As I alluded in my first blog entry, one of the most important facts I hope to teach is that there is no provable genetic mechanism through which evolution can occur. In order to comprehend what I mean before I start to more technically explain it, I’d like to make sure you have an adequate understanding of what I am talking about when I say “there is no provable genetic mechanism through which evolution can occur.”
If you look at the evolutionists’ view of how life came to be, you see they believe all life started as a single cell organism in the water. Over time, that single cell combined with other single cells and formed the first multicellular organism. Overtime, that multicellular organism developed the ability to reproduce and give rise to more organisms just like it, eventually transforming into fishes. Then, the fish transformed into amphibians, which allowed them to move out of the water and onto the land. Then amphibians turned into reptiles, reptiles into birds and mammals, and the primitive mammal line eventually turned into people.
But, in order for this to happen, let’s think about what needs to occur at the genetic level by looking at the “evolution” of fish to amphibians. To do that, we need to identify the differences between fish and amphibians (or, look at their different traits) since that is what makes them different from one another. In order for a fish to turn into an amphibian, it needs to develop legs, not fins, in order to move around its environment. It needs to develop lungs, not gills, in order to breathe. It needs to develop a two loop circulatory system, not a one loop circulatory system, in order to move its blood through its body. Legs, lungs, and a different circulatory system are some of the traits that make an amphibian different from a fish; therefore, in order for a fish to turn into an amphibian, it would need to develop these traits or else it would remain a fish.
But, from where do these traits come? They come from our DNA, the “genetic blueprint” that provides the instructions for the way in which all organism look, grow, reproduce and otherwise function. A fish is a fish and an amphibian is an amphibian because the instructions in their DNA are different (these “instructions” are called genes). In order for a fish to turn into an amphibian, the fish needs to acquire, or gain, new DNA material (or new genes) in such a way that the new genes it acquires provide the instructions to no longer function and look like a fish, but instead to function and look like an amphibian. If there isn’t a way for an organism to acquire new genes, then evolution cannot happen. Molecules-to-man evolution is, simply, the acquisition of new genetic material that causes one type of organism to transform into a new, previously non-existent organism.
Therefore, evolutionists must propose a mechanism through which an organism can acquire new and meaningful genetic material that will directly cause one type of organism to transform into another type of previously non-existent organism (the concept of “meaningful genetic material”will become very important in a few minutes). The evolutionists’ proposed mechanism is mutation. Mutation is basically an error that occurs when DNA is copied. All DNA needs to be copied – a lot –and sometimes errors occur during the copying process. Normally, the copying errors are repaired, but sometimes they aren’t and so those copying errors (mutations) can be passed on from one generation to another.
Now, this all sounds very scientific and seems to fit the explanatory bill, but the problem is, mutation has NEVER, EVER been found to impart meaningful new instructions to an organism. In fact, the large majority of mutations actually end up killing the organism, or rendering it weakened and incapable of reproducing. This fact is either ignored by evolutionists or explained away in a convoluted and, in the end meaningless, string of genetic jargon. For example, the Wikipedia entry “Modern Evolutionary Synthesis” should be the definitive evolutionary explanation of how mutation results in the transmission of meaningful, new genetic information from one organism to another, but it hardly even mentions the process of mutation. Mutation is the only way that evolutionists have to genetically explain how evolution occurs and it isn’t even explained in the entry! That pattern of non-explanation persists throughout genetic evolutionary teaching.
The reason that it isn’t explained (not only in the Wikipedia entry but anywhere) is because mutation doesn’t do what evolutionists say it does. Mutation does not, and cannot, result in a meaningful change in genetic composition of an organism. When I say “meaningful,” I am specifically referring to an addition to the genetic material, the development of a new gene or set of genes, that results in the appearance of a new, previously non-existent trait to be present, and also benefits the organism, and then leads to the development of an entirely new organism. Mutation always results in a loss of or, at best, a neutral change in genetic information, not an addition of meaningful information as I just described it. The only way that life can be explained is through the actions of an all powerful God who can do anything He wants at any time He wishes.
Please check back periodically for new articles and feel free to respectfully submit your own questions… I would be more than happy to address them.