Humanism vs. Christianity
The Polarization of America
by Patrick Vosse
Evolutionism vs. Creationism
Chapter 6 - Probably Improbable but We Believe
In the previous chapter, we discussed the
history of the evolution hypothesis and
touched upon some of the difficulties with it. In this chapter, we will
discuss in more detail why evolution is nothing more than speculation
and may not even be a hypothesis.
We will attempt to show that, for evolution to occur by only natural
means, more faith is required than to accept divine
Anthrotopy and the "Mount Improbable" Hypocrisy
Consider how improbable it is that we are
here. The earth has to have a specific size, distance form
the sun, shape of orbit, composition of elements, a sun of a
specific type and size, and numerous other factors that have to be "just
so" otherwise life could not exist. Take it a step further:
The factors that control the existence and composition of the universe
are even more complex. Small variations in several of the
physical constants that determine how matter exists could result in a
universe without stars or without all the elements necessary
for life to exist. In fact, the size of the universe, as immense as it
is (billions of light years across), has to be just this size in order
for life to exist.
We do not know the probability
of each of the factors required for our universe
to exist as it does, in fact, we might not know all the
factors required; scientists are still working on that. But what is
known is that the odds against the existence of our universe with the
physical attributes necessary for life are very high. Pardon
the pun: astronomically high. The odds against our planet to exist as
it does are billions or even trillions to 1 (actually, we will show the
odds are much greater than that). But no one really knows just how
improbable our life is.
Consider just one characteristic of
matter, gravity. If the gravitational force was slightly stronger,
shortly after the "Big Bang" everything would collapse
back on itself and the birth of the universe would be aborted. If the
gravitational force was slightly less, matter would disperse in an
ever-expanding cloud and the stars, planets and galaxies would never
form. And that is just one example. The same is true for all the
characteristics of the universe. Every characteristic has to be just as
it is or the universe as we know it would not exist.
In their book, The Anthropic
John D. Borrow and Frank J. Tipler discuss the improbability of the
existence of our universe and propose possibilities for
how our improbable universe came to be. It is an "interesting" proposal.
We know that, no mater how improbable, our universe came into existence
in a way that it can support life – because we are here. If
the probability is say 1 billion to 1, and there was
just one universe, atheistic science and
atheistic evolution would be in trouble. But the
Anthropic Principle has a "solution": Multiple
universes. What if, they say, there were 1 billion universes? In that
case, the probability becomes 100 percent. For them, it does not matter
how improbable a naturally caused universe is. Our existence proves that
it is possible. Of course, that thinking applies to a theistically
caused universe equally well, but that is simply dismissed. But look at
the logic used here. If the odds are 1 billion to 1 against our universe
being as it is, if there are 1 billion universes the odds become 100
percent in favor of our universe being as it is. Therefore, there are 1
billion universes. There is no proof of any statement in this circular
logic—it is an embarrassment to science. It shows however, the lengths
to which Evolutionist will go to "prove" their point.
The problem is that this multi-universe
idea is just that, only an idea. No evidence, no
observations. No reason at all to
consider it except for the fact that, without it, God becomes
the more probable answer. However, the improbability of our existence
does not end with the high odds against the "just so" universe, there
are several steps in the evolution hypothesis
that are just as problematic and conveniently overlooked
or dismissed by the evolutionist.
The Solar System
We often overlook the fact that if our
solar system was not exactly as it is, we would not
be here. Let us start with the sun. If it was too hot and
there was more radiation, no life could exist. The sun has to
be the right size to maintain a stable source of energy of the correct
type and for sufficient time to allow all the development of life on
earth. How many stars are like our sun? Not
many. Approximately two-thirds of all stars are binary, that is, two or
more stars that orbit each other; and, while planets can
exist in a binary system, the erratic orbits and gravitational forces
make earth-like planets unlikely. Of the remaining 33 percent of
single-star systems, 76 percent are class M red dwarfs. These are in
their last days (for a star, that is–they still have a
few million years left). Their radiation spectrum is quite different
from that of the sun and they are cooler. Then there are the class K
stars that are much cooler than the sun and would give us a very frigid
climate indeed. The class K stars make up about 12 percent of the
single-star systems. The class F stars are hotter than the sun and make
up about 3 percent of the single-star systems. The remaining classes of
stars are much hotter than the sun and comprise about 1 percent of the
single star systems. That means the sun-like stars make up less than 2
percent of all stars. You will hear scientific speculators say that,
since there are trillions of stars, the probability of an earth-like
stare is very high—but it is only 2 percent.
The planets play a role as
well. Most astronomers agree that the big gas giants, Jupiter, Saturn,
Neptune, and Uranus protect earth from meteors, comets and
other space debris. Their enormous gravity acts like a giant vacuum
cleaner that picks up objects that would otherwise strike earth and not
allow life to exist. It is interesting to note that
astronomers have located more than 100 stars with planets.
Small planets are difficult to determine with current technology so all
the planets so far discovered have been gas giants like Jupiter and
Saturn. Most of these are located near their star, not far as in our
solar system. Also, our solar system has to have numerous objects besides the planets
such as meteors and comets, for life to exist on earth.
This is discussed in detail in the sections below.
What is the probability
that we live in a solar system with a
star that is just right for life, with planets arranged in
such a way as to protect the "third rock from the sun"?
Amazingly, since there are so many stars in the universe, even though
the probability is low, it is likely that if one searched long enough a
solar system like ours with a planet like ours might be found.
The earth is uniquely suited
for life. The size is just right to hold the atmosphere. Its
orbit is not too elliptical and that prevents extremes in temperature.
It has an iron core with a differential rotation that causes a strong
magnetic field without which solar radiation would kill all life. There
is water in abundance and an atmosphere that has the right
amount of oxygen (either too much or too little would kill us) and just
the right amount of pressure. Many scientists believe that much of the
earth’s water came from collisions with comets in the early stages of
formation. (The composition of comets is mostly water.) In order for
this to happen, earth needs to be in a solar system with a sufficient
number of comets to assure collisions for the acquisition of adequate
water but not so many as to destroy life; again, just the right amount.
The chemical composition of the earth provides everything necessary to
sustain life. It is possible that somewhere in the universe,
there is another planet that has all these factors in the
same proportion. But it is not likely that there are many within a solar
system like ours.
Ah, the moon. What could be
more romantic than a full moon in, as the songwriter says, June. But the
moon is more than a pretty face. Adherents of the Rare Earth Theory
postulate that a large moon such as ours is not merely a benefit for
life, but essential for life. Evolutionary scientists credit
the moon’s tidal influence as a contributor to the development of life
on our world. The sun alone would cause some tides to occur,
though they would be far less than those the moon creates. The higher
tides afforded us by Luna, the moon’s scientific name, have made long
swaths of coastline into areas of that regularly shift between dry and
wet. These variable areas, according to evolutionary scientist,
provided the environment for early sea life to make the
transition from life in the ocean to life on land. Areas farther from
shore are only dry at the peak of low tide, and the period of exposure
to air increases as one nears shore, allowing for a subtle progression
toward a waterless environment. Early transitional life, the
evolutionist claims, needed the advantage of this gradual change to
adapt to the wildly different demands of surviving outside the ocean.
The tidal forces also cause a morphing action on the earth
that helps to maintain Earth’s critical temperature. Without the moon,
the earth would rotate faster than it does resulting in a
more turbulent atmosphere that is not conducive to life.
Luna is unique among the observed
celestial bodies. There is no other satellite closer in size and
composition to its mother-planet, and the Earth/moon system is the only
tidally locked pair. All of the other worlds either lack satellites or
have captured them from other places. Astronomers believe that the moon
was formed by a collision between Earth and a Mars-sized body
that struck the earth at on oblique angle during the early
stages of formation. The moon is a remnant of that collision that did
not have sufficient velocity to escape the earth’s gravity. Unique in
its size; unique in its distance from it mother-planet; unique in its
Life and its Development
Life is an amazing thing, but what is
more amazing is how it started–
spontaneously from a mixture of
chemicals. This gives Evolutionists a severe
headache. Somehow, life spontaneously emerged from the
"prebiotic" mixture of organic molecules. Somehow, something emerged
that could grow and reproduce itself. Somehow. No one knows how. For
decades, scientists have tried to duplicate the conditions existing on
the earth just prior to the emergence of life and cause life
to spontaneously pop into existence in the laboratory. And for decades
they have failed. Consider what is required. First amino acids
must form, and fortunately, they are plentiful. Next, the right
kind of amino acids (there are many different kinds) must connect to
form a chain–and not just connect, but hundreds or thousands of
molecules must connect in the right sequence. Just how that would happen
is still a mystery because, remember, there is no life yet, just
chemicals. Moreover, there are hundreds of proteins necessary for life
so this remarkable linking process has to happen for each protein. As
amazing as that is, the real miracle is yet to come. This has scientists
up late at night; somehow, these chemicals must find a way to copy
themselves, a phenomenon never observed, and split into two molecules,
each of which can repeat the process–
combine, grow, copy, split. This
is analogous to the leftover chicken soup you put in the refrigerator
coming to life.
If, as the Evolutionists
claim, evolution proceeds through
natural means without a divine influence, then the
spontaneous synthesis of life must be the first experiment
to prove that hypothesis. So, if your
leftover chicken soup suddenly begins to grow and make baby chicken
soups, please contact your nearest scientist immediately! Speaking of
chickens, it has been asked, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
We ask a similar question here, "Which came first, the molecule that
causes life, or the life that causes the molecule?"
In his book,
Climbing Mount Improbable, Richard Dawkins
addresses the question of gradual discrete changes in the evolutionary
process that enable the eventual accumulation of large changes.
Evolutionists accept that evolution
cannot account for major dramatic changes, say from an ape to a man, in
one giant step but it is necessary for a series of very small gradual
changes to occur. While the one giant step is impossible, each of the
"baby" steps is possible, they claim, and can be assigned a discrete
probability, even if small. At least so the theory
This is shown graphically in Figure 2,
The mountain on the left side of the figure is very steep, representing
the impossible ascent of organisms
in an evolutionary giant step (or a few giant steps), i.e., the
Improbable Mountain. The right side of the figure represents the gentler
slope, starting at the foothills and gradually, in small increments,
ascending over considerable time to the peak. The proposition is that,
while a major, significant change is impossible, a very small change in
an organism is highly probable
and, in fact, such changes have been observed. Over time, a sufficient
number of changes will accumulate with the resulting new species.
It is, therefore, not necessary to consider the improbable
change in one or a few giant steps, but we can accept, with the higher
probability of each small step, the evolution
from one species to another. Now, that sounds quite
"Improbable Mountain". Evolutionists concede that organisms cannot
make the "giant step" change from one species to another as shown on
the left. Evolution, they claim, occurs in small increments over
millions of years, similar to the gentle slope on the right.
However, there is a problem with the
evolution hypothesis that is not well
known to the nonprofessional. I am not saying this is being kept a
secret, but Evolutionists, when trying to defend
their hypothesis do not seem to have the objectivity observed in other
areas of science. In his book The God
acknowledges a significant difficulty with the evolution hypothesis.
There are at least 4 steps in the evolutionary process that are not the
higher probability "baby" steps that evolution
requires. These are origin of life, development of eukaryotic
emergence of conscience, and the human mind. Each of these steps is, in
fact, not well understood by scientists. However, like the improbability
of the existence of our unique universe, each step has a
very low probability of naturally occurring. As Gould et.
al. put it: "The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that
the fossil record provides so little evidence for it. Very
rarely can we trace the gradual transformation of one entire species
into another through a finely graded sequence of intermediary
The odds against each step are unknown,
but certainly on the order of a billion or a trillion to one. As Dawkins
says odds so low that each step is a "one off" event. So,
evolution, unlike the smooth gradual ascent shown in
Figure 2, is actually like Figure 3, below.
Cells that are organized into complex
structures enclosed within
membranes. The defining membrane-bound structure that differentiates eukaryotic
cells from prokaryotic cells is
the nucleus. Many eukaryotic
cells contain other membrane-bound
organelles such as mitochondria, chloroplasts and
in eukaryotes is different from organisms without a nucleus
(prokaryotes). It involves separating the duplicated
through movements directed by microtubules. Eukaryotic reproduction is
sexual and result in offspring different from the
parents. Prokaryotic cells reproduce by dividing to produce two
There are at least 4 "Giant Steps" in the development of organisms
that Evolutionists admit cannot be explained by evolutionary
process: Life, Eukaryotic Cells, Consciousness, and the Human Mind.
Now, we find that the evolution
hypothesis has some serious unanswered
questions. The cosmologists say that the odds against our unique
universe that could give rise to life billions
or trillions to one. The odds against life spontaneously arising are
also, billions or trillions to one, as are the odds of the development
eukaryotic cells, consciousness, and the human mind.
dealing with related events having specified probabilities,
mathematicians use Boolean algebra. When a result
is dependant on events in such a way that if any of the events occurs,
the result will occur, then the probabilities of the events are ADDED
and this has the effect of INCREASING the chance of the result
"How the brain processes translate to consciousness is one of the
greatest unsolved questions in science. Although the scientific
method can delineate events immediately after the big bang and
uncover the biological nut and bolts of the brain, it has utterly
failed to satisfactorily explain how subjective experience is
How Does Consciousness Happen?,
Christof Koch and Susan Greenfield, Scientific American,
When, as in the case of evolution,
all the events must occur before the result is realized,
the probabilities of the events are MULTIPLIED and this has the effect
of DECREASING the chance of the result occurring. In The God
Delusion, Dawkins used an example probability
of 1 billion to one for such a one off event (it could be
worse). Using those odds on each of the steps (universe x
life x eukaryotic cells x consciousness x
human mind) we need to multiply 1 billion times 1 billion times 1
billion times 1 billion times 1 billion. The resulting odds against
basic consciousness arising at the animal level through an atheistic
evolutionary are 1 followed by 39 zeros to 1 AGAINST!
Hmmm. OK, back to the drawing board. Now,
the evolutionist cannot admit that their "theory" might not
even be a hypothesis. But Richard Dawkins
and his fellow Atheistic-Secular-Progressives have
In The God Delusion, Dawkins
dismisses the problem by declaring the improbable steps occurred by
LUCK. (Isn’t "luck" a form of superstition?) That has
to be an example of "outrageous hypocrisy". The atheistic
Evolutionist says that the probability
of God existing (and, therefore, all that follows from
that) is no more that 50-50 (Dawkins). Based on the fact that there is
no proof of God’s existence and their determination that
theoretically his existence is only 50-50, anyone who believed in God
is: ignorant, superstitious, uneducated, stupid,
However, the Evolutionists
hold to an untestable hypothesis, that
must be supported by an idea that has no evidence whatsoever, with only
a one in 1 with 39 zeros chance of being true (or, as we will show
below, far more improbable) and they call it a theory that
cannot be challenged and must be taught in school. This is not the way a
true scientist who follows the procedures defined by the scientific
method would conduct business. There is
something going on here and it is not science.
One Giant Leap for Mankind
Genetic change is a
reactive process. Genes do not anticipate environmental
stress and adapt proactively, they merely react to
conditions that already exist. If a gene mutates and that mutation
is useful for that organism’s survival in the environment in
which it lives, the characteristic expressed by the mutant gene will
also survive. The process cannot anticipate needs and make changes
before a particular need arises.
For example, in a population
of cockroaches some will have a higher resistance to a
particular insecticide than the general population. (Refer to Figure 1,
Chapter 5.) When an exterminator applies the insecticide, the majority
of the roaches will die, but a few will survive. The survivors will
breed and pass on their higher resistance to their offspring.
Eventually a population of cockroaches will exist that are much more
resistant to the insecticide than the original population. But if the
exterminator uses a new insecticide, they will not be resistant to the
new chemical and the majority will die. The adaptation
occurs during the environmental stress and does not
anticipate a new stress, even if it is similar.
The fossil record of
hominids (manlike primates) spreads over a period of
several million years. A summary of the fossil record is given in the
table below. (Note the genus Homo is abbreviated as H. and
genus Australopithecus as A.)
Summary of hominid data.
(mln years ago)
Opportunistic stone fragments
Stone chips, rough choppers, "fire?"
Stone chips, rough choppers,
Stone chips, rough choppers,
Stone chips, rough choppers,
Stone chips, rough choppers,
Stone chips, rough choppers, scrappers
Multi-stricken flakes, flint scrappers, axes
H. sapiens neanderthalensis
Stone blades, flint & wooden tools, primitive art, jewelry, clothing (2)
H. sapiens sapiens
Rockets, airplanes, computers, skyscrapers
(1) Note body mass is only an estimate.
(2) The H. neanderthalensis
sophistication is only observable in the later period of its existence
when this species co-existed with modern man. Some are of
the opinion that this technology was copied or stolen or may have been
taken opportunistically, e.g., the H. neanderthalensis moved into
a human cave that already had paintings on the wall.
*Estimated, inadequate fossil record to determine data.
There are several observations
I would like to make in reference to Table 2. The first
is that the naming of the hominids is somewhat arbitrary,
the privilege of the one who discovers the new species.
There has been bias in the process of naming hominids to
support the evolution hypothesis. For
example, the Dutch physician Eugene Dubois discovered the first fossils
of Home erectus in 1891 on the
island of Java. He originally gave the material
the name Pithecanthropus erectus
based on its morphology that he considered intermediate
between that of humans and apes. Darwin's
media blitz had not reached Indonesia and Dubois so he named
the species according to the accepted system of classification
developed by Carolus Linnaeus a hundred
years earlier (and still in use today). But this did not support the
Darwinian hypothesis and later evolution biologist renamed it Homo
supporting their claim that it was an ancestor of modern man. To
paraphrase Shakespeare: A Pithecanthropus by any other
name still smells like an animal. This is a case of changing the
observations to agree with the hypothesis.
The bias in the evolution
community is well stated by Niles Eldredge "Many
'trends' singled out by evolution biologists are ex
post facto rendering of phylogenetic history:
biologists may simply pick out species at different points
in geological time that seem to fit on some line of
directional modification through time. Many trends, in other words, may
exist more in the minds of the analysts than in phylogenetic history.
This is particularly so in situations, especially common prior to about
1970, in which analysis of the phylogenetic relationships among species
was incompletely or poorly done."
The second observation is that there is a
significant gap between the "Australopithecus"
and "Homo" animals from which they are supposedly to have
evolved. A. boisei and H. erectus overlap in time but H.
erectus is much taller, has a brain 50 percent larger, and used
tools and possibly fire. This stretches the credibility of
the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis to its limits.
The third observation is that of tool
making. There is a large gap in the type and sophistication of
tools associated with the skeletal fossils at
the point where modern humans arrive on the scene. Many animals besides
humans use tools. Ravens will use small twigs to stab grubs in their
burros and remove them for a tasty meal. Chimpanzees,
in a like manner, use twigs to extract termites. Chimpanzees have also
been observed to kill monkeys with wooden sticks. The type of tools
associated with hominid fossils remained the same for millions of years
and was essentially a collection of broken rocks that could be used as a
hand axe or hammer. These tools were not very different from rocks
broken through natural means and can be found everywhere. Initially,
these animals likely pick up a naturally broken rock and used it as a
tool, similar to a chimpanzee. Later, the hominid broke the rock
himself. This technology remained unchanged for millions of years.
About 600,000 years ago, the tool
technology advanced to the more sophisticated shaping of flint
tools that were more efficient and included cutting tools.
But again, the technology did not advance. Up to this point it is
apparent that the tool-making technology was initially opportunistic,
and then advanced to a simple process that was essentially a tradition
learned by rote—by simply copying--much like the chimpanzees young
observe and copy their parents in extracting termites.
Then fossils of modern man
appear and the technology changes, initially to more elongated flint
knives and more specialized tools, then gradually to more
and more complex tools. The only hominid fossils that have tools similar
to early man are H. neanderthalensis. However, there is a high probability that the
artifacts associated with the Neanderthals
were not theirs.
existed for about 300,000 years and the tools associated
with the older fossils are the simple flint fragments similar to those
used by earlier species. No evidence of advanced tools, no
cave paintings, no jewelry. It is not until modern man comes on the
scene that these "Neanderthal" artifacts are observed.
It is just as likely that the Neanderthals
occupied caves abandoned by modern men and "inherited" the artifacts.
In fact, considering the sudden appearance of these Neanderthal
artifacts, it is more likely that they were inherited.
Modern man did not stop at methods of
hunting that are more sophisticated and domestic tools, art,
clothing, and jewelry. In a period that is less that 10 percent of the
total time Neanderthals, the most advanced
pre-human, existed men have gone from flint spear points to walking on
the moon. Tool making, then presents another sudden giant
step forward that is not easily explained by punctuated equilibrium.
However, there is something else about
man that challenges the evolution hypothesis.
Recall that there is no such thing as "proactive genetic
modification". As discussed above, genes are
chemical units that respond to a chemical-physical environment
reactively and do not anticipate need. At the time Evolutionists
consider modern man to have emerged, he was a
hunter-gatherer living a life similar to H. erectus.
The needs imposed on the animal that preceded modern man were
essentially to become a more efficient hunter, tool maker,
fire maker, and social organizer. In order to compete he only needed a
slight advantage: a better spear, coordinated hunting, or better
childcare. A genetic mutation that resulted in the
ability to think abstractly and contemplate higher mathematics would be
no advantage on the African savannah 60 thousand years ago. According to
the evolution hypothesis, only those modifications that assist in
immediate survival will be passed on. So, how did the evolution jump
from a brain that was challenged to make a better stone tool to one that
is comfortable making rockets and computers?
The evolutionary biologists
cite the gradual increase in brain size
(see Table 2) as evidence that there has been an evolutionary increase
in hominid intelligence. However, tool
technology would indicate that that difference in hominid intelligence
over a period of millions of years did not advance in a way that
corresponds to fossil brain size over the same period. The
Neanderthal has a cranial capacity larger that modern
man. This is given as an example of a hominid that bridges the gap
between the more primitive and animal-like intelligence of the early
hominids and modern man. The fact is, brain size is only
one, but not the most important, measure of potential intelligence.
In modern humans, men have larger brains
than women do because of there generally larger physique and associated
larger skull. However, in spite of what Darwin and his
friends asserted, women are just as intelligent as men. (My daughters
claim more intelligent!) This is because it is not just a matter of how
big the brain is but how it is constructed. The gray-matter outer layer
is thicker in women’s brains than in men’s brains so their "thinking"
neurons are equivalent. The capacity of the brain to
function is a function the number of neurons, the number of
interconnections between them, and the structures that are used for
While the size of the brain can be one
indicator of the number of neurons, the density of neurons
must also be considered. The Neanderthal's brain case
may have been larger than modern man’s but modern man’s brain may be
more neurons and more interconnections packed more densely. It
is also possible that modern man has more developed brain structures,
such as for speech and abstract thought, while the
Neanderthals had more developed structures
for hand-eye coordination, smell, and similar animal-like survival
skills. The fact that the Neanderthal’s skull is longer and lower than
modern humans would suggest a brain with different structures.
It is also worth noting that recent DNA
analysis of Neanderthal material shows that
the Neanderthals were not ancestors
of modern humans. The fact is there really is no evidence of gradual
mental development from smart animals to modern human mental capacity.
One of the characteristics
that distinguish modern man from all other animals is speech.
If the evolution hypothesis
is correct, speech should have developed gradually with brain size.
Many animals have a means of communication: dogs bark, birds chirp, and chimpanzees make a unique
collection of sounds. But not all communication is speech in the sense
that humans speak. Human have language, not just grunts
and guttural vocalizations. Our language consists of thousands of words
assembled with logical syntax. Our language is capable of expressing
abstractions such as mathematics and philosophy. In
most universities, the subject "logic" is included in the English
department because human speech is a logical exercise. However, such a
highly developed language required a sophisticated physical condition in
The hyoid bone is
horseshoe shaped cartilage that sits on top the voice box, just above
the trachea. It is attached only by ligaments and muscles. Many animals
have hyoid bones, but the shape of the human hyoid is unique. In
addition to the shape of the hyoid, only in humans is the hyoid placed
as low as it is in the throat. This structural arrangement allows for
the articulation necessary for complex speech.
Putting all these together, we see that
hominids had the technology and mental capacity of smart
animals for the millions of years of their existence without significant
advancement. Then suddenly modern man emerges with initial differences
that are significant and extremely rapid technological advancement
unique to man. Nothing gradual about the emergence of modern man; this
was a very giant step in evolution.
HEY! My Missing Link is Missing!
With DNA analysis, a new
tool became available for analyzing biology, including the more recent
fossils that might have some DNA intact in the center of the bone. And,
much to the delight of the Evolutionist, DNA was
recovered from a Neanderthal bone. They were sure that
this would confirm that Neanderthals were the evolutionary ancestors of
modern humans. But they were to be disappointed. The DNA indicated that
Neanderthals were totally separate from humans, not related to humans,
and not their ancestors.
You can imagine their disappointment. No,
you really can’t imagine their disappointment because this DNA
information actually tended to give evidence against evolution.
If the DNA of the Neanderthal confirms
that the hominid closest to humans is not an ancestor, then there is
considerable doubt that the earlier animals are ancestors as well. But
the Evolutionists are careful not to publicize that
According to the accepted evolution
hypothesis, evolution occurs in very small
steps over a very long period of time. In Table 2, we see that there is
an orderly association of hominoid fossils that increase in their
man-like characteristics with time. So far, so good. But, as we
discussed above, the tool making does not advance at a similar rate and
the evidence of more than animal "speech" is missing. Until the DNA
evidence to the contrary, evolutionary scientists
presented the Neanderthal as the "missing
link", the hominid that filled the gap between the
rote-learning simple toolmakers without speech and modern man. The
reason that Neanderthal was an important fossil is that the
next most recent hominid is H. heidelbergensis who was still
chipping flint just as his ancestors did a million year before. Without
Neanderthal, the missing link was still missing.
The fact that the missing link
is still missing is significant. As we get closer to
modern times, there should be more fossils. Fossils of hominids that
lived a million years ago are rare, but Neanderthal
fossils are much more common as are early modern human bones. However,
without Neanderthal in our ancestral line, there is a large gap.
What would fill that gap? The missing link would have to have similar
anatomy, evidence of a hyoid bone located low in the throat, a record of
tool making that rapidly advances from opportunistic stone chipping of
simple tools to more complicated applications, and a
significant fossil record that indicates the success of the more
intelligent species. Also, being closer to humans in the
timeline, there should be numerous fossils of this elusive creature. The
missing link has never been found; the gap remains. Without the missing
link, Evolutionists cannot
explain man in natural selection terms. When they lost the Neanderthal,
they lost the only evidence for the evolution of Man from lower primates.
So, What Are The Odds?
Each of the conditions for humans to be
here though natural means, as discussed above, had a certain probability
of happening. In some cases, the probability is so
remote we can only estimate it. As mentioned above, we can calculate the
probability of the outcome of a series of events by Boolean algebra
by multiplying the probabilities together. So let us
see what the probability is for evolution to result in
modern humans. Table 3, below, gives the estimated probabilities for
each step in our existence.
Table 3. Estimated probabilities for
human existence by natural means.
Probability of Occurrence
Existence of the solar system as it is:
1 in 1
Existence of the universe as it is:
1 in a billion
Existence of the earth as it is:
1 in a million
Existence of our moon’s size and location:
1 in a billion
1 in a trillion
Evolution of eukaryotic cells:
1 in a trillion
Evolution of consciousness in animals:
1 in a trillion
To calculate the resulting probability
of all these events occurring, we multiply their
probabilities together. The result is a 1 followed by 84 zeros! In
celebration of Darwin's 200th birthday and the
150th anniversary of his The Origin of Species, evolution scientists met in
Chicago to present papers in defense of evolution. At that meeting,
James McCarthy, president of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, said, "Evolution is not an idea,
it’s a fact." As mentioned earlier, the leading evolution biologist
Richard Dawkins, in his The God
Delusion, calls the evolution in the
face of the problems discussed above--Luck.
Fact is a probability
of 1 in 1. Luck is winning the lottery with a probability of 1 in
1,000,000. However, evolution, by natural means only,
has a chance of 1 in:
That is not fact. That is not luck. That is impossible and it certainly
is not science. Perhaps it is ... a miracle?
And if, dear Reader, you are an
Evolutionist and want to complain about the
probabilities assigned to these events remember that we have not
included the probabilities for each minute genetic
mutation that changes from one species to
another. Consider that for each species to evolve there would have to be
at least 1 million generations for one mutation. Since most mutations
are harmful, it might take 100 million generations for an "evolutionary
mutation"; and that is just for one "baby step" for one species.
Multiply that by the trillions of "baby steps" necessary to evolve, say
a reptile into a bird, and the probability against this occurrence is
incalculable. And that is just one species transformation; the process
has to be done for each species of which there are millions. The fact is
the odds are better for someone to win the lottery without buying a
point out that the existence of God is a
50-50 probability, a 50 percent chance that there is
no God and a 50 percent chance that there is a God. The Atheist
merely chooses the 50 percent chance there is no God.
Fifty-fifty is the philosophical probability, but
that is not how statistics work. As shown above, the
chance that we are here through natural means is less than 1 in 1 with
84 zeros and that is essentially a zero percent chance. But let’s be
conservative and round it up–
way up to a chance of 1
in 1,000,000. That means that Atheism has a probability of
1/100000th percent and God’s existence has a probability of
As Einstein put it, "Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable."
I cannot fault the evolutionary scientist
for holding to the evolution hypothesis in spite of the gaps and
shortcoming discussed above. As a scientist, he must only consider
empirical evidence and the empirical evidence for evolution is
compelling. However, as compelling as the evidence is, the scientist is
frustrated by the fact that, on the one hand, no one has yet proposed a
provable hypothesis and proceeded to actually prove it empirically and,
on the other hand, the scientist has no alternative answer to explain
the evidence. No alternative within science, that is. However, if one is
not too particular about scientific rigor and has an ulterior motive, an
alternative presents itself outside physical science. The scientific
community must be very careful not to "let the cat out of the bag" so to
speak, because to "prove" evolution they must go outside of science, and
that has the smell of dishonesty.
 Cells that are organized into complex
structures enclosed within
membranes. The defining membrane-bound structure that differentiates eukaryotic
cells from prokaryotic cells is the
nucleus. Many eukaryotic cells contain
other membrane-bound organelles such as
Cell division in
eukaryotes is different from organisms without a nucleus (prokaryotes).
It involves separating the duplicated
chromosomes, through movements directed by microtubules. Eukaryotic
reproduction is sexual and result in offspring different from the parents.
Prokaryotic cells reproduce by dividing to produce two identical cells.
 Gould, S.J.
Luria, S.E. & Singer, S., A View of Life, 1981, p. 641.
 An example of Boolean algebra is as follows: Event A has a
probability of 1 in 100, expressed as 1 X 10-2. Event
B has a probability of 2 in 100, expressed as 3 X 10-2.
If A and B must occur to result in C, then the probabilities are
added, 1 X 10-2 + 3 X 10-2 = 4 X 10-2
, or C has a probability of 4 in 100. If either A or B must
occur to result in C, then the probabilities are multiplied, 1 X
10-2 X 3 X 10-2 = 3 X 10-4,
or C has a probability of 3 in 10,000.
 Eldredge, N., op.cit. p.134.
Copyright © 2011 by Patrick Vosse
All Rights Reserved