As crazy as it is (to a creationist) to believe that an ape could turn into a man, that's nothing compared to how ridiculous a proposition it is that inanimate matter could have somehow randomly resulted in DNA. Even just the physical, raw chemical aspect of it, let alone the meaning-containing encoded informational aspect of it. It's easy (however wrong) as rational creatures made in the image of God, to use our multi-trillion-cell mind and bodies and look at cells that have complex DNA and make a circular argument that constructive mutations happen, and therefore that's evolution. Mathematically/​logically (if not biologically), going from 3 billion base pairs to 3 billion and 1 is not that much of a stretch, and evolutions tend to lament on this. But that's not the point. The real question is how did we get from zero to one, and from one to two? What caused DNA to be "invented" in the first place, if it wasn't God? And not only that, how was it smart enough in the beginning to be capable of self-expanding (and self-replicating)? There's never been anything close to this observed in nature. And there never will. If anyone claims it, they're lying to protect their worldview.

Speaking of math, the probability of randomly rolling a 4 sided die 3 billion times and getting a predetermined sequence (which is mathematically the same scenario that happened for human DNA) is 1 in 4 to the 3 billionth power. If each roll of the die took only 1 second, that would mean we'd need to budget 10^{1,800,000,000} years. Not 1.8 billion years, but rather the number 10 followed by 1.8 billion zeros years. Writing this number down with 3 zeros per inch would be over 9,000 miles (over 15,000 kilometers) long. That's the distance it'd be if you drove from Portugal to Singapore. Remember that number "googol" was invented to represent a number that was for all practical purposes infinity but mathematically distinguishable. That number is a 10 followed by 100 zeros. For a frame of reference, there are estimated to be 10⁸¹ atoms in our entire universe. The mathematical chances of human DNA self-evolving are zero. But remember, not all living things share the same DNA. Onions have 12 times more information than humans do. Whether we prove DNA came from God or not, we can easily prove it did not evolve by time and chance.

» Human Genome Project FAQ
» My own dice & probabilities article
» Why Onions Have More DNA Than You Do

"Matter and energy are basic prerequisites for life, but they cannot be used to distinguish between living and inanimate systems. The central characteristic of all living beings is the 'information' they contain, and this information regulates all life processes and procreative functions. Transfer of information plays a fundamental role in all living organisms." This was pointed out by Werner Gitt in his book, In the Beginning was Information. He laid out numerous laws of nature and dives deep into the nature of information itself. He poses many theorems about information, and his 28th points out:

"There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events
which can cause information to originate by itself in matter."

Until this is disproven, it is irrational to believe that the DNA in every cell of every living thing on Earth came from anywhere but the mind of God.

» In the Beginning was Information, read free on Answers in Genesis or Google, or buy from Amazon

Humans and monkeys share many common characteristics, and that can just as easily mean they have a common creator rather than a common ancestor. Consider the platypus, which has a bill and webbed feet like a duck, a tail like a beaver, soft velvety fur, milk glands, a large brain, a complete diaphragm, their blood temperature is influenced to some extent by their surroundings, and it is one of only two mammals in the world that lay eggs. Evolutionists do not even have a clue what this evolved from but this is not surprising if it is another product of an infinitely creative God who told us both man (Genesis 2:7) and animals (Genesis 2:19) were made by the same process, though man had the added bonus of being made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27). Woman was different but she came from man (Genesis 2:21-22) so that still counts. If you don't like the idea of us coming from "dust" then consider replacing that word with a technical term "atoms" which weren't officially discovered for a few thousand years after this was written. (Notice that dust was possibly the smallest thing known to man at the time. He didn't say sand, or dirt, which would have been different.)

The genetic similarity between all living things is a great example of faith-based bias. Consider that biologists (atheist and theist alike) have found 60% of our DNA is shared with bananas. When you prefer to believe there is no God, you can tell yourself you see the results of millions of generations of evolved life. When you acknowledge God, you see His fingerprints.

» AIG: The echidna enigma and the platypus puzzle
» AIG: Still more questions than answers for evolutionists
» Our DNA is 99.9% the same as the person next to us... (Business Insider)

Actually there is no proof at all. There is nothing even close. Business evolves, technology evolves, and processes evolve because intelligent people motivate them to. Biological evolution dictates that in general, more complex life forms come from simpler life forms. Specifically this means that the DNA of living things must gain information over time. The second law of thermodynamics and 28th theorem of information defy this. Numerous phenomena have been observed where living organisms have changed over time, but none of them involve an increase in genetic information. Biological evolution (as atheists need to define it) has never been observed. Creation was observed. See Job 38:1-38 and Deuteronomy 4:32. Here's a list of those observed phenomena (if they don't explain a perpetual increase in genetic information, or how we went from nothing to the first valid DNA, then they are non-helpful to evolutionary theory):

