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.