Did you know the odds of proteins necessary to create a strand of DNA lining up in order naturally are only once in 4x10022 years? (Werner 104). That’s highly improbable! Darwin didn’t anticipate that future discoveries would disprove the fundamental tenants of his theory of evolution. Modern science is repeatedly uncovering evidence that Darwinian evolution cannot be the explanation for life on earth because it relies on an implausible claim of spontaneous generation, leaves gaps in the fossil record, and is contradicted by emerging scientific discoveries.
Spontaneous generation refers to the theory that the first life form evolved rapidly out of nothing, and all organisms evolved gradually from the original life form. Mounting evidence makes the argument for spontaneous generation untenable. No biological phyla (a level of organism classification) have yet been discovered to support Darwin’s theory. Even more condemning is that Darwin understood taxonomy (the classification of living organisms), but he refused to acknowledge or account for the gaps in his theory (Wilker 24). For example, spontaneous generation, a necessary assumption in Darwin’s theory, cannot explain how proteins are formed. Evolutionists suggest that either proteins or DNA were involved in the first living organism. However, proteins cannot be formed naturally, yet are required for DNA (Werner 105). This raises the “chicken and egg question,” which came first? Evolutionists cannot explain this, providing no justification for how proteins and DNA could have been involved in spontaneous generation.
Amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, would have had to form naturally to allow for the possibility of spontaneous generation. Yet, an experiment conducted in a laboratory was only able to make amino acids by human intervention through the use of sophisticated equipment (Werner 206). Head of the Genome Project, Francis Collins, discounts the theory of spontaneous generation as a scientifically unsupportable speculation. He believes that an impersonal organism could not have suddenly evolved, and later transformed into a personal humanity. (Driscoll and Brashears 98) Collins said, “I can’t imagine how nature, in this case the universe, could have created itself” (qtd. in Driscoll and Brashears 98). For evolution to have happened, a large number of organisms would have had to been involved, to be capable of creating an environment habitable for humans (Wells, “Creationism succeeds where Darwinism Fails”). The numerous holes in the proposition of spontaneous generation make it intellectually indefensible.
Evolution argues that life on earth began more than 3.5 billion years ago as a single species, and the early organisms tolerated quick genetic alterations. Nevertheless, considerable research on fossil records does not support this premise. Organisms do indeed change over time, in minor ways, due to genetic mutations and/or in response to their environment. However, the...