Humans and apes are 98.4 percent genetically
identical. Isn't this proof that we're related?
While it is true that humans and apes are genetically similar, we still vary in 48 million nucleotides (6). Only three nucleotides can be changed per generation, or else the resulting offspring is stillborn (5). It would take 16 million generations of perfect, beneficial genetic mutations to change the necessary nucleotides for an ape to become human. There is no evidence that this could ever happen by itself. This outstanding number of generations is also why it is necessary for Evolution to have billions of years to take place. So no, it is not proof that humans and apes are related. In fact, "depending on which protein is compared, we are more closely related to a bacterium than an ape and vice versa" (Covey, Jon A. Do Human Embryos Have Tails? RMCF, Nov/Dec 2005 Newsletter).
Doesn't the fact that people have gill slits before they're born and other embryonic similarities support a common ancestor?
There are no embryonic similarities, and no, people do not actually have gills before they are born. What appear to be gill slits are paryngeal pouches that develop into the thymus glad, the parathyroids, and the middle ear canals. Even though children are still taught they were once fish in school, this theory was disproved in 1868 at the University of Jena (6). As far as "other embryonic similarities," this is a myth. Evolutionists also consider the human coccyx (the tail bone) to be the remains of our evolutionary ancestor's tail. In evolutionary theory, human embryos undergo embryonic recapitulation, which is where the embryo reenacts our "evolutionary history," and goes through the different phases of evolution our "ancestors" went through. Therefore if this theory is correct, human embryos should have a tail at one point. Unfortunately, the human embryo "does not develop a tail." However, a scientific blunder that supports this embryonic theory and is still taught in school is Haeckel's Embryos. Ernst Haeckel was a 19th century biologist who drew embryos of different animals at varying stages of development to show how similar they were; and thus, that they shared a common ancestor. His pictures were exposed as fakes in the 1860's, but are still in high school and college textbooks today (15).
Didn't the Miller experiment prove that life could have come from a primordial ocean?
In Stanley Miller experiment, a prehistoric "atmosphere" in a glass bubble was struck by an electrical current acting as lightning, and resulted in a reddish goo containing amino acids. Because of this experiment, evolutionists stated that a God wasn't needed, because lightning formed the building blocks of life, not a Creator. However, it has been proved that Miller's "atmosphere" was not truly representative of a prehistoric atmosphere. Scientists have tested what was actually the atmospheric composition, and it yielded no amino acids. In addition, the goo containing the acids reacted quickly with Nitrogen present, destroying anything that could have formed life (15). Life could not have formed from a primordial mix of chemicals and electricity.
How did the first "primitive cell" evolve, and how did it become more complex?
Evolutionary theory states that cells evolved from a primitive state into the complex machines we have today. However, there is no such thing as a "primitive cell;" they are "irreducibly complex," meaning that if they were any simpler, they couldn't function: they would die. Something that is dead cannot evolve, so it is clear that cells do not have the ability to evolve (15).
Bacterial are known to become resistant to certain antibiotics over time. Isn't this proof of Evolution?
For Evolution to be taking place, there must be an increase in complexity. Therefore, when one looks at the genes of the "evolving" bacteria, there should be an increase in genetic complexity. This is not what is happening. "In no case is there any evidence of an information-adding…change." "In this kind of instance, the information to resist the antibiotic was already there in the bacterial population-it did not arise by itself, or in response to the antibiotic" (19). Therefore, the reasonable conclusion is that natural selection killed the germs that did not already carry this immunity, and preserved the bacteria that did. "There are many instances in which germs become resistant by simple selection of resistance which already existed (including that 'imported' from other bacteria)" (19). While natural selection is acting on a population to change general genetic make-up of the population, it could never "act as a positive force- encouraging the development of useful characteristics and creating new species." In other words, Isolated reproduction produces species variation, not allopatric speciation. To sum up, "since we see mutation and natural selection in bacterial populations happening all the time, we should see tremendous amounts of real evolution happening. However, the bacteria we have with us today are essentially the same as those described by Robert Koch a century ago. In fact, there are bacteria found fossilized in rock layers, claimed by evolutionists to be millions of years old, which as far as one can tell are the same as bacteria living today" (19).
I was taught that during Britains industrial revolution Peppered Moths adapted to their darkening environment by changing colors. How do you explain this?
To begin with, the moths did not actively respond and adapt to their environment.
This is called Lamarckism, and has been proven false. Instead, these moths
were merely demonstrations of natural selection and natural variation, and
"variation is not evolution" (1). While it is true that in 1848,
98 percent of Peppered moths in Britain were gray, and that within 50 years
of the industrial revolution adding soot to trees, the population of gray
moths significantly decreased. "This, however, is merely variation within
species- a nice example of change in gene frequency. No new organism, nor
any new characteristic came into existence" (1). These moths, therefore, were
not evolving. They began as moths and ended as moths. "Evolution… requires
much more than simply 'variation.' It requires massive changes in body-type,
biochemistry, and behaviors." Which is not the case in this circumstance.
"It is a false argument to point to the small variations we see on a daily
basis, and then claim this proves that a one-celled organism evolved into
ferns, people, elephants, butterflies, and oak trees" (1).
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |