdue University. 

Well, what had the scientists discovered? It was a plant containing a template – that is, a master genetic blueprint – that can correct defective genes inherited from its parents. 

What! 

Yes, it’s true. They examined the offspring of two mutant plants which had a malfunctioning gene. And they found that 10 percent of their offspring don’t have this malformation, but rather are like the normal (non-mutant) grandparents. As New York Times science reporter Nicholas Wade announced: 

The discovery also raises interesting biological questions – including whether it gets in the way of evolution, which depends on mutations changing an organism rather than being put right by a backup system…. The finding poses a puzzle for evolutionary theory because it corrects mutations which evolution depends on as generators of novelty [new features]. (“Startling Scientists, Plant Fixes Its Flawed Genes,” New York Times, March 23, 2005) 

Even Robert Pruitt, the discoverer of the phenomenon, was puzzled. As he admitted: 

This challenges everything we believe… 

It seems that these [mutant gene]-containing plants keep a cryptic copy of everything that was in the previous generation, even though it doesn’t show up in the DNA, it’s not in the chromosome. Some other type of gene sequence information that we don’t really understand yet is modifying the inherited traits. (Quoted by Susan Steeves, “Plants Defy Mendel’s Inheritance Laws, May Prompt Textbook Changes”, Purdue News Services) 

Scientists do not yet know how many living organisms contain this master back-up copy. But the search has begun. 

I can tell you this. One will be hard pressed to explain how such a mechanism could have been created in a Darwinian step-by step fashion – and inherited not from parents, but from grandparents or distant ancestors! 

We noted earlier that there is a complex mechanism within the DNA of every cell that corrects mutations. Remember the flies that lost eyes and got them back again after several generations? 

Mutation only within the species 

And, in any case, when a mutation occurs, the change is still within the DNA of the species. The change is within the basic type of organism, not transferred from one basic type into another. 

If half developed: no survival value 

You know as well as I. Of the many thousands of living things, every one is today perfectly designed for its environment. There is a happy state of dependability and workability throughout nature. And it is persistently so. 

Does anyone want to quibble over that? So do you mind me asking, if evolution is occurring now, where is it? I’ve looked high and low. There should be thousands of partly evolved features. There are none! Not one life form has a half developed organ, or an organ superfluous to its needs. Nothing is unfitted, or out of place. 

Instead, what do we see? Thousands of amazing creatures doing highly specialised jobs that demonstrate intelligence – which they don’t have. Not only that, they also possess highly specialised organs which are vital to their survival – organs which could not possibly be the outcome of long and gradual ‘chance mutations’. 

Common sense tells us that these millions of ‘specialised organs’ are so highly complex that to be useful and functional,  every one of their interlocking parts had to all come into existence at once. 

You don’t need to be smart to realise that numerous precision components had to work perfectly from the very start of any organism’s existence. No process of gradual change from generation to generation could ever create any apparatus with all its inter-dependent working parts. 

Not until the entire mechanism was complete would the arrangement have any practical value to an animal or plant. Meanwhile, mutations which led to the useless intermediate stages, having no survival value, would be removed by the so called “natural selection” process. And the final, complete mechanism would never have been able to appear. 

We’ve already referred to the term “irreducible complexity” – which means that systems needed to appear in an organism already complete if they were to function at all. 

When you think about it, there’s nothing really simple. Even the simple mousetrap is a combination of several different things – a block of wood, the spring latch and the hammer. If one is missing, the mousetrap is useless.

Evolution theory would require that each element of the mousetrap developed on its own, separately. But how could that make sense? Because the trap wouldn’t work without all three parts there at the start. 

Have you ever studied the human eye? It’s not simple like that mousetrap. The eye is made up of millions of parts – the pupil, lens, muscles, optic nerve, and millions of rods and cones. All parts were needed at once. So how did that come about? Could evolution answer this? Yeah. And pigs will fly. 

To design something like an eye you’d need a clever-minded engineer. 

Again, Michael Behe, a biochemist and professor at Pennsylvania’s Lehigh University, explained that genetic information is primarily an instruction manual: 

Consider a step-by-step list of [genetic] instructions. A mutation is a change in one of the lines of instructions. So instead of saying, ‘Take a ¼ inch nut,’ a mutation might say, ‘Take a 3/8 inch nut.’ Or instead of ‘Place the round peg in the round hole,’ we might get ‘Place the round peg in the square hole’… What a mutation cannot do is change all the instructions in one step – say, [providing instructions] to build a fax machine instead of a radio. (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, 1996, p. 41) 

What about “punctuated equilibrium”? 

The theory goes like this. Perhaps the major evolutionary changes occurred quite rapidly, while the population levels were low. So the gaps might be due to such periods of ‘explosive evolution’, which occurred so rapidly they left no trace in the fossils. 

In other words, extremely fast evolution occurred in small isolated communities. So it was NOT recorded in the fossil strata. 

In that case, evidence should not even be expected. Um, okay. 

Great theory. But evidence? Can’t find a shred of physical evidence for it. Frankly, it’s an argument from silence. You just have to trust it by faith.  

You are probably going to tell me that a theory which predicts it will have no evidence hardly qualifies as a scientific theory. And I must agree with you. 

Punctuated equilibrium doesn’t even have a mechanism. Even the promoters themselves admit that. 

You mean experiments have not been able to show any means by which evolutionary jumps can occur? Not one. 

So it’s not scientific observation. We’re asked to believe that evolution occurs so slowly today that we cannot detect it, and so rapidly in the past that we cannot detect it! 

Then I came upon a copy of Science News. The report mentioned how the AIDS virus was shown to mutate up to a million times faster than the DNA for other organisms. So in one year the virus went through the equivalent of 1 million years of mutation at the usual rate. (Science News, June 28, 1986, p. 410) 

Great! Here’s a good way to test the “punctuated equilibrium” theory. Here’s an example of what would actually happen if very fast development did occur in a small isolated community, as some have suggested. 

Hopefully this helps the theory? Oh, bother! Even with the mutation process speeded up a million times, the AIDS virus only ‘evolved’ into another form of AIDS virus and nothing else. (Ibid.) 

Now you know. This observed evidence actually refutes the idea of punctuated equilibrium. 

Darn it! Fossil evidence shows the same for other creatures that experience numerous mutations in a short period. The first spiders mutated and selected into the forms they have today. They remain spiders. And the same with everything else. 

Here is no joy for “punctuated equilibrium” as a means of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium? That’s the kind of evolution you have when you don't actually have any evolution! 

Does that leave you with a kind of empty feeling inside? 

My final question on punctuated equilibrium is this: Just how could these big jumps occur genetically? How could the genetic code for fully functioning organs suddenly appear out of nowhere? 

What about natural selection? 

We all know that variation exists among living forms. Variations are the result of what we call natural selection. What is natural selection? It is the process by which heritable traits are selected from the parent gene pool, that make it more likely for an organism to survive in a particular circumstance. 

There’s an oft-recited myth that natural selection is “the mechanism by which evolution occurs.” 

Why a myth? Because of…INFORMATION. Since information cannot be added, then at the very start, the parents must have possessed enough variety of information so their descendants could select what was needed to help them adapt to a wide variety of environments. For example, antibiotic resistance, or long beaks may become dominant features in generations that follow. But, bad luck… the gene pool has been reduced. 

Why? Because it is a selecting of only some of the parents’ gene pool. Thus the original information is thereby reduced, and that is the opposite of evolution. 

But let facts get in the way? Never. This evolution theory has become an institution. (And some say that’s where it belongs.)  

Variations = evolution? No! 

In every case, the descendants, despite all their variations, continue to be of the same basic type. The DNA ensures that. All today’s dog breeds came from an original dog. And that original dog possessed all of the genetic information required to produce the varieties of dogs we now see. But all its descendants, no matter what their appearance, are still – every one of them – dogs. No amount of variation will mutate a dog into a horse, or anything else. 

So is variation evolution? Another disappointment. It’s not evolution, but adaptation. 

