CDEF

Evolution? Macro or Micro ??0

In the December issue of Natural History, Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard (one of the foremost evolutionists in the world) destroyed the case for classic Darwinian evolution. After citing two cases of microevolution he states; “Most cases of rapid microevolution represent the transient and momentary blips and fillips that ‘flesh out’ the rich history of lineage in stasis.” One of his conclusions is that we find stasis (no change) in most living systems and not transition to new creatures. This is a very good scientific observation. It confirms the Bible when it tells us that animals were created in “kinds” that are distinct and separate. Actually there is a great deal of variety within kinds of animals. Dogs for example range from the Teacup Yorkie to the Great Dane, with all different variations; long hair, short hair, long legs, short legs... You can’t, however take that dog and mate it with your cat and get a dat. Our science tells us that is impossible. Even the chromosome count is not the same. If evolution were true we would expect to find such a blur of creatures that we should have trouble classifying them. But we generally don’t have trouble telling a cat from a dog. The variation that Gould is referring to are changes in the already existing DNA not new DNA appearing. The very complex instructions to build living creatures contained in DNA allows for great variation in progeny but does not create new organs or functions. If mutations were desirable why don’t we irradiate every pregnant woman to improve the children. We know mutations are bad and we try to avoid them. When evolutionists propose molecules to man they MUST produce new DNA from random mixtures of chemicals. This is IMPOSSIBLE. Both chemistry and biology tell us it is impossible. Random processes do NOT generate information. Information requires intelligence. In my seminars I often challenge the audience to test this by going to their computer and randomly tapping on their keyboard until they write a program. That, of course, is impossible. In fact when we get a mutation in a computer, we call it a bug, we try to get rid of it, not see what new and better functions it will give us. The more we know about how our bodies work the more in wonder and awe we will become. The intelligence required to design us has to be almost infinite. In fact it is !!! Questions?
Email me.