What is Evolution?

Addressing Abiogenesis & Common Misconceptions

Key Highlights

  1. There are four types of evolution, microevolution, macroevolution, chemical evolution and biological evolution.
  2. Biological mutations result in a loss of DNA information, not a increase in information.
  3. Darwin's theory breaks down. The fossil record reveals no "transitional" fossils between species or within species. No slight modifications.
  4. "The general public is terribly confused upon origin of life claims and so-called synthetic life claims." James Tour
  5. Even using an unrealistically low estimate of 1,000 steps required to “evolve” the average protein (if this were possible) implies that many trillions of links were needed to evolve the proteins that once existed or that exist today.

​Evolution attempts to explain how life evolves from the simple to the complex. This is explained as a result of cell mutations and natural selection, survival of the fittest. It also tries to explain how new body parts are formed. Many people and scientists believe in evolution. But many do not believe in the mechanisms that allow for natural selection. Conferences have been held by scientists who are looking for a more realistic explanation of natural selection other than Darwin’s.

There are four types of evolution.

  • Macroevolution – change from one species to another or addition of body parts.
  • Microevolution – minor changes in a organism such as Darwin’s finches, they had different sizes of beaks, but they were all finches.
  • Chemical evolution – chemicals forming into different molecules.
  • Biological evolution – evolution from the first living cell all the way to man.

Evolution attempts to explain “the survival of the fittest” but not the “arrival of the fittest”.

Stephen Meyer (12:05-13:00; 24:40-25:50)

​One major problem with evolution is that in nature things go from order to disorder. From high entropy to low entropy and high energy to low energy. In evolution things should go from simple to complex. The formation of a cell represents a drastic decrease in entropy [disorder] and an equally dramatic increase in energy. But in reality, over time a cell will lose its orderly state and devolve into disorder, resulting in the death of a cell.

​Evolution assumes that random mutations are changes that improve the survival of an organism. It does not consider that most mutations are degrading to the organism. Nature does not keep a lab book of how something was done wrong, with no new information. Rather impairments in offspring are recorded. Mutations degrade the organism. Breakdown in DNA is called genetic entropy. Such break downs result in one of over 5,000 diseases. No going back to a previous step. New mutations do not create something new, but degrading of the DNA. Also, evolution does not know where it is going. There is no goal.

“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.

Winston Churchill (1)

There is not a missing link in Darwin's theory of evolution but missing ‘links”. Links between one stage of evolution to the next stage of evolution. Because there are so many missing links, was there ever a chain? The missing links of the missing chain do not even have a starting point. What was the very first chemical to bond with another chemical? We do not know. No body has a clue!

The major links in the molecules-to-man theory that must be bridged include (a) evolution of simple molecules into complex molecules, (b) evolution of complex molecules into simple organic molecules, (c) evolution of simple organic molecules into complex organic molecules, (d) eventual evolution of complex organic molecules into proteins, membrane lipids and DNA or similar information storage molecules, and (e) eventually evolution into the first cells. This process requires millions of links, all which either are missing or controversial. Evolutionists are imaginative in creating just-so stories for most of evolution. Furthermore, the parts required to provide life clearly have specifications that rule out most substitutions … In the entire realm of science, no class of molecule is currently known which can remotely compete with proteins. (in complexity). (6)

Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity."

Leslie Orgel (5)

​While it is believed that life began in a little warm pond somewhere. a “primordial soup” was created. In this pond were chemicals and when lighting struck the pond, molecules were formed along with “simple” compounds such as an amino acid. There is no mechanism to generate a primordial soup. Forming an amino acid was done in a controlled situation, but in the "primordial soup" this would be astronomically improbable, let alone amino acids to form a protein. To form a cell would require carbohydrates, lipids, amino acids and nucleic acids. More on this later.

​Where did the primordial soup come from? The myth of the primordial soup. What were the “ingredients” of the primordial soup? Where did the chemicals come from in the first place? There is a current idea that meteorites brought organic molecules, for indeed some do exist in the cosmos in meteorites.

This primordial soup is a hypothetical speculation of how and where life could be created. The prevailing model of evolution cannot account for the presence of life. "The general public is terribly confused upon origin of life claims and so-called synthetic life claims." (7). The primordial soup idea is still taught in high school and college, with absolutely no scientific proof. The primordial soup and abiogenesis is extremely hyped by both the materialist scientist and the media.

Darwin's theory breaks down. The fossil record reveals no "transitional" fossils between kinds. No slight modifications from kind to kind.

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (3)

​The primordial soup concept is believed, erroneously, by many Americans. The public is greatly misinformed. 41.4 percent believe scientists have made a frog in a lab and 72.7 percent believe scientists made a bacterial cell in a lab.

Before life on earth there was no biology, only prebiotic and pre-biochemical, just chemicals and physics. Without violating these two, someway an early molecule “learned” how to replicate. No one has proved this in the lab or even in the lab notebook. The idea these interactions occurred in a “warm little pond” (heat degrades the formation of amino acids and proteins) shows the unawareness of scientists that when amino acids form a protein, that protein will only last about 13 days if it does not interact with another cellular targeted substance. Over the last 30 years we have had an explosion of knowledge of the cell and its complexity.

Click here to see Jack Szostak's (6) idea of first life forming. Szostak's view of how the first life was created is very unscientific. HIs perceived gaseous mixtures had no place for oxygen, contrary to current evidence. He thought the power to create life came from lightning, asteroid impact, or ultraviolet light. That a "stew" of chemicals was a result of the power and that chemicals were "nudged" ty "dynamic forces". 

Prebiotic chemistry lacks the required selectivity and control over reaction rates to avoid formation of a wide range of undesired molecules.

James Tour (7)

The fields of organic molecular biology and chemistry disprove Darwin’s theory.

Even using an unrealistically low estimate of 1,000 steps required to “evolve” the average protein (if this were possible) implies that many trillions of links were needed to evolve the proteins that once existed or that exist today. And not one clear transitional protein that is morphologically and chemically in between the ancient and modern form of the protein has been convincingly demonstrated. The same problem exists with fats, nucleic acids, carbohydrates and the other compounds that are produced by, and necessary for, life. (7)

The average protein size is 300 amino acids. The odds of getting the right sequence of amino acids is:

1 amino acid, 1/20

2 amino acids, 1/400

3 amino acids, 1/8,000

4 amino acids, 1/160,000

5 amino acids, 1/3,200,000

etc. out to 300 amino acids.

​​Lee Cronin (2) believed that chemicals were in a pond somewhere and then a living cell was created. This does not sound like science, but more like a fairy tale.

​For a Power Point presentation on evolution click here


  1. Churchill, Winston. Goodreads
  2. Cronin, Lee. Making matter come alive. YouTube
  3. Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species, 1959
  4. Orgel, Leslie. The Origins of Life: Molecules and Natural Selection. 1973
  5. Szostak, Jack. here to see Jack Szostak's idea of first life forming.
  6. The improbability of Abiogenesis. unc.edu
  7. Tour, James. James Tour: The Mystery of the Origin of Life. YouTube

Let's Connect and Explore New Horizons Together!

If you're interested in exploring new horizons, discussing shared interests, or simply having a conversation over a virtual cup of coffee, I would love to connect with you. Feel free to reach out at your convenience, and let's make something great happen together.

Reach out to me > 


Chaperone Molecule