I’ve taken some time to once again, research the broad topic of evolution. I’ve, once again, confirmed my belief that it is incorrect, and that the best explanation is found in Genesis for how we got to where we are today.
Evolution is really three topics wrapped up in most people’s minds.
- Micro-evolution, or rather, diversity within populations.
- Macro-evolution, or apes-to-humans evolution.
- Abiogenesis, or life from nothing.
These are listed in their easiness to convince people.
Micro-evolution is something everyone understands. If you have a bunch of redheads living in a town, and they intermarry, then you’ll have even more redheads, and so on. We see this among the animals, plants, and humans across the world. In fact, It’s obviously explained in the biblical passages. People who belong in one branch of the human family are more similar to their branch than other branches.
Micro-evolution depends on the following ideas, all of which are obviously true, and I don’t know anyone that doubts:
- Children inherit traits from their parents, whether it is animals, plants, or humans.
- Sometimes, children are mutants—that is, they have inherited corrupted traits from their parents.
- Traits which favor reproductive viability among a population, over time, become over-expressed. Traits which do not favor reproductive viability tend to diminish.
- Occasionally, mutations will become common among a population due to 2 and 3 combined.
We know all of this simply by looking at dogs. Purebred dogs are bred in a particular way to keep the offspring as close to the ideal animal as possible. Some of the offspring simply don’t represent a large enough set of traits, and are eliminated from the gene pool. Others demonstrate very positive traits and are kept for breeding.
What has happened over time is the dogs have been passing around mutations. We know that purebreds are generally dumber than mutts, and the reason is rather obvious. In emphasizing certain traits, other traits fall to the wayside because they are not important. Add in random mutations, and we have purebred varieties that are all but facing extinction because they are so weak.
One of the reasons I believe America is doing so well is because of our genetic diversity. We have people breeding with each other in our country from places all over the earth. We are the ultimate mutt-race, and that means we are breeding based mostly on reproductive viability, which makes us a more reproductive nation.
Macro-evolution is where evolution “jumps the shark.” The thought is that micro-evolution is the only explanation we need for why we have the variety of animals and plants on the earth. The problem with this is really fundamental, and I think a healthy understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics will mean you can see why it’s nonsense.
In thermodynamics, you have tiny particles that move randomly about. While you can’t predict what any one particle is going to do at any one moment, you do know the net behavior of all the particles acting in total. One of the most noteworthy conclusions is that over time, things become more and more disorganized. That is, you start off with everything in perfect order, and then over time, you get garbage. In thermodynamics, you lose energy to entropy, and it can never, ever be reclaimed. Thus, the talk about the heat-death of the universe.
What evolutionist must explain is why random variations in the genetic code (mutations) would ever lead to an advantage over a pure, unadulterated copy of the genetic code. That is, how is it possible that you can get a more-ordered thing from a less-ordered thing? The argument evolutionists use is “survival of the fittest”, among other things. To be honest, I don’t buy it. I mean, maybe, with some random, chance occurrence, a mutation occurs that actually doesn’t lead to some negative consequence. And then, by a remarkable stroke of luck, it turns out that the mutation is exactly what is needed to improve the reproductive viability of the subject, and it gets introduced into the population and it dominates. What you’re asking for is such an improbable event, that if we ever found it happening in nature, we would need to immediately stop the presses and talk about how such a fascinating improbable event as that happened.
Now, evolutionists wave their hands, and say, “But we have millions—BILLIONS—of years to work with!” Well, let’s do the math. The chance of getting a positive mutation, a mutation that would survive, is, let’s say, one in a billion. (I’m being extremely generous here.) If you have a million animals, then at best, you get one positive change every thousand years. Divide a billion by a thousand, and you have a million. So, from the beginning of life on earth, I’m supposed to believe that we’ve had about a million positive changes that lead to all the creatures we see around us? Keep in mind, I’m being very generous with the estimate of 1-in-a-billion chance. If we used something I’m more comfortable with, then the number of times we’d see a positive change can probably be counted by a 1st Grader.
Billions of years are not enough. You need trillions, quadrillions, numbers so large that it truly becomes ridiculous. Keep in mind, that in the age when the age of the earth was introduced as billions of years, people though it was only 6,000 years old. To them, 6,000 years was enough for the entire fossil record to be generated, so saying billions of years meant anything was possible.
If you’re going to run with billions, then the chance of a positive mutation occurring would need to be much, much higher. I think someone said that there are about a million differences between apes and humans. Well, if that’s the case, then we’re talking about maybe trillions of changes globally since the beginning of time. (Keep in mind, not every change lasted. The variety of living things alive today are a fraction of what used to be alive.) So, in billion years, you need trillions of changes, meaning every year you have 1,000+ positive changes. Certainly, in the time that the concept of evolution was introduced, we could have captured a tiny number of these changes, and we should have a library full of them. At the very least, we should have hard evidence on 100+ positive mutations.
But we don’t. We have what may be three or four, and even then, it’s not really apparent that it’s significant.
But that’s not the end of it, or rather, even the beginning. You need to show that, over time, everything ends up as a net positive. After all, over time, creatures grew more complicated, right? I don’t think the mathematics behind the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics will agree with that, even with “survival of the fittest”. I don’t hear evolutionists explaining why they don’t have to solve the same equations I had to when I proved that heat always flows from hot to cold (without energy inputted.)
I believe that over time, our genetic quality is decreasing. Eventually, without any outside force, the entire planet will become extinct, because not enough creatures are reproductively viable anymore. That’s certainly what the fossil record says. The earth used to be full of diversity. What we have today is a comparative desert.
With point 2 under such heavy doubt, and with such an insurmountable mountain to climb, I think evolution is beat. But it gets better.
See, what you need is a beginning: a first life, so to speak. And you need it to have, at minimum, certain characteristics so that evolution is even possible (forget the probabilities.) Where did this come from? We are told that primordial goo was the origin of life on earth. No one dare say how exactly this would have happened. But let’s suppose that someone works out an exact model that could describe the possibility of chemicals coming together in a particular arrangement, even in the most favorable circumstances. Here’s the rub: I bet that the actual probability of the events that need to happen at the same time, actually happening at the same time, are astronomically small. So small that a billion universes with trillions of earths exactly like ours would never see it happen in a quadrillion years.
In other words, it not only didn’t happen, it could never happen.
I think the appeal to evolution is done without any sound ideas of what the general probabilities or time frames are. There is a curious lack of any numbers, any logical reasoning beyond, “Things COULD HAVE occurred this way.” That’s fun and interesting, but it doesn’t do anything to tell us what actually happened. Using the Anthropic Principle (no matter how unlikely the events are that give rise to intelligent life, since only intelligent life could have comprehended them, then they must have happened to intelligent life) you can prove any possibility, so it’s garbage.
One thing that grates me is evolutionists who bring up falsifiability. That is, that any good theory will open itself up to contradiction by observed reality. Well, the original theory of evolution was falsified. It’s garbage, a historical footnote to the annals of bad science. What you have today is something that resembles the original theory in name only. It doesn’t even give a good rule of thumb, since hardly anything we see in nature agrees with its ideas. The rare, rare, cases that seem to agree with it are so few and far between, the fact that they are so hard to find is a testament to how wrong it all is. But that doesn’t stop the dedicated evolutionist. No, it’s not the theory that’s wrong, it’s reality.
Evolution is right up there with Global Warming, or any number of sciences that people really, really wished were true but simply aren’t and never can be. It’s a scam, it’s a fad, it’s outright war against logic and reason and observation and reproducibility of results. It’s worse than ignorance. It’s the polar opposite of science. It actually makes people more stupid than they were to begin with. It’s the kind of thinking that if we allow to persist, we’ll be right back to worshiping dumb idols the way our ancestors did.
But showing why one theory is wrong isn’t the same as showing why my theory is right.
Why do I believe in Creationism? Note the key word here: “believe”. I believe in Creation because I trust God more than I do myself and my five senses and my reasoning. He’s proven himself to me everytime I’ve had an opportunity to test him. I have confidence that when he says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” he knows what he’s talking about. To me, science is a pursuit to understand God, not to live independent of him. That’s why I love physics. We actually go out there, measure reality, and then point out how stupid we all are and how foolish we have been since the beginning of time. It’s the ultimate humbling experience to have a philosophical discussion with a physicist who has hard evidence, complete with verified probabilities, showing you why your perception of reality is not only wrong, but a menace to society, and why you are an idiot and will be forever.
That’s what science should be: the ultimate pursuit of truth through debilitating humility.