Evolution–A Problem of Information Part II (Fossils+Entropy)

4 03 2010

The most glaring fault to evolution is that the historical record does not support it. Often, biology and pro-evolution books contain neat illustrations of a species gradually forming over millions of years, step-by-step. Modern paleontology does not record evidence of any such formation ever taking place. If the concepts of evolution were true, every species would arrive through a gradual progression of positive genetic changes. This means “for every known fossil species, many more must have existed to connect it to its ancestors and descendents” (Sarfati).

Paleontologists and evolutionists recognize a serious threat to their whole argument–-evolution predicts innumerable transitional forms, yet all they have are a handful of debatable ones. Columnist John Baumgardner reports that Stephen J. Gould, one of the most famous modern evolutionists, “termed [that] ‘the trade secret of paleontology’ is the fact that the transitional forms one would expect to find . . . were evolution true, are systematically absent.” The very nature of the evolutionary process would require billions of species that lead to billions of successful species and billions of unsuccessful dead ends. Even Darwin recognized threat to his theory, in The Origin of the Species, asking:

“Why 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 is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory (227)”.

Fossil records show many of the same fully formed species, like the stegosaurus and pterodactyl, but do not consistently show the links leading up to them. Why are we finding the same fully formed species multiple times? Instead of searching for “the missing link”, the real search should be for the hundreds of millions of missing links.

These “missing links” are often supplemented in the scientific community with books that show huge intermediate-full fossil records. These books are misleading because they imply scientific discoveries in the fossil record that have never happened! Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History and a renowned evolutionary textbook writer, admits:

“I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transition in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them…. I will lay it on the line–-there is no such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument” (Sarfati).

These “scientists” rely and report on paleontology discoveries that have not occurred.

Evolution also breaks basic physical law. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, also known as the Law of Entropy, states that all systems will tend toward the most mathematically probable state, and eventually become totally random. There are three most obvious implications to this law; functioning, structured and information systems all tend to disorder.

DNA, an information system, also falls under this law; as we see in modern culture, genetic defects occur more and more frequently.  The law is seen in day-to-day life; cars and buildings need repair. Even the human body can’t escape this law. As a person gets older, bodily functions deteriorate until death. Then the body turns into dust. The fact is that nothing escapes The Second Law of Thermodynamics. Einstein called it “the premier law of all science” and Sir Arthur Eddington said it was “the supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe”. This law is clearly violated as evolution says that everything began as simple forms and gradually evolved into more complex ones. The theory of evolution breaks the very basic laws of physics that all science is based on.

The problem with the belief that evolution is “science” is that evolution is not supported by: physical laws, statistical data, genetic research or historical evidence. Evolution is not scientific because science is based on observation.’ That statement is completely disregarded by anyone who says evolution is ‘science’.

It is known in the scientific community that codes, such as DNA, could not have arisen by chance. Evolution requires the increase in volume and complexity of genetic coding to work. However, the basic evolutionary tenants of natural selection and mutation operate on the loss of volume and complexity of genetic information. Evolution is not supported historically by the fossil record, which is missing innumerable links. Those who believe in evolution have to discard fundamental laws of physics that form the foundation of our understanding of the universe.


Evolution–A Problem of Information Part I

26 04 2009


The General Theory of Evolution states that “all living forms in the world have come from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form” (Sarfati). This means complex life forms have come from relatively simple one-celled organisms, forming a chain leading to the modern species.

It is common knowledge that single-celled organisms have considerably less volume and complexity in their genetic code than multi-celled organisms. “The key issue”, writes Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, “is the type of change required–to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content”. Evolutionists agree and believe that random mutations sorted by natural selection are the source of increased genetic content. But none provide a single example of functional new information being added to genes. Rather, they all involve sorting and loss of information.

The living cell was not always recognized for its vast complexity. Even “Darwin himself thought the cell was a simple blob of protoplasm, and he conjectured that it evolved in a warm little pond” (Colson 53). Modern genetics has revealed that the cell is far more complex than Darwin could have guessed. DNA, the basic packet of genetic information, is far too intricate to arrive by chance. Dr. Colson describes DNA as:

A language in the heart of the cell, a molecular message, a set of instructions telling the cell how to construct proteins – much like the software needed to run a computer. Moreover, the amount of information DNA includes is staggering: a single cell of the human body contains as much information as the Encyclopedia Britannica–all 30 volumes–three or four times over (55).   

The occurrence of natural selection in nature is scientific fact. Natural selection specializes the species to survive in the current conditions; bacteria resistant to antibiotics survive while others die out. Longer-haired animals live in sudden cold snaps while shorter-haired animals are removed from the gene pool. Predators eat the more visible white moths and their coloration traits are seen less often.

 Natural selection is heralded as the driving force for a species to progress up the evolutionary ladder. It, however, does not account for increased genetic content. Natural selection operates on a net loss of genetic information and has never accounted for new genetic traits. Natural selection is counter-productive to a species in the long run. When a population becomes specialized, like long-furred animals surviving in cold climates, the population looses the genes that would aid them if the weather shifted to a warmer climate (Sarfati). Natural selection creates a loss of information in the gene pool and if it had any merit in creating new genetic content, evidence would surface in selective breeding. However, to the dismay of the evolutionists, selective breeding does not provide any such evidence.

Despite impressive results, there remains an irrefutable limitation to what can be bred. Dr. Colson reminds readers that “breeding does not create new genes . . . a bird cannot be bred to grow fur. A mouse cannot be bred to grow feathers. A pig cannot grow wings”. Breeding is like shuffling already existing cards. A trait can be enhanced to a point, and then progress halts “because once all the genes for a particular trait have been selected, breeding can go no further”. The “fatal flaw” in Darwin’s theory is that breeding “eventually reaches a limit that breeders cannot cross” (73-74).

The famous breeder Luther Burbank, who is arguably the greatest breeder of all time, said:

The tendency for organisms to stay true to type is so constant that it can be considered a natural law–-what he called the law of Revision to the Average. It’s a law, he said, that keeps all living things within some more or less fixed limitations (78).

With both breeding and natural selection’s inability to account for new genetic content, evolutionists must put all hope in random mutation. Many scientists have concluded that the “only new source of genetic material in nature is mutations” (Colson 75). However, this does not mean that this new content adds to the well-being of the species.

Mutations are often seen today. They are the leading cause of deadly disease such as: hereditary disease, cancer, birth defects, growth problems, mental disease, Alzheimer’s disease, abnormal hormone activity and blood disorders. Mutations have been a stumbling block to the human species, arguably causing more deaths than any other cause. Mutations are so problematic because they are essentially random spelling errors that appear from an imperfect copy of genetic code. Almost all mutations are harmful, often lethal to the organism so that if mutations were to accumulate, the result would more likely be de-evolution than evolution. Mutations cause a mess to the ordered DNA coding system and in most cases destroys it, resulting in fatal errors. Random mutations cause a loss in complexity and, ultimately, a loss in volume to the genome of a species.

Dr. Ruse remarks on evolutionists’ statements that confirms the belief that mutations are ultimately harmful:

Indeed, the words of evolutionists are turned against themselves. Mutations are random (Waddington), very rare (Ayala), and almost invariably, very harmful to their possessors (Muller and Julian Huxley). They just cannot lead to new kinds of organisms (257).

Believing that random mutations would benefit an organism is like believing that random letters and punctuation marks would spontaneously develop into an apologetics article. So where does the new information come from? Evolutionary theory provides no answer.