the Theory of Evolution Says
What Evolutionists Say We Ought to See
macroevolution to occur we ought to see something which dramatically changes
the genes, something like gene mutation, a proposed mechanism to provide an
increase in species complexity. We
should see the effects of beneficial mutation and natural selection making
significant changes in species. While
mutations can be increased by heat, chemicals and radiation, most mutations
are harmful. Most lead to structural impairment, genetic diseases and
death. (The ratio of harmful to beneficial mutations is at least 10,000 to
What We Actually Observe in
microevolution both in nature and through purposeful domestication within
species. We do not observe
domestication (selective breeding) has been used to produce changes or
desired variations within many species for more than 2000 years.
Examples include cats, dogs, beef and milk cattle, race and plow
horses, roses, wheat and corn. All
have been changed through microevolution which follows Mendel’s law of
inheritance, not the concept of blending traits envisioned by Darwin.
Scientists admit macroevolution cannot be observed under natural
conditions. If it happened, it occurred in the distant past and would be too
slow to observe now.
laboratory experiments, fruit flies have been altered to grow legs from
there heads, one of many freakish major mutations possible.
These changes were produced by large doses of radiation to greatly
increase the mutation rate and alter genes.
These changes neither created a new structure (just altering existed
ones) nor changing the fly into a new kind of insect.
These flies may breed under laboratory conditions, but cannot survive
in nature because of this harmful mutation.
writes, “Mutation does not introduce new levels of complexity, and it
cannot be shown that it is a step in the right direction.
Most observed mutations are harmful, and there is no experimental
evidence to show that a new animal organism or even a novel structural
feature has ever been produced from the raw material produced by mutations.
scientists promote evolution despite the lack of evidence.
Others point out the failure of evolution.
“There is no debate within the scientific community over whether
evolution has occurred, and there is no evidence that evolution has not
occurred,” writes the National Academy of Science of the U.S.
In 1995, the American National Association of Biology Teachers
stated, “The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an
unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of . . . descent
with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance . .
. and changing environments.”
secular scientists disagree. Pierre-Paul
Grasse of the French Academy of Sciences writes, “ No matter how numerous
they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”
Molecular biologist Michael Denton says, “The failure to validate
the Darwinian model has implications which reach far beyond biology.”
Information theorist Hubert Yockey writes,” One must conclude that,
contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the
genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted
on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written
Theory and Molecular Biology. Cambridge University Press,
says, “Scientists are particularly loath to relinquish the last form of
prejudice . . . It must be true because anything else would be
unthinkable.” For example,
Dawkins says, “ . . . the only alternative explanation of the sudden
appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine
creation, and [we] both reject this alternative.
What Creationists Say
While accepting variations within species (microevolution, not Darwinian evolution), most creationists do not believe that new species have arisen through macroevolution and that honest scientific study proves this point. All creationists recognize God as the Creator of the universe and humans, believing that in some special way He made us in His own image. (Genesis 1:26) Morris objects to the term microevolution to describe “horizontal variations” of plants and animals at the same level of complexity because microevolution may give the impression that with enough time, it could become macroevolution. In their book, the Genesis flood, John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris show a diagram of how specially created “kind,” horse and dog for example, may have become diversified from their common ancestral pairs from the beginning to the present. This has been called “creationist adaptation” (natural selection). Behe says “On a small scale, microevolution, Darwin’s theory has triumphed…But it is at the level of macroevolution-of large jumps-that the theory evokes skepticism…Persuasive evidence to support that position has not been forthcoming.” On mutations, Davis writes, “There is no evidence mutations create new structures. They merely alter existing ones…Mutations are quite rare. This is fortunate, for the vast majority are harmful, although some may be neutral. Some creationists explain the rapid speciation of the past as the six days which God created, and the present lack of speciation, as the “seventh day” in which God rests.