In his
article, THE
TOP 10 SIGNS THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION AT ALL, Tyler
Francke said, “At
its core, “macroevolution” is simply the steady accumulation of
the small changes we observe in “microevolution.” Francke
has repeated one of the 10 lies told by evolutionists. In fact, this
is perhaps one of the better examples of the lie; I think I'll
probably cite it many times in future posts.
Not all
change is equal. For a species to evolve, new traits would
have to be added to the population. To turn a dinosaur into a
bird, for example, you would have to add feathers. The supposed,
first common ancestor had neither scales nor feathers. Neither did
it have skin or bones or blood or organs of any kind. To turn a
molecule into a man, it would require a millions of years long parade
of new features constantly being added. Natural selection, on the
other hand, can only remove traits already present in the
population. It should be agonizingly clear that you cannot add
traits by continuously removing traits.
In the
famous example of peppered moth “evolution,” the ratio of
light/dark moths changed over time in response to changes in the
environment. Some people call this “microevolution” and it does
fit the technical definition of evolution. But please explain to me
how birds continuously eating one color of moth can ever add new
colors to the population? You cannot add colors by continuously
removing colors no matter how long you do it.
Francke
said, “It seems any sane person must admit
that, if small changes can occur, then it is logically consistent
that small changes adding up over extremely long periods of time
would result in very large changes.”
Evolutionists
like Francke would have us believe that birds continuously eating one
color of moth could eventually change it into something that is not a
moth – it just has to continue for a long enough time. What sane
person would believe that?!
If
evolutionists want to convince people that evolution is possible,
they need to stop talking about examples like the peppered moth and
start showing us examples of trait-adding mutations. There's a
reason they don't. It's because examples of
natural selection removing traits are common place while examples of
trait-adding mutations are scare or non-existent. By continuing to
repeat the lie that any change over time can result in big change,
evolutionists are either ignorant of their own theory or are preying
on the ignorance of the less informed.
Related
posts:
4.
You think mutations are always negative.
This
is another one of those incredibly common and completely untrue
statements that nothing more than a few minutes’ research on the
Internet could have corrected. The truth is that mutations in nature
are usually neutral — i.e., they have no effect on the gene or
resulting protein.
Francke
should be more careful with his wording. Even “neutral”
mutations have an effect on the gene. What he means to say is that
neutral mutations seem to have no effect on the host animal. This is
a significant point and not merely a game of semantics. In a real
sense, genetic mutations are always negative in that they are
mistakes or errors in the genome. Even if they seem to have no
effect on the host they are still present in the gene and will be
passed along to the offspring. Over many generations, the mutations
will continue to accumulate and there becomes a greater danger of
some mutation becoming expressed.
Expressed
mutations in genes are usually called genetic disorders. My son, for
example, has a fairly ordinary genetic disorder – he's color blind.
He probably inherited it from his maternal grandfather who is also
color blind. It's not a debilitating disorder and my son leads a
fairly normal life. There are occasions, though, when his color
blindness has caused a certain amount of difficulty. Once, when he
was younger, he followed me out into the parking lot of our church
and he was attempting to get into the wrong car. My car was red and
he was trying the door of a green car.
Some
genetic disorders are very serious – even life threatening.
Francke mentioned sickle-cell anemia, which is a genetic disorder
that causes red blood cells to be deformed. People with sickle-cell
suffer a variety of symptoms and tend to live shorter lives. But it
is true that the deformed, blood cells cannot host malaria parasites
so people who have sickle-cell cannot have malaria. Perhaps this is
an advantage in environments where malaria is a real threat.
Otherwise, the small benefit of malaria immunity does not outweigh
the host of maladies people with sickle-cell suffer. It's a wonder
how evolutionists continue using this as an example of “evolution.”
We actually
have observed several genetic mutations that convey a benefit to the
hosts in certain environments – blind cave fish, wingless beetles,
and tusk-less elephants are examples. However, nearly all of these
represent mutations where the host creature looses something (like
eyes, wings, or tusks). Furthermore, the mutation is usually weeded
out of the gene pool when the animal is reintroduced back into the
general population. Even so, examples of mutations removing traits
from animals doesn't really help evolution which requires animals to
acquire new traits. That is, a fish born without eyes doesn't
explain how a dinosaur could acquire feathers. The blind fish may
have an advantage in a cave where there's no light but it really
doesn't help the theory of evolution in the least.
Why do
evolutionists continue to hold up such weak examples of “beneficial”
mutations? They're certainly not convincing examples of “evolution.”
It's for the same reason I've already stated above: examples of
trait-adding mutations are astonishingly scare. When I ask for
examples of new traits being observed in a population, I only ever
hear the same 3-4 questionable examples. If evolution were true, new
traits would have to appear in populations fairly frequently. We
should have plenty of examples – but we don't. That's why they
continuously trot out the same few over and over and over and over.
There's one
more thing about mutations that spell trouble for evolution. For
every beneficial mutations that might happen, there are far, far more
neutral or harmful mutations that occur. A creature may have 1,000
neutral or harmful mutations to every one beneficial mutation. Why
can't evolutionists see the obvious problem with this? The genome is
deteriorating 1,000 faster than it's improving. For a creature to
inherit just two beneficial mutations means there would be 1,000,000
neutral or harmful mutations! To inherit 3 successful mutations
means there would be 1,000,000,000 unsuccessful mutations. How long
could such a wasteful process continue until the genome becomes to
corrupt to sustain life?
Yikes!
Related
posts:
