Ancient History Reconsidered

The Truth About Evolution:

In any consideration of evolution, it is essential that we recognise that there are two forms of evolution. Micro-evolution occurs between animals of the same kind. You cannot, for example, cross a pig with a goat, a dog with a cat, or a snake with an insect. Whenever evidence of evolution is provided by evolutionists, the examples they provide are always, without exception, examples of micro-evolution. Darwin’s finches, which are often used as strong evidence of evolution, fall into this category. By contrast, Macro-evolution, which is where one creature mutates into a completely different kind of creature and is what is presented by evolutionists as scientific fact, as we shall proceed to demonstrate, is both physically and scientifically proven to be impossible.

Micro-evolution

When we consider the many breeds of dogs, these are all descended from the one animal – a wolf. Whilst a wolf has all the original DNA information, dogs, which have been bred from wolves, have lost DNA information in the breeding process. This is a downward evolution and is the opposite of what evolutionists teach. For the sort of evolution they want us to believe, where mankind is descended from apes and ultimately from amoeba, it requires the addition of DNA information rather than DNA loss.

To add to the woes of the evolutionist, genetics research is showing that, with every new generation of man and animal, errors occur in the DNA code. These DNA errors are deleterious, meaning that there is loss of DNA information. Whilst evolutionists keep talking about beneficial mutations, they have yet to provide one single piece of evidence for a beneficial mutation which does not involve loss of function (i.e. loss of information).

To quote Dr John Sanford;

“The overwhelmingly deleterious nature of mutations can be seen by the incredible scarcity of clear cases of information-creating mutations. It must be understood that scientists have a very sensitive and extensive network for detecting information-creating mutations, and most geneticists are diligently keeping their eyes open for them all the time. This has been true for about 100 years. The sensitivity of this observational network is such that even if only one mutation out of a million unambiguously creates new information (apart from ‘fine-tuning’... [which the author goes on to describe]) ...the literature would be over-flowing with reports of this happening.”¹

Even if such beneficial mutations could be proven to exist, the truth of the matter is that the sheer number of deleterious mutations would render any beneficial mutation ineffective, because the overall effect is that evolution is still a downward progression.

Olen R. Brown and David A. Hullender effectively demonstrate that macro-evolution is impossible when they write:

“Survival of the fittest is adequate to select for such changes (gains) which occur within one genome primarily by single fixed mutations (and perhaps sometimes by horizontal gene transfer). Macroevolution, however, requires major changes necessitating multiple changes that logically most frequently occur in multiple genomes. Therefore, the concept survival of the fittest is inadequate to conserve individual changes in multiple genomes where the individual changes generate no increased fitness.

“…Thus, survival of the fittest is illogical when proposed as adequate for selecting the origination of all complex, major, new body-types and metabolic functions because the multiple changes in multiple genomes that are required have intermediate stages without advantage; selection would not reasonably occur, and disadvantage or death would logically prevail…

“…It is our perspective that the burden is too great for survival of the fittest to select evolutionary changes that accomplish all evolutionary novelty. Thus, evolution lacks a sufficient mechanism for multifactorial selections because a process that looks forward, is non-random, deterministic, or occurs by an unknown biological process, is required. The position of mainstream biologists regarding this aspect of evolution is that nature is always non-purposeful and, therefore, the proposed selection (process, force, tendency), could not possibly be natural (scientific). However, our perspective is that this is a supposition of necessity rather than an established principle. Logic demands that it be open to investigation. This first requires an openness to ideas and science must be open to new ideas…

“…Darwin wrote in On the Origin of Species… : ‘If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.’ Today, Darwin’s missing cases are abundant including each complex transition to a new body type, metabolic cycle, or metabolic chain. Multi-step processes are routinely required at every evolutionary step.”²

Notice that “evolution lacks a sufficient mechanism for multifactorial selections”, meaning that there is no mechanism for evolutionary processes to produce new novel functions such as new limbs or new organs, making macro-evolution impossible. They even admit that Horizontal Gene Transfer, which is gaining in popularity amongst some evolutionists as a means of evolution, likewise cannot explain macro-evolution.

Writing in the Guardian newspaper, Stephen Buryani wrote:

“Strange as it sounds, scientists still do not know the answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth evolved. Take eyes, for instance. Where do they come from, exactly? The usual explanation of how we got these stupendously complex organs rests upon the theory of natural selection. You may recall the gist from school biology lessons. If a creature with poor eyesight happens to produce offspring with slightly better eyesight, thanks to random mutations, then that tiny bit more vision gives them more chance of survival. The longer they survive, the more chance they have to reproduce and pass on the genes that equipped them with slightly better eyesight. Some of their offspring might, in turn, have better eyesight than their parents, making it likelier that they, too, will reproduce. And so on. Generation by generation, over unfathomably long periods of time, tiny advantages add up. Eventually, after a few hundred million years, you have creatures who can see as well as humans, or cats, or owls… This is the basic story of evolution, as recounted in countless textbooks and pop-science bestsellers. The problem, according to a growing number of scientists, is that it is absurdly crude and misleading… ‘The first eye, the first wing, the first placenta. How they emerge. Explaining these is the foundational motivation of evolutionary biology,’ says Armin Moczek, a biologist at Indiana University. ‘And yet, we still do not have a good answer. This classic idea of gradual change, one happy accident at a time, has so far fallen flat.’”³

Macro-evolution

Macro-evolution is the ‘Big Daddy’ of the evolutionist’s teachings. This is where one creature turns into a completely different creature. This is where, according to their delusion, dinosaurs have turned into birds; where fish have turned into land animals; where a land animal such as Rodhocetus has turned into a whale, and so on. Evolutionists simply look at the bones of extinct animals and allow their imagination run wild. You can make up anything you like and no one is likely to challenge you because these creatures are no longer around for you to examine. Even so, there have been many occasions where evidence has subsequently emerged which has shown the evolutionist’s interpretation of the fossil evidence to be completely wrong.

A good example to quote would be the Coelacanth. This fish, which supposedly lived in swamps and became extinct around 400 million years ago, is still alive today. It is actually a deep water fish, living at a depth of around 180m below the surface. Specimens which have been caught have not lived very long because they need to exist in the pressurised depths of the ocean. Before its discovery, evolutionists claimed that the two front fins acted as legs allowing them to leave the water and flop around on the land. Living at the bottom of the ocean, this assumption is also shown to be wrong. The two front fins in reality act as stabilisers. It was also claimed that the brain structure of the Coelacanth resembled that of land animals. It turns out that the Coelacanth’s brain is no different to that of any other fish. Evolutionists were also claiming that the Coelacanth had a primitive lung. This primitive lung turns out to be a lipid pouch!

So when evolutionists blind you with so-called science, be aware that their ‘science’ is nothing more than supposition based on their interpretation of the fossil evidence. In fact, the fossil record shows that there is no crossing over between species, and as David Swift points out:

“...no phylum can be traced from a preceding one in the fossil record, in fact we cannot account for the origin of a single phylum: they all appear abruptly. This is also true of lower taxonomic groups such as classes and orders, and possibly lower still.”⁴

Richard Dawkins likewise has gone on record as saying:

“...the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them [the fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.”⁵

Evolutionists know that the fossil record does not support their idea of evolution. As Niles Eldredge admits:

“And it has been the paleontologist – my own breed – who have been most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality: ...We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation [of slow gradual evolution], all the while knowing that it does not.”⁶

And yet they persist in claiming as fact that the fossil evidence supports evolution.

Darwin’s ‘Tree of Life’, which shows animals branching off here and there is neither supported by the fossil record, nor is it supported by genetic research. Bear in mind that, for every upward progression that evolutionists want us to believe, of which there were purportedly billions upon billions upon billions of subtle genetic changes spanning countless millions of years of evolutionary change, requires a complete reversal of all the universal laws of nature. Evolutions know this, but choose to ignore the problem. Everything around us is weathering, eroding, rotting and decaying. This state of deterioration is known in science as entropy. A reversal of the entropic state is known either as ‘Reverse Entropy’ or ‘Negentropy’. This natural state of entropy cannot be reversed unless some external energy is applied. An good example to quote is the application of an electrical charge to a gas which causes a reactionary change to the gas, causing the gas to freeze. This is the principle used in fridges and freezers. Evolutionists know that entropy is a big problem for their theory of evolution, so they jumped with joy when, in 2009, a theoretical physicist by the name of Lorenzo Maccone announced his ‘Arrow of Time theory in which he suggests that time has gone backwards at many times throughout history, and when that happened, it erased any memory that the event ever happened.⁷ His fanciful theory, however, still does not tackle the issue of what caused the reversal of the entropic state, nor does it provide any explanation as to how this reversal occurred billions upon billions upon billions of times.

If a scientist undertaking experiments in a laboratory found that the results of his tests consistently showed that what he was arguing for was not possible, and he then, against all the scientific evidence, still insisted that his theory was correct, he would become the laughing stock of the scientific community. Nevertheless, evolutionists have not one jot of evidence to support macro-evolution, and yet they are presenting this as science. They are even trying to convince us that life can be formed from non-life, which argument runs contrary to the laws of bio-genesis.

Evolutionists also extend their theories to apply to geology as well as to the formation of the universe. Rock is an inanimate object. It cannot reproduce. Rock cannot make more rock. Yet evolutionists want us to believe that life began as a speck of dust which appeared out of nothing and went on to form planets which in turn evolved over an extremely long period of time to form solar systems. Again, no one has witnessed new stars forming or new planets coming into existence. We look up at the heavens and we see that everything is subject to the same laws of entropy as we observe on this planet Earth. When asteroids, meteors or meteorites pass through our solar system, they leave behind them a trail of debris. They themselves are parts of stars which have been blown out of existence.

Evolutionists claim that anyone who believes in a Creator GOD do not believe in science, yet evolution is most definitely NOT science! It has absolutely no scientific validity. It is nothing more than the contrived machinations of a group of men and women who sit around making the facts fit their delusion, a people who flatly refuse to even consider the possibility that they are wrong or that there is a GOD.

As Richard C. Lewontin aptly put it:

“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”⁸

Evolutionist George Wald expresses the problem with evolution well when he writes:

“When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved [by Louis Pasteur] one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!”⁹

Notice that they choose to believe the impossible – not because of the science; not because of the evidence, but because the alternative is loathsome to them.

Consequently, they will always interpret the evidence according to this bias and they will do everything in their power to avoid anything which confirms what the Bible says, even when the evidence for a supernatural creation by God is strong. In my video When Crocodiles Became Whales I demonstrate that evolutionists have the remains of a crocodile with a broken off snout and damaged cranium which they are claiming is a walking whale calling it Rodhocetus Kasrani. Phil Gingerich, the palaeontologist who discovered the remains, has reshaped the head to make it look like that of a cetacean. This is supposed to be their best proof of evolution and it is nothing more than fabrication of the evidence. I go on to demonstrate in this video that another of their so-called ‘walking whales’, which they have decided to call Ambulocetus, is an animal which is portrayed in a mosaic in Northern Israel as well as on a brass frieze on a 16^th century tomb in Northern England. Evolutionists can simply make up whatever stories they like. Who is to challenge them? The truth of the matter is that you can make bare bones say just about anything you want them to say. All you need is a little imagination.

I would argue that, if you reject one set of data in favour of another without weighing up all the evidence, then you cannot call that science. These people hate GOD with such venom that they will do anything in their power to undermine the authority of the Bible. This includes some unscrupulous professors who have actually manufactured #8216;evidence’ to support their arguments.

Genetics - The Final Nail in the Coffin

In the May 2018 edition of Human Evolution, Mark Y. Stoeckle and David S. Thaler announced that they had tested more than 5 million DNA barcodes, as they call them, representing more than 90% of the animals on this planet.¹⁰ Every single one of their samples, without exception, showed that animals appeared on this planet at the same time as man. Being self-confessed evolutionists, they had difficulty coming to terms with this data as it goes completely against the teachings of evolution. Of course, they are hopeful that somewhere among the other 10% of animals for which there is no DNA barcode information (some of the barcodes were corrupted, others were simply not available), that there is evidence which will support the evolutionist theory. Not only did the results show that animals arrived on this planet at the same time as man, but that there were clear boundaries between each animal kind. “The tight clustering of barcodes within species and unfilled sequence space among them are key facts of animal life that evolutionary theory must explain,”¹¹ they wrote (p.2.) I would here point out that this this data confirms the fossil record, which also shows that there are genetic boundaries between the various animal kinds. Though they do not realise it, they are confirming the Biblical statement that GOD created all the animals “after their kind”.

Whilst Stoeckle and Thaler believe that this appearance of man and animals occurred between 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, they are working to an assumed DNA error rate which has been set by evolutionists. Another genetics researcher, Dr Nathaniel Jeanson, working to real world DNA error rates, has reduced this to between 5,000 to 10,000 years. (5,000 if every woman throughout history gave birth at age 15, 10,000 if every woman throughout history gave birth at age 50.) In his book Replacing Darwin, Jeanson has also shown that all the nations of the world can be traced back to three women, who, he argues, were the three wives of the three sons of Noah, and back through them to one woman, even the Biblical Eve. (I have actually suggested some minor corrections to Dr Jeanson’s results, though his main arguments appear sound.) This realisation that the whole of mankind can be traced back to one woman has been known to geneticists since around 1987, but they reckoned that this woman, who they have ironically dubbed ‘Mitochondrial Eve’, lived around 200,000 years ago. Dr Jeanson’s corrections to the DNA error rate means that Mitochondrial Eve now needs to be dated to around 4,000 bce thereby supporting the Biblical account of creation.

“And for this cause GOD shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (2 Thess. 2:11.)

See also my research paper entitled The Truth Concerning Evolution.

1.	Genetic Entropy p.17, Dr John C. Sandford, FMS Publications, 2014. [Return]
2.	Neo-Darwinianism Must Mutate to Survive, Olen R. Brown and David A. Hullender, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, Vol. 172, pp.24-38, Aug 2022.[Return]
3.	TDo We Need A New Theory of Evolution?, Stephen Buryani, The Guardian, 28 Jun 2022.[Return]
4.	Evolution Under the Microscope p.295, David Swift, Leighton Academic Press 2002. [Return]
5.	The Blind Watchmaker, p.229, Richard Dawkins, Penguin Books 2006. [Return]
6.	Time Frames: The Evolution of Punctuated Equilibria, p.144, Niles Eldredge, Princeton University Press 1989. [Return]
7.	Quantum Solution to the Arrow-of-Time Dilemma, Lorenzo Maccone, Physical Review Letters 103, 080401 (2009). [Return]
8.	Billions and Billions of Demons, Richard C. Lewontin, New York Times Review of Books dated 9 Jan 1997. [Return]
9.	The Origin of Life, p.48, George Wald, Scientific American, Vol. 191, Part 2 dated Aug 1954. [Return]
10.	Why should mitochondria define species?, Mark Y. Stoeckle and David S. Thaler, Human Evolution, Vol. 33, pp.1-30, May 2018. [Return]
11.	Ibid. p.2. [Return]

Dated 15 Oct 2018.
^©AHR Researches, Birmingham, England.