Thoughts of the day: Evolution. True and false?

For the last couple of months I have been revisiting my study of Evolution vs. Creation. It is very interesting how both sides look at the same evidence but come to completely different conclusions. Both sides have made errors. Both have made good points. Both sides have made assumptions. Both also have very convincing arguments to support their sides. Convincing in the sense that many have been convinced. Millions believe in Evolution and billions believe in Creation.

As a Christian, I am trying to find answers to the important question of where we came from for two reasons. The first is to make sure what I believe is right. The second is so that I can defend what I believe. I am not someone who is overly troubled with doubts concerning Christianity because even if Evolution was an irrefutable fact, it wouldn't automatically make the Bible false. Although I personally believe the two are separate, they are not mutually exclusive. This is of course, a completely different argument. My goal is not to find, "If evolution is true, could God still exist?" My end goal is to simply discover, "Is Origins Evolution even possible?"

Now, you might notice that this time I called it "Origins Evolution". That extra word is very important. The reason being there are different types of evolution. Evolutionists tend to put them all under the same label. However, there are major differences in classifications, types, and forms of evolution. Origins evolution refers to where we came from and how it is possible that we share ancestors with monkeys and how every living thing evolved from a single-cell organism? 

Did you know that there are only several small genetic
differences between a Chihuahua and a Great Dane? 

I have found myself coming back to the topic of Origins Evolution a lot. Evolutionists like to have us believe that all Evolution can be accepted as truth. But this is not the case. Most changes in the Hypothesis of Evolution are the cause of changes to DNA. And there really is only two different forms of genetic evolution. These two forms of evolution are called Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is "any change that occurs below the species level". An example would be the differences in dogs. Dogs are all of the same species and 80% of their differences can be attributed to just 6 or 7 possible variances in the genome. Meaning that there is only up to 7 relatively minor genetic differences between each dog breed that determine most of their physical differences. The genetic differences amongst dog breeds is considered Micro-evolution because in the end. no matter how many of these changes occur, it will still be a dog. Creationist acknowledge the existence of Micro-evolution because it is possible to observe it in nature and in labs. It also occurs on a regular basis. Micro-evolution most commonly occurs because of environmental changes. A very good example of this is the beak size difference in the Galapagos Finches that Darwin based his hypothesis on. Finches with bigger beaks survive better during droughts. So, during drought years Finches will produce young with larger beaks. The ability to increase beak size is already built into the Finches genetic information. Since Darwin's original observation of the Finches, we have also observed this change happen. Genetic changes do occur amongst an entire species, but when they do they are never random. All the information necessary for that change is already built into the DNA. No mutations or increases in genetic information is occurring. The main point is that the finches are still finches. The dog is still a dog. No matter how many small changes occur, the species is not changing. 

Illustration of beak size differences in the
Galapagos Island Finches.

Now onto Macro-evolution! This form of evolution is any change that happens "at or above the species level". Meaning, when one species makes a big change and turns into a completely different species (or kind). For instance, when a fish evolves legs or lizard sprouts usable wings. Evolutionists commonly refer to Micro and Macro as the same thing. The only difference they see is that one occurs over a short amount of time (Micro) while the other occurs over a very long time (Macro). They often forget to read the definition of the words themselves. As I stated previously, Micro is any change below a change in species and Macro is any change at or above a change in species. So, obviously they are different in that on is small changes that occur regularly and the other is huge changes that occur very rarely.

The problem I have with Origins Evolution has come down to the definition of these two words and the requirements necessary to see these changes. Micro-evolution does not require any new genetic information. All the changes are either the result of available information in the genome or the loss of information. Nothing is ever gained. In order for Macro-evolution to occur nature would need to provide new genetic information. However, If the information doesn't exist, it cannot be created out of random chance events. No mechanism is nature exists to randomly create genetic information. 

Proof evolution is a fact! 

For those of you who are not "scientifically inclined" the best way to explain this is to say that, "Animals do not develop new physical traits that didn't previously exist in their DNA." (Eg. legs, hair, wings, gills, scales, feathers, ect.) It doesn't matter how much time you give it, a lizard will never develop wings, fish will never develop legs, and humans will never gain x-men like abilities (This is the only reason I wish evolution was true). The fact of the matter is, if the information isn't built into the DNA there is no natural way to introduce that information. It never has and never will be possible. If it were possible, evolution would be close to impossible to refute. This is why so many scientists are working year-round to find an example of any kind of animal turning into another. This is why they spend countless hours looking for changes in a species that prove nature can add information to a genome. Of course there common excuse that is "takes too much time to observe in nature." And that fossils and other natural evidence are enough to show that it has happened. Problem is, fossils don't do anything in the way of supporting evolution. In fact, they do quite the contrary. But that discussion is all for a later day. However, even if fossils did "support" Evolution, if genetics don't than its not a fact and shouldn't be portrayed as such. In a court of law when 5 things seem to prove a person guilty, but one piece of evidence proves them innocent, they are innocent. You can't ignore one piece of the evidence just because most of the evidence points on direction. That's called denial. You can tell when someone is in denial when they get overly defensive. Which is exactly what evolutionists do when confronted with the facts. 

Remember to subscribe and please feel free to share the link to my blog.
And last but not least, please press the little "+1" button right below this post!
Thanks for reading and God bless!