Real Evolution Vs. Evolutionary Myth

by Babu G. Ranganathan

Photo: Real Evolution Vs. Evolutionary Myth

Real Evolution Vs. Evolutionary Myth

We all carry in our bodies expressed and unexpressed genes. For example, a husband and wife couple who both have black hair produce a child with blond hair. Would you call that evolution? Where did the blond hair come from? Obviously, the couple with black hair also were carrying genes for blond hair. The genes for blond hair did not evolve. The genes for blond hair already existed in the couple. However, the genes for blond hair were not expressed in the couple carrying them. Only the genes for black hair were expressed in the couple. Eventually, the genes for blond hair would be expressed in a child they brought into the world.

Young people, and even adults, often wonder how all the varieties or "races" of people could come from the same original human ancestors. Well, in principle, that's no different than asking how children with different color hair ( i.e., blond, brunette, brown, red ) can come from the same parents who both have black hair. Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendants with different color hair and eyes, humanity's first parents, Adam and Eve, possessed genes to produce all the variety and races of men. You and I today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but humanity's first parents did possess such genes.

All varieties of humans carry genes for the same basic traits, but not all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For example, one person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown, green, blue), but someone else may be carrying only one variation of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown). Thus, both will have different abilities to affect the eye color of their offspring.

Some parents with black hair, for example, are capable of producing children with blond hair, but their blond children (because they inherit only recessive genes) will not have the ability to produce children with black hair unless they mate with someone else who has black hair. If the blond descendants only mate with other blondes then the entire line and population will only be blond even though the original ancestor was black-haired.

The genes must first exist or otherwise the evolution cannot occur. All real evolution simply is an expression over time of what already existed previously in the genetic pool of a population.

Evolution just doesn't happen. Something has to direct the formation and transformation of biological matter for evolution to occur. That something is what we call genes. Genes are located on the DNA molecule (the genetic code). DNA is the abbreviated name for the genetic code and it is exactly that - a code. It is a molecular string of chemical information.

DNA is located in the nucleus of our cells and is made up of smaller molecules called nucleic acids. These smaller molecules in DNA are arranged in a sequence, just like the letters in a sentence. The sequence of these nucleic acids tell the cells in our body how to build our nose, eyes, hands, feet, and everything else. If the sequence for a particular trait isn't in our genetic code then our bodies won't build it. If the sequence for producing wings is not in the genetic code of an animal then that animal will not develop wings regardless of the environment. Many people have wrong ideas about evolution.

For example, in November of 2004, articles appeared in major U.S. newspapers saying that running may have contributed to the evolution of man.

The simple fact is that physical traits and characteristics are determined and passed on by genes - not by running or any other form of exercise. Any physical changes from exercises that are performed do not affect the genes and will not be passed on. For example, you cannot pass on a sun tan to your offspring even if you could live thousands of years in a tropical country getting a nice dark tan under the hot blazing sun. Traits or characteristics which are acquired from the environment simply cannot be passed on to offspring (i .e. a woman who loses her finger will not cause her baby to be born with a missing finger; changing the color and texture of your hair will not affect the color and texture of your children's hair. Even if an ape ever did learn to walk and run upright it still would not be able to pass on this trait to its offspring. Only the changes that occur in the genes (genetic information) of reproductive cells ( i.e. sperm and egg) can be passed on to offspring. That is a simple fact of biology.

How come we find dark people as natives in tropical countries? Obviously those in humanity who inherited genes for dark skin migrated to warmer climates where their skin complexion was of greater help and aid to them. Although Darwin was partially correct by showing that natural selection occurs in nature, the problem is that natural selection itself is not a creative force. Natural selection is a passive process in nature. Natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. Natural selection itself does not produce biological traits or variations. The term "natural selection" is simply a figure of speech. Nature, of course, does not do any conscious or active selection. If a biological variation occurs which helps a member of a species to survive in its environment then that biological variation will be preserved and be passed on to future offspring. That is what we call natural selection.

