Fallacies of Evolution - overview
Evolution-believers have no way of explaining the ex nihilo appearance of the Universe. They have no explanation for the formation of life from non-life. When you boil down what is said, it comes to nothing more than "it just happened by miraculous chance!" Ah, the wonders of science!
Young Earth Creationists believe the Bible account that gives God credit for the creation of the Universe and all life on Earth. Since we are able to observe the incredible "fine-tuning" of the Universe and the Earth to allow for life and since we are able to observe design in all living things, the Biblical account is far more logical than that of naturalistic evolution proponents.
The only reason that evolutionists prefer their far-fetched imaginings is that they cannot abide the idea of a Creator God. They are intent upon throwing the idea of God out the window without even a bit of consideration as to whether perhaps God indeed did create everything. They don't want to know. They are prisoners of a very narrow worldview that does not allow for the supernatural.
These are statements I have made and gone over many times in this blog. No evolutionist has yet given me one good reason to doubt these statements. Now let us go one step further and look at evolution itself, beginning with today's overview post.
Evolution - Change by means of natural selection
The basic premise of evolution is that after life somehow came from non-life, the first very primitive form of life began to form into more complex creatures until the vast array of life we see today came forth. One would think that if any form of life had managed to exist and reproduce, it would produce more of itself and continue to do so world without end. But evolution calls for change. Evolution must produce all myriad forms of life, so this primitive creature must change and branch out. How? Via favorable mutations selected by natural selection.
First, there must be mutations so that something other than the standard creature is produced. These mutations must be favorable so that the organism will survive. They must be able to be passed on to succeeding generations and they must be so favorable that they will live on in their descendants as conditions change going forward.
The American Heritage Science Dictionary
The above definition is correct to an extent, but with naturally one has see that it was written from an evolutionist viewpoint and about creatures we can observe today. The first creature wouldn't have been sophisticated enough to have alleles, for instance, since the highly complex genetic code itself needed to evolve over time, according to the evolutionists. So let us boil it down even further:
Natural selection is an observed process of nature in which, because of environment and other factors, some creatures are more likely to survive and reproduce than are others and it is the survivor/reproducers who are more likely to pass their genes to their offspring and on down to future generations.
mu·ta·tion
(myōō-tā'shən) Pronunciation Key
n.
Evolution comes in two flavors!
There is microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution, if you like the term, is what is observed and happens all around us on this planet. It leads to speciation within groups of creatures and also what evolutionists term "adaptive radiation" in which different branches of the same kind of animal become isolated and changed to the point they cannot even interbreed or have great difficulty doing so. We'll get back to this later.
Macroevolution is what evolutionists claim as the mechanism by which all life flowed from the first primitive simple creature. Untold billions and billions of mutations worked on by natural selection would eventually form new creatures, then more new creatures, and so on until we have what we see in nature today. This is, of course, a ridiculous idea in the extreme!
The flavors are "real" and "imaginary"
Microevolution is real. The appearance of Poodles and Newfoundlands and Dachshunds from the earlier types of dog is microevolution. So is the changing of the styles of beaks on Galapagos Island finches. One is managed by man, the other occurs due to changes in environment but they both happen the same way....loss of information!
Yes, dog breeders selected dogs for certain traits that they wanted in their breed and would only breed those animals. Other animals were not bred. Therefore, the gene pool of Poodles began to filter out traits not wanted by Poodle breeders. Some genetic information was intentionally avoided until, within the breed of Poodle dogs, it cannot any longer be found. There is less genetic information found within a Poodle than there would be in a Poodle-Newfoundland mix because both breeds deliberately selected for certain traits and selected other traits out. But in the mixing of the two breeds there are possibilities for characteristics not found in Poodles or not found in Newfoundlands that may show up and be passed forward by the Newfoodle offspring.
Whew! In any event, this kind of thing happened to Darwin's Finches. He saw beaks of differing shapes and sizes depending upon the environment and deduced that environmental concerns had selected the best beak for the job and the creature had been changed. Had he remained there for the remainder of his life, he may have seen that since the Finches are not terribly isolated, as climatic conditions would vary, so would the beaks, as the genetic information for different beaks remained within the gene pool.
Yes, all creatures have rich genetic codes that have information that can produce large and small, black and white, all sorts of different choices for the creatures. What we call speciation is the gene pool growing smaller or losing information so that only certain features can still be selected. A Poodle has less information within the genetic code than did his ancestor of 500 years ago. Information has been lost, and this has been observed and documented thoroughly. This is real.
Imaginary is another term for Macroevolution. In Macroevolution, a mutation has to occur that is not only so favorable to the creature that it makes the creature more likely to survive, it has to be a mutation that is passed along within the genetic code. There are many problems with this idea but here are three of the most insurmountable.
1) Mutations are almost always fatal or at least a hindrance to the creature
2) Mutations are not usually embedded within the genetic code in such a way that they can be passed on.
3) This requires an addition to the information carried within the genes. That has never been observed to happen.
You see, a mutation is a mistake. It usually involves loss of information (or at least the garbling of the information) within the gene. Yet, in order for mutations to add new and previously unheld characteristics to the creature, a mutation has to be an addition to the information held within that creature. Genetic information is not random, it is structured.
Information is orderly
You don't hurl a bomb at a DC-10 to make a 747, you have to design and build it. This is why macroevolution is the imaginary evolution. It depends upon the mistakes of mutation to create new structured information to input into the genetic structure. No one has ever observed this to happen! It is illogical that it could ever happen. Yet, for evolution to have produced life today it would have had to happen so many billions upon billions of times without any guiding force or mechanism behind it down through millions and millions of years.
Evolutionist will say that natural selection is the force, the engine, but they are wrong. Natural selection isn't a force, or a designer. It is merely an observation of the process by which creatures have been designed to be able to adapt to changing environments and continue to reproduce. God, who designed the genetic code, designed it to be so information-rich that fish could live in cold salt water and very warm inland freshwater lakes. So that Bears could be Polar or Sun Bears.
Lets make it simple: (Macro) Evolution requires information gain within the genetic code. Information gain does not happen, nor is it logical that it would happen. Therefore, evolution as macroevolution is not observed because it will never be observed because it just isn't going to happen, nor has it ever happened. Don't let the operation of natural selection within a kind of animal mislead you into following the error of the Darwin way!
Young Earth Creationists believe the Bible account that gives God credit for the creation of the Universe and all life on Earth. Since we are able to observe the incredible "fine-tuning" of the Universe and the Earth to allow for life and since we are able to observe design in all living things, the Biblical account is far more logical than that of naturalistic evolution proponents.
The only reason that evolutionists prefer their far-fetched imaginings is that they cannot abide the idea of a Creator God. They are intent upon throwing the idea of God out the window without even a bit of consideration as to whether perhaps God indeed did create everything. They don't want to know. They are prisoners of a very narrow worldview that does not allow for the supernatural.
These are statements I have made and gone over many times in this blog. No evolutionist has yet given me one good reason to doubt these statements. Now let us go one step further and look at evolution itself, beginning with today's overview post.
Evolution - Change by means of natural selection
The basic premise of evolution is that after life somehow came from non-life, the first very primitive form of life began to form into more complex creatures until the vast array of life we see today came forth. One would think that if any form of life had managed to exist and reproduce, it would produce more of itself and continue to do so world without end. But evolution calls for change. Evolution must produce all myriad forms of life, so this primitive creature must change and branch out. How? Via favorable mutations selected by natural selection.
First, there must be mutations so that something other than the standard creature is produced. These mutations must be favorable so that the organism will survive. They must be able to be passed on to succeeding generations and they must be so favorable that they will live on in their descendants as conditions change going forward.
The American Heritage Science Dictionary
| natural selection The process by which organisms that are better suited to their environment than others produce more offspring. As a result of natural selection, the proportion of organisms in a species with characteristics that are adaptive to a given environment increases with each generation. Therefore, natural selection modifies the originally random variation of genetic traits in a species so that alleles that are beneficial for survival predominate, while alleles that are not beneficial decrease. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection forms the basis of the process of evolution. |
Natural selection is an observed process of nature in which, because of environment and other factors, some creatures are more likely to survive and reproduce than are others and it is the survivor/reproducers who are more likely to pass their genes to their offspring and on down to future generations.
mu·ta·tion
(myōō-tā'shən) Pronunciation Keyn.
- The act or process of being altered or changed.
- An alteration or change, as in nature, form, or quality.
- Genetics
- A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type.
- The process by which such a change occurs in a chromosome, either through an alteration in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA coding for a gene or through a change in the physical arrangement of a chromosome.
- A mutant.
Evolution comes in two flavors!
There is microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution, if you like the term, is what is observed and happens all around us on this planet. It leads to speciation within groups of creatures and also what evolutionists term "adaptive radiation" in which different branches of the same kind of animal become isolated and changed to the point they cannot even interbreed or have great difficulty doing so. We'll get back to this later.
Macroevolution is what evolutionists claim as the mechanism by which all life flowed from the first primitive simple creature. Untold billions and billions of mutations worked on by natural selection would eventually form new creatures, then more new creatures, and so on until we have what we see in nature today. This is, of course, a ridiculous idea in the extreme!
The flavors are "real" and "imaginary"
Microevolution is real. The appearance of Poodles and Newfoundlands and Dachshunds from the earlier types of dog is microevolution. So is the changing of the styles of beaks on Galapagos Island finches. One is managed by man, the other occurs due to changes in environment but they both happen the same way....loss of information!
Yes, dog breeders selected dogs for certain traits that they wanted in their breed and would only breed those animals. Other animals were not bred. Therefore, the gene pool of Poodles began to filter out traits not wanted by Poodle breeders. Some genetic information was intentionally avoided until, within the breed of Poodle dogs, it cannot any longer be found. There is less genetic information found within a Poodle than there would be in a Poodle-Newfoundland mix because both breeds deliberately selected for certain traits and selected other traits out. But in the mixing of the two breeds there are possibilities for characteristics not found in Poodles or not found in Newfoundlands that may show up and be passed forward by the Newfoodle offspring.
Whew! In any event, this kind of thing happened to Darwin's Finches. He saw beaks of differing shapes and sizes depending upon the environment and deduced that environmental concerns had selected the best beak for the job and the creature had been changed. Had he remained there for the remainder of his life, he may have seen that since the Finches are not terribly isolated, as climatic conditions would vary, so would the beaks, as the genetic information for different beaks remained within the gene pool.
Yes, all creatures have rich genetic codes that have information that can produce large and small, black and white, all sorts of different choices for the creatures. What we call speciation is the gene pool growing smaller or losing information so that only certain features can still be selected. A Poodle has less information within the genetic code than did his ancestor of 500 years ago. Information has been lost, and this has been observed and documented thoroughly. This is real.
Imaginary is another term for Macroevolution. In Macroevolution, a mutation has to occur that is not only so favorable to the creature that it makes the creature more likely to survive, it has to be a mutation that is passed along within the genetic code. There are many problems with this idea but here are three of the most insurmountable.
1) Mutations are almost always fatal or at least a hindrance to the creature
2) Mutations are not usually embedded within the genetic code in such a way that they can be passed on.
3) This requires an addition to the information carried within the genes. That has never been observed to happen.
You see, a mutation is a mistake. It usually involves loss of information (or at least the garbling of the information) within the gene. Yet, in order for mutations to add new and previously unheld characteristics to the creature, a mutation has to be an addition to the information held within that creature. Genetic information is not random, it is structured.
Information is orderly
You don't hurl a bomb at a DC-10 to make a 747, you have to design and build it. This is why macroevolution is the imaginary evolution. It depends upon the mistakes of mutation to create new structured information to input into the genetic structure. No one has ever observed this to happen! It is illogical that it could ever happen. Yet, for evolution to have produced life today it would have had to happen so many billions upon billions of times without any guiding force or mechanism behind it down through millions and millions of years.
Evolutionist will say that natural selection is the force, the engine, but they are wrong. Natural selection isn't a force, or a designer. It is merely an observation of the process by which creatures have been designed to be able to adapt to changing environments and continue to reproduce. God, who designed the genetic code, designed it to be so information-rich that fish could live in cold salt water and very warm inland freshwater lakes. So that Bears could be Polar or Sun Bears.
Lets make it simple: (Macro) Evolution requires information gain within the genetic code. Information gain does not happen, nor is it logical that it would happen. Therefore, evolution as macroevolution is not observed because it will never be observed because it just isn't going to happen, nor has it ever happened. Don't let the operation of natural selection within a kind of animal mislead you into following the error of the Darwin way!