Search This Blog

Important Information
This Blog was created on 7th Sep 2011. Please read the vision statement (above). I am limited to the number of words I can use, so it is a brief summary. Over the comings days I will add articles which correspond to the Mission statement and many other features. For those left Behind (after the Rapture) more info. on the left hand side bar and a link below to an article

How To Be Saved After The Rapture

Click Here to find out how

Wednesday, 7 September 2011

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 this following shortcut link: 

Exposing 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 …”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

“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.

3:2 Is evolution a “fact” of science? Thompson,

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

1 comment:

RomaLynn said...

I will get here soon to read this through thoroughly John, as you know some illness in our house right now. Thanks for being dedicated to showing truth here.