Giant squid basketball eyes did not evolve

By Babu G. Ranganathan

Photo: Source: Wikipedia

Giant squid basketball eyes did not evolve. 46855.jpeg

The recent discovery of a giant squid with huge basketball size eyes has been promoted as an evolutionary survival response for detecting enemy sperm whales that would eat it.

But, how did the squid avoid the whales while its big eyes were still evolving over, supposedly, millions of years? Partially evolved eyes over millions of years do no good. Natural selection wouldn't have preserved them. The truth is the squid's eyes were designed from the beginning!

Natural selection occurs in nature but it doesn't produce biological traits.  It only "selects" them. Natural selection can only "select" from biological traits and variations that are possible and which have survival value.  If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. It's simply another term for survival of the fittest. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before.

Genes, not natural selection, produce biological traits. The real issue is not natural selection but what traits are genetically possible.

There are limits to evolution and natural selection in nature. Only evolution within biological "kinds" is possible (such as varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.). Evolution is not possible across biological "kinds." The genes already exist in all species for micro-evolution (evolution within "kinds") but not for macro-evolution (evolution across "kinds").

Genetic information cannot happen by chance. Therefore, genetic and biological similarities between species are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of life.

What about "Junk DNA"? The latest science shows that "Junk DNA" isn't junk after all! It's we who were ignorant of how useful these segments of DNA really are. Recent scientific research published in scientific journals such as Nature has revealed that these "non-coding" segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Just because these segments don't code for proteins or traits doesn't mean they're not useful or that they don't code for something else.

How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems, etc. were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.

Evolution is possible only if there's information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That's evolutionary faith, not science. Evolutionists hope and believe that random genetic mutations caused by the environment over, supposedly, millions of years will produce new genetic information. That's blind faith, not science.

Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent entirely new genes for entirely new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.). Nature is no genetic engineer. Nature can only work with the given genetic ability of a species.

Contrary to popular belief, there is no scientific evidence that random genetic mutations caused by unthinking environmental forces such as radiation can or will produce entirely new genes for entirely new traits. Mutations only produce more variations of already existing genes. For example, mutations in the gene(s) for human hair may change the gene(s) for human hair so that another type of human hair develops, but it'll still be human hair!

Because mutations are accidents in the genetic code caused by random environmental forces they're almost always harmful. They damage the genetic code similar to how the random energy from an earthquake damages a building. Even if a good mutation occurred for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, being deleterious to the species, even causing extinction.

Even "neutral" mutations will become harmful when enough of them accumulate and are passed on. Mutations may also trigger the duplication of already existing traits (i.e. extra fingers, extra toes, etc.) but this is not the same as the creation of new traits.

Most biological changes are not from mutations but from new combinations of already existing genes.

Many people have wrong ideas of how evolution is supposed to work. Physical traits and characteristics are determined and passed on by genes - not by what happens to our body parts. For example, if a woman were to lose her finger this wouldn't affect how many fingers her baby will have. Changing the color and texture of your hair will not affect the color and texture of your children's hair. Therefore, even if an ape's muscles and bones changed so that it could walk upright, it still would not be able to pass on these traits to its offspring. Only changes and mutations that occur in the genetic code of reproductive cells (i.e. sperm and egg) can be passed on to offspring.

Evolutionists blindly believe that random genetic mutations in the genetic code of reproductive cells (caused by environmental forces such as radiation) produced entirely new genetic information, which was then passed on to offspring.

Apes, by the way, are quite comfortable in how they walk just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.

All the fossils that have been used to support human evolution have been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not non-human and human (i.e. Neanderthal Man was discovered later to be fully human). Textbooks and museums still continue to display examples and illustrations supporting human evolution which most evolutionists have now rejected. Many diagrams of ape-man creatures over the years were reconstructed according to evolutionary interpretations from disputable bones that have now been discredited but still taught in school textbooks.

The fossil record shows only fully-formed or complete species, which is powerful evidence that all species came into existence as complete and fully formed. That can only be possible by creation.

Imagine a fish with part fins ...  part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact!

Some evolutionists use similarities of traits between species as an argument for transitional forms. This is not a good argument because the traits they cite are complete fully formed, fully functional, not in any process of transition from one type of structure into another.

What about the duck-billed platypus, a living creature? It has traits belonging to both birds and mammals, but even evolutionists wouldn't go so far as to argue that it's a transitional link between birds and mammals.

Dawkins refuses to debate with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists (many who don't know enough science).

Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site (www.icr.org). Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the mainstream media. Visit the site and use the "search" feature to research your topic of interest.

Most scientists (not all) believe that we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief science or a scientific fact! Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing what they believe about origins. Many scientists have never critically studied evolutionary theory and its weaknesses. They've been fed macro-evolution as a scientific fact in schools and their minds automatically interpret evidence from a macro-evolutionary viewpoint. Also, scientists can lose their very jobs and grant money for refusing to believe Darwinian macro-evolution. It has already happened!

Mathematical probability alone shows that it is neither rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!

Explaining how an airplane works doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how could the first cell have naturally arisen when no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature? Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.

ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH (Internet Article).  In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity that spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space, which could have reached Mars, according to a Newsweek article. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.

THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (http://creationismnow.blogspot.com/) This site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "Junk DNA," embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). 

The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, has his bachelor's degree with concentrations in theology and biology and has been recognized for his writings on religion and science in the 24^th edition of Marquis "Who's Who In The East."  The author's articles may be accessed at www.religionscience.com.