logic and commonsense re:the design debate.II

A reproduction of the Watchtower Society's article

Question 5

Is It Reasonable to Believe the Bible?

 

Have you ever been misled about a person? Maybe you heard others talk about him or quote him. You expected to dislike him—only to find, on getting to know him, that he had been misrepresented. Many have had such an experience regarding the Bible.

More than a few educated people take a dim view of the Bible. Can you understand why? That book is often represented or quoted in such a way that it sounds unreasonable, unscientific, or just plain wrong. Is it possible that the Bible has been misrepresented?

In the course of reading this brochure, were you surprised to learn that what the Bible says is scientifically accurate? Many people are. They are equally surprised to learn that the Bible does not say some of the things that many religions claim that it says. Some say, for example, that the Bible teaches that God made the universe and all life in it within six 24-hour days. In fact, there is nothing in the Bible that contradicts scientists’ various estimates on the age of the universe or the earth.*

Furthermore, the Bible’s brief outline of how God brought life into being on this planet leaves ample room for scientific inquiry and theory. The Bible does state that God created all life and that living things are made “according to their kinds.” (Genesis 1:11, 21, 24) These statements may be at odds with certain scientific theories, but not with established scientific fact. The history of science shows that theories come and go; the facts remain.

There are many people, though, who hesitate to investigate the Bible because they are disillusioned with religion. They look at organized religion and see hypocrisy, corruption, warmongering. But is it fair to judge the Bible by the behavior of some who claim to represent it? Many humane and sincere scientists have been horrified by the way that some violent bigots have used the evolution theory to support their racist aims. Would it be fair to judge the theory of evolution on that basis? Surely it is better to investigate the theory’s claims and compare them with the available evidence.

We urge you to do the same with the Bible. You may be pleasantly surprised to learn how profoundly its teachings differ from those of most organized religions. Far from promoting wars and ethnic violence, the Bible teaches that God’s servants must repudiate war and even the hatred that leads to such violence. (Isaiah 2:2-4; Matthew 5:43, 44; 26:52) Far from advocating fanaticism and belief without evidence, the Bible teaches that evidence is essential to genuine faith and that the power of reason is an indispensable aid to serving God. (Romans 12:1; Hebrews 11:1) Far from squelching curiosity, the Bible encourages us to probe some of the most fascinating and challenging questions that humans have ever faced.

For example, have you ever wondered, ‘If there is a God, why does he allow wickedness?’ The Bible addresses that question, as well as many others, in a satisfying way.* We urge you to pursue your quest for truth. You can find answers that are fascinating, thrilling, reasonable—and based on convincing evidence. And that is no accident.

 Bibliography

1. How Did Life Begin?

 1. How Life Began—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.

 a. Life Itself—Its Origin and Nature, by Francis Crick, 1981, pp. 15-16, 141-153.

 2. Scientific American, “A Simpler Origin for Life,” by Robert Shapiro, June 2007, p. 48.

 a. The New York Times, “A Leading Mystery of Life’s Origins Is Seemingly Solved,” by Nicholas Wade, May 14, 2009, p. A23.

 3. Scientific American, June 2007, p. 48.

 4. Scientific American, June 2007, pp. 47, 49-50.

 5. Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, by Hubert P. Yockey, 2005, p. 182.

 6. NASA’s Astrobiology Magazine, “Life’s Working Definition—Does It Work?” (http://www.nasa.gov/ vision/universe/starsgalaxies/ life’s_working_definition.html), accessed 3/17/2009.

2. Is Any Form of Life Really Simple?

 7. Princeton Weekly Bulletin, “Nuts, Bolts of Who We Are,” by Steven Schultz, May 1, 2000, (http://www.princeton.edu/ pr/pwb/00/0501/p/brain.shtml), accessed 3/27/2009.

 a. “The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2002,” Press Release, October 7, 2002, (http://nobelprize.org/ nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2002/ press.html), accessed 3/27/2009.

 8. “The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2002,” October 7, 2002.

 9. Encyclopædia Britannica, CD 2003, “Cell,” “The Mitochondrion and the Chloroplast,” subhead, “The Endosymbiont Hypothesis.”

10. How Life Began—Evolution’s Three Geneses, p. 32.

11. Molecular Biology of the Cell, Second Edition, by Bruce Alberts et al, 1989, p. 405.

12. Molecular Human Reproduction, “The Role of Proteomics in Defining the Human Embryonic Secretome,” by M. G. Katz-Jaffe, S. McReynolds, D. K. Gardner, and W. B. Schoolcraft, 2009, p. 271.

13. Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the Definition and Origin of Life, by Radu Popa, 2004, p. 129.

14. Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the Definition and Origin of Life, pp. 126-127.

(Box) How Fast Can a Cell Reproduce?

15. Origin of Mitochondria and Hydrogenosomes, by William F. Martin and Miklós Müller, 2007, p. 21.

16. Brain Matters—Translating Research Into Classroom Practice, by Pat Wolfe, 2001, p. 16.

3. Where Did the Instructions Come From?

17. Research News Berkeley Lab, (http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/ LSD-molecular-DNA.html), article: “Molecular DNA Switch Found to Be the Same for All Life,” contact: Lynn Yarris, p. 1 of 4; accessed 2/10/2009.

18. Life Script, by Nicholas Wade, 2001, p. 79.

19. Bioinformatics Methods in Clinical Research, edited by Rune Matthiesen, 2010, p. 49.

20. Scientific American, “Computing With DNA,” by Leonard M. Adleman, August 1998, p. 61.

21. Nano Letters, “Enumeration of DNA Molecules Bound to a Nanomechanical Oscillator,” by B. Ilic, Y. Yang, K. Aubin, R. Reichenbach, S. Krylov, and H. G. Craighead, Vol. 5, No. 5, 2005, pp. 925, 929.

22. Genome—The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters, by Matt Ridley, 1999, pp. 7-8.

23. Essential Cell Biology, Second Edition, by Bruce Alberts, Dennis Bray, Karen Hopkin, Alexander Johnson, Julian Lewis, Martin Raff, Keith Roberts, and Peter Walter, 2004, p. 201.

24. Molecular Biology of the Cell, Fourth Edition, by Bruce Alberts et al, 2002, p. 258.

25. No Ordinary Genius—The Illustrated Richard Feynman, edited by Christopher Sykes, 1994, photo with no page number supplied; note caption.

 a. New Scientist, “Second Genesis—Life, but Not As We Know It,” by Bob Holmes, March 11, 2009, (http://www.newscientist.com/article/ mg20126990.100) accessed 3/11/2009.

26. The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence—A Philosophical Inquiry, by David Lamb, 2001, p. 83.

27. Associated Press Newswires, “Famous Atheist Now Believes in God,” by Richard N. Ostling, December 9, 2004.

(Box) A Molecule That Can Be Read and Copied

28. Intelligent Life in the Universe, Second Edition, by Peter Ulmschneider, 2006, p. 125.

4. Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?

29. Biology and Philosophy, “The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay,” by Malcolm S. Gordon, 1999, p. 335.

30. New Scientist, “Uprooting Darwin’s Tree,” by Graham Lawton, January 24, 2009, p. 34.

31. New Scientist, January 24, 2009, pp. 37, 39.

32. Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” by David M. Raup, January 1979, p. 23.

33. Archaeology, “The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual,” by Suzan Mazur, October 11, 2008, (www.archaeology.org/online/ interviews/newman.html), accessed 2/23/2009.

34. In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, 1999, p. 23.

35. Biology and Philosophy, p. 340.

36. National Geographic, “Fossil Evidence,” November 2004, p. 25.

37. The Evolutionists—The Struggle for Darwin’s Soul, by Richard Morris, 2001, pp. 104-105.

(Box) What About Human Evolution?

38. The Human Lineage, by Matt Cartmill and Fred H. Smith, 2009, Preface, p. xi.

39. Fossils, Teeth and Sex—New Perspectives on Human Evolution, by Charles E. Oxnard, 1987, Preface, pp. xi, xii.

 a. From Lucy to Language, by Donald Johanson and Blake Edgar, 1996, p. 22.

 b. Anthropologie, XLII/1, “Palaeodemography and Dental Microwear of Homo Habilis From East Africa,” by Laura M. Martínez, Jordi Galbany, and Alejandro Pérez-Pérez, 2004, p. 53.

 c. In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, p. 22.

40. Critique of Anthropology, Volume 29(2), “Patenting Hominins—Taxonomies, Fossils and Egos,” by Robin Derricourt, 2009, pp. 195-196, 198.

41. Nature, “A New Species of Great Ape From the Late Miocene Epoch in Ethiopia,” by Gen Suwa, Reiko T. Kono, Shigehiro Katoh, Berhane Asfaw, and Yonas Beyene, August 23, 2007, p. 921.

42. Acta Biologica Szegediensis, Volume 46(1-2), “New Findings—New Problems in Classification of Hominids,” by Gyula Gyenis, 2002, pp. 57, 59.

43. New Scientist, “A Fine Fossil—But a Missing Link She’s Not,” by Chris Bead, May 30, 2009, p. 18.

44. The Guardian, London, “Fossil Ida: Extraordinary Find Is ‘Missing Link’ in Human Evolution,” by James Randerson, May 19, 2009, (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/ may/19/ida-fossil-missing-link), accessed 8/25/2009.

45. New Scientist, May 30, 2009, pp. 18-19.

46. Critique of Anthropology, Volume 29(2), p. 202.

47. Science and Justice, Vol. 43, No. 4, (2003) section, Forensic Anthropology, “Anthropological Facial ‘Reconstruction’—Recognizing the Fallacies, ‘Unembracing’ the Errors, and Realizing Method Limits,” by C. N. Stephan, p. 195.

48. The Human Fossil Record—Volume Three, by Ralph L. Holloway, Douglas C. Broadfield, and Michael S. Yuan, 2004, Preface xvi.

49. Scientific American Mind, “Intelligence Evolved,” by Ursula Dicke and Gerhard Roth, August/September 2008, p. 72.

50. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, “How Neandertals Inform Human Variation,” by Milford H. Wolpoff, 2009, p. 91.

51. Conceptual Issues in Human Modern Origins Research, Editors G. A. Clark and C. M. Willermet, 1997, pp. 5, 60.

 a. Wonderful Life—The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, by Stephen Jay Gould, 1989, p. 28.

Logic and Commonsense re:the design debate.III

A reproduction of the Watchtower Society's article

Question 1

 

 

How Did Life Begin?

 

When you were a child, did you ever startle your parents by asking, “Where do babies come from?” If so, how did they respond? Depending on your age and their personality, your parents might have ignored the question or given you a hurried, embarrassed answer. Or perhaps they told you some fanciful tales that you later found to be false. Of course, if a child is to be properly prepared for adulthood and marriage, he or she eventually needs to learn about the wonders of sexual reproduction.

Just as many parents feel awkward about discussing where babies come from, some scientists seem reluctant to discuss an even more fundamental question—Where did life come from? Receiving a credible answer to that question can have a profound effect on a person’s outlook on life. So how did life begin?

What do many scientists claim? Many who believe in evolution would tell you that billions of years ago, life began on the edge of an ancient tidal pool or deep in the ocean. They feel that in some such location, chemicals spontaneously assembled into bubblelike structures, formed complex molecules, and began replicating. They believe that all life on earth originated by accident from one or more of these “simple” original cells.

Other equally respected scientists who also support evolution disagree. They speculate that the first cells or at least their major components arrived on earth from outer space. Why? Because, despite their best efforts, scientists have been unable to prove that life can spring from nonliving molecules. In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.”¹

What does the evidence reveal? The answer to the question, Where do babies come from? is well-documented and uncontroversial. Life always comes from preexisting life. However, if we go back far enough in time, is it really possible that this fundamental law was broken? Could life really spontaneously spring from nonliving chemicals? What are the chances that such an event could happen?

