Hovind Attacks Evolution Theory

Part Two

This is the second section of three which analyses Kent Hovind's misrepresentation and attacks on Evolution Theory, both biological and any other science which contradicts a young Earth view.  Hovind's own words are in bold and are quoted from Transcript 4b from Hovind's own web site [no longer available].

[.....]

Vestigial Organs

The Appendix

Textbooks often say that there are vestigial organs.  This textbook says that the appendix is a vestigial organ.  Now, wait a minute, vestigial is supposed to mean you don't need it anymore.

Straw man  Vestigial organs are argued to be the reduced application of previous organs.  There is no criteria that the organ be non functioning.

Excuse me but you do need your appendix, okay?  It's part of the immune system.

The appendix is lined with some of the defensive cells contained in the rest of the digestive system.  Infections of the appendix were, until modern medicine, lethal and resulted in a long and painful death.

If your appendix is taken out, you can still live; but just because you can live without it doesn't mean you don't need it.  You could live without both of your legs and both of your arms too.  That doesn't mean you don't need them. And by the way, the whole idea of a vestigial structure is the opposite of evolution.

False Evolution does not have a direction. Some structures gain function, some loose function.

[.....]

Whale Pelvis

This textbook says, “The whale has a vestigial pelvis.” .....  Now, excuse me, that is not a vestigial pelvis!  Those bones are necessary because muscles attach to those bones.  And without those bones and those muscles the whales cannot reproduce.  It has nothing to do with walking on land.  It has to do with getting more baby whales.  So the author that wrote this is either ignorant of his whale anatomy and should not be writing a book about it, or he's a liar trying to promote his theory.  I guess we can give him the benefit of the doubt and call him dumb.  I hope he's not lying to the kids deliberately.  .....

Argument ad nauseum Repetition of the 'vestigial organ straw man' does not improve accuracy

But here we have a children's book,  Whales & Dolphins.  The first sentence in the book says, “Just imagine whales walking around.  It's true.”  That is pure propaganda.  There is not one shred of evidence for that.

False See Whale Evolution for a brief introduction. Scroll down to the "Cetaceans (whales, dolphins)" section

Human Tailbone

This textbook says, “Humans have a tailbone that is of no apparent use.” .....I happen to know there are nine little muscles that attach to the tail bone without which you cannot perform some very valuable functions.” ....  Anyone who says that the tailbone is vestigial is either ignorant or a liar.  Tell them I said so.  .....

Argument ad nauseum Repetition does not improve accuracy

No Vestigial Organs

There actually are no vestigial organs.  In the early days they said there were over 200 vestigial organs.  That's because they didn't know the function of them, that's all.  They thought the pituitary gland was vestigial.  I mean they had whole lists of vestigial organs.  There are no vestigial organs and even if there were that's the opposite of evolution. .....

False Hovind just repeated the same inaccurate statement he stated at the beginning of this section.  Evolution does not have a known predefined direction. Some structures may gain function, some may loose function.

Adaptation or Design?

......

The Watchmaker

By the way, you don't have to see the designer to believe He exists.  You believe a lot of people exist that you've never seen.  For instance, I have a Casio Databank stop watch - $50 at Wal Mart. ..... Now, I don't have to go to Japan and see the guy who made this to believe he exists.  See, when you see a complex structure like a watch it is common sense to say, “There must be a designer.”  I don't have to see Him to believe He exists.  There just must be one, that's all.  When you see a complex machine, you should come to two logical conclusions: there is a designer and he's pretty smart.  And when you look at science - whether it is through the telescope or microscope - when you look at anything in nature you should come to two conclusions: there is a designer and He's pretty smart.

False analogy Deciding if an unnatural object, such as a watch, has been designed is quite easy. Especially if you are already familiar with the design of a watch.  However, a problem emerges when trying to declare natural objects to been designed.  What do you compare a natural object with?  What would an non designed natural object look like? What would be the characteristic on non designed natural object? In what way would it differ from a Designed object?  In short there is a lack of falsifiability within the Design Argument.

Science ought to bring students to the Lord.  But Satan is using it to bring students away from the Lord.  And I resent that.  I like science.  I taught it for 15 years.  I've got nothing against science.  But I sure resent this evolution propaganda being stirred in with our science.  That's not fair.

[.....]

Evolution?

This textbook says, “Boys and girls, we are going to talk about the origin of life.  Swirling in the waters of the oceans is a bubbling broth of complex chemicals.  Progress from a complex chemical soup to a living organism is very slow.”  I guess it is - totally stopped.  Doesn't happen at all.  And they tell the students in school that life evolved from non living material.  I mean, is that scientific?  This textbook says, “Most important events occurred during the Archean era, the most important of which was the evolution of life.”  And again it says, “Progress from complex molecules to even simplest living organisms was a very long process.”  Didn't happen at all.  They just tell the kids it happened.  Look at this textbook.  “The first self replicating systems must have emerged in this organic soup.”  Must have happened - after all, kids, we're here.  I mean, that is their thinking process.  How about this one: “the first living cells emerged (there's that word again) between four billion and 3.8 billion years ago.  There is no record of the event.”  That's pretty handy!  “Now, look kids, you're going to be tested on this but there is no proof.”  You call that science?  They just believe it happened.  They take that totally on faith.

Producing Life in the Laboratory?

Miller's Experiment

They tell about Miller and Urey trying to make life in the laboratory back in the fifties.  They made this glass tubing where they circulated four gases through there. They very carefully excluded oxygen, I’ll tell you why in a minute.  But they had these gases going through this tube system.  An electric spark was supposed to simulate lightning strikes in the pre biotic soup.  And then they had a trap at the bottom to trap out anything that was produced.  Well, did they make life in the laboratory?  Absolutely not!  Never came close.

Straw man No one claimed Miller and Urey did create life.  What they did do is show that is feasible to create amino acids in hypothetical pre biotic Earth conditions.
.....

Engineered Environment

Well, Miller and Urey, in their experiment, both excluded oxygen.  There is a reason they did that.  They had what's called a reducing atmosphere.  The problem is if you have oxygen, that creates what's called ozone.  And ozone is essential to filter out UV light.  You have to have oxygen to make ozone.  And ozone has to be there or else the Ultra Violet light comes down and destroys anything here on earth.  So they have to have oxygen or you cannot get life to evolve because it would be destroyed. .....

Straw man Free oxygen that exists in that atmosphere today is almost exclusively the result of photosynthesis (plants breathing).  Oxygen is a very reactive element which is why we see reactions such as rust.  The element of oxygen has always been in existence on the Earth. However the availability of unattached oxygen molecules is a result of the emergence of plant life which of course wouldn't have occurred until after self replication molecules existed.

Also, one of the gases he used was ammonia and UV light will destroy ammonia.  So he has to have oxygen to make this work.  Life couldn't possibly evolve without oxygen.  The problem is if you have oxygen, it will oxidize whatever you make.

Straw man What Hovind is referring to here is that the ozone layer protects the surface of the planet from UV light. Ozone is a compound of oxygen (actually made with UV light).  However any semi transparent material will also reduce UV light, either cloud cover or even a short depth of water.  Ammonia is extremely soluble in water.

See, in the experiment he had, he very carefully trapped out the product that he made.  He filtered it out so it wouldn't circulate through again because the lightning strike would be millions of times more likely to destroy what he made then it would be to create what he made.  That's not realistic for real life.  You don't get to trap out what you make when you are in the ocean.

Straw man Lightening strikes don't occur in the ocean but only on the surface

What he made was 85 % tar, 13 % carboxylic acid, and only 2 % amino acid.  And out of that only 2 amino acids were created.  And those amino acids quickly bond with the tar or the carboxylic acid.  He came nowhere close to making life.  And the amino acids he made, [there were] basically only two and there are twenty different ones required for life.  No, don't let them tell you that they made life in the laboratory.

Straw man The only person claiming this is Hovind himself

Amino Acid Scrabble

..... The smallest proteins have 70 to 100 amino acids in precise order and they are all left handed.  DNA and RNA are all right handed and there are millions of those in order.  Now, what are the chances of dropping letters of the alphabet on the floor and ending up with 70 to 100 of them in an exact order, all of them right handed?  The chances are zero!  That will never happen!  But the evolutionist has to believe that it happened.  They take that totally on faith.  They have not made life in the laboratory.

Contradiction Even if life could be created at will in the lab Hovind has stated explicitly that he would still argue against "evolution"

Straw man  Purely random formation of DNA/RNA is not what the work in abiogenesis assumes.

Brownian Motion

By the way, proteins (which they wanted to create from those amino acids - [amino acids] bond to make proteins) theey un-bond in water much faster than they bond, and the oceans are completely full of water to the top.  And Brownian motion is going to drive them away from each other.  It is not going to bring them together.  This experiment was a total failure.

Straw man  It's therefore a good thing that abiogensis hypotheses are more complex than Hovind describes.

Evidence of The Creator

They tell the kids, “Boys and girls, we are going to think critically.”  Here we go again with their thinking critically.  It says, “there are twenty kinds of amino acids” that's true.  Kind of like 26 letters of the alphabet.  “Explain how this fact supports the idea that all life shares a common ancestor.”  No, teacher, this fact supports the idea that all life comes from a common designer.  And it's a good thing all life forms have those 20 amino acids, otherwise you would not be able to eat anything except other humans.  You wouldn't be able to digest them.  They are all made out of the same amino acids so we can eat other things, folks.

Interesting hypothesis.

If all you need to do is put all of the molecules together in one place to create life - and somehow that is what they think in their mind: “if we get all of the molecules together in one place it will automatically create life.”  Well, if you really believe that, put a frog in a blender and turn it on.  You will have all of the molecules to make a frog in one place.  Let it run for millions and millions and millions and millions of years.  How long would it take to create a frog?  It won't do it will it?  Never going to work!

Straw man Very nice misrepresentation

Evolutionary Family Tree Hoax

The textbook says, “Humans probably evolved from bacteria that lived more than four billion years ago.”  We started off like bacteria?  Yes.  They make these family trees and they put them in the textbooks.  .....

The Lie Exposed

These family trees that they put in the textbooks are pure propaganda.  There is not one shred of scientific evidence for any of them.  Even Mary Leaky [sic], who believes in evolution, says, “All of those trees of life with the branches of our ancestors - that's a lot of nonsense!” [Mary Leakey Associated Press Dec 10 1996]

Quote mining What Leakey was likely referring to here is that, in her opinion, it is not yet possible to define exactly the transition of hominids to humans.  I included Hovind's reference from his slide show. The only problem with that reference is that Mary Leakey died on December 9 1996.  The only news articles regarding Leakey on the 10th were about her death.  There however was an interview done by Associated Press in September which I assume is where the quote may have originated from  First Hominid Footprints Being Covered Over in Tanzania - September 16 1996

Even Stephen Gould from Harvard University .... said, “the evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks are not the evidence of fossils.”  [Stephen J. Gould, Professor of Geology at Harvard University, as quoted in the May 1977 Natural History, Vol. 86]

Quote mining  See SciCre Misquotes of Stephen Jay Gould for details.

They make it up folks!  It's pure imagination.

.....

No Simple Life Forms

This textbook - from Glenco Biology, 94 edition - it says, “All the many forms of life on earth today are descended from a common ancestor.” .....  And it says, “This is found in a population of primitive unicellular organisms.”  ...... And then they say, “Boys and girls, no traces of those events remain.”  That's real handy!  “Now, look kids, you are going to be tested on this but there is no proof.”  That's not education, that's indoctrination.

Paramecium

And they talk about a simple life form.  Primitive life form.  Now, just hold on a minute!  A single celled organism like a paramecium is not simple.  You can fit thousands of those into one drop of water and yet every paramecium is more complex than the space shuttle.  The most complex machine ever built by man is the space shuttle.  And one paramecium has got them beat millions to one.  Smaller is not simpler.  Somehow in their brains they got it stuck that if it's smaller it must be simpler.  No, no, no.  Microchips that fit inside a paper clip are not simple.  They are small, but they are not simple.

Straw man Nobody claims smaller is simpler.  Unicellular organism, however, are "simple" compared to multicellular organisms

Honeybees vs. Cray Computers

Let's compare the brain of a honeybee, which is pretty small, to NASA's Cray computer.  The Y-MPC90.  The Cray computer is huge. ..... The honeybee's brain is tiny.  ..... Well, the Cray computer can process six billion calculations per second.  That's pretty fast.  The brain of a honeybee can do about a thousand billion per second.  So the honeybee's brain is about 166 times faster than a Cray computer.  .....  Oh, the Cray uses many kilowatts.  A honeybee only uses 10 microwatts.  ..... Well, the Cray costs 48 million.  The honeybee's brain is pretty cheap.  You splat them on your windshield all [of] the time.  What about the maintenance personnel?  Many people have to scramble when the Cray breaks down.  The honeybee's brain?  Nobody fixes that.  He heals himself.  .....  Well, the honeybee doesn't weigh much.  His brain weighs even less.  The Cray computer weighs 2300 pounds.

False analogy My desktop computer is 1,000 times more powerful than the first computer built so therefor my computer was designed directly by God. See how silly Hovind's argument is?  If you want to calculate pi to a million decimal places which are you going to use; the bee or the Cray?

.....

The Human Brain

And the human brain is millions of times more complex than a honeybee's.  You know, you can walk into a room and look around the room and in one second your brain picks up enough information to keep the Cray Computer busy for 1000 years.  It's amazing!

Let's see: if the human brain is nothing but three pounds of chemicals that got together by chance over billions of years (which is what some people think) and I tell this to atheists all of the time.  They'll say, “I believe in evolution.”  I say, “Well, then you think that your brain is nothing but three pounds of chemicals that got together by chance over billions of years.   If that's true, how can you trust your thinking process?  Wow, a brand new thought rattles around in there for a while and gets lost.  Folks, it had to be designed.  If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals.  Think about that.

Huh?  Would Hovind care to explain what part of the brain isn't made from chemicals?

DNA

The DNA molecule in your body (the Deoxyribonucleic Acid) is the most complex molecule in the universe.  The average person in this room has 50 trillion cells in their body.  Each of those cells contains 46 chromosomes - except for the gammates [sic], thhey've got 23.  If you took all of the chromosomes out of your body, you would end up with about two tablespoons of chromosomes.  That's it.  Extracting all of them from every cell in your body would give you about two tablespoons.  But if you stretch them out, each one six or seven feet long (they are wound up like a tight little spring) if you stretched them out and tied them all together, one persons chromosomes would reach from the earth to the moon and back five million round trips.  Coming out of one person's chromosomes.  Pretty amazing don't you think?!

Clarification. Human cells contains 23 pairs of chromosomes.  Human gametes (sperm and ova) contain 23 unpaired chromosomes.

How Complex is DNA?

And if you typed out this computer code you would find you've got enough code in your DNA, and it is more complex and contains more information than all of the computer programs ever written by man combined!  Pretty amazing!  And this unbelievably complex DNA code if you typed it all out, when you got done typing you would have enough books to fill Grand Canyon forty times.

False The human genome has now been mapped. You can buy the entire code on DVD

..... The probability of just one DNA happening by chance.  That's a complex molecule.  The chances of just one coming together in random order has been calculated to be one times 10 to the 119,000th power.  That's a big number!  That would have 119,000 zeros behind it!

Straw man Which is why no one is suggesting that a fully functional modern form of DNA spontaneously formed.

Chance DNA

[.....]

I did some research on this, folks.  I decided the more chromosomes you have, the more complex you must be because it is the most complex molecule in the universe; and so I arranged a bunch of animals and plants in order based upon the number of chromosomes they had.  I discovered that penicillin has two chromosomes.  Fruit flies have eight.  There are a few missing links in there three, four, five, six, seven.  I don't know where they went, but I do believe from this research that I could prove that penicillin slowly evolved into fruit flies.  And then over billions of years, they got more chromosomes someplace and turned into either a housefly or a tomato.  (They are twins, you know!  Pretty tough to tell the difference.)   They both have 12 chromosomes.  And then very slowly over billions of years we got more chromosomes and became a pea.  And then over billions of years they got two more chromosomes and turned into a bee.  Pretty close, now: bee - pea, see the similarities?  And then very slowly became lettuce.  And then a carrot.  And when we got to 22 chromosomes a miracle took place.  Did you know the possum, the redwood tree and the kidney bean all have 22 chromosomes?  Identical triplets.  See, that's a possum; that's the tree and kidney bean.  Hey!  Got them right!  Look at that!  The average scientist can't tell the difference.  They've got 22 chromosomes - all three of them.  “Let's see: we've got tree, possum, kidney bean and huh, which one is which?  I don't know.”  Very slowly over millions of years we got enough chromosomes to become a human.  Here we are folks: we have forty-six.  And if we can just get two more we are going to be a tobacco plant!  .....

Why don't they teach the kids about the chromosome number as proof for evolution?  I’ll tell you why: because it goes totally against the theory.  You won't find that mentioned anyplace!  Those are facts, folks!  Chromosome number does not prove evolution.  That's all a farce, of course.  And evolution itself is a farce.

Straw man This "chromosome comparison" is one of the worst misrepresentations by Hovind. Everything you have read above about chromosomes is false, except for the existence of different numbers.  The number of chromosomes an organism has is irrelevant from a macro evolutionary perspective.  Some organisms don't even have chromosomes while others duplicate and triplicate with great ease.

LIE!  This little speech is based upon an article from his web site which is labeled as A Spoof on Evolution.  Hovind knows it's supposed to be a parody because he was the one who wrote it.

For extra evidence, in the slide show version of this presentation Hovind lists the following reasons for DNA not to have occurred by evolutionary mechanisms;

• DNA is too complex to have arisen by chance
• Similarities in code prove a common designer
• The chromosome # does not follow the expected pattern [emphasis added]
• Very little is known about the workings of DNA

Hovind repeated this lie in a debate with Hugh Ross (old Earth Creationist) in October 2000, Ross–Hovind Debate, John Ankerberg Show

Oh, yeah, I’ve got a chart on my website, drdino.com, people can look at, you know. Penicilium only has two chromosomes, you know, so that must have evolved first. And then fruit flies have eight, so they must be the next form, you know. ..... Man has 46. Tobacco has 48. So if we keep evolving, we’re all gonna be a tobacco plant. I mean, the whole idea is absurd, and how they believe this I don’t know.

Molecular Biology

Textbooks, though, say, “Boys and girls, we have evidence of evolution from molecular biology.”  Oh wow, big word!  What do you mean by that teacher?  Well, the DNA in your body (the Deoxyribonucleic Acid - the chromosome [sic]) .....

False The collection of deoxyribose nucleic acid is called the genome.  Chromosomes are the specific bundling of the strands of DNA within the cell nucleus.  In many organism the chromosomes do not form distinct bundles (Chambers 1990)

..... we've compared the chromosomes, or the DNA, of animals and found some similarities.  This textbook says, “The percentage of DNA sequence that they have in common is how you tell evolution.”  It says, “Darwin speculated that all forms of life are related.”

Duck, Monkey, or Sunflower?

Then look what it says: “This speculation has been verified.”  Oh now, come on teacher, you know better than that!   They arrange all the animals in order based upon the similarities of their DNA.  They discovered that man is only 11% different from a duck.  You only missed being a duck by 11%!  You might have been flying south for the winter!  How many would like that about now?  I saw a bunch yesterday flying south for the winter.

Look, this percentage of DNA sequencing is pure propaganda.  It's bologna! It doesn't mean a thing!   And the evolutionists understand that.  We have no direct access to the process of evolution.  It's only by creative imagination that you can come up with this.  They had just imagined it.  They tell the kids in school that the human and the orangutans are 96% similar in their DNA structure.  “And this, boys and girls, proves they had a common ancestor 15 [sic?] million years ago.”  Now, just hold on a minute.  That does not prove any such thing!  It might prove that they have a common Designer.
Similar DNA codes prove the same Engineer wrote the codes.  I bet I could point out that most of the stuff coming out of Microsoft has some similarities.  Most of their programs are similar.  That doesn't prove they all evolved from Morse code!  The same guys are writing the programs.  That's what's going on!

Im glad Hovind raised the idea of evolution theory and computer programming.  See  http://www.genetic-programming.org/ for extensive list of resources.

Straw man  The DNA codes across life are structured in such a way as to suggest relatedness from an evolutionary history.  There is no reason for a "Common Designer" to make the hemoglobin of chimpanzees identical to humans but vary it more and more for other creatures when the hemoglobin does the same function in all cases.  See links further below for more details

And there are thousands and thousands of differences between chimpanzees or apes and humans.  Yet they point out the one similarity, the 99% similarity of DNA, and think that is somehow proof.  But they overlook millions of other things.  Monkeys cannot touch all of their fingers to their thumb.  Monkeys are missing a whole section of the brain called Broca’s Convolution.  Monkeys can hang upside down with their feet on a tree branch - their big toe on one side and their other toe on the other side.  Try that some time!  Pick a low tree branch, I would recommend.  I mean there are thousands and thousands of differences.  The body covering is different - the hair, of course, and its distribution across the body.  There are thousands of differences.  But they think there are similarities with the DNA code and so that's the one they point to the students and say, “See, this proves evolution!”

Non sequintur  A little exercise in logic - there are "thousands and thousands" of differences between you and your parents due to your DNA being a unique combination of your biological mother and father.  Does that mean you are not related to your parents?

Straw man  As the structure of life is based upon DNA, and DNA is passed from generation to generation, the contents of each organism's DNA show it's ancestoral past and it's connection with other present DNA

Well, now, hold it.  If you want to just pick one item and that's supposed to prove relationship, did you know that human Cytochrom [sic] C is closest to a sunflower?  So really the sunflowers are our closest relative folks.

False  See  Cytochrome C and species divergence

For a general introduction to genetic sequencing see  Sequences and Common Descent - How We Can Trace Ancestry Through Genetics

See also  The Molecular Sequence Evidences

For more technical technical information see  Compelling Data for Common Descent from Matching Redundant DNA Sequences

It depends what you want to compare.   If you want to compare the eyes, we are closest to an octopus.  Not a chimpanzee. [Ammunition Norm Sharbaugh 1991 PO Box 215 Brownsburg IN 46112]

Contradiction Compare this to what Hovind says here about octopus eyes being totally different to human eyes.

Pick something.  What do you want to compare?  Human blood specific gravity is closest to a rabbit or a pig.   Human milk is closest to a donkey.  It depends on what you want to compare.  Pick something.  If there were not some similarities between us and other animals we could only eat each other.   So God designed all animals from the code so we could eat other plants and animals and digest them.  Not proof for evolution.  It's proof of a common Designer! [Ammunition Norm Sharbaugh 1991 PO Box 215 Brownsburg IN 46112]

Contradiction In other area's Hovind has stated emphatically that until The Flood all organisms were herbivores.

What Hovind's argument here boils down to is this; yes there are DNA similarities but any similarity is just coincidence. This is the equivalent to saying thunder and lightening occur together but they are unrelated events.

[.....]

Fossil Evidence

They tell the kid, “We've got evidence from fossils.”  Now, just hold on a minute.  What fossil evidence do they have for evolution?  Darwin said in his book (which I have right here) - Charlie Darwin said, “If my theory be true,” (big “if” Charlie) “numberless intermediate varieties must assuredly have existed.”  That's correct Charlie.  They must have existed - billions and billions of missing links should be there if the theory is true.  But the evolutionists know it is not true.  David Raup knows and he's an evolutionist.  He says, “In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions in general.  These have not been found. Yet optimism dies hard and some pure fantasy has crept into the textbooks.” [Raup, David M, "Evolution and the Fossil Record" Science vol 213 (July 17 1981) p289]   Crept in?  David, it was thrown in purposely!  They want kids to believe this theory.

Quote mining What Raup is referring to is Darwin's mistaken idea that evolution must occur in broad based incremental linear steps.  It must be remembered that Darwin was not aware of genetics and how they operate within populations.  Raup is arguing that the evolutionary pathways are complex, with many branching histories.

False On the issue of transitional fossils see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html for a brief introduction.

Horse Evolution

For instance, they tell the kids that the horse evolved from a four toed ancestor.  How many have ever heard of that before - about the horse used to have four toes?  That's pure bologna!  That didn't creep into the textbooks.  That was thrown in!  It's in nearly every textbook, though, about the horse evolving from a four toed ancestor.   What they don't tell the kids is that the so - called Eohippus, the ancient horse, had 18 pairs of ribs, the next one had 15 pairs of ribs, the next one after that had 19 pairs, the next one after that had 18 pairs.  The rib number changes back and forth.  Well, that's kind of interesting!  How is that critter going to survive?  And the experts are saying, “The evolution of the horse has not held up under close examination.”

Straw man What Hovind is referring to here is the sometimes oversimplified representation of horse ancestry which is presented to the lay public. For a more detailed lineage of horses see Horse Evolution

Here are some problems with the horse evolution theory.  The whole thing was made up by Othniel C. Marsh in 1874.  He picked animals from all over the world.  He did not find them in one place and he did not find them in that order.   He made up the entire thing!  It's propaganda!  It was invented.  Modern horses are found in layers with and lower than the so called ancient horse.  [Krushilin, Yu and Ovcharov, V "A Horse from the Dinosaur Epoch?" Moshovshaya Pravada (Moscow Truth) trans. A Jame Melnich (February 5 1984)]

I haven't been able to find any references to this discovery. If anybody knows of any could you please email

And the ancient horse is not a horse at all.  It's called a hyrax and it is still alive today in South America.  It's about the size of a fox and it's a meat eating animal with sharp teeth.  That is just propaganda.  The ribs are different, the toes are different the teeth are different. [See Frank Sherwin of ICR for more]

False The hyrax is an African animal  See here for details

False The hyrax also feeds on "seeds, fruit, and leaves, and in large numbers can be serious agricultural pests" (source)

False The hyrax is in no way related to the horse. The only connection is that the remains of the first horse were at first thought to be a hyrax.

