All of this then in order to work and function must be housed in the membrane of the cell. What came first? The cell membrane? Or the DNA? Everything in the cell, including the cell membrane, are involved in protein synthesis to maintain the cell membrane to maintain the protein synthesis in the cell. The activity of each enzyme in a living organism is carefully regulated by each cell in that organism so that its abilities are properly harnessed. Therefore protein synthesis is impossible without the housing of the living cell and the living cell is not possible without the internal protein synthesis. Life without enzymes is impossible and enzymes without life is impossible. Everything about the DNA molecule and cell structure points not to random chance life through billions of years, but rather instead to an intelligent Creator, but not just a creator, but to an omnipotent, exceedingly highly intelligent Creator, something way beyond man on the order of God!

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)

Since the fossil layers have not provided evidence for evolution, evolutionists are now claiming that molecular similarities are the evidence for evolution. Before biochemical research had been fully conducted, an evolutionist by the name of Zuckerkandl predicted the following:

"Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral organisms probably contain a majority of polypeptide chains [proteins] that resemble quite closely those of ancient organisms. In other words, certain animals said to be 'living fossils', such as the cockroach, the horseshoe crab, the shark and, among mammals, the lemur, probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors million of years ago."^339/289

Since this prediction, more than sufficient molecular biochemical research has been conducted. Has the evidence supported this prediction by Zuckerkandl? First, there are no fossil molecules. Therefore we cannot go into the past and actually analyze the hypothetical molecules that supposedly existed then. The only record we have is what exists right now in living organisms.

Evolutionists expect that all living organisms would reveal some similarities in their biochemical makeup, since to them life originated only once, or, at the most, a very few times. As these molecules evolved through mutations the molecules would change. Therefore the differences between the amino acid sequences of the cytochrome C’s of man and chimpanzee would be less than those for the cytochrome C’s of man and a reptile, or man and a fish, etcetera.

Creationists would also expect many biochemical similarities in all living organisms because we all drink the same water, breathe the same air, and eat the same food. If man, plants and animals where not similar biochemically, we would not be able to eat to live. All we would be able to eat to live would be each other. Creationists for this reason would expect the metabolism of man and the plants and the animals to be based on the same biochemical principles, thus similar and therefore have similar key metabolic pathways, though modified to fit the particular internal environment of the organism or cell in which it must function. The creationists would also expect similarities to be greater in creatures more similar to one another, and be less with dissimilar creatures.

Aside from biochemical similarities, what else have the studies of molecular biochemists shown us? First, they have shown that, like in comparing mitochondria of one animal with another, the amino acid sequences of one animal are completely and markedly different from another. In other words, evidence for biochemical evolution does not exist. There were greater differences, for example, between one reptile animal and another reptile animal than between a reptile and a human. There simply is no pattern showing any evolutionary connection from lower animals to higher, not even within the same class. Furthermore, while one protein in one species might be similar to another species, other proteins are completely different in the amino acid make up. You simply cannot construct a tree showing consistent evolution of any kind from one animal to another. This means that what molecular evolutionists depict in their molecular trees has no bases of fact whatsoever in light of the cold scientific facts of molecular biology. It means that what they depict in the textbooks is an absolute lie they know is a lie. Michael Denton, a molecular biologist and researcher, wrote concerning this issue:

"Where fossils had failed and morphological considerations were at best only ambiguous, perhaps this new field of comparative biochemistry might at last provide objective evidence of sequences and of the connecting links which had been so long sought by evolutionary biologists.

However, as more protein sequences began to accumulate during the 1960's, it became increasingly apparent that the molecules were not going to provide any evidence of sequential arrangements in nature, but were rather going to reaffirm the traditional view that the system of nature conforms fundamentally to a highly ordered hierarchic scheme from which all direct evidence for evolution is emphatically absent. Moreover, the division turned out to be more mathematically perfect than even most die-hard typologists would have predicted."^339/286-287 [Emphasis mine]

Dr Duane Gish comments on Denton’s research:

"Denton points out that when the molecular data of the cytochrome C’s are examined, this reveals that each identifiable subclass of sequences is isolated and distinct. Every sequence can be unambiguously assigned to a particular subclass. That is, there is a group of similar amino acid sequences that is distinctive of reptiles, a group of similar amino acid sequences distinctive of mammals, of teleostean fishes, birds, insects, angiosperms (flowering plants), yeasts, etc. No sequence or group of sequences can be designated as intermediate with respect to other groups. Transitional or intermediate classes are completely absent. All sequences of each subclass are equally isolated from the members of another group."^339/287

How different? A bacterial cytochrome C differs by 64% to that of a horse. This is the same with most other classes and phyla. The hemoglobin of the lamprey, a jawless and considered primitive fish, differs from the carp, a jawed fish, by 75%, from that of a frog by 81%, from the chicken by 78%, from the kangaroo by 76% and from man by 73%.^339/287-288 There is no evidence here of biochemical evolution. The data shows systematic discontinuities, not gradual molecular evolution from one form to another. Molecules, like the fossils, have failed to show us any evidence of intermediate evolution from one species to another. Michael Denton concludes,

"Despite the fact that no convincing explanation of how random evolutionary processes could have resulted in such an ordered pattern of diversity, the idea of uniform rates of evolution is presented in the literature as if it were an empirical discovery. The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful, that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth-century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."^339/293

All life forms from man down to the simplest one celled life forms have DNA as the basis for their physical existence and life functioning. This was hailed by evolutionists as proof positive that we all evolved from a one celled creature to higher forms to man. However, Moses wrote in Genesis 1:24-25 that when God created man and the animals on the fifth and sixth days of Creation, that he created them after their own kind, meaning they could only reproduce within their own species. This would mean that while all life forms have DNA as their base programming as proof positive of a common Creator, yet that programming would be so different that the genes from one species would not be able to be carried over to another species to carry on the same functions. This means that the programming of a gene in two different species designed for a similar function would be completely different and incompatible.

Before the technology of science progressed far enough to test the genes of one species with the genes of another for the same purpose to see if they were the same, one of the evolutionist’s biggest argument for evolution was homologous (similar) structures from one species to another. This was stated as proof that all life evolved from lower animals to higher animals even to man. If this hypothesis were true, then the DNA and genes for homologous structures in man and animals would be the same or closely similar.

What did science find? They found that the DNA and genes of the species of man and the species of animals and the species of one animal and the species of another animal were so completely different that they were totally incompatible and could not cross over from one species to another. What they found confirmed absolutely the teaching of the Book of Genesis that God created each species after their own kind.^331/253-254 This means they could not have evolved from one another. Concerning this Sir Gavin wrote:

"It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find ‘homologous’ genes, except in closely related species, has been given up as hopeless."^331/266

Evolutionist have tried to get around this by saying that as species evolved so did their genes. S.C. Harland gave the following response to this hypothesis:

"What an incredible suggestion! Genes, for example those governing the eyes, evolve into entirely different genes, but the structure (the eye) governed by these genes remains unchanged! In their attempt to resolve the contradictions between the genetic data and evolution theory, evolutionists are forced to postulate the most preposterous hypotheses. No naturalistic, mechanistic process could accomplish such an amazing physical arrangement—the structures being nearly identical, but the genes being completely different. The evidence certainly indicates that the genetic engineer that brought about such an incredible arrangement was an omnipotent Creator."^331/266

The study of genetics rather than weakening the teaching of Genesis has instead completely confirmed it.

"Then Elohim [God] said, Let the earth bring forth living souls after-their-kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after-their-kind; and it was so. And Elohim made the beasts of the earth after-their-kind, and the cattle after-their-kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after-their-kind; and Elohim saw that it was good." (Genesis 1:24-25) [Emphasis mine]

1. Gish, Duane T. Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics. Colorado Springs: Master Books. 1993.

2. Camp, Ashby L. The Myth of Natural Origins. Tempe, AZ: Ktisis Publishing, © 1994 by Ashby L. Camp.