Top 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Evolution Bias References
EVIDENCE #2
Natural selection (the evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is
incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".
It can be noted that natural selection as a driving mechanism for evolution
is totally inadequate. Natural selection (along with mutation) is said to
have caused organisms to evolve from one basic kind (animals which can
reproduce with one another) into another basic kind. This is prohibited
genetically since all of the information for the development of an organism
has already been encoded in the DNA of its parent. Variation to organisms
must remain within its basic kind. For example, genetically, a wide variety
of dogs can come to exist, but a dog can never become anything other than a
dog. It remains in its kind. It does not have the genetic ability to become
anything more. Admitting this, evolutionists have tried to explain that
natural selection happened in conjunction with mutations to the genetic
code. This could not produce evolution, however, since mutations do not
create new genetic potential, they just alter what is already there.
Furthermore, mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the
genetic code. This also makes evolution from mutations impossible. For
example, a working wristwatch does not improve but is harmed when its
inside parts are randomly altered. Natural selection also contradicts the
second law of thermodynamics which states that, left to themselves, all
things tend to deteriorate rather than develop, while evolution wants to go
in the opposite direction. "Survival of the fittest" demonstrates only how
an organism has survived, not how it has evolved.
1. "All the `information' for the development of each particular organism
was already `encoded' in the DNA of its parent. They must reproduce
`after their kinds'." ([18], p.25)
2. "There are great numbers of `genes' (or DNA molecules) in each germ
cell, and these can be arranged in various ways to permit a wide range
of variation in the individual members of a basic `kind' of plant or
animal, but the possible range of variation is nevertheless limited to
the basic genetic framework of that particular `kind'." ([18], p.25)
3. "The genetic system permits a wide variety of specific features (eye
color, height, shape of skull, etc.) within the limits of a particular
kind. These characteristics vary in accordance with the Mendelian laws
of heredity. Depending on factors such as possible isolation and
inbreeding, some of these characteristics become fixed and a definite
`race' established."
4. "Although the number of varieties or races that may be established
from an original kind is undoubtedly quite large, it is clear that
there are definite limits to this or even speciation has no true
evolutionary significance. New varieties are established, but not new
kinds." ([18], p.26)
5. "For example, all the different races of dogs are simply variations
and changes within the genetic boundaries of the dog kind. Although
there is ample evidence of changes within kinds such as the various
races of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc., there has never been observed
any changes across kinds, such as, for example, a dog becoming a cat
or a horse becoming a cow; such changes are not possible since a dog
does not have the information in its genes to become a cat...It is the
various distribution and recombination of genes which ultimately
produce the variations and physiological differences that we find
within a family unit, race, or natural species." ([22], p.7)
6. In light of these facts, evolutionists have turned to mutations
(small, random and almost always harmful changes in the genetic code)
in the gene pool to explain their theory, "The general picture of how
evolution works is now clear. The basic raw material is the mutant
gene. Among these mutations most will be deleterious, but a minority
will be beneficial. These few will be retained...". James F. Crow, a
modern leader for evolution. ([19], p.47) Two problems with claiming
mutations to be the source of positive change are as follows: "an
accumulation of literally millions of such micro mutations would be
necessary to change one basic `kind' of plant or animal into another"
and "an even more serious difficulty is the fact that practically all
observed mutations are harmful, and usually even fatal, to the
creature experiencing them. Truly beneficial mutations are so rarely
observed, and even these are so questionable, as to leave their very
existence still in doubt. Even evolutionary geneticists readily
acknowledge that 99.9% of all observed mutations are harmful." ([18],
p.27-28)
7. Mutation are small, random, and harmful or at best neutral to the
organism, and rare. All four of these characteristics make mutations
impossible to bringing evolutionary change. Any change that is random,
because it is done to a highly ordered organism, will be harmful or
neutral. A random change done to a wristwatch will not improve the
watch. It will harm it or at very best, be neutral to it. An
earthquake does not develop a city, it brings destruction to it.
([22], p.7 and [18], p.27)
8. "Living creatures are extremely intricate assemblies of interrelated
parts, and the parts themselves are also complex. It is impossible to
imagine how the parts could change in unison as a result of chance
mutation." ([11], p.32)
9. "But, let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that a beneficial
mutation might occur; still the fact remains that for every beneficial
mutation there will be hundreds of harmful ones so that the net
effect, or result, over time will be that the harmful mutations always
win and will ultimately cause the organism, or even species, to
degenerate or die." ([22], p.8)
10. "...mutations are incapable of producing evolution because they can
only alter and effect the existing structure of genes: they cannot
create new genetic material or new genetic potential."
11. "...only 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. Changes produced in other body cells are not
transmitted. For example, if a woman were to lose a finger, her baby
would not, as a result, be 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. Thus, modern biology has
disproved the once held theory that acquired characteristics from the
environment can be transmitted into the genetic code of offspring."
([22], p.9)
12. Survival of the fittest is a given but it only explains how an
organism survived not how it evolved. Survival of the fittest is
natural preservation not natural selection (evolution). ([22], p.11)
13. Put another way, in regard to mutations, we can say, "Species avoid
genetic deterioration due to natural attrition among the genetically
unfit. Darwinists claim that the same force of attrition has a
building effect so powerful that it can begin with a bacterial cell
and gradually craft its descendants...to produce such wonders as
trees, flowers, ants, birds, and humans." ([11], p.16)
14. Breeding reproduces those animals with desired features. It is not
evolution of the specimens. It is also within kind not crossing kinds,
and all changes through breeding are lost after just a few
generations. Breeding also, of course, cannot produce new genetic
material or the potential for such. Cloning is the artificial
stimulation of mitosis (cell division). It is not the creation of
life. ([4], p.37)
15. Regarding the second law of thermodynamics (universally accepted
scientific law which states that all things left to themselves will
tend to run down) or the law of entropy, it is observed, "It would
hardly be possible to conceive of two more completely opposite
principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle
of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. As (Aldous)
Huxley defined it, evolution involves a continual increase of order,
of organization, of size, of complexity. It seems axiomatic that both
cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the
second law of thermodynamics is true." ([19], p.35)
16. "...an excess inflow of `ordering energy' into the system from outside
may cause it temporarily to grow and become more highly organized.
Thus...a child may grow into an adult, or men may build a structure.
But each of these, and all other illustrations of apparent decrease in
entropy, are only local and temporary.""Negative entropy (is required)
for its maintenance." ([18], p.46)
17. A seed, for example, being genetically complete, provides the negative
entropy for the growth of a tree.
18. Regarding the first law of thermodynamics (stating that a constant
amount of energy is maintained) it is observed, "...all matter in the
universe is some form of energy...(and) the total amount of energy in
the universe always remains constant (or the same), and, therefore,
energy itself is neither destroyed (that is, reduced to nothing) or
created from nothing by any natural process. ([19], p.32)
19. These laws state that any natural process would involve conservation
(1st law) and disintegration (2nd law). Evolution demands "integration
and development" and is therefore impossible. ([18], p.46)
20. Regarding the validity of the laws, we note, "These laws are based
upon more evidence than any other principles in science. They have
been confirmed by countless thousands of experiments on systems
ranging in size from the nuclear to the astronomic, and there is no
known exception to either of them."
21. It is noted that the `urge' to evolve is not at all found in
chemistry. ([4], p.357)
22. In light of all of these scientific objections to natural selection,
perhaps Darwin would have abandoned his own theory since he asserted,
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organism existed which
could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Top 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Evolution Bias References
-------------
Last revised: Dec 29, 1995
Go to Creation Science home page