By Dr. A. E. Wilder Smith
Only the contents of the Preface and Chapter 6 are included here.
Preface...................................................i Chapter 1 Evolution as a Scientific Pseudofact......................1 The Meaning of Evolution.................................1 General Notes .......................................... 2 Evolution Without Know-how ............................. 4 Two Scientific Difficulties in Evolutionary Theory ..... 6 Chapter 2 Biogenesis by Chance? Part I..............................11 The Formation of the Building Blocks of Life..............11 The Formation of the Building Blocks of Life From a Chemical Point of View.................................11 Spontaneous Biogenesis in Primeval Oceans?...............15 Properties of the Building Blocks of Life: The Amino Acids And Their Chirality..............................17 Manfred Eigen's Explanation of the Origin of the Chirality Required by Biogenesis.......................26 Further Synthetical Difficulties.........................35 Chapter 3 Biogenesis by Chance? Part II.............................37 Linkage of the Building Blocks............................37 The Standard Scheme......................................37 The Standard Scheme in Somewhat Modified.................39 The Standard Scheme is Further Modified..................40 The Different Types of Proteins..........................42 Autoorganization.........................................48 Several Important Prerequisites and Consequences ........49 The Preprogramming of Proteins ..........................50 Proposition: The Paper Writes the Book ..................53 A Modern Point of View...................................53 The Sound Lens in Dolphins ..............................55 Chapter 4 The Genesis of Biological Information ....................59 The Problem of Information in Archebiopoesis.............59 The Problem of Transformism and Its Financing With New Information ..................................67 Entropy and Information .................................69 Chapter 5 Programmed by Chance?.....................................75 Chance as a Programming Agent?...........................75 The Nature of the Cells Program .........................78 Manfred Eigen's Glass Beads..............................84 The Nature of Language...................................86 Language Conventions.....................................90 Translation..............................................97 Summary..................................................99 Chapter 6 Time Spans and Dating Methods: ...........................101 Their Relation to the Question of Intelligence and The Origin of Species Time Spans and Dating....................................101 Index Fossils............................................113 The Cl4 Dating Method....................................120 Constancy of the Cl4 Concentration in the Atmosphere...........................................123 The Influence of the Earth's Magnetic Field on C14 Synthesis ........................................124 Some Consequences.........................................130 Other Dating Methods .....................................132 Summary...................................................133 Chapter 7 Microevolution, Transformism and Concepts ................135 Are Mutations and Natural Selection Sufficient to Account for Evolution? .............................135 Survival of Those Organisms Producing the Greatest Number of Offspring ...................................139 Stabilization of Species Boundaries .....................141 Missing Links Incapable of Survival .....................143 A Few Consequences ......................................146 A Variant View: Machine and Concept .....................146 Chance and Machinery.....................................149 Machinery at a Molecular Level ..........................150 Source of Concepts and Ideas ............................154 Appendix .................................................165 The Seven Main Postulates of the Theory of Evolution ..........................................165 The Three Laws of Thermodynamics ........................166 Symmetry and Pairing of Biological Organs................167 Human Brain and Evolution ...............................169 Optical Activity in Biological Macroevolution............171 New Finds in the Paluxy River Bed, Glen Rose, Texas, USA ............................................177
On January 14, 1975, in Zurich, Nobel Prize laureate Jacques Monod stated that today no one any longer harbors doubts regarding evolution. Everybody admits that it took place.(1) If Monod thus wished to express the idea that every single form of life (plant, animal, human) developed ontogenetically from nonliving matter, then he may have been entirely correct. But if, as was probably the case, he meant that man shares common ancestors with all animals and plants that is, that transformism, the changing of one species into another higher one, took place then many highly qualified biologists will protest. For in the course of the last few years, a number of mostly young experts have become convinced that biogenesis, the origin of life, is to be understood polyphylogenetically (from many sources) rather than monophylogenetically (all life stemming from one primeval cell). So today well-informed experts exist who no longer believe that all species originated from one primeval cell by means of transformism. They believe in no common biological family tree for all species, possessing a single root for all forms of life. Rather, they hold the opinion that life resembles a field in which many organisms flourish side by side without necessarily being connected phylogenetically.
G. A. Kerkut, Professor of Physiology and Biochemistry, University of Southampton, England, is one of the Professors who has questioned the old Neo-Darwinian transformism. Professor Kerkut writes: "The attempt to explain all living forms in terms of an evolution from a unique source, though a brave and valid attempt, is one that is premature and not satisfactorily supported by present day evidence."(2) Kerkut adds that, personally, he would never state that evolution "has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt." He admits finding depressing the dogmatism of evolutionary theorist in many scientific circles.
Kerkut is one of the scientists in the USA, Europe, and England who is "on the move" regarding evolutionary theory. They no longer accept the old biogenetical dogmas concerning evolution. They regard them in the light of new knowledge in the fields of information theory and molecular biology. Against this background they examine the old theories. Highly qualified academics and professors of reputable universities in the Anglo-Saxon world and in Europe today no longer believe in a transformism of the old Neo-Darwinian type, where a primeval cell is supposed to have changed into all the species of our present biology solely through the forces of chance and natural selection. Today it is clearly not objective to state that only ignorant people refute the Neo-Darwinian theories. To classify doubting academics as ignorant is an emotional matter. Such outbreaks of emotion occurred many years ago in the defense of the Phlogiston theory which was formerly accepted by nearly all "educated" persons.
From a practical point of view two methods exist for testing the theory of evolution:
Martin Jost(4) compares the above two investigative methods with another type of problem. The object of this problem is to determine whether all the electric plugs in a certain skyscraper function. In principle, the person in charge has a choice between only two methods of investigation:
Now if it is found with certainty, both experimentally and theoretically, that spontaneous biogenesis and spontaneous automatic transformism of one species into another higher one does not and indeed cannot take place, then it will no longer be necessary to examine the various small branches of the evolutionary family tree. If the "root" cannot function, the rest of the "tree" no longer needs to be examined.
In the following chapters we not only wish to thoroughly examine the root of the evolutionary tree for its ability to function, but simultaneously we shall also test various "plugs" in the various stages of the evolutionary system for "current." Yet before we turn to this central task, we should like to mention some basic theoretical problems, which crop up repeatedly but which are seldom treated frankly.
The real problem in Neo-Darwinian evolutionary teaching lies in the following theoretical, seldom specifically formulated assumptions:
As a theoretical concept Neodarwinism proves to be chemically, physiologically, and physically untenable. A false concept will only serve to lead scientific research concepts astray. Since the discovery of the genetic code as the basis of biology, we urgently need a program of abiogenetical research which takes into account the genesis of codes, information, and of programs. However, this need will never be met if chance (noncode) is considered to be the basis of program information and code. Since Darwin, biological research has stood under the ban of the concept of chance and selection as the basic cause behind information, codes, and programs.
Today we live in an age of information and programming. These provide the technical basis both of the genetic code and of modern technology. For such an age, chance and selection no longer suffice either as a philosophy for abiogenesis or for life itself. In the domain of technology and biology, chance no longer suffices as the basis of codes and programs, and yet chance is the very basis of all Neodarwinian abiogenetical thought. We most urgently need a complementing of our biology by the concepts of teleonomy and programming which are diametrically opposed to those of chance. Teleonomy and programming are the very antipodes of chance and aimless variations (which today are ostensibly still supposed to be the basis of genetic information in biology). Antipodes lie 180 degrees apart. Thus Darwinian abiogenetical thought will need to rotate through 180 degrees to be capable of catching up on progress in other areas of information theory and general science.
1.Jacques Monod: "L'evolution Microscopique." Lecture (Zurich, Jan. 14, 1975. Tape recording.) 2.G. A. Kerkut: Implications of Evolution. Pergamon Press (Oxford, 1965) p. VII, VIII. 3.cf Martin Jost: "Abkehr von der Evolutionstheorie," Schweizerische Akademiker und Studentenzeitung. No. 51 (Nov. 1976). cf Kerkut, G. A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon Press (Oxford, 1965). 4.Jost: op cit (Ann. 3) p. 5
Their Relation to the Question of Intelligence And the Origin of Species
The roles played by intelligence, information, and teleonomy in the problem of biogenesis are today the subject of intensive research. Leading biologists still attribute the generation of information machines and concepts during the development of the genetic code to chance and to the ateleonomic laws of nature. Accepting this proposition has far reaching consequences in the area of intelligence and concepts and their role in biogenesis and evolution. Let us examine a few of them.
If a project is guided and carried through with the aid of intelligence, less time is usually required to execute the project than if it is only "guided" or controlled by chance (the antipode of intelligence). This is, of course, a well known basic fact. Weak intelligence (or chance) nearly always requires more time to carry out any teleonomic project than high intelligence. Construction of a machine or designing a blue print with the aid of low intelligence needs more time than that needed by high intelligence to execute the same project. Expressed differently, "hit or miss" is usually more time consuming than a highly intelligent attempt to synthesize a plan, a machine, or a program. Chance itself, that is pure randomness, needs more time for constructing any project, or plan, as we have already seen, unless supported by the information (intelligence, decision making) provided by a machine.
For example, a fairly intelligent engineer could build a small car from scratch by himself in his own workshop within, let us say, three years. Higher intelligence, plus more energy could do the job in less time. If, however, infinite intelligence (i.e., decision-making) and energy were somehow available for the construction of the same car, it could--from a theoretical point of view at least--be completed instantaneously. Infinite intelligence and energy, if such could seriously be reckoned with, would require infinitely little time to execute their projects.
A step in the opposite direction will reveal a similar mathematical situation. If the construction of the same car were left to pure chance, i.e. effectively to nonintelligence, to the antipode of intelligence, an infinite length of time would be required to bring the car project to completion. And if the car's construction were left to almost infinitely weak intelligence (i.e., practically to chance) as we have seen, an almost infinite amount of time would be required to build it. The relationship between time and intelligence in completing teleonomic projects is inversely proportional. Construction of a house with a vibrator would take longer than building a house with intelligence, although the energy of the vibrator might possibly come in useful during the process - provided its energy were rectified.
To influence the intelligence-time relationship, the separate car components could be so built that they irreversibly slot into one another when they are shaken by a vibrator. That is, when chance acts upon the car components, just as the parts of a jigsaw puzzle might irreversibly slot into each other when they are put into a vibrator, thus putting the puzzle together to form a picture with the aid of chance shaking, thus with the car. With the aid of such "irreversible" car or puzzle components chance vibration could, from a superficial point of view, build a car or solve a puzzle within a useful period of time. This sort of car component would under the circumstances behave like the pieces of the irreversible jigsaw puzzle which formed a picture of the Matterhorn when shaken.
Would a jigsaw of this type prove that chance alone is capable of carrying out a project without the aid of intelligence? No, for within the bounds of our illustration, chance has not in itself executed the project, but rather preprogramming, decision-making, irreversibility, and prior intelligence concealed within the individually interlocking pieces have done so. Programming, decision making and intelligence acted beforehand by prefabricating the interlocking irreversible puzzle pieces or car components. Precisely such irreversible components are never built with the aid of chance, but with decision-making and planning. Thus if a puzzle or a car of this sort is built from these irreversibly interlocking pieces, it can never be said that they were built by chance. Chance certainly provided the unrectified energy required for the task, but intelligence and decision-making stored in the component parts rectified this energy at the interlocking of the programmed pieces. Thus intelligence, rectification, decision making, thought, and teleonomy were concealed within the components; chance revealed these hidden properties in its apparent ability to produce projects. Chance did not plan or prepare the construction; it was only the executor of a preconceived, stored plan, and was of secondary importance; previously invested stored decisions, intelligence played the primary role.
If the building blocks of biological life, the amino acids, phosphates, and nucleotides were built so that they automatically slotted themselves into projects, machines, and the genetic code by means of random "shaking" (i.e., by simple molecular movement), this would signify that they were built in the same way as our irreversibly interlocking car components or puzzle pieces. Chance does not build any projects at all on its own. It may "build" such if the components on which it works are "slotted." For this reason, intelligence and teleonomy must previously have carried out stored decision work on the components of the biological genetic code, enabling them to build the project of the genetic "machine," if mere chemical "shaking" is to be effective in constructing the genetic code. If a project is to be built by chance, project and intelligence must previously have acted somewhere on the components of this project. However, the plain scientific fact remains, that the amino acids and other chemical components of life do not irreversibly interlock to build living products when they are "shaken." Experiment shows that chance does not produce genes, therefore the gene components do not contain stored decisions to build genes whenever chance acts on them.
Prevailing scientific-biological philosophy of today postulates very long time spans so that chance (nonteleonomy, nonintelligence) can execute the projects of archbiopoesis. No matter how long the time spans are that one allows, chance will produce nothing in the way of machines or projects unless intelligence or teleonomy has worked on the components. However, in reality Neodarwinian theory does not require merely long time spans to produce projects from chance. It postulates infinitely long time spans to complete almost infinitely large projects by means of infinitely weak intelligence (chance). It is precisely this infinite amount of time which is hardly available for biological projects. For perfect chance will certainly require infinite time and infinite amounts of matter to complete any teleonomic project - neither of which are available.
In order to accomplish almost infinitely complex biological projects with the aid of infinitely weak intelligence (chance), additional infinite amounts of the basic biological components of life (i.e., of optically active amino acids, of nucleotides, etc.) would have to be freely available. However, these infinitely great amounts of the basic components of life (such as optically pure amino acids) do not exist within our inorganic universe - let alone on our prebiotic earth. Facts of this sort destroy entirely the credibility of the basic concepts of biogenesis according to Neodarwinian materialistic philosophy.
Thus chance does not only require an infinite amount of time to complete highly complex projects, it also needs an (almost) infinite supply of matter (optically active amino acids, etc.) which is not available for chance to work upon. For these reasons chance has no prospect at all of completing the highly complex projects of the life machine over a restricted period of time with insufficient suitable matter. Intelligence operates far more economically with time and raw materials. Infinite billions of years and an infinite universe filled with unlimited masses of suitable biological raw materials would be the required prerequisites for constructing the machine of life, the project of a genetic code and the concept of an extremely complex machine solely with the aid of chance (i.e., nonintelligence).
Let us now examine to what extent the infinite time spans that would be required for the development of a biological project by chance are actually available. We need not consider the existence of infinite masses of matter; for obviously such masses of pure optically active amino acids and other building blocks of life did not exist on the prebiotic earth.
Let us assume for a moment that a primeval cell has been formed by chemical evolution and chance according to Neodarwinian theory and that it carries out normal reproductive processes. According to evolutionary theory natural selection and mutations will slowly lead to the development of new higher species. For this to occur, basically random behavior and further large time spans are mandatory. The evolution of the dinosaur will, according to Neodarwinian views, provide us with data on the large time spans absolutely necessary for transformism (evolution of one species into another).
It is generally taught that dinosaurs became extinct 70-120 million years ago, that is, long before the appearance of human beings. According to Louis Leakey's most recent estimates, the immediate predecessors of man developed approximately 1-10 million years ago.(1) During the approximate 70-120 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct, chance and selection worked on the development of new mammals and of man from existing biological stock. The predecessors of Homo sapiens were supposedly among these new species so produced. Evolution from the primeval cell up to present-day man by selection and by chance required allegedly approximately 600-700 million or more years. Are these figures supported by experimental geology?
[Editor's note: you should be aware that there has been considerable ongoing controversy surrounding the supposed contemporary dinosaur/"human" footprints found in Glen Rose, Texas, as described in the next section. Whether the "human" prints are really human or of some other creature is not totally clear. This "evidence" is not used as a creationist argument today (1995).]
In Glen Rose near the Paluxy River (Texas) innumerable footprints of various dinosaurs can still be seen in the chalk today. The huge footprints of Brontosaurus, weighing about 70 tons, are still clearly preserved in many places. There, too, Tyrannosaurus Rex tracks can be found. The Brontosaurus footprints are perhaps the most impressive among all the other dinosaur prints. When filled with water, a small child could easily take a bath in them.
Several geologists and other scientists have found what appear to be human footprints quite near to these dinosaur footprints in the chalk, which they photographed and duly published.(2) A film exists on some of these discoveries(3) and attracted much attention in the USA.
How are we to interpret such discoveries? If they are factual it would appear that brontosaurus existed contemporaneously with man, which is, of course, absolute heresy from a Neodarwinian view. After the formation of the dinosaur footprints in the then soft chalk, the chalk could not once again after millions of years have become soft so as to be able to receive later human footprints without at the same time damaging or eradicating the earlier dinosaur footprints. The human footprints and the dinosaur tracks are both equally clearly imprinted on the chalk, so that interim softening is out of the question. We can draw only one conclusion: the Brontosaurus and the human footsteps were formed simultaneously. If this is true, then humans and dinosaurs must have been contemporaries. If, however, according to present-day popular geological assumptions, the dinosaurs really did become extinct 70-120 million years ago, then man must already have existed 70-120 million years ago. The only alternative is that the dinosaurs still lived 1-10 million years ago - which the average geologist will scarcely admit - or that the allegedly human tracks are faked. The consequences of these alternatives are far reaching.
If, according to Darwinian theory, man developed via the amphibians, the reptiles, and the mammals, then this development must have required a great deal of time. However if man lived at the same time as the dinosaurs, he must himself either be as young or as old as they are. If he is as old as they are alleged to be, his evolutionary family tree will have automatically been reduced by some 70-120 million years. Precisely this time span reduction of the evolutionary tree cannot, however, be reconciled with Darwin's theory of evolution. His entire ladder from primeval cell to man required at the very least 600-700 million years in order to allow development of the primeval cell up to man by chance and selection. If man, however, lived at t he same time as the dinosaurs, then approximately 20% of the required evolutionary time span has been lost. But just this reduction by 20% is fatal according to mathematical probability theories on an evolution based on chance and selected mutations. If man and the dinosaur are considered to be geologically equally young, other grave problems arise for the evolutionary tree.
Several scientists have attempted to circumvent the problem posed by contemporaneous human and dinosaur footprints, by claiming that the human footprints near Glen Rose were faked, that is that they were chiseled into the chalk to deceive geologists and other. However, recent discoveries of other new human footprints series in a virgin (i.e., freshly excavated) layer of chalk eliminate this solution.
Other scientists, e.g., George Gaylord Simpson in the USA, claim that the entire discovery at Glen Rose does not exist, that it is simply a lie - a fake - just as was the Piltdown man, who was, of course, deliberately planted by reputable geologists possibly in the interests of humor or of Darwinism! Fraud and deceit occur even among scientists, just as they do among other fallible mortals, so that this explanation of the discoveries at Glen Rose is certainly technically feasible. But there is one snag to it. Discoveries in a similar vein have been made elsewhere, even if they are usually not mentioned in the official publishing media. Naturally great caution must be exercised before accepting any discoveries such as the Piltdown man or the Glen Rose finds for scientists are as fallible as any other mortals are. One fact remains certain in questions of this type: the entire Neodarwinian philosophy would be totally destroyed by one proven discovery of a single brontosaurus track contemporaneous with a single human track in the same virgin layer of chalk. Such considerations could well explain the militant attitude of Neodarwinians toward the Glen Rose finds. G. G. Simpson labels them as a plain lie. The authenticity of the discoveries at Glen Rose would in one blow absolutely and radically destroy Simpson's life-time's work as a proponent of Neodarwinism. The well known publishing scandals involving Macmillan and the suppression of Velikowski's research, as well as the Piltdown hoax, provide us with much food for thought in respect to the suppression of the publication of facts which would correct erroneous generally accepted scientific philosophies.
Reduction of the time available for the evolution of the Darwinian human family tree has, however, become even more drastic within the last twenty years or so. According to present day estimates the trilobites became extinct approximately 300 million years ago. This opinion leads to the conclusion that all geological formations containing trilobites must be at least 300 million years old. However, any formations containing human footprints should be approximately only 1-10 million years old, according to modern Neodarwinian teachings, so that formations containing trilobites can under no circumstances contain traces of human activity.
Dr. Clifford Burdick, geologist, reported on a remarkable discovery some time ago, which calls the above into question.4 In Swasey Mountain, west central Utah, at an altitude of approximately 2,000 feet the footprints of a barefooted child were discovered in a Wheeler formation. In the middle of the track's arch lay the compressed remains of a trilobite. Obviously the trilobite was not fossilized when the child stepped on it, for the organism was squashed by the child. Thus Clifford Burdick assumes that the trilobite was not yet fossilized at the time the track arose. If the assumptions made by Dr. Burdick are correct, human beings and trilobites must have lived contemporaneously, which is, of course, for any true blooded Neodarwinian, simply idiotic.
If the trilobites became extinct approximately 300 million years ago, then man's evolutionary tree of life time span is further reduced by approximately 400 million years. In this case man must have developed from the primitive primeval cell at an enormous rate, in fact in a few years, for he was apparently more or less fully developed at the time of the trilobites! Of course, chance and natural selection are not capable of having worked at this speed without the aid of intelligence. No scientist could believe that man developed over a relatively small number of years on the basis of natural selection and chance mutations.
Some time ago, caves were discovered5 containing drawings depicting human beings in the presence of certain animals. Some of these animals have a curious dinosaur-like appearance! Might this fact again point in the same direction? Might early man not have lived together with all sorts of animal species-including dinosaurs? If, that is, the Neodarwinian interpretation of geology happens to be fallacious? Some of the animals depicted in these cave drawings show a remarkable resemblance to the dragons described with such gusto in ancient fables and myths for children. A final conclusion cannot and may not be drawn here, for the evidence concerning these drawings is still incomplete. However, should such discoveries be confirmed, then the enormous time spans required for the human evolutionary ancestral tree after the principles of chance and selection are lacking. If these enormous time spans are myths, then biological evolution according to Darwinian principles is simply a myth, too.
If the dating methods used to set up the family tree of life are uncertain or erroneous, this might throw light on the remarkable paleontological discoveries described above. For this reason we must now examine more closely the customary paleontological dating methods, for on them depends the entire experimental and philosophical structure of modern biology. If these methods are unreliable or even fallacious, then the entire Neodarwinian biological philosophy of evolution automatically also be comes unreliable or fallacious with them.
During the last 10 or 20 years new fossilized hominoid (manlike) remains have been discovered throughout the world, especially in East Africa. The Leakey family has been a pioneering factor in this work. These discoveries are considered to present evidence for the development of man from his alleged animal ancestors though they have overthrown most of the older evolutionary schemes on man's alleged animal ancestry. We are thinking especially of Leakey's work in the Olduvai Gorge, which has been reported on in various scientific media.6 Naturally the age attributed to these new fossil discoveries depends entirely on the methods of dating employed. If Leakey's datings are uncertain, then his conclusions are equally uncertain.
According to Leakey's more recent reports, the hominids (manlike primates) appeared much earlier in geological time than commonly assumed 10-30 years ago. In those days it was assumed that man (Homo sapiens) differentiated himself from other hominids approximately one million years ago. Thus, from a geological point of view, Homo sapiens was very young. Since the work of Leakey, 1-10 million years in geological time are considered to be a more accurate estimate for this evolutionary branching. The dating methods used to determine the age are, of course, absolutely vital to all theories involved. Yet very little is said in the scientific publications we cite about the actual dating methods employed. Herein lies the weak point in all Leakey's otherwise excellent discoveries.
Establishment geology regarded Leakey's discoveries with extreme skepticism at first. For they entirely destroyed the older evolutionary human family trees which had been set up with so much hard work and publicity. Of even greater importance, of course, was the hard fact that Leakey's discoveries removed up to 10 million years of available evolutionary time for the evolution of man, for Leakey proposes that man and his immediate predecessors developed several million years earlier than previously assumed. This early appearance of man requires, of course, a more rapid evolution by chance than most serious scientists would hold to be credible. Chance demands a decidedly slow evolution rate. Leakey's discoveries, however, require an almost unbelievably rapid human development from other primates by mutation and selection. For this reason, the reservations of conservative scientists regarding Leakey's work are understandable. We must, therefore, ask ourselves how Leakey and others carried out their datings, for everything depends on the reliability of these measurements.
How are geological formations generally dated? One important method for determining the age of formations containing fossils is known as the Index Fossil Method. The types of fossil remains discovered in a geological layer are first examined. Then, according to the fossil content of the formation, the age of the same is determined, i.e., the index fossils present determine the formation's age. If, for example, dinosaur bones, eggs, or footprints appear in a geological formation, the geologist assumes that the formation involved originated during the lifetime of dinosaurs, at least 70-120 million years ago. Thus, the fossil content of a formation is decisive in determining the age of a formation by the index fossil method. Consequently, according to this method of dating, all formations containing brontosaurus or other dinosaur footprints must be at least 70-120 million years old.
If a formation contains fossilized trilobite remains this formation must, by the same considerations, be approximately 300 million years old, for trilobites became extinct approximately 300 million years ago (according to Neodarwinian theory). Discovery in any geological formation of human remains (bones, footprints, tools) informs us that the formation must be geologically modern. Man developed only 1-10 million years ago (according to Leakey). Human remains and formations containing the same cannot, of course, be older than man himself.
This index fossil method of dating is considered by most modern geologists to be absolutely authoritative and decisive, even though a little reflection shows that a prerequisite for its reliability is the reliability of the entire Neodarwinian theory of evolution. If the concepts of evolutionary theory are uncertain, then all datings obtained by the index fossil method are equally uncertain. Darwinians claim that the trilobites became extinct approximately 300 million years ago. Thus all formations containing trilobites must accordingly be approximately 300 million years old.
In reality, the index fossil method serves as a classic example of circular thought, for it accepts the assumptions of evolutionary theory (that in the past man slowly, over huge time spans, evolved from the primitive ancestors of dinosaurs and other species) in order to determine the age of man and of other organisms. It accepts transformism (the development of one species into another) as a fact in order to prove and to determine that this transformism occurred in geological time.
Naturally, the same principles of the index fossil method are applied when dating other geological formations. Thus, because trilobites are said to be geologically relatively primitive organisms (their eye was in actual fact the most sophisticated eye ever seen in all history7), according to evolutionary concept, they must be geologically old. Such arguments overlook the fact that physiologically primitive organisms such as amoeba still exist today as contemporaries of highly developed organisms, such as man or apes. Geological age and physiological primitiveness are by no means coupled. If only physiologically primitive organisms, such as trilobites, appear within a geological formation, this does not signify that only primitive organisms (like trilobites) existed when they were deposited in the formation involved, for the formations involved were usually deposited by water. Sessile animals and plants (with a fixed location) are reached by the water and fossilized on the spot, where as more complex organisms (such as those with legs or wings) can escape the oncoming water. Thus a formation deposited by water contains mainly those organisms which could not escape from the water at their time of death. The first organisms reached by the water were, therefore, often the physiologically most primitive types - and not necessarily those that were geologically older or more primitive.
The use of the index fossil dating method also involves other dangers which put the reliability of its results in question. When I was studying zoology at the University of Oxford (1933), Coelacanthus (Latimeria), a type of fish, was known as a fossil. According to the theories of those days, it acted as a sort of missing link in the evolution of fish. Geological formations containing fossilized remains of Latimeria were dated with apparent certainty using Coelacanthus as an index fossil. Depending on the opinion of the scientist involved concerning the time at which Latimeria became extinct, the formation containing Latimeria was dated.
Today most biologically informed persons know that any datings carried out using Latimeria as an index fossil may be completely erroneous, for exactly the same fish has recently been repeatedly caught - very much alive - off the shores of Madagascar.(8) The live fish is identical with the fossil ones which are supposedly some millions of years old. If Latimeria really had become extinct approximately 70 million years ago, then its fossilized remains could have been used as a means of dating. But today who could claim that a formation containing Latimeria really must be 70 million years old? The remains could equally well have stemmed from some of those Latimeria individuals which were swimming around Madagascar in geologically modern times.
Thus the reliability of the index fossil method depends entirely on the time at which the species involved became extinct. If, however, this date cannot be determined with certainty, which is the case, as Kerkut so rightly points out,(9) then this method cannot provide us with any precise dates at all. The index fossil method cannot provide us with any absolute values as long as absolute dates of extinction are unknown. All the results which the method supplies depend on the validity of the family trees themselves, that is in the final analysis on the concepts of evolutionary theory. Again dating the family tree is carried out with the aid of merely assumed times of extinction.
While considering the problem of Latimeria we must not overlook a further aspect of the misleading nature of evolutionary theory. Latimeria was considered to be a fairly primitive fish, an ancestor of more highly developed later species. Only lately a quite different attitude toward Latimeria has arisen, for it has been found that in its organization, Latimeria is not such a primitive species after all, for the fish is ovoviviparous, i.e., it bears living offspring - although without the aid of a placenta as found in mammals.(10) How must we regard the fact that a fish which was considered relatively primitive and underdeveloped on the evolutionary scale displays such a highly developed reproductory mechanism? Certain modern sharks reproduce in a similar manner. How can certain fish which are supposed to have appeared so early geologically, be so highly developed physiologically? The same problem arises concerning the trilobite's sophisticated eye, as we have already seen. Evolution aided by chance and selection hardly would have had time to accomplish physiological fitnesses of this sort. The highly developed eye of the trilobites underlines the same fact very firmly.(11)
In Glen Rose (Texas) immense numbers of dinosaur footprints are to be found in the bed of the Paluxy River(12) as we have already mentioned. Because the dinosaur footprints serve as index fossils, the chalk formation at Glen Rose is ascribed an age of 70-120 million years. However, Roland Bird and other Neodarwinian scientists photographed Brontosaurus and what appear to be human footprints at Glen Rose. The apparently human footprints were often 16 and more inches (39 cm) long, although some adjacent prints had a length of about 12 inches (30 cm). Further tracks exist or existed at Glen Rose which correspond to a human child's foot in size. If these footprints are really human - and there exist no experimental reasons to question this assumption, for R. T. Bird dug out specimens of various types and took them with him after carefully photographing them - then we have struck upon yet another considerable difficulty with dating methods, for the man-like footprints lie in the same formation as the dinosaur prints. Fig. 4 reproduces a photograph of some of these tracks.
In view of these facts, how are we to approach the problem of dating the Glen Rose formations? According to the index fossil method these formations containing dinosaur prints must therefore be between 70 and 120 million years old. But judging by the human footprints, the same formation has a maximum age of 1-10 million years (according to Leakey's dating) for it contains human traces. Which dating figure is correct?
The experimental side of Darwinian evolutionary theory is heavily dependent on the dating of the fossilized biological remains. For evolutionary theory to be experimentally acceptable, one or more dating methods independent of evolutionary theory and its teachings would have to be available.
Certainly the index fossil method is the most important method for the dating of formations known to modern geology. It has served more than all other dating methods to establish evolutionary theory. It must be remembered that, as applied today, it always supports evolutionary theory! Of course, the reason for this is by now perfectly clear: the method assumes that evolutionary theory is experimentally correct so that a suitable family tree can be set up depending on evolutionary concepts. Then it confirms the veracity of the evolutionary theory on the basis of the evolutionary family tree ...that is, the index fossil method is calibrated against the theory of evolution...then it proceeds to calibrate evolutionary theory against the index fossil method. Is it surprising that the theory of evolution confirms the index fossil method and vice versa? Neodarwinian theory has been thriving on this circular thinking between theory and practice and practice and theory for over 130 years. The index fossil method has significantly served to keep evolutionary theory in its scientific saddle,13 despite the fact that Neodarwinism itself is, in addition to the above contradictions, also a direct contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics.
Discarding the index fossil method would eliminate a major stay of evolutionary theory, which has by now held up more than 130 years of biological research. It should be considered as discredited today.
The C14 dating method can be applied whenever carbon containing biological remains are involved. Carbon consists of a mixture of isotopes (elements with different atomic weights but identical chemical properties): C11, C12, C13, and C14. C14 is synthesized by the bombardment of nitrogen (N14) by slow or thermal neutrons in the upper atmosphere:
N14 + n = C14 + H1
As cosmic rays constantly bombard the earth's atmosphere which contains much N14, C14 is continually formed in the upper atmosphere from N14. Unlike C12, this C14 is radioactive. When this radioactive C14 combines with oxygen. C14O2 is formed, which is, of course, also radioactive. The radioactive carbon dioxide C14O2 mixes with the nonradioactive carbon dioxide (C12O2) in the air.
C14 decays radioactivity. In 5568 years (or 5730 years according to some scientists) half the amount of C14 present in any sample will have decayed. Thus the half-life of C14 is said to be 5568 (5730) years. After this time the radioactivity of any amount of C14 in any sample will have decreased to one half of the original value. After a further 5568 (5730) years the amount of radioactivity will have halved again. After a third half-life, the value will again have halved, etc.
When a plant absorbs carbon dioxide from the air and reduces it to sugar and starch during photosynthesis with the aid of sunlight, the entire plant tissue will become just as radioactive as the carbon dioxide in the air: for the plant and the air both contain C14 in a state of equilibrium. Animals and human beings eat the radioactive C14 containing plants, so that their tissues also become radioactive. All forms of life are finally dependent on the (radioactive) CO2 in the air, and all life is in equilibrium with this radioactive CO2 in the air. Thus as long as C14 is synthesized at a constant rate from N14 in the air by cosmic bombardment, the level of radioactivity in the air and within the entire living spectrum of biology will remain constant. Biology and the air are in a dynamic state of equilibrium.
The death of animal or a plant will terminate the equilibrium between the C14 in the air and the C14 in the organism's tissue, for in a dead organism the C14 within the tissue is no longer renewed by C14 in the air. The radioactive C14 molecules in the dead tissue now decay without being replaced by new C14 from the air. Consequently, the C14 radioactivity of a dead organism decreases (whereas it remains constant within a living organism, i.e. in equilibrium with the C14 concentration in the air). 5568 (5730) years after the organism's death the radioactivity in the dead tissues is therefore exactly one half of the original value. This process constitutes the basis of C14 method of dating. The C14 radioactivity of the dead tissue is deter mined and, using the known half life, the number of years that have elapsed since the organism's death can be calculated. This procedure is, of course, based on the assumption that the air's C14 radioactivity has remained constant from the organism's time of death up to the present day. The reliability of the C14 dating method depends, then, on the following factors.
The concentration of C14 in the air must have been identical at the organism's time of death and at the time of dating. If, for example, the C14 level in the air was zero when the organism died, and 1,000 years have passed since its death, then the remains of this organism will appear to be infinitely old today, for at its death it contained no C14 whatsoever; therefore, at any and all times it will register an infinite age by this method.
However, if the C14 radioactivity of an organism which died 5568 (5730) years ago was exactly twice its present value, modern C14 dating 5568 years later would show that this organism died zero years ago, even though it died 5568 years ago, for just half of its activity at death has disappeared. We must conclude that the reliability of the C14 method of dating depends on a constant rate of C14 synthesis by cosmic radiation in the upper atmosphere, from the time of the death of the organism until the dating.
The rate of C14 decay must remain constant under all environmental conditions, i.e. absolute half life constancy must be certain under all environmental conditions. In certain specialist circles doubts have arisen on this point.14
After the organism's death absolutely no further exchange of C14 and C12 between the environment and the organic remains may take place. If for example fresh C14 in the form of carbonate or bicarbonate diffuses into the sample which is to be dated, obviously the remains will appear to be younger than they really are. Conversely, if C14 is washed out in the form of a carbonate or bicarbonate and replaced by C12, then the remains will appear older then their true age. It cannot always be guaranteed that no C12/C14 exchange of this sort has ever occurred between death and dating.
The above conditions all affect the reliability of Libby's C14 method. On them depends any and all reliable dating by this method. Libby himself pointed out the possibilities of such uncertainties in his method and warned against excessively high expectations as to reliability from the same.
As we have seen, if the C14 method of dating is to provide us with useful reliable results, the C14 synthesis by cosmic ray bombardment in the upper atmosphere must have remained constant for thousands of years. In other words, bombardment of N14 by cosmic rays must be equally intense now as at the time the biological remains which are to be dated died. Can we guarantee this constancy of cosmic ray bombardment in the upper atmosphere?
Although we are by no means sure, the experts are of the opinion that the source of these cosmic rays has probably remained constant over long ages. But questions concerning the concentration and intensity of the rays reaching the upper atmosphere remain unanswered. Both depend on various factors including the strength of the earth's own magnetic field. The stronger the earth's magnetic field, the weaker will be the concentration of cosmic rays actually reaching the upper atmosphere. Conversely, the weaker the earth's magnetic field, the stronger the cosmic radiation reaching the upper atmosphere. Thus during periods of a stronger magnetic field the earth will be subject to less cosmic radiation than during periods of a weak magnetic field. Thus atmospheric C14 concentration depends to a large extent on the strength of the earth's magnetic field. But, as we have already discovered, the C14 method depends on a constant synthesis of C14 by cosmic rays. Thus the C14 method of dating finally depends on a constant magnetic field surrounding the earth. Let us consider this constant magnetic field from a practical point of view.
It is generally known that the earth's magnetic field is subject to large variations. One hundred and forty-five years ago Gauss began to measure the earth's magnetic field and in the year 1835 he obtained a value of 85.6 X 10[21 power] Ampre/m2. Today, under the same conditions we obtain a value of 80.1 X 10[21 power] Ampre/m2. Thus the magnetic field has fallen by 5.5 X 10[21 power] Ampre/m2 over a period of 145 years.(15)
The earth's magnetic field is, to a large extent, independent of the magnetic ores in the earth's surface, for it originates from the electric currents in the earth's crust. Metals cannot be magnetized at a temperature higher than the Curie temperature (for iron approx. 750ø). Approx. 25 km below the crust of the earth the temperature reaches the Curie value, so that at this depth iron cannot be the cause of the magnetic field. The same, of course, applies to other magnetic metals. If the Curie temperature is reached at a depth of 25 km and if the earth's radius measures 6370 km, then the Curie temperature for all substances is certainly surpassed in the earth's interior. Hence the earth's magnetism must be due to electromagnetism and our planet is not a permanent, but an electromagnet. Electric currents within the crust develop the magnetic field, and as soon as these are eliminated or die out the magnetic field vanishes.
As, in fact, the earth's magnetic field is rapidly decreasing according to experimental data, the current within the earth's crust is obviously declining. The cause and origin of these currents have been the object of much speculation. Lamb(16) is of the opinion that we are dealing with free currents, the remains of past geological and cosmic events. Currents of this sort would, of course, decrease with time, so that the magnetic field must diminish, as far as we can see. In addition we know that in the geological past the magnetic field has fluctuated. However we know of no evidence permitting us to assume that the decline of this field by normal known processes during historical times could be transformed into an increase of the same. Restoration of the current within the earth's crust by means of geological or cosmic events during the last 20,000 years would thus seem to be out of the question. The half life of the earth's magnetic field, as determined today, lies at approximately 1400 years, if the rate of decay has remained constant. This signifies a halving of the earth's magnetic field within 1400 years. Consequently, the magnetic field will have diminished to 1/32 of its original value after 7000 years (five half life periods of 1400 years each). The present strength of the field must therefore be approximately 37% of its strength at the time of Christ.17 These observations have important consequences:
4000 B.C. The field measured 12 Gauss 5000 B.C. 20 Gauss 6000 B.C. 35 Gauss 8000 B.C. 98 Gauss 1970 A.D. 0.62 Gauss
The basis of the C14 dating method presupposes a constant magnetic field. But a constant decay of the above type could be assumed if the magnetism inducing current originated from one great unique geological event. Minor later events with current-producing or current-destroying effects would affect the magnitude of the current and impair the constancy of decay. As, however, we are not yet acquainted with the original source of current, one can only for the time being speculate in this area.
Due to the relatively short half-life of C14, this method of dating is only employed for time spans of up to 10,000-60,000 years. Other dating methods have been developed for older formations and biological remains. The potassium-argon method is based on the fact that potassium is weakly radioactive and slowly breaks down to give the inert gas argon. Argon gas is then stored in the various crystal lattices containing the potassium. The amount of argon present in the potassium-containing crystal lattices is measured. Thus the age of the crystals can be calculated according to the half-life of potassium.
Applying this method, the amount of argon gas which has collected within the crystal lattice since its formation after the liquid solidified is determined. Obviously argon can only be retained within a solid crystal lattice (and not within liquid lava). Therefore, the age of liquid "rocks" (lava) cannot be determined in this manner. Only the age of a rock after its crystallization can be measured by this method. Despite the theoretical simplicity of this dating method, its practical application leads to many difficulties. Argon is only physically trapped within the crystal lattices, so that gas can easily escape. The heating, for example, of a crystal containing argon within a formation would cause at least a part of the gas to escape. If argon escapes, the formation will of course appear younger than its actual age. Conversely the formation will appear older if argon from the air (the air contains considerable amounts of argon) penetrates into the crystal lattice. Under these circumstances (if argon has diffused into the lattices from the air), this method of dating will determine too great an age.
As micro- and nano-quantities of argon are in question, the argon method involves a high degree of experimental error. Another difficulty arises which is often not sufficiently taken into account today. It is generally assumed that the radioactive decay rate is absolutely constant. Some scientists are surprised if one questions the decay rate constant. Yet everyone knows today that the half-life of plutonium, for example, can be altered almost at will. The same applies to certain isotopes of uranium and other radioactive substances also. If the plutonium is in the environment of an atom bomb (i.e., exposed to strong neutron fluxes) the half-life of this radioactive metal may amount to a few nano-seconds instead of thousands of years. If the same metal is placed within an atomic reactor (i.e. subjected to a variable controllable neutron flux), then its half-life can be adjusted at will. If, due to cosmic events in the past, high neutron fluxes occurred on the earth's surface (e.g., be fore biogenesis), then it would have been possible for the half-lives of certain radioactive substances to be significantly altered. Thus today we can no longer state that the half-life of a radioactive substance is an absolute constant under all conditions. It depends on the environment. Yet all dating methods independent of the index fossil method rely on the absolute constancy of the half-lives of radioactive substances.
The surfaces of the moon and the earth clearly demonstrate how often in the past the environment on these bodies must have changed. Hence we can assume that neutron fluxes on the earth may not always have remained constant.(23)
In principle, customary methods of dating are not capable of absolutely guaranteeing the long time spans needed for evolution according to Neodarwinian thought. Rapid upward development according to evolutionary theory requires a high rate of mutation, which could depend on strong ionizing radiation. Yet we know that high doses of radiation are unfavorable to already existing forms of life. In excessively high concentrations ionizing radiation can easily destroy life. During the Precambrian and Cambrian periods almost all biological species are represented, which would suggest a high mutatory rate according to Neodarwinian theory. This high rate of mutation would depend on intensive radioactive irradiation, which would be highly unfavorable for biogenesis. High radiation dosage prevents the formation and preservation of healthy genes; it tends to lead to involution rather than to evolution.
Finally one is forced to admit that our dating methods by means of radioactivity provide us with little really reliable data as to the enormous time spans required for evolution according to Darwin. It is relatively easy for any biological or inorganic material to simulate a great age - or no age at all!
1. L. Leakey, New Scientist, Feb. 27, 1975, p.503.cf L. Leakey,Science 192, May 14, 1976, p.685. 2. R.T. Bird: Natural History (1939) p.96, 225, 261, 302. cf also A.E. Wilder-Smith: Man's Origin, Man's Destiny, Hanssler Verlag, Neuhasen, D-7303, Stuttgart, W. Germany. 3. S. Taylor: Footprints in Stone. Films for Christ Assn. ( North Eden Rd., Elmwood, IL 1974 ). 4. A.E. Wilder-Smith, Basis for a New Biology. Telos Verlag (Neuhausen-Stuttgart, 1975) p. 217 ff. - Personal communication. cf, Science News, Feb. 2, 1974, Vol. 105, p. 72. 5. cf E.T. Scoyen: Arizona Highways ( July 1951 ) 36-39. 6. L. Leakey: Skull 1470, National Geographic Magazine 143 (1973) 819. Start Again on Man's Family Tree. Science News 105 (1974) 69; New Scientist ( Feb. 27, 1975 ) 503; Science 192 ( May 14, 1976 ). 7. Science News, Feb. 2, 1974, 105, p. 72. 8. Coelancanthus, Science News, March 27, 1965, p. 199; New Scientist, May 25, 1972, p. 427; New Scientist, May 27, 1976, Vol. 70, p 456. 9. G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution, Pergamon Press ( London ) 2nd edition, 1977, Chapter 9 on "Vertebrate Paleontology," p. 134-49. 10. New Scientist, 70 ( 1976 ) 456. 11. New Scientist, 69 ( 1975 ) 600; Science News, Feb. 2, 1974, 105, p. 72. 12. A.E. Wilder-Smith: Man's Origin, Man's Destiny, Hanssler Verlag, D-7303, Neuhausen-Stuttgart, F.G.R. 13. R.H. Rastall, "Geology, "Encyclopedia Britannica (1956), X.168.cf Man's Origin, Man's Destiny, Telos, Hanssler Verlag, p 128; CLP Publishers, San Diego, CA 92115. 14. John Anderson: Abstract of papers. 161st National Meeting, Amer. Chem. Soc., Los Angeles (1971). cf also W.W. Fields: Unformed and Unfilled, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company (Nutley, NJ, 1976) p. 212. 15. W.F. Libby: Radiocarbon Dating. University of Chicago Press, 6th revised edition (Chicago, 1965),p. 4-5; cf W.W. Fields: Unformed and Unfilled. Presbyterian and Reformed Publ. Co. (Nutley, NJ, 1976). A.E. Wilder-Smith: Man's Origin, Man's Destiny, Shaw Publishers (Wheaton, Ill. 1970),p.116-118; CLP Publishers, San Diego, CA 92115. 16. T.G. Barnes: Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field. Institute for Creation Research (San Diego, 1973),p.XIII: cf Fields (See Footnote 14). 17. Fields (cf Footnote 14), p.203 18. D. and Maureen Tarling: Continental Drift. Doubleday & Co. (Garden City, NY, 1971), p.64: cf Fields (See Footnote 14), p.64. 19. R.J. Uffen, Nature 198 (1963) 143. cf Science News 109 (1976) 204. 20. Geological Society of America Bulletin 82 (1971) 2433. 21. Barbara Keating, Emilie Passagno, and Ch. Helsley: Science News 109 (1976) 204. 22. A.V. Cox: cf Science News 109 (1976) 204. 23. Re: Dating Methods, cf also Man's Origin, Man's Destiny, Basis for a New Biology, and Creation of Life. Telos Verlag (Neuhausen- Stuttgart). cf CLP Publishers, San Diego, CA 92115.
Go to Creation Science home page