Horsing Around

Horse evolution was said to be the most complete evidence for evolution. Now the most recent discoveries are throwing this evolutionary story into chaos.

many museums and popular books have presented a neat series starting from the dog-sized, four-toed ‘dawn horse’ or ‘Eohippus,’ which supposedly lived 50 million years ago. The next creature is usually a larger creature like Mesohippus, which had three toes. The next one was larger still, for example Merychippus, which had two of the toes smaller than the third. Finally, there is the large modern horse, Equus, with only one toe

As the biologist Heribert-Nilsson said, ‘The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks

With the latest understanding of the horse fossils, it is more clear that the horse was created and has been reproducing after its kind just exactly as God decreed in Genesis 1:24-25


 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

Homology is Only Skin Deep

It has been proposed among evolutionists that since different kinds of creatures (humans, birds, whales…) have similar bone structures (5 bones in hand/wing/fin…) that they evolved from a common ancestor. The same observation could be interpreted to mean that these creatures all had a common designer. One of the problems with the idea that similarities among creatures proves a common ancestor has only been revealed in recent times with the analysis of DNA. This problem is manifest when studying the genes that code for similar regions in distinct kinds. An evolutionist would expect the same gene to code for the same appendage if they evolved from one another. But this is not the case. Genes are not conserved as one would expect if evolution were true. The table below illustrates the problems for evolution:




 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria

Antibiotic resistant bacteria. The idea that bacteria have evolved to be resistant to antibiotics is said to be proof of the grand theory of evolution. However, what has really happened it that bacteria do not develop new features that make them resistant. Within a population of bacteria, there are mutants (degenerates) that have lost the functionality that antibiotics attack. If the antibiotic succeeds in killing all of the bacteria that are not resistant, then the resistant strains can reproduce unchecked.

Bacteria have been found in ancient graves or archaeological digs (prior to the invention of modern antibiotics) and there are antibiotic-resistant bacteria. This shows that these bacteria have not evolved new traits since the introduction of modern medicine. They were already in bacterial populations; they are only able to thrive when the non-resistant bacteria are killed off for them.



 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

Geologic Column

It is taught in textbooks from elementary school to college that fossil material is sorted consistently by age. It is said that simple organisms are buried first and then fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then birds, then mammals, and finally mankind. It is taught that since these orders of animals are buried in this manner that the conclusion is that things evolved new traits over time and that the fossil record tracks a consistent and comprehensive history of evolutionary life from a simple common ancestor.

The problem with this education is that it is false. The geologic column does not exist in its entirety anywhere on earth. Many of the “established” layers are buried in the “wrong” order according to the theory. Fossils are buried in the “wrong” layers.

The worldwide flood described in Genesis makes far more sense of the accumulation of sedimentary layers all over the world. Dinosaurs are not buried with humans, not because they did not live at the same time, but because they did not live in the same place. Would you want to live close to dinosaurs? Human fossils are not found buried with coelacanth either, but it is verifiable that humans live contemporarily with coelacanth fish.

It is taught that the lower in the strata an animal is buried, the simpler or earlier it is said to have lived compared to the creatures buried in higher strata. But highly complex creatures have been found in the lowest strata, which is a paradox for evolutionists.


 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

Radioactive Dating Highlights Incompatibilities

Radiometric dating. Radiometric dating (RD) is said to be able to provide absolute dates to fossils, rocks, or buried organic materials. There are many problems with the idea that RD provides absolute dates. There are three main assumptions that plague the trustworthiness of RD.

  1. Original quantities of parent and daughter elements. Since RD is a measurement of the ratio of parent to daughter element, it would be important to know how much of each element existed in the sample. But it is impossible to know the original amount, so an assumption of no daughter element is used as the starting point
  2. No contamination. It is assumed that there is never any introduction of either parent or daughter elements into the samples over the years.
  3. Constant decay rates. It is assumed that the decay rate is constant over the years and that nothing can ever change the decay rate. A team of scientists from ICR have published a serious challenge to this assumption as decay rates have been measured to be wildly erratic in many circumstances.

The idea of RD is that something is millions or billions of years old even though no calibration has been done to confirm this process. Many times, items of known age (rocks from Mt. St. Helens, recently deceased animals…) have been submitted for RD testing and have come back with severely incorrect dates. If we cannot trust the dates provided by RD on items of known date, why should we trust RD when it proposes dates for items where the date is not known?

Carbon 14 is particularly troublesome for evolutionists. The half-life of Carbon-14 is about 5700 years. So after approximately 90,000 years one would not be able to measure any Carbon-14. According to pg 282 of Marvin Lubenow’s Bones of Contention, no fossil has ever been uncovered that did not have some Carbon-14 in it. This includes all of the supposedly 600 million year old samples taken from Pre-Cambrian strata. What this tells us is that no fossils are greater than 90,000 years old.

UPDATE: It has recently been shown that outside forces can change the rate at which radioactive elements decay. So much for absolute dates!

 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

Not a Monkey’s Uncle after all

Chimp/human similarity. It has been said that humans and chimps have a 98% similarity in their chromosomes. But this is just plain false. For years this percentage of similarity has been intoned by evolutionary scholars based on the assumption of junk DNA. Since most of the DNA in chimps and humans was assumed to be junk, most of the DNA was not compared for similarities. Only a tiny fraction of the DNA was compared for similarities. Now that DNA is known to be useful in multiple dimensions, the similarity of human/chimp DNA has dropped precipitously…to below 70%. If the closest assumed relationship to humans is chimps, but our DNA is significantly different…so different that not enough time has passed since our most recent common ancestor, then humans are not related to chimps.

