We've been looking at why Darwinian Evolution and its updated version neo-Darwinism are impossible. In part 1 I defined the terms so I won't bother to do so here. Parts 1 and 2 cover the first 10 of the 15 reasons evolution is impossible as promised in the title. Without further ado, let's get right to the last set of reasons.

15 Reasons why Evolution is impossible and never happened (Part 3)

The Digital Problem
11. The Digital Nature of Information in living creatures

Digital information - which by nature is coded information - is fully integrated within all living creatures. Let me point out a few examples:

 a) DNA
On my way to pointing out that DNA contains information in part 1, I mentioned in passing that the information was coded information. What I want to point out here is that the information is not only coded - but it's digital. As "Signature in the Cell" author Stephen Meyer put it:

"In 1953 when Watson and Crick elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule, they discovered that DNA was a carrier of genetic information in the form of a four character digital code - that is to say that DNA functions like a software program only more complex than any anyone has ever created or devised."[1]

Digital information is, of course, useless without some intelligence specifying what the digital code means. And DNA is not the only place where digital information shows up:

b) Sensory Data
Consider the eyes. How does the image you see get from your eyes to your brain? Do you think there's a little projector at the back of your eyeballs projecting a moving picture up to your brain, like a movie that's being projected on the big silver screen? You may have never considered the question, but I'm sure that's not your guess of how vision works. How then does it work? The image is digitized. It's turned into a series of electrical signals that's passed along to the brain that must then be decoded and re-constructed into a picture.

c) Life Cycles
In considering the codes of life, mathematician and professor Marcus du Sautoy considers the periodical cicada with researcher Dr. John Cooley. Du Sautoy notes:

"What makes these insects so remarkable is their bizarre lifecycle. For 12 whole years they live hidden underground in vast numbers. Then in their 13th year, at precisely the same time. They all burrow out from the earth to breed."[2]

Cooley notes at the peak of emergence there will be millions of insects per acre out of the burrows. Prof. du Sautoy further notes that:

"By emerging in such vast numbers, each individual cicada minimizes its risk of being eaten. Because there are so many of them, their predators simply can't eat them fast enough."[3]

Du Sautoy asks, "Why have the cicadas evolved with a 13 year life cycle as opposed to any other number?"
A good question.
Cooley responds "You have to remember that these cicadas require large numbers to survive predators. So we think these long lifecycles in someway help them maintain large populations."[4]

A nice bit of evolutionary story telling. What is overlooked, once again, is how this is accomplished. How did the mechanism that precisely measures a 13 year cycle evolve? And how did the mechanism get synchronized and passed to each cicada so that millions of cicadas emerge at the same time? The 1969 Woodstock concert was a watershed event. It attracted (depending on who you listen to) in excess of 300,000 or 400,000 people. All showing up at the same place and at the same time. Did that happened by accident? Of course not.

Likewise then, do you think millions of cicadas emerging at the same place at the same time at the same set interval happens by accident? Since cicadas can't read invitations, there must be an emergence clock and program running in the cicadas that gets passed from generation to generation. That suggests its encoded in the DNA which of course means it's digital information.
 

Polarity Problems

12. The Problem of Chirality in Amino Acids
I will keep this item intentionally short since I will devote the next article to this topic. Let's start with a definition. Chiral is derived from the Greek χειρ (Cheir) which means hand. Molecules that are chiral are similar in that they are mirror images of each other, but not identical - like your hands. If two molecules are identical in every aspect except for their chirality then they are mirror images of each other - like your hands.

Take a look at your hands. Now put one hand on top of the other. You'll note that the thumbs point in opposite directions and the fingers don't line up identically. The two hands put together this way make what is called a nonsuperimposible image. You cannot superimpose one on the other and get the same image of the hands. On the other hand (no pun intended) if you put them together palm to palm, they are identical. This is the image you'd get if you put a hand up to the mirror. Amino acids are chiral. They exhibit this same property. So like your hands, they're named left and right handed amino acids. Chiral molecules are nonsuperimpossible, but are capable of being a mirror image of its opposite handed molecule.

In part 1, item 2, I spoke about proteins. Proteins are made up of amino acids. All the amino acids in the proteins in your body are left-handed. What's the big deal you wonder? The big deal is that having all left-handed amino acids is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. It's like taking 100 coins and tossing them all up in the air flipping end over end, and having them all land either all heads up or all tails showing. It just doesn't happen. And if you saw 100 coins on the ground with either all heads or all tails visible you'd say someone placed them there that way.

That's the problem evolutionists run into with chiral amino acids. How is it that all the amino acids the proteins are composed of are left handed? Evolutionists have no idea. What we do know is that it's not a naturally occurring phenomenon. That's a problem for evolutionists, since evolution is supposed to happen naturally with no intelligent intervention doing something like planning how things turn out, or making sure only left-handed amino acids are used.

13. The Matter / Anti-matter Problem
 

The big bang supposedly created all matter in that first singularity. But there's a problem with the theory. Supposedly the big bang singularity created equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. But that's not what we observe. What we observe is overwhelming large amounts of regular matter - the stuff we're made off. That's good for us - since matter and anti-matter explode on contact. But if all the anti-matter which was supposed to have been created was actually created, the question is why are we still here? Why weren't we blown up when the billions of particles of matter and anti-matter collided in the first moments after the singularity?

Clearly the supposed vast amounts of anti-matter were never created. Otherwise we wouldn't be here. Thus our very existence is a testimony against the big bang theory. So there's a problem with the theory. But someone will point out that technically, that's a problem for the big bang, not Darwinian evolution. I would say it's a problem for both. Because where does the earth, upon which things grow and the sun, which provides the needed warmth and energy, come from? Secular theories state it's the big bang, not a creator who exists outside of space, time and matter. But if that were true, we're back to the problem of why are we here? Where's all the anti-matter? Why is there only evidence of regular, baryonic (as it's called) matter in great quantities?

Impossible Structures
14. Wheels and Nanomachines

Consider the following:

"The famous evolutionist J.B.S. Haldane predicted that we would find no wheels or magnets in living creatures. This is because these would not work unless fully formed. Thus natural selection could not have produced them step by small step, each an improvement over the previous one. Such motors thus falsify evolution by Haldane’s own words."[5]

Because random changes don’t move in a planned direction an improvement cannot be "selected" and thus retained unless the change itself confers some benefit. No benefit - no selection. A quarter or a half of a wheel confers no benefit, so cannot evolve. So an entire wheel can only be designed. Thus we should see no structures based on circles. And of course, we should see no micromachines based on those structures. Because machines are, by nature, designed. Yet we find both circles and nano machines based on circles in living creatures. One of the most well known: the bacterial flagellum as revealed by Michael Behe. Here is a Discover Institute video on it:

Evolutionists have no plausible answer as to how such nano machines - examples of irreducible complexity - could evolve.

15. Young Earth
 

Both the universe and the earth are young. By "young" creationists mean about 6,000 years young. Billions of years have not passed. So there is simply not enough time for evolution to work - even if it could work - which it can't as the above 14 reasons show. I did an article listing 10 young earth evidences, so rather than repeat them here I refer you to the article:

Are young earth evidences needed to defend Christian Faith?

10 Young earth evidences and why they’re needed

 

Bonus:
16. The Fermi Paradox - Stands

If evolution were true, it stands to reason it should not be limited to earth but should occur on any planet where the conditions are just right. (That conditions will be "just right" anywhere else is generous and unfounded assumption. Eric Metaxas points out there are 200 conditions that must be just right in his article on fine tuning.[6] Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards take a closer look at about a dozen of them in their documentary "The Privileged Planet."[7]) Nevertheless since scientists have discovered there are a great many terrestrial planets orbiting suns not too different from our own, and given their belief that the universe is billions of years old, it again stands to reason that if evolution were true, there should have already arisen life in other parts of the universe. And this life should have evolved to the point where they're reaching out and trying to touch others in the universe much like we are.

In the evolutionary scheme of things modern humans are a recent occurrence - appearing supposedly just 200,000 years ago. Given where we're at in our supposed evolution, and that some aliens theoretically could have had millions of years to evolve, evolutionists believe such aliens should already be reaching out across the galaxy via radio waves, if not already traversing the stars.

In 0ther words the facts - as evolutionists see them - are that evolution is true, and there's been enough time for very sophisticated aliens (beyond our level) to evolve. Multiple various civilizations in fact. Yet there is absolutely no evidence such aliens exist. And that's despite SETI (in one incarnation or another) searching for over 50 years. So there you have it. That is what is known as the Fermi paradox: the evolutionary expectation of life widespread throughout the Galaxy, but absolutely no evidence of life anywhere other than on planet earth. Named after the Italian physicist Enrico Fermi, the paradox was so named, as the story goes, because of an incident where Fermi was in a conversation with co-workers on the way to lunch and the topic of UFOs came up. Later during lunch, Fermi abruptly returned to the topic, and said words to the effect, "But where is everybody?" Despite the lapse in time everyone knew what he was talking about.

I mention this because you've probably heard that scientists have discovered phosphine in the atmosphere of Venus. On earth, phosphine is made only by microbes and human industrial activity, so some wonder if it could be a sign of life.

As I point out in the The Waning, Great Scientific Hope for many years scientists have been grasping at this impossibility - life evolving somewhere else - due to their undying but misdirected belief in evolution. So let me go on record again and predict they will find no life on Venus; only a new and unique way for phosphine to be produced that they never knew about.

Conclusion

Each of these 15 reasons represent merely the tip of the iceberg of a topic that runs deep with evidence - enough to sink evolutionary theory like the Titanic. Unfortunately for evolutionists, these icebergs cannot be navigated around and avoided. To mix metaphors they are more like guided missiles locked in on evolutionary theory, striking with unerring accuracy, each one unleashing multiple warheads with devastatingly lethal effect. There is a lifeboat however. In Noah's day it was the ark. Today it is the gospel of Jesus Christ, which begins with a six day creation, and is climaxed by the resurrection of Jesus, the Son of God from the dead. A resurrected Jesus bids you share in by believing in him - Creator, Savior, Conqueror of death and perhaps most importantly for this age The Truth. (John 14.6) He not only speaks God's words of truth (John 12.50), He Himself is God's word of truth. (John 1.1) You would do well to follow him. (Matt 8.22)
 

Notes

1. Stephen Meyer, ref from The Case for A Creator, DVD documentary by Lee Strobel, Illustra Media, 2006
Back

2. Marcus du Sautoy, The Code, Ep 1 "Magic Number", Documentary series, 2011
Back

3. Marcus du Sautoy, The Code, Ep 1
Back

4. John Cooley, ref from The Code, Ep 1 "Magic Number", Documentary series, 2011
Back

5. Jonathan Sarfati, Creation.com “Germ with seven motors in one!” 1/15/2013
http://creation.com/germ-7-motors-in-1
Back

6. Eric Metaxas, "Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God", The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 25, 2014, http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568
Back

7. The Privileged Planet, Documentary featuring Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards, Illustra Media, 2006
Back