Adaptation is the result of natural selection. Let's imagine, for example, that all humans only have black hair, but the environment changed so that only humans with red hair can survive. Some of the black-haired humans also are carrying unexpressed genes for red hair. Over time some children are born with red hair. The red-haired ones survive (are "selected") while all the black-haired ones die off. The red-haired children will ensure that the human species will continue to exist under the new and changed environment. That's biological adaptation!

So, natural selection is just another way of saying "Survival of the Fittest". But, this is exactly the problem for the Darwinian theory of macro-evolution. How can a partially evolved species be fit for survival? A partially evolved trait or organ that is not completely one or the other will be a liability to a species, not a survival asset. The only evolution (real evolution) that occurs and is possible in nature and that can truly be called "science" is micro-evolution, which is variations within biological kinds such as varieties of dogs, cats, horses and cows. Only micro-evolution is observable and can be measured by the scientific method.

Macro-evolution, which teaches that variations in life can occur and did occur across biological kinds, is not science but modern mythology. Macro-evolution is blind faith!

The genes exist in all species for micro-evolution but not for macro-evolution, and there is no scientific evidence that random genetic mutations caused by natural forces such as radiation can or will generate entirely new genes for entirely new traits. Random forces in nature have no ability to perform genetic engineering so as to bring about entirely new genes.

Mutations produce only variations of already existing genes. They do not produce entirely new genes.

Random genetic mutations caused by environmental forces will not produce entirely new genes anymore than randomly changing the sequences of letters in a cookbook will change it into a book on astronomy.

Mathematical probability alone has shown how utterly irrational, illogical, and unscientific it is to believe in macro-evolution even if given trillions times trillions times trillions of years!

Evolutionists have nothing else to rely on except random genetic mutations caused by random forces of the environment, such as radiation, to make their theory work. Genetic similarities between species are no proof of common biological ancestry because it cannot be proved that these similarities are due to a common biologicalancestry via chance mutations.

What if thesimilarities between species are due to a common designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes? Only genetic similarities within a biological kind can be used as proof of relationship.

It is not rational to believe that genetic information can come about by chance (i.e. random mutations) so it is much more logical to believe that genetic and biological similarities between species are because of a common designer rather than common ancestry. The Creator designed similar genes and biological functions for similar purposes in all of the various forms of life. God was the first genetic engineer! Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.

Again, how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years if their vital organs and tissues 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? The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed species.

There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry. In fact, all of the fossils, with their fancy scientific names, that have been used to support human evolution have eventually been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not both human and non-human. Yet, many modern school textbooks continue to use these long disproved fossils as evidence for human evolution. Evolutionists once reconstructed an image of a half-ape and half-man (known as The Nebraska Man) creature from a single tooth! Later they discovered that the tooth belonged to an extinct species of pig! The "Nebraska Man" was used as a major piece of evidence in the famous Scopes Trial in support of Darwin's evolutionary theory.

Just because science can explain how the universe works doesn't mean there's no need to believe in a Creator. Science can explain how a television works. Does that mean no one had to design or make the television? Of course not!

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life and the universe operate, but mere undirected natural laws are not sufficient to explain the origin of such order.

For example, once there is a complete and living cell then the code and mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells. The problem for atheism is how did life come about naturally when there was no already existing directing code or mechanisms in nature.

Chance processes in nature can only go so far (i.e. amino acids have been shown to come into existence by chance but not protiens which require the various amino acids to be in a precise sequence just like the letters in a sentence).

Science can't prove God's existence, but it does point to God's existence!

For a more comprehensive article, please read the author's Internet essay "The Natural Limits of Evolution" at: www.religionscience.com

Excellent articles and resources by scientists who are creationists may be accessed at: www.icr.org and www.creationscience.com

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 24th edition of Marquis "Who's Who In The East". The author's website may be accessed at www.religionscience.com