Is there really evidence for evolution in DNA? Modern textbooks claim that scientists have evidence of evolution from molecular biology. Bio means 'life', and ology means 'the study of'... so evolutionsts claim they have evidence for their theory from the study of life on a molecular level.

A molecule is extremely tiny. To put it in perspective, if you have a single grain of salt and you expand it to the size of a 1200x1200x1200 ft cube area of space, the molecules contained in that grain of salt will become the size of the original grain of salt. To put it a different way, 10 cubic centimeters of air would contain 300 million billion molecules, or 3 with 20 zeros after it.
(300,000,000,000,000,000,000)

A 1998 high school science textbook said, "The greater the percentage of DNA sequence, the more they have in common. Darwin speculated that all forms of life are related through decent with modification from earlier organisms. This speculation has been verified." This is saying that the DNA sequence is evidence for evolution. It's also saying that Darwin made a complete guess, and now they've verified his guess.

How verified is Darwin' guess?

DNA was co-discovered by Francis Crick in 1953. DNA is, as far as man's limited understanding, the most complex molecule in the known universe. Many major public school and college textbooks claim DNA is evidence for evolution. This could not be further from the truth, so let's take a look at the DNA and get a better understanding of the complexity involved.

Your body contains, on average, about 30 trillion cells that are invisible to the naked eye. (the only human cell that can be seen without visual aid is the female egg) These tiny cells each contain a nucleus, similar to a yellow yolk inside an egg. Inside that nucleus is the code to create a human being, which we call DNA. (deoxyribonucleic acid) That DNA is made up of chromosomes. The average human cell contains 46 chromosomes. (with the exception of gametes, which only contain 23; these are cells used for reproduction)

Each DNA contains the information to create a new person. So if you had one set of my chromosomes, you could theoretically recreate a new Christopher from that information.

These chromosomes are also extremely small. If you took one set of chromosomes from each of the 6 billion people on the planet, meaning you would have all the information you need to recreate everyone on the planet, all those chromosomes would only fill up an asprin tablet.

Keep in mind, however, just because it's small, does not mean it's simple. Though I've heard some evolutionists give credit to the complexity of the DNA, in my experience, I have listened to most of them grossly over-simplify the complexity of this DNA code.

The DNA is like a ladder that is twisted up. So when someone refers to your genes, they're referring to groups of these rungs in the ladder, which are made up half from your father, and half from your mother. That's where you get into dominate and recessive traits from your genes.

The DNA ends up forming what is called a double helix. If you take a rubber band and start twisting it, you'll get rungs like a ladder. If you keep twisting it, eventually it will begin to knot together. A helix is a spiral. A double helix is a spiral of the spiral, which is what a rubber band will do after it gets twisted up enough.

DNA will unwind itself from this double helix inside a microscopic compact space, split to make a duplicate, then rewind itself... creating a brand new cell.

A single cell in your body is FAR more complex than a space shuttle. When a baby is conceived, it will produce about 15,000 new cells per minute. Could you imagine having to work at a factory that produces 15,000 space shuttles per minute? We are no where near a point of understanding when it comes to the complexity of the cell, and the DNA molecule.

Bill Gates said, "DNA is like a software program, but it's much more complex than anything we've been able to design."

The DNA molecule contains enough coded information to fill up the Grand Canyon with books... 40 times over! I am not aware of any computer storage system on the planet that could hold that much information. It's been estimated that the DNA code is more complex and stores more information than all computer programs written by man combined. And that's only with our current understanding.

Take a look at this short clip from Unlocking the Mystery of Life.

How someone can believe a complex machanism, such as DNA, that many scientists are still working to understand, can arise by random chance is anyone's guess.

"I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made."
-Psalm 139:14

The scientist interviewed is Dr. Dean Kenyon, who was previously an evolutionist that became a creationist after facing some fundamental problems with the theory upon investigation of the molecular level of biology. He was a very well known evolutionist that wrote many books on evolution, and then he wrote a book that supported creation called "Of Pandas and People." He was removed as a teacher, but not fired only because he had a tenure. He was made a lab assistant (basically washing test tubes; things normally reserved for first year students). He had to sue to get his job back. That's what you get for daring to question the holy sacred cow of evolution.

Dr. Kenyon is aware that most evolutionists, in a feeble attempt to use DNA as evidence for evolution, have ridiculously over-simplified the DNA code.

The human genome project, which many people have heard of, but cannot explain, is a 13-year project in which scientists claim they decoded the human DNA. That is extremely deceitful. If there is complete decoding of the DNA, I'd like to see it. What they've actually done is taking very large sets of code in a set of a few genes, and put them into columns with labels.

These labels are A, C, G, and T. These letters stand for four nucleic acid bases. As you can see, it creates a long list of letters: AGTCAGAGTC, etc. The A stands for Adenine and pairs with the T, which stands for Thymine. The C stands for Cytosine and pairs with the G, Guanine. These are called basepairs.

To put these into perspective of size, the average DNA contains about 3 billion basepairs. These 3 billion basepairs are divided into 23 chromosomes. If you stretched out just one DNA, it would be about one meter long. If you stretched out all the DNA in your 30 trillion cells connected together, They would stretch to the moon and back... 5 million round trips! All this DNA connected together could fit in about 2 tablespoons.

So the evolutionists will look at these base pairs and say, for example, that column #9 has an ACTG. Then they'll line up a chimpanzee chromosome next to it, compare column #9 and find it also contains ACTG. They line up the two, compare them both, and find a 98% similarity between chimps and man for their DNA sequence. They claim this is evidence of a common ancestor.

Let's compare William Shakesphere's Romeo and Juliet with Hamlet. Let's say we find out how many times the letter 'E' is used in both stories. We conclude that there is a 98% similarity in amount of times the letter 'E' is used. Does that prove Romeo and Juliet evolved into Hamlet over millions of years? Does that prove that Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet both evolved from morse code over billions of years? Or... could it prove that the same author wrote both stories with a common language?

Today, molecular biologists know that only 3% of the genes are expressed through physical properties of organisms like chimps and man. The other 97% is instructional code, which tells genes how to perform a wide variety of functions. The 98.4% commonality between chimps and man involve things like eyes, teeth, skin, hair, etc. The 1.6% difference is the big problem.

Dr. Barney Maddox, one of the leading genome researchers in the world, discovered that the 1.6% difference consists of 48 million nucleotides. He also discovered that if you change just 3 of the 48 million, the creature will die. This completely kills the theory that one creature can evolve into another, when anything outside of small variety changes is 99.9999999% fatal.
(See Human Genome Project: Quantitive Disproof of Evolution by Barney T. Maddox, M.D., 1992)

You can find similarity in many things if you look in the right places for it. Clouds are 100% water. Watermelons are 97% water. Does that prove watermelons evolved into clouds? Snowcones and Jellyfish are 98% water. Does that prove they're a missing link between watermelons and clouds?

This is the very same argument the evolutionists use when they descibe similarities in structures. For example, they say that many creatures (like aligators, birds, and humans) have similar forelimb structures. That birds have a radius and an ulna, and so do humans. This is what's used as evidence for evolution.

This is extremely deceitful to claim because first of all, a man named Carolus Linnaeus (who is a creationist and is called the "Father of Taxonomy") came along and named similar parts of the body. They're operating under Linnaeus's system, which simply names structures with similar functions for the purpose of classification, but then twists it around in attempt to use that as evidence for evolution.

Commanlities in structures prove a common design engineer, not a common ancestor. A Buick and a Cadillac might be similar. They both have a windsheild, four wheels, and a radiator. Does that prove they both evolved from a golf cart over millions of years?

Both vehicles might even have some interchangable parts. For example, the lugnuts from a Buick might fit on a Cadillac. Does that prove they both evolved from a skateboard over billions of years? Or... does it prove that both Buick and Cadillac come from the same designer, GM?

Changes in anything (cars, buildings, animals) only come when the design engineer steps in and reconstructes a different model. That is called common sense. In order to accept macro-evolution, people have to first reject common sense.

"Similar structures nearly always have similar plans (DNA in this case). Similar bridges have similar blueprints. This hardly constitutes evidence that one sired the other or that they were erected by tornadoes."
-Tom Willis, Lucy Remains at College

"Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the process of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination."
-N. Takahata, A Genetic Perspective on the Origin & History of Humans, Annual Review of Ecology & Systems Aties, 1995

I don't believe there are aliens (God created this universe just for us), but let's say an alien visited planet earth. He hovered over New York City, and saw there were four types of vehicles: Buses, Cars, Motorcycles, and Trucks. So the alien labels them B, C, M, and T. He writes down the pattern of these vehicles as he finds them laid out in traffic. Then he hovers over to Los Angeles. He records the pattern of vehicles in that city as well. When he lays out both patterns together, he finds a 99% similarity in the pattern of traffic.

1) Does that prove that New York City evolved from Los Angeles? Anybody with half a brain would see the absurdity in that.

2) Does the patterns of BCTMCTBMCB, etc... explain how an internal combustion engine works? Does it explain how a differential works? How about the city's electrical or sewer system?

The evolutionists have taken great genetic research, and simply tried to deceitfully apply their evolutionary paradigm into the things we observe. They've taken huge complex blocks of genetic code, and labeled them with a single letter, something our human brains can handle, and then they turn around and claim they've "decoded" human DNA? I want to see it. Not their simplified blocks of information... I want to see this actual decoded DNA. But as I stated before, we don't even have a system on this planet that could store that massive amount of code.

I have read an estimated chance of a DNA arising on its own from purely natural processes. It was 10 to the 119,000th power to 1, that it would ever happen. Let me put that into perspective. The evolutionists, based on their Big Bang estimates, which is a completely bogus theory (See The Big Dud Theory for more details), suggests that our visible known universe is 15-20 billion light years across. If I were to convert that distance to inches, our visible known universe would be 10 to the 28th power in inches alone. 10 to the 29th power would be 10 times out visible known universe.

I'll say it again for emphasis, that it would 10 to the 119,000th power to 1 that life could arise by chance on its own. Even with these impossible odds, you have to consider the further infinately impossible odds that this life could survive in the given atmosphere proposed (hoped, wished, prayed for) by the evolutionists.

The Failed Attempt to Create Life

In the 1950s, two scientists attempted to simulate how life may have origininated, according to the evolution theory. It's called the Miller-Urey Experiment.

"In the early 1950s, Urey turned his attention to the studies of geochemistry, astrophysics, and the origin of life. He wanted to know how the earth and the solar system had come to be... He studied the chemical reactions of gases that existed in Earth's primitive atmosphere, and he was the first to show that amino acids could have formed in the atmosphere. Although he never proved how life originated, he did add evidence to the theory that life could have started by itself on the primitive earth." H.B.J. Science, 1989, p. 357 (bold added for emphasis)

This experiment has been duplicated many times, and not only failed miserably (meaning they didn't come anywhere close to making life), but they also created many more problems for evolution. Let's take a look at the experiment and go over some important details:

The chemicals used in this experiment were water (H20), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2). Though many reasons are given for the usage of these basic chemicals, the real primary reason is because that's the chemicals they NEEDED to make this experiment work. Therefore, it is an ASSUMPTION that these were the primary chemicals involved, but no one has a clue.

Above, you'll see he inserted these chemicals to circulate through some glass tubes. These tubes ran through an electric spark chamber that was supposed to simulate lightning. It would eventually produce a goo-like substance at the bottom.

This goo was claimed to be "Rich in amino acids," -HBJ Science, 1989, Figure 12-15 -- This is simply not true.

He then had to drain the goo off because if it went through the spark again, the 'lightning' would destroy what he'd just made. So he made a trap to keep the goo from going back into the mixture.

Take a moment to note how very fictitious this experiment has become. A natural 'soup-like' mixture would not have a special trap to keep it from the rest of oceans on the so-called 'primitive earth'.

The experiment ended up yielding a substance that was 85% tar, 13% carboxylic acid (both of those are are poisonous to life), and 2% amino acids. This chemical mixture is about 98% toxic to the amino acids that formed. That really puts a damper in the odds of survival.

A proper ordered group of amino acids is the building blocks of your protiens. We have 26 letters in our english alphabet, and with those letters, we can make many words. The smallest protiens have 70-100 amino acids, but they all must appear in the correct order. Urey was no where close to creating life with this experiment.

Notice particularly, oxygen was excluded. (aka a Reducing Atmosphere, which is an oxygen-free atmosphere) It's a well known fact that life requires oxygen to function and survive. Also, in a natural environment, ozone is made from oxygen, and without that you don't have any thing to block UV light, and the UV radiation will destroy ammonia, which is one of the chemicals Urey required to start with.

"In general, we find no evidence in the sedimentary destribution of carbon, sulfur, uranium, or iron, that an oxygen-free atmosphere has existed at any time during the span of geological history recorded in well preserved sedimentary rocks." - Erich Dimroth and Michael M Kimberley, "Precambrian Atmospheric Oxygen" Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Vol 13, No. 9, Sept, 1976, p 1161

So you can't get life to evolved without oxygen.

However, in the experiments, if oxygen was added, they couldn't get any molecules to form, therefore, it had to be excluded to even begin the experiment. Just as an apple with brown in the open air, or a car will rust, the 'life' Urey was trying to create would oxidize.

So you can't get life to evolve with oxygen.

If you can't get life to evolve with oxygen, and you can't get life to evolve without oxygen, it looks like you can't get life to evolve.

"Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remains unknown." -Alfred G Fisher, evolutionist, Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, 1998

The only thing these experiments have accomplished is creating more impossible odds for evolution to overcome. Overall, the complexity of the origin of life is more logically explain via the Creator, and DNA clearly shows His amazing ability.

I remember sitting in on a seminar of Dr. David Menton, a retired professor of anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, PhD in cell biology, who said, "I spent decades in research on the human body. I just got to a point as I retired that I was beginning to appreciate the massive complexity of the human body. And then I have people come along and try to tell me that it arose by random chance? That is an insult to my intelligence."

There must be an awfully strong effort to avoid the judgement of God to try and use religious voodoo, like evolution, to explain away the logical obvious. If you see a painting hanging on a tree in the middle of the forest, is your first conclusion that it evolved from the tree over millions of years? Or do you look around for the painter? And as we see complexity and order do not arise by random chance, therefore it is most logical to conclude there is a Designer to the design.

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;"
-Romans 1:28

As a final thought, I often hear the evolutionist refer to creationists believing in Santa Claus. I find it so hilarious that they use this example because of course, any adult knows that it's ridiculous to think that gifts will appear under a tree on their own by some mysterious magical process. We all know that the parents are the ones behind the scenes, doing things BY DESIGN.

It is the evolutionists that like to believe their mysterious magical process can create something from nothing. They're doing their best to stay up late, hoping they will see the mysterious magical process.

I honestly try to take them seriously in every matter of debate, but as I study more (especially in the area of molecular biology and the DNA), it's getting harder to do so.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q&A:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***Do you think it is possible for scientists to create life in the laboratory?

I don't know. The only thing I can say for certain is this: Life cannot arise by itself. It requires an intelligent design to initiate. So outside of a laboratory, in a real world situation, life cannot create itself.
However, if a group of intelligent scientists get together and create life in the laboratory, it would not prove evolution. The only thing it would prove, is that it take intelligence to make life.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some Interesting Quotes (most of these are from evolutionsts):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'."
-Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University), as quoted in "Hoyle on Evolution". Nature, vol. 294, 12 Nov. 1981, p. 105

"We add that it would be all too easy to object that mutations have no evolutionary effect because they are eliminated by natural selection. Lethal mutations (the worst kind) are effectively eliminated, but others persist as alleles. ...Mutants are present within every population, from bacteria to man. There can be no doubt about it. But for the evolutionist, the essential lies elsewhere: in the fact that mutations do not coincide with evolution."
-Pierre-Paul Grassé (University of Paris and past-President, French Academie des Sciences) in Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 88

"And in man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe."
-Dr. Isaac Asimov (biochemist; was a Professor at Boston University School of Medicine; internationally known author), "In the game of energy and thermodynamics you can't even break even.". Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 10

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."
-Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in "The Fresno Bee", August 20, 1959. As quoted by N. J. Mitchell, Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes, Roydon Publications, UK, 1983, title page.

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
-Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."
-Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216

"I would rather believe in fairy tales than in such wild speculation. I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable. God cannot be explained away by such naive thoughts."
--Sir Ernst B. Chain, Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1945), as quoted by Ronald W. Clark, The Life of Ernst Chain (London: Weidenfield & Nicolson, 1985), pp. 147-148.

"Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school.'"
-Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, leading cladistic taxonomist), Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, November 5, 1981.