Evolution Impossible (26 page)

14
. T. Van Flandern, “The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang,”
Meta Research Bulletin,
vol. 11, no.1 (2002): p. 6–13.

15
. M. Chown, “Mystery of the Missing Mini-galaxies,”
New Scientist
(August 22, 2009): p. 37–39.

16
. T.B. Andrews, “Falsification of the Expanding Universe Model,”
American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings,
vol. 822 (March 21, 2006), p. 3–22.

17
. Ibid., “Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF,” by E.J. Lerner, p. 60–74.

18
. See, for example, Van Flandern, “The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang,” p. 6–13.

19
. See, for example, the website of Dr. Robert Herrmann, PhD, Professor of Mathematics (retired), U.S. Naval Academy:
http://users.datarealm.com/herrmann/main.html
.

20
. W.W. Gibbs, “Profile: George F.R. Ellis,”
Scientific American,
vol. 273, no. 4 (October 1995): p. 55.

Chapter 12

Highly Qualified Scientists Reject Darwin’s Theory

In the previous chapters I have presented very significant evidence demonstrating that natural evolutionary processes cannot explain the origin of life, and that the great ages for life on earth have not been scientifically proven. In fact, there is significant evidence for life on earth being relatively recent. Many readers may now be thinking, if there is all this evidence that evolution is impossible, why are other scientists not pointing this out? The answer is that in fact they are, and this chapter profiles some of the scientists who are now speaking out.

In 1999, I edited a book in which 50 doctorate-holding scientists explained why they rejected evolution in favor of recent creation of life on earth. The contributors included a number of prominent scientists, some of whom held senior research positions at universities. (Note that in the following quotes, footnotes and references cited by the authors have been omitted but are available as part of the full article on websites and in the print version of
In Six Days
).
¹

For example, Professor David B. Gower, who serves as emeritus professor of steroid biochemistry at the University of London and holds both PhD and DSc degrees in biochemistry from the same university, writes:

During the past three decades, a great deal of work has been done and published in the field of “creation research.” This has stimulated me to criticize evolutionary theory in three areas that are of particular interest to me:

(1) My chemical knowledge has allowed me to understand the criticisms of isotopic dating methods for rock samples and to realize that there are enormous problems with the interpretation of the data. Consequently, my own view is that rocks are nowhere near as old as they are alleged to be.

(2) From the biochemical point of view, the idea that amino acids, sugars, etc., and some of the vital “building blocks” for proteins and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) could be formed simply by interaction of electrical discharges with a primitive reducing-type atmosphere can be criticized in so many ways and at so many levels.

(3) My own studies in numerous biochemical control mechanisms, especially in the control of steroid hormone formation (for which I was awarded the higher doctorate, DSc), convince me that all these processes are ordered precisely. This order and the extraordinary complexity are entirely consistent, in my own opinion, with the existence of a Creator, who Himself must be capable of creating with such design.

Such complexity is also being found in virtually every other branch of science in general, and is especially evident in the field of nature. Far from pointing toward formation by the chance processes of evolution, this clearly speaks to me of an Almighty Creator.
²

Professor Gower acknowledges that the chance processes of evolution are not proven, and in his view the extraordinary complexity of biochemical control mechanisms such as the regulation of hormones requires amazingly brilliant intelligent design.

Dr. John K.G. Kramer is a prominent research scientist with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. He holds a PhD in biochemistry from the University of Minnesota and was one of the core scientists who evaluated the toxicological and biochemical properties of canola oil. He writes:

No one has ever demonstrated macroevolutionary changes on a molecular level, yet many people readily speculate evolutionary links between bacteria, plants, animals, and man. Are the gross structures not made up of individual cells with complex molecules? If macroevolution is unlikely on a molecular level, how can the whole be changed? Endless DNA sequence comparisons do not explain evolutionary development. Furthermore, the changes (mutations) observed on a molecular level, such as DNA, are predominantly disruptive, and always with loss of, not gain, in information and complexity.
³

He goes on to give an example from his own area of specialty — lipid (fat) research:

In the last few decades, extensive work has been done on thermophilic and halophilic bacteria, which grow under extreme temperatures and salt conditions, respectively. These bacteria have been classified as archaebacteria because some scientists believe that these are earlier and simpler forms of life. The lipids of these bacteria have chemical linkages called ethers rather than esters, and the alkyl moieties are on position 2 and 3 of the glycerol backbone, rather than on the 1 and 2 positions as in mammalian systems. Furthermore, they produce their energy in the form of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) from a combination of a sodium gradient plus a proton-motive force, instead of only a proton-motive force as mammalian cells. Fragile biochemical structures and processes in these bacteria, many of which are similar to mammalian cells, are protected. But how? Ether bonds are certainly more stable than ester bonds, but that may not be the whole explanation. From my research I believe an even greater stability is achieved by these ether lipids complexing with sodium ions. The integration of a sodium and proton gradient is still not understood, although the former initiates cell growth.

Therefore, to view these bacteria as earlier and simpler forms of life is totally misrepresenting their complexity. These bacteria are just as complex as mammalian cells and represent an amazing design suited for the extreme conditions of temperature and salt concentration. Each cell is produced according to the information in their respective DNA. Attempts to give these complex lipid structures common names containing the prefix “archae,” to donate their evolutionary hierarchy, does not provide scientific evidence. It states one’s belief but adds no scientific knowledge. In fact, it may even be misleading by implying that lipid structures and energy mechanisms may evolve differently under different environmental conditions. The evidence shows that
Methanobacteria thermoautotrophicum
remain
Methanobacteria thermoautotrophicum
through millions of generations, according to their genetic information, and grow under favorable conditions of high temperature and salt concentration.
⁴

Notice the point that Dr. Kramer makes, that giving these bacteria a scientific name that implies that they are older than other bacteria does not prove that they are older. But to uninformed readers and students, this name conveys the subtle message that they are proven, older, ancestor-type bacteria.

Dr. James S. Allan is a former senior lecturer in genetics at the University of Stellenbosch and holds a PhD in genetics from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. He writes:

Relatives tend to resemble one another in physical, functional, and behavioral characteristics. This is a phenomenon that is basic to the science of genetics. The resemblance is due to the fact that relatives, sharing in the common gene pool of a reproducing population, have genes in common. The closer the relationship, the greater is the proportion of genes in common and, therefore, the greater is the degree of resemblance. The theory of evolution assumes a common origin for all forms of life and, therefore, infers that species, genera, families, orders, etc., are genetically related. They all do carry some genes with similar structure and function, yes, but did this imply genetic relationship in the normal, within-species sense, and was one at liberty to assume a common origin for all forms of life? Was there any reason why God should have created different species, genera, etc., in completely different ways and with completely different genes? . . .

I present here two aspects arising out of such questions concerning the claimed evolution of man.

1. Cytochrome-c is a protein and is a gene product. It functions as a key enzyme in oxidation reactions and seems to occur in practically every living organism. There are 20 different amino acids. Cytochrome-c consists of a chain of 112 amino acids, 19 of which occur in exactly the same sequential order positions in all organisms tested. Differences in the identity and positions of the remaining 93 amino acids are considered to be the result of mutational substitution during the course of evolution. The amino acid constitution of human cytochrome-c differs from that of many but not all other species. There are no differences in the cytochrome-c taken from humans and from chimpanzees, and only one difference between human cytochrome-c (the amino acid isoleucine in position 66) and that from the Rhesus monkey (threonine in that position). The numbers of differences in the cytochrome-c of various species compared with that of humans are as follows: cow, pig and sheep (10), horse (12), hen and turkey (13), rattlesnake (14), dogfish (23), fly (25), wheat (35), yeast (44), etc.

Information of this nature is used to construct phylogenetic trees of assumed genetic relationship. This is presented as evidence for evolution on a molecular level and, among other things, it is concluded that man and the chimpanzee have a relatively recent common ancestor. Assuming for the sake of argument that this is correct, does the constitution of cytochrome-c provide valid evidence for evolution?

The fact that cytochrome-c has a fixed number of 112 amino acids is an indication of the importance of the three-dimensional structure of the molecule, that is, there is a structural constraint on the total number of amino acids. On the other hand, only 19 of the 112 are identical in all organisms tested. Since the identity and positions of the remaining 93 amino acids differ among organisms except, for example, in the case of man and chimpanzee, it is reasonable to conclude that there are no functional constraints on the substitution of these remaining amino acids.

Apart from the single gene controlling the constitution of cytochrome-c, humans and chimpanzees differ in many thousands of other genes. As a conservative estimate, let us say 5,000. What the theory of evolution is saying is that while humans and chimpanzees have evolved independently from a common ancestor so as to now differ in these 5,000 genes, there has been no change in the 93 amino acids specified by the cytochrome-c gene, and this in spite of there being no functional constraint on change in any of the latter. I find this to be an unacceptable claim. According to Weaver and Hedrick (1989), however, the lack of differentiation in the constitution of cytochrome-c between humans and chimpanzees is due to the very slow (0.3 x 10-9), estimated rate of amino acid substitution in cytochrome-c. How is this rate determined? It is estimated on the basis of the assumed time since the species diverged, that is, the claim is assumed proven on the assumption that it is true. Must I accept this kind of reasoning? Is there any reason why God should not have created them in virtually the same form as we see them now?

2. The theory relating to the evolution of man from his assumed ancestor in common with the chimpanzee requires millions of years of mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection prior to the appearance of “modern man.” However, when I consider mutation rates, the “cost” of the substitution of each new mutant gene in a population in terms of number of “genetic deaths,” the assumed number of mutant gene differences between evolutionary stages, and the population size necessary to accommodate such a large number of successive mutations, I find that there is a remarkable lack of evidence for the “evolution of man.” My reasons are as follows:

[J.B.S.] Haldane considered this kind of information and came to the conclusion that the number of genetic deaths needed to secure the substitution of one gene for another by natural selection is in the region of 30 times the number of individuals in a generation. Using this figure, the cost of substituting 5,000 successive, independent mutant genes in a population of constant size can be calculated. On the basis of an average mutation rate of 10
^-6
, the size of the population must be at least in the order of 1 million. This implies some 150-thousand-million forerunners of “modern man,” forerunners who are often represented as belonging to small groups of cave-dwelling hunters called australopithicenes who roamed the African savannah. Why is there such a shortage of evidence in the form of fossils, tools, or whatever for the existence of such vast numbers of australopithicene-like pre-humans?

It could, of course, be argued that such vast numbers of individuals were spread over millions of years, but I find difficulty with this when I look not only at the lack of evidence, but at the reality of total population numbers.
⁵