I AM FEARFULLY AND WONDERFULLY
THE ORIGIN OF COMPLEX STRUCTURES
(Or why the human eye gives evolutionists the willies)
In general, complexity increases with time according
to the theory of evolution less complex creatures change to become
the more complex. As covered earlier, enormous amounts of new information
have to be added to the genetic structures. Evolutionists also agree the
change from the simple to the complex requires simple structures to change
and grow to become complex structures. What are complex structures? The
body of any organism, especially what we commonly call higher life forms,
are made up of many complex structures including the eye, the heart, the
lungs, etc. These are all good examples of complex structures that are
part of complex systems.
The primary postulate of evolution states that
over time species develop into other species and that these new species
also develop into other distinct species, on and on. Although greatly
simplified, classic evolutionary thought points to the following progression
Water bound creatures in the form of primitive
fish to amphibians;
Amphibians to reptiles;
Reptiles to birds and mammals; and finally,
Mammals to man.
For this to occur, many intermediate stages had
to develop. For example, for a reptile species to develop into a bird
species, the following changes had to take place: the development of light-weight
bones from heavy bones; the development of feathers from scales; and the
development of wings from the forearms. These are not simple or trivial
physical alterations and are only three of the changes required! In addition,
these changes would involve enormous informational change in the DNA requiring
the addition of billions of bits of information to the genetic code.
For the textbook evolutionary progression to be
true, species had to pass through uncountable transitional forms. Darwin
recognized this in his research when he wrote that if his theory was true,
there would be millions and millions of transitional forms preserved in
the fossil record. However, as you will read later, modern evolutionists
have acknowledged that fossils of transitional forms are essentially non-existent.
There are a few hopefuls, that you can count on one hand, put forth by
the evolutionists. Many of these hopeful transitional fossils have been
proven to be distinct species, and not transitional at all.
For the evolutionist, the foundation of evolutionary
progression was the first single-celled organism. Single-celled organisms
have been labeled as "simple". But are they?
To quote biologist Michael Denton, "A single cell is MORE complex
than any machine made by man". It needs to be recognized that amoebas
living in a pond are far more complex than the Space Shuttle or a Cray
super computer! How much more complex then, are the "higher"
life forms which are comprised of many cells and different complex structures?
Examine a complex machine like the Space Shuttle.
The Space Shuttle is composed of many interdependent systems: there are
systems for information storage and distribution (computers), systems
for maintaining the proper environment within the cabin (life support),
systems that generate and distribute energy throughout the craft's electronic
systems, navigational systems, communications systems, and systems used
in the guidance and landing of the shuttle. The space shuttle, like any
other complex machine, is made of numerous different subsystems.
When a living system is examined, such as the body
and mind of a human being, it is very similar to a complex machine --
numerous complex structures that make up the whole. A human being has
a visual system to process light, an auditory system to process sound,
a system for taste, the olfactory system to sense smells, a respiratory
system to maintain proper oxygen balance, a cardiovascular system to deliver
oxygen and other nutrients to the entire body, a digestive system to process
nutrients, various waste removal systems, a reproductive system, a muscular
system to move the body, the list goes on. The living systems of higher
organisms are incredible in their complexity and sophistication.
To add more complexity, consider how all of the
complex structures of a living system interact with each other in the
body to keep it running well. Each system is in fact tied to other systems
in the body. In addition, each complex structure or system is also comprised
of many individual components or subsystems that contain multiple parts.
Here is an important point to remember: In a living
system, for a complex structure to operate properly, it is necessary for
all of the individual components or subsystems to be present. If one subsystem
or component is missing, the system as a whole will not work. The relevance
of this point when discussing evolution will be addressed further on.
THE VISUAL SYSTEM
Here is a quote from John Stevens on the visual
system, in his article - Reverse Engineering the Brain, Byte Magazine,
April, 1985, pg 287, "While today's digital hardware is extremely
impressive, it is clear that the human retina's real-time performance
goes unchallenged. Actually, to simulate 1/100th of a second of the complete
processing of a single retinal cell would require the solution of about
500 simultaneous, non-linear, differential equations (high Calculus problems),
100 times each. This would take at least several minutes of processing
time on a Cray supercomputer. Keep in mind that there are 10,000,000 or
more such retinal cells interacting with each other in complex ways in
each eye."... "It would take a minimum of 100 years of Cray
supercomputer time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times
every second". Wow!