"The modern horse with its sleek coat, straight back, proudly arching neck, and long legs bears little resemblance to its ancient ancestors.  This small ancestor was only about the size of an adult fox. In fact, when the first bones of these animals were found in 1838 and 1839, they were believed to be the bones of ancient monkeys or of the hare like animals called hyraxes or conies. The animal was given the scientific name Hyracotherium because of its resemblance to the hyrax; however, the genus name more commonly used for the animal is Eohippus." source

[.....]

Strata order

Now, look, just because you find animals buried in a certain order that doesn't mean anything.  And they do not find the animals buried in the order they would like to find them in to prove evolution.  See, if I get buried on top of a hamster, does that prove he's my grandpa?  Well, no.  Arranging things in order doesn't prove anything. But let's pretend that it does.

Straw man Hovind repeats another two examples (including one of considerable length) like that above.  I have only included this as an example of the tangent he takes his audience onto before returning back to something resembling reality.

[.....]

Did Birds Evolve from Dinosaurs?

Now, the textbooks are going to tell the kids, “Boys and girls, birds are the descendants of dinosaurs.”  How many have ever heard of that before?  Wasn't that the whole purpose behind the Jurassic Park movie?

False The plot of Jurassic Park was dinosaurs getting loose and eating the hapless humans.  The only reference to birds was an explanation of the similarity between the body structure of a Velociraptor and that of birds.

Now, just hold on a minute, in case you don't know, there are a few differences between a dinosaur and a bird.  You don't just put a few feathers on him and say, “Let's go man come on you can do it!”  It's not quite that easy folks.  You see, reptiles have four perfectly good legs, birds have two legs and two wings.  So if his front legs are going to change into wings (besides lots of other things having to change, like the muscular system, the nervous system to control this and the brain to control flight) besides all of that, somewhere along the line, his front legs are going to be half leg half wing.  Which means now he can't run and he can't fly.  This guy is going to have a problem evolving through that stage don't you think?  As a matter of fact, through all the stages he's going to have a problem evolving.

Straw man  There were many bipedal dinosaurs, lets use Tyranasaurous Rex as a graphic example (though not an avian ancestor).

Straw man Many animals are capable of partial flight. For example, the Australian sugar glider is a mammal which uses skin folds as wings to glide between trees.  Many modern birds aren't capable of flight yet have wings, for example the ostrich.  Hovind is also implying that only random individuals independent of environment and populations developed feathered flight.  That is incorrect.

Scales and Feathers

They tell the kids though, that birds are covered with feathers, (which is true) and they are going to say, “Boys and girls, bird feathers evolved from the same scales that protected the dinosaurs so well.”  Hold on a second.   Feathers are extremely complex.  The only similarity they have between feathers and scales is they are both made from the same protein.  It is called Keratin.  Your finger nails and your hair are made from the same stuff.  That doesn't prove that they are related.  It proves they've got a common Designer.  Did you know battleships and forks are both made out of the same metal?  Iron.  That proves that they both evolved from a tin can 27 million years ago. .....  Similarity proves a common Designer.

I'm glad Hovind noted the compositional link between scales and feathers. According to Hovind its just a coincidence of Design that this matches what would be expected from an evolutionary perspective.  And the fossil positioning?  Just coincidence as well?

Other Differences

There are real problems with the bird evolution from reptiles. The lungs are totally different.  Reptiles have a sac type lung.  Birds have a tubular type lung.  Very different lung system.

False Hovind began this section accurately describing that birds are an offshoot of dinosaurs. Hovind then inaccurately states that all dinosaurs were reptiles.

 Modern birds are found in layers with and lower than the so-called dinosaurs.  How can they be the ancestors?  How can the dinosaurs change to birds?  The birds were already there, even by their thinking, with their faulty geologic scale.  Scales and feathers attach to the body differently and they come from different genes on the chromosome.  Birds have a four chambered heart.  Reptiles have a three chambered heart.  Major change there, folks!  How is that going to survive?  In addition to just the heart changing, you have to get the nerve supply changing.  And the DNA code changing so the next generation has this heart change. .....

Straw man The DNA you are born with is the same DNA you will contribute to your offspring (with the occasional error perhaps)

False I can find no evidence to support Hovind's claim of modern birds found "earlier" than the "so-called dinosaurs".

Reptiles lay a leathery egg.  Birds have a hard shelled egg.  There are thousands of differences between reptiles and birds.  There is no evidence.  And the experts know that. Even W.E. Swinton from the British Museum of Natural History, the largest fossil collection in the world.  He said, “there is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.”  Now, he believes that happened, but he knows that there is no fossil evidence.  But the textbooks tell the kids that there is.

Quote mining  Swinton is an evolutionist.  He simply disagrees with the current arguments for avian evolution

Archaeopteryx

They show the picture of Archaeopteryx and say, “Boys and girls, this is Archaeopteryx.”  (Wow - big word, write that down.  It will be on the test!)  Archaeopteryx.  It means “ancient wing.”  They are going to say, “Boys and girls, this used to be a dinosaur.  This is the missing link.”  It's a bird, teacher.  It's twelve inches long.  Come on!  It's the size of a pigeon.  Only six have been found.  Some people think they are all fakes.  I don't know.  Even if they are legitimate though it's just a bird.  It's 100% bird!  The size of a crow.

Hovind appears to be implying that because Archaeopteryx was small it can't be related in anyway to dinosaurs. Dinosaurs and related fauna came in a huge variety of sizes.

Contradiction  Hovind claims dinosaurs got big because they were really just modern reptiles that lived for a long time. So even under Hovind's own weird scenario the size of "Archie" is irrelevant

See Archaeopteryx and the Creationists  'Archie' definitely wasn't an average bird.

Claws and Teeth

They are going to say, “Well, now, he's got claws on his wings.  Do you see those claws right there?  Don't you see?  That proves he used to be a dinosaur.”  Come on now, teacher.  Twelve birds today have claws on their wings.  The ostrich, the hoatzin, the touraco, the ibis. I can't name them all but there are twelve birds that have claws on the wings right now!  By the way, going from claws to no claws would be an example of losing something, not gaining something.  Is that how evolution works?  You lose everything until you have it all?  I don't get it.

Straw man Evolution is not always about gaining something. See also Hovind's misunderstanding of vestigial structures

[.....]

Famous Evolutionists Admit There is No Proof!

These experts know that there is no evidence for any changing!  They say there is fossil evidence and there isn't!  Luther Sunderland wrote this book Darwin's Enigma.  He wrote to all of the major universities [and] to the museums (or visited them) and he said, “Would you please show me the evidence you have for evolution?”  They said, “Well, we don't have it here, it must be somewhere else.”

This I find hard to believe. Did Sunderland think about researching peer reviewed science publications?

[.....]

Luther wrote to the British Museum of Natural History.  The largest fossil collection in the world and asked Colin Paterson [sic].  He said, “Mr. Paterson [sic], I read your book about evolution but I noticed that you didn't show us any missing links.  Why not?  Where are the missing links?  Colin Paterson [sic] wrote back and said, “I fully agree with your comments on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book.  If I knew of any, fossil or living (now, that's interesting, why would you include a living one as a missing link?) .....

Straw man Just because a type of organism is the ancestor of another type does not automatically equate with extinction

.....  [Patterson] said, “if I knew of any I certainly would have included them.  I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil.”

Quote mining Hovind has not included the end of the statement in which Patterson clarifies what he means.
See here for details

There is no evidence for changing from one kind to another.  It's not a missing link they need folks.  The whole chain is missing!  And folks like Stephen Gould understand that.  He said, “The absence of fossil evidence has been a nagging problem for evolution.”  I guess it has Steve.  You can't find any!  But he still believes in evolution.

Quote mining What Gould is referring to here is fossil evidence at the species level not for overall fossil evidence

On the issue of transitional fossils see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html for a brief introduction.

Punctuated Equilibrium

Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge have resurrected Gouldschmidt's [sic] theory and come up with this idea called Punctuated Equilibrium.  That's supposed to explain why we don't find the missing links.  “Yes boys and girls, maybe a reptile laid an egg and a bird hatched out!

Straw man  Punctuated Equilibria does not propose such a ludicrous event.

So you see, we won't find the missing links because they never existed!”  So what you're trying to say is, because we don't have any proof that proves it?  Hmmm, I don't get it.  It's pretty obvious the conclusions from all these fossils that have been dug up.  They've dug up millions and millions of fossils.  Fossils are not the problem.  It's not that they are rare.   It's that the intermediates are extinct.  They don't exist.  But they will say, “Well, you know, fossilization is a rare process.”  Well, take a look in the dirt, man.  There are billions of fossils out there.  Don't tell me it's a rare process. The flood formed most of the fossils.  That's what they don't want to admit.  Fossils cry out real loud, “Hey!  Quick, rapid burial!”  All fossils seem similar to living forms.  With no undisputed missing links discovered so far.  That's the conclusions of science.

Straw man  Punctuated Equilibria seeks to explain population dynamics.  This leads onto why we have detailed fossil record which does not always include a finally grained species to species record due to the random nature of fossilization.

False  As for the rest of that rant, I don't even know where to begin.

[.....]

What Evolution has Cost Mankind

Many evolutionists have admitted, though, there is only two choices, Creation and evolution.  And Creation is clearly unthinkable.  They won't even consider that.

False dichotomy There are more than two options.  For example, another significant option is Creation using evolutionary processes (theistic evolution) which is, however, a theological position unconnected with science.

But folks, I'm telling you, this evolution is a fairy tale for grownups.  That's all it is.  The theory is useless.  You can't name me one scientific advancement we have because of the evolution theory. That's not why we have lights, it's not why we have electricity, it's not why we have computers, it's not why we have cars.  I defy you to name me one scientific advancement because of the evolution theory.

Depends on which version of evolution theory Hovind is using.  If its the proper biological version the Evolution Theory explains the diversity and interconnected of life on this planet via testable mechanisms.

Medicine - explains why bacteria can survive antibiotics

Research - explains why animal experimentation of human treatments is possible.

Paleontology - explains why the fossil record is structured as it is.

How about using evolution concepts in computer programming? http://www.genetic-programming.org/

Sociology - meme theory

Geology - uses the evil uniformatarian principle which denies the Flood.   Yet, the resource extraction industries insist on using this paradigm because it produces results measured in dollars and cents.

Even if it is true (and it's not) but even if it were true, it's a useless theory.  It is of no value whatsoever.  You're wasting classroom space, classroom time, textbooks space.  Get that stuff out of the classroom!  Malcolm Muggeridge said, “I'm convinced the theory of evolution will be one of the great jokes of the history books of the future.  Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious a hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”

Hovind failed to mention that Muggeridge was a journalist.  See here for more detail

[.....]

Total Lack of Evolutionary Evidence

Experts are saying, “The scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men.  The story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever.”  “In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.  There's no evidence for this.”

Quote mining  This is actually one quote, not two.  Note the quote is forty years old.

" 'Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]." -*The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission]. (source)

 

Darwin's Eyes

Even Charles Darwin said in his book right here on page 217, Charlie said, “To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd.”  Charlie very much was confused about the human eyeball because it is so complex.  He said, “How could this thing have evolved by chance?”  Good question Charlie!

Quote mining The 'Darwin eye quote' is probably the most infamous misquote ever used within Creation Science. What Hovind does not say is Darwin is asking a rhetorical question which he answers in the following pages.  See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html

LIE!  Hovind has admitted he knows he is misrepresenting Darwin's position.

How can blind chance make a seeing eye?  Explain that to me please!

Straw man  Mutation etc filtered by natural selection causes evolution.  How could a complex eye form?  A collection of light sensitive cells form increasing levels of complex auxiliary structures e.g. movement and lenses, filtered by natural selection.  See The Design and Evolution of Eyes

Well, the textbook says, “The complex structure of the human eye may be the product of millions of years of evolution.”  Why do we have to give evolution the credit for everything when nobody knows of anything that it's done?

Huh? If Evolution Theory is the explanation of the observed biological phenomena then of course Evolution Theory would therefore get "the credit" for the phenomena that it explains.

[.....]

Human Eyes and Octopus Eyes

Here is a section of the back of your eyeball.  The back of your eye is about one square inch but it contains 137 million light sensitive cells.  ..... I got a call a couple of years ago.  This guy called up.  .....
He said, “The eye is poorly designed.  Mr. Hovind, don't you know the blood vessels are in front of the retina?”
I said, “Oh, yes sir I knew about that.”
He said, “Don't you know that means the light has to go through the blood vessels to get to the retina so that kind of blurs your vision a little bit.
I said, “Well, I don't think it blurs the vision any but yes it is true that the light has to go through the blood vessels.  You're right about that.”
He said, “See, that's a poor design!”  He said, “The octopus has a much better eye because their blood vessels are behind the retina.”
I said, “Sir, I don't know who you are or where you are calling from, but let me explain something to you.  We live in the air.  UV light from the sun comes down right through the air, it doesn't get slowed down hardly at all coming through the air and UV light will burn your retina.  And so we have blood vessels in front of the retina to protect us from UV light.  Now, octopuses live in the water.  Water stops UV light so they don't need the blood vessels in front.  Now, if you want to swap eyes with an octopus have at it, but you'd be blind in a few days.  We need the blood vessels in front.  It's incredibly designed!  Do you have any other dumb questions?”
He said, “No, that was it.”
Click.
Anybody that says the eyeball is a poor design is ignorant or a liar!  It's incredibly designed!

Contradiction Compare this anecdote to this statement by Hovind claiming human eyes and octopus eyes are similar.

Contradiction If UV light burns skin then it will surely damage a naked blood vessel, which would result in scarring that would mean, damaged eyesight.  UV light can even penetrate into the skin.  If visible light will reach the retina then logically so will UV light.  Any direct intense light will damage the retina, which is why you should never look directly at the sun, a welding flame, or a high powered laser for example.  It is the iris that filters the intensity of incoming light under normal conditions

Another 'problem' with human eyes and all other mammals etc is there is a blind spot that the brain has to compensate for by constructing a virtual image minus the hole.  This blind spot is a result of the nerves coming from the light receptors travel on the inside of the eyeball to a central point where they a linked to the optic nerve.  The result is an area in the centre of the eyeball that does not have any light receptors.  There is no advantage for this structure. A more efficient structure would have the light receptors connected to nerves at the back of the eye.  The inefficient 'blind spot' design does however serve its purpose which is why it was not filtered by natural selection.

[.....]

Life is too Complex for Evolution

Now, what good is 10% of an eyeball, or a wing, or a feather, or a beak, or any complex structure?  You ought to get Michael Behe’s book, Darwin's Black Box.  Now, he's an evolutionist but he says, “Look folks, things are too complex.  They had to be designed.  I mean, it just had to be.”  An excellent book by the way from an evolutionary perspective.

Straw man What Behe says is that some biological structures presently have no known way of being reverse engineered through their evolutionary origins therefore there was supernatural intervention in the evolutionary process.  Irreducible Complexity is based upon gaps in human knowledge.  IC explains nothing, predicts nothing and is incapable of falsification (there will always be a gap in human knowledge somewhere) therefore IC does not even rate as a valid scientific hypothesis.  See Behe's Empty Box

[.....]

January, 1999

 CONTINUE