Surgeon Says Human Body Did Not Evolve

In a recent paper titled “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center surgeon Joseph Kuhn described serious problems with Darwinian evolution.1 He first described how life could not possibly have come from chemicals alone, since the information residing in DNA required an input from outside of nature.2

He then addressed Darwinism’s inability to account for the all-or-nothing structure of cellular systems, including the human body. As a medical doctor, Kuhn not only knows the general arrangement of the human body’s visible parts, he also understands the interrelated biochemical systems that sustain and regulate all of those parts. He recognized that the human body contains an all-or-nothing system in which its core parts and biochemicals must exist all at once for the body to function.

Biochemist Michael Behe named these all-or-nothing systems “irreducibly complex.”3 Removing a single core part from one of these systems keeps the entire system from working, and this implies that the system was initially built with all of its parts intact.

This is exactly what researchers expect to see if God purposely created living systems, rather than if natural processes accidentally built living systems bit-by-bit—as Darwinian philosophy maintains.

Kuhn cited the work of another medical doctor, Geoffrey Simmons, who described 17 “all or nothing” human body systems.4 These combine with many others to form the entire human body—a system of systems—that is irreducible at many levels, from gross anatomy to biochemistry. For example, just as a woman would die without her heart, she would also die without the vital blood biochemical hemoglobin.

But even an intact heart and hemoglobin need regulation. A heart that beats too fast or too slow can be just as lethal as having no heart, and a body that produces too much or too little hemoglobin can be equally unhealthy. Thus, the systems that regulate heartbeats and hemoglobin must also have been present from the beginning.

Kuhn wrote that “virtually every aspect of human physiology has regulatory elements, feedback loops, and developmental components that require thousands of interacting genes leading to specified protein expression.” Thus, “the human body represents an irreducibly complex system on a cellular and an organ/system basis.”1

Evolution has no proven explanations for the origin of just one irreducibly complex system, let alone the interdependent web of irreducible systems that comprise the human body.

Could the human body have evolved? According to Kuhn, to change another creature into a human “would require far more than could be expected from random mutation and natural selection.”1 However, a wonderfully constructed human body is exactly what an all-wise Creator would make, and He promised that those who trust in Him will one day inherit new bodies “that fadeth not away.”5

References

  1. Kuhn, J. A. 2012. Dissecting DarwinismBaylor University Medical Center Proceedings. 25 (1): 41-47.
  2. See Thomas, B. Baylor Surgeon ‘Dissects’ Darwinism. ICR News. Posted on icr.org February 3, 2012, accessed February 3, 2012.
  3. Behe, M. 1996. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: Free Press, 42.
  4. Simmons, G. and W. Dembski. 2004. What Darwin Didn’t Know: A Doctor Dissects the Theory of Evolution. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers.
  5. 1 Peter 1:4.

Read Original Article Here

Algae Asphyxiates Evolution Principle

In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin cast his theory of evolution centred on a “struggle for life” principle – coined as the “war of nature” or the “survival of the fittest” in 1859.  This principle is presented in the complete title of his legionary book – On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

This competitive “struggle for life,” Darwin had argued, occurs between the new and the original species. With the emergence of new species, they were imagined to compete even against their own parents:

“The principle of competition [is] between organism and organism, between child and parent… supplant[ing] the old and unimproved forms.”

Competition increases with increasing similarity. “As the species of the same genus,” Darwin argued, “the struggle will generally be more severe between them, if they come into competition with each other, than between the species of distinct genera.” Since then, however, the evidence directly challenges Darwin’s principle of evolution.

In the Laboratory 

To test this hypothesis, a research team headed by Bradley Cardinale, of the University of Michigan, performing experiments on 60 species of fresh water green algae “failed to support Darwin’s theory,” according to Marlene Cions of the National Science Foundation.

“It was completely unexpected,” Cardinale said in an interview with Cions. “We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin’s hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?”

“Researchers were more than shaken to find that their experiments of fresh water algae failed to support Darwin’s theory,” Cions lamented in the LiveScience article entitled “Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise Scientists.”

Cardinale’s research team included Charles Delwiche, professor of cell biology and molecular genetics at the University of Maryland, and Todd Oakley, a professor in the department of ecology, evolution and marine biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

In an interview with Cions, Cardinale explained that they were so uncomfortable with the results that they spent the next several months trying to disprove their own work. But the research held up.

“The hypothesis is so intuitive that it was hard for us to give it up, but we are becoming more and more convinced that he wasn’t right about the organisms we’ve been studying,” Cardinale says.

Strangely enough, the research was not intended to test the validity of Darwin’s theory. “The hypothesis is so intuitive,” or so it seemed Cardinale reasoned. The intention of the research, supported with $2 million grant from the National Science Foundation in 2010, was to prioritize future conservation campaigns.

The original intention of the research was to gain insights into the mechanisms of extinction target. “Many biologists have argued that we should prioritize for conservation those species that are genetically unique, and focus less on those species that are genetically more similar,” Cardinale explained. “The thinking is that you might be able to tolerate the loss of species that are redundant. In other words, if you lost a redundant species, you might not see a change.”

“We went into it assuming Darwin to be right, and expecting to come up with some real numbers for conservationists,” Cardinale said. “When we started coming up with numbers that showed he wasn’t right, we were completely baffled.”

“If Darwin had been right, the older, more genetically unique species should have unique niches, and should compete less strongly, while the ones closely related should be ecologically similar and compete much more strongly — but that’s not what happened,” Cardinale declared. “We didn’t see any evidence of that at all. We found this to be so in field experiments, lab experiments and surveys in 1,200 lakes in North America where evolution cannot tell us which species co-exist in lakes in nature.

“If Darwin was right, we should’ve seen species that are genetically different and ecologically unique, doing unique things and not competing with other species,” Cardindale adds. “But we didn’t.”

“Evolution does not appear to predict which species have good traits and bad traits,” he told Cions. “We should be able to look at the Tree of Life, and evolution should make it clear who will win in competition and who will lose. But the traits that regulate competition can’t be predicted from the Tree of Life.”

Darwin Wrong

Darwin “was obsessed with competition,” Cardinale opined. “He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don’t grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected… Maybe Darwin’s presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong.”

Even the simplistic instinctive behaviors of algae asphyxiates Darwin’s guiding principle of evolution and the industry cult — evolutionism.

Evolution was once a theory in crisis, now evolution is in crisis without a theory.

Biological evolution exists only as a philosophical fact, not as a scientific fact.

Read original article here

“The Debate of the Decade” Tonight at 7pm EST

What has been referred to as “The Debate of The Decade” will take place tonight at 7:PM ET. The contestants, 2 well known scientists with opposing views. The topic: Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern, scientific era? Watch as Bill Nye “The Science Guy” and Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis, take the time to publicly discuss this hotly debated topic.

The debate will be streaming live at 7:pm and can be viewed here for free: http://debatelive.org/

A live panel discussion before the debate is scheduled for 6:pm as well as a post discussion at 9:30pm.

Those can be seen here:  http://www.creationtoday.org/Debate/

Debate