Q and A: Isn’t Evolution Logical?

Today’s question is about Evolution:

What are the biggest problems you see with Evolution exactly? The more I look into it, the more it seems like evolution is more logical. I mean why can you accept small changes over a small period of time but large changes over large periods of time seems impossible?

A very good question, and in a sense it sums up the whole debate.

No young earth Creationist I know of would suggest that living things never change. No YEC organization would say that God created all existing species as they exist today during Creation week. Species change all of the time. New species are discovered every year, which strongly implies that new species are forming, as opposed to us simply failing to identity millions of species for hundreds of years. Given enough time, can’t small changes add up into big ones?fish-lizard-copy

On the surface, I agree that this sounds very logical. The problem begins with the word “Changes.” You probably haven’t given a lot of thought into what this word means. Most textbooks do very little to define it. They say just what this question has said- living things “change” over time. Little changes add up into big ones. Evolution!

In essence, there are three kinds of changes- additive, subtractive, and neutral. For instance, if I paint my car a different color, that is a neutral change because it has little effect on the car. It won’t run any better or worse, or get different gas mileage, or effect how much weight I can carry in the trunk. Or I can have my tires moved around so that the ones which are on the front are now on the back and vice versa. It’s a change, but not one with much impact.

If I replace my old engine with a more fuel efficient one, I have added new ability to my car. It will get better gas mileage and run smoother. It will be less affected by the harsh winter weather and will run in snow storms instead of shutting down. It will save me money! Money I can spend on nachos. Mmmm…

On the other hand, I can remove from the engine every part which is not made of metal. This will make my car more resistant to heat damage, as metal has a much higher melting point than plastic or rubber does. However, my car will not function at all. Without shielding on the wires, or belts, or all the other non-metal parts, the car will not go anywhere.

All three of these are changes. If I add parts, if I take away parts, if I move around parts which were already there, I make changes. But it ought to be clear that not all changes are equal. If I show up on your door step with a sledge hammer and a chainsaw and ask to make some changes to your car, you will want to consider this carefully.

Now, which kind of changes will turn a worm into a fish, or a fish into a lizard, or an ape into a human? Consider that all of the parts and behaviors of living things are coded for in their DNA. Can you take a worm, and shuffle its genes enough to make a lizard or an eagle or a moose? Nope. Can you take a worm and REMOVE enough of its genes to make a humming bird or a coyote or a Bengal tiger? Nope.

Shuffling existing genes will not make a new kind of animal. It may make a new SPECIES, depending on how you define species. But the question of evolution is not if white chickens and black chickens can make grey chickens, or black and white chickens. The question is if a dinosaur can make a chicken, or if a fish can make a dinosaur, or if a worm can make a fish. Can new KINDS of plant or animals arise through natural means?

Here is why Evolution is in fact impossible:

  1. Every step up the evolutionary tree of life requires HUGE additions of genetic information, and there are countless steps which cannot be made with small, slight, successive, gradual modifications. Many systems- I daresay MOST- have irreducibly complex parts or functions which cannot work unless the entire system is in place. This is found in every plant, animal, or microbe. This fact of nature demands an intelligent designer. Random chance CANNOT account for it, anymore than it can account for the contents of your neighborhood library.
  2. The only kinds of changes we ever see in nature or in the lab are changes of neutral shuffling of existing genes, or the loss of existing genes. We see losses and shuffling, but never the kind of changes which add structure, function, or behaviors to a species, causing it to add branches onto the tree of life and become a new kind of animal or plant.
  3. Almost every proposed mechanism of evolutionary change is neutral or subtractive. The only one which could even hypothetically make additions to the genome, thus causing evolution to occur, is almost always certain to cause damage to existing genetic information, causing disease or death, and is so unlikely to create a new gene as to be equivalent to flipping a coin heads up a thousand times in a row. Not TECHNICALLY impossible, but so unlikely as to be certain never to happen.

I cover all of these in more detail on my Defining Evolution series which you can watch here:


or you can read here: https://abitoforange.com/archives/ (Scroll down to the Defining Evolution section)

Now, let’s consider the logic as science reveals it. Like I said, on the surface, it seems logical that Nature, left to itself will change. And it makes sense that little changes add up over time into big ones. But when we examine the kinds of changes that actually happen by themselves, we actually see a general trend downward. Geologist call this erosion- Mt Rushmore and the Sphinx will change until they are featureless. They will not- if left to nature- become more defined and humanlike. Physicists call this entropy- the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. In short, every system in the universe is gradually running out of usable energy, and every system moves from information and energy into chaos and homogeneous decay. Biologists call this Genetic Entropy– the genome of every species on earth is gathering mutations a little faster than our cellular spell checkers can fix them, which means genetic diseases are increasing. Eventually every species on earth is going to go extinct- if left to nature. THAT is what nature does to genetic information on its own. THAT is what we see when we study DNA. As I have made clear, I reject the evolutionary millions or billions of years, but even if you accept them, you have a bigger problem. If the human race had been on earth for a million years, we would have gone EXTINCT a thousand times over. Genetic entropy is not solved with more time. It becomes lethal.

Nature cannot account for information. The laws of physics and chemistry forbid it. Nature can only degrade and decay. Information REQUIRES an author, and it is far more logical to say that God wrote the DNA language than to say that DNA decayed into existence from simpler chemicals.

Every science discipline points toward our Creator God and validates scripture. Evolution seems reasonable as long as you use hazy words like “change,” but the moment you define the terms and look at the data and discover the probabilities, you see that Evolution is an embarrassing lie. Here’s a metaphor: If you hear a man has died of a gunshot wound, you can easily and logically believe that he committed suicide, or accidentally shot himself while cleaning his gun. Once you discover that the gun is a six shooter, and he was shot 47 times with it, those options are no longer reasonable. I reject evolution because I understand it.

Evolution requires one to remain in the dark, either because of a lack of information or because they choose to close their eyes. If you want to see why I reject evolution and why you should too, learn MORE SCIENCE. Demand MORE EVIDENCE. Don’t settle for the interpretations of the fossils, ask to see that fossils. Don’t settle for hazy terms like “change,” ask for a description of the changes. And don’t get your understanding of the Bible from internet memes or snooty British biologists- read the Bible.

As always, I recommend you search Answers In Genesis or Ian Juby via youtube for these topics if you want to learn more in depth (and see more cited support from the secular, evolutionary sources). If you have more questions, let me know. But I want to let you know that a better understanding of the facts will show you that science supports the bible from cover to cover, just as archeology, history, and philosophy do. Don’t stop asking questions until you come to know and embrace the fact that


This entry was posted in Q&A and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s