The Evolution Story

by Rod Smith

© 2003-2019 Rodney A. Smith

I do not believe in Evolution anymore. I used to believe in it strongly when I was in high school and college. My college classes in biology, botany, zoology, bacteriology, genetics and plant taxonomy were all based on Evolution. The zoology professor explained how the neck of a clam lost its body and became a tubeworm, which became segmented and developed into an earthworm, which grew legs and developed into a centipede, which shed a lot of segments and developed into a trilobite. He did not mention that this was all speculation since no one has ever found a fossil showing a partially formed new feature. After college, I studied Evolution thoroughly and realized that the evidence is mostly circumstantial. It is easy to arrange plants and animals in the order of their complexity and similarities, but where is the evidence that one evolved from another? There is also evidence against evolution which is ignored or even suppressed.

A very popular evidence for Evolution is the peppered moth, Biston betularia, of England. One form is light colored with dark speckles and the other form is almost black. During the last half of the 1800's the population of dark forms increased dramatically, especially in urban areas, until the dark form was predominant and the speckled form was rare. The obvious explanation was that burning coal during the Industrial Revolution caused trees to become darkened with soot and the lighter colored moths were much more likely to be seen and eaten by birds. However, since the 1960's, air pollution controls in England have cleaned up the tree trunks and the darker form has almost disappeared. (

peppered moth
Peppered Moths (

The peppered moth is a great illustration of natural selection and variation, but it is still Biston betularia. It did not evolve any new features or increase in complexity. There are many similar examples of variation within a species but this is hardly any evidence that Evolution has produced all of the new species, new structures or new body types required to evolve from molecules to man.

The experimental evidence for Evolution is still lacking. The Wikipedia article on Experimental Evolution describes several experiments. While the experimenters claim that they have demonstrated Evolution, they gave examples of Micro-Evolution, that is, Variation, but no examples of Macro-Evolution, the appearance of new kinds of animals or plants. They reported new strains, but no one claimed to have produced a new species, much less a new genus.

Do mutations lead to Evolution? Fruit flies have been bred since the early 1900's. They have been exposed to radiation and chemicals to produce artificially high rates of mutations, resulting in more than 3,000 mutations which have been selected and manipulated artificially. Experimenters originally believed that each mutation would produce a new species, but it is debatable that all of these mutations have produced even one new species of fruit fly, much less a new kind of insect. All they have proved is that at least 99.9% of mutations are harmful.

One experimenter recently claimed to have produced a new species of fruit fly, but they are all blind. If an individual inherited the gene to regain its sight, it would trigger another mutation which would make it die during pupation. So, the best evidence for Evolution from fruit fly experiments is a blind fruit fly with a potentially lethal birth defect. That is not evolution; it is devolution. There is ample scientific evidence that mutations are making individuals less likely to survive, but where is the evidence that mutations lead to more complex life forms?
(See Fruit Flies in the Face of Macroevolution by Frank Sherwin, M.A.
No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations by Brian Thomas, M.S.
Mutant Fruit Flies Bug Evolution by Kyle Butt, M.A.)

four winged fruit fly
Four Winged Fruit Fly

An interesting product of fruit fly research which demonstrates problems with Evolution is the Four-Winged Fruit Fly, produced by Ed Lewis. He brought together three mutations to produce a fly in which the third segment of the thorax is transformed to look like the second segment. Four wings could give this fruit fly a definite advantage except for two things which actually make it very unlikely to survive. First, the extra wings do not have muscles to go with them so they are useless. The fly can't fly. Intermediate steps to a macro-evolutionary change can be detrimental until the complete system is present and functional, so natural selection would likely eliminate the mutations before they became established. Second, no fruit fly would mate with the Four-Winged Fruit Fly, thus immediately eliminating it from the gene pool.

Similar problems would occur at many steps in Evolution. For example, Evolution teaches that two bones from reptiles' jaws joined one bone in their ears to evolve into the three bones in mammals' middle ears. These bones magnify sound so natural selection would select mammalian ears when they were fully functional, but what about the generations while these bones were evolving? How would reptiles eat when their jawbones were dislocating and migrating toward the ear? How would early mammals hear before the bones in their middle ears were properly connected? Natural selection most likely would have eliminated the transitional forms long before they had developed enough to have a hearing advantage. Likewise, a reptile whose front legs were evolving into wings would be crippled and easy prey until the wings were fully functional. There are no known fossils of transitional forms showing how new limbs or organs evolved. (See Should We Expect To Find Transitional Forms In The Fossil Record? Stalling over Transitional Forms by Frank Sherwin, M.A)

Living creatures and fossils were classified into groups and placed on the evolutionary ladder based on the assumption that more complex creatures were more evolved than simpler creatures, but that does not prove the assumption of Macro-Evolution. It is interesting that the evolutionary ladder became an evolutionary tree as evolutionists discovered that there is not a simple progression from simple creatures to complex creatures.

