Feedback archive → Feedback 2003

Feedback

End of story?

This letter is from Shelley Moore, USA. It is an example of the prevalent confusion about the meaning of evolution. The response clarifies the misunderstandings, and explains once more how variation within a kind is a completely different concept from evolution from microbes to microbiologists.

Dear Shelly,

Thank you for contacting us. Please see our response below:

How so? We have never observed evolution from goo to you via the zoo and neither has any evolutionary scientist. It would be helpful to define your terms to avoid equivocation—see Definitions as slippery as eels.

How does this prove evolution as a fact? Creation also indicates that DNA changes with every new organism.

We dispute that evolution is a fact. We do not dispute that that DNA changes. It is just bait-n-switch to conflate these concepts. See also this review of the book The Beak of the Finch: Evolution in Real Time for egregious examples of this equivocation.

Exactly! But don’t stop there; there must be millions, perhaps billions, of mutations that build up a DNA strand with NEW previously non-existent information. There have only been a few rare cases where information has gained specified complexity but for evolution to work there needs to billions of them. And simply put, they’re just not there! So mutations can’t be the mechanism for evolution. This is why evolution is having problems.

Because informational arguments are probabilistic, we cannot rule out the finding of an occasional information increase, but we have yet to see one. But goo-to-you evolution predicts that information increases should often be observed. Therefore, if millions are not found, then evolution is simply unfounded.

We believe this obvious and logical phenomenon. But we must point out that you need to be aware that contrary to how some will take your statement, and contrary to common lay belief, not all harmful mutations are eliminated by this process. In fact, mutations which are harmful only when homozygous—inherited from both parents—will almost invariably be maintained at a low frequency in the population. Humans carry hundreds of such inherited accumulated mistakes. See Take it from an expert—Sickle cell anemia does NOT prove evolution!

Note also, Edward Blyth, a Christian creationist, developed the concept of natural selection about 25 years before Darwin. This is called natural selection and it only results in the elimination of information, not its creation.

Mutations, on the other hand, have been shown primarily to be defects and breakdowns on the DNA strand. At any rate, there have never been any observed mutations that build up the DNA strand with new previously non-existent information. This is what is devastating to evolution. In fact, even in the rare cases of ‘beneficial’ mutations, which help the organism to survive, they are virtually all informationally downhill. This point was made in the very article you cite, as well as in Beetle bloopers and Is antibiotic resistance really due to increase in information?

These are the fictional ones that we have never seen. Every once in a while a defect can be helpful to the organism but it still works backwards for evolution. Please take the time to read this article, The evolution train’s a-comin’.

Since a defect can also be a survival advantage, it’s not as simple as that, as a little thought will show. I.e., it begs the question of the type of change, as the articles above show.

Obviously not.

Note that this is not a scientific argument, but a pseudo-theological one! Some evolutionists (falsely) accuse creationists of saying merely ‘God did it,’ but apparently have no compunction against saying ‘God wouldn’t have done it this way.’ It’s amazing how much atheists claim to know about a God they don’t believe in, yet use this as support for evolution. This sort of argument is also a tacit admission that the ‘two-model approach’ is valid, i.e. that creation and evolution (in the broadest senses) are the only alternatives. However, many evolutionists scream loudly if creationists claim that there are only two broad approaches, or the corollary that evidence against evolution is support for creation!

But also, we believe that the biblical ‘kind’ is often broader than the modern taxonomic category of ‘species.’ Therefore the original kind, while starting off as a species, would often be the ancestor of several species, split off by an acquired inability to interbreed. This is explained in What is the biblical creationist model? Note also, the Bible implicitly predicts rapid speciation, and observed examples of this have taken evolutionists by surprise, but not biblical creationists—see Speedy species surprise.

Let me explain with some simple diagrams.

Evolutionists believe that all life originated by one accidentally chemically-made single celled life form:

The evolutionary ‘tree’—all today’s species are descended from the one common ancestor (which itself evolved from non-living chemicals).

Evolutionists often falsely think of the biblical view as represented by the diagram below, and your arguments are based on this misconception:

The Linnaean ‘lawn’—the Genesis ‘kinds’ were the same as today’s species.

Evolutionists believe that the Bible teaches that life forms can not adapt and naturally select into various types of the same kind. This is a false belief. The actual biblical view is as follows:

The creationist ‘orchard’—diversity has occurred with time within the original Genesis ‘kinds.’

With all due respect, it would be intellectually honest to find out what we actually believe before attacking us. It would also be helpful if you were to define your own terms consistently. We believe that all animals with the ‘breath of life’ originated from individual kinds (that came off of Noah’s Ark) and split into various species around the globe—e.g., wolves, dingoes, coyotes and domestic dogs were all from one pair of ‘dogs’ from Noah’s Ark (see also this response to a critic, A pair of dogs/wolves on Noah’s Ark couldn’t have produced all dog varieties today?). We are convinced of natural selection but not evolution. They are, if anything, actually opposites.

We pray this information helps.
Editors

NEA Teacher does not subscribe to theory of evolution

It may be worth reconsidering membership of an organization that supports the right to homosexual behaviour and abortion, while being vindictive against home-schoolers, as well as being highly politicized making it almost impossible to fire a bad teacher. See for example this article.