Opinions on faith and life

Common Evolutionary Proofs Refuted

2005-09-01

When discussing alleged proofs of evolution, the most commonly offered example is that of bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics. It is said to be evidence of “smarter bugs” that have evolved to “learn” ways to survive in only a few or even one generation.

Again, I must emphasize that for evolution to be true, there must be an increase in the complexity of genetic code, such that a new or more complex creature could result. But the resistant bacteria argument offers no such evidence. What happens is this:

Scientists know that no matter what drug they develop, there are already bacteria that it won’t work on. The drugs are designed to take advantage of certain characteristics that the germs depend on, either for survival or reproduction. The few that have mutated already and LOST that characteristic will be unaffected. In other words, a less complex organism can actually have a survival advantage! So when the non-resistant germs are eliminated, the resistant ones have no competition and can multiply rapidly, rendering the vaccine useless in a short time. There is also, then, less competition for other germs the vaccine wasn’t even aimed at.

So “Survival of the Fittest” is not evolution but devolution-- organisms lose genetic code and become less complex. They survive because they are simpler than their parents.

Evolution has always been based on the assumption of uniformitarianism-- that organisms gradually and very slowly develop new features and increase in complexity. The reason for this assumption is that if there is no Creator, then only unimaginable stretches of time can explain the existence of life. Yet as observational science marches on, it keeps blasting holes in this idea.

So they have quietly abandoned uniformitarianism in favor of fantasies like the “smarter bacteria” theory or the “punctuated equilibrium” (aka “hopeful monster”) theory, where a reptile lays and egg and out pops a fully-functional bird. Then they take this theory and use it to explain why there are no transitional fossils. In spite of the complete lack of evidence of any transitions between species, they hold to this faith and prop it up with even more imagination. So now evolution happens in spurts between long ages of absolutely no progress at all!

And then there are those pesky and embarrassing “living fossils” like the shark and the coelacanth, that have apparently been able to avoid evolution for millions of years. Really, I don’t know how so many people can be made to swallow this crap. But of course, it’s the only “food” they’ve ever known.