by Laurence D Smart B.Sc.Agr., Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed

Email: laurence@unmaskingevolution.com

Webpage: www.unmaskingevolution.com

A Double Helix Science Quiz question in the Science section of The Canberra Times newspaper (22/9/98) asked:- "The human body contains salts in a similar proportion to seawater: true or false" ⁽¹⁾. The answer given by the scientist/writer was:- "True" ⁽²⁾.

This idea is often propagated as a fact by science teachers and evolutionists because they use it as a 'proof' for evolution. If our bodies contain the same proportion of mineral salts as the sea, they then infer that life evolved from the sea.

Sounds very scientific. Sounds very convincing. But..... is it a real proof of evolution? Or is it just a conjectured hypothesis?

In 1903 Macallum ^{(3) (4)} proposed that life originated in the sea because the relative concentrations of sodium, potassium, and calcium were in very similar proportions to those found in seawater. The actual concentrations are less than seawater.

One textbook says that, "Macallum's theory seems, on the whole, well founded, and certainly the resemblance of the salt content of the blood of widely differing species of animals to that of sea water is striking" ⁽⁵⁾. [emphasis mine]

The following table is the type that is usually displayed as supporting proof of the theory.

Table 1 - Concentration of mineral salt ions in various living things ⁽⁶⁾

The remainder of the data tables appear on pages 4 & 5.

Answer - NO (see table 3 & 5)

Answer - NO (see table 2 & 3)

Answer - NO (see table 3 & 4)

All major salts vary, especially magnesium, chlorine and phosphorous. There is considerable difference with iodine, sulphur, iron, copper and manganese.

Answer - NO (see table 3 & 4)

Jellyfish, lobster and crayfish do, as they live in water. The others all differ. The bee, beetle and clam are extremely different.

Answer - A few do, but many don't. (see table 2)

Steven Austin and Russell Humphrey's data in the graph below indicates that there was no salt in the sea over 62 million years ago. Beyond that time the body of water we now call the oceans would have been fresh water. [See my lecture notes #27 "Are the Oceans Old Enough to have Spawned Life?"].

(after Figure A) ⁽⁸⁾

Table 6 shows that animals were supposed to have evolved from the sea some 400 million years ago. At this time the sea should have been fresh water. Therefore the salt concentrations do not seem related to the time of an animal's evolution in the sea.

Table 6 - Evolutionary origins of various animals ⁽⁷⁾

Answer - NO

An examination of the data shows that a firm, predictable, mathematical relationship between sea water and body salts does not exist. There is too much inconsistent variation.

Many evolutionists justify the theoretical relationship by explaining away the variations. They say that it reflects the concentrations in the seawater at the time during animal evolution when their ancestors first evolved the ability to regulate salt concentrations using excretory organs - eg kidney. Macallum, like others, "suggests the very plausible idea" ⁽⁹⁾ that during the Cambrian period when land animals are supposed to have evolved, the ocean had less salt than today.

The magnesium concentration differs markedly from the other salts, and is rationalized. "This might be explained" ⁽¹⁰⁾, writes Macallum, because magnesium is not used by plants and animals as much as the other minerals, so its concentration has built up in sea water over the millions of years.

Many evolutionists believe that the variation of salts from the sea's proportions is an indication that the animals have continued to evolve, adapting the mineral composition to the changes in the environment. This is clutching at straws. It would be just as valid to say that the differences and the similarities were all due to adaptation - independent of evolution from the sea.

When scientists believe evolution to be absolutely true, all other data is interpreted to fit in with this presupposition. One author warns about making such evolutionary inferences from this data - "We should not make the mistake of exaggerating the similarities of these fluids." ⁽¹¹⁾ Another author informs us that this theory was refuted long ago ⁽¹²⁾.

The mineral salt concentration in the tissues of living things should not be used as proof of evolution.

Table 2 - Percentage concentration of mineral salt ions in various living things ⁽¹³⁾

Table 3 - Mineral composition of sea water ⁽¹⁴⁾

Table 4 - Mineral composition of human plasma ⁽¹⁷⁾

(1) The Canberra Times, Canberra, Australia, 22/9/98, p:7

(2) The Canberra Times, Canberra, Australia, 22/9/98, Techno lift-out section, p:6

(3) A.B. Macallum, "On the Inorganic Composition of the Medusae, Aurelia flavidula and Cyanea artica", The Journal of Physiology (London), Vol. 29, 1903 p:214

(4) A.B. Macallum, "The Paleochemistry of the Body Fluids and Tissues", Physiol. Revs., Vol. 6, 1926 p:316

(5) P.H. Mitchell, "A Textbook of General Physiology" (5th edition - Kogakusha Co. Ltd, Tokyo), McGraw-Hill Book Co: New York, 1956 p:313

(6) P.H. Mitchell, "A Textbook of General Physiology" (5th edition - Kogakusha Co. Ltd, Tokyo), McGraw-Hill Book Co: New York, 1956 p:312

(7) J.D. Morris, "The Young Earth", Master Books: Colorado Springs (USA), 1994 p:8

(8) S.A. Austin & D.R. Humphreys, "The Sea's Missing Salt: A Dilemma for Evolutionists", Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 2, 1991 p:33

(9) P.H. Mitchell, "A Textbook of General Physiology" (5th edition - Kogakusha Co. Ltd, Tokyo), McGraw-Hill Book Co: New York, 1956 p:313

(10) P.H. Mitchell, "A Textbook of General Physiology" (5th edition - Kogakusha Co. Ltd, Tokyo), McGraw-Hill Book Co: New York, 1956 p:313

(11) W.T. Keeton, "Biological Science", W.W. Norton & Co: New York, 1967 p:271

(12) I.T. Taylor, "In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order" (3rd ed), TFE Publishing: Toronto, 1992 p:291

(13) W.T. Keeton, "Biological Science", W.W. Norton & Co: New York, 1967 p:272

(14) "The New Encyclopedia Britannica" (15th edition), Vol. 25, Encyclopedia Britannica Inc: Chicago, 1989 p:126

(15) Australian Academy of Science, "Biological Science: The web of life" (second ed.), Australian Academy of Science: Canberra (Aust), 1973 p:150

(16) Australian Academy of Science, "Biological Science: The web of life" (second ed.), Australian Academy of Science: Canberra (Aust), 1973 p:150

(17) "The New Encyclopedia Britannica" (15th edition), Vol. 19, Encyclopedia Britannica Inc: Chicago, 1989 p:13

(18) "The New Encyclopedia Britannica" (15th edition), Vol. 25, Encyclopedia Britannica Inc: Chicago, 1989 p:50

(19) P. McDonald, R.A. Edwards & J.F.D. Greenhalgh "Animal Nutrition", Oliver & Boyd Ltd: Edinburgh (Scotland), 1969 p:76