Fact/Fiction 

Evidences

Assumptions

Mutations

Conclusion 

Every scientific theory has assumptions that cannot be proven.  If any of these assumptions prove to be invalid, then the theory is false.  The Theory of Evolution also has unproven assumptions.  These are as follows:
 

1. Life arose from non-living matter (Spontaneous Generation).
2. Spontaneous Generation occurred only once.
3. Viruses, bacteria, plants, and animals are interrelated.
4. Multicellular animals evolved from unicellular organisms.
5. Various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.
6. Vertebrate animals evolved from invertebrate animals.
7. Vertebrate animals evolved from fish to amphibians to reptiles to birds and mammals, etc.

Let’s take a look at each of these assumptions.

There are only two possibilities for how life started on earth.  Either it began by Spontaneous Generation, or God created it.  Spontaneous Generation is a very old theory that was finally considered disproved by Louis Pasteur in the 19th century.  It was again resurrected in the mid 20th century in yet another attempt to explain how life began on earth.  The theory states that inorganic chemicals were exposed to electrical discharges and this produced simple organic molecules such as amino acids, sugars, and nitrogen bases.  Through a remarkable process of “self assembly,” these organic substances became such things as proteins, nucleotides, and lipids.  Then, once again, through another extraordinary “self assembly” process, these molecules formed simple cells.  However, this process has never been successfully demonstrated, even in carefully regulated laboratory situations.

Therefore, many scientists have abandoned the theory of Spontaneous Generation because they think that even the simplest forms of life could not have arisen by natural chemical reactions.  Instead they believe that life was brought to earth by a higher life form.  However, that still doesn’t solve the problem of how life started.  Somehow, life started somewhere, and it had to be either created by God or occur accidentally by spontaneous generation.  Either proposition takes faith, but which is more reasonable?  For me it is far easier to say God created life.  The staggering improbability that life occurred by accidental chemical reactions is simply unacceptable.  Design demands a Designer.

This assumption is vital to the Theory of Evolution.  The theory starts from the simplest life forms and says that every life form evolved from these.  If it is true, then we should be able to demonstrate similarities between all living things with current molecular biology techniques.  Viruses are the simplest forms of life, but must live inside some higher form of life.  Thus, they are the simplest, but they could not have arisen first in evolution.  Bacteria are unique from all other forms of life, and have no proven relationship to any other life form.  The same is true of protozoans.  There is no convincing evidence that this assumption of interrelatedness is true.

Despite continuing research, scientists do not know how multicelluar organisms arose.  Although theories abound, there is no evidence to confirm any of them.  According to the Theory of Evolution, unicellular organisms evolved into multicellular organisms in the ancient past.  The fossil record is of little help since these creatures had no skeletons.  Simply put, one must take this assumption of evolution as a leap of faith.

Invertebrate creatures are those without a spine.  Examples include jellyfish, worms, snails, insects, and starfish.  Biologist group organisms based on how they look (morphology) and by their early development (embryology), assuming that common elements of morphology and embryology imply relatedness.  There is no convincing evidence that these phyla are related.  Any relatedness could be equally blamed on a Creator, an intelligent Designer who leaves his unique signature on each.

Evolutionists assume that animals with a backbone evolved from animals without a backbone.  This assumption is absolutely vital to sustain the Theory of Evolution.  However, there are very significant differences between invertebrate and vertebrate animals, and there are no convincing intermediate forms between invertebrates and vertebrates in the fossil record.  Once again there are theories on how this occurred, but none have been confirmed with the fossil record.  This assumption is yet another statement of faith by those who believe in evolution.

The Theory of Evolution also assumes that all vertebrates evolved from a common ancestor and thus are related.  The Theory also assumes that evolution proceeded in the above order.  For example, this would mean that sea squirts, sharks, catfish, toads, snakes, bluebirds, and humans all are related and have a common ancestor.  However, vertebrates are plentiful in the fossil record, and there is no convincing evidence of relatedness there.  The absence of convincing intermediate forms is, as far as I am concerned, lethal to the Theory of Evolution at this point.
 
 

next page

Page URL: http://www.wayhome.org
Current Page: evo4.html
Copyright 2000, Vic Vadney
Webmaster: Vic Vadney
Revised: July/29/2000/