Researchers have learned that for a cell to survive, at least three different types of complex molecules must work together—DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), RNA (ribonucleic acid), and proteins. Today, few scientists would assert that a complete living cell suddenly formed by chance from a mix of inanimate chemicals. What, though, is the probability that RNA or proteins could form by chance?*

Many scientists feel that life could arise by chance because of an experiment first conducted in 1953. In that year, Stanley L. Miller was able to produce some amino acids, the chemical building blocks of proteins, by discharging electricity into a mixture of gases that was thought to represent the atmosphere of primitive earth. Since then, amino acids have also been found in a meteorite. Do these findings mean that all the basic building blocks of life could easily be produced by chance?

“Some writers,” says Robert Shapiro, professor emeritus of chemistry at New York University, “have presumed that all life’s building blocks could be formed with ease in Miller-type experiments and were present in meteorites. This is not the case.”²*

Consider the RNA molecule. It is constructed of smaller molecules called nucleotides. A nucleotide is a different molecule from an amino acid and is only slightly more complex. Shapiro says that “no nucleotides of any kind have been reported as products of spark-discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites.”³ He further states that the probability of a self-replicating RNA molecule randomly assembling from a pool of chemical building blocks “is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck.”⁴

What about protein molecules? They can be made from as few as 50 or as many as several thousand amino acids bound together in a highly specific order. The average functional protein in a “simple” cell contains 200 amino acids. Even in those cells, there are thousands of different types of proteins. The probability that just one protein containing only 100 amino acids could ever randomly form on earth has been calculated to be about one chance in a million billion.

Researcher Hubert P. Yockey, who supports the teaching of evolution, goes further. He says: “It is impossible that the origin of life was ‘proteins first.’”⁵ RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. What if, despite the extremely small odds, both proteins and RNA molecules did appear by chance in the same place at the same time? How likely would it be for them to cooperate to form a self-replicating, self-sustaining type of life? “The probability of this happening by chance (given a random mixture of proteins and RNA) seems astronomically low,” says Dr. Carol Cleland*, a member of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Astrobiology Institute. “Yet,” she continues, “most researchers seem to assume that if they can make sense of the independent production of proteins and RNA under natural primordial conditions, the coordination will somehow take care of itself.” Regarding the current theories of how these building blocks of life could have arisen by chance, she says: “None of them have provided us with a very satisfying story about how this happened.”⁶

Why do these facts matter? Think of the challenge facing researchers who feel that life arose by chance. They have found some amino acids that also appear in living cells. In their laboratories, they have, by means of carefully designed and directed experiments, manufactured other more complex molecules. Ultimately, they hope to build all the parts needed to construct a “simple” cell. Their situation could be likened to that of a scientist who takes naturally occurring elements; transforms them into steel, plastic, silicone, and wire; and constructs a robot. He then programs the robot to be able to build copies of itself. By doing so, what will he prove? At best, that an intelligent entity can create an impressive machine.

Similarly, if scientists ever did construct a cell, they would accomplish something truly amazing—but would they prove that the cell could be made by accident? If anything, they would prove the very opposite, would they not?

What do you think? All scientific evidence to date indicates that life can come only from previously existing life. To believe that even a “simple” living cell arose by chance from nonliving chemicals requires a huge leap of faith.

Given the facts, are you willing to make such a leap? Before answering that question, take a closer look at the way a cell is made. Doing so will help you discern whether the theories some scientists propound about where life came from are sound or are as fanciful as the tales some parents tell about where babies come from.

[Footnotes]

The probability of DNA forming by chance will be discussed in section 3, “Where Did the Instructions Come From?”

Professor Shapiro does not believe that life was created. He believes that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood. In 2009, scientists at the University of Manchester, England, reported making some nucleotides in their lab. However, Shapiro states that their recipe “definitely does not meet my criteria for a plausible pathway to the RNA world.”

Dr. Cleland is not a creationist. She believes that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood.

[Box on page 7]

FACTS AND QUESTIONS

▪ Fact: All scientific research indicates that life cannot spring from nonliving matter.

Question: What is the scientific basis for saying that the first cell sprang from nonliving chemicals?

▪ Fact: Researchers have recreated in the laboratory the environmental conditions that they believe existed early in the earth’s history. In these experiments, a few scientists have manufactured some of the molecules found in living things.

Question: If the chemicals in the experiment represent the earth’s early environment and the molecules produced represent the building blocks of life, whom or what does the scientist who performed the experiment represent? Does he or she represent blind chance or an intelligent entity?

▪ Fact: Protein and RNA molecules must work together for a cell to survive. Scientists admit that it is highly unlikely that RNA formed by chance. The odds against even one protein forming by chance are astronomical. It is exceedingly improbable that RNA and proteins should form by chance in the same place at the same time and be able to work together.

Question: What takes greater faith—to believe that the millions of intricately coordinated parts of a cell arose by chance or to believe that the cell is the product of an intelligent mind?

[Diagram on page 6]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

RNA 1 is required to make proteins 2, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. How could either one arise by chance, let alone both? Ribosomes 3 will be discussed in section 2.

If the creation of complex molecules in the laboratory requires the skill of a scientist, could the far more complex molecules in a cell really arise by chance?

[Picture on page 4]

A fertilized human egg cell, shown about 800 times its actual size

[Picture on page 5]

Stanley Miller, 1953

[Picture on page 7]

If it takes an intelligent entity to create and program a lifeless robot, what would it take to create a living cell, let alone a human?

Logic and commonsense re:the design debate.IV

A reproduction of the Watchtower Society's article.

Question 3

 

 

Where Did the Instructions Come From?

 

Why do you look the way you do? What determines the color of your eyes, your hair, your skin? What about your height, your build, or your resemblance to one or both of your parents? What tells the ends of your fingers to grow soft pads on one side and hard, protective nails on the other?

In Charles Darwin’s day, the answers to such questions were shrouded in mystery. Darwin himself was fascinated by the way traits are passed along from one generation to the next, but he knew little about the laws of genetics and even less about the mechanisms within the cell that govern heredity. Now, however, biologists have spent decades studying human genetics and the detailed instructions that are embedded in the amazing molecule called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). Of course, the big question is, Where did these instructions come from?

What do many scientists claim? Many biologists and other scientists feel that DNA and its coded instructions came about through undirected chance events that took place over the course of millions of years. They say that there is no evidence of design in the structure of this molecule nor in the information that it carries and transmits nor in the way that it functions.¹⁷

What does the Bible say? The Bible suggests that the formation of our different body parts—and even the timing of their formation—involves a figurative book that originates with God. Notice how King David was inspired to describe matters, saying of God: “Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing, as regards the days when they were formed and there was not yet one among them.”—Psalm 139:16.

What does the evidence reveal? If evolution is true, then it should seem at least reasonably possible that DNA could have come about by means of a series of chance events. If the Bible is true, then DNA should provide strong evidence that it is the product of an orderly, intelligent mind.

When considered in the simplest of terms, the subject of DNA is quite understandable—and fascinating. So let us take another trip to the inside of a cell. This time, though, we will visit a human cell. Imagine that you are going to a museum designed to teach you about how such a cell works. The whole museum is a model of a typical human cell—but magnified some 13,000,000 times. It is the size of a giant sports arena, the kind that can seat an audience of about 70,000 people.

You enter the museum and stare awestruck at this wondrous place full of strange forms and structures. Near the center of the cell stands the nucleus, a sphere about 20 stories tall. You make your way there.

You go through a door in the nucleus’ outer skin, or membrane, and look around you. Dominating this chamber are 46 chromosomes. Arranged in identical pairs, they vary in height, but the pair nearest you is about 12 stories tall (1). Each chromosome has a pinched place near the middle, so it looks a bit like a link sausage but is as thick as a massive tree trunk. You see a variety of bands running across the model chromosomes. As you draw closer, you see that each horizontal band is divided by vertical lines. Between those are shorter horizontal lines (2). Are they stacks of books? No; they are the outer edges of loops, packed tightly in columns. You pull at one of them, and it comes free. You are amazed to see that the loop is composed of smaller coils (3), also neatly arranged. Within those coils is the main feature of all of this—something resembling a long, long rope. What is it?

THE STRUCTURE OF AN AMAZING MOLECULE

Let us simply call this part of the model chromosome a rope. It is about an inch [2.6 cm] thick. It is looped tightly around spools (4), which help to form the coils within coils. These coils are attached to a kind of scaffold that holds them in place. A sign on the display explains that the rope is packed very efficiently. If you were to pull the rope from each of these model chromosomes and lay it all out, from end to end it would stretch about halfway around the earth!*

One science book calls this efficient packaging system “an extraordinary feat of engineering.”¹⁸ Does the suggestion that there was no engineer behind this feat sound credible to you? If this museum had a huge store with millions of items for sale and they were all so tidily arranged that you could easily find any item you needed, would you assume that no one had organized the place? Of course not! But such order would be a simple feat by comparison.

In the museum display, a sign invites you to take a length of this rope in your hands for a closer look (5). As you run it between your fingers, you see that this is no ordinary rope. It is composed of two strands twisted around each other. The strands are connected by tiny bars, evenly spaced. The rope looks like a ladder that has been twisted until it resembles a spiral staircase (6). Then it hits you: You are holding a model of the DNA molecule—one of the great mysteries of life!

A single DNA molecule, tidily packaged with its spools and scaffold, makes up a chromosome. The rungs of the ladder are known as base pairs (7). What do they do? What is all of this for? A display sign offers a simplified explanation.

THE ULTIMATE INFORMATION STORAGE SYSTEM

The key to the DNA, the sign says, lies in those rungs, the bars connecting the two sides of the ladder. Imagine the ladder split apart. Each side has partial rungs sticking out. They come in only four types. Scientists dub them A, T, G, and C. Scientists were amazed to discover that the order of those letters conveys information in a sort of code.

You may know that Morse code was invented in the 19th century so that people could communicate by telegraph. That code had only two “letters”—a dot and a dash. Yet, it could be used to spell out countless words or sentences. Well, DNA has a four-letter code. The order in which those letters—A, T, G, and C—appear forms “words” called codons. Codons are arranged in “stories” called genes. Each gene contains, on average, 27,000 letters. These genes and the long stretches between them are compiled into chapters of a sort—the individual chromosomes. It takes 23 chromosomes to form the complete “book”—the genome, or total of genetic information about an organism.*

The genome would be a huge book. How much information would it hold? All told, the human genome is made up of about three billion base pairs, or rungs, on the DNA ladder.¹⁹ Imagine a set of encyclopedias in which each volume is over a thousand pages long. The genome would fill 428 of such volumes. Adding the second copy that is found in each cell would make that 856 volumes. If you were to type out the genome by yourself, it would be a full-time job—with no vacations—lasting some 80 years!

Of course, what you would end up with after all that typing would be useless to your body. How would you fit hundreds of bulky volumes into each of your 100 trillion microscopic cells? To compress so much information so greatly is far beyond us.

A professor of molecular biology and computer science noted: “One gram of DNA, which when dry would occupy a volume of approximately one cubic centimeter, can store as much information as approximately one trillion CDs [compact discs].”²⁰ What does that mean? Remember, the DNA contains the genes, the instructions for building a unique human body. Each cell has a complete set of instructions. DNA is so dense with information that a single teaspoonful of it could carry the instructions for building about 350 times the number of humans alive today! The DNA required for the seven billion people living on earth now would barely make a film on the surface of that teaspoon.²¹

A BOOK WITH NO AUTHOR?

Despite advances in miniaturization, no man-made information storage device can approach such a capacity. Yet, the compact disc offers an apt comparison. Consider this: A compact disc may impress us with its symmetrical shape, its gleaming surface, its efficient design. We see clear evidence that intelligent people made it. But what if it is embedded with information—not random gibberish, but coherent, detailed instructions for building, maintaining, and repairing complex machinery? That information does not perceptibly change the weight or the size of the disc. Yet, it is the most important feature of that disc. Would not those written instructions convince you that there must be some intelligent mind at work here? Does not writing require a writer?

It is not far-fetched to compare DNA to a compact disc or to a book. In fact, one book about the genome notes: “The idea of the genome as a book is not, strictly speaking, even a metaphor. It is literally true. A book is a piece of digital information . . . So is a genome.” The author adds: “The genome is a very clever book, because in the right conditions it can both photocopy itself and read itself.”²² That brings up another important aspect of DNA.

MACHINES IN MOTION

As you stand there in the quiet, you find yourself wondering if the nucleus of a cell is really as still as a museum. Then you notice another display. Above a glass case containing a length of model DNA is a sign that reads: “Push Button for Demonstration.” You push the button, and a narrator explains: “DNA has at least two very important jobs. The first is called replication. DNA has to be copied so that every new cell will have a complete copy of the same genetic information. Please watch this simulation.”

Through a door at one end of the display comes a complex-looking machine. It is actually a cluster of robots closely linked together. The machine goes to the DNA, attaches itself, and begins to move along the DNA as a train might follow a track. It moves a little too fast for you to see exactly what it is doing, but you can easily see that behind it, there are now two complete DNA ropes instead of one.

The narrator explains: “This is a greatly simplified version of what goes on when DNA is replicated. A group of molecular machines called enzymes travel along the DNA, first splitting it in two, then using each strand as a template to make a new, complementary strand. We cannot show you all the parts involved—such as the tiny device that runs ahead of the replication machine and snips one side of the DNA so that it can twirl around freely instead of getting wound up too tight. Nor can we show you how the DNA is ‘proofread’ several times. Errors are detected and corrected to an amazing degree of accuracy.”—See the diagram on pages 16 and 17.

The narrator continues: “What we can show you clearly is the speed. You noticed this robot moving at a pretty good clip, didn’t you? Well, the actual enzyme machinery moves along the DNA ‘track’ at a rate of about 100 rungs, or base pairs, every second.²³ If the ‘track’ were the size of a railroad track, this ‘engine’ would be barreling along at the rate of over 50 miles [80 km] per hour. In bacteria, these little replication machines can move ten times faster than that! In the human cell, armies of hundreds of these replication machines go to work at different spots along the DNA ‘track.’ They copy the entire genome in just eight hours.”²⁴ (See the box “A Molecule That Can Be Read and Copied,” on page 20.)

“READING” DNA

The DNA-replicating robots trundle off the scene. Another machine appears. It too moves along a stretch of DNA, but more slowly. You see the DNA rope entering one end of this machine and emerging from the other—unchanged. But a single strand, a new one, is coming out of a separate opening in the machine, like a growing tail. What is going on?

Again the narrator provides an explanation: “DNA’s second job is called transcription. The DNA never leaves the safe shelter of the nucleus. So how can its genes—the recipes for all the proteins your body is made of—ever be read and used? Well, this enzyme machine finds a spot along the DNA where a gene has been switched on by chemical signals coming in from outside the cell nucleus. Then this machine uses a molecule called RNA (ribonucleic acid) to make a copy of that gene. RNA looks a lot like a single strand of DNA, but it is different. Its job is to pick up the information coded in the genes. The RNA gets that information while in the enzyme machine, then exits the nucleus and heads to one of the ribosomes, where the information will be used to build a protein.”

As you watch the demonstration, you are filled with wonder. You are deeply impressed by this museum and the ingenuity of those who designed and built its machines. But what if this entire place with all its exhibits could be set in motion, demonstrating all the thousands upon thousands of tasks that go on in the human cell at the same time? What an awe-inspiring spectacle that would be!

You realize, though, that all these processes carried out by tiny, complex machines are actually going on right now in your own 100 trillion cells! Your DNA is being read, providing directions to build the hundreds of thousands of different proteins that make up your body—its enzymes, tissues, organs, and so on. Right now your DNA is being copied and proofread for errors so that a fresh set of directions is there to be read in each new cell.

WHY DO THESE FACTS MATTER?

Again, let us ask ourselves, ‘Where did all these instructions come from?’ The Bible suggests that this “book” and its writing originate with a superhuman Author. Is that conclusion really out-of-date or unscientific?

Consider this: Could humans even build the museum just described? They would run into real difficulty if they tried. Much about the human genome and how it functions is little understood as yet. Scientists are still trying to figure out where all the genes are and what they do. And the genes comprise only a small part of the DNA strand. What about all those long stretches that do not contain genes? Scientists have called those parts junk DNA, but more recently they have been modifying that stance. Those parts may control how and to what extent the genes are used. And even if scientists could create a full model of the DNA and the machines that copy and proofread it, could they make it actually function as the real one does?

Famous scientist Richard Feynman left this note on a blackboard shortly before his death: “What I cannot create, I do not understand.”²⁵ His candid humility is refreshing, and his statement, obviously true in the case of DNA. Scientists cannot create DNA with all its replication and transcription machinery; nor can they fully understand it. Yet, some assert that they know that it all came about by undirected chance and accidents. Does the evidence that you have considered really support such a conclusion?

Some learned men have decided that the evidence points the other way. For example, Francis Crick, a scientist who helped to discover DNA’s double-helix structure, decided that this molecule is far too organized to have come about through undirected events. He proposed that intelligent extraterrestrials may have sent DNA to the earth to help get life started here.²⁶

More recently, noted philosopher Antony Flew, who advocated atheism for 50 years, did an about-face of sorts. At 81 years of age, he began to express a belief that some intelligence must have been at work in the creation of life. Why the change? A study of DNA. When asked if his new line of thought might prove unpopular among scientists, Flew reportedly answered: “That’s too bad. My whole life has been guided by the principle . . . [to] follow the evidence, wherever it leads.”²⁷

What do you think? Where does the evidence lead? Imagine that you found a computer room in the heart of a factory. The computer is running a complex master program that directs all the workings of that factory. What is more, that program is constantly sending out instructions on how to build and maintain every machine there, and it is making copies of itself and proofreading them. What would that evidence lead you to conclude? That the computer and its program must have made themselves or that they were produced by orderly, intelligent minds? Really, the evidence speaks for itself.

[Footnotes]

The textbook Molecular Biology of the Cell uses a different scale. It says that trying to pack these long strands into a cell nucleus would be like trying to pack 24 miles [40 km] of very fine thread into a tennis ball—but in such a neat, organized way that each part of the thread remains easily accessible.

Each cell contains two complete copies of the genome, 46 chromosomes in all.

[Box/Picture on page 20]

A MOLECULE THAT CAN BE READ AND COPIED

  How can DNA be read and copied so reliably? The four chemical bases used in the DNA ladder—A, T, G, and C—form the ladder’s individual rungs by always pairing in the same way: A with T, and G with C. If one side of a rung is A, the other side is always T; G always meets C. Therefore, if you have one side of the ladder, you know the other side of the ladder. Where one side of the ladder reads GTCA, the other side must read CAGT. The partial rungs differ in length, but when they pair up with their complements, they make complete rungs of one uniform length.

  Discovering that fact led scientists to another breakthrough about this remarkable molecule: DNA is perfectly suited for being copied over and over. The enzyme machine that replicates DNA takes in free-floating units of those four chemicals from the environment in the nucleus. Then it uses them to complete each rung on the split DNA strand.

  So a DNA molecule really is like a book that is read and copied over and over again. In the average life span of a human, DNA is copied some 10,000,000,000,000,000 times, with amazing fidelity.²⁸

[Box on page 21]

FACTS AND QUESTIONS

▪ Fact: DNA is packaged within the chromosomes in a manner so efficient that it has been called a “feat of engineering.”

Question: How could such order and organization arise by undirected chance events?

▪ Fact: DNA’s capacity to store information still has no equal in today’s computer age.

Question: If human computer technicians cannot achieve such results, how could mindless matter do so on its own?

▪ Fact: DNA contains all the instructions needed to build a unique human body and maintain it throughout life.

Question: How could such writing come about without a writer, such programming without a programmer?

▪ Fact: For DNA to work, it has to be copied, read, and proofread by a swarm of complex molecular machines called enzymes, which must work together with precision and split-second timing.

Question: Do you believe that highly complex, highly reliable machinery can come about by chance? Without solid proof, would not such a belief amount to blind faith?

[Diagram on page 14, 15]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

A “Feat of Engineering”

How DNA Is Packed

Packing the DNA into the nucleus is an amazing feat of engineering—like packing 24 miles of very fine thread into a tennis ball

[Diagram on page 16, 17]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

Replication

How DNA Is Copied

1 This part of the enzyme machine splits the DNA into two separate strands

2 This part of the machine takes in a single strand of DNA and uses it as a template to create a double strand

3 Ring-shaped sliding clamp that guides and stabilizes the enzyme machine

4 Two complete DNA strands are formed

If DNA were the size of a railroad track, the enzyme machine would be moving at the rate of over 50 miles per hour

[Diagram on page 18, 19]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

Transcription

How DNA Is “Read”

1 The DNA is unwound here. An exposed strand passes information to the RNA

2 The RNA “reads” the DNA, picking up the code within a gene. The DNA code tells the transcription machine where to start and stop

3 Loaded with information, the RNA exits the cell nucleus and goes to a ribosome, where it will impart the instructions on how to build a complex protein

4 Transcription machine

[Picture on page 18]

One gram of DNA carries as much information as a trillion CDs could

Logic and commonsense re:the design debate. V

A reproduction of the Watchtower Society's article

Question 4

 

 

Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?

Darwin thought that all life might be traced to a common ancestor. He imagined that the history of life on earth resembled a grand tree. Later, others believed that this “tree of life” started as a single trunk with the first simple cells. New species branched from the trunk and continued to divide into limbs, or families of plants and animals, and then into twigs, all the species within the families of plants and animals alive today. Is that really what happened?

What do many scientists claim? Many give the impression that the fossil record supports the theory of a common origin for life. They also claim that because all living things use similar “computer language,” or DNA, that all life must have evolved from a common ancestor.

What does the Bible say? The Genesis account states that plants, sea creatures, land animals, and birds were created “according to their kinds.” (Genesis 1:12, 20-25) This description allows for variation within a “kind,” but it implies that there are fixed barriers separating the different kinds. The Bible account of creation also leads us to expect that new types of creatures would appear in the fossil record suddenly and fully formed.

What does the evidence reveal? Does the evidence support the Bible’s description of events, or was Darwin correct? What have discoveries over the past 150 years revealed?

DARWIN’S TREE CHOPPED DOWN

In recent years, scientists have been able to compare the genetic codes of dozens of different single-celled organisms as well as those of plants and animals. They assumed that such comparisons would confirm the branching “tree of life” proposed by Darwin. However, this has not been the case.

What has the research uncovered? In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.”²⁹*

Recent research continues to contradict Darwin’s theory of common descent. For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.”³⁰ The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”³¹*

WHAT ABOUT THE FOSSIL RECORD?

Many scientists point to the fossil record as support for the idea that life emerged from a common origin. They argue, for example, that the fossil record documents the notion that fish became amphibians and reptiles became mammals. What, though, does the fossil evidence really show?

“Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”³²

In reality, the vast majority of fossils show stability among types of creatures over extensive amounts of time. The evidence does not show them evolving from one type into another. Unique body plans appear suddenly. New features appear suddenly. For example, bats with sonar and echolocation systems appear with no obvious link to a more primitive ancestor.

In fact, more than half of all the major divisions of animal life seem to have appeared in a relatively short period of time. Because many new and distinct life forms appear so suddenly in the fossil record, paleontologists refer to this period as “the Cambrian explosion.” When was the Cambrian period?

Let us assume that the estimates of researchers are accurate. In that case, the history of the earth could be represented by a time line that stretches the length of a soccer field (1). At that scale, you would have to walk about seven eighths of the way down the field before you would come to what paleontologists call the Cambrian period (2). During a small segment of that period, the major divisions of animal life show up in the fossil record. How suddenly do they appear? As you walk down the soccer field, all those different creatures pop up in the space of less than one step!

The relatively sudden appearance of these diverse life forms is causing some evolutionary researchers to question the traditional version of Darwin’s theory. For example, in an interview in 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain the sudden appearance of novel forms of life. He said: “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.”³³

PROBLEMS WITH THE “PROOF”

What, though, of the fossils that are used to show fish changing into amphibians, and reptiles into mammals? Do they provide solid proof of evolution in action? Upon closer inspection, several problems become obvious.

First, the comparative size of the creatures placed in the reptile-to-mammal sequence is sometimes misrepresented in textbooks. Rather than being similar in size, some creatures in the series are huge, while others are small.

A second, more serious challenge is the lack of proof that those creatures are somehow related. Specimens placed in the series are often separated by what researchers estimate to be millions of years. Regarding the time spans that separate many of these fossils, zoologist Henry Gee says: “The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.”³⁴*

Commenting on the fossils of fish and amphibians, biologist Malcolm S. Gordon states that the fossils found represent only a small, “possibly quite unrepresentative, sample of the biodiversity that existed in these groups at those times.” He further says: “There is no way of knowing to what extent, if at all, those specific organisms were relevant to later developments, or what their relationships might have been to each other.”³⁵*

WHAT DOES THE “FILM” REALLY SHOW?

An article published in National Geographic in 2004 likened the fossil record to “a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor.”³⁶ Consider the implications of that illustration.

Imagine that you found 100 frames of a feature film that originally had 100,000 frames. How would you determine the plot of the movie? You might have a preconceived idea, but what if only 5 of the 100 frames you found could be organized to support your preferred plot, while the other 95 frames tell a very different story? Would it be reasonable to assert that your preconceived idea of the movie was right because of the five frames? Could it be that you placed the five frames in the order you did because it suited your theory? Would it not be more reasonable to allow the other 95 frames to influence your opinion?

How does that illustration relate to the way evolutionists view the fossil record? For years, researchers did not acknowledge that the vast majority of fossils—the 95 frames of the movie—showed that species change very little over time. Why the silence about such important evidence? Author Richard Morris says: “Apparently paleontologists had adopted the orthodox idea of gradual evolutionary change and had held onto it, even when they discovered evidence to the contrary. They had been trying to interpret fossil evidence in terms of accepted evolutionary ideas.”³⁷

What about evolutionists today? Could it be that they continue to place fossils in a certain order, not because such a sequence is well-supported by the majority of fossil and genetic evidence, but because doing so is in harmony with currently accepted evolutionary ideas?*

What do you think? Which conclusion fits the evidence best? Consider the facts we have discussed so far.

▪ The first life on earth was not “simple.”

▪ The odds against even the components of a cell arising by chance are astronomical.

▪ DNA, the “computer program,” or code, that runs the cell, is incredibly complex and gives evidence of a genius that far surpasses any program or information storage system produced by humans.

▪ Genetic research shows that life did not originate from a single common ancestor. In addition, major groups of animals appear suddenly in the fossil record.

In light of these facts, do you think it is reasonable to conclude that the evidence is in harmony with the Bible’s explanation of the origin of life? Many people, however, assert that science contradicts much of what the Bible says about creation. Is that true? What does the Bible really say?

[Footnotes]

The biological term phyla (singular, phylum) refers to a large group of animals that have the same distinctive body plan. One way that scientists classify all living things is by a seven-step system in which each step is more specific than the one before it. Step one is kingdom, the broadest category. Then come the categories phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. For example, the horse is categorized in the following way: kingdom, Animalia; phylum, Chordata; class, Mammalia; order, Perissodactyla; family, Equidae; genus, Equus; species, Caballus.

It should be noted that neither the New Scientist article nor Bapteste nor Rose mean to suggest that the theory of evolution is wrong. Their point, rather, is that Darwin’s proposed tree of life, a mainstay of his theory, is not supported by the evidence. Such scientists still seek other explanations involving evolution.

Henry Gee does not suggest that the theory of evolution is wrong. His comments are made to show the limits of what can be learned from the fossil record.

Malcolm S. Gordon supports the teaching of evolution.

See, for example, the box “What About Human Evolution?”

[Blurb on page 25]

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”—In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, pp. 116-117

[Box on page 26]

FACTS AND QUESTIONS

▪ Fact: Two of evolution’s fundamental ideas—that life has a common origin and that major new body types appear as a result of the slow accumulation of small changes—are being challenged by researchers who do not support the Bible account of creation.

Question: Given the controversy over these pillars of Darwin’s theory, can his version of evolution honestly be referred to as scientific fact?

▪ Fact: All living organisms share similarly designed DNA, the “computer language,” or code, that governs much of the shape and function of their cell or cells.

Question: Could this similarity exist, not because they had the same ancestor, but because they had the same Designer?

[Box/Pictures on page 27-29]

What About Human Evolution?

  Look up the topic of human evolution in many textbooks and encyclopedias and you will see a series of pictures—on one side a stooped, apelike creature followed by creatures that have progressively more upright posture and larger heads. At the end stands modern man. Such renderings along with sensational media reports of the discovery of so-called missing links give the impression that there is ample evidence that man evolved from apelike creatures. Are such assertions based on solid evidence? Consider what evolutionary researchers say about the following topics.*

WHAT THE FOSSIL EVIDENCE ACTUALLY SHOWS

▪ Fact: At the beginning of the 20th century, all the fossils that were used to support the theory that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor could fit on a billiard table. Since then, the number of fossils used to support that theory has increased. Now it is claimed that they would fill a railroad boxcar.³⁸ However, the vast majority of those fossils consist only of single bones and isolated teeth. Complete skulls—let alone complete skeletons—are rare.³⁹

Question: Has the increased number of fossils attributed to the human “family tree” settled the question among evolutionary experts as to when and how humans evolved from apelike creatures?

Answer: No. In fact, the opposite is true. When it comes to how these fossils should be classified, Robin Derricourt of the University of New South Wales, Australia, wrote in 2009: “Perhaps the only consensus now is that there is no consensus.”⁴⁰ In 2007 the science journal Nature published an article by the discoverers of another claimed link in the evolutionary tree, saying that nothing is known about when or how the human line actually emerged from that of apes.⁴¹ Gyula Gyenis, a researcher at the Department of Biological Anthropology, Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary, wrote in 2002: “The classification and the evolutionary place of hominid fossils has been under constant debate.”* This author also states that the fossil evidence gathered so far brings us no closer to knowing exactly when, where, or how humans evolved from apelike creatures.⁴²

ANNOUNCEMENTS OF “MISSING LINKS”

▪ Fact: The media often widely broadcasts the announcement that a new “missing link” has been discovered. For example, in 2009 a fossil dubbed Ida was unveiled with what one journal called “rock-star hype.”⁴³ Publicity included this headline in The Guardian newspaper of the United Kingdom (UK): “Fossil Ida: Extraordinary Find Is ‘Missing Link’ in Human Evolution.”⁴⁴ However, just days later, the UK science journal New Scientist said: “Ida is not a ‘missing link’ in human evolution.”⁴⁵

Question: Why is each unveiling of a new “missing link” given wide media attention, whereas the removal of that fossil from the “family tree” is hardly mentioned?

Answer: Regarding those who make these discoveries, Robin Derricourt, quoted earlier, says: “The leader of a research team may need to over-emphasize the uniqueness and drama of a ‘discovery’ in order to attract research funding from outside the conventional academic sources, and they will certainly be encouraged in this by the print and electronic media, looking for a dramatic story.”⁴⁶

TEXTBOOK DRAWINGS AND MODELS OF APE-MEN

▪ Fact: Depictions in textbooks and museums of the so-called ancestors of humans are often shown with specific facial features, skin color, and amount of hair. These depictions usually show the older “ancestors” with monkeylike features and the ones supposedly closer to humans with more humanlike facial features, skin tone, and hair.

Question: Can scientists reliably reconstruct such features based on the fossilized remains that they find?

Answer: No. In 2003, forensics expert Carl N. Stephan, who works at the Department of Anatomical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Australia, wrote: “The faces of earlier human ancestors cannot be objectively constructed or tested.” He says that attempts to do so based on modern apes “are likely to be heavily biased, grossly inaccurate, and invalid.” His conclusion? “Any facial ‘reconstructions’ of earlier hominids are likely to be misleading.”⁴⁷

DETERMINING INTELLIGENCE BY BRAIN SIZE

▪ Fact: The brain size of a presumed ancestor of humans is one of the main ways by which evolutionists determine how closely or distantly the creature is supposed to be related to humans.

Question: Is brain size a reliable indicator of intelligence?

Answer: No. One group of researchers who used brain size to speculate which extinct creatures were more closely related to man admitted that in doing so they “often feel on shaky ground.”⁴⁸ Why? Consider the statement made in 2008 in Scientific American Mind: “Scientists have failed to find a correlation between absolute or relative brain size and acumen among humans and other animal species. Neither have they been able to discern a parallel between wits and the size or existence of specific regions of the brain, excepting perhaps Broca’s area, which governs speech in people.”⁴⁹

What do you think? Why do scientists line up the fossils used in the “ape-to-man” chain according to brain size when it is known that brain size is not a reliable measure of intelligence? Are they forcing the evidence to fit their theory? And why are researchers constantly debating which fossils should be included in the human “family tree”? Could it be that the fossils they study are just what they appear to be, extinct forms of apes?

  What, though, about the humanlike fossils of the so-called Neanderthals, often portrayed as proof that a type of ape-man existed? Researchers are beginning to alter their view of what these actually were. In 2009, Milford H. Wolpoff wrote in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology that “Neandertals may have been a true human race.”⁵⁰

  Honest observers readily recognize that egos, money, and the need for media attention influence the way that “evidence” for human evolution is presented. Are you willing to put your trust in such evidence?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

▪ Such pictures as this are based on the biases and assumptions of researchers and artists, not on facts.51

▪ The majority of such drawings are based on partial skulls and isolated teeth. Complete skulls, let alone complete skeletons, are rare.

▪ There is no consensus among researchers as to how the fossils of the various creatures should be classified.

▪ Artists cannot reliably reconstruct the facial features, skin tone, and hair of these extinct creatures.

▪ Each creature is placed in its position leading to modern man largely because of the size of its brain case. This is done despite evidence that brain size is not a reliable indicator of intelligence.

[Footnotes]

Note: None of the researchers quoted in this box believe in the Bible’s teaching of creation. All accept the teaching of evolution.

The term “hominid” is used to describe what evolutionary researchers feel make up the human family and prehistoric humanlike species.

[Diagram on page 22, 23]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

BEGINNING OF THE     TIME →→→→          “CAMBRIAN        TODAY

EARTH’S HISTORY                         EXPLOSION”

             1                             2

[Diagram on page 24]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

Why do some textbooks change the scale of the fossils that they depict as following a proposed sequence?

AS SHOWN IN SOME TEXTBOOKS

REAL RELATIVE SIZE

[Diagram on page 25]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

The dotted lines show the supposed relationships

Jawless fish

Extinct armored fish with jaws

Cartilaginous fish

Bony fish

Amphibians

Reptiles

Birds

Mammals

GEOLOGICAL TIME PERIODS →→→→

Actual fossil evidence shows no relationships

Jawless fish

Extinct armored fish with jaws

Cartilaginous fish

Bony fish

Amphibians

Reptiles

Birds

Mammals

[Picture on page 26]

If “95 frames” of the fossil record show that animals do not evolve from one type into another, why do paleontologists arrange the remaining “5 frames” to imply that they do

Bloodsport II