Neo-Darwinism

darwin2

I am not a scientist. I am a Minister.

And, I can THINK. And I can follow a logical course of an argument.

And make no mistake: SO CAN YOU.

Take some time to understand the following argument, because it is THE argument the neo-Darwinist needs to seriously consider.

Of the many evidences which determine that the God of the Christian Bible is the Creator, we find the following argument in regards to macroevolution to be one of the most valuable.

{Macroevolution: Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.}

The Philosophical Theory of Evolution

The theory that claims to be a master theory of all life that demonstrates no need for a Creator. It insists science to show that “chemical reactions, regulatory gene switches and natural selection” alone to be all sufficient. At present time it cannot be explained MECHANISTICALLY.

Meaning, right now there is no scientist on the planet that can explain the process of macroevolution.

Meaning, no one can name how it could possibly be accomplished, step by step, through “chemical reactions, regulatory gene switches and natural selection” alone. It is easy to “just say” (and very unscientific) that “chemical reactions, regulatory gene switches and natural selection” is the process for macroevolution. But NO ONE is able to even theorize exactly how this could happen scientifically. THERE EXISTS NO THEORETICAL STEPS FOR MACROEVOLUTION.

Example:

Building muscle on a human body. You observe that the human subject uses barbells in exercise. Therefore you conclude that to build muscle you need to exercise with barbells. This is a non-scientific conclusion. The path to muscle building in addition can be explained with diet and specific nutrition. And also recuperation. Also the human body’s ability to withstand the micro tears in the individual muscle caused by barbells, and therefore it repairs itself through the application of amino acids and glycogen. Not to mention the vast individual cellular functions that must happen to build muscle. Not to mention the limitation imposed on that particular human body by its DNA.

In fact, the process of building muscle is extremely more intricate than the use of barbells.

That is okay.

You see we can study the process and write down each individual step that must occur to build muscle. And as time goes on, so does the research. With that we can fine tune our information and add even more intricate steps. We can even theorize additional steps because of the millions of other processes within the human body. The additional steps we theorize are possible because of what we observe that is already possible within the body. All of this vast information is scientific and actual through observation and experimentation.

Now as far as macroevolution:

Saying: it occurs through “chemical reactions, regulatory gene switches and natural selection” is comparable to looking at a barbell and saying, “that is the reason for muscle growth.” Just like you would investigate the use of barbells and find that muscle growth in reality occurs through other body functions (micro tear healing is muscle growth, barbells cause micro tears), upon investigating “chemical reactions, regulatory gene switches and natural selection” for macroevolution, we find the idea wanting.

Upon further scientific study, we see that “chemical reactions, regulatory gene switches and natural selection” is the process for adaptation in the confines of DNA (DNA being every possible variation that could possibly exist within a species to form various sub-species). This is microevolution.

{Microevolution: Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies. This is accepted by Creationism.}

HOWEVER to use “chemical reactions, regulatory gene switches and natural selection” as the sole determinant of the eventual transformation of one taxonomic group to another (like fish to amphibian), science does not have the ability to even theorize the steps necessary for that to occur.

We have the intricate steps to build muscle, even steps that cannot be observed but we KNOW happen; however NO SCIENTIFIC STEPS (theoretical or otherwise) EXIST for the transformation of a species into a brand new taxonomic group.

So, we understand how molecular biology combined with natural selection can give such things as more growth hormone being produced (resulting in size change) or a different pigment produced resulting in color change or other examples where we can understand how nuclei making RNA for differing amounts of protein or different variants of a protein can make a change.

WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND the general question of how coding for different proteins makes different complex organ structures. Just how the nuclei directing ribosomes to crank our different proteins results in different organ or body structures IS NOT KNOWN.

WE CAN’T EVEN GUESS.

Picture this:

Two humans mating and giving birth to a chimpanzee. Even to the evolutionist, this is impossible (even though our DNA is so close in structure). Just as there is no known step by step scientific molecular process for this to ever occur (or even a theorized process) THERE IS NO KNOWN PROCESS OF MACROEVOLUTION.

The evolutionist only has FAITH that since it (macroevolution) already has happened (a lie), then there will be a legitimate scientific path as yet to be discovered.

But here is the BIG SECRET: – for that to ever occur would be a MIRACLE of one taxonomic group jumping to become a separate and distinct taxonomic group. It would need a super intelligence to direct the proper order of regulatory gene switches to account for adapting to as yet unknown environmental conditions before they are experienced.

Although we have seen in nature natural gender transformation, that is not taxonomic transformation. Although we see mutation within the species (such as two wombs in a woman giving birth to twins), this is mutation (chemical reaction) within DNA and not a path for macroevolution (such as a path from a fully functioning two chambered heart [fish] to a fully functioning three chambered heart [amphibian]; we will use this as an example in a moment).

Can this be clearer?

We can create a step by step process where we can have the human race eventually become a world of humans under four feet tall, with blond hair and hands the size of George Foreman (because this would be possible within the human gene expression); but we cannot demonstrate step by step the process of macroevolution.

Not even close.

Last Example:

To begin with a two chambered heart to become a three chambered heart:

We can’t say that any given protein changes (mutation or not) would yield this change.

We can’t even specify how much protein change would be needed.

We can’t say how many genes would need to be changed.

We can’t say how the first creature with this type of system would successfully propagate its new genes with the fact of it being the only one of its kind.

Or how the three chambered heart interfaced with the circulatory and respiratory system of a two chambered heart, unless of course the parents just gave birth (by miracle) to a brand new species (like two humans giving birth to a chimpanzee).

Listen: we don’t remotely have the first grasp even of the general question of how different proteins could yield different outcomes.

Let me be perfectly clear:

There is ZERO scientific explanation for “chemical reactions, regulatory gene switches and natural selection” to ALONE account for the jump from one taxonomic group to another (macroevolution).

| Daniel Gabriel |