Tuesday, 2 March 2010
Exposing The Flaws Of Traditional (But Faulty)
Evolutionary Teaching But Giving Strong Evidence For A Creator and Creational
Evolution PART 1
PART 1. for continuation please see part 2 on Exposing
Page 1
The Flaws Of Traditional (But Faulty) Evolutionary Teaching But Giving Strong Evidence For A Creator and Creational Evolution PART 2
Let me start by quoting something given by: Professor Jerome Lejeune, in a lecture given in Paris
Page 1
The Flaws Of Traditional (But Faulty) Evolutionary Teaching But Giving Strong Evidence For A Creator and Creational Evolution PART 2
Let me start by quoting something given by: Professor Jerome Lejeune, in a lecture given in Paris
on March 17, 1985, translated by Peter
Wilders
“We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is
none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year.
Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it’s good, we know it is bad, but because there isn’t any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation …”
Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it’s good, we know it is bad, but because there isn’t any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation …”
What Is Being Taught., You Will Learn
Textbooks present evolution in two different ways—small, observable
changes (natural selection, speciation, adaptation) and large, unobservable
changes (molecules-to-man evolution). They show
evidence for the former and then conclude that this proves that the latter took place as well.
evidence for the former and then conclude that this proves that the latter took place as well.
As our understanding of genetics has improved, it has become
increasingly clear that mutations + time + chance do not equal evolution. All
observed mutations demonstrate a loss of genetic information from
the genetic code, or they are neutral.
Evolution claims that the process has no direction or goal. If you look
at the complexity of the “first” organism, it must be accepted that a massive
amount of information has been produced to explain the variety of life we see
today.
Mutations cannot generate new genetic information; so they cannot be
used to explain how evolution has proceeded from a cell with less information
than is present in modern cells.
Despite the claims of evolution, the appearance of new species, antibiotic resistance in bacteria, pesticide resistance, and sickle-cell anemia are not evidence in favor of evolution. They do, however, demonstrate the principle of natural selection acting on existing traits—a concept that creationists and evolutionists agree on.
Despite the claims of evolution, the appearance of new species, antibiotic resistance in bacteria, pesticide resistance, and sickle-cell anemia are not evidence in favor of evolution. They do, however, demonstrate the principle of natural selection acting on existing traits—a concept that creationists and evolutionists agree on.
The creationist model of how life spread across the globe after the
Flood of Genesis uses many of the same principles of natural selection and
adaptive radiation that are used in the evolution model. One of the main
differences is that the biblical creation model recognizes that one kind cannot
change into another and that the changes are a result of variation within the
created kinds—not descent from a single common ancestor.
As a result of the Curse, genetic mutations, representing a loss of
information, have been accumulating, but these do not cause new kinds to
emerge. Accepting the idea of a single common ancestor denies the authority of
God’s Word.
What We Really Know about Natural Selection and Evolution
The ideas of natural selection, speciation, adaptation, and evolution
are often used interchangeably by secular scientists. All three of the
textbooks reviewed use the terms in this way. When scientists and authors use
evolution to mean both “change in features over time” and “the history of life
on earth,” it is difficult to know which definition is being used in each
instance. This is often used as a bait-and-switch technique (equivocation).
When small changes that arise as a result of the loss of information are used
as evidence for molecules-to-man evolution, the switch has occurred. Let’s
define the terms and see where the switch is happening.
Natural Selection:
the process by which individuals possessing a set of traits that confer
a survival advantage in a given environment tend to leave more offspring on
average that survive to reproduce in the next generation.
Natural selection is an observable process that falls into the category
of operational science. We have observed mosquitoes, birds, and many
microorganisms undergoing change in relatively short periods of time. New
species have been observed to arise.
Biblical creationists agree with evolutionists on most of the ideas
associated with natural selection, except the idea that natural
selection leads to molecules-to-man evolution.
Speciation:
the process of change in a population that produces distinct populations
which rarely naturally interbreed due to geographic isolation or other factors.
Speciation is observable and fits into the category of operational
science. Speciation has never been observed to turn one kind of animal into
another. Lions (Panthera leo) and tigers (Panthera tigris) are both members of
the cat kind, but they are considered different species primarily due to their
geographic isolation. However, it is possible to mate the two.
Ligers (male lion and female tiger) and tigons (male tigers and female
lions) are produced (with varying degrees of fertility). These two species came
from the original cat kind that would have been present on Noah’s Ark.
Adaptation:
a physical trait or behavior due to inherited characteristics that gives
an organism the ability to survive in a given environment.
Evolutionists often look at a characteristic of an organism and assume
that it was produced through a gradual series of changes and call it an
adaptation to a given environment.
To an evolutionist, legs on tetrapods are an adaptation that arose as a
fish’s fins became adapted to crawling in a shallow stream, providing some form
of advantage. The fins with more bones were better adapted to a life partially
lived on the land. Fins that developed bones attached to a pectoral girdle
(another set of bones that had to develop) gave an advantage to those
individuals that wandered onto land to find food or avoid predators. The
problems with this scenario are in the amount of time such a change would
require and the lack of a mechanism to cause the change.
Evolutionary biologists assume, based on geologic interpretations, that
there have been billions of years for this process to occur. But if long ages
did not exist, the hypothesis cannot be true.
The other requirement, a mechanism for change, is also assumed to
exist—even though it has never been observed. We mentioned earlier that natural
selection tends to delete information from the population. If natural selection
is the mechanism that explains the successive adaptations in the fish fin
example above, it must provide new genetic information.
To produce the new bones in the fins requires an elaborate orchestration
of biologic processes. The bones don’t just have to be present; they must
develop at the right time in the embryo, have their shape and size predetermined
by the DNA sequence, be attached to the correct tendons, ligaments, and blood
vessels, attach to the bones of the pectoral girdle, and so on. The amount of
information required for this seemingly simple transformation cannot be
provided by a process that generally deletes information from the genome.
Biblical creationists consider major structures to be part of the
original design provided by God. Modifications to those structures,
adaptations, occur due to genetic recombination, random mutations, and natural
selection. These structures do not arise from the modification of similar
structures of another kind of animal. The beak of the woodpecker, for example,
did not arise from the beak of a theropod dinosaur ancestor; it was an
originally designed structure. The difference in beak shapes among woodpeckers
fits with the idea of natural selection leading to changes within a population
of woodpeckers—within the created kind.
Consider a woodpecker pair getting off the Ark. The pair may contain
genes (information) for long and short beaks. As the birds spread out into the
lush new world growing in the newly deposited soil, they produce offspring that
contain both long-beak and shortbeak genes. (Although the actual control of
beak growth is complex, we will assume that long is dominant over short for
this simplistic example.)
Areas populated by trees with thick, soft bark would tend to select for
woodpeckers with longer beaks. Areas where the bark was thinner and harder
would tend to be populated by woodpeckers with shorter beaks. Two new species,
with slightly different adaptations, could arise if the two populations were
geographically separated. The population of short-beaked woodpeckers would have
lost the information for long beaks.
No more long-beaked woodpeckers would be produced without a significant
addition of genetic information affecting the beak length. The long-beaked
woodpeckers would still have the ability to produce short-beaked offspring, but
they would be less able to compete, and those genes would tend to decrease in
frequency in the population. Due to their isolation, two new species of
woodpecker would develop, but within their kind.
Observational science supports this type of subtle change within a kind
but not molecules-to-man evolution, as we will see in the next section.
Evolution: all life on earth has come about through descent with
modification from a single common ancestor (a hypothetical, primitive,
single-celled organism).
Evolution is generally assumed to happen as a natural consequence of
natural selection.
However, no direct observational evidence supports the concept of a fish
turning, however gradually, into an amphibian. Evolutionists will argue that
there has simply not been enough time to observe such changes.
Man has only been recording information that would be useful for a short
period of time relative to the immense amounts of time required by evolutionary
theory. This raises the question, “Is evolution a valid scientific idea
since it cannot be observed in experiments and repeated to
show that the conclusions are valid?”
The fact that evolutionary processes, on the scale of millions of years,
cannot be observed, tested, repeated, or falsified places them in
the category of historical science.
In secular science, evaluating historical events is considered just as
acceptable as conducting laboratory experiments when it comes to developing
scientific theories. Since scientific theories are subject to change, it is
acceptable to work within an admittedly deficient framework until a better or
more reasonable framework can be found.
A major problem for evolution, as mentioned above, is the huge increase
in information content of organisms through time. Evolutionary theory accepts
additions and deletions of information as evidence of evolution of a
population.
The problem is that through the imagined history of life on earth, the
information content of the genomes of organisms must have increased
dramatically. Beginning with the most primitive form of life, we have a
relatively simple genome compared to the genomes that we see today. Mutations
are said to provide the fuel for the evolutionary engine. Virtually all
observed mutations result in a loss in the information content of a genome.
There would need to be some way to consistently add information to the genome
to arrive at palm trees and people from a simple single-celled organism—the
hypothetical common ancestor of all life on earth.
Evolutionists have failed to answer the question, “Where did all the
new information come from since mutations are known to reduce
information?” You cannot expect evolution, which requires a net gain in
information over millions of years, to occur as a result of mutation and
natural selection. Natural selection, evolution’s supposed mechanism,
causes a loss of information and can only act on traits that are
already present! (The origin of the information is discussed in chapter 5.)
Creationists agree with the idea of “descent with modification” but not
with the notion of a single common ancestor. To accept a common ancestor for
all life on earth requires a rejection of the biblical account of creation
recorded in Genesis and corroborated by many other Scriptures. The
order of events of evolutionary history cannot be reconciled with the account
recorded in Genesis 1, without compromising one or the other.
The philosophies of evolution and biblical Christianity are not
compatible. The examples from the texts below and the articles and books will
demonstrate this from a biblical creationist perspective.
Reference Articles
3:1 Natural selection and speciation, Ham, Wieland, and Batten,www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/OneBlood/chapter2.asp
“We have observed the change in dogs over time, but that doesn’t mean
that evolution has occurred. You can breed wolves to get to chihuahuas, but you
can’t breed chihuahuas to get wolves—variation in the genetic information has
been lost. Darwin used this type of change as evidence without an understanding
of the limits of genetic change that are known today.”
Evolutionists often set up straw man arguments which suggest that
creationists believe life was created just as it is seen today. Evolutionists
demonstrate that there are many examples of change over time in species and
suggest they have disproved creationism.
This is an inaccurate description of the biblical creationist model of
life on earth. Creationists accept change in animals over time—God didn’t
create poodles—but within the boundaries of the created kinds according to
Genesis 1.
Using the dog kind as an example, we can see the amazing variety that
was programmed into the DNA from creation. Using basic genetic principles and
operational science, we can understand how the great diversity seen in the dogs
of the present world could have come from one pair of dogs on Noah’s Ark. Using
the genes A, B, and C as examples of recessive/dominant traits in dogs, if an
AaBbCc male were to mate with an AaBbCc female, there are 27 different
combinations (AABBCC … aabbcc) possible in the offspring.
If these three genes coded for fur characteristics, we would get dogs
with many types of fur—from long and thick to short and thin. As these dogs
migrated around the globe after the Flood, they encountered different climates.
Those that were better suited to the environment of the cold North survived and
passed on the genes for long, thick fur. The opposite was true in the warmer
climates.
Natural selection is a key component of the explanation of events
following the Flood that led to the world we now see.
This type of speciation has been observed to happen very rapidly and
involves mixing and expression of the preexisting genetic variability. Not only
does natural selection select from already existing information, it causes a
loss of information since unfavorable genes are removed from the population.
Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome. Not a single
mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in
a genome.
The differences in groups of similar organisms that are isolated from
one another may eventually become great enough so that the populations no
longer interbreed in the wild. This is how new species have formed
since the Flood and why the straw man argument set up at the beginning is a
false representation of creationist interpretations.
No matter how hard evolutionists try, they cannot explain where the new
information that is necessary to turn a reptile into a bird comes from. The
typical neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation, chance, and time cannot generate
new information. The failure of evolutionary models to explain how a single
cell could have evolved more complex information by additive mutations
challenges the entire concept.
If we start from the Bible, we begin with the idea of specially created
organisms possessing large amounts of genetic variability. These original kinds
have undergone mutations—which cause a loss of information—and have been
changed into new species by natural selection. In this biblical framework, the
history of life makes sense.
In the media, textbooks, and scientific literature the occurrence of evolution
has become a “fact.”
The definition of the word evolution has also taken on
two different meanings that are not equal. Evolution can be used in the sense
of change in a species by natural selection. This is often referred to as
microevolution and is accepted by evolutionists and creationists alike as good
observational science.
This type of evolution allows change within groups but not between
groups. The other meaning of evolution involves the idea that all organisms on
earth share a common ancestor by descent with modification. This idea is
commonly referred to as macroevolution. (AiG does not endorse using the terms
“microevolution” and “macroevolution.”
It is not the amount of change that is different, but the type and direction
of change that is different. These terms do not clarify that difference.) The
two definitions are often used interchangeably. Typically, textbooks show that
new species can form—evolution has occurred—so they argue that it is obvious
that evolution, in the molecules-to-man sense, must have occurred. The problem
is that just because natural selection and speciation have occurred (and there
is strong evidence to support such claims) the claim that all life has evolved
from a common ancestor is based on many assumptions that cannot be ultimately
proven.
People believe the ideas of the evolutionary development of life on
earth for many reasons: it is all that they have been taught and exposed to,
they believe the evidence supports evolution, they do not want to be lumped
with people who do not believe in evolution and are often considered to be less
intelligent or “backward,” evolution has the stamp of approval from real
scientists, and evolutionary history allows people to reject the idea of God
and legitimize their own immorality.
Evaluating the presuppositions behind belief in evolution makes for a
much more productive discussion. Two intelligent people can arrive at different
conclusions using the same evidence; so their starting assumptions is
the most important issue in discussing historical science.
When we deal with the issue of origins, we must realize that no people
were there to observe and record the events. When scientists discuss the origins
of the universe, the earth, or life on earth, we must realize that the
discussion is based on assumptions. These fallible assumptions make the
conclusions of the discussion less valid than if the discussion were based on
actual observation.
Almost all biology books and textbooks written in the last two generations
have been written as if these presuppositions were true.
Proponents of the evolutionary worldview expect everyone to accept
evolution as fact. This is a difficult case to make when the how, why, when,
and where of evolutionary history are sharply contested or unknown by the
scientists who insist evolution is a fact.
Evolutionists often claim that creation is not scientific because of the
unprovable assumptions that it is based on. The fact that evolution is based on
its own set of unprovable, untestable, and unfalsifiable assumptions is
recognized by many in the scientific community.
Within the scientific literature, the mathematical and chemical
impossibilities of the origin of the universe and life on earth are recognized.
Many notable scientists, including Sir Fred Hoyle and Sir Francis Crick, have
gone so far as to suggest that life originated on other planets or was brought
to earth by an intelligent being. These ideas are no less testable than special
creation but avoid invoking God as our Creator.
3:3 Darwin’s illegitimate brainchild, Grigg, Creation 26(2):39–41,
2004
The idea of natural selection was published well before Darwin
wrote Origin of Species. Darwin was most likely exposed to the idea
in his days as a student in Edinburgh, and those ideas were integrated with the
information gathered on his Beagle voyage. Several scholars
have suggested that Darwin borrowed ideas from the works of many of his
predecessors and contemporaries.
It is suggested that Darwin failed to give credit to Edward Blyth for
seminal ideas because Blyth was a “special creationist” who viewed natural
selection in light of selecting among preexisting Darwin developed traits.
Darwin is credited with the idea of evolution by natural selection, but it
remains impotent in light of modern genetic concepts of information.
Darwin developed his ideas over many years after his journey aboard the
Beagle. The idea of natural selection was recognized by creationists
before Darwin used it to remove the glory from God.
3:4 Design without a designer,
Darwin grew up in an England that acknowledged a biblical worldview.
When he wrote On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The
Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, he had witnessed a
world full of death and disease. How could this be the world created by the God
of the Bible?
Evolutionary ideas offered people an alternative to a supernatural
Creator. Life may appear to be designed, but it is just a product of random
changes over millions of years of earth history. This offered people a
“scientific” means to reject God and believe in a naturalistic view of the
universe. Michael Denton suggests that the chief impact of Darwin’s ideas was
to make atheism possible and respectable in light of the evidence for a
Designer.
Darwin’s ideas fostered an environment where God was no longer
needed—nature was all that was necessary. Darwin’s ideas ushered in a pagan era
that is now reaching a critical point. The idea that the appearance of design
suggests a designer became an invalid argument in the eyes of evolutionists.
3:5 Did God create poodles?
Poodles and all other current breeds of dogs are descended from a dog
kind that was created on Day 6 and was present on the Ark. The varieties of
dogs that we see today, from wolves to coyotes to poodles, are all descendants
of the dog kind that came off Noah’s Ark.
As populations of wild dogs were spreading across the globe, the
environment shaped their characteristics through natural selection. As humans
began to domesticate dogs, they artificially selected the traits that they
desired in populations. The breeds of modern domestic dogs are a result of the
diversity that was programmed into the DNA of the original dog kind. All
domestic dogs belong to the same species Canis familiaris and
can interbreed.
Purebred dogs have many genetic problems that result from close breeding
of individuals over time to concentrate desirable traits. Many breeds have hip
dysplaysia, vision problems, and blood disorders. We know that these dogs could
not have been in the Garden of Eden because God called His creation “very good”
and He would not have included these genetic mutations in that description.
We do know that all of the breeds did come from a very narrow gene pool,
and this is confirmed by secular scientists. In the journal Science, November
22, 2002, researchers reported, “The origin of the domestic dog from wolves has
been established… . We examined the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence
variation among 654 domestic dogs representing all major dog populations
worldwide, … suggesting a common origin from a single gene pool for all dog
populations.” It is still important to remember that no new information exists
in these mutant forms, only a loss of information from the population,
resulting in distinct traits.
3:6 Comparative similarities:
Evolutionists use the idea of “descent from a common ancestor” to
explain why the forearm bones of a penguin, bat, and human are so similar. This
explanation works for traits in your family, but can it be applied to the
history of life on earth? The fact that we use such characteristics to classify
organisms into groups does not mean that they are related to a common ancestor.
The equally valid alternative is that all of these organisms were created by a
common Designer who used the same design principles to accomplish similar
functions. Although either explanation may appear equally valid, some instances
make the case for a Creator clear.
When structures that appear to be similar to one another develop under
the control of genes that are not related, the common ancestor idea fails.
Evolution would predict that the structures would be formed from a derived gene
that has undergone modification through mutation and natural selection. Frogs
and humans supposedly share a common ancestor that would account for the
similarity of the limb structures. The problem is that when a frog’s digits
develop, they grow out from buds in the embryonic hand. In humans, the digits
begin as a solid plate and then tissue is removed to form the digits. These
entirely different mechanisms produce the same result, but they are not the
result of the same genes.
Another challenge to evolutionary explanations is when two structures
appear to be homologous but evolutionists know they don’t share a common
ancestor. Such cases are called “convergent evolution.” The eyes of squids and
vertebrates are an example where the eyes would be called homologous, but there
is no common ancestor to account for the similarities. The common designer
argument can once again be used to more easily explain the similarities.
The opposite occurs in “divergent” structures where organisms that
appear to be evolutionary cousins have drastically different mechanisms that
cannot be explained by a common ancestor. Different light-focusing methods in
shrimp provide an example. These systems accomplish the same goal with
different and intricate design features— more evidence of their Creator.
Abandoning proof of evolution based on the similarities in large
structures, many now look to the similarity in molecular and genetic structure
to support evolution. The sporadic presence of hemoglobin in the evolutionary
branches of invertebrates is one example. If evolution had occurred, we would
expect a predictable pattern—that pattern does not exist. The hemoglobin must
have evolved, despite its intricacies, in each of these groups independently.
The facts confirm the creationist model of created kinds with great genetic
variety and deny evolution from a common ancestor.
The alleged 98% similarity of human and chimp DNA, for example, is often
touted as proof of the evolutionary closeness of the two. The 2% difference
actually translates into about 60 million base pair differences. The small
differences in the genes are actually turned into a large difference in the
proteins produced.
The evidence supports the idea of a matrix of specially created
organisms with traits occurring where and when they are needed. Discovering the
details of this predictive pattern may someday strengthen the validity of the
creationist perspective in the minds of skeptics.
3:7 Does homology provide evidence of evolutionary naturalism?
Evolutionists commonly point to the amazing similarity of muscle, bone,
and cell structure and function among living things as evidence that all life
on earth evolved from a common protocell ancestor some 3.5 billion years ago.
Connecting existing animals to the fossil record extends the comparison back to
the alleged beginning of time.
The idea of homology as proof for evolution is present in almost every
high-school or college text on the subject. Evolutionists argue that the only
naturalistic explanation for homology is that all of the organisms evolved from
a common ancestor. Design arguments are dismissed in naturalistic/
materialistic scientific explanations—even though a common designer can explain
the similarities as well.
Before Darwin, creationists used the idea of “ideal archetypes” as evidence
for a common designer. The features of comparative anatomy were later
reinterpreted by evolutionary biologists to argue for descent from a common
ancestor. The real question is: “Does the similarity prove that one structure
evolved into another?” Since the requirements are similar for living things,
homologous structures would be predicted based on a common designer—structures
appear similar because they were designed to accomplish the same task.
Tires on bicycles look like tires on motorcycles, with design
modifications. Kidneys in a skunk look similar to kidneys in a human because
they perform the same task and were designed by a common Designer.
Evolutionists tend to accept homologies that fit within the evolutionary
framework and set aside those that do not support their predictions; supporting
structures are called “homologous,” while those that don’t fit the theory are
called “analogous.”
The existence of similar body plans in organisms that are not considered
to be closely related in evolutionary terms is said to demonstrate convergent
evolution. The body plan works, so it evolved independently in the two
organisms. There are also many exceptions and there is no way to trace many
components back to their alleged ancestors due to the incomplete nature of the
fossil evidence. Homologous structures cannot exclude the idea of design.
The idea of convergent evolution of analogous structures has trouble
explaining exactly how these structures have evolved at different times to be
analogous. Wings are supposed to have evolved in at least four different groups
as analogous structures. Another example of convergent evolution is the
striking similarity between dogs and the Tasmanian tiger (a marsupial).
Evolutionists must say that the two evolved independently of one another even
though the homology indicates otherwise. Convergent evolution is used as a way
to explain away homologies that appear in organisms that aren’t supposed to be
closely related.
Evolutionists use embryological development, the presence of vestigial
organs, and biochemical and genetic homologies to argue for descent from a
common ancestor. Yet the patterns expected from the Darwinian model of
evolution are not seen in most instances. On the other hand, homologies confirm
the creationist model of a common Designer, the Creator God of the Bible.
3:8 Cutting out a useless vestigial argument,
“The presence of homologous structures can actually be interpreted as
evidence for a common designer. Contrary to the oversimplified claim in this
figure, the forelimbs of vertebrates do not form in the same way. Specifically,
in frogs the phalanges form as buds that grow outward and in humans they form
from a ridge that develops furrows inward. The fact that the bones can be
correlated does not mean that they are evidence of a single common ancestor.2
The pelvic bone in whales serves as an important anchor for muscles of
the reproductive organs. Contrary to the claim in this figure, a structure
cannot “show structural change over time.” The change over time must be
inferred from assumptions about the fossil record and evolution. To know if an
organ is vestigial, you must know its ancestors and exactly how the organ was
used by those ancestors.”
The idea of vestigial organs has been passed on for over 100 years.
Vestigial organs are said to be remnants of organs that were used by an
organism’s ancestors but are no longer needed, or they function in a reduced
capacity in the modern organism.
The human appendix is one of the most used, or misused, examples. Just
because we do not understand the function of an organ doesn’t mean that it
serves no function. The appendix was once thought to be an evolutionary
leftover, but today we know it serves an important immunological function. Most
of the organs that were once thought to be vestigial have been shown to have
functions.
3:9 When is a whale a whale?
Evolutionists predict the presence of billions of transitional life
forms that have existed in earth’s history. Despite the presence of 250,000
fossil species, clear transitional forms, which would bolster evolutionary
theory, are virtually absent.
The situation of transitional forms is glaringly obvious in the case of
whales and other marine mammals. The gap in transitional forms was supposedly
filled by a partial fossil specimen named Pakicetus inachus. Even
though the fossil was only a fraction of the skull and a few teeth, the media
and scientists portrayed it as a whale-like transitional form. The fact that it
was found in a deposit that was likely from a river area puts the
interpretation of Pakicetus in doubt. (More complete specimens
have been found that show Pakicetus as a dog-like land animal.)
Fossils of Ambulocetus natans were later discovered,
and this creature was considered to be a walking whale. Despite the lack of a
pelvic girdle (a partial pelvis was found in later specimens), Ambulocetus is
described as having walked on land much as sea lions do and swimming with a
combined motion much as otters and seals do. Why a whale would have hooves on
its rear feet and be living near the seashore are questions that are not
answered by the fossils.
The deposits containing Ambulocetus were found 400 feet higher than
where Pakicetus was found, but both are supposedly 52 million
years old. Pakicetus is called the oldest whale (cetacean),
but Ambulocetus is supposed to display transitional features
as land animals turned into whales. Based on teeth alone, several other
wolf-like carnivores (mesonychids) are thought to be ancestors as well. The
exact arrangement of these groups is disputed, and some consider the
mesonychids to be a branch separate from whales.
This interpretation of scant fossil evidence is very imaginative and
totally necessary to support the notion that whales evolved from land animals.
Such imaginative claims of evolutionary history have been claimed in the past
only to be shown false. Further evidence will certainly change the current
thinking in drastic ways.
3:10 Are mutations part of the “engine” of evolution?
“There is little agreement about the evolutionary ancestor of whales.
Some believe it was an ancestor of hippos and pigs, while others believe it was
a group known as mesonychids. The contrary nature of the evidence and the lack
of transitional forms in the fossil record strengthen the case for distinct
groups of created organisms.”
This chapter of War of the Worldviews details the
common mechanisms of genetic mutation and explains how the mechanisms actually
provide examples of a loss of information rather than the creation of new
information necessary to explain molecules-to-man evolution.
In evolutionary theory, mutations are described as the mechanism that
fuels the engine of natural selection, creating new organisms as a result.
However, the vast majority of mutations are either neutral or cause a loss of
information in the genetic code of an individual.
Here is a model to illustrate a point.
The differences between Creationists and non creation
evolutionists:
DNA gives information:
Creationist says, this proves intelligence, God’s Word is truth
Non creationist says evolutionary change and man decides what is truth
Observational Science gives initial information:
Creationist says this proves intelligence, God’s Word is Truth
Non Creationist says evolutionary change, man decides what is truth
Observational Science confirms intelligent design and proves God’s Word
is Truth
But does not confirm evolutionary change and shows man’s truth is
fickle.
Recent advances in the mechanisms of genetics have made it even clearer
that the complex information system found in every living cell must be the
result of a Designer. Mutations cannot explain how new information can be
formed over time.
Evolution teaches that mutations have accumulated over millions of years
to increase the complexity of organisms on the earth. The Bible teaches that,
as a result of Adam’s sin, all of creation is in a downward slide—including the
genetic information that is in every living cell.
The law against marrying close relations was not given to Israel until
Leviticus 18. Up to this point, the accumulation of genetic mistakes was
apparently not significant enough to cause genetic disorders in the offspring
of close family members.
Today, with thousands of years of accumulated genetic mistakes in the
human gene pool, intermarriage would be much more likely to produce children
with genetic disorders. So it seems that the explanation of a genetic
degradation since the Curse of Adam actually fits the evidence better than the
evolution model of increasing complexity.
3:11 Does the beak of the finch prove Darwin was right?
While on his journey aboard the Beagle, Darwin had an extended stay in
the Galapagos Islands. He observed a group of finches that were similar to ones
he had seen on the mainland 600 miles away. Darwin concluded that these birds
were related to the birds on the mainland but had developed unique traits
suited to the islands. The structure of the beaks was one of the key
characteristics he studied. This interpretation was contrary to some
creationists of his day who believed species could not change.
Darwin’s conclusion concerning finches matches that of the modern
creationist models and demonstrates the variation within a kind that is
observed in nature—the finches are still finches. Studies by Drs. Peter and
Rosemary Grant over the past decades have shown that the beak size of the
finches changes with the climate of the islands they inhabit. Beaks got larger
during droughts and smaller during wet periods. All the while, the birds were
observed to interbreed.
This cannot be considered evidence of evolution in the molecules-to-man
sense because there was no net change in the population, even though rapid
changes in beak size were observed. The Grants’ work is an example of a good
study using the principles of operational science arriving at a faulty
interpretation based on evolutionary presuppositions.
Often cited as evidence for evolution, the finches of the Galapagos
actually demonstrate variation within a kind and the limits of change. Note
that the graph shows no net change in the beak size of the finch—it leaves off
right where it started. This is certainly evidence that populations can change
but not that they can change into new kinds.
3:12 Reticulate evolution,
The Grants began studying the finch population of the Galapagos Islands
in 1973. They monitored breeding, feeding, and physical data in the birds. The
finches’ beak shape and size are the main characteristics that are used in
classifying them. Even this is difficult with the variability seen in the
beaks. One of the biggest problems for the finch studies is the extensive
hybridization that occurs between the alleged species. The fact that these
hybrids also reproduced should suggest that the three interbreeding species are
actually one species.
This conclusion was set aside to suggest that hybridization is essential
for and accelerates the rate of evolutionary change. The standard species
concept was rejected to promote evolution. The hybridization demonstrates the
common gene pool that these finches all share and the high degree of
variability that was present in the first birds on the islands.
The branches and stems in the finch tree of life seem to be more like a
thicket with interconnecting lines (termed reticulate evolution). The range of
explanations for the process of evolution—it is a “fact” that it has occurred—
now includes rapid or gradual, directed or undirected, tree or thicket. The
creationist model can still be said to accommodate the data in a much more
complete way. Variation within the created kind is confirmed in Darwin’s
finches.
3:13 Change, yes; evolution, no,
The most persuasive—and dangerous—definition for evolution is “change
through time.” Just because organisms can be observed to change over a period
of time does not mean that all life has a common ancestor. If we think of the
classic peppered moth example, we started with light and dark moths (Biston
betularia) and ended up with light— and dark—colored moths of the same species
in different proportions. This exemplifies the creationist idea of variation
within a kind.
The natural selection that produces the variety of living things we see
today began after Adam rebelled against God. The concept of natural selection
was published in a biblical context by Edward Blyth 24 years before Darwin
published Origin of Species. Blyth is forgotten and Darwin is remembered
because of the philosophic and religious implications of his idea, not the
scientific applications.
Natural selection has been shown to change organisms but always within
the boundaries of the created kinds. This type of change is often termed
“microevolution,” and the hypothetical type of change that turns fish into
philosophers is known as “macroevolution.” The large-scale changes through time
are simply dramatic extrapolations of the observed phenomenon of natural
selection. This degree of extrapolation has no basis in operational science.
There are limits to the amount and type of genetic change that can
occur—no matter what amount of time is allowed. As an illustration: if you can
pedal a bicycle at 10 mph, how long would it take to reach the moon? Bicycles
have limits that would make this goal impossible regardless of the time you
have to accomplish it.
3:14 Henry Zuill on biology,
When we look at the world, we see a complex interaction between living
things, from bacteria to grizzly bears; all life depends on other life around
it. The complexities of relationships in the ecosystems that make up the earth
are just as complex as those seen inside each living cell. Biodiversity and the
relationships that it incorporates are a hallmark of the design of the Creator.
The more diverse and complex an ecosystem is, the more stable it is. Each
species in an ecosystem provides a service, but often providers of that service
overlap and each species may perform several services. Removal of one of the
species has an impact on all other species.
This interdependency is supposed to demonstrate how organisms have
evolved alongside one another. But how did the first organism survive without
the second, and vice versa?
Being created together is a simple explanation, and evolution has great
difficulty explaining the many instances of species that absolutely depend on
one another for their survival.
When cells were described as simple blobs of jelly, it was easy to
imagine that they arose spontaneously. Today, the complexity of a single cell
defies an origin from simple matter. As we understand more about ecological
interactions, it is apparent that the evolutionary relationships that were once
assumed to be simplistic are now known to have many layers of complexity.
The coevolution of complex symbiotic relationships required the
existence of relationships. This provides no answer to the origin of the
relationships. If the two organisms were created to coexist, a fine-tuning of
the relationship would be expected in the creationist framework.
Predators and parasites developed in response to the degraded world
after the Flood. The created kinds may have changed, but the general
relationships present before the Fall probably remained intact to some degree.
The relationships seen are a testament to the Creator who instilled order and
flexibility into the system. Evolutionary views cannot adequately explain the
symbiotic nature of all living things.
Please continue reading this by clicking on the following shortcut link Exposing The Flaws Of Traditional (But Faulty) Evolutionary Teaching But Giving Strong Evidence For A Creator and Creational Evolution PART 2
Note from John Chingford:
The purpose of this article is to show that you cannot trust the lies/exaggerations of evolutionists who never tell us that their estimations are theory. They always tell us these things (including timescales) as if they were facts - i.e. deliberately concealing/withholding truth is lying!
With every new discovery if declared honestly, reveal that the Bible is true and far more reliable in its details than mere men who try to figure things out with imperfect and finite minds. When the Bible is shown to be true, it then SHOULD impact us to trust in the God who effectively dictated to men what to write in the Bible and therefore realise that God knows about His Universe infinitely more than what we think.
Please read this article which proves why the Bible can be trusted and why it IS indeed the Word Of God.
http://watchmanforjesus.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/proving-why-bible-is-inspired-inerrant.html
Please continue reading this by clicking on the following shortcut link Exposing The Flaws Of Traditional (But Faulty) Evolutionary Teaching But Giving Strong Evidence For A Creator and Creational Evolution PART 2
Note from John Chingford:
The purpose of this article is to show that you cannot trust the lies/exaggerations of evolutionists who never tell us that their estimations are theory. They always tell us these things (including timescales) as if they were facts - i.e. deliberately concealing/withholding truth is lying!
With every new discovery if declared honestly, reveal that the Bible is true and far more reliable in its details than mere men who try to figure things out with imperfect and finite minds. When the Bible is shown to be true, it then SHOULD impact us to trust in the God who effectively dictated to men what to write in the Bible and therefore realise that God knows about His Universe infinitely more than what we think.
Please read this article which proves why the Bible can be trusted and why it IS indeed the Word Of God.
http://watchmanforjesus.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/proving-why-bible-is-inspired-inerrant.html
No comments:
Post a Comment