Man from Microbes?

Evolutionists talk very glibly about how man evolved from microbes, but, among other things, such “spontaneous” generation requires truckloads of additional information. However, according to Bruce Malone and Julie Von Vett, the belief that information will just appear is not evidentially supported:

• All random changes to the genome (DNA) information content result in a decrease in functional information. This information degeneration is the “trade secret” of geneticists. (Inspired Evidence, drawing from the work of Jonathan Sarfati, “The Greatest Hoax on Earth?: Refuting Dawkins on Evolution,” 43)

Instead of evolution, the findings argue instead in favor of de-evolution. Let’s just consider a handful of findings:

• We have never seen a star born, but we have seen hundreds die. (Kleiss)

• Evolution is just plain unscientific. It violates the laws of chemistry including the second law of thermodynamics, the laws of probability, and information theory. (Eric Norman)

• One-third of all known species [of birds] on the [Hawaiian] islands have become extinct within the last 1,500 years. Yet no new species of Hawaiian birds have developed over the same period…This evidence implies that the millions of different life forms on Earth could not have come from evolution, because creatures become extinct far faster than they could possibly evolve into new types. (Kleiss)

• GENOME ENTROPY: “If humans have evolved from less intelligent creatures, one would expect the earliest written languages to be the least complex. The opposite is true. The oldest languages are the most complex.” (Kleiss)

• This [collection of defects] is exactly what is happening to the human genome at an alarming rate. Thousands of tiny mistakes are building up with each generation. (Bruce Malone)

• There is no theoretical reason that would permit us to expect that evolutionary lines would increase in complexity with time; there is also no empirical evidence that this happens. (John Maynard Smith, E. Szathmary—quoted from John Lennox’s book, God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God, 107.)

• In the whole experimentally accessible domain of microevolution (including research in artificial breeding and in species formation), all variations have certainly remained within the confines of basic types [species, more or less]. (Siegfried Scherer)

• Cell biologist E.J. Ambrose of the University of London argued that it is unlikely that fewer than five genes could ever be involved in the formation of even the simplest new structure, previously unknown in the organism. He then points out that only one in 1,000 mutations is non-deleterious, so that the chance of five non-deleterious mutations occurring is 1 in a million billion replications. [This means that every organism will probably die before it adds a new organ!]

• Well, as common sense would suggest, the Darwinian theory is correct in the small, but not in the large. Rabbits come from other slightly different rabbits, not from either [primeval] soup or potatoes. (Astro-Physicist, Fred Hoyle)

The above all point to the fact of the loss of information and not its development. Consequently, Malone and Von Vett conclude:

• Both scientists and non-scientist are actually observing the same thing – life degenerates but new more complex forms of life are not appearing.

Perhaps these findings suggest that the scientific community should be willing to place God back on the table, at least for a second look.