What is Evolution

Evolution: the quick bird catches the slow bug. This is a picture of a process that evolution says created every living thing on earth. But it is not. It is just bird eating a worm.

Evolution teaches that the entire panoply of life creeped up by accidental changes and environmental stresses separating the weaker from the stronger. Evolution teaches that no matter how complex living creatures may be, the only thing that produced these complexities was random random beneficial mutations - pure accidents. After random beneficial mutations had created these complexities, then natural selection weeded out the weaker, undeveloped animals. Evolution is accidental genetic changes shaped by environmental stresses.

"... the process of mutation is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability and hence evolution. Theodosius Dobzhansky, American Scientist 45:385

Thus, says evolution, random chance will create quicker birds and smarter worms. The quick birds will weed out the stupid worms and cause the slow birds to die of hunger.

No one questions that quick birds can weed out stupid worms, but there is serious issue as to whether worms can accidentally be transformed into snakes that eat quick birds. To do that the genome must be reconfigured and significantly expanded.

But even Darwinists admit that actual evidence of beneficial mutations is extremely rare and none of them has been shown to have constructed a genetic modification, such as new nerves, new limbs, or eyes. Such a construction would require numerous, if not millions, of accidental changes.

Studies by evolutionists show that beneficial mutations are extremely rare, and when observed, they are destructive not constructive. That is, they are beneficial because a particular area of genetic code has been removed, not because new code has been inserted.

One of the first studies on actual beneficial mutations showed that 99.008% of all mutations were either damaging or neutral. (Kimura, M. 1968. Evolutionary Rate at the Molecular Level. Nature 217:624-626) and by Kimura and Ohta (Kimura, M. and Ohta, T. Theoretical Aspects of Population Genetics (Princeton University Press, Princeton N.J., 1976) pp 26-31, p 53.

In 2004, there was a study of hundreds of studies on genetic mutations. These studies had reported 453,732 observed genetic mutations. However, only 186 of them were described as "beneficial." A study of those 186 mutations showed that they had lost genetic information rather than gaining it. Bergman, J. 2004. Research on the deterioration of the genome and Darwinism: why mutations result in degeneration of the genome. Intelligent Design Conference, Biola University, April 22,23, 2004.

In a well known study by ardent Darwinists sought to show evolution in action. It studied the adaptability of e. coli bacteria to an artificial environment and discovered over 50,000 generations, there were beneficial mutations that caused e. coli to grow faster. But a closer look showed that all of the "beneficial" mutations were actually break-downs in the genome that resulted in faster growth. No new genetic instructions were added and the genome was actually smaller and e. coil were still e. coli. Lenski, R.E. 2011. Evolution in Action: a 50,000 generation salute to Charles Darwin. Microbe 6(1):30-33.

Another study found the same thing:

"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." H.J. Mueller, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11:331. Mr. Mueller won the Nobel prize for his work on mutations (emphasis supplied)

In a paper by Bataillon and Bailey (2014), two Darwinist scientists attempted to show evidence of beneficial mutations but were eventually compelled to state that their study found that "[b]eneficial mutations are exceedingly rare and can safely be ignored." The reason that they give for this was not that evolution did not occur but because their subjects had already reached the peak of their evolutionary capacity and could not evolve further. Bataillon, T. and S.F. Bailey. 2014. Effects of new mutations on fitness: insights from models and data. doi: 10.1111/nyas.12460 Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. (2014) 1-17.

Thus the argument emerges: Random beneficial mutations and natural selection created everything. And just because no study shows that they actually do it does not mean that it didn't happen a long time ago. We can't find any evidence of constructive beneficial mutations because everything has already evolved. Thus, we arrive at the cardinal rule: No matter what is observed, evolution has been proven.

Even if there were no actual evidence for evolution, evolution would still be proven:

"Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory ... we would still be justified in preferring it over rival theories [creationism]."

And again:

Evolutionist D.M.S. Watson states the case with pristine clarity:

"[Evolution is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." D.M.S.Watson, "Adaptation," Nature, Vol. 123 (1929), p. 233.

This is a theological conclusion, not a scientific one. Evolution is based upon the premise that there is no Creator. Therefore, evolution is true because it is the best alternative explanation.

The immense complexity of life and the absence of any observable evidence that the genome has at any time been expanded by beneficial mutations dictate a single conclusion: At the present state of observed truth, complex organisms were not formed by successive, slight modifications.

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ could not have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications my theory absolutely would break down. Charles Darwin. Origin of Species, p.189 1st ed.

Suppose we make no presumption about a Creator whatever. Neither presume that the Creator exists nor presume that a Creator does not exist. And make no presumption about evolution. Neither presume that evolution is true nor presume that it is false. But instead, look only at the observable evidence.

For instance:

One hundred thousand chemical formula in-coded into a language that is written into the arrangement of the atoms in a molecule would seem to indicate that they had been placed there on purpose rather than created by accidents and quick birds eating slow worms. See DNA

Or a living computer containing as many organized electrical connections as the leaves on the trees in a forest half the size of the U.S. would indicate that perhaps something other than theoretical genetic mutations and dying animals had constructed it. Circuits in the Human Brain

Or the rest of the examples on this website . . .

The point is that if the observers had carried no pre-conception whatever about the existence of a Creator, their conclusions would undoubtedly have been drastically different.