Page 718 - Atlas of Creation Volume 2

On the molecular level no organism is the "ancestor" of another, or more "primitive" or "advanced"
than another.

alous protein evolution and note that the explanations permissible under the molecular clock the-

ories cover a range of ad hoc explanations apparently limited only by imagination. 263
Schwabe reveals that the comparison of the arrangement of lysosomes, cytochromes, and

many hormones and amino acids show "unexpected results and anomalies" from the evolu-
tionary point of view. Based on all this evidence, Schwabe maintains that all proteins had
their present forms right from the start, undergoing no evolution, and that no intermediate
form has been found between molecules, in the same way as with fossils.
Concerning these findings in the field of molecular biology, Dr. Michael Denton
comments:

Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by intermediates. Thus, mole-
cules, like fossils, have failed to provide the elusive intermediates so long sought by evolution-
ary biology… At a molecular level, no organism is "ancestral" or "primitive" or "advanced"
compared with its relatives… There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been avail-
able a century ago… the idea of organic evolution might never have been accepted. 264

The "Tree of Life" is Collapsing

In the 1990s, research into the genetic codes of living things worsened the quandary faced by the theory of
evolution in this regard. In these experiments, instead of the earlier comparisons that were limited to protein
sequences, "ribosomal RNA" (rRNA) sequences were compared. From these findings, evolutionist scientists

sought to establish an "evolutionary tree." However, they were disappointed by the results.
According to a 1999 article by French biologists Hervé Philippe and Patrick Forterre, "with more and more
sequences available, it turned out that most protein phylogenies contradict each other as well as the rRNA
tree." 265
Besides rRNA comparisons, the DNA codes in the genes of living things were also compared, but the re-
sults have been the opposite of the "tree of life" presupposed by the theory of evolution. Molecular biologists

James A. Lake, Ravi Jain and Maria C. Rivera elaborated on this in an article in 1999:

…[S]cientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their relationship to each
other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone. 266

Neither the comparisons that have been made of proteins, nor those of rRNAs or of genes, confirm the
premises of the theory of evolution. Carl Woese, a highly reputed biologist from the University of Illinois, ad-
mits that the concept of "phylogeny" has lost its meaning in the face of molecular findings in this way:

No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced.
Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings
within and among the various [groups] to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves. 267

The fact that results of molecular comparisons are not in favor of, but rather opposed to, the theory of evo-
lution is also admitted in an article called "Is it Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?" published in Science in 1999.

This article by Elizabeth Pennisi states that the genetic analyses and comparisons carried out by Darwinist bi-
ologists in order to shed light on the "tree of life" actually yielded directly opposite results, and goes on to say
that "new data are muddying the evolutionary picture":

A year ago, biologists looking over newly sequenced genomes from more than a dozen microorganisms thought
these data might support the accepted plot lines of life's early history. But what they saw confounded them.
Comparisons of the genomes then available not only didn't clarify the picture of how life's major groupings

evolved, they confused it. And now, with an additional eight microbial sequences in hand, the situation has gotten

716 Atlas of Creation Vol. 2