You have probably heard the question before about, “What
came first, the chicken or the egg?” Everybody knows that chickens come from
eggs, but we also know that you don’t get eggs unless you have chickens first.
So we have a puzzle that goes around and around trying to
figure out the origin of life question. In fact Wikipedia says the chicken
versus the egg question goes way back in history to ancient philosophers, even
including the writings of Aristotle 350 years before Christ.
Evolutionists would probably follow Wikipedia in saying that
the egg came first because mutations would occur in the reproductive process of
some other species and the resulting egg when hatched became a modern day
chicken.
That’s not very satisfactory to me since I see quite a few
more chicken or the egg issues that are hiding inside consecutive layers inside
of other layers of the chicken and the egg question.
If you have read my Proof for God #27 on Mutation [1], then
you know that decades of scientific research on mutation has never been shown
to produce any viable new species. That’s just one challenge.
Think about another fact. No chicken hatches from an egg if
the egg is not fertilized by a rooster. So there is another important half of
the egg to consider, the male input. Scientists now know that the fertilization
takes place way inside the hen and that the egg forms from a protein that is not
found in any other animal.
Suppose the impossible could happen and there is actually a
mutation of the pre-chicken species that evolutionists claim led up to the
chicken. Did the mutation take place before, during, or after fertilization by
a necessary type of male component?
Let’s designate the female parent’s sex chromosomes as the
standard XX and the male parent’s sex chromosomes as XY. Then the egg will have
one X chromosome. The male parent contributes either an X or a Y. If there is a
mutation in the X chromosome, call it X, what
you are going to get in the next generation is either XX
or XY, neither of which is really a chicken. The
odds in random mutations are that it won’t survive to reproduce, but if it did,
the odds are only 50-50 that the X would
be passed to the next generation.
Can you recognize that there also has to be a “chicken-mutation”,
if you will, from the rooster side. That’s also impossible by our definition. (See
Proof #81 Definition of Impossible [2]) Even if it occurred somewhere on the
earth, you’d still have to get a successful mating of the two individuals with
mutated chromosomes.
Even if you somehow got a mutation that lead to XX which could be a hen (female chicken), you are still a long, long way from an XY chromosome set in order to get a rooster (the male chicken). Until you have a female and a male, there will never be a new species.
The odds of any one such mutation occurring are already
impossible (again see [2]), but it is even more impossible that both mutations
occur within the same generation and those two individuals mate with each
other.
As I think about it, almost every aspect of an animal’s body
poses more chicken or the egg problems. Here are some examples:
Which came first, the heart or the arteries and veins to
circulate the blood it is pumping?
Which came first, the heart or the lungs to oxygenate the
blood that the heart pumps?
Which came first, the muscles throughout the body or the
nerves connecting them to the brain to make the muscles work at all?
Which came first, the eyeball or the optic nerve connecting
the signals to the brain for interpretation?
Which came first on birds, the wings or the feathers?
What came first, the stomach or the mouth it is attached to?
What came first, the left leg or the right leg?
Which eye came first, the right eye or the left eye?
What came first, the arm or the hand on the end?
Which came first, the male or the female? What about the
sperm and the egg? They both had to emerge simultaneously it seems to me. One
or the other all alone doesn’t make any sense.
.jpg)
The Theory of Evolution is all about slow, gradual, and
incremental changes over many generations. So I think it is a very fair
question to ask, “Which came first”?
If you allow for an intelligent designer, as I do, then
there is no problem with what came first. Think about designing a car. What
came first, the wheels or the axles? What came first, the axles or the drive
shaft? What came first, the drive shaft or the steering wheel? You could ask
hundreds of questions like that and in the mind of the designer there would be
answers to what the thought process was. But all the designing was done in the
mind. It was all invisible before any prototype was ever created.
Without the invisible design being created first, nothing
ever happens in the material world. The material world is the world of effect,
not the world of cause.
Once something has been brought into existence in the
material world, then further modifications can be made on it.
This, in fact, pretty accurately describes the fossil
record. (See my Proof #58 The Cambrian Explosion [3] and Proof #64 Missing
Links [4] for more elaboration.) Most species that appear in the fossil record
will appear suddenly and they will be fully formed when they do.
The Theory of Evolution cannot adequately explain the fossil
record, cannot show scientific examples of any species mutating into another
species, and cannot explain where the very first life came from to name just three
of its major flaws.
We are all very familiar with the process of creating
something. It first starts in the mind where it is invisible. The artist does
not put blob after blob of paint on the canvas randomly and end up with a
recognizable image of anything. The artist starts with an invisible image in
his/her mind as the goal or end product. Then energy, information, and forces
are added to bring it into existence.
That’s how the world works. That’s how the world was
created.
There must be God.
----------------------------------------------------
[1] Stephens, Jim, Proof for God #27, The Truth about
Mutation, http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2013/02/27-truth-about-mutation.html
[2] Stephens, Jim, Proof for God #81, The Definition of
Impossible, http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2015/03/81-definition-of-impossible.html
[3] Stephens, Jim, Proof for God #58, The Cambrian
Explosion, http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2014/04/58-cambrian-explosion.html
[4] Stephens, Jim, Proof for God #64, Missing Links, http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2014/07/64-missing-links.html