Class Resources‎ > ‎

Do Animals Evolve ~ Part I

posted Jan 14, 2013, 7:59 AM by Grace Christian   [ updated Jun 12, 2014, 11:00 AM by Nate Mosley ]

Part I

When answering the questions in the creation/evolution topic, no questions posed seems to be more relevant than this one. Using good, observable science, do animals evolve? Scientists claim that this process is so slow, that it can't be observed. So how do we find the answer? Obviously, if we went from amoeba, to fish, to amphibian, to reptile, to bird, to land mammal, to ape-like creature, to man, and if the fossil record represents earth's history over millions of years, there should be plenty of evidence of evolution contained in the rocks, right? Charles Darwin thought so.

In his book, "The Origin of Species", he wrote:

"The number of intermediate varieties that have formerly lived on the earth must be truly enormous. Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain: and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

Darwin acknowledged the lack of intermediates, (or evidence of one kind of animal becoming another in the fossil record), to the lack of fossils that they had acquired at the time. He had faith in his theory and had faith that one day, all of the intermediate fossils would be found.

However, this year marks the 150th anniversary since Darwin made that statement in his book and still, nothing has shown up. After scientists have searched diligently for a century and a half for evidence, we now have over 100 million fossils catalogued in the world's museums, with 250,000 different species. All evolutionists point to, are a few debatable transitional forms that we will talk about in detail in lessons to come. But laying that aside, if evolution were true, there should be thousands of examples that we couldn't argue. Yet, that is not what we find at all.

Many people don't take creationists seriously, because they buy into statements like this one on a sign at a Charles Darwin exhibit in the London Natural Museum. It reads:

Before Charles Darwin, most people believed that God created all living things in exactly the form we see them today. This is the basis for the doctrine of creation.

Is this what we believe? Do we believe that all the living things are today exactly as God created them? No; not all. Obviously, animals change. Dogs bring forth a variety of dogs. But no matter how far from the original you get, it will always be a dog. It's not too hard to see how a wolf, a coyote, a dingo and a collie could all be from two original kinds of dogs. But, were Chihuahua's in the Garden of Eden? I doubt it; they are a product of genetic variation, mutations, manmade breeding, etc. But, no matter how much breeding you do, you're not going to bring forth a different kind of animal. There is genetic variation, but there are limits. What sets the limits of change? The answer is found in the information contained in the DNA of the animal.

Evolutionists believe in no genetic limits. They believe a dinosaur can eventually evolve into a bird. In order for that to happen, eventually, the dinosaur DNA would have to add the information necessary to produce feathers. This is far from all that would have to be added in order for this to happen, but this one thing is enough because the addition of information to the DNA is not observable science. All we see passed on to the offspring is a variation of information that is already present in the DNA. No scientist has ever observed new information being added to the DNA of an organism, in fact, mutations and natural selection, the two most used mechanisms for evolution, tend to cause a loss of information, never a gain of information.

Dr. Lee Spetner, in the book, "Not By Chance", puts it this way:

Not even one mutation has been observed to add a little information to the genome......The failure to observe even one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence against the theory. 

As we will see in the weeks to come on this topic, Dr. Spetner's findings are reaffirmed over and over again. So many times the creation/evolution debate is touted as science versus religion. However, as we will see, real observable science actually testifies against evolution. Evolution is actually a humanistic, naturalistic religion in itself that attempts to answer the questions of life without a supernatural Creator. The further we get into the subject, the more you will see that they fail on every front. If you're looking for answers and you're looking for truth, let's look to the One who is, in Himself, Truth.

Comments