Evolution

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.^[1]

Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and thedivergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences. These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.^[2]

Charles Darwin was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Evolution by natural selection is a process that is inferred from three facts about populations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to differential rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable.^[3] Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents that were better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection took place. This process creates and preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform.^[4] Natural selection is the only known cause ofadaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift.^[5]

In the early 20th century, genetics was integrated with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection through the discipline of population genetics. The importance of natural selection as a cause of evolution was accepted into other branches of biology. Moreover, previously held notions about evolution, such as orthogenesis and "progress" became obsolete.^[6] Scientists continue to study various aspects of evolution by forming and testing hypotheses, constructing scientific theories, using observational data, and performing experiments in both the field and the laboratory. Biologistsagree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science.^[7] Discoveries in evolutionary biology have made a significant impact not just within the traditional branches of biology, but also in other academic disciplines (e.g., anthropology and psychology) and on society at large.^[8][9](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise 

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Natural Selection

While Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a relatively young archetype, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy -- a plausible mechanism called "natural selection." Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations. Suppose a member of a species developed a functional advantage (it grew wings and learned to fly). Its offspring would inherit that advantage and pass it on to their offspring. The inferior (disadvantaged) members of the same species would gradually die out, leaving only the superior (advantaged) members of the species. Natural selection is the preservation of a functional advantage that enables a species to compete better in the wild. Natural selection is the naturalistic equivalent to domestic breeding. Over the centuries, human breeders have produced dramatic changes in domestic animal populations by selecting individuals to breed. Breeders eliminate undesirable traits gradually over time. Similarly, natural selection eliminates inferior species gradually over time.Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Slowly But Surely... Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. [4]Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10^-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]
And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]

Footnotes:

1.   Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 162.

2.   Ibid. p. 158.

3.   Michael Behe, "Darwin's Black Box," 1996.

4.   "Unlocking the Mystery of Life," documentary by Illustra Media, 2002.

5.   Michael Denton, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," 1986, p. 250.

6.   Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155.( http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/)

The (R)Evolution of Theory

The theory of evolution is one of the great intellectual revolutions of human history, drastically changing our perception of the world and of our place in it. Charles Darwin put forth a coherent theory of evolution and amassed a great body of evidence in support of this theory. In Darwin's time, most scientists fully believed that each organism and each adaptation was the work of the creator. Linneaus established the system of biological classification that we use today, and did so in the spirit of cataloguing God's creations.

In other words, all of the similarities and dissimilarities among groups of organisms that are the result of the branching process creating the great tree of life (see Figure 1), were viewed by early 19th century philosophers and scientists as a consequence of omnipotent design.

Figure 1: A phylogenetic "tree of life" constructed by computer analysis of cyochrome c molecules in the organisms shown; there are as many different trees of life as there are methods of analysis for constructing them.

However, by the 19th Century, a number of natural historians were beginning to think of evolutionary change as an explanation for patterns observed in nature. The following ideas were part of the intellectual climate of Darwin's time.

• No one knew how old the earth was, but geologists were beginning to make estimates that the earth was considerably older than explained by biblical creation. Geologists were learning more aboutstrata, or layers formed by successive periods of the deposition of sediments. This suggested a time sequence, with younger strata overlying older strata.
• A concept called uniformitarianism, due largely to the influential geologist Charles Lyell, undertook to decipher earth history under the working hypothesis that present conditions and processes are the key to the past, by investigating ongoing, observable processes such as erosion and the deposition of sediments.
• Discoveries of fossils were accumulating during the 18th and 19th centuries. At first naturalists thought they were finding remains of unknown but still living species. As fossil finds continued, however, it became apparent that nothing like giant dinosaurs was known from anywhere on the planet. Furthermore, as early as 1800, Cuvier pointed out that the deeper the strata, the less similar fossils were to existing species.
• Similarities among groups of organisms were considered evidence of relatedness, which in turn suggested evolutionary change. Darwin's intellectual predecessors accepted the idea of evolutionary relationships among organisms, but they could not provide a satisfactory explanation for how evolution occurred. 
• Lamarck is the most famous of these. In 1801, he proposed organic evolution as the explanation for the physical similarity among groups of organisms, and proposed a mechanism for adaptive change based on the inheritance of acquired characteristics. He wrote of the giraffe:

"We know that this animal, the tallest of mammals, dwells in the interior of Africa, in places where the soil, almost always arid and without herbage, obliges it to browse on trees and to strain itself continuously to reach them. This habit sustained for long, has had the result in all members of its race that the forelegs have grown longer than the hind legs and that its neck has become so stretched, that the giraffe, without standing on its hind legs, lifts its head to a height of six meters."

In essence, this says that the necks of Giraffes became long as a result of continually stretching to reach high foliage. Larmarck was incorrect in the hypothesized mechanism, of course, but his example makes clear that naturalists were thinking about the possibility of evolutionary change in the early 1800's.

• Darwin was influenced by observations made during his youthful voyage as naturalist on the survey ship Beagle. On the Galapagos Islands he noticed the slight variations that made tortoises from different islands recognizably distinct. He also observed a whole array of unique finches, the famous "Darwin's finches," that exhibited slight differences from island to island. In addition, they all appeared to resemble, but differ from, the common finch on the mainland of Ecuador, 600 miles to the east. Patterns in the distribution and similarity of organisms had an important influence of Darwin's thinking. The picture at the top of this page is of Darwin's own sketches of finches in his Journal of Researches.

• In 1859, Darwin published his famous On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, a tome of over 500 pages that marshalled extensive evidence for his theory. Publication of the book caused a furor - every copy of the book was sold the day that it was released. Members of the religious community, as well as some scientific peers, were outraged by Darwin's ideas and protested. Most scientists, however, recognized the power of Darwin's arguments. Today, school boards still debate the validity and suitability of Darwin's theory in science curricula, and a whole body of debate has grown up around the controversy (see the WWW site Talk.Origins for an ongoing dialogue). We do not have time to cover all of Darwin's evidence and arguments, but we can examine the core ideas. What does this theory of evolution say?

   

Darwin's Theory

Darwin’s theory of evolution entails the following fundamental ideas. The first three ideas were already under discussion among earlier and contemporaneous naturalists working on the “species problem” as Darwin began his research.  Darwin’s original contributions were the mechanism of natural selection and copious amounts of evidence for evolutionary change from many sources.  He also provided thoughtful explanations of the consequences of evolution for our understanding of the history of life and modern biological diversity.

• Species (populations of interbreeding organisms) change over time and space.  The representatives of species living today differ from those that lived in the recent past, and populations in different geographic regions today differ slightly in form or behavior.  These differences extend into the fossil record, which provides ample support for this claim.

• All organisms share common ancestors with other organisms.  Over time, populations may divide into different species, which share a common ancestral population.  Far enough back in time, any pair of organisms shares a common ancestor.  For example, humans shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees about eight million years ago, with whales about 60 million years ago, and with kangaroos over 100 million years ago.   Shared ancestry explains the similarities of organisms that are classified together: their similarities reflect the inheritance of traits from a common ancestor.  

• Evolutionary change is gradual and slow in Darwin’s view.  This claim was supported by the long episodes of gradual change in organisms in the fossil record and the fact that no naturalist had observed the sudden appearance of a new species in Darwin’s time.  Since then, biologists and paleontologists have documented a broad spectrum of slow to rapid rates of evolutionary change within lineages. 

The primary mechanism of change over time is natural selection, elaborated below.  This mechanism causes changes in the properties (traits) of organisms within lineages from generation to generation.

The Process of Natural Selection

Darwin’s process of natural selection has four components.

1. Variation.  Organisms (within populations) exhibit individual variation in appearance and behavior.  These variations may involve body size, hair color, facial markings, voice properties, or number of offspring.  On the other hand, some traits show little to no variation among individuals—for example, number of eyes in vertebrates. 
2. Inheritance.  Some traits are consistently passed on from parent to offspring.  Such traits are heritable, whereas other traits are strongly influenced by environmental conditions and show weak heritability.
3. High rate of population growth.  Most populations have more offspring each year than local resources can support leading to a struggle for resources.  Each generation experiences substantial mortality.
4. Differential survival and reproduction.  Individuals possessing traits well suited for the struggle for local resources will contribute more offspring to the next generation. 

From one generation to the next, the struggle for resources (what Darwin called the “struggle for existence”) will favor individuals with some variations over others and thereby change the frequency of traits within the population.  This process is natural selection.  The traits that confer an advantage to those individuals who leave more offspring are called adaptations.

In order for natural selection to operate on a trait, the trait must possess heritable variation and must confer an advantage in the competition for resources.  If one of these requirements does not occur, then the trait does not experience natural selection.  (We now know that such traits may change by other evolutionary mechanisms that have been discovered since Darwin’s time.) 

Natural selection operates by comparative advantage, not an absolute standard of design.  “…as natural selection acts by competition for resources, it adapts the inhabitants of each country only in relation to the degree of perfection of their associates” (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1859).

During the twentieth century, genetics was integrated with Darwin’s mechanism, allowing us to evaluate natural selection as the differential survival and reproduction of genotypes, corresponding to particular phenotypes.  Natural selection can only work on existing variation within a population.  Such variations arise by mutation, a change in some part of the genetic code for a trait.  Mutations arise by chance and without foresight for the potential advantage or disadvantage of the mutation.  In other words, variations do not arise because they are needed.

Evidence of Natural Selection

Let's look at an example to help make natural selection clear.

Industrial melanism is a phenomenon that affected over 70 species of moths in England. It has been best studied in the peppered moth, Biston betularia. Prior to 1800, the typical moth of the species had a light pattern (see Figure 2). Dark colored or melanic moths were rare and were therefore collectors' items.

Figure 2. Image of Peppered Moth

During the Industrial Revolution, soot and other industrial wastes darkened tree trunks and killed off lichens. The light-colored morph of the moth became rare and the dark morph became abundant. In 1819, the first melanic morph was seen; by 1886, it was far more common -- illustrating rapid evolutionary change. 

Eventually light morphs were common in only a few locales, far from industrial areas. The cause of this change was thought to be selective predation by birds, which favored camouflage coloration in the moth.

In the 1950's, the biologist Kettlewell did release-recapture experiments using both morphs. A brief summary of his results are shown below. By observing bird predation from blinds, he could confirm that conspicuousness of moth greatly influenced the chance it would be eaten.

Recapture Success

	light moth	dark moth
non-industrial woods	14.6 %	4.7 %
industrial woods	13 %	27.5 %

Local Adaptation - More Examples

So far in today's lecture we have emphasized that natural selection is the cornerstone of evolutionary theory. It provides the mechanism for adaptive change. Any change in the environment (such as a change in the background color of the tree trunk that you roost on) is likely to lead to local adaptation. Any widespread population is likely to experience different environmental conditions in different parts of its range. As a consequence it will soon consist of a number of sub-populations that differ slightly, or even considerably.

The following are examples that illustrate the adaptation of populations to local conditions.

• The rat snake, Elaphe obsoleta, has recognizably different populations in different locales of eastern North America (see Figure 3). Whether these should be called geographic "races" or subspecies is debatable. These populations all comprise one species, because mating can occur between adjacent populations, causing the species to share a common gene pool (see thelecture on speciation).

Figure 3: Subspecies of the rat snake Elaphe obsoleta, which interbreed where their ranges meet.

• Galapagos finches are the famous example from Darwin's voyage. Each island of the Galapagos that Darwin visited had its own kind of finch (14 in all), found nowhere else in the world. Some had beaks adapted for eating large seeds, others for small seeds, some had parrot-like beaks for feeding on buds and fruits, and some had slender beaks for feeding on small insects (see Figure 4). One used a thorn to probe for insect larvae in wood, like some woodpeckers do. (Six were ground-dwellers, and eight were tree finches.) (This diversification into different ecological roles, or niches, is thought to be necessary to permit the coexistence of multiple species, a topic we will examined in a later lecture.) To Darwin, it appeared that each was slightly modified from an original colonist, probably the finch on the mainland of South America, some 600 miles to the east. It is probable that adaptive radiation led to the formation of so many species because other birds were few or absent, leaving empty niches to fill; and because the numerous islands of the Galapagos provided ample opportunity for geographic isolation.

Figure 4

Stabilizing, Directional, and Diversifying Selection

Finally, we will look at a statistical way of thinking about selection. Suppose that each population can be portrayed as a frequency distribution for some trait -- beak size, for instance. Note again that variation in a trait is the critical raw material for evolution to occur.

What will the frequency distribution look like in the next generation?

Figures 5a-c

First, the proportion of individuals with each value of the trait (size of beak, or body weight) might be exactly the same. Second, there may be directional change in just one direction. Third (and with such rarity that its existence is debatable), there might be simultaneous change in both directions (e.g. both larger and smaller beaks are favored, at the expense of those of intermediate size). Figures 5a-c capture these three major categories of natural selection.

Figure 6

Under stabilizing selection, extreme varieties from both ends of the frequency distribution are eliminated. The frequency distribution looks exactly as it did in the generation before (see Figure 5a). Probably this is the most common form of natural selection, and we often mistake it for no selection. A real-life example is that of birth weight of human babies (see Figure 6).

Under directional selection, individuals at one end of the distribution of beak sizes do especially well, and so the frequency distribution of the trait in the subsequent generation is shifted from where it was in the parental generation (see Figure 5b). This is what we usually think of as natural selection. Industrial melanism was such an example.

Figure 7

The fossil lineage of the horse provides a remarkable demonstration of directional succession. The full lineage is quite complicated and is not just a simple line from the tiny dawn horse Hyracotherium of the early Eocene, to today's familiar Equus. Overall, though, the horse has evolved from a small-bodied ancestor built for moving through woodlands and thickets to its long- legged descendent built for speed on the open grassland. This evolution has involved well- documented changes in teeth, leg length, and toe structure (see Figure 7).

Under diversifying (disruptive) selection, both extremes are favored at the expense of intermediate varieties (see Figure 5c). This is uncommon, but of theoretical interest because it suggests a mechanism for species formation without geographic isolation (see the lecture on speciation).

Summary

Darwin's theory of evolution fundamentally changed the direction of future scientific thought, though it was built on a growing body of thought that began to question prior ideas about the natural world.

The core of Darwin's theory is natural selection, a process that occurs over successive generations and is defined as the differential reproduction of genotypes.

Natural selection requires heritable variation in a given trait, and differential survival and reproduction associated with possession of that trait.

Examples of natural selection are well-documented, both by observation and through the fossil record.

Selection acts on the frequency of traits, and can take the form of stabilizing, directional, or diversifying selection.(http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html)

Creation

Creation may refer to:

In religion and philosophy

o    Creation ex nihilo, the concept that matter comes "from nothing"

o    Creation myth, stories of the supernatural creation of the Earth

o    Genesis creation narrative, the biblical account of creation

In science and technology

o    Matter creation, the appearance of elementary particles, in physical processes such as pair production.( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation)

5 Interesting Theories on World Creation

For centuries, people have wondered how the world was created. We may never know how we came to be, but there are many different theories on the subject. From scientists to mathematicians to religious deities all have theories on how the world was created. What theory you choose to believe is up to you.

1. The Mayans

Image Source

According to the Mayans, there were two people, Tepeu and Gucumatz. They would sit around and think about things and then those things would exist. They thought up the mountains, the earth, the oceans, the sky and the animals and once they did they appeared. They used clay to create people, which would fall apart when they got wet, so they made people at of wood. These people would cause trouble so the God created a flood and wiped them out. They were allowed to start over. This is how the Earth became what it is today.

2. The Scandinavians

Image Source

According the Scandinavians, there was an emptiness that needed to be filled. There were two Gods, Muspell and Niflhiem. Muspell was the leader of the fiery realm and Niflhiem was the leader of the icy realm. They would plat in this vast open space. Inside the space the air grew mild and once the ice started to melt, Ymir was created. He was an evil God. While Ymir slept, he sweated and brought to life two males and a female frost giant. More ice melted in the time passed and a cow was created. She had plenty of milk to feed Ymir. She would nourish herself by licking the ice blocks. After a few days of licking the ice, she revealed a man who had a son. The son married one of the frost giant’s daughters and they had three sons, who killed Ymir. The blood that flowed from Ymir drowned all the frost giants except for Berglimir and his wife. They took the flesh and bones of Ymir and then created the Earth. While walking along the Earth’s surface Odin, one of the sons of the frost giant, spotted two logs and gave them life, while one of the other brothers gave them brains and feelings and the other gave them hearing and sight. From this man and women all life is created.

3. The Chinese

Image Source

Chinese believe that in the beginning heaven and Earth were as one. The universe was a big black egg that carried a God, Pan-Gu, inside itself. Pan Gu awoke from a 18 thousand year nap and wanted out of the egg. He took his broad axe and smashed through. The light became the heavens and the heavier parts became the Earth. Pan-Gu stood in between with his head touching the heavens and his feet firmly planted on the Earth. All three would grow at a rate of ten feet per day. After 18 thousand years everything stopped growing. After his passing, he breathe became the wind and the clouds. His voice is the thunder and his eyes became the sun and moon. The mountains were formed from his body and limbs and the rivers and oceans are made of his blood. The fertile soil is from his muscles and the roads are his veins. The flowers and trees are from his skin and body hair, where the stars are from his beard and hair. Pearls and jade are made from his marrow and his sweat is the rain and dew.

4. The Australians

Image Source

In Australia they believe that the earth was plain and bare in the beginning. There was no light, life or death. The sun, moon, stars and eternal ancestors all slept beneath the Earth. When the ancestors arose, they would walk the earth in human form, animal form, plant form or a combination of the forms. There were two people that formed out of nothing and upon their walks across the Earth’s surface they would come upon some half finished plants, animals and humans. They would then carve heads, bodies and limbs from bundles of plants. This is how people were formed amongst the Earth’s surface. After the work of human creation was finished the ancestors went back to sleep. They either went back under the Earth or they stayed here in the form of plants and animals. They left sacred trails, which can be seen in the forms watering holes, rocks and trees.

5. The Apache Indians

Image Source

They believed that in the beginning there was nothing. Suddenly, there was a thin disk with a man inside. After awaking from his nap he looked up and light appeared, looking down he created a sea of light, to the east he created the streaks of dawn and to the west the colorful streaks of dusk. After creating all the light, he wiped his hands together and then thrust them in a downward motion. A girl on a cloud appeared. He asked her where she was going and she did not answer. She asked him where he was from and he said from the east. She asked where the earth was and he asked where the sky was. He sang four times, which is the lucky number to the Apache Indians that he was thinking of what to create next. He flung his hands wide open and then appeared the sun God. He then dropped his hands and then a small boy appeared. All four Gods where now present and they all shook hands, mixing their sweat together and then he sang about making the Earth again four times. After rubbing his hands together, a brown ball appeared. He kicked it and it expanded, the girl kicked it and it did the same, the sun God and the boy both took turns and the ball continued to expand. He then told the wind to go inside and blow it up. The Creator had created more Gods to look over things on Earth. He had created workers to help with the building of Earth. Once he seen work was done, then he disappeared leaving the works to create the world’s population.

Author: Harmony Stalter — Copyrighted © roadtickle.com(http://roadtickle.com/5-interesting-theories-on-world-creation/)

Creation versus Evolution

We compare the theory of evolution with the Bible’s creation account in easy-to-understand terms, using evidence from the fields of paleontology, geology, biology, and astronomy. We provide links and a bibliography for those who want to study both sides of the issue. We fully explain all the scientific terms on this page.

Note: This page is long. It may be easier to read if you print it out on paper. Print one test page first, as some browser/printer combinations make this text very light.

How did humans (and everything else) come into existence? The only explanation you will find in public school and university textbooks is the theory of evolution. Yet, no scientific, provable evidence supporting the theory of evolution has emerged since Charles Darwin popularized it in 1859.

If there is no support for the theory of evolution, why is no alternative taught? We can only think of two reasons:

>The Bible’s creation account is not “politically acceptable.”
>The authors, book publishers, and school boards do not have all the facts.

We can not help the first condition. This page does contain all the necessary information needed for everyone else.

Two Views of How We Got Here The Creation Account In The Beginning As we wrote in our “Science and the Bible” section, the Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate. We are not aware of anyscientific evidence that contradicts the Bible. We have additional proof in our “How Do You Know The Bible Is True?” section—and more on this page. Since we can prove the Bible is true, it makes sense to find out what the Bible tells us about how life was first created and how we got here. After all, if God is really God, He was there at the time and would know how to tell us what happened. The Bible’s account of the beginning of life in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 can be understood by anyone. Special Note—Genesis 1 and 2 The Bible often restates important points. As an example, the firstfour books in the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are all biographies of Jesus. Scholars have learned over time that these four “views” of Jesus give us a better understanding of Him than we would have had if only one account had been recorded. The same is true of the creation account in the first two chapters of Genesis. Genesis 1 describes all the physical events of creation. Genesis 2 looks back at the creation of humans more closely. Genesis 2 may appear to be a little different from Genesis 1, leading some people to believe there is a mistake in there somewhere. This is a problem caused by translation from the original Hebrew into English. Careful attention to the verb tenses in Hebrew and to the purpose of each chapter removes any apparent contradictions between the two. For example, Genesis chapter 2, verse 19 (Gen 2:19) uses the perfect tense, indicating finished actions regarding the creation of the animals. That is, the animals brought to Adam were created earlier, not created in Adam’s presence. Chapter 2 is a “look back” at the last half of chapter 1. Before we go on, if you would like to read the account yourself, click on the link below. It takes about 5 minutes to read. >Click here to read the Bible’s creation account Note: references on this page, like the one in the paragraph below, are enclosed in brackets [ ]. With most browsers, you can view the reference by clicking on the number. The page will “jump” you to the reference at the bottom of this page. Use your browser’s back button to return toapproximately where you started. It is interesting that the formation of the earth proposed by noted astronomer (astrophysicist) Hugh Ross has the exact same order as the creation account given in Genesis chapter 1 [1]. 1. Creation of the physical universe (space, time, matter, energy, galaxies, stars, planets, etc.) 2. Transformation of the earth’s atmosphere from opaque to translucent. 3. Formation of a stable water cycle. 4. Establishment of continent(s) and ocean(s). 5. Production of plants on the continent(s). 6. Transformation of the atmosphere from translucent to transparent (Sun, Moon, and stars become visible). 7. Production of small sea animals. 8. Creation of sea mammals. 9. Creation of birds. 10. Making of land mammals (wild mammals, mammals that can be domesticated, and rodents). 11. Creation of mankind. Note: The preceding list assumes that the universe was the result of a “big bang” type event (an evolutionary cause). This is not in agreement with the Bible. For example, this list proposes that the appearance of light (item 2) and the appearance of the sun, moon, and stars (item 6) are results of the Earth’s atmospheric changes—not a result of the literal creation of the sun, moon, stars, or light. So, be aware that lists like the one above do not agree with the Bible’s stated cause for these events. We only include this list to illustrate that science agrees with the Bible’s order of creation events. Incidentally, this does not mean that we believe the Bible because we can find some scientific proposals that agree with it. It means that science continues to uphold knowledge recorded in the Bible over three thousand years ago. Another significant event occurs in Genesis chapters 6 through 8—what can be referred to as “The Flood”. To save themselves, Noah and his family built a covered boat called an “ark.” It was a large, boxy craft that resembled a covered barge. Before we go on, if you would like to read the Bible’s record of the ark and the flood yourself, click on the link below. It takes about 7 minutes to read. >Click here to read about Noah’s Ark and the Flood Notice in Genesis chapter 7, verses 11 and 12 that the rain is almost an afterthought. The first two sources of water for the flood mentioned were “the fountains of the great deep” and “the windows of heaven.” Science has discovered large underwater springs [2], so it is easy to imagine “fountains of the great deep” being opened by God, allowing the pressurized water to contribute to the flood. It has also been proposed that the Earth used to have much denser clouds than it has now. Such a “canopy” would create a greenhouse effect, making the climate of the entire world very temperate. Fossil finds indicate that not just the dinosaurs, but all animals, plants, and insects were much larger at one time—indicating a superior climate. At the time of the flood, it would have been easy for God to allow this canopy (or a large percentage of it) to fall as water. If almost everything fell at once, it would not have been like rain, it would have been like opening “the windows of heaven.” The crushing splash of water would have quickly drowned all people and animals that found themselves suddenly and unexpectedly immersed in water. Although “off the subject,” this could explain the thousands of woolly mammoths that have been found perfectly preserved in polar areas—some with food still in their mouths. Once the protective canopy and its greenhouse effect was gone, the world would have turned cold on the poles, freezing the mammoths in the water that killed them. Note: Genesis chapter 1, verse 7 states, “Thus God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.” Since the word firmament means an “expanse,” some people proposed that the firmament corresponds to Earth’s atmosphere, and use the verse to “prove” that a canopy of water existed above our atmosphere. However, we learn in Genesis chapter 1 verses 14-19 that the Sun and Moon are in the firmament. Therefore, the firmament corresponds to the Earth’s atmosphere and the heavens beyond. This does not mean the “canopy theory” is wrong, but that well-meaning people must not use the Bible to “prove” that it is true. The Theory of Evolution       How Did the Theory Start? Summarized briefly, Charles Darwin studied wildlife while on a voyage and he noticed the variation in the appearance of the individual animals. He guessed that this variation, given enough time, would allow these animals to change to the point that they looked different. This was not a surprising discovery, by the way. Anyone can examine different varieties of roses or cats to see this. This process of changing an organism’s appearance through a series of small changes is correctly called “microevolution” (with an “i”) and is not what we are referring to when we write “the theory of evolution” on this page. After a series of microevolutionary changes, a frog may be larger or changed in color, but it is still a frog—not a fish or a lizard. Getting the Terms Straight The textbooks and media teach us that we came into existence by a two step process: First, 10 plus billion years of accidental, random atomic collisions resulted in the formation of some simple form of life. Scientists call this development of living organisms from nonliving matter “abiogenesis.” >Click here to learn about abiogenesis (getting life from nonliving matter). Second, they use Darwin’s theory, stating that this simple life evolved over the next 3 plus billion years into the plants, animals, and humans we see today—using the long term effects of microevolutionary changes. Scientists call this process of developing new life forms “macroevolution” (Note the different spelling.) Both of these processes put together are what the public at large and the scientific community think the “theory of evolution” is [3]. Therefore, abiogenesis combined with macroevolution is what we are referring to when we write the “theory of evolution” on this page. For example, if you observe a discussion between two people regarding whether the Bible’s creation account or the theory of evolution is correct, they will not be debating whether a species of clam can develop larger ridges in its shell! (A microevolution topic.) They will be discussing “where did life come from?” and “did we descend from apelike ancestors?” These are abiogenesis and macroevolution topics, respectively. There is no empirical (reproducible and testable) proof for abiogenesis or macroevolution. So, the person supporting evolution will typically turn the argument around to microevolution, where some evidence exists. Please be aware that if someone attempts to justify the theory of evolution by showing how microevolution works, they are changing the topic on you and not proving anything. A Note on DNA As a proof of macroevolution, many scientists turn to a lengthy, yet sophisticated discussion about changes in DNA from generation to generation. Be aware that this is still a jump in logic, since DNA changes are a microevolution topic—not scientific proof of abiogenesis, macroevolution, or the theory of evolution. Who Currently Develops and Promotes These Theories? Scientists and professors who promote evolutionary thought usually come from one of three scientific fields. The first field is calledpaleontology. A paleontologist is a scientist who (1) examines fossils, (2) proposes the “family tree of life” they come from, (3) estimates the time frame in which they lived (based on the geologic rock layers they were found in), and (4) speculates on their evolutionary paths. The other two fields in this area are geology (the study of “rocks”) and biology (the study animals and plants). The scientists in these areas are closely related and often work together. The work that involves studying the evolutionary development of groups of organisms (plants and animals) is called phylogeny and can be done by any of these people. There are other related fields such as anthropology and even astronomy that provide information relevant to our discussion of creation and evolution, but we will not list them all. Note—not all of these scientists believe in the theory of evolution. These are simply the scientific fields that supply most of the facts related to this topic. Many of them, especially scientists in the related fields of astronomy and astrophysics, are realizing that the Bible’s creation account is a good explanation of “how we got here.” Still, although many astronomers accept a “Creator,” many still interpret the Bible so loosely that they believe that the universe (and the earth) is billions of years old. The link below explainsusing simple terms their measurement methods and shows why the earth could be “young” (less than 10,000 years old). How astronomers measure the universe and estimate its age. The Role of the Book Since Darwin’s time, the theory of evolution developed through people writing books. Nothing dug up out of the ground (or discovered anywhere else) has ever supported the theory of evolution.Examine the books that promote evolution yourself. They typically contain two things: First, they contain artist’s drawings that show the ages and names of the layers of the earth. Second, they contain artist’s drawings showing plants and animals arranged in a “family tree.” Please remember one thing, these pictures are not evidence. Printing them for more than a hundred years does not change that, either. Anyone can construct a table or draw a picture and propose a theory, but that does not prove the theory. Yes, we know that the books supporting evolution contain much more information than two pictures. However, from this “foundation,” the authors only apply the facts in their books to “the theory of evolution model.” We are not aware of any public school text that mentions another model, like the Bible’s creation account. That is a primary reason for creating this page. Questions Someone Always Asks about the Bible’s Creation Account Before we go on, we would like to answer some questions that always seem to come up. One involves how pairs of all the animals could have been collected by one family. Remember, if God is really God, he could have caused the flood, a supernatural event, to occur. Does it not also make sense that God could cause pairs of animals to migrate to the location of the ark? Notice the phrase in Genesis chapter 6, verse 20: "two of every kind will come to you." Also, Genesis chapter 7, verse 9 states the animals "went into the ark to Noah."The answer is simple, Noah did not go and get the animals, God did. The next question is, how did all those animals fit on the ark? First, you should notice that different “kinds” of animals were brought onto the ark (Gen 6:20). Unlike the more recently introduced terms “genus,” “species,” and so forth [4], the Bible’s “kinds” can be thought of as what the “average person” would call an animal. For example, there may be many species of doves, but they are all still doves. Therefore, doves would be a “kind” of animal (bird, actually). Scientists have calculated the average size of the different kinds of animals (except for dinosaurs). It comes out to be about the size of a sheep. Based on this, we believe that all the “kinds” of animals would have taken up about one-third (1/3) of the room on the ark. That would leave plenty of room for Noah’s family and a year’s supply of food. Now, what about dinosaurs, were they on the ark and could they fit? (If you do not understand that dinosaurs and humans were alive at the same time, you need to read our Dinosaurs Page.) We believe dinosaurs were on the ark. The solution to getting the large ones on the ark is in using young dinosaurs. They take up less room, they eat less, and they have more of their reproductive life left for restarting the population. Although out of context for this page, we offer one explanation regarding why most dinosaurs disappeared (after the flood was over and they left the ark) here in our frequently asked questions section. What makes the flood important to our topic is all the evidence it left around. For one thing, pretty much everything that did not live in water would have been killed in a yearlong flood. This would have left an enormous layer of dead things that would later become coal and oil . . . and leave fossils. It is evident to everyone, as we view our dwindling energy resources, that a lot of material was left in the ground at one time. As this page develops, we will discuss why we believe these resources were left as the aftermath of a flood, rather than the result of accumulation of normal dying animals and plants over millions of years. If you have flown on a plane, you probably noticed how different mountains look from the air than they do from the ground. They look more “wrinkled” than you would expect, and almost “artificial” in appearance. The canyons and rivers that flow out of them look different also—sort of like the seashore after the tide runs out and you see little “grooves” in the sand. This is especially noticeable if you are flying over a part of the world that does not have much vegetation to hide the shape of the land like Arizona, Nevada, and Utah in the United States. The next time you are in a plane and   over such an area, look down and see if it makes sense that this appearance could have been caused about 4,000 years ago if everything had been covered with water for a year and then drained off in a short time. We do not claim this as proof, by the way—but this is one of many such observations that make one wonder. The Evidence As “evidence” to support their theory, most books on evolution include a reference list (bibliography) of other books and articles that also support the theory of   evolution. We spent a great deal of time examining these sources and saw only a “circle of information,” with each document pointing to the next source as their “proof.” In college, we cynically called this procedure the “tower of babble.” (Yes, “babble” is the right word—this phrase is a pun.) To perform this procedure, the graduate student wrote their thesis based on the work and assumptions made by a previous graduate student. Of course that previous student did the same thing using the material of a still earlier student. By adding plenty of scientific terms and classifications, you not only sounded scholarly, but the thesis looked impressive to your family and friends! Unfortunately (and we really do mean unfortunately) we found that the writings on evolution are the same. We could not locate any with testable, scientific, first generation evidence. (We will discuss the scientific facts later.) The bulk of the material was based on the assumption that evolution is the only mechanism though which present day life arose. Ultimately, each document traced its beliefs back to Darwin’s theoretical writings. If you think we are exaggerating, examine the documentation yourself. By the way, the web contains many online versions of Darwin’s book. Why is this theoretical book so prominently available (and always recommended reading) if it is not the primary foundation of (and evidence for) the theory of evolution? By the way, we realize that many of the writings that support the Bible’s creation account also have flimsy or questionable evidence. We are trying to break out of that behavior pattern. We are not proposing that every science book should throw out the evolution model and stick in the Bible’s creation account instead. We propose that the Biblical model should be mentioned and given “equal time,” with an unbiased treatment showing how it agrees with the facts. If you want to find someone who can compose the biblical side, write us: So, How Do I Get to the Facts? If you like reading books, a good one on this topic is The Collapse of Evolution by Scott M. Huse. Another good book is Darwin’s Black Box by Michael J. Behe, a Professor of Biochemistry. There is one advantage to a book—you can carry it around more easily than your   computer, and you do not need an Internet connection, either! Both of these books qualify as “best sellers.” In the following section, we will apply the scientific method to the known, scientific facts relevant to the origins of our world (and the plants and animals on it). For those who are not familiar with the “scientific method,” it states the proper way to test and answer questions scientifically. It has four steps: State the question. Form a hypothesis (educated guess of the answer to the question). Do experiments (to test whether the hypothesis is right or not). Interpret the data (results) and draw conclusions. For the purpose of this page, the scientific method applies as follows: The question: “Where did life (and people) come from?” The two hypotheses: The “creation model” as written in the Bible tells us how we got here. The “evolution model” using abiogenesis combined with macroevolution tells us how we got here. The experiments: Various tests and discoveries by paleontologists, biologists, geologists, and other scientists. The data (results): Listed under “Scientific Facts” in the table below. We draw conclusions and mark the hypothesis that fits the data best with a red dot. There are some cases where both hypotheses fit the facts. In those cases, we gave both models a red dot. To see the reasoning behind any evaluation, click on the topic or the red dot and it will “jump” you to the explanation. Use your browser’s back button to return to approximately where you were before the “jump.” Scientific Facts Compared to the Bible’s Creation Account and the Theory of Evolution Scientific Fact Creation Model Evolution Model Scientists developed ways to measure the universe (and therefore its age). Scientists have found a large number of fossils. The earth’s surface is deposited in layers. The layers of the earth’s surface contain different fossils. Many fossils have been discovered that span many geologic layers. Large groups of fossils are often     found together. These “graveyards” contain a wide variety of animal remains. Scientists have successfully arranged groups of animals into a “tree of life” (phylogenetic tree). Scientists have discovered transitional forms (missing links). Many animals appeared suddenly at the start of the “Cambrian Period,” even though only a few multicellular fossils appear in “earlier” rock layers. Scientists discovered “living fossils” like the coelacanth that have not changed in form for “millions of years.” Scientists discovered “modern men” in Pliocene deposits. Important We believe any unbiased reader will realize that we were fair with our treatment of the two models in the table above. Yet, although the theory of evolution matches the facts in some cases, evolution is still an unproven theory. Further, the scientific evidence matches the Bible’s creation account better in most cases. By now, you may believe it should be your first choice also. How Do I Know What I Saw Here Is Correct? Unlike many others that preceded us, we attempted to find a clear defense ofevolution for two reasons: >To keep from being accused of bias. >To keep from making claims that someone could refute later. Even though there are a great number of claims in books and on the Internet, we could find no scientific, testable facts that support the theory of evolution. The best site we could find was at The University of California at Berkeley. If you are interested, click here to examine the scientific evidence recorded at UC Berkeley yourself. It includes lots of pictures, links to other pages, and scientific names. The site is very interesting and informative. Yet, we could not find a listing of the provable, testable facts supporting evolution anywhere. Take some time and search the Internet yourself. Just search for “evolution,” “phylogeny,” “geologic column,” or any related keyword in any search engine you choose. If you find any hard scientific, testable evidence for evolution, please write us:  and let us know (and include the link)! Incidentally, this does not mean that we believe the work at Berkeley (and other places) does not have value. On the contrary, we appreciate paleontologists, geologists, biologists, and all the other related scientists. We differ in that we believe their data fit the Bible’s “creation model” best and the facts should be applied to it, rather than to the unproven “theory of evolution model.” Still, we are not so naive as to believe that our saying so will change the opinions of anyone. Paraphrasing what we said at the beginning of this page, the reason many people will not change their point of view is because: >The Bible’s creation account is not “politically acceptable” in the context of their lifestyle. >They do not want to take the time to learn the truth. Reasoning used for the Comparison of Creation and Evolution to the Facts Scientists have ways to measure the universe (and therefore its age). This is an interesting topic and we constructed a separate page to address it. > Click here to learn how astronomers measure the universe and its age. Scientists have found a large number of fossils. Yes, there are many fossils lying around. That means a lot of plants and animals died and we can find their fossilized remains. Someone who believes in evolution would have you believe this happened over time. Think logically—if a rat died in an open field today, or a deer died in the woods, would either become fossilized? Would they stay put and untouched on the ground long enough to be covered by dirt eventually and become fossilized? No. They would be eaten by other animals and blown around by the winds and rains until a complete skeleton was no longer available. The reality is that there is no evidence that fossils were formed continually (or are being formed continually) as the theory of evolution predicts. On the other hand, what would happen if there were a worldwide flood, causing everything to drown, including the rat and the deer? They might float for awhile, but would eventually sink to the bottom of the water. Next, the sediment on the bottom of the water would cover the remains (since it is very mobile compared to dirt on land—especially if there is a flood going on at the time) starting the process of fossilization. There is no question that the large number of fossils testifies to the accuracy of the creation model rather than the theory of evolution model. The earth’s surface is deposited in layers. The point of discussion here is whether the layers were deposited over vast geological times or over a relatively quick period. Steve Austin investigated the Mount St. Helens eruption, which produced a small scale version of the Grand Canyon. He showed that thousands of layers were deposited over a number ofdays rather than being laid down gradually over long (4.5 billion years) geologic ages. We are not stating that this proves that the layers of the earth’s surface were laid down quickly. We are stating that ample evidence exists that the layers of the earth could be produced quickly by a geologic catastrophe like the flood in the Bible. Since neither model can prove itself   in this area, we will award a “tie” to the creation and evolution models. If you are interested, Steve Austin’s presentation, entitled Mount St. Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe is available on video cassette throughThe Institute for Creation Research. It includes spectacular shots taken before, during, and after the eruption of Mount St. Helens. The layers of the Earth’s surface contain different fossils. What the theory of evolution says We are told that old fossils are found in old rock layers and recent fossils are found in recent rock layers. Yet, some fossils (like clams) are found in all strata, including rock layers at mountain tops. So, learning which clam was millions of years old and which one is only a few thousand years old becomes a little tricky. Most people do not know that most rock layers are “dated” by the fossils they contain. Scientists will choose a special reference fossil called an “index fossil.” Then they assume (based on the phylogenetic tree) that the “simple” index fossils were the oldest. Finding one of these “oldest” index fossils in a layer identifies that layer as the “oldest.” They then assign a date to that rock layer (based on the theory of evolution) and record that date on their geologic time scale. They continue this process with the “more complex” index fossils—assigning each increase in “complexity” to a younger rock layer until they complete filling out the geologic time scale. (A complete geologic time scale is also referred to as a “geologic column.”) One special note: Although Darwin popularized “evolution,” he was not the first person to suggest it. Others before him proposed that layers of the earth were laid down in a sequence—suggesting geologic dates based on their“evolutionary model.” Remember, the mere fact that someone preceded Darwin does not prove Darwin’s theories, validate these dating methods, or prove the