Does the law of entropy (systems are breaking down; matter
and energy are dissipating) rule against macroevolution? The evolutionist
persistently argues that this is not the case:
·
Evolutionary biology in no way runs counter to [the
2nd Law of] thermodynamics. The earth is not a closed system, and it
received a large amount of energy from the sun.
There is some truth to this. In limited ways, energy is
transferred to life sources, which collect it. For example, plants can capture
the sun rays and produce energy from them, although, on a grander scale, energy
is dissipating.
However, this is not where the law of entropy spells death
to the theory of macroevolution, which has hypothesized the large changes. One
indication of the law of entropy is found in the deterioration of the genetic
codes. Instead, of finding evolutionary development (an improvement in the
genome and growth in complexity), we are finding the very opposite – de-evolution:
·
Modern science has difficulty explaining why
cells stop making perfect copies. This is because modern science assumes
evolution to be a fact which requires a belief that we are increasing in
complexity – evolving upwards. Therefore, cell reproduction should be getting
better with time, not worse. Furthermore, if humans have been around for 1
million years (or more), then there have been over 20,000 generations of humans
in existence. It is documented that every generation has between 100 and 1000
mistakes added to the DNA code. [John C. Stanford, “Genetic Entropy and the
Mystery of the Genome,” Third Ed. 2008, 45-88]
Breakdown of the species rather than development is what is
found, as even evolutionists note:
·
Lynn Margulis, member of the National Academy of
Sciences: "new mutations don't create new species; they create offspring
that are impaired.” She further explained in a 2011 interview:
•
Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when
mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the
accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change-led to new species.
I believed it until I looked for evidence.
Is evolution a fact, as some claim? Evidently, not:
·
“There is no theoretical reason that would
permit us to expect that evolutionary lines would increase in complexity with
time; there is also no empirical evidence that this happens.” (John Maynard
Smith, E. Szathmary—quoted from John Lennox’s book, “God’s Undertaker: Has
Science Buried God,” 107) (All the following quotations are taken from this
masterful book!)
In short, there is no evidence for the increase of useful
genetic information over time:
·
“In the whole experimentally accessible domain
of microevolution (including research in artificial breeding and in species
formation), all variations have certainly remained within the confines of basic
types [species, more or less].” (Siegfried Scherer)
·
Cell biologist E.J. Ambrose of the University of
London argued that it is unlikely that fewer than five genes could ever be
involved in the formation of even the simplest new structure, previously
unknown in the organism. He then points out that only one in 1,000 mutations is
non-deleterious, so that the chance of five non-deleterious mutations occurring
is 1 in a million billion replications.
This means that every organism will probably die before it
adds a new organ! Even the in laboratory, where mutations can be induced, we
have seen no net gain in genetic information:
·
In his book, Grasse observed that fruit flies
remain fruit flies in spite of thousands of generations that have been bred and
all the mutations that have been induced in them…More recent work on the E.
coli bacterium backs this up. In this research no real innovative changes were
observed through 25,000 generations of E. coli bacterium. (Lennox, 108)
Consequently, Bruce Malone concludes:
·
“No experiment has ever shown how useful functioning
information can be added to the DNA molecule by random changes.”
Even worse for the evolutionist, de-evolution is what has
been observed in conformity with entropy. Malone cites the growing accumulation
of genetic defects within the human genome:
·
“This [collection of defects] is exactly what is
happening to the human genome at an alarming rate. Thousands of tiny mistakes
are building up with each generation.”
De-evolution is observed in many others ways. Instead of
star creation, we have only observed star destruction:
·
“We have never seen a star born, but we have
seen hundreds die.” (Kleiss)
Across the board, 98% of all species have disappeared:
·
“One-third of all known species [of birds] on
the [Hawaiian] islands have become extinct within the last 1,500 years. Yet no
new species of Hawaiian birds have developed over the same period…This evidence
implies that the millions of different life forms on Earth could not have come
from evolution, because creatures become extinct far faster than they could
possibly evolve into new types.” (Kleiss)
De-evolution is the rule. It also confirms the Biblical
account. God had made everything “very good” and without death. We have been degrading
and dying ever since.
No comments:
Post a Comment