Anthropology - Other

Views on the Theories of Evolution

Author Name Withheld 457's image for:
"Views on the Theories of Evolution"
Image by: 

First off, I'd like to address a common misconception among Christians today. The Theory of Evolution is divided into two sections; Micro Evolution and Macro Evolution. I'll give a quick definition of each.

Micro Evolution: The theory that over time a species can develop and transform into a more specialized form of that species.

Macro Evolution: The theory that the same process which works in Micro Evolution can take a species and transform it into a completely different species.

Ok, Micro Evolution allows for differences in the genes of one species from one generation to another. Without Micro Evolution, I would either be an exact clone of my mom or dad. Dog breeders would not be able to take a dog and breed it into another kind of dog. It is still a dog, but it is a different breed of dog.

Macro Evolution holds that over time a dog breeder could take a dog and eventually breed it into an Ostrich. It also is the gathering point of Atheists who refuse to acknowledge God and Jesus as creators of the Universe. When people condemn evolution, they are only (unless they are completely insane) condemning Macro Evolution. I just wanted to get this all out on the table before moving onwards.

The main point of this post is to debunk (as best as a non-scientist Blogger can) the theory of Macro Evolution through logic and knowledge of science.

Macro Evolution rests on several key pillars. If any one of these pillars is proven wrong, the theory of Macro Evolution collapses, especially in regard to Atheism.

Until about 1600, most people in Europe and around the world believed in a theory called "Spontaneous Generation." Spontaneous Generation stated that life could come from non-life. It used the example of maggots "appearing" on garbage and refuse without and apparent source. Then along came a fellow named Luis Pasteur. Yes, this is the same dude who figured out how to pasteurize milk. Anyways, he debunked Spontaneous Generation, and the theory generally went out of style and use. Except (there's always an "except", isn't there? *Sigh*) with a group of people who refused to give up on the idea of life coming from non-life. They claimed that microorganisms that we couldn't see (we can now thanks to microscopes) were produced from non-life. The main problem with this theory was that they had absolutely no basis for what they were claiming since they had no knowledge of microorganisms. The other major issue was that we had no example of anything like that anywhere in Creation. This newer, upgraded, theory of Spontaneous Generation was renamed "Abiogenisis."

Abiogenisis became wildly popular among Atheists after Charles Darwin published his book, The Origin of Species. They touted it as the source of all species. The problem was, once microscopes were able to see microorganisms, scientists (and even the common layman) could tell that microorganisms were produced solely by other microorganisms. Life only came from life. Still, Atheistic evolutionists cling to the idea that non-life can produce life.

Let me put this into perspective. I should be able to take a hammer (non-life) and zap it with enough electricity, nuclear energy, pound it enough with a baseball bat, pour other chemicals (non-life) over it and get life. Guess what? It doesn't work. Scientists once tried for 60 months zapping a couple chemicals with electricity and small dosages of nuclear power. Nothing ever happened. Several times scientists have taken a couple atoms and zapped them and produced a couple atoms that are necessary for life and flaunted that as "evidence" that they can create life from non-life. The problem was, they zapped atoms (which are not alive) to produce atoms. They never put non-life into the equation. It is impossible to obtain life from non-life. Without that principle, Atheists who follow evolution (guess who the majority of evolutionists are?) have lost a leg to stand upon.

All scientific theories demand data and evidence. This includes Macro Evolution. Guess what? There has never been a recorded incident of Macro Evolution. Ever. So Evolutionists turn to the fossil records for help.

It makes sense, does it not? If you can not find evidence among living animals, you go and search among the dead ones. Since macroevolution calls for creatures changing from one to another, there should be plenty of examples of these smooth transitions from one species to another. None have been found. At all. There have been artists and scientists arguing over a small group of examples (say, four or five) as to whether they represent these links. The most infamous is "Lucy", the monkey skeleton that many scientists have claimed is a monkey - Human crossbreed. This one example bears enough attention to be dealt with itself. The partial skeleton of Lucy has obvious monkey traits to it, such as the "V" shaped jaw. It is overwhelmingly monkey in its structure. But scientists have figured out how to arrange the legs and hip joints (at least the ones they have) so that Lucy could have stood up straight. They claim this as evidence that Lucy is a monkey - Human link. Besides Lucy, there are few to no examples of possible links. So if every species evolved from each other into another species, should not there be far more than two or three very questionable examples of intermediate links? There is a reason that these links have been dubbed "missing" for years.

So, macroevolution has no evidence in living creatures and has no reliable examples (out of the two or three that do exist as examples) in the fossil record. What is macroevolution claimed to be a heavily reliable theory if there is no basis for even believing it happens? The fossil record gives no burden of proof for macroevolution.

Structural Homology is the study of different animal's bones and comparing them to each other. For a very long, Structural Homology has been used as evidence of macroevolution. Scientists would take the forearms of several species (I can not get my charts onto the computer, but the one I am working off of as an example is a bat's, bird's, Human's, and porpoise's) and show how the difference in the forearms would slowly change and "evolve" from one species to the next in a smooth pattern. It is a pretty convincing argument. Until you consider how changes are made in a species. When dogs are bred, they don't just magically change their fur color when they are born. Their parents' genes alter the puppy's DNA. The DNA is the code by which every creature's body is built by. So, if species' bones altered slowly and smoothly and still looked generally the same, the DNA and genes for the same bones would also look similar. Guess what? The part of the DNA that contains the genes (and the genes themselves actually) for a bat's forearms is incredibly different from a bird's DNA code for its forearms. The bones look similar, but the plan/code upon which they are built is fundamentally different. Structural Homology is actually proof against macroevolution instead of for it. Because once you begin to examine the DNA (which is what is truly altered by evolution, micro or macro; this thing we call the body is simply "housing" for the changed code) you can see that there is no similarities between many species that are thought to evolve into one another.

The genetic code that is built into us goes against the theory of macroevolution in this regard.

Molecular Biology is the study of species's proteins and amino acids (at least for the purpose of this post.) Many similar proteins are found in different species. For instance, hemoglobin in is the protein that transports oxygen through most animal's blood stream. But get this - the hemoglobin in a donkey is going to be incredibly different from the hemoglobin in a monitor lizard. Why? Because the structure of the amino acids in the proteins vary from species to species. Amino acids are constructed in accordance to the DNA's instructions. Thus, the amino acids of each species various proteins should reflect how closely species are related to each other if macroevolution is true. To figure out the percent difference between two species, you take the each difference between proteins and divide it by the number of amino acids multiply it by 100 and that equals how similar they are (if macroevolution is true.) An example: There are 11 different amino acids in the protein Cytochrome C. There is only one difference between the amino acids in a horse and a kangaroo in that protein. 1/11 x 100 = 91.8% the same. Hopefully that makes sense.

Macroevolution claims that simple species evolved into more complicated species. Thus, simpler species should be having smaller percent differences with each other when it comes to their proteins. But then you have species such as the bacterium Rhodospirillum rubrum whose cytochrome C acid sequence percent difference with several species did not make sense on a macroevolutionary scale. Some of the percent differences are: Yeast 69%, Wheat 66%, Silkworm moth 65%, Tuna 65%, Pigeon 64%, and Horse 64%. The "simpler" species in that list were more distantly related to that small bacterium than the more "complicated" species such as a horse. This is the normal occurrence when it comes to comparing species molecular biology. I have another chart with quite a few other examples of this, but am lazy and do not feel like typing up all the other examples.

Here's an interesting fact for you. Must people have heard that monkeys are 99% similar to Humans according to this procedure of determining how closely related different species are. What most people have not heard is that scientists also ignore 99% of the data showing that monkeys are actually not closely related to Humans! They have deemed that information too"confusing" for students and choose to ignore it. Monkeys are no closer related to Humans than the guinea pig I used to own. Molecular Biology has shown that the differences in amino acids in species do not point to macroevolution, but another designer.

This brings me all the way back to the missing links. Which are still missing, I may remind you. When microevolution occurs, information is taken out of the genetic code. That is why breeds of dogs are still dogs and not another species. Macroevolution demands that genetic information unknown to the species at the time is added to the new offspring. How in the world can that happen? The answer is mutation. A mutation is when a change occurs to the genetic code of a species, usually by adding new information to it. Mutations generally also change the offspring dramatically from their parents. That would mean that species could change into something different rapidly and leave no trace in the fossil record. It sounds pretty good. Only one problem - mutation has never left a single, positive result. Mutation has always been shown to be harmful, and almost always lethal. If a species changed due to mutation, it would die. Meaning no new species. Bummer. There goes the theory of Neo-Darwinism. And even if this were possible by some stretch of logic and the imagination, there is no proof. With no proof and no data for mutation causing macroevolution, there is no reason to assume or believe that is even viable as a scientific theory.

Oh, here us a random thought - if mutations cause new, positive info to be added to a person's DNA, how come we didn't see a new rise in Human spin-offs after the atom bombs were dropped on Japan? Hmmm...

But there is still one last answer to this issue of mutation, the fossil records, and the missing links. It is called Punctuated Equilibrium by macroevolutionists. It states that the mutations that occur in a species affect a massive percentage of the species, killing most of this new off-shoot species off. The remaining few (very remaining few) specimens become the new species. This would explain how mutations occur in a positive manner and why there is no example of intermediate links in the fossil record. But it still leaves no answer to the question of why there is no example of a single positive mutation ever.

This is the height of the macroevolutionary theory at the moment, tho it leaves no answer to why structural homology shows no evidence for it and plenty against it. It also gives no answer to why molecular biology shows no macroevolutionary trend.

So, in conclusion, macroevolution is simply a faith wrapped in the guise of science. Take that as you will in your view of politics.

More about this author: Author Name Withheld 457

From Around the Web