Evolutionists claim to have found the ‘common ancestor of all mammals’

The recent media splash (originally published in The New York Times ) about finding the hypothe...

The recent media splash (originally published in The New York Times) about finding the hypothetical common ancestor of all mammals is based upon nothing more than the evolutionary argument (assumption) that DNA and biological similarities between species is evidence for common ancestry.

However, what if the DNA and biological similarities between species are because of a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in various species? Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot arise by chance, so it is more logical to believe that similarities in DNA between species are due to intelligent design.

All real evolution in nature is within limits. The genes already exist for micro-evolution (variations within a biological kind such as varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.), but the genes do not exist for macro-evolution (variations across biological kinds such as from sea sponge to human).  Only variations of already existing genes and traits are possible. A dog will always be a dog no matter how many varieties come into being. The unthinking environment simply has no ability to design or program entirely new genes.

Evolution is possible only if there's information (i.e. genes, genetic code) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature is mindless and has no ability to perform genetic engineering or to invent entirely new genes via random genetic mutations caused by random environmental forces like radiation. That's blind evolutionary faith, not science. Read author's Internet article, War Among Evolutionnists (2nd Edition).

We have breeds or races of dogs today that we didn't have a few hundred years ago. The genes for these new races or breeds were always there in the dog population. They just didn't have opportunity for expression until much later. All species of life carry both expressed and unexpressed genes. When we witness new variations within a natural species, what we're witnessing is the expression of previously existing genes. The genes were always there. The genes themselves didn't evolve, but when previously unexpressed genes have opportunity to express themselves, we witness micro-evolution (evolution within a natural species).

Evolutionists hope and assume that, over millions of years, random mutations (accidental changes) in the genetic code caused by radiation from the environment will produce entirely new genes for entirely new traits in species so that macro-evolution occurs.  It's much like hoping that, if given enough time, randomly changing the sequence of letters in a cook book will turn the book into a romance novel, or a book on astronomy!

Another problem for macro-evolution is the issue of survival of the fittest. How can a partially evolved species be fit for survival? A partially evolved trait or organ that is not complete and fully functioning from the start would be a liability to a species, not a survival asset. Plants and animals in the process of macro-evolution would be unfit for survival. 

Imagine an evolving fish having part fins and part feet, with the fins evolving into feet. Where's the survival advantage? It can't use either fins or feet efficiently.  There are no fossils of such fish. These fish exist only on automobile bumper stickers!

In fact, how could species have survived at all while their vital organs were supposedly evolving? Survival of the fittest (natural selection) may explain how species survive, due to minor variations and adaptations to the environment, but not how they originated. Natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are possible. Natural selection itself does not produce any biological traits. The real issue is what biological variations are possible in nature. The scientific evidence supports that only limited evolution, or biological variations, are possible in nature.

What about "Junk" DNA? The latest science shows that "Junk DNA" isn't junk after all! It's we who were ignorant of how useful these segments of DNA really are. Recent scientific research published in scientific journals such as Nature and RNA has revealed that the "non-coding" segments of DNA are essential in regulating gene expression (i.e. how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body).
All the fossils that have been used to support human evolution have ultimately been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not human and non-human.

All species in the fossil record are found complete and fully-formed, which is powerful evidence that they came into existence as complete and fully-formed from the beginning. This is only possible by creation.



SCIENCE 735213509790091735

Post a Comment

  1. This article shows the utter lack of understanding of what evolution is all about and a bunch of logical fallacies. I would also like the writer to tell me if he in any way can prove to me that god even exists?




Stay updated via Email Newsletter:


Hot in week