WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION?

> Home

> Genesis Account of Creation
Science or Pseudo-Science?

> Origin of the Universe (Cosmology)
Science or Pseudo-Science?

> Origin of Life (Abiogenesis)
Science or Pseudo-Science?

> Common Descent (Darwinism)
Science or Pseudo-Science?

> How Does Evolution
Supposedly Work?

> Mutations

> Genetics

> Genetic Recombination

> Natural Selection

> Fossil Evidence

> Stasis

> "Junk" DNA

> Endogenous Retroviruses

	“But they are trying to figure out how evolution happens, and that's not an easy job.” University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education website, “The big issues” http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_50

Do Darwinists know how evolution supposedly occurs?

Evolutionists openly admit that they don’t know how evolution supposedly occurs (see bottom of page). When challenged to give hypothetical genetic scenarios of how novel features arise, they retreat in silence as seen on our forum:

• http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/756950/
  
• http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/748021/
  
• http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/746941/
  
• http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/730697/
  
• http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/730410/

When likely scenarios are actually proposed, they routinely:

1. Suggest that a particular ‘need’ produces change, and/or;
   
2. Cite a mechanism that has not been scientifically proven to cause the genetic change that is claimed, and/or;
   
3. Builds on component structures that appear out of nowhere, and/or;
   
4. Omits specific mention of a likely genetic mechanism.

THE FOLLOWING ARE TWO EVOLUTIONARY SCENARIOS THAT ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN HOW EVOLUTION CREATES AN EYE:

Example #1

“The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

Critique of terms used:

1. “Random changes …”
   No mention of a likely genetic process.
2. “simple light-sensitive spot”
   No explanation for the initial evolution of each complex component that makes-up the spot or the response triggers that activate the flagella. Read how complex “spots” are:
   “These eyes constitute the simplest and most common visual system found in nature. The eyes contain optics, photoreceptors and the elementary components of a signal-transduction chain. Rhodopsin serves as the photoreceptor, as it does in animal vision. Upon light stimulation, its all-trans-retinal chromophore isomerizes into 13-cis and activates a photoreceptor channel
   which leads to a rapid Ca2+ influx into the eyespot region. At low light levels, the depolarization activates small flagellar current which induce in both flagella small but slightly different beating changes resulting in distinct directional changes. In continuous light, Ca2+ fluxes serve as the molecular basis for phototaxis. In response to flashes of higher energy the larger photoreceptor currents trigger a massive Ca2+ influx into the flagella which causes the well-known phobic response.”
   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9431675
3. “ … evolved into a retina,”
   No explanation for the evolution of the components of a fully formed retina, the optic nerve, or the independent specific mental and neural capacity required for interpreting the information. The following describes the components of a retina:
   “It contains millions of photoreceptors that capture light rays and convert them into electrical impulses. These impulses travel along the optic nerve to the brain where they are turned into images.
   There are two types of photoreceptors in the retina: rods and cones. The retina contains approximately 6 million cones. The cones are contained in the macula, the portion of the retina responsible for central vision. They are most densely packed within the fovea, the very center portion of the macula.
   There are approximately 125 million rods. They are spread throughout the peripheral retina and function best in dim lighting. The rods are responsible for peripheral and night vision.”
   http://www.stlukeseye.com/anatomy/Retina.asp

Example #2

“This ancient animal probably had very simple eye spots with no image-forming ability, but still needed some diversity in eye function. It needed to be able to sense both slow, long-duration events such as the changing of day into night, and more rapid events, such as the shadow of a predator moving overhead. These two forms arose by a simple gene duplication event and concomitant specialization of association with specific G proteins, which has also been found to require relatively few amino acid changes. This simple molecular divergence has since proceeded by way of the progress of hundreds of millions of years and amplification of a cascade of small changes into the multitude of diverse forms we see now. There is a fundamental unity that arose early, but has been obscured by the accumulation of evolutionary change. Even the eyes of a scorpion carry an echo of our kinship, not in their superficial appearance, but deep down in the genes from which they are built.”
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2008/03/eyeing_the_evolutionary_past.php?page=3

Critique:

1. “ … but still needed some diversity in eye function. It needed to be able to sense …”
   An organism senses a need? This suggests that a particular need produces change:
   “Contrary to a widespread public impression, biological evolution is not random, even though the biological changes that provide the raw material for evolution are not directed toward predetermined, specific goals.”
   “Science, Evolution, and Creationism,” 2008, National Academy of Sciences (NAS), The National Academies Press, 3rd edition, page 50.
2. “ … very simple eye spots,”
   Refer to above “Example #1.”
3. “ … simple gene duplication event”
   There is NO scientific proof that gene duplication can create genes with more complex functions. Research papers reflect this admission by using words “most likely”:
   “Duplicate gene evolution has most likely played a substantial role in both the rapid changes in organismal complexity apparent in deep evolutionary splits and the diversification of more closely related species. The rapid growth in the number of available genome sequences presents diverse opportunities to address important outstanding questions in duplicate gene evolution.”
   http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2F
   journal.pbio.0020206&ct=1&SESSID=9999360a804131d0f0009da33ced0db9
   An erroneous example cited is the claim that, over 100 million years ago, two genes of the yeast S. cerevisiae supposedly evolved from one gene of another specie of yeast (K. lactis).
   Refer to:
   http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7163/abs/nature06151.html
   What is the evidence for their claim? Nothing but the presupposition that Darwinism is true so the very existence of two genes that total the same functions of the one gene proves that they must have evolved from each other:
   ”The primary evidence that duplication has played a vital role in the evolution of new gene functions is the widespread existence of gene families.”
   http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2F
   journal.pbio.0020206&ct=1&SESSID=9999360a804131d0f0009da33ced0db9
   Also, what Darwinists fail to present is a feasible step-by-step scenario how each gene could:
   - split their functions in a precise manner so that neither function would be lacking until ‘random chance’ completed the event.
   - became fixed in a population with each new step so that it would be carried on to future generations:
   “A duplicated gene newly arisen in a single genome must overcome substantial hurdles before it can be observed in evolutionary comparisons. First, it must become fixed in the population, and second, it must be preserved over time. Population genetics tells us that for new alleles, fixation is a rare event, even for new mutations that confer an immediate selective advantage. Nevertheless, it has been estimated that one in a hundred genes is duplicated and fixed every million years (Lynch and Conery 2000), although it should be clear from the duplication mechanisms described above that it is highly unlikely that duplication rates are constant over time.”
   http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2F
   journal.pbio.0020206&ct=1&SESSID=9999360a804131d0f0009da33ced0db9
   
4. “concomitant specialization”
   This apparently means that, “rather than having two copies of a gene do two things poorly, they both specialize on one substrate.”
   http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/pz-meyers-casey.html#
   more Comment #145689
   Evolutionists devise all sorts of redundant and scientific sounding terms when they want to make something sound complicated. This term adds nothing to describe how the genetic process occurred.
5. “of association with specific G proteins”
   Because of the split in function between the two genes, the molecular switch (G protein) must also be modified to coincide with the specific regulation needed to precisely co-regulate the two genes:
   “Moreover, in order for the organism to respond to an every-changing environment, intercellular signals must be transduced, amplified, and ultimately converted to the appropriate physiological response.”
   http://edrv.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/24/6/765
   See movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NB7YfAvez3o&feature=related
   Of course, random chance, is cited for this also.

EVEN EVOLUTIONISTS ADMIT TO NOT KNOWING HOW EVOLUTION SUPPOSEDLY WORKS:

• "Students should realize that although virtually all scientists accept the general concept of evolution of species, scientists do have different opinions on how fast and by what mechanisms evolution proceeds.”
  The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Educational Benchmarks, (F) Evolution of Life
  http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/ch5/ch5.htm#F
  
• “Scientists are still uncovering the specifics of how, when, and why evolution produced the life we see on Earth today."
  Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History
  http://www.nmnh.si.edu/paleo/geotime/main/foundation_life3.html
  
• “But they are trying to figure out how evolution happens, and that's not an easy job.”
  University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education
  http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_50
  
• “Precisely how and at what rates descent with modification occurs are areas of intense research. For example, much work is under way testing the significance of natural selection as the main driving force of evolution.”
  The American Geological Institute
  http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/mechanismforchange.html