…more…PROOF Life Was Created!

This piece discusses biology and some genetics.


How Did Life Begin?

How would you complete the following sentence?


SOME might assume that a scientifically-minded person would pick “evolution” and that a religious person would pick “creation.”
But not always.
The fact is, many educated people​—including a number of scientists​—question the validity of the theory.
Consider Gerard, a professor of entomology who was taught evolution at college. “When I took tests,” he says, “I would give the professors the answers they wanted​—but I did not believe it.”
Why is it that even some scientifically-minded people have trouble accepting evolution as the origin of life? To answer that, consider two questions that baffle many researchers: (1) How did life get its start? and (2) How did living things develop?
Two Questions Worth Asking
1 How Did Life Get Its Start?
WHAT SOME SAY. Life arose spontaneously from nonliving matter.
WHY SOME PEOPLE ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH THAT ANSWER. Scientists know more about the chemistry and molecular structure of life than ever before, yet they still cannot define with certainty just what life is. A wide gulf separates nonliving matter from even the simplest living cell.
Scientists can only speculate about what conditions on earth were like billions of years ago. They have differing views about where life began​—for instance, whether within a volcano or under the ocean floor. Another belief is that life’s building blocks first formed elsewhere in the universe and arrived here embedded in meteors. But that does not answer the question of how life began; it just pushes the issue farther into space.
Scientists speculate about the existence of molecules that preceded genetic material as we know it today. These molecules are supposedly more likely to arise spontaneously from inert material and are self-replicating. Yet, science has found no evidence that such molecules ever existed, nor have scientists been able to create any such molecule in a laboratory.
Living things are unique in the way they store and process information. Cells convey, interpret, and carry out instructions contained within their genetic code. Some scientists liken the genetic code to computer software and the chemical structure of the cell to computer hardware. But evolution cannot explain the source of the information.
Protein molecules are necessary for the function of a cell. A typical protein molecule consists of hundreds of amino acids strung together in a specific sequence. Additionally, the protein molecule must fold into a specific three-dimensional shape for it to be useful. Some scientists conclude that the odds of even one protein molecule forming spontaneously are extremely improbable. “Since a functioning cell requires thousands of different proteins,” writes physicist Paul Davies, “it is not credible to suppose they formed by chance alone.”
CONCLUSION. After decades of research in virtually all branches of science, the fact remains that life comes only from preexisting life.
 2 How Did Living Things Develop?
WHAT SOME SAY. The first living organism gradually developed into a variety of living things, including humans, through a process of random mutation and natural selection.
WHY SOME PEOPLE ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH THAT ANSWER. Some cells are more complex than others. According to one reference, how simpler cells could develop into more complex cells is “often rated the second major evolutionary mystery, after the origin of life.”
Scientists have discovered within each cell intricate molecular machines composed of protein molecules that cooperate to perform complex tasks. These tasks include transporting and converting nutrients into energy, repairing parts of the cell, and conveying messages throughout the cell. Could random mutations and natural selection account for the assembling and functioning of such sophisticated components? Many find that concept difficult to accept.
Animals and humans develop from a single fertilized egg. Inside the embryo, cells multiply and eventually specialize, taking on different shapes and functions to form distinct parts of the body. Evolution cannot explain how each cell “knows” what to become and where it should move within the organism.
Scientists now realize that for one kind of animal to develop into another kind of animal would require that changes take place within the cell, at the molecular level. Since scientists cannot demonstrate how evolution can produce even the “simplest” cell, is it plausible that random mutations and natural selection could be responsible for the different kinds of animals on the planet? Regarding the structure of animals, Michael Behe, professor of biological sciences, says that while research “has revealed unexpected, stunning complexity, no progress at all has been made in understanding how that complexity could evolve by unintelligent processes.”
Human beings are conscious and self-aware, have the ability to think and reason, and possess moral qualities such as generosity, self-sacrifice, and a sense of right and wrong. Random mutations and natural selection cannot explain the existence of these unique qualities of the human mind.
CONCLUSION. While many insist that an evolutionary origin of life is an indisputable fact, others are not satisfied with the answers that evolution provides regarding how life began and how life developed.
AFTER considering the evidence, many people conclude that life is the product of a superior intelligence. Consider the example of Antony Flew, a professor of philosophy who at one time was a leading advocate of atheism. When he learned about the staggering complexity of life and the physical laws of the universe, Flew changed his opinion. Citing an ancient approach to reasoning, he wrote: “We must follow the argument wherever it leads.” For Professor Flew, the evidence pointed to the existence of a Creator.
Gerard, mentioned earlier in this series of articles, came to a similar conclusion. Despite his advanced education and his career in entomology, he said: “I saw no proof that life arose spontaneously from nonliving matter. The order and complexity of living things convinced me that there has to be an Organizer and Designer.”
Just as a person can learn about an artist by examining his artwork, Gerard came to discern the Creator’s qualities by studying the natural world. Gerard also took time to consider a book attributed to the Creator​—the Bible. (2 Timothy 3:16) There he found satisfying answers to questions about mankind’s past and practical solutions to the problems facing people today. He thus became convinced that the Bible was also the product of a superior mind.
As Gerard found, the Bible’s answers are worth considering. We encourage you to examine them for yourself.
Did You Know?
THE BIBLE IS NOT ANTISCIENCE. On the contrary, it encourages people to examine the natural world. (Isaiah 40:26) While the Bible is not a science textbook, it is consistent with scientific fact. For example, the Bible does not support creationism. It does not state that the earth was created in six literal 24-hour days. The term “day” as used in Genesis applies to periods of considerable length. *
The Bible Teaches That . . .
LIFE COMES ONLY FROM LIFE. “With you [God] is the source of life.”​—Psalm 36:9.
GOD MADE PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE “ACCORDING TO THEIR KINDS.” (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) The Bible does not define the boundaries of these “kinds.” This allows for a degree of variation within each kind.
GOD CREATED HUMANS WITH THE CAPACITY TO DISPLAY THE SAME MORAL QUALITIES THAT HE POSSESSES. These qualities include love, goodness, and justice. “God said: ‘Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.’”​—Genesis 1:26.

The Honeycomb


HONEYBEES (Apis mellifera) construct their honeycombs with wax secreted from glands found on the underside of their abdomen. The honeycomb is regarded as an engineering marvel. Why?
Consider: For centuries, mathematicians suspected that partitions in the shape of hexagons were better than equilateral triangles or squares​—or any other shape—​for maximizing space with the least amount of building material. But they could not fully explain why. In 1999, Professor Thomas C. Hales provided mathematical proof for the advantage of what he termed “honeycomb conjecture.” He demonstrated that regular hexagons are the best way to divide a space into equal parts with minimal structural support.
By using hexagonal cells, bees can make the best use of all the space available to them, produce a light but sturdy honeycomb with a minimum amount of wax, and store the maximum amount of honey in a given space. Not surprisingly, the honeycomb has been described as “an architectural masterpiece.”
Today, scientists mimic the bees’ honeycomb to create structures that are both resilient and space efficient. Aircraft engineers, for example, use panels patterned after the honeycomb to build planes that are stronger and lighter and thus use less fuel.
What do you think? Did the superior structure of the honeycomb come about by evolution? Or was it designed?
An Answer Worth Considering
AFTER considering the evidence, many people conclude that life is the product of a superior intelligence. Consider the example of Antony Flew, a professor of philosophy who at one time was a leading advocate of atheism. When he learned about the staggering complexity of life and the physical laws of the universe, Flew changed his opinion. Citing an ancient approach to reasoning, he wrote: “We must follow the argument wherever it leads.” For Professor Flew, the evidence pointed to the existence of a Creator.
Gerard, mentioned earlier in this series of articles, came to a similar conclusion. Despite his advanced education and his career in entomology, he said: “I saw no proof that life arose spontaneously from nonliving matter. The order and complexity of living things convinced me that there has to be an Organizer and Designer.”
Just as a person can learn about an artist by examining his artwork, Gerard came to discern the Creator’s qualities by studying the natural world. Gerard also took time to consider a book attributed to the Creator​—the Bible. (2 Timothy 3:16) There he found satisfying answers to questions about mankind’s past and practical solutions to the problems facing people today. He thus became convinced that the Bible was also the product of a superior mind.
As Gerard found, the Bible’s answers are worth considering. We encourage you to examine them for yourself.
Did You Know?
THE BIBLE IS NOT ANTISCIENCE. On the contrary, it encourages people to examine the natural world. (Isaiah 40:26) While the Bible is not a science textbook, it is consistent with scientific fact. For example, the Bible does not support creationism. It does not state that the earth was created in six literal 24-hour days. The term “day” as used in Genesis applies to periods of considerable length. *
The Bible Teaches That . . .
LIFE COMES ONLY FROM LIFE. “With you [God] is the source of life.”​—Psalm 36:9.
GOD MADE PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE “ACCORDING TO THEIR KINDS.” (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) The Bible does not define the boundaries of these “kinds.” This allows for a degree of variation within each kind.
GOD CREATED HUMANS WITH THE CAPACITY TO DISPLAY THE SAME MORAL QUALITIES THAT HE POSSESSES. These qualities include love, goodness, and justice. “God said: ‘Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.’”​—Genesis 1:26.
How Did Life Begin?
When you were a child, did you ever startle your parents by asking, “Where do babies come from?” If so, how did they respond? Depending on your age and their personality, your parents might have ignored the question or given you a hurried, embarrassed answer.
Just as many parents feel awkward about discussing where babies come from, some scientists seem reluctant to discuss an even more fundamental question​—Where did life come from? Receiving a credible answer to that question can have a profound effect on a person’s outlook on life.
What do many scientists claim? Many who believe in evolution would tell you that billions of years ago, life began on the edge of an ancient tidal pool or deep in the ocean. They say that in some such a location, chemicals spontaneously assembled into bubble-like structures, formed complex molecules, and began replicating. They believe that all life on earth originated by accident from one or more of these “simple” original cells.
Other equally respected scientists who also support evolution disagree. They speculate that the first cells or at least their major components arrived on earth from outer space. Why? Because, despite their best efforts, scientists have been unable to prove that life can spring from nonliving molecules. In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports  the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.”1
Following this argument a bit further we must consider that a gene, the design of the cell, is extremely complex. A laboratory experiment managed to bring 3-molecules together. An RNA and DNA sequence in a gene is on order of hundreds of thousands of times more complex.
Further the cell needs a membrane (a skin) to hold all of its parts and protect it. It requires small organs called organelles to digest incoming nutrients and turn them into energy. But, in a tidal pool of water with no other life, perhaps hot, acidic, pounded by elements, the statistical probability of one cell surviving while surrounded with so many life threatening challenges, the chances then of survival increase with each of these “chance attempts.” The entire thesis is just shy of impossible.
What does the evidence reveal?  Life always comes from preexisting life. If we go back far enough in time, is it really possible that this fundamental law was broken? Could life really spontaneously spring from nonliving chemicals? What are the chances that such an event could happen?
Researchers have learned that for a cell to survive, at least three different types of complex molecules must work together​—DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), RNA (ribonucleic acid), and proteins. Today, few scientists would assert that a complete living cell suddenly formed by chance from a mix of inanimate chemicals. What, though, is the probability that RNA or proteins could form by chance? *


Many scientists say that life could arise by chance because of an experiment first conducted in 1953. In that year, Stanley L. Miller was able to produce some amino acids, the chemical building blocks of proteins, by discharging electricity into a mixture of gases that was thought to represent the atmosphere of primitive earth. Since then, amino acids have also been found in a meteorite. Do these findings mean that all the basic building blocks of life could easily be produced by chance?
“Some writers,” says Robert Shapiro, professor emeritus of chemistry at New York University, “have presumed that all life’s building blocks could be formed with ease in Miller-type experiments and were present in meteorites. This is not the case.”2 *
Consider the RNA molecule. It is constructed of smaller molecules called nucleotides. A nucleotide is a different molecule compared to an amino acid and is only slightly more complex. Shapiro says that “no nucleotides of any kind have been reported as products of spark-discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites.”3 He further states that the probability of a self-replicating RNA molecule randomly assembling from a pool of chemical building blocks “is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck.”4
A gene is a self-replicating machine that builds more genes, checks them after building, corrects mistakes and finally allows the finished product to become part of another cell. To say that mere “chemicals” could do this without intelligence causing it to happen is yet “another mystery” of evolution. Put a different way, we live in and swim in a sea of miracles happening constantly!
RNA (1) is required to make proteins (2), yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. How could either one arise by chance, let alone both? Ribosomes (3) will be discussed later. What about protein molecules? They can be made from as few as 50 or as many as several thousand amino acids bound together in a highly specific order. The average functional protein in a “simple” cell contains 200 amino acids. Even in those cells, there are thousands of different types of proteins. The probability that just one protein containing only 100 amino acids could ever randomly form on earth has been calculated to be about one chance in a million billion.
If the creation of complex molecules in the laboratory requires the skill of a scientist, could the far more complex molecules in a cell really arise by chance?
Researcher Hubert P. Yockey, who supports the teaching of evolution, goes further. He says: “It is impossible that the origin of life was ‘proteins first.’”5 RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. What if, despite the extremely small odds, both proteins and RNA molecules did appear by chance in the same place at the same time? How likely would it be for them to cooperate to form a self-replicating, self-sustaining type of life? “The probability of this happening by chance (given a random mixture of proteins and RNA) seems astronomically low,” says Dr. Carol Cleland *, a member of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Astrobiology Institute. “Yet,” she continues, “most researchers seem to assume that if they can make sense of the independent production of proteins and RNA under natural primordial conditions, the coordination will somehow take care of itself.” Regarding the current theories of how these building blocks of life could have arisen by chance, she says: “None of them have provided us with a very satisfying story about how this happened.”6
If it takes an intelligent entity to create and program a lifeless robot, what would it take to create a living cell, let alone a human?
Why do these facts matter? Think of the challenge facing researchers who feel that life arose by chance. They have found some amino acids that also appear in living cells. In their laboratories, they have, by means of carefully designed and directed experiments, manufactured other more complex molecules. Ultimately, they hope to build all the parts needed to construct a “simple” cell. Their situation could be likened to that of a scientist who takes naturally occurring elements; transforms them into steel, plastic, silicone, and wire; and constructs a robot. He then programs the robot to be able to build copies of itself. By doing so, what will he prove? At best, that an intelligent entity can create an impressive, even artificially intelligent machine.
There are people buying artificially intelligent robots these days. They even fall in lust or in love with these machines, proving that they live in “Fantasy Land” and are living the life of a psychotic! That is where ALL of this very mixed up society is headed. We’re headed toward ultimate psychosis. When someone as powerful as Vladimir Putin says nuclear war is survivable, but doesn’t consider how anyone can survive a nuclear winter, you’re hearing half an answer. The end of such a war would only prove the psychosis of those then in government! Without the Christ taking control over this situation, we are headed for universal annihilation, and that, My Friend, is evidence of complete insanity.
If scientists ever did construct a cell, they would accomplish  something truly amazing​—but would they prove that the cell could be made by accident? If anything, they would prove the very opposite, would they not?
What do you think? All scientific evidence to date indicates that life can come only from previously existing life. To believe that even a “simple” living cell arose by chance from nonliving chemicals requires a huge leap of faith.
Given the facts, are you willing to make such a leap? Before answering that question, take a closer look at the way a cell is made. Doing so will help you discern whether the theories some scientists propound about where life came from are sound or fanciful.


  • Fact: All scientific research indicates that life cannot spring from nonliving matter.

Question: What is the scientific basis for saying that the first cell sprang from nonliving chemicals?

  • Fact: Researchers have recreated in the laboratory the environmental conditions that they believe existed early in the earth’s history. In these experiments, a few scientists have manufactured some of the molecules found in living things.

Question: If the chemicals in the experiment represent the earth’s early environment and the molecules produced represent the building blocks of life, whom or what does the scientist who performed the experiment represent? Does he or she represent blind chance or an intelligent entity?

  • Fact: Protein and RNA molecules must work together for a cell to survive. Scientists admit that it is highly unlikely that RNA formed by chance. The odds against even one protein forming by chance are astronomical. It is exceedingly improbable that RNA and proteins should form by chance in the same place at the same time and be able to work together.

Question:  What do you think? What requires greater faith​—to believe that the millions of intricately coordinated parts of a cell arose by chance or to believe that the cell is the product of an intelligent mind?
Is Any Form of Life Really Simple?
Delete the picture below and continue….
Could the more than 200 different kinds of cells that make up your body really form by accident?
Your body is one of the most complex structures in the universe. It is made up of some 100 trillion tiny cells​—bone cells, blood cells, brain cells, ….7 In fact, there are more than 200 different types of cells in your body.8
Despite their amazing diversity in shape and function, your cells form an intricate, integrated network. The Internet, with its millions of computers and high-speed data cables, is clumsy in comparison. No human invention can compete with the technical brilliance evident in even the most basic of cells. How did the cells that make up the human body come into existence?
I’ll take you a step further. All of the bodily functions below your eyes happen in direct response to hormones coming from the Pituitary Gland and other operations coming from various sectors of your brain. Talking about the cell is very well, but when you consider that all of this body design works together to protect itself, heal itself, maintain itself and adapt to changes in stressors, you really must be awestruck. The very idea that cells just agglomerated together and became a jelly fish that eventually “evolved” to drag itself up onto a beach and long later became a Lemur (a type of monkey) that dropped out of a tree and became our greatest great Grand Ma-ma is so ridiculous it sounds like a late night comedy act. No sane person can really believe this. It takes much more faith to believe such an idea than to believe that it was all created by an intelligence beyond your imagination!
What do many scientists claim? All living cells fall into two major categories​—those with a nucleus and those without. Human, animal, and plant cells have a nucleus. Bacterial cells do not. Cells with a nucleus are called eukaryotic. Those without a nucleus are known as prokaryotic. Since prokaryotic cells are relatively less complex than eukaryotic cells, many believe that animal and plant cells must have evolved from bacterial cells.
In fact, many teach that for millions of years, some “simple” prokaryotic cells swallowed other cells but did not digest  them. Instead, the theory goes, unintelligent “nature” figured out a way not only to make radical changes in the function of the ingested cells but also to keep the adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated.9 *
What does the Bible say? The Bible states that life on earth is the product of an intelligent mind. Note the Bible’s clear logic: “Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.” (Hebrews 3:4) Another Bible passage says: “How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions. . . . There are moving things without number, living creatures, small as well as great.”​—Psalm 104:24, 25.
Could even a “simple” cell really arise from nonliving chemicals?
What does the evidence reveal? Advances in microbiology have made it possible to peer into the awe-inspiring interior of the simplest living prokaryotic cells known. Evolutionary scientists theorize that the first living cells must have looked something like these cells.10
If the theory of evolution is true, it should offer a plausible explanation of how the first “simple” cell formed by chance. On the other hand, if life was created, there should be evidence of ingenious design even in the smallest of creatures. Why not take a tour of a prokaryotic cell? As you do so, ask yourself whether such a cell could arise by chance.


To tour a prokaryotic cell, you would have to shrink to a size that is hundreds of times smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. Keeping you out of the cell is a tough, flexible membrane that acts like a brick and mortar wall surrounding a factory. It would take some 10,000 layers of this membrane to equal the thickness of a sheet of paper. But the membrane of a cell is much more sophisticated than the brick wall.
Like the wall surrounding a factory, the membrane of a cell shields the contents from a potentially hostile environment. However, the membrane is not solid; it allows the cell to “breathe,” permitting small molecules, such as oxygen, protein, water, uric acid, lactic acid, other acids and bases, and hormone messengers, to pass in or out. And the cell membrane often prevents entry of bacteria and parasites. The membrane blocks more complex, potentially damaging molecules from entering without the cell’s permission. The membrane also prevents useful molecules from leaving the cell. How does the membrane manage such feats?
Think again of a factory. It might have security guards who monitor the products that enter and leave through the doorways in the factory wall. Similarly, the cell membrane has special protein molecules embedded in it that act like the doors and the security guards.
The cell membrane has “security guards” that allow only specific substances to pass in or out
 Some of these proteins (1) have a hole through the middle of them that allows only specific types of molecules in and out of the cell. Other proteins are open on one side of the cell membrane (2) and closed on the other. They have a docking site (3) shaped to fit a specific substance. When that substance docks, the other end of the protein opens and releases the cargo through the membrane (4). All this activity is happening on the surface of even the simplest of cells.


Imagine that you have been allowed past the “security guard” and are now inside the cell. The interior of a prokaryotic cell is filled with a watery fluid that is rich in nutrients, salts, and other substances. The cell uses these raw ingredients to manufacture the products it needs. But the process is not haphazard. Like an efficiently run factory, the cell organizes thousands of chemical reactions so that they take place in a specific order and according to a set timetable.
A cell spends a lot of its time making proteins. How does it do so? First, you would see the cell make about 20 different basic building blocks called amino acids. These building blocks are delivered to the ribosomes (5), which may be likened to automated machines that link the amino acids in a precise order to form a specific protein. Just as the operations of a factory might be governed by a central computer program, many of the functions of a cell are governed by a “computer program,” or code, known as DNA (6). From the DNA, the ribosome receives a copy of detailed instructions that tell it which protein to build and how to build it (7).
What happens as the protein is made is nothing short of amazing! Each one folds into a unique three-dimensional shape (8). It is this shape that determines the specialized job that the protein will do. * Picture a production line where engine parts are being assembled. Each part needs to be precisely constructed if the  engine is to work. Similarly, if a protein is not precisely constructed and folded to exactly the right shape, it will not be able to do its work properly and may even damage the cell.
The Cell “Factory”​—How Proteins Are Made: Like an automated factory, the cell is full of machines that assemble and deliver complex products. In truth, many of these products are made by your pituitary gland (in your brain) custom formulated for you. To date no pharmaceutical laboratory can come close to such fine and specific work.


How does the protein find its way from where it was made to where it is needed? Each protein the cell makes has a built-in “address tag” that ensures that the protein will be delivered to where it is needed. Although thousands of proteins are built and delivered each minute, each one arrives at the correct destination.
Why are we telling you all of this. Why does it matter? The complex molecules in the simplest living thing cannot reproduce alone. Outside the cell, they break down. Inside the cell, they cannot reproduce without the help of other complex molecules. For example, enzymes are needed to produce a special energy molecule called adenosine triphosphate (ATP), but energy from ATP is needed to produce enzymes. Similarly, DNA is required to make enzymes, but enzymes are required to make DNA. Also, other proteins can be made only by  a cell, but a cell can be made only with proteins. *
Microbiologist Radu Popa does not agree with the Bible’s account of creation. Yet, in 2004 he asked: “How can nature make life if we failed with all the experimental conditions controlled?”13 He also stated: “The complexity of the mechanisms required for the functioning of a living cell is so large that a simultaneous emergence by chance seems impossible.”14
Another of my side track notes: The late Dr. Stephen Hawkins stated that some of the parameters of the universe are exact to within a millionth of a millionth of a millionth. Forces of gravity, temperatures, pressures within stars, temperatures and much more are precise. That cannot be accidental!
There are people who want to believe there is no God and no basis for morally upright behavior. They don’t want the truth. They only want to win their argument, or keep their job as a college professor and they’ll lie to you. You may have been paying a college to tell you lies! The summary is, God Created Everything.
The Evolutionary Fantasy collapses under the weight of its obvious lies and lack of logical explanation for the origins of life!
The theory of evolution rests on the notion that a long series of fortunate accidents produced life. It then proposes that another series of undirected accidents produced the astonishing diversity and complexity of all living things.
But the theory faces a problem that begins 600 million years ago. The first multicelled animals appeared in the fossil record almost 600 million years ago. Rather suddenly many new, diverse life forms were here, died, and left fossilized remains. Their layers do not prove that anything evolved. They appear apparently “from nowhere!” Their fossils are the silent evidence that kills Darwin’s Evolutionary thesis.

The Plans For Your Unique Physique

Why do you look the way you do? What determines the color of your eyes, your hair, your skin? What about your height, your build, or your resemblance to one or both of your parents? What tells the ends of your fingers to grow soft pads on one side and hard, protective nails on the other?
In Charles Darwin’s day, the answers to such questions were shrouded in mystery. Darwin himself was fascinated by the way traits are passed along from one generation to the next, but he knew little about the laws of genetics and even less about the mechanisms within the cell that govern heredity. Now, however, biologists have spent decades studying human genetics and the detailed instructions that are embedded in the amazing molecule called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). Of course, the big question is, Where did these instructions come from?
What do many scientists claim?  They say that there is no evidence of design in the structure of this molecule nor in the information that it carries and transmits nor in the way that it functions.17
But then, they have no evidence to prove there was no design either. They cannot (or will not) confirm or deny that a vast intellect created all of life.
What does the Bible say? The Bible suggests that the formation of our different body parts​—and even the timing of their formation—​involves a figurative book that originates with God. Notice how King David was inspired to describe matters, saying of God: “Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing, as regards the days when they were formed and there was not yet one among them.”​—Psalm 139:16.
“the embryo of me” and who then had a microscope or ability to separate an embryo? The prophets often wrote what they did not understand. They wrote it, sealed the book and left for a future generation to have understanding of it.
What does the evidence reveal? If evolution is true, then it should seem at least reasonably possible that DNA could have come about by means of a series of chance events. If the Bible is true, then DNA should provide strong evidence that it is the product of an orderly, intelligent mind.
When considered in the simplest of terms, the subject of DNA is quite  understandable​—and fascinating. So let us take another trip to the inside of a cell. This time, though, we will visit a human cell. Imagine that you are going to a museum designed to teach you about how such a cell works. The whole museum is a model of a typical human cell​—but magnified some 13,000,000 times. It is the size of a giant sports arena, the kind that can seat an audience of about 70,000 people.
You enter the museum and stare awestruck at this wondrous place full of strange forms and structures. Near the center of the cell stands the nucleus, a sphere about 20 stories tall. You make your way there.
A “Feat of Engineering”​—How DNA Is Packed: Packing the DNA into the nucleus is an amazing feat of engineering—​like packing 24 miles of very fine thread into a tennis ball
You go through a door in the nucleus’ outer skin, or membrane, and look around you. Dominating this chamber are 46 chromosomes. Arranged in identical pairs, they vary in height, but the pair nearest you is about 12 stories tall (1). Each chromosome has a pinched place near the middle, so it looks a bit like a link sausage but is as thick as a massive tree trunk. You see a variety of bands running across the model chromosomes. As you draw closer, you see that each horizontal band is divided by vertical lines. Between those are shorter horizontal lines (2). Are they stacks of books? No; they are the outer edges of loops, packed tightly in columns. You pull at one of them, and it comes free. You are amazed to see that the loop is composed of smaller coils (3), also neatly arranged. Within those coils is the main feature of all of this​—something resembling a long, long rope. What is it?
Let us simply call this part of the model chromosome a rope. It is about an inch (2.6 cm) thick. It is looped tightly around spools (4), which help to form the coils within coils. These coils are attached to a kind of scaffold that holds them in place. A sign on the display explains that the rope is packed very efficiently. If you were to pull the rope from each of these model chromosomes and lay it all out, from end to end it would stretch about halfway around the earth! *
One science book calls this efficient packaging system “an extraordinary feat of engineering.”18 Does the suggestion that there was no engineer behind this feat sound credible to you? If this museum had a huge store with millions of items for sale and they were all so tidily  arranged that you could easily find any item you needed, would you assume that no one had organized the place? Of course not! But such order would be a simple feat by comparison.
In the museum display, a sign invites you to take a length of this rope in your hands for a closer look (5). As you run it between your fingers, you see that this is no ordinary rope. It is composed of two strands twisted around each other. The strands are connected by tiny bars, evenly spaced. The rope looks like a ladder that has been twisted until it resembles a spiral staircase (6). Then it hits you: You are holding a model of the DNA molecule​—one of the great mysteries of life!
A single DNA molecule, tidily packaged with its spools and scaffold, makes up a chromosome. The rungs of the ladder are known as base pairs (7). What do they do? What is all of this for? A display sign offers a simplified explanation.
The key to the DNA, the sign says, lies in those rungs, the bars connecting the two sides of the ladder. Imagine the ladder split apart. Each side has partial rungs sticking out. They come in only four types. Scientists dub them A, T, G, and C. Scientists were amazed to  discover that the order of those letters conveys information in a sort of code.
You may know that Morse code was invented in the 19th century so that people could communicate by telegraph. That code had only two “letters”​—a dot and a dash. Yet, it could be used to spell out countless words or sentences. Well, DNA has a four-letter code. The order in which those letters​—A, T, G, and C—​appear forms “words” called codons. Codons are arranged in “stories” called genes. Each gene contains, on average, 27,000 letters. These genes and the long stretches between them are compiled into chapters of a sort​—the individual chromosomes. It takes 23 chromosomes to form the complete “book”​—the genome, or total of genetic information about an organism. *
The genome would be a huge book. How much information would it hold? All told, the human genome is made up of about three billion base pairs, or rungs, on the DNA ladder.19 Imagine a set of encyclopedias in which each volume is over a thousand pages long. The genome would fill 428 of such volumes. Adding the second copy that is found in each cell would make that 856 volumes. If you were to type out the genome by yourself, it would be a full-time job​—with no vacations—​lasting some 80 years!
Of course, what you would end up with after all that typing would be useless to your body. How would you fit hundreds of bulky volumes into each of your 100 trillion microscopic cells? To compress so much information so greatly is far beyond us.
A professor of molecular biology and computer science noted: “One gram of DNA, which when dry would occupy a volume of approximately one cubic centimeter, can store as much information as approximately one trillion CDs [compact discs].”20 What does that mean? Remember, the DNA contains the genes, the instructions for building a unique human body. Each cell has a complete set of instructions. DNA is so dense with information that a single teaspoonful of it could carry the instructions for building about 350 times the number of humans alive today! The DNA required for the seven billion people living on earth now would barely make a film on the surface of that teaspoon.21
Numbers about the amount of information in a gene are vast. Though lately humans have been able to read, map it, and alter it, no one yet can produce it.
One gram of DNA carries as much information as a trillion CDs could
Despite advances in miniaturization, no man-made information storage device can approach such a capacity. Yet, the compact disc offers an apt comparison. Consider this: A compact disc may impress us with its symmetrical shape, its gleaming surface, its efficient design. We  see clear evidence that intelligent people made it. But what if it is embedded with information​—not random gibberish, but coherent, detailed instructions for building, maintaining, and repairing complex machinery? That information does not perceptibly change the weight or the size of the disc. Yet, it is the most important feature of that disc. Would not those written instructions convince you that there must be some intelligent mind at work here? Does not writing require a writer?
It is not far-fetched to compare DNA to a compact disc or to a book. In fact, one book about the genome notes: “The idea of the genome as a book is not, strictly speaking, even a metaphor. It is literally true. A book is a piece of digital information . . . So is a genome.” The author adds: “The genome is a very clever book, because in the right conditions it can both photocopy itself and read itself.”22 That brings up another important aspect of DNA.
As you stand there in the quiet, you find yourself wondering if the nucleus of a cell is really as still as a museum. Then you notice another display. Above a glass case containing a length of model DNA is a sign that reads: “Push Button for Demonstration.” You push the button, and a narrator explains: “DNA has at least two very important jobs. The first is called replication. DNA has to be copied so that every new cell will have a complete copy of the same genetic information. Please watch this simulation.”
Through a door at one end of the display comes a complex-looking machine. It is actually a cluster of robots closely linked together. The machine goes to the DNA, attaches itself, and begins to move along the DNA as a train might follow a track. It moves a little too fast for you to see exactly what it is doing, but  you can easily see that behind it, there are now two complete DNA ropes instead of one.
The narrator explains: “This is a greatly simplified version of what goes on when DNA is replicated. A group of molecular machines called enzymes travel along the DNA, first splitting it in two, then using each strand as a template to make a new, complementary strand. We cannot show you all the parts involved​—such as the tiny device that runs ahead of the replication machine and snips one side of the DNA so that it can twirl around freely instead of getting wound up too tight. Nor can we show you how the DNA is ‘proofread’ several times. Errors are detected and corrected to an amazing degree of accuracy.”​—See the diagram on  pages 16 and 17.
 Replication​—How DNA Is Copied

  1. This part of the enzyme machine splits the DNA into two separate strands
  2. This part of the machine takes in a single strand of DNA and uses it as a template to create a double strand
  3. Ring-shaped sliding clamp that guides and stabilizes the enzyme machine
  4. Two complete DNA strands are formed

If DNA were the size of a railroad track, the enzyme machine would be moving at the rate of over 50 miles per hour
The narrator continues: “What we can show you clearly is the speed. You noticed this robot moving at a pretty good clip, didn’t you? Well, the actual enzyme machinery moves along the DNA ‘track’ at a rate of about 100 rungs, or base pairs, every second.23 If the ‘track’ were the size of a railroad track, this ‘engine’ would be barreling along at the rate of over 50 miles (80 km) per hour. In bacteria, these little replication machines can move ten times faster than that! In the human cell, armies of hundreds of these replication machines go to work at different spots along the DNA ‘track.’ They copy the entire genome in just eight hours.”24 (See the box “ A Molecule That Can Be Read and Copied,” on page 20.)
The DNA-replicating robots trundle off the scene. Another machine appears. It too moves along a stretch of DNA, but more slowly. You see the DNA rope entering one end of this machine and emerging from the other​—unchanged. But a single strand, a new one, is coming out of a separate opening in the machine, like a growing tail. What is going on?
Again the narrator provides an explanation: “DNA’s second job is called transcription. The DNA never leaves the safe shelter of the nucleus. So how can its genes​—the recipes for all the proteins your body is made of—​ever be read and used? Well, this enzyme machine finds a spot along the DNA where a gene has been switched on by chemical signals coming in from outside the cell nucleus. Then this machine uses a molecule called RNA (ribonucleic acid) to make a copy of that gene. RNA looks a lot like a single strand of DNA, but it is different. Its  job is to pick up the information coded in the genes. The RNA gets that information while in the enzyme machine, then exits the nucleus and heads to one of the ribosomes, where the information will be used to build a protein.”
Transcription​—How DNA Is “Read”

  1. The DNA is unwound here. An exposed strand passes information to the RNA
  2. The RNA “reads” the DNA, picking up the code within a gene. The DNA code tells the transcription machine where to start and stop
  3. Loaded with information, the RNA exits the cell nucleus and goes to a ribosome, where it will impart the instructions on how to build a complex protein
  4. Transcription machine

As you watch the demonstration, you are filled with wonder. You are deeply impressed by this museum and the ingenuity of those who designed and built its machines. But what if this entire place with all its exhibits could be set in motion, demonstrating all the thousands upon thousands of tasks that go on in the human cell at the same time? What an awe-inspiring spectacle that would be!
You realize, though, that all these processes carried out by tiny, complex machines are actually going on right now in your own 100 trillion cells! Your DNA is being read, providing directions to build the hundreds of thousands of different proteins that make up your body​—its enzymes, tissues, organs, and so on. Right now your DNA is being copied and proofread for errors so that a fresh set of directions is there to be read in each new cell.
Again, let us ask ourselves, ‘Where did all these instructions come from?’
The Bible suggests that the gene writing originate with a superhuman Author. Is that conclusion really out-of-date or unscientific?
Consider this: Could humans even build the museum just described? They would run into real difficulty if they tried. Much about the human genome and how it functions is little understood as yet. Scientists are still trying to figure out where all the genes are and what they do. And the genes comprise only a small part of the DNA strand. What about all those long stretches that do not contain genes? Scientists have called those parts junk DNA, but more recently they have been modifying that stance. Those parts may control how and to what extent the genes are used. And even if scientists could create a full model of the  DNA and the machines that copy and proofread it, could they make it actually function as the real one does?
Famous scientist Richard Feynman left this note on a blackboard shortly before his death: “What I cannot create, I do not understand.”25 His candid humility is refreshing, and his statement, obviously true in the case of DNA. Scientists cannot create DNA with all its replication and transcription machinery; nor can they fully understand it. Yet, some assert that they know that it all came about by undirected chance and accidents. Does the evidence that you have considered really support such a conclusion?
Some learned men have decided that the evidence points the other way. For example, Francis Crick, a scientist who helped to discover DNA’s double-helix structure, decided that this molecule is far too organized to have come about through undirected events.
Even the great physicists Max Plank and Albert Einstein admitted the Universe is too perfect to be accidental.
More recently, noted philosopher Antony Flew, who advocated atheism for 50 years, did an about-face of sorts. At 81 years of age, he began to express a belief that some intelligence must have been at work in the creation of life. Why the change? A study of DNA. When asked if his new line of thought might prove unpopular among scientists, Flew reportedly answered: “That’s too bad. My whole life has been guided by the principle . . . [to] follow the evidence, wherever it leads.”27
What logical conclusion can we draw?  Where does the evidence lead? Really, the evidence speaks for itself.
How can DNA be read and copied so reliably? The four chemical bases used in the DNA ladder​—A, T, G, and C—​form the ladder’s individual rungs by always pairing in the same way: A with T, and G with C. If one side of a rung is A, the other side is always T; G always meets C. Therefore, if you have one side of the ladder, you know the other side of the ladder. Where one side of the ladder reads GTCA, the other side must read CAGT. The partial rungs differ in length, but when they pair up with their complements, they make complete rungs of one uniform length.
Discovering that fact led scientists to another breakthrough about this remarkable molecule: DNA is perfectly suited for being copied over and over. The enzyme machine that replicates DNA takes in free-floating units of those four chemicals from the environment in the nucleus. Then it uses them to complete each rung on the split DNA strand.
So a DNA molecule really is like a book that is read and copied over and over again. In the average life span of a human, DNA is copied some 10,000,000,000,000,000 times, with amazing fidelity.28

  • Fact: DNA is packaged within the chromosomes in a manner so efficient that it has been called a “feat of engineering.”

Question: How could such order and organization arise by undirected chance events?

  • Fact: DNA’s capacity to store information still has no equal in today’s computer age.

Question: If human computer technicians cannot achieve such results, how could mindless matter do so on its own?

  • Fact: DNA contains all the instructions needed to build a unique human body and maintain it throughout life.

Question: How could such writing come about without a writer, such programming without a programmer?

  • Fact: For DNA to work, it has to be copied, read, and proofread by a swarm of complex molecular machines called enzymes, which must work together with precision and split-second timing.

Question: Do you believe that highly complex, highly reliable machinery can come about by chance? Without solid proof, would not such a belief amount to blind faith?
Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?
Darwin thought that all life might be traced to a common ancestor. He imagined that the history of life on earth resembled a grand tree. Later, others believed that this “tree of life” started as a single trunk with the first simple cells. New species branched from the trunk and continued to divide into limbs, or families of plants and animals, and then into twigs, all the species within the families of plants and animals alive today. Is that really what happened?
What do many scientists claim? Many give the impression that the fossil record supports the theory of a common origin for life. They also claim that because all living things use similar “computer language,” or DNA, that all life must have evolved from a common ancestor.
What does the Bible say? The Genesis account states that plants, sea creatures, land animals, and birds were created “according to their kinds.” (Genesis 1:12, 20-25) This description allows for variation within a “kind,” but it implies that there are fixed barriers separating the different kinds. The Bible account of creation also leads us to expect that new types of creatures would appear in the fossil record suddenly and fully formed.
What does the evidence reveal? Does the evidence support the Bible’s description of events, or was Darwin correct? What have discoveries over the past 150 years revealed?
In recent years, scientists have been able to compare the genetic codes of dozens of different single-celled organisms as well as those of plants and animals. They assumed that such comparisons would confirm the branching “tree of life” proposed by Darwin. However, this has not been the case.
What has the research uncovered? In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does  not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.”29 *
Recent research continues to contradict Darwin’s theory of common descent. For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.”30 The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”31 *
Many scientists point to the fossil record as support for the idea that life emerged from a common origin. They argue, for example, that the fossil record documents the notion that fish became amphibians and reptiles became mammals. What, though, does the fossil evidence really show?
“Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”32
In reality, the vast majority of fossils show stability among types of creatures over extensive amounts of time. The evidence does not show them evolving from one type into another. Unique body plans appear suddenly. New features appear suddenly. For example, bats with sonar and echolocation systems appear with no obvious link to a more primitive ancestor.
In fact, more than half of all the major divisions of animal life seem to have appeared in a relatively short period of time. Because many new and distinct life forms appear so suddenly in the fossil record, paleontologists refer to this period as “the Cambrian explosion.” When was the Cambrian period?
Let us assume that the estimates of researchers are accurate. In that case, the history of the earth could be represented by a time line that stretches the length of a soccer field (1). At that scale, you would have to walk about seven eighths of the way down the field before you would come to what paleontologists call the Cambrian period (2). During a small segment of that period, the major divisions of animal life show up in the fossil record. How suddenly do they appear? As you walk down the soccer field, all those different creatures pop up in the space of less than one step!
The relatively sudden appearance of these diverse life forms is causing some evolutionary researchers to question the traditional version of Darwin’s theory.  For example, in an interview in 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain the sudden appearance of novel forms of life. He said: “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms​—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.”33
Why do some textbooks change the scale of the fossils that they depict as following a proposed sequence?
Above left: scale of fossils as shown in some textbooks
Above right: real relative size
What, though, of the fossils that are used to show fish changing into amphibians, and reptiles into mammals? Do they provide solid proof of evolution in action? Upon closer inspection, several problems become obvious.
First, the comparative size of the creatures placed in the reptile-to-mammal sequence is sometimes misrepresented in textbooks. Rather than being similar in size, some creatures in the series are huge, while others are small.
A second, more serious challenge is the lack of proof that those creatures are somehow related. Specimens placed in the series are often separated by what researchers estimate to be millions of years. Regarding the time spans that separate many of these fossils, zoologist Henry Gee says: “The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.”34 *
Commenting on the fossils of fish and amphibians, biologist Malcolm S. Gordon states that the fossils found represent only a small, “possibly quite unrepresentative, sample  of the biodiversity that existed in these groups at those times.” He further says: “There is no way of knowing to what extent, if at all, those specific organisms were relevant to later developments, or what their relationships might have been to each other.”35 *
An article published in National Geographic in 2004 likened the fossil record to “a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor.”36 Consider the implications of that illustration.
If “95 frames” of the fossil record show that animals do not evolve from one type into another, why do paleontologists arrange the remaining “5 frames” to imply that they do?
Imagine that you found 100 frames of a feature film that originally had 100,000 frames. How would you determine the plot of the movie? You might have a preconceived idea, but what if only 5 of the 100 frames you found could be organized to support your preferred plot, while the other 95 frames tell a very different story? Would it be reasonable to assert that your preconceived idea of the movie was right because of the five frames? Could it be that you placed the five frames in the order you did because it suited your theory? Would it not be more reasonable to allow the other 95 frames to influence your opinion?
How does that illustration relate to the way evolutionists view the fossil record? For years, researchers did not acknowledge that the vast majority of fossils​—the 95 frames of the movie—​showed that species change very little over time. Why the silence about such important evidence? Author Richard Morris says: “Apparently paleontologists had adopted the orthodox idea of gradual evolutionary change and had held onto it, even when they discovered evidence to the contrary. They  had been trying to interpret fossil evidence in terms of accepted evolutionary ideas.”37
“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story​—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”​—In Search of Deep Time—​Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, pp. 116-117
What about evolutionists today? Could it be that they continue to place fossils in a certain order, not because such a sequence is well-supported by the majority of fossil and genetic evidence, but because doing so is in harmony with currently accepted evolutionary ideas? *
What do you think? Which conclusion fits the evidence best? Consider the facts we have discussed so far.

  • The first life on earth was not “simple.”
  • The odds against even the components of a cell arising by chance are astronomical.
  • DNA, the “computer program,” or code, that runs the cell, is incredibly complex and gives evidence of a genius that far surpasses any program or information storage system produced by humans.
  • Genetic research shows that life did not originate from a single common ancestor. In addition, major groups of animals appear suddenly in the fossil record.

In light of these facts, do you think it is reasonable to conclude that the evidence is in harmony with the Bible’s explanation of the origin of life? Many people, however, assert that science contradicts much of what the Bible says about creation. Is that true? What does the Bible really say?

  • Fact: Two of evolution’s fundamental ideas​—that life has a common origin and that major new body types appear as a result of the slow accumulation of small changes—​are being challenged by researchers who do not support the Bible account of creation.

Question: Given the controversy over these pillars of Darwin’s theory, can his version of evolution honestly be referred to as scientific fact?

  • Fact: All living organisms share similarly designed DNA, the “computer language,” or code, that governs much of the shape and function of their cell or cells.

Question: Could this similarity exist, not because they had the same ancestor, but because they had the same Designer?
 What About Human Evolution?
Look up the topic of human evolution in many textbooks and encyclopedias and you will see a series of pictures​—on one side a stooped, apelike creature followed by creatures that have progressively more upright posture and larger heads. At the end stands modern man. Such renderings along with sensational media reports of the discovery of so-called missing links give the impression that there is ample evidence that man evolved from apelike creatures. Are such assertions based on solid evidence? Consider what evolutionary researchers say about the following topics. *
Fact: At the beginning of the 20th century, all the fossils that were used to support the theory that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor could fit on a billiard table. Since then, the number of fossils used to support that theory has increased. Now it is claimed that they would fill a railroad boxcar.38 However, the vast majority of those fossils consist only of single bones and isolated teeth. Complete skulls​—let alone complete skeletons—​are rare.39
Question: Has the increased number of fossils attributed to the human “family tree” settled the question among evolutionary experts as to when and how humans evolved from apelike creatures?
Answer: No. In fact, the opposite is true. When it comes to how these fossils should be classified, Robin Derricourt of the University of New South Wales, Australia, wrote in 2009: “Perhaps the only consensus now is that there is no consensus.”40 In 2007 the science journal Nature published an article by the discoverers of another claimed link in the evolutionary tree, saying that nothing is known about when or how the human line actually emerged from that of apes.41Gyula Gyenis, a researcher at the Department of Biological Anthropology, Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary, wrote in 2002: “The classification and the evolutionary place of hominid fossils has been under constant debate.” * This author also states that the fossil evidence gathered so far brings us no closer to knowing exactly when, where, or how humans evolved from apelike creatures.42
Fact: The media often widely broadcasts the announcement that a new “missing link” has been discovered. For example, in 2009 a fossil dubbed Ida was unveiled with what one journal called “rock-star hype.”43 Publicity included this headline in The Guardian newspaper of the United Kingdom (UK): “Fossil Ida: Extraordinary Find Is ‘Missing Link’ in Human Evolution.”44 However, just days later, the UK science journal New Scientist said: “Ida is not a ‘missing link’ in human evolution.”45
Question: Why is each unveiling of a new “missing link” given wide media attention, whereas the removal of that fossil from the “family tree” is hardly mentioned?
 Answer: Regarding those who make these discoveries, Robin Derricourt, quoted earlier, says: “The leader of a research team may need to over-emphasize the uniqueness and drama of a ‘discovery’ in order to attract research funding from outside the conventional academic sources, and they will certainly be encouraged in this by the print and electronic media, looking for a dramatic story.”46
Fact: Depictions in textbooks and museums of the so-called ancestors of humans are often shown with specific facial features, skin color, and amount of hair. These depictions usually show the older “ancestors” with monkeylike features and the ones supposedly closer to humans with more humanlike facial features, skin tone, and hair.
Question: Can scientists reliably reconstruct such features based on the fossilized remains that they find?
Answer: No. In 2003, forensics expert Carl N. Stephan, who works at the Department of Anatomical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Australia, wrote: “The faces of earlier human ancestors cannot be objectively constructed or tested.” He says that attempts to do so based on modern apes “are likely to be heavily biased, grossly inaccurate, and invalid.” His conclusion? “Any facial ‘reconstructions’ of earlier hominids are likely to be misleading.”47
Fact: The brain size of a presumed ancestor of humans is one of the main ways by which evolutionists determine how closely or distantly the creature is supposed to be related to humans.
Question: Is brain size a reliable indicator of intelligence?
Answer: No. One group of researchers who used brain size to speculate which extinct creatures were more closely related to man admitted that in doing so they “often feel on shaky ground.”48 Why? Consider the statement made in 2008 in Scientific American Mind: “Scientists have failed to find a correlation between absolute or relative brain size and acumen among humans and other animal species. Neither have they been able to discern a parallel between wits and the size or existence of specific regions of the brain, excepting perhaps Broca’s area, which governs speech in people.”49
What do you think? Why do scientists line up the fossils used in the “ape-to-man” chain according to brain size when it is known that brain size is not a reliable measure of intelligence? Are they forcing the evidence to fit their theory? And why are researchers constantly debating which fossils should be included in the human “family tree”? Could it be that the fossils they study are just what they appear to be, extinct forms of apes?
What, though, about the humanlike fossils of the so-called Neanderthals, often portrayed as proof that a type of ape-man existed? Researchers are beginning to alter their view of what these actually were. In 2009, Milford H. Wolpoff wrote in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology that “Neandertals may have been a true human race.”50
Honest observers readily recognize that egos, money, and the need for media attention influence the way that “evidence” for human evolution is presented. Are you willing to put your trust in such evidence?

  • Such pictures as this are based on the biases and assumptions of researchers and artists, not on facts.51
  • The majority of such drawings are based on partial skulls and isolated teeth. Complete skulls, let alone complete skeletons, are rare.
  • There is no consensus among researchers as to how the fossils of the various creatures should be classified.
  • Artists cannot reliably reconstruct the facial features, skin tone, and hair of these extinct creatures.
  • Each creature is placed in its position leading to modern man largely because of the size of its brain case. This is done despite evidence that brain size is not a reliable indicator of intelligence.

Is It Reasonable to Believe the Bible?
Have you ever been misled about a person? Maybe you heard others talk about him or quote him. You expected to dislike him​—only to find, on getting to know him, that he had been misrepresented. Many have had such an experience regarding the Bible.
More than a few educated people take a dim view of the Bible. Can you understand why? That book is often represented or quoted in such a way that it sounds unreasonable, unscientific, or just plain wrong. Is it possible that the Bible has been misrepresented?
In the course of reading this brochure, were you surprised to learn that what the Bible says is scientifically accurate? Many people are. They are equally surprised to learn that the Bible does not say some of the things that many religions claim that it says. Some say, for example, that the Bible teaches that God made the universe and all life in it within six 24-hour days. In fact, there is nothing in the Bible that contradicts scientists’ various estimates on the age of the universe or the earth. *
Furthermore, the Bible’s brief outline of how God brought life into being on this planet leaves ample room for scientific inquiry and theory. The Bible does state that God created all life and that living things are made “according to their kinds.” (Genesis 1:11, 21, 24) These statements may be at odds with certain scientific theories, but not with established scientific fact. The history of science shows that theories come and go; the facts remain.
There are many people, though, who hesitate to investigate the Bible because they are disillusioned with religion. They look at organized religion and see hypocrisy, corruption, war mongering. But is it fair to judge the Bible by the behavior of some who claim to represent it? Many humane and sincere scientists have been horrified by the way that some violent bigots have used the evolution theory to support their racist aims. Would it be fair to judge the theory of evolution on that basis? Surely it is better to investigate the theory’s claims and compare them with the available evidence.
If you were to study a bit about the history of Atheism, Secular Humanism, Marxist Socialism and it’s outgrowth which is or was Communism, you discover that Charles Darwin produced his “Origin of the Species” and Marx and Lenin thought it would help their cause for a new government philosophy. If humans had no God and no soul and were no more significant than worker ants, government workers could justify a society without morals, without divine guidance, and with new rules, laws and morality developed by the dictators at the top of the government. In simplest terms, this Marxist idea, leading to Communism was an attempt to enslave the entire world. Some say the effort is on-going.
Compare the results of today’s new society, the outgrowth of these teachings in American and European schools, with what society was in 1960.
Compare society as it is, with what the sort of society the Bible recommends. In April of 2018 the USA suffered another terrible mass school shooting, and a young firebrand is cursing and saying that the adults have failed. So, he and those he might choose, would form a new society? He knows no political science, knows no history, apparently can barely read, and has no understand of what he is speaking. His solution would lead to an experiment in dictatorship more miserable than anything the US has ever known!
God’s theology teaches us to be educated, thoughtful, careful, sober, honest, loving, kind, and respectful – naming only a few attributes. Compare that to the society in the USA today. People are wild, not sober, brash, not kind, they used other people for sex play without love, the kill unborn babies by the millions as a convenient form of birth control, the abuse children and older adults, and curse God even before they know God and His doctrine.
How can you draw an opinion about The Bible if you don’t know what it says and what it all means?
Looking at what you have been reading in this article how much opinion can you draw about me, the editor, Steve Newdell? Am I white or a person of color, young or older, kindly or evil, tall or short, fat, fit, or thin, self-disciplined or in all ways slovenly? Where do I live? What do I think and believe, and why? What are my experiences and what is my complete detailed education? You haven’t met me and have not read anything about me other than I dropped a hint that I’m a doctor. So….you do not have enough information upon which to form a picture and an opinion. The same goes for the Bible.
Would a 40-year-old father all his two-year-old child to guide his life? No? So then what would WE people be doing attempting to relegate the obvious Creator of the Universe to the garbage bin of philosophical mistakes?
The prophets in The Holy Bible explained the future before it became history. We have established now that all of these prophecies have come true. In some cases the prophecies were “duel” and happened twice. You didn’t know that? You didn’t know that there is a hidden argument between God and Job and God drops a hint about a moving star cluster, did you? No one in that day could have seen the movement of those three stars. Only with today’s highly accurate photographic telescopes can we prove those stars are moving through and eventually out of the galaxy. Job didn’t know. God hinted at it and only now have we been able to prove it. And the Bible works that way repeatedly!
The Bible tells us what law and behavior to maintain to have health for ourselves, families, neighborhoods, communities, and the wider country. The further our government moves us from Biblical ways the worse society becomes.
If you’re too young to have experienced the years 1940 – 1980, I’m sorry for you because those were years of peace, prosperity and decency. Most of us were faithful in marriage, never imagined abusing children, were honest in money and financial dealings, made and sold products intended to work and last a long time, and we lived a predictable and stable life.
How is your life doing? Do you love it? Do you spend hours daily listening to what comes out of earbuds and never even considering what The Bible teaches? If that describes your lifestyle you’re not part of the solution. You are part of the problem and must change your life style and start thinking as those who were successful before you, did.
 You may be pleasantly surprised to learn how profoundly The Bible’s teachings differ from those of most organized religions.  Far from promoting wars and ethnic violence, the Bible teaches that God’s servants must repudiate war and even the hatred that leads to such violence. (Isaiah 2:2-4; Matthew 5:43, 44; 26:52) Far from advocating fanaticism and belief without evidence, the Bible teaches that evidence is essential to genuine faith and that the power of reason is an indispensable aid to serving God. (Romans 12:1; Hebrews 11:1) Far from squelching curiosity, the Bible encourages us to probe some of the most fascinating and challenging questions that humans have ever faced.
For example, have you ever wondered, ‘If there is a God, why does he allow wickedness?’ The Bible addresses that question, as well as many others, in a satisfying way. * Pursue your quest for truth. You can find answers that are fascinating, thrilling, reasonable​—and based on convincing evidence. Life and our world are not accidental in any way!
We have come to the end of this website’s treatment of this subject. However there is much more. I have written several pieces on this subject and there is enough material to build two 500-page volumes! By comparison, the modernization of what Darwin began as really only  an inquiry has grown into the world’s most ridiculous lie and anyone with a bit of study into biology and physiology can see that. 
There is a lot of propaganda floating around. The idea that global warming is caused by too much carbon dioxide is one. It might be a good justification one day to kill millions of innocents. It’s nonsense and a study of the atmospheric conditions millions of years ago has already proven that.
Did you ever look into the controversy about what really happened at the 9/11 incident. If not that should leave you in a state of minor shock for a day or two. Don’t accept and believe these many lies. They are all intended to turn you away from truth and do you much harm!
There is MUCH MORE. I say this is a rather serious treatment of this subject. I have developed, if on paper, 56 pages. You can see from the Bibliography below there is much more to consider. Discover it HERE: https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/origin-of-life-5-questions/
Note from Dr. Newdell (Website Operator and “general lunatic in charge”):  I am not running a church and am not promoting any particular denomination. I have been searching for useful information to support arguments using good science to prove God exists, and that our life and our universe could not possibly have come into existence by accident. Further, to imagine it did, leaves said imaginer with No Hope beyond death, and no reason to maintain decent moral behavior and a peaceful world. Notes for most of this material came from www.jw.org


