Atheism stands like a house of cards that’s foundation is dependent upon assumptions. It is not the facts of science that are in dispute, but how the facts are viewed and what is allowed to be admitted as evidence. While atheists dismiss any evidence that points to the God who created us, they also introduce assumptions as the missing evidence that is needed to uphold their worldview. If the assumptions are removed, the foundation collapses and the house of cards will fall. The job of the atheist apologist is to protect the foundation by distracting attention away from it. In order to make something sound credible, evolution must create an impression of simplicity.
An example of implied simplicity can be seen in an earlier article by Richard Dawkins entitled, ‘Where’d You get those Peepers’. One of the great mysteries of science is the amazing complexity of they eye and due to the supposed evolutionary trees promoted by evolutionists, the eye would have to have evolved at least 40 times independently from each other. Aside from the engineering mastery of the eye, the true miracle is the light sensitive cell. The Human eye has two extremely complex light sensitive cells called rods and cones. Rods are more sensitive to light but cannot discern color but cones are receptive to both light and detect color. To go from non-light sensitive to light sensitive is an enormous transition and it proposes a great challenge to evolution; however, atheists gloss over this challenge as they fight to persuade others of the simplicity of the evolutionary process.
In the article, ‘Where’d You get those Peepers’, Dawkins presented a scientific computer model introduced by Nilsson and Pelger which supposedly proved that the eye could have easily evolved forty times. Dawkins acknowledges that no attempt was made to explain the evolution of the light sensitive cell by stating, “you have to start somewhere, and Nilsson and Pelger started after the invention of the photocell”. This is a necessary strategy for in order to keep the evolutionary model simple, complex components must already be present so that the Nilsson / Pelger model could show the easy assembly of the parts.
The Dawkins argument goes on to say that “Nilsson and Pelger made no attempts to simulate the inner workings of cells” and, “They worked at the level of tissues…rather than the level of individual cells”. The computer simulation does no more than create a visual display that gives the impression that the road to evolution was a simple, logical process that doesn’t need to be concern with the inner workings of cells, addition of new DNA information or any of the other complexities that reveal the impossibility of evolution.
Even more interesting is the claim that evolution is proven by not allowing it to fail. Dawkins states, “They then let the model deform itself at random, constrained only by the requirement that any change must be small and must be an improvement on what went before.” The ‘proof’ of the evolutionary worldview is dependent on the assumption that evolution cannot allow mutations that are not an improvement on what is already in place. Evolution depends on the assumption that new data is being added to the DNA code and that this information is only beneficial. If this assumption is false, then the entire Nilsson and Pelger model is false for it acknowledges that it is based on this assumption. This assumption is refuted by the pro-evolution publication put out by Atomic Scientists. While discussing the effects of genetic mutations, Atomic Scientists explains:
“It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing -- good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad.” (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11:331)
So while Dawkins states that the model of Nilsson and Pelger proves that the eye could have evolved forty times by ‘not allowing’ negative mutations, pro-evolution researchers acknowledge that negative mutations are so prevalent that it is safe to assume that all mutations are detrimental to the organism. For this reason, the logic Dawkins builds his argument upon collapses by simply removing the false assumption that sustains the Nilsson and Pelger model.
In ‘The God Delusion’, each of Dawkins arguments are built on assumptions and therefore are on shaky ground. Mockery and boastful claims of superior intelligence are decoys that turn the attention away from the assumption in order to prevent the collapse of each evolutionary argument. Dawkins uses many decoys to send theologians on a wild goose chase so that they are too busy to analyze the root of the problem. He then quotes absurd arguments presented by selected theologians that have been drawn into the decoy arguments. We will look at some of the arguments atheism presents against God later, but for now I want to focus on the importance of identifying assumptions.
When we honestly look at how Christians respond to criticism against faith, we see that the problem is that most Christians are intimidated by the bold assertions of atheists or sidetracked by decoy arguments. The goal of the atheistic argument is to set the rules of engagement and persuade the Christian to get into their arena with their hands tied. When an atheist proclaims that an assumption is true or limits the discussion to only what they can defend, the Christian should challenge the limitations and question the introduction of unfounded assumptions. For some reason we are allowing the atheist to determine what is admissible as evidence, what can be discussed, and what will be dismissed from the discussion. When an atheist declares something as true, we must learn to ask why. What you will find is that most atheists are only comfortable while they are in control of the rules of engagement. When their protection from facts are removed, they either withdraw or become enraged. Their reaction is not our concern; our concern is the pursuit of truth.
Another
reason Christians are easily intimidated is because they are afraid that God
may be proven false. It is not our job to protect God and try to keep faith
separated from the facts of the world around us. All truth, if allowed to be
explored fully, will point to our Creator for He created all things and all
things point to His glory. Consider the testimony of creation from Psalm 19:1-3
1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his
handywork.
2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and
night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor
language, where their voice is not heard.
In the hands of a con man, evidence can be presented in a way as to draw a false conclusion. To remove contradictory evidence is a powerful way to persuade someone to draw a false conclusion. How much more is that true when you conjure up false evidence to present as truth in order to persuade. Both of these strategies are the powers behind the arguments of atheism; they disallow contradictory evidence and introduce assumptions based on sheer conjecture. Let’s look at the examples given through the testimony of the ‘world’s leading evolutionist’, Richard Dawkins.
The anthropic principle is the source of luck needed to get past the impossible hurdles that hinder evolution and it is the core foundation that many evolution arguments are built upon as Dawkins will explain. There are volumes of books written on the anthropic principle but I will allow Richard Dawkins to provide a brief summary. The anthropic principle is based on the assumption that if the numbers are high enough, anything is possible. Dawkins explains:
[T]he anthropic alternative to the design hypothesis is statistical. Scientists invoke the magic of large numbers. It has been estimated that there are between 1 billion and 30 billion planets in our galaxy, and about 100 billion galaxies in the universe. Knocking a few noughts off for reasons of ordinary prudence, a billion billion is a conservative estimate of the number of available planets in the universe. Now, suppose the origin of life, the spontaneous arising of something equivalent to DNA, really was a quite staggeringly improbable event. Suppose it was so improbable as to occur on only one in a billion planets. …And yet…even with such absurdly long odds, life will still have arisen on a billion planets – of which Earth, of course, is one. This conclusion is so surprising, I’ll say it again. If the odds of life originating spontaneously on a planet were a billion to one against, nevertheless that stupefyingly improbable event would still happen on a billion planets. The chance of finding any one of those billion life-bearing planets recalls the proverbial needle in a haystack. But we don’t have to go out of our way to find a needle because (back to the anthropic principle) any beings capable of looking must necessarily be sitting on one of those prodigiously rare needles before they even start the search. (God Delusion, Emphasis added)
What if the evidence shows something to be impossible? Will giving something a billion to one odds make the impossible become probable? No, if something contradicts reality, giving it infinitely more chances will not improve a zero percent chance. A billion, billion times zero is still zero. The anthropic principle is circular reasoning hidden behind large, statistical numbers. The idea is that since we are living on a planet where life has arisen, we know that it has happened. Based on this assumption, we can apply statistics to a billion, billion earth like planets and supposedly ‘prove’ that even if it occurs in one out of a billion planets, life would still arise a billion times. Since the anthropic principle shows that it happened a billion times, it bypasses the need to know how life arises against what seems to be impossible odds. The testimony of Klaus Dose explains why atheism saw the need to create the anthropic principle:
More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance." [From Interdisciplinary Science Review 13(1988):348-56.]
The first organism has proven to be a problem for evolution and as Dawkins admits, it is a ‘stupefyingly and staggeringly improbable event’. Consider the simplest form of life. The simplest single celled organism has over 500 different amino acids necessary for life. Evolutionists will quickly point out that there are cells that have as few as 15; however, these are dependent cells in a larger organism. Let’s take a moment to explain the problem of the formation of amino acids. The natural process of oxidation breaks down amino acids. If left to itself, breakdown and formation is a continuous process. If accidental life were possible, it still could not form the necessary amount of amino acids due to the problem of oxidation. This problem is compounded by the discovery explained by Robert Orion in Science magazine:
[M]ost nucleotides degrade rather fast at the temperatures scientists conclude existed on the early earth according to Robert Irion. (Ocean Scientists Find Life, Warmth in the Seas, Science 279:1302–1303, 1998)
The desperation of evolution has supposedly solved this
problem by imagining an environment free of oxygen where the amino acids would
form with the right types and right quantities in order to form the cell
structure. It is commonly taught that electricity was the catalyst for sparking
the life form (probably through a storm) and then instantly oxygen appeared on
the scene. Where it came from is unknown or why it was conveniently missing is
unknown. Like magic, the amazingly complex cell was assembled by amino acids
forming into proteins with the necessary functionality to breathe oxygen,
consume a food source, digest that food and distribute it to the cell while
also having the capacity to process and extract the waste material that is
always left after the cell has used the sugars from the food source. It also
formed with the capability to divide into two fully functional cells and split
its DNA into two perfect copies without losing even a single rung of the
billions of strands of coded DNA (or copied its RNA depending on which account
you read). This is quite a creation....err formation. If one single failure
occurred, millions of years of chance would have been lost and since oxygen is
now present, future chances would be hopeless. Just think what would happen if
the cell wall broke during division? All would be lost.
Now, what to eat? Since it was the first life form and all food comes from
organic material, what would an organism eat while waiting for evolution to
provide a sustainable eco system? Perhaps the anthropic principle will give
evolution a free pass on a sustainable food source without organic material in
a world that has nothing growing or living. The problem of impossibility is
glossed over by assumptions. Dawkins explains again:
We can deal with the unique origin of life by postulating a very large number of planetary opportunities. Once that initial stroke of luck has been granted – and the anthropic principle most decisively grants it to us – natural selection takes over: and natural selection is emphatically not a matter of luck. (Dawkins, The God Delusion)
The stroke of luck is the faith evolution is built upon for it is the assumption that everything hinges upon. Whether the assumption is labeled as ‘postulating’, assuming, or any other term, it is still an assumption. Science has to hypothesize in order to explore science. In true science, the researcher looks at the evidence, hypothesizes a possible explanation, and then uses experimentation, other evidence and hard research to test the hypothesis to prove or disprove aspects of the theory. How do you put ‘blind luck’ to scientific scrutiny? Is blind luck a reasonable answer to explain how the impossible appears to have ‘just happened’? Without assumptions, doctrines based on atheism cannot be sustained. Dawkins again explains:
Any probability statement is made in the context of a certain level of ignorance. If we know nothing about a planet, we may postulate the odds of life’s arising on it as, say, one in a billion. But if we now import some new assumptions into our estimate, things change. … But my earlier calculation demonstrated that even a chemical model with odds of success as low as one in a billion would still predict that life would arise on a billion planets in the universe. And the beauty of the anthropic principle is that it tells us, against all intuition, that a chemical model need only predict that life will arise on one planet in a billion billion to give us a good and entirely satisfying explanation for the presence of life here. (Dawkins, The God Delusion, Emphasis added)
In this statement, Dawkins has presented a classic evolutionist tactic. Earlier in his book he presented what he acknowledged as an assumption and now he is pointing back to his previous assumption as evidence to support a new assumption. Only now he calls his previous assumption ‘demonstrated proof’. As you move forward in evolutionary arguments you will find that one man’s assumption ‘evolves’ into another man’s proof. In this example Dawkins has bypassed the normal evolution of thought by using his own assumptions and has transformed them into hard evidence. Perhaps it is the anthropic principle that allows him to bypass the ‘natural selection’ of ideas. I will give another example of this shortly.
He has affirmed the words of Klaus Dose above by falling back on ignorance as a means of escaping the question while at the same time declaring evolution to be proven true based on assumptions alone. He is openly admitting that the facts paint a different picture and that evolution is calling us to go ‘against all intuition’; however, if you accept ‘the assumption that is interjected, things change’. The assumption, according to Dawkins, fills in the gap of impossibility and gives an entirely satisfying explanation. I hope that you as the reader can see that the satisfaction is not coming from any semblance of evidence, but a blind assumption that is built purely upon blind luck. Evolutionists are entirely satisfied with their own postulations without any evidence to back up their musings. The anthropic principle is the ‘lucky rabbit’s foot’ of evolution and has become the object of their faith. Evolution has to employ a lot of blind faith for the origin of life is nothing compared to the other astronomical problems of evolution. The gap between simpler life forms such as bacteria and more complex cells in mammals are such an evolutionary jump that the probability is far harder to overcome than the origin of life. Dawkins explains:
[T]he origin of life is not the only major gap in the evolutionary story that is bridged by sheer luck, anthropically justified. For example, my colleague Mark Ridley in … The Cooperative Gene has suggested that the origin of the eucaryotic cell (our kind of cell, with a nucleus and various other complicated features such as mitochondria, which are not present in bacteria) was an even more momentous, difficult and statistically improbable step than the origin of life.
The anthropic principle is used to explain all problems in evolution as though it were the missing link discovered by science rather than the imaginations of those needing to justify their assumptions. Dawkins also explains that the three biggest problems for evolution are the formation of life, crossing the gap from simple cells to the eukaryotic cell, and crossing of the mind into consciousness. Dawkins rightly explains that these events are not normal biological adaptations for the processes do not exist everywhere (which is quite an understatement). The catalyst atheists use to bypass all of these problems is the almighty anthropic principle as Dawkins explains:
The anthropic principle states that, since we are alive, eucaryotic and conscious, our planet has to be one of the intensely rare planets that has bridged all three gaps.
This
is circular reasoning at its finest. Since we are here, these assumptions must
be true. Since these assumptions must be true, it must explain why we are here.
Why are Christians so intimidated by the claims of atheism? Theistic evolution,
the gap theory, and other compromises are formed out of the fear of atheism.
This is not new to our time for the apostle Paul addressed this in 1 Timothy 6:20-21b
20 O Timothy, keep that which is
committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and
oppositions of science falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred
concerning the faith.
In this day many have strayed from the faith because of the vain babblings that masquerade as science. The word babbling is not intended to be a derogatory statement; it means ‘empty discussions’ or discussions that have no real substance. It is called science (or systematic knowledge), but when we look beyond the empty arguments we see that it has no merit. We are not being intimidated by true knowledge, but are being bluffed by a well crafted, deceitful argument that masquerades as truth. I read an article from someone who was a preacher that quoted from ‘The God Delusion’ and used it as evidence to question the Old Testament. It should be easy to see through the empty discussions, but unfortunately most do not. This is the reason this study is necessary. Christians should have the ability to look beyond the assertions and identify the assumptions. There are so many examples of assumptions that Dawkins presents as ‘proofs’ that it would be tedious to recite them all, but I will cite one more example because it shows that atheism acknowledges the problem evolution places on physics as well as biology:
We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that – an illusion. We don’t yet have an equivalent crane for physics. Some kind of multiverse theory could in principle do for physics the same explanatory work as Darwinism does for biology. This kind of explanation is superficially less satisfying than the biological version of Darwinism, because it makes heavier demands on luck. But the anthropic principle entitles us to postulate far more luck than our limited human intuition is comfortable with. (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Emphasis added)
Through the anthropic principle, Dawkins claims that they have safely proven that the appearance of design in our universe is an illusion, there is a multiverse (multiple universes coexisting in the same space in different realms), and evolution is given the blind luck necessary for physics as well as biology. Dawkins stated at the beginning of his book that his goal was to convert Christians into atheists. Sadly, the product is often far worse – Christians who merge doctrines of atheism into the Christian religion. I say the Christian religion because once someone claiming to be a Christian departs from their confidence in scripture, they are merely a religious practitioner and are no longer walking in true biblical faith. There is a false faith that bears no fruit, but true faith is by the Spirit and is grounded in the word of God. Without the word, there can be no true faith. Dawkins has faith in the anthropic principle so we can see that faith can be in anything, but true biblical faith is trusting God through His word.
As Christians we often confuse the evolution argument by pointing to time and chance for every criticism of evolution but time and chance are now introduced only when impossible odds need to be obscured. Most of evolution depends on natural selection. Part of the confusion is due to the changing face of evolution as they evolve their arguments into new claims as science disproves the old ideas. The evolutionary theory was born out of a desire to provide an explanation of the origin of life without a Creator. Since the goal is to distance themselves from God, disproving the argument will never change the mind of an atheist. Their primary goal is to remove God so when one argument fails, an alternative version is formed. Let me also clarify that many call themselves atheists because they have only been exposed to the crafty arguments of atheism and are not aware that the evidence contradicts the doctrines of atheism and agrees with the scriptures.
When I refer to atheism I am assuming that the reader
understands that I am referring to those who are in rejection of the truth and
will not be persuaded in the face of any evidence. Many will be open to the
truth of scripture when they realize that they have been hoodwinked by the
one-sided propaganda that is being passed off as reason and free thought.
We should have a basic understanding of natural selection so
that we are not shaken when evolution presents the evidence along with
deceptive arguments. Natural selection and micro-evolution are facts of science
but do not in any way challenge the Bible – nor do they support evolution. The
most popular example of natural selection from the Origin of the Species was
the finches Charles Darwin studied on the
Dog breeding is an example of natural selection through intelligent intervention. When a breeder chooses a trait that is desirable, that dog is set apart for breeding and over time the offspring is weeded out to only allow the traits to remain that are desired in the breed. Even though many breeds descended from a common parent, bulldogs will produce bulldogs, poodles will produce poodles, and so on. The reason a breed of dog will produce consistent results is because the breeder has weeded out many of the traits that are not desirable and the genetic code has lost that information. The changes are a loss of information, not the addition of new information. No breeder has successfully transitioned a dog into another species. In fact, over breeding is a serious problem that breeders try to avoid for too much loss of information causes what is known as ‘inbreeding depression’. This can cause genetic diseases and loss of reproduction. Inbreeding depression is a problem found in both animals and plants.
Another thing to note is that since all dogs are part of the same kind, cross breeding poses no problem. A poodle always produces a poodle because an offspring can only contain the traits present in its parent’s DNA. Since all dogs are the same kind, there is not a conflict when a poodle breeds with a bulldog. This is one reason why the same kind of animal in one region differs in appearance from the same kind in another region. When a kind is isolated from the common gene pool, they will only maintain the traits that are available in their isolated region. Races of people are from groups of people isolated from each other but when races mix, what happens? Over time, the distinctive look fades into a common ‘norm’.
In ‘The Origin of the Species’, Darwin makes the observation
that if two breeds are mixed, the first generation of offspring will have a
mixed appearance between the two breeds, but the next generation will produce a
litter with no two dogs alike. This affirms the fact that when additional
information is introduced into the gene pool, many of the lost traits are
reintroduced and produce a variety of new looks and features. The following
generations have the opportunity to produce a variety of appearances through
the introduction of many traits that were previously weeded out of that breed.
When a breeder attempts to breed one kind with another, problems are encountered. A mule is a mix between a donkey and a horse, but the offspring is a sterile animal. These two kinds are close enough in relation to allow one generation, but the ability to reproduce is lost. In most kinds, inbreeding is not even possible for the two genetic blueprints differ to the point where mixing is not possible. Far from providing proof for evolution, these examples fit the scripture’s claim that each species produces after its own kind. Breeding allows man to focus on desired traits, but does not provide a path to a new species or another kind. For more than half a century scientists have been trying to break the genetic limitations yet they have not done so. If evolutionists have not been able to produce a new species through human effort and the most technologically advanced equipment, this should bring into question the claim that natural selection will lead to new species (or kinds).
Unless there is isolation from a larger gene pool, a species
will remain in the common norm. These changes in pigeons were due to human
intervention as is the case with dog breeds. Even
All breeds in all species have a point where the genetic barrier prevents further change. All breeds have a safe zone where traits can be pursued without health risks, but if taken beyond healthy barriers, genetic problems will occur. A fact of genetics is that trait changes have a ceiling because there are only sixty-four possible combinations for each ‘word’ in the DNA code. One strand of Human DNA within each cell could stretch out 6 feet in length. It contains 3 billion pairs of DNA subsets and 46 chromosomes, and yet fits within one microscopic cell. Every living organism – both plants and animals – have the blueprint of every function of their body written in this code. DNA tells every cell in your body how to build its structure, manufacture proteins and carry out its functions necessary for life to exist.
If you took all the DNA in the human body and put it in written format, it would fill up one million volumes the size of a 500 page encyclopedia. With all this genetic data, if two people could have as many children as there are atoms in the universe, no two children would be identical. Though there are limitless combinations of traits that we possess, there is a limit to how far each trait can change. The combination of the four possible letters of the DNA code among billions of lines provides the opportunity of the variations we see. There is a limit to the number of combinations of these chemicals; therefore there are a limited number of trait variations. No new genetic material can be added without creating confusion in the order of DNA which always results in a defect.
DNA is a four-letter alphabet that can create a possible 64 ‘words’. Each rung of DNA is made up of four chemicals called nucleotides, designated by the symbols: A (adenine), G (guanine), C (cytosine), and T (thymine). These rungs of DNA are combined to provide a blueprint of the traits that organism will have. Every strand of the code is constructed like a micro-sentence. The ‘word’ is three letters long and has a code that tells the interpreting key to ‘begin here’ and ‘end here’. It is for this reason that, even though there are so many combinations of traits possible, there is also a limit to the changes that can occur. This is the barrier that ends the possibility of gradual change actually becoming a pathway toward a new species through the process of micro-evolution. Micro-evolution is the changes of a species by combining possible trait variations based on the information already available in the genetic code. Since each species has different blueprints, it is not possible to combine DNA from two unrelated plants or animals. Pollen from unrelated plants will not fertilize seeds from different species and sometimes cannot combine with distant relatives in the same species such as red and blue pimpernels. Unrelated species of animals cannot mate and those which are close enough to be crossed by man’s intervention cannot reproduce (such as the mule).
Trait changes are affected by the arrangement of the genetic code that is already present and received from parents. Mixing the available genetic code will produce variations in the trait but will not change into a completely different feature. For example, your parent’s genes are combined to produce your various traits. People have several different colors of hair, eyes, and skin, but without a mutation, these traits will remain within their boundaries. There are mutations that can occur and mutations almost always cause diseases or defects. The only exception is when a child receives one defective recessive gene from one parent but a good gene from the other parent. Most functions can work with one good copy without a noticeable defect. If the defect is a dominant gene or if both parents have the same defect and pass it along to the child, the mutation will be present and will affect the child. Even when a mutation occurs, skin will still be skin and eyes will still be eyes. Because of the code barrier, there are a limited number of variations in eye color. Different genes can create distinct variations but there is a limit. There can be rapid changes but inevitably, there is a return to the norm.
In
In many, many court cases, DNA evidence has exonerated those falsely convicted, yet there are times when officials refuse to accept the evidence and keep innocent people in prison. Why do DA’s and the courts fight against correcting a wrong conviction? Sometimes there is a fear that it will reopen a case and force them to expend resources to try to solve the case with the truth, but more often than not it is pride. In the same way, DNA has overturned the verdict of Darwinism, yet those invested in pride refuse to accept any evidence that does not affirm what they want to be true. Many educators and scientists have invested their lives and reputations upon evolution and to acknowledge this as a mistake requires humility. Since atheism is built upon pride, it is not surprising that considering creation is not an option.
Genetic science has falsified the evolutionary view of natural selection which teaches that this process will lead to gradual changes that will eventually produce a new species. In reality, the longer beaked finches are still finches and there are no examples of one species becoming another species given any amount of time or any amount of natural selection. What the evolutionist views as a slow transition into a new species would actually require changes in the DNA code and the addition of new information. What natural selection actually accomplishes is the weeding out of information from the DNA code.
Let’s take a final glance at the changes in the finches that
seemed to stir
Since many traits are recessive genes, their appearance may
be unseen for many generations. A species may carry recessive genes
indefinitely but the trait will not appear until the dominant gene is absent.
An offspring gets two strands of DNA, half its DNA from each parent. If one
strand of DNA contains a dominant gene and one a recessive gene for the same
trait, the offspring will become a carrier of the recessive gene and will have
a 50% chance of passing this to the next generation. If two parents carry the
same recessive gene and both pass this on to their offspring, the recessive
trait will appear. This is why rare traits can emerge in breeds after many
generations.
[I]t is generally believed that a tendency to reversion is retained by this very small proportion of foreign blood. In a breed which has not been crossed, but in which BOTH parents have lost some character which their progenitor possessed, the tendency, whether strong or weak, to reproduce the lost character might be, as was formerly remarked, for all that we can see to the contrary, transmitted for almost any number of generations. When a character which has been lost in a breed, reappears after a great number of generations, the most probable hypothesis is, not that the offspring suddenly takes after an ancestor some hundred generations distant, but that in each successive generation there has been a tendency to reproduce the character in question, which at last, under unknown favourable conditions, gains an ascendancy. For instance, it is probable that in each generation of the barb-pigeon, which produces most rarely a blue and black-barred bird, there has been a tendency in each generation in the plumage to assume this colour. (Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, Emphasis added)
Of course the tendency of reversion was not in the blood as
If conditions exist which make survival difficult or
impossible for an offspring with this trait, the gene will become less common
and in time it is likely that this information will be lost completely. If this
occurs the trait will never again emerge in the species unless it is cross bred
with a related breed. This is why dog breeds can have undesirable traits at
random, but the breed continues to be distinct from other breeds.
Whatever the cause may be of each slight difference in the offspring from their parents--and a cause for each must exist--it is the steady accumulation, through natural selection, of such differences, when beneficial to the individual, that gives rise to all the more important modifications of structure, by which the innumerable beings on the face of this earth are enabled to struggle with each other, and the best adapted to survive. (Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, Emphasis added)
So we can see that the flaw of the evolutionary view of
Natural Selection is that it assumes that the species is ascending and
accumulating new information, when in fact, the opposite is true. The offspring
that die off due to changes in condition or competition over necessities are
not gaining new traits, but losing the traits that hinder the species under
that specific condition. The finches of
The writings of
Natural selection is true in the sense that plants or animals with certain traits will survive over competitors given the right conditions, but it is not true that this adds information to DNA. Micro-evolution is limited changes that affect traits based on the information available in the genetic code already present. Macro-evolution is the assumption that these changes will add to the DNA and transform the creature into another species. Micro-evolution is a fact of science and is observable; macro-evolution has never been observed and is based solely upon old assumptions which have been disproven through our knowledge of genetics.
Eddie Snipes
Exchanged Life Outreach
<<Click Here to Sign up for Weekly Messages>>
Return to the Bible Studies Page