eVideNce fOr eVoLutiOn!!!!

Well, Christians, after 2000 years it’s time to pack it up. It was a good run for Christianity, but it’s over. A modern day Chuck confirmed the 19th century Chuck’s theory of evolution with a link to an article that holds the smoking gun for naturalism. “Evidence for evolution is uNdeNiabLe!!!!”.

At least that’s the claim they are making.

Before we discard the only valid worldview that can justify the preconditions for intelligibility, let’s take a closer look at the claim of the evolutionists and cross-examine their assertions

Here’s the conversation on Twitter that led to the analysis of this peer-reviewed article. I challenged this particular God-denier to produce undeniable proof that creatures lacking a particular trait gained a new trait in an immediately subsequent generation via natural selection acting on random mutations. He posted this link to a peer-reviewed article on ScienceDaily from 2008.

Here are the 3 claims from that article that they assert is a demonstration of new traits that produced by natural selection acting on random mutations that previous generations did not possess:

  1. “Striking differences in head size and shape”
  2. “increased bite strength”
  3. “development of new structures in the lizard’s digestive tracts”

Let’s take their claims one by one to see if it is indeed an undeniable example of natural selection acting on random mutations to produce novel traits

Head Shape and Size

Just from the initial reading of the text, we see that a different size head is not a new trait. Variable sizes in existing structures (head, arms, legs, noses…) is not an example of evolution. In that same way that we see different domestic dogs breeds with different size heads (poodle, St. Bernard) but they are the same species, there is variability in the genes. There are people that are tall and short, big heads and small heads, long arms and short arms…but to claim that this variability within the same species is “evoLuTioN” is ridiculous. They might have helped their case if they had given some measurements before/after, but this vital piece of evidence is missing. The claim that “changes in head size” is an example of evolution is inconsistent, impotent, and unconvincing.

Increased Bite Strength

Again, just reading the text, we see that there is no new trait. I would have liked to go deeper into this radical claim from the authors, but apparently they recognize that their claim of “increased bite strength” as evidence for evolution is extremely weak because they gave no further validation of their assertions. No measurements. No differences. Just a claim. As with the head size claim, there’s no need to speak of this anymore as if it’s part of the “mountain of evidence” in support of evolution, because it’s just empty

New Structures in the Digestive Tract

That leaves the crushing weight of their claim firmly on the shoulders of this last “example of evolution”. Can it support the weight? Let’s see.

Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste

Genetically identical?!??! This is the 1st reason why their claim of “evoLuTioN” holds no water. If the DNA is identical, then there were no random mutations to produce a new trait. This is the fundamental assumption of evolution: At one time, the DNA instructions for traits (arms, lungs, wings, cecal valves…) DID NOT EXIST, but over time, the accumulation of mutations produced functional code that improved a creature’s reproductive fitness in a particular environment. Since there are no genetic differences, there’s no evolution. It is the same species. There are no DNA changes. By itself, this is enough to dismiss this article as “an example of evolution”.

These structures actually occur in less than 1 percent of all known species of scaled reptiles

These structures ALREADY exist in this species of reptiles. The new environment did not PRODUCE these structures. The new environment of the lizards was selection pressure on the lizards such that the existing DNA information for the production of these structures (cecal valves) was made manifest. Since the lizards already carried the instructions in their DNA to produce these structures, then there was no evolution that created these structures. It was the environmental stresses that caused these existing structures to be expressed. See epigenetics for more information. This second nail in the coffin simply ensures that the corpse of their claim cannot be revived

Lastly, I’ve been told by evolutionists that fitness is measured on populations and it must abide by the mutation rates. Now I have reason to doubt the mutation rates that have been published by evolutionists because of bad assumptions, but even if we accept the mutation rates that they propose, the formation of new digestion structures and the creatures ability to make use of the new digestive structures is impossible. From The National Center for Biological Information:

Simple calculations then show that the waiting time to improve one of these six of eight matches to seven of eight has a mean of 60,000 years. This shows that new regulatory sequences can come from small modifications of existing sequence

We have already shown that there were no mutations, BASED ON THEIR OWN ADMISSIONS, but even if we grant the possibility of mutations, the mutation rate is far too slow to have produced that necessary changes that they have proposed. They claim that the new structures appeared in 36 years, but the minimum time for even the smallest beneficial mutation to occur is sixty thousand years. By their own metrics, their claim is refuted.

It looks like the wild claim from the evolutionists was (again) long on assertions and short on evidence. There’s no reason after all to close down Christianity in favor of evolutionism. The claims by these evolutionists is not new or rare. You can see here other claims that evolutionists have made about the amazing powers of evolution are shown to be impotent when analyzed.

Advertisement

15 thoughts on “eVideNce fOr eVoLutiOn!!!!

    • Where to start.
      The anonymous writer attempts to dismiss the evidence provided with a handwave, cherry picking and ignoring context in the article. He wants to assert an idea that only “new information” (without defining what that is) is evidence for evolution.
      In the twitter conversation, he asked for “evidence of a creature that gained new traits via NS acting on RM where the trait did not exist previously” and this article shows exactly that.
      The differences in head morphology, bite strength, and new structures in the lizard’s digestive tracts are all NEW to this species of lizard and are clear evidence of evolution.

      Like

  1. Where to start.
    The anonymous writer attempts to dismiss the evidence provided with a handwave, cherry picking and ignoring context in the article. He wants to assert an idea that only “new information” (without defining what that is) is evidence for evolution.
    In the twitter conversation, he asked for “evidence of a creature that gained new traits via NS acting on RM where the trait did not exist previously” and this article shows exactly that.
    The differences in head morphology, bite strength, and new structures in the lizard’s digestive tracts are all NEW to this species of lizard and are clear evidence of evolution.

    Like

      • You attempt to disregard the evolution in THIS species with statements like “These structures ALREADY exist in this species of reptiles” ignoring the CHANGE in the structures.

        Like

      • That’s just it. The authors admitted in the article that the structures already existed in the species but they were only expressed when selective pressure changed. You gotta read more than just the headline.

        Like

  2. The author says “The authors admitted in the article that the structures already existed in the species but they were only expressed when selective pressure changed.” while refusing to acknowledge the CHANGE in the structures.
    Those changes are evolution at work.

    Like

    • The DNA of the original lizards and the descendant lizards were identical , so there was no evolution. It was simply variability already contained in the DNA. You have to read the actual paper from the authors and not just the headline

      Like

  3. Pingback: Early December 2022 Presuppositional Apologetics Links | The Domain for Truth

  4. I have one set of dumb questions. If the evolutionists are claiming that an ancient source of DNA is identical to a modern source of DNA, does that mean that their lab has some method of fully replicating the sequence and content of the DNA? Does it also mean that they have some method of reaching back in time to preserve those samples?

    From my understanding, current crime labs break down DNA and look for markers to identify traits (hair color, race, gender, …). It is also my understanding that even the DNA in bones can become degraded by the environment to the point where that DNA cannot be used. So what makes the labs supporting evolution more special than the crime labs?

    Like

    • That’s an excellent question and I do not have a definitive answer. DNA degrades over time, so there’s no “ancient source”. If DNA or other biological materials are found (and they are found) in dinosaurs, then what that means is that the dinosaurs are not ancients as has been assumed. As Christians, we know that most dinosaurs died and were buried in the worldwide flood just a few thousand years ago.

      So, your instincts are correct. Crime labs and labs supporting evolution are bound by the same limitations of biological material

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s