[ Illustration of amino acids ]
Good science is that which is supported by evidence, logical reasoning and can be tested experimentally … Good science will go wherever testable repeatable data and ideas will lead. ~Daniel Szwaya 06/19/13 Daily Herald
Let’s try that on the “science” that is used as evidence for macroevolution in the textbooks:
1. Evolutionary claim: The first living organism arose spontaneously from non-living matter. This is called the spontaneous generation of life or the Law of Abiogenesis.
Truth: Scientific experiments by Francisco Redi (1660s), Lorenzo Spalanzani (1760s), and finally Louis Pasteur (1860s) falsified this old wives tale.
Pasteur and his predecessors dealt with the idea of the spontaneous generation of whole, live organisms in an oxidizing atmosphere. When they established the Law of Biogenesis under those conditions, the focus switched to the spontaneous generation of life in a reducing atmosphere.
For at least the past six decades scientists have been using their intelligence to design experiments in an attempt to show that neither intelligence nor design are necessary to create life. So far the results indicate that human intelligence is not capable of doing what natural processes supposedly did by chance.
If an experiment should one day be successful, it would falsify the notion that the results do not require intelligence and design. After all, both are being employed every time the notion is tested and they would account for the success. Thus, it is a self-refuting quest. It is not robust, logical, good science as claimed by evolutionists.
2. Evolutionary claim: The origin of life experiments by Miller-Urey in the 1950s created amino acids which are the building blocks of proteins.
Truth: The statement is true. The amino acids produced were a 50/50 mixture of left and right handed amino acids (except glycine).
But normal proteins used in all living things are composed of left handed amino acids exclusively. A protein made from this 50/50 mixture would not be biologically active because it would have the wrong shape, in other words it would be dead.
So the evolutionary claim is false, and any student of chemistry knows why. That is not good science.
3. Evolutionary claim: The amino acids in the Miller-Urey experiments would combine in chemical reactions to form very large and complex organic molecules.
Truth: The reaction kinetics cause dissociation¹ rather than condensation of the peptide bonds. The actual reaction is the reverse of what is claimed. The claim is false. That is not good science!
4. Evolutionary claim: The Miller-Urey experiments created the radical constituents of nucleic acids. These ‘base’ substances combine with phosphorous and sugar to form deoxyribonucleic acid.
Truth: The synthesis of DNA only occurs in previously living cells. Dissociation¹ predominates outside the living cell, thus, the claim is false. That is not good science.
5. Evolutionary claim: The Miller-Urey experiments were rich in amino acids
Truth: The experimental apparatus originally produced a few amino acids (20 are required). They composed about 2% of the experimental yield. The rest was a tar with compounds detrimental to the biochemistry of life. The experiments were a failure.
An interesting observation as seen in #1 is that chemists used their intelligence to design an experiment to demonstrate that neither intelligence nor design is necessary to produce the building blocks of life. The claim is very poor, illogical science!
6.Evolutionary claim: The changes in the proportion of dark and light peppered moths demonstrates that one kind of animal can change into another under the proper circumstances.
Truth: The moths were peppered moths from the beginning to the end of the multi-year study.² No new moths or other insects were observed. Even the evidence for the mechanism was created by gluing moths on tree trunks where they do not naturally rest. Remarkably, the textbooks claim that this is evidence for macroevolution.
That’s a false claim, which is poor science!
When one evolutionist was confronted with this truth, he claimed that the peppered moth experiment showed natural selection rather than macroevolution. However, in the next breath he claimed that natural selection was a major part of the mechanism for macroevolution. The result is double speak, which is not good science.
7. Evolutionary claim: Bacteria populations that become resistant to antibiotics provide evidence for macroevolution.
Truth: There are at least three known mechanisms for bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics. None of them change bacteria into another kind of creature. The bacteria begin and end as bacteria. They reproduce after their kind. The claim regarding developing antibiotic resistance as evidence for macroevolution is false and that is not good science!
8. Evolutionary claim: Mosquitoes and flies become resistant to DDT and/or other chemicals. This is evidence for macroevolution.
Truth: The mosquitoes and flies start and end as mosquitoes and flies (just like the bacteria). There is no macroevolution observed, yet claims are made that this is evidence for macroevolution. That claim is false; therefore, this is not good science.
9. Evolutionary claim: According to the Biogenetic Law, the embryos of humans pass through various stages, repeating their ancestral evolutionary past, even developing gill slits.
Truth: This notion was promoted by Ernst Haeckel by publishing faked drawings of embryos of various animals and humans. He was censured for the admitted fraud in the 1800s, but the drawings still are found in textbooks today. The truth is that human embryos never have gills and never have slits. Haeckel perpetrated a fraud, which is not good science.
10. Evolutionary claim: Vestigial organs are useless organs now, but they had a function in evolutionary history. Thus they are left over from former evolutionary stages in human development. Junk DNA also reflects this same evolutionary holdover from the past.
Truth: There were many claims identifying vestigial organs about 100 years ago. Robert Wiedersheim (1895) listed 180. As scientific knowledge advanced in the 20th century, functions of the organs (as well as more recently so-called junk DNA) were discovered. Once the ignorance of what their functions were was dispelled, they were dropped from the list.
Any claim today regarding these organs (or junk DNA) being vestigial is based on ignorance not good science.
11. Evolutionary claim: Horses are among the best documented examples of evolutionary development.
Truth: There are 14 flaws in the horse series. A few are:
- No transitional teeth or body plans
- The first “horse” is usually a rock badger
- Later series members are found below earlier ones in the strata
- The series are inconsistent from one museum to another and
- Even some evolutionists have abandoned the evidence.
Yet it is still found in many museums, including the Field Museum in Chicago. This is not promoting good science
12. Evolutionary claim: Similar structures in animals are due to inheritance from a common ancestor. This homology is evidence for macroevolution.
Truth: The classic illustration using the forelimb of several animals and man concentrates on five bones in the forelimb. There are many more bones than that, and the five noted in the comparison are vastly different. There is also research which shows that many homologous structures develop from different parts of the developing fetus and different parts of the genome.
They develop differently, showing a different genomic source. Homology is poor science..
13. Evolutionary claim: Beneficial mutations plus natural selection plus time can produce marvelous wonders.
Truth: The search continues for beneficial mutations, because known mutations cause deterioration in the genetic information in the DNA. This results in a genetic disease not evolution. When pressed to identify one beneficial mutation in humans, evolutionists will usually identify sickle cell anemia. That disease, however, is beneficial only in limited circumstances where malaria is prevalent. It is detrimental to those in a zone without malaria, and it’s deadly for a significant number of children born of the trait carriers.
The notion of beneficial mutations is poor science.
- Dissociation, chemistry definition: Dissociation in chemistry and biochemistry is a general process in which molecules separate or split into smaller particles such as atoms, ions, or radicals, usually in a reversible manner.
- For more on Peppered Moths and the problems with the evolutionary claims see: Creation Ministries International: The Moth Files