CHAPTER
4 –
Gaps in the theory of
evolution
When thinking about the theory of evolution, we find many problems and
thresholds, many of them still unresolved. We have studied many of them in the
previous chapters, but in this chapter we will study some areas for which it is
difficult to find an explanation.
There have been attempts to
explain the problems with the theory of evolution simply by saying, that time
makes all things possible: over the course of millions of years, anything can
happen.
We could compare this to a fairy tale: a girl kisses a frog
and the frog suddenly changes into a prince. However, the same fairy tale can
turn into fact when enough time is added, i.e., 300 million years. Scientists
believe that within that period of time a frog changed into a man.
The next quote shows how time
makes everything possible, even though it goes against practical observation.
It is a question of the axiom of evolution, i.e., the changing of one species
into another species:
Of course, it is true that
nobody has been able to examine the gene pools of species long ago disappeared,
and neither have we been able to witness the birth of any species – except some
polyploids. However, the evolution researchers have hardly a hundred years to
use, and it is estimated that the birth of a new species easily takes more than
a million years. There is, however, no reason to assume that some other
mechanisms than those that change the gene pools of populations nowadays would
have been at work in the past. (Koululaisen
uusi tietosanakirja, p. 815)
Below, we are going to study more of the
problems with the theory of evolution. (There are many other gaps in
addition to these. The gap between invertebrates and vertebrates is one
unsolved problem, for example.) We will deal with the following issues:
- Initial stages
- Prokaryotes and eukaryotes
- Multicellular organisms
- Evolution of plants
- From sea to land and from land to sea
- Complex organs
Initial stages
As we mentioned before, the initial stages of life are still a problem.
The problem is that no bridge between living and a lifeless material has been
discovered – there is still a clear gap. It has been difficult to prove this assumed jump from a lifeless
material to living organisms, and it overlooks scientific findings such as the
research of Louis Pasteur, which proved that life can only be created from
life.
Because this gap between living and the lifeless has been
found to be so huge, other solutions have been suggested. The finder of the
genotype molecule structure, Nobel Prize winner Sir Francis Crick, and space
researcher Sir Fred Hoyle have both come to the conclusion that life must have
come into existence in space and sailed from there to here.
The problem with their theory, however, is that not even it
solves the birth of life. Instead, it moves life’s emergence elsewhere, further
away. Assuming that life started spontaneously does not help to explain its
origin. We still have to note that there is a deep gap between living and
lifeless material. This gap is hard to cross, because no bridge has been
discovered.
The observations made in the past three decades
show us that there is a clear gap between the living and the lifeless world.
This break is one of the most dramatic found in nature, since no uniting bridge
(“missing link”) of any kind goes over it. The lack of this uniting bridge has
been confirmed by means of experimental science, but it is also a conceptual
impossibility and thus resembles other gaps observed in nature. (16)
Prokaryotes and eukaryotes
When various classifications of population have been made, very normal
classifications are those into plants and animals as well as into vertebrates
and invertebrates. These are familiar concepts, at least to most people.
However, the classification into prokaryotes and eukaryotes, i.e., the
classification into elementary nucleus and genuine nucleus cells has generally
been regarded as an even more important classification.
Of these two cell types, the eukaryotes are more complex
and it has been thought that they evolved from the prokaryotes that have been
deemed the first organisms on Earth. It is thought that prokaryotes appeared at
least "two billion years" before the first eukaryotes.
In any case, we can find at least the following differences
between these two groups:
- Prokaryotes are much simpler in structure than eukaryotes.
- Prokaryotes have no nuclei, mitochondria, chloroplasts, or any
other cell organs that eukaryotes have.
- The volume of a prokaryote is only a thousandth of that of a
eukaryote: eukaryotes are about 1,000 times larger than prokaryotes.
The problem with the two cell types is: Where are their intermediate
forms on the Earth? If eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes, shouldn’t there be
a lot of intermediate forms in the ground? After all, it has been presented
that evolution took at least a hundred million years. The problem is that the
intermediate forms are still missing. Where are the intermediate forms?
We are also faced with a more major problem: no intermediate form
has yet been found. It would indeed be probable that we could find any kind of
an intermediate form, then perhaps there would not be such a big difference
between these two cell types. From the point of view of the theory of evolution
it would be natural that there were no such clear divisions between different
groups. So why are these differences so clear, and why are their intermediate
forms missing? Their differences remain unexplained:
Even though the evidence
supports the idea of the eukaryotes evolving from the prokaryotes, the
differences between these two groups are so large that it seems that something
other than just time and mutations would have been needed for a simple prokaryote
to evolve into a complex eukaryote. (John Reader: Alkumerestä maalle,
p.36 / The Rise of Life)
Multicellular organisms
After the prokaryotic and eukaryotic phases, multicellular organisms
should have appeared on Earth.
However, when we study the
evolution of multicellular organisms, this is difficult to prove, as well. The
problem is that it has been difficult to find evidence to prove that
monocellular protista suddenly, at some point in the past, started to combine
and form working systems. After all, theories about their birth assume that
they were created when several cells were combined. This process is explained
in the following way: “… After being divided into two parts the newborn
cells, daughter cells, did not separate from each other, but remained together
as bicellular organisms. A bicellular organism could form into a tricellular or
a quadcellular organism: the number of cells remaining together increased to
tens, hundreds, thousands. (…) The various cells of an organism specialized in
different tasks.” (Koululaisen uusi
tietosanakirja, p. 772 )
Were multicellular organisms born in the way described above? We must
note that this cannot be proven. Some researchers deny this possibility. They
also state that several monocellulars together do not amount to a multicellular
organism. They are still monocellulars, but there are only more of them
together!
Secondly, one should note that
no formation of multicellular organisms from monocellular ones has been
observed in nature in modern days, and only the presuppositions regarding the
evolution of life require such theories. One can believe that this has
happened, but no convincing material supporting this belief has been found.
The problem with multicellular organisms is described in
the quotes below. They show how this matter is still an unsolved mystery:
We do not know how
multicellular organisms could be formed from monocellular ones. The development
of sexual propagation is a very difficult problem from the point of view of
evolution. Many new genes have been needed, and the change caused by the
selection pressure is unclear, because bacteria thrive in quite extreme
conditions from sub-zero temperatures to boiling springs, from kilometers above
into kilometers below the sea level.
It is strange that all of the approximately one hundred phyla of
the animal kingdom and several classes really appeared almost at the same time
in the beginning of the multicellular life (Evolution and the Fossil Record,
K.C. Allen and D.E.G. Briggs, 1989), and no more “evolution” occurred on
this level after that: instead seventy phyla just became extinct. (Gould, Wonderful
Life, pp. 57–60). (17)
What conclusions can be drawn
from the possible relationship between monocellulars (Protozoa) and
multicellular (Metazoa) organisms? The only fact is that we are not familiar
with the relationship. Almost all possible (as well as many impossible)
relationships have been proposed, but the information available to us is
insufficient to justify drawing any scientific conclusion about such a
relationship. If we please, we may believe that one of these theories is more
correct than the others, but we do not have any real evidence. (G.A. Kerkut, Implications
of Evolution, p. 49) (18)
THE Evolution of plants
Another problem is the evolution of plants. Usually, it has been
explained that they, too, evolved first in water -- so the first plants were
simple algae from which gradually evolved other water plants and land plants such
as mosses, reeds, bushes, flowers, and trees. It is believed that all of this
took as much as hundreds of millions of years.
As far as the evidence for
plants moving from the sea onto land is concerned, we must yet again note that
there exists no convincing evidence. There is only a presumption and belief
that it must have occurred but we cannot know for sure. Just as for animals, it
is difficult to find in layers of the Earth any preceding, simpler evolution
phase for plants. Instead, it has been observed that all the main plant groups
appear in the layers suddenly and fully developed, and that since then they
have remained separate.
Neither do we know how the
complicated photosynthesis process was created, or how an alga could have
changed into a reed and then into a tree or bush. And if this did take place in
the past, shouldn’t something similar be occuring now? Has this activity been
detected today? We still lack proof of such occurrences, and cannot determine
their likelihood.
Paleobotanists consider
moving of the plants from the sea onto the land as an equally difficult
question as the birth of first life on the early globe. Life on land requires
several new properties that the water plants do not need and that could even be
detrimental in water. (19)
Plenty of evidence from
biology, animal and plant geography and paleontology can be presented to
support the theory of evolution, but in spite of everything, I am of the
opinion that unprejudiced people come to the conclusion that plant fossils
support the idea of a special creation. (…) Could one imagine that an orchid, a
duckweed, and a palm would have the same origin, and can this hypothesis be
proven true? A supporter of evolution would surely be prepared to answer this
question, but I think most evidence could not endure a closer study. (20)
From sea ONto land and from land to sea
In the previous paragraph, it was mentioned that plants are supposed to
have moved from the sea onto land. It has been supposed that algae in the sea
gradually changed into more complicated plants and then into the present land
plants, and all of this took as long as hundreds of millions of years.
The evolution of animals is
supposed to have been similar. This means that when life was born first in the
sea, it evolved there for a while and then gradually moved onto the land.
Simple monocellulars that existed only in the sea ultimately became complex
land animals such as frogs, reptiles, birds and mammals. All diverse forms of
life on Earth arose from this sequence of events.
However, if we closely examine the likelihood that a fish
crept onto land and became a land animal, we face numerous problems. The
following issues could be mentioned:
- One problem is breathing. The fish needed new respiratory organs
so they could breathe as easily in air as in water. This had to happen very
quickly, because if fish could not develop these organs within a couple of
hours, the fish would die. So far, it has been difficult to explain how the
gills of a fish can change into lungs in a short time.
- For a fish, moving around on dry land must have been problematic.
Practically, the fish would have been like "a fish out of water" and
would probably not have gotten anywhere. A tail or fins will not help much when
moving on dry land; for this, one needs feet. With the help of the tail and
fins, the fish could have, at the most, jumped in the air, but it could not
have been able to move forward.
- The fish’s senses needed to change in both activity and structure.
Senses that are useful in water are not necessarily useful on dry land. For
example, an eye that is useful in water will be useless on land because air and
water refract light in a different way.
- Another problem is how and what the fish was able to eat on land.
Certainly it could not have been able to eat berries from bushes or any other
food, as it could not have been able to move. And the fish would not have
gotten the same nutrition on dry land as the one to which it had gotten used in
the water. Why would a fish even have gone to search for food on dry land?
There would have been plenty of food in the water.
- Reproduction would certainly have been difficult, since two
participants are needed instead of one. It is problematic to explain how they
could have set their spawn and milt in the same place, because moving would
have been difficult?
What about moving from land into sea?
One presumption is that life did not move only from the sea onto the
land, but also from the land into the sea. It has been theorized that the
progenitors of whales were primitive hoofed animals in the past, until they
became water animals. In the same way, it has been hypothesized that the
progenitors of the ichthyosaurus and dolphin were animals living on dry land,
until they moved into the water (The external structure of both of them
resembles that of the present shark; mammals are deemed to be the progenitors
of dolphins, but reptiles as that of ichthyosaurus).
Regarding the presumption that
life moved from the land towards the sea, there are problems with that theory,
as well. One might ask why these animals would have moved into the sea; was
there not enough room on dry land? Why would they have moved into a strange
environment, where it would have been difficult for them to survive and where
they probably would have drowned?
In addition to this, if we assume
that whales are the descendants of these animals, should they not have signs of
land life from their progenitors or some kind of hoof-like vestige? Or do the
ancestors of the whale, the ichthyosaurus, and the dolphin come from land,
after all? Only our presumption that evolution proceeded along the
fish-frog-reptile-mammal chain, leads us to conclude that life moved from land
towards the sea. We cannot find any convincing evidence to support it, because
fossil findings do not support such an idea. Instead, we observe that
fossilized species appear nowadays as being separate.
COMPLEX organs
If we assume that everything was born from one single cell, one difficulty
is to explain the abundance of species today. Why did not, for example, a
simple cellular mass, bacterium, or moss fill the Earth instead of what we now
can see: all kinds of colorful animals in the water, in the air, on the land
and also underground, and plentiful vegetation? It is difficult to explain this
merely on the basis of a "simple" cell in the beginning.
Of course, one can wonder why
there still are monocellular organisms such as amoebas. Why is it that some of
them have changed into complicated organisms, while others have remained
unchanged and thrive nowadays as well?
There is also another problem
in addition to the abundance of species. This problem is complex organs and
complicated structures, and whether they were ready to start with. How was it
possible to survive with half-finished structures?
Below, we are going to study some complicated structures.
We will start with the digestive system and move onto other complex structures.
Digestive system. Firstly, assuming that the digestive system was not
ready to start with, this would have led to many kinds of difficulties. The
digestive system proves that all phases should have been in good condition,
immediately. Otherwise, normal life would have been impossible. We need these
organs at every phase. It would be impossible to stay alive.
- The first phase in the digestive system is the mouth. If it was not
instantaneously ready, how did food get into the stomach? Would food not have
remained outside and organisms died of hunger? We need our mouth, not only to
speak, but also to eat and drink. Without it we will perish in a few weeks.
- If the esophagus were not immediately ready, where would the food have
gone? Would it have remained in the mouth? The consequence would have been
starvation. The esophagus is absolutely necessary for the food to move
elsewhere into the body.
- In addition to the esophagus, the stomach must also have been ready,
because where else would the food be digested? The stomach is the place in
which food is broken down, and from which its nutrients are absorbed for the
body to use.
- If the previous phases were in order but the vascular system was not
ready, this would have prevented the transportation of nutrients into other
parts of the body. Again, the result would have been starvation.
- In addition to all the previous phases, the final stage of the
digestive process, i.e., urination and defecation must have been ready, because
otherwise the result would have been disastrous. We cannot survive for very
long if all these important functions are not in order.
Breathing and circulation are the most important functions of the body. If
they were not ready immediately, this too would have prevented normal life:
- If the trachea and the lungs were not ready, the consequence
would have been lack of oxygen and suffocation or a quick death. We need both
of them in order to breathe normally.
- The heart must have pumped right away, so that oxidized blood would
have gotten to every cell of the body. Had it not been so, the consequence
would again be quick death. The heart is the pumping station that moves blood
through our veins, and it surely must have been in order from the very
beginning.
- The blood and veins should have been ready, in order for the oxidized
blood to get to every single cell of the body. If blood had stopped flowing
into some part of the body, that body part would have become gangrenous.
- Blood would also be required to transport carbon dioxide and other
waste products out of the way, and provide oxygen and nutrients. If this
cleansing task had not immediately taken place, normal breathing would have not
been possible.
Hands, feet, senses, and the reproductive organs are also organs,
which should have been ready. Had they been defective, the following
difficulties would most likely have occurred:
- Firstly, if the hands and feet were not ready, how was movement
possible? Did living organisms stand in one place all the time and wait for
food to drop into their mouths, so that no movement was required? How was
gathering of food and anything else possible if organisms just stood still?
Usually, half-completed organs are of no use. One should also note that no
half-finished hands, feet, or senses have been found in any fossils. All of the
fossils have been perfectly finished.
- If the eyes were not ready, how was it possible to see, live and
to search for food? Or was searching for food mere groping and fumbling around?
Also, the formation of the eye by itself – and even a
number of times in different species – would have been problematic. How could
chance have known about the necessity of eyesight (or hearing, smell, taste,
or touch), and how would a half-finished eye benefit anyone? Even Darwin
had to admit that development of the eye alone is quite impossible:
The presumption that the eye
with all its inimitable structures that focus images at different distances,
regulate the amount of light, fix spherical and chromatic aberration (color aberration)
could have been formed as a consequence of natural selection is, I do admit
openly, absurd to a great extent. (...) The idea of an organ like the eye
forming through natural selection is more than enough to confuse anyone. (21)
- As far as reproduction is concerned, how did it take place before the
reproductive organs were formed? Should not the reproductive organs have been
ready from the very beginning? Sexuality and reproduction must have been in
working order in the first generation; otherwise, it would have been impossible
to get descendants, which would have led to extinction.
Another good question is how the male and female genitals
that suit each other could have evolved separately from each other and in
different individuals? Would this not have been impossible, because evolution
would have had to occur in two individuals at the same time? Love and awakening
of interest between different sexes is also a mystery. How could such a thing
have developed from a single cell, which certainly did not have any sexual
interests whatsoever?
On the other hand, extinction would have also been a threat
if, for example, the womb, the birth canal, and guaranteed supply of food were
not immediately ready. And, actually, all the reproductive organs and stages of
embryonic development should have been ready from the very start; otherwise,
life could not have continued. It is quite a leap of faith to believe that all
of these could have formed by themselves, and one should doubt whether this
could be true.
If some of these organs were only just forming – forming
muscles, nerves, veins --- would activity of all other organs not been
prevented, because all parts of the body are dependent on each other, are they
not? So the mystery is that, if all these parts were not ready immediately,
then how could they have been formed later? If they were not ready, then how was it possible for humans to stay alive? It is
more likely, after all, that all these parts were ready at the same time and
from the very beginning. Otherwise, normal life would not have been possible.
The final statement. Above, we discussed the greatest problems of the
evolution theory. We stated that the gaps are too big to be ignored. The
biggest gap is between a living and a lifeless material, and researchers have
not made any progress in the matter in the past century. Furthermore, there are
gaps between different main groups because it has been impossible to find
intermediate forms between them. Other gaps in and problems with the theory
have been pointed out.
The conclusion is that it is
very sensible to believe in the Creation as described in the beginning of the
Bible. It is more sensible to believe in it than to believe Darwin’s theory
that everything was born by itself, because it is more logical that everything
has its maker. If Darwin’s theory can be proven, then people should produce the
evidence. Otherwise, it remains an unproven theory. It is not a matter of fact
but of a blind belief in a theory that cannot be proven.
It is, naturally, also true
that we cannot prove Creation because we cannot bring back past conditions, but
at least it is more sensible to believe in it. It is more sensible because it
is the only possible alternative to Darwinism, and people have not been able to
produce evidence supporting it. Let's study a couple of honest quotes. They
indicate how problematic spontaneous generation of life and Darwin's theory
are. The first of the quotes relates to a conversation with Stanley Miller.
Miller was made famous by his scientific examination into the creation of life.
He was interviewed shortly before he died by J. Morgan. Morgan described
Miller’s response to questions.
He was indifferent about all suggestions about
the origins of life, considering them “nonsense” or “paper chemistry”. He was
so contemptuous about certain hypotheses that when I asked his opinion about them,
he only shook his head, sighed deeply and sniggered – like trying to reject the
madness of the human race. He admitted that scientists may never know exactly
when and how life started. “We try to discuss a historical event that is
clearly different from normal science”, he noted. (22)
It is impossible, assuming that evolution from
lower forms to higher forms is true, to reach the conclusion of it having taken
place so quickly that it has not left any marks in the sands of time. But not
even the fastest possible evolution can offer a single explanation as to how
completely developed fish, birds, and mammals have suddenly appeared among
different organisms. (...) These things have been extremely confusing to me,
who for my entire life have been a supporter of the theory of evolution. If
someone asks me what conclusion I have come to after this, my answer is that I
do not know anything. However, I must honestly admit that things being what
they are, the circumstances support those who believe in a special creation, as
our fathers did. (George Paulin, English scientist, in a book Puuttuva
rengas [Jakten på apemennesket] / Thoralf Gulbrandsen, p. 100,101)
REFERENCES:
1. Charles Darwin: The
origin of species, vol 2, 6 th ed., p. 49 - Cit. in Evoluution romahdus (The Collapse of Evolution) by Scott M.
Huse.
2. Heribert Nilsson: Synthetische artbildung, 1953,
p. 1212 - Citation in Evoluutio - tieteen harha-askel by Mikko Tuuliranta.
3. Cit. in Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan by Kimmo
Pälikkö and Markku Särelä, p. 19.
4. Thoralf Gulbrandsen:
Puuttuva rengas, (Jakten på apemennesket), p. 94
5. H. Enoch. : Evolution or creation, Union of evangelical students
of India, Madras, 1965, p. 48 - Cit. in Evolutionismi - sattuman uskonto by
Matti Leisola, p. 21.
6. G. Hardin. : Nature
and man's fate, Rinehart Co., Inc., New York, 1959, p. 260 - Cit. in Evolutionismi - sattuman uskonto by Matti Leisola, p.
21..
7. L.H. Matthews.: The
origin of Spaces (introduction) by Charles Darwin, J.M.Dent and sons, Ltd.,
London, 1971, p. 10 - Cit. in Evoluution
romahdus [The Collapse of Evolution] by Scott M. Huse, p. 112
8. H. Enoch.:
Evolution or creation, Unoin of evangelical students of India, Madras, 1965, s.
14,66 - Cit. in Evolutionismi - sattuman
uskonto by Matti Leisola, p. 29.
9. Mikko Tuuliranta: Evoluutio - tieteen
harha-askel?, p. 58
10. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas, (Jakten på
apemennesket), p. 72,73
11. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas, (Jakten på
apemennesket), p. 64
12. Michael Denton:
”Evolution – a theory in crisis”, 1985, 2. 260.
13. Cit. in Elämä maan päällä - kehityksen vai luomisen
tulos?, Jeh. witnesses., p. 105.
14. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas, (Jakten på
apemennesket), p. 46
15. Cit. in Elämä maan päällä - kehityksen vai luomisen
tulos?, Jeh. witnesses., p. 108.
16. Michael Denton:
Evolution; A Theory in Crisis, p. 347
17. Pekka Reinikainen: Dinosaurusten arvoitus ja
Raamattu, p. 130
18. Cit. in, Tiede ja luominen by Harold G. Coffin, p. 33.
19. Siegfried Scherer and Reinhard Junker: Evoluutio,
kriittinen analyysi (Evolution : ein kritisches Lehrbuch) p. 235
20. E.J.H.Corner, in
Contemporary Botanical Thought, by Anna M. Macleod and L. S. Cobley, p. 97
21. Shute, E.,
"Flaws in the Theory of Evolution", Craig Press, Nutley, New Jersey,
1961, pp. 127-128
22. J. Morgan: The End
of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of Scientific Age
(1996). Reading: Addison-Wesley
MOST IMPORTANT SOURCES:
- Aittala, Wiljam: Kehitysoppi ja uskon kriisi
- Baker, Sylvia: Kehitysoppi ja Raamatun arvovalta
- Coffin, Harold, G.:
Tiede ja luominen (CREATION, THE EVIDENCE FROM SCIENCE / THESE TIMES, January
1971)
- Edelman, Nils: Viisaita ja veihareita geologian
maailmassa
- Elämä maan päällä - kehityksen vai luomisen tulos, Jeh.
witnesses
- Gulbrandsen, Thoralf:
Puuttuva rengas (jakten på apemennesket)
- Huse, Scott, M.:
Evoluution romahdus (THE COLLAPSE OF EVOLUTION)
- LUBENOW, MARVIN L.: Myytti apinaihmisistä (Bones of Contention)
- Onko ihminen kehityksen vai luomisen tulos?, Jeh.
witnesses
- PÄLIKKÖ, KIMMO ja SÄRELÄ, MARKKU: Taustaa
tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan
- Reinikainen, Pekka: -Dinosaurusten arvoitus ja Raamattu
-Unohdettu genesis
- Saarnivaara, Uuras: Voiko Raamattuun luottaa?
- Sama : Kaikkeuden synty
- Siegfried Scherer ja Reinhard Junker: Evoluutio,
kriittinen analyysi
- Seljavaara, Toivo: Oliko vedenpaisumus ja Nooan
arkki mahdollinen?
- Tuuliranta, Mikko: Evoluutio - tieteen harha-askel?
- Watson, David, C.C.:
Elämän synty (THE GREAT BRAIN ROBBERY)
