ASSUMPTIONS IN RADIODATING.
Evolutionists rely heavily on radiometric dating to give them the billions of years required for
evolution to have any chance of happening. Major radiodating methods are:
i) Uranium – Thorium – Lead dating, based on the decay of Uranium and Thorium into
Radium, Helium and Lead.
ii) Rubidium – Strontium dating based on the decay of Rubidium to Strontium.
iii) Potassium – Argon dating based on the decay of Potassium into Argon and Calcium.
These dating methods are only accurate if certain assumptions always apply to every
specimen tested, these assumptions being:
i) Each system must be closed from any contamination of the parent or daughter
products, from water, chemicals, changing radiation from space or rock pressure.
ii) In the beginning there were no daughter products in the sample, only elements at
the top of the radioactive chain were present. For example, all the U238 had no lead
206 in it; and no lead 206 existed anywhere else.
At creation, all things were created with the appearance of age. Radioactive minerals
would be partially decayed on the first day. How far decayed? No one knows.
Evolutionists think that Polonium only occurred as a daughter product of Uranium
decay, yet Robert Gentry’s studies show that Polonium 218 was in granite when it was
created in solid form.
It is impossible to know what was initially in any given sample of radioactive mineral.
iii) The decay rate must have always been the same, and never have changed.
The decay rate of any radioactive mineral can be altered:
a) If the mineral is hit by high energy particles from space (such as cosmic rays,
neutrons, etc)
b) If there is, for a time, a nearby radioactive mineral emitting radiation.
c) If physical pressure is applied to the radioactive mineral.
d) If certain chemicals contact it.
iv) If any changes occurred in the past in earth’s atmospheric protecting blanket.
Cosmic rays, photons, high energy mesons, etc. enter our atmosphere continually,
some travelling up to 100 metres underground and 1400 metres underwater. If our
atmosphere was more heavily water saturated than today, it would produce a major
change in radioactive minerals decay rates. Before the Flood, there was much more
water in the air.
v) The Van Allen radiation belt encircling the earth about 450 miles above us is
intensely radioactive. It emits 3000-4000 times as much radiation as cosmic rays
entering the earth.
Any change in the Van Allen belt would greatly affect the decay rate of radioactive
minerals. But we know little about this belt or whether it has changed in the past, since
it was only discovered in 1959.
vi) John Joly of Trinity College, Dublin found evidence that the long half-life minerals
have varied in their decay rate in the past. This would invalidate all possibilities of
age calculation by radioactive methods. (A.F. Kovarik, Bulletin 80, National Research
Council, June 1931, p. 107).
Why we cannot trust Uranium – Thorium – Lead Dating Methods.
3 types of U/Th dating are:
a) Uranium 238 decays to Lead 206, with a half-life of 4.5 billion years.
b) Uranium 235 decays to Lead 207, with a half-life of 0.7 billion years.
c) Thorium 232 decays to Lead 208, with a half-life of 14.1 billion years.
1) Contamination: Lead could be mixed in with the Uranium or Thorium.(Faul, Nuclear
Geology,1954)
2) Leaching: Some of the Uranium and its daughter products could have leached out.
Lead can be leached out by weak acid solutions.
3) Neutron capture: Lead 207 (thought to have been formed only by decaying Uranium
235), could have been formed from Lead 206 by capturing free neutrons from
neighbouring rocks. Also Lead 208 (thought of as forming only by Thorium 232 decay)
could have been formed by capturing free neutrons from Lead 207. Lead 208 could
have formed by capturing free neutrons from Lead 207. Cooke extensively checked
this, and discovered that almost all radiogenic lead in the earth’s crust could have been
produced by neutron capture instead of by Uranium or Thorium decay.
This alone totally invalidates Uranium and Thorium dating methods.
4) Intense heat damages radiodating clock settings.
Evolutionists think the earth was originally molten, yet molten rocks produce wild
variations in radioactive materials clock settings.
Question: “Why do the radioactive ages of lava beds, laid down within a few weeks of
each other, differ by millions of years?” (Electromagnetics and the Appearance of Age,
Glen R. Morton).
Why we cannot trust Potassium Argon dating:
Radioactive potassium decays into calcium and argon gas.
1) Argon gas has been found to quickly leave the mineral, escaping into other rocks and
the atmosphere. (G.W. Wetherill, Science, Sep. 20, 1957, p.545).
2) Potassium can be leached out of rocks.
Rancitelli and Fisher found that 60% of potassium can be leached out of an iron
meteorite by distilled water in 4.5 hours. (Planetary Science Abstracts, 1967, p.167).
Heavy rainfall transfers potassium from one location to another.
It is unbelievable – but true – that potassium-argon dating is a key dating method used
to date sea floor spreading from ocean bottom basalt lava.
Key: Submerged volcanic rocks, produced by lava flows in 1800-1801 off the coast of
Hawaii near Hualalai were dated using potassium-argon dating to range from 160
million years to 2960 million years (Science, Oct.11, 1968; Journal of Geophysical
Research, July 15, 1968).
Note: Just one major catastrophe – such as a worldwide Flood would have ruined the
usefulness of all our radiodating methods because of:
i) Massive contamination problems as water, chemicals and radioactive substances
moved from one place to another.
ii) Major Radioactive rate changing activities (such as atmospheric, magnetic and
radioactivity changes) would have reset the radiodating clocks.
iii) Redistributing of rock pressure above radiogenic rocks would have reset their
clocks.
iv) Reversals of the earth’s magnetic core was caused by shock waves from surface
events such as earthquakes, volcanoes, giant geysers, seafloor shrinking, and massive
mountain building.
Note: H.C. Dudley, in laboratory tests, changed the decay rates of 14 different
radioisotopes by varying the pressure, temperature, magnetic field strength, stress, etc.
(H.C. Dudley, “Radioactivity Re-examined”, Chemical and Engineering News, April 7,
1975, p2).
All these forces operated during and after the Flood. They would have dramatically
affected rocks radioactive clocks, thus invalidating all radiometric dating methods used
today.
REFUTING EVOLUTIONARY EVIDENCE
Many High School and University Biology textbooks continue to give evidences of evolution
which have been disproved years ago. Examples include:
1. False Transitional Forms. There are no examples of any species changing to another
species, but evolutionists claim 6 examples hoping that people will be ignorant enough
of scientific discoveries to believe evolution’s claims. Remember that changes within a
species is not evolution.
a) The Horse Series. Evolutionists have selected a variety of different sized animals,
arranged them from small to large, and called them a “horse” series. A leading
evolutionist says:
“The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium (Eohippus) into Equus, so
dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature.”
(G.G Simpson, Life of the Past, (1953), p. 119). Note these problems with the “Horse
Series”:
i) The number of rib bones does not agree with the sequence. The 4 toed
Hyracotherium has 18 pairs of ribs, the next creature has 19 pairs, the next has 15
pairs, and Equus has 18 pairs of ribs.
ii) Never found in consecutive strata. Nowhere in the world are the horse series
fossils found in successive strata.
iii) Recent fossils below earlier fossils. In South America, the “more recent” one-toed
animal is found below the “more ancient” three-toed creature.
iv) Evolutionists call a badger a horse. The first horse (Hyracotherium or Eohippus) is
like our modern rock badger (hyrax) now living in Africa, with a suction cap on its feet to
climb trees.
v) There are over 20 different fossil horse sequences in different museums
worldwide.
vi) You could show the same size increase by comparing small to large dogs, which
we know do not show transitional forms across species.
b) Archaeopteryx is a bird, not a transitional form between a reptile and a bird.
Archaeopteryx occurs in only 2 clear fossils found in 1861 and 1877 in Solnhofen
quarry, Germany in Jurassic limestone (supposedly 150 million years). 2 possibilities
about Archaeopteryx are:
A) It is a bird, not a transitional half reptile, half bird, because:
i) Scientists declared it a bird at the International Archaeopteryx Conference in
Eichstatt, Germany in 1982, and not a reptile or half reptile/half-bird, and not the
ancestor of modern birds.
ii) How could reptile scales turn into feathers? Evolutionists cannot explain how this
could happen.
iii) Bones like a bird. It had thin, hollow wing and leg bones as a bird.
iv) Not earlier than birds. It does not predate birds because other bird fossils have
been found in the same Jurassic strata as archaeopteryx.
v) It has modern bird feathers. (Science 203 (1979), p. 1020, A. Feduccia and H.B.
Tordoff).
vi) It has no intermediate feathers from scales to feathers, nor have these ever been
found.
vii) It has well developed wings designed for flight, with asymmetric feathers. Flying
birds have more feather on one side of the shaft than non flying emus, ostriches, etc.
viii) No prior transitional forms from reptile to archaeopteryx. It has fully developed bird
wing bones and flight feathers.
ix) Other birds had teeth as well as Archaeopteryx. (P. Moody, Intro. to Evolution (1970),
p.196-197).
x) Modern birds below it. 2 crow sized birds were discovered in the Triassic Dockum
Formation in Texas, which according to evolution, would be 75 million years older
than Archaeopteryx.
(Nature, 322, Aug.21, 1986, p. 677; Science, 253, July 5, 1991).
B) Archaeopteryx may be a hoax. In 1985 some of the leading scientists in England
(Fred Hoyle, R.S. Watkins, N.C. Wickramasinghe, J. Watkins, R. Rabilizirov and L.M.
Spencer) declared Archaeopteryx to be a carefully contrived hoax (British Journal of
Photography, March-June 1985) because of slab mismatch, cement blobs being left on
the fossil during the feather etching process, and the feather markings had been
carefully imprinted on the fossil by an unknown hand.
c) Domestic Animals like dogs and pigeons. Scientists acknowledge that all dogs
descended from a common dog ancestor and that all dogs are still dogs. All biologists
classify dogs as being in the same species, yet there are far greater differences among
dogs than there are among Darwin’s finches. There are many sub-species of domestic
animals such as dogs, cats, cattle, sheep, pigeons and chickens due to selective
breeding.
Man cannot cross-breed different species, including apes. Pigeon fanciers have bred
many colour variations of pigeons, but all these pigeons can still interbreed and are still
pigeons.
All pigeons are sub-species of the basic species type known as the rock dove.
d) Flies and Bacteria resistant to DDT are claimed to be evolutionary changes by “natural
selection” (really “natural variation”). Some flies have become resistant to DDT, and
some bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics. But here again, the flies are still
flies, and the bacteria are still bacteria. No species change occurred. When DDT is
stopped, soon the various strains return.
e) Peppered Moths in England are the most often discussed evolutionary “proofs” of
natural selection. If this is the best example of evolution, then surely evolutionists have
no case.
There can be light and dark peppered moths, but they are still peppered moths. They
are just variations within a species (Biston Betularia).
This is not evolution, but simply a change in the ratio of black and white moths within a
stable species. No new species results. “Since it begins and ends with peppered moths
and no new species is formed, it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution”. (On Call,
July 2, 1973, p.9).
Note: Variation within a species is not evolution.
When Harrison Matthews wrote the introduction for the 1971 edition of Darwin’s “Origin
of Species”, he denied evolution in several respects, especially of the peppered moth:
“The (peppered moth) experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection – or
survival of the fittest – in action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for however
the populations may alter in their content of light, intermediate, or dark forms, all the
moths remain from beginning to end (Biston betularia).” (page xi).
Anyhow peppered moths do not normally land on the sides of trees. Evolutionary
photos were made of dead moths pasted onto the sides of trees.
f) Galapagos Finches. The DNA gene pool within a given true species can be broad
enough to produce hybrids, varieties or sub-species. This is why Darwin’s finches on
Galapagos Island, can produce bills of different length. When Darwin visited the
Galapagos Islands, 600 miles from the South American mainland, he found several
different finches, which had developed some different habits and diet. Little crossbreeding between these 14 finch varieties occurred. Yet they were still all finches
(Geospizinae). These finches had blown in from South America, adapted to their
environment, and produced several sub-species. Darwin was certain that this showed
cross-species evolution (change into new species). But they were still finches. This
was his main evidence of evolution that he brought back to England. Darwin, knowing
nothing about genetics and the DNA boundary to changes across basic types, imagined
a new species had occurred. In reality they were sub-species of single parent species
that in the past, had reached the island from South America, yet Darwin called them
different species, and therefore claimed them to be a proof of evolution.
Comparative Anatomy or Similar Structures.
A major problem for evolutionists is that evolution is not occurring now, and the fossil
record shows that it has not occurred in the past. Similarities in plants and animals
show that:
a) A single Designer made creatures with similar designs, because of the purpose they
must fulfil.
b) Not because they are related or evolved from each other, eg.
a) Similar designs of big spoons, little spoons and ladles do not prove they evolved
from each other, but that they were designed to fulfil a similar purpose.
b) Similar designs of automobiles such as Ford, Toyota, General Motors, BMW do
not prove they evolved from each other but that they were all designed to travel
along roads, be sat in, carry engines and luggage.
Key: Similarities only show that we have the same Creator.
Evolutionists use these examples of similar structures to prove evolution.
i) Xylem: “Ferns, conifers and flowering plants all have vascular tissue, including
conducting vessels (xylem) which transport water throughout the plant. This suggests that
these plant groups had a common ancestor”. (High School Biology textbook, K. Mudie, J.
Brotherton).
Answer: This similarity arises because it is the best way for these types of plants to grow,
so the Designer used this basic pattern for nearly all trees. Plants do not have the
intelligence to decide how they shall be structured.
ii) Pentadactyl limb: This is the “5-boned” arm and leg found on most land vertebrates.
Evolutionists think that they inherited this from aquatic ancestors, lobe-finned fish.
Question: Why would all vertebrate arms and legs have a pentadactyl limb?
Answer: Because it is the best design.
There is no better way to design a simpler limb with such a wide range of movement. The
same Designer made them all.
iii) Aortic arches: All blood flowing out of the heart first flows up through the aortic arch,
then branches into 4 main arteries to produce 5 aortic arch patterns. If evolution were true,
then all animals in each of these 5 aortic arch types would be closely related to each other,
but this is not the case as is seen from animals in each group, such as:
a) Animals with the first type of aortic arch are: horse, goat, donkey, zebra, cow, sheep, pig,
deer.
b) Animals with the second type of aortic arch are: whale, mole, shrew; porpoise, hedgehog.
c) Animals with the third type of aortic arch are: skunk, bear, kangaroo, rat, raccoon, dog,
possum, squirrel, beaver, mouse, wombat, porcupine, cat, weasel.
d) Those with the fourth type of aortic arch are: dugong, some bats, sea cows, platypus,
echidna, man.
e) Animals with the fifth type of aortic arch are: walruses and African elephants.
Question: Do these show any coherent evolution? No.
Question: Does this prove that humans evolved from echidnas? No.
iv) Other similarities which disprove evolution:
a) The eye of man and octopus are very similar.
b) The heart of man and pig are very similar.
c) The concentration of red blood cells of man and fish are very similar.
d) The specific gravity of blood of man and frog are very similar.
e) The structure of hemoglobin of man and root nodules are very similar.
f) The cytochrome C in the cell of man, sunflower and bullfrog are very similar.
v) Blood Serum test for antibodies is used to support evolution but other inconclusive tests
are ignored. Blood serum tests of man and animals give varying percentages of
precipitation. Kangaroo is 0%, and man is 100%. According to this evolutionary “proof”,
man descended from apes, which descended from sheep, which descended from deer,
which descended from horses, which descended from kangaroos, which descended from
nothing.
vi) DNA count in relation to size. Surely the DNA count of various creatures will increase in
relation to their size. Consider these examples:
Colon bacteria 0.0047; yeast 0.07; snail 0.67; sea urchin 0.90; chicken/duck 1.3; carp 1.6;
green turtle 2.6; cattle 2.8; man 3.2; toad 3.7; frog 7.5; lungfish 50; amphibian 84.
Man is not at the top of the list as evolution would require.
Note: By calling an impossibility “evolution”, does not make it possible.
Comparative Embryology (Haeckel’s Theory of Recapitulation).
Definition: “Comparative Embryology is the study of different animals’ embryos, looking for
similarities that suggest a common ancestry. All chordates have embryonic gill pouches.
Only in fish and amphibian embryos do these develop into gills. Why do human embryos
possess gill pouches? Evolutionists think that we inherited them from an aquatic ancestor”.
(High School Biology Textbook K. Mudie, J. Brotherton, p.278, (2000)).
i.e: Human embryos are said to repeat or “recapitulate” various stages of their ancestors
evolution, such as “gill slits” representing the fish stage, the “yoke sac” representing the
lizard/reptile stage.
Answer: a) The human embryos “yoke sac” makes the blood until bones develop to make
blood, whereas a bird “yoke sac” is the food source a chick lives on until it hatches. Human
and bird “yoke sacs” have completely different functions. They only look alike.
b) The human embryos “3 small folds” are not gills or slits implying human evolution from
fishes, but the upper fold will develop into the middle ear canals, the middle fold will become
the parathyroids, and the bottom fold will become the thymus gland.
c) The human embryos “tail” is not a tail implying human evolution from reptiles, but the
forming spine from which muscles attach.
Yes, it is true that we were once small round things, but this does not prove we evolved
from marbles or ball-bearings.
Comparative embryology just looks at the outside appearance instead of finding the real
reason these structures are there. Ernest Haeckel in 1866 first championed this false idea
calling it the “Law of Recapitulation” or “Biogenetic Law”. Haeckel in 1868 and 1874
published fraudulent charts to prove his “law”. Haeckel had drafting ability, and he carefully
redesigned embryo pictures so they would look alike. Haeckel faked human embryos to
look like a dog embryo, when they are quite different. The following scientists exposed
Haeckel’s frauds:
i) Wilhelm His, a German embryologist and father of modern embryology, exposed
Haeckel’s hoax in a detailed 1874 publication (Unsere Korperform), concluding that Haeckel
was dishonest and discredited.
i) F. Keibel, professor of anatomy at Freiburg University (1915), said, “it clearly appears
that Haeckel has in many cases freely invented embryos or reproduced illustrations in a
substantially changed form”.
iii) At Jena, 5 professors at Haeckel’s University charged him with fraud. He was
convicted by a university court.
iv) His deceit was thoroughly exposed in a book by J. Assmuth and Ernest Hull, entitled
“Haeckel’s Frauds and Forgeries” (1915). They quoted 19 leading authorities of the day
opposing Haeckel.
v) In 1997, Dr. Michael Richardson, an embryologist at St. George’s Medical School in
London, assembled a scientific team that photographed the growing embryos of 39 different
embryo species.
In a 1997 interview in the London Times, Richardson said this about Haeckel: “This is one
of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It is shocking to find that somebody one thought was
a great scientist was deliberately misleading. He copied a human embryo, pretending that
the salamander, pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development.
They don’t……these are fakes.” (Michael Richardson, quoted in “An Embryonic Liar”, The
London Times, August 11, 1997, p.14).
In spite of such full disclosure, Haeckel’s “biogenetic law” and fraudulent drawings continue
to be printed in school textbooks to today, deceiving millions of teens. Embryonic
similarities point to a single Creator, not to a common ancestor.
vi) In 1921, Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper destroyed Haeckel’s unsound
theory of recapitulation. Those educational institutions that continue to teach comparative
embryology are not educational institutions, but are institutions for miseducation.
Chemicals of Life formed on Primitive Earth.
Evolutionists have tried to guess what chemical conditions on a primitive earth would
spontaneously generate life from non-life.
In 1953, at the University of Chicago, Miller and Urey mixed ammonia, hydrogen, methane
and water vapour to simulate earth’s early atmosphere. After one week of subjecting this to
electrical discharges they found that some amino acids had formed. Later if Hydrogen
Cyanide was added, more amino acids formed.
Question: Does this prove evolution of amino acids to living creatures?
Answer: No, for these reasons:
1) Evolution is teaching spontaneous generation, a Dark Ages error that life came from
non-life, which was refuted over 140 years ago by Loius Pasteur (1860). Evolutionists
change the name to “biopoiesis” so students won’t suspect anything.
2) Urey and Miller only produced dead chemicals, not life. Just because amino acids are in
living things, does not make them living.
3) There are over 2000 complex enzymes required for a living organism, yet not one of
these could have been formed on earth in 20 billion years. (Fred Hoyle, New Scientist, 19
Nov. 1981). Urey and Miller only produced a few small amino acids, and no enzymes.
4) If by remote chance a living creature was formed, it had to have all its parts working
perfectly on day one of its existence, or it would have died and killed any evolutionary
process. Its reproductive organs would have to have been working perfectly.
5) It would have had to find a mate who by chance had also evolved that same day with
all its parts also working perfectly on Day one of its existence, including reproductive
organs.
6) Both living creatures would have wanted to reproduce and their offspring would have
had to have both the ability and desire to reproduce.
7) Urey and Miller’s amino acids were formed in million dollar, well-equipped laboratories,
by highly intelligent, skilled staff using purified chemicals, not in an impure, oxygen rich,
seashore environment.
8) The Law of Mass Action (that chemical reactions move from high to low concentration),
would have water hydrolysing any proteins formed, back to the original amino acids, which
would then break down to separate chemicals. A research team, at Barlian University in
Israel, said that this complication would make synthesizing only one protein totally
impossible at one chance in 10157. They concluded that no proteins were ever produced by
chance on earth.
9) Not just a few, but hundreds of thousands of amino acids would have to exist long
enough and know how to form themselves into correct sequences of complex DNA and
proteins.
10) Chemical compounds in living creatures were meant to be inside them, not outside
them where they would be quickly destroyed.
11) Without water loss, proteins cannot form in water. Lab technicians do not use
seawater or freshwater to prepare dead amino acids.
12) It is well known that chemicals of life will decompose if oxygen is in the air. Oxidation
causes these amino acids to break down to individual chemicals again.
“With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have gotten started:
without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.”
(Francis Hitching, the Neck of the Giraffe” (1982), p.65). Because oxygen will break down
amino acids, evolutionists are forced into deciding that earth’s primitive environment had no
oxygen, (called a “reducing atmosphere”), and that later on oxygen entered the atmosphere
so that life could breathe.
A “reducing atmosphere” could have had carbon dioxide, methane, hydrogen, ammonia
and nitrogen.
An “oxidizing atmosphere” such as now exists, has carbon dioxide, water, nitrogen and
oxygen.
Here are some reasons against a primitive reducing atmosphere:
i) If life evolved in a reducing atmosphere, it would immediately die from lack of oxygen.
Plants would die from lack of CO2. No chlorophyll or food would be produced.
ii) Oxidized iron (ferric oxide) occurs in early rocks, proving the atmosphere had oxygen
back then.
iii) No ozone layer. With no atmospheric oxygen (O2), there would be no ozone (O3)
either, which would allow solar UV light to destroy any life that may be formed.
iv) Deadly Peroxides. A reducing atmosphere would produce peroxides through
photolysis of water, which would kill any evolving life. (Abelson, “Some Aspects of
Paleobiochemistry” in “Annals of NY Academy of Science”, 69, 1957, p.275).
v) Water means oxygen. There is much oxygen in water and in the atmosphere.
Electricity will dissociate water to oxygen and hydrogen. This disproves the origin of life
by evolution.
(R.T. Brinkman, “Dissociation of Water Vapour & Evolution of Oxygen in the Terrestrial
Atmosphere”. Journal of Geophysical Research, 74, 1969, p.5366).
Do evolutionists think that ancient earth had no water?
Conclusion: Evolution by spontaneous generation of life from chemicals could not
occur with oxygen or without oxygen.
13) There is more to a living organism than chemical compounds, proteins and fatty acids in
a typical animal. There are thousands of very complicated, very different enzymes which
scientists do not know how to produce. There are also massive DNA and other coding
problems which no scientist has ever synthesized.
14) One minute after an animal dies, it still has all its chemicals, proteins, fatty acids, DNA &
codes, but it no longer has life. Scientists cannot produce life. How do they expect rocks
and seawater to do so?
15) Amino acids do not occur naturally in rich enough concentrations. For example,
phosphorus is needed to form DNA, and nitrogen is needed to form amino acids, but
phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations are too low in nature.
16) Even if evolution could produce an animal, it would need its living food source made just
as rapidly.
17) Most evolutionists do not understand how complex life really is. How could all these
features happen by accident, when intelligent scientists cannot reproduce them by design
in laboratories?
i) Q1: Have you ever tried to synthesize in a lab just one complex molecule found in an
average tree? The tree makes large quantities of it in hours, at room temperature and
pressure, but intelligent scientists using high Temp. & Pressure cannot make some tree
molecules in 1 year.
ii) For evolution to succeed, the total organic and cellular complexity of a species had to
be invented by chance - and it had to do it fast-within seconds, or the creature would
immediately die.
iii) A cell has a nucleus, which contains chromosomes, which contains genes, which
contain DNA, which contains the genome (or gene pool of all a species traits). A
human adult contains about 100,000 billion cells. DNA contains phosphate,
deoxyribose and 4 types of bases called adenine, guanine, thymine and cytosine. The
number and order of these bases are unique for each species. DNA divides at about
1000 base pairs per second. DNA is a massive databank, with indexes, electrical
polarity, and instructions when and where to switch between cellular processes.
Q2: What is the mathematical possibility of just one DNA molecule forming by chance?
Answer: An average protein may include 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this
has about 1000 nucleotides. There are 4 kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain. A DNA
chain of 1000 links could exist in 41000 different forms (10600 forms).
Q3: How could random action produce the right combination out of 10600 possibilities for
error?
In addition, proteins, enzymes, fats, carbohydrates, etc would have to instantly form at the
same time in an organism – and then be endued with life. Without life, none of these raw
materials, even if arranged in correct order, would function. Then this “evolved animal”
would need food, air, water, reproductive organs and a mate to propagate life.
Consider this example: Each haemoglobin molecule contains protein with the correct
sequence of 574 left-handed (L) amino acids. In living tissues, the L form of amino acids is
found. In lab synthesis, equal amounts of left handed (L) and right handed (D) forms of
amino acids are formed. There is no way to synthesize the L form in a laboratory by itself.
18) Enzyme systems do not work in the body, until they are all there. Did all enzymes of
an organism evolve at once? No way!
19) Before advanced computers were developed in the 1970s, evolutionists could glibly say,
“Given enough time and enough chance, living creatures could form from seawater and
lightning.” Today, computer scientists can program into computers all the factors involved in
evolving life and conclude that regardless of how much time was allotted for the processes,
evolution could not produce life forms.
The probability of forming 124 specifically sequenced proteins of 400 amino acids each is 1
chance in 1064,489 ie: 1 with 64,489 zeros after it. Hence it is impossible to randomly form
proteins, DNA, amino acids or cells.