Here is a simplified list of the subsystems found in the visual system,
broken down into seven discrete parts, all of which are highly complex
in their own right. Keep in mind that each of these subsystems must be
present for the system to function. These include:
1) The eye ball which maintains proper retinal
shape and maintains focal length with pressurized fluid,
2) The lens to focus light,
3) The retina to chemically process photons into an electrical signal,
4) The optic nerve to send the signal to three different areas of
5) The geniculate body which gathers the information which is then
6) The occipital cortex that turns the image right-side up, which
is then sent to,
7) The frontal lobes of the brain where pattern recognition occurs.
Clearly, the visual system provides positive benefits
to any organism that possesses it. Here again, keep in mind that ALL of
the subsystems must be in place for the system to work. If any one of
these systems is missing, a creature will not have 6/7 of its sight, it
will have NO SIGHT! The same is true for every complex structure, if one
subsystem is missing, the function of the structure will work.
How could highly complex structures,
which are composed of multiple subsystems, have arisen over long periods
of time in a piecemeal fashion (one step at a time)??
CAN NEO-DARWINIAN THEORY EXPLAIN IT?
According to Neo-Darwinian theory, the visual
system and all of the other complex systems in our bodies were produced
over millions of years by the accumulation of mutations necessary to produce
the necessary sub-components. These sub-components were then brought together:
the eyeball, the lens, the retina, the optic nerve, the geniculate body,
the occipital cortex, and frontal lobes and then, voila!, the creature
could see. Over millions of years, mutations created all of the necessary
sub-components and then brought them together.
Evolutionists have put forth the following possible
explanation to describe how the visual system came about: Approximately
800 million years ago, a prehistoric worm' had a genetic mutation
that caused all of its offspring to be born with two pigmented spots on
their "foreheads". These spots represented a primordial or early
Now that the worms have these pigmented spots,
can they see?
Could these worms' now see? The answer is,
of course, no. The presence of a retina does not by itself allow sight.
To use the very principles of evolutionary theory, the mutations that
gave arise to the pigment spots do not increase fitness or survivability.
Therefore, the pigmented spots will not be concentrated in the population
and will be lost due to the process of genetic drift. Note, that for a
mutation to be concentrated in a population, it MUST provide some benefit
to the organisms!
How about a mutation that gives the worms' new and beautifully formed
eyeballs, complete with retina, lens, iris, optic fluids, and cornea..
can these worms see?? Again.. no! These eyeballs are still not connected
to the brain; there is no optic nerve or all of the other sub-components
in the brain. Again the mutations will be lost to the population, as it
still provides no increase in "fitness". Even if the next generation
of worms was born with 95% of the visual system, it still could not see!
This example shows how the very processes proposed
by evolutionary science to explain the rise of the components of a complex
system (accumulation of mutations), also preclude the development of a
complex structure/system such as the eye (loss of the single components
through lack of fitness).
Critical Point #1: The production of a single sub-component
of a complex structure does not improve survivability or increase fitness'
by itself. Therefore, the sub-component will be wiped out long before
another of the required sub-components will arise. Put simply: what good
does a non-functioning, partial system do for an organism? The answer
is nothing, therefore it will be lost as it does not increase the
survival abilities of the organism.
Here are some great quotes by members of the scientific
community about this point:
Arthur Kessler in his book The Ghost in the Machine,
1968, "Each mutation occurring alone, would be wiped out before it
could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent! The doctrine
that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences,
is an affront not only to common sense, but to the basic principles of
Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species, pg 75,
"To suppose that the eye with all of its intimate contrivances -
for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different
amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration
- could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess,
absurd in the highest degree". (Charles Darwin wrote a lot about
the eye, and he essentially said that the eye just gave him fits. Darwin
himself could not see how a complex structure could arise by chance over
a long period of time in a piecemeal fashion.)
Robert Jasro, A NASA astronomer, in an article
titled Evolution - Selection for Perfection, Science Digest, Dec 1981,
"It is hard to accept the evolution of the human eye as a product
of chance. It is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence
as the product of random disruptions in the brain cells of our ancestors".
To re-state the problem: unless all of the parts
of a complex structure/system are there, the mutations that give rise
to the sub-components will be lost as they do not increase the fitness
or survivability of an organism within a population.
A question for the evolutionist
you explain how random mutations produce complex systems when the individual
mutations that are supposed to give rise to the complete system do not
increase the survivability of the organism?"
The answer is obvious: Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian
theories do not have the capability to explain the origin of complex structures
that are made of multiple sub-components, each of which is required to
be present for the whole system to function.
CAN NATURAL SELECTION EXPLAIN IT?
How about the process of Natural Selection? Can
natural selection produce new information or complex structures?
It is well documented that natural selection can
indeed preserve favorable traits within a population. This is the basic
concept of adaptation. However, natural selection, that is nature allowing
organisms with beneficial traits to survive, does not produce new structures.
It only allows the beneficial information already present to survive.
It is not a creative process. Can natural selection, working on the product
of random mutations, produce new structures? Lets examine a favorite supposition
of evolutionists that reptiles evolved into birds....
According to evolutionists, over millions of years
(Punctuated Equilibria is still a million year process), the forelimb
of some ancient reptile slowly formed into the structure we know as the
wing. Among the numerous changes that would have to take place, we will
concentrate on only three:
1) Elongation of scales on the forelimb that mutate
into longer and longer scales and eventually feathers.
2) Elongation of the forelimb into the skeletal configuration of a wing.
3) The shift from heavy bones to hollow, lighter weight bones allowing
a proper lift to weight ratio.
Imagine a lizard producing offspring with longer
scales who have offspring with longer scales and so on. Eventually there
are elongated scales hanging down off of the forelimb of the lizard. Note:
this lizard cannot yet fly, but now the lizard has a severe problem...
it can hardly be expected to run as well either. At this point natural
processes act on the lizard - it becomes food and is wiped out.
Here is why, the lizard is not yet a more fit creature
- it cannot yet fly - but because it likely cannot run well, it cannot
successfully compete for resources or evade its predators. Natural selection
wipes out the primordial wing' because transitional forms are not
more fit structures than what they came from. Evolutionists have conceded
this point as you will see from the two quotes below:
Gertrude Himmelfarb in her book Darwin and the
Darwinian Revolution, 1959, "The eye as one of the most complex organs,
has been the symbol and archetype of Darwin's dilemma. Since the eye is
of no use at all, except in its final and complete form, how could natural
selection have functioned [to preserve it] in those initial stages of
its evolution when the variations had no survival value? No single variation,
indeed no single part, being of any use without every other, and natural
selection presuming no knowledge of the ultimate end or purpose of the
Steven Jay Gould, a Harvard Paleontologist and
world renowned evolutionist, in an article The Return of Hopeful Monsters,
Natural History, Vol 86, "Of what use are the imperfect, incipient
(transitional) stages of useful structures? In other words, what good
is half a jaw or half a wing?" Mr. Gould recognized that partially
developed structures are not functional or beneficial to the organism.
Critical point #2: Since transitional structures
are not as functional as the structures they supposedly came from, evolution
will be stopped - natural selection will eliminate a transitional organism.
As if this point were not enough, remember that
in complex living systems, all of the complex structures are integrated
to a high degree -- they react and rely on the function of each other.
For instance our taste system reacts to physical contact with food but
is also affected by and depends on visual and olfactory input. The digestive
system is connected to the visual system -- how many times have you been
watching TV and a fast food commercial comes on showing images of food
and you realize that you are hungry, salivating, stomach starts making
noises, etc? The eyes are seeing no real food, there is no smell or taste,
and yet the digestive system reacts as if there were. Many separate complex
structures exist in any living system and are integrated in amazingly
It staggers the mind to imagine just how a living
organism with this kind of integration of all of its individual structures
could have arisen in a step-by-step fashion over millions of years when
the transitional forms of those systems are not viable and do not increase
the fitness of an organism! Indeed the fossil record has failed to document
any significant true transitional forms.
Some more quotes:
Charles Darwin in Origin of Species, pg 323, "But
as by this theory, the number of intermediate varieties [transitional
forms] which have formerly existed must be truly enormous. Why then is
not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate
links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic
chain, and this is perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection
which can be argued against the theory of evolution." Darwin admitted
that there was no evidence in the fossil record for transitional forms
but attributed this to the imperfection of the fossil record.
Steven Jay Gould in Evolution's Erratic Pace, Natural
History, Vol 5, May 1997, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms
in the fossil record, persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The
evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips
and nodes of their branches. The rest is inference, however reasonable,
but not on the evidence of the fossils. We fancy ourselves as the only
true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favorite account
of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad, that we
never see the very process we profess to study."
Professor Gould admits that there are no transitional
forms! He also states that the evolutionary trees that you see in textbooks
are based on inference. Inference is a sophisticated word which means....they
3 SUPPOSED EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION
(Or, if it doesn't work, what else can we use to make our point)
4 IF NOT EVOLUTION BY NATURAL SELECTION,
(Or, what won't they come up with to deny the existence of a Creator?)