What the Theory of Evolution Says

With the discovery of DNA, the genetic data bank, evolutionists were given new hope that they might find evidence supporting evolution of molecules.  Darwin developed his theory at a time when little was known about the chemical composition of plants and animals, even less about chemical reactions within living cells, and nothing about the chemistry of genes (DNA) and gene products (proteins).

The double helix structure of DNA, discovered in 1953, almost 100 years after Darwin’s pioneering work, cleared up many mysteries.  Now we know that each gene is a section of a long DNA molecule containing many genes.  Genetic information can exist in stable form for thousands of years, yet can be copied easily when cells divide.  Knowledge unavailable to Darwin enables genetic engineers to manipulate DNA, transform it from one species to another, and even clone animals.  Therefore, artificially (or directed) as well as naturally (or random) occurring mutations on a single part of a DNA molecule are possible sources of biological variation.

What Evolutionists Say We Ought to See

Evolutionists say that evolution needs to make sense at the molecular level.  If evolution were true, we ought to observe and explain many things, including the following:

•       How the nucleic acids and proteins became so complex and well adapted to their highly specific functions.

•       How evolutionary processes were directed from the first forms of life – proteins to cells to plants to animals.

•       How mutations work in the DNA molecule.

•       How molecular “clock” findings, used to estimate the time since an animal or plant split off from its common ancestor, can correlate and be consistent with fossil record.

•       How comparison of DNA between species, for example humans and apes, can show how closely they are related on a molecular “tree of life.”
  

 What We Actually Observe in Nature

Microevolution is now observed in molecules, yet an orderly progression from one species to another is not clearly supported by biochemistry.  Many mutations are known to be changes in a single letter in a message “written” on a long DNA molecule.  For example, a person can become quite sick from having a slightly different form of some protein, like hemoglobin (the molecule that carries oxygen in our red blood cells).  Biochemists can detect which part of the molecule differs from the normal protein and even pin the blame on a specific chemical change in the DNA of the gene for hemoglobin structure.

Can scientists prove that two kinds of animals are related by observing DNA?  Molecular biologist Christian Schwabe writes, “Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method superior to paleontology for the discovery of evolutionary relationships.  As a molecular evolutionist I should be elated.  Instead it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist in the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies: so many in fact that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message.”  Some molecular biologists speak of evidence of directed evolution, not Darwinian evolution. 

What Scientists Say

Evolutionists expected that an improved understanding of mutations, amino acids and DNA should put their theory on firmer ground, but instead biochemistry has raised challenging new questions.  Biochemistry has not confirmed macroevolution.  Attempts have been made to use molecular clocks to tell us how long ago each species branched off from its common ancestor of a proposed evolutionary tree.  But, these molecular clocks run at different rates for different species and for different positions along the DNA molecule.  These differences produce very large uncertainties in time, and the data have not compared well to fossil records, so the molecular clocks usefulness is questionable. 

Denton says, “The really significant findings that come to light from comparing the protein’s amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of evolutionary series.  Thousands of different sequences, protein and nucleic acid, have now been compared to hundreds of different species but never has any sequence been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor of any other sequence.  In terms of their biochemistry, none of the species deemed “intermediate”, “ancestral”, or “primitive” by generations of evolutionary biologists, and alluded to as evidence of sequence in nature, shows any signs of supposed intermediate status.”  Davis says, “…it has proved impossible to arrange protein sequences in a macroevolution series corresponding to the expected transitions, from fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal.” 

Explanation Offered by Creationists

Creationists credit God with creation of everything that exists, down to the molecular level and even the subatomic level.  A DNA molecule contains massive and complex “genetic information” which, like a blueprint, specifies how one living cell is put together.  Molecular biologists speak of “messages” and whole libraries with information “written” in the “DNA code” or the “language of the proteins.”  Lindsay wrote that the “information in one cell would fill a thousand 600-page books; and, this one cell can be used to reassemble the whole body…”

Davis says, “Darwinists have help such high expectations that biochemistry would provide evidence of gradual change between taxonomic groups. However, biochemistry has not provided that kind of evidence.”

Behe points to the structure of an organ, the human eye, which would not work unless all its many components were integrated.  To illustrate the concept, Behe uses a simple mousetrap comprised of five “well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning.”  Behe argues that no feasible evolutionary explanation exists for some “irreducibly complex systems” [not only in organs, but] in even the simplest cells and molecular systems.”  Behe argues that this challenges the whole idea of molecular evolution.