By Babu G. Ranganathan
Many in society are not aware of the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is true science and it involves biological variations within a "kind" such as varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc. Charles Darwin assumed that because micro-evolution occurs in nature that macro-evolution (biological variations across kinds) would also be possible if given enough time.
The genes already exist in all species for micro-evolution but not for macro-evolution. Micro-evolution doesn't involve the creation of any new genes. Macroevolution would involve the emergence of entirely new genes. Evolutionists put their hope and faith in random mutations as a source for the generation of entirely new genes. There is no evidence that random genetic mutations caused by environmental forces such as radiation can generate entirely new genes. Furthermore, true mutations are almost always harmful precisely because they are accidents in the genetic code.
Another problem for macro-evolution 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 completely one or the other will be a liability to a species, not a survival asset.
How could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over supposedly millions of years if their vital organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still incomplete and evolving? How were species fighting off possibly life-threatening germs if their immune system hadn't fully evolved yet? The fossil record furnishes no true evidence of partially-evolved species.
Most biological variations are the result of new combinations of already existing genes, not because of mutations. All real evolution in nature is simply the expression of previously existing genes that didn't have opportunity for expression before. If the genes for a particular trait don't exist then there can be no evolution of that trait
We all carry in our bodies both expressed and unexpressed genes. For example, a husband and wife who both have black hair give birth to a child with blond hair. Would you call that evolution? Where did the blond hair come from? Obviously, the couple with black hair also were carrying genes for blond hair. The genes for blond hair did not evolve. The genes for blond hair already existed in the couple. However, the genes for blond hair were not expressed in the couple carrying them. Only the genes for black hair were expressed in the couple. Eventually the genes for blond hair were expressed in a child they brought into the world.
People often wonder how all the varieties or "races" of people could come from the same original human 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 descendants with different color hair and eyes, humanity's first parents, Adam and Eve, possessed genes to produce all the variety and "races" of men. You and I today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but humanity's first parents did possess such genes.
The genes must first exist or otherwise the evolution cannot occur. All real evolution simply is an expression over time of what already existed previously in the genetic pool of a population.
Evolution just doesn't happen. Something has to direct the formation and transformation of biological matter for evolution to occur. That something is what we call genes. Genes are located on the DNA molecule (the genetic code). DNA is the abbreviated name for the genetic code and it is exactly that - a code. It is a molecular string of chemical information.
Again, the genes exist in all species for micro-evolution (variation within biological kinds) but not for macro-evolution (variation across biological kinds), and there is no scientific evidence that random genetic mutations caused by natural forces such as radiation can or will generate entirely new genes for entirely new traits.
Many people have wrong ideas about evolution. For example, in November of 2004, articles appeared in major U.S. newspapers saying that running may have contributed to the evolution of man.
The simple fact is that physical traits and characteristics are determined and passed on by genes - not by running or any other form of exercise. Traits or characteristics which are acquired from the environment simply cannot be passed on to offspring (i.e. a woman who loses her finger will not cause her baby to be born with a missing finger; changing the color and texture of your hair will not affect the color and texture of your children's hair. Even if an ape ever did learn to walk and run 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.
Adaptation is the result of natural selection. Let's imagine, for example, that all humans only have black hair, but the environment changed so that only humans with red hair can survive. Some of the black-haired humans also are carrying unexpressed genes for red hair. Over time some children are born with red hair. The red-haired ones survive (are "selected") while all the black-haired ones die off. The red-haired children will ensure that the human species will continue to exist under the new and changed environment. That's biological adaptation!
Natural selection doesn't create or produce biological traits. Natural selection can only "select" from what is produced. The term "natural selection" is simply a figure of speech. Nature, of course, doesn't do any conscious selecting. If a biological variation occurs that helps a species to survive then we say that the species was "selected". Natural selection is just another name for "survival of the fittest".
What about genetic and biological similarities between species? Genetic and biological similarities between species are no proof of a common biological ancestry. What if the similarities between species are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes?
Biologically speaking, only genetic similarities within a biological "kind" can be used as proof of relationship since only members or varieties within a "kind" are capable of inter-breeding and reproducing, thus establishing proof of a relationship.
Genetic information, like any other information, doesn't happen by chance. Therefore, it's far more logical to believe that the genetic similarities between all forms of life are because of a common Designer or Genetic Engineer (God) who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of life.
What about all the non-coding segments of DNA commonly known as "Junk DNA"? Evolutionists believe that the presently "non-coding" segments of DNA were at one time useful (that they actually coded for something) in an evolutionary past but became broken-down and, therefore, now don't code for anything. Evolutionists believe that these "broken-down" genes will someday, by chance mutations, evolve into entirely new genes. How wrong they are. 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 are very useful, after all, and even essential in regulating gene expression and intracellular activities.
Visit www.icr.org to read excellent articles by scientists who believe the scientific evidence supports creation. For a more in-depth study of the subject, please read the larger version of author's article "The Natural Limits of Evolution" at his website.
The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, has his B.A with concentrations in theology and biology and 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 articles may be accessed at www.religionscience.com. The author's recently published children's story "The Selfish Apple Tree" is available from WestBow Press.