12 Days of Evolution?

Evolution Explains Everything and Demands Total Allegiance

by / May 8, 2020

[Originally published as Evolution is even more sad and indefensible than the Big Bang]

Evolution is even more sad and indefensible than the Big Bang.

Now, of course, you need to define evolution so it means what Darwin meant. Too many people water it down until they are merely saying “Change over time.” But everything in the universe changes over time, so if evolution merely means change over time, then it means anything which ever happens.

In short, things happen.

This is true, but hardly worth saying, and certainly not what Darwin meant when he wrote a whole book on the subject. When I talk about evolution, I am talking about the story that something like a bacteria somehow changed into worms which somehow changed into fish, which changed into lizards, which changed into mammals, some of which are us.

To be clear, I define evolution this way:

Darwinian Evolution is an unguided, natural process which increases the genetic information in an organism, creating new genes which did not previously exist.

These new genes then cause an increase in physical complexity and associated behavior, both of which increase the organism’s ability to survive and pass on these traits to offspring.

I have personally filled many pages on the subject, so I won’t do that here. I shall simply say that of all of the proposed mechanisms of evolution, only one even could cause the kind of changes which would turn fish into lizards. The rest will literally do nothing more then cause variations to go extinct.

In short,

because you cannot add by subtracting, evolution fails.

What of the one mechanism which could work? It is mutations, and it is the magic spell which is supposed to save the rest of the story. However, it is so improbable as to make it justifiable to call it impossible.

Flip a nickel. How many chances would it take to make it land heads up a thousand times in a row? Now do that for every gene in every genome of every species which ever existed. For a better metaphor, try to flip that nickel so it lands, not heads or tails, but on its edge. It’s not technically impossible, but it remains so unlikely that it will literally never happen. Mutations are the same.

Again, I suggest you look into this for yourself. But one thing which you will never find is even the claim that we have observed a beneficial mutation which is seen to add genetic information to a genome. New genes are believed to have been added in the distant, unobserved past. But none have been observed by science even though we have literally watched more than a million generations of bacteria in a single ongoing experiment.

But what of the evidence for evolution in the past?

Very simply, there is none.

Naturally I have heard the same examples you have. I assure you I have probably heard even more. But what I have also heard which you are unlikely to have heard is the story after the story.

When a transitional fossil is found, it gets the front page and is put into the next edition of the textbooks. A few months later, when the people who discovered it realize that it is not what they thought, the story is rarely even given print.

Realizing that the ape-man fossil is actually a dolphin rib (true story) or a pig’s tooth (another true story) or actually a fraud made of an ape skull and a human jaw (another true story) is not front page material, however funny it may be, it gets buried in the press and the preachers of Darwinian Faith don’t even want to talk about those! I’ve seen them go so far as to bring them up to preemptively announce that THEY DON’T COUNT! You know, because, reasons…

As one famous example- Lucy is a proposed ape-man hominid which is literally on tour. Her skeleton is only 40% complete, and when found it had no feet or hands and almost no skull. It did have a very ape jaw and a very ape pelvis and very ape proportions, etc. But with evolution of the gaps we filled in the rest and decide that she is a transitional fossil which proves human evolution. Statues of what she may have looked like are placed in museums and zoos all over the world. We give her human hands and feet and eyes and proportions because we believe she was a transitional ancestor.

But she has no knees when found. How do we know she had human knees? A human knee was found NEAR the site her skeleton was found- only a few miles away. And in a layer of rock NEAR the one she was found in. And… it’s the best we have. Another knee was found closer to the skeleton but it was only good for a tree climbing primate, so it was not featured in the original discussions. And her hip is… definitely ape. And her jaw is definitely ape. So we take POWER TOOLS and change the shape of them until we create the human like hip bone we know she had.

Think I am exaggerating? See for yourself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6RfIEVO6YQ

This clip is from Answers in Genesis, but the clip Dr. Menton will show is from Nova, and it supports the evolutionary theory wholeheartedly. They gladly show a fossil being reformed with power tools so that it matches their theory and they are so blinded by their religious faith that they don’t even realize what they are doing.

Oh, and they eventually found some toe bones they believe actually belonged to Lucy’s species. They are climbing ape toes, not walking human toes. But you won’t see that in the statues of her at the zoo or on the front page of any newspaper broadcasting evolutionary news.

I suggest you take some time to look into it yourself.

#JesusLovesYou

The following two tabs change content below.
Bryan Melugin
Bryan runs https://abitoforange.com, teaches science and theatre, makes cartoons and puppets, and wants everyone to know and love Jesus.

2 Comment

  1. Evolution is “an unguided, natural process”??? Yet elsewhere they will say it is “guided” by natural selection. Selection, of course, is a process on an intelligent being! And they often make statements like, “evolution designed this animal to…” It is so hard to think that the scientists who hold so many degrees actually believe in evolution. Therefore, I must think it is the “willful ignorance” spoken of by Peter (2 Peter 3:5). William

    William Wise
    • I’m glad you brought up natural selection. You’re right that evolutionists are very much inconsistent when they attribute to natural selection the ability to guide evolution. The definition in the article (which is more properly a definition of Neodarwinian evolution) doesn’t include this aspect of evolutionary “theory,” so it’s worth examining.

      Natural selection may explain why certain genes are kept while others are not, but it cannot show where those new genes ultimately came from. Neither can it explain why random mutations would produce, with perfect precision, new traits that are perfectly functional and suited to the organism’s individual needs. If the new traits were *not* fully functional, natural selection would quickly eliminate them. And, while natural selection is not intelligent itself, there is no reason to expect it (or any other scientific phenomenon) to consistently occur without God upholding the universe.

      Yes, when evolutionists appeal to natural selection to solve the limitations of evolution, they truly are being willfully ignorant!

Your Commment

Email (will not be published)