|
Prophets or
Evolution - An LDS Perspective Chapter 33 The Claims
of Evolution "God grant me the courage not
to give up what I think is right, even though I think it is hopeless." Admiral Chester W. Nimitz Introduction This
chapter will discuss some of the "evidence" of the scientific
establishment that the theory of evolution is a valid scientific theory. Not only are their theories nonsense, their
techniques to convince people to believe in evolution are also nonsense. Claim #1: Macroevolution Has
Been Observed Those who
claim that macroevolution has been observed are
being totally deceptive. In order to
observe "macroevolution," someone must observe and prove that new genetic information has been formed
by totally random processes. This new genetic information must include
at least one new gene complex; by totally random means. This has never happened and never will
happen!! Macroevolution
has NEVER been observed and
will NEVER be observed. It completely violates the laws of mathematics. Their false
claims are based on: 1) Microevolution,
or 2) Point
mutations which reduce the amount of genetic information but coincidentally
create some benefit, or 3) The use
of inconsistent definitions. Let us talk
about the use of inconsistent definitions In this
book the term "species" is defined by the DNA structure of the animal. In this
book the term "microevolution" is defined by the DNA structure of the animal. In this
book the term "macroevolution" (i.e. true evolution) is defined by
the DNA structure of the
animal. These three
definitions are consistent because all three of them are based on "DNA
structure." Now
consider these four definitions: The term
"species" is defined based on the ability
of two animals to physically mate. The term
"microevolution" is defined based on the ability of two animals to physically mate. The term
"macroevolution" (i.e. evolution), as used by some scientists, is based on the ability of two animals to physically mate. The term
"macroevolution" (i.e. evolution), as used by the general public, is based on the DNA structure of the two animals. What is
wrong with these four definitions? What
is wrong is that three of the definitions are based on the physical ability to mate; and one of them, the one used by the general public,
is based on DNA structure. In recent
years science has claimed that evolution occurred by random mutations of
DNA. Thus, in recent years the general public has been converted into thinking
about true evolution solely in terms of DNA structure. Among
scientists, many of them still use the term "evolution" to mean two
animals cannot physically mate with each other. This intentionally
deceptive tactic can be explained as follows: Suppose scientists
follow many generations of a type of animal which has a high degree of
microevolution (i.e. high variation in physical features in spite of the fact
they all have the same DNA structure). Eventually,
after many generations, the variation in this species becomes so great that two
of the variations cannot physically mate with each other. The
scientists then claim that this is "proof of evolution." What is wrong with this claim? Nothing, so far. In the
minds of these scientists, the term "evolution" is used when two
variations of the same animal
cannot physically mate. In other words,
they use the term "evolution"
in their claim that they have observed two variations of the same animal (the
two variations have the same DNA structure) and these variations cannot physically
mate!! Now comes the problem. When these
scientists go public with their claims, because they use the term
"evolution," the general public thinks that the two animals have a different DNA structure. But they do not have different DNA structure;
they have the same DNA structure. They
are "cousins," but they cannot mate because of physical differences
caused by microevolution. For
example, there are breeds of dogs, which have the same DNA structure, which
cannot mate because of a massive difference in their physical size. For example, try to breed a Great Dane and a
miniature Poodle. The same is
true of some breeds of horses. Thus,
because of the clever terminology used by scientists, the general public thinks there is new genetic information and new
genes because the term "evolution" was used. But there are NO new genes and NO
new genetic information because the
two variations have exactly the same DNA structure. Microevolution
can be so powerful that two animals with
an identical DNA structure cannot mate due to physical differences. But this is
not "macroevolution," it is the result of
"microevolution." Be warned
that scientists may call this phenomenon "evolution." But it is not "evolution," it is
microevolution. In fact,
when dogs, or any other animal, are bred for a specific physical feature, the
end result is the loss of genetic
information. It is not the loss
of nucleotides; rather it is the loss of variation in their genes. Because
patterns of randomness can never create patterns of intelligence, such as a new
gene complex, macroevolution
has NEVER, NEVER, NEVER been observed; nor will it ever be
observed. Let me repeat that again: macroevolution has NEVER,
NEVER, NEVER been observed, nor will it ever be observed. Never
forget that. When such a ludicrous claim
is made, ask to see the new genetic material and how the "new"
species DNA compares to the "old" species DNA. Claim #2: Wishful
Thinking is a Source of New Genetic Information How many
times have you watched a television show on evolution and heard a statement
such as this one: "this species developed the ability to stand on two legs
so that it could reach fruits which were higher up in the tree." This is
"wishful thinking," meaning an animal "wished" it had a
different physical feature so it could reach fruit higher up the tree; then
over many generations, even over many centuries, the species developed the new
features necessary to reach the fruit which was higher in the tree. To the
credit of some evolutionary biologists, they abhor such nonsensical
"wishful thinking" claims; but the popular media and popular
textbooks are full of such claims.
However, on many occasions evolutionary biologists have inadvertently used
"wishful thinking," such as when they look at a fossil and claim:
"This dinosaur wanted to fly." There are
three major problems with using "wishful thinking" to prove evolution. First, new
physical features require massive, complex changes to DNA. For example, if you change the leg bone, most
likely you will also have to change the circulatory system, the muscles, the
brain (to control the muscles), etc. All
of this requires highly sophisticated changes to DNA, including morphing of the
embryo algorithms. Second, no
animal on earth knows what DNA is - except humans, thus no animal knows how to
change their DNA. Even humans have only known
about DNA for just over 50 years. Thus, no animal on earth, including humans, knows how to
redesign its DNA so that it could have some new physical feature (note the
pre-liver chapters). For example,
any new physical feature in humans would have to include major changes to the
morphing of the embryo algorithms in our DNA.
Scientist don't have a clue where the morphing
of the embryo algorithms are in human DNA, much less how to redesign them. Third, even
if an animal did know how to change its DNA (which, of course, is a ludicrous
theory for all animals except humans), how could it physically change its
DNA? What mechanism exists, for example,
in a chimpanzee, such that a chimpanzee would physically change the DNA in
their germ cells? In short,
the entire concept of "wishful thinking" is total and absolute nonsense. Amazingly,
the concept is also applied to single-celled microbes, such as viruses. When the
scientific community states that "microbes developed a resistance to a new
drug," they are implying three things: First, they
imply that a group of viruses held a series of scientific meetings to discuss
how they could mutate their DNA to become resistant to a new drug. Second,
these viruses had the "scientific brains" to figure out which
nucleotide(s) to change in their own DNA in order to develop a resistance to
the new drug. Third,
these viruses had the ability to physically change their own exact
nucleotide(s), with pinpoint precision, using point mutations; so that their
offspring (which, by the way, are identical copies of themselves) are able to develop
a resistance to the new drug. All three
steps are nonsense. The Dr.
Michael Behe book: The Edge of Evolution, discusses
single-celled microbes and drugs in great detail. In fact,
much of the theory of evolution is "wishful thinking." Just like viruses, and other microbes, cannot
custom design and custom change their DNA; no animal which has ever lived
(including humans) has had the intelligence, and the ability, to know where to
change their DNA; and has had the ability to physically change their DNA. The whole
concept of "wishful thinking" is just so much nonsense. What this
means is that every mutation of DNA, in the history of the world, must have
been totally mindless, totally random, totally accidental, totally without
direction, etc. This
includes highly complex changes in DNA, such as the change from walking on four
legs to walking on two legs, which would have required massive changes to DNA
(such as the creation of semi-circular canals in the ears, which are a long way
from the leg bones and are incredibly, incredibly complex). A good
example of "wishful thinking" was given by one of the most famous
evolutionists. He claimed that roses may
have developed thorns to keep from being eaten.
There are many flaws with this logic, such as: 1) The only
roses which know about being eaten are already in the belly of some animal, and
by then it is too late to mutate their DNA. 2) How does
a rose which is in the belly of an animal communicate to its fellow roses to
warn them to build thorns to avoid getting eaten? 3) Why
hasn't wheat developed thorns strong enough to puncture the tires of farm tractors? But above
all of these things; the addition of thorns to a rose bush, which has never had
thorns, requires massive changes to their DNA.
To claim that "wishful thinking" of roses was able to create
massive, intelligent changes to the DNA of a rose is more ludicrous than
thinking a first grade class can build a space shuttle by themselves. Any change
in a species which requires a change to DNA cannot be the result of "wishful
thinking." Evolution can only be
the result of totally mindless, totally accidental, totally without direction,
mutations of DNA. Claim #3: Multi-Species
Evolution Has Been Proven Multi-species
evolution is the claim that it took evolution multiple different species to
fully effect a major change to a bodily structure, such as a new and improved
eye. For example, it may be claimed that
the steps needed to convert the eye from a light sensor only, to being able to
fly an F-22 Raptor, was so complex that it took multiple species to totally
effect the massive change. Aside from
the absurdity of multi-generation evolution, multi-species evolution is even more absurd. There is no evidence that multi-species
evolution ever occurred. For
example, it is claimed that the human eye "evolved" from very simple
"eyes," which could only detect light (but not see anything) to more
sophisticated light detection, to "pinhole" eyes, etc., from species
to species, all the way to human eyes. There is no
evidence for this theory. There is
nothing in the fossil record to verify this theory. The
species which are used as "evidence" for this theory are not
ancestors of humans. The
appearance on the earth of new species for the first time is
"punctuated." Perhaps the
Cambrian Explosion is the best example of this.
Suddenly, without ancestors, numerous new complex species were formed on
this earth. Simon
Conway Morris is the world's foremost expert on the Burgess Shale fossils (they
are in the Canadian Rockies), which were part of the Cambrian Explosion. Many of the
creatures found in "It is almost as if you've gone
to another planet, you've been given a fishing boat and a net and you've been
allowed to throw that net over into the deep ocean and you have no idea what
was going to come up." PBS Video: Evolution Series: "Great
Transformations" The vast
array of weird and strange species in the Burgess Shale site; and in other
Cambrian Explosion sites; do not have any ancestors, nor did they have any
descendants. Thus, all of their features
just suddenly appeared on this earth without ancestors and just as suddenly
disappeared. So how about the human eye? ". . . there is no evidence
whatsoever of how a single-celled organism might have converted into multicelled organisms.
The metazoa just abruptly appear in the fossil
record with every organ and structure complete.
Some of the most complex structures are present in the Cambrian
[Explosion] organisms, such as the eye of the squid, which is very similar to
the human eye." Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma, Revised
Edition, p. 52 For all
practical purposes, the eye of the squid that Mr. Sunderland was talking about
is equally complex as the modern human eye.
Yet the squid has no ancestors in the fossil record. In short,
there is no evidence that the human eye evolved from species to species. Claim #4: Natural
Selection Solves the Improbability Issues This is one
of the arguments designed to justify the theory of evolution in spite of its
statistical problems. The problem
with this theory is that natural selection does not affect the mutations of
genes. Natural
selection occurs AFTER the new
species exists. In other words, natural
selection occurs AFTER totally
random mutations of DNA have created a new species (assuming the theory of
evolution is true). The only thing
natural selection can do is decide which of
the already existing species will survive. Natural selection has absolutely nothing to
do with the creation of the species or the design of its DNA. Natural
selection, which is non-differentiating as mentioned before, does not come into
play until all of the mutations are finished and the species is ready to start
surviving. Why do you think it is also
called "survival of the fittest?"
The term "fittest" means the species is already alive. Claim #5: Evolution
Occurred at the Gene Level This is yet
another theory designed to "solve" the statistical problems of the
theory of evolution. Some
evolutionists have claimed that evolution occurred at the level of the gene. A prior
chapter talked about protein synthesis. Let us
remember that a "gene" is nothing but a "cookie cutter,"
meaning a template. A gene is a sequence
of nucleotides on the vast sequence of nucleotides of an entire DNA strand. It is nothing but a sequence of nucleotides (i.e.
a pattern) used by the cell to create one or more proteins. But that is
just the beginning. More nucleotides are
needed to convert the gene from a cookie-cutter to being placed in the cell as
a complex, folded protein, than the actual number of nucleotides of the gene
itself. Thus, when
changing a gene, the entire gene complex must be changed. In order
for evolution to occur at the level of the gene, several things must happen. First, the
gene (which is nothing but a "template" or "cookie-cutter" for
a protein, meaning a sequence of nucleotides) must be alive and trace the
progress of its "offspring" from being a gene, to an mRNA strand, then
to being a polypeptide (created by ribose), then to a folded amino acid string
(i.e. a folded polypeptide), and then the placement of the protein into the
cell. Second, the
gene must also observe the survival skills of the entire animal (not just the cell
in which the gene and DNA live). The
cookie-cutter must evaluate the relative survival skill of the animal in which
it lives, compared to other animals. Third, the
gene must decide that it needs to be modified based on what it observes of the
animal (not just the cell) in which it lives and the surrounding species. Fourth, it
must theoretically redesign itself and its gene complex in order to provide the
entire animal better survival skills. Fifth, it
must have control over some mechanism which can physically reorder the nucleotide sequences which make up
itself (the gene) and the entire gene complex.
This reordering of nucleotides is based on the theoretical evaluation of
the weaknesses in the current order of nucleotides. (Note: As
noted above, a microbe does not have the "intelligence" to know where
to change its DNA or how to change its DNA.
But some scientists claim that a strand of nucleotides is smarter than a
microbe and can improve the DNA of a complex animal; which is a far more
complex task than just developing an immunity to a
drug.) If the
needed changes to the species involved multiple genes (complex changes to a
species involve changes to many genes).
These genes must also be notified that they need to be changed, along
with instructions on what changes need to be made. All of this
must be orchestrated by a cookie-cutter, a segment of a static DNA string. Oh, by the
way, I almost forgot to mention, this cookie-cutter (i.e. gene) must also
figure out how to change the morphing of the embryo algorithm if any new types
of cells or new morphology changes are involved. Now, is it
possible that a cookie-cutter can monitor its offspring, all the way to the
macro animal level and environment, and redesign itself and the entire gene
complex and redesign and change the morphing of the embryo algorithm, and many
other things? The
absurdity of thinking that evolution occurred at the gene level or the
nucleotide level is totally ludicrous.
Cookie-cutters do not have intelligence. |