First Off
This article and corresponding video are not all encompassing; meaning they were done to get you to think for yourself and to not take anyone’s word for something and to hopefully entice you to actually do your own research on these topics. I suggest you (in fact dare you to) actually do your own straightforward honest research on these topics and not just jump to your preconceived notion about what these topics are from what you’ve been told by anyone; even me. I challenge you to honestly answer the twenty five questions at the end of this article and video. Also, at the end is a tidbit of historical background information you most likely didn’t know about natural selection.
Summary
Most students in evolutionary-biased education come to believe that mutations and natural selection result in one kind of creature changing into a totally different kind over long periods of time. However, seldom, if ever is the fact presented that for Darwinian Evolution to occur it is necessary for new genetic information to be added to a creature. To date, no example of completely new additional information from a naturally occurring mutation or selection has been observed. The diversity of species in, for example, dogs, cats and horses, has arisen because of their already-existing genetic information, acted upon by natural selection and mutations.(1)
Information
DNA is all around us. It is found in every plant and animal. You literally eat it at every meal. It is possible to extract pieces of DNA, consisting of billions of basic units (called “bases,” abbreviated as A, C, T, and G), with just a common onion and a few household chemicals.
It is amazing what you can hold in your hand. Each DNA strand is an extremely long molecule. While humans have about 3 billion bases in their DNA, the garden onion (Allium cepa) has 15 billion bases. If the DNA in a single human cell were stretched out it would be 6 feet (1.8 m) long, so imagine how long the DNA from an onion cell would be!
The DNA molecule is often compared to a book. The DNA bases (A, C, T, and G) form words called genes. The genes contain all sorts of information necessary for life. DNA is found in every living cell (at least that we know of). It is like a recipe book providing information for building and running the organism. Because each organism needs different information, the arrangement of DNA varies in each individual. Human DNA must contain information to make brains and eyeballs, while plant DNA provides information to make leaves and roots (such as onions). (6)
What’s Not Evolution?
Darwinism: all life on earth has come about through descent with modification from a single common ancestor (a hypothetical, primitive, single-celled organism).
Darwinism and Darwin Evolution used in correct context is defined as meaning “descent with modification from a common ancestor” or in other words (molecules-to-man evolution). Darwinism has never been observed.
What is Evolution?
The terms evolving and evolution used in correct context is defined as meaning “adaptation” or “limited change in a population over time” which can be clearly seen today in everyday life as we observe nature and when observing bacterium, fruit flies, different breeds of dogs, cats, horses, etc. All of these forms of life can change and have changed yet they only change within their form of life meaning that bacterium will always be bacterium and fruit flies will always be flies and dogs will always be dogs, etc. You can see this in dogs the so many different breeds of dogs. Take for example a pure Labrador and Poodle. You can breed two pure Labradors together and get pure Labradors and the same with two pure Poodles and get pure Poodles. You can breed a pure Labrador and Poodle together (and just why anyone would want to do this is beyond me) and get a 50% Labrador and 50% Poodle yet this 50/50 mix is still a dog no matter how many times it is done nor for however many years it is done.
Natural Selection
Evolution (not Darwinism) in the wild happens by natural selection. Natural selection is an observable process and has been shown to change organisms but always within the boundaries of the created kinds, i.e., dogs, cats, bacterium, flies, etc. This type of change is often termed “microevolution,” and the hypothetical type of change (Darwinism) 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.(4)
Mutations
In the real world, mutations are responsible for a number of genetic defects, including hemophilia (bleeders’ disease), loss of protective color in the skin and eyes (albinism), and certain kinds of cancer and brain malfunction. We have abundant evidence that various kinds of radiations, errors in DNA replication, and certain chemicals can indeed produce mutations, and mutations in reproductive cells can be passed on to future generations. Mutations are certainly real. They have profound effects on our lives. And, according to the Darwinists, mutations are the raw material for Darwinism.
But is that possible? Can mutations produce real evolutionary changes? Don’t make any mistakes here. Mutations are real; they’re something we observe; they do make changes in traits. But the question remains: do they produce evolutionary changes? Do they really produce new traits? Do they really help to explain that postulated change from molecules to man, or fish to philosopher that Darwinism makes?(4)
As our understanding of genetics has improved, it has become increasingly clear that mutations + time + chance do not equal Darwinism. All observed mutations demonstrate a loss of genetic information from the genetic code, or they are neutral. Darwinism 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 Darwinism has proceeded from a cell with less information than is present in modern cells.(5)
How does (Darwinism) molecules-to-man have an information problem?
Information is the real heart of the problem for people who believe that life could have arisen by Darwinism. All life is built up on the basis of information. This information is contained in our DNA—the molecule of heredity. It’s like a series of letters and a code to read them.
A good comparison would be the Morse code. If you understand the code with dots and dashes representing letters of the alphabet, you can read something that’s put in Morse code.
If Darwinian evolution were true, then the very first organism had to have information in the form of letters and a code. Darwinists say that as organisms evolved, new information had to be continually added. In other words, millions of times over millions of years, new information would have to be generated by random processes and added to the genetic system.
Now here’s the clincher: No one has ever documented even just one instance of new information arising from matter by itself. All observations in science show clearly that information only comes from previously existing information, and ultimately from an intelligence. And this fits with creation—not Darwinism.
A major problem for Darwinism is the huge increase in information content of organisms through time. Darwinism 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.(5)
Bait and Switch
The ideas of natural selection, speciation, adaptation, and evolution are often used interchangeably by secular scientists. Many classroom textbooks also 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 (Darwinism), the switch has occurred.(5)
Questions to Consider
Recognizing the failure of the fossil record to display the gradual nature of Darwinian evolution, Stephen J. Gould resurrected the idea of Darwinism 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?
Where did all the new information come from since mutations are known to reduce information?
Does similarity always prove that one structure evolved into another?
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?
How do you select for the ability to fix a mutation that you don’t have?
How did the first organism survive without the second, and vice versa?
If you can pedal a bicycle at an average of 10 mph, how long would it take to reach the moon riding your bicycle taking a three hour break every fifth hour?
Is Darwinism a valid scientific idea since it cannot be observed in experiments and repeated to show that the conclusions it claims are valid?
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?
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 Darwinian evolutionary history? Can the information gain be demonstrated experimentally?
What direct fossil evidence is there that fish could have evolved into amphibians? Could the alleged transitional fossils be interpreted in multiple ways?
When two lines of evidence contradict each other (e.g., if DNA suggests one Darwinian evolutionary relationship and anatomy suggests a different relationship), how do scientists decide which line of evidence is more compelling?
Why is Darwinism the key to understanding biology? 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?
Why do examples of natural selection get equated with Darwinism when Darwinian evolution is not observable and natural selection is?
Why do biology textbooks include the photo of the peppered moth when scientists have shown it to be a fraud?
Should we accept everything that the text tells us about Darwinian evolution when the textbooks are constantly being changed and updated?
If Darwinian evolution is not directed by a purpose, would it be safe to say that human existence is purposeless?
What is the basis for truth and morality if human life is a byproduct of Darwinian evolutionary processes (random interactions of lifeless chemicals)?
Are humans more special or important than any other organism if there is no such thing as higher and lower animals in an Darwinian evolutionary framework?
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.
Does Darwinian evolution predict stasis or progress? 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?
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.)?
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?
What types of evidence would Darwinists accept as evidence against Darwinism?
Is “Just give it enough time and it will happen.” a scientific statement?
Historical Background on the Discovery of Natural Selection
Many people give credit to Charles Darwin for formulating the theory of natural selection as described in his book “On the Origin of Species.” Few people realize that Charles Darwin only popularized the idea and actually borrowed it from several other people, especially a creationist by the name of Edward Blyth. Blyth published several articles describing the process of natural selection in “Magazine of Natural History” between 1835 and 1837—a full 22 years before Darwin published his book “On the Origin of Species.” It is also known that Charles Darwin had copies of these magazines and that parts of “On The Origin of Species” are nearly verbatim from Blyth’s articles.(7)
Blyth, however, differed from Darwin in his starting assumptions. Blyth believed in God as the Creator, rather than the blind forces of nature. He believed that God created original kinds, that all modern species descended from those kinds, and that natural selection acted by conserving rather than originating. Blyth also believed that man was a separate creation from animals. This is especially important since humans are made in the image of God, an attribute that cannot be applied to animals (Genesis 1:27). Blyth seemed to view natural selection as a mechanism designed directly or indirectly by God to allow His creation to survive in a post-Fall, post-Flood world. This is very different from Darwin’s view. Darwin wrote, “What a book a devil’s chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horridly cruel works of nature.”(8)
References
1) http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/poodles.asp
2) D. O’Leary, By Design or by Chance? Castle Quay, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, 7, 2004.
3) Eugenie C. Scott, Creation or evolution? www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/6261_creation_or_evolution__1_9_2001.asp.
4) http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-mutations.asp
5) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/natural-selection-vs-evolution
6) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n3/dna-kitchen
7) J. Foard, The Darwin papers, “Edward Blyth and natural selection,” www.thedarwinpapers.com.
8) Letter from Charles Darwin to Joseph Hooker, Darwin Archives, Cambridge University, July 13, 1856.
9) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-natural-selection-evolution#fnMark_1_7_1
Really, if you want to be honest about evolution, you shouldn't get all your information about it from answers in genesis. Try sources that actually understand how it works. All these arguments are straw-men.
For instance, where is this evidence that any kind of organism has a genetic limit? "Kind" is such a vague term, please explain what constitutes a "kind".
Posted by: Nate | 10 June 2011 at 08:21 AM
Hi Nate,
Nope, none of these arguments as you put it, are straw-men. They are valid questions needed addressed by those who believe in Darwinian Evolution.
You ask for an explanation of “Kind” and here it is: One example of a kind is bacterium. Has anyone ever seen bacterium become anything other than bacterium? Another example of kind is the fly. Has anyone ever seen a fruit fly become anything other than a fly? Another example is a human being like you and me. Has anyone ever seen a human being become anything other than a human being?
Posted by: Victor E. Pearson | 10 June 2011 at 08:36 AM