Wisdom Teeth Is not evidence of evolution

•July 21, 2007 • Leave a Comment

ONE of the theory of evolution’s important deceptions is its claim regarding “vestigial organs.” Evolutionists claim that some organs in living things lose their original function over time, and that such organs then disappear. Taking that as a starting point, they then try to send out the message, “If the living body had really been created, it would have no functionless organs in it.”

Evolutionist publications at the start of the twentieth century announced that the human body contained up to a hundred organs that no longer served any purpose, including the appendix, the coccyx, the tonsils, the pineal gland, the external ear, the thymus, and wisdom teeth. However, the decades that followed saw major advances in medical science. Our knowledge of the organs and systems in the human body increased. As a result of this, it was seen that the idea of vestigial organs was just a superstition. The long list drawn up by evolutionists rapidly shrank. It was discovered that the thymus is an organ which produces important immune system cells, and that the pineal gland is responsible for the production of important hormones. It also emerged that the coccyx supports the bones around the pelvis, and that the external ear plays an important role in identifying where sounds come from. In short, it emerged that ignorance was the only foundation on which the idea of “vestigial organs” rested.

Modern science has many times demonstrated the error of the concept of such organs. Yet some evolutionists still try to make use of this claim. Although medical science has proved that almost all of the organs that evolutionists claim are vestigial actually serve a purpose, evolutionary speculation still surrounds one or two organs.

The most noteworthy of these is our wisdom teeth. The claim that these teeth are a part of the human body that has lost all purpose still appears in evolutionist sources. As evidence for this, it is stated that these teeth give a great many people a lot of trouble, and that chewing is not impaired when they are surgically removed.

Many dentists, influenced by the evolutionists’ claim that wisdom teeth serve no purpose, have come to see their extraction as a routine matter, and do not make the same kind of effort to protect them as they do for other teeth.53 However, research in recent years has shown that wisdom teeth have the same chewing function as other teeth. Studies have also been carried out to show that the belief that wisdom teeth damage the position of other teeth in the mouth is completely unfounded.54 Scientific criticism is now amassing ways in which problems with wisdom teeth which could be solved in other ways are instead solved by extracting them.55 In fact, the scientific consensus is that wisdom teeth have a chewing function just like all the others, and that there is no scientific justification for the belief that they serve no purpose.

So, why do wisdom teeth cause a substantial number of people problems? Scientists who have researched the subject have discovered that wisdom tooth difficulties have manifested themselves in different ways among human communities at different times. It is now understood that the problem was seldom seen in pre-industrial societies. It has been discovered that the way in which soft foodstuffs have come to be preferred to harder ones, over the last few hundred years in particular, has negatively affected the way the human jaw develops. It has thus been realised that most wisdom tooth troubles emerge as a result of jaw development problems relating to dietary habits.

It is also known that society’s nutritional habits also have negative effects on our other teeth. For instance, the increasing consumption of foodstuffs high in sugar and acid has increased the rate that other teeth decay. However, that fact does not make us think that all our teeth have somehow “atrophied.” The same principle applies to wisdom teeth. Problems with these teeth stem from contemporary dietary customs, not from any evolutionary “atrophy.”


The Real Face Of 99% Similarity Claim

•July 21, 2007 • Leave a Comment

For a very long time, the evolutionist choir had been propagating the unsubstantiated thesis that there is very little genetic difference between humans and chimps. In every piece of evolutionist literature, you could read sentences like “we are 99 percent identical to chimps” or “there is only 1 percent of DNA that makes us human.” Although no conclusive comparison between human and chimp genomes has been done, the Darwinist ideology led them to assume that there is very little difference between the two species.

A study in October 2002 revealed that the evolutionist propaganda on this issue-like many others-is completely false. Humans and chimps are not “99% similar” as the evolutionist fairy tale went on. Genetic similarity turns out to be less than 95 %. In a news story reported by CNN.com, entitled “Humans, chimps more different than thought,” it reads:

There are more differences between a chimpanzee and a human being than once believed, according to a new genetic study.

Biologists have long held that the genes of chimps and humans are about 98.5 percent identical. But Roy Britten, a biologist at the California Institute of Technology, said in a study published this week that a new way of comparing the genes shows that the human and chimp genetic similarity is only about 95 percent.

Britten based this on a computer program that compared 780,000 of the 3 billion base pairs in the human DNA helix with those of the chimp. He found more mismatches than earlier researchers had, and concluded that at least 3.9 percent of the DNA bases were different.

This led him to conclude that there is a fundamental genetic difference between the species of about 5 percent.1

New Scientist, a leading science magazine and a strong supporter of Darwinism, reported the following on the same subject in an article titled “Human-chimp DNA difference trebled”:

We are more unique than previously thought, according to new comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA. It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the variation between us and chimps .2

Biologist Boy Britten and other evolutionists continue to assess the result in terms of the evolutionary theory, but in fact there is no scientific reason to do so. The theory of evolution is supported neither by the fossil record nor by genetic or biochemical data. On the contrary, evidence shows that different life forms on Earth appeared quite abruptly without any evolutionary ancestors and that their complex systems prove the existence of an “intelligent design.”

Human DNA is also similar to that of the worm, mosquito, and chicken!

Moreover, the above-mentioned basic proteins are common vital molecules present, not just in chimpanzees, but also in very many completely different living creatures. The structure of the proteins in all these species is very similar to that of the proteins present in humans.

For example, the genetic analyses published in New Scientist have revealed a 75% similarity between the DNA of nematode worms and man.27 This definitely does not mean that there is only a 25% difference between man and these worms!

On the other hand, in another finding which also appeared in the media, it was stated that the comparisons carried out between the genes of fruit flies belonging to the Drosophila genus and human genes yielded a similarity of 60%. 3

When living things other than man are studied, it appears that there is no molecular relationship such as that claimed by evolutionists. [4] This fact shows that the concept of similarity is not evidence for evolution.

“Common design”: The reason for similarities

It is surely natural for the human body to bear some molecular similarities to other living beings, because they all are made up of the same molecules, they all use the same water and atmosphere, and they all consume foods consisting of the same molecules. Certainly, their metabolisms, and therefore their genetic make-ups, would resemble one another. This, however, is not evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor.

This “common material” is the result not of evolution but of “common design,” that is, of their being created upon the same plan.

It is possible to explain this matter with an example: all construction in the world is done with similar materials (brick, iron, cement, etc.). This, however, does not mean that these buildings “evolved” from each other. They are constructed separately by using common materials. The same holds for living beings as well.

However, the complexity of the structure of living things cannot be compared to that of bridges, of course.

Life did not originate as the result of unconscious coincidences as evolution claims, but as the result of the creation of God, the Almighty, the possessor of infinite knowledge and wisdom.


2. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992833
3. Karen Hopkin, “The Greatest Apes,” New Scientist, vol. 62, issue 2186, 15 May 1999, p. 27, (emphasis added)
4. Hurriyet, February 24, 2000, (emphasis added

Answers to Two Claim Of Darwinists About Cambrian Explosions

•July 21, 2007 • Leave a Comment


First Claim :  the fossil record is insufficient and fragmentary

The first excuse for the Cambrian explosion that evolutionists put forward is the claim that the fossil record is insufficient. Because of their great age, most fossils of living things from the Precambrian have not survived, they suggest-for which reason the “surviving” remains give the impression that living things emerged suddenly.

The fact is, however, that the fossil record is not deficient, as evolutionists would have us believe. Today, many strata belonging to the later part of the Precambrian and the Cambrian have been unearthed. Paleontologists have become convinced that if the ancestors of Cambrian living things had existed during the Precambrian, we would have found them by now. According to paleontologists James W. Valentine of California Universty and Douglas Erwin, of the Smithsonian Institute, the fossil record from the Cambrian period is as complete as more recent fossil strata, which also display similar features and time gaps.

Despite that, however, Valentine and Erwin arrive at the following conclusion, stating that their ancestors or transitional forms are unknown. “Explosion is real; it is too big to be masked by flaws in the fossil record.”[1]

In an article in February 2000, the British geologists M. J. Benton, M. A. Wills and R. Hitchin wrote that “the older fossil records are adequate to recount important events in the history of life,”[2]thus announcing that there could be no question of using the insufficiency of the fossil record as an excuse.

Second Claim : Small and soft-bodied creatures left no fossils behind them

Another excuse evolutionists employ with regard to the Cambrian explosion-that small and soft-bodied creatures left no fossils behind them-is similarly invalid. According to this reasoning, the ancestors of animal phyla are not found in the Precambrian because they were very tiny and had no hard structures, and so left no fossils behind them. Yet this is not actually the case: There are numerous fossils of soft-bodied organisms. Nearly all of the fossils in the Ediacara Hills in Australia, for example, consist of soft-bodied creatures. In his 1998 book The Crucible of Creation, Simon Conway Morris writes that “First, in the Ediacaran organisms there is no evidence for any skeletal hard parts . . . Ediacaran fossils look as if they were effectively soft-bodied.”[3] The same applies to some fossils from the Cambrian Period. For instance, there are a number of fossils of soft-bodied living things in Burgess Shale. According to Conway Morris, “these remarkable fossils reveal not only their outlines but sometimes even internal organs such as the intestine or muscles.”[4]

To make it clear that fossilization is not that difficult a process, recall that fossil bacteria have even been found: Micro-fossils of bacteria have been discovered in sedimentary rock layers more than 3 billion years old!

In short, the evolutionary ancestors of the life forms that emerged in the Cambrian Explosion have not been found in the Precambrian Period, but not because those life forms were soft-bodied.

In conclusion, evolutionists are unable to find any excuse for the Cambrian Explosion. This sudden appearance of life on Earth proves that the theory of evolution is wrong.


1) James W. Valentine et al., “The Biological Explosion at the Precambrian-Cambrian Boundary,” Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 25, 1991, p. 318.
2) M. J. Benton, M. A. Wills and R. Hitchin, “Quality of the Fossil Record Through Time,” Nature, Vol. 403, 2000, pp. 534-536.
3) Simon Conway Morris, The Crucible of Creation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998, p. 28.
4)Ibid., p. 2.


•July 21, 2007 • Leave a Comment

Archaeopteryx, which lived some 150 million years ago, is the species animal most often put forward by evolutionists as evidence for evolution. A great many of them suggest that Archaeopteryx is an extinct transitional form, exhibiting both reptile and bird characteristics. However, such modern evolutionist authorities as Alan Feduccia discount this claim as false.

The latest studies on fossils of Archaeopteryx have revealed that this was no transitional form, but a species of bird, with a few features slightly different from those of birds living today.

Herewith, some evolutionist claims regarding Archaeopteryx as a transitional form, and answers to them:

1. The subsequently discovered breastbone: Until recently, Archaeopteryx was portrayed as having no sternum or breastbone, which lack was put forward as most important evidence that it was unable to fly. (The breastbone lies under the rib cage and is where the muscles essential for flight are attached. All modern-day bird, flying or flightless, and even bats, which belongs to a family very different from birds, have breastbones.)

The seventh Archaeopteryx fossil discovered in 1992 proved, however, that this argument was false. That fossil did in fact possess the breastbone which up until then, evolutionists had discounted.[1]

This discovery removed the fundamental basis of the claims that Archaeopteryx was a semi-bird, and flightless.

2. The structure of its feathers: One of the most important pieces of evidence that Archaeopteryx was able to fly is the bird’s feather structure. Its asymmetrical feather structure, identical to that of modern-day birds, shows that it was capable of perfect flight. As stated by the well-known paleontologist Carl O. Dunbar, “because of its feathers [Archæopteryx is] distinctly to be classed as a bird.[2]

The paleontologist Robert Carroll offers this explanation on the subject:

The geometry of the flight feathers of Archæopteryx is identical with that of modern flying birds, whereas nonflying birds have symmetrical feathers. The way in which the feathers are arranged on the wing also falls within the range of modern birds . . . According to Van Tyne and Berger, the relative size and shape of the wing of Archæopteryx are similar to that of birds that move through restricted openings in vegetation, such as gallinaceous birds, doves, woodcocks, woodpeckers, and most passerine birds. . . . The flight feathers have been in stasis for at least 150 million years. . . . [3]

3. The claws on its wings and the teeth in its beak: Evolutionists formerly considered the fact that Archaeopteryx had claws on its wings and teeth in its mouth as one of the major proofs that it was a transitional form. Yet these features do not demonstrate any relationship between this animal and reptiles. Two modern-day species of bird, Touraco corythaix and Opisthocomus hoazin, also have claws that help them to cling onto branches. These animals are fully-fledged birds, with no reptilian features. The argument that Archaeopteryx must be a transitional form because it had claws is therefore invalid.

Neither do the teeth in Archaeopteryx‘s mouth make it a transitional form. Evolutionists are wrong to suggest that these teeth are a reptilian characteristic. Some modern-day reptiles have teeth, but others do not. More importantly, species of toothed birds are not limited to Archaeopteryx. Though they are no longer alive today, when we look at the fossil record-at the same period as Archaeopteryx, afterward, or even at very recent history-we find a separate bird group that we may refer to as toothed birds.

More important is that the tooth structure of Archaeopteryx and other birds is very different from that of dinosaurs, these birds’ so-called ancestors. According to measurements by such well-known ornithologists as L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart and K. N. Whetstone, Archaeopteryx and other birds’ teeth are flat-topped and broad-rooted. On the other hand, the teeth of the Theropod dinosaurs, claimed to have been the ancestors of birds, are irregularly topped and narrow-rooted.[4]The same researchers also compared the wrist bones of Archaeopteryx and its alleged Theropod ancestors, revealing that there was no similarity between them.[5]

Similarities between this creature and dinosaurs suggested by John Ostrom, one of the most eminent authorities to claim that Archaeopteryx evolved from dinosaurs, were revealed by such anatomists as S. Tarsitano, M. K. Hecht and A. D. Walker to be false interpretations.123

4. Archaeopteryx’s ear structure: A. D. Walker studied the ear structure of Archaeopteryx and stated that it was the same as that in present-day birds.124

5. Archaeopteryx’s wings: J. Richard Hinchcliffe of the University of Wales Biological Sciences Department used modern isotopic techniques in his study of embryos and established that the three dinosaur digits on the forelimbs are I-II-III, whereas bird wing digits are II-III-IV. This is a major difficulty for the proponents of the so-called Archaeopteryx-dinosaur link.[6]Hinchcliffe’s research and observations were carried in the famous magazine Science in 1977:

Doubts about homology between theropod and bird digits remind us of some of the other problems in the “dinosaur-origin” hypothesis. These include the following: (i) The much smaller theropod forelimb (relative to body size) in comparison with the Archaeopteryx wing. Such small limbs are not convincing as proto-wings for a ground-up origin of flight in the relatively heavy dinosaurs. (ii) The rarity in theropods of the semilunate wrist bone, known in only four species (including Deinonychus). Most theropods have relatively large numbers of wrist elements, difficult to homologize with those of Archaeopteryx. (iii) The temporal paradox that most theropod dinosaurs and in particular the birdlike dromaeosaurs are all very much later in the fossil record than Archaeopteryx.[7]6. Incompatible timing: The incompatible timing identified by Hinchcliffe is one of the most lethal blows dealt to evolutionists’ claims regarding Archaeopteryx. In his book Icons of Evolution, published in 2000, the American biologist Jonathan Wells emphasizes how Archaeopteryx was made into an icon for the theory of evolution, even though the evidence showed that it was not a primitive ancestor of birds at all. One of the indications of this, according to Wells, is that the Theropod dinosaurs suggested as the ancestors of Archaeopteryx are actually younger than it:

But two-legged reptiles that ran along the ground, and had other features one might expect in an ancestor of Archaeopteryx, appear later. [8]

This all goes to show that Archaeopteryx is not a transitional form, but merely belongs to a separate classification, which may be described as toothed birds. Building a relationship between this animal and theropods is exceedingly inconsistent. In an article called “Demise of the ‘Birds are Dinosaurs’ Theory,” the American biologist Richard L. Deem had this to say about the idea of the so-called bird-dinosaur evolution and Archaeopteryx:

The results of the recent studies show that the hands of the theropod dinosaurs are derived from digits I, II, and III, whereas the wings of birds, although they look alike in terms of structure, are derived from digits II, III, and IV . . . There are other problems with the “birds are dinosaurs” theory. The theropod forelimb is much smaller (relative to body size) than that of Archaeopteryx. The small “proto-wing” of the theropod is not very convincing, especially considering the rather hefty weight of these dinosaurs. The vast majority of the theropods lack the semilunate wrist bone, and have a large number of other wrist elements which have no homology to the bones of Archaeopteryx. In addition, in almost all theropods, nerve V1 exits the braincase out the side, along with several other nerves, whereas in birds, it exits out the front of the braincase, through its own hole . . . . There is also the minor problem that the vast majority of the theropods appeared after the appearance of Archaeopteryx. [9]

8.Other ancient bird fossils: Some recently discovered fossils reveal other aspects of the invalidity of the evolutionist scenario with regard to Archaeopteryx.

In 1995, two research paleontologists from the Vertebrate Paleontology Institute in China, Lianhai Hou and Zhonghe Zhou, discovered a new bird fossil they named Confuciusornis. This bird, 140 million years old, more or less the same age as the 150- million-year-old Archaeopteryx, had no teeth, and its beak and feathers exhibited the same features as modern birds. On the wings of this bird-with its skeletal structure the same as those of birds of today- were claws like those of Archaeopteryx. The structures known as pygostyles, which support the tail feathers, could also be seen.[10]

In short, this creature, more or less the same age as Archaeopteryx, regarded by evolutionists as the oldest ancestor of all birds and as a semi-reptile, bore a close resemblance to modern-day birds. This conflicts with the evolutionist thesis that Archaeopteryx is the primitive ancestor of all birds.

Another fossil, found in China in November 1996, confused matters even more. The existence of this 130 million-year-old bird, known as Liaoningornis, was announced by L. Hou, L. D. Martin and Alan Feduccia in a paper in Science magazine.

Liaoningornis possessed a breastbone to which the flight muscles cling in modern birds. It was also identical to them in almost all other respects. The only difference was that it had teeth in its mouth. This demonstrated that toothed birds did not possess the primitive structure claimed by evolutionists.[11 ]

Another fossil which tore down evolutionists’ claims concerning Archaeopteryx was Eoalulavis. Some 25 to 30 million years younger than Archaeopteryx, at 120 million years of age, Eoalulavis had the same wing structure as some flying birds today. This proved that creatures identical in many respects to modern birds were flying in the skies 120 million years ago.[12]

In 2002, Ricardo N. Melchor, Silvina de Valais and Jorge F. Genise announced in Nature magazine that they had found footprints belonging to birds which had lived 55 million years before Archaeopteryx:

The known history of birds starts in the Late Jurassic epoch (around 150 Myr ago) with the record of Archaeopteryx. . . . … Here we describe well-preserved and abundant footprints with clearly avian characters from a Late Triassic redbed sequence of Argentina at least 55 Myr before the first known skeletal record of birds.[13]

It was thus definitively demonstrated that Archaeopteryx and other archaic birds did not constitute transitional forms. The fossils did not indicate that different bird species had evolved from one another. On the contrary, they proved that modern birds and certain Archaeopteryx-like species lived together. Some of these birds, such as Confuciusornis and Archaeopteryx, went extinct, and only a limited number came down to the present day.


1) Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1961, p. 310.
2) Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 280-81.
3) L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart, K. N. Whetstone, The Auk, vol. 98, 1980, p. 86.
122 Ibid.
4)P. Tarsitano, M. K. Hecht, Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society, Vol. 69, 1985, p. 178; A. D. Walker, Geological Magazine, Vol. 177, 1980, p. 595.
5) Peter Dodson, “International Archæopteryx Conference,” Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, June 1985, Vol. 5, no. 2, p. 177.
6) Richard Hinchliffe, “The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaurs Halted?,” Science, Vol. 278, No. 5338, 24 October 1997, pp. 596-597.
7) Ibid.
8) Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, New York: Regnery Publishing, 2000, p. 117.
9) Richard L. Deem, “Demise of the ‘Birds are Dinosaurs’ Theory,” http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/dinobird.html
10) Pat Shipman, “Birds do it . . . Did Dinosaurs?,” New Scientist, 1 February 1997, p. 31.
11) “Old Bird,” Discover, Vol. 18, No. 03, March 1997.
12)Pat Shipman, Op cit., p. 28.
13) R.N. Melchor, P. de Valais, J.F. Genise, “Bird-like fossil footprints from the Late Triassic,” Nature, 2002, Vol. 417, pp. 936-938.
14)David Williamson, “Scientist says ostrich study confirms bird ‘hands’ unlike those of dinosaurs,” http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/

Miller’s Experiment

•July 2, 2007 • Leave a Comment




 The most generally respected study on the origin of life is the Miller experiment conducted by the American researcher Stanley Miller in 1953. (The experiment is also known as the “Urey-Miller experiment” because of the contribution of Miller’s instructor at the University of Chicago, Harold Urey.) This experiment is the only “evidence” evolutionists have with which to allegedly prove the “chemical evolution thesis”; they advance it as the first stage of the supposed evolutionary process leading to life. Although nearly half a century has passed, and great technological advances have been made, nobody has made any further progress. In spite of this, Miller’s experiment is still taught in textbooks as the evolutionary explanation of the earliest generation of living things. That is because, aware of the fact that such studies do not support, but rather actually refute, their thesis, evolutionist researchers deliberately avoid embarking on such experiments.

Stanley Miller’s aim was to demonstrate by means of an experiment that amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, could have come into existence “by chance” on the lifeless earth billions of years ago. In his experiment, Miller used a gas mixture that he assumed to have existed on the primordial earth (but which later proved unrealistic), composed of ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and water vapor. Since these gases would not react with each other under natural conditions, he added energy to the mixture to start a reaction among them. Supposing that this energy could have come from lightning in the primordial atmosphere, he used an electric current for this purpose.

Miller heated this gas mixture at 100°C for a week and added the electrical current. At the end of the week, Miller analyzed the chemicals which had formed at the bottom of the jar, and observed that three out of the 20 amino acids which constitute the basic elements of proteins had been synthesized.

This experiment aroused great excitement among evolutionists, and was promoted as an outstanding success. Moreover, in a state of intoxicated euphoria, various publications carried headlines such as “Miller creates life.” However, what Miller had managed to synthesize was only a few inanimate molecules.

Encouraged by this experiment, evolutionists immediately produced new scenarios. Stages following the development of amino acids were hurriedly hypothesized. Supposedly, amino acids had later united in the correct sequences by accident to form proteins. Some of these proteins which emerged by chance formed themselves into cell membrane-like structures which “somehow” came into existence and formed a primitive cell. These cells then supposedly came together over time to form multicellular living organisms.

However, Miller’s experiment has since proven to be false in many respects.

Some Facts That Invalidate Miller’s Experiment

1- By using a mechanism called a “cold trap,” Miller isolated the amino acids from the environment as soon as they were formed. Had he not done so, the conditions in the environment in which the amino acids were formed would immediately have destroyed these molecules.

Doubtless, this kind of conscious isolation mechanism did not exist on the primordial earth. Without such a mechanism, even if one amino acid were obtained, it would immediately have been destroyed. The chemist Richard Bliss expresses this contradiction by observing that “Actually, without this trap, the chemical products, would have been destroyed by the energy source.” (I)And, sure enough, in his previous experiments, Miller had been unable to make even one single amino acid using the same materials without the cold trap mechanism.

2) The primordial atmosphere that Miller attempted to simulate in his experiment was not realistic. In the 1980s, scientists agreed that nitrogen and carbon dioxide should have been used in this artificial environment instead of methane and ammonia.

So why did Miller insist on these gases? The answer is simple: without ammonia, it was impossible to synthesize any amino acid. Kevin Mc Kean talks about this in an article published in Discover magazine:

Miller and Urey imitated the ancient atmosphere on the Earth with a mixture of methane and ammonia. …However in the latest studies, it has been understood that the Earth was very hot at those times, and that it was composed of melted nickel and iron. Therefore, the chemical atmosphere of that time should have been formed mostly of nitrogen (N2), carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapour (H2O). However these are not as appropriate as methane and ammonia for the production of organic molecules[II]

The American scientists J. P. Ferris and C. T. Chen repeated Miller’s experiment with an atmospheric environment that contained carbon dioxide, hydrogen, nitrogen, and water vapor, and were unable to obtain even a single amino acid molecule.[III]


Another important point that invalidates Miller’s experiment is that there was enough oxygen to destroy all the amino acids in the atmosphere at the time when they were thought to have been formed. This fact, overlooked by Miller, is revealed by the traces of oxidized iron found in rocks that are estimated to be 3.5 billion years old. [IV]

There are other findings showing that the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere at that time was much higher than originally claimed by evolutionists. Studies also show that the amount of ultraviolet radiation to which the earth was then exposed was 10,000 times more than evolutionists’ estimates. This intense radiation would unavoidably have freed oxygen by decomposing the water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

This situation completely negates Miller’s experiment, in which oxygen was completely neglected. If oxygen had been used in the experiment, methane would have decomposed into carbon dioxide and water, and ammonia into nitrogen and water. On the other hand, in an environment where there was no oxygen, there would be no ozone layer either; therefore, the amino acids would have immediately been destroyed, since they would have been exposed to the most intense ultraviolet rays without the protection of the ozone layer. In other words, with or without oxygen in the primordial world, the result would have been a deadly environment for the amino acids.

4) At the end of Miller’s experiment, many organic acids had also been formed with characteristics detrimental to the structure and function of living things. If the amino acids had not been isolated, and had been left in the same environment with these chemicals, their destruction or transformation into different compounds through chemical reactions would have been unavoidable.

5) Urey also speculated that the oceans in the ancient earth must have consisted of about a 10% solution of organic compounds that would be very favourable for life’s origin. This level of organic matter would equal a concentration about 100 times higher than a modern American city’s sewer water. The total amount of extant organic compounds on the earth today could not produce even a fraction of that needed to achieve a concentration this high in the oceans.

6)                                                              All amino acids in proteins are ‘left-handed’, while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are ‘right-handed’.But Miller’s experiment also produced right-handed amino acids. [V]The existence of these amino acids refuted the theory even within its own terms, because right-handed amino acids cannot function in the composition of living organisms.


 Some Quotes About Miller’s Experiment

Geologist now think that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, gases that are less reactive than those used in the 1953 experiment. And even if Miller’s atmosphere could have existed, how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. “It’s a problem,” he sighs with exasperation. “How do you make polymers? That’s not so easy [VI]


Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different to what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.That’s bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules – the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup[VII]


I )Richard B. Bliss, Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, pp. 14-15.

II) Kevin Mc Kean, Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), no. 189, p. 7

III)  J. P. Ferris, C. T. Chen, “Photochemistry of Methane, Nitrogen, and Water Mixture As a Model for the Atmosphere of the Primitive Earth,” Journal of American Chemical Society, vol. 97:11, 1975, p. 2964

IV) “New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 63, November 1982, pp. 1328-1330

V)  Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, p. 16.

VI)  “Life’s Crucible,” Earth, February 1998, p. 34. (emphasis added)

VII) “The Rise of Life on Earth,” National Geographic, March 1998, p. 68. (emphasis added)