Pro Rege Papers

GavinO just posted a really good article by LiveScience on a bunch of creation-evolution stuff.

I recommend you read it.

There is a major flaw in the evolutionary theory. It has to do with the ability to pass down a trait that has mutated.

Suppose that (somehow, this in itself is beyond scientific consideration) a mutation occurred in the just the right spot, with just the right genes, at just the right time in an animal to give him a “good” trait. You now have an animal with a structure that resembles the final form we see today (e.g. the long neck of a giraffe). That long neck is by itself on an animal, without any support structures. The “mid-giraffe” does not have a 2ft. long heart to pump the blood all the way up there, nor does it have strong enough legs to carry the extra weight and get away from enemies. Thus, the “mid-giraffe” dies, and the evolutionary trail ends.

So, an evolutionist would say, the genes for the support of that neck would have mutated simultaneously with the long neck. Now, the kind of radiation exposure necessary to generate such mutations in so many spots would kill the animal easily. But let’s suppose that somehow he escaped unscathed from all that radiation. You now have an animal that is alone in the world with a highly developed system. There is no other animal nearby that has the same type of characteristics. The giraffe cannot mate with anyone, so the evolutionary trail ends with him.

So, an evolutionist would say, the mutations happened little by little over a long period of time. But then the support structures would not be there. Then you go back to step 1. You can’t say that all of the changes necessary mutated slowly together, because then the animal still wouldn’t have anyone to mate with. If you say that two animals “co-mutated,” you’re just crazy. It’s impossible that two animals would have the exact same mutations and be able to mate with that kind of genetic load. It’s just impossible.

By the way, where was the source of radiation during all this? I thought the ozone was supposed to be thicker in the past. Fewer mutation-causing ultra-violet rays would have gotten through, lessening the chance of evolution.

The facts just don’t add up for evolution.

Natural selection, put within the framework of evolution, has some serious problems as I indicated in my post yesterday. However there is a type of natural selection that happened that explains the variety within genera today.

A type of natural selection did take place when (for example) dogs came to the Arctic: shorthaired dogs died of the cold; long­haired dogs lived and produced longhaired puppies. The opposite happened in the trop­ics, but in each case, the result was a loss of information in the genetic code as a result of the isolation of a group in a hostile natural environment. The gene for short hair was eliminated from the genome of the group. This probably happened with many other genera, as creatures got more and more isolated from one another after the Flood.

What the Bible describes as a “kind” I believe is a genus. So coyotes, wolves, dogs, etc. are probably all descendants of a diverse group represented by two animals on the ark that had all the genes we see separated in the various species today. As the group split up and headed for their natural environments, the genes that best suited them for their surroundings got selected out and became dominant among that group; resulting in a separate species.

In all of these cases; however, there was a loss of genetic information, resulting in speciation, the opposite of evolution.

I prefer to call what I just described “Divine selection,” rather than “Natural selection.” God sovereignly guides the movements of creatures into their environments. He sovereignly directs the speciation process of the genes over the course of time. He providentially provides food for them, and equips them to be able to survive in their environment.

Divine selection is a process that came about through the providence of God, not an argument for evolution.

In London, they have made a museum out of Darwin’s house. They have idolized him and put his quotes on the walls as certain truth. In one room, they have a copy of Gen. 1 on the wall, saying in big, bold letters above it, “Darwin put these writings to shame.” In reality, Darwin’s ideas are not Gospel truth, and they have been undercut by recent discoveries in genetics and other areas.

Darwin said that in the course of the time, organisms reproduce quickly. They reproduce so quickly that they out-grow their food source. Thus, a struggle for survival takes place. The “fittest,” which have variations that enable them to survive better, eventually dominate the group of organisms, and breed with other “fittest.” Thus, over a period of time, some new “fittest” replace the old “fittest;” and the species progressed. This process is known as natural selection.

First of all, Darwin did not explain the beginning of the group of organisms. He just dropped us into this situation where all the animals are engaged in “the war of nature.”

Second, he did not explain how the fittest got to be so fit in the first place. If evolutionists would worship anyone, they should worship the person who came up with the “benevolent mutation” theory. That one too has its problems of course.

Thirdly, it needs noting that in order to make any significant progress in advancing a species, two animals that are different from each other need to mate and make a new species. The problem with this is that a very important part of the definition of species is that it can breed within it’s own and have productive young (a cycle). Not only is the idea that two very different animals breeding with each other implausible; but also the next generation would have a problem because they would be unique and therefore could not breed and thus die out (a dead-end).

Darwin got around this by saying that the changes took place over a long, long, long period of time. (It seems they keep on changing the earth’s age by a billion years or so every six months. Let’s see, is it up around 4.5 billion now? I can’t keep up with it!) If the “fittest” were progressing at such a slow rate, they wouldn’t be distinguishable from the rest of the species, and would interbreed with the “lesser” forms; which would diminish the species advance.

Also, if there were gradual changes taking place over a long period of time, there would be definite traces of progress and difference in the fossil record. These transitional forms Darwin called “missing links,” which he said must exist because they are fundamental to proving his theory. Therefore, we are told, we must take for granted that they exist. This circular reasoning is very prevalent in Darwinian circles. Besides, we still haven’t found any real missing links. If Darwin is correct, then there should be millions of missing links in the fossil record showing the progression of each and every of all the animals that we see today. They don’t just need one or two here and there, but tons of them everywhere. Darwin predicted in his book that many would show up in the coming years. It’s been 150 years now, and we still haven’t found one. Yes, Axinar, I hate to tell you, but Tiktaalik Roseae and Archaeopteryx have been disproven. Those were merely desperate attempts to clutch at something that would provide a leg for a faulty theory. They are so frantic for some conclusive evidence, that they are willing to accept blindly something like Piltdown Man. True science follows Mendel’s basic laws of genetics, and not wishful thinking.

What Darwin did prove conclusively is what no one doubted in the first place: that there is variation in a species, and that by selecting animals (e.g. sheep) within a group with favorable characteristics and breeding them together, you can get different kinds of sheep. Breeders have been doing it for centuries. What is done by isolating a trait with a “fit” animal is narrowing the gene pool even more, which is counter-productive to evolution. In fact that’s de-evolution.

A lot of people say that they see evolution everywhere around them. They say that there is no field in science where they do not see its influence. Wait a second, you can’t have absolutes like that; it’s un-scientific.Whether something is evidence of creation or evolution all depends on your worldview, how you interpret the evidence, and your starting premises. If any of the above conditions are false, then the “proof” goes down the drain. An evolutionist looks at the Grand Canyon and says, “A little bit of water over a long period of time did this.” A creationist looks at the Grand Canyon and says, “A lot of water in a short period of time did this.” It all depends on your viewpoint. That isn’t to say that there is no absolute truth. There is, all I’m saying is that people look at things differently and make conclusions based on their worldviews.

I look around me and see examples of creation and marvelous design everywhere.

Take the giraffe, for instance. Its heart is 2 ft. long in order to pump the blood all the way to the head. Now say (hypothetically) that the long neck and head evolved before the heart. That giraffe would have a serious problem: it’s called death. Oops, there goes the carrier of the one successful mutation. I wonder what the intermediate form of the giraffe looked like. We’ll never know, because it hadn’t developed all the defensive mechanisms it needed yet. Guess we’ll have to wait another million years or so.

That’s just one example, if you look around you, you’ll see many more examples of excellent design by an awsomely intelligent Creator.

UPDATE: After doing a blog search on giraffe evolution, I discovered that some people still believe Lamark’s theory of evolution by need. (Lamark was French, by the way) That’s a funny, outdated evolutionist argument that most of them don’t use anymore.

Lamark said that a long time ago, there was a drought in Africa, and deer-like creatures needed to reach the higher branches of the trees for food. So, they stretched their necks and after a while, by passing down the “stretched neck” gene; they got to how they are now.

False for several reasons:

1. Acquired characteristics are not passed down in the genes.
2. Genes do not change because you want them to.
3. I could sure use eyes in the back of my head, or an extra limb; but no matter how hard I try, I can’t seem to get them.
4. You can’t stretch bones that long.
5. You need support systems for that long neck (see post).

I find it funny that some people still subscribe to Lamark. Die-hards.

So evolutionists say that mutations are one of the best things that can happen to mankind. (Or any other type of life, for that matter) If this is true, why are mutations so feared?

In Chernobyl, after the radioactive leak, there were several mutants that arose from the radiation. Only problem is that after they arose, they fell. All the mutants died out almost immediately. This happens with all mutants. This is interesting, because mutants are supposed to be good things that survive.

Another problem with mutations is that the “good” ones are way too rare in the cells where they matter (reproductive cells) for any type of order or progress to be achieved. If one “good” trait evolves, fine. But that trait is useless unless it is developed along with other traits that profit the species. “Natural selection” is not going to see any profit in the trait.

For example, with the bombardier beetle, you have many chemicals and enzymes that must mix in the right place at the right time in order for the beetle to fire the mix without blowing up himself. If one of the components evolved (and that’s a stretch of the mind) without the others, Mr. Beetle is going sky high. As someone once said, “nothing works until everything works”

In the whole hubbub raised about global warming, which itself is unproven and questionable, it is intriguing that the scientists who support it are saying that the deterioration of the magnetic field and other things are going to cause increased rates of mutation. The result, they say, is not wonderful evolutionary progress, but cancer and disease that will kill millions.