App
In the last chapter, we found that Tenet #1 of Darwinian evolution—that life originated spontaneously in some primordial soup—is utterly unsupportable, disproved by countless known scientific facts and by mathematics.
Does Tenet #2 of Darwinian evolution stand up any better to scientific scrutiny? Let’s see. There were four sub-tenets to Tenet #2 of the theory of biological macroevolution. Let us examine each, one at a time.
a) “Changes in a species of organism occur by mutation.” Do mutations occur in nature? They most certainly do.
b) “Mutations must be inherited by subsequent generations.” Can some mutations be genetically inherited? Some mutations are in fact passed on to the next generation.
c) “Through ‘natural selection,’ those mutations that made the species ‘more fit’ prevailed over those which did not improve the species.” Are most mutations of a nature that “improves” an organism or makes it more fit?
Far from it! (We will examine this issue in more detail in a later chapter.)
Here is where we begin to have a problem. Almost no mutations are to the benefit or improvement of an organism. Most have little or no effect on it at all, and are labeled as genetically “neutral.” Of those few that have any significant effect, however, nearly all are of a degenerative nature. In fact, in the opinion of many geneticists, any mutations that would contribute to an upward evolutionary spiral are virtually non-existent. 20
d) “After multiple such changes and selections, one species eventually gave rise to another species—a process repeated thousands of times over millions of years, in the direction of better-organized, morecomplex ‘higher’ life forms, culminating in the development of the ‘human species.’ ” While adaptations within species and genera over time have been repeatedly demonstrated, evolutionists have begged the question of whether one type of organism can, by this means, ever give rise to another kind of organism.
Such a transformation has NEVER been demonstrated, either in the fossil record or by observation! There is evidence some genera may have diversified into several species (such as canidae giving rise to wolf, fox, jackal, dingo, etc). Essentially, this “genus” (using the terminology of Mendel, who based his classifications on Bible terms) corresponds to the biblical term “kind.” If some genera have diversified into species, that does not by itself prove macroevolution.
The notion that “beneficial” mutations passed on by heredity (followed by natural selection) comprise the entire explanation for how a one-celled proto-life “evolved” into the diversity of living organisms we have today—including humanity—is utterly disproved. Those who insist on believing it are simply believing in fairy tales!
Geoffrey Simmons, M.D., points out, “Some scientists think that one beneficial mutation happens per 20,000 mutations. Or reverse this: 19,999 out of 20,000 mutations are useless, dangerous or quickly diluted out. To calculate the mathematical likelihood of man’s DNA having so come correctly—by mere chance—multiply 6,000,000,000 by a number just short of infinity.
“Nesse and Williams estimate the likelihood of any gene being altered as one in a million per generation—and most often these changes are either lethal or lead to freaks. How could so many efficient and effective changes have taken place so quickly?” 21 (Bold emphasis added). Assuming the imagined succession of one species by another could have ever occurred—much less in the order generally pictured—the time required for the process to happen purely by chance would be multiple quadrillions of years, not just a few billion.