Even simple creatures are very complex. A single celled bacterium is as complex as a small city, with features for storing, generating and transmitting energy; chemical factories (ribosomes), waste disposal system (vacuole), and a control center (nucleus). How could all of the structures and genetic codes necessary for even the simplest self-replicating life form manage to occur at the same place and time by pure chance?

The Miller-Urey experiments demonstrated that amino acids can be produced by random chemical reactions. However, there are features of the experiments that make it extremely unlikely that these randomly generated chemicals could produce life.
The containers included a trap to collect the amino acids because the same conditions that produced them would also destroy them.
The containers contained no free oxygen because amino acids will not form in the presence of free oxygen, but rock layers indicate that free oxygen has always been present in the atmosphere.
The containers contained tiny amounts of amino acids, but large amounts of toxic tars which would have poisoned any new life.

Modern Evolution teaches that all life evolved as the result of random genetic changes which resulted in incredibly complex and interdependent ecosystems. Random changes almost always result in disorder and disintegration. There are some instances where random events produce order, such as in crystal formation, but DNA is far more complex than crystals and the information stored by DNA is far more complex than DNA. Can you believe that the complexities of life are the result of random mutations, especially when at least 99.9% of mutations are harmful? Actually, 99.959% of mutations in humans are harmful according to a recent computer search by a top geneticist who discovered 186 "beneficial mutations" compared to 453,732 harmful mutations. (See Mutations: The Raw Material for Evolution? by Barney Maddox, M.D.)

Since 99.9% of mutations are harmful, the gene pool is getting worse, not better. Evolution claims that natural selection is the "organizer" that keeps the beneficial mutations and eliminates the harmful. Some mutations are lethal if either chromosome has the mutation, and these are quickly eliminated. However, other lethal mutations require that both chromosomes have to contain the mutation before it is lethal. These lethal mutations are not even expressed until they build up to about half of the population. If natural selection cannot eliminate these lethal mutations, how can it eliminate mutations that are merely harmful?

Since 99.9% of mutations are harmful, how did the genome get to be so near to ideal that almost every change is worse? Certainly natural selection cannot explain this!

Julian Huxley, a leading British evolutionist and grandson of Thomas Huxley who was called the Bulldog of Evolution, stated that at least 99.9% of mutations are harmful, and it would take a large number of successive beneficial mutations for evolution to occur, so the probability of evolution was incredibly small. But he believed that it did happen because he thought the idea of a creator was ludicrous. That isn't a scientific statement but an incredible leap of faith.

Julian Huxley may have thought the idea of a creator was ludicrous, but it is a commonly accepted assumption when we see things that are similar. I used to live in a house that was practically identical to the house next door, but no one ever suggested that they were descended from a common ancestor. It was assumed that they were built by the same builder. This was confirmed by historical evidence when I met the builder's daughter.

Why would the idea of a creator be so readily accepted when it comes to things, but rejected completely when it comes to life? It is really not a question of scientific evidence, but it is because of the theological implications. Can we accept the possibility that a creator might let things happen that humans do not like? Or, do we rebel at the idea of the existence of a creator who would hold his created beings responsible for our moral choices?

If you have questions or comments, please EMAIL me at rodandshellie (at)

This article may be downloaded and printed as long as no changes are made to the text, and proper credit is given to the source:

Search My Websites

CAUTION. If you click on a link and a blank screen opens, then connects to different website, close the window immediately. The link will work correctly on the second try.

Home Page
Site Map

Arsenokoitai and Gay Christians
Avoiding stupid mistakes.
Baby Savages.
Can we really trust the Bible? by Chuck Colson
Can you believe the New Testament?
God Sends Rain on the Just and the Unjust.
How To Pray For A False Teacher
In All Things, God Works for Good.
Jesus, Humble Servant
Moses and God
My Journey With Bone Cancer
No One Wins an Argument.
Our Triune God: God the Three in One
Reasoning With a Bible Thumper
Reducing Crime.
Romans Road to Salvation and Sanctification.
Salvation: Walking Through Life Holding Onto the Father's Hand
Same Sex Marriage and the Bible
Satan, the Devil
The Condensed Bible Story. The main characters and events of the Bible condensed into six pages.
The Evolution Story. Scientific reasons why I stopped believing in Evolution and started believing in Creation.
The Old Man and the Flood
The Right Church
When Will the Rapture Be?
Where Do Babies Go When They Die?
Where Do We Go When We Die?
Would God Allow Suffering?
You Can Take It With You!
You're Too Late.

hit counter