The Seed Blog: Creation vs. Evolution, Part 4

Thus far in our study of Evolution vs. Creation has only taken us through the moment of the supposed “Big Bang", creating a perfect environment, and perfect laws of science against all mathematical possibility, up to the spontaneous creation of even one cell from non-life, with all of its irreducible complexities working together to follow instructions from overwhelmingly vast amounts of coded information, to attain the beginning foundation for the Theory of Evolution. And we have witnessed through observable science—through the very laws of science itself—and even through the confessions of many well established secular scientists, themselves—that just to get this far we have broken or refuted many of these scientific laws, barriers, and statistical possibilities.

But now, let's disregard all of the "literally admitted impossibilities" we have considered thus far and assume we have reached this beginning point of simple life from nothing. The next step of our journey through Evolution would occur as these simple life forms experienced zillions of tiny mutations which increased information of the host by small increments at a time; making them stronger, better, more intelligent, more suited to the environment in which they exist—unguided, unplanned, and without purpose. Allowing them, through survival of the fittest—or "Natural Selection" of nature—to survive and reproduce as a superior mutation, so they might once again experience the next mutation of improvement and so on until bacteria eventually become human. Mutations do occur, natural selection is real, but they have been totally misrepresented and misused as examples for Evolution, when, in fact, they each show solid proof of Creation instead.
Let's begin with Natural Selection. And it is a concise and complete definition (because it’s not "producing” something new, but reproducing). But Evolutionists often misrepresent this definition and add to the ability of Natural Selection—even making it synonymous with Evolution itself—when it shows the opposite. Listen to this online learning unit from Berkeley Education on Evolution 101. "Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift." After their example which follows on this Biology page, they end the section with this statement: "If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that." This single closing statement is completely contradictory and untrue, even by the example in which they had given on the page (which we will return to investigate in a few moments). But first, let's see the actual process s defined, even by evolutionists in its revealed entirety. Taxonomy is the biological classification of living things in rankings of their shared traits, from broadest to most specific they are: Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. So dogs, for instance, would be in the family of Canidae. There are many breeds or species of dogs—Wolves, Shepherds, beagles, poodles—but they are all dogs. Natural Selection is supposed to be a "basic mechanism" of evolution by increasing information into a species which allows the new host to be more fit for the environment. But, what is now proven reality, is that Natural Selection only occurs through a decrease in information, or accidental replication of existing data—never an increase. Look at it this way: we get our DNA from our parents, right? Both parents have a variety of possible traits we can inherit into our DNA. Every child your parents could have would each receive a unique combination (height, eye color, blood type, hair color, features, etc.) of the already available traits between the two of them. This is the limit within Natural Selection at work. Back to the dog, for example: a long haired dog gets twitterpated over a short haired dog and has kids. Some of the pups will inherit the long haired gene, some the short, some both. If two long-haired dogs mate together, they eventually lose the DNA required to produce short-haired anymore. Their DNA has not evolved, it has now devolved and cannot return to more information. If the climate they live in is extremely hot, the short-haired dogs will be better suited long-term, and they will ultimately survive to mate again until only long-haired dogs exist in that environment. Repeat this for cold weather. This is Natural Selection at work. But nothing has evolved. It has decreased in information available; it has decreased in future ability to adapt again. So two dogs with a base DNA of many characteristics—also known as "Heterozygous"—who branch out into different environments and mate in different combinations would devolve through loss of information into different set combinations for that region. All of which had a loss of information; all of which lost abilities and traits from the past. This is why certain breeds are dominant in certain areas naturally. Many of the domestic breeds of dogs we have as pets today are the result of selectively cross-breeding dogs, concentrating the losses of information, in the already existing DNA of parent dogs. This is why the defects or missing DNA produced in many domestic breeds cause chronic health problems (short snouts, short legs, long hair, no hair, fur that grows indefinitely, skeletal defects, immune deficiencies, etc.). Many have short life spans, chronic sinus problems, infections, bone problems, back issues, disease, etc. The poodle alone suffers from an incredibly long list of health issues and vulnerability to diseases over other breeds. These pets have been cross-bred to maintain naturally unwanted, unhealthy characteristics from missing genes and they only live because we pay large amounts of $$$ to breed and keep them alive. This loss of information in Natural Selection is a comparable illustration to the one given in the evolution article we just quoted from a moment ago. They illustrated beetles who had parents with two different color schemes in their existing DNA supply (green/brown). Their brown offspring with a loss of information to produce both colors, who were actually devolved, not evolved (nothing added at all) were eaten less frequently than their green siblings (more visible). Therefore, remained to reproduce their singular color of beetle (brown). Thus, surviving in that particular environment. This is what the article claimed as "...evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that." Do you now see how this is a completely untrue and unfounded claim? Even based on their own illustration, much less the facts we now know at a molecular level, it was the opposite of evolution. After years of research in nature of humans, animals and insects, and countless laboratory controlled mutations of insects and bacteria—tracking bacteria through over 64,000 generations and fruit flies over 600 generations (12,000 yrs human equivalent) has concluded with not one single mutation ever producing new information.
Dr. Lee Spetner, (Mechanics Engineer, Biophysicist, Physicist, Evolutionist) worked and taught at John Hopkins University said: "All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it... Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome.” [Dr Lee Spetner, Not by Chance, Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, 1996, pp 131-138]. "Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business can’t make money by losing it a little at a time.” [Dr Lee Spetner, Not by Chance, Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, 1996, pp 143]. All mutations have been through a loss or a redundancy of already existing DNA because—as we learned last week—the Principle of Information has proven that new information and language have never been created by natural means. "There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter." [Dr. Spetner, Not by Chance, Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, 1996, pp 107]. Like a printing press that can accidentally print extra copies of the same page or accidentally skip printing a page but cannot write new material. This gives Natural Selection the ability to operate in nothing but the parameters given by the heterozygous parents (horizontal not evolving) and the existing DNA of the host; removing the possibility of one kind of animal evolving into a new type. Some may object by saying, "Well, if that's true, what about these 'Super Bug' bacteria that have ‘evolved’ to be resistant to penicillin?" This is a beautiful example on the bacterial level of the dog example earlier. For instance, the bacteria, H. Pylori produces an enzyme that converts antibiotics into poison, killing the bacteria. Some mutated bacteria, which have lost information are missing this enzyme, therefore, the poison is not created, and the bacteria survive, leaving only the lesser bacteria to multiply. But there is no superbug—only "loserbug” because he’s lost some code which helps it only in this situation. So what appears to be an improvement, is in actuality at the micro-level still just a case of lost information. Evolutionists are very aware of the deficiencies in this area of science as well. In this peer-read Evolutionist article on Genetics featured in Trends in Genetics, the authors make this confession. Richard Dawkins himself, was asked in a video taped interview with Philip Hohnen, "Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?” After an incredibly long pause on camera while he pondered the question, he finally said, "Can you just stop (the camera) while I think?" He was not able to produce an example. Evolutionists say all they need is the right amount of time—millions of years are the key—but that is completely untrue and unscientific. Time can’t be a key without a known mechanism at work during this time.
As a final kick in the pants, an unavoidable fact we have discovered in genetic research is we now know that mutations are not "Genetic code writers", but instead, are "typographical errors and deletions". This leads to an obvious problem, which is just the very opposite of evolution. Scientists have known for some time that the human DNA is slowly degrading with each generation; each with more defects than the last. These ongoing mutations are referred to by geneticists as "Genetic load". In other words, the number of gene related diseases and defects in a group which makes the host less healthy than the average person. This is why it is unwise to marry close into your own gene pool (inbreeding) because the DNA contributed by both parents assist in "filling one another's error gaps”, caused by ongoing deficiencies in the DNA. The closer the parents are in relation, the more likely they have similar deficiencies that will not cover one another. When "genetic burden" gets too great in a group, hereditary defects can actually threaten the ability of the species' survival. As was the case for the "Florida Panther". An International Weekly Science Journal, says this about “Genetic Burden” in mankind today. Besides the obvious unknown of how these negative mutations will affect humans in the future, we have the massively glaring problem which this discovery causes for Evolutionists. Dr. John C. Sanford is a Plant Geneticist, was a Cornell University Professor for over 25 years, has over 80 scientific publications, over 30 patents in his field, and three scientific inventions including genetic immunization; this is what he writes about "Human Genome Degradation". Three thousand years ago, Job wrote Job 14:5. There is so much more that we could cover, but we are out of time on this study for now. But with just these few steps into the Theory of Evolution, using the Laws, Theories, Principles and hypothesis that Evolutionists say they base their "Science" upon.we see that Evolutionists believe an unexplainable event occurred outside of all space, time and matter; bringing an explosion from nothing, without a cause or purpose; with the energy and mass of the entire Universe, at a mathematically perfect speed and force to accidentally create and hold the Universe together; with the perfect conditions for life—admittedly by them, against all possible mathematical chances, creating the Perfect, Balanced, Laws of Science, that allowed that Universe to produce life once formed—admittedly against all possible mathematical odds again—and that spontaneous life appeared from non-living matter—admittedly against all Laws of Science and mathematical possibility—and all of the billions of pieces of coded information to produce one cell, along with millions of intricate, subatomic, working mechanisms needed to read, translate and build according to this information together—all evolved piece-meal, over ions of time, accidentally, unguided and without purpose or design; to make that cell come to life. Then, against the known Principles of Information and Observable science, that cell accidentally mutated to produce more new information, though no observable mutation has ever produced a single piece of new information; repeating this process zillions upon zillions of times, through billions of creatures, over many generations and evolutionary trees; though no new information can be found occurring in a single living creature today, while we are supposed to be "still evolving", producing functioning, seemingly designed improvements until organs, skeletal structures, reproductive systems, defense mechanisms, and consciousness itself were produced. All of which could not function while being produced over a period of time, but only as completed structures without guidance or purpose; and all of this evolution has occurred in our DNA while the human genome is known to have suffered repeated mutations causing deficiencies from its beginning, in larger quantities, which are so damaging they will eventually terminate not improve mankind. And this is all taught in the name of unbiased Science; against well-established Laws, Principles, against all reason and common sense, against observable scientific data to the contrary, because men do not want to accept the unavoidable, overwhelming evidence that we were Created by an All Powerful, All-Knowing, Ever-Present God. I believe Dr. John C. Sanford put it into perfect perspective in his book, Genetic Entropy. What was that bitter quote from Richard Dawkins at the beginning of our study? He is exactly right. Faith against all odds is a cop-out. That's why I refuse to hold a faith in spite of—and perhaps, like many evolutionists today, because of—the lack of evidence in evolution. I'll put my faith in the One who has left His unmistakable mark on everything from the smallest molecule to the farthest star: Romans 1:18-22.
Let's close this entire study with the very fitting, first and last lines of Genesis, Chapter one: Genesis 1:1, 31. I make no apologies for my Faith in the One who has proven Himself; not only to me, but anyone who will open their eyes and see Him. So, "No, YOU MOVE!"