  1. How Did Life Begin?
  2. How Life Began​—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.
  3. Life Itself​—Its Origin and Nature, by Francis Crick, 1981, pp. 15-16, 141-153.
  4. Scientific American, “A Simpler Origin for Life,” by Robert Shapiro, June 2007, p. 48.
  5. The New York Times, “A Leading Mystery of Life’s Origins Is Seemingly Solved,” by Nicholas Wade, May 14, 2009, p. A23.
  6. Scientific American, June 2007, p. 48.
  7. Scientific American, June 2007, pp. 47, 49-50.
  8. Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, by Hubert P. Yockey, 2005, p. 182.
  9. NASA’s Astrobiology Magazine, “Life’s Working Definition​—Does It Work?” (http://​www.nasa.gov/ vision/​universe/​starsgalaxies/ life’s_working_definition.html), accessed 3/17/2009.
  10. Is Any Form of Life Really Simple?
  11. Princeton Weekly Bulletin, “Nuts, Bolts of Who We Are,” by Steven Schultz, May 1, 2000, (http://​www.princeton.edu/ pr/​pwb/​00/0501/​p/​brain.shtml), accessed 3/27/2009.
  12. “The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2002,” Press Release, October 7, 2002, (http://​nobelprize.org/ nobel_prizes/​medicine/​laureates/​2002/ press.html), accessed 3/27/2009.
  13. “The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2002,” October 7, 2002.
  14. Encyclopædia Britannica, CD 2003, “Cell,” “The Mitochondrion and the Chloroplast,” subhead, “The Endosymbiont Hypothesis.”
  15. How Life Began​—Evolution’s Three Geneses, p. 32.
  16. Molecular Biology of the Cell, Second Edition, by Bruce Alberts et al, 1989, p. 405.
  17. Molecular Human Reproduction, “The Role of Proteomics in Defining the Human Embryonic Secretome,” by M. G. Katz-Jaffe, S. McReynolds, D. K. Gardner, and W. B. Schoolcraft, 2009, p. 271.
  18. Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the Definition and Origin of Life, by Radu Popa, 2004, p. 129.
  19. Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the Definition and Origin of Life, pp. 126-127.

 (Box) How Fast Can a Cell Reproduce?

  1. Origin of Mitochondria and Hydrogenosomes, by William F. Martin and Miklós Müller, 2007, p. 21.
  2. Brain Matters​—Translating Research Into Classroom Practice, by Pat Wolfe, 2001, p. 16.
  3. Where Did the Instructions Come From?
  4. Research News Berkeley Lab, (http://​www.lbl.gov/​Science-​Articles/​Archive/ LSD-molecular-DNA.html), article: “Molecular DNA Switch Found to Be the Same for All Life,” contact: Lynn Yarris, p. 1 of 4; accessed 2/10/2009.
  5. Life Script, by Nicholas Wade, 2001, p. 79.
  6. Bioinformatics Methods in Clinical Research, edited by Rune Matthiesen, 2010, p. 49.
  7. Scientific American, “Computing With DNA,” by Leonard M. Adleman, August 1998, p. 61.
  8. Nano Letters, “Enumeration of DNA Molecules Bound to a Nanomechanical Oscillator,” by B. Ilic, Y. Yang, K. Aubin, R. Reichenbach, S. Krylov, and H. G. Craighead, Vol. 5, No. 5, 2005, pp. 925, 929.
  9. Genome​—The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters, by Matt Ridley, 1999, pp. 7-8.
  10. Essential Cell Biology, Second Edition, by Bruce Alberts, Dennis Bray, Karen Hopkin, Alexander Johnson, Julian Lewis, Martin Raff, Keith Roberts, and Peter Walter, 2004, p. 201.
  11. Molecular Biology of the Cell, Fourth Edition, by Bruce Alberts et al, 2002, p. 258.
  12. No Ordinary Genius​—The Illustrated Richard Feynman, edited by Christopher Sykes, 1994, photo with no page number supplied; note caption.
  13. New Scientist, “Second Genesis​—Life, but Not As We Know It,” by Bob Holmes, March 11, 2009, (http://​www.newscientist.com/​article/ mg20126990.100) accessed 3/11/2009.
  14. The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence​—A Philosophical Inquiry, by David Lamb, 2001, p. 83.
  15. Associated Press Newswires, “Famous Atheist Now Believes in God,” by Richard N. Ostling, December 9, 2004.

(Box) A Molecule That Can Be Read and Copied

  1. Intelligent Life in the Universe, Second Edition, by Peter Ulmschneider, 2006, p. 125.
  2. Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?
  3. Biology and Philosophy, “The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay,” by Malcolm S. Gordon, 1999, p. 335.
  4. New Scientist, “Uprooting Darwin’s Tree,” by Graham Lawton, January 24, 2009, p. 34.
  5. New Scientist, January 24, 2009, pp. 37, 39.
  6. Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” by David M. Raup, January 1979, p. 23.
  7. Archaeology, “The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual,” by Suzan Mazur, October 11, 2008, (www.archaeology.org/​online/ interviews/​newman.html), accessed 2/23/2009.
  8. In Search of Deep Time​—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, 1999, p. 23.
  9. Biology and Philosophy, p. 340.
  10. National Geographic, “Fossil Evidence,” November 2004, p. 25.
  11. The Evolutionists​—The Struggle for Darwin’s Soul, by Richard Morris, 2001, pp. 104-105.

(Box) What About Human Evolution?

  1. The Human Lineage, by Matt Cartmill and Fred H. Smith, 2009, Preface, p. xi.
  2. Fossils, Teeth and Sex​—New Perspectives on Human Evolution, by Charles E. Oxnard, 1987, Preface, pp. xi, xii.
  3. From Lucy to Language, by Donald Johanson and Blake Edgar, 1996, p. 22.
  4. Anthropologie, XLII/​1, “Palaeodemography and Dental Microwear of Homo Habilis From East Africa,” by Laura M. Martínez, Jordi Galbany, and Alejandro Pérez-Pérez, 2004, p. 53.
  5. In Search of Deep Time​—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, p. 22.
  6. Critique of Anthropology, Volume 29(2), “Patenting Hominins​—Taxonomies, Fossils and Egos,” by Robin Derricourt, 2009, pp. 195-196, 198.
  7. Nature, “A New Species of Great Ape From the Late Miocene Epoch in Ethiopia,” by Gen Suwa, Reiko T. Kono, Shigehiro Katoh, Berhane Asfaw, and Yonas Beyene, August 23, 2007, p. 921.
  8. Acta Biologica Szegediensis, Volume 46(1-2), “New Findings​—New Problems in Classification of Hominids,” by Gyula Gyenis, 2002, pp. 57, 59.
  9. New Scientist, “A Fine Fossil​—But a Missing Link She’s Not,” by Chris Bead, May 30, 2009, p. 18.
  10. The Guardian, London, “Fossil Ida: Extraordinary Find Is ‘Missing Link’ in Human Evolution,” by James Randerson, May 19, 2009, (http://​www.guardian.co.uk/​science/​2009/ may/​19/​ida-fossil-missing-link), accessed 8/25/2009.
  11. New Scientist, May 30, 2009, pp. 18-19.
  12. Critique of Anthropology, Volume 29(2), p. 202.
  13. Science and Justice, Vol. 43, No. 4, (2003) section, Forensic Anthropology, “Anthropological Facial ‘Reconstruction’​—Recognizing the Fallacies, ‘Unembracing’ the Errors, and Realizing Method Limits,” by C. N. Stephan, p. 195.
  14. The Human Fossil Record​—Volume Three, by Ralph L. Holloway, Douglas C. Broadfield, and Michael S. Yuan, 2004, Preface xvi.
  15. Scientific American Mind, “Intelligence Evolved,” by Ursula Dicke and Gerhard Roth, August/​September 2008, p. 72.
  16. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, “How Neandertals Inform Human Variation,” by Milford H. Wolpoff, 2009, p. 91.
  17. Conceptual Issues in Human Modern Origins Research, Editors G. A. Clark and C. M. Willermet, 1997, pp. 5, 60.
  18. Wonderful Life​—The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, by Stephen Jay Gould, 1989, p. 28.


 859 total views,  2 views today