A ROW OF DUCKS - PIGS MIGHT FLY !!

Evolution is generally accepted and taught in schools today as an established and unchallenged fact. Although there is much evidence to support it, there are also some disturbing loose ends that seem to be conveniently ignored. One such issue is blood clotting.

According to the theory of evolution, animals with circulating blood gradually evolved. But blood clotting is absolutely essential for any animal with circulating blood to survive. Without effective blood clotting, any animal with circulating blood will simply bleed to death internally or externally, after even quite minor cuts or impacts. However in order for new types of animal with circulating blood to have evolved, the very first of these animals must have somehow appeared with an effective system of blood clotting already in full working order. If not, how else did they manage to survive long enough to breed and become established?

In a Yale lock, each and every pin needs to be in exactly the correct position at the same time for the key to work. Either it works or it dosnt. In the same way, blood clotting requires several different factors to be precisely right all at the same time in order for it to work. For example, it is possible for blood temperature, viscosity and several different proteins to each vary over a very wide range. Each and every one of these several factors needs to fall precisely into very narrow ranges of acceptability all at the same time or the blood just will not clot. Any new type of animal with circulating blood that had only one of these factors wrong simply could not have survived and evolved.

Imagine a hunter telling you that he was able to kill 6 flying ducks with a single shot because, by chance, they all “just happened” to be lined up one behind the other at the same time. There is about as much chance of that happening as finding that your front door key “just happens” to fit the house next door to you. The sheer improbability of successful blood clotting coming about by chance in just one single animal of a new type with circulating blood is very large indeed. 

There are also many other vital-to-life biochemical processes going on within every animal that similarly rely on the hugely unlikely requirement for “all the ducks to line up in a row” by chance at exactly the same time. Evolutionist Loren Eiseley wrote of the complexity of the "simple" cell, saying, “To grasp in detail the physicochemical organisation of the simplest cell is far beyond our capacity. Intensified efforts have revealed that even the supposedly simple amoeba is a complex, self-operating chemical factory. The notion that it is a simple blob, the discovery of whose chemical composition would enable us to set the life process in motion is at best a monstrous caricature of the truth.” We now know that a single so-called simple cell has so much inter-dependant biochemical activity going on inside it that it is more complex than everything that is happening in New York City.

The beginning zoological textbook typically takes the unwary reader by a hop, skip, and jump from the little steaming pond or the beneficent chemical crucible of the sea, into the lower world of life with such sureness and rapidity that it is easy to assume that there is no mystery about this matter at all, or if there is, that it is a very little one. The supporters of evolution usually allow for no other factors such as outside or intelligent intervention or management. They are seeming determined to prove that the present huge intereacting complexity of life originated here on this planet from the starting point of simple chemical compounds.

However, some leading biologists will now admit that that they are “constantly plagued by the thought that the number of ways in which even a single enzyme could be wrongly constructed (so that it dosnt work) calculates to a number greater than the number of all the atoms in the universe” It seems that even the entire universe is not big enough to make the sheer improbability of evolutionary theory conceivable.

For a scientist to openly cast doubt on the sacred cow of evolution is to flirt with professional suicide and to elicit howls of contempt and abuse. Yet some are now starting to put their heads above the parapet. Sir Fred Hoyle the astrophysicist was initially an atheist until he discovered that the probability of significant amounts of carbon forming in stars by random chance was utterly miniscule. This realization led him to be "greatly shaken", and he then converted to being a Christian. He compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." He also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously. . . . "Taking the view, palatable to most ordinary folk but exceedingly unpalatable to scientists, that there is an enormous intelligence abroad in the universe, . . .a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.

It appears that Professor Steven Hawking has also changed his position in recent years (see http://youtube.com/watch?v=GO2l7ziEIuk) and he no longer supports theories of random chance and organic evolution. He has written to the National Council for Science Education (which is opposed to creationism) asking them to remove his name from their list of supporters..  

The history of science clearly shows that enormous advances are often made when radical new concepts are entertained long enough to be carefully explored. “And yet it moves” said Galileo under his breath when the inquisition forced him to publicly renounce his discovery that the earth revolved around the sun instead of vica-versa. Why is it so important to evolutionists that they want to make a “religion” out of Darwinism to the extent that no other explanations can be countenanced? 

Many people adopt the classic ostrich “head in the sand” attitude when encountering the difficulties of the evolutionary theory. The reason for this is that if mankind did not evolve or did not evolve on this planet, the alternatives are too radical for them to contemplate. If we reject or have reservations about evolution, what are the alternatives? Either there is a creator, or life somehow got here from another planet.  The choice is stark- it’s either angels or UFO’s !

Tags: Evolution Science

Bookmark: