by Bill Nugent
Article #165
Please bear with me as I send you yet another article countering evolution. I feel that I must do this because evolution, like no other thought system, attempts to explain the origin, development and purpose of life by natural processes alone. Evolution is the very taproot of unbelief and is the engine of secularization. It