Another way to see the similarities in humans and chimps is that they have the same designer…like a Chevy 1500 and a GMC Sierra. Same designer…similar appearance. The genetic link of all life is most easily explained with a Biblical view that God would be able to provide a self-replicating food source (plants) and his creation would be able to thrive from its consumption.

If humans were completely different from all other life forms on earth, then what could we consume for fuel except each other? Having similarities with the other creatures and our food source allows for us to consume the same food source or the lower creatures to provide sustenance. Since predation is not an original design feature (prior to sin/death), it would be important that all creatures be able to process the plants/fruits/seeds/roots for sustenance. Therefore, some similarity is expected among each kind of creatures according to a biblical worldview.


UPDATE: The information keeps pouring in that to propagate “the extreme likeness of humans to chimps” idea is completely false.

UPDATE: As more and more information is accumulated and released about the misconception that humans and chimps are 98% related by DNA, the more we find that this misconception is false.

When the genome of one creature is used to construct the genome of another, then we have a serious problem that philosophers call “begging the question.” In other words, evolutionists have produced a chimp genome based on humans and then say it looks similar to the human genome.


 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

Junk DNA; Now a Vestigial Theory

Junk DNA. Junk DNA is a term coined back in the 1960s that referred to the portion of the DNA that did not code for proteins. It was believed by evolutionary scientists that the junk DNA was evolutionary leftovers from billions of years of changes within the code. In scientific circles junk DNA was referred to as pseudogenes. In Richard Dawkins book, The Greatest Show on Earth, he declares pseudogenes magnificent evidence for evolution and scoffs at creationists:

What pseudogenes are useful for is embarrassing creationists. It stretches even their creative ingenuity to make a convincing reason why an intelligent designer should have created a pseudogene — a gene that does absolutely nothing and gives every appearance of being a superannuated version of a gene that used to do something — unless he was deliberately setting out to fool us.

Unfortunately (for evolutionists), Junk DNA is a myth. The latest research by both creationist and evolutionary scientists show that all of the DNA code is useful even if it does not code for proteins. In fact, the news is even worse for the theory of evolution since DNA code is now shown to be not just a code in a single dimension, but has usefulness in multiple directions. An analogy for the geeks among us would be to compare DNA to a compressed data file. The compressed data file has functionality and the uncompressed data file has functionality. This further complicates the situation for evolution since any random mutation (copying error) in DNA will affect not just the “compressed file” but also the “uncompressed file.” This makes the theory of evolution as taught staggeringly unlikely to be true.

And since there’s no such thing as junk DNA, it takes away one of the “strongest” evidences for evolution.

As more and more evidence is coming to light regarding genetics, evolution is scrambling for the ever-diminishing shadows. The four major lines of evolutionary assumptions within genetics is rapidly waning:

  1. Homology – Homology is the evolutionary assumption that since different species of animals have similar features, then they must have had a common ancestor. But with the advent of genetics, scientists are finding that the relationships defined by homology are vastly different when DNA is compared.
  2. Absolute Genetic Differences – Chimps and humans are said to have a common ancestor about 6 millions years ago. But since the genetic code for both chimps and humans have been de-coded, the differences are found to be 900,000,000 and growing. The problem for evolutionists is that not enough time has passed for this many differences to have mutated in the genetic code.
  3. Junk DNA – As already covered above, scientists are finding that junk DNA is useful after all.
  4. Shared DNA mistakes – The assumption that if species are related to each other with a common ancestor, they should have shared mistakes in their code is now shown to be just that…an assumption. It relates back to the idea that non-coding portions of DNA were junk, but have now been shown to be functional. Since the “mistakes” have vanished because they are now shown to be worthwhile portions of the DNA, then the assumed history of shared mistakes is also vanishes.

The most complicated storage mechanism in the universe has been discovered to be even more complex than originally thought. It is now even less likely to have emerged naturally

Not only is junk DNA a myth, but the DNA code represents multiple levels of information, which is sometimes known as epigenetics. A more detailed description of epigenetics is available here. This secondary layer of complexity further deepens the problem for evolutionists in explaining the way that genetic mutations affect the “emergence” of new information for building wings, flippers, gills, lungs, echolocation, blood-clotting cascades, or ligaments where once there were none. If random mutations to existing code is supposed to provide the source for new features in creatures, and the existing code has at least two levels of complexity, then a random mutation will be forced to overcome the “scrambling” of both levels to remain viable after natural selection acts on the new code. The problem more than doubles for evolution.

UPDATE: Further research into the collapse of the theory of junk DNA has been published in scientific journals.

It would seem the answer is yes — and evolutionary assumptions helped create the problem.

UPDATE 2: It looks like the ENCODE project continues to make the theory of evolution irrelevant.

If the human genome is indeed devoid of junk DNA as implied by the ENCODE project, then a long, undirected evolutionary process cannot explain the human genome. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, then all DNA, or as much as possible, is expected to exhibit function. If ENCODE is right, then Evolution is wrong.

 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline