Let us start with a simple tale of evolution and how it is turned into an evillutionists point of view. We will use information from two scientific disciplines- entomology and botany (the study of insects and the study of plants). When under attack by leaf-munching insects, many plants start manufacturing special substances that act as chemical signals to attract other species that prey on the leaf-eaters. The advantages to the plant’s ability to survive are obvious, so evolutionists will of course point to natural selection as solely responsible for the phenomenon. Over millions and millions of years the leaf’s (even though the plant itself has no higher intelligence) themselves “evolved” the ability to create a chemical signal that would attract say a wasp to the spot where the caterpillar was eating on the leaf.
So next step in this tale. Chemicals are normally released straight away from any leaf damage and are called green leafy volatiles (GLVs). Some, although not necessarily all of these chemicals, act essentially as plant pheromones. The most commonly known to man is the smell of a freshly mown lawn.
Researchers have been puzzled, however, to discover an unusual aspect to this process in the case of tobacco plants attacked by moth caterpillars.[i] It normally takes a few hours at least for such signal chemicals to be produced. Yet the caterpillar’s enemies, called ‘big-eyed bugs’ (Geocoris spp [plural species]),[ii] came almost immediately, sensing the chemicals normally released straight away from any leaf damage. But the big-eyed bugs only came when the GLV release was caused by caterpillars. So how could they tell the difference?
The GLVs come in two varieties or ‘isomers’, Z and E.[iii] Experiments showed it was the Z/E ratio that enabled the bugs to tell the difference between ‘normal’ leaf damage and a caterpillar bite. So what changed this ratio to alert the bugs? Researchers found that it was not the plant, but the caterpillars themselves that rang the dinner bell for the bugs. The ratio is changed by caterpillar saliva, which converts much of the Z-GLVs to E-GLVs.
A conundrum – no? Why would the caterpillar develop an enzyme that would DECREASE their chance of survival? Kind of runs counter to the theory of natural selection doesn’t it?
Left unanswered in this tale is how the leaf would know that the wasp would be able to detect the scent – maybe the leaf had tried hundreds of thousands of scents. Another puzzle is why would the leaf develop a scent for a damage to the leaf that is different from the scent for damage by an insect. Also unanswered is how the leaf would know that one particular wasp would find this particular caterpillar tasty. And how does the DNA/mtRNA change in the leaf get transported to a change in the spermatogenous (generative) cell of the plant so it may reproduce itself? Those thoughts are such that should not interfere with the truth and facts of mutational evolution according to the evillutionists. It just happens that way according to them.
According to the rest of us it is by an intelligent designer.
This is why creation biology is so important. Since it is based on the Bible, it not only provides a coherent origin for life, but also a coherent history that describes how life has changed in various ways. But if we take the Bible as our foundation, how should we think about biology? What should we think about the origin and history of animals, plants, and microbes?
The Bible says that God created all things biological during the first week of history—Days 3–6 of Creation Week (Genesis 1:11–13, 20–31). Genesis 1 also says He created life according to kinds. These kinds must remain both recognizable and stable through time because they are a part of God’s revelation of his power and character in creation (Romans 1:20). If the message has no consistency, the message would be lost. Therefore, one kind of creature can’t mutate or go changing into something different (even if similar) if we’re to be able to see God’s hand in biology. The pattern was set with the first life forms created, plants, which were to produce “seed, each according to its kind” (Genesis 1:11). That is, the seed produced that allows reproduction is according to the kind that produced it (e.g. a mango seed will produce a mango tree). Then other living things are described (nine times) as being created “according to their kinds”. This is the most established principle of biology, that like begets like: cats produce cats, bears produce bears, palms produce palms, and no one has ever observed anything different such as a mango becoming a manatee becoming a man.
But neither can life be completely static. The Bible says creation was cursed because of sin, which meansthat the Fall allowed things like predation, disease, and suffering. Creation is in bondage to decay (Romans 8:20–21). Moreover, since the Fall there have been some massive environmental changes at different times. Life had to be able to adapt to such changes, sometimes rather drastically and quickly, or it would have all died out ages ago. We will cover things like The fall of man, Noah’s flood, the Ice age, How life works, etc both on a Biblical philosophical basis and a the science behind it in future articles.
Evolution textbooks cite variation as being something upon which ‘evolution depends’.[iv] However, when one examines closely the claimed ‘demonstrable examples’ of ‘evolution’, they actually fall into three categories, which I like to label as the ‘3 Rs’- rearrange, remove and ruin genetic information.
Now, I’m going to use some images (with permission from creation.com) from an article titled http://creation.com/3-rs-of-evolution. I have seen many image sequences to highlight the following, but these are the best. We have all been indoctrinated into the Menedelian Genetics since we were at least in 6th grade. You know the monk who noticed that when raising peas that some came out in a yellow shell, some peas were wrinkled, some were smooth and he made charts showing the lineage in the mid-1880’s.
This PROVED the case for evolution, they claimed. Not really, it just showed patterns of inheritable characteristics that could then be tracked – sort of like Ancestry.com. Red hair, blonde (true blonde, not bottle blonde) hair, blue eyes, brown eyes, short stature, large stature, hemophilia, and a whole range of other diseases and physical characteristics can now be traced through a population.
So let us take a look at the first ‘R’ – Rearrange. Careful examination of many purported instances of ‘evolution in action’ shows that such ‘variation’ actually already exists, conferred by genes that already exist in the form of gene rearrangement. Now we will keep it simplified and just claim that long/short hair in dogs are the result of one gene pair (in actuality it may be due to hundreds of genes on several chromosomes). But we have to keep it simple in the hopes that Gomer and Goober from Mayberry High will be able to pass their biology classes. When one of each gene ends up in a pup, then that pup will have medium length hair[v].
So the two dogs have four pups. Oh, one more thing we have to assume- isn’t science fun when it is full of assumptions and un-provable facts. We have to assume that the genes are distributed evenly among the four pups. So now we have one pup with short hair, two pups with medium hair and one pup with long hair. The evillutionists would look at this and say that the pup with long hair didn’t exist before so it must be an example of evolution.
Now you can play around with interrelationships with all four pups and play games with what the results would be (assuming that close inbreeding allows for viable pups). But let’s not make that assumption, instead let’s make two others. The original dog pair had another litter with the same distribution pattern and in the first litter the long hair pup was either a male or female and the second litter had a long hair pup of the opposite sex. Now we make another assumption that has nothing do with the scientific facts here- the owner sells the two long haired (male and female pups) and three more to someone who then moves to Northern Alaska near the Arctic circle. This person then breeds the dogs. The medium and short haired dogs die off due to the cold. The dog owner then breeds the remaining long hair pups and has a thriving business.
What about natural selection, adaptation and speciation as the evillutionists call it. The second “R” or Removal of genetic information as we call it.
None of these dogs represent the generation of any new microbes-to-mastiff genetic information. Thus we now have a population of dogs beautifully adapted to its environment. Biologists encountering our ice-bound population of dogs, observing them to be isolated[vi] from other populations of dogs, could argue that they be given a new species name.
So here we see natural selection, adaptation, and possibly even speciation—but no new genes have been added. In fact, there’s been a loss of genes (the genetic information for short-and medium-length hair has been removed from the population).
The owner back in the land of warmth keep breeding a variety of dogs, occasional getting the shaggy haired one that he sold to Disney to use in making films.
Note that such examples of natural selection, adaptation and speciation are often portrayed as evidence for evolution, but the only thing this ‘evolution’ has done is to remove existing genes. If this population of exclusively long-hair dogs were now relocated to a steamy tropical island, these dogs would not ‘adapt’ to the hot climate unless someone re-introduced the short-hair gene to the population again, by ‘back-crossing’ a short-or medium-length hair dog from somewhere else.
This is exactly the sort of thing that our crop and livestock breeders are doing. They are scouring the world for the original genes created during Creation Week[vii] but which have subsequently been ‘bred out’ (lost) from our domestic varieties/breeds of plants and animals because of breeders artificially selecting certain characteristics, which means other features are de-selected (lost)[viii].
But such a view is incorrect. The only thing this ‘evolution’ has done is to rearrange existing genes. There’s simply been a sorting out of pre-existing genetic information. There’s no new information here of the kind needed to have turned pond scum into poodles, Pekingese, pointers or Pomeranians.
