How Did We All Come From Adam and Eve?
      By Babu G. Ranganathan 

      Young people, and even adults, often wonder how all the varieties or 
"races" of people could come from the same original human ancestors. Well, in 
principle, that's no different than asking how children with different color 
hair (i.e., blond, brunette, brown, red ) can come from the same parents who 
both have black hair. 

      Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendants with 
different color hair and eyes, humanity's first parents, Adam and Eve, 
possessed genes to produce all the variety and races of men. You and I today 
may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but 
humanity's first parents did possess such genes. 

      All varieties of humans carry genes for the same basic traits, but not 
all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For example, one 
person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye color ( i.e., 
brown, green, blue ) , but someone else may be carrying only one variation of 
the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown ). Thus, both will have different 
abilities to affect the eye color of their offspring. 

      Some parents with black hair, for example, are capable of producing 
children with blond hair, but their blond children (because they inherit only 
recessive genes) will not have the ability to produce children with black hair 
unless they mate with someone else who has black hair. If the blond descendants 
only mate with other blondes then the entire line and population will only be 
blond even though the original ancestor was black-haired. 

      In reality there is only one race - the human race - within which exists 
myriad variations and permutations. 

      The evidence from science shows that only microevolution (variations 
within a biological "kind" such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, 
etc.) is possible but not macroevolution (variations across biological "kinds", 
especially from simpler kinds to more complex ones). The only evolution that 
occurs in Nature is microevolution (or horizontal evolution) but not 
macroevolution (vertical evolution). 

      The genetic ability for microevolution exists in Nature but not the 
genetic ability for macroevolution. The genes (chemical and genetic 
instructions or programs) for microevolution exist in every species but not the 
genes for macroevolution. Unless Nature has the intelligence and ability to 
perform genetic engineering (to construct entirely new genes and not just to 
produce variations and new combinations of already existing genes) then 
macroevolution will never be possible in Nature. 

      We have varieties of dogs today that we didn't have a couple of hundred 
years ago. All of this is just another example of microevolution (horizontal 
evolution) in Nature. No matter how many varieties of dogs come into being they 
will always remain dogs and not change or evolve into some other kind of 
animal. Even the formation of an entirely new species of plant or animal from 
hybridization will not support Darwinian evolution since such hybridization 
does not involve any production of new genetic information but merely the 
recombination of already existing genes. 

      Modifications and new combinations of already existing genes for already 
existing traits have been shown to occur in nature but never the production of 
entirely new genes or new traits. This is true even with genetic mutations. For 
example, mutations in the genes for human hair may change the genes so that 
another type of human hair develops, but the mutations won't change the genes 
for human hair so that feathers, wings, or entirely new traits develop. 
Mutations may even cause duplication of already existing traits (i.e. an extra 
finger, toe, etc. even in another part of the body!), but none of these things 
qualify as new traits. 

      Evolutionists believe that, if given enough time, random or chance 
mutations in the genetic code caused by random environmental forces such as 
radiation will produce entirely new genes for entirely new traits which natural 
selection can act upon or preserve. 

      However, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that random mutations 
have the ability to generate entirely new genes which would program for the 
development of entirely new traits in species. It would require genetic 
engineering to accomplish such a feat. Random genetic mutations caused by the 
environment will never qualify as genetic engineering! 

      Mutations are accidents in the sequential molecular structure of the 
genetic code and they are almost always harmful, as would be expected from 
accidents. Of course, just like some earthquakes that don't do any damage to 
buildings, there are also mutations that don't do any biological harm. But, 
even if a good mutation does occur for every good mutation there will be 
hundreds of harmful ones with the net result over time being disastrous for the 

      Furthermore, only those mutations produced in the genes of reproductive 
cells, such as sperm in the male and ovum (or egg cell) in the female, are 
passed on to offspring. Mutations and any changes produced in other body cells 
are not transmitted. For example, if a woman were to lose a finger it would not 
result in her baby being born with a missing finger. Similarly, even if an ape 
ever learned to walk upright, it could not pass this characteristic on to its 
descendants. Thus, modern biology has disproved the once-held theory that 
acquired characteristics from the environment can be transmitted into the 
genetic code of offspring. 

      Most biological variations within a biological kind (i.e. varieties of 
humans, dogs, cats, horses, mice, etc.) are the result of new combinations of 
already existing genes and not because of mutations. 

      For those who are not read-up on their biology, a little information on 
genes would be helpful here. What we call "genes" are actually segments of the 
DNA molecule. DNA, or the genetic code, is composed of a molecular string of 
various nucleic acids (chemical letters) which are arranged in a sequence just 
like the letters found in the words and sentences of a book. It is this 
sequence of nucleic acids in DNA that tells the cells of our body how to 
construct (or build) various proteins, tissues, and organs such as nose, eyes, 
brain, etc. If the nucleic acids in the genetic code are not in the correct 
sequence then malfunctioning, or even worse, harmful proteins may form causing 
serious health problems and even death. 

      There is no law in science that nucleic acids have to come together in a 
particular sequence. Any nucleic acid can just as easily bond with any other. 
The only reason for why nucleic acids are found in a particular sequence in the 
DNA of the cells of our bodies is because they are directed to do so by 
previously existing DNA. When new cells form in our bodies the DNA of the old 
cells direct the formation of the DNA in the new cells. 

      The common belief among evolutionists is that, if given millions of 
years, radiation and other environmental forces will cause enough random 
changes (mutations) to occur in the sequential structure of the genetic code of 
a species so that entirely new sequences for entirely new genes will develop 
which in turn will program for the formation of entirely new biological traits, 
organs, and structures that natural selection can then act upon. 

      Would it be rational to believe that by randomly changing the sequence of 
letters in a cookbook that you will eventually get a book on astronomy? Of 
course not! And if the book were a living being it would have died in the 
process of such random changes. 

      Such changes, as transforming one book into another or the DNA of one 
species into the DNA of another, especially one more complex, simply cannot 
occur by random or chance alterations. It would require intelligent planning 
and design to change one book into another or to change the DNA of a simpler 
species into the DNA of a more complex one. 

      Yes, it is true that the raw biological materials and chemicals to make 
entirely new genes exist in every species, but the problem is that the random 
forces of nature (i.e. radiation, etc.) simply have no ability to rearrange 
those chemicals and biological materials into entirely new genes programming 
for entirely new traits. Again, mutations only have the ability to produce 
variations of already existing traits. It would require intelligent 
manipulation of genetic material (genetic engineering) to turn a fish into a 
human being. The random forces of the environment cannot perform such genetic 

      If the environment doesn't possess the ability to perform genetic 
engineering and if macro-evolution really did not occur then how else can one 
explain the genetic and biological similarities which exist between various 
species and, indeed, all of life. Although it cannot be scientifically proven, 
creationists believe that the only rational explanation for the genetic and 
biological similarities between all forms of life is due to a common Designer 
who designed and created similar functions for similar purposes and different 
functions for different purposes in all of the various forms of life from the 
simplest to the most complex. Even humans employ this principle of common 
design in planning the varied architecture of buildings! 

      If humans must use intelligence to perform genetic engineering, to 
meaningfully manipulate the genetic code, then what does that say about the 
origin of the genetic code itself! 

      Many have confused natural selection with evolution itself. Yes, Charles 
Darwin did show that natural selection occurs in nature, but what many don't 
understand is that natural selection itself does not produce biological traits 
or variations. 

      Natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are 
produced and which have survival value. The real issue is what biological 
variations can be naturally produced. What biological variations are naturally 
possible? When a biological change or variation occurs within a species and 
this new variation (such as a change in skin color, etc.) helps that species to 
survive in its environment then that variation will be preserved ("selected") 
and be passed on to offspring. That is called "natural selection" or "survival 
of the fittest". But, neither "natural selection" nor "survival of the fittest" 
has anything to do with producing biological traits and variations. 

      The term "natural selection" is simply a figure of speech. Nature, of 
course, does not do any active or conscious selecting. It is an entirely 
passive process. Darwin did not realize what produced biological variations. 
Darwin simply assumed that any kind of biological change or variation was 
possible in life. However, we now know that biological traits and variations 
are determined by the genetic code. 

      Natural selection works with evolution but it is not evolution itself. 
Again, since natural selection can only "select" from biological variations 
that are possible, the real question to be asking is what kind of biological 
variations are naturally possible. How much biological variation (or how much 
evolution) is naturally possible in Nature? As we have seen all biological 
variation or evolution is limited to within plant and animal kinds. 

