Atheist Universe: Chapter 5
Initially Posted: January 29, 2007
Contents:
2. Origin of the Universe: Natural or Supernatural?
3. God of the Gaps: Does the Universe Show Evidence of Design?
4. The “Miracle” of Planetary Clockwork
5. The “Miracle” of Life on Earth
6. Can Genesis Be Reconciled with Modern Science?
7. “Miracles” of Christian Perception
9. Christian Fundamentalists and the “Danger” of Internet Porn
10. Was America Really Founded upon Christian Principles?
11. “Intelligent Design”: Christianity’s Newest Cult
5. The “Miracle” of Life on Earth:
In this chapter Mills argues that evolution (macroevolution) is not a myth, and presents evidence in favor of it. He defines evolution as “a gradual accumulation of functional adaptations.” 1 He also writes “Evolution has only three essentials for success: (1) time, (2) genetic variety among offspring and (3) a mechanism for preserving only beneficial variation. Such a mechanism is called natural, or cumulative selection, and was first proposed by Charles Darwin in 1859.” 2 He briefly explains how some creationists misunderstand the definition of “theory” in relation to evolution.
Next, he presents his evidence for evolution, but he fails to differentiate between (1) microevolution and (2) macroevolution. Microevolution refers to evolutionary changes in frequencies of alternative forms of genes within populations of organisms. Macroevolution “refers to evolution on a grand scale, encompassing the origins of new organismal structures and designs, evolutionary trends, adaptive radiation, phylogenic relationships of species, and mass extinction.” 3 The majority of creationists and ID advocates deem microevolution to be a fact, but they are skeptical of macroevolution. 4
He provides three lines of evidence in an attempt to show “evolution in action.”
First, he offers insect resistance to insecticides as evidence for evolution. 5 However, insect resistance to insecticides is an example of microevolution—not macroevolution.
Second, he offers bacterial resistance to antibiotics as evidence for evolution 6 —an example of microevolution as well.
Third, he presents the industrial melanism of peppered moths reported in the 1950s as evidence for evolution—another example of microevolution. This particular example of microevolution has a controversial history, however. 7
Next, Mills repeats Darwin’s hypothesis of the evolutionary process leading to the human eye. 8
Michael Behe writes the following: “Cleverly, Darwin didn’t try to discover a real pathway that evolution might have used to make the eye. Rather, he pointed to modern animals with different kinds of eyes (ranging from the simple to the complex) and suggested that the evolution of the human eye might have involved similar organs as intermediates …Darwin persuaded much of the world that a modern eye evolved gradually from a simpler structure, but he did not even try to explain where his starting point—the relatively simple light-sensitive spot—came from. On the contrary, Darwin dismissed the question of the eye’s ultimate origin: ‘How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated.’ ” 9
Behe continues: “When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. (A picosecond is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a single human hair.) The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters its behavior. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein, called transducin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but critically different from, GDP.)
GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to ‘cut’ a molecule called a cGMP (a chemical relative to both GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, just as a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub.
Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. IT acts as a gateway that regulates the number of sodium ions in the cell. Normally the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump keeps the level of sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell membrane that, finally, causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain. The result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision.
If the reactions mentioned above were the only ones that operated in the cell, the supply of 11-cis-retinal, cGMP, and sodium ions would quickly be depleted. Something has to turn off the proteins that were turned on and restore the cell to its original state. Several mechanisms do this. First, in the dark the ion channel (in addition to sodium ions) also lets calcium ions into the cell. The calcium is pumped back out by a different protein so that a constant calcium concentration is maintained. When cGMP levels fall, shutting down the ion channel, calcium ion concentration decreases, too. The phosphodiesterase enzyme, which destroys cGMP, slows down at lower calcium concentration. Second, a protein called guanylate cyclase begins to resynthesize cGMP when calcium levels start to fall. Third, while all of this is going on, metarhodopsin II is chemically modified by an enzyme called rhodopsin kinase. The modified rhodopsin then binds to a protein known as arrestin, which prevents the rhodopsin from activating more transducin. So the cell contains mechanisms to limit the amplified signal started by a single photon.
Trans-retinal eventually falls off of rhodopsin and must be reconverted to 11-cis-retinal and again bound by rhodopsin to get back to the starting point for another visual cycle. To accomplish this, trans-retinal is first chemically modified by an enzyme to trans-retinol—a form containing two more hydrogen atoms. A second enzyme then converts the molecule to 11-cis-retinol. Finally, a third enzyme removes the previously added hydrogen atoms to form 11-cis-retinal, a cycle is complete.
The above explanation is just a sketchy overview of the biochemistry of vision. Ultimately, though, this is the level of explanation for which biological science must aim. In order to truly understand a function, one must understand in detail every relevant step in the process. The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon—such as sight, digestion, or immunity—must include its molecular explanation.
Now that the black box of vision has been opened, it is no longer enough for an evolutionary explanation of that power to consider only the anatomical structures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the nineteenth century (and as popularizers of evolution continue to do today.) Each of the anatomical steps and structures that Darwin thought were so simple actually involves staggeringly complicated biochemical processes that cannot be papered over with rhetoric. Darwin’s metaphorical hops from butte to butte are now revealed in many cases to be huge leaps between carefully tailored machines—distances that would require a helicopter to cross in one trip.” 10
Behe also writes: “We are invited by Dawkins and Darwin to believe that the evolution of the eye proceeded step-by-step through a series of plausible intermediates in infinitesimal increments. But are they infinitesimal? Remember that the ‘light-sensitive spot’ that Dawkins takes as his starting point requires a cascade of factors, including 11-cis-retinal and rhodopsin, to function. Dawkins doesn’t mention them. And where did the ‘little cup’ come from? A ball of cells—from which the cup must be made—will tend to be rounded unless held in the correct shape by molecular supports. In fact, there are dozens of complex proteins involved in maintaining cell shape, and dozens more that control extracellular structure; in their absence, cells take on the shape of so many soap bubbles. Do these structures represent single-step mutations? Dawkins did not tell us how the apparently simple ‘cup’ shape came to be. And although he reassures us that any ‘translucent material’ would be an improvement (recall that Haeckel mistakenly thought it would be easy to produce cells since they were certainly just ‘simple lumps’), we are not told how difficult it is to produce a ‘simple lens.’ In short, Dawkins’s explanation is only addressed to the level of what is called gross anatomy.
Both Hitching and Dawkins have misdirected their focus. The eye, or indeed almost any large biological structure, consists of a number of discrete systems. The function of the retina alone is the perception of light. The function of the lens is to gather light and focus it. If a lens is used with a retina, the working of the retina is improved, but both the retina and lens can work by themselves. Similarly, the muscles that focus the lens or turn the eye function as a contraction apparatus, which can be applied to many different systems. The perception of light by the retina is not dependent on them. Tear ducts and eyelids are also complex systems, but separable from the function of the retina.
Hitching’s argument is vulnerable because he mistakes an integrated system of systems for a single system, and Dawkins rightly points out the separability of the components. Dawkins, however, merely adds complex systems to complex systems and calls that an explanation. This can be compared to answering the question ‘How is a stereo system made?’ with the words ‘By plugging a set of speakers into an amplifier, and adding a CD player, radio receiver, and tape deck.’ Either Darwinian theory can account for the assembly of the speakers and amplifiers, or it can’t” . 11
Mills then writes that eyes in all stages of development are found in nature. 12 However, Mills doesn’t mention that evolutionary biologists believe that eyelike organs have, at least partially , “evolved independently” at least 40 times! 13 This is an example of convergent evolution. However, this phenomenon could also be called “convergent design,” because it could be evidence of a Creator applying almost identical behaviors and structures to completely unrelated creatures. Mills also notes that there are many types of winged animals with different uses,14 but he neglects to emphasize the development of wings in many creatures is another example of convergence.
Dr. Hugh Ross writes:
“Naturalists have attempted to explain such convergence of design as the result of nearly identical environmental, predatory, and competitive pressures on these unrelated species. They propose that natural selection might have shaped these species in similar ways. This explanation poses at least two significant problems. First, design convergence permeates the fossil record. It is bound neither by time nor by circumstance. Given that naturalistic evolution supposedly happens in response to a larger number of unpredictable and often dissimilar events, design convergence resulting from natural processes should be extremely rare. Second, design convergence appears in species from radically different habitats facing widely diverse survival stresses. Different habitats imply different bases for natural selection. An example would be the chameleon, a reptile, and the sandlance, a fish. Both have eyes that move independently; when one eye is in motion, the other can remain motionless. Both use the cornea rather than the lens of the eye to focus on objects. Both have skin coverings for their eyes that make them less conspicuous to prey and predators. Both have the same kind of tongue and the same kind of tongue-launching mechanism for snagging prey, and yet these creatures remain far apart on any workable evolutionary chart. The RTB creation model explains convergence as the Creator’s efficient use of effective design templates.” 15
Go here for a more detailed analysis of convergent evolution and how it is relevant to the plausibility of macroevolution.
Mills also uses high extinction rates to argue against a Creator’s actions towards life on Earth. 16 However, Mills does mention stasis, which evolutionists believe has occurred numerous times for millions of years since creatures are so well-adapted to their environments. They posit this idea due to the apparent lack of evolution in specific creatures over long geological time periods. Mills also fails to address the instances of rapid reappearances of life on Earth after massive extinction events. Further, Psalm 104:29-30, could imply that God causes animals to go extinct and then replenishes life on Earth over time in preparation for the appearance of humans.
Mills proceeds by discussing the importance of the geologic column to evolutionary theory. He describes the order that evolution is said to have taken place as portrayed in the geological record. He states that Australopithecus was our species’ direct ancestor.17 However, relatively recent scientific discoveries challenge this statement. Some scientists consequently now believe Australopithecus was merely a side branch 18, meaning that it did not give rise to the Homo genus. For example, evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala recently proposed a new classification scheme for the hominids that classifies Australopithecus as a side branch and a dead end.19 The recent discoveries of Kenyanthropus platyops and Sahelanthropus tchadensis also cause more confusion about the human evolutionary tree. Neither Australopithecus africanus nor Australopithecus afarensis led to humanity if Kenyanthropus is a legitimate hominid taxon. 20 The australopithecines would again be an evolutionary side branch.
Mills proceeds to assert Homo habilis follows, then Homo erectus, and finally Homo Sapiens 21 (Yet, Homo sapiens sapiens is generally the name anthropologists assign to our species). However, Mills paints an oversimplified picture of human evolution here. Some scientists question the validity of the methods used to construct evolutionary relationships among the different species of hominids. For example, Mark Collard and Bernard Wood published a paper that raises questions about concerning the capability of paleoanthropologists to establish evolutionary relationships among hominids. 22 Paleoanthropologists generally utilize comparisons of hominid cranial and dental features to construct evolutionary trees, because fossils offer the best data available.23 However, Collard and Wood’s research compared evolutionary trees based on craniodental data with those built from DNA and protein sequences for two currently existing primate groups. The evolutionary trees were significantly different from each other. 24
Further, paleoanthropologists now realize that many species of hominids coexisted with each other! Go here to see some examples. The hominid fossil record resembles a lawn or a bush more than a tree. For a brief sample of difficulties related to human evolutionary theories, go here. Read chapter 9 of Who Was Adam? by Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Fazale Rana for a more in-depth analysis of this topic.
Mills claims that all creationists believe God created everything in a week and that humans were contemporaries with dinosaurs. 25 This is false. This is part of the young-earth creationist view, but Mills neglects to mention other creationists believe God created life over long periods of time. Dr. Hugh Ross is an old-earth creationist. Moreover, his organization, Reasons to Believe, has devised a testable creation model that predicts the geologic column would closely resemble the creation sequence of events in Genesis 1, and other creation accounts in the Bible.
Mills asserts that creationists argue “The geologic column reveals the Cambrian Explosion, a sudden appearance of many diverse life-forms.” 26 He also thinks all creationists believe the Cambrian Explosion represents one literal week. 27 This is misleading as well. Old-earth creationists do not believe the Cambrian Explosion represents only one week.Go here and here to find out more about what old-earth creationists think about the Cambrian Explosion. Also, consult Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off, by Dr. Fazale Rana and Dr. Hugh Ross.
Mills agrees that Cambrian rock layers show the sudden appearance of many life forms. However, Mills claims that paleontologists “are referring to a time span of tens of millions of years.” 28 This is not entirely correct. Dr. Ross writes, “Some paleontologists report that more than seventy animal phyla (strictly marine animals) appeared in less than 2-3 million years.”
Mills assures his readers that Cambrian rock layers show a dramatic increase in fossil remains merely due to the inability of Precambrian life forms to fossilize. However, paleontologists acknowledge that there really was an “explosion” of numerous animal phyla. Evolutionists Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee write, “Most organisms from the youngest ‘Precambrian’ time both were tiny and lacked skeletons, so they rarely left obvious traces in the fossil record…The Cambrian Explosion remains a relatively sudden and signal outburst of animals—an unleashing of abundant and voracious creatures upon the earlier bacterial world, which continues, unabated, more than half a billion years later.” 29 Paleontologists are working hard to develop theories to explain this “explosion.” Here is an example.
Brownlee and Ward write: “In other words, is the Cambrian Explosion merely an artifact of a very imperfect fossil record? Skeletons make fossilization possible; it may be that the actual diversification of body plans that appears to mark the Cambrian Explosion actually took place long before but is invisible to us because it took place among small animals without skeletons, which left no fossils…Something stimulated the evolution of many large animals with skeletons in a brief period of geological time.” (emphasis in the original text) 30
Although Brownlee and Ward assume macroevolution, they acknowledge many large animals with skeletons emerged in a brief period of geological time.
Old-earth creationists do not claim that all life-forms appeared simultaneously. On the contrary, they report: “The sudden and simultaneous appearance of more than seventy complex animal phyla (groups of animals with the same basic body plan) …” 31
Thus, Mills has not adequately dealt with all of the creationist arguments regarding the Cambrian Explosion.
Mills proceeds to address the creationist objection that there are gaps in the fossil record. Mills responds by saying gaps exist because transitional forms failed to fossilize. He also accuses creationists of committing the “god-of-the-gaps” fallacy again. See Dr. Ross and J.P. Moreland’s responses to this charge above. Mills also says that creationists never acknowledge “intermediate fossils” that are discovered. However, one must ask: how does one determine what an intermediate fossil is? Scientists know that convergent evolution occurs, producing nearly identical anatomical structures in “evolutionary unrelated” creatures. There is no way to rule out the possibility that the “intermediate forms” in the fossil record are purely examples of convergent evolution. Further, Reasons to Believe’s (RTB’s) creation model predicts that similar body plans will be discovered, because a Creator may reuse similar templates.
Mills comments that no “missing link” raises doubts about the evolution of Homo sapiens from Homo erectus. 32 However, there are other types of data that do raise doubts about this alleged evolutionary development.
Mills moves on to discuss the creationist objection that evolutionists disagree about the way evolution occurs. Specifically, Mills deals with creationist objections to the issue of the gradualism model vs. the punctuated equilibrium model of macroevolution. He contends that gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are complementary. He relates that external pressure exerted on a species sometimes causes the species to evolve rapidly, and that species either evolve quickly or go extinct. 33 However, consider Dr. Hugh Ross’ comments below:
“A natural-cause hypothesis called punctuated equilibria has been proposed. Originated by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, the concept is that species at low population levels and under extreme environmental stress will experience rapid mutational advance, advance so rapid and at such low population levels that no evidence of the stages of advance will show up in the fossil record. One of the best responses I have heard to this hypothesis came from a group of evolutionary biologists I met on one of my trips to Africa. As proponents of gradualism (the hypothesis that all the changes in life forms take place very gradually), they argued convincingly that for species of low population suffering environmental stress the probability for mutational advance is utterly remote. Those interested in the details of their case will find them in our two-tape cassette, "Species Development: Natural Process or Divine Action."”
Mills asserts that “ancient cellular life did not contain the complex nucleic acids and organelles found within modern cells.” 34 However, he provides no documentation in support of this comment. Recent scientific discoveries indicate that the earliest life-forms on Earth were probably complex. Most origin of life researchers believe bacterial was the first life form to emerge. Microbiologists Lucy Shapiro and Richard Losick write that “…the subcellular organization of bacterial cells has revealed a surprising extent of protein compartmentalization and localization.” 35 Bacteria chromosomes must “have a specific orientation within the cell.” 36 Further, “a complex ensemble of proteins must not only segregate the two newly reproduced DNA circles” during cell division, but “must also maintain the chromosomes in the correct orientation.” 37 The cell dies if this does not occur. This is just the tip of the iceberg of the complexity of the “simplest” type of life.
Mills also briefly summarizes the Miller-Urey experiment in which Stanley Miller and Harold Urey managed to cause some amino acids to form from a mixture of ammonia, methane, water, and hydrogen gas. Mills asserts that “ammonia, methane, water, and hydrogen gas” were all “present in abundance on the primordial Earth.” 38 He goes on to claim, “The origin of life required only organic molecules, water and, most importantly, millions of years to develop.” 39 There are many problems here. First, modern scientists concede that they currently have no idea how life first arose on Earth. Second, scientists realize the conditions on the primordial Earth did not match those of the Miller-Urey experiment. According to the authors of Integrated Principles of Zoology (2004), a college animal anatomy textbook, “Miller’s experiments have been criticized in light of current opinion that the early atmosphere on earth was quite different from Miller’s strongly reducing simulated atmosphere.” 40
Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Fazale Rana concur with this conclusion. They write, “Recent advances now indicate, however, that Earth’s earliest atmosphere was not reducing but neutral, consisting of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and water vapor. Even in the complete absence of molecular oxygen, this atmosphere could not have sustained the production of prebiotic molecules.” 41
Mills claims that creationists offer no scientific reasons for their conclusions that there are limits for evolution. 42 He posits that creationists only quote Scripture to make their case. This is false. I recommend that the reader read this online article. Also, read the book The Natural Limits to Biological Change. Second Edition, by Raymond G. Bohlin and Lane P. Lester for a more elaborate discussion. Mills requests scientific data that indicate there are “limits for evolution.” 43 Well, scientific observations regarding dog breeding and fruit fly experiments seem to imply genetic limits are built into basic types of living things. Regardless of dog breeders’ efforts, they always end up with dogs. Also, scientists who force generations of fruit flies to mutate always remain fruit flies. As Dr. Geisler notes, “This is especially significant because the short life of fruit flies allows scientists to test many years of genetic variation in a short period of time.” 44
Mills offers four examples from the fossil record in support of macroevolution. First, Mills posits that the lobed-finned fish, popularly known as the coelacanth, was an intermediate form between fish and amphibians. Evolutionary paleontologists used to believe this fossilized creature’s fins showed evidence of evolving into legs. However, the coelacanth is an example of a “living fossil,” which means this creature remained unchanged from the time it fossilized until the 20th century. Biologists have discovered that there is no anatomical evidence that the fins were evolving into legs.
Second, Mills claims amphibians were transitional forms between aquatic and land-dwelling reptiles. However, he provides no examples of fossils that support this assertion.
Third, Mills repeats the common evolutionist view that cynodonts, a suborder of the order therapsid, “bridged the gap between reptiles and mammals.” 45 Robert L. Carroll writes, “[we] cannot yet recognize the specific [cynodont] lineage that led to mammals.” 46 Biochemist Roger Lewin writes, “The transition to the first mammal, which probably happened in just one or, at most, two lineages, is still an enigma.” 47 I encourage the reader to read the below resources 48 to learn more about the problems associated with the claim that cynodonts were transition forms between reptiles and mammals.
Fourth, Mills claims Archaeopteryx was a macro-evolutionary transitional form 49. However, this is false as well. Go here for more detailed information regarding bird evolution from therapod dinosaurs, in general.
Go here for a more detailed analysis of the examples Mills provides.
Mills discusses the “Eve Hypothesis” or “Mitochondrial Eve” near the end of this chapter. I recommend that the reader consult Who Was Adam? by Dr. Fazale Rana and Dr. Hugh Ross for more information about this topic.
Endnotes:
1. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 107.
2. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 107.
3. Integrated Principles of Zoology. Twelfth Edition, ed. Cleveland P. Hickman, Jr., Larry S. Roberts, Allan Larson, Helen I' Anson (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004), 120.
4. Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: A TOUCHSTONE BOOK PUBLISHED BY SIMON & SCHUSTER, 1996), 15.
5. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 108.
6. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 109-110.
7. See: J.A. Bishop and L.M. Cook, (1975). “Moths, melanism, and clean air,” Scientific American, vol. 232, January.
8. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 111-112.
9. Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: A TOUCHSTONE BOOK PUBLISHED BY SIMON & SCHUSTER, 1996), 18.
10. Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: A TOUCHSTONE BOOK PUBLISHED BY SIMON & SCHUSTER, 1996), 18-22.
11. Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: A TOUCHSTONE BOOK PUBLISHED BY SIMON & SCHUSTER, 1996), 38-39.
12. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 112.
13. Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is (New York: Basic Books, 2001), 205.
14. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 113.
15. Hugh Ross, Creation as Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/Evolution Wars (Colorado Springs, CO: NAVPRESS, 2006), 144-146.
16. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 113.
17. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 117.
18. Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross,Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2005), 146.
19. Camilo J. Cela-Conde and Francisco J. Ayala, “Genera of the Human Lineage,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 100 (2003): 7684-7689.
20. Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross,Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2005), 148.
21. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 117.
22. Mark Collard and Bernard Wood, “How Reliable Are Human Phylogenetic Hypotheses?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 97 (2000): 5003-5006.
23. Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross,Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2005), 149.
24. Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross,Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2005), 149.
25. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 118.
26. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 118.
27. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 118.
28. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 118-119.
29. Donald Brownlee & Peter D. Ward, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe (New York: Copernicus Books, 2000), 130, 131.
30. Donald Brownlee & Peter D. Ward, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe (New York: Copernicus Books, 2000), 150.
31. Hugh Ross and Fazale Rana, Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off (Colorado Springs, CO: NAVPRESS, 2004), 206.
32. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006),121.
33. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006),122.
34. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006),123.
35. Lucy Shapiro and Richard Losick, “Protein Localization and Cell Fate in Bacteria,” Science 276 (1997), 712-718.
36. Hugh Ross and Fazale Rana, Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off (Colorado Springs, CO: NAVPRESS, 2004),166.
37. Hugh Ross and Fazale Rana, Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off (Colorado Springs, CO: NAVPRESS, 2004),166.
38.David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 124.
39. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 124.
40. Integrated Principles of Zoology. Twelfth Edition, ed. Cleveland P. Hickman, Jr., Larry S. Roberts, Allan Larson, Helen I' Anson (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004), 27.
41. Hugh Ross and Fazale Rana, Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off (Colorado Springs, CO: NAVPRESS, 2004), 100.
42. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 126.
43. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 126.
44. Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2004), 142.
45. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 126.
46. Carroll, Robert L. 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. W. H. Freeman. New York, Pg. 361, 397, 377, 398, 395.
47. Lewin, Roger [biochemist, former editor of New Scientist and science writer], "Bones of mammals' ancestors fleshed out," Science, Vol. 212, 26 June 1981, p.1492.
48. http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/839 ; Carroll, Robert L. 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. W. H. Freeman. New York, Pg. 361, 397, 377, 398, 395; Lewin, Roger [biochemist, former editor of New Scientist and science writer], "Bones of mammals' ancestors fleshed out," Science, Vol. 212, 26 June 1981, p.1492; Philip Johnson, Darwin on Trial. Second Edition (Downer’s Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 77-79.
49. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 127.