|
Patterns of Intelligence
|
|
Chapter 3: The Great DeceiversIn the prior chapter we discussed how the term "evolution" and the term "macroevolution" mean exactly the same thing. We also saw that "microevolution" and the new term "microvariation" mean exactly the same thing. Microvariation is totally incapable of creating a single new species and the term "microevolution" therefore has absolutely nothing to do with true "evolution" as claimed by Darwin (i.e. Darwin claimed humans "evolved" from small, primitive animals, which is what we would now call the "first living cell"). The clarification of these definitions create two problems for the scientific establishment: First, scientists have never witnessed random mutations to DNA lead to the creation of a new species with a new DNA structure. Thus, scientists have never proven that a set of random mutations to DNA can lead to the creation of a new and improved DNA structure. In short, they have never seen evolution create a new species. This first item might shock the reader who has been told over and over again that evolution is a proven scientific theory and has been observed many times!! But the fact is that scientists have never observed a new DNA structure form!! They have assumed they have seen new DNA structures form, but they have never actually observed such a phenomenon.
How To Prove EvolutionWhat must scientists do to prove they have observed the theory of evolution in action?? First, in order to "prove" macroevolution they must create a completely enclosed environment where there is only one species. Actually, there can be other species in the enclosure for food, but the species used for food cannot have DNA which could even remotely mix with the DNA of the main species!! It would be grossly unethical to allow any species in this enclosure which could even remotely mate with the main species!! Second, this enclosure must be carefully designed and controlled to ensure that no other animals can get inside. Third, a sample of DNA must be taken from each and every animal in the original population. The DNA is all of these animals must have exactly the same DNA structure!! Fourth, they must monitor this location for many, many years looking for an animal which has new genetic material which creates a new function (with at least one new gene). Scientists have never followed these four guidelines to prove they have seen a new species form by evolution.
Why The Deception?The problem for scientists is that they want to claim to their students that they have proven that "evolution" is true. Do you see the problem? They have never witnessed true evolution (i.e. macroevolution) but they want to tell their students that they have proven that Darwin was right (i.e. that they have proven macroevolution is true). This is a problem. Have scientists ever proven that random mutations of DNA have created a new DNA structure, complete with new genetic material and at least one new gene, as described above? The answer is a flat: "NO"!!! Scientists assume that macroevolution has occurred, but they have never observed macroevolution actually happen!! They may look at a phylogenetic tree and claim that macroevolution has happened, but in fact they have never actually observed macroevolution happen. In fact, scientists have never, never, never even remotely proven that macroevolution is mathematically plausible (as will be shown later in this book). So they cannot honestly "claim" that they have proven macroevolution is possible or that they know macroevolution has ever occurred. If they want to speculate that macroevolution is true, that is fine. But when they claim that they have proven macroevolution is true they have crossed the line and they are not telling the truth. The only thing they can truthfully "claim" is that microevolution is true. I fully agree with that!! It is a fact that they have observed microevolution many times. It is important to understand the problem. There have been millions of different species on this planet. Either every one of them was designed by God and put on this earth by God or every one of them "evolved" from a lower form of life as described by Darwin. If God created all of these species by design, microevolution or microvariation would still be a very viable phenomenon. Microevolution is not part of the debate.
But to claim that macroevolution created all of the species on earth is to imply that: But macroevolution has never been proven to have happened a single time, nor has it been shown to even be plausible, much less routine.
The Sophistication of Human DNAWe must be very careful when someone claims there is evidence for evolution, meaning for macroevolution. For example, human DNA has been studied for several decades and yet scientists have virtually no clue how a single human fertilized egg can morph into a human baby via the instructions on the DNA inside the fertilized egg. In other words, between the time a female egg is fertilized, and the time the baby is born, the morphing of the embryo must be totally controlled purely by the nucleotides on the DNA strand inside the egg (according to evolution). The morphing that goes on as the baby forms is incomprehensively complex. No human can even begin to conceive how the DNA can control the construction of a new baby. What all of this means is that the nucleotides on human DNA must include some incomprehensibly sophisticated algorithms (i.e. sophisticated computer programs) that no human can even begin to comprehend!!! Thus, evolution claims that these algorithms (which have massive sophistication) had to have "evolved" over the generations of species which led to human DNA and thus to the complex computer programs built into human DNA. But this creates a problem. The problem is that there is absolutely no scientific discipline on this earth which claims that massive sophistication and intelligence (i.e. the intelligent algorithms built into DNA) were the result of random accidents except for the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution has no company when it claims that randomness can create massive intelligence. For example, there is no evidence in computer science that randomly generated computer code can create a functional computer program, especially a highly sophisticated computer program. Human DNA has about 3.2 billion nucleotide pairs. But each nucleotide can be one of four different types (i.e. A, C, G and T nucleotides). A computer program is binary, meaning each "bit" is one of only two types (i.e. 0 and 1 bits). This means human DNA (which has about 3.2 billion nucleotide pairs, but we only care about one of the two nucleotides in each pair), is the equivalent of a computer program which is 6.4 billion bytes long!! But it is not the length of human DNA that is impressive, it is its sophistication. There is no computer program on earth which is even .001% as sophisticated as human DNA. In fact, no human on earth can even remotely comprehend the sophistication of human DNA, as will be discussed in the next chapter. No computer programmer on earth has written a moderately or highly complex and functional computer program using randomly generated computer code. And yet computers are many, many quadrillions of times faster than the theory of evolution could have worked!! Computer programmers are smart enough to know they cannot write programs using random number generators, even if coupled with an algorithm which simulates "natural selection." Yet, evolutionists claim that every nucleotide on human DNA was the result of an accident without any direction, plan or purpose. No other scientific discipline makes such a claim, certainly not computer science. Only the field of biology has claimed that highly sophisticated intelligence has been created by complete randomness (coupled with natural selection). And biology has claimed that it has happened millions of times on this planet!! Biologists feel they are justified in their claim because they claim evolution had billions of years to work. But computers today are so fast they can simulate billions of years of time in a few hours!! Are you beginning to see the total and complete isolation of the claims of the theory of evolution. There is no support anywhere in science for the claims of the theory of evolution!! (By the way, it will be shown in a later chapter that "natural selection" does not help the claims of the theory of evolution. In fact, natural selection actually hinders the development of new DNA!! The concept of "natural selection" is only beneficial in a pre-DNA environment.) To assume that the phylogenetic tree is evidence for the theory of evolution is nonsense because the foundation of evolution depends entirely on the concept that total randomness can create extremely complex and sophisticated intelligence. But there is no concrete evidence for this theory anywhere in science. This book will clearly prove, beyond any doubt, that "macroevolution" is mathematically impossible. If this planet were a trillion trillion trillion years old, evolution could not have created a single complex species with both a male and female. In fact, this book will graphically demonstrate that not even the "first living cell" could have been created by randomness. So when a scientist makes any level of claim that they have "proven" that macroevolution has ever occurred a single time in this Universe, they are saying something which has zero scientific basis and thus is totally unproven because they cannot prove something that is mathematically impossible. There has never, ever been any true evidence for macroevolution.
How Scientists Solved Their ProblemsSo let us review the situation that evolutionists are in. They have human DNA (which no human can comprehend) and they have no valid support from the field of computer science. They are like being in the middle of the ocean in a row boat with no oars. So what can they do? They can use "tricky" definitions. Whenever scientists talk about "proof" of evolution they are using examples from microevolution or microvariation, not macroevolution!! They solved their problems by lying!! Their great lie is that they use the term microevolution and evolution interchangeably!! For example, I watched a television show which talked about nothing but microevolution, but yet the scientist constantly said that she had witnessed "evolution." She also said that humans were still "evolving." She offered absolutely zero evidence that random mutations to DNA created any new species or that humans are still "evolving," meaning our DNA is getting longer and more sophisticated, with new genetic information being embedded in our DNA in the form of additional nucleotides and new genes. What she had done was use the term "evolution" to mean "microevolution." This, in fact, is very, very common in the scientific community. What she and others in the scientific establishment have done, in order to claim that they have observed "evolution" in action, is to change the definition of "evolution" to mean "microevolution"!!! Scientists want to "claim" to their students that they have "proven" evolution is true. But they cannot honestly "claim" that they have observed or proven that macroevolution is true. So they use the term "evolution" to mean "microevolution"!! They have solved their problem. But they had to deceive their students to solve their problem because when their students hear the term "evolution" they are thinking about Darwin and macroevolution. It is totally unethical for scientists to have changed the definition of "evolution" because when a person hears the term "evolution" they immediately think of Darwin and they immediately think of new species being formed from old species and they immediately think of the term "macroevolution." But what the scientific establishment desperately wants to do is claim that evolution is true!!!! They want students to hear the term "evolution" over and over and over again. They want Darwin to be deified!! One reason why some in the scientific establishment want to convince their students that Darwinian evolution is a fact is because many of the scientists in the scientific establishment are atheists and they want to convert their students to become atheists (like Darwin wanted). The scientific establishment is so fanatical in pushing the theory of evolution that they are willing to totally compromise their integrity. The scientific establishment are the "great deceivers" because they now use the term microevolution to mean Darwinian macroevolution. To summarize, because they cannot even remotely prove macroevolution, and because they want students to believe in "evolution," they converted the term "evolution" from meaning macroevolution into meaning microevolution. This is what allows them to claim that "evolution" is a true scientific doctrine. The other major tactic they use is to assume that evolution is true and thus they simply claim that evolution is true. But they do this without any evidence. Evolution became a true doctrine by pure deceit (i.e. by changing a definition), not by discovery. The foundation of the great deceit can be described in one sentence:
The Tower of BabelThe intentionally incorrect use of the term "evolution" by the scientific establishment causes a lot of confusion to anyone who wants to know how new species came to exist (and especially how humans came to exist), which is what "true evolution" is supposed to explain!! But this confusion is intentional!! The truth is that the theory of evolution is insanely absurd from a scientific standpoint, as this book will clearly demonstrate. Evolution could not have happened on this planet or on any other planet. In other words, the laws of mathematics and probability are the same throughout the Universe. When I claim that evolution is scientific nonsense I am talking about macroevolution. When other people claim that evolution has been observed many times, they are talking about microevolution. We are clearly speaking two different languages here. It is the Tower of Babel all over again. While Darwin had his tools of deception, with the discovery of DNA new tools of deception had to be developed by the scientific establishment. Note this very, very carefully: scientists have never, never, never observed macroevolution; meaning scientists have never proven that a new species (as defined by its DNA structure) has ever been created by macroevolution!!!! Ponder that prior paragraph very carefully. As you read this book you will understand why they have never observed macroevolution - it is mathematically impossible!! Because of the complete failure of scientists to prove that evolution could have happened, in order to achieve the same goal as Darwin (i.e. to convince people to become atheists) scientists (i.e. the scientific establishment) have been forced to use tricky definitions and many other tactics!! If evolutionists used the term "evolution" to mean "macroevolution," they could never claim that they have proven evolution is true or that they have observed evolution or that evolution is ongoing today. So they simply define microevolution to be "evolution." By using this tricky definition, every other word out of a scientist's mouth can be the word "evolution." And it usually is.
Two Examples of Microevolution Which Are Claimed to Be MacroevolutionLet me give you a couple of specific ways that the scientific establishment tries to deceive students. Scientists have taken a pair of animals and bred their descendants for many generations. Eventually, they found a male and female, which were descended from the same ancestors, which could not breed due to different physical features which they obtained by genetic diversity (i.e. microevolution). Before the discovery of DNA, scientists frequently determined whether two animals were of the same "species" by their ability to breed. When modern scientists (after DNA) found a male and female, which descended from the same pair of animals, could not breed, they claimed they had seen evolution in action. But the male and female had exactly the same DNA structure as any other male and female of the species. Their claim was a lie because there was no new genetic material!! The reason these two animals could not mate was because of extreme microevolution, not macroevolution. They used an old definition (where "evolution" was based on the ability to breed) to claim that evolution was true. It was nothing but the use of tricky definitions. A second example has to do with "survival benefit." Suppose they find an animal that can survive better than other animals of the same species. They may say that this animal "evolved." To the student, this should imply that new genetic material has formed by random mutations of DNA. As Dr. J.C. Sanford, PhD states in his book: Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, never in the history of mankind has a survival benefit been proven to have occurred by new genetic information in the DNA. He states that every time there is a survival benefit, and the DNA has been changed, the survival benefit resulted from a loss of genetic material via a mutation. For example, an animal may have a genetic defect (i.e. a mutation or loss of a nucleotide) which causes it to be hairless. In Chicago, that would be a severe survival detriment. But in Florida it may provide a survival benefit. But the benefit was not due to new genetic material, it was the result of a loss of genetic material combined with a specific environment. It is not an example of "evolution," because true evolution requires new genetic material (e.g. at least one new gene).
CommentsHopefully, the reader is beginning to understand why evolutionists claim that they have proven evolution is true and is still going on. It is all pure deception because no scientist has ever seen new genetic material form by random mutations of nucleotides on DNA, meaning true evolution has never been shown to have happened. Are you beginning to understand that in my language the term "evolution" means that random mutations of nucleotides must create new genetic material (including at least one new gene), but that evolutionists use the term "evolution" to mean either microevolution or natural selection!! Scientists have zero concrete evidence that macroevolution ever occurred a single time in this Universe!! Yet scientists claim that "evolution" has happened millions of times on this planet and that humans are continuing to "evolve." They do this by mixing up definitions and using many other tactics.
Chapter 4: Why the Theory of Evolution is False
|