All real evolution in nature is nothing more than the expression, over time, of already existing genes. For example, you may be a tall person carrying genes for producing short people that may not show up in your offspring until generations later.
People often wonder how all the varieties ("races") of people on earth could have come from the same ancestors. Well, in principle, that's no different than asking how children with different color hair (i.e., blond, brunette, brown, red) can come from the same parents who both have black hair. Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce offspring with different color hair and eyes, humanity's first parents carried the genes for producing all the varieties and "races" of men.
Have you ever heard the saying "You can get a pure breed from a mutt but you can't get a mutt from a pure breed?" Well, it's biological truth. Our first parents were genetic mutts because they carried the genes for every variety and race of humans.
You and I today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but our first parents, Adam and Eve, did. It is true that all races or varieties of humans carry the same basic genes but no single race today carries every variation of those genes like Adam and Eve did. All pure races came from mutts. That's right. Even pure Aryan Neo-Nazis originally came from mutts! Darwin had taught that the White race was the most highly evolved.
The genes already exist in all natural species for producing micro-evolution (variations within a biological kind such as varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) but the genes don't exist in species for producing macro-evolution (variations across biological kinds such as from sea sponge to human) as Darwin's theory proposes, and there is no scientific evidence that random genetic mutations caused by unthinking environmental forces such as radiation can or will produce entirely new genes for entirely new traits. Mutations only produce more variations of already existing genes. For example, mutations in the gene(s) for human hair may change the gene(s) so that another type of human hair develops, but it'll still be human hair!
Because mutations are accidents in the genetic code caused by random environmental forces they're almost always harmful. They damage the genetic code similar to how the random energy from an earthquake damages a building. Even if a good mutation occurred for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, being deleterious to the species, even causing extinction. Even "neutral" mutations will become harmful when enough of them accumulate and are passed on. Mutations may also trigger the duplication of already existing traits (i.e. extra fingers, extra toes, etc.) but this is not the same as the creation of new traits. Most biological changes are not from mutations but from new combinations of already existing genes.
What about "Junk" DNA? The latest science shows that "Junk DNA" isn't junk after all! It's we who were ignorant of how useful these segments of DNA really are. Recent scientific research published in scientific journals such as Nature has revealed that the "non-coding" segments of DNA mistakenly called "junk" are vital in regulating gene expression (i.e. when, where, and how genes are expressed).
Another major problem for Darwin's macro-evolutionary theory is the issue of survival of the fittest. How can a partially evolved species be fit for survival? A partially evolved trait or organ that is not complete and fully functioning will be a liability to a species, not a survival asset. In fact, how could species have survived at all if their vital tissues, structures, organs, biological systems, reproductive systems were still evolving? Plants and animals in the process of macro-evolution would be unfit for survival. Survival of the fittest is actually the best argument against Darwin's own theory!
Imagine a fish with part fins, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read the author's Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Our physical traits and characteristics are determined and passed on by genes - not by what happens to our body parts. For example, if a woman were to lose her finger this wouldn‘t affect how many fingers her baby will have. Changing the color and texture of your hair will not affect the color and texture of your children's hair. Even if an ape's muscles and bones changed so that it could walk upright it still would not be able to pass on this trait to its offspring. Only the changes that occur in the genes (genetic information) of reproductive cells (i.e. sperm and egg) can be passed on to offspring. That is a simple fact of biology.
Apes are quite comfortable in how they walk, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures.
All the fossils that have been used to support human evolution have been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not non-human and human (i.e. Neanderthal Man was discovered later to be fully human). Textbooks and museums still continue to display examples and illustrations supporting human evolution which most evolutionists have rejected and no longer support. Many diagrams of ape-man creatures over the years were reconstructed according to evolutionary interpretations from disputable bones that have now been discredited but still being taught in school textbooks. Read the author's Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
What about Darwin's teaching about natural selection? Natural selection doesn't produce anything. It can only "select" from what is produced. Natural selection can only "select" from variations that are genetically possible and which have survival value. If a biological variation occurs that helps a species survive (i.e. change in skin color, etc.), that survival is called being "selected." That's all that natural selection is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process.
Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. The real issue is not natural selection but what biological variations are genetically possible. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction and not before (After all, something has to be alive first before it can experience any change having survival value). A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read the author's Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot happen by chance, so it is more logical to believe that genetic and biological similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related!
Some evolutionists use similarities of traits between species as an argument for transitional forms. This is not a good argument because the traits they cite are complete, fully-formed, and fully functional, not in any true process of transition from one type of structure into another. What about the duck-billed platypus? It has traits belonging to both birds and mammals, but even evolutionists wouldn't argue that it's a transitional link between birds and mammals because of that!
The fossils show that all species came into existence as complete, fully-formed, and fully functional. That can only happen by creation.
The belief that we are here by chance is just as much a faith as belief that we are here by creation. The difference is faith in creation is much better supported by science. Neither position can be proved by science.
Popular atheists Dawkins, Hitchens, and Hawking have refused to debate with creationists who are scientists, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site (www.icr.org). Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the mainstream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site. When you visit the site, use the "search" feature to research your topic of interest.
Visit the Internet site, THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION at www.creationismnow.blogspot.com. This site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refuting arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of the human eye, "Junk DNA," Punctuated Equilibria, dinosaur to bird evolution, arguments from vestigial or useless structures, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.).
The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, has his bachelor’s degree with concentrations in theology and biology from Bob Jones University in Greenville, South Carolina (the author does not endorse everything about the school) and had completed two years of full-time graduate study in law at Western New England College School of Law in Springfield, Massachusetts. Mr. Ranganathan has been recognized for his writings on religion and science in the 24th edition of Marquis “Who’s Who in The East”. The author’s website may be accessed at www.religionscience.com.
SOME POPULAR INTERNET ARTICLES BY THE AUTHOR:
TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS
SECOND COMING OF CHRIST MISUNDERSTOOD
CHRIST WAS BEGOTTEN - NOT CREATED!
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH!
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
NATURAL LIMITS OF EVOLUTION
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD?
THE RACIST GERMAN SHEPHERD AND THE BULLDOG
Recommended science and creation sites: Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/). Excellent articles by scientists who are creationists! Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. Just type your topic of interest in the "search" box on the site!
The Institute for Creation Research offers a professional certificate diploma in The Creationist Worldview program (a comprehensive course on creation science for everyone, laypersons and scientists alike). Check out the program at: http://www.icr.org/cw/
Be sure to visit MIT scientist Dr. Walt Brown's creationist site: http://www.creationscience.com/ for excellent material and study on the subject of origins.
Other great sites of interest are: http://www.answersingenesis.org,%20www.c
THE EVOLUTION HANDBOOK published by Chick Publications has almost 1,000 pages of easy-to-read and well-referenced, documented scientific facts and explanations refuting macroevolutionary theory and supporting creation. The book is only $5.95. Go here to read about it: http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/1254.