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.

 

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.

What is Natural Selection?

 

Fact. Natural Selection (NS) exists.

Fact.  NS does not, has not, and will never cause evolution.

In reality it has nothing to do with Evolution.  Natural selection is conservative (of genetic material) not creative. Natural selection can only increase or decrease the number of certain cats, dogs, moths, or bacteria in a larger population. It cannot alter, evolve, or morph them into different creatures. Scientifically studying natural selection will not lead to a conclusion of Darwinism or evolution being true. It is merely an observation which can be thought of as equally as supportive of a created world or an evolved world.

For decades, evolutionists and liberal educators have used the peppered moth as “proof” of evolution. Sewall Wright called it “a conspicuous evolutionary process”. But while the peppered moth does provide evidence of natural selection, it in no way supports evolution.

Creation and Evolution advocates can agree, the light colored phenotype (of the moth) may confer a survival advantage where light colors blend in, and the dark phenotype may be beneficial in a darker or more polluted environment. However, that is where the agreement (and the science) ends and the conjecture begins. The dark and light alleles may just as easily have been created or evolved, and neither side can scientifically prove (to the satisfaction of unbiased observers) that their side must be correct. But every scientist should readily agree that when the light phenotype becomes more prominent, NO NEW GENETIC MATERIAL is produced or created.

Isaiah 45:7 states, “The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.”

It should be noted that whatever you believe about evolution and the tree moth, the dark and light alleles have never changed or evolved. No new moth has been created, and no new color has been documented. Both colors have been present through all of the recorded history of the tree moth. Thus Natural Selection is NOT Evolution. Evolution requires a gradual change in the genetic material over time. Natural selection is simply a mechanism by which members of a population best suited to the environment may survive and pass on their genetic material. These are vastly different concepts.

Or as written by Biochemist John Marcus, “The key fact to note here is that natural selection simply cannot act unless there are functional, self-replicating molecules present to act on.”(1) NS does not create life, or create molecules, or create DNA.  NS simply allows one already created creature to thrive over another created creature. There is much more we will discuss about NS.  But for know just know this.

NS is real.  Evolution is not.

 

Job 12:7-9 “But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you; or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you. Who among all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this?
(1) John P. Marcus, in six days, New Leaf Publishing, 2017.

Evolution: Just the facts

Evolution is not plausible.  I am a practicing physician and I depend on science daily in the practice of medicine. Why would I not “believe science” and why would I trust instead in a “fairy tale” story from the Bible? Because facts matter.  Truth matters. And the facts are decidedly NOT on the side of evolution.

Evolution (by definition) requires increases in the complexity of the genetic code. Evolution as an explanation for life on earth as we know it would have required trillions of trillions of trillions of increases in the complexity of the genetic code. The massive information content of DNA could never have happened (evolved) by chance. As an example, a pinhead-sized amount of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4 gig hard drive. In fact “we would need only about 4 grams (about a teaspoon) of DNA to hold everything from Plato through the complete works of Shakespeare to Beyonce’s latest album (not to mention every brunch photo ever posted on Instagram”. (1)

Yet as of this writing there has not been one single example of any mutation at any time, in any living thing, that has increased or added to the complexity of the DNA. Not One! I have of course read many vague imprecise, pseudo-scientific articles on websites that claim the contrary. However their examples are usually at the macro level (living systems or organisms) and not at the molecular or genetic level, and their arguments are always “presumed”, not proven. We live in a society in which you can send off  a packet in the mail to find out about your genes (23 and me), yet all the scientists in the world cannot find ANY genetic proof of evolution!

On the factual side, a study by Axe and Ann Gauger showed that one of the very simplest “evolutionary” changes, the conversion of one enzyme to a closely related enzyme, would require seven simultaneous genetic changes.(2) This is so improbable that statisticians calculate the probability at less that one chance in a trillion trillion. Such an unlikely event has probably (statistically) not happened even once in the history of the earth. Yet for even the simplest example of evolution to be possible it would have of necessity happened countless times!  Or as explained by Dr John Baumgardner (Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics) the mere formation of a relatively short sequence of 200 amino acids to form a simple protein is 20 to the 100th power.  He explains that “this is a hundred billion times the upper bound we computed for the total number of molecules ever to exist  in the history of the cosmos.” (3)

Or for another example, the simplest free living organism is Mycoplasma genitalium.  It has 470 genes with 580,070 nucleotide base pairs. (4) The average protein molecule coded for by these genes contains about 347 amino acids.  The probability of forming just ONE such protein by random assembly is 1/10 to the 451st power.  The total number of atoms in the known universe is estimated to be 10 to the 80th power.  This is beyond improbable. It is statistically impossible.

Sites like TalkOrigins.org or NewScientist.com will obfuscate, and try to confuse the reader by changing the subject or the terms of the conversation. They will give examples like Trisomy (which involves transferring genetic material that already exists) or use code words like “increased genetic variation”or “creating diversity”, which have no relation to the question of an increasingly complex genome (they may result from, but cannot be the cause of such variation). The bottom line is that after over a hundred years of lab scientists radiating the poor, rapidly reproducing fruit fly, all we have is normal, dead, or deformed fruit flies. And after studying hundreds of thousands of generations of bacteria, not one evolutionary scientist has shown the addition of new genomic material

Even Wikipedia admits that Biologists “used to believe” that evolution was progressive.(7) The claim of progressive evolution is scientifically absurd now in the age of genomics.  Genomics has shown, in fact, proven, that the supposed evolutionary Tree of Life cannot be real. It exists only on paper.  Scientists have rearranged it, diversified it, changed it, and even cut and pasted it to no avail.  The Tree of Life is dead.  Belief in evolution should have died with it.

  1. qz.com/345640/scientists-say-all-the-worlds-data-can-fit-on-a-dna-hard-drive-the-size-of-a-teaspoon/
  2. Casey Luskin, 2012, Can Random Mutations Create New complex Features? Evolution News and Science Today
  3. creation.com/john-r-baumgardner-geophysics-in-six-days
  4. http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/data/genomes/270-5235-397.pdf
  5. Casey Luskin, 2012, Can Random Mutations Create New complex Features? Evolution News and Science Today
  6. Dr. Gary Parker, Mutations, Yes; Evolution, No 3/28/2016
  7. Wikipedia, Evolution of Biological Complexity.
  8. Nüsslein-Volhard, C. and E. Wieschaus. 1980. Mutations affecting segment number and polarity in Drosophila. Nature. 287 (5785): 795-801.
  9. Barrick, J. E. et al. 2009. Genome evolution and adaptation in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli. Nature. 461 (7268): 1243- 1247
  10. Jacob Aron, 11 February 2015 Glassed in DNA makes the ultimate time capsule, New Scientist

Isaiah 66:2  “For My hand made all these things, Thus all these things came into being,” declares the LORD “But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.”