Life Science Conclusions

 After Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859, many came to believe that all forms of life had a common ancestor. Those who believed that over long periods of time molecules had turned into man thought there were only a few gaps in this "evolutionary tree"—gaps that would be filled as scientific knowledge increased. Just the opposite has happened. As science has progressed, the obvious "missing links" in this hypothetical tree have multiplied enormously, and the difficulties in "bridging" these gaps have become even more apparent.  For example, in Darwin's day, all life fell into two categories (or kingdoms): animals and plants. Today we know that life fails into five radically different kingdoms, only two of which are animals and plants. This, of course, does not include viruses, which are complex and unique in their own way. In the 1800s, the animal kingdom was divided into four animal phyla; today there are about forty.

 Darwin suggested that the first living creature evolved in a "warm little pond." Some recent writers have imagined that life arose in "organic soup"—a more sophisticated but equally vague version of Darwin's warm pond. We now know that the chance formation of the first living cell is a leap of gigantic proportions, vastly more improbable than the evolution of bacteria into humans. In Darwin's day, a cell was thought to be about as simple as a ping-pong ball.  Even today most evolutionists think of bacteria as simple.  However, we know that they are marvelously integrated and complex manufacturing plants with many mysteries, such as bacterial motors, yet to be understood.

 Furthermore, ceils come in two radically different types - those with a nucleus and those without. The evolutionary leap from one to the other is staggering to imagine.

 The more evolutionists learn about life, the greater complexity they find. A century ago there were no sophisticated microscopes. Consequently, the leaps from single to multiple-cell organisms were also underestimated. The development of the computer has also given us a partial appreciation of the vast electronics, extreme miniaturization, and storage capabilities of the brain.  The human eye, which Darwin admitted made him shudder, was only a single jump in complexity. Yet it is now known that there are at least a dozen radically different kinds of eyes, each requiring similar jumps if evolution happened. Likewise, the literal leap that we call flight must have evolved not once, but on at least four different occasions: for certain birds, insects, mammals, and reptiles.  Until recently, it was thought that sunlight provided the energy for all life. We now know that at widely separated locations on the dark ocean floor there are complex organisms that use only chemical and thermal energy.  For one energy conversion system to evolve into another is analogous to slowly changing a house's heating system from gas to electricity by thousands of rare accidents.  Furthermore, these accidents changed only one minor component each year, without the occupants freezing in the winter.  In addition, this strange, unexplained process must happen several times' in two different oceans. Many other giant leaps must have also occurred if evolution happened: the first   photosynthesis,   cold-blooded   to   warm-blooded animals,  floating  marine  plants  to  vascular  plants, placental mammals to marsupials, egg-laying to viviparous animals, insect metamorphosis, the transition of mammals to the sea (whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, sea lions, and sea cows), the transition of reptiles to the sea (plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs), and on and on.

 The gaps in the fossil record are well known. A century ago evolutionists argued that these gaps would be filled as knowledge increased. Most paleontologists now admit that this prediction failed.  Of course, the most famous "missing link" is that between man and apes. However, the term is deceiving. There should be not one intermediate link, but thousands, if the evolutionary tree connects man and apes with their many linguistic, social, mental, and physical differences.

 Scientific advancements have shown us that evolution is even more ridiculous than it appeared to people in Darwin's day. It is a theory without a mechanism. Not even appeals to long periods of time will allow simple organisms to "jump gaps" and become more complex and viable.  In fact, as will be seen in the next section, long periods of time make such leaps even less likely. All the breeding experiments, which many hoped would show macroevolution, have failed.  The arguments used by Darwin and his followers are now discredited or, at best, in dispute, even among evolutionists.  Finally, the research of the last several decades has shown that the requirements for life are incredibly complex.  Just the design that thinking people can see around them obviously implies a designer. Nevertheless, evolutionists still argue against this design by, oddly enough, using arguments which they spent a great deal of time designing.  The theory of organic evolution certainly appears to be invalid.

 As we leave the life sciences and examine the astronomical and physical sciences, we will see many other serious difficulties.  If the earth, the solar system, our galaxy, or even the heavier chemical elements could not have evolved, as now appears to be the case, the organic evolution could never have even begun.