Clever And Deceptive Definitions Used By Atheists/Evolutionists To Generate Bogus "Evidence" For Evolution
As is mentioned many, many times on this website, with the discovery of DNA in 1953 the theory of evolution became scientific nonsense overnight. In fact, there are hundreds of reasons the theory of evolution cannot be true which are discussed on this website.
So how are the atheists going to get converts??? They have many tactics. This article will talk about one of their tactics: clever definitions or deceptive definitions.
The deceptions revolve around technical terms which should be precisely defined, but instead they are intentionally obfuscated in order to deceive people into believing there is evidence for the theory of evolution.
As if that weren't bad enough, students and teachers don't have a clue how several key terms should be defined after the discovery of DNA because they have never seen these terms properly defined!! It is the blind leading the blind and both can be carefully led into the ditch by the scientific establishment. Of course, that is the goal of the atheists!!
The truth is that this article could not have been written until 1953, when DNA was discovered, and the definition of a "unique species" could be defined as a "unique DNA structure". Thus, from the time of Darwin's first book, the fact that what he observed was not true evolution could not be proven until the discovery of DNA in 1953!!!
As this website explains many times, "true evolution" means there is a new DNA strand for a new and improved species. This has never happened and it will never happen by accidents!! And that is precisely why the theory of evolution cannot be true!!
But even though DNA was discovered in 1953, the atheists and evolutionists continue to use deceptive definitions to get converts!!!
In other words, because there is zero tangible evidence for the theory of evolution they must resort to their vivid imaginations and deceptive definitions to get converts to atheism and/or the theory of evolution.
So let's get started with a discussion of deceptive definitions.
The True Definition Of A "Species"
We must begin our discussion by determining a valid definition for the term "species." This is the term that is commonly improperly defined in order to get converts to atheism.
So let us start with a valid definition of the term "species."
A "unique species" is defined to be a single-celled organism, a multi-celled plant or multi-celled animal or insect, which has a unique DNA structure.
And alternatively: a unique DNA structure is the same thing as a unique species.
A "unique DNA structure," is what defines a "species," means that the DNA is the same length and the subunits within the nucleotides (e.g. genes) are in the same locations and have the same functions, but they do not necessarily have the same sequence of nucleotides within each structure. For example there are sections of the DNA of dogs which controls the color of their hair. Even within the same type of dog (e.g. chihuahua) each dog may have a different pattern of colors (i.e. a different sequence of nucleotides).
How simple can it get!! A Collie dog and a Great Dane dog are both in the "dog" species because their DNA has exactly the same structure.
However, these two "dogs" do not look alike because there is variety within the "dog" DNA structure!! That is the way that God designed DNA so that we humans could enjoy a wide variety of life on earth.
The concept of "unique species" and "unique DNA structure" (i.e. the number, location and function of genes, the length of DNA, etc.) should mean exactly the same thing. It makes perfect sense to define a "unique species" by a "unique DNA structure" after the discovery of DNA.
But if scientists used the logical definition of "species" the theory of evolution would fall apart!!! There would be zero evidence for the theory of evolution because no one has ever observed a new DNA structure (i.e. a new "species") form by accident by changing the DNA of an existing species or creating all new cells and all new DNA from scratch!!!
In other words, the atheists and evolutionists have never seen "evolution"/"accidents" create a "new species" (meaning a new DNA structure) and they never will!!!
But by using breeding techniques they can create new varieties of dogs, which they may claim is a new "species." Thus they may claim that they have "evidence" for evolution. But there are no new DNA structures which are created by using breeding techniques!!!l
Thus, it is necessary for the atheists and evolutionists to use ambiguous or deceptive definitions for the term "species" and other terms in order to invent evidence for the theory of evolution.
For example, here is what a very famous atheist/evolutionist, Ernest Mayr, said about why evolutionists do not have a definition for the term "species." If you are not a babbling idiot after reading this you are not paying attention!!
Have you ever heard such nonsense?? Why would the term "species" be tied to "geographically distributed populations" or "typological species concept" or "biological species concept," etc. Good grief, what is wrong with these people!!
Note that in this long quote he still couldn't come up with a definition of species!! Nor did he even mention DNA!!
Why don't these people simply define a "unique species" with reference to a "unique DNA structure"?? They act as if DNA had never been discovered!!
They are intentionally ambiguous because to tell the truth would destroy their craft!! They must obfuscate their terminology and appear to be sophisticated and educated. But more importantly, they don't want their students to figure out what is going on!!!
As the reader can tell the scientific establishment doesn't even have a standard definition of "species." This gives them the flexibility to create very clever and deceptive definitions so they can pretend there is "evidence" for evolution!!!!!
In fact, millions of unique RNA or DNA structures (i.e. millions of unique "species") would have to have been created purely by accident (i.e. by evolution) if evolution were true. Most of them would not be our ancestors.
But randomness is never perfect by definition. In order to create millions of DNA strands by accidents, many, many trillions of planets like ours would be full of dead and mutated "partial species" which did not have DNA which was good enough to create an animal which could survive. See this article:
But such a vast number of failures do not exist!! In fact, they are very, very rare because DNA is very robust and God designed every DNA strand.
Because there is zero evidence for finding the trillions upon trillions of failures of mutated DNA strands creating mutated plants and animals that could not survive, the evolutionists have a major problem. How do they get around this problem? Obviously by using deceptive definitions and distracting attention away from the sophistication of DNA and the lack of evidence of failures in creating new species from old species. This is how they get converts to evolution, by pretending to be sophisticated.
So how does a "new DNA structure" get created by evolution?? It must be created purely by accidents, because evolution claims there is no God to design or create DNA. In fact, the term "evolution" itself implies there is no God so evolutionists deny that God could have controlled evolution.
But the fact is that a new DNA strand, for a new species, cannot created by accident!!! But even if it could the nucleotides could NEVER have a sequence (i.e. a permutation) that would create a living animal. It would be realistically impossible as any statistician would admit. So the next best thing is to use deception.
So let us dig deeper into the key definitions.
Microevolution And Macroevolution
As was said above, a "species" should be defined by a unique DNA structure. In other words, the term "unique DNA structure" and "unique species" (or just "species") should mean exactly the same thing.
Who would complain about that??? Wouldn't it make perfect sense to define a "unique species" or "species" by its "unique DNA structure?" For example, a horse and a dog have different DNA structures, but a Collie (dog) and a German Shepherd (dog) both have the same DNA structure so why not put a Collie and German Shepherd into the same "species?" And in fact, most people intuitively do put them in the same "species" of "dog."
In many cases, breeders and Mother Nature have created many new variations of a species. In fact, many varieties of dogs have been carefully bred by dog breeders. But a dog is a dog. In fact there are many variations or varieties of "dogs."
But no breeder has ever ever ever created a new DNA structure, meaning a new "species"!!!!
When a new "breed" of dog is created, either by Nature or a dog breeder, it should be called microevolution.
The term microevolution therefore means: "variety within the same species (e.g. dog)," meaning variety within the same DNA structure. By definition: microevolution implies the animals in that "species" have the same DNA structure.
Now let us suppose that evolution was true. What term shall we use when a new "species" is created by evolution from an old (i.e. existing) "species?"
By definition, when a "new DNA structure" (a "new species") is created by a series of accidents (e.g. evolution), the term that should be used is macroevolution. The term macroevolution and the terms: "new species" and "new DNA structure" and "evolution" should all mean exactly the same thing.
The problem should be solved. We now have a term for a new breed within the same species (microevolution) and a term for a new species (i.e. a new DNA structure) which is created from an existing species, meaning a new and unique DNA structure is formed on purpose or by accident from a previously existing unique DNA structure (macroevolution).
End of story!!!
Well, not quite. These definitions are not acceptable to the atheists and evolutionists!!
Why are these terms unacceptable?? If we defined these terms in this way, the atheists and evolutionists would have ZERO scientific evidence for the theory of evolution!!! They have never seen an example of true macroevolution!!!
So the atheists and evolutionists don't like to use the above definitions.
In other words, if biologists used these perfectly logical definitions, the theory of evolution would have to be thrown into the trash can because scientists have NEVER, NEVER, NEVER observed a new DNA structure form by a series of accidents, meaning by "evolution."
The theory of evolution would die on the spot if the above definitions were used!!! Thus, the atheists and evolutionists make-up their own obfuscated definitions.
Microevolution is observed all the time. So what the evolutionists do is use examples of microevolution and claim they are examples of "evolution," meaning macroevolution.
Let me repeat that concept because it is so important.
Macroevolution is mathematically impossible because it involves an improved DNA structure which is both physically and mathematically (realistically) impossible if you understand the structure of DNA and the mathematics of permutations, which I will not get into in this article (my first college degree was in mathematics).
Remember, microevolution does NOT lead to a new "species" (i.e. a new DNA structure), but macroevolution, by definition, does lead to a new and improved DNA structure, but it has never been observed!!!!!
The second key deception is to claim that "lots and lots" of examples of microevolution lead to examples of macroevolution.
This is also absurd because even if you had 100 consecutive examples of microevolution (i.e. in 100 consecutive cases where you have not changed the DNA structure) you would not have changed the structure of the DNA, thus you would still not have an example of macroevolution!!
The third key deception is to claim that there really is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution. This is equally absurd because one version must change the DNA structure (to create a new DNA structure) and one version does not change the DNA structure.
Note: at this point I will quit color-coding the terms microevolution and macroevolution, so pay attention to which term is being used.
A Case Study of Deception
As an example of deception, let us look at a book by Richard Dawkins (of course). Richard Dawkins is arguably the world's most famous atheist/evolutionist. He said this:
What he says is typical of the atheists and evolutionists. They love to obfuscate the definitions of microevolution and macroevolution in order to convince their students that one is just more of the other.
By doing this they can totally avoid talking about DNA!!!
Another key deception of the scientific establishment is to observe examples of microevolution, but tell the students they have seen examples of "evolution" (i.e. macroevolution). They do this so their students will not know the difference between microevolution and macroevolution.
The term "evolution" and the term macroevolution should mean exactly the same thing because when students hear the term "evolution" they think that a new species has been created.
Why is this so important?? The reason is that when students hear that a scientist has seen an example of "evolution" they immediately think of Darwin. And when they think about Darwin they think about atheism because Darwin was openly atheistic.
So in other words, when a student hears that there is evidence for "evolution" they immediately think there is a proof that there is no God (i.e. atheism is true). The real goal of evolutionists is not in any way related to science; it is to get converts to atheism!! That is their motive for deception!!
All they have to do to get converts to atheism is to observe an example of microevolution (which is easy to do) and claim to their students that they have observed an example of "evolution" (which should require an example of macroevolution).
For example, let me go back to Richard Dawkins.
An Example of Deception Using Bacteria
On pages 116-133 of his book: The Greatest Show on Earth, Dawkins talks about a very sophisticated and long-lasting set of experiments at Michigan State University designed by Dr. Richard Lenski. Indeed, I totally agree it was a very impressive set of experiments!!
These experiments involved the Escherichia coli bacteria, better known as the E. coli bacteria.
Dawkins calls these experiments "... a beautiful demonstration of evolution in action." (page 117) Note his use of the term "evolution."
In 1988, Dr. Lenski and his team started the experiments by putting a specific type of E. coli in 12 different flasks. A certain amount of "food" was put in each flask and every day a certain percentage of the surviving bacteria were taken out of the flask and put in a newly cleaned flask.
The purpose of the experiment was to watch how the size, eating habits, etc. of the bacteria changed over time in 12 isolated flasks. The changes in the 12 flasks were independent of each other because the bacteria were never moved from one of the 12 flasks to a different flask.
For more than 20 years, by the time Dawkins wrote his book, this experiment had been continuously going on every day (and it may still be going on).
All 12 of these groups of bacteria, over the years, increased in body size via natural selection (i.e. survival of the fittest), which in this case was an example of microevolution. There were never any new genes or new DNA segments, only changed nucleotides (but never a change in the DNA structure) during cell division. No DNA structure ever changed, meaning these experiments were examples of microevolution.
One of the twelve "tribes" (as Dawkins called them) even gained the ability to digest citrate (which is related to the substance that makes lemons sour) as if it was glucose. But as of press time, none of the other "tribes" was able to digest citrate.
The ability to digest citrate required a sequence of two specific mutations (i.e. change of a nucleotide), rather than just one mutation, which is why only one group coincidently developed this trait.
At no time was the structure of a DNA stand changed (i.e. no new nucleotides were added to, or removed from, a DNA strand)!!!
(Note: the term "mutation" is another term that can be used to make microevolution look like macroevolution - there were no new DNA structures created in this experiment yet the term "mutation" was used.)
Here is my point: in the eighteen pages Dawkins talked about these experiments, he used the terms: evolution, evolutionary, evolutionist, evolving, evolve, or evolved: 47 times!! Yet there were no new DNA structures!!!
He never used the terms "microevolution" or "macroevolution!!"
So what is wrong with him using a form of the term "evolution" so many times?
In the entire experiment there was never, never, never any new (i.e. additional) genetic material. There were no new genes, meaning there was no new DNA structure. No new species of bacteria were created. No macroevolution was observed.
So if no macroevolution was observed, why did Mr. Dawkins use variations of the term "evolution" so many times? And why did he think this experiment was an example of "evolution?" Because he was an atheist and he wanted to glorify Darwin and get converts to atheism.
Remember, in order for "evolution" to have created human DNA from the "first living cell," there had to be many billions of times where "new genetic information" or "new genetic material" (i.e. new genes) accidentally formed in our ancestor species (i.e. creating the assumed millions of species, each with one or more new genes, on the phylogenetic tree that was between the "first living cell" and human DNA as claimed by evolution).
Each new species must have at least one new gene, by definition (or it is not a new species)!!
No one observed any new genetic material during the Lenski experiments!! But microevolution was clearly observed because of "mutations" (in this context the term "mutation" simply means a nucleotide was changed to a different nucleotide so technically it was nothing but microevolution).
In other words, the experiments had absolutely nothing to do with macroevolution, which is true evolution. Every discovery made in the study was nothing but microevolution in action.
Guess how many times Dawkins used the term "microevolution" in these pages or in his entire book? The answer was obviously zero.
In fact, if you look at the Index at the back of the book, there is not even a listing for the terms: microevolution or macroevolution!!
And that is precisely my point. Examples from "microevolution" were shown, but variations of the term "evolution" (which implies macroevolution) were constantly used instead of the term "microevolution," which is the only thing that was observed!!
This example is typical of the approach of evolutionists. They use examples from microevolution to push the term "evolution" which students assume means "macroevolution," which is the only true evolution. It is nothing but a fraudulent deception!!!
All evolutionists and most scientists use the term "evolution," as Dawkins did, instead of the more accurate term "microevolution." That is precisely why they want to do away with the terms microevolution and macroevolution.
Ponder this next statement over and over:
But this deceptive tactic is a good way to get converts to atheism!!
In fact, even if true evolution were observed it does not in any way imply that God does not exist. Why could not God exist and a rare example of macroevolution exist? It is logical nonsense to claim a very rare example of macroevolution is a proof that God does not exist!!
The concept of macroevolution is purely a mathematical probability on Earth and has absolutely nothing to do with the probability of God existing in the Universe!!!! In other words, even if macroevolution were truly observed, the probability of this happening has nothing to do with the probability of God existing. In fact, many, many things in the Universe are proofs that God must exist!!!
In short, by using deceptive definitions, students believe that Adam and Eve never existed and that God does not exist by the simple tactic of using very clever and very deceptive definitions plus assuming that if there were an example of macroevolution, it would prove there is no God!!
But the truth is that there has never been an example of macroevolution being observed. Never!! It is almost statistically impossible. And it certainly is impossible for advanced species. But another article on this website proves that it is physically impossible to change a DNA strand!!!
Because there are an unlimited number of times that scientists have observed microevolution, because microevolution is easy to observe, they have an unlimited number of opportunities to deceive and lie to their students that there is "evidence" for the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution is nothing but a lie combined with bad science.
In its simplist form, "natural selection" means that strong species can eliminate/kill weaker species.
While this is a true concept, "natural selection" has absolutely nothing to do with creating a new species. In other words, natural selection has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, because it is not part of the creation of new DNA, meaning new species. Natural selection can only eliminate a species, meaning it can only eliminate a DNA structure!!!
Natural Selection is purely an elimination process!!! Natural selection doesn't create anything and never has and never will create anything.
This is the key: two species MUST ALREADY EXIST before natural selection can eliminate one of them!!!
Nevertheless, the atheists and evolutionists claim that natural selection somehow is evidence for the theory of evolution. This is nonsense because EVOLUTION IS ALL ABOUT CREATING NEW SPECIES whereas Natural Selection is about ELIMINATING EXISTING SPECIES!!!
Click the back arrow or if you came to this page by a search engine, click this: Home Page