Blog

by Steve Risner

Last time, I began to talk about my research into the “mountain of evidence” for evolution. We're often told there is this huge mass of evidence for Darwinian evolution and to not accept it is a denial of documented reality. That is all, of course, nonsense. The “mountain of evidence” for universal common descent is a fraud. Upon looking for this mountain, I found that common traits was a big deal to Darwinian missionaries. This is something someone who doesn't understand evolution would say, in my opinion, because if you actually understand the processes and genetics involved, there's no way to make it work with the currently popular humanist origins myth. I touched on some of these issues last time. I'd like to explain a bit further if that's okay.

The more we learn about microbiology, genetics, and embryology, the less it seems Darwinism is a reality. Of course, the evolutionist will make some wild claims that these things further confirm their beliefs, but that's not the truth at all. Very often, they'll focus on a tiny detail that seems to support their mythology and ignore the large portion of the facts that contradicts their beliefs or at the least casts a shadow of doubt.

The idea is that life evolved from a common ancestor and this is evidenced by the fact that some organisms share similar traits. It stands to reason that if these traits were because we shared a common ancestor, we would develop these traits embryologically the same, and the same genes would account for the coding of these traits. This is largely not the case at all. How can one suggest this is the strongest evidence for Darwinian evolution when it doesn't support evolution at all? This is more of the same. Darwin thought the single cell was not much more than a bag of goo. It’s easy to think that just made itself out of stuff you see in a mud puddle, I guess. Little did he know the indescribable amount of activity going on inside each of these little cells. I briefly wrote on the immensely complex cell in this blog post and in this one. It seems the more we learn, the less we know. And the more details we discover, the less feasible it seems evolution, believed to be driven by mindless copying mistakes, can account for the genetic code and its unknowable intricacies, variation, and specialization. It seems Mother Nature accidentally made the same body plans repeatedly and with very different processes involved—all without trying. Approaching the rule rather than the exception, many traits that appear to be similar between organisms can have very different genes that code for them, very different times during development that they appear, or very different tissue sources that result in their formation. Yet we get the same or similar structures. This stands in the face of common thought in evolution today and in the face of logic if Darwinism is a reality.

I broached this topic last time, but let's look at it again because it really makes a mockery out of evolutionism. This, of course, doesn't mean anything because people who have bought evolutionism hook, line, and sinker will simply brush it aside or ignore it. Or, worse yet, they'll cover it up and be dishonest about it. Being ignorant is one thing; being dishonest is a very different story.

Limbs. We like them. We hold stuff up with them. We walk with them. We like our limbs. Having four limbs is a common feature among many animals. But is this because we have a common ancestor? Not at all. Our limbs develop quite frequently from different body segments in a pattern that evolution cannot explain. Dr. Michael Denton writes in his book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, about kidney development in fish and amphibians as compared to reptiles and mammals. One would think that kidneys, if they developed in some earlier ancestor that we all shared, would have a common development embryologically. They do not. Completely different processes exist for the development of the kidney if we compare fish and amphibians with reptiles and mammals. How does this fit with common ancestry? It doesn't, in my opinion.

Biology has also shown us that very often “homologous structures” (structures that seem similar) have different genes that produce them. This seems to not fit the story of Darwinism. The opposite is also true: seemingly similar genes will regulate vastly different processes or structure formation as well. It seems, according to evolutionists, that homology is allegedly what binds us all together. Homology is what evolutionists have built the nested hierarchies on and drawn their nice pictures of lineages from. But the more we investigate these alleged similarities, the more we find that homology actually discredits Dawinism fairly soundly. Yet this is held up as one of the BEST bits of evidence for universal common descent!

What seems interesting, as well, is that some structures are called “vestigial.” These are supposed to be structures that were once something important or useful but, due to evolution over time, have lost their usefulness. To be sure, there are no such structures. There are only naive and somewhat arrogant assertions. And this would actually be evolution in reverse, would it not? A structure is actually becoming less useful or less specialized. When is the evolutionist going to show us new organs that do something completely different that are slowly developing over time? We see none of that. We don't see that in the fossil record or in the present. The fossil record is full of all sorts of interesting organisms who all seem to have all their parts and all of them are fully formed and appear functional. The theory of evolution cannot be found anywhere in the geologic column. There are no ancestors with a lesser developed version of something. Again, this flies in the face of common evolutionist storytelling.

So the bottom line is genetics doesn't support evolution from a common ancestor. Homology or similar traits doesn't support it either. Embryology, the study of embryos and how they develop, doesn't support it. What does support it? “A mountain of evidence” that is also known as the imaginings and/or storytelling of those who accept it.

The Bible tells us in Genesis (and throughout Scripture really) that God created the heavens and the earth and that He made all living things about 6000 years ago. The Word of God is built on the foundation of Genesis and a natural reading of it. The evidence for its accuracy is well documented, from creation to the Flood and beyond. We'll look at some more of the “mountain of evidence” in the future. Thanks for reading.

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.