If evolution were true, we should expect some multicellular animal to have evolved the enzymes required to digest cellulose. Imagine the survival benefit that animal would have due to the incredible abundance of food! Evolutionists have to admit that many things evolved more than once (they say the eye evolved 40-60 times independently). Why, then, has no multicellular animal evolved the enzymes to digest cellulose? 1 Even termites must rely on microorganisms living in their guts to be able to digest cellulose—they cannot do it themselves. This is a great mystery for evolution. 2
Although this does not makes sense from evolution, it makes perfect sense according to creation. Although the ability to digest cellulose would greatly benefit a particular animal, imagine what damage it would do to the entire system of life. We use cellulose to build houses and make paper. Cellulose also protects foot by providing a hard outer coating in many cases. It makes perfect sense that a Creator would not give multicellular animals the ability to digest cellulose for the benefit of the entire life system (and for the benefit of man). However, it makes no sense according to evolution, since the ability to digest cellulose would greatly increase the survival of the individual possessing the ability.
Site Under Construction
This site is still under construction. It needs more references, citations, and debate arguments. If you would like to help, please view the community page.
ReMine, W. J. (1993). The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus Message Theory. Saint Paul, Minn.: St. Paul Science.
- ReMine, 1993, p. 152: “Despite its abundance, no multicellular animals have the enzymes necessary to digest cellulose.” ↩
- ReMine, 1993, p. 153: “The widespread absence from metazoans of the digestive enzymes [for cellulose] is a puzzle for evolution. The absence benefits the system of life, but selection cannot look ahead to ensure designs that benefit the system. Natural selection favors the individual, or perhaps the group or the species, but hardly the system. Moreover, the absence clashes with the abundance of convergence in nature’s pattern. Why is convergence so abundant elsewhere, yet here it is prohibited? This shows, once again, that evolutionary theory has no coherent structure for understanding nature.” ↩