Civilizations development and species origin technologies

Much of written by N. Ya. Danilevsky still remains valid nowadays. In his papers, he provides 15 main incorrect conclusions formulated by Ch. Darwin and 10 logical errors that had led to them. Thus, Ch. Darwin did not indicate any single breed that could have arisen through the minor individual changes’ gradual accumulation, and greatly exaggerated the role of artificial selection in the formation of the plants’ arable forms and cultured animals, and also ignored large spasmodic changes, as this made his theory useless and ruined the natural explanation of organic expediency. He considered it inappropriate to extend the conclusions drawn from the domestic animals and arable plants’ observations to organisms living in natural conditions. Despite the domestic animals’ high degree variability obtained through the artificial selection, it does not go beyond the species. The role of the very artificial selection is greatly exaggerated. Selection is valid only within the species. It is impossible to cross the border between species, and if selection is stopped, the species returns to its original wild form. The thesis regarding treating varieties as «beginning species» is based on facts that cannot lead to such conclusions.

N. Ya. Danilevsky pointed out that free crossbreeding in natural conditions leads to the fact that all individual differences cannot be accumulated and are constantly destroyed. In his opinion, the vitality of an organism in vase of the environmental conditions change depends on the simultaneous change in a large complex of features, and any single change will be harmful, as it disrupts the existing relationships. If the trait turned out to be useful, it should be called not an individual variability, but a significant change in the entire population, i.e., the change should affect the majority of the population at once. Recognition of the changes’ simultaneity equals the recognition of the principle of the development appropriateness by Baer (Karl Ernst Ritter von Baer Edler von Huthorn).

The critical paper author stated that the struggle for existence does not possess selective properties, which means that natural selection will not work. It is confirmed by the absence of transitional forms between both living species and fossil forms.

N. Ya. Danilevsky believed that the numerous facts that species have useless traits for them despite the fact that they are useful for other species contradict the selection theory. Such «useless» signs often include the most significant ones which serve the basis for the taxonomy from genus to type is built. Ch. Darwin, constructing hypothetical examples of the trait advantage’s increase from generation to generation, relied on the usefulness of new traits, taking them in ready-made form presented in the formed species because of the lack of real transitions.

N. Ya. Danilevsky stated in his scientifi papers that development is performed in accordance with the law that while its implementation makes expediency turn out to be a form of some inner plan. The types’ transformations are conceivable only in case of recognition of the internal law of development (every living organism possesses it). It is absurd to think that chance and probability could substitute mind and intelligence. The issue of expediency in nature has a much more important and profound philosophical meaning. In addition, natural selection provides a constant adaptation of species to a changing environment, but the process does not have the gift of foreknowledge; the natural selection responds only to the environment in the present and therefore, evolution cannot have any goals.

The evolutionary theory supporters believe that it is confirmed by the fossil evidence (fossils), the age of which approximately stands for 3.5 billion years. They show a story of the diversity’s gradual complication and expansion, which has led to a great diversity of life forms that inhabit Earth today. There are now doubts that there is a strict order in the geological strata, and the typical fossils are detected in various layers. Sedimentary rocks typically occur in layers, so the deeper layers contain fossils formed at an earlier period. The evolutionary theory’s supporters draw their conclusions about the main directions of the living organisms’ evolution while comparing fossil forms of the successive layers. When the evolutionary theory became the scientific Orthodoxy (dogma), any fossils found by paleontologists, were a priori adjusted to the generally accepted points. Their interpretation in any other way was treated as unscientific one.

However, these were the data accumulated in paleontology that hit the evolutionary theory. While examining the remains and layers of Earth’s crust, one can be sure that many organisms appeared on Earth all of a sudden. For example, remains were found in the Cambrian layer that belonged to such complex invertebrates as snails, Trilobite, sponges, worms, Aurelia aurita, starfish, floating crustaceans and sea lilies. An interesting fact is that all these species, different from each other, appeared at the same time and had a complex structure. Therefore, this amazing phenomenon was called the «Cambrian explosion» in Geology.

According to the concept by Ch. Darwin, there had been minor changes for a long time that being «accumulated», gradually led to the evolution of simple species into more complex ones. Judging from such an assumption, paleontological excavations eventually should have detected transitional forms from one species to other. Their number should have been huge and should have demonstrated how various species, classes, orders and families had been evolving. However, Cambrian rocks lack transitional forms from primitive organisms to organisms with a complex perfect structure. In geological deposits, it is not the stepwise appearance of new species, genera, and families in the process of evolution that is observed, but their sudden occurrence. They are not preceded by any transitional forms. For example, there are no traces of ciliary worms, the class of which unites more than 3,500 species.

