Tuesday, 2 March 2010
Exposing The Flaws Of Traditional (But Faulty)
Evolutionary Teaching But Giving Strong Evidence For A Creator and Creational
Evolution PART 2
Page 2
First See part 1 Exposing The Flaws Of Traditional (But Faulty) Evolutionary Teaching But Giving Strong Evidence For A Creator and Creational Evolution PART 1 for the beginning of this article.
This article makes little sense until you have first read Part 1, which gives the background and strong evidence for the equal evidence that follows. Assuming you have read part 1, here is Part 2
PART 2
3:15 Genetics: no friend of evolution,
Mendel and Darwin were contemporaries whose theories were
formulated in different ways and clashed with one another. Mendel used careful observations of traits and calculations to develop his theory of inheritance, while Darwin’s ideas were based on erroneous ideas about inheritance.
formulated in different ways and clashed with one another. Mendel used careful observations of traits and calculations to develop his theory of inheritance, while Darwin’s ideas were based on erroneous ideas about inheritance.
Four factors can be considered in genetic variation: environment,
recombination, mutation, and creation. It has long been known that
environmental effects on individuals cannot be passed on to offspring as the
information is not contained in the DNA. Mendel recognized the constancy of
traits with variation, while Darwin, to some degree, accepted environmental
influence on variation.
This is evident from Darwin’s discussion of the giraffe’s neck becoming
longer by “the inherited effects of the increased use of parts.”
Mendel showed that traits are reorganized independently when they are
passed on to offspring. The variation would not always be evident, but it would
only reappear if the trait was present in a previous generation. The amount of
variation is limited by the information in the parents. Darwin’s finches offer
an example of this recombination of traits.
Mutations are rare in a given gene, and the cell has elaborate machinery
to correct mistakes when they occur. Mutations, when they do occur, tend to be
neutral but others are harmful. In the creation model, mistakes in the DNA
would be expected to have harmful effects.
In evolution, these mistakes are supposed to increase information even
though in over 3,000 known fruit fly mutations not one produces a fly that has
a survival advantage.
Examples of mutations that are beneficial to the individual or
population are shown to be a loss of information. Natural selection acts to
preserve or eliminate traits that are beneficial or harmful, as the creation
model would predict. Creation of organisms by a divine Creator is the only
mechanism that is adequate to account for the variation seen in the world
today. Each of the created kinds started with considerable genetic variability
that has caused the variety of life we see today.
3:16 Copying confusion,
Molecules-to-man evolution requires the production of large amounts of
new genetic information. In searching for possible mechanisms, evolutionists
have sometimes pointed to the ability of cells to make, and retain, multiple
copies of their DNA. If this were the source of evolution, one would expect to
find a general increase in the amount of DNA as you move up the evolutionary
tree of life.
This, however, is not the case. Humans are certainly more complex
organisms than bacteria and plants, but they have less DNA in general. The
organism with the most DNA is actually a bacterium (Epulopiscium fishelsoni)
that has at least 25 times as much DNA as a human cell. There are also 85,000
copies of one of its genes per cell. If these extra copies of genes were indeed
the raw material for evolutionary mechanisms to act on, this bacterium should
be a hallmark of evolutionary adaptation—but it is still a bacterium.
3:17 Man: the image of God,
Evolutionists suggest that evolution is a meaningless, undirected
process and that humans are a mere accident with no purpose or meaning in the
universe. If humans evolved, then there is no eternal life and no God.
This obviously flies in the face of Christian beliefs; we were created
in the image of God.
This view of creation gives our life meaning and purpose. Without God,
there is no foundation for morality and each person can do what seems right at
the time with no real consequences regarding eternity— eternity does not exist.
Man shares characteristics with both animals and God.
The Bible equates man and animals on a certain level, but the presence
of a spirit and the ability to communicate ideas are attributes man shares with
God. We also see God’s attributes in human creativity, reasoning, and the
ability to express love and pursue the holiness that existed before sin entered
the world.
The impulse to survive seen in every living thing cannot be described in
biological terms; a divine Creator must have instilled this desire in each
organism. Evolutionists suggest that the hope of an afterlife is a coping
mechanism that has developed as a response to the bleakness of our existence,
but God says it is a promise to all. Some will be in the presence of God and
others will be cast into Hell.
3:18 Evolution—atheism,
“Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us
loud and clear … . There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of
any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain
that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate
foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for
humans, either.” —Dr. William B. Provine, Professor of Biological Sciences,
Cornell University
3:19 Natural selection,
The definition of the “fittest” individuals makes the notion of natural
selection true based on circular reasoning. The fittest are the ones that
survive, and you can tell which are the fittest by seeing which ones survive.
(The fact that survival of the fittest is based on circular reasoning does not
necessarily mean that the idea is false.) Fitness is controlled by many factors
that allow the organism to survive and reproduce.
The fastest zebra may be deaf and have a poor sense of smell. This
combination would tend to eliminate his genes from a population. The only way
to understand fitness is to study the first generation and then track the
presence of those traits through time as successive generations are born.
Numerical values can be used to represent the fitness of individuals
based on the ratio of individuals with different traits. These numbers can
explain fitness, but they have no predictive power—you can only determine the
fittest after they survive. Mice that hold still to avoid being seen by a
soaring hawk are better able to survive, except when it is safer to run to
their burrows to avoid being eaten—each may provide an advantage. If the fact
that the survivors survived is used to prove evolution, the circular reasoning
becomes a logic problem.
Another misconception is that the fittest variety must be increasing in
number. Natural selection can still be acting on a population as its numbers
are declining. There is no direction implied in natural selection—you can be
the highest scorer (most fit) on the losing team. Competition happens between
species (interspecific competition), but natural selection acts within species
(intraspecific competition). The struggle for survival is not between lions and
zebras, it is within the zebra population. This intraspecific struggle allows
for change within kinds, but not from one kind to another.
One shortcoming is that natural selection cannot plan ahead—an advantage
one day may become a hindrance as the environment changes. This can ultimately
lead to the extinction of a population despite its current success in the
environment. Natural selection favors specialization into distinct niches; when
the environment changes, the specialization becomes a disadvantage. It seems
impossible that this process of undirected elimination could lead to an
increase in variety and complexity.
The complex system of proteins involved in the blood-clotting reaction
makes up an “irreducibly complex” system. If any one of the pieces is missing,
the system fails. Evolution cannot adequately explain how such systems could
arise.
Adaptations are usually presented in a way that makes them seem like a
natural extension of natural selection. There is limited evidence to suggest
that natural selection can lead to new adaptations, but ample evidence shows
that adaptations can lead to natural selection. An adaptation must appear
before natural selection can act on it. Evolution cannot explain the appearance
of these traits, but the Creator provided the variety needed in the original
created kinds.
The presence of irreducible complexity in biological systems is another
roadblock for naturalistic theories of evolution. It is hard to imagine how you
could get to the top of the Empire State Building if you had to jump, but the
task becomes easier when you learn that there are stairs. This slow and gradual
idea is how evolutionists explain the molecules-to-man idea that once seemed
impossible to imagine. This works if all of the steps can be used to build on
one another, but what if this were not the case?
Darwin recognized this limit and acknowledged it in Origin of
Species. In his book Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe describes
the biochemical details of several systems that need all of their parts present
to function. Since removing one of the proteins involved in blood-clotting
causes catastrophic results, the system has irreducible complexity. This
irreducible complexity is not only present within living organisms but also
between them in ecological interactions.
The interaction of fish and shrimp in cleaning symbiosis is one example.
A large fish allows a small fish or shrimp to clean parasites from its mouth
and then swims off without eating the cleaner. How could this relationship, and
other irreducibly complex systems, have evolved one step at a time?
Even if Darwin’s ideas can explain the maintenance of traits and
variation within a kind, they do not address the actual origin of the traits in
the first place. Darwin used the phrase “from use and disuse, from the direct
and indirect actions of the environment” to describe the origin of traits.
This is exactly the view held by Lamarck, who is often contrasted with
Darwin. Using a trait does not mean it will be passed to the offspring in a different
form (stretching giraffe necks is often used as an example). As science has
gathered more information about heredity, the idea of use and disuse has been
shown to be false.
The origin of this new information is thought by neo- Darwinists to
occur by random mutation—random mutations are the raw material for evolution.
The cases of fruit fly mutation and flu virus are often used as examples to
support evolution. However, these mutations cannot explain the increase or
origin of information in living systems. The creationist model—that information
was created by the Supreme Designer—fits the observations much better than
naturalistic evolution.
3:20 Learning the right tricks about life’s origin,
A Scientific American article admits (way back in 1991)
that the “chicken and egg” problem of DNA and proteins has not been solved by
the RNA hypothesis. DNA requires proteins to function, and proteins are made
from DNA. The actual laboratory observations are highly artificial with a
“great deal of help from the scientists.” Miller’s and Fox’s experiments on the
origin of proteins and proteinoids, which supposedly produced “protocells,” are
essentially dead ends.
Clever attempts at producing life in the lab only demonstrate that life
can be produced by intelligence. The stories of life originating in clay
crystals and deep-ocean vents are just stories, with no observational data to
confirm them. In all, much more research is needed to even begin to answer the
question of the origin of life in a materialistic framework. Creationists need
only accept that God has created life and study the changes that have occurred
since the creation.
3:21 Startling plant discovery presents problems for evolution,
An amazing discovery in genetics has shown that a certain plant
(Arabidopsis thaliana) can actually fix a mutation in a recessive allele even
when it doesn’t have a copy of the correct sequence in its genome. In a
well-designed study, the mutation was shown to be corrected in a
“templatedirected process,” not by random mutations.
Organisms that have a better DNA correction system would have a survival
advantage, but the irreducible complexity of the system makes it highly
improbable that it evolved. This correction mechanism has never been seen
before and seems to defy evolution by natural selection.
How do you select for the ability to fix a mutation that you don’t have?
This trait could easily be lost from the population by genetic drift or random
mutation in organisms that lack the mutation (assuming it is a DNA-encoded
trait). A system that fixes random mutations would stop, or at least slow down,
the evolutionary process.
The authors of the study suggest stress induces the repair. Stress has
been shown to change mutation rates in certain bacteria, but in the other
direction—more mutations are produced to create a variant that can survive the
stress. RNA is a candidate for the correction mechanism, but many properties of
RNA make it improbable. The RNA may be acting with other proteins, but more
research needs to be done.
Evolution is such a plastic theory that a “just so” story will probably
come about as a result of this correction mechanism. The problem is that it
would be just as likely to fix beneficial mutations as it would harmful ones. A
creationist can accept this new mechanism as another way of maintaining the
created kinds in light of genetic variability.
In order for DNA to be transcribed, many proteins must interact with the
DNA. The problem is that DNA is needed to make the proteins that are used to
transcribe the DNA—a classic example of the “chicken and the egg” dilemma.
Evolution cannot explain how such a system could have evolved by random
processes acting over time. DNA was created fully functional.
3:22 Is bacterial resistance to antibiotics an appropriate example of
evolutionary change?
[Summary quoted directly from the actual paper] Resistance to
antibiotics and other antimicrobials is often claimed to be a clear demonstration
of “evolution in a Petri dish.”
However, analysis of the genetic events causing this resistance reveals
that they are not consistent with the genetic events necessary for evolution
(defined as common “descent with modification”). Rather, resistance resulting
from horizontal gene transfer merely provides a mechanism for transferring
pre-existing resistance genes. Horizontal transfer does not provide a mechanism
for the origin of those genes.
Spontaneous mutation does provide a potential genetic mechanism for the
origin of these genes, but such an origin has never been demonstrated. Instead,
all known examples of antibiotic resistance via mutation are inconsistent with
the genetic requirements of evolution.
These mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular
systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory
systems, enzyme activity, and protein binding.
Antibiotic resistance may also impart some decrease of “relative
fitness” (severe in a few cases), although for many mutants this is compensated
by reversion. The real biological cost, though, is loss of pre-existing systems
and activities. Such losses are never compensated, unless resistance is lost,
and cannot validly be offered as examples of true evolutionary change.
3:23 Can genetic mutations produce positive changes in living creatures?
It is important to note that antibiotic resistance selects for traits
that are already present in the population. Since there is no new information
generated, it cannot be claimed that evolution is occurring.
Richard Dawkins used the idea of a “blind watchmaker” to describe how
genetics can create new features in organisms through evolutionary processes.
Actual observations show that natural selection acts more like a “blind gunman”
as mutations occur. Mutations occur when the genetic code of DNA changes and
come in many different forms.
Only the mutations in the germ cells (eggs and sperm) can be considered
in inherited diseases. In a large protein, a mutation at many positions in a
gene may cause a defective protein to be formed. In one cholesterol disorder,
350 disease-producing mutations have been documented to cause various problems
with cell membrane receptors.
Cystic fibrosis (CF) is caused by a group of mutations in an ion pump in
the cell membrane. The protein consists of 1,480 amino acids and the deletion
of three bases at codon 508 causes most cases of CF. Nearly 200 other mutations
have been shown to cause CF as well. Cancer is another disease that
demonstrates the danger that mutations can cause to organisms. Many types of germ-line
and somatic (body) cell mutations cause the cells to grow without the normal
regulations on size and cell division.
If evolution has led from microbes to man, there should be some evidence
that mutations can cause such an increase in information. Sickle-cell anemia is
often used as an example to support Darwinian evolution, but the mutation
clearly causes a loss of normal function with no new ability or information.
Cancer cells are fitter than other cells around them but can hardly be
considered as proof of evolution. The fact remains that observational science
shows that mutations cause negative effects without a single example of a
mutation that improves the function of a protein in support of evolution.
If we start from the Bible, the effects of mutations and the continued
decay of the human genome is a clear example of the Curse that resulted from
Adam’s sin. The human genome will become increasingly corrupted as time passes.
Christ’s return and the fact that He conquered death offers the world hope for
the future.
3:24 What does the fossil record teach us about evolution?
When deciding if the fossil record actually supports the evolution of
life on earth, many factors need to be considered. Animals and plants appear
very abruptly in the fossil record. Evolution would predict the fossils we find
should show a vast array of transitional forms—few if any are found. Despite
the extensive number of fossils found, it is believed that few new fossil types
will be discovered.
The lack of order in the geologic layers presents another challenge for
evolutionists. The fossil record is much more consistent with the occurrence of
a global Flood and special creation than with an evolutionary history.
3:25 Evidence for a young world,
Many of the dating techniques that can be used to determine the age of
the universe and the earth point to a maximum amount of time less than the
billions of years required by naturalistic evolution. Galaxies wind themselves
up much too fast to be billions of years old. There are too few visible
supernova remnants.
Comets disintegrate too rapidly and have no mechanism to reform. There
is too little sediment on the sea floor to account for erosion and not enough
sodium in the sea to account for billions of years. The earth’s magnetic field
is decaying too rapidly. Rock layers are bent to extreme degrees, suggesting
they folded rapidly while still soft. DNA and other biologic materials should
decay and not be found in fossils—bacteria alleged to be 250 million years old
should have no intact DNA left, yet they were able to grow.
Radioactive halos present in rocks show a time of rapid radioactive
decay in the past. Too much helium resides in minerals that are supposed to be
very old. Carbon-14 is found in diamonds and coal that are supposed to be
millions or billions of years old. There are too few skeletons of Stone Age
humans to support the alleged 200,000-year timespan. Agriculture and historical
writings have been around for too short a period. In combination, this short
list demonstrates that many dating methods defy the billions of years needed to
support evolution’s house of cards.
3:26 Gallup poll on creationism,
A poll conducted by the Gallup Organization in 2005 found that 29% of
Americans believe that creationism (including life originating 6,000 years ago)
is definitely true with respect to explaining the origin of life on earth.
About 20% consider evolution definitely true, and only 8% believe intelligent
design is definitely true. The results also indicate that many people still
have mixed views on the compatibility of evolution and creation.
By 58% to 26%, a majority of Americans express their belief in
creationism; by 55% to 34%, a majority also accept evolution. But 32% of
Americans tend to reject intelligent design, while 31% say it is probably true.
The statistics make it clear that many Americans are blending ideas of creation
and evolution together in an attempt to make sense of the conflicting messages.
(Standing on the authority of the Bible will lead to an acceptance of
creationism as the only position consistent with Scripture.)
3:27 Natural selection,
The peppered moths used as an example in many textbooks have actually
been exposed as a fraud. Dead and sedated moths were placed on tree trunks
where the moths were never observed to rest. Despite the fraud, this is a clear
example of natural selection, not evolution.
Darwin based his idea of natural selection on the changes he observed in
selective breeding by farmers and animal breeders. It can be observed that
artificial selection can lead to the expression of hidden traits. Darwin
suggested that if man can produce such changes in a short time, over millions
of years natural selection could produce entirely new species. Darwin was right
about the ability of natural selection to change populations, but he was wrong
about the extent of change that could occur.
A popular example in textbooks is the case of the peppered moth. The
proportion of moths of different color was shown to change as pollution changed
the environment they lived in. It has also been recently revealed that the
photos of moths showed dead or stunned moths glued to trees and that the moths
do not land on the trunks. Despite the fraud, the concept still fails to prove
evolution in the molecules-to-man sense.
3:28 Mutation, yes; evolution, no,
There are three limits to accepting mutations as a mechanism for
molecules-to-man evolution. First, there are mathematical limits to the
probability of evolution occurring. Mutations occur once in every 10 million
duplications of DNA, so it is very likely that every cell in your body contains
at least one mutation since you were born. The problem for evolution is that
you need multiple, related mutations to cause a change in a structure. If
mutations occur at a rate of one in 107, the odds of getting two related
mutations is 1014.
The likelihood of evolution quickly becomes unreasonable. In bacteria
that are resistant to four different antibiotics, the probability would be 1 in
1028. It has been shown that the bacteria already had the information for
resistance built into them—the trait was selected for, not created by
mutations. Those bacteria that do become resistant by mutation are less fit and
don’t survive outside relatively sterile environments. This is not evidence for
evolution.
Second, mutations are moving in the wrong direction to support the
advancement of complexity required by evolution. Almost every mutation we know
of has been identified based on the disease it causes. Mutations explain the
decline seen in genetic systems since the Fall of mankind in Adam. The time,
chance, and random mutations simply serve to tear things apart. Shortly after
creation, there would have been few genetic mistakes present in the human
population, and marrying a close relative would not have been a problem. Today,
the likelihood of a shared mutation causing a disease is too great a risk to
allow close marriages.
The advantage of avoiding severe malaria symptoms by those with
sickle-cell anemia is often given as evidence of beneficial mutations. The
overall effect of the mutation is not beneficial to the human race, however,
and will not lead to a more fit population.
Third, mutations can only act on genes that already exist. Natural
selection cannot explain the origin of genes because there was no information
for natural selection to act on. Mutation and natural selection simply produce
variation within a kind—just as the biblical creation model suggests. No
genetic mechanism can increase the amount of information that is needed to
demonstrate evolution from particles to people. Mutations do not add
information to an organism’s genome.
Thousands of mutations would need to add information to change even
“simple” cells into more complex cells. Even when genes mutate, they still pair
up with similar alleles and are controlled by the same regulators. Mutations
may affect the degree of a trait, but they do not cause new traits.
It is not the amount of time or the number of mutations, but the
direction of change and the origin of information that are the biggest
stumbling blocks for evolution. All of the evidence continues to point to the
design and information originally provided by the Creator.
3:29 Scientific roadblocks to whale evolution,
One of the popular stories of evolution tells of how land animals
evolved into whales and their cousins. Darwin suggested that a race of bears
became more and more aquatic until they were whales. Other stories are full of
details that have no basis in any facts. To produce whales from small land
mammals would require countless changes. These gradual changes are not
preserved in the fossil record to any degree.
There are many suggested ancestors to the whales, from wolf-like
creatures to hippos. All require amazing changes that must have happened at an
astonishing rate to fit the evolutionary timescale. Blubber, temperature
regulation, special metabolism, countercurrent blood flow, and other functions
would have to be present before natural selection could act on these traits.
The development of one- or two-holed breathing structures stretches the limits
of the evidence in fossils. Whale tails move up and down, while the alleged
ancestors did not have this ability. The pelvis would have to be minimized
while the flukes were expanded.
The fossils to document these changes are absent.
The lack of consistency between molecular data and morphological data is
a strike against evolution in general. The inconsistency is evident where
certain proteins suggest whales and hippos should be grouped together, while
the fossils suggest a carnivorous ancestor for whales. Neither natural
selection nor mutations are sufficient to explain the alleged transformation
from anything to a whale. The biblical model still provides the best
explanation.
3:30 Camels—confirmation of creation,
The actual fossils evidence is not presented as support for the
drawings. When you see a picture like this, ask yourself, “What did the bones
look like and where did the details come from?” The striped fur and the hump
are drawn to give the impression of progress, but the fossils do not support
the drawings. Keep in mind that the artist has an objective when they are
drawing the pictures. This series seems to replace the once-popular horse
series that was shown to be false.
Many features of the camel point to amazing design. The features include
the ability to go without food and water for extended periods, to avoid
sweating by increasing body temperature, and to consume large amounts of water
to rehydrate. The alleged evolutionary series of the camel is only possible
because we have living examples today.
If assembling fossils in a sequence is like a puzzle, you need to know
what the picture looks like before you start, or you are just randomly placing
the pieces. The Camelops fossils of 3.5 million years ago are described as true
camels, but even they haven’t changed much in the supposed expanse of time.
The presence of similar structures in human and bird embryos are
supposed to be evidence for a common ancestor. However, a common designer using
certain design features to accomplish different functions is also a legitimate
explanation. Many embryologists have abandoned the idea of “embryonic
recapitulation, ” but it still remains in the textbooks as evidence for
evolution.
3:31 Fraud rediscovered,
Grigg, Creation 20(2):49–51, 1998
It is commonly asserted and taught that human embryos go through various
evolutionary stages during the first few months of development. This idea has
been presented for decades and used to justify abortion of the “fish” growing
in the womb. This idea, called embryonic recapitulation, was developed by
Haeckel in the 1860s. He produced fraudulent drawings to show the imaginary similarities
between vertebrate embryos at a certain stage of development.
Most informed evolutionists in the past 80 years have realized that the
recapitulation hypothesis is false. Despite this, the idea that embryos look
similar is still used as evidence for evolution. The “common knowledge” of
similarities rests on Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings.
A published study by Michael Richardson noted that no one had studied
the similarities in detail. When the information was gathered in photographs,
the stages shown by Haeckel are amazingly different from one another. The fraud
of Haeckel has been exposed, but the idea is perpetuated in nearly every
biology text produced. Is this continuation a fraud as well?
3:32 Hox hype,
Homeobox (hox) genes are the switches that control where and when a
feature develops. Evolutionists use hox genes to describe how major
evolutionary changes could have occurred—six-legged insects could have evolved
from shrimp if the genes that control leg development were mutated. A reduction
in the number of legs over time fits within the creationist framework of loss
of information, but it does not explain the origin of the legs in the first
place.
Hox gene mutations that cause flies to grow extra wings are not
accompanied by the muscular and other changes needed to make those wings
functional—the extra wings would actually hinder the fly from flying, and the
defect would be eliminated from the population. No matter how dramatic the
changes may seem, losing or misplacing parts cannot explain the gain of
information needed for molecules- to-man evolution.
3:33 Living light,
Those who have seen fireflies are familiar with bioluminescence— a
phenomenon found throughout the biological world. The chemical reaction that
produces this “living light” is found in algae, worms, insects, fungi, and
genetically modified organisms. Evolutionists attempt to explain the broad
array of living things that have this ability with convergent evolution.
This ability, which involves at least two chemical reactions and several
compounds, would have had to evolve independently at least 30 different times
to explain its existence in living things. The separate lines of descent would
have to have undergone the same random changes at hundreds of genetic
steps—statistically impossible. The convergence of this and other traits is
solid evidence for a Creator who used a common design.
3:34 Sickle-cell anemia does not prove evolution,
It is commonly believed that the abnormally high presence of sickle-cell
anemia (SCA) in African populations is evidence of evolution. It is true that
individuals with SCA do not suffer as severely when they contract malaria
because the blood cells are not as suitable for the malaria pathogen.
This does not mean that there are not other factors (marriage customs,
diet, viral infections, and social factors) that influence the occurrence of
SCA in these populations. Using natural selection alone ignores the other
social implications and leads to a misunderstanding of the true nature of the
disease.
Natural selection plays a part in the high frequency of those who carry
the SCA gene, but it is not the only factor. Even though natural selection is
shown to be a factor, it does not demonstrate the type of uphill evolution
required to validate evolutionary theory.
The fact that sickle-cell anemia occurs at a higher rate in populations
where malaria is common does not provide evidence for the type of changes
required for molecules-to-man evolution.
3:35 Vertebrates: animals with backbones,
If animals have evolved from a common ancestor, there should be a
multitude of missing links to demonstrate the gradual changes. One commonly
cited example is Archaeopteryx. Archaeopteryx appears to have a blend of
reptilian and bird characteristics—exactly what evolution would predict.
The features of Archaeopteryx can be found in various birds, and the
presence of wings and feathers doesn’t tell you how—or if—they evolved from
other structures. These complex features appear suddenly and fully formed in
the fossil record. Archaeopteryx is a true bird with odd features, not a
missing link.
The fraudulent “feathered dinosaur” (Archaeoraptor) that was published
in National Geographic is another example of a missing link that has been abandoned.
Many of the other Chinese fossils that are supposed to be the ancestors of
birds actually occur too high in the rock layers.
To be included as a transitional form, fossils must be in the right
sequence and have intermediate features. Of the thousands upon thousands of
transitional forms that must have existed, only a handful of fossils are
possibilities.
Recognizing the failure of the fossil record to display the gradual
nature of Darwinian evolution, Stephen J. Gould resurrected the idea of evolution
in big jumps known as “punctuated equilibrium.” Major remodeling of body plans
could occur if regulator genes caused multiple changes at once. This would
explain gaps in the fossil record, but it is not supported by observational
science.
Even if these creatures were born, what would they mate with? The exact
mutations would have to occur simultaneously and in close proximity—a highly
improbable situation. Those scientists who support this idea at least admit
that the links are missing.
Gradualists say that punctuated equilibrium is absurd and evolution
cannot happen that fast. Punctuational evolutionists point to genetic limits
and fossil gaps and say that evolution didn’t happen slowly. The creationist
can simply agree that both are correct—life was designed by the Creator. The
variation that we see within created kinds supports this notion.
3:36 Catching a kinkajou,
Catchpoole, Creation 26(3):42–43, 2004
The fruit bat has teeth that are designed for eating fruit, not meat.
Evolution would say that the bat evolved from a meat-eating ancestor, but that
is based on assumption. Many other animals that are predominantly herbivores
have a similar tooth structure.
Vertebrates are classified as carnivores based on their skull and tooth
structure. The problem with this classification is that many “carnivores” are
not—they have diets of strictly or mainly plants.
The kinkajou (Potus flavus) is one such “carnivore.” Scientists
tried to catch them in traps baited with chicken, assuming that they ate meat
because of their tooth structure. Bananas were finally used and were
successful. Kinkajous, as it was later found, are exclusively vegetarian, even
with a vicious-looking set of teeth.
Many other animals (including fruit bats, grizzly bears, and pandas)
have teeth that appear to be designed for eating meat but are actually used to
eat mainly plants. So if we find a dinosaur, Velociraptor for instance, that
has teeth that appear to be designed for eating flesh, it may be that they were
used to rend the flesh of melons rather than the flesh of other dinosaurs.
We know that all animals were originally to eat only plants (Gen. 1:29–30). The teeth that
today, in our fallen world, are used to rip flesh may have once been used to
strip leaves from branches or shred plants to be eaten.
3:37 Virus “evolution” benefits mankind?
Humans have developed the technology to manipulate the genetic code of
many different organisms, but is it evidence for evolution? The ability to
change a virus used to deliver gene therapy was recently described as “directed
evolution.” By selecting for viruses that could evade the immune system and
then copying those with intentional mistakes, scientists produced a virus that
avoided immune defenses.
Since the viruses already had the information to avoid the immune
system, this cannot be considered evidence for molecules-to-man evolution—no
new information was produced. The advantage provided by genetic mistakes in
viruses in nature does not demonstrate that new information is added but that
the preexisting information is selected for or against by the environmental
conditions.
This research did not rely in any way on evolutionary principles but the
observed properties of genetic information that fits consistently in the
creationist model of life.
3:38 Genetic variance of influenza type A avian virus and its
evolutionary implications,
The bird flu, caused by a type A influenza virus, has been in the media,
and many are afraid that it will “evolve” into a form that will cause a
pandemic in humans. The virus that causes disease is made up of eight RNA
segments which code for its protein components.
The bird flu spreads so rapidly because it is often present in migrating
birds that show no symptoms. These birds pass the virus to domestic birds that
do not have a natural immunity, which leads to outbreaks in the domestic
populations. The ability of the virus to constantly change its protein
coat makes vaccination virtually useless.The genetic variation within the virus
is observable, but it does not support evolution in the molecules- to-man
sense. The genes are simply slight variations that code for a protein
that performs the same function. Viruses can change, but they cannot evolve to
become anything other than viruses.
18 Questions to Consider
1) What mechanisms do scientists use to explain how mutations can
produce new information to make organisms more complex, when virtually all
mutations cause a loss of information or no change at all?
2) Since information cannot be created from matter by purely natural
mechanisms and since it is not a part of the material universe, how did information
originate? By what mechanism is new information added to genomes in
evolutionary history? Can the information gain be demonstrated experimentally?
3) What direct fossil evidence is there that fish could have evolved
into amphibians? Could the alleged transitional fossils be interpreted in
multiple ways?
4) When two lines of evidence contradict each other (e.g., if DNA
suggests one evolutionary relationship and anatomy suggests a different
relationship), how do scientists decide which line of evidence is more
compelling?
5) Why is evolution the key to understanding biology?
6) Why is it necessary to know where the eye evolved from to understand
how it works and how to treat it when it has a disease?
7) Why do examples of natural selection get equated with evolution when
evolution is not observable and natural selection is?
8) Why do biology textbooks include the photo of the peppered moth when
scientists have shown it to be a fraud?
9) Should we accept everything that the text tells us about evolution
when the textbooks are constantly being changed and updated?
10) If evolution is not directed by a purpose, would it be safe to say
that human existence is purposeless?
11) What is the basis for truth and morality if human life is a
byproduct of evolutionary processes (random interactions of lifeless
chemicals)?
12) Are humans more special or important than any other organism if
there is no such thing as higher and lower animals in an evolutionary
framework?
13) Is it possible to know the original function of an organ that is
called vestigial, like the appendix, when most tissues are not preserved in
fossils and the ancestor cannot be examined? It would seem that there are many
assumptions involved in making such a claim.
14) Does evolution predict stasis or progress?
15) Why are so many “living fossils” found that have remained the same
for hundreds of millions of years while other species have evolved relatively
rapidly?
16) There seem to be many different definitions of evolution; do all
scientists agree on what evolution is? Which view of evolution is correct
(punctuated equilibrium, neo-Darwinism, Darwinism, etc.)?
17) Why do scientists consider homologous structures evidence of a
common ancestor when they seem to fit the expected pattern, but scientists call
them examples of convergent evolution when they don’t fit the pattern?
18) What types of evidence would evolutionists accept as evidence
against evolution?
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
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