Two Questions Sent To Me By An Evolutionist:
1. Surely Neo-Darwinism Seeks to Take Out Earlier Errors Within the Broad Spectrum of Evolution and Should be Applauded. So Why Are You so Biased?
2. If it is Now Known that We Are Genetically 98% the Same as Chimps, Why Do You Continue to Argue With Evolution?
Okay, so first of all what is Neo-Darwinism? (If you are interested only in the second question, please scroll down).
Definitions differ slightly but it is the attempt to make general evolutionary theory fit in with what is sometimes called “modern genetics.” In a nutshell, Neo-Darwinism comprises three points:
That mutations can create beneficial new genetic information.
That Natural Selection (the survival of the fittest) helps the mutant take over the population of that species.
That hundreds of millions of years were required (and available) for this to be successful.
Okay, let us consider
In fact, mutations are 98-99% deadly – I mean that they kill! Of the other 1-2% it is known that they have no positive value whatever! Within nature, Natural Selection itself removes mutations. Of course, scientists are well aware of this. Evolutionary researchers can produce mutations in the laboratory and spend many hours playing with them and manage to convince themselves that mutations caused evolution because it is all that they have. Mutations do not add new genetic information! Micro-adaptation (a better term than micro-evolution) is caused by the sorting or the loss of already existing genetic information. In this manner we have varying types of dogs, horses, tomatoes or anything else, but a 'kind' is never broken so while it is possible to produce huge, longish-shaped or yellow (rather than red) tomatoes, they will always remain tomatoes! This is caused by the sorting or loss of already-present genetic information – there is never any new genetic information! Moreover, in general, things are 'running down' – not improving! (the law of entropy).
So not only is the first plank of Neo-Darwinism seriously flawed (it has never been known for mutations to create beneficial new genetic information), but so also is its second plank (Natural Selection, or 'the survival of the fittest' really does occur, of course, but it eradicates the weakest and the mutants always go first!)
Now evolutionary scientists would (probably reluctantly) agree with much of what I just wrote but they would claim the third plank of Neo-Darwinism as the saviour of their theory: they would say, 'Yes, but during a period of hundreds of millions of years it all started to happen!' This is why evolution is both a religion of faith and a philosophy - but it is very bad science indeed and I take real joy that more and more scientists every year are starting to admit this.
Evolutionary scientists believe that what they admit to being 'highly improbable' did indeed happen over hundreds of millions of years (although they recognize that the odds are powerfully stacked against this), but every evolutionary scientist in the world would admit that if it could be demonstrated that, in fact, this world is no more than 6-12 thousand years old then evolution could not have happened. These people must rely on a certain pious belief that – for some peculiar reason – mutations became beneficial processes at some time in the past – even though they themselves will never have witnessed this because they are definitely not beneficial today!! This is a very clear example of using imposed theories to overturn the clear evidence of observable science!
I just read the statement of an evolutionary biologist in which she said that, “The evidence for evolution is wonderfully plentiful.” Of course, the lady in question was referring to micro-adaptation. Evolutionists apparently continue to purposely set out to confuse by talking about Natural Selection (the survival of the fittest) and micro-adaptation (fascinating variations within kinds like yellow tomatoes) and then inferring that these things substantiate the big picture of evolution (that is, macro-evolution: species changing and breaking out of their 'kinds' so that we get birds from dinosaurs and humans from monkeys!) - it does not substantiate it and they must be aware of this. This is just plain intellectual dishonesty of the very first order – It is inexcusable!!
If Neo-Darwinism is really all that can be salvaged from Darwin's Origin of Species then this just clearly demonstrates that evolution is already a 'dead duck' - its just that it does not seem to know it yet!
Okay. So are we genetically 98% the same as chimps? And, if we are, does this really prove anything or provide strong evidence for anything at all? Or is this just providing biased, 'stacked' and purposely misleading information?
Now let us consider this, and I am here indebted to Russ Miller of Creation, Evolution and Science Ministries for some helpful information.
First of all, some scientists challenge the 98% figure claiming that 93-96% is closer.
Here is a wonderful example of the use of selective information whilst ignoring other information which is not helpful to an argument! It could be said, for instance, that there are thousands of differences between chimps and humans – I repeat: there are thousands of differences. But obviously pointing that out would not be helpful for evolutionists so they look for something which looks better.
Now lets get this useless statistic into perspective:
Our biochemistry is about 97% the same as a mouse.
Our biochemistry is about 50% the same as a banana.
Human Cytochrom 'C' is closest to that of a sunflower.
Human eyes are closest to the eyes of an octopus.
Human skin is closest to that of a pig.
I think we can see that randomly quoted things like this do not amount to evidence of anything whatsoever!!
The truth is that – despite superficial similarities – humans are totally different to chimpanzees – as already mentioned the differences number in the thousands.
Why do I oppose evolution? I continue to oppose evolution because it is just plain wrong! It is a philosophy which purposely set out to attack the Holy Bible and Christianity in the guise of “good science” but it is a theory and a philosophy which is imposed on a mountain of evidence which is actually against it. To be frank, the evidence of millions of fossils is that divine creation is true and much other evidence points in the same direction. There is no reason that a theory which is so shot full of holes needs to be seriously considered. This philosophy soon developed into a religion with devout evolutionists clinging to it by sheer faith, yet the good news is that creationists are increasingly being joined by scientists (often with the very highest credentials) in opposing it. I don't care whether one talks about evolution or Neo-Darwinism – the whole thing is flawed. Microbiologist Michael Behe's work on Irreducible Complexity seems to signal the final death knell although evolutionists will undoubtedly continue the struggle a little while longer yet.
Meanwhile, we should be clear that Natural Selection (the survival of the fittest) and micro-adaptation (variations within kinds - we should refuse to call this micro-evolution) plainly occur but are nothing whatsoever to do with the big lie of Darwinism (macro-evolution) which plainly flies in the face of all observable scientific data. So if somebody accuses me of rejecting evolution on “religious grounds”, I immediately throw this right back at them : it is they who accept evolution on blind faith – without anywhere near sufficient evidence (as many evolutionists will honestly admit) – their faith is faith indeed.
Robin A. Brace, 2005.