DNA and The Fossil Record Originated from Intelligent Design

Deoxyribonucleic Acid, better known as "DNA", is the chemical name for the molecule that carries genetic instructions in all living things. Recent breakthroughs in DNA sequencing have provided extraordinary and compelling evidence that precise, genetic instruction is the foundation for all living organisms. This biological code could not be devised by coincidences or random events (See "Probability and Order vs. Evolution Examined" below). There must have been intelligent thought involved. We can only conclude from the evidence that Intelligent design is responsible for the order we see in genomic sequencing. This is an individual's instruction book for life. If we laid out your DNA from end to end, it is so comprehensive that it would go to the Sun and back multiple times. Did the instruction book for life or DNA make itself by chance?

Natural Law does indeed produce complex structures like snowflakes, but the law that produces it is just the same chemical reaction being repeated over and over. That is not information. What is stored in the DNA molecule is specified information like what you would find in a book or computer program. A book requires and author and a program require a programmer is not an illusion, it's factual as seen in the real world around us. So where did the intelligent information to selectively arrange the building blocks of DNA come from? That knowhow and forethought doesn't exist in any of the materials from which life is made and the laws of nature have no purposeful capacity to write a book or arrange its pages. So where did DNA's specified (coded) information come from? Its origin is certainly supernatural.

DNA is the genetic information encoded in the cell of every living thing telling cells how to grow and function. It's our genes that determine characteristics like our eye, skin and hair color. Genes also determine whether we are human, fish, animals, insects or plants. The DNA sequencing for ancient man is the same as the DNA of today's man. This has all been prewritten in our DNA sequence. When our bodies want to construct something, it goes back to that instruction book for life, finds that precise instruction to positions it together.  We conclude that DNA's intelligent design points us to an intelligent designer.

Our DNA chains contain 4 nucleotides-based pairs called Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine. There is a unit within the DNA strand called a sulfuric bridge which holds our entire DNA strand together. This means that between the acids Adenine-Guanine-Cytosine-Thymine, a bridge is formed after every 10th acid, then every 5th acid, then every 6th acid, and every 5th acid. This connection process takes place constantly in each of our cells. The rate of connection of deoxyribonucleic acids is: 10-5-6-5. We get a repeated pattern of 10-5-6-5 within the DNA stand that never changes. The Hebrew language does not use special signs to represent numbers, but we can use simple language and arithmetic letters combinations to express each number. For example, the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet א is the number 1, the second ב is the number 2, and so on. Then, by connecting them, you can create larger numbers up to infinity. The Hebrew letters of the Eternal’s God's name is יהוה or YHWH (Yahweh), consisting of four consonants, which values are the same.

ה = 5

ו = 6

ה = 5

י = 10

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

― Bill Gates, The Road Ahead

Genomic sequencing is a process in which a sample of DNA is used to extract a normal cell having 23 pairs of chromosomes (46 total) which are structures that house DNA. DNA molecule is coiled into a shape called the "double helix" and looks like a twisted ladder. The double helix is straighten and made of paired chemical letters called "bases". DNA contains about 6 billion pairs of these chemical bases. There are 4 bases in the DNA alphabet, A, T, C and G. A & T can only be joined together and G & C likewise. To read the sequences of DNA bases samples are inserted into instrument where high frequency sound waves to break the DNA into smaller pieces (about 600 bases long). Special "tags" are added to the ends of the broken DNA strands so they can attach to a glass slide. In a sequencer, each piece of DNA is copied hundred of thousands of times which created clusters of identical DNA fragments. Next, the sequencer reads the DNA one base at a time using different colored tags (A, T, C, G patterns) for each DNA base detected by the machine. The sequence of colors reveals the DNA sequence of each fragment (i.e. ATGTAGGTCCACCTAG...). Powerful computers piece together these individual DNA fragments and reveal the sequence of our DNA. 

Medical experts use specialized software to analyze and compare an individuals unique DNA  sequences (patterns) to identify a handful of variances that detect specific diseases and are important for receiving the proper medical care. As you are aware DNA is used for identifying blood relatives, solving crimes and a host of other things. This would not be possible unless our DNA sequences were a unique, precise science.

• "And God said, 'Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.' And it was so." Genesis 1:24, written ~1450 B.C.E. 

Science is finally catching up to the Bible! 

One of the strongest direct evidences for special creation is the existence of innumerable, highly complex systems in the universe, systems composed of components occurring in a pattern of "order" rather than disorder. Creationists maintain that highly ordered systems could not arise by chance, since random processes generate disorder rather than order, simplicity rather than complexity and confusion instead of "information."

For example, consider a series of ten flash cards, numbered from one to ten. If these are thoroughly and randomly mixed, and then laid out successively in a linear array along the table, it would be extremely unlikely that the numbers would fall out in order from one to ten. Actually, there are 3,628,800 different ways in which these numbers could be arranged, so that the "probability" of this particular ordered arrangement is only one in 3,628,800. This number is "ten factorial" (or 10!) and can be calculated simply by multiplying together all the numbers from one to ten. 10! = 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 6 x 7 x 8 x 9 x 10

It is obvious that the probability of such a numerically ordered arrangement decreases rapidly as the number of components increases. For any linear system of 100 components in specified order, the probability is 1 in 100!, or 1 chance in  10^158  (a number represented by "one followed by 158 zeroes"). A system requiring such a high degree of order could never happen by chance. This follows from the fact that probability theory only applies to systems with a finite possibility of occurring at least once in the universe, and it would be inconceivable that 10^158 different trials could ever be made in our entire space-time universe.

Astro-physicists estimate that there are no more than 10^80 infinitesimal "particles" in the universe, and that the age of the universe in its present form is no greater than 10^18 seconds (30 billion years). Assuming each particle can participate in a thousand billion (10^12) different events every second (this is impossibly high, of course), then the greatest number of events that could ever happen (or trials that could ever be made) in all the universe throughout its entire history is only 10^80 x 10^18 x 10^12, or 10^110 (most authorities would make this figure much lower, about 10^50). Any event with a probability of less than one chance in 10^110, therefore, cannot occur. Its probability becomes zero, at least in our known universe.

Thus, the above-suggested ordered arrangement of 100 components has a zero probability. It could never happen by chance. Since every single living cell is infinitely more complex and ordered than this, it is impossible that even the simplest form of life could ever have originated by chance. Even the simplest replicating protein molecule that could be imagined has been shown by Golay (1) to have a probability of one in 10^450. Salisbury (2) calculates the probability of a typical DNA chain to be one in 10^600.

However, when creationists use this evidence from probability while lecturing or debating on the creation/evolution question, evolutionists often dismiss the evidence as irrelevant, using the clever and confusing argument that no arrangement is more or less probable than any other arrangement, and some arrangement must exist! 

For example, suppose the ten flash cards showed up as follows: (a) 3, 8, 1, 10, 4, 7, 9, 6, 2, 5.  This arrangement obviously is unordered in comparison with the ordered arrangement: (b) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

Nevertheless, the evolutionist will say, the unordered arrangement has the same probability (1 in 3,628,800, or 10!) as the ordered arrangement. Consequently, since some arrangement is necessary, and any arrangement is just as probable as any other, there is no reason to see any particular significance in the arrangement which happens to occur. Consequently, any argument for design based on probability, they say, is meaningless.

Superficially, this claim may seem logical, even though we immediately sense that something is wrong with it. We know intuitively, as well as experimentally, that ordered arrangements are much less probable than unordered arrangements. Random arrangements of boulders on a hillside, for example, are "natural," whereas the same boulders arranged in a circle would require explanation. Closer consideration quickly reveal that such evolutionary reasoning is inaccurate. If arrangement (a) had, for some reason, been specified beforehand, then its actual occurrence in the shuffle would indeed have been surprising. It could then no longer be considered an unordered arrangement, since it had been "ordered" externally! But it was not specified ahead of time—it was just the luck of the draw. Arrangement (b), however, has intrinsic order and its actual occurrence, therefore, would almost certainly not have been by chance.

This type of evolutionary equivocation (attempt to hide the truth) crops up in various guises. One debater responded to the creationists' probability argument by calling attention to the particular combination of people in the audience. With all the people in the state, he noted, the probability that this specific group, rather than some other group, would come together by chance was "extremely small, yet there they were! The answer, of course, was that the group had not come together by chance at all, each person had come by direct intent. Nor had the individuals in the group been prespecified, as would have been the case in a designed system, where each component had to occupy a specific position in order for the system to function.

Once in a while, the objection is a little more subtle. The fact that a certain ordered structure, functioning in a specific way, seems to have an infinitesimal probability of origin by chance is side-stepped by asserting that if some other chance assemblage had come together, it may have functioned in some other way. Evolution might then have taken a different direction. The present functioning system is merely the natural development from the components that happened to come together, and this is no less probable than any other assemblage that might have evolved differently.

But this tenuous argument implicitly assumes that any chance aggregation of particles will contain some amount of "information" and, therefore, will have some kind of evolutionary potential. Such a belief is gratuitous and naïve, to say the least, when all real experience indicates the exact opposite. That is, it is far easier and more common to generate something disordered and useless than something organized and functioning.

One cannot simply pull a working system out of a hat full of random particles. The system must possess the requisite "information" before it can get anywhere or do anything constructive. It must be organized in some kind of pattern, and patterns do not usually appear spontaneously. They are not inevitable, as the above evolutionary argument implies, but extremely rare.

For example, although one could arrange the ten flash cards in a number of possible "ordered" patterns, the number is quite limited. There seems to be a certain amount of "information" in each of the arrangements shown below, but it is obvious that arrangements (b) and (c) are more "ordered," containing more information than any of the others. Arrangement (a), as noted earlier, contains no real order or information—it is strictly "random." No doubt a few other arrangements could be devised with a small amount of order to them, but only a few.

(a) 3, 8, 1, 10, 4, 7, 9, 6, 2, 5

(b) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

(c) 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

(d) 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1

(e) 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2

(f) 10, 8, 6, 4, 2, 1, 3, 5, 7, 9

(g) 9, 7, 5, 3, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 , 10

(h) 1, 2, 10, 9, 3, 4, 8, 7, 5, 6

(i) 6, 5, 7, 8, 4, 3, 9, 10, 2, 1

(j) 1, 10, 2, 9, 3, 8, 4, 7, 5, 6

(k) 10, 1, 9, 2, 8, 3, 7, 4, 6, 5

To be generous, however, let us assume that as many as 100 patterns could be devised for the ten cards which would contain some modicum of order. Each of these would have some amount of "information" and therefore, might theoretically be able to specify some sort of wobbly function. This is entirely speculative of course, since the only one which is known to be functional is the ideal pattern, as defined in arrangement (b).

Even at best, however, there would be only 100 possible functional arrangements, leaving 3,628,700 completely unordered, and, therefore, non-functional arrangements, a ratio of over 36,000 to one. That is, the odds are at least 36,000 to one against any random assemblage of ten components into a meaningful system, which could possibly serve as a base or pattern for anything. This simple examination merely confirms that which is intuitively obvious anyhow, namely, that disorder in a system is tremendously more probable than any kind of order in that system -- not only one specific pattern, but any kind of pattern! Furthermore, this improbability increases as the number of components in the system increases (Table A below).

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

― Albert Einstein

Nobel Prize in Physics (1921)  

The number of ordered arrangements shown in the Table A above is somewhat arbitrary, of course, but certainly generous. In any event, it is very clear that the probability of the chance occurrence of any kind of "information" in a system is very small, and that this probability rapidly diminishes as the complexity of the system increases.

This means that whenever one sees any kind of real ordered complexity in nature, particularly as found in living systems, he can be sure this complexity was designed. 

One must conclude that contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.(3)

It is believed that we developed this practice (i.e., of postulating pre-biological natural selection) to avoid facing the conclusion that the probability of a self-replicating state is zero… When for practical purposes the concept of infinite time and matter has to be invoked, that concept of probability is annulled.(4)

There is still one other evolutionary equivocation to be noted, however. What chance cannot accomplish, evolutionists glibly attribute to natural selection. So natural selection as a process is okay. We are also pretty sure that it goes on in nature although good examples are surprisingly rare. The best evidence comes from the many cases where it can be shown that biological structures have been optimized—that is, structures that represent optimal engineering solutions to the problems that an animal has of feeding or escaping predators or generally functioning in its environment. The presence of these optimal structures does not prove that they developed through natural selection, but it does provide strong circumstantial argument.(5)

This is a rather typical example of the way evolutionists bypass even the strongest evidences for design. Dr. Raup, with his doctorate from Harvard, is a highly competent geologist, serving as Curator of Geology at Chicago's great Field Museum, and formerly as Professor of Geology at the University of Rochester. He candidly acknowledges the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record and the complete absence of evidence for observable progressive evolution.

Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. And it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find.(6)

Thus, in spite of the utter lack of evidence in either living populations or the fossil record that natural selection ever generates higher orders of complexity (or "biological improvement," or "better adaptation") the mere existence of "optimal structures" is taken by evolutionists as confirmation of the remarkable power of natural selection!

But such a process as natural selection does not even exist at the prebiological level! Whatever effect selection may possibly have had on random processes in later biological reproduction, it is clear beyond any rational argument that chance processes could never have produced even the simplest forms of life in the first place. Without a living God to create life, the laws of probability and complexity prove beyond doubt that life could never come into existence at all. 

By Dr. Henry M. Morris. PH. D.

Founder and President of the Institute for Creation Research

Sunday, July 01, 1979

 “Sometimes when I'm faced with an Atheist, I am tempted to invite him to the greatest gourmet dinner that one could ever serve, and when we have finished eating that magnificent dinner, to ask him if he believes there's a cook.”

― Ronald Reagan

40th U.S. President & Actor

Cambrian Explosion was the unparalleled emergence of organisms occurring 539 million years ago (2021) and the beginning of the Cambrian Period. It's the only event in the history of life where we see the appearance of new phyla. The total number of phyla that appeared at the beginning of the Cambrian Explosion was between 50 minimum and an upwards of 100 phyla maximum. Since a number of these phyla have gone extinct, nearly all 30 phyla that still exist on earth today were also present during the Cambrian Explosion. This is the greatest fossil record challenge to naturalism or materialism. No new phyla have appeared in 538 million years.

Scientists systematically classify all living things at eight different levels (Human levels in parenthesis): domain (eularya), kingdom (animalia), phylum (chordata), class (mammal), order (primates), family (hominidae), genus (homo), and species (sapiens). Human's classification names are in parenthesis which go from broad to narrow categories. Besides domains, the largest groupings are called kingdoms and there are five kingdoms into which living things fit: Monera, Protist, Fungi, Plant, Animal. 

For the 2019 date estimate below the +-3.8 represent the random error and the 6.6 represent system error.  In the past, eliminate the system errors such as instrumental effect or some unknown feature in the record data point which has been a problem in dating the Cambrian Explosion because it can shift all of your measurements either to the up or down side. 

• 542.1 + - 5.0 million years ago, Chen et  al (2015)
• 542.6 + - 3.7 million years ago, Chen et  al (2015)
• 540.7 + - 3.8 (6.6) million years ago, Chen & Fena (2019)

Paleontologist now have measurement techniques that have improved accuracy by eliminated the systematic errors and greatly shrink the random, statistical errors. Biostratigraphic & Cemo-stratigraphic are reliable isotope data techniques used to separate the Cambrian from Avalon animal fossils. The two measurements below were taken most recently in Namibia in north west of South Africa which has one of the best exposures of the Cambrian boundary layer at the end of the Avalon explosion animals and the very beginning of the Cambrian explosion animals. The team sampled different spots along the geological boundary layer and were able to determine that the Cambrian explosion could not have occurred any earlier than 538.99 MYA and no later than 538.58 MYA, the difference being 410,000 years using accurate radiometric dating. This demonstrates that the entire Cambrian explosion event occurred in a time period less than 410,000 years! This finding is a final blow to naturalistic evolution because if the time window is this brief we would expect to see new phyla showing up all the time and we haven't seen one in over 538 million years.

• No earlier than 538.99 + - 0.21 million years ago (MYA)
• No later than 538.58 + - 0.19 million years ago (MYA)

Science now knows definitively that all the phyla (including bryozoa - moss animals) from the Cambrian explosion appeared in a short window of time eliminating the possibility of animal evolution. This discovery delivers a final blow to the possibility of a naturalist explanation for the Cambrian explosion because the time window is way too brief for the evolution of life. This also compliments Cambrian explosion fossil findings in Canada, South China and Australia.

The false presumption or assumption that is skipped in all the textbooks is that origins of life happened naturalistically. The theory is that life gradually and progressively becomes more complex through common decent, with changes brought about by natural selection, mutations, gene exchange and epigenetics. These are the only four mechanisms identified to create life. So all life naturally descended through common decent through these four mechanisms. These small changes occur over very long periods of time yielding new species of life, new genera, new families which produce new orders. We do see limited speciation occurring, but that is the limit observed in real time. The Naturalistic Evolution Prediction needs over 50,000,000 years to give it any hope of being a plausible theory. Since we now know the Cambrian explosion time window is 410,000 years, the naturalistic evolution model is no loner defensible. 

Below is a summary of the Naturalistic Evolution Prediction. Evolutionary mechanisms will yield a proliferation of additional species which over time will produce new genera. The proliferation of new genera over yet much more time will produce new families. The proliferation of new families over much, much more time will produce new orders. There are claims of new speciation so we would see thousands if not millions of tiny changes in existing species through the four mechanisms listed above with sufficient time will produce a new species. Naturalists claim that the reason we haven't seen new genera, families, order, classes or phyla show up is that there just hasn't been enough time. They do claim that we have seen the new appearance of species we have to ask which definition of "species" are they referring to since the are 16 different definitions. They could be referring to that fact that we've been able to breed 400 different breeds of dogs from wolves, foxes and coyotes which is not significant or relevant. They also try to use birds as an example of a new species definition when a single species of birds are separated into two groups for a long period of time and then are reintroduced to each other and will not mate. This too is not a relevant example of a new species given the fact that if they are given enough time together the expectation is that they will begin to mate. 

Naturalistic Evolution Prediction Model

1. New Species -> 2. New Genera -> 3. New Families -> 4. New Orders -> 5. New Classes -> 6. New Phyla

What naturalistic evolution model predict is in direct contrast to what we see in the fossil record where the phyla show up first, not last verified by the Cambrian explosion where the phyla (50-100) show up simultaneously and suddenly. There is no gradualism evolution process because there isn't enough time that as passed. They appear immediately when physical and chemical conditions first permit their existence. For example, what we see prior to 575 million years ago in the fossil record are these small microbial organism (1 mm across) appearing in the first Avalon explosion event. After the second Avalon explosion 575 million years ago we have larger phyla animals (2 meter across) showing up suddenly at the moment when there is a jump in the oxygen content from 1% to 8% which is the minimum level required in the earths atmosphere to support life. The Cambrian explosion phyla animals show up later when the oxygen content rises to 10%. 

There have been no other life forms that have come into existence since human beings showed up. 50K-100K years ago there were over 8,000 mammals species over the face of the earth. Today there are only 4,000. Over half have gone extinct during that human period and the replacement rate is zero. After the period between day 6 and 7 in Genesis we have not seen the appearance of a single, new mammal species. 

Cambrian Explosion Fossil Record

1. New Phyla-> 2. New Classes -> 3. New Orders -> 4. New Families -> 5. New Genera -> 6. New Species

Naturalistic evolution states that first we have physics and chemistry, then we somehow try to end up with biology (life). This is utterly intractable to start with physics and chemistry and try to get biology unless you have a supernatural mind who is able to take that and create life. Even with all the brilliant biochemists, technology and funding we have today they are not able to make life in the lab. They can only manufacture the very simple steps that are necessary for the actual creation of life. This demonstrates that someone else a lot more intelligent, knowledgeable, powerful and better funded with greater technology must have created life on earth.

We are not saying that the history of life on planet earth is 100% supernatural, but are committed to stating that it's certainty not 100% natural evolution. Where we do see natural common decent occurring is at the species level  recognizing that natural selection, gene exchange, mutations over sufficient time will be capable of producing new species for some categories of life, but you will not get new classes, new phyla, or new orders by the same means unless you have divine intervention because the naturalistic process are not capable of generating changes of that magnitude. We do embrace micro evolution, but do not endorse macro evolution. The places where we see the greatest support for naturalistic micro evolution is at the level of microbes and also with insects. The places where micro evolution will be producing the most observable changes are where the animals or plants sizes are very small, the populations are very large and the time between being born and reproducing is relatively brief.  A good example is a virus like Covid-19 or bacteria which can reproduce in 20 minutes given the right conditions whereas a human takes 20 years.

There is plenty of animal fossils record evidence during the Cambrian explosion, but wat about the plant fossils. Plants do not leave fossils as easily as animals do because they do not have skeletons, bones or shells.  It's amazing how much of the animal soft tissue was preserved wit the Cambrian explosion fossils. Plants are much more subject to decay than animals are so we really don't have many examples of vegetation fossils. We do have them now, but previous to 2009 paleontologist had only discovered the isotope evidence of the existence of plant life on the continents and in the oceans dating at least 200 million years prior to the Cambrian explosion event. Since then they have found vegetation fossils parts and the largest vegetable matter piece found is only 1 mm across. This is much different from the animal fossils where we have complete animal body intact. So we now know that vegetation was quite abundant for at least 600 million years before the Cabirian explosion.

"The sudden appearance of trilobites, with no apparent antecedence, and absent of other fossils is "undoubtedly of the gravest nature" to my theory."

― Charles Darwin

On the Origin of Species, 1st Edition 1859

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer."

― Charles Darwin

On the Origin of Species, 6th Edition 1876  

It is one thing to explain the appearance of new species. It is another matter to explain the sudden, simultaneous appearence of new phyla, classes and orders. 

― Douglas Erwin & James Valentine

The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Biodiversity, January 18, 2013

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?  If you said the egg , then how did it get fertilized? If the chicken came first and laid an egg, then how did the egg get fertilized without a rooster? 

The Bible states that the chicken came first. What about the origin of human beings? Well, we came from our parents. The Bible claims that we are all decedents of our great, great, great... ancestors, Adam & Eve who were created by God to reproduce and populate the earth (Genesis 2:7-25). When Adam appears in the Bible he is a new, fully formed adult man probably. God's made Adam in His own image which is unique from all other living things. That is why we are moral beings who care about justice, truth and understand our own mortality.

The evolution myth says that we came from single-celled organisms that randomly "appeared" on Earth about 3.5 billion years ago, roughly a billion years after the Earth formed. More complex forms of life took longer to evolve, with the first multicellular animals not "appearing" until about 600 million years ago. Evolutionist are basically saying that the egg came first and somehow "appeared" out of thin air without divine intervention. 

DNA has shut the door on the theory of evolution. A mans and a monkey's DNA are different and have not changed over time. Ancient man's DNA is identical to today's human DNA. You may want to ponder the following qestions:

• Before a chicken had evolved eyes how did it see?
• How did it think to find food before its brain evolved?
• How did we  change from gills to lungs when we came out of the sea?
• How did the plants and food evolve?
• Which evolved first the chickens heart or lungs? 
• 
  

We require oxygen to pump blood to the heart. We need both operating at the same time to function. Evolution really makes no sense and DNA has completely debunked it.

• Do you know of any animals species that hasn't fully evolved?
• Looking at the fossil record, can you name 1 species like a horse or cat where the transitional bones have been discovered? 

You won't because all living things were already created fully evolved. Creation ended on "day 6". Nothing new has been created since because God said He was finished.

• "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. 2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work." Genesis 2: 1 

In 1996, biochemist Michael Behe introduced the notion of “irreducible complexity,” arguing that some biomolecular structures could not have evolved because their functionality requires interacting parts, the removal of any one of which renders the entire apparatus defective. This claim excited creationists and remains a central plank of the “intelligent design” movement, despite being rightly rejected by a U.S. federal judge in 2005 in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. In Darwin Devolves, Behe continues his quixotic efforts to overturn modern evolutionary theory.

The most airtight principle in physics is the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that in a closed system, things will always go from more orderly to less orderly unless there is directive energy put into that system to maintain orderliness. 

Darwin's Theory of Evolution demands that a system went from randomness to complete order by itself without any creator or designer putting energy into the system to make it more orderly. This violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution came at the right time in history when human scientific discoveries and inventions were peaking. This lead to the acceptance of his theory by the scientific world even though there was little to no proof that it was factual.

• 1763: Thomas Bayes develops probability theorem
• 1800: Alessandro Volta invents the electric battery
• 1827: Georg Ohm develops the electrical resistance law
• 1831: Michael Faraday discovers electromagnetic induction
• 1842: Christian Doppler characterizes the "Doppler Effect"
• 1859: Charles Darwin develops the Theory of Evolution by natural selection

If you enter the question "Which comes first chicken or egg?" in Google search you will get the Atheist's answer to which there is no evolutionary evidence. DNA sequencing has proven that their conclusion is an absolute untruth. 

Eggs certainly came before chickens, but chicken eggs did not—you can't have one without the other. However, if we absolutely had to pick a side, based on the evolutionary evidence, we're on Team Egg. 

― Google  

"In China its O.K. to criticize Darwin but not the government, while in the United States its O.K. to criticize the government, but not Darwin!"

― Dr. Jun Yaun Chen

Chinese Paleontologist