The topic of Step 5 relates to genetic mutations. Genetic mutations are a necessary component of any evolutionary theory that seeks to explain new life forms. Understanding the necessary implications of random genetic changes to the genome of a first living organism to change into that of a second, very different, living organism opens the door to understanding why evolutionary theory fails.
There are two related aspects to the failure mechanism of random genetic mutations that are important to cover. Although these two related aspects overlap in operation, their distinct differences warrant separate treatment.
Before diving into the both aspects of genetic mutations, we lay a foundation of understanding by introducing a Foundational Fact and a Foundational Question.
The Foundational Fact above stands as the single best reason–nature’s own silver bullet–why evolutionary theory is a non-starter in explaining human existence. And in this Step 5 we will learn why that statement is true. While there are many, many other reasons to reject evolution as explaining human origin and existence, the truth of our Foundational Fact alone is sufficient to inform a rational rejection of evolution.
Why isn’t the fact above widely known as true? Because–as we discussed in Step 2–modern scientists believe they must infer only natural explanations for all of nature, regardless of other logical inferences from the material evidence on earth. That is, modern scientists believe they must confine their curiosity to natural explanations, whether such explanations exist or not. But, as we learned in Step 1, we choose not to be constrained by such artificial barriers to truth. We are more curious.
Why is our Foundational Fact important to realize?
According to evolution, the reason we are human beings is because we have inside the cells of our body complex coded building instructions–DNA–tailored to build a human being, and only a human being. According to evolution, however, these carefully coded, complex building instructions evolved over time–primarily by genetic mutations–from a very different, much less complex set of building instructions. According to current evolutionary theory, for example, our human DNA evolved over time from the DNA coded to build a sea sponge. (See, here).
Recalling what we learned about natural selection in Step 4, we now know that natural selection plays no role in the origin and existence of every current life form. But even if we grant natural selection the role of preserving existing life forms, it is undeniable that natural selection plays no role in the production—the origin—of new life forms. This fact can be confirmed by reading every example provided by evolutionists of natural selection working in nature. In none of the examples does any new life form emerge. Every example simply relates the living or dying of already-existing life forms. We urge the reader to investigate this fact.
As we continue, we must face head-on this question: Giving natural selection its full force and effect to preserve created organisms what, then, in the evolutionary toolbox of Darwinism creates new things that then either live or die?
Why is our Foundational Question important to ponder?
What must be true is the identification of a natural process in nature that can explain how a first set of coded instructions for building an ancient primitive life form was modified over time such that a new, and very, very different and more complex second set of coded instructions was created to build human beings.
The necessity of this truth can be realized by understanding our Foundational Question in light of our Foundational Fact above. As we seek to understand we will indeed discover nature’s silver bullet against evolutionary theory: the necessity for a natural process capable of creating new coded building instructions from old coded building instructions. Because, if evolution is true, this necessary process explains the origin and existence of all living beings.
Step 5 will be presented in two parts:
- Part A: What must be true for new species to be created from previous species.
- Part B: Why genetic mutations alone cannot be believed to create new species from previous species.
Part A: What Must Be True For New Species to be Created From Previous Species.
For our discussion we will carefully consider the use of the term “species.” This, of course, is the term Darwin used and for this reason it is the term we will use to critique Darwinism. And we will use the term as Darwin did, which is to say that we will not be tied to a strict definition but will employ a rhetorical approach that includes treating “speciation” in its strongest logical form as the appearance of new living forms, or kinds, of every living organism from previous, different, kinds of living forms. For example, rather than focusing on evolutionary processes to explain the origin of wolves, dingoes, coyotes, or domestic dogs from a dog ancestor we will focus on the reasonableness of believing evolutionary processes can explain the origin of dogs from an ancestor that was not a dog.
The only illustration in On the Origin of Species is a “tree of life” diagram that, according to Darwin, illustrated the steps by which the small differences distinguishing varieties are increased into the larger differences distinguishing species. And Darwin’s illustrated example seeks to show the supposed origin of multiple species that exist today from a species that existed in the Silurian period about 420 million years ago. (See, Charles Darwin, On The Origin of Species, A Facsimile of the First Edition (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964), p. 120, 432)
Clearly, Darwin had in mind a process that did more than produce “varieties” in nature. That is, Darwin had in mind a process that did more than produce wolves, dingoes, coyotes, and domestic dogs from a dog-like animal. He envisioned his theory as explaining how a dog-like animal can originate from a prior animal that is not remotely dog-like. And, importantly, he proposed a theory that purports—and is used today—to explain how human beings originated over time from the first life form—a living being with a form and structure having no resemblance to that of human beings. Thus, when we allege that Darwinism fails to explain the origin of the human species we are using the term species in its strong form: a breeding pair of entirely new kinds of beings on Earth that did not exist before and which can mate to make a third, fertile being of the same kind.
To understand the importance of using the term species as we do (and Darwin did) in its strong form, note that “speciation” is said to be observed happening today among varieties of animals of a similar kind. Take birds, for example. Multiple finch “species” have been observed to arise on the Galapagos Islands and this observation is presented as an example of evolution in real time. These finch species differ in comparatively minor ways—such as beak size—and their designation as distinct species is trivial when considering the purported power of evolution as the originator of species writ large. An ordinary observer would be hard pressed to distinguish one finch species from another.
Using finches as an example, we wish to consider how did the finch-kind of organism originate? That is the question useful in critiquing Darwinism. More generally, we know that any bird-kind of animal is built from a DNA code having instructions to build a bird including sub-codes for building hollow bones, beaks, bird feet, bird eggs, bird reproductive systems, and—uniquely—bird feathers. Further, the bird-kind DNA code includes extensive bird-specific building instructions for integrating all the bird parts into working bird systems. And these instructions instruct to build nonmaterial bird attributes such as unique bird instincts like building distinctive nests. And the bird-kind DNA code includes instructions to build fertile bird pairs that can reproduce more fertile birds. It is trivial to recognize that the bird-kind DNA code can include instructions to build some birds with small beaks and some birds with large beaks. In certain environmental conditions one of either small beaks or large beaks may be more useful to survival. But such environmentally driven “speciation” is of little interest in seeking the origin of the bird in the first place.
Let us continue a bit longer with the bird example as we lay the foundation for our discussion of speciation, particularly the origin of the human species. A search of how the bird evolved leads to websites such as Understanding Evolution provided by the University of California, Berkeley. On this site we read that birds evolved over time from carnivorous dinosaurs of the Late Jurassic (which themselves evolved from the first living organism). A helpful diagram with a timeline and a progression of pictures of animals shows a large dinosaur on one end of the timeline and a bird on the other. In between we are shown that at some point many millions of years ago hollow bones show up in what still looks like a dinosaur kind of animal. Later on the timeline we are shown an animal that still looks like a dinosaur and is said to have had hollow cylindrical feathers. Later still on the timeline tufted feathers appear on an animal, and after many, many millions of years we reach the present time where toothless beaks appear on what appears to be a blue jay.
The Understanding Evolution article accompanying the diagram explains the process which it summarizes with the truism: As birds evolved from these theropod dinosaurs, many of their features were modified.
What is missing in any of the explanation is any discussion of how this happened; what must have been true for “features to be modified” by Darwinian processes?
From our discussion we know that what must have been true is that an operable and working genetic code with DNA-coded instructions to build a meat-eating dinosaur with a carnivore’s digestive system and without feathers was modified over time—unattended and without purpose—through generations of DNA code variations and copying errors to transform into a new and working genetic code with complete DNA-coded instructions to build a seed-eating bird with an herbivore’s (or omnivore’s) digestive system and with hollow bones, feathers, tufted feathers, beaks, and all the accompanying systems to integrate these features. In fact, the original code with instructions to build a dinosaur with all dinosaur parts must—according to evolution—have been completely changed through innumerable unattended random copying errors over many generations to produce an entirely different kind of animal—a blue jay with all bird parts. It seems easy to produce a succinctly crisp diagram of the supposed progression from dinosaur to bird. But can we reasonably believe that what evolution demands be true according to such a diagram is true?
We belabored the point on birds to illustrate a point of crucial importance in our inquiries on evolution. What must be shown by evolutionists is not tidy diagrams showing a supposed progression from, say, dinosaurs to birds. What must be explained beyond truisms is a reason to believe that the intact properly coded genetic instruction set to build a perfectly good dinosaur with no bird parts can be changed by unattended random errors over time to be a totally different, intact properly coded genetic instruction set to build a perfectly good bird with no dinosaur parts. What this discussion of birds illustrates is that, at a meaningful level, the term “species” must be understood—as Darwin understood—to mean “kinds” of animals. Can evolutionary processes really explain how a dinosaur without feathers evolves to a bird with feathers?
We now focus on the only mechanism in evolutionary processes that can possibly produce—create—the necessary “favorable variations,” and, importantly, as Darwin theorized, eventually new life forms: random heritable variation or mutation.
Next: Step 5, Part B: The Need for a Natural Computer Programmer Substitute