Critical Question for Evolutionists
Did natural selection do anything to explain the necessary genomic change of evolution?
We recently posted the diagram above at our Facebook page (Facebook/CreationReformationWorld). The post included this message:
Critical Question for Evolutionists: What did Natural Selection do to explain the necessary change from the first genome to the human genome? Study the diagram below, which shows the answer. For those with eyes to see, the answer is clear: NOTHING! More info: www.CreationReformation.com. Join us today in spreading this truth. Share this post with all your friends!
The truth hiding in plain sight is that evolutionary theory cannot explain the necessary genomic change to reprogram the first living genome into, say, the human genome.
The truth of necessary genomic change hides behind the massive smoke screen of natural selection. Natural selection is the keystone in Darwin’s theoretical arch. If removed, the arch falls. We show that the arch cannot stand under scrutiny, except in the minds of those who require a naturalistic (i.e., Godless) creation story for their worldview.
In light of the diagram above, carefully consider this truth about human existence: if evolution is true as an explanation for human beings, it must explain how the first coded genome for, say, a microbe was reprogrammed via random mutations into the human coded genome.
Genomic change. Reprograming coded genomes. That is the sole criteria for an evolutionary explanation for all current living things. But note that there is only one mechanism in evolutionary theory for producing genomic change: random genetic variation (e.g., mutations).
Natural selection plays no role in producing genomic change. Natural selection “acts” only after genomic change enters nature in offspring. And natural selection does nothing to adapt, modify, or otherwise change the genomes produced by genetic variation in offspring. The oft-cited “filter” analogy for natural selection is correct: already changed genomes pass through the filter unchanged to survive and reproduce. And they would have survived and reproduced if the filter did not exist; natural selection does nothing!
All the examples of natural selection in nature are examples of re-apportioning existing genetic change in nature. This “population genetics” view of evolution explains the popularly held view of evolution defined as a change in allele frequencies within a population. “Alleles” are just gene variations, and the term refers to those genes modified in offspring in differing ways. In the popular Peppered Moth example of natural selection, the light-colored moths were produced because a gene for coloring was modified by mutations to be an allele producing light-coloring. Likewise, the dark-colored moths were produced by an allele producing dark-colored moths.
But the key is that both the light- and dark-colored moths “were produced” prior to natural selection doing anything. The fact that there was a “change in allele frequencies within a population” of moths explains exactly zero genomic change in anything.
A commenter responded to our Facebook post with the following comment. Pay attention to the first few lines; we include the complete comment because it is typical of our commenters:
Pose it to a Genomic Researcher, maybe. Not gullible, uneducated folks on Facebook. Science is not about following the crowd-- it's about following evidence. There is no evidence for the Christian tale. There is no good reason a person born in this time should believe in mud magic, rib women, talking snakes, worldwide floods, 900 year old people, dragons, witches, ghosts, multiplying fish, aquatic moonwalking, dove-smashing cures for leprosy, virgin mammalian birth, zombies, etc. We need to start having real, adult conversations which factor in discoveries of the last 200 years. And yes, I have studied much of this, formally-- both the religious claims and the different sciences helping to melt common religious paradigms.
Challenge accepted. We went to the National Human Genome Research Institute to see what they had to say. Not surprisingly to us (but certainly will be to them!), they agree with us! The NIH provides this definition of evolution:
Evolution, as related to genomics, refers to the process by which living organisms change over time through changes in the genome. Such evolutionary changes result from mutations that produce genomic variation, giving rise to individuals whose biological functions or physical traits are altered. Those individuals who are best at adapting to their surroundings leave behind more offspring than less well-adapted individuals. Thus, over successive generations (in some cases spanning millions of years), one species may evolve to take on divergent functions or physical characteristics or may even evolve into a different species.
Read that definition again in light of our diagram above and our Critical Question. Note that in “leaving behind more offspring” (e.g., the “population genetics” view of evolution by natural selection) no genomic change happens.
The NIH confirms The Natural Selection Paradox: “Natural selection did nothing to cause or explain any evolutionary change leading to any current living thing.” Once this truth is known, evolutionary theory can be discarded as a reasonable explanation for all living things. But it will be discarded only by those with eyes to see and ears to hear the real truth about human beings: creation in the image of God.
Our mission is to expose the false narrative that uses population genetics to imply that necessary genomic change happens in nature. It’s a slow slog for us because of all the misinformation and ideological resistance to the idea. But here we stand, we can do no other!
Will you help us? Share this post with your friends. And subscribe. We thank you!
(C) 2023 Creation Reformation