The living organisms found in the Cambrian layer possess such developed and complex physiological systems as the eyes, gills, and circulatory system, which do not differ much from modern ones. These complex invertebrates are by no means associated with unicellular, which were the only living organisms preceding them. The trilobite has complex eyes (consisting of hundreds of hexagonal fragments) that have a two-lens system and, as David Raup, professor of geology, said, «Have a design that can be developed by a well-educated and gifted contemporary optical engineer». Moreover, such organized and complex animals have nothing to do with the simplest unicellular organisms that were the only living inhabitants of Earth prior to invertebrates. This fact clearly refutes the evolutionary theory point that living organisms evolved from primitive into complex ones. It should be noted that nowadays dragonflies and bees have the similar system of the trilobite eyes’ structure.

The Mesozoic era also impresses one by the sudden transition of reptiles to the mammals period, many of which are already significantly different from each other despite the fact that they appeared within the same geological period.

The alleged transitional forms were found only for the phylogenetic series from Hyperion to modern horse. The archaeopteryx’s discovered remnants, according to some experts, can be considered an intermediate form between reptiles and birds with significant part of a hypothesis. The fossils’ state indicates that Archaeopteryx had feathers, wings and a beak, like a bird. However, this fossil representative had signs that gave palaeontologists the grounds to suggest its affinity for reptiles − teeth on its beak and claws on its wings. None of these two features confirms that Archaeopteryx evolved from reptiles. In addition, according to radiometric dating, Archaeopteryx cannot be considered the missing link between reptiles and birds.

Nowadays it has become apparent to many palaeontologists that the fossils do not contain any alleged transitional forms at all. No transitional links’ sequential series, as well as individual random transitional forms, have ever been found among the minerals. At the same time, long periods of the same organisms’ stable existence within a relatively short time gave way to the new species’ rapid formation; they appeared completely formed in the fossil record. Despite the lack of continuity in the fossil record, which is strong evidence to oppose the theory of the new species’ formation through gradual evolutionary changes, fossil evidences do confirm the progressive increase in the organisms’ complexity.

The evolutionary theory supporters, in an attempt to explain the lack of transitional forms in the geological record, put forward the «discontinuous equilibrium» (punctuality) hypothesis, according to which evolution is carried out at an uneven rate with long periods of stability, with rapid qualitative leaps alternating the stability period that occur in small populations of organisms. Due to this, some new species arise very quickly, and the intermediate links are practically not found in the geological record because of their minor quantity.

These evolutionary sequence «leaps» originated the term «spasmodic evolution».

The evolutionary theory supporters believe that the paleontological data’ incompleteness can be explained by the fact that dead organisms were quick to decompose or were eaten by carrion-feeding animals. But then a natural question arises: why did this happen to transitional forms and did not affect existing species?

Charles Darwin and Louis Dollo formulated the «law of irreversibility of evolution,» according to which species cannot return to the state of their ancestors. At the same time, the examination of the fossilized remains of the Gastrotheca guentheri species frogs stated that they lost their lower teeth 230 million years ago, but the teeth reappeared about 20 million years ago. Thus, this does not fit the proposed concept.

Cases of the useful genes’ loss are also inconsistent with the evolutionary theory. Such a phenomenon was found among the stick insects’ winged species evolved from the wingless ones, which, in turn, had ancestors with wings. This case of the complex trait loss and its subsequent restoration in the evolutionary development may indicate that in this case the genetic information is regulated not by living conditions and selection, but by purposeful and thought-out changes. The giant forms of almost all types of contemporary living creatures have been discovered among the fossils. Mammals were often twice the size of their modern representatives: turtles, bears, camels, panthers, pigs, rhinos, elephants, tigers, wolves, birds and insects. The very fact of such giant fossils’ existence contradicts the evolutionary theory according to which animals evolve into more complex forms with an increase in their size.

It is also difficult to explain from the point of view of the evolutionary theory why the mental abilities improvement was accompanied by the loss of the ability to regenerate organs, the ability to detect radiation and earthquakes, as well as many other useful properties that could be improved along with the development of thinking. But that did not happen. If regeneration is the result of evolution, then why the ability to regenerate organs has been lost? It seems to be a necessary process that contributes to the preservation of the species. The inexplicable appearance of organs with a complex structure, such as eyes is one more weak point of the evolutionary theory. Ch. Darwin stated that the sensitive to light organs which even the simplest creatures possess, can be improved, beginning with simple pigment spots up to the facet eyes of insects or the human eye’s complex high-precision visual system. This assumption does not provide a description of each intermediate stage formation and why each of the stages, taken separately, is useful for the survival of the body. It is also fundamentally impossible to explain the emergence of such complex organs as the liver or brain, or complex behavioral programs such as bee dancing − since these objects and phenomena favour survival only when they are fully «packed» and individual minor changes do not lead to any evolutionary advantage and therefore could not gain a foothold.

The supposed evolutionary transition of living beings from water to land is also doubtful. There are a number of facts to testify the impossibility of such a process. Organisms that lived in water and subsequently left it, should have had developed muscles and skeleton capable of withstanding the weight of the body as well as providing energy for movement. A major part of terrestrial creatures consume up to 40

% of energy on the transfer of their bodies. In addition, it is pointless to try to explain the complex of organs and internal secretion substances involved in this process by random mutations. Besides, aquatic and terrestrial inhabitants have different temperature regimes. The temperature conditions are unstable and fluctuate on land, whereas the temperature of the habitat is changing slowly and insignificantly in water. Earth creatures have the developed metabolism system, due to which a relatively constant body temperature is preserved, regardless of the ambient temperature changes. Thus, aquatic animals are equipped with physiological mechanisms that are designed for life in conditions of constant temperature, and for transition to dry land they had to transform the body quickly, by means of the protective means of body temperature regulation’s use with the environment state taken into account. It is doubtful that random mutations could lead to such serious and highly organized changes. Therefore, there is every reason to believe that land animals were created on the basis of aquatic organisms by creating special systems for existence in the atmospheric environment. For example, aquatic animals are capable of filtering and excreting excess chemicals, particularly ammonia, while land representatives use a well-developed system of kidneys, excreting toxins in the urine consuming as little liquid as possible of the for cleaning the body.

If, according to the evolutionary theory, species had been evolving and adapting to the environment for millions of years, the question arises: why the humoral regulation of living organisms which have been living in the atmospheric environment for millions of years has neither reduced nor modified? The existing system of humoral regulation, provided by the system of blood vessels and heart, is adapted to the aquatic environment and is imperfect and vulnerable in the atmospheric one. At the same time, despite the new species’ occurrence on land, the principle of regulation has not been changed. If evolutionary processes can contribute to significant changes in the living organisms’ properties, adapting them to the conditions of the environment, why not a single species capable of existing in the atmospheric environment regardless of the water supply has ever occurred within millions of years? Why has the water dependency not disappeared? The humoral regulation of the body should have disappeared and been replaced by other regulation system more adapted to the atmospheric environment when animals moved to land. However, this did not happen on land and functional system has not been changed.

If animals, including humans, have been existing on the surface of Earth for a huge period of time, why are many physiological biorhythms adapted to the lunar rhythms that most aquatic animals follow?

Dolphins are known to communicate in the infrasonic range. If for them, the aquatic animals, it is understandable, it becomes rather incomprehensible why elephants living on land communicate in the same range? It contradicts the evolutionary views of natural selection. The development of moral qualities inherent to a human also contradicts the evolutionary worldviews. If a human has descended from a wild ancestor, then the one who survives within the natural selection should not have such categories as conscience and morality as they should have disappeared in the process of evolution. A conscientious human would not have a chance to survive. Meanwhile, this concept remains in humans, although not yet sufficiently fixed as an echo of the animal state. A human has the opportunity of daily choice between good and evil, and society analyzes his choice and assesses this choice on the basis of moral considerations formed on the grounds of mind, but not evolutionary principles. According to Kant, this is proof of the Creator’s existence.

Fred Hoyle questioned many of the arguments used by biologists to support the evolutionary theory. In his books «Evolution from Space» (1981), «Why Neo Darwinism Does Not Work» (1982), «The Intelligent Universe» (1983) and «Mathematics of Evolution» (1999) he provided a profound analysis of the quantitative aspect of the biological evolutionary theory and came to the conclusion that its speed is too slow for the life improvement within several billions of years. The calculations results allowed him to conclude that the probability of the life formation from the inanimate matter is one out of the number with 40 thousand zeros (Nature, 1981, 294, No. 5837, 48). F. Hoyle with meticulous accuracy calculated that the level of complexity of a simple living cell is comparable to the number of parts of an airliner. In the book «The Intelligent Universe» (1983), he compared the spontaneous occurrence of life with the possibility of the Boeing 747’s appearance after a hurricane over a dump. At the same time, the chances are not less than the chance to assemble a simple living organism from the separate chemical «bricks».

A similar idea was expressed by Edwin Conklin, a zoologist and a Princeton University professor, specialist in the field of the evolutionary theory. In his opinion, the assumption of the life occurrence through a chance can be compared with the assumption that a fledged dictionary is the result of an explosion in the printing house. Only by means of the common sense’s rejection can the Universe be considered as a product of pure chance.

According to the dogmatic nature of its ideas, the evolutionary theory is not inferior to the religious worldview, as both points of view are based on the belief of their views truth. Both worldviews require belief in their own rightness and categorically reject evidences that go beyond the concepts of these views. The scientific community does not recognize the validity of the arguments provided referring to the fact that critics misinterpret the scientific evolutionary theory’s concept. Therefore, critics of evolutionism believe that Darwinism has turned into a kind of religion which preaches faith under the guise of science. The phrase «God has arranged it» or «This has happened through evolution» can serve the answer to any question. Leonard Matthews, the British zoologist, admitted in the preface to the edition of the Charles Darwin’s book «The Origin of Species» (1971): «Thus, a belief in the evolutionary theory is completely analogous to the belief in a special (premeditated) creation. Faith cannot be denied, unlike scientific views. Proponents of both theories consider only their own one to be true, but the truth of any of them has not yet been proven.

The evolutionary ideas contain too many contradictions for a single scientific theory and they are the ones people try not to notice or discuss. Today it is the only fundamental theory in biology that can explain the life’s development and diversity. Often, when a scientific theory gains fame, it hinders the critical understanding of scientific facts contradicting it. No one can decide to abandon it, since there is no alternative to it. At the same time, the data accumulated up to now demonstrate the existence of a complex process of the organisms’ complexity progressive increase, which can be interpreted on the basis of other concepts.

1.5. SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM

Pope Pius XII, the head of the Catholic Church, in his report «Evidence of the Existence of God in the Light of Modern Science», delivered at a meeting of the Vatican Academy of Sciences on September 28, 1951, stated the following: «The creation of the world in time, and therefore the Creator of the World, and therefore, God is the word that we demand from science and which the contemporary generation (churchmen) expects from it». According to him, «true scientists» are only those who scientifi ally substantiate and prove «the infi te harmony of the Almighty God». The creationism (creatio − creation) is such a trend in the natural sciences, which explains the origin of the world through an act of the supernatural creation and denies evolution. His supporters claim that scientifi evidence of the biblical creation act and biblical history can be obtained. Henry Morris who is de facto considered the founder of the modern «scientifi creationism» (Creation Science), established the Creation Research Institute, which has become the main center of this trend.

A religious worldview advocates argue that if matter is eternal, then God granted it the ability to move and change. Life occurred as a result of a supernatural event in the past.

Creationists of the past centuries, describing various animals and plants’ species, assumed that the species are unchanged, and the number of existing species equals the number of originally created ones by God with the exception of the deleted species. From the point of view of creationism, no accidental genes recombination could produce such a huge number of the living creatures’ species, each of which is so well adapted to its environment. The evolutionary theory’s opponents put forward a hypothesis according to which representatives of each originally created genera were created with a set of certain characteristics and the potential for a limited number of changes.

The creationism supporters also claim that conditions on the ancient Earth ruled out the possibility of abiogenesis (spontaneous generation). In particular, the absence of oxygen and its recovery nature in the early atmosphere is denied.

According to the «Flood Geology» supporters, representatives of all taxa occur «fully formed» in the fossil record, which refutes evolution. Moreover, the occurrence of fossils in stratigraphic layers reflects not the sequence of flora and fauna that had been succeeding each other for many millions of years, but the sequence of ecosystems tied to different geographical depths and heights. The extremely slow speeds of geological processes such as erosion, sedimentation and mountain building cannot ensure the preservation of fossils, as well as the intersection of several layers of sedimentary rocks with some fossils (usually tree trunks).

The scientific creationism’s advocates believe that if one analyzes any process of change that possesses the global nature, one will find out that almost all such calculations will indicate the much younger age of Earth than is necessary for the life and man’s occurrence through evolutionary processes. Usually, young-Earth creationists consider this age to be approximately 6 or 7.5 thousand years. The old-Earth creationists on the contrary acknowledge modern scientific estimations of the age of Earth − 4.6 billion years and the Universe – 13.7 billion years.

Creationists claim that certain evidences do not provide reliable information about the past. Radiocarbon analysis, which is based on a comparison of the stable carbon isotopes’ content in the materials with the amount of the 14C radioactive isotope, is the most often criticized one. In their opinion, radioisotope dating methods based on some isotopes half-life’s constancy may be inaccurate and provide unreliable results. However, independent methods have confirmed the radioisotope method’s accuracy, and some of these provisions have been defined more precisely during the method’s development. In addition to the carbon isotopes, there are a number of other isotopic elements that refine and correct the analysis results.

On the contrary to the modern synthetic evolutionary theory’s advocates who make no differentiation between macroevolution and microevolution, considering one of them the continuation of the other, creationists claim that microevolution and super macroevolution are different. According to creationists, experimental evolution study used microorganisms and the data obtained cannot be transferred to more highly developed organisms. Such processes indicate the microevolution only, and thus, cannot be extended to macroevolution. The creationists do not deny the existence of microevolution, and it can easily be confirmed: its existence is indisputable on the example of the dog breeds’ variety of.

Creationists have established museums in four countries of the world: 21 museums in the USA, 5 museums in Canada, one in the UK and one in Turkey. «The Creation Testimony Museum» was established by Carl Baugh in Texas. In the American city of Cincinnati, there is one larger museum of creationism, in which a special section is dedicated to the Flood, Noah’s Ark and the substantiation of the idea that the world was created no more than 10 thousand years ago. Creationism does not provide a satisfactory answer to the question about the causes of the very Creator or the Supreme Being’s occurrence and existence, postulating its eternity. In addition, the question arises: if the world has been created by God, then where has God himself come from? One has to assume that there is a creator for the very God («Who created God?»). This disputes the claim that God is the first cause of everything («chicken-and-egg problem»).

According to Karl Popper’s criterion of scientific character, creationism is not a scientific theory; it is a metaphysical concept and religious faith, since the introduction of concepts untestable by scientific methods (such as the Creator God) does not meet the principles of verifiability / falsifiability.

In 2011, 42 Nobel Prize winners in Chemistry, Physics, and Medicine wrote an open letter supporting the repeal of the Louisiana Science Education Act, which actually allowed the school to teach creationist views instead of scientific ones. Creationists in Kansas demanded the evolutionary theory’s teaching in schools because of its controversial nature. In their view, students should be taught alternative points of view in secondary schools. Such a proposal was supported by the then US President George W. Bush. It served as the basis for the «Teach the Controversy» campaign, launched by the «Discovery Institute» public organization. The purpose of this campaign was to popularize the «Intelligent Design» doctrine. However, the US academic circles and judicial bodies rejected these arguments.

On October 4, 2007, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe issued a resolution titled «The Danger of Creationism in Education», which stated that «creationism in all its forms, such as «intelligent design» or «higher intelligence», is not a scientific discipline and is not subject to scientific study in European schools along with the theory of evolution or even instead of it». By this resolution, MPs called on the governments of 47 Council of Europe member states to «strongly oppose» the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline.

1.6. INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY

The earliest logical arguments for intelligent design’s substantiation were laid out as far back as 1806 by William Paley in the book «Natural Theology». The author proposed a «watchmaker concept,» which is called «argument from design». It is grounded on the following example: imagine that we have found a watch in a field. It would never occur to anyone to speculate that this watch had occurred itself as a result of a chain of random interactions of molecules. It is quite evident that the watch occurred as a result of the intelligent design, with a watchmaker as the author of it. The Universe and biological systems are much more complicated than watches. Paley argued that life obviously could not have existed if it had not been created by a «watchmaker» with an immeasurably more powerful mind than that of simple watches’ creator. The popularity of this analogy has prompted Clinton Richard Dawkins, an American biologist and distinguished Darwinist popularizer, to continue arguing with Paley in his book «The Blind Watchmaker». He showed that the blind process of evolution acts as the «creator» of complex organisms observed by people. Dawkins’s position is that natural selection fully explains the apparent practicality and complexity of biological diversity, and even if we draw an analogy with a watchmaker, we mean a soulless, unreasonable and blind watchmaker. In his opinion, the human genom «contains a huge amount of «garbage», idle and even deadly genes, such as, for example, oncogenes. Only a blind watchmaker but not a «wise» creator could create all this. «Dawkins turned out to be wrong, as the important function of this «garbage» has been defined.

In addition, Dawkins’s findings in favour of evolution were criticized by Jonathan Sarfatti in his book «The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution» (2010).

Stanislav Lem in his paper «Are We Alone in the Universe?» (Czy jestesmy sami w kosmosie? Nurt. Poznan, 1977, №. 5) noted that «The action of the forces of nature can explain, for example, the occurrence of a star, amoeba or thunderstorm can be explained by the nature forces actions, but not the occurrence of a watch. The watch would not arise «itself» if we had been waiting for this for billions of years.

«The Intelligent Design» movement and theory’s modern founders are William Dembski, the American mathematician and philosopher, and Michael Behe, the American biochemist, Professor of the University of Pennsylvania at Lehigh and a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. They treat their views as a scientific theory, according to which certain features of the Universe and life are best explained by an intelligent first cause and could not occur as a result of natural processes without conscious control.

William Dembski, the mathematician, philosopher and theologian, developed the notion of «specified complexity». In his opinion, if an object possesses a certain level of complexity, it is possible to prove its creation by the intelligent creator, as it could not occur due to the natural processes. For example, a letter of the alphabet makes sense, but does not have complexity; a sentence composed of a random set of letters has complexity, but does not make sense, while Shakespeare’s sonnet is both complex and definite. The same principle, in his opinion, is applicable to biological objects, especially to the DNA sequences. W. Dembski believes that systems with the too low natural occurrence’s probability belong to a «certain complexity». The point of view of W. Dembski regarding the relationship between the «Intelligent Design» theory and Christianity is the contradictory one. He argued that «Intelligent Design» does not stand for God, but may be of a cosmic origin: «It could be space aliens. There are many possibilities. «One of his books is entitled «The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World» (2009). At the same time, in a number of cases, he defined the idea as the Christian God’s plan and associated it with the Christian materialistic replacement. W. Dembski entitled one of his books as «Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science amp; Theology» (1999). In my opinion, the «Intelligent Design» ideas cannot be associated with the religious ideas about God, which are preached by creationists and modern theologians. If the «Intelligent Design» advocates the idea of God, they contribute to the Christianity’s false and harmful ideas. The creation of the surrounding world has deeper roots than bizarre religious ideas about God, his son and the Holy Spirit and all saints.

Michael Behe, in his book «Darwin’s Black Box» (1996), with the subtitle «Biochemical Challenge for the Evolutionary Theory,» claims that the modern biochemical science’s findings are incompatible with both Darwin’s evolutionary theory and its more modern modifications often referred to as Neo-Darwinism. The book contains numerous scientific facts, which, according to the author, provide evidence of the spontaneous life occurrence’s impossibility.

M. Behe introduced the «Irreducible complexity» term which means that a single system, composed of several well suited to each other parts provides its main function. Elimination of one of the parts leads to the function’s failure. Natural selection could not have created irreducible complex systems, since they function only if all the components are available. According to M. Behe, such systems are the colon bacillus (Escherichia coli) bacterial flagella, the blood coagulation cascade, eyelashes, and the acquired immunity system. He provides several examples of complexity that cannot be simplified. For example, the absence of at least one of the many proteins involved in the blood coagulation mechanism will lead either to inability to coagulate and bleeding, or to complete coagulation of the entire blood mass in the body and to death, on the contrary. This complexity presumably means a very low probability of an accidental occurrence of such a system as a result of uncontrolled chaotic chemical interactions between its components.

The eye also cannot be simpler, since the absence of any part will lead to a disruption of its functioning. The creation of such a system should be planned and programmed by a highly developed intelligence. On this occasion, Isaac Newton, the great physicist, said the following: «Was the eye created without understanding optics, and the ear − without the knowledge of acoustics»?

In another example, having listed the bacterial flagellum numerous components, M. Behe demonstrated that such a system was too complicated to develop from a simpler predecessor, and Darwin’s evolution could not lead to the occurrence of such an uncomplicated complexity. The flagellum is designed specifically as a means of bacteria transportation and is composed of many interacting parts. In the absence of any of its components, functioning becomes impossible in case of any of its components’ absence.