Author`s name Babu G. Ranganathan

Real evolution vs. popular evolutionary faith

There are two types of evolution, micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is fact and truly science. Macro-evolution simply is imaginary and blind faith.

Micro-evolution involves variations within a biological kind or natural species (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.). Micro-evolution is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there's information (i.e. genes, genetic code) directing it. Only new combinations or variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible in nature. Nature is totally mindless and has no ability to perform genetic engineering or invent entirely new genes by way of random genetic mutations caused by random forces of the environment such as radiation. That's blind evolutionary faith, not science.

We have breeds, or "races," of dogs today that we didn't have a few hundred years ago. The genes for these new races or breeds always existed in the dog population. They just didn't have opportunity for expression until much later. All species of life carry both expressed and unexpressed genes. When we witness new variations within a natural species, we're simply witnessing is the expression of previously existing genes. The genes were always there. The genes themselves didn't evolve.

How do we know that the genes were always there and didn't evolve? Because genes are chemical information. Chemical information, like other forms of information, does not arise spontaneously (by chance). An intelligent power had to have placed the information (i.e. genes). Certainly, mindless Nature or the environment could not have done it.

Macro-evolution teaches that life can change across "kinds" (i.e. from sea sponge to human) if given millions of years.  However, there are genetic limits to biological change. Evolutionists realize this. In order for biological change to occur across biological kinds, there must be a way for entirely new genes to come into existence, and not just variations or new combinations of already existing genes. Evolutionists hope and believe, by blind faith, that environmentally produced genetic mutations will provide those new genes. Mutations are accidental changes in the genetic code caused by random environmental forces such as radiation. Radiation is mindless, so when energy from radiation penetrates the genetic code that radiation randomly changes the sequential structure of the genetic code. The genetic code is made up of molecules arranged in a certain sequence, just like the letters in a sentence. This sequence tells the body how to build cells, tissues, and various organs. To change a fish into a human being over millions of years would require changing the code.

Evolutionists teach that, if given millions of years, random genetic mutations caused by mindless radiation or other factors in the environment will produce entirely new genes in natural species so that evolution can occur across kinds, from one type of life form into another. However, genetic mutations, caused by radiation, are destructive, not constructive, because mutations are accidents in the genetic code caused by the environment. That's why we protect ourselves from radiation! Even if mutations are not immediately harmful, after enough of them accumulate they will be harmful. And, even if a good mutation does occur, for every good mutation there will be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, being harmful to the species as a whole and even causing extinction, not upward evolution. The evolutionist belief that mutations can change a fish into a human being over millions of years is similar to believing that randomly changing the sequence of letters in a romance novel, over millions of years, will change it into a book on astronomy.

What about "Junk DNA?" It isn't junk. Recent research, published in journals such as Nature and RNA, shows that these "non-coding" segments of DNA called "junk" are vital in regulating gene expression (i.e. when, where, and how genes are expressed in the body). We simply were ignorant of the usefulness of these segments of DNA.

At best, mutations produce only variations of already existing genes. Mutations may change the gene(s) for human hair so that another type of human hair develops, but it'll still be human hair and not feathers or something else. Most biological variations are from new combinations of already existing genes, not mutations. 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. 

But, don't genes come together randomly in our bodies when reproductive cells are produced? Yes, but the individual genes themselves didn't originate by chance. Imagine in a dance, individual partners come together randomly. That doesn't mean the individuals themselves came into existence by chance. Genes combine by chance but that doesn't mean the individual genes came into existence by chance!

What about genetic and biological similarities between species? Comparative genetic and biological similarities betweenspecies can much more logically be explained by a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of life. Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot happen by chance, so a common genetic Designer or Engineer is the best explanation.

What about natural selection? Natural selection doesn't produce anything. It can only "select" from what is produced. Natural selection can only "select" from variations that are genetically possible and which have survival value. If a biological variation occurs that helps a species survive (i.e. change in skin color, etc.), that survival is called being "selected." That's all that natural selection is. 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. The real issue is not natural selection but what biological variations are genetically possible. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction and not before (After all, something has to be alive first before it can experience any change having survival value). Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.

Natural selection is no blind watchmaker because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a variation survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! 

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. So, even if an ape's muscles and bones changed so that it could walk upright it still would not be able to pass on this trait to its offspring. Only changes or mutations that occur in the genetic code of reproductive cells (i.e. sperm and egg) can be passed on to offspring, and that's how modern evolutionists believe macro-evolution occurred.

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 dog-like creatures.

Not even all evolutionists even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read my Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE

All fossils of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed, which is powerful evidence that they came into existence as complete and fully-formed, which is possible only by creation. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. A partially-evolved species with partially-evolved tissues, organs, and biological systems couldn't possibly be fit for survival, especially over millions of years.

Imagine a fish with part fins, part feet with 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 existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers!

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, and fully functional, not in any true process of transition from one type of structure into another. What about the duck-billed platypus? It has traits belonging to both birds and mammals, but even evolutionists wouldn't argue that it's a transitional link between birds and mammals because of that!

A true transitional form wouldn't survive. It would be unfit for survival. Remember the example of the fish with part fins, part feet? Natural selection would have eliminated any such forms of life, if ever they got to that point!

Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did that first cell originate when no directing code and mechanisms existed? All of the founders of modern science believed in God. 

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 originated when no directing code and mechanisms existed in Nature?

What about vestigial or so-called useless organs? Haven't they recently proved that the human eye has flaws in its design? Doesn't the human embryo have gills and tail? Isn't nylon-eating bacteria proof of mutations producing new genetic information? Haven't they already proved the evolution of new species? Haven't they scientifically proved the earth and universe to be billions of years old? Haven't they found fossils of dinosaurs with feathers? Haven't scientists already proved that life can arise spontaneously? Why didn't God need a beginning? All these and many more questions are answered in the various resources provided at my Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION 

Most scientists believe that we're here by chance, but that doesn't make the belief scientific, rational, or true.

For example, amino acids have been shown to be able to come into existence by chance, but not proteins, DNA, and RNA. To find out why read my Internet articles, NASA, FANTASY AND SCIENCE and HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.