Where’s The Evolution?

Warren L. Johns

Ten thousand years is a hefty chunk of antiquity but not long enough for evolution to offer clues showing the human genome is transiting to some new and different life form!

Peat bogs of the world have preserved the remains of humans who looked like us and carried our DNA as long ago as 8,000 years BC. The Koelbjerg Woman, estimated to have been approximately 25-years of age and slightly more than five feet tall, is presumed to have drowned in what is now a Denmark bog.

A 1997 edition of Archaeology Magazine carries a picture of her skull, remarkably preserved thanks to the chemical composition of the bog, Were she alive today, she would have celebrated her 10,000th year birthday.

Haunting human facial features of Tollund Man, another Denmark bog discovery, have survived since the 4th century BC. If the long gone Danish couple were seen walking today’s streets, other than their out-of-fashion clothes, both Koelbjerg and Tollund would hardly attract attention given their striking resemblance to 21st century Homo sapiens.

Great Grandkids 2013A ten thousand year time span is not ten million years but it’s a major chunk of deep time—seems like enough time for the chance hypothesis to have worked its magic and to have emerged from behind its “Wizard of Oz” deep time alibi.

So where’s the evidence of evolution in Homo sapiens?

Darwin assured devotees, “We may safely infer that not one living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity.” 1

Something’s amiss—evidence of the human genome moving in the direction of some “unaltered likeness” after 10,000 years continues missing in action! Not only do we share an “unaltered likeness,” with those Danish human ancestors, today’s human blood types match those of Egyptian era mummies.

Darwin skipped any serious scientific attempt to explain just how a simple, living cell managed to create itself from inert, non-living matter without intelligent input. He brushed off the problem by surmising the chance event may have taken place in some ultra-ancient “warm little pond.”2 His candor surfaced with the admission, “Science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life.”3

The “no light” status continues stuck in blackout mode!

Molecular biologist Michael Denton highlights evolution’s dilemma. “To get a cell by chance would require at least one hundred functional proteins to appear simultaneously in one place. That is one hundred simultaneous events each of an independent probability which could hardly be more than 10 20.”4

Skull  Courtesy of Archaeology Magazine
Courtesy Archaeology Magazine

Koelbjerg Woman

Lacking the faintest scintilla of evidence explaining the origin of earth’s first life, Charles Robert Darwin plunged ahead concocting an imaginary, and as yet unproven, genetic pathway to human status. His scheme proposed “Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight, successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap; but must advance by short and sure, though slow, steps.” 5

He guessed his molecule-to-man scenario required 25 million years.

Handicapped by lack of significant scientific evidence, Darwin marked a biological trail built on that first living cell that supposedly created itself. The millions of missing link intermediate life forms he imagined to be ancestral to humans continue scarce in the fossil record.

Undeterred by the shortfall, he designed a laundry list of “sure, though slow steps,” which, given enough time, would evolve the Homo sapiens.

Fish-like animal… reptile-like or amphibian-like creature…ancient marsupial… two sexes united in the same individual…important organs of the body (such as the brain and heart) imperfectly developed…a hairy quadruped…covered with hair; both sexes having beards; their ears were pointed…bodies provided with a tail…Old World monkeys.”6

Evolution’s spinmeister, a loyal subject of reigning British Queen Victoria, seems to have ignored the irony by publishing his less-than-complimentary assessment of the feminine gender. Darwin asserted, “man has ultimately become superior to woman.” 7His politically blind “imagination” jumps out from 19th century bias.

The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn [sic] by man attaining to a higher eminence in whatever he takes up, than woman can attain—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.” 8

As to his philosophical take on unproven, genealogical modifications via slow, ponderous steps, Darwin himself recognized the fiction he imagined did not qualify as fact. He confessed to Asa Gray, an American friend, “I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science.” 9

Of course, genetic change can be real within a genome, given the versatility of gene mix recipes. But hybridization, gene splicing, and isolated gene pools are a far cry from Darwinian evolution. For example, despite differences in size, shape and color, all 400+ Westminster Kennel Club dog breeds descended from a common ancestor dog pair.

Dogs © Erol Lam

© Erol Lam

A dog…is a dog…is a dog.

These guys may not look alike but they are

genetically engineered hybrids from the identical ancestor species.

While Charles Darwin was crafting his molecule-to-man hypothesis and attracting attention in prominent cultural circles, Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), an obscure Czech monk, discovered fundamental genetic principles while working in the quietude of a monastery garden.

Mendel bred several generations of garden peas, focusing on the plant’s seven basic characteristics. What he discovered about hybrids clashed head-on with Darwinian conjecture. Mendel’s experiment revolutionized knowledge of the mechanism of inheritance.

Mendel read his findings before the Brünn Society for the Study of Natural Science in 1865. His threshold-breaking report appeared in the Society’s Journal in 1866, warranting distribution to 120 libraries, including some in England and eleven in the United States. His precedent shattering scholarship, otherwise ignored or overlooked at the time, eventually earned reference in the Encyclopedia Britannica’s 1892 edition. The landmark findings, once virtually unnoticed, were translated and published in English in 1900.

