The following quotes are from Ray Comfort’s Scientific Facts in the Bible: 100 Reasons To Believe the Bible is Supernatural In Origin. (2001, Bridge-Logos, Orlando, Florida):

 “Darwin admitted that millions of ‘missing links’, transitional life forms, would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutations into new species. Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate a single missing link out of the millions that must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated.” Grant R. Jeffrey, The Signature of God.

 

“Archaeoraptor is hardly the first ‘missing link’ to snap under scrutiny. In 1912, fossil remains of an ancient hominid were found in England’s Piltdown quarries and quickly dubbed man’s ape-like ancestor. It took decades to reveal the hoax.”U.S. New and World Report, February 14, 2000.

 

…How could a division of the organic world into discrete entities be justified by an evolutionary theory that proclaimed ceaseless change as the fundamental fact of nature?”Stephen J. Gould, professor of geology and paleontology, Harvard University.

 

“The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one out of 10^40,000

…It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.” Sir Frederick Hoyle, professor of astronomy, Cambridge University.

 

 

Mutations Are Neutral, Harmful, or Fatal, Or Only Provide a Temporary (Superficial) Advantage

 

“…all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happenat the same time by pure chance…. All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal…. The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found.”

Debunking Evolution: problems, errors, and lies exposed, in plain language for non-scientists, http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

 

“Studies show that the rate of harmful mutations is too high for man to have evolved from beneficial mutations. ‘You simply cannot evolve new organs and features when negative hits are outpacing positive ones with such force.’.”

“… a double-edged sword shows that while high rates of mutation cause harmful mutations to overwhelm any beneficial ones, lower rates slow evolution to a crawl….”

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/mutation_rate.htm “Monkey-Man Hypothesis Thwarted by Mutation Rates”, Fred Williams, April 2000^*, (Featured in Creation Digest, Autumn 2002)

 

"But there is a more fundamental problem here: the existence of sexual selection itself begs the very question, …why did sexual reproduction evolve in the first place? Sexual organisms only pass on 50% of their genes to offspring, whereas asexual organisms make clones that contain 100% of the parent’s DNA. Thus organisms that hypothetically evolved sexual selection suddenly experienced a 50% drop in fitness.”“Getting the Facts Straight: “Darwin’s Failed Predictions: Why Sexual Selection?” http://www.judgingpbs.com/dfp-slide8.html

There is yet another problem: let’s reconsider Stephen J. Gould’s quote above: “…How could a division of the organic world into discrete entities be justified by an evolutionary theory that proclaimed ceaseless change as the fundamental fact of nature?” This is a profound observation. The natural world is divided into discrete entities (species). So, what problem does this pose for evolution? Since we don’t see a continuum of change with a number of “missing links” that are genetically compatible with each other, it would appear that evolution is occurring in “leaps” But if this is the case, even if a beneficial mutation happens, that individual needs a genetically compatible mate (which, in order to be genetically compatible would have had to experience the same mutational “leap”). That seems pretty unlikely. To make matters even worse, a viable species needs many members, so improved viability would require the same mutation to occur in many individuals. This would seem to be fantastically improbable.

 

Crick’s Dogma

Finally, there is statistical problem of how just the right incremental changes that were needed, happened to occur by accident for all of the many, many leaps required to go from single celled organisms to humans.

 

Do you see the logic problem? We have shown above how wildly improbable abiogenesis is,  but for the sake of argument, let’s say the abiogenecists are right and life did “evolve” from nonliving substances.

 

Problem solved? Not exactly. Every jump between species requires the same incredible odds. Every new organ and feature (eye, ear, nose, kidney, liver, wing, flipper, asexual vs. sexual reproduction, and on and on) requires the same incredible odds. How did these complex systems occur? What are the slight, functional changes that would produce such complex systems like the eye? Scientists don’t know… they simply assume that this is what must have happened.

 

“…DNA bears messages but its chemistry is irrelevant to its content… The genetic words are no more framed by the chemistry of their frame than the words in Scrabble are determined by the chemistry of their wooden racks or by the force of gravity that holds them….Francis Crick, the Nobel laureate co-author of the discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA…expounded and enshrined what he called the “Central Dogma” of molecular biology. The Central Dogma shows that influence can flow from the arrangement of the nucleotides on the DNA molecule to the arrangement of amino acids in proteins, but not from the proteins to DNA.…DNA is a neutral carrier of information, independent of its chemistry and physics.” Gilder, George. Evolution and Me. National Review. July 17, 2006.

 

“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

Darwin, Charles, The Origin of Species (E.P. Dutton & Co., Inc, New York, 1958), p. 167.

 

“…[Darwin]…and the other biologists of his day did not comprehend the complexity of the cell…. But after more than 150 years, and with the aid of powerful instruments, biologists have been able to peer into the cell’s black box and view its enormous complexity. What they have discovered is that the molecular machinery and complicated systems the cell requires to function are far too complex to have evolved over a long period of time….the cell requires numerous systems to support life…All of these systems had to be present at the same time instead of being built gradually over a long period of time…. “ Jeffress, Robert. Hell? Yes! Waterbrook Press, Colorado Springs, CO, 2004, p. 154-156.

 

Darwin himself admitted that his theory would be disproved if it were found that a living  system existed which could not have been formed by a chain of small successive modifications. Science has now found it. It is the cell.

 

“Because mind or intelligent design is a necessary cause of an informative system, one can detect the past action of an intelligent cause from the presence of an information-intensive effect [such as the DNA molecule], even if the cause itself cannot be directly observed.”

Stephen C. Meyer, “The Message in the Microcosm: DNA and the Death of Materialism” (1998). www.windowview.org/ARNfiles/Message_in_the_Microcosm.html

In Jeffress, Robert. Hell? Yes! Waterbrook Press, Colorado Springs, CO, 2004, p. 158.

 

“When one understands the complexity of the DNA information system, it becomes clear that such a system requires a Programmer…. Sir Francis Crick, who discovered the DNA molecule, came to the same conclusion- well, sort of. Unwilling to admit the possibility of a Creator-God, Crick theorized that perhaps life spores were sent to Earth by an advanced civilization from another planet.” Jeffress, Robert. Hell? Yes! (Waterbrook Press, Colorado Springs, CO, 2004) p. 158-159.

 

In the recent movie “Expelled”, bestselling author and atheist, Richard Dawkins, also alluded to the possibility of panspermia (life on Earth having been seeded by extraterrestrials), but failed to mention that this “solution” leaves us with the same logic problem: we would still have to show how they evolved.

 

******************** 

To view a list of hundreds of scientists from all over the world who question the theory of evolution, go to:  

Skeptics List- “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism”

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660