Last week, Pravda published a highly-informative piece by Babu Ranganathan about the flaws, misinformation, and wishful thinking found in Darwinian theory.
In his article, Natural Selection Doesn't Produce Evolution, Mr. Ranganathan focuses purely on the facts, and finds the facts for Darwin to be woefully short.
Thanks to Richard Dawkins, many have confused natural selection with evolution itself. Yes, Charles Darwin did show that natural selection occurs in nature, but what many don't understand is that natural selection itself does not produce biological parts, traits, or variations.
Natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are produced and which have survival value. The real issue is what biological variations are naturally possible?…
The evidence from science shows that only micro-evolution (variations within a biological "kind" such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) is possible but not macro-evolution (variations across biological "kinds", especially from simpler kinds to more complex ones). The only evolution that occurs in nature is micro-evolution (or horizontal evolution) but not macro-evolution (or vertical evolution).
The genetic ability for micro-evolution exists in nature but not the genetic ability for macro-evolution. The genes (chemical and genetic instructions or programs) for micro-evolution exist in every species but not the genes for macro-evolution. Unless Nature has the intelligence and ability to perform genetic engineering (to construct entirely new genes and not just to produce variations and new combinations of already existing genes) then macro-evolution will never be possible in nature.
We have varieties of dogs today that we didn't have a couple of hundred years ago. The genes for these varieties had always existed in the population of the dog species but they simply never had an opportunity for expression until the right conditions came along. The genes themselves didn't evolve! What we call "evolution" is really nothing more than the physical expression of already existing genes.
All of this is just another example of micro-evolution (horizontal evolution) in nature. No matter how many varieties of dogs come into being they will always remain dogs and not change or evolve into some other kind of animal. Even the formation of an entirely new species of plant or animal from hybridization will not support Darwinian evolution since such hybridization does not involve any production of new genetic information but merely the recombination of already existing genes.
Modifications and new combinations of already existing genes for already existing traits have been shown to occur in nature but never the production of entirely new genes for entirely new traits. This is true even with genetic mutations. For example, mutations in the genes for human hair may change the genes so that another type of human hair develops, but the mutations won't change the genes for human hair so that feathers, wings, or entirely new traits develop. Mutations may even cause duplication of already existing traits (i.e. an extra finger, toe, etc. even in another part of the body!), but none of these things qualify as new traits.
Evolutionists believe that, if given enough time, random or chance mutations in the genetic code caused by random environmental forces such as radiation will produce entirely new genes for entirely new traits which natural selection can act upon or preserve.
However, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that random mutations have the ability to generate entirely new genes which would program for the development of entirely new traits in species…
Mutations are accidents in the sequential molecular structure of the genetic code and they are almost always harmful, as would be expected from accidents… Even if a good mutation does occur for every good mutation there will be hundreds of harmful ones with the net result over time being disastrous for the species.
Furthermore, only those mutations produced in the genes of reproductive cells, such as sperm in the male and ovum (or egg cell) in the female, are passed on to offspring. Mutations and any changes produced in other body cells are not transmitted. For example, if a woman were to lose a finger it would not result in her baby being born with a missing finger. Similarly, even if an ape ever learned to walk upright, it could not pass this characteristic on to its descendants…
The common belief among evolutionists is that, if given millions of years, radiation and other environmental forces will cause enough random changes (mutations) to occur in the sequential structure of the genetic code of a species so that entirely new sequences for entirely new genes will develop which in turn will program for the formation of entirely new biological traits, organs, and structures that natural selection can then act upon.
Would it be rational to believe that by randomly changing the sequence of letters in a cookbook that you will eventually get a book on astronomy? Of course not! And if the book were a living being it would have died in the process of such random changes.
Such changes, as transforming one book into another or the DNA of one species into the DNA of another, especially one more complex, simply cannot occur by random or chance alterations. It would require intelligent planning and design…
Yes, it is true that the raw biological materials and chemicals to make entirely new genes exist in every species, but the problem is that the random forces of nature (i.e. radiation, etc.) simply have no ability to rearrange those chemicals and biological materials into entirely new genes programming for entirely new traits…It would require intelligent manipulation of genetic material (genetic engineering) to turn a fish into a human being. The random forces of the environment cannot perform such genetic engineering!
Furthermore, a half-evolved and useless organ waiting millions of years to be completed by random mutations would be a liability and hindrance to a species - not exactly a prime candidate for natural selection. In fact, how could species have survived over, supposedly, millions of years while their vital (or necessary) organs were still in the process of evolving!
How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still incomplete and evolving? How were species fighting off possibly life-threatening germs if their immune system hadn't fully evolved yet?
Scientist and creationist Dr. Walt Brown, in his fantastic book "In The Beginning", makes this point by saying, "All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs. Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing…"
If humans must use intelligence to perform genetic engineering, to meaningfully manipulate the genetic code, then what does that say about the origin of the genetic code itself!…
Science cannot prove we're here by creation, but neither can science prove we're here by chance or macro-evolution. No one has observed either. They are both accepted on faith. The issue is which faith, Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory or creation, has better scientific support.
If some astronauts from Earth discovered figures of persons similar to Mt. Rushmore on an uninhabited planet there would be no way to scientifically prove the carved figures originated by design or by chance processes of erosion. Neither position is science, but scientific arguments may be made to support one or the other.
What we believe about life's origins does influence our philosophy and value of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no small issue!
Just because the laws of science can explain how life and the universe operate and work doesn't mean there is no Maker. Would it be rational to believe that there's no designer behind airplanes because the laws of science can explain how airplanes operate and work?
Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws can never fully explain the origin of such order…
An excellent article to read by scientist and biochemist Dr. Duane T. Gish is "A Few Reasons An Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible"...
Dr. Walt Brown covers various scientific issues (i.e. fossils, "transitional" links, biological variation and diversity, the origin of life, comparative anatomy and embryology, the issue of vestigial organs, the age of the earth, etc.) at greater depth on his website…
An excellent source of information from highly qualified scientists who are creationists is the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, California…
It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design or creation be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory, especially in public schools which receive funding from taxpayers who are on both sides of the issue…
I encourage all to read my Internet article "The Natural Limits of Evolution" at my website for more in-depth study of the issue.
If Jack Webb was alive today, I'd like to think that after hearing "just the facts ma'am," he'd arrest Richard Dawkins, and say, "Book 'em, Danno."
H/T: Darwiniana
No comments:
Post a Comment