Do you know the difference between evolution and variation within a kind?

In order to convince everyone that evolution is true, they continually misuse the word ‘evolution’ and instead of properly using it to define the increase of new genetic information that drives one kind of organism to become a completely new and different kind of organism.  Evolution in its purest form would be an amphibian changing into a reptile changing into a mammal changing into a human being.

But that is not the frequent use of the term.  They use the word ‘evolution’ to define any change.  I’ve seen science textbooks explain evolution as any change in allele frequency.  I have brown eyes and my wife has green eyes.  One of our daughters has blue eyes and the other has grey eyes.  According to the textbook, that would be defined as evolution.

Another example of their definition of evolution would be a species of clam in Chesapeake Bay that I read about over 10 years ago.  There was a problem with cadmium contamination in the bay which results the death of over 90% of the clams.  The clams that survived were found to have a thicker shell and carried a genetic trait that made them immune to the cadmium poisoning.  In time, an entirely new population of clams filled the bay.  The scientists reporting the find said this was evolution in action.  In reality, the new population had one less genetic variable than the original population, meaning that they lost information, not gained it.  They were one step closer to extinction which is not what evolution wants.

If they can get you to believe that the loss of information is the same as the gain of new information, then they can get you to believe in the molecules-to-man evolution.  Nearly every day you can read another report of their form of evolution being used to justify belief in the real (molecules-to-man) evolution.

Case in point is a report released by a team of researchers from the University of Toronto Mississauga, Cornell University, University of Montana and the University of Turku in Finland.  They studied the effects of insects on plants over a period of 5 years.  Each team planted two plots each containing evening primrose.  Since evening primrose is self-pollinating, there is very little genetic difference between parent and offspring plants.

One plot, they applied insecticide every other week to keep the plants as insect free as possible.  The other plot was left alone, allowing insects full access.  Each year, the researchers would visit both plots to gather information on the number and types of plants found.  Among the information they gathered were any changes in the primrose genotype frequencies and all traits associated with each genotype.

Their results showed that the plants left exposed to insects showed a greater frequency of genotypes than the plants that were kept more insect free.  They also discovered that other invasive plants like dandelions were more abundant in the plots that were insect free.

In his conclusion, lead researcher Marc Johnson from UTM said:

As these plant populations evolve, their traits change and influence their interactions with insects and other plant species, which in turn may evolve adaptations to cope with those changes.  The abundance and competitiveness of the plant populations is changing. Evolution can change the ecology and the function of organisms and entire ecosystems.

What this research shows is that changes in these plant populations were not the result of genetic drift, but directly due to natural selection by insects on plants.  It also demonstrates how rapidly evolutionary change can occur — not over millennia, but over years, and all around us.

Would it surprise you to learn that Johnson defines evolution as a change in genotype frequency over time?  He also confused the term ‘natural selection’ with evolution.  Natural selection tends to either keep a population stable (no marked genetic differences in the population as a whole) or it drives a population to extinction.  When you think about it, neither of these are the friend of evolution, which requires an ever increasing amount of new genetic information.

What their study showed is that certain conditions, absence of insects, and the presence of pesticides over time can affect a population of plants like evening primrose.  But when all is said and done, they are still evening primrose and made no indication of changing into anything else.  There was no evidence of evolution.  All I see them discovering was adaptation that was affected by the presence or absence of insects.

When God created plants and animals, He gave them large amounts of genetic variability to allow them to adapt and survive in various environments.  When that variability has been so depleted that they can no longer adapt to changes, they cease to exist.  What we observe in nature is a steady decline of all living things, which is what we would expect to find in a world that has suffered from the Curse for just over 6,000 years.

Reference:

Insects a Prime Driver in Plant Evolution and Diversity, Science Daily, Oct. 4, 2012.

 

The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution

by Jonathan Sarfati

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, author of the world’s best-selling creation book, takes outspoken atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins on head to head in the book The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution. Dawkins’ most recent book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution has provided yet another opportunity for Sarfati to show that biblical Christianity best explains the natural biological world, not atheistic evolutionism. Sarfati thoroughly exposes the bankruptcy of Dawkins arguments and methods, highlighting tactics which he deems are unreasonable and illogicalsuch as Dawkins frequently resorting to straw-man arguments.

Sarfatia scientist, chessmaster, logician and Christian apologistknows well the creation vs. evolution controversy. Before publishing The Greatest Hoax on Earth?, he authored the bestselling book, Refuting Evolution, which now has over 500,000 copies in print. His confident and rigorous approach always makes for interesting and thrilling reading, as he tackles his opponents head-on. Sarfati also tackles the ethical and biblical issues that accompany the creation vs. evolution issue.

The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution provides a penetrating examination of Dawkins anti-creationist magnum opus. Drawing on his extensive knowledge of biology, geology, fossils, radiometric dating and more, Sarfati thoroughly exposes the bankruptcy of Dawkins arguments. Thousands of years ago, King Solomon wrote, “The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him.” Sarfati maintains that arguments for evolution and against creation sound convincing only when they are unexamined.

Richard Dawkins is known for his strident atheism, for which he needs evolution. Jonathan Sarfati is known for declaring that the biblical account of origins has abundant evidential support and has withstood the test of time. And unlike some writers, he is able to make the science accessible to the lay reader, making it an informative and educational read that is also an intellectual feast for the scientifically trained. The Greatest Hoax on Earth? pulls together the most up-to-date arguments against evolution and in defense of the biblical account of origins and may very well prove to be Sarfati’s second bestseller.

Click here to download Chapter 1 of this book.

Endorsements:

“In my opinion Sarfati’s book beats Dawkins’ book, point by point, on all issues.”Dr. John Sanford (Professor, Cornell University and inventor of the gene gun)

“The Greatest Hoax on Earth? is an excellent rebuttal to the best evolution has to offer. The reader should walk away with the understanding that evolutionary theory is a house of cards and its chief spokesmen are promoting poor, illogical, and false arguments against the only viable alternative: biblical creation.” Dr. Robert Carter (Ph.D., Marine Biology and Genetics, University of Miami)

Paperback; 336 pages

Continue Reading on