There was a time in cellular biology that when we looked at cells under a microscope, a cell from one animal might look very similar to a cell from another animal, even if the animals were very different in visual appearance.  So it was easy enough to reason then that evolution was plausible.  However, times have changed dramatically: Now we understand that it is the genetic material in the nucleus of the cell that completely determines what that cell does and how that cell cooperates with the whole body.  Chromosomes, genes, genomes--that is where real identity is.  And it is impossible to propose a truly credible Theory of Evolution unless you can demonstrate some mechanism to add genetic material, for without adding new genes, genomes and chromosomes, it is impossible to produce new species.

The Human Genome Project was completed in 2003 after13 years labor on the parts of many people.  Here are some basic facts about human DNA that they found:
  • The human genome contains 3164.7 million chemical nucleotide bases (A, C, T, and G).
  • The average gene consists of 3000 bases, but sizes vary greatly, with the largest known human gene being dystrophin at 2.4 million bases.
  • The total number of genes is estimated at 30,000 —much lower than previous estimates of 80,000 to 140,000 that had been based on extrapolations from gene-rich areas as opposed to a composite of gene-rich and gene-poor areas.
  • Almost all (99.9%) nucleotide bases are exactly the same in all people.
  • The functions are unknown for over 50% of discovered genes.1
Thus, the code for human life consists of just over 3 billion base pairs.  These are found in the 46 chromosomes that each human has.  When we compare the number of chromosomes of various organisms2, we find the number of chromosomes do not necessarily reflect the complexity of the organism.  For example, both the kangaroo and the amoeba (Dictyostelium discoideum) have 12 chromosomes, the chicken has 78 chromosomes, the common carp has 100 chromosomes, the field horsetail has 216 chromosomes, and the fern has 1200 chromosomes.  Some clarification of this came with the discovery of non-coding DNA, and the observation that some of the smallest forms life have the least amount of non-coding DNA3.  However, there remains a great mystery regarding DNA, and certainly much of the unknown functions of DNA will be found in the future to have functions, just as the so-called "vestigial organs" of humans have been found to be functional.

Now if you look at any organism, you will find that there are the same number of chromosomes within each cell, with the only exception being the mature sexual reproductive cell (gamete) which has a single set of unpaired chromosomes.  For example, in the human, each cell has 46 chromosomes, except for the sperm and egg, each of which have only 23 chromosomes.  Normal human reproduction, like any other cellular reproductive process, invariably reproduces its own kind.  A blackberry bush will not produce strawberries, and a pair of chickens will not produce a lion.  Even though the kangaroo and the amoeba both have the same number of chromosomes, you can't mate one with another to get a new creature.  They each reproduce after their own kinds.

Although classifications are somewhat arbitrary, biology has classified organisms into Genus and Species, .  Within any given Genus there is at least one Species of creatures.  Within each Species, mating can occur and fertile offspring can be routinely produced.  However, when mating occurs between the different Species of a given Genus, although such can potentially produce viable offspring, these are frequently sterile.

Perhaps the most common example of this is the mating of a male donkey (62 chromosomes) and a female horse (64 chromosomes) to produce a mule (63 chromosomes).  The mule is almost always sterile.  In a similar fashion, the crossing of a male horse and a female donkey is called a hinny, which is also sterile.

There are other examples of such "hybrids" in the animal kingdom.  For example, a "tigon" is a cross between a male tiger and a female lioness.  Both of these creatures have 38 chromosomes, so obviously the difference is not like that of the horse and the donkey.  However, male tigons are sterile, but female tigons can be fertile.  Therefore, tigons cannot mate to continue their line.4

A "liger" is a cross between a male lion and a female tigress.  The liger is the largest big cat in the world.5  As with the tigon, the liger female is fertile, but the male is sterile6.  Thus, they cannot continue their own line.

A zonkey is a hybrid produced by crossing a zebra (32 or 46 chromosomes, depending on type of zebra) with a donkey (62 chromosomes).  These offspring are viable, but are sterile7.

A dzo is a hybrid produced by crossing a yak and domestic cattle.  The females are fertile, but the males are sterile, so they cannot continue their own line8.

There has been speculation about a potential crossbreeding between a human (46 chromosomes) and a chimpanzee (48 chromosomes), but there has been no recorded success story to my knowledge.

Thus, hybrids are undesirable if you want fertile offspring to perpetuate the new line of creature.  Otherwise, they are an evolutionary dead end.  However, in spite of that, evolutionists muse about such hybrids occurring in the distant past that resulted in new species being formed, and thus attribute evolution to something that cannot be demonstrated in the laboratory.  Creation has been discarded by scientists because it cannot be demonstrated in the laboratory.  Using this same reasoning, evolutionists must give up this argument based on hybrids as a mechanism of evolution since they cannot reproduce it in the laboratory.

What we see everyday are plants and animals reproducing according to their own kinds.  This accords with Scripture (Gen 1:12, 21, 24, 25; 6:20; 7:14), and is a solid scientific observation.  It takes no musing and no imagination to understand this law of cellular reproduction.  When a woman becomes pregnant, she does not expect to give birth to some strange new species, but to a baby human, after her own kind.  Let us stop living in an imaginary world and recognize the obvious: life reproduces according to its own kind.

One of the basic assumptions of evolutionary theory is that life formed in a primitive form, and then evolved from the most simple form to the most complex forms.  Obviously this evolution only could occur by adding genetic material.  But how is this genetic material added?  The evolutionist will appeal to mutations, but there is not a single mutation found in a human that has given that human some advantage.  Rather, those mutations are disabling and disfiguring, and often result in violent behavior.  Unless mutations can be demonstrated in the laboratory to truly give a human something that would make human more fit for survival, thus fulfilling the criteria of Survival of the Fittest, then we must conclude that it is an unproven mechanism for evolution.  Please, dear friends who trust in evolution, demonstrate this mythical mechanism of evolution in the lab, showing how mutations produce a new species, or honestly admit this is a figment of your imagination rather than real science.  Please realize that not all teaching M.D.'s and Ph.D.'s agree with Darwin that mutations and natural selection can account for the complexity of life.  You can read the list of the hundreds who do not agree with Darwin at webpage indicated in the footnote.9

Now as we speak about the genome of this or that organism, we may become dull to the reality that those genomes are highly organized into chromosomes.  Chromosomes reproduce themselves, and the reproduction of the genome is what begins, grows, sustains and matures the organism.  Again, the proponents of evolution have rejected creation because it cannot be reproduced in the laboratory.  Therefore, their assumption that life evolved by adding new genetic material to produce a new genome they must certainly throw out until they can demonstrate how this can and does happen in the laboratory.

Dead reader, I am not objecting to "microevolution," which involves minor changes that occur within a plant or animal.  The change in the size of a beak or the color of a feather is something that is clearly observable, but does not coincide with any change in the genome of that animal.  All breeding to achieve stronger or more desired attributes of an organism is based on solid science, but this does not change the genome of that organism:  These animals still have the same number of base pairs and the same number of chromosomes when they are bred to be stronger.  However, I object to "macroevolution," which implies dramatic changes in an organism's genome, such as adding huge amounts of new DNA as would be necessary to produce a new genus or species.  This has never been demonstrated in the laboratory, and it is a statement of desire and faith on the part of the evolutionists rather than hard evidence.  I am not talking about artificially putting human genes into a plant!  Please, produce the science to show how evolution occurred at the level of the genome, or stop the myth of macroevolution.  The evolutionist must show how this can and does happen before it can be accepted as a fact.

Again, I plead with all people to stop living in a world of science fiction, in a world of fantasy, and come back to what you can establish with real and honest observation.