The third “R” – the Ruination of genetic material. We have shown that the processes known as natural selection, adaptation and speciation are real and some of them can be observed within a human life span. However, they simply demonstrates the rearranging and/or removing of genetic material that was originally present at Creation. (I.e. by the end of Day 6, when God completed Creation, declaring it ‘very good’—Genesis 1:31.)
There are invariably a number of dog genes today which were not present at Creation but have arisen since. Those have not arisen by any creative process, but by mutations, which are copying mistakes (typos, we might say) as genes are passed from parents to offspring. You would expect such accidental changes to wreck the existing genes, and that’s what generally happens. For example, there is something called ‘floppy ear syndrome’[ix] resulting from a mutated gene.
Dogs with this genetic mutation have weaker cartilage and cannot lift up their ears. The ears just hang as opposed to standing upright. As you might expect, dogs with erect ears are far superior to floppy-eared dogs at detecting prey by sound.[x]
Have you ever wondered how such floppy-eared dogs could have evolved and survived in the wild. They didn’t. There are no wild canines with floppy ears- they all have upright ears in order to hear other predators and their food sources. Instead this mutation in the genes has arisen since the original “very good” world (Genesis 1:31) was cursed as a result of Adam’s sin (Genesis 3:17–19). The floppy-eared mutation in dogs is but one example of how a post-Fall world is very much “in bondage to decay” (Romans 8:19–22). So common is this mutational defect in modern domesticated dogs that many people naïvely think of floppy-eared dogs as ‘normal’ and ‘cute.’
The above examples of changes in fur length and ear structure of dogs are not evolutionary changes. Rearranging genes, Removing genes, and Ruining genes are not the sort of genetic changes that could have turned bacteria into basset hounds—ever. The ‘3 Rs’ could never add up to mosquitoes, mesquite, mutts and man from microbes (let alone from molecules!).
As we’ve seen in the length of fur example, long hair and short hair can appear in just one generation, arising from the in-built canine genetic variation—variation that was built-in to dogs at Creation. So Noah didn’t need to take on board the Ark multiple pairs of dingoes, Dalmatians, and dachshunds; or coyotes, Chihuahua, and cocker spaniels. He only needed two dogs—just as the Bible suggests (Genesis 6:19–20).
Ok, a brief overview of Biblical biology. We’ve covered tobacco leaves, caterpillars, wasps, short, medium and long haired dogs and floppy eared dogs. We will continue to monitor the evillutionists and atheists web sites and counter their arguments with facts and alternate suppositions for their opinions.
[iii] Note for the non-chemistry buffs: Z means that the atoms with the highest atomic number are on the same side of a double bond, from German zusammen = together. E means they are on the opposite side, from entgegen = opposite.
[iv] E.g. page 32 of Pringle, L., Billions of years, amazing changes: The story of evolution, Boyds Mills Press, Inc., Pennsylvania, USA, 2011. For a comprehensive page-by-page rebuttal of the claims in that book see creation.com/pringle-review.
[v] ‘Co-dominant genes’ would behave in this manner. The exact genetic basis of hair length is not known yet, but it is something like this, although there could be more than one pair of genes involved.
[vi] Geographic isolation is often used as a basis for a new species to be named. This is consistent with the somewhat arbitrary nature of species names, cf. the biblical ‘kind’
[vii] See Batten, D., What! … no potatoes? Creation 21(1):12–14, 1998; creation.com/potatoes. Not all breeders would realize that this is in fact what they are doing. Sadly, they would pay homage to evolution rather than God.
[ix] Geneticists have now tracked the difference between floppy and erect ears to a single gene region in canine chromosome 10 (CFA 10). Boyko, A., Quignon, P., Li, L., Schoenebeck, J., Degenhardt, J., and 19 others, A Simple Genetic Architecture Underlies Morphological Variation in Dogs, PLoS Biology 8(8):e1000451, 2010.
[x] The selecting of hounds with floppy ears is understandable considering they have to rely more on smell and thus this sense is heightened; hence they tend to be good sniffer dogs (bloodhounds, etc.).