|
Patterns of Intelligence
|
|
Chapter 2: The Key DefinitionsDarwin claimed that early life on this earth was very simple and as time passed species became more and more complex and sophisticated. "Natural selection" "chose" the stronger species to survive and the less strong species became extinct. That was the core of the theory of evolution. Darwin had no clue what a "cell" was or what DNA was, thus the mechanism which powered evolution, as claimed by today's scientists, was totally unknown to Darwin. When DNA was discovered, scientists were given a way to technically define what a "species" was. The term "species" could now be defined as a unique DNA structure. In other words, every unique species, by definition, could be identified by its unique DNA structure. The term "DNA structure" means the size of the DNA, the make-up of the genes, the instructions on the DNA, etc. The term "DNA structure" does not mean every nucleotide, in every animal or plant in the species, has to be the same, but only the structure of the DNA has to be the same in each animal or plant of the species. Thus, the term "evolution" could be defined as:
Thus, from the "first living cell" (i.e. the first life on this earth), which is claimed to have had very simple DNA or RNA, to human DNA, was a long chain of accidental, undirected mutations to DNA which left a long trail of "ancestor species" of humans (i.e. an "ancestor species" is a species which was on the direct path from the "first living cell" to human DNA). It should be very, very clear to the reader that the term "evolution" should only be defined today in terms of random mutations to DNA creating new DNA structures (i.e. new species). The day of defining evolution with story telling should be over. Let me quote from "Webster's New World Dictionary" - here is their definition of "evolution":
The second definition (b) is the exact definition of "evolution" that people use when they think about biology. Using modern terminology, which must reference unique DNA structures; the official definition of the term "evolution" should include reference to how a new DNA structure can be created by random mutations of nucleotides. No one should ever use the term "evolution" outside of this description. Before going on we need to define two more terms. "Macro evolution" or "macroevolution" is true evolution, meaning random mutations to DNA led to new species (i.e. new DNA structures). This is what the evolution debate is all about. "Micro evolution" or "microevolution" is variety within species. For example, all horses have exactly the same DNA structure, but there is a lot of "variety" in the DNA of horses. Microevolution means animals or plants with the same DNA structure may have different nucleotides in the same locations on their DNA and thus they may look different, but yet be of the same species. This is why all horses have the same DNA structure, but not all horses look alike or are even the same size. Breeders of horses are well aware that there is variety within the same species (i.e. within the same DNA structure). The term "mutation" can simply mean a defect in the DNA or it can mean a "change" in DNA (either changing the DNA structure or as simply part of microevolution).
Clarifying the Term "Evolution" As Used By DarwinHere is a quiz: should the term "evolution" more closely follow the term "microevolution" or "macroevolution?" The term "evolution" and the term "macroevolution" mean exactly the same thing!! They both imply that a new species (i.e. a new DNA structure) has been created from an old species (i.e. from an old DNA structure). Microevolution has absolutely nothing to do with Darwin's evolution because there is no new DNA structure!! The main intent of Darwin, meaning when Darwin used the term "evolution," was to get people to believe that new species accidentally developed from existing species. Specifically, Darwin's goal was to convince people that humans "evolved" from lower forms of animals and that the Bible was false. That was the entire goal of the theory of evolution!! Using today's DNA technology; an old DNA structure (i.e. the old species) "evolved" into a new DNA structure (i.e. the new species) by totally random, totally undirected and totally accidental mutations to the DNA of the "old species." This is the very definition of macroevolution. While Darwin did observe and discuss microevolution, the entire purpose of his theory was to convince people that there was no God and that humans descended from lower forms of animals. Actually, in Darwin's day the term and concept of "microevolution" did not exist, even though he did observe it. This is the key: if Darwin were alive today he would say that "macroevolution" is how human beings came to exist. He would say this because "microevolution" could never, by definition, create a single new species!! In other words, microevolution could never, never challenge the Bible. Thus, Darwin was pushing what we now call: macroevolution!! In fact, the definition of the term "evolution" should not even include reference to "microevolution" because microevolution is not capable of creating a single new species, by definition. The heart and soul of the term "evolution" as used by Darwin, was the creation of new species from old species. Thus to define "evolution" to be either "microevolution" or "macroevolution" is total nonsense. Microevolution has nothing to do with Darwin's goal of getting people to reject the Bible and God. So now let us further refine the term "evolution," meaning exclusively macroevolution.
New Genetic Material (i.e. New Genetic Information)There is one more key concept with regards to "new DNA structure." With true evolution (i.e. macroevolution) there is always, by definition, new genetic material, such as new genes and new genetic instructions. New genetic material is what is really required for a new species to be identified by biologists. Thus, every "new species" must have new genetic material in its new DNA structure. However, simply changing the DNA structure of an existing species does not automatically add new genetic information. The change in the DNA structure could be simply a "mutation." A new "species" must have some new function and a new function means new genetic material. There eventually must be many new plant species and many new animal species which each have new and unique DNA structures created solely by random mutations to the DNA of a prior species (which may still exist) in order to justify the theory of evolution!!
Thus, we will require that the term "macroevolution," meaning true "evolution," include: In short, a new species must have new intelligence (not just additional nucleotides) on the new DNA structure. And eventually there must be many of these new plants or animals. They key for evolution is that all three of these things had to have happened millions of times on this earth in order for those who support evolution to explain the existence of the millions of unique species which are currently on this earth or which have lived on this earth. In summary, if an evolutionist today were to claim that humans descended from a "first living cell" and that God did not create Adam and Eve, this evolutionist must claim that macroevolution, not microevolution, is what made this happen!!! It would be far beyond ludicrous for a scientist to say that microevolution is how human beings "evolved" from the "first living cell." Microevolution cannot create a single new species, by definition!! That is why microevolution should never be considered when discussing the term "evolution." Think of the term "microevolution" the same way you would think of the term "variation." In fact, "microevolution" should really be called "microvariation." The term "microevolution" should be purged from all dictionaries and textbooks because it has absolutely nothing to do with Darwin's evolution. Thus the difference between true evolution (i.e. "evolution" or "macroevolution") and microevolution (i.e. variety within species) has to do with new genetic material. In the case of true evolution there is new genetic information to include at least one new gene, new genetic instructions and some new function. In "microevolution" there is no new genetic material but there is only microvariation in the DNA. Thus, because the term "evolution" implies humans descended from the "first living cell," and were not created by God, then the term "evolution" means exactly the same thing as macroevolution and has nothing to do with microvariation. Up to this point the average person would probably agree with what has been said. In the next chapter you will start to understand why I have been so fanatical about clarifying these definitions and why I invented a new term, microvariation, which can be used interchangeably with microevolution.
Chapter 3: The Great Deceivers
|