Beneficial Mutations?

•    Evolutionists know that mutations are overwhelmingly either harmful or just meaningless genetic “noise”.

•    However their belief system demands that there must have been “upward” mutations on occasion.

•    There are in fact a tiny handful of mutations known which make it easier for an organism to survive in a given environment:

–   Eyeless fish in caves survive better as they are not prone to eye disease/injury

–   Wingless beetles do better on a windy rock in the sea because they are less likely to be blown away and drowned.

•    But the loss of eyes or the loss or corruption of information necessary to manufacture wings is a defect - a crippling of a previously functional piece of machinery.

•    Such changes, though “beneficial” in a purely survival sense, are not an example of real upward increases in information - new coding for new functions, new useful structures.

•    It’s no use turning to insecticide resistance in insects - in almost every case the information for resistance was there in a few individuals in the population before man began to spray.

Think About It

n Isn’t this exactly what you’d expect?

n When information is transmitted (and that’s what reproduction is) - it either stays the same or gets less.

n Whether in living or non-living things, real information is never seen to rise or increase by itself.

n  Therefore, when you consider the world’s living things, as a whole, the total amount of information is decreasing with time, as it is being copied over and over.

n  Matter left to itself (as far as real, observational science goes) does not give rise to such information.

n  So the only alternative is that at some point a creative mind outside the system imposed intelligence on matter and programmed all the original kinds of plants and animals.

n  This is quite consistent with the Genesis statement that God created organisms to reproduce “after their kind”.

n  For example, a hypothetical “dog kind” created with a large amount of built-in variation (and no original defects) could, simply by recombinations of that original information, give rise to: wolf, coyote, dingo, Great Dane, Chihuahua and so forth.

n  In the same way the original “elephant kind” may have been split (by natural selection acting on its created information) into:

n  African Elephant

n  Indian Elephant

n  Mammoth (now extinct)

n  Mastodon (now extinct)

n  It should be obvious that this sort of change is only within the limits of the original information in that kind.

n  This sort of variation does not offer any way to eventually turn an amoeba into an avocado tree, since no genetic information is being added.

n  Such thinning of the gene pool may be called “evolution” by some, but does not resemble the sort of information-adding change that is generally meant when the term evolution is used.

Peppered Moths – The Rest of the Story

•    The textbook story of England’s famous peppered moths goes like this:

–   The moths come in light and dark forms.

–   Pollution from the Industrial Revolution darkened the tree trunks.

–   The lighter moths which had been well camouflaged against the light background now stood out and so birds more readily ate them.

–   Therefore the proportion of the dark moths increased dramatically.

–   Later, pollution was cleaned up, and the light moth became predominant again.

•    The story generated boundless evolutionary enthusiasm.

•    H.B. Kettlewell who performed most of the classic experiments, said that if Darwin had seen this, “He would have witnessed the consummation and confirmation of his life’s work.”

•    Note: Even as it stands, the textbook story demonstrates nothing more than gene frequencies shifting back and forth, by natural selection, within one created kind. It offers nothing which, even given millions of years, could add the sort of complex design information needed for amoeba-to-man evolution.

•    But as it turns out, this classic story is full of holes anyway:

–   Peppered moths don’t even rest on tree trunks during the day - the latest story is that they rest on the leaves in the tops of the trees, but no one really knows for sure!

–   The moths filmed being eaten by the birds were laboratory-bred ones placed onto tree trunks by Kettlewell!

–   And all those still photos of moths on tree trunks? One paper described how it was done – dead moths were glued to the tree. University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees for a NOVA documentary. He says textbooks and films have featured “a lot of fraudulent photographs.”

•    University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne agrees that the peppered moth story, which was “the prize horse in our stable”, has to be thrown out

•    He says the realization gave him the same feeling as when he found out that Santa Clause wasn’t real.

•    Regrettably, hundreds of millions of students have once more been indoctrinated with “proof of evolution” which is riddled with error, fraud and half-truths.

Implied Designer

As beings made in the image of God, we have the ability to discern design or know that something has been designed - even if we don't personally know the designer. For example, someone who had never seen Mount Rushmore before, upon observing it for the first time, may not know who designed and made it, but they would clearly know that it had been designed. No one seeing Mount Rushmore for the first time would think that it had been carved out by random natural forces (e.g. wind and weather) acting over time without purpose.

And yet ironically, the men portrayed on Mount Rushmore (and all other human beings), though millions of times more complex than Mount Rushmore itself, are said by some to have come about by random natural forces acting over time without purpose!

Romans 1:20 - Since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities . . . have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.