From the genetic unity of humanity to the irreducible complexity of cellular machinery, from thermodynamic laws to mathematical impossibilities, the evidence overwhelmingly refutes evolution as a viable explanation for life's origins and instead affirms the necessity of an intelligent Creator who designed, organized, and authored all existence.
There is consensus among anthropologists, geneticists, and biologists that all human beings, without exception, have descended from a common ancestral pair: a single man and woman. Biologists cite the following evidence to show that all humans have a common ancestor:
- DNA Similarity - Humans share approximately 99.9% of their DNA with each other, indicating a very recent common ancestor. (1)
- All humans inherit mitochondrial DNA from their mothers, and studies of mtDNA suggest that all living humans can trace their ancestry back to a single woman, often referred to as "Mitochondrial Eve." (2)
- Y-Chromosome Analysis - The Y-chromosome, which is passed from father to son, reveals that all men can trace their lineage back to a single male ancestor, often referred to as "Y-Chromosomal Adam." (3)
- Genetic Markers: Shared genetic markers and mutations among human populations provide evidence of a common ancestry. (4)
Why should we expect this to happen if evolution is true? What happened to all the other "species of humans" with their own distinct lines of ancestry? Evolutionists argue that all these became extinct, with only the "fittest" surviving. Again, this is an ad hoc attempt to account for the monumental gaps in the evidence. If evolution occurred in isolated, disconnected blind processes, why do all modern humans trace back to a single set of common ancestors? Evolutionary biologists admit that the idea that humans evolved from different ancestors (polygenism) is not supported by the evidence. The genetic evidence overwhelmingly supports the idea that all humans are closely related and share a recent common ancestor. If humans had evolved from different ancestors, we would expect to see much greater genetic diversity and distinct lineages, which we do not observe. (5) In addition, the anatomical and developmental similarities among all humans are consistent with a single origin. If humans had evolved from different ancestors, we would expect to see greater anatomical and developmental differences among human populations. (6)
Irreducible Complexity
Having examined the genetic foundations of life, it becomes clear that DNA is not merely a chemical sequence but a sophisticated information system. Yet, the question naturally arises: how is this genetic information expressed and organized into functioning biological machines? To explore this, we must look deeper, into the microscopic structures and interdependent mechanisms within living cells, where we encounter systems so intricately designed that even the smallest alteration would render them useless. This brings us to the concept of "irreducible complexity." When we study living organisms and reduce their functions to their most basic biological components, we eventually reach a level where removing any further part causes the entire function to fail. For example, the bacterial flagellum is a microscopic motor made of many interdependent proteins; if even one is missing, the flagellum stops working altogether. Another would be in human cells; the clotting process relies on a precise chain of proteins (clotting factors) that activate one another in sequence.
If any key factor is absent, the chain reaction cannot be completed, and a wound will not heal. In essence, this microbiological irreducible complexity shows molecular systems are too complex to have evolved incrementally and must be present from the very outset, i.e. designed. It's like an alarm clock that requires all parts working together to tell time and sound alarms. Individual parts cannot perform these functions alone. In his book, Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe shows how such "cellular machines" from the bacterial flagellum to the blood-clotting cascade cannot be explained by gradual evolution. He argues that these intricate, interdependent systems require all their essential parts to be in place simultaneously, which he believes points to an intelligent designer rather than step-by-step natural selection.
The second law of thermodynamics states that, in a closed system, entropy (the measure of disorder) tends to increase over time. Put simply, without an external source of energy and organization, things naturally move from order to disorder. This principle is often called the entropy principle. According to this, a system left to itself will not spontaneously become more complex or organized; it will instead drift toward greater randomness. If we apply the entropy principle to biological systems, it raises the question of how simple life forms could transform into more complex organisms purely by chance. The analogy of machines helps illustrate the point. A bicycle cannot gradually transform into a motorcycle without an outside source of energy, planning, and materials. Likewise, a 100cc motorcycle cannot simply increase its engine capacity to 500cc on its own. Both scenarios highlight that complexity and higher performance require the addition of external resources, design, and information. Without these external inputs, the system remains the same or declines.
Although raw energy (such as sunlight or heat) can enter a system, energy by itself is insufficient to create organized complexity. Sunlight, for instance, fuels a plant's growth, but the plant can harness that energy only because it already possesses highly ordered structures like chlorophyll molecules and DNA, each containing precise instructions or "information." If such information is essential for achieving higher levels of organization, and the physically more complex requires a detailed blueprint to build. The question naturally follows: where does that information originate? Without some guiding mechanism or intelligent input to channel the energy, an influx of energy alone would merely accelerate disorder and decay rather than build new order.
Mathematical Impossibility
Finally, evolution is a mathematical impossibility. The idea that random matter could assemble itself into, even the simplest cell, let alone complex animals - is a probabilistic impossibility. Consider the probability of a fully formed protein arising by chance. Cells are built from proteins, and proteins themselves are chains of amino acids. For a relatively small protein consisting of 100 amino acids, the total number of possible amino acid sequences is 20¹⁰⁰. Accordingly, the probability of any one specific sequence arising purely by random combination of the 20 standard amino acids is approximately 1 in 20¹⁰⁰ (about 10⁻¹³⁰) - which is an almost unimaginably small number. (7) If the odds are so minuscule for a single functional protein, what are the chances of this process repeating itself to produce the brain, eyes, ears, millions of species, the sun, the moon, and billions of galaxies? It would be like someone winning the lottery jackpot every single day for an entire lifetime - something everyone would agree is impossible. It is like claiming a fully operational airplane emerged out of a tornado in a junkyard - would any intelligent person believe this?
Yet some would still try to convince you of the possibility. To illustrate this, they use the "infinite monkey theorem," which is that "If six monkeys sat at typewriters and banged on the keys for billions of years, it is not unlikely that in the last pages they wrote we would find one of the sonnets of Shakespeare. This is the case with the universe that exists now. It came about as the result of random forces that played with matter for billions of years." (8) Any talk of this nature is utter nonsense. None of our branches of science - until the present day - know what type of accident could produce such a great reality with all its wonder and beauty. (9) In his book Man Does Not Stand Alone, American chemist A. Cressy Morrison writes, "So many essential conditions are necessary for life to exist on our earth that it is mathematically impossible that all of them could exist in proper relationship by chance on any one earth at one time. Therefore, there must be in nature some form of intelligent direction."
The most recent advances in knowledge have overturned many of the certainties that shaped the twentieth-century collective consciousness. Once regarded as the sole acceptable explanation, evolution is now increasingly viewed as an untenable belief. Even among leading atheist philosophers, it no longer provides a satisfactory framework for understanding nature. Highly acclaimed Professor Thomas Nagel writes in his Mind & Cosmos, Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False,
"I would like to defend the untutored reaction of incredulity to the reductionist neo-Darwinian account of the origin and evolution of life. It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection. We are expected to abandon this naive response, not in favour of a fully worked out physical/chemical explanation, but in favour of an alternative that is really a schema for explanation, supported by some examples. What is lacking, to my knowledge, is a credible argument that the story has a non-negligible probability of being true. There are two questions. First, given what is known about the chemical basis of biology and genetics, what is the likelihood that self-reproducing life forms should have come into existence spontaneously on the early Earth, solely through the operation of the laws of physics and chemistry? The second question is about the sources of variation in the evolutionary process that was set in motion once life began: In the available geological time since the first life forms appeared on earth, what is the likelihood that, as a result of physical accident, a sequence of viable genetic mutations should have occurred that was sufficient to permit natural selection to produce the organisms that actually exist? There is much more uncertainty in the scientific community about the first question than about the second. To anyone interested in the basis of this judgment, I can only recommend a careful reading of some of the leading advocates on both sides of the issue, with special attention to what has been established by the critics of intelligent design. Whatever one may think about the possibility of a designer, the prevailing doctrine - that the appearance of life from dead matter and its evolution through accidental mutation and natural selection to its present forms has involved nothing but the operation of physical law - cannot be regarded as unassailable. It is an assumption governing the scientific project rather than a well-confirmed scientific hypothesis." (10)
The evidence is unmistakable: the theory of evolution fails entirely. It is not science but pseudoscience - imagination masquerading as fact. No genuine evidence exists to uphold it; rather, every scientific finding testifies to design, intelligence, and purpose - the work of one all-powerful Creator. Design requires a Designer, intelligence points to an Intelligent Cause, and life itself testifies to the Living God. In every field, from biology to physics, the signs converge upon a single truth: God is not absent from creation; He is its Author.
(Taken from the book, ‘God: There is No Doubt!’)
(1) International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium. (2001). Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature, 409(6822), 860–921.
(2) Cann, R. L., Stoneking, M., & Wilson, A. C. (1987). Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution. Nature, 325(6099), 31–36.
(3) Underhill, P. A., et al. (2000). Y chromosome sequence variation and the history of human populations. Nature Genetics, 26(3), 358–361.
(4) ishkoff, S. A., et al. (2009). The genetic structure and history of Africans and African Americans. Science, 324(5930), 1035–1044.
(5) D. Reich, Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past. Pantheon Books.
(6) D.E. Lieberman, The Story of the Human Body: Evolution, Health, and Disease. Pantheon Books.
(7) Eugene V. Koonin, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution.
(8) Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity.
(9) Waheedudin Khan, God Arises.
(10) Thomas Nagel, Mind & Cosmos, Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False. Oxford University Press, p. 10.
Leave a Review