Micro evolution is simply changes within species. Micro evolution is observable today. Children are not identical to their parents. The question is whether descent with modification accounts for the origin of new species - in fact, of every species. The conflict is between special creation and macro evolution. Special creation follows the biblical Genesis account whereby God created separately each kind of physical life on earth during days five and six of creation week. Creation Versus Evolution Tabular Summaries.
Two modern definitions of science from respected authorities are:. The above definitions are slightly different but essentially the same so either or both may be used to answer the question. The Cases for Evolution and Special Creation. To prove one is to disprove the other. Evolutionists best hope for proving their case has been the fossil record. However, after more than years of intense searching, the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution because each phylum each major group of species having the same general form appears suddenly; the innumerable transitional forms required by evolutionary theory are not there.
Evolution: Falsified? For an idea to be a valid scientific theory, it must have the capability of being proven false. This concept is called falsifiability or refutability. Intelligent Design. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion that can be adequately explained by only natural causes. Horses are popular animals that evolutionists have chosen to use to validate evolutionary theory and indoctrinate others to the idea of macroevolution.
Propaganda for horse evolution and thereby macroevolution is found in scientific journals, textbooks, books, magazines, encyclopedias, museums and television so there is no need to repeat it here. Instead, this article will discuss the assumptions guesses that horse evolution is based on, information that goes against these assumptions and other plausible explanations for the horse like fossils.
Flight Feathers. How flight feathers evolved has long been a problem for evolutionists. This is not because some new genetic information mysteriously evolved. All the information in your genetic code was present in your parents. You simply have a unique combination. And since it is the genetic combination that produces traits, you will have unique traits. Unless you have an identical twin or triplet, etc. Consider the ingeniousness of this solution.
Suppose you wanted to create self-replicating machines, each of which has the same basic form, but with numerous slight variations from the others. And suppose you wanted to start with only two such machines. How could you generate such variety? A human engineer might try to include a hundred billion different instruction sets in the two machines — one for each variant.
But each of these sets could be billions of instructions long which would be unwieldy. He created slight differences in the instructions of the original pair, and made the traits dependent upon the nearly infinite number of unique combinations that will result. Due to the slight differences in our DNA, the number of unique children that can result from the different combinations of alleles in their parents is actually greater than the number of atoms in the universe!
Already we are beginning to see confirmation of biblical creation. Built into Adam and Eve was the genetic information available to produce the wide variation in traits we see in people today. All the instructions necessary to build your physical form are in your DNA, and came from your parents, who inherited this genetic information from their parents, and so on.
We can see that genetics requires that human beings can only produce human beings, because this is the information present in their DNA. The different alleles allow for slight variations in offspring. A loss of information due to mutations can also result in variation of traits as shown below. But the offspring will always be human beings. Likewise, dogs canids contain the genetic instructions to produce dogs.
This means that when dogs reproduce, they will inevitably produce a dog and nothing else. This is why we see lots of variation within the dog kind. Wolves, foxes, coyotes, dingoes, and domestic dogs are all part of the same created kind. They have differences in fur length, coloration, temperament, size, and so on. But they are all basically the same type of animal: dogs canids. Variation within a kind is the prediction of biblical creation, and is confirmed by our understanding of genetics.
On the other hand, if evolution is true, then both dogs and people evolved from fish. But from the genetic principles we have covered so far, this would not seem to be possible. The reason is obvious: fish contain the genetic instructions to produce fish, not dogs, not people. Therefore, the descendants of fish inherit the genetic instructions to produce fish and nothing else. Fish will never grow fur or paws, or learn to bark, because they do not have such instructions in their DNA. In the process of reproduction, organisms can only inherit genetic information that was present in their parents.
Therefore, they cannot possibly produce traits outside the genetic limits of their created kind. When Charles Darwin first published his ideas about evolution, proposing that all organisms on earth might be descended from a common ancestor, he knew nothing about genetics. He simply observed that offspring sometimes have traits that their parents do not have, and thought perhaps that still newer traits might arise, and that over time such gradual changes might result in a completely different kind of organism.
But today, we understand that this could not happen because organisms get their genetic instructions from their parents. This always results in variation within a kind, but could never result in unlimited evolution because organisms are limited to the genetic information available in their parents. So if you want a dog with long fur, you can have that. If you want a dog with blue eyes, we can arrange that. But if you want a dog with wings, you are out of luck. The genetic instructions for wings are not present in the dog genome. For this reason, all organisms will always remain the same created kinds.
So, how then do modern evolutionists rationalize their belief? They appeal to mutations and natural selection. Both mutations and natural selection do occur, but can they really result in the type of evolution that Darwin proposed? Or do they confirm biblical creation? Often a particular trait greatly contributes to the survival of an organism in a particular environment, whereas a different trait would be more helpful in a different environment.
There are many examples. Gills are very useful for fish in their normal environment, but are not terribly useful on dry land.
On the other hand, lungs are helpful to organisms that have regular access to air, but would be unhelpful in environments where air is not available. If they had existed there, they would die in moments today since their traits are unsuited to that environment. Yet we may find many air-breathing animals in terrestrial locations, because their genes produce traits that are conducive to survival there. Natural selection explains why we do not typically find organisms with traits unsuited to their environment.
We know scientifically by observation and experimentation that natural selection occurs. For example, people sometimes attempt and fail to grow plants with traits unsuitable to their environment. Some plants can only survive in very warm climates, whereas others thrive in the cold. Some require a humid environment, whereas others require an arid one. Try planting a palm tree in Antarctica and see if it takes.
On the other hand, palm trees thrive in Florida. As another example, consider fossils. We find fossils of fish in locations that today do not have water. From the fossils, we know that fish once lived in these regions, but today they do not. Obviously, these environments are not currently suitable to their traits. Fish require water in order to survive, and therefore died when the environment dried up.
Today palm trees will not grow in Antarctica because they are not suited to a cold climate. Yet, we find many fossils of palm trees in Antarctica. Clearly, Antarctica once had a warm climate conducive to the survival of palm trees, and then the environment changed. Creationists and evolutionists agree on this. Many people have the mistaken impression that Charles Darwin came up with the idea of natural selection.
He did not. It is a creationist concept. In , the creationist Edward Blyth published a paper in the Magazine of Natural History that clearly explained the concept of natural selection. He explained that organisms best suited to their environment would naturally be the most likely to reproduce and pass on their traits. Blyth did not interpret this as evolution in the sense of common ancestry; on the contrary, he saw natural selection as a conservative principle of nature, one brought about by divine providence. Charles Darwin knew of Blyth and borrowed this creationist idea of natural selection but with a twist.
Darwin argued the natural selection would result in evolution — the transformation of one kind into a fundamentally different kind over time.
He attempted to link natural selection with evolution in the minds of his readers, thinking that if he could convince people of one, then they would believe the other as well. By coating poison with sugar, many people will swallow the bait. It is a seductive trap. And many Christians have fallen for it. Since natural selection is readily observable all around us, and since people have been fooled into thinking that natural selection implies evolution, they fall for evolution.
Or strangely, a handful of Christians have fallen for the trap in the opposite way. They rightly reject particles-to-people evolution. This pleases the evolutionists because natural selection is easily scientifically demonstrated as shown above , and they can write off creationists as anti-science loons who deny direct observation. The careful thinker will not fall into the trap one way or the other, but will realize that natural selection is not evolution. In fact, as we will see below, it is the opposite! But we have seen that people have genes to produce people and nothing else.
Whereas, bacteria have genes to produce bacteria and nothing else. Of course, we use some of the same proteins as bacteria, and so some of our genes are the same, or very similar. But there are many differences because human beings possess genes that bacteria lack. This should be obvious. Bacteria do not have the genetic instructions to produce hands, feet, bones, eyes, muscles, blood, hair, and so on, which is why they lack such traits. Therefore, if single-celled organisms similar to bacteria eventually became people, then they must somehow have gained brand-new genetic instructions.
This is essential if the Darwinian version of evolution has any truth whatsoever. Unless the single-celled microbe eventually gained the genes to produce eyes, bones, blood, and so on, it could never produce those things and could therefore never become people. Darwinian evolution requires the addition of brand new genetic information. It cannot occur without this. I do not suggest that the addition of new genetic information is the only thing required for evolution to occur. Obviously, there are many additional difficulties.
Creation Genetics | Biblical Science Institute
For example, every stage of the process of evolution must result in a fully functioning organism, otherwise the organism would not survive to pass on its genes. And yet, it is hard to imagine — even in principle — how the in-between stages of many organisms could be functional. What good is half a wing, or one third of a heart? It is hard to imagine how such partial structures could do anything but detract from survival. This is significant because natural selection can only remove information from the genome of a species.
It is in the opposite direction of evolution. Consider this simplified example. Suppose we have two dogs, a male and female. Each has a heterozygous combination for fur length SL : one gene S for short fur and one gene L for long fur. Again, the actual genetics is more involved, but the basic principle is all we are interested in here. If these genes are codominant, then the dogs will have medium length fur. Some of the pups will obtain the long fur gene from each parent and end up with long fur LL.
Some will obtain the short fur gene from one parent, and the long fur gene from the other. These will have medium length fur SL just as their parents do. And some of the pups will get the short fur gene from each parent, resulting in the homozygous condition SS and will consequently have short fur. This is a great example of biblical variation within a kind. We started with dogs and ended up with dogs — no surprise there.
And we ended up with several variations of the same basic kind of animal, owing to the various combinations of genetic information. Note that no Darwinian evolution has occurred even in principle, because we have not gained any new information. Indeed, the pups have only the genetic information frontloaded in their parents S and L. Suppose the environment becomes very cold. The dogs with the short and medium length fur are not as well insulated against the cold. In the wild, these dogs would not likely survive in such an environment.
But the dogs with the long fur are better suited to that environment. The only dogs left have the homozygous combination for long fur LL. So, when they reproduce, all their offspring will have long fur because that is the only genetic information available. This is a great example of adaptation. The environment became cold and the dogs adapted to it. But this type of adaptation was not the result of short-furred dogs becoming long-furred. Rather, it was accomplished by the extinction of the short-furred and medium-furred varieties.
The long-furred variety survived because its traits were already suited to the cold environment. No individual dog made any adjustments, but the net allele frequency of the group changed due to the environmental change. But is this evolution in the Darwinian sense? Have the dogs gained any new genetic information? Clearly not. In fact, they have lost information. This hypothetical experiment began with dogs that had genetic information for long fur, short fur, or medium fur depending on the combination.
But after the environmental change, the dogs only had genes for long fur. The genetic information for short and medium length fur has been lost. Far from gaining new information as evolution requires, we have actually lost information. Since natural selection simply refers to the death of unsuccessful organisms and the consequent removal of the information in their genome, it never results in new genetic information.
Natural selection can only remove information, and therefore it cannot — even in principle — drive evolution. A mutation is a mistake in the genetic code. In order for offspring to receive genetic information from their parents, this information must be copied. The copying process is excellent, but not perfect.
- Creation–evolution controversy - Wikipedia?
- The Problem Solver: Elephants and Ivory;
- Biological Evolution;
Occasionally, one nucleotide base is accidentally swapped out for another. This is called a point mutation. Mutations scramble the genetic instructions in an organism. And since genes are the instructions for physical traits, mutations can result in malformed traits and disease.
However, some mutations appear to be completely harmless. So, if the last nucleotide in the TCT codon is mutated into any other, the resulting protein is completely unchanged. However, geneticists have discovered that codons can sometimes do more than simply specify an amino acid, but can function in controlling the speed of other cellular functions. Nevertheless, some mutations do not seem to produce a noticeable effect on the organism.