• Mutation is random destabilization of DNA often caused by external factors (such as radiation.) Destabilization by definition is destructive, not constructive. Even if a mutation ends up being beneficial it is still caused by a loss of genetic information, so this is the opposite of evolution. (Note no one has ever observed mutation to be what evolutionists wish it to be. It's never been empirically observed in a scientifically valid study to be the result of a gain, or invention of new genetic information, which makes it a textbook example of wishful thinking for evolutionists.)
• Natural selection involves certain characteristics of a particular species breeding more than others which results in a formerly rare characteristic becoming common. However in this situation, no new information has developed, only rare info became common.
• Genetics is a complex field and sexual reproduction involves each parent only providing half the genes for the new baby, resulting in a new combination. (There are a few related named processes, including genetic variation, genetic recombination, and genetic drift, each with their own subtle differences that are out of scope for this FAQ.) This is not the same thing as mutation because information stored in our DNA isn't randomly being lost, we simply only get to pass on half our genes when we reproduce. (Of course mutation could also occur at this same time and would be more damaging to a life form with one or just a few cells than would be to an organism with trillions of them.) And it's not evolution because no new information is being created. The information is just being passed on and two [hopefully] diverse living organisms merging into one new one (Genesis 2:24).
• Gene regulation is a process where a cell can "choose" to use (turn on or off) certain genes it already contains. For one example, some fish have been observed to form eyes (and throw them away) in a single generation. (Mom had eyes, baby doesn't, and vice versa.) That doesn't mean the genetic information came out of nowhere (evolved), it means God gave the fish the genetic programming to function with and without eyes, and the ability to adapt as needed. There is a related term phenotypic plasticity, which involves phenotypes and genes. A phenotype describes the observable physical characteristics of an organism. It is determined by the genes but we're learning more about how it adapts to environmental influences. For another example, lizards in the Mojave Desert (between Los Angeles and Las Vegas) change color (darkness) in weeks, and pass that coloration to their offspring (referred to as the Baldwin Effect). Here again, all the genetic information was already present and was just waiting for the right circumstances to be activated (regulated). Evolutionists had hoped these were examples of natural xenogenesis, but they weren't.

In 2016 I had a man, who happened to be a college professor, argue with me that cancer is another category, and was the category that proved biological evolution as truth. We ran out of time to really discuss each other's point of view, but would you really want your closest proof for your worldview to be cancer? And if that were the case, then don't we have the completely wrong attitude toward it? If evolution is exemplified in cancer, and evolution is what made us who we are, and is the key to our future, then shouldn't the healthcare industry be promoting cancer rather than trying to eradicate it? (Matthew 12:25-26) Fortunately this is a moot point, because cancer doesn't change the fact that evolution is fiction.

In 2012 I made a creation-themed mantra: "Encoded usable information never increases without the aid of intelligence (think DNA.)"

» PhysLink: What is a simple definition of the laws of thermodynamics?
» In the Beginning was Information: Information in Living Organisms (includes 28th theorem of information)
» Blind fish learn to see
» New eyes for blind cave fish?

All the complexities of a biological system must exist together because the components are useless separate and must all be functional at once for the system to work at all. Easy examples of this include: flight, sexuality, and all 5 senses. DNA is another, because you need the encoded information, a system to decode (read) the information, a system to write the information (reproduce it), and a system to utilize it, all appearing at the exact same time, because each of these systems alone or even all but one of them is utterly a waste (Psalm 94:9, Psalm 139:14, Proverbs 20:12).

Evolutionists think irreducible complexity is stupid and debunked. Of course they do, they are obligated to, because if it wasn't then it would kill their worldview. Let's look at sight:

• Some animals have photoreceptors that simply detect light (yes/no detectors).
• Others have slightly more advanced yet still simple directional sensors (light exists left or right, or directly in front).
• Still others have pathetic eyeballs that function really poorly, and
• us elites have "fully" formed eyes with a retina and a lense, etc.

Evolutionists would say these examples are evolutionary points in time, that each is a building block to the next, proving that sight could evolve on its own. But they're leaving out an important detail. An eye is undeniably useless on its own. At the same time as you have an eye (or proto-eye), you need an optic nerve and you need a brain (or something) that knows how to interpret the bio-electrical signal. The optic nerve would be useless without the eye, and the eye is useless without the optic nerve. And how would an eye (or a photoreceptor) invent a method to encode the detection of light as information for the rest of the organism, transmit it through the optic nerve (or whatever), and then the brain (or any part of even a single-celled organism) would figure out how to decode that information, all fast enough (in generational terms) to catch on. This overtaxes reality and is nothing more than fantasy/​fiction/​wishful thinking. This, combined with the fact that no one has ever observed any of the various eye-like structures turn into each other (evolution has never been observed), means an evolutionist is simply making it all up to defend their preferred worldview (Psalm 53:1-2).

Far from being debunked, in 2020, atheist scientists conceded the point in the journal NewScientist. The article starts out describing conventional evolutionary thought as fact, though they admit it has proven impossible to prove, "the alternative – that life emerged fully formed – seems even more unlikely. Yet perhaps astoundingly, two lines of evidence are converging to suggest that this is exactly what happened." Later, they elaborate that "it has long been thought that the ingredients for life came together slowly, bit by bit. Now there is evidence it all happened at once in a chemical big bang" (source, quoted). How satisfying for Christians whenever others barrow from their worldview. It would be honoring if the purpose wasn't to discredit and dethrone God.

» Evolution of the eye (wikipedia)
» Why Sex is the Best Argument For Creation (and Against Evolution)

Up until the mid 1600's people thought that life could form spontaneously. One supposed "proof" for this was the situation where maggots would form on dead animals. Mold was probably another. In the mid 1800's Louis Pasteur made the final proving experiment that killed this philosophy. I do not know that evolutionists had too many hopes in this philosophy, but either way now all their eggs are in one basket. They have to believe that the first cells came from sludge and the next ones evolved from simple to complex. But just because they are single, even single-celled organisms are not simple. To get by this, evolutionists place a distinction between "protocells" and the first cells. Protocells being truly simple and full cells being comparable to teeny cities or factories, with all their specialized functions of energy production, waste disposal, repair, reproduction, etc. Except the development of protocells into full cells is no easier to believe (or prove) than the development of single-celled organisms into multicell organisms.

Not only do observable living things only come from other living things, as proven by Mr Pasteur, but God (who is alive) gave the first creatures their life about 6,000 years ago and specifically declared that all creatures would reproduce more of the same kind. On day 5 He created sea dwellers and the birds (Genesis 1:20-28) and on day 6 He created land dwellers (Genesis 1:24-27), most notably including man (Genesis 2:7) and woman (Genesis 2:21-22). Further, this was not an isolated incident but God continues to be the source, sustainer and enabler of all life (Deuteronomy 30:20, Numbers 16:22, Nehemiah 9:6, Isaiah 42:5, Ezekiel 37:4-10, and Acts 17:25).

» AIG: Life from life... or not?
» AIG: God & Natural Law
» Catholic Encyclopedia: Biogenesis and Abiogenesis
» Wikipedia: Biogenesis

» The Molecular Impasse of Evolution
» How Single-Cell Organisms Evolve into Multicellular Ones
» Bacteria and single celled organisms (forum)
» Wikipedia: Microorganism

The human intuition wrongly assumes that life in the womb is directly comparable to life outside the womb. Since we observe babies to have all the biological components of adults, and we observe them grow bigger with only subtle changes until they reach full maturity, that leads us to assume life in the womb is the same. But it's not. A God-fearing worldview leads us to say things like Psalm 139:13. But just because observational science has given us the tools to watch a human develop inside the womb doesn't make it any less mysterious. As in astronomy, there's a difference between being able to observe something and being able to explain why it is.

The heart is a fascinating example of the numerous counterintuitive, non-obvious processes that happen in the womb, which have no corollary to processes that happen after [normal] birth. (The term "counterintuitive" is not a critique, and the term "numerous" is not meant to be exaggerated.) For example, the heart does not start out as a single heart cell and then divide until enough cells are available to specialize and comprise a whole heart, which then starts beating. Nor does it start beating early (before it's capable of truly performing its eventual duty). It starts out as two completely separate chambers that aren't even touching. The dual, simpler pumping organs perform a specific task of circulating blood in the temporary conditions of the embryo (characterized by weeks 2-8). Then these two organs come together, forming a single, two chamber organ. Then two more chambers form, making four total. Ms. Dent concludes:

"The examples from [the formation of the heart] show that development is a sequentially dependent process. Each step of development is dependent upon the previous step. Disrupting any step in the process destroys the whole process so that the embryo will not reach reproductive adulthood... This sequential dependence of development shows that evolution fails as an explanatory mechanism for the origins of the vertebrate circulatory system since natural selection acting on random mutations over long periods of time would not sustain the embryo at each sequential step in the developmental process."

The only logical response to this for an evolutionist is to counter that some other (simpler) process must have been at work previously, and we got lucky and invented this more complex process as "extra credit." Only that explanation isn't science, it's wishful thinking. Even if they ever find other organisms whose heart does form that way, they will never have any evidence humans' used to, too. Now who's the scientist?

» AIG: Life's Hidden Marvel, by Laurieanne Dent

---