|
|
|
|
|
|
Argument #3 Against EvolutionSimilarities and Genetic Distanceby Jeff Estep
***DISCLAIMER- PLEASE READ*** THE AUTHOR OF THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT HAVE A PH.D., NOR DOES HE OR SHE CLAIM OR PRETEND TO BE A PROFESSIONAL SCIENTIST WITH CREDENTIALS THAT WOULD MAKE HIM AN "EXPERT" IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. ALTHOUGH THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED IN THIS ARTICLE ARE ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, "REASONS FOR CHRIST" ASKS THAT YOU WOULD PLEASE NOT USE THIS ARTICLE AS A SOURCE IN ACADEMIC PAPERS. THIS IS FOR YOUR PROTECTION. ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE OUR ARTICLES ARE CREDIBLE, ANY ARGUMENTS YOU MAKE IN AN ACADEMIC PAPER WOULD BE MUCH MORE POWERFUL IF YOU USED ARTICLES WRITTEN BY AUTHORS WITH PH.D.'S AS YOUR SOURCES . THE BIBLIOGRAPHY AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE SHOULD HELP YOU FIND SOME GOOD SOURCES. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR SOURCES AND WHERE WE FOUND THEM, PLEASE E-MAIL US AND WE WILL RESPOND. Let's say you live on a golf course. Like many of your neighbors, you love to wake up early and play a couple holes before you go to work. One morning, you roll out of bed, get dressed, and walk out your back door onto the 7th hole fairway. You notice that the grass is wet. Not just dewy wet, but really wet. Why, you think, is the ground wet? Logic might lead you to the obvious conclusion that it rained the previous night. But does a wet ground prove a recent rain? Not necessarily. Maybe the underground sprinkler system watered the fairway. Although one would expect the ground to be wet after a rain, a wet ground doesn't necessarily prove it rained, because precipitation isn't the only way the ground can get wet. What does this have to do with evolution? Everything! Evolutionists love to point out that some animals are similar to other animals, and then insist that the similarities prove evolution. But what we have is the golf course problem all over again. Although animals should be similar if evolution is true, do similar animals prove evolution, or is there another possible explanation that isn't getting a fair shake? If God created the world, wouldn't we also expect to find similarities in different animals? Many vertebrates have basically the same skeletal structure. Many animals have two forearm bones, and two bones in the lower leg. Mammals give milk. Reptiles and birds lay eggs. There is a definite pattern to the world we see. Does this pattern necessarily prove evolution, or could it signify the existence of a common designer? Because we would expect to see this pattern in either case, similarities alone cannot PROVE evolution. Many evolutionists also like to use the concept of "genetic distance", which measures the difference in DNA and protein structure, etc., of different animals to determine how "close" one animal is to another. For instance, some evolutionists claim that humans are 95-99% similar to chimpanzees. Because of this observation, they insist, one can conclude that humans must have evolved from apes. But the genetic distance between two animals depends on the chemical being tested. One type of chemical test may show the two animals to be very close relatives, while another test may show them to be more genetically distant. For instance, one type of blood precipitation test gives the impression that the chimpanzee is man's closest relative. However, if we consider this test as evidence for evolution, we must consider the following as evidence against evolution:
If genetic distance tests are proofs of evolution, shouldn't we conclude that we evolved from the donkey, or the garter snake, or the chicken? Because they do not give consistent, definite answers, genetic distance tests cannot be relied upon as evidence for evolution.
Sources:
|
