Reflection on Evolution vs Creation

• Anyone who has a mental capability of a teenager or better has a bias

• Our bias is formed based on our personal believes

• These believes may be right or wrong - some believes that seem to be right at a time, can actually be wrong when examined closely

  Case in point: Newton's 2nd Law "F ma". We now know it is only an approximation (Theory of Relativity).

• Therefore, it is important to have an open mind that allow one to re-examine one's bias in the light of new evidence that one learns about.

• Anyone who has a mental capability of a teenager has INTELLIGENCE

• You should USE it

• You should be like a teenager and form your own opinion BASED on FACTS

  But make sure you get ALL the facts - and when NEW FACTS are discovered, included them and RE-EVALUATE your evidences.

• In this webpage, I like to present a number of new evidences that is highly relevant for the Evolution vs Creation debate

• My only hope is that you take these new findings into consideration and re-evaluate your position

• There are many biological systems found in the flora and fauna that can only be developed by a CHAIN of evolutionary steps where each intermediate step creates an apparently USELESS system and ONLY the FINAL step result in a USEFUL system

  These characteristics fall under what the Biochemist Dr. Michael Behe (Lehigh Univ) called "irreducible complexity" in his book "Darwin's Black Box".

  Here is a webpage about "irreducible complexity" by Dr. Behe: click here

• Darwin himself claimed that

  "if there is an organ which could not have been formed by many successive slight modifications, then his evolution theory would break down"

  (Personally, I think Darwin is wrong here - even if an organ can be found that is provably complex that it could not be formed by many successive slight steps, it still would not disprove his "theory" of evolution: it only makes it less likely, but does not disprove it. I still maintain that nothing can disprove this "theory" og Evolution which is in fact a religion.)

  But anyway, Behe (and later many others) found features in animals and plants that exhibit "irreducible complexity".

  The following white paper discussed a few: click here

Irreducuble complex system has the property that

• it consists of multiple independent components

• the FUNCTION of the system is achieved when ALL components are ALL components are FITTED CORRECTLY together

• whenever ANY ONE components is OMITTED then the system FAILS COMPLETELY

Behe used the mouse trap to illustrate his concept of "irreducible complexity":

• Function of the mouse trap is to catch mice...

• If any ONE part (hammer, hold-down bar, spring, catch or platform) is removed from the mouse trap, the trap fails COMPLETELY

  (It does not fails 25%, 50%, or 99%, it fails 100% - it will NOT catch any mouse)

• EVERY part must FIT:
  • If the hold-down bar is too long or too short, trap will not work
  • If the spring too weak or too strong, trap will not work
  • If the catch too big or too small, trap will not work
  • If the hammer too big or too small, trap will not work (hammer can't be held down or it does not snap on the mouse)

Behe (and many other researchers) has found - and is finding more and more - "irreducibly complex" biological systems: systems in living organisms that consist of MANY different components and the omission of ANY ONE component renders the system ENTIRELY USELESS

The little beetle has an irreducibly complex system that HELP CONVINCED the Evolutonist Dr. Jobe Martin to became a believe in God because he saw that creating this system by evolutionary (random) processes, is virtually impossible ---- click here

The biological system of the Bombardier Beetle that Dr. Jobe Martin so admire is the chemical cannon inside the beetle's abdomen that the beetle can use to aim an an EXTREMELY HOT and CAUSTIC jet of chemical to its attacker:

First, let's take a closer look at how this cannon works....

• The Defense mechanism of the Bombardier Beetle
  • This beetle defends itself by mixing together two very dangerous chemicals :
    • hydroquinone - a powerful reducing agent
    • hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) a powerful oxident

    They react in the following redox-reaction (that releases a lot of heat):

               

  • The Bombardier beetle's abdomen has 2 connected chambers:

    The chemicals are stored TOGETHER in the upper chamber...

    Normally, hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) react immediately.... (and the beetle would blow up...) but the Bomdadier beetle produces a special "inhibitor" chemical to keep the mixture from reacting with each other

    A second chamber - separated from the storage chamber by a ring of muscles (sphinter) - contains TWO enzymes that accelerates the chemical reaction between hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide to an explosive rate ....

    These two enzymes, peroxidase and Catalase, were discovered by German chemist Dr. Schildknecht:

    • Peroxidase       decompose hydrogen peroxide into OXYGEN and water
    • Catalase           speeds up the oxidation of hydroquinone

  • The beetle defends itself by mixing pushing the mixture of the (inhibited) hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide into the second chamble where the enzymes will speed up the reaction of the chemicals, and an explosive reaction takes place:

    The resultant of this reaction is very hot (212 F), toxic, and under high pressure.

    The hot caustic fume is then AIMED - through muscles - using two combustion tubes right at the attacker....

• QUESTIONS/PROBLEMS about the evolution of the defense mechanism of the Bombardier Beetle
  • According to evolutionary "thinking/doctrine", the defense mechanism of the Bombardier Beetle has been evolved through small steps - adding one feature at a time

    Furthermore, the new feature(s) provide the beetle an added ADVANTAGE for SURVIVAL !!!

  • Step 1: beetle learned to produce Hydrogen Peroxide

    Question: what's would the beetle use Hydrogen Peroxide for ???? Bleech its wings ????

    Net result: Zilt... Beetle is no more "better off"

  • Step 2: beetle learned to produce Hydroquinone

    Problem: if Hydroquinone gets in contact with Hydrogen Peroxide, we have dead beetles everywhere - suicidal beetles...

    Solution: beetle stored chemicals separately.

    Net result: Still zilt... Beetle is no more "better off"

  • Step 3: beetle learned to produce inhibitor for Hydroquinone and Hydrogen Peroxide

    Observation: there is NO NEED to inhibit these chemicals if they are stored seperately.... (and if they are not, we will have dead beetles everywhere)...

    Dilemma: How did the inhibitor evolve ???

    • if Hydroquinone and Hydrogen Peroxide were stored separately, there was absolutely NO NEED to "evolve" the inhibitor

    • if Hydroquinone and Hydrogen Peroxide were stored together, they would react immediately and it's TOO LATE to "evolve" the inhibitor (because the beetle is dead)

    To proceed further, we must make an illogical assumption that somehow random processes of nature is smart enough (gosh, what am I saying.... INTELLEGENT RANDOM PROCESSES....) "has the foresight" to evolve BOTH Hydroquinone and Hydrogen Peroxide AND the inhibitor

    This will enable the beetle to store BOTH Hydroquinone and Hydrogen Peroxide in one chamber.

    Net result: Zilt... Oh MAN.... the stupid Beetle is STILL no more "better off" !!!

    The chemicals can be stored together, but they DO NOT react.... The beetle is not a single step further...

  • Step 4: beetle learned to produce Peroxidase

    Peroxidase will convert Peroxide to Oxigen with will react with Hydroquinone

    Net result: SUICIDAL beetles !!!... because the resulting chemical will poison the beetle....

    Suppose - just suppose - some beetle survive the poisoning....

  • Step 5: beetle learned to produce Catalase

    Net result: EXPLODING beetles !!!..... because the oxygen and hydroquinone will react SO FAST that the beetle's abdomen explodes....

    Why ???? - Because there is NO DELIVERY SYSTEM !!!

  • Ah yes. the beetle still needs to evolve the two combustion tubes and a precision communications and timing network (nervous system) to control and adjust the critical direction and timing of the explosion.

  • So, here we go again; for thousands of generations these carefree little beetles went around celebrating the 4th of July by blowing themselves to pieces until finally they mastered their new found powers.

• Sound (good) theorems usually find an abundance of supporting evidences

  For example, when Astronauts performs the "dropping" experiments to verify the Law of Gravity on the Moon, this law held up.

• When a theorem is not supported by the evidences and their proponents have to propose NEW mechanisms to keep the theory alive, the theory is like a house built on a sinking foundation - full of cracks - and it is probably time to abandon ship....

• This "Theory" of Evolution had received at least two major FACE LIFTS:
  • When a LACK of transitional forms in the fossil record became apparent, a "face lift" to the "Theory" of Evolution is proposed that would explain why there are no few transitional forms:

    

    A rapid evolutionary phase is followed by a phase where species evolve little or not at all.

    This patch-work solution raised other more problematic questions and had been abandoned....

  • Recently, micro-biology discovered that animals that look alike can have a completely different genome (and thus different ancestors) - another "face lift" was proposed that has an absurbly sounding title: CONVERGENT EVOLUTION

    If you realise that the underlying driving mechanism of Evolution is random mutation, this is basically saying that random processes CONVERGE.

  I will describe what these CONVERGING random processes using three examples below - (and they are finding more and more of these converging random processes....)

Map of the lakes in East Africa:

Take a look at these fishes from two different lakes:

• Boy... these fishes sure look alike....

• $64,000 Evolutionary question:
  WHY do these fishes found in two NEARBY separated lakes LOOK SO MUCH ALIKE ????

  Do you think the fishes from Lake Tanganyika and Lake Malawi are RELATED TO EACH OTHER ???

  In other words, thet have a COMMON ancester (parent) fish ???

  ---

• The Evolutionary explanation is:

  ---

  LONG LONG TIME ago, the lakes were merged together as one lake there was one specie of each kind fish (a common ancester fish):

  Later, the water level of the BIG lake dropped creating seperate lakes.

  Then over million of years, each specie of fish in the (separated) lakes developed separately into a uniquely different subspecie:

                   

  ---

• Nice story, but what is the REALITY ???

  ---

  • These look-alike fishes are alive and well in the African lakes and one bad day for the Evolutionists, some researchers decided to analyze their DNA sequences....

  • Researchers Ruber, Verheyen and Meyer (Europeans) took some fishes from these lakes and did a analysis of (mitochondrial) DNA on these fishes....

  • The DNA sequence DIFFER SO MUCH that that researchers conclude that the two different "look-alike fishes" from different lakes must have had DIFFERENT ancestors....

  • HOWEVER - and that's the very interesting part - these DIFFERENT ANCESTRAL FISHES HAS MANAGED TO EVOLVE INTO FISHES THAT ARE DEAD-RINGERS OF EACH OTHER...

    A picture paints a thousand words in this regard. This is what had happened in those lakes to MANY different species of fishes:

                     

    Reference:

    • Abstract: click here
    • Full paper: click here

• These results goes against the intuition of the "Theory" of Evolution.

  In fact, this phenomenon is so surprising to the Evolutionists that they have COINED a NEW TERM to describe it:

  CONVERGENT Evolution

  If this "Convergent Evolution" happened to ONE kind of fish, you may be able explain this freak of nature away as a freak of nature....

  But what they are discovering is that this "Convergent Evolution" is happening in MANY MANY DIFFERENT SPECIES, quote (see the abstract of the above paper)

Some Australian birds	Some European birds

• Judging by their LOOKS, you would conclude that:
  • Birds 1-2 are closely related
  • Birds 3-6 are closely related
  • Birds 4-5 are closely related

• Using an ACCURATE DNA analysis, the birds are related as:
  • Birds 1,2,3 are closely related
  • Birds 4,5,6 are closely related

• Here is a research paper documenting the weird finding of yet another converging random process in nature: click here

  Jamaican Twig anole	Hispanolan Twig anole

  Jamaican Giant anole

• From the looks, you would swear that the Jamaican Twig anole and the Hispanolan Twig anole were closely related...

• From the DNA evidence, the Jamaican Twig anole and the Jamaican Giant anole would be more likely to have a common ancester !!!

  Jamaican Specialized anole	Hispanolan Specialized anole

• Even abilities (besides looks) is deceptive: from the abilities of these specialized anoles, you would swear that the Jamaican Specilized anole and the Hispanolan Specilized anole were closely related...

• From the DNA evidence, the Jamaican Giant anole, the Jamaican Twig anole and the Jamaican Specialized anole are be more likely to have a common ancester !!!

• Let me present a quote from the research paper about the African fishes (See: click here)

  Our results allow us to statistcally REJECT the traditional hypothesis that specimens with identical trophic specializations (such as shape of their jaw or teeth) are derived from a SINGLE immediate common ancestor. --- See page 10233, 2nd column, a little below the middle of the page

  This is just a fancy way of saying that "looks is deceptive" - when two species look alike, you CANNOT conclude that they have an immediate common ancestor.

• In other words: the practice of looking at fossils to determine who's whom ancester is completely bogus....

  (But no Evolutionists dare to spell it out that way.... :-))

  BUT that is exactly what they are doing (WRONGLY) in studying the FOSSIL RECORDS !!!!

showcases a transportation device that worked better than any transport device humans have ever invented....

And tells us a legend that this device was invented by some SUPER INTELLIGENT RACE called the Ancients

If something like that WOULD HAPPEN for real.... what would YOUR REACTION be ????

Would you believe that the Ancient Race really does existed (and may even continue to exist) ?

Or would you believe that this device came about by a freak of nature ????

• You found some tiny little things moving around

  and you discovered these tiny things had a MOTOR

• Examining them under an electron microscope (these things are very very tiny !!!), the motor looked like this:

         

• After more extensive studies, you discovered that this device is a Molecular ENGINE constructed as follows:

         

• You discover that the engine is powered by a flow of PROTONS (electric engine !!!) and is almost 100% efficient (almost every bit of energy is converted into motion (kinetic energy):

         

  • This engine can cranck up to over 20,000 RPM (your car's engine glows is in the danger range if it runs over 6000 RPM)

  • The engine can stop in 1/4 turn, and immediately rotate in the other direction at FULL SPEED (DO NOT TRY THAT WITH YOUR CAR)

• You and your research collegues concluded that what you are seeing is the SMALLEST and MOST EFFICIENT ENGINE that you have ever seen in your life.... - much much more smaller and much much more efficient than any engines that humans have invented.....

  If something like that WOULD HAPPEN for real.... what would YOUR REACTION be ????

  Would you believe that such device came about by accident or it is a freak of nature ????

  Or would you believe that some Ancient Race has designed and made it ???

• Well, the remote planet is EARTH

• The tiny moving things are E. Coli bacteria:

         

• And the super powerful engine is the motor of the E. Coli bacteria's FLAGELLUM:

         

• You alone can decide (your CHOICE) for yourself whether this super-power MOLECULAR Engine - that humans CANNOT YET make in their million dollar laboratory came about by RANDOM processes or through the creating hands of a super-genius (Jesus' Father)
  Faith is ultimately based on one's FREE WILL (choice).

  To WANT or NOT to WANT to believe, that's the question.....

• You can read more about the Flagellum here:
  • click here
  • click here

• The Evolutionist Colin Patterson's address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 1981: click here

  Patterson (an evolutionist) caused a tremedous controversy because he admitted he knows nothing about evolution....

  What he did not know when he gave the address was that his speech was TAPED by someone in the audience....

• Evolution of a Creationist - How Dr. Jobe Martin - an Evolutionist realised that the "Theory" of Evolution is just lies and believed in Creation and the Creator: click here

  Something on Dr. Jobe Martin: click here