Refuting "macroevolution" using science

The evidence against evolution is mounting daily in the scientific community.
Theories are changed daily as to the origin of the universe and life.

does "microevolution" lead to "macroevolution"?
Clarifying evolution - 3 quotations:

"How macroevolution progressed in the past cannot be determined from the
study of microevolutionary processes." -
Harold R. Booher, PhD, Origins, Icons and Illusions

"Macroevolutionary theories are not reducible (at least at the present state
of knowledge) to microevolution... macroevolution is an autonomous field of
study that must develop and test its own theories." -
Francisco Ayala (Professor of Genetics), Reduction in Biology

Microevolution does not lead to macroevolution - it has never been observed to happen.

"We the undersigned, oppose the statement on evolution passed by the
Professional Concerns Committee of the Faculty Senate at Northern Kentucky
University. Use of the term "evolution" without clarifying that it refers to
different processes, one fact and one theory, hinders both science and
education and promotes confusion and misunderstanding."

The concept of "macroevolution" is highly dependent upon faith
as there is no evidence in real science to support it. It has
a zealous following in academia and the media.

One must ask the question "why?".

The concept of "microevolution" is often referred to as the adaptation of a species.
These adaptations have never produced a new function, but merely eliminated or modifed
existing features. Any changes found within a species were in the genetic code,
or were mutated over time, but mutations have never produced beneficial results...
neutral at best... mostly harmful otherwise. Nothing new has "evolved".

The evolution of the horse is cited as an example, but one quickly learns that the
evolution displayed is a reduction of complexity, i.e. the horse went from several
toes to one. Nothing was added, only removed or reduced.

Nothing has ever been found to support the idea that one species has become another
one. There's more than one missing link in that argument.

The idea that life spontaneously started suffers greatly at the table of probability,
regardless of how much time is permitted. Time is not the friend of these theories
as time also works against their success as based upon the second law of thermodynamics.

Second Law of Thermodynamics - The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that everything
wears out over time and does not become more complex.

the fossil record (there is none)

the unsolveable problems of evolution:
No explanation for why life contains only left-handed amino acids
No explanation for how life could start WITH or WITHOUT oxygen in the atmosphere
No explanation for how life could start in the oceans (hydrolysis)
No explanation for how evolution could occur in harmony with the Second Law of Thermodynamics
No explanation for the origin of information.

evolutionists can't have it both ways...
Oxygen in the atmosphere would prevent life from starting...
No oxygen in the atmosphere would prevent life from starting...

Water (hydrolysis) would prevent life from starting...

Miller experiment - a failure...
The Miller experiment failed to produce LIFE...
-- Miller's experiment produced both right and left handed amino acids
-- the mixture of LH and RH amino acids is a poison to life.
-- All biological proteins have 100% left-handed amino acids.
-- Amino acids are all left-handed in life
-- When an organism dies, amino acids revert back to a mix.
-- Out of thousands of amino acids, only 20 are suitable for life
-- When left alone, a solution of all left-handed amino acids revert back to a mix.

However, the experiment does supports the concept of Intelligent Design... many controls were used...

Mutations? a sign of macroevolution?
Can mutations cause macroevolution?
Most mutations are harmful, or at best, neutral to an organism, not beneficial.

Random mutations only produce random mistakes.
They must be related, beneficial mutations in order to make a new feature
such as an arm, a leg, or other function over time.

Can mutations cause macroevolution?
Quotes by a molecular biologist and biomedical engineer -
"But there is no evidence that DNA mutations can provide the
sorts of variation needed for evolution... The sorts of variations which can
contribute to Darwinian evolution, however, involve things like bone structure or body plan.
There is no evidence for beneficial mutations at the level of macroevolution, but there is
also no evidence at the level of what is commonly regarded as microevolution."
- Jonathan Wells, Molecular Biologist

How would a species survive with only part of a function? It is illogical to assume
that time would help in this case. A defense mechanism that supposedly evolved
to help a species survive would have to work the first time. Often these defensive
functions are quite complex in their own right. The bombadier beetle is one excellent
example of why evolution is illogical. If all that functionality didn't work "out of
the box" that little bug wouldn't have made it at all. The probability that all
that happened by chance is so far out there that it falls into the area of fairy tales.
It's wishful thinking... or ignoring the facts... or simply avoiding the truth.

big bang - big bust
"[the big bang] represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws,
the sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come
out of nothing. It represents a true miracle..."
Paul Davies, The Edge of Infinity

You can't have it both ways... you can't have natural laws AND miracles...
Evolution relies on miracles with no miracle worker...

So, how is evolution science?

the four things required for evolution to work:
1. An open system
2. A source of energy
3. A mechanism to capture energy
4. A mechanism to convert energy into usable energy for doing work.

3 and 4 are generally left out of the text books. If you can't
capture energy you can't put it to work.

1. How can a mechanism to capture energy develop?
2. How could lifeless (non-complex) chemicals spontaneously develop into
a complex energy capture system?

These can't be explained by evolutionists... Catch 22 situation...

5 step circular reasoning
1. Work must be done in order to become more complex.
2. We need energy to perform this work.
3. We have energy all around us (the sun), but we need to capture
and store it so we can use it

4. We need to build a mechanism that can capture and store some of
this energy so we can perform work and grow more complex.

5. We have no energy to do this work because we have no mechanism
to capture and store energy (go to step 4).

two formulas

Formula A - evolution:

M + E + T = life

Formula B - creation:

M + E + T + OI = life

Which formula is correct?

It always takes outside intelligence always to create
complex designs... (e.g. computers, 747s, or life...)

M - Matter
E - Energy
T - Time
OI - Outside Intelligence

definitions

assume - to take as granted though not proved
belief - confidence, trust; something believed; conviction, opinion
bias - prejudice
evidence - an outward sign; proof, testimony; matter submitted in court to determine the truth of alleged facts
facts - the quality of being actual; something that exists or occurs; a piece of information about such a fact
idea - a plan for action; something imagined or pictured in the mind; concept
model - structural design; a miniature representation; an example for imitation
objective - existing outside and independent of the mind;
treating or dealing with facts without distortion by personal feelings or prejudices
prejudice - an opinion for or against something without adequate basis
records - a written record of proceedings; known facts about a person
subjective - relating to or arising within one’s self or mind in contrast to what is outside
theories - the general principles drawn from any body of facts;
a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle offered to explain observed facts

WHAT IS EVOLUTION? - it is a strongly held to religious faith...

Evolutionist cannot explain the origin of matter,
the origin of life,
nor do they have a mechanism for how one species can change into a new species.

The question is why is a belief in evolution so feverently held?

What are the options?

Logic indicates there are only two possibilities as to the origin of life as we know it:

1) we evolved over eons and eons of time... we sprang up from nothing...
2) we were created by an intelligent everlasting being from nothing...

Science is not kind to the first possiblity as there is no evidence to support it.
Creation by an intelligent being has evidence in the record of the Bible. It is a remarkable
document that is trustworthy historically, archeologically and scientifically. No known science
contradicts the Bible. However, we must remember that the Bible is not a science book, it
is the revelation of the creator to us, and focuses on his plan for mankind and creation.

Both theories require faith. What is terribly wrong in our society is that the religion
of evolution is presented as science and creationism is excluded as a religion.

The question of why can be answered simply by recognizing the consequences of recognizing
that there is a creator. If there is a creator, he has revealed himself to us, and revealed
what he expects of us, then we are accountable to him.

The fact that the Bible clearly indicates that man is in rebellion against God clearly points
out why there is such a fervent and passionate following of the evolution model.

If we were dealing with logic then the ability to present the logical and rational argument
of the creation model would not be a problem. Simply comparing the mechanisms of both
should be totally feasible within an objective environment. Yet it doesn't happen that way
at all. If the Bible is illogical, then why not deal with it? The order of the creation
and the account in Genesis makes perfect logical sense and does not represent a technical
problem. Of course it has to be accepted on faith, but it's not illogical.

The evolutionist has to rely on faith to explain their model. There are no facts. No one
observed the process. No one was there to note the climb out of the primordial soup. If
it happened that way we have no record. Probability, the fossil record, observed adaptation
within species, DNA, RNA and the information record all work against their theories.

The creationist has to rely on faith for their model, but they have an ancient document
that has withstood the test of time and hostile witnesses. It is logical and answers
ALL of the questions. It presents an airtight case as to how we got here. It is not
flawed.

I think the simplest answer to how we got here is best explained with the record in
Genesis: "Then God said, "Let there be..."" (Remember Ockam's razor)

Basically, my thought on this is that God converted energy into matter... God exists.
He exists apart from time and space as we know it. He created the universe and set into
motion laws that we are able to see and learn. The evidence of intelligent design in
our world is not hard to see. To claim that the complexity of life randomnly evolved
over time is basicly absurd. It defies evidence, logic and science as we know it.
It is simply a religious belief reflecting a hostile and rebellious attitude toward the
creator. It requires more faith than a faith in a creator god. Created man shaking
his pitiful fist at an invisible God. Created man ignoring the "instruction manual"
and doing it on his own. It wouldn't be so bad if a careful examination of that
"instruction manual" had taken place, but it hasn't. It is rejected and ignored
to great peril.

The truth will be known in time... but for many it will be too late.

How did we get here?
Where are we going?
Why?
For what reason are we here?

The fact that as human beings we ask these questions indicate something unique
and special about us. Animals don't ponder these issues. Something is different
about this species called man.

I believe that the answers are found in the Bible. It is logical, in line
with known science, answers all the questions and provides a clear idea of what
it's all about. That it is rejected by mankind is also identified in it's very
pages. Man has one big problem... the Bible calls it sin. Death is a result
of sin. The solution to that problem is found in Jesus Christ. There are
other pages on this site that will provide further explanation. The answer
of course is one of faith. Plain and simple.

I hope your faith is in Jesus Christ and not in the false sciences of
secular humanism and evolution... they are merely wishful thinking and totally
devoid of hope and answers to the questions of life.

john

Science and the Bible

wagoneers.com

Buy this FSJ decal...
...use PayPal to pay for it!

AMSOIL synthetic lubricants and filters

(please use customer #283461)

Shop AMAZON.com from wagoneers.com!

Search:

Keywords:

these pages protected by US Copyright laws

contact john-at-wagoneers.com