What about when some varieties become extinct and others survive? Sorry, extinction is not evolution. The bottom line is that the information has been reduced. The gene pool has been reduced. And that is the opposite of evolution. 

Total re-design needed 

For one creature to change into the other (for example, a reptile into a winged bird) is not a modification, it is a cancelling of one perfect design and starting with another. And if only part of the new design system is complete, then the total organism will fail to function. In that single lifetime it would become extinct. Inter-dependence of every part – we cannot shrug this away. 

Do similarities prove evolution? 

But what about similar design of body parts shared by different creatures? Isn’t this a hint of a common evolutionary ancestor? 

As an intelligent person, just think it through. Again, the answer is: OF COURSE NOT! Common sense tells us that similar parts  more likely had a common designer. And an efficient design will be used constantly. If a wheel is useful for a motor car, a wheel will also be useful for a skateboard, or a bicycle. The skateboard did not beget the car. 

Quick summary 

DON’T VARIATIONS PROVE EVOLUTION? No. Whether mutations or natural selection, they only reduce the information to each new variety. They do not add information for upward evolution to occur. 

DON’T SIMILARITIES PROVE EVOLUTION? No. Parts similarity only indicates an efficient design – and very likely a common designer. 

In any case, for evolution to happen, you need two essentials: 

1. a CODE to direct evolution, and 

2. an ENABLING MECHANISM. 

But neither of these has been discovered. 

Theories… but not evidence 

As you can see, there is no shortage of theories… nothing more than a bundle of changing guesses! Isn’t there something wrong with a theory – any theory - if one needs to invent unknown and never-seen mechanisms to support it? 

Okay then. But what about fossils? Don’t we hear so often that they prove evolution? 

Ah, that’s a good question… 

5 Fossils and evolution  

 DEAD IN THE WRONG PLACE 

Do you remember sitting in school and being taught about “the geological column”? The chart went something like this:

The story goes that after the first simple cell, more complex life forms evolved... amoeba… trilobites… coal 280 million years ago… dinosaurs 135- to 65 million years ago … and man more recently, say 5- to 1 million years ago. 

There you are. Evolution did occur. And that’s the sequence. Just believe the chart! 

The world’s best known living atheist, Richard Dawkins recently said, “I challenge anyone to submit ‘out-of-sequence’ fossil finds that disprove evolution.”

And his buddy Warwick Don added, “Evolution would be falsified if even one out of sequence fossil were ever found in the fossil record, e.g. a fossil ‘human’ in the Carboniferous [coal]… No such anachronistic fossils have ever been found.” (Investigate magazine, January 2010) 

So evolution theory is secure. Fold your arms, lie back and all is well. 

Oh bother! Who’s this spoilsport rocking the boat? Oh, some unimportant guy by the name of Ed Conrad. 

What has he done? 

Near Mahanoy City, between coal veins in the anthracite region of Pennsylvania, he has discovered a fossil human skull and other human parts, as well. That’s right, in coal-bearing strata. 

Have they been scientifically examined? Indeed, they have. Bones, teeth and/or soft organs found in this Carboniferous strata have been subjected to independent scans and tests at 

* American Medical Laboratories in Chantilly, Virginia, considered the world's foremost medical lab. 

* Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, considered the world's foremost facility for primate research. 

 * National Taiwan University geology department. 

 * Alberta Research Council in Canada. 

From more than 20 fossils thin sectioned and examined and more than 1,000 microscopic pictures taken, the verdict, proven beyond doubt, is that humans were entombed in Carboniferous strata! They were buried the same time as the trees that formed the coal. 

So, as our evolutionist friends Dawkins and Don themselves tell us, such a discovery falsifies evolution. (Please read my 58 page scientific report – http://www.beforeus.com/man-in-carboniferous.pdf) 

Controversial? You bet! So we must rubbish these finds every way.possible. (Never mind the certified test results.) 

Okay, I’m feeling in a generous mood. So let’s scrap Conrad’s discoveries. Will that help us? Um… er… it sort of gets worse… 

In all geological strata types 

The chart on the preceding page illustrates the problem. Not only have numerous other human remains been discovered in Carboniferous strata – including complete skeletons (Macoupin County, Illinois – The Geologist). But they’re also in EVERY other so called geological “age”, as well. Those listed are a mere sampling of finds – commonly reburied, “lost” in museum basements, or suppressed. That’s why you seldom hear of them. 

In 1912, at the Municipal Electric Plant, at Thomas, Oklahoma, fireman Frank J. Kenword split a large piece of coal and discovered an iron pot embedded inside. The source of the coal was the Wilburton, Oklahoma, Mines. The pot is on display at the Miles Musical Museum in Eureka Springs. 

At Meeting House Hill, Dorchester, Massachusetts in 1851, a metallic vase was blown out of an immense mass of solid rock. The rock was said to be Precambrian, “over 600 million years 86 old.” (That’s worse than being found in Carboniferous!) Made of an unknown metal, the artefact was beautifully inlaid with pure silver. It portrayed six figures of a flower, a bouquet, and a vine or wreath. The chasing, carving and inlaying are cleverly and exquisitely done. (Scientific American, Vol.7, p.298, June 5, 1852) 

Summarising the fossils 

It is not just physical finds such as these that scream out against evolution. Here are summarised for you eight major fossil facts that, quite frankly, are alarming. 

1. Complex fossils appear suddenly in the “earliest” strata, already fully formed, with no evidence of ancestors. 

2. Each plant and animal type appears abruptly in the subsequent fossil record, with no evidence of any previous transitional form leading up to it. At its first  appearance it is an already complete, functional unit – and optimal from an engineering standpoint. Thus there are persistent, unbridgeable gaps or chasms between different major types of organisms. – between, for example, reptiles and birds. The same gaps between organisms that we witness today, are likewise in the fossil record of the past. No links. 

3. Fossils in the “wrong” order. All over the world, what the evolution theory classifies as “older” and “younger” are found mixed in any sequence – no evolutionary progression. 

4. Although, theoretically, millions of years of deposits make up the different strata, in the real physical world of remains there is no visible time lapse between them. 

5. Polystrate fossils: All over the world, individual fossils penetrate several strata. For example, in the picture below you see Jeff Smith, long time industrial chemist, standing beside a fossil pine tree in the Pilot coal seams south of Newcastle, Australia. Its trunk penetrates vertically through fourteen different coal seams, each of which was,  according to evolution theory, formed slowly over thousands or millions of years. But, horror of horrors, here is one tree going through all of them. The coal seams are interspersed with layers of sand. How on earth could any tree trunk survive the ups and downs while waiting to get buried? But the evidence is that that tree had no time to decay before it was buried. Such polystrate fossils are common, all over the world. Strata was formed rapidly. 

6. There is not one geological site on earth that has the full evolution fossil sequence palmed off to us in textbooks. Not anywhere! It’s in their heads, not in the rocks. 

7. “Index fossils” (fossils assumed to have lived exclusively in a particular era and which were thus used to date rock layers in which they appeared) are now found still alive. These living fossils falsify the “indexed” age of the rocks. 

8. Today’s living organisms are basically unchanged from their first fossil ancestors. Just look at the flatworm. With its short lifespan we can watch it go through thousands of generations, which, according to evolution theory, should be enough to show evidence of evolution. But not so! 

It is necessary to keep the information concerning these eight fossil facts brief here, but for in-depth evidence, may I recommend Surprise Witness, chapters 14 - 17 (<http//.www.beforeus. com/second.php>) and The Discovery That’s Toppling Evolution, chs. 3 - 9 (<http://www. beforeus.com/evol.php>)

No transitional remains found 

To comment briefly on Point 2, have you ever gone through a museum and noticed how with no real links between life-forms, someone had tried to “fill in the gaps” with artists’ sketches? 

The evolutionist’s sketches normally portray an ape-like creature that turns into a man – a theory arrived at presumably after extensive self-examination. Of course, like the frog-into-a prince tale, you can draw a picture of anything. 

This lack you can correctly view as an enormous problem. A true transitional link would be something with a non-functional “partial” something – like a partially formed feather. However, among the millions of fossils found, one finds evidence of only totally functional components – all from the very start, fully perfect. 

The “prehistoric man” myth 

Evolutionists segment history into ages – such as the “Stone Age” for “prehistoric” times. Yet this is useless for determining a chronological history because, as they admit, these ages may not be sequential, but actually contemporary! Today, while we live in our age of space exploration, the Internet, and nuclear power, we have other people living in a primitive “stone age” culture in tropical rainforests. It was almost always so. Man started off intelligent. After natural or man-made disasters, survivors had to get by with more primitive tools of survival – yet preserving the memory of their ancestors’ past achievements. Indeed, you might well ask, Was there ever a Stone Age? The answer is NO! Have there been stone cultures? Yes. (Please study the evidence in my book Dead Men’s Secrets, Chapters 5 to 7.) 

More complex first 

Regarding Point 3, evolution theory says that simpler organisms evolved first, followed by more complex. Logic tells us that plants would need to come first, so that animals could feed on them.

But did you know that plant cells are more complicated than animals’ cells? Each plant cell has 20 to 100 sub-units, called chloroplasts. And each chloroplast contains about 45 sun traps. These sun traps are like solar panels on the roof of a house, to: 

(a) receive and convert the sun’s rays to energy 

(b) absorb carbon dioxide, and then 

(c) give out oxygen into the air for animal life to breath. 

Every solar panel in a plant contains a green pigment called chlorophyll. This greenness soaks in the sun’s energy. 

Now, here is the crunch. Evolution theory says the simpler systems came first and the more complex systems came later. 

But this chloroplast discovery means that, contrary to evolution theory, the more complex systems came first. 

Animal cells do not have these complicated sun-converting panels. Yet, without these, animal life could not have started or survived. 

Darwin: “Fossils will prove or disprove my theory” 

Darwin predicted that the evidence for evolution would eventually be found in the fossils buried in the earth’s strata. (Darwin, Charles. “On the imperfection of the geological record,” Chapter X, The Origin of Species London: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1971, pp.292-293) 

And Darwin’s champion, T.A. Huxley, had said, “If evolution has taken place, there will its marks be found; if it has not taken place, there will be its refutation.” 

So what has since been found? The sad fact was admitted by Niles Eldridge, curator of New York’s Natural History Museum: “The fossil record we were told to find in the past 120 years [since Darwin] does not exist.” (New York Times, November 4, 1980).

And some 30 years after that, nothing has changed. 

When anyone tells us the fossils prove evolution, we are being lied to, because the hoped for evidence for evolution in the fossil record does not exist. (For a great deal of scientific documentation, see my two books Surprise Witness, chs. 14 - 17 <http//.www.beforeus.com/second.php> ; The Discovery That’s Toppling Evolution, chs. 3 - 9 http://www.beforeus.com/evol.html>)

Yet, even as the theory crumbles, its promoters cling on with religious tenacity. Why do they keep flogging a dead horse? More honest evolutionists like Dr. Michael Walker, Senior Lecturer in Anthropology, Sydney University, have put their finger on it. He stated: 

One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator. (Michael Walker, Sydney University Quadrant, October, 1981, p.44) 

Yes, many accept evolution theory not from a careful evaluation of the data, but because of a bias against the supernatural. The real reason why these people want to believe in evolution is to get God out of their lives. If you admit evolution is false, then you have to deal with God. The theory of evolution is there to eliminate God out of peoples’ lives. Darwinism has become something close to a religion or a worldview. 

The cover up 

Then how are scientists in general reacting to such recent discoveries? Combing through the literature, one finds that these facts have came as a surprise to most scientists – because evolution was all they were taught. 

Others know about the latest discoveries but are playing dumb – fearful of bucking the establishment! Scoundrels – all of them! Sure, many mean well. But they still hide the facts. Reputations, careers, and financial research grants are at risk. And so this shabby pseudoscience has acquired a blind popularity. 

Thousands of scientists

 abandoning evolution 

But truth can’t be suppressed forever. Meanwhile, many highly qualified scientists are openly rejecting evolution. In the United States alone, tens of thousands of them. 

One of the most renowned atheists of the 20th century was Dr Antony Flew of the University of Reading, in England. Flew is arguably the best-known atheist in the academic world of the last 50 years. He helped set the agenda for atheism with his paper “Theology and Falsification”. That was the most widely reprinted philosophical publication of the last half century. 

Well, in 2004 Dr Flew startled the scholarly world by announcing he had now accepted the existence of God, largely due to his study of DNA. Here are his own words: “I think that the most impressive arguments for God's existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries ... I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.” (Richard Ostling, " Leading Atheist Now Believes in God," Associated Press report, Dec. 9, 2004). 

He then stated: “As people have certainly been influenced by me, I want to try and correct the enormous damage I may have done.” (Stuart Wavell and Will Iredale, "Sorry, Says Atheist-in-Chief, I Do Believe in God After All," Dec. 12, 2004). There’s an honest man. 

Majority of medical doctors 

In a survey of 1,482 physicians (the type of people most familiar with the wonders of the human body), the majority rejected 93 strict Darwinism. The poll was conducted by HCD Research and the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Religious and Social Studies. 

“Of course, most doctors are skeptical of Darwinism,” said Dr Robert Cihak, M.D., former president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and a medical columnist for JewishWorldReview.com. “An eye surgeon knows the astonishing intricacies of human vision intimately, so the vague, just-so stories about eye evolution don’t fool him. And the eye is just one of the countless organs and interdependent systems in the body that defy Darwinian explanation.” (Discovery Institute, “Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution,” May 31, 2005)

Unscientific 

The evolution theory contradicts these known scientific laws: 

1. FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: Energy or mass are neither created nor destroyed. Energy and mass cannot originate from nothing, by natural processes. The universe could not have begun itself. EVOLUTION SAYS matter and energy created itself from nothing. 

2. BIOGENESIS: Life comes ONLY from life. This tells us that life cannot and never did originate by natural processes. EVOLUTION SAYS life originated from non-life. 

3. SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: With time, a closed system (like our universe) will become more random and disordered. Things wear out and break down. Ask any engineer or home owner. EVOLUTION SAYS the universe began as disorder (the big bang) and became orderly over time. 

4. CAUSE AND EFFECT: An observed event can be traced to an event that preceded it. EVOLUTION believes in NO ‘First Cause’ for the universe. 

12 questions that demand an answer: 

1. What scientific laws support the theory of evolution? 

2. How did life originate? 

3. How did energy originate? 

4. How did mass originate? 

5. How did DNA information code originate? 

6. How did the code to translate it originate? 

7. MAN SINCE START OF LIFE?: If man evolved from earlier forms, then why are human remains found in all “ages” of strata, even with the “first and earliest” fossil life forms? 

8. COMPLEX LIFE AT START?: Why do complex fossils appear in the “earliest” strata, with no evidence of ancestors? 

9. REQUIRED LINKS NOT FOUND: Why are there persistent gaps between major types of organisms – with no evidence of transition from one type to another? 

10. STRATA RAPIDLY FORMED?: Why does a single fossil commonly penetrate through multiple “ages” of strata? 

11. UNCHANGED OVER THE AGES: Why are today’s basic types unchanged from their first fossil ancestors? 

12. EVOLVING OF INFORMATION: How does new information evolve? It seems to me that fossils and DNA kill evolution stone dead. 

(a) DNA tells me evolution couldn’t even get started. 

(b) Fossils tell me that whatever we started with has not evolved since then. 

* * * * * * * 

For more detailed information, see The Discovery That’s Toppling Evolution, 218 pages

next-97s

PART TWO 

ALIENS?

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. As a journalist, I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of artistic, cultural, historic, religious and political issues. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. 

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Copyrighted material can be removed on the request of the owner.