theory of evolution. Notice that although the layers of the earth were dated using index fossils, the index fossils were dated by guessing their age based on the theory of evolution. This is not science nor a valid application of the scientific method. Suggesting a hypothetical age for a fossil (based on a theory) and then telling everyone it is an established fact is not the way to apply the scientific method. If you quiz paleontologists about this, many will assure you that their techniques are indeed scientific. They will tell you they accurately date the fossil using the date of the rock layer in which   they found it. Did you notice what just happened? They assigned a date to the fossil, then dated the layer of earth which contained that fossil. Then they turned around and told you they knew the age of the fossil, because they knew the date of that layer of earth. This is called “circular reasoning.” You may be wondering about radiometric (radioactive) dating, which we will examine next. However, you should know that scientists established the geologic time scale and assigned the ages of the fossils in those rock layersbefore radioactive dating was invented. In essence, the discussion of radioactive dating is a sophisticated way to divert people’s attention from the fact that there is no evidence to support the theory of evolution. What about radiometric dating? Radiometric (radioactive) dating does not yield results that are as consistent as many books would have you believe. For example, Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon dating (tests used for dating volcanic rock) rely on the assumption that no radiogenic Argon exists in the rocks when they form—an assumption that is not true. [5] With no consistent starting point or “zero age,” the rock ages reported by the test can vary dramatically, (depending on the amount of radiogenic Argon they started with). [6] There is another radioactive dating method called “fission track dating,” so named because the decay of Uranium 238 creates a minor disruption in the material that scientists call a “track.” Unfortunately, it has results that differ from the other radiometric methods. For example, a rock in Nigeria dated 95 million years old with Potassium-Argon dating, and 750 million years old using Uranium-Helium dating measured only 30 million years old with fission track dating. [7] Do you see how the scientist could control the age reported for the geologic layer by specifying the test method? There is one documented case where a single lump of tuff (a type of porous rock) contained components which individually dated at 1.87 million years, 25 million years, and 500 million years old. [8] Now ask yourself, if you can get such large discrepancies within a single lump, how accurately do you believe that these testing methods define the ages of layers of the earth where fossils are found? Yes, there is a “more accurate” radioactive dating method available called “isochron dating.” You can get an overview of isochron dating by clicking on this sentence. This dating technique does have a problem, though. It is designed to measure times on the order of a billion (1,000,000,000) years or more. Therefore everything you measure with this dating technique will seem to have great age. For example, if you wanted to measure the distance between Los Angeles and New York, you could fly a jet airplane at a constant speed and measure the time the flight takes. Knowing the speed and time, you can calculate the distance. Now, what would happen if you used the same technique to measure the length of a house you flew over on the way to New York? It would give you bad results because you could not measure the time it took to fly over the house accurately enough to get a good answer. The same is true if you use isochron dating to measure something that is only a few thousand years old. Another problem arises when you submit a sample for testing. Because of the variations that we just mentioned, the people operating the equipment will ask you for an estimated age of the item—before they run the test. This is true of both radiometric dating (used for igneous rock) and Carbon 14 dating (used for things that were once living). Did you notice what happened? The scientist biased the results by determining the desired result before starting. Then, they chose a method that will give them the results they expect. This is not correct scientific procedure. How would you like it if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) evaluated products onlyafter they predicted the results? What the Bible says The worldwide flood described in the Bible would also place different fossils in the layers of the Earth’s surface. A worldwide flood would kill all the animals (except for some that normally live in water) and most of the vegetation. Without land to break up the tides, all water movement would become very turbulent, mixing the different sizes and species together with trees and other vegetation. Whatever happened to sink to the bottom first would be covered first with the earth and silt stirred up during the flood. Those plants and animals that sank later would be buried in the higher layers. To be fair, finding fossils in different layers of earth does not prove the Bible’s creation model either. For that reason, we give both models a “tie” on this issue. Many fossils have been discovered that span many geologic layers. In 1976, the complete fossil skeleton of a baleen whale was uncovered in Lompoc, California, crossing many geological layers (apparently “millions of years” of strata) [9]. This is an isolated incident, but the fossil discoveries in the next paragraph are very common. Fossil trees are often found in a position where a single fossil occupies many geologic layers at the same time. These are referred to as “polystrate fossil trees.” (See sketch at right.) Are we supposed to believe these trees died and remained partly buried for thousands or millions of years until they became completely buried and fossilized? We would like someone to prove it to us by showing us a tree that was alive 10,000 or 20,000 years ago and is mostly (but not completely) buried in an upright position today. A flood, which would cause massive amounts of earth movement, is a much better explanation for the unique placement of both of these fossil types. For example, a whale that died or was killed could get temporarily stuck in an upright position and quickly buried. The same thing could happen to a tree. Put simply, trees broken off during a flood would float until they became water-logged. Then, the denser (and larger diameter) root end of some of the trees would sink lower in the water, putting those trees in an upright position. Later, after completely sinking, the now upright trees would be buried in sediment. This happened to many trees when Mount St. Helens erupted. Any scuba diver in Spirit Lake (next to Mount St. Helens) can find many half-buried, uprighttrees (not stumps) in the bottom of the lake today. If you would like more detail, we recommend viewing the video done by Steve Austin which thoroughly, yet simply explains the mechanism that allows trees to span the geologic layers [10]. These fossils and others that span multiple layers reject and disprove the concept that geologic layers always represent long periods of time. Therefore “dating” fossils by the layer of earth they are found in (to support the theory of evolution) is not valid. We do not dismiss the fact that layers can be laid down over time. We are saying that the existence of layers in the earth does not prove the passage of any specific time. Further, we do know that fossils found in different layers can be deposited at essentially the same time. Large groups of fossils are often found together. These “graveyards” contain a wide variety of animal remains. Many different types of fossils are found mixed in with one another. How logical is it that animals would die in heaps, leaving their remains for a long period of time until they are eventually covered up with dust and become fossils? Does this happen anywhere today? Of course not. On the other hand, if there was a worldwide flood, causing everything to drown, you would expect the bodies of all types of unrelated animals to eventually come to rest on the bottom of the body of water, in piles. As we mentioned before, the mobile sediments on the water’s “floor” would easily move around and start covering these piles of animals, forming mass “graveyards.” Scientists have successfully arranged groups of animals into a “tree of life” (phylogenetic tree) If you examine a tree of life, you will observe something surprising—no species on one branch changes into a species on another branch. In each case the species is distinct. There are no links where one species changes into another. Yes, you can line up a dog and a cat and a person, but where is the transitional form that split into the two species? You are only shown a gap where the change was to have taken place. It does not take a Ph.D. to realize that no true transitional forms have been found, and the tree is trying to illustrate a principle that does not actually exist. There used to be an interactive phylogenetic tree on the web, which was not only fun to “play with,” but also demonstrated the concept mentioned in the preceding paragraph very well. Early visitors to this page were able to use a link we provided to check it out. Unfortunately, the Webmaster of that site removed that questionable (but cool) feature and exchanged it with a cladogram. To see a cladogram, click here. Scientists have discovered transitional forms (missing links). This is such an interesting topic, we constructed two separate pages to address it. The first examines a sequence of transitional forms. The second examines a “missing link,” the Archaeopteryx. > Click here to learn more about the transitional forms found. > Archaeopteryx: Did Some Dinosaurs Evolve Into Birds? Many animals appeared suddenly at the start of the “Cambrian Period,” even though only a few multicellular fossils appear in “earlier” rock layers. At a certain level (rocks corresponding to the “Pre Cambrian Era”) the geologic layers contain almost no fossils. The few that exist are those from cellular and multicellular creatures such as algae or bacteria. Suddenly, in the next higher layer (corresponding to the “Cambrian Period”) many sophisticated, fully formed fossils appear. These varied creatures include Trilobites, brachiopods, gastropods, bivalves, crinoids, graptolites, sponges, and segmented worms. This sudden appearance of so many fully developed life forms can not be explained using the theory of evolution and the slow-working microevolution model. Too many different creatures appear fully developed, too suddenly. Note: some of these animals, like the bivalves (clams and so forth) are still with us today. They look pretty much the same as they always did, even though the theory of evolution would have us believe they are very primitive life forms and should have changed a little by now! (We will comment further when discussing “living fossils” in the next section.) In contrast with the theory of evolution, the Bible’s creation account can explain why so many fully developed creatures came into existence so suddenly—God created them. Further, a world wide flood can easily explain a geologic layer filled with complex fossil remains resting on top of a relatively “empty” geologic layer—these creatures were killed during the flood. If you do not understand how something that lives under water can be killed by a flood, remember “the springs of the great deep” that opened up at the beginning of the flood. If these “springs” resembled today’s hydrothermal vents [2], they could easily “cook” all the marine life in the vicinity, which would then become the first casualties, being buried in the ocean floor sediment before the other plants and animals. This would also explain why the fossils of these life forms are typically found in the lowest strata. Scientists discovered “living fossils” like the coelacanth that have not changed in form for “millions of years.” This is a genuine embarrassment for scientists who believe in evolution, who had to scramble for ideas that explained why these animals did not evolve while others did. (They had to find some explanation, or admit that the theory of evolution was wrong.) A popular example of such an explanation uses the concept of “stabilizing selection,” which would be worded like this: “Natural selection prevented change by eliminating all the innovations, sometimes for periods of millions of years.” Notice that this statement is the exact opposite of normal evolutionary thought. If that is really the case, we wonder why some “renegade” species chose to follow stabilizing selection while others chose to evolve. The reality is that the theory of evolution has no valid explanation for living fossils. This is an example of the concept of stasis—standing in one spot. It may help you to know that stasis is not limited to “living fossils.” Stephen Jay Gould (an evolutionist) stated, “Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.” Therefore, both living fossils and the fossil record itself are in conflict with the theory of evolution, which normally teaches that we should see constant change in species—not stasis. Actually, the concept of stasis fits the Bible’s creation model perfectly. We would expect created plants and animals to remain in stasis—the way God created them. Scientists discovered “modern men” in Pliocene deposits. Modern human skulls and bones have been discovered in Pliocene layers. These findings include those at Calaveras (1866), Castenedolo (1860, 1880), and Ipswich (1912). [11] Finding modern human remains in layers that are believed to be 7-12 million years old casts serious doubt on the theory of evolution regarding humans (or scientific dating methods), since that is the time Ramapithecus (a supposed ape-man) was proposed to exist. If both Ramapithecus and modern man lived at the same time, we would know that people did not evolve from this “ancestor” (or any of the “later” ones). That is, for modern man to evolve from Ramapithecus, Ramapithecus would have had to exist before modern man. The evidence does not support this idea. To explain these “threatening” discoveries, scientists offered many explanations regarding how all these fossils ended up in a Pliocene layer. The most popular explanation is that these remains were the result of burials, which just happened to end up in a Pliocene layer. There is, however, a real problem with this claim: no scientist wishes to announce a “discovery” and later have someone make them into a fool by revealing that they only dug up a grave (or was the naive dupe of a hoaxer). As a result, these men documented the geologic terrain to make sure that the remains they found were not the result of an “intrusive burial” before reporting the findings. A Final Comment Since this writer spent many years in scientific research, I know how painful it is to propose a theory and then discover evidence disproving the theory. Still, the professional thing to do is admit that the proposed theory was wrong and look for a new hypothesis. In this way, you eventually discover the truth. Open-minded scientists will always follow such a procedure. The reader may find it interesting to learn that it was our original intention to explain how God “used” evolutionary processes to accomplish the creation described in the Bible. We later learned that the evidence does not support the theory of evolution, but supports a literal creation by God in six days. This required a change in our “theory,” but we were more interested in presenting the truth than in promoting a favorite theory. Unfortunately, it seems that many people are so committed to the theory of evolution that they can not admit that their theory is failing on every front. Therefore, they “explain away” or ignore the evidence that they do not like and highlight evidence that supports their viewpoint. Selectively choosing the evidence you like and disregarding the evidence you dislike is not the way to discover the truth. For anyone who read this entire page (and who does not have a “chip” on their shoulder), one conclusion should be clear: the evidence strongly favors the Bible's creation account, and does not support the theory of evolution. References Note: some of the references below are books or articles—not links to other web pages. We have copies of all of the web references in case any of them are removed from their web sites. If any of the links are broken, please contact us:  and we will either fix the link or make the article available on our server. [1] Ross, Hugh, The Fingerprint of God, p. 168 [2] Submarine Volcanic Ecosystems (An article on hydrothermal vents.) [3] Introduction to Evolutionary Biology, Version 2, by Chris Colby [4] Linnaeus, Carolus, “Systema naturae” (1735). [5] "Excess Argon": The "Achilles' Heel" of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon "Dating" of Volcanic Rocks [6] Bowden, Malcolm (1991) Science vs. Evolution, Sovereign Publications, Kent, p. 117—referring to the article by Funkhouser, J.G. and Naughton, J.J. “Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii” Journal of Geophysical Research 15th July 1968 v73 n14 p 4601-7. [7] Bowden, Malcolm (1991) Science vs. Evolution, Sovereign Publications, Kent, p. 116—referring to the article by Fisher, D.E. Nature Physical Science 19 July 1971 v232 p60-61. [8] Bowden, Malcolm (1991) Science vs. Evolution, Sovereign Publications, Kent, p. 119—referring to the article by Gleadow, A.J.W., “Fission track age of the KBS Tuff and associated hominid remains in northern Kenya” Nature 20 March 1980 v284 p225-230. [9] Russel, K. M. 1976. Workers Find Whale in Diatomaceous Earth Quarry. Chemical and Engineering News. 54(41):48. (October 4, 1976 issue). [10] Mount St. Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe, video.Available through The Institute for Creation Research. [11] Bowden, Malcolm (1977) APE-MEN - Fact or Fallacy?, Sovereign Publications, Kent, p. 76-79(http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml)