the evolutionists’ calculations are completely wrong because they do not take into account the rate of survival.
Denote by N the total number of members of a population, by q the average number of members that will reach the reproductive age, and by R the survival rate. Then R = q/N. Obviously, 0 < R < 1.
Denote by K the number of generations that will retain newly acquired characteristics that came as the result of a random mutation, by PK the probability that this characteristic will be found in the K-th generation. It can be proven that Pk = A × RK.
Here, A is a proportionality constant depending on the average number of cubs. (Readers with a basic knowledge of the probability theory could consult Appendix A.)
With each passing generation Pk goes rapidly down and after about 20 generations it is, for all practical purposes, equal to zero.
This is how the probability theory puts the evolutionary theory to shame. It is no wonder that the geneticists and mathematicians are among the most ardent opponents of Darwin’s theory.
There is another reason why geneticists are opposed to the evolutionary theory. It has something to do with the conclusions that contradict experimental genetic data.
Recently several groups of geneticists came to the conclusion that the human genotype could be traced to a woman who, probably, lived several thousand years ago somewhere in North Africa; they even dubbed her “Eve.” Not all geneticists agree with this conclusion, but even those who disagree do not state that such tracing is impossible in principle; they simply say that it is beyond the level of modern science, but that in the not-so-distant future it will become a reality. This tracing leads to three possibilities:
1) The human race has two progenitors, a man and a woman.
For the evolutionists, this opens a can of worms with all kinds of unsettling questions about religion.
2) The trail goes beyond the human race and stops with two pre-historic beings, say, male and female apes.
This raises another set of unsettling questions—why does the trail stop here? Who were these beings? Were they created by an extraterrestrial race? What is the meaning of this?
3) The genetic trail leads all the way back to the original cell.
This is a sign of even more trouble! For the original cell is a single parent whose existence implies that all living organisms on this planet carry its genetic imprint. By isolating a common denominator, the imprint of the original cell, in primitive organisms, geneticists should be able to determine how inorganic matter evolved into organic matter with a DNA-like structure that produced the original cell. However, as the research in the field of genetics shows, the imprint of the original cell is a fiction that has nothing to do with serious science. Evolutionists ventured into the field of genetics but came up empty-handed.
Now we are going to present the extremely important argument above in a nutshell, so the evolutionists can read it and weep!
In biology textbooks the DNA compounds are described as long strands of molecules bonded together; modern technology allows these long strands to be cut into smaller ones in an arbitrary manner. If the theories of the original cell, or original cells, are correct, it is possible to cut human DNA, or the DNA of any other species, into smaller and smaller strands in such a way that at least one strand will have a structure identical to that of an original cell. If this strand, also called the imprint of an original cell, is placed into a chemical solution containing enough building blocks, it will imitate the function of an original cell by duplicating itself. As all geneticists agree, such duplication has not been observed so far. A small number of geneticists contend that the imprint mutated beyond recognition and that the original structure is gone for good. However, a majority of the geneticists counter their argument by saying that such mutation would have destroyed the self-reproductive capability.
7 : The Original Cell as an Entity That Cannot Possibly Exist
Evolutionists believe that an as yet unknown chemical reaction turned inorganic matter into a DNA-like structure called the original cell. This transformation, they say, occurred millions of years ago. So far, however, nobody has been able to reproduce the reaction and there are no theoretical considerations showing that such a transformation is possible. In fact, the exact opposite is true—theoretically, it is impossible for this kind of transformation to occur. The proof is presented in Appendix B of this book. Unfortunately, the proof is extremely complicated and requires considerable knowledge of atomic physics; for this reason it has been placed outside the main body of the text.
There is yet another angle of attack on the concept of the original cell that requires only a moderate, high-school-level knowledge of physics and chemistry.
We’ll start with comparing modern geophysical conditions with the conditions that caused the creation of the purported original cell. According to the cosmological theories, Earth was much hotter those days and the original cell’s natural habitat, the ocean, was heated almost to the boiling point, with the highest temperature at the seabed where volcanic activity was affecting the earth’s crust. Another noticeable difference was high-intensity bombardment of the planet with alpha-particles, gamma-particles, and beta-particles. All these primordial conditions could be easily reproduced in a physics laboratory. In fact, these conditions are present in one form or another in elementary particle accelerators. But physicists also know that alpha-, beta-, and gamma-particles produce unstable configurations (matter) that disintegrate into original components in a fraction of a second. This means that all cosmological theories indicate that the original cell could not possibly exist.
American astrophysicist Carl Sagan tried to circumvent this difficulty by proposing the theory that a spore of unknown vegetation from an unknown place (was it the Planet of the Apes?) somehow got into outer space, then, while being pushed by solar winds, traveled for trillion of years and finally hit the earth, accomplishing what the original cell failed to do.
Sagan knew physics—there’s no doubt about that—but he had no knowledge of genetics; otherwise, he would have known that the “Sagan spore,” being a single parent, would have left its genetic imprint on all of the earth’s organisms (see chapter 6 of this book).
What if it were possible to design an experiment that would prove once and for all that the evolutionary theory is incorrect? Actually, such an experiment can be designed—it is based on the notion of an ecosystem. This is how Webster’s New World Dictionary defines ecosystem: “a system made up of a community of animals, plants and bacteria and its interrelated physical and chemical environment.”
What would be the single most important characteristic vital to the survival of a species? That would be the ability to live outside of an ecosystem. Such an ability also implies the ability to live within any partially developed ecosystem. The original cell was all by itself; there was no ecosystem to support it. If the evolutionary theory is correct, all organisms, past and present, should have inherited its ability to live outside the ecosphere.
The idea for this experiment is simple: it would require only a large aquarium filled with seawater and rock formations and a single specimen of fish, bacteria, or seaweed that would normally inhabit such an environment. Can it support itself outside the ecosystem? Other than coral reefs, no one can exist in such an environment for long.
This experiment is the foundation of science; it shows that the evolutionary theory is anything but science.
8 : Anthropology
Anthropologists are
