Replies

"Evolution in the meaningful sense implies big changes, like a fish turning into a person. Do the small changes we observe over time [i.e. taller than our ancestors; aging] add up to the big changes needed by evolution? Did a single-celled organism become a marine invertebrate, then a fish, then an amphibian, then a reptile, then a mammal, then an ape-like ancestor, then a person? These truly big changes must have occurred if evolution [is correct].

Try to imagine what must happen to turn a cell into an invertebrate, or a worm into a fish, or a fish into an amphibian, etc. List the structural changes needed. A cell doesn't have the genes needed to produce even a simple nodal chord, nor does a fish have the genes to produce legs. This extra genetic information must be added from some external source, but science knows of no such source. Mutations do produce novel genetic changes, but never has a mutation been known to add coded information to an already complex DNA system. One the contrary, it usually and easily causes a deterioration of the information present in the DNA. For random mutations to add the information for a leg where there is none is asking too much. Never has a helpful mutation been observed, yet trillions are needed.

Listing all the differences between a fish and an amphibian, or a reptile and a bird, or reptile and mammal helps to clarify the immensity of evolution's task. Not only are there skeletal changes, but think of the totally new organs needed, different reproductive systems, altered respiratory and cardiovascular make-up, thermal schemes and on and on...

The highly complex information laden DNA code cannot yet even be read by today's genomists. How could it have written itself by chance mutation or genetic recombination?

Surely, some things simply cannot be."

John D. Morris, Ph.D.