What about Fossils?

Fossils disprove evolution. Twice.

First, paleontologists discovered many decades ago that life appeared SUDDENLY on Earth. They cannot, of course, say that life appeared suddenly on earth. That would sound too much like creation, so instead, they made up a term called the Cambrian explosion. They postulated (guessed) that maybe for some reason there was a bunch of radiation and maybe it suddenly caused all life to appear. Then they postulated (guessed) again that maybe it wasn’t so sudden. Maybe it lasted 20 million years. Or maybe not. Nevertheless, in cosmological terms, 20 million years even if it were true, would maybe allow for an amoeba to “evolve” to a more advanced amoeba. If evolution were even possible. Of course it is not.

Second, fossils disprove evolution by showing a complete lack of undisputed transitional forms. There are hundreds of millions of fossils. So by any account there should be at least millions of transitional fossils (Fossils showing animals in the “in between stages of evolution”). However there are few if any. Now at this juncture some will complain that we have a very detailed history of the evolution of the house in the fossil record. That is indeed what evolutionists teach. In fact they are so evangelical in there cause that they preach that EVERY fossil ever found is transitional. But what do the facts show?

Since it would require many pages of explanation, and since it has already been done so beautifully, with illustrations and timelines included, I will defer to the article by Mats Molen, “The evolution of the horse,” found on the Creation.com website. Suffice it to say that the evolutionist timeline makes no sense, and there are at least three species of horse involved. They all lived at about the same time, were all buried at about the same time, and do not support the theory of evolution at all.

But what about all those nice drawings in the textbooks about “ape to man” evolution. Well evolutionists cannot find any evidence of direct descent. They can only find “shared or similar DNA”. (Which could just as easily mean the Creator used similar DNA to do similar things.) What about the fossils which have been used to “re-create” the missing links? They were fragments, or partial skeletons. Sometime of the entire drawings of transitional forms were “imagineered” (like Disney movies) from how a paleontologist viewed a single bone from a wrist or hip or ankle or jaw. Sometimes a single tooth has been used to “rebuild” an image of how the imagined creature might have looked.

We will have much more to discuss about evolution and fossils. Some of the greatest fakery in science has occurred in the area of paleontology. But that is for another day. As I have said before. I am not a proponent of teaching creation rather than, or in place of evolution in the public schools. However it think it is essential for scientist to admit that we do not know (as scientists) much at all about the origins of life. It would be far better to educate our youth in honest intellectual observation and analysis, rather than an inaccurate agenda based on full and total rejection of the possibility of Creation.

There has been so much written about the interpretation of fossils, the age of fossils, the origin of fossils and proper dating of fossils that we will return to some of these topics in future writings.  The facts, it seems, are subject to various interpretations. Few people will acknowledge that many of the suppositions on which fossil dating is based are questionable, and some are patently false.  But more and more well trained scientists are coming forth to question these presuppositions.

Jeremy L. Walter, who has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering, and received the prestigious National Science Foundation Fellowship, writing of the sedimentary layers, states;  “The vast horizontal layers of hydraulically deposited sedimentary rock are said to take long periods of time to accumulate, based on the assumption that the rate of deposition was always similar to that observed today in a typical river delta.  This concept of uniformity may seem like a reasonable starting point when considered abstractly, but no steady-state river flow could possibly cover such a vast area; neither would it produce the violently buried and mangled bodies found fossilized in many rocks of the region…By contrast the catastrophic processes observed during and following the eruption of Mount St. Helens in the Cascades of Washington state produced a scale model of the Grand Canyon in a very brief period of time… The canyon walls resemble others that are assumed to be of great age, even though they are known to be less than 20 years old.” (1)

If that is not enough, let me add just one more illustration. A December 2018 article in Nature describes the findings of an analysis of the soft tissue remnants of a supposedly 180 year old Ichthyosaur. No reputable scientist would have predicted intact, well preserved skin and soft tissue remnants in a fossil that is 180 million years old.  They would have been laughed out of the room. But that is just what Johan Lindgren, the lead researcher on this study states they found. (2)

Finally, consider the following description of the Fox Hills Formation, one of the many “dinosaur boneyards” in existence, and see if the findings mesh better with a great flood, or with a series of extinction events described by secular paleontologists.

The bottom line is that the Fox Hills Formation directly below the HCF is accepted as a marine deposit (Figure 1), and the unit immediately above the HCF, the Cannonball Member of the Fort Union Formation, is accepted as a marine deposit, yet Hell Creek itself is claimed to be terrestrial solely because it contains dinosaur fossils. But it’s filled with marine fossils from top to bottom.” (3)

This is nothing new for the global rock record. We see this same fossil mix across all continents. Even most European Cretaceous dinosaurs are found not just mixed with marine fossils but in actual marine rocks like chalk and limestone.8 Spinosaurus, the largest theropod dinosaur ever discovered, was found in Morocco with car-size fossils of coelacanth fish, which today are only found in the deep ocean.(4)

 

Psalm 95:4-5  In his hand are the depths of the earth, and the mountain peaks belong to him.  5 The sea is his, for he made it, and his hands formed the dry land.

Job 12:7-10   “But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you;  8 or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish in the sea inform you.  9 Which of all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this?  10 In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind.

 

 

(1) Steven A. Austin, “Mount St. Helens and Catastophism,” Impact, Article No. 157, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA (July 1986)

(2) http://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0775-x

(3) https://www.icr.org/article/11253/

(4) ibid

Evolving Misconceptions

There are so many misconceptions in the public arena about evolution that it is difficult to even know where to start.  The terms evolution and evolve are used and abused so incessantly that I can only scratch the surface of how these terms have “evolved” over time.  But let’s look at a few points I have seen or heard or read that illustrate the points.

Point 1. “It’s wonderful to watch how a frog evolves from a pollywog.”

Point 2. “The most magical thing is seeing a caterpillar evolve into a butterfly.”

Point 3. “Natural selection proves evolution.”

Point 4. ” I believe in evolution because there is too much evil in the world for there to be a God.”

Point 5. “Where did God come from anyway? Let’s see Christians explain that.”

Point 6. “Evolution is natural. Sex is natural. I can do what I want.”

Point 7. “I have seen all the pictures of different stages of men evolving from monkeys.”

Point 8. “Evolution and the tree of life are the foundations of understanding for biology.”

Point 9. “Just look at how many breeds of dogs have evolved from the wild dogs”.

Point 10. “All of the races of humanity could not have evolved from Adam and Eve.”

I have heard or read each of the above explanations, or should I say rationalizations, and cringed at the complete lack of understanding that is required for such beliefs. The general public can be so easily misled that so-called “science education” in the public school systems becomes little more than indoctrination into socially acceptable systems of belief. Such is the case with the term “evolution”, which has been used and misused and misapplied for many generations. To the point that now it is often used to mean “change”. Nothing more and nothing less. But for the sake of completeness, and because readers may have encountered these “lines of logic” themselves, let me briefly explain what evolution is, and why the above statements sometimes border on ridiculous.

Counterpoint 1 and 2. First, when it comes to the transformation of pollywogs or caterpillars, this seemingly magical or mystical transformation has nothing to do with evolution. The seemingly less advanced caterpillar has exactly the same DNA as the butterfly. In fact, the butterfly will mate with another butterfly and create hundreds more caterpillars that are the exact same species as their parents. The frog, likewise, will mate and create more tadpoles and pollywogs. Amazing, yes. Evolutionary, no.

Counterpoint 3. Natural selection. It is real. It happens. It does not, can not, will not, and never has created a new species. And of course, evolution is all about creating new species. Natural selection only occurs in one single species, using it’s already existing DNA, and facilitating survival by allowing (for example) the long-haired dog to survive better in Alaska, and the Chihuahua to survive better in Mexico. Or the dark moth to survive better in a dark forest and a light moth to survive better (be less conspicuous) in a lighter environment. But no dog or moth was transformed or mutated or evolved in any way. A dog remains a dog. A moth remains a moth.

Counterpoint 4. Evil does not rule out God. Evil does not prove evolution. In fact the ability to determine what constitutes good vs evil points to a Higher Power. Evolved humanity (if such existed) would have no reason to choose good or shun evil. The evolutionary mantra of “survival of the fittest” was used as an excuse for the most massive genocides of the 20th century (hundreds of millions murdered under Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler, all evolutionists). Evil exists. If you search for goodness and meaning, and truth, you are not likely to find the answers in evolutionary circles. Instead you will likely find yourself reading the writings of avowed creationists through history.

Counterpoint 5. The question about the origin of God reveals nothing about God, or Christianity, or evolution. It shows the limited perspective of weak, frail humanity. Humans seek to understand a thing, but our intellect is as limited as our experience. If there is a God who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, how could any human mind hope to fathom his whereabouts or his origins? If there is an omnipotent God who created time itself, who are we to question where He was “before” He created it? Let’s see atheistic scientists and evolutionists explain that.

Counterpoint 6. Evolution and the sexual revolution are so intimately intertwined that it would require another very long chapter to begin to address that subject. Lets just say the Bible and all the worlds religions have much to say about the human proclivity to abuse others in the name of sexual self-expression.  And one other factoid that evolutionists are not quick to admit is that many of the earliest proponents of evolution wrote that they were expressly rebelling against the repressive sexual mores of the day. If we are evolved, not created, then there is no “higher power” to whom we are responsible for our actions.  If we are mentally advanced monkeys we are free to behave however we choose.

Counterpoint 7. Evolution and comic books. Look at any of the local school science textbooks and you will see the fanciful illustrations showing how fish transform into frogs and lizards and hippos and elephants. And there is the classic series of ape to man pictures that are reproduced ad nauseam. These pictures are just that. Pictures. Drawn from someone’s imagination. They have no examples from real life. The transformation was not found frozen in an ancient block of ice, or trapped eternally in solidified amber. Interestingly, the pictures in college textbooks seem to have led to even more fanciful and bizarre “evolutions” into the Fantastic Four, and all kinds of other “mutants” which are supposedly the next scientific steps in evolution. Yet mankind has remained the same for thousands of years. In fact many of the oldest human skulls had a cranial capacity larger than modern humans!  How’s that for a change?  Are we now supposedly devolving?

Counterpoint 8. The tree of life… Hmmm… The tree of life, while still illustrated and quoted in current evolutionary discussions, has been so thoroughly refuted that no reputable evolutionist should even mention it as a plausible theory, let alone a reality. It was first disproven by geology and the Pre-Cambrian explosion of life (all of life suddenly appears all together at one point in the geologic strata). It was most recently disproven by genomics and the absolute lack of continuity between most of the species evolutionists had previously thought were closely related. And it was always made questionable by the lack of transitional fossils in the geological strata. There is no Evolutionary Tree of Life. It exists only as a diagram in textbooks, and in the minds of uninformed evolutionary proponents.

Counterpoint 9. Evolution and dogs. It is amazing how many people believe that different breeds of dogs are examples of evolution in action. All dogs share the same DNA. Nearly all dogs can Interbreed. All dogs are from the genus classification Canis Familiaris. If a few have lost so much genetic material in the process of breeding that they can no longer interbreed, this is certainly NOT evolution.  In order for evolution to occur genetic material must be added, not lost.  Created, not destroyed.

Counterpoint 10. Human races are all one race. Human races all interbreed. Human races share the same DNA. There is no genetic or genomic evidence of evolution. Scientists who study such things may yet differ on some things, for example, the amount of supposed “Neanderthal DNA” in various modern human races, but such speculation is not a basis for any scientific proof. If you read closely you will always find such literature replete with “our evidence suggests” or “one conclusion could be”. Scientists who have already chosen their position (against creationism) will say they have “proof” while scientists who uphold creation will absolutely disagree.

I

saiah 45:18  For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), “I am the LORD, and there is none else.”

What About Public Education?

We may be testing the limits of civility now. Discussions of this topic are frequently known to degenerate into brawls. So let me say at the outset. I do not believe that all students should be forced to recite Bible verses. I do not believe that teaching of the creationist view of science is the only appropriate material for study. In fact, I am not at all sure I want public school teachers educating my children about anything to do with the Bible. In most cases that would be worse than the blind leading the blind.

I do believe, however in an honest, level playing field. As a scientist and a supporter of science education, I would far prefer honest admissions of where science is supportive of evolution theory and where it is not. I would appreciate sincere admissions, on the part of educators, that evolution is NOT in any way settled science.(1) Far from it. There is as much evidence contradicting the theory of evolution, as there is supporting evolution. (In my opinion there is actually vastly more contradictory evidence.) No right thinking science educator should allow students to be taught things that are untrue. But unfortunately, this is the state of affairs in public education today. Classrooms should be for facts, not propaganda.  And open minded discussions should be the rule when the facts are in dispute.

In schools and universities alike, students who question any of the underpinnings of evolution (for any reason) are often bullied and intimidated. They are often called science deniers, or anti-science Bible Thumpers. There are countless examples.  In describing his education, Dr Evan Jaimeson describes multiple occasions when, confronted with the scientific inconsistencies of the theory of evolution, “often there was an angry reaction and feeble, if any, explanations.”(2) He goes on to say “the lack of credible answers makes me quite skeptical of the theory of evolution.   After all it wasn’t an obscure theory; it was basically accepted worldwide and had been studied for many years.  Simple and obvious questions should have been given simple and obvious answers — so where were they?”(2)

But suppressing classroom debate does not advance the cause of truth. Just as suppressing free speech about other topics is counterproductive, taking an “evolution or else” approach is not good for students or for the educational system. There are many unknown effects that can occur with changes in worldview, and we are seeing many of these today. Few would say that the emotional and spiritual levels of peace of mind and satisfaction with life have increased in past decades. In fact, most would agree we are in the midst of a mental health crisis. Some part of this may be attributable to our feelings of meaninglessness and hopelessness as a result of evolutionary teaching.

Dr Ariel Roth , former director of the Geoscience Research Institute in Loma Linda California, writes, “When it comes to answering the great questions of origins, meaning, and destiny, science has lost its credentials.  This happened over a century ago when science decided to exclude God from its explanatory menu.  If God exists, science will never find Him as long as it refuses to consider God as a part of reality.”(3)

Any objective scientific examination of the texts used to teach science and to “debunk creationist nonsense” will find that most of the diagrams, facts, and statistics used to teach evolution are not only out of date, many are absolutely false. So perhaps the Bible-Thumpers and the Neander-Thumpers should all get together and choose a set of non-disputable facts that all can agree on. And perhaps that is what we should use to teach our children. When all else fails, stop to propaganda and teach the facts.

Isaiah 37:16  “O LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, who is enthroned above the cherubim, You are the God, You alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth You have made heaven and earth.”

 

(1) Nicholas Satin, “Sorry USA Today, Evolution isn’t “settled” science. Crisis Magazine, January 20, 2014

(2) Evan Jamieson, in six days, New Leaf Publishing, Jan 2001, P. 324

(3) Ariel Roth, in six days, New Leaf Publishing, Jan 2001  p. 99.

 

Operational vs Historical Science

I do not want to use any equivocal, or easily misunderstood terms. However it is important that we understand what science is, what it does, and when it can be trusted. In what areas is science relatively dependable and where is it much less dependable?

I trust science to measure and quantify a great number of things in my life, such as electrical devices, motor vehicles, and explosives. In other areas of life, such as emotions, relationships, and even the weather, science is known to be quite often inaccurate, making almost as many wrong predictions as it makes correct predictions. Let me give just three examples.

  1. Every year here in Florida, the NOAA scientists predict the number and severity of hurricanes expected on the basis of ocean currents, temperatures, and weather patterns. Their accuracy is far from impressive. The science requires many presumptions, and there are too many interdependent factors.
  2. In medicine, the study and treatment of psychiatric illness had blossomed into an explosion of new medicines. and yet the “epidemic” of depression and mental illness that was noted in the 1980’s shows no sign of abating. The human mind, it seems, is not a mere biological computer, easily fixed with an altered “brain chemistry”.  Mental illness is not “just like any other illness”.
  3. Social scientists and educators have been studying our institutes of higher learning for many decades now. Starting in earnest in the 1960’s, they have made drastic changes in the means by which we educate our children and young adults. But virtually anyone can see that our graduates are not better educated. In spite of billions invested, and thousands of “scientific” studies, our place in the modern world of education has steadily declined, and we are now outpaced by nearly all other advanced countries.(1) So much for the benefit of “science”.

Now the fact that I can see failures among our scientific achievements does not mean I am a “science denier”. Far from it. As an ER physician I use scientific principles every day in the treatment of my patients. I depend on scientific studies in anatomy, physiology, pharmacology, embryology, radiology, and a number of other areas to provide the best services I possibly can to my patients. But If I were to believe every report that came down from every drug company, saying that their new drug is fantastic and lifesaving and wonderful, I would be a fool. Science can be wonderful and instructive. But it can also be biased. In fact pharmaceutical companies are known for picking and choosing their science to make their particular drug appear far more useful than it actually is.

The scientific method can only test existing data. It is good at testing things that are easily and accurately measured, such as pH or acidity or chemical reactions. This type of “here and now” science is sometimes called operational science, or observational science.

Dr. Johnathan Sarfati, a research scientist from Wellington, New Zealand, puts it this way.  “Many people have the belief that “science” has proven the earth to be billions of years old…  However science deals with repeatable observations in the present, while evolution/long age ideas are based on assumptions from outside science about the unobservable past.” (2)

The scientific method becomes much less helpful when things are less easily measured, or when it is making predictions about past or distant future events. Thus studies of emotion, intellect, or thought processes are often inaccurate. Studies of things which happened millions of years ago (so called historical science), with questions as to the intervening circumstances are equally suspect. They require many assumptions. And science in any field that is based on assumptions frequently changes when the assumptions are discovered to be false or inaccurate. This will, I hope allow the reader to begin to differentiate between strong and weak areas of “science”.

Perhaps the best, most concise explanation was by Stephen Grocott.  He explains that we cannot see evolution occurring today and no one was there to observe it in the past, which means it is not observable or testable, and so it is unscientific.  Creation, by these same criteria, is neither observable nor testable, and so is unscientific. He concludes “Given that creation and evolution are both outside the reams of science, why should I, as a scientist, have problems with belief in creation while really being “scientific”?  I don’t.” (3)

 

Psalm 145:18 The LORD is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth.

 

(1) www.technologyreview.com/s/407346/216-million-americans-are-scientifically-illiterate-part-i/

(2)Johnathan Sarfati, in six days, New Leaf Publishing, Jan 2001, p. 75.

(3) Stephen Grocott, in six days, New Leaf Publishing, Jan 2001, p. 148.

Natural Sexlection

No, I am not dyslexic, and this is not a typo. Natural selection is totally dependent on sex. For in order to occur, natural selection needs two advanced (positively mutated) individuals to find one another and procreate. This topic has been discussed by many critics of evolution, and no satisfactory answer has been forwarded. If by some billions to one chance there occurred some form of genetic damage that resulted in a positive mutation (the impossibility of this is discussed elsewhere), then we arrive at another massive barrier to “advancement of the species”. For in all likelihood one of two things would occur. First, the two individuals may now be incompatible for mating (due to differences in DNA) and a damaged progeny or infertile condition arises. Second, the two mate but the genetic damage is erased by the scavenger RNA that monitors and corrects damaged DNA. In this case they remain exactly as before.

During DNA synthesis, DNA polymerases fix the majority of mispaired bases in a process called proofreading. If DNA gets damaged, it can be repaired by various mechanisms, including chemical reversal, excision repair, and double-stranded break repair. So in the event of damaged DNA the cell protects itself. The most likely reason for this mechanism is the prevention of cancer, for as many have stated, the vast, overwhelming majority of mutations are negative or destructive.

Many evolutionist sites will attempt to say that evolution does not occur in spite of sexual reproduction, it occurs because of sexual reproduction. This is false. When two members of the same species reproduce sexually, the product may appear different than either parent but it is still the same species. A cross between a Labrador and a Poodle is still a dog, just like its parents. A cross between an Irishman and an African is still a human. Mixing genetic material does NOT create new species. It does NOT create new genetic material.  It only mixes existing material differently. Those who call this evolution are either misled, or are intentionally misleading others.

 

Collossians 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

(See also blog on “Natural Selection is Magic”)

Evolution, God, and Probability

When evolutionary thinking was in its ascendancy, the arguments were often augmented with “anti-creation” factoids. One of the most common was “where did the universe come from?”  Another was “you can’t even explain where God came from!” Of course, if any creationist is honest and forthright, it seems impossible to “prove” creation or “prove” the existence of God. (Nor could any being on earth (created or evolved) ever be expected to understand or explain the origin of an almighty, ever-present, omniscient being such as God.)

This “where did God come from” argument seemed to blossom into a full-blown “anti-God movement” as society (and particularly the West) became ever more affluent and less dependent on God’s daily provision. There is something about living on a farm, or in the country, where you can see the summer rains come and watch the crops grow, that suggests a dependency on something higher. There is something about sunrises and sunsets, spring and fall, summertime and harvest, crickets and whippoorwills, that suggests we are not here by accident.

Nevertheless, at this time in history, in the fast-paced, fast food, fast internet 21st century, everyone fancies themselves a “scientist”. Everyone who has watched Star Trek or Star Wars fancies themselves an expert on black holes and quantum physics. We don’t need God. We have Science. We don’t need farms and rain, we can create our food in a lab. We don’t need marriage and monogamy. We can treat our STD’s with antibiotics and grow our babies in a test tube… if not now, in just a few years. We don’t want restrictions or responsibilities. We want freedom.

So if we are indeed scientists, and if we indeed believe in the power of the human mind to understand all things, we must believe all our scientific findings. Including those that do NOT support our presuppositions. Open-minded scientific inquiry is the basis of scientific advancement. Always. Foundationally. Except when it comes to evolution.

Evolutionists are quick to disallow the Law of Biogenesis (life only comes from life), proven by Louis Pasteur, stating it is only applicable today (not in the past). They will inevitably, when faced with the impossibility of their position (scientifically, biochemically, or statistically) resort to TIME as the explanation. TIME it seems can do the impossible. Life cannot come from non-life… unless you wait a really long TIME. Positive mutations are vastly outnumbered by neutral, negative, and lethal mutations, making evolution (of even ONE SINGLE organism) statistically impossible, unless you wait a really long TIME. The complexity of 3D folding proteins makes repeated sequential DNA point mutations incapable of advancing any organism with more and more complex features, unless, you guessed it… you wait a really long TIME. Time, it seems, can do anything.

There are just two areas that are absolutely out of bounds in modern institutes of higher learning. We are encouraged to study and advance virtually every possible area of inquiry except these two. We must keep our minds open to every possibility and aggressively pursue knowledge (with these two glaring exceptions.) We must not under any circumstances invoke the possibility of God, or a Creator, or a Higher power, and we must NEVER question the doctrine of evolution. We are our own gods. We created ourselves and raised ourselves up from the muck. We make our own rules. We bow to no one. Even when the evidence points to God, we cannot allow our minds to bend in that direction. God is anathema.

The trouble with this approach is it is unscientific. Even if you worship at the altar of the god of science, you will find the god of science pointing to a higher God. Take for example the writing of Julian Huxley, one of the most prominent evolutionists of the last century. He notes that at least a million positive mutations were required for the modern horse to evolve (although in reality, his understandably minuscule understanding of genomics and proteins resulted in a woefully gross under-estimation of this number of mutations, in reality, it is in the tens or hundreds of millions). Nevertheless, using this number he calculated the probability of a single cell to horse evolution to be “impossible” Of course he believed that Natural Selection was the answer (See prior post on Natural Selection). And thousands of “true believers” in evolution have done the same. For decades we have heard that although evolution would have been impossible otherwise… Natural Selection is the answer.

But can Natural Selection operate without mutation? No. It would still require single point DNA mutations (which it has been shown cannot bring about evolution). (See prior blog) What would it “select”? Those who attribute such power to natural selection understand neither natural selection nor mutations. Of course, for generations, scientists have been loath to admit that the ratio of positive to negative mutations is so astoundingly, infinitesimally small that this statistic alone should disallow evolution. But that is another topic entirely. In fact, negative, neutral, and lethal mutations are vastly more likely than positive mutations. Yet “science” believes in the process of evolution NOT because of the evidence, but IN SPITE of the evidence.

So much for an open-minded scientific approach. Even when all the scientific evidence says that the complexity of living systems could NEVER evolve by chance, that there are thousands of systems and proteins which are examples of irreducible complexity, and that life absolutely cannot evolve from non-life… our schools teach evolution.

As written by Brian Thomas, “Coded information in living things gives the full appearance of being purposefully programmed to resist just the kinds of DNA alterations that would harm organisms. Unfortunately for evolution, these are also just the kinds of DNA changes that would be required to turn microbes into man. Evolutionists have yet to find any realistic resolution to this problem, but for creationists it is no paradox at all. Instead, it is another cellular signature from the Creator.“(1)

Psalm 8:3-8  When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained; What is man that You take thought of him, And the son of man that You care for him? Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty!
2 Peter 3:5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God,

Vestigial Organs (Vestiges of Evolutionary Arguments)

nature walking animal strong
Photo by Gratisography on Pexels.com

For over a century evolutionists have argued that vestigial organs are proof of evolution. Using classic circular logic, they say an organ is vestigial because they believe we have “evolved’ past it and then they use the organ as “proof” of evolution. Of course many of their most touted example have since been found to be functional, but don’t expect to find formal retractions in the textbooks any time soon.

Take as an example, the human male nipple and breast. It is still listed on evolutionary websites as evidence of evolution. But in reality it is merely an example of sexual dimorphism. (In many species the male is readily identifiable as different from the female.) Do evolutionists actually believe that males are a separate species, or that males thousand of years ago used to nurse their young? No, certainly not. So even by their own definitions male nipples cannot be vestigial.  This is yet more evidence of the shallow thinking of evolutionists in this area.

Vestigial structures are NOT leftovers. They do NOT prove evolution. In fact over 150 structures in humans were once thought to be vestigial. Most are now known to be functional. It should be an embarrassment to evolutionists. The only thing vestigial structures have proven so far is the anatomical, physiological and embryological ignorance of evolutionary proponents.

At one time the tonsils, thymus, and appendix (and in some circles still…) were declared to be vestigial. Any modern day surgeon will tell you that they are not going to rush to take out these organs, as modern thinking has “evolved” (pardon the pun) into an understanding that only an emergency warrants removal. In fact, many are now recommending a trial of antibiotics rather than immediate appendectomy even for appendicitis!

Another important example of a so-called vestigial organ is the tailbone.  For probably a hundred years evolutionists claimed that the tailbone is a vestigial remnant, left over from the time when we were monkeys with tails.  However, I would challenge ANY evolutionist to voluntarily give up their tailbone.  It is a critical component of the pelvis.  Without it, our ability to lift heavy objects and control our bowels and bladder are impaired.  Without it, our pelvic floor would be greatly weakened.  In fact, it is critical in our sex life, due to the attachment of the pubococcygeus muscle.  Once again, the tailbone is not a vestige of a tail.  It is a critical part of our “modern” human anatomy!

One more thing evolutionary scientists cannot explain is why so many features that should have aided in our “survival of the fittest” have been lost during the evolutionary process. Thick skulls, brow ridges, the ability to digest cellulose, just to name a few. If evolution favors survival of the fittest, why have humans “evolved” with such frailties as thinner skulls and inability to digest cellulose, when our more robust predecessors had such obvious survival advantages. Why are we now subject to brain damage and starvation? Is this not evidence for survival of the weakest?

All the evidence from genome-sequencing projects shows that virtually all of an organism’s DNA is transcribed into RNA.  That means that even though most of that RNA is not translated into proteins, it performs essential regulatory functions. Science journals continue to publish articles describing more and more such functions. The evidence has been accumulating since scientists finished sequencing the human genome that “pseudogenes” and other so-called “junk DNA” sequences are not useless after all.(1) 

Finally, let me say in the way of a compliment, Darwin was no dummy. Even he knew he had a problem with vestigial organs. He wondered why, once an organ was useless it would continue to atrophy. What would make it do so? What process would cause the shrinkage? Anatomic changes require genetic changes over successive generations, and that means alterations in DNA. What possible explanation is there for genetic modifications that serve absolutely no function, like further shrinking an already atrophied organ? Darwin had no clue, and still today there is no explanation.

 

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

 

1. A few of the many scientific articles published since 2003 that document the function of so-called “junk” DNA are:

  • E.S Balakirev & F.J. Ayala, “Pseudogenes: are they ‘junk’ or functional DNA?” Annual Review of Genetics 37 (2003): 123-151.
  • A. Hüttenhofer, P. Schattner & N. Polacek, “Non-coding RNAs: hope or hype?” Trends in Genetics 21 (2005): 289-297.
  • J.S. Mattick & I.V. Makunin, “Non-coding RNA,” Human Molecular Genetics 15 (2006): R17-R29.
  • R.K. Slotkin & R. Martienssen, “Transposable elements and the epigenetic regulation of the genome,” Nature Reviews Genetics 8 (2007): 272-285.
  • P. Carninci, J. Yasuda & Y Hayashizaki, “Multifaceted mammalian transcriptome,” Current Opinion in Cell Biology 20 (2008): 274-80.
  • C.D. Malone & G.J. Hannon, “Small RNAs as Guardians of the Genome,” Cell 136 (2009): 656–668.
  • C.P. Ponting, P.L. Oliver & W. Reik, “Evolution and Functions of Long Noncoding RNAs,” Cell 136 (2009): 629–641.

Psalm 139:13  For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.