      Another reason for why macroevolution is not possible in Nature is 
because a half-evolved and useless organ waiting millions of years to be 
completed by random mutations would be a liability and hindrance to a species - 
not exactly a prime candidate for natural selection. In fact, how could species 
have survived over, supposedly, millions of years while their vital (or 
necessary) organs were still in the process of evolving! 

      How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if 
their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still incomplete and 
evolving? How were species fighting off possibly life-threatening germs if 
their immune system hadn't fully evolved yet? 

      Scientist and creationist Dr. Walt Brown, in his fantastic book "In The 
Beginning", makes this point by saying, "All species appear fully developed, 
not partially developed. They show design. There are no examples of 
half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), 
or any of thousands of other vital organs. Tubes that are not 100% complete are 
a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For 
example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would 
become a bad leg long before it became a good wing." 

      Usually what is meant by the term "biological kind" is a natural species 
but this may not always be the case. The key to keep in mind here is that in 
order for evolution in nature to occur from one biological "kind" to another 
biological "kind" entirely new genes would have to be generated and not just 
merely modifications and/or recombination of already existing genes. If, for 
example, offspring are produced which cannot be crossed back with the original 
stock then there is, indeed, a new species but if no new genes or traits 
developed then there is no macro-evolution (variation across biological kinds) 
and the two distinct species would continue to belong to the same "kind". 

      Science cannot prove we're here by creation, but neither can science 
prove we're here by chance or macro-evolution. No one has observed either. They 
are both accepted on faith. The issue is which faith, Darwinian 
macro-evolutionary theory or creation, has better scientific support. 

      If some astronauts from Earth discovered figures of persons similar to 
Mt. Rushmore on an uninhabited planet there would be no way to scientifically 
prove the carved figures originated by design or by chance processes of 
erosion. Neither position is science, but scientific arguments may be made to 
support one or the other. 

      What we believe about life's origins does influence our philosophy and 
value of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no small 

      Just because the laws of science can explain how life and the universe 
operate and work doesn't mean there is no Maker. Would it be rational to 
believe that there's no designer behind airplanes because the laws of science 
can explain how airplanes operate and work? 

      Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, 
and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws can never 
fully explain the origin of such order. 

      Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic 
program and biological mechanisms exist to direct and organize molecules to 
form into more cells. The question is how did life come into being when there 
was no directing mechanism in Nature. An excellent article to read by scientist 
and biochemist Dr. Duane T. Gish is "A Few Reasons An Evolutionary Origin of 
Life Is Impossible" . 

      There is, of course, much more to be said on this subject. Scientist, 
creationist, debater, writer, and lecturer, Dr. Walt Brown covers various 
scientific issues ( i.e. fossils, so-called transitional links, biological 
variation and diversity, the origin of life, comparative anatomy and 
embryology, the issue of vestigial organs, the age of the Earth, etc. ) at 
greater depth on his website at . 

      On his website, Dr. Brown even discusses the possibility of any remains 
of life on Mars as having originated from the Earth due to great geological 
disturbances in the Earth's past which easily could have spewed thousands of 
tons of rock and dirt containing microbes into space. In fact, A Newsweek 
article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility. 

      An excellent source of information from highly qualified scientists who 
are creationists is the Institute for Creation Research ( in 
San Diego, California. Also, the reader may find answers to many difficult 
questions concerning the Bible (including questions on creation and evolution, 
Noah's Ark, how dinosaurs fit into the Bible, etc.)at 

      It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design or creation 
be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory, especially in public 
schools which receive funding from taxpayers who are on both sides of the 
issue. Also, no one is being forced to believe in God or adopt a particular 
religion so there is no true violation of separation of church and state. As a 
religion and science writer, I encourage all to read my Internet article "The 
Natural Limits of Evolution" at my website for 
more in-depth study of the issue. 

      The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, is an experienced Christian writer. Mr. 
Ranganathan has his B.A. degree with concentrations in theology and biology. As 
a religion and science writer he has been recognized in the 24th edition of 
Marquis Who's Who In The East. The author's articles have been published in 
various publications including Russia's Pravda and South Korea's The Seoul 
Times. The author's website may be accessed at: . 

Kirim email ke