Then again, some mutations are lethal. Under some circumstances, some mutations can lead to a fatality before the birth of the organism. In between these two extremes are mutations that cause a non-lethal problem. This can be an inconvenience to the organism reducing its odds of survival, but not necessarily to zero. Natural selection therefore has a tendency to weed-out mutations to some extent, since less fit organisms are less likely to pass on their genetic code. But such selection is incomplete since the diseased organism still has some probability to survive and reproduce. In some cases, even lethal mutations can be passed on to offspring.
Many mutations are recessive; no disease results if only one of the two sets of DNA has the mutated allele. But the person is still a carrier. These types of mutations can easily build up in a population because natural selection cannot act on or eliminate non-expressed traits. However, if both parents have the recessive mutation, there is a one-in-four chance that each child will end up with two copies of the mutation, resulting in the corresponding disease. This, by the way, is probably one reason why God in Leviticus instituted a law forbidding marriage of very close relatives Leviticus Close relatives tend to have similar mutations, and there is an increased chance that the children from such a union would suffer a debilitating disease.
Obviously, this would not have been a problem in the original creation. Adam and Eve were created by God, and were therefore initially perfect, without mutations. Their children would have had relatively few, and so intermarriage of close relatives would have presented no problems at that time. It took thousands of years for mutations to accumulate to the point where this would become problematic, as it remains today.
This is exactly the reason why purebred dogs tend to suffer more health issues than crossbreeds. The accumulation of mutations in the genome is called genetic burden or genetic load. It is powerful confirmation of biblical creation and challenges evolutionism. The longer a kind of organism has existed on earth, the more mutations build up in its genome. If life on earth had been around for billions of years as evolutionists maintain, then organisms should have far more mutations than they actually have. The number of mutations in species whose genome has been sequenced is consistent with their biblical age of about years.
Given the disease-causing effect of mutations, it may be surprising that this is the mechanism evolutionists have invoked to supposedly drive particles-to-people evolution. Since human beings possess far more genetic information than single-celled bacteria, how could random mutations ever add such copious amounts of useful instructions to turn one kind of organism into another basic kind? After all, typos do not add brand new information to articles.
- Lunenburg (Images of America).
- When I was a Lad and Later Introduction.
- Pequeño Karma (Spanish Edition).
On the contrary, they scramble existing information, thereby reducing it. In his book Not by Chance , biophysicist Dr. Why then do evolutionists invoke mutations as the mechanism? The answer is that no other known mechanism can alter the instructions in DNA, which is required for particles-to-people evolution. The only other option would be a creation-based origin in which the original kinds were designed and created with the genetic instructions already present, with heterozygosity built-in to produce subsequent variations. And there appears to be no scientific evidence that they have actually done this or that they even can.
We simply do not observe mutations that add large quantities of brand new information to the genome. Evolutionists who believe that this happens must believe this by blind faith. There are several types of mutations besides point mutations, such as duplications — where a section of DNA is accidentally duplicated so that it now appears twice in the genome. Some evolutionists claim that this represents an increase in genetic information; after all, the DNA is now slightly longer.
If a paragraph in a newspaper article is accidentally duplicated, has the information in the article increased? The article may be longer, but the redundant paragraph does not add any new information to the article. You will not have any more knowledge from reading the longer version than the original.
Some evolutionists will argue that insertions at least provide a new template that could — in the future — theoretically gain information by subsequent point mutations on the duplicated section.
Darwin’s Black Box?
But now we are back to point mutations supposedly adding new information which, according to Dr. Spetner, they never do. Evolution supporters are quick to point out that mutations can be beneficial: that, on occasion, mutations can result in traits that actually help an organism to survive in a particular environment. This is true.
It is also utterly irrelevant to evolution. Here is why. Since human beings have a tremendously greater quantity of genetic information than bacteria, if human beings evolved from something like bacteria then obviously they had to gain brand new genetic information. This fact is independent of whether the mutations can convey a survival advantage.
Only mutations that increase the quantity of genetic information can — even in principle — drive evolution. Yet, the most commonly cited beneficial mutations do not do this, and therefore cannot result in evolution in the Darwinian sense.