From: bourd@jellyfish.cps.msu.edu (Robert Bourdeau)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: 17 Supposed Evidences against Evolution
Keywords: evolution, creationism
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:12:26 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Michigan State University, CPS Department

The following is a posting that I have seen on several BBS's
recently. The poster supposes that his list here is a weighty
volume of evidence against evolution.  Most of the arguments
are weak or misrepresented. Not much information is here on the substance
of the argument either. Nevertheless, I would
appreciate some comments on it, that I can package up and distribute 
in the same fashion as this one was.  (The sources are a good
starting point for criticism as well.)
 
This is fairly long, so be warned.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
--- Robert Bourdeau                           bourd@cps.msu.edu  ---
--- Department of Computer Science				 ---	
--- Michigan State University					 ---
--------------------------------------------------------------------



----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    17 EVIDENCES AGAINST EVOLUTION
                    ------------------------------
                           By Kevin Martin

   1. Moon Dust
   2. Magnetic Field
   3. Fossil Record
   4. Embryonic Recapitulation
   5. Probability
   6. Second Law of Thermodynamics
   7. Vestigial Organs
   8. Fossil and Fossil Fuel Formation
   9. Punctuated Equilibria
  10. Homology/Molecular Biology 
  11. Dating Methods
  12. Dinosaurs
  13. Sun's Diameter
  14. Nile River's Overflow
  15. Earth's Rotation
  16. Written Record
  17. The Bible


   1. MOON DUST
    Meteoritic dust falls on the earth continuously, adding up to
thousands,  if not millions, of tons of dust per year.  Realizing
this,  and knowing that the moon also had meteoritic dust  piling
up  for what they thought was millions of years, N.A.S.A.  scien-
tists  were worried that the first lunar ship that  landed  would
sink  into the many feet of dust which should  have  accumulated.
However, only about one-eight of an inch of dust was found, indi-
cating a young moon.
    Meteoritic material contributes nickel to the oceans.  Taking
the amount of nickel in the oceans and the supply from meteoritic
dust yields an age figure for the earth of just several  thousand
years, not the millions (or billions) expressed by evolutionists.
This, and the lack of meteoritic dust piles on the earth, lend to
the belief in a young earth.
7
   2. MAGNETIC FIELD
    The earth's magnetic field is decaying rapidly, at a constant
(if  not  decreasing)  rate. At this rate,  8000  years  ago  the
earth's  magnetism would have equaled that of a magnetic star,  a
highly  unlikely occurrence.  Also, if electric currents  in  the 
earth's core are responsible for the earth's magnetism, the  heat
generated by these currents 20,000 years ago would have dissolved
the earth.

   3. FOSSIL RECORD
    Charles Darwin stated, in his Origin of Species, "The geolog-
ical record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a  large
extent  explain why we do not find intermediate  varieties,  con-
necting  together all the extinct and existing forms of  life  by
the  finest  graduated steps. He who rejects these views  on  the
nature  of  the geological record, will rightly reject  my  whole
theory."  Now,  130 years and billions of fossils later,  we  can
rightly reject the view of an incomplete fossil record or of  one
"connecting together all . . . forms of life by the finest gradu-
ated steps." Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one
transitional  form  has  been found. All known  species  show  up
abruptly  in the fossil record, without intermediate forms,  thus
contributing  to the fact of special creation. Let's take a  look
at  Archeopteryx,  a fossil that some evolutionists claim  to  be
transitional between reptile and bird.
    Archeopteryx is discussed in evolutionist Francis  Hitching's
book, The Neck of the Giraffe - Where Darwin Went Wrong.   Hitch-
ing speaks on six aspects of Archeopteryx, following here.
    (The  following  six  points are quoted from  Luther  Sunder-
land's  book,  Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other  Problems,  pp.
74-75,  the  facts of which points he  gathered  from  Hitching's
book.)

     1. It had a long bony tail, like a reptile's. 

          In  the  embryonic stage, some living  birds  have
     more tail vertebrae than Archeopteryx. They later  fuse
     to become an upstanding bone called the pygostyle.  The
     tail  bone  and feather arrangement on swans  are  very
     similar to those of Archeopteryx. One authority  claims
     that  there is no basic difference between the  ancient
     and modern forms: the difference lies only in the  fact
     that  the caudal vertebrae are greatly  prolonged.  But
     this does not make a reptile.

     2. It had claws on its feet and on its feathered  fore-
     limbs.

        However,  many living birds such as the  hoatzin  in
     South  America, the touraco in Africa and  the  ostrich
     also have claws. In 1983, the British Museum of Natural
     History displayed numerous species within nine families
     of birds with claws on the wings.

     3. It had teeth.

        Modern  birds  do not have teeth  but  many  ancient
     birds did, particularly those in the Mesozoic. There is
     no  suggestion that these birds were transitional.  The
     teeth  do not show the connection of Archeopteryx  with
     any  other animal since every subclass  of  vertebrates
     has some with teeth and some without.

     4. It had a shallow breastbone.

        Various modern flying birds such as the hoatzin have
     similarly  shallow breastbones, and this does not  dis-
     qualify them from being classified as birds. And  there
     are,  of course, many species of nonflying birds,  both
     living and extinct.
        Recent  examination of Archeopteryx's  feathers  has
     shown that they are the same as the feathers of  modern
     birds  that are excellent fliers. Dr. Ostrom says  that
     there  is  no question that they are the  same  as  the
     feathers of modern birds. They are asymmetrical with  a
     center  shaft and parallel barbs like those of  today's
     flying birds.

     5. Its bones were solid, not hollow, like a bird's.

        This idea has been refuted because the long bones of
     Archeopteryx are now known to be hollow.

     6. It predates the general arrival of birds by millions
     of years.

        This also has been refuted by recent paleontological
     discoveries.  In  1977 a geologist from  Brigham  Young
     University, James A. Jensen, discovered in the Dry Mesa
     quarry of the Morrison formation in western Colorado  a
     fossil  of an unequivocal bird in Lower Jurassic  rock.
     This  deposit is dated as 60-million years  older  than
     the  Upper  Jurassic  rock in  which  Archeopteryx  was
     found.  He first found the rear-leg femur  and,  later,
     the  remainder  of the skeleton. This was  reported  in
     Science  News 24 September 1977. Professor John  Ostrom
     commented,  "It  is obvious we must now  look  for  the
     ancestors  of  flying birds in a period  of  time  much
     older than that in which Archeopteryx lived."

   And  so it goes with the fossil that many textbooks set  forth
as the best example of a transitional form. No true  intermediate
fossils have been found.
   In  a letter to Luther Sunderland, dated April 10,  1979,  Dr.
Colin Patterson, of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote: 

   "...I  fully agree with your comments on the lack of  di-
    rect illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book.
    If  I  knew of any, fossil or living, I  would  certainly
    have included them. You suggest that an artist should  be
    used  to visualise such transformations, but where  would
    he get the information from? I could not, honestly,  pro-
    vide  it, and if I were to leave it to artistic  licence,
    would that not mislead the reader?"

   Just  think  of it! Here is a man sitting amidst  one  of  the
greatest  fossil collections ever and he knows of  absolutely  NO
transitional  fossils. So convincing I believe this quote  to  be
that it will sum up this discussion on fossil evidence. 

   4. EMBRYONIC RECAPITULATION
    Darwin  said that embryological evidence was "second to  none
in  importance."  The idea of embryonic  recapitulation,  or  the
theory that higher life forms go through the previous  evolution-
ary chain before birth, was popularized by Ernst Haeckel in 1866.
It was later found that Haeckel forged the diagrams which he used
as evidence for the theory.
    The main arguments for embryonic recapitulation are the  sup-
posed  "gill slits" (left over from fish), "yolk sac" (left  over
from  the  reptile stage), and "tail" (from the monkeys)  in  the
human embryo. The gill slits, so called, are never slits, nor  do
they  ever function in respiration. They are actually four  pairs
of  pharyngeal pouches: the first pair become  germ-fighting  or-
gans; the second, the two middle ear canals; the third and fourth
pairs become the important parathyroid and thymus glands.
    The yolk sac  does not store food  because the  mother's body
provides  this to the embryo.  In fact,  the "yolk sac" is not  a
yolk sac at all,  but its true function is to  produce  the first
blood cells.
    The "tail" is just the tip of the spine extending beyond  the
muscles of the embryo. The end of this will eventually become the
coccyx, which is instrumental in the ability to stand and sit  as
humans do.
    Also arguing against recapitulation is the fact that  differ-
ent  higher life forms experience different stages  in  different
orders, and often contrary to the assumed evolutionary order.

   5. PROBABILITY
    The  science of probability has not been favorable to  evolu-
tionary theory, even with the theory's loose time restraints. Dr.
James Coppedge, of the Center for Probability Research in Biology
in California, made some amazing calculations. Dr. Coppedge 

     "applied  all the laws of  probability  studies  to  the
      possibility  of a single cell coming into existence  by
      chance. He considered in the same way a single  protein
      molecule,  and even a single gene. His discoveries  are
      revolutionary. He computed a world in which the  entire
      crust of the earth - all the oceans, all the atoms, and
      the whole crust were available. He then had these amino
      acids  bind at a rate one and one-half  trillion  times
      faster than they do in nature. In computing the  possi-
      bilities,  he  found that to provide a  single  protein
      molecule  by  chance combination  would take 10, to the
      262nd power, years." (That is, the number 1 followed by
      262 zeros.) "To get a single cell - the single smallest
      living cell known to  mankind - which is called the my-
      croplasm hominis  H39, would take 10,  to the 119,841st
      power, years.  That means that if  you took thin pieces
      of paper and wrote 1 and  then  wrote zeros after (it),
      you would fill up the entire  known universe with paper
      before you could ever even write that  number.  That is
      how many years it would  take  to make one living cell,
      smaller than any human cell!"

    According  to Emile Borel, a French scientist and  expert  in
the  area  of probability, an event on the cosmic  level  with  a
probability of less than 1 out of 10, to the 50th power, will not
happen. The probability  of producing one human cell by chance is
10, to the 119,000 power. 
    Sir  Fred  Hoyle, British mathematician  and  astronomer, was
quoted  in  Nature  magazine, November 12, 1981,  as saying  "The
chance  that  higher life forms might have  emerged in  this  way
(evolution) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping
through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the  materi-
als therein."  As one can readily see, here is yet one more  test
that evolution theory has flunked.

   6. SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
    The  second  law of thermodynamics states that  although  the
total  amount  of energy remains constant, the amount  of  usable
energy is constantly decreasing.  This law can be  seen  in  most
everything.  Where work is done, energy is expelled. That  energy
can  never again be used. As usable energy decreases,  decay  in-
creases.  Herein lies the problem for evolution. If  the  natural
trend  is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible,  for
it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation. 
    Some try to sidestep this law by saying that it applies  only
to  closed environments. They say the earth is an  open  environ-
ment, collecting energy from the sun. However, Dr. Duane Gish has
put forth four conditions that must be met in order for  complex-
ity to be generated in an environment.

      1. The system must be an open system.
      2. An adequate external energy force must  be  avail-
         able.
      3. The system must possess energy  conversion  mecha-
         nisms.
      4. A control mechanism must exist within  the  system
         for directing,  maintaining and  replicating these
         energy conversion mechanisms.

   The second law clearly presents another insurmountable barrier
to evolutionary idealism.

   7. VESTIGIAL ORGANS
    Vestigial  organs are supposed organs in the body  which  are
useless,  left over from evolutionary development. The  following
arguments for vestigial organs are based on those taken from  the
"Bible Science Newsletter," August 1989, p. 16.

      1. Just because we don't yet know the role of an organ
     does not mean it is useless and left over from previous
     stages of evolution.
      2. This view is plain false. In the 1800's, evolution-
     ists listed 180 vestigial organs in the human body. The
     functions for all  have now been found.  Some of  these
     were  the pituitary gland (oversees  skeletal  growth),
     the  thymus  (an  endocrine gland),  the  pineal  gland
     (affects  the development of the sex glands), the  ton-
     sils, and appendix (both now known to fight disease.)
      3.  The fact that an organ must sometimes  be  removed
     does not make it vestigial.
      4. The fact that one can live without an organ (appen-
     dix, tonsils) does not make it vestigial. You can  sur-
     vive without an arm or a kidney but these are not  con-
     sidered vestigial.
      5.  Organs are not vestigial based upon your  need  or
     use of them.
      6.  According to evolution, if an organ has  lost  its
     value,  it should, over time, vanish completely.  There
     has been enough time to lose these "vestigial"  organs,
     but we still have them.
      7. If organs do become useless, this would back up the
     second law of thermodynamics and the degenerative proc-
     ess, not evolution, which requires adaptation of organs
     for new purposes.
      8. Vestigial organs prove loss, not evolutionary  pro-
     gression. Evolution theory requires new organs  forming
     for useful purposes, not "old ones" dying out.
      9. Evolutionists have, for the most part, given up the
     argument over vestigial organs.

   8. FOSSIL AND FOSSIL FUEL FORMATION
    Evolutionists  like  to tell us that at  least  thousands  of
years are needed to form the fossils and fuels (such as coal  and
oil) that we find today. However, objects must be buried  rapidly
in order to fossilize. This, bearing also in mind the billions of
fossils and fossil fuels buried around the world, seems to  indi-
cate  a worldwide catastrophe. None other than, you  guessed  it,
Noah's flood.
    Ken  Ham,  director of the Australia-based  Creation  Science
Foundation, presents some interesting facts in seminars which  he
gives.  Oil  can now be made in a few minutes  in  a  laboratory.
Black  coal can also be formed at an astonishing rate.  Ham  also
has  in  his overlay presentation a photograph  of  a  fossilized 
miner's  hat,  about fifty years old. All that is  necessary  for
fossilization is quick burial and the right conditions, not thou-
sands of years.

   9. PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIA
    Seeing  the problem of gradual evolution with the fossil  re-
cord, and the obvious abrupt appearances of species, Drs. Stephen
Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge have formed the theory of punctuated
equilibria. Punctuated equilibria, is, by example, a bird  giving
birth  to a mammal, thus leaving no transitional fossils  in  the
geological record.
    Many top evolutionists disagree with this position. And punc-
tuated  equilibria  has its problems, too. For instance,  in  the
above  case,  of a bird bearing a mammal, another mammal  of  the
same  kind of the opposite sex must be born at the same  approxi-
mate  time in the same area in order for the new species to  con-
tinue.  The  odds of just one organism appearing  this  way,  let
alone two fulfilling the circumstances above, are astronomical.

   10. HOMOLOGY/MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
    Homology  is the similarity of structures  between  different
types of organisms. Some have argued that these similarities  are
evidence  of one common ancestor. However, as  Sunderland  points
out,  when the concentration  of red blood cells is used, utiliz-
ing the ideas of homology, man is more closely related to  frogs,
fish, and birds than to sheep.
    But  now,  with the development of molecular biology  we  are
able to make a comparison of the same cells in different species,
which adds a whole new dimension to homology. Unfortunately,  for
the evolutionists, molecular biology does as all other  evidences
do: presents greater argument against evolution theory.
    In molecular biology, proteins of the same type in  different
organisms can be tested for difference in amino acid makeup.  The
figure  resulting is converted into a percentage. The  lower  the
percentage,  the less difference there is between  the  proteins.
Dr. Michael Denton,  in experiments with Cytochrome C, a  protein
that converts food into energy, and hemoglobin, found the follow-
ing.

       Cytochrome C Differences       Cytochrome C Differences

      Bacterium to Six Organisms       Silkmoth to Vertebrates
      to yeast . . . . . . . 69%       to lamprey . . . . .27%
      to wheat . . . . . . . 66%       to carp. . . . . . .25%
      to silkmoth. . . . . . 65%       to pigeon. . . . . .26%
      to tuna. . . . . . . . 65%       to turtle. . . . . .25%
      to pigeon. . . . . . . 64%       to horse . . . . . .30%
      to horse . . . . . . . 64%

       Cytochrome C Differences        Hemoglobin Differences

   Carp to Terrestrial Vertebrates  Lamprey to Other Vertebrates
      to bullfrog. . . . . . 13%       to human . . . . . .73%
      to turtle. . . . . . . 13%       to kangaroo. . . . .76%
      to chicken . . . . . . 14%       to chicken . . . . .78%
      to rabbit. . . . . . . 13%       to frog. . . . . . .76%
      to horse . . . . . . . 13%       to carp. . . . . . .75%

   Dr. Denton states, "There is not a trace at a molecular  level
of  the  traditional evolutionary series: fish  to  amphibian  to
reptile  to mammal. Incredibly man is closer to lamprey than  are
fish."  The evidence is clear;  evolution is struck another  hard
blow!

   11. DATING METHODS
    Many  of the radiometric dating methods used for  determining
the  age  of fossils are quite unreliable.  Carbon-14  dating  is
usually sound within a few hundred years span of time. But  there
are  exceptions to this. For example, a living mollusk was  dated
using  the carbon-14 method. The readings said it had  been  dead
for 3000 years.
    Lava  rocks  from a volcano in Hawaii which erupted  in  1801
were  tested,  using  the potassium-argon  method.  The  readings
showed  them to be  nearly 3 billion years old.  Moon rocks  were
tested  by  various radiometric methods, yielding  dates  ranging
from 700 million to 28 billion years.
    Dating  methods  such as potassium-argon,  uranium-lead,  and
rubidium-strontium,  are based on assumptions. These methods  are
based on chemical change (uranium to lead, etc.) where the parent
material  (ie.,  uranium) is converted to the  daughter  material
(ie.,  lead) at a known rate, called a half-life.  These  methods
cannot be trusted on the basis that too little is known. In order
to come up with a correct date, you must know:

   1. how much of the parent material was in it at the start,
   2. how much of the daughter material was in it at the start, &
   3. if there has been some type of contamination since.

   In  obtaining dates now, scientists assume the answers  to  or
ignore these questions. The fact is that we cannot know how old a
specimen is unless we were there when it was formed.

   12. DINOSAURS
    Evolutionists  insist  that dinosaurs died  out  millions  of
years  before  man appeared. However, there are many  reasons  to
disbelieve this. There are the stories of animals much like dino-
saurs  in the legends of many lands. These creatures were  called
dragons.  Many times in the recent past, explorers have  recorded
sightings  of  flying reptiles much like the  pterodactyl.  Human
footprints were found along with those of a dinosaur in limestone
near the Paluxy River in Texas.
    Also  not to be tossed aside is the possibility of  dinosaurs
living today. Consider the stories such as the Loch Ness  monster
(of which many convincing photographs have been taken). Some have
claimed  to see dinosaur-like creatures in isolated areas of  the
world. Recently, a Japanese fishing boat pulled up a carcass of a
huge  animal  that  intensely resembled a dinosaur.  A  group  of
scientists  on an expedition into a jungle looking  for  dinosaur
evidence  claims  that they witnessed one, but their  camera  was
damaged. However, they tape recorded the roar of the beast.  This
recording was checked. The voice patterns on it did not  resemble
those of any other roaring. You decide. At any rate, the evidence
that man and dinosaur did live together at one time poses another
problem for the evolutionists.
    "But  if  the dinosaurs lived at the same time as  man,  they
would  have had to have been on the Ark, and that's  impossible!"
Is  it? The ark was about one and one-half football fields  long,
75  feet  wide,  and  45 feet tall. It had  a  cubic  footage  of
1,518,750.  There would have been plenty of room on the  Ark  for
the dinosaurs (especially considering that only a few were of the
enormous  size  of Tyrannosaurus or  "Brontosaurus.")  Also,  the
Bible  states  that Noah was to take two of every kind  onto  the
Ark. Many dinosaurs and reptiles were of the same kind, but  much
smaller. Dinosaurs pose no problem for creation science.

   13. SUN'S DIAMETER
    The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet  per
hour.  At  this rate, life could not have existed  on  the  earth
100,000 years ago.

   14. NILE RIVER'S OVERFLOW
    Measurements of the sediment deposited as a result of  Nile's
flooding  each  year leads to the conclusion of  an  earth  under
30,000 years old. Considering a few larger than normal  overflows
would place the age of the earth close to the biblical account.

   15. EARTH'S ROTATION
    The spin rate of the earth is slowing one second per year. If
the  earth were the billions of years old that the  evolutionists
say it is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed  the
earth.

   16. WRITTEN RECORD
    The 22nd edition of Robert Young's concordance lists  thirty-
seven ancient written accounts which all place the date for crea-
tion at no earlier than 7000 B.C.

   17. THE BIBLE
    Lastly, and most importantly, the Bible says that God created
the universe and every living thing, so the world must have  been
created.  In denying this we call God a liar. And so you can  see
how  evolution  theory undermines the omniscience  and  even  the
existence  of  God. And if there is no God, why not  do  our  own
thing? Or if God is not all-knowing, indeed, a liar, why put  our
trust in Him? Evolution theory logically leads to these  humanis-
tic  ideas. Christians must take a stand for the Word of God,  or
be  accountable on that judgment day for the souls of those  whom
we did not warn.






                             SOURCES

    Baker, Sylvia, Evolution: Bone of Contention (Phillipsburg,
       NJ: Evangelical Press, 1986) Second Edition, p. 25
    
    Sunderland, Luther D.,  Darwin's Enigma, Fossils and  Other
       Problems (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988), p. 74
    
    Parker,  Gary,  Life  Before Birth (El  Cajon,  CA:  Master
       Books, 1987), pp. 41-44

    Kennedy,  D.  James, Why I Believe (Waco, TX:  Word  Books,
       1980), p. 56

    Chick, Jack T., Primal Man? (Chino, CA: Chick Publications,
       1976), p. 23
   
    Cook, Charles, "God's Young Earth Signature," Bible-Science
       Newsletter, August 1989, p. 5


                   OTHER BOOKS ON CREATION/EVOLUTION

    Ham, Ken, The Lie: Evolution (El Cajon: Master Books, 1987)

    Chittick, Donald E., The Controversy, Roots of the Creation-
      Evolution Conflict (Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1984)

   Morris, Henry, The God Who Is Real (Grand Rapids, MI:  Baker
      Book House, 1988)

    Wysong,  R.L., The Creation-Evolution Controversy  (Midland,
      MI: Inquiry Press, 1976)

    Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1985

    Taylor,  Ian T., In the Minds of Men (Toronto,  Canada:  TFE
      Publishing, 1984)

    Morris, Henry, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science  (Grand
      Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984)

    Morris,  Henry,  The Genesis Record (Published  by  Creation
      Life  Publishers, Santee, CA, for Baker Book House,  Grand
      Rapids, MI, 1986) Eleventh Printing

    Gish,  Duane  T.,  Evolution: The Challenge  of  the  Fossil
      Record (Santee, CA: Creation Life Publishers, 1985)

    Ackerman,  Paul  D.,  It's A Young World  After  All  (Grand
      Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1986)

**************************

Kevin Martin
4090 Ranchero Dr.
Dorr, MI 49323
February, 1990
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14226 talk.origins:9452