1. Was Darwin right?
Are we here by chance or are we here by design, does it matter anyway, and is there conflict between science and Christianity?
FOR MANY, THE IDEA OF GOD CREATING LIFE ON EARTH SEEMS RIDICULOUS, BECAUSE MANY FEEL CERTAIN THAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION HAS PROVED ALL LIFE ON EARTH AROSE WITHOUT ANY INPUT FROM GOD. WHILST SOME CAN RECONCILE THE CHRISTIAN FAITH TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION, FOR OTHERS IT CAN BE A REASON TO DISCOUNT THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. HOWEVER, HOW SOLID IS THE SCIENCE IN FAVOUR OF EVOLUTION. THE AIM OF THIS TALK IS TO SHOW THAT THE SCEINCE IN FAVOUR OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS NOT AS STRONG AS MANY WOULD BELIEVE, AND THE EVIDENCE CAN BE SEEN AS SUGGESTING A CREATOR GOD OR INTELLIGENT DESIGN OF SOME SORT.
Dr Luke Randall, Dr Mark Toleman
Was Darwin right?

2. Overview of the talk What is Science?
Is there any conflict of science with religion?
Theory of evolution.
The flood and time.
Origins in the original soup?
Hereditary and mutations.
Fossils and transitions?
Devolution.
Concluding comments.
THE MAIN THEMES OF THIS TALK ARE OUTLINED ON THIS SLIDE.
Was Darwin right?

3. What is science?
SO WHAT IS SCIENCE?
Was Darwin right?

4. Some definitions of science
Systematically acquired knowledge that is verifiable.
A branch of knowledge based on objectivity and involving observation and experimentation.
Systemized knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study. Also, the methodology used to acquire this knowledge.
The job of science is to provide plausible natural explanations for natural phenomena. National Academy of science.
Does science's own self-definition exclude certain theories from investigation?
WHEN CONSIDERING IF SCIENCE IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE CHRISTIAN FAITH, IT IS HELPFUL TO FIRST CONSIDER WHAT SCIENCE IS? THIS SLIDE SHOWS 5 DEFINITIONS OF SCIENCE TAKEN FROM THE WEB. MOST OF THE DEFINITIONS ARE NEITHER PRO NOR ANTI FAITH, HOWEVER, THE ONE IN RED STATES THAT ONLY NATURAL EXPLAINTIONS CAN BE SOUGHT. SUCH A DEFINITION WOULD RULE OUT CREATION OR INTELLIGENT DESIGN, THUS IF WE TAKE THIS DEFINITION OF SCIENCE, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO ATTRIBUTE LIFE ON EARTH TO CREATION OR INTELLIGENT DESIGN, EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE WERE 100% IN FAVOUR OF CREATION.
Was Darwin right?

5. Is there conflict between science and Christianity?
THE NEXT FEW SLIDES EXPLORE BRIEFLY IF THERE IS CONFLICT BETWEEN SCIENCE AND CHRSTIANITY.
Was Darwin right?

6. Thales of Miletus (640 to 546 B.C)
Chance or design – an old debate!
Water developed into other elements and these elements developed into plants, then into simple animals and finally into more complex animals like man.
Thales of Miletus (640 to 546 B.C)
“If there is anything in nature which the human mind, which human intelligence, energy and power could not create, then the creator of such things must be a being superior to man. But the heavenly bodies in their orbits could not be created by man. They must therefore be created by a being greater than man ……. Only an arrogant fool would imagine that there was nothing in the whole world greater than himself. Therefore there must be something greater than man. And that something must be God”.
Chrysippus, c. 200 BC
WE TEND TO THINK THAT THIS DEBATE IS RELATIVELY NEW, OR AT LEAST THAT IT HAS BECAME MORE PRONOUNCED IN THE 150 YEARS SINCE DARWIN WROTE HIS BOOK ON ORIGINS. HOWEVER, EVOLUTIONARY IDEAS HAVE BEEN AROUND FROM AT LEAST 500 BC AND THERE HAVE ALSO BEEN THOSE WHO HAVE ATTRIBUTED CREATION TO GOD, OUTSIDE JEWISH SOCIETY, FROM THIS TIME.
Was Darwin right?

7. Viewpoints?
‘The most devastating thing that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution.
Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin.
If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour.
And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.’
Frank Zindler, in a debate with William Lane Craig, Atheism vs. Christianity video, Zondervan, 1996.
Vice president of the British humanist association and a leading evolutionist in the UK, in the past has been quoted as saying:- 
“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)”
From the Independent on Sunday newspaper following a school in Gateshead allowing a talk on creation:-
"Last week scientists, humanists, philosophers and church liberals joined forces to denounce the Emmanuel City College in Gateshead. The school, which is backed by evangelical Christians has presented creationist theories as part of their science lessons. This has to be stopped!"
THESE QUOTES EXPRESS THE SENTIMENTS OF THE VIDEO CLIP MORE STRONGLY. DAWKINS HAS BEEN REFERRED TO AS DARWIN’S ROCKVILER, BUT HE IS ARDENTLY ANTI-RELIGION, SO IS IT THE PHILOSOPHY OF THESE PEOPLE RATHER THAN THE SCIENCE THAT DRIVES THE CONFLICT?
Was Darwin right?

8. Is science an absolute? No Moral absolutes, but science absolute?
To not question is not science.
First century – Lungs moved blood which was constantly replaced by all organs!
1600’s - plants only used water to grow!
To 1700 / 1800’s – belief in spontaneous generation!
1900’s - Thymus, tonsils and appendix were considered useless leftovers but advances in cell biology enabled us to work out their functions.
Are the Theory of evolution, the big bang, all the dating methods we use etc all absolutes we should not question?
WE TEND TO TREAT SCIENCE AS AN ABSOLUTE, ALTHOUGH PAST EVIDENCE SHOWS US THAT SCIENCE IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE. FOR EXAMPLE, UNTIL THE TIME OF HARVEY, IT WAS NOT THOUGHT BLOOD CIRCULATED ROUND THE BODY. IN THE 1600’S IT WAS THOUGHT PLANTS USED ONLY WATER TO GROW, UP TO THE 1800’S THERE WAS A BELIEF THAT LIFE JUST AROSE SPONTANEOUSLY, SUCH AS MAGGOTS APPEARING SPONTANEOSLY ON MEAT. IN THE EARLY 1900’S ORGANS LIKE THE THYMUS, TONSILS AND APPENDIX WERE CONSIDRED USELESS LEFTOVERS OF EVOLUTION. IN SPITE OF LESSONS FROM THE PAST, NOWADAYS THEORIES LIKE THE BIG BANG, RADIOMETRIC DATING TECHNIQUES AND THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION TEND TO BE SEEN AS SCIENCE FACTS, NOT THEORIES. DAWKINS IN A RECENT TV PROGRAM REFERRED TO EVOLUTION AS THE FACT OF EVOLUTION.
Was Darwin right?

9. Conflict with Science OLD TESTAMENT NEW TESTAMENT The virgin birth
Moses rod that budded, turned into a snake
Sun standing still
The axe that floated!
Speaking donkey
Increases the widow's meal and oil
Plagues of Egypt
Shunammite woman's child is raised to life
+ lots more……..
NEW TESTAMENT
The virgin birth
Walking on the water
The resurrection
Water into wine
Feeding the 5,000
The healings of Jesus
The temple curtain being torn in two
The apostles healings
+ lots more……..
A FEW PLACES WHERE THE BIBLE TALKS ABOUT EVENTS HAPPENING WHICH ARE OUTSIDE THE REALMS OF NORMAL SCIENCE, SO DO WE IMMEDIATLEY DISCOUNT THESE AS BEING UNTRUE BECAUSE THEY ARE OUTSIDE OUR UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE, OR DO WE HAVE FAITH IN A MIRACLE WORKING GOD WHO INVENTED SCIENCE BUT CAN WORK BEYOND THE ESTABLISHED PREMISES OF SCIENCE. IS GOD OUR ABSOLUTE, OR IS OUR LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE OUR ABSOLUTE.
Was Darwin right?

10. Science’s conflict with creation story?
Genesis creation story - All allegory / myth, or part allegory / myth or what? Not a scientific record, but what do we think?
Theology in Genesis - The concept of a good loving creator, of marriage, original sin and redemption all occur in the first few chapters of Genesis.
Animal kinds - In Genesis 1 it states many times that God created animals that produced offspring after their “kind”.
Conflict with evolution – Time period, design rather than chance, animals produce true to kind, not unlimited change.
THERE IS DISAGREEMENT AMONGST CHRISTIANS AS TO HOW LITERALLY GENESIS SHOULD BE TAKEN. HOWEVER, GENESIS IS THE BEDROCK FOR OUR FAITH, BECAUSE IT IS IN GENESIS THAT WE READ THAT WE WERE CREATED BY A LOVING GOD NOT BY CHANCE, AND THAT ORIGONAL SIN SEPERATED US FROM THIS LOVING GOD. IT STATES MANY TIMES IN GENESIS THAT ANIMALS PRODUCE AFTER THEIR KIND, SHOULD WE TAKE THIS LITERAL? IS THE BIOLOGY IN CONFLICT WITH SUCH A STATEMENT? THE IDEA OF THIS TALK IS TO SHOW THAT BIOLOGY IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH CREATION BY DESIGN RATHER THAN CHANCE AND THAT TIME SCALE OF THINGS COULD BE DIFFERENT FROM THE BILLIONS OF YEARS WE TAKE TO BE AN ABSOLUTE IN SCIENCE TODAY.
Was Darwin right?

11. Analysis of Genesis text
Analysis of early Genesis text shows that the ratio of Preterites to finite verbs put is as narrative text rather than poetry.
ACCORDING TO RESEARCH ON THE WAY GENESIS WAS WRITTEN, GENESIS IS WRITTEN AS NARRATIVE TEXT NOT AS PROSE.
From: ICR video “Thousands not millions”
Was Darwin right?

12. Alternatives – four main views?
Molecules to man evolution by chance - No creator God, fossils laid down over millions of years?
Theistic evolution? – Old earth, fossils laid down over millions of years, local flood, some input from creator.
Progressive creationism? – Old earth, local flood??
Literal creationism? – Young earth, literal global flood when most fossils were formed.
THERE ARE PROBABLE 4 MAIN VIEWS AS TO OUR ORIGINS IN THE WORLD TODAY, AND CHRISTIANS TEND TO BELIEVE IN ONE OF THE LAST THREE OF THESE VIEW POINTS. WE WOULD ARGUE THAT THEISTIC EVOLUTION IS AN ATTEMPT TO MARRY UP A INCONCLUSIVE THEORY OF EVOLUTION WITH WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS. THIS TALK FOCUSES ON THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING A FAIRLY LITERAL CREATION, WHETHER YOU TAKE THE EARTH TO BE YOUNG OR OLD.

13. Theory of evolution
Was Darwin right?

14. Darwin’s concept of natural selection
Observation 1: Offspring outnumber parents. Sometimes this is marginally the case - as when a pair of birds raise just one chick per year - but after three years, the observation becomes true. Many more animals produce large numbers of offspring - consider, for example, the number of caterpillars coming from a cabbage white butterfly, or reflect on the population of tadpoles appearing in the local pond.
Observation 2:  Species numbers remain approximately constant. There are good years and bad years for all the animals we know - but we are not being overrun by robins or cabbage white butterflies or frogs. These observations lead to an:
Deduction: Observations 1 and 2 suggest that there is a struggle for survival. Some offspring die without descendants of their own. There are losers in the game of  life.
Observation 3: Individuals differ in small ways, and many of these differences are inherited from parents. The observation applies to people, as we can confirm by looking at parents and children known to us. In fact, it applies to all organisms -wherever we can look closely enough.
Conclusion: Those individuals whose variations adapt them to their environment will be the most likely to survive and reproduce. This conclusion is commonly described as the principle of natural selection
THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE OBSERVATIONS THAT HELPED LEAD DARWIN TO FORM HIS THEORY OF EVOLUTION. HOWEVER, THIS ONLY ALLOWS FOR SELECTION OF GENES THAT ARE ALREADY THERE, NOT THE FORMATION OF NEW GENES. THE OBSERVATIONS ON THIS SLIDE ARE ACCEPTED BY CREATIONISTS AND EVOLUTIONISTS ALIKE.
Was Darwin right?

15. Belief in evolution based on?
Spontaneous generation – still believed in to some extent in Darwin’s time
Old earth – evolution needs time, uniformitarian theory of Charles Lyell in "Principles of Geology," first published in Darwin read this on the Beagle
Fossil evidence – evidence of creatures that lived in the past
The order of fossils in the geological column
Homology (similarity) - in structures (particularly bones) and later in proteins and genes
Breeding – Darwin bred pigeons
Ability of species to adapt and selective pressure of environments
Selection of favourable characteristics
Neo Darwinism – mutations now mechanism for change
THESE ARE OTHER MAJOR FACTORS CONSIDERED AS SUPPORTING THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
Was Darwin right?

16. When did it all happen?
3.5 billion years ago – first single celled prokaryotic organisms (e.g. cyanobacteria).
2.1 billion years ago – first single celled eukaryotic organisms (e.g. like amoabae, algae)
700 million years ago - multi-celled animals (or metazoa), jellyfish and worms
570 million years ago - the first fishes, the trilobites followed by nautiloids
500 million years ago – corals
438 million years ago - the first land plants
408 million years ago - the first amphibians, insects and spiders
360 million years ago - the amphibians were thought to develop into the reptiles
245 million years ago - from the reptiles the first mammals and dinosaurs
208 million years ago - birds from reptiles
144 million years ago - many reptiles died out, modern snakes and mammals
66 million years ago - mammals spread, the first owls, shrews and hedgehogs
58 million years ago - the first dogs, cats, rabbits, elephants and horse
37 million years ago - the first deer, monkeys, pigs and rhinoceros
24 million years ago - new mammals, including mice, rats and apes
5 million years ago - Australopithecus with the first cattle and sheep
Man made in the image of God about ?? years ago
Was Darwin right?

17. The flood and time
FOR THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION TO BE TRUE, THE WORLD MUST BE ABOUT 4 BLILLION YEARS OLD. IN THIS NEXT SECTION, WE PRESENT VERY BRIEFLY SOME INFORMATION THAT MAY CHALLENGE YOU TO THINK AGAIN ABOUT THIS AREA.
Was Darwin right?

18. The flood and time
Dating with radio-isotopes became well established around Before that, an old age was attributed to the earth on the basis of a geological processes happening at a uniform rate, e.g. UNIFORMITATIANISM.
BEFORE THE 1800’S, MANY GEOLOGISTS CONSIDERED THAT CATASTROPHIC EVENTS SUCH AS A LITERAL GLOBAL FLOOD WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR MANY OF THE GEOLOGICAL FEATURES OF THE EARTH AND AS SUCH, A YOUNG EARTH WAS COMPATIBLE WITH GEOLOGICAL THINKING AT THIS TIME. IN 1830, CHARLES LYELL PUBLISHED HIS BOOK PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGY AND IN THIS BOOK HE SUGGESTED THAT THE EARTH MUST BE MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD, ON THE BASIS OF THE GEOLOGICAL FEATURES. THE AGING CONCEPT WAS BASED ON THE IDEA THAT “THE PRESENT IS THE KEY TO THE PAST” AND GAVE RISE TO THE IDEA OF UNIFORMITARIANSIM. E.G. IF TODAY WE SEE SEDIMENTS LAID DOWN AS A SPECIFIC RATE, THEY MUST ALWAYS HAVE BEEN LAID DOWN AT THAT, SO IF WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF FEET OF SEDIMENT, IT MUST BE EQUIVALENT TO MILLIONS OF YEARS. THE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN SHOWN ON THIS SLIDE MUST BE IN HUNDREDS OF TEXT BOOKS, AND WE TAKE IT TO BE A SCIENCE FACT, AND A WAY TO DATE FOSSILS. HOWEVER, NO WHERE ON EARTH DO WE FIND THE ENTIRE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN OTHER THAN IN SCIENCE TEXTS BOOKS, SO COULD THERE BE ANOTHER WAY TO INTERPRET THE STRATA?
Was Darwin right?

19. How long did it take to lay down these rock layers?
Bottom layer, 9 hours on 18th May 1980
Middle layer 12th June 1980
Top layer – Mud flow March 1982
From AIG video: “Geological evidences for rapid strata formation.”
GUESS THE TIME TAKEN TO FORM THE STRATA? THIS SLIDE SHOWS THAT STRATA CAN ACTUALLY BE LAID DOWN VERY QUICKLY. IF THIS HAPPENED IN THE PAST ON A GLOBAL SCALE FOLLOWING A LITERAL GLOBAL FLOOD WITH DOZENS OF MASSIVE TSUNAMIS, VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS ETC, COULD THE WHOLE IDEA OF THE GEOLOGICAL COLUMNS AND THE DATES ASSIGNED TO ROCK LAYERS BE CALLED IN TO QUESTION?
Was Darwin right?

20. How long did it take for this Gorge to be eroded though volcanic rock?
Erosion
How long did it take for this Gorge to be eroded though volcanic rock?
IT TOOK ONLY A DAY TO CARVE OUT THIS GORGE FOLLOWING THE ERUPTION OF ST HELENS.
Was Darwin right?

21. Mt St Helens erupting.
SO PERHAPS IT IS POSSIBLE THAT FEATURES LIKE THE GRAND CANYON, THAT WE TRADITIONALLY SEE AS TAKING MILLIONS OF YEARS TO FORM, COULD HAVE BEEN FORMED RAPIDLY.
Was Darwin right?

22. Sediments from larger volcanoes?
YOU CAN SEE THAT MT ST HELENS WAS ACTUALLY A SMALL VOLCANIC ERUPTION COMPARED TO OTHER VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS.
IF MOUNT ST HELENS CAN CAUSE THE STRATA AND GORGES AS SEEN ON PREVIOUS SLIDES, WHAT COULD SOME OF THESE LARGER VOCANOS DO?
Was Darwin right?

23. Over literally hundreds of square miles of the Grand Canyon (see left) there are literally billions of nautaloid fossils (see below).
Many of these nautaloids are in the rock vertically, suggesting rapid hardening of the rock. A catastrophe, rather than millions of years of gradual sediments.
RECENT STUDIES IN THE GRAND CANYON, HAVE SHOWN A BED OF NAUTALOID FOSSILS EXTENDING HUNDREDS OF SQUARE MILES, WITH EVIDENCE THAT THIS PARTICULAR STRATA WAS FORMED RAPIDLY, NOT OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS, AS WE ARE LED TO BELIEVE.
From AIG video: “Geological evidences for rapid strata formation.”
Was Darwin right?

24. Polystrate trees
Fossilised trees that go though supposedly millions of years of strata?
IT HAS BEEN KNOW FOR YEARS THAT TREES KNOW AS POLYSTRATE TREES CAN GO THOUGH SUPPOSEDLEY MILLIONS OF YEARS OF STRATA. THE FACT THAT THESE TREES ARE VERTICAL IN SUCH STRATA SUGGESTS THAT, LIKE AFTER THE MOUNT ST HELENS ERUPTION, THE STRATA WERE LAID DOWN RAPIDLY IN A TIME PRERIOD THAT WOULD NOT ALLOW THE TREES TO ROT.
Was Darwin right?

25. Carbon dating of coal
As carbon 14 has a half life of c. 5,700 years, no coal should have any carbon 14 in it if the coal was formed millions of years ago. However, coal from different geological intervals all Has similar amounts of carbon 14, as do diamonds.
INTERESTINGLY, CARBON 14 DATING OF COAL FROM DIFFERENT GEOLOGICAL TIME HAS BEEN SHOWN TO GIVE COAL AN AGE OF THOUSANDS, NOT MILLIONS OF YEARS. DIAMONDS HAVE ALSO BEEN FOUND TO HAVE CARBON 14 IN THEM GIVING THESE AN AGE OF THOUSANDS, NOT MILLIONS OF YEARS. THIS WORK HAS BEEN DONE BY SECULAR SCIENTISTS.
From: ICR video “Thousands not millions”
Was Darwin right?

26. Further information - dating
SUGGEDTED READING OR VIEWING IF YOU WANT TO EXPLORE THE YOUNG EARTH CONCEPT FURTHER
Both available via
Was Darwin right?

27. Origins in the original soup?
IF WE IMAGINE THE EARLY SEA TO BE STERILE, THEN IS THERE ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT SO CALLED SIMPLE CELLS AROSE IN THE EARLY SEAS BY CHANCE? THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION SUGGESTS THAT ALL LIFE ON EARTH AROSE FROM ORGANISM MORE SIMPLE THAN THESE ONE HERE, SUCH AS BACTERIA.
Images courtesy of BioMEDIA ASSOCIATES.
Was Darwin right?

28. Spontaneous generation
570 BC - “In the beginning there was a fish-like creature with scales that arose in and lived in the world ocean. As some of these advanced, they moved onto land, shed their scaly coverings and became the first humans.” Greek philosopher named Anaximander
John Needham, an English clergyman, proposed what he considered the definitive experiment. Everyone knew that boiling killed micro-organisms, so he proposed to test whether or not micro-organisms appeared spontaneously after boiling. He boiled chicken broth, put it into a flask, sealed it, and waited - sure enough, micro-organisms grew. Needham claimed victory for spontaneous generation and was made a fellow of the Royal society. Later work showed the corks let bacteria through.
Dr Erasmus Darwin (Darwin’s grandfather) "Hence without parents, by spontaneous birth, Rise the first specks of animated earth.“
Dr Stanley Miller’s famous experiment. In this experiment water vapour, ammonia, methane and hydrogen was subjected to spark discharges and simple amino acids were formed. After this experiment was performed, a newspaper headline proclaimed that life had been made in a test tube! Dr Miller later admitted the problem of origins was more complex than he imagined.
GOING BACK TO 570 BC, THERE HAS BEEN THE IDEA OF SPONTANEOUS GENERATION OF LIVING ORGANISM AND THIS IDEA PERSISTED UNTIL ABOUT 200 YEARS AGO. IN 1745 JOHN NEEDHAM CONDUCTED AN EXPERIMENT FOR WHICH HE WAS MADE A FELLOW OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY. IN THIS EXPERIMENT, HE SUPPOSEDLY SHOWED THAT MICRO-ORGANIMS AROSE SPONTANEOUSLY FROM BIOLED CHICKEN BROTH WHICH WAS PROTECTED FROM THE AIR. LATER WORK SHOWED IT WAS THE CORKS HE USED TO STOPPER HIS BOTTLES THAT LET BACTERIA THOUGH. HOWEVER, IN 1802 DARWIN’S GRANDFATHER WAS A BELIEVER IN THE CONCEPT OF SPONTANEOUS GENERATION EVEN THOUGH BY THIS TIME THE EXPERIMENT OF NEEDHAM WAS SHOWN TO BE FLAWED. IN 1953 DR STANLEY MILLER CONDUCTED A FAMOUS EXPERIMENT IN WHICH A FEW AMINO ACIDS WERE MADE UNDER SUPPOSEDLY EARLY EARTH CONDITIONS. HOWEVER, THESE SUCH AMINO ACIDS ARE NO MORE A LIVING CELL THAN IRON ORE IN THE GROUND IS A CAR, DESPITE NEWSPAPER HEADLINES AT THE TIME WHICH CLAIMED THAT LIFE HAD BEEN MADE IN A TEST TUBE.
Was Darwin right?

29. Bottom – Eukaryotic cell – all
Cell origin and evolution??
Left - Procaryotic cell (all bacteria)
No true nucleus or nuclear membrane
No mitochondria, golgi complexes, endoplasmic reticulum
Divides by direct replication of DNA and cell
Genome size 580,073 (483 genes) to c. 4,639,221 (4,377 genes)
Bottom – Eukaryotic cell – all
other living organisms
Divides by process of mitosis and meiosis
Genome size generally larger
Yeast 12,462,637
Fruit fly 122,653,977
Human 3,300,000,000
IN DAWIN’S DAY, MICROSCOPES WERE NOT POWERFUL ENOUGH TO SEE A BACTERIAL CELL AS MORE THAN A SMALL DOT, AND SUCH CELLS WERE ASSUMED TO BE SIMPLE. NOWADAYS WE KNOW THAT BACTERIA AND SINGLE CELLED ORGANIMS SUCH AS AMOEBA OR YEASTS ARE IN FACT INCREDIBLE COMPLEX. NOT ONLY HAS SCIENCE FAILED TO EXPLAIN HOW THE FIRST CELLS COULD HAVE ARISEN BY CHANCE, BUT EVEN AT THE MICROSCOPIC LEVEL, THERE ARE VAST DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A BACTERIAL CELL WITH GENOME SIZE OF ABOUT 4 MILLION DNA BASE PAIRS AND SAY A YEAST CELL WITH ABOUT 4X THAT AMOUNT OF GENETIC CODE. BACTERIA AND SAY YEASTS ALSO HAVE DIFFERENT STRUCTURES AND DIFFERENT METHODS OF REPLICATING, AND THERE IS REALLY NO ADEQUATE EXPLAINATION OF HOW PROCARYOTIC ORGANIMS CHANGED INTO EUCARYOTIC ORGANINS.
Was Darwin right?

30. How complex is a cell?
"[The instructions within the DNA of a single cell] if written out would fill a thousand 600 page books.
Each cell is a world brimming with as many as two hundred trillion tiny groups of atoms called molecules. . Our 46 [human] chromosome 'threads' linked together would measure more than six feet. Yet the [cell] nucleus that contains them is less than four ten-thousandths of an inch in diameter."
Rick Gore, "The Awesome Worlds within a Cell" in National Geographic, September 1976, pp , 360.
WE NOW HAVE SOME IDEA OF THE COMPLEXITY OF A LIVING CELL, ENOUGH INFORMATION TO FILL A THOUSAND 600 PAGE BOOKS IN AN NUCLEUS LESS THAN FOUR TEN THOUSANDS ON AN INCH IN DAIMETER. IT IS STAGGERING TO THINK THAT SUCH CELLS AROSE BY CHANCE.
Was Darwin right?

31. The first bacteria?
Cyanobacteria are among the easiest microfossils to recognize. Dated at 3.5 billion years old!
Layered stromatolite fossils produced by the activity of ancient cyanobacteria.
THERE IS IN FACT, EVIDENCE OF BACTERIAL STABILITY SHOWN BY THIS PICTURE. SOME CYANOBACTERIA PRODUCE STRUCTURES KNOW AS STROMATOLITES AS SHOWN IN THIS SLIDE, AND THERE ARE FOSSILS OF STROMATOLITES WHICH ARE THOUGHT TO BE THE OLDEST FOSSILS ON THE PLANET. AS THESE FOSSILS ARE NEAR IDENTICAL TO STROMATOLITES FORMED TODAY, WE CAN SAY THAT THAT IN ESSENCE THE BACTERIA HAVE REMAINED UNCHANGED OVER WHATEVER TIME PERIOD SINCE THE FOSSILS WERE FORMED. THIS THEN POSES A PROBLEM AS TO HOW WE ALL ORIGINATED FROM BACTERIA, IF THERE IS EVIDENCE OF GENETIC STABILITY IN THE SUPPOSED OLDEST BACTERIA ON THE PLANET. WE CAN DO VERY ROUGH CALCULATIONS OF THE BILLIONS OF TIMES THE DNA OF STROMATOLITES HAS REPLICATED WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE ORGANISMS, BASED ON AN OLD AGE FOR THE EARTH.
Was Darwin right?

32. The First bacteria – unchanged?
If at an one time, there were only 1,000,000,000 cyanobacteria (less than 1 gram of bacteria) alive on the planet, assuming they divide every 2 days (varies for different strains at different temperatures), then in 3,500,000,000 years, they must have divided 618,000,000,000,000,000,000 times without significant errors in DNA replication!
HERE WE CAN SEE SOME MODERN STROMATOLITES AND A VERY SIMPLIFIED CALCULATION OF HOW MANY TIMES THEY MUST HAVE REPLICATED OVER 3.5 BILLION YEARS.
The DNA of cyanobacteria has made copies of itself for 3,500,000,000 years with out enough errors to change the structures they form!
Was Darwin right?

33. Origin of the first cell?
To produce this miracle of molecular construction all the cell need do is to string together the amino acids (which make up the polypeptide chain) in the correct order…………
If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare of an event would that be?
Suppose the chain is about two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything, rather less than the average length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 20260, that is a one followed by 260 zeros!
This number is quite beyond our everyday comprehension. For comparison, consider the number of fundamental particles (atoms, speaking loosely) in the entire visible universe, not just in our own galaxy with its 1011 stars, but in all the billions of galaxies, out to the limits of observable space. This number, which is estimated to be 1080, is quite paltry by comparison to Moreover, we have only considered a polypeptide chain of a rather modest length. Had we considered longer ones as well, the figure would have been even more immense."
Francis Crick, [Crick received a Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA.] Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature (1981),  pp
TO FINISH OF THIS PART OF THE TALK ON HOW THE FIRST CELLS AROSE, THIS IS A QUOTE FROM THE PERSON WHO DISCOVERED THE STRUCTURE OF DNA. FRANCIS CRICK, ALTHOUGH AN AETHEST, CALCULATED THAT THE CHANCES OF FORMING JUST ONE SMALL PROTEIN BY CHANCE, WAS ABOUT 1: SUCH A NUMBER IS VASTLY GREATER THAN THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF ATOMS IN THE UNIVERSE. THIS IS JUST FOR ONE SMALL PROTIEN, AND WE HAVE SEEN THAT BACTERIA ARE MADE UP OF THOUSANDS OF UNIQUE PROTIENS.
Was Darwin right?

34. Heredity and mutations
LET’S NOW IMAGINE THAT WE HAVE THE FIRST SELF REPLICATION CELLS ON THE PLANET. WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT SUCH ORGANISM OR MORE COMPLEX PLANTS AND ANIMALS EVOLVE INTO TOTALLY NEW ORGANISMS, WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION TO BE TRUE.
Was Darwin right?

35. Pangenesis
Darwin know nothing of genes, chromosomes, DNA, protein structure or mutations.
Darwin proposed the idea of pangenesis. Cells of the body produced substances called gemmules and parts of the body that were more used produced more of these substances.
These gemmules were thought to affect sex cells of the body in such a way that in the next generation, there would be enhanced development of parts of the body that produced excess gemmules and diminished development of part of the body that produced less gemmules.
As science has progresses, it is more difficult to account for bacteria to man evolution than when Darwin proposed pangenesis.
DARWIN KNEW NOTHING OF GENES, CHROMOSOMES, DNA, PROTEIN STRUCTURE OR MUTATIONS. DARWIN PROPOSED THE IDEA OF PANGENESIS. CELLS OF THE BODY PRODUCED SUBSTANCES CALLED GEMMULES AND PARTS OF THE BODY THAT WERE MORE USED PRODUCED MORE OF THESE SUBSTANCES. THESE GEMMULES WERE THOUGHT TO AFFECT SEX CELLS OF THE BODY IN SUCH A WAY THAT IN THE NEXT GENERATION, THERE WOULD BE ENHANCED DEVELOPMENT OF PARTS OF THE BODY THAT PRODUCED EXCESS GEMMULES AND DIMINISHED DEVELOPMENT OF PART OF THE BODY THAT PRODUCED LESS GEMMULES. AS SCIENCE HAS PROGRESSES, IT IS MORE DIFFICULT TO ACCOUNT FOR BACTERIA TO MAN EVOLUTION THAN WHEN DARWIN PROPOSED PANGENESIS
Was Darwin right?

36. Normal cell division, two set of chromosomes in each cell.
Mitosis
Normal cell division, two set of chromosomes in each cell.
Meiosis
Cell division to
produce sperm or egg, shuffling around of genetic material leads to variation, coupled with acquired genes from mother and father.
IN 1911 A GENETIC PROCESS OF CREATING DIVERSITY IN OFFSPRING WAS DISCOVERED. DARWINISM WENT THROUGH A CRISIS IN THE EARLY PART OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, BECAUSE THE SCIENCE OF GENETICS WAS DEVELOPING, AND IT APPEARED TO EXPLAIN AWAY MOST, IF NOT ALL, OF DARWIN'S EVIDENCES OF VARIATION. IN THE PICTURE ON THIS SLIDE, ONE CAN SEE THAT THE GENETIC MATERIAL IN CHROMOSOMES IS SHUFFLED AROUND TO PRODUCE REPRODUCTIVE CELLS. HOWEVER, THIS SHUFFLING OF GENES DOES NOT INTRODUCE NEW GENETIC MATERIAL, ALTHOUGH IT CAN INTRODUCE DIVERSITY AND VARIATION.
In 1911 the American geneticist Thomas Hunt Morgan ( ) observed cross-over in Fruit flies meiosis and provided the first true genetic interpretation of meiosis.
Was Darwin right?

37. Diversification is not evolution
SO SHUFFLING AROUND OF GENES BY MEIOSIS CAN PRODUCE THIS TYPE OF VARIATION. ACCORDING TO A NEW SCIENTIST (30TH NOVEMBER 2002) ARTICLE, ALL DOGS DESCENDED FROM FIVE OR FEWER FEMALE GREY WOLVES THAT LIVED 15,000 YEARS AGO. HOWEVER, DIVERSIFICATION IS NOT THE SAME A EVOLUTION. IF THE GREY WOLF GENE POOL ACTUALLY CARRIED SUFFICIENT VARIETY OF GENES TO CODE FOR ALL DOGS, THEN SELECTIVE BREEDING IS ONLY SELECTING SUB-SETS OF THOSE GENES, NOT CREATING NEW GENES. DOGS ONLY GIVE RISE TO SIMILAR OF DIFFERENT DOGS, AND THIS FITS IN WITH THE KINDS DESCRIBED IN GENESIS. WITHOUT SELECTIVE BREEDING BY HUMANS, ENVIRONMENTS MAY DO THE SELECTION. THIS HAS BEEN PARTICULARLY NOTICED IN ISLAND HABITATS WHERE A SMALL SUBSET OF THE POPULATION MAY BE ON A PARTICULAR ISLAND AND A PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENT ON THAT ISLAND MAY SELECT FOR SOME CHARACTERSTICS. THIS WAS THE CASE WITH DARWIN'S FINCHES ON THE GALAPAGOS ISLANDS.
Was Darwin right?

38. Darwin’s finches
Most of the ground finches have been show to inter-breed so are they actually different species?
Beak size can vary with seasons?
Actual observations of rapid finch adaptation have forced evolutionists to scale that back to a timeframe from millions of years to just a few centuries.
The different types of finches reflect selection of genetic material that was there, not new material.
DARWIN IN PART BASED HIS THEORY OF EVOLUTION ON THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF FINCHES SEEN ON THE GALAPAGOS ISLANDS. HOWEVER, MOST SPECIES OF FINCHES HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO INTERBREED, AND ONCE AGAIN THIS IT ONLY VARIATION WITHIN A KIND, NOT PRODUCTION OF A NEW KIND.
Was Darwin right?

39. Any guesses what this is?
MQRSPLEKASVVSKLFFSWTRPILRKGYRQRLELSDIYQIPSVDADNLSEKLEREWDRELASKKNPKLINALRRCFFWRFMFYGIFLYLGEVTKAVQPLLLGRIIASYDPDNKEERSIAIYLGIGLCLLFIVRTLLLHPAIFGLHHIGMQMRIAMFSLIKKTLKLSSRVLDKISIGQLVSLLSNNLNKFDEGLALAHFVWIAPLQVALLMGLIWELLQASAFCGLGFLIVLALFQAGLGRMMMKYRDQRAGKISERLVITSEMIENIQSVKAYCEEAMEKMIENLRQTELKLTRKAAYVRYFNSSAFFFSGFFVVFLSVLPYALIKGIILRIFTTISFCIVLRMAVTRQFPWAVQTWYDSLGAINKIQDFLQKQEYKTLEYNLTTTEVMENVTAFWEEGFGELFEKAKQNNNNRKTSNGDDSLFFSNFSLLGTPVLKDINFKIERGQLLAVAGSTGAGKTSLLMVIMGELEPSEGKIKHSGRISFCSQFSWIMPGTIKENIIFGVSYDEYRYRSVIKACQLEEDISKFAEKDNIVLGEGGITLSGGQRARISLARAVYKDADLYLLDSPFGYLDVLTEKEIFESCVCKLMANKTRILVTSKMEHLKKADKILILHEGSSYFYGTFSELQNLQPDFSSKLMGCDSFDQFSAERRNSILTETLHRFSLEGDAPVSWTETKKQSFKQTGEFGEKRKNSILNPINSIRKFSIVQKTPLQMNGIEEDSDEPLERRLSLVPDSEQGEAILPRISVISTGPTLQARRRQSVLNLMTHSVNQGQNIHRKTTASTRKVSLAPQANLTELDIYSRRLSQETGLEISEEINEEDLKECFFDDMESIPAVTTWNTYLRYITVHKSLIFVLIWCLVIFLAEVAASLVVLWLLGNTPLQDKGNSTHSRNNSYAVIITSTSSYYVFYIYVGVADTLLAMGFFRGLPLVHTLITVSKILHHKMLHSVLQAPMSTLNTLKAGGILNRFSKDIAILDDLLPLTIFDFIQLLLIVIGAIAVVAVLQPYIFVATVPVIVAFIMLRAYFLQTSQQLKQLESEGRSPIFTHLVTSLKGLWTLRAFGRQPYFETLFHKALNLHTANWFLYLSTLRWFQMRIEMIFVIFFIAVTFISILTTGEGEGRVGIILTLAMNIMSTLQWAVNSSIDVDSLMRSVSRVFKFIDMPTEGKPTKSTKPYKNGQLSKVMIIENSHVKKDDIWPSGGQMTVKDLTAKYTEGGNAILENISFSISPGQRVGLLGRTGSGKSTLLSAFLRLLNTEGEIQIDGVSWDSITLQQWRKAFGVIPQKVFIFSGTFRKNLDPYEQWSDQEIWKVADEVGLRSVIEQFPGKLDFVLVDGGCVLSHGHKQLMCLARSVLSKAKILLLDEPSAHLDPVTYQIIRRTLKQAFADCTVILCEHRIEAMLECQQFLVIEENKVRQYDSIQKLLNERSLFRQAISPSDRVKLFPHWNSSKCKSKPQIAALKEETEEEVQDTRLMQRSPLEKASVVSKLFFSWTRPILRKGYRQRLELSDIYQIPSVDADNLSEKLEREWDRELASKKNPKLINALRRCFFWRFMFYGIFLYLGEVTKAVQPLLLGRIIASYDPDNKEERSIAIYLGIGLCLLFIVRTLLLHPAIFGLHHIGMQMRIAMFSLIKKTLKLSSRVLDKISIGQLVSLLSNNLNKFDEGLALAHFVWIAPLQVALLMGLIWELLQASAFCGLGFLIVLALFQAGLGRMMMKYRDQRAGKISERLVITSEMIENIQSVKAYCEEAMEKMIENLRQTELKLTRKAAYVRYFNSSAFFFSGFFVVFLSVLPYALIKGIILRIFTTISFCIVLRMAVTRQFPWAVQTWYDSLGAINKIQDFLQKQEYKTLEYNLTTTEVMENVTAFWEEGFGELFEKAKQNNNNRKTSNGDDSLFFSNFSLLGTPVLKDINFKIERGQLLAVAGSTGAGKTSLLMVIMGELEPSEGKIKHSGRISFCSQFSWIMPGTIKENIIGVSYDEYRYRSVIKACQLEEDISKFAEKDNIVLGEGGITLSGGQRARISLARAVYKDADLYLLDSPFGYLDVLTEKEIFESCVCKLMANKTRILVTSKMEHLKKADKILILHEGSSYFYGTFSELQNLQPDFSSKLMGCDSFDQFSAERRNSILTETLHRFSLEGDAPVSWTETKKQSFKQTGEFGEKRKNSILNPINSIRKFSIVQKTPLQMNGIEEDSDEPLERRLSLVPDSEQGEAILPRISVISTGPTLQARRRQSVLNLMTHSVNQGQNIHRKTTASTRKVSLAPQANLTELDIYSRRLSQETGLEISEEINEEDLKECFFDDMESIPAVTTWNTYLRYITVHKSLIFVLIWCLVIFLAEVAASLVVLWLLGNTPLQDKGNSTHSRNNSYAVIITSTSSYYVFYIYVGVADTLLAMGFFRGLPLVHTLITVSKILHHKMLHSVLQAPMSTLNTLKAGGILNRFSKDIAILDDLLPLTIFDFIQLLLIVIGAIAVVAVLQPYIFVATVPVIVAFIMLRAYFLQTSQQLKQLESEGRSPIFTHLVTSLKGLWTLRAFGRQPYFETLFHKALNLHTANWFLYLSTLRWFQMRIEMIFVIFFIAVTFISILTTGEGEGRVGIILTLAMNIMSTLQWAVNSSIDVDSLMRSVSRVFKFIDMPTEGKPTKSTKPYKNGQLSKVMIIENSHVKKDDIWPSGGQMTVKDLTAKYTEGGNAILENISFSISPGQRVGLLGRTGSGKSTLLSAFLRLLNTEGEIQIDGVSWDSITLQQWRKAFGVIPQKVFIFSGTFRKNLDPYEQWSDQEIWKVADEVGLRSVIEQFPGKLDFVLVDGGCVLSHGHKQLMCLARSVLSKAKILLLDEPSAHLDPVTYQIIRRTLKQAFADCTVILCEHRIEAMLECQQFLVIEENKVRQYDSIQKLLNERSLFRQAISPSDRVKLFPHWNSSKCKSKPQIAALKEETEEEVQDTRL
SO AS MEIOSIS DOES NOT EXPLAIN FORMATION OF NEW SPECIES, SCIENTISTS HAD TO LOOK FOR A NEW MECHANISM TO EXPLAIN HOW NEW DNA SEQUENCES CODING FOR BRAND NEW FEATURES ARE FORMED. DOES ANY ONE KNOW WHAT THIS IS, IN PARTICULAR THE LETTER IN RED? THIS IS ACTUALLY THE PROTEIN SEQUENCE OF A GENE AND THE RED SHOWS A MUTATION LEADING TO A LIFE THREATENING AND CRIPPLING DISEASE CYSTIC FIBROSIS. MUTATIONS OCCUR WHEN DNA MAKES A MISTAKE IN COPYING, AND FOR MANY YEARS, MUTATIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED THE MAJOR WAY IN WHICH NEW GENES CODING FOR NEW STRUCTURES ARE FORMED.
Was Darwin right?

40. Are mutations beneficial?
Results of Literature search of 18 million records
Database Searched
Search Limiter Biological Abstracts Medline Total*
Total Mutation(s) , , ,732
Beneficial Mutation(s)
Percent Beneficial
Total Records Searched ,434, ,373, ,807,786
The search method used produces some overlap between databases that must be eliminated by manual inspection. The literature data base covered from 1966 to October 27, 2003.
From TrueOrigins web site at
HOWEVER, SEARCHING OVER 12 MILLION RECORDS, ONLY ABOUT 0.04% OF AT LEAST ¼ OF A MILLION RECORDED MUTATIONS WERE BENEFICIAL, AND EVEN THESE BENEFICIAL ONES WERE MAINLY ONLY BENEFICIAL IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS SICKLE CELL ANAEMIA. MANY MUTATIONS CAUSE HORRENDOUS DISEASES SUCH AS CYSTIC FIBROSIS OF THE LAST SLIDE. WOULD A LOVING GOD USE THIS MECHANISM TO PRODUCE A PERFECT CREATION? EVEN IF A FEW MUTATIONS ARE BENEFICIAL, THEY DO NOT INCREASE GENETIC INFORMATION
Was Darwin right?

41. Do mutations produce new information?
Left. Change of one DNA nucleotide is sufficient to cause sickle cell anaemia
Right. Cystic fibrosis protein of 1,480 amino acids. Deletion of one of these amino acids causes cystic fibrosis
THIS SLIDE SHOWS YOU EXAMPLES OF TWO MUTATIONS CAUSING LIFE THREATENING DISEASE, AND THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF SUCH DISEASES CAUSE BY MUTATIONS. THE OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT MUTATIONS LEAD TO WONDERFULLY INTRICATE NEW ORGANISMS.
Was Darwin right?

42. Fossils and transitions
Fossil of a coelacanth
Prior to 1938, the coelacanth was known only from fossils. Certain structures, such as fins, were determined to be the forerunners of legs for all amphibians. 
WE NOW MOVE ON FROM THE MECHANISMS OF HEREDITORY AND CHANGE, TO THE FOSSIL RECORDS OF CHANGE. EARLIER SLIDES SUGGESTED THAT THE FOSSILS, RATHER THAN BEING LAID DOWN GRADUALLY OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS, COULD HAVE BEEN LAID DOWN OVER A RELATIVELY SHORT TIME PERIOD. EVEN IF THIS WAS NOT THE CASE, DO THE FOSSILS SHOW EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION? THIS FISH WAS THOUGHT TO BE AN INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN FISH AND AMPHIBIANS FROM IT’S FOSSIL STRUCTURE AND WAS THOUGHT TO HAVE BECOME EXTINCT MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO. HOWEVER, IN 1938 A LIVE COELACANTH WAS CAUGHT WITH THE SAME OVERALL STRUCTURE AS IT’S FOSSIL ANCESTOR. THE LIVING COELACANTH SHOWED US THAT THE FINS WERE NO MORE THAN FINS, NOT PARTIALLY DEVELOPED LEGS.
Was Darwin right?

43. Living fossils - bacteria
This process still occurs today at Shark Bay in western Australia.
Layered stromatolite fossils produced by the activity of ancient cyanobacteria.
ORGANISMS THAT ARE ALIVE TODAY AND IDENTICAL OR NEARLY SO TO THEIR FOSSIL ANCESTORS ARE REFERED TO AS LIVING FOSSILS. WE HAVE ALREADY DISUSSED THESE BACTERIA WHICH ARE EXAMPLES OF LIVING FOSSILS IN THE BACTERIAL WORLD. THERE ARE EXAMPLES OF LIVING FOSSILS IN ALL MAJOR PLANT AND ANIMAL GROUPS, SHOWING RELATIVE STABILITY WITHIN SPECIES.
Was Darwin right?

44. Living fossils – plants
The fossil liquidambar leaf is allegedly about 20 million years old on the evolutionists’ time-scale. This specimen is from ‘Miocene’ brown coal in north-western Germany. Yet the leaves are almost identical to the living variety (right), showing no evolution.
Plants show stability over time
Maple, cycads, walnut, fig, magnolia,
willow, ginko tree, birch, fan palm,
monkey puzzle, sea lilly, tassel fern,
grape, sponges, seaweed
and wollemi pine
THIS SLIDE SHOWS AN EXAMPLE OF LIVING FOSSILS ON THE PLANT WORLD.
Was Darwin right?

45. Living fossils - insects
Little change in 250 million years for dragon flies?
Or for bees and spiders
Amber ant
THIS SLIDE SHOWS EXAMPLES OF LIVING FOSSILS IN THE INSECT WORLD.
Or for cockroaches
and
millipedes
Was Darwin right?

46. Living fossils – aquatic creatures and reptiles
Lobsters, crayfish and rays
(fossils found in Jurassic rock),
lampshells, molluscs, mussels,
oysters, thumb nail shells
(fossils found in Carboniferous
rock), sharks (fossilised
teeth found in Devonian rock).
Also slitsnails, green sturgeon,
lungfish, mackerel, perch,
herring, the horseshoe crab,
the coelocanth, jelly fish,
frogs, toads, the nautilus,
crocodiles, alligators, turtles etc.
Fossil of a frog, looking very frog-like
THIS SLIDE SHOWS EXAMPLES OF LIVING FOSSILS AMONGST SHELLFISH, FISH, AMPHIBIANS AND AQUATIC ANIMALS.
Was Darwin right?

47. Living fossils - mammals
Dire Wolf fossils at the National Museum of Natural History. Similar to modern wolf.
Could Meiosis explain differences between fossilised and living mammals?
Many mammals including bats (left), shrews, opossums are living fossils.
THIS SLIDE SHOWS EXAMPLES OF LIVING FOSSILS FOR MAMMALS OR MAMMALS THAT ARE VERY SIMILAR TO THEIR FOSSIL ANCSTORS.
Was Darwin right?

48. Fossils - transitions
"The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be ....We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time ... so Darwin's problem has not been alleviated“ Evolutionist David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History.
“And we find many of them (fossilised organisms) 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". Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton Co., 1987).
IN CASE YOU THINK WE ARE MAKING ALL OF THIS UP ABOUT FOSSILS, HERE ARE A COUPLE OF QUOTES FROM PEOPE WHO DO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. IN ALL MAJOR SPECIAES, THE FOSSILS SHOW STABILITY AMONGST THE SPECIES TO SOME EXTENT.
Was Darwin right?

49. Do we see evolution happening?
The process of evolution must find/develop immense amounts of
Information.
Amoeba
THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION MUST EXPLAIN THE ACQUISITION AND ORGANISATION OF IMMENSE AMOUNTS OF INFORMATION. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN A SO-CALLED SIMPLE CELL IS STAGGERING. HOWEVER, FOR THAT SIMPLE CELL TO CHANGE INTO AN AMAZINGLY COMPLEX AND INTRICATE CREATURE SUCH AS A HORSE AN IMMENSE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION HAS TO BE FOUND AND DEVELOPED FROM SOMEWHERE. FURTHERMORE, THE INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE INTRICATELY ORGANISED TO ALLOW SUCH A CREATURE TO HAVE SO MANY INTER-DEPENDANT AND INTRICATE MECHANISMS SUCH AS NERVOUS SYSTEMS, DIGESTIVE SYSTEMS, IMMUNE SYSTEMS, CIRCULATION SYSTEMS, BREATHING SYSTEMS ETC ETC ETC ETC. EVOLUTIONARY THEORY GIVES JUST-SO STORIES SUCH AS “THEY EVOLVED” WITH PRECIOUS LITTLE DETAIL AND PATHETIC MECHANISMS SUCH AS MUTATION AND DUPLICATION WHICH ARE CLEARLY NOT CAPABLE OF PRODUCING THE NET INFORMATION GAIN. HOWEVER, DUPLICATION AND MUTATION ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN HOW CREATURES HAVE DEVOLVED AND LOST INFORMATION THROUGH TIME PRODUCING OUR PRESENT WORLD, WHICH THE BIBLE INFORMS US IS A MERE SHADOW OF ITS FORMER GLORY.
Amount of information
Amount of information
1 book
10,000 books
Was Darwin right?

50. No! observed changes via natural selection reduce information
Can this amount of information be found by the process of mutation
And natural selection?
No! observed changes via natural selection reduce information
IN THE NEXT FEW SLIDES WE WILL DESCRIBE HOW NATURAL SELECTION AND HUMAN SELECTION (THE PROCESSES THAT THE DARWIN FAMILY HAS USED TO DESCRIBE THE IMPROVEMENT/EVOLUTION OF CREATURES) HAS NOT IMPROVED ANYTHING. IN FACT, NATURAL SELECTION, AS INDEED ANY FORM OF SELECTION ACTUALLY CAUSES A DIRECT NET LOSS OF INFORMATION FROM ANY POPULATION OF PLANTS AND CREATURES, WHICH IS CLEARLY SEEN IN THE WORLD AROUND US. WE WILL USE EXAMPLES FROM THE PLANT WORLD, THE ANIMAL WORLD,THE INSECT WORLD, THE REPTILE WORLD, THE BACTERIAL WORLD TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ON-GOING PROCESSES HAPPENING IN OUR WORLD ARE NOT POSITIVE, THEY ARE NEGATIVE AND AS THE APOSTLE PAUL STATED “ THE WORLD IS WEARING OUT LIKE A GARMENT”. THE BIBLICAL VIEW ACCURATELY EXPLAINS OUR PRESENT WORLD, LOOKS INTO THE FUTURE AND ACCURATELY DESCRIBES WHAT WILL HAPPEN.
Was Darwin right?

51. The text book example of evolution in action
The peppered moths
IT IS INTERESTING THAT SOME OF THE CLASSICAL EXAMPLES THAT EVOLUTIONARY THOUGHT HAS COME UP WITH TO EXPLAIN HOW EVOLUTION CAN GIVE RISE TO DIFFERENT FORMS OF CREATURES, NOT ONLY ARE FRAUDS, AS IS THE CASE OF THE PEPPERED MOTH. BUT, ALSO WHEN LOOKED AT CLOSELY, ARE ACTUALLY EXAMPLES OF DEVOLUTION (LOSS OF INFORMATION) NOT EVOLUTION (GAIN OF INFORMATION). HERE THE STORY OF THE PEPPERED MOTH EXPLAINS THAT DURING THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, THE COLOUR OF TREE TRUNKS CHANGED BECAUSE OF POLUTION. THIS CHANGE FAVOURED DARK COLOURED FORMS OF THE PEPPERED MOTH AND CAUSED LIGHT COLOURED FORMS TO LOSE THE ADVANTAGE OF THEIR CAMOFLAGE. THE RESULT BEING, THE LIGHT COLOURED FORMS ALL BUT DIED OUT LEAVING ONLY THE DARK FORMS---NATURAL SELECTION IN ACTION. HOWEVER, THIS DEMONSTRATES THAT NATURAL SELECTION IS A NEGATIVE PROCESS. BEFORE THE SELECTION THE POPULATION OF PEPPERED MOTHS INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR BOTH DARK AND LIGHT COLOURED MOTHS. AFTER NATURAL SELECTION THE POPULATION OF PEPPERED MOTHS ONLY CONTAINED THE DARK FORMS OF THE MOTH. THE NET RESULT BEING THAT THE PEPPERED MOTH POPULATION HAD LOST INFORMATION AND HAD DEVOLVED NOT EVOLVED. THE POPULATION HAD LOST THE VARIETY THAT HAD BEEN BUILT IN BY CREATION. BEFORE NATURAL SELECTION THERE WERE PEPPERED MOTHS AFTER NATURAL SELECTION THERE WERE PEPPERED MOTHS-RESULT-NO EVOLUTION!
Is this example of natural selection
A gain of information? or
A loss of information?
Was Darwin right?

52. Changes between dogs are a result of loss of information
IN THIS EXAMPLE OF NATURAL SELECTION WE HAVE THE BREEDING OF TWO DOGS WITH MEDIUM LENGTHED FUR. THEY BOTH HAVE ONE GENE FOR LONG HAIR AND ONE GENE FOR SHORT HAIR THAT THEY RECEIVED FROM THEIR PARENTS. NEITHER OF THESE GENES ARE DOMINANT AND THE RESULT IS THAT THEIR FUR IS OF MEDIUM LENGTH. WHEN THESE TWO DOGS BREED THEY HAVE A SORTING OUT OF THE GENES WHICH ARE THEN PASSED TO THEIR DESCENDANTS IN A WAY WORKED OUT BY THE MONK GREGOR MENDEL (A BELEIVER IN CREATION). THEY HAVE PUPPIES WHICH ARE EITHER LONG HAIRED SHORT HAIRED OR HAVE MEDIUM LENGTHED FUR. NOW IMAGINE THAT THEIR PUPPIES EXPERIENCED AN ICE AGE WHERE ONLY THOSE WITH LONG FUR COULD SURVIVE. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THAT THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF DOGS WOULD HAVE LONG HAIR AND ALL GENETIC INFORMATION FOR SHORT HAIR WOULD BE LOST. THE NET RESULT IS LOSS OF VARIATION FROM THE POPULATION OF DOGS, LOSS OF GENETIC INFORMATION, ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF DEVOLUTION NOT EVOLUTION. BEFORE NATURAL SELECTION THEY WERE DOGS AFTER NATURAL SELECTION THEY ARE STILL DOGS—NO EVOLUTION!
Was Darwin right?

53. Diversification is not evolution
ALL THE DOGS DESCRIBED ON THIS SLIDE ARE THE SAME SPECIES THEY ARE ALL DOGS YET THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF VARIATION WITHIN THIS KIND OF CREATURE. BOTH CREATIONISTS AND EVOLUTIONISTS AGREE THAT ALL THESE DIFFERENT DOGS ARE PROBABLY ARE DESCENDED FROM AN ORIGINAL WOLF-LIKE DOG. THE BIBLE SAYS THAT ALL CREATURES BREED AND PRODUCE AFTER THEIR KIND. HERE WE HAVE DOGS DESCENDED FROM DOGS YET THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF VARIATION WITHIN THIS KIND OF CREATURE. WHAT IS AMAZING IS THAT THE ORIGINAL KIND (PROBABLY WOLF-LIKE) WAS PACKED WITH INFORMATION TO GENERATE ALL THESE VARIETY OF DOGS. HERE AGAIN WITH THE SELECTION OF EACH DIFFERENT VARIETY OF THE SAME CREATURE-THE SELECTION HAS PRODUCED A LOSS OF INFORMATION NOT A GAIN. WHILST IT IS REASONABLE TO SUGGEST THAT FROM A WOLF EACH VARIETY COULD BE BRED AGAIN THE CONVERSE IS NOT TRUE. IF YOU BREED A JACK RUSSEL WITH A JACK RUSSEL YOU GET A JACK RUSSEL IN FACT THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF A PEDIGREE. THE ONLY WAY TO REGAIN THE INFORMATION LOST IS TO BREED DOGS ACROSS THE VARIETIES. WE THEN GET A MECHANISM CALLED HYBRID VIGER OPERATING. IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT MONGRELS ARE FITTER AND HEALTHIER THAN PEDIGREES FOR THIS REASON. PEDIGREE DOGS OFTEN HAVE GENETIC DEFECTS EXACTLY FOR THIS REASON IE LOSS OF INFORMATION DEVOLUTION NOT EVOLUTION.
Was Darwin right?

54. www.wasdarwinright.net Was Darwin right? info@wasdarwinright.net
THE BOOK OF GENESIS REPEATS THIS FACT AGAIN AND AGAIN THAT EACH KIND OF CREATURE ALWAYS PRODUCES AFTER ITS OWN KIND. THIS AGREES WITH SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION THAT IS REPEATED AGAIN AND AGAIN IN OUR LIFE TIMES I.E. IF YOU BREED A DOG WITH A DOG YOU GET A DOG. THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT A DOG HAS OR WILL EVER PRODUCE ANYTHING BUT A DOG.
SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTATION AGREES WITH THE BOOK OF GENESIS NOT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. THE ONLY WAY THAT ANYONE CAN EVEN POSSIBLY CONCIEVE OF ANYTHING ELSE IS BY ADDING MILLIONS OF YEARS AND A WILD SENSE OF IMAGINATION BASED ONLY ON SUPPOSITION.
THE APPEAL TO MILLIONS OF YEARS IS JUST A CLEVER TRICK TO JUSTIFY AN UNSCIENTIFIC STANDPOINT. WHILST THE TRUTH OF THE STATEMENT ABOVE IN GENESIS IS COMPLETELY TESTABLE AND SCIENTIFICALLY VERIFYABLE THE FABLES OF EVOLUTION ARE COMPLETELY UNTESTABLE AND UNSCIENTIFIC AND BY VERY NATURE PSEUDO-SCIENCE.
Was Darwin right?

55. Double muscling in Charolais Bulls
SEVERAL BREEDS OF BEEF CATTLE INCLUDING BELGIUM BLUE, CHAROLAISE AND PIEDMONTESE, SHOW A FORM OF MUSCLE HYPERTROPHE OFTEN CALLED DOUBLE MUSCLING. CATTLE ARE BRED FOR THIS TRAIT BECAUSE THEY PRODUCE LARGER STEAKS. CHARLES DARWIN WOULD CALL THIS THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE BREED BY SELECTION, OR JUST EVOLUTION AND ON THE SURFACE IT LOOKS LIKE THIS. HOWEVER, THE GENE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS TRAIT HAS BEEN LOCATED ON CHROMOSOME 2 AND IT IS A LOSS OF FUNCTION OF THE MYSTATIN GENE. A GENE THAT ACTS AS A NEGATIVE REGULATOR OF SKELETAL MUSCLE GROWTH. IE THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF LOSS OF FUNCTION AND THEREFORE LOSS OF INFORMATION, THAT IS DEVOLUTION NOT EVOLUTION.
Was Darwin right?

56. David Attenborough Snake evolution
IN HIS BOOK “LIFE ON EARTH” SIR DAVID ATTENBOROUGH MAKES AN ATTEMPT AT EXPLANING THE EVOLUTION OF THE SNAKE. HE DESCRIBES HOW A PROCESS OF LIMB REDUCTION TOOK PLACE IN A GROUP OF REPTILES THAT EVENTUALLY GAVE RISE TO WHAT WE NOW KNOW AS SNAKES. HE DESCRIBES HOW THE SNAKE CHOSE TO LIVE UNDERGROUND AND AS A RESULT LOST A LARGE CAPACITY OF VISION AND HEARING. IT THEN “CHANGED ITS MIND” AND DECIDED TO LIVE ABOVE GROUND AND REGAINED A LITTLE CAPACITY TO SEE BUT PRACTICALLY NO CAPACITY TO HEAR. A NICE LITTLE EXPLANATION BASED ON PRECIOUS LITTLE INFORMATION AND A LOT OF IMAGINATION.
HOWEVER, THE BIBLE DESCRIBES EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SNAKE AND DOES NOT DESCRIBE IT AS EVOLUTION BUT AS THE RESULT OF A CURSE. HAS THIS CREATURE CHANGED SINCE GOD ORIGINALLY CREATED IT? THE ANSWER OF COURSE IS YES. AS A DIRECT RESULT OF A CURSE PLACED UPON IT, BY GOD, BECAUSE OF ITS OWN BAD CHOICES. WHAT IS AMAZING IS THAT GOD IS SO AMAZING THAT EVEN WHEN HE CURSES, HE DOES IT IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE SNAKE HAS SERVED AS AN EXAMPLE EVER SINCE.
FOR INSTANCE BOTH JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST CALLED THE PHARISEES OF THEIR DAY SNAKES, A BROOD OF VIPERS. OF COURSE JESUS ALWAYS PACKS AMAZING INCITE IN ANY OF HIS REMARKS HE IS OF COURSE, GOD THE CREATOR. OFTEN, AFTER RELATING A PARABLE, HE WOULD SAY HE WHO HAS EARS LET HIM HEAR. SNAKES OF COURSE HAVE LITTLE CAPACITY TO HEAR TRUTH. BOTH ISAIAH AND JESUS TALKED ABOUT PEOPLE WHO HAD EYES BUT COULD NOT SEE JUST LIKE A SNAKE. IN FACT, EVERY CAPACITY OR RATHER INCAPACITY OF SNAKES ACCURATELY DESCRIBES FALLEN MANKIND- UNABLE TO WALK WITH GOD (HAVE A RELATIONSHIP BECAUSE OF REJECTING HIS WORDS). THE FORKED TONGUE-USING TRUTH COMBINED WITH FALSEHOOD AS A MEANS OF DECEPTION.
SOLOMON WITH TERRIFIC INCITE DESCRIBES THE WAY TO DEAL WITH A SNAKE. HE MENTIONS THE WAY OF A SNAKE ON A ROCK---BASICALLY IT BECOMES PARALYSED AND EASY TO KILL. THIS INTERESTING OBSERVATION IS ALSO DESCRIBED BY DAVID ATTENBOROUGH SEVERAL THOUSAND YEARS LATER- HE NOTES THAT WHEN A SNAKE GETS ON A SMOOTH SURFACE IT CAN NO LONGER MOVE EXCEPT TO “WRIGGLE”. THE ROCK OF COURSE ACCURATELY DESCRIBES JESUS OR HIS WORDS. HERE AGAIN THE WORD OF GOD-THE BIBLE IS MANY THOUSANDS OF YEARS AHEAD OF OUR EVOLUTIONARY CONTEMPORIES.
BUT ASIDE FROM THESE INTERESTING OBSERVATIONS, EXACTLY WHAT EVOLUTION HAS GONE ON HERE??
WE SEE THAT THE SNAKE ORIGINALLY COULD WALK- NO ARGUMENT THERE AND A NICE CONFIRMATION OF WHAT GOD ALREADY DESCRIBED. WELL DONE SIR DAVID!
HOWEVER LEGS TO NO LEGS, SEEING TO POOR VISION, HEARING TO NO HEARING, EARS TO NO EARS RESULTS IN A GRAND TOTAL OF NO EVOLUTION BUT A WHOLE LOT OF DEVOLUTION!
Net information change
Legs No legs Loss
Ears No ears Loss
Good hearing poor hearing Loss
Good vision poor vision Loss
Was Darwin right?

57. Plants also are undergoing devolution as a direct result of selection
THE ABOVE EXCERTS FROM THE NEW SCIENTIST MAGAZINE ACCURATELY DESCRIBE THE PROCESS OF DEVOLUTION THAT IS ON-GOING IN PLANTS. THESE EXAMPLES TAKEN FROM THE 13TH MAY EDITION DESCRIBE THE FACT THAT BECAUSE OF SELECTION OF ONLY ONE TYPE OF BANANA THE CAVENDISH VARIETY AND THE LOSS OF OTHER VARIETIES (SELECTION) THE GENETIC BASE OF THE BANANA HAS COLLAPSED. THE REASON IS BECAUSE MANY GENES PRESENT IN OTHER VARIETIES OF BANANA HAVE BEEN LOST FROM THE CAVENDISH VARIETY– AGAIN LOSS OF INFORMATION I.E. DEVOLUTION AND NOT EVOLUTION (GAIN OF INFORMATION).
THE SAME ISSUE DESCRIBES THE PLIGHT OF MAIZE. APPARENTLY MAIZE IS ALSO FACING A GENETIC MELTDOWN. STOCKS OF OTHER VARIETIES OF MAIZE WERE APPARENTLY KEPT UNDER INCORRECT STORAGE CONDITIONS AND ARE UNABLE TO GERMINATE. IT APPEARS THAT MAIZE ALSO IS UNDERGOING DEVOLUTION AND NOT EVOLUTION I.E. IT HAS LOST INFORMATION.
AGAIN BOTH THESE EXAMPLES SHOW THAT THE PROCESSES THAT THE DARWIN FAMILY SUGGEST DRIVE EVOLUTION I.E. SELECTION BE IT NATURAL OR OTHERWISE ACTUALLY PRODUCE DEVOLUTION– LOSS OF INFORMATION. IT APPEARS THAT DARWIN GOT IT WRONG.
Was Darwin right?

58. What about bacteria
– surely with their short generation times these organisms must be evolving?
BUT WHAT ABOUT BACTERIA? WE CONSTANTLY HEAR THAT THE BACTERIA ARE EVOLVING SURELY THERE ARE NO EXAMPLES OF BACTERIA DEVOLVING.
INTERSTINGLY THE BIBLE HAS QUITE A LOT TO SAY ABOUT DISEASES –ESPECIALLY INFECTIOUS BACTERIAL DISEASES. THE CEREMONIAL LAWS THAT GOD GAVE THE WORLD THROUGH MOSES HAVE BROUGHT LIFE TO ANY GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT WOULD FOLLOW THEM. NOTABLY THE JEWS OFTEN ESCAPED THE PLAGUE AND VARIOUS DISEASES BY THEIR SANITATION AND CLEAN LIVING LIFE-STYLE. CERTAINLY AIDS WOULDN’T BE THE PROBLEM THAT IT WOULD TODAY IF PEOPLE LIVED THEIR SEXUAL LIVES LIKE THE BIBLE COMMANDS-THE LAWS GIVEN THROUGH MOSES REALLY ARE LAWS OF LOVE.
LEPROSY HAS ALWAYS BEEN DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE AS A TYPE OF SIN- A CONDITION THAT CAUSES SEPERATION OF LOVED ONES, THAT IS DIFFICULT TO CURE. LIKE SIN IT NEEDS TO BE CAUGHT AND TREATED BEFORE IT GETS HOLD OF A PERSON OR DEATH ENSUES. THE BIBLE MAKES A DIRECT LINK BETWEEN SIN AND SICKNESS AND STATES THAT SICKNESS, DISEASE AND DEATH CAME INTO THE WORLD BECAUSE OF SIN. IF THIS IS TRUE THEN THE AGENTS OF DISEASE, MANY OF WHICH ARE BACTERIA, MUST ORIGINALLY HAVE NOT CAUSED DISEASE WHEN THEY WERE CREATED INDEED IF THIS IS TRUE THEY MUST HAVE CHANGED SINCE CREATION.
WELL IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS?
THE RESOUNDING ANSWER IS YES. WITHIN THE LAST TEN YEARS OVER 300 BACTERIAL GENOMES HAVE BEEN SEQUENCED SO THAT THE NUMBER OF GENES AND THE CONDITION OF THOSE GENES CAN BE EASILY STUDIED. THE RESULT IS THAT IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF BACTERIAL PATHOGENS HAVE NOT SO MUCH EVOLVED BUT DEVOLVED. THE STRIKING CONCLUSION FROM THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS BACTERIAL GENOMES KNOWN TO CAUSE DISEASE IS THAT THEY WERE ORIGINALLY FREE LIVING BACTERIA THAT DID NOT CAUSE DISEASE. BUT, THEY HAVE CHANGED AND NOW THEY CAUSE DISEASE. THE BACTERIUM THAT CAUSES LEPROSY IS AN EXAMPLE OF ONE OF THESE BACTERIA. IT HAS LOST THE USE OF MORE THAN HALF OF ITS GENES AND IS A MERE SHADOW OF ITS FORMER BEING. THIS IS NOT EVOLUTION IT IS STRIKING DEVOLUTION. THE LOSS OF INFORMATION AND WITH IT THE ABILITY TO CAUSE A DEVASTATING DISEASE.
Leprosy-more than 690,000 new cases every year.
The Leprosy bacillus has 1604 functional genes and 1116 non-functional genes
(pseudogenes).
Only 49.5% of its genome contains functional genes and it is estimated that it has lost
2000 genes in total.
Was Darwin right?

59. Virus (Bacteriophage)
Changes to the bacterial chromosome
Virus (Bacteriophage)
Insertion
element
Plasmid
Genomic island
insertion
MOST BACTERIA CONTAIN A SINGLE CIRCULAR CHROMOSOME DEPICTED IN RED ABOVE
BECAUSE OF THE MANY BACTERIAL SEQUENCING PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED TOGETHER WITH OTHER AREAS OF RESEARCH. MANY CHANGES TO BACTERIAL CHROMSOMES HAVE BEEN DETECTED. THESE CAN BE SUMARISED AS DELETIONS, INVERSIONS OR INSERTIONS OF DNA.
MANY BACTERIA HAVE EVIDENCE OF DELETIONS- SOMETIMES OF HUNDREDS OF GENES AND ARE REPRESENTED AS BLACK HOLES IN THE ABOVE DIAGRAM. OFTEN EITHERSIDE OF THESE BLACK HOLES ARE FOUND DESTRUCTIVE PIECES OF DNA THAT CAN MOVE BY THEMSELVES CALLED INSERTION SEQUENCES. THESE DNA PARASITES CAN DESTROY GENES BY INSERTING INSIDE THEM AND CREATING A PSEUDOGENE. AS THEY COPY THEMSELVES AROUND A CHROMOSOME, THEY ARE CAPABLE OF DELETING THE DNA FOUND BETWEEN TWO COPIES OF THEMSELVES AND DEPENDING ON THE DIRECTION THAT THEY HAVE INSERTED THEY CAN ALSO INVERT THE DNA FOUND BETWEEN TWO COPIES.
OTHER PIECES OF DNA CALLED PLASMIDS, BACTERIOPHAGES OR GENOMIC ISLANDS CAN ALSO INSERT THEMSELVES INTO THE BACTERIAL CHROMOSOME.
WHEREAS THE CREATION OF BLACK HOLES IN THE CHROMOSOME IS CLEARLY DESTRUCTIVE AND OBVIOUS EXAMPLES OF DEVOLUTION, THE INSERTION OF PIECES OF DNA-CORRECTLY TERMED EVOLUTION (THE GAIN OF INFORMATION) CAN ALSO BE VIEWED AND TERMED DEVOLUTION.
FOR EXAMPLE THE PATHOGENIC BACTERIUM VIBRIO CHOLERAE CAN CAUSE THE DISEASE CHOLERA. IT CAN DO THIS BECAUSE ONE OF ITS CHROMOSOMES CONTAINS A VIRUS CALLED A BACTERIOPHAGE THAT CONTAINS GENES THAT PRODUCE A TOXIN CALLED CHOLERA TOXIN. THESE GENES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DISEASE CHOLERA AND THE BACTERIA IS NON-PATHOGENIC WITHOUT THEM. I.E. THE BACTERIA HAS DEVOLVED FROM ITS CREATED PURPOSE- IT CLEARLY WAS NOT CREATED TO CAUSE DISEASE. THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES OF SUCH DEVOLUTION.
Was Darwin right?

60. Bordatella bronchiseptica
Bordatella pertusis
Bordatella bronchiseptica
A RECENT STUDY HAS COMPARED THE GENOMES OF THREE CLOSELY RELATED BACTERIA, BORDATELLA PERTUSIS IS ONLY FOUND IN HUMANS AND CAUSES THE DISEASE WHOOPING COUGH AND WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS OF 285,000 PEOPLE IN BORDATELLA PARAPERTUSIS CAUSES DISEASE IN HUMANS AND SHEEP CAUSING WHOOPING COUGH. BORDATELLA BRONCHISEPTICA HAS A BROAD HOST RANGE AND USUALLY DOES NOT CAUSE DISEASE. WHEN THE GENOMES OF THESE THREE CLOSELY RELATED BACTERIA ARE COMPARED SIDE BY SIDE IT IS CLEAR THAT BOTH BORDATELLA PARAPERTUSIS AND PERTUSIS HAVE BEEN DERIVED FROM A BORDATELLA BRONCHISEPTICA LIKE ORGANISM. THE RED LINES IN THE ABOVE DIAGRAM SHOW REGIONS THAT ARE IDENTICAL OR NEARLY IDENTICAL BETWEEN THESE BACTERIA. WHAT IS ALSO STRIKING IS THE FACT THAT INSERTION ELEMENTS ARE FOUND AT EITHER END OF THE SIMILAR STRETCHES OF SEQUENCE AND CAN EXPLAIN HOW THE CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED.
BORDATELLA BRONCHISEPTICA HAS 5007 GENES AND 18 PSEUDOGENES BUT NO INSERTION ELEMENTS.
BORDATELLA PARAPERTUSIS HAS 4400 GENES 220 PSEUDOGENES AND 112 INSERTION ELEMENTS
BORDATELLA PERTUSIS HAS 3816 GENES, 358 PSEUDOGENES AND 261 INSERTION ELEMENTS
THEREFORE IT IS CLEAR THAT BOTH BORDATELLA PARAPERTUSIS AND PERTUSIS HAVE LOST A LOT OF INFORMATION RELATIVE TO BRONCHISEPTICA AND THEIR GENOMES HAVE BEEN MANGLED. FURTHERMORE PERTUSIS HAS NOT GAINED ANY INFORMATION RELATIVE TO BRONCHISEPTICA BUT HAS LOST A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION. ALONG WITH THIS LOSS OF INFORMATION HAS COME THE ABILITY TO CAUSE DISEASE. THIS IS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF DEVOLUTION THE OPPOSITE OF EVOLUTION AND WITH THIS DEVOLUTION HAS COME THE ABILITY TO CAUSE DISEASE.
Bordatella parapertusis
Was Darwin right?

61. Other bacteria that have lost information
and cause disease
Bacteria Disease
Mycobacterium leprae Leprosy
Yersinia pestis Plague
Helicobacter pylori Stomach ulcers, stomach cancer
Rickettsias typhus-various fevers
Ehrlichias ehrlichiosis
Borrelia burgdorferi Lyme disease
Mycoplasmas Pneumonia
Salmonella typhi Typhoid
Shigella flexneri Diorrhoea
Bordatella pertusis Whooping cough
Bordatella parapertusis Whooping cough
Bartonella quintana Trench fever
Bartonella henselae Cat-scratch disease
Treponema pallidum Syphilis
+ Many others!
Was Darwin right?

62. Direct correlation between GC% and extent of devolution
GC% variation with size of bacterial genomes
DNA IS COMPOSED OF FOUR DIFFERENT MOLECULES THAT ARE CALLED NUCLEOTIDES. THE FOUR DIFFERENT MOLECULES ARE NAMED ADENINE THYMINE CYTOSINE AND GUANINE, REPRESENTED BY THE LETTERS A,T,C AND G. THESE NUCLEOTIDES ARE ARRANGED IN A STRUCTURE CALLED A DNA DOUBLE HELIX. THE STRANDS ARE HELD TOGETHER BY ELECTROSTATIC BONDS IN SUCH A WAY THAT C ALWAYS PAIRS WITH G AND T ALWAYS PAIRS WITH A. THERE ARE THEREFORE ONLY TWO TYPES OF BASE PAIRS C-G AND A-T. WHEN WE LOOK AT ANY BACTERIAL DNA-EACH ORGANISM HAS A SPECIFIC PERCENTAGE OF G-C PAIRS. THIS PERCENTAGE HAS CLASSICALLY BEEN USED AS A WAY OF CLASSIFYING DIFFERENT BACTERIA. BASICALLY IF TWO BACTERIA HAVE DIFFERENT GC RATIOS THEY ARE DIFFERENT ORGANISMS.
WHAT IS INTERESTING IS THAT THERE IS A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GC% AND GENOME SIZE AS SHOWN IN THE ABOVE GRAPH. THE BACTERIA WITH THE LARGEST GENOMES ALSO HAVE THE HIGHEST GC% AND THE ORGANISMS WITH THE SMALLEST GENOMES HAVE THE LOWEST GC%.
IT IS A WELL KNOWN FACT THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF MUTATIONS RESULT IN A CHANGE FROM C TO T. RESULTING IN A NET REDUCTION IN GC%. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE GRAPH THAT ALONG WITH THE REDUCTION IN SIZE OF BACTERIAL GENOMES IS A REDUCTION IN GC%. IT IS ALSO NOTABLE THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE ORGANISMS WITH LOW GC% ALSO CAUSE DISEASE. WHEREAS THE ORGANISMS WITH HIGH GC% GENERALLY DO NOT CAUSE DISEASE.
THE INFERENCE IS THAT BACTERIAL GENOMES ARE ALL UNDERGOING A PROCESS OF DECAY. THIS IS CLEAR EVIDENCE FOR DEVOLUTION NOT EVOLUTION OF BACTERIA.
Direct correlation between GC% and extent of devolution
Was Darwin right?

63. Concluding comments Is some of the science driven by philosophy?
Perhaps the world is younger than 4 billion years?
No understanding how the first cells arose.
Fossil gaps still there, living fossils show stability.
Evidence that mutations lead to loss of information.
Are we devolving?
In view of the above, is it ignorant to believe in a Creator God?
Was Darwin right?

64. Other recommended books & DVD’s
SEE SHOP PAGE OF
Was Darwin right?