In the 1990s,
research into the genetic codes of living things worsened
the quandary faced by the theory of evolution in this regard.
In these experiments, instead of the earlier comparisons that
were limited to protein sequences, "ribosomal RNA" (rRNA)
sequences were compared. From these findings, evolutionist
scientists sought to establish an "evolutionary tree." However,
they were disappointed by the results.
According to a 1999 article
by French biologists Hervé Philippe and Patrick Forterre,
"with more and more sequences available, it turned out that
most protein phylogenies contradict each other as well as
the rRNA tree."301
Besides rRNA comparisons, the DNA codes in the
genes of living things were also compared, but the results
have been the opposite of the "tree of life" presupposed by
evolution. Molecular biologists James A. Lake, Ravi Jain and
Maria C. Rivera elaborated on this in an article in 1999:
analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and
found that their relationship to each other contradicted
the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis
Neither the comparisons that have been made of
proteins, nor those of rRNAs or of genes, confirm the premises
of the theory of evolution. Carl Woese, a highly reputed biologist
from the University of Illinois, admits that the concept of
"phylogeny" has lost its meaning in the face of molecular
findings in this way:
No consistent organismal
phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies
so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen
everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major
branchings within and among the various [groups] to the
makeup of the primary groupings themselves.303
The fact that results of molecular comparisons
are not in favor of, but rather opposed to, the theory of
evolution is also admitted in an article called "Is it Time
to Uproot the Tree of Life?" published in Science in 1999.
This article by Elizabeth Pennisi states that the genetic
analyses and comparisons carried out by Darwinist biologists
in order to shed light on the "tree of life" actually yielded
directly opposite results, and goes on to say that "new data
are muddying the evolutionary picture":
A year ago, biologists
looking over newly sequenced genomes from more than a dozen
microorganisms thought these data might support the accepted
plot lines of life's early history. But what they saw confounded
them. Comparisons of the genomes then available not only
didn't clarify the picture of how life's major groupings
evolved, they confused it. And now, with an additional eight
microbial sequences in hand, the situation has gotten even
more confusing.... Many evolutionary biologists had thought
they could roughly see the beginnings of life's three kingdoms...
When full DNA sequences opened the way to comparing other
kinds of genes, researchers expected that they would simply
add detail to this tree. But "nothing could be further from
the truth," says Claire Fraser, head of The Institute for
Genomic Research (TIGR) in Rockville, Maryland. Instead,
the comparisons have yielded many versions of the tree of
life that differ from the rRNA tree and conflict with each
other as well...304
have been made of proteins, rRNA and genes reveal that
creatures which are allegedly close relatives according
to the theory of evolution are actually totally distinct
from each other. Various studies grouped rabbits with
primates instead of rodents, and cows with whales instead
In short, as molecular biology advances, the
homology concept loses more ground. Comparisons that have
been made of proteins, rRNAs and genes reveal that creatures
which are allegedly close relatives according to the theory
of evolution are actually totally distinct from each other.
A 1996 study using 88 protein sequences grouped rabbits with
primates instead of rodents; a 1998 analysis of 13 genes in
19 animal species placed sea urchins among the chordates;
and another 1998 study based on 12 proteins put cows closer
to whales than to horses.
As life is investigated on a molecular basis,
the homology hypotheses of the evolutionary theory collapse
one by one. Molecular biologist Jonathan Wells sums up the
situation in 2000 in this way:
trees based on different molecules, and the bizarre trees
that result from some molecular analyses, have now plunged
molecular phylogeny into a crisis.305
But in that case what kind of scientific explanation
can be given for similar structures in living things? The
answer to that question was given before Darwin's theory of
evolution came to dominate the world of science. Men of science
such as Carl Linnaeus and Richard Owen, who first raised the
question of similar organs in living creatures, saw these
organs as examples of "common design." In
other words, similar organs or similar genes resemble each
other not because they have evolved by chance from a common
ancestor, but because they have been designed deliberately
to perform a particular function.
Modern scientific discoveries show that the claim
that similarities in living things are due to descent from
a "common ancestor" is not valid, and that the only rational
explanation for such similarities is "common design."
301 Hervé Philippe
and Patrick Forterre, "The Rooting of the Universal Tree of
Life is Not Reliable," Journal of Molecular Evolution,
vol 49, 1999, p. 510.
302 James Lake, Ravi Jain ve Maria Rivera,
"Mix and Match in the Tree of Life," Science, vol.
283, 1999, p. 2027.
303 Carl Woese, "The Universel Ancestor,"
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA,
95, (1998) p. 6854.
304 Elizabeth Pennisi, "Is It Time to Uproot
the Tree of Life?" Science, vol. 284, no. 5418, 21
May 1999, p. 1305.
305 Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution,
Regnery Publishing, 2000, p. 51..