Mendel’s “hybrid” discoveries alarmed Darwin’s co-evolutionist, Alfred Russell Wallace (1823-1913), who perceived mutations to be “antagonistic to evolution.“ 10

“…The phenomena seem to me to be of the very slightest importance. They arise out of what are essentially abnormalities, whether called varieties, ‘mutations,’ or sports.” Wallace discounted “abnormalities” as “refuse material of nature’s workshop, as proved by the fact that none of them ever maintain themselves in a state of nature.” 11

By mid-twentieth century, devoted evolutionists confronted an obvious reality threatening Darwin’s shaky scheme. For one thing, his twenty-five million year estimate fell far short of the time necessary for radical genetic transitions to have occurred. Loyalists also discarded his fanciful idea that acquired physical traits, such as the bulging muscles of a weight lifter, could be conveyed genetically to offspring.

Wallace didn’t live long enough to learn that the “mutations” he had branded “abnormalities” would be seized upon by evolution’s loyalists as a Holy Grail in an attempt to salvage a threatened tradition. Between 1936 and 1947, Darwin followers did some serious editing in an attempt to re-invent a theory in jeopardy. Innovators came up with what they dubbed the “Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution.”

The makeover awarded Planet Earth a 4.6 billion year birthdate and postulated that genetic mutations, when coupled with natural selection, could power the changes essential to drive evolution.

Cosmetic revisionism postulated simple cells created themselves 3.6 billion years ago; fish evolved circa 500 million years before the present; and anatomically modern humans first appeared 200,000 years BCE.

Not all scientists bought into the patched-up idea. Henry Gee discounted Darwin’s series of biological transitions as not “scientific hypothesis” but a “bedtime story.”

To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not 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.” 12

This skeptical analysis is more than empty rhetoric. Even if the millions of theoretical fossil links should suddenly appear in some fossil cemetery, a fossil doesn’t necessarily inherit the radiometric age of the surrounding burial turf any more than a family pet buried in the back yard acquires the age of the land surrounding the burial site.

As to the conjectured multi-millions of intermediate life forms essential to prove the evolutionary process created today’s plant and animal species, the fossil landscape’s cupboard continues virtually bare.

Mutations don’t add new genetic information but typically corrupt what exists already. “Mutations are rare events. Any particular new DNA mutation will occur only once in about 100 million gametes.”13

It’s a matter of chance that a mutant survives. It might spread through the population and take it over, but more likely it will just vanish…even good mutations are likely to disappear from the population.

The chance of 500 of these steps succeeding is 1/300,000 multiplied by itself 500 times. The odds against that happening are about 3.6 x 102,738 to one, or the chance of it happening is about 2.7 x 10-2,739…It’s more than 2,000 orders of magnitude smaller than…impossible.” 14

Impossible trumps improbable!

Corruption of genetic codes by mutation doesn’t activate an evolutionary process to new and different life forms but does contribute to the genome’s deterioration. The negative impact of artificially induced mutations has been demonstrated in scientific laboratories.

Scrutinizing hundreds of generations of mutated fruit flies produced nothing more than more fruit flies—some with extra legs or wings. A Michigan State University looked at 44,000 generations of E. coli bacteria over a twenty-year period with similar results15—both species refused to evolve into anything other than mutated E. coli and mutated fruit flies.

Evolution up the genomic latter to something new and different never happened—even after decades of intelligent engineering of descendant generations! Whether natural selection by a chance event in nature, or artificial selection in laboratories devised by human minds, evolution continues to be a no show.

As to mutations identified in humans, “abnormalities” in the genetic code have not led the way toward some new and different life kind in the past 10,000 years! Generations of human descendants continue to be as clearly human as the Koelbjerg Woman and the Tollund Man!

There is current news deserving attention that is less than comforting to human beings and far from a boost for evolution theory! Since 1990, discoveries of heart-handicapping mutations have been pouring out of numerous labs at an ever-increasing rate, yielding more than 100 mutations in more than a dozen genes.16

Mutations unload a bleak litany of physical flaws and debilitating diseases that plague the human genome. Science has already compiled a growing list of 4,500 bad results—and still counting.

Some examples: “Parkinson’s disease…Progressive myoclonus epilepsy… Treacher Callins Syndrome… Acromegaly…skin cancer…deformities of the face, ears, down-slanting eyes, and deafness…fanconi anemia…Williams Syndrome ….Anhidrotic ectodermal dysplasia…Werner’s Syndrome… Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome…retinitis pigmentosa…muscular dystrophy…spinabifida…cystic fibrosis…Huntington’s Disease…Down’s Syndrome…Leukemia… Alzheimers.” 17

Nothing on this menu points to evolution’s promised land!

Inevitably, evolution’s mutation “cure-all” for a bankrupt theory, will suffer further from still-to-come deleterious mutation discoveries, certain to expose mutations for the culprits they are–debilitating genetic mistakes. Suggesting this “raw material” provides the genetic information essential to evolve new and different life kinds makes no more sense than claiming disease promotes good health.

Evolution’s mutant “science” stands out as the glaring exception to the universal commonality of the science of order and the mathematically precise. The chance hypothesis discards the logic of the measurable equation in favor of mutation’s assumptive myth.

This leaves the unresolved conundrum: Just how can the off-the-charts odds against billions of beneficial mutations successfully powering evolution’s molecule-to-man scenario.

Take a look at the math!

Microbiologist Denton has described the incredible complexity of a single cell loaded with DNA information. As to the chances of that single complex cell developing a sequence leading to tissues, organs, and fully functional organisms via those illusive “beneficial” mutations selected naturally, without intelligent input—the word “impossible” comes to mind.

Apply the same mathematical odds simultaneously to all the other plant and animal species on earth and the calculation cranks up to “impossible on steroids”—even billions of years couldn’t do it.

While spinning his ideas for publication in his Origin of Species,

Darwin confessed evolution of the human eye stretched comprehension. “To suppose that the eye…could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd to the highest degree.” 18

Considering the impracticality of a half-evolved eye, “Absurd to the highest degree” rings bells when. Then there’s the incredibly complex wiring system of the three-pound human brain, with its more than seven billion cerebral computers, each spinning off four billion calculations per second while generating more electrical impulses in a single day than all the world’s telephones combined. So complex is the package that 21st century scientists, themselves blessed with brilliant brains, scramble to comprehend its mysteries. 19

Evolution ignores the real and postulates the imaginary.

Signs of evolutionary change in humans in the 10,000-year time frame since Koelbjerg Woman and Tollund Man lived, are playing hide-and-seek. Same thing with the other Animal and Plant Kingdom life forms. Since Darwin’s imaginary trail of biological transit stops requires multi-trillions of radical genetic shifts for millions of species, even thousands of those 10,000-year chunks of deep time would be inadequate to evolve a single, complex cell, much less achieve evolution’s grand scheme of hocus-pocus.

Once all hype, bells, and whistles are taken off the table, smoke and mirrors can’t create substantive fact. Nor do slick diagrams, catchy slogans and colorful imaginations deliver scientific respectability.

Against impossible odds, evolution attracts minds to the dark obscenity that some ancient, ancestral, grand pappy fish accidentally spawned descendant humans using mutations harnessed to natural selection in a time span of 500-million years. One-half billion years is not enough time for a human brain to create itself—even if mutations didn’t degrade the genome.

Bottom line: DNA dictates design!

In the unlikely event a lawyer-wanna-be showed up in court intending to present a difficult case with a briefcase empty of evidence, he would likely be disbarred, as a fraud, if he tried to con the jury with the hollow argument, “My theory is fact…I don’t need to prove it, I admit it.”

Evolution’s evidence briefcase remains virtually empty!

Understandably the time came in Darwin’s life when he fretted he may “have devoted my life to a phantasy [sic].” 20 ___________________________________________

1—Charles Robert Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life (First Edition facsimile, Cambridge: Harvard University Press., 1859) 647.
2— Charles Darwin, Letter to J.D. Hooker [1 February] 1871, in Darwin, F., ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, [1898], (New York: Basic Books, Vol. II, 1959), 202-203.
3—Charles Darwin, Origin, 637.
4— Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, Md.: Adler & Adler, 1986) 296, 323.
5—Charles Darwin, Origin, 247.
6—Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981) Vol. I, 206, 207, 213; Vol. II, 389, 390.
7—Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, Vol. II, 328.
8—Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, Vol. II, 327.
9— Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) 456.
10—Byron C. Nelson, After Its Kind, 101, referencing Alfred Russel Wallace, Letters and Reminiscences, 340.
11—Alfred Russell Wallace, “The Present Position of Darwinism,” Contemporary Review, August, 1908.
12—Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time ((New York: The Free Press, 1999) 116, 117.
13—Richard Lewontin, The Triple Helix (Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 2000) 91.
14—Lee M. Spetner, Not by Chance (Brooklyn, NY: The Judaica Press, Inc., 1997) 97-103.
15—Carl Zimmer, “A New Step in Evolution,” internet Seed Design Series, posted 6-2-2008.
16—Marcia Barinaga, “Tracking Down Mutations That Can Stop the Heart ,” Science 281 (July 3, 1998) 32.
17—See Warren L. Johns, Three Days Before the Sun (Smithville, TN:, 2012) 82-89.
18—See Charles Darwin, Origin, Chapter VI, 1859.
19—See “The New Science of the Brain,” National Geographic, February, 2014.
20—Adrian Desmond & James Moore, Darwin. (New York: Warner Books, Inc., 1991) 477.

© Warren L. Johns, 2-10-14

Copyright © 2012 Warren L. Johns.  All Rights Reserved.  Contact: