Want Some Answers ???



Last time I mentioned evolution has some big problems. The missing links in the fossil record are clearly one. If life evolved there should be an abundance of transitional fossils. They haven't found any and still looking. You respond,

>>This is simply not true. There are several examples of very good transitional forms. For example, the ancestor of the horse and the rhinoceros lines is well-studied and has a very smooth line of transitional fossils over 60 million years. Also the elephant line is similar; the elephant ancestor many millions of years ago has a good line of fossils showing its eventual development intot he modern form. I have a very good illustration of this using the ancient rhinoceros skull sequence which I could send you if you wish.<<

Apparently you have no appreciation of the missing evidence for evolution. "
Rhinoceros" have always been "rhinoceros" as the fossils show [ie there's no half-rhinocero half-horse bones. We don't find any fossils showing part-limb, part-wing; or part-scale, part-feather etc. Even Darwin wrote, "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record" [Origin of Species Dent & Sons Lon.1971 p.292-293].

Today, transition fossils are still missing. Dr Ramp (Curator of Geology Museum Chicago) writes, "The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classics cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information" ['Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin' vol.50(1) Jan.1979 p.25]. Is HE wrong?

The atheistic Marxist S.J.Gould another hard line evolutionist writes, "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to reconstruct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution" [Paleobiology vol.6(1) Jan. 1980 p.127]. Do you know something Stephen Jay Gould doesn't? There should be millions of transitional forms between the species. If the Stone Age lasted for at least 100,000 years as they say, there should be millions of skeletons. Where are they?

>>Also, Biology's classification system does not reflect the transitional nature of fossils. For example, you may think there are no links between Australopithecus and Homo genus's. Actually these lines show a very nice smooth transition; it is the binary nature of the classification system which makes it _appear_ as if there are no transitional forms in the human evolutionary sequence.<<

Concerning the "
australopithecine". Dr. C. Oxnard and Sir S. Zuckerman, are leaders in the development of a powerful multivariate analysis procedure. This computerized technique simultaneously performs millions of comparisons or hundreds of corresponding dimensions of the bones of living apes, humans, and the Australopithecines. Their verdict, that the Australopithecines are not intermediate between man and living apes, is quite different from the more subjective and less analytical visual techniques of most anthropologists. They write,

"... . the only positive fact we have about the Australopithecine brain is that it was no bigger than the brain of a gorilla. The claims that are made about the human character of the Australopithecine face and jaws are no more convincing than those made about the size of its brain, The Australopithecine skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white." [Pro. Solly Zuckerman, "Correlation of Change in the Evolution of Higher Primates," Evolution as a Process, editors Julian Huxley, A. C. Hardy, and E. B. Ford (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd 1954), pg.78]. Get the idea?

>>Evolution was once thought to be a gradual process (which predicted many transitional forms). In some cases this is true and the fossils have duly been found. But there is also the Punctual Evolution theory, that forms remain stable for a long time, and then, in response to environemntal changes,d rapidly (by Geologic standrards) undergo major evolutionary changes. This would occur too quickly (again, by Geologic standards) to leave transitional forms very often.<<

Whether gradualist or "punctuationist" the fossil record provides the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more complex forms. The true nature of the fossil record is that none to support the theory. The punctuated equilibrium concept has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. This model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground. And this is the truth about evolution - whether evolution has occurred at all. Evolution then, is proven by a totally separate set of arguments without evidence. The fossil record indicates species continue as they are. No changes, no mutations, no trans-mutations, etc. Fossil bones of men have always been bones of men. Calculate them 100, 100,000 or 500,000 years, they haven't changed. Those with no evidence to prove their theories are away with the fairies. I mentioned concerning the increase of information to the DNA, which has supposed to occur. Another problem for evolution. You wrote,

>>This is less well-known and a complex issue. But consider the following scenario: Chromosomes can undergo large mutation which result in copies of some of many of the genes on that chromosmome. Over time, these extra genes could become corrupted by point or frame shift muations; changed by random events. These mutations will largely be harmful and undesirable (actually, most will be recessive and not as harmful as you'd iimagine. But I digress...) But if only 1 in a million make a slightly improved version of a protein, or a completely different useful protein (via a frame shift mutation), has not new information been formed? What is your definition of 'new information' ?<<

Evolution teaches that a comparatively simple creature, ie one-celled amoeba, became much more complicated. Even though the simplest one-celled creatures are boggling complex, they clearly do not contain as much information as ie., a horse. They don't have instructions specifying how to make eyes, ears, etc. So to go from a simple amoeba to horse requires many steps, each involving an INCREASE in information. 'New Information' is for coding for NEW structures, new functions - new complexity.

Natural selection is not evolution. Living things are programmed to PASS ON information, to make copies of themselves. The DNA is copied and passed on via the parents. That information is never improved, unless someone with a huge amount of information knows how to add '
new information' to DNA [ie God]. Natural selection gets rid of information not create it.

No amount of breeding or selection will produce a variety of species where there has been a total loss of information. Natural selection can favour some information above others and can cause some information to be lost, but it can't create new information. Can mutation - random, accidental mistakes which happen as this information is copied? We know mistakes happen and inherited (the next generation copies from a defective copy) so mutational defects accumulate. We can see how a bird can lose it's ability to fly, but we never see it get back the information lost to fly again.

Many missing 'link claims', are from evolutionary palaeontologists who spend their lives picking-up fragments of bones, skulls and jaws bones. They have a desire to exaggerate the importance of them people fall for it every-time. They want to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone. 'The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions and our inability to even imagine and construct functional intermediates is a continual problem for evolution'. Life only comes from pre-existent life, not matter. As Dr Gitt wrote, "....no natural process has ever been observed where information originated spontaneously in matter". You respond,

>>One of the central tenets of Biology is that all cells arise from other cells. But is it clear that life COULD have formed in the primaeval Earth, billions of years ago. Consider the following experimentally verified facts: - Cellular envelopes form spontaneously under Primal Earth conditions. - Amino Acids form spontaneously in the Urey-Miller experiments (starting from the simple gases thought to be present in the primal Earth scenario) - DNA and RNA bases form pontaneously in the Urey-Miller experiemnt. I think its called Urey-Miller, I will check on that name. Anyway, it is celar that all the chemicals necessary to form cells could have - and DID, judging by the proliferation of lfie we have today - formed in the early stages of the Earths formation.<<

Re; "Miller's experiments" [that appear in our school texts as 'proof' of chemical evolution] no protein has ever been synthesized in such an experiment; they refer to proteinoids and not proteins as such. But even if they succeed in obtaining a true protein with a long amino acid chain and the correct optical rotation, it would still not be the start of evolution. There must be a coding system to store information about this protein so that it can be replicated at a later stage. A coding system can never originate in matter, so the 'Millar experiments' does not contribute to an explanation of the origin of life.

Yes cells divide into cells, but even the simplest cell creatures are very complex. They never accidentally increase '
new information' (ie, a coding for new structures, functions, greater complexity). Changes don't involve 'new information' but a decrease. Consider the 'simple' E. coli bacteria. If you unravelled the strand of DNA it would go around the equator 3 times! How long do you think it would take DNA 'Data' to randomly fall in to place for it to function? You see, the origin of the genetic code is another baffling aspect for evolution; there are no laboratory models. For evolution to occur an increase of information to the DNA is vital. And to mention RNA even makes the chance of cells spontaneously popping out of the soup even more unlikely.

You need the information code to start with. Without that there's no finished cell. Everything has a information code, no information resides in matter. Evolutionists once believed that flies came out of dirt [life from matter] until a Christian 'Pastuer' proved they were from eggs laid by other flies. Life never comes from non-life. I know all about the "Amino Acids" [building blocks] experiments. There are 'left-handed and right-handed Amino Acids. While they can be produced in the lab, life requires only 'right-handed' if only just one 'left-handed' in the sequence there can be no life. If scientists ever created life in the lab, it will be a very simple cell - and done with a VERY VERY great amount of information, SKILL and difficulty and with all the right conditions. Which proves my point, the ONLY WAY to create life is to have a great Intelligence first. I mentioned that matter must have originated some time in the past by a method equivalent to a creation. You must either say, in the beginning God or in the beginning nothing. 'Matter' is not eternal. You respond,

>>What you are saying is that the Big Bang needsd a cause. Cause and Effect, right? But the Big Bang only needs a Cause if it is in fact an Effect. And it is easy to counter-argue, by your reasoning, that God would also need a Cause. The nature of the Big Bnag is such that we cannot investigate events prior to it. It does not mean that there was no cause, or that we may not one day hypothesise that it was caused by a aBlack Hole in another UNiverse. It simply means that the Big Bang's nature is such that events prior to the Big Bang are beyond our knowledge.<<

Yes it needed a cause. But there's problems with the Big Bang theory. It says billions of years ago all energy and matter was crammed together in a cosmic egg. It's size, temperature and density varies according to who is telling the story, but must have been enormous. Its radius has been estimated to be from no more than an electron up to some fraction of a light-year. The cosmic egg was so hot that no elements could exist - the egg consisted of subatomic particles and radiation.

Where did the cosmic egg come from? Perhaps cosmic chicken? It's simply assumed it was there, no one knows how long it sat there. Why should it have been there at all? But, as the story goes, the egg exploded (nobody knows why), and as the expanding primeval fireball expanded, it cooled so that hydrogen and helium gas could form.

These gases expanded out into vast stretches of the universe. Somehow, evolutionists believe, stars and galaxies created themselves, our solar system created itself, life created itself, and from that first primordial form of life all other forms of life evolved, including man, with his three-pound human brain containing about 12 billion brain cells with about 120 trillion connections. Thus, so the story says, we have gone from hydrogen gas to people. A number of problems with this scenario are obvious. The initial cosmic egg was in a homogeneous of mass/energy in thermal equilibrium which somehow vertex itself into a heterogeneous state of mass/energy thermal equilibrium, a very unlikely event. As Gregory and Thompson wrote,

"Can the path from homogeneity to the rich assortment of present day structures be traced?... The more conventional model assumes that individual galaxies arose out of homogeneous primordial soup. The main trouble with this model is explaining how the universe proceeded from it's smooth state to the state in which was gathered into galaxies" [Scientific American 1982 246 (3) pg.113].

The cosmic egg could not have come from nothing. If even a single atom cannot come into being from nothing, surely the matter and energy equivalent to that presently existing in the universe could not have come from nothing. Where did all this mass/energy come from? I asked how can nothing produce matter and matter produce life? How can non-living matter jump the many hurdles required to form living cells? You responded,

>>There are many hurdles, yes. What you are saying is that life is amazingly improabable. It IS! I agree! But you have forgottent that there are billions, nay, TRILLIONS, of solar systems in this here Universe. It is simple statsitics: if you run a trial long enough, an unlikely event WILL occur. If you toss the coin a million times, once or twice it will stand on its edge. It is the same with life; it is tremendously imporbable, but it only has to occur once out of those trillions of solar systems. And besides, recent research indicates that the probability of life is not as low as our current estimates.<<

Yes, but the coin must land on 'heads' at least a thousand times in a row. If it lands on tails once - no life. What are the chances? Too great to be an accident. So, 'why is there something, rather than nothing? John Hick wrote - "For when we try to think about this infinitely fascinating universe in which we live we find that we are faced in the end with sheer mystery - the mystery of existence, of why there is a universe at all" [Christianity at the Centre Lon.SCM Press 1968 pg.63]. Another philosopher wrote, "Our problem is that we are rather than we are not." This is the 'riddle of all riddles,' the mystery that there is anything at all. This is not a question dreamed up by some theologians but rises out of existential experience. Wittgenstein makes the point, "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." So he concludes, "The solution to the riddle of life in space and time lies outside space and time" [Tractatus Logico-Philosohicus NY Humanities Press 1922 pg.149]. Montgomery puts it this way, "Nothing in this world is able to explain its own existence; thus there must be a God in order to explain the world in which we find ourselves" [How do We Know There Is a God? Bethany 1973 pg.9]. So the most rational alternative to the reality of the universe is God. Without God there would not be any universe in the first place. You wrote,

>>The only type of Universe that an intelligent organism can find itself in is one that appears to have been set up specifically for the formation of those intelligent beings. Whether or not it was in fact specifically set up by an intelligent designer is a differrent question.<<

Yes the earth is "
set-up" for life. We see this from the design, order and law. The world not only exists, it has perfect design, which is found in abundance. Each snow-flake, blade of grass, finger print etc., has a distinct yet different design. [It would be silly to talk of "Random design"] Design must have a Designer. Every building has a design. Every watch has a design. Our minds always link design to construction and a product of a mind, not chance. Not only is there design there's order. You can't have order without putting things in order. The human mind won't accept that order comes any other way. The components of the earth indicate a purpose for their role. The earth is constructed for a specific purpose (life). (i.e. ozone, its rotation, its seasons, water, the oxygen level, balance in nature etc.) Life is dependant on order. We apply the use of design, order and laws every day and we understand design, order and laws in our mind. This argues the design, order and laws in creation are the product somebody's mind. An intelligence who also has a mind and understands design, order and laws better than we do. I mentioned 'things left to themselves fall apart, not together. Computers don't happen by chance and matter, only intelligence produces something intelligent'. You responded,

>>This is the arument forom the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Basically what you mean is that, left to themselves, things decay rather than build up. \But this si a fallacy. THigns only decay in a closed system. THe Universe as a whole is a closed system and will eventually decay. But the SOlar System is not closed; it is open - there is an inflow of ENERGY! Will energy thigns do nto have to de ay. Matter can become more ordered rather than less. Life can evolve. <<

Although this is possible philosophically, it still is contrary to all scientific measurements. Although it is true that the Second Law has to be formally defined in terms of an idealized isolated system, it always has to be tested on open systems, because there is no such thing in nature as a truly isolated system! And wherever it is tested, it always works.

The entropy law, therefore, applies to open systems as well as isolated systems. This is why no machine or process is 100 percent efficient and why perpetual motion machines are impossible. This is why everything eventually wears out, runs down and dies. Even those systems which seem to show increasing order for a time eventually lose out to the principle of decay.

The crystal finally disintegrates, the adult finally dies, the population eventually stabilizes and finally disappears, the species becomes extinct, even great civilizations sooner or later perish as the result of outside conquest or famine or, perhaps, a nuclear holocaust. Thus every apparent increase of order and complexity is, at best, only local and temporary, and at the cost of greater disorder to the environment from which it extracts its ephemeral ordering energy. You wrote,

>>Consider the following: I have a bottle that is dividec into two partitions. I put salty water in both parititions. THe system is UNORDERED. If i leave that system, it will stay unordered. BUT if I put in some energy, it may become more ordered. Watch: I tip the bottle so that the salty water is in one paritition. Then I put one side of the bottle in strong sunlight (the ENERGY). The other side stays in shade. Lo and Behold! The water evaporates (slowly) and condenses on the other side - leaving crystalised salt on one side, and pure water on the other side! Order has increased! The unthinkable has happened! ENTROPY HAS BEEN REBUKED! THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS HAS BEEN DISPROVEN! But hang on, this can't be right.<<

That "unordered" energy is nothing more than a bull in a china shop - it would perform work, but it could either create nor maintain organization. There were no specifications to follow, no information on how to proceed. The results would be destructive - the same sort of results brought about by a bull wandering through a china shop. Simply to say that all that is required to create complex organizations is an open system and an adequate energy supply is a totally inadequate explanation - it explains nothing of how things could go uphill.

The crystallization is irrelevant to the question of evolution. You are sliding from an obviously true statement about water and salt - chemical synthesis, the growth and development of living organisms to the totally presumptuous about the uphill evolution of life. This is the old trick of coupling truth with what you want your listeners to believe. You wrote,

>>Lets read that law again: *** A closed system (no new energy) tends to disorder. *** The explanation? Our bottle was not a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system. The 2nd Law does not apply. Oh, it will apply to the Universe as a whole. But that will not happen for trillions of years.<<

Evolution demands an upward trend - increasing order and complexity and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has a serious obstacle for naturalistic Evolution. No laws of nature can be proved. They are only identified and formulated through observation. It's often possible to formulate conclusions in exact mathematical terms ensuring preciseness and generality but this is not the case for the laws of nature. Mathematical formulation of an observation should not be confused with a proof.

The laws of nature are nothing more than empirical statements. They cannot be proved, but they are nevertheless valid. The law of conservation of energy for example has never been proved - it's unproveable as all other laws of nature. So why is it universally valid? Answer: Because it has been shown to be true in millions of experiences with reality. It has survived all real tests. World-renowned Evolutionist and avid anti-Creationist Isaac Asimov confirmed that - "Another way of stating the second law then is, 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down wears out, all by itself- and that is what the second law is all about." [I.Asimov, "In the Game of Energy and You Can't Even Break Even", Smithsonian (June 1970), pg.6]. S Gasstone Ph.D writes, "The total amount at entropy in nature is in increasing" [Textbook of Physical Chemistry (NY Nostrand 1946]

Obviously evolution involves transformation, and natural transformations. And nature transformations require energy. Such a description of evolution would require tremendous quantities of energy and many energy transformations. The process of evolution requires energy in various forms, and Thermodynamics is the study of energy movement and transformation. The two fields are clearly related. Scientific laws that govern thermodynamics must also govern evolution. Has the 2nd Law Been Circumvented? No, says expert Frank A. Greco: "An answer can readily be given to the question. 'Has the second law of thermodynamics been circumvented?' NOT YET" [On the Second Law of Thermodynamics. USA Lab. Vol.14 (Oct 1982), pg.80] "No experimental evidence disproves it", say physicists G.N. Hatspoulous and F.F. Cyftopoulos: "There is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts the second law or its corollaries..." [EB. Stuart, B. Cal-Or, and A.J. Brainard eds; Deductive Quantum Thermodynamics in a Critical Review of Thermodynamics (Baltimore: Mono Book Corp, 1970), pg.8]. You wrote concerning the DNA code,

>>But it CAN be improved by random chance!<<

Yeah, sure and 'pigs fly'. The DNA code is like reading a book of words. The letters and words are the code and they are all in order for you to get the information. Lets see what 'random chance' will do to my typing and for you understanding my code. "0W=e;ofefm sjdfoeifmsdf lksefiweflmwndf,sd k,dfko;welkqe" Did you get that? So much for improving a code of information by random chance! New information can't originate through mutations either. That idea is central in representations of evolution, but mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot arise; mutations cannot be the source of new [creative] information. To that you replied,

>>NO! It CHANGES the DNA! Sure, now that organisms are so evolved, these changes are usually a problem. but sometimes, ONCE IN A MILLION TIMES (at a VERY pessimistic estimate) it IMPROVES the organism! And I have experiments to prove it!<<

Not so. We know now [more than ever before] that even just a slight defect in our genes can be the reason why someone gets a certain sickness or cancer. Any small genetic defects, [from accidents or mutations] can cause deformity, shortness of life, sickness etc. Because the DNA is so stable it protects us and assures survivability of a species. The days of Adam were over 900 years, he had a good DNA code, today the life span is down to 80-90. The opposite to evolution has happened on earth. You wrote,

>>But chance is not the mechanism by which evolution works. NATURAL SELECTION is! ANtural selection explains everythign abotu how evolution works. Organsims vary and antural selctions pick the best variations! It is a complete fallacy to suggest that organism come together 'by chance' or 'by accident'. The variation was produced by these mechisms, yes, but the success of a variation leads to its proliferation. THAT is not chance.<<

Yes but natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among pre-existing characteristics. "[Natural selection] may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative force as many people have suggested" [D.Brooks as quoted by R.Lewin A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity Science vol.217 24Nov.1982 pg.1240]. For example many have mistakenly believed the resistances evolved in response to pesticides and antibiotics. Instead, a few resistant insects and bacteria were already present when the pesticides and antibiotics were first applied. The vulnerable insects and bacteria were killed, allowing resistant varieties, which then had less competition, to proliferate. While natural selection occurred, nothing evolved and, in fact, some biodiversity was lost.

I mentioned a number of books that will help you. One was "Evolution: the fossils STILL say NO!" Dr. D.Gish. You replied,

>>I have a very complete refuation of Mr Gish. He is a low-down dirty scoundrel who will stop at nothign to mislead listeners!<<

Oh, OK. I don't have Gish's book. But I know he has faced over 300 debates with evolutionists and in hot demand worldwide. Would that '
refutation' be 'Abusing Science - the case against creation' Univ. Cali. 1982]?? If so, I would love to disuse that book in detail with you. I could show you why it's incorrect in many places. You wrote,

>>Morris has been similarly debunked - soundly, I might add.<<

As I write, I don't have any books by Morris, but must get some.

>>"In the Minds of Men; Darwin and the New World Order" Pro.I.T.Taylor. "New World Order"? Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.<<

No, it's about the history of the theory of evolution. 500 pages of very fine details on evolution. If you read that, it would blow your socks off. The word 'conspiracy' best fits those who have wanted evolution to be true yet lie about fossils and make-up dates. Regarding the book, "In Six Days" Ed. J.F.Ashton - 50 chapters written by 50 Ph.D scientists" you reply,

>>Oh yeah? How many of these PhD's are in Biochemistry, Biology, Evolution? Scientists are not qualified to comment on evolution just because they have PhD's! THey must have studied the work, understood it, examined the evidence form all sides...<<

And that's just what they do. Many were evolutionists who found the theory lacking or unconvincing. I read a chapter the other day. A university Professor who taught evolution and his road to rejecting it for the fraud which it is. I encourage you to read widely, not just what tickles your ears. Why aren't they 'qualified'? Can I only ask evolutionists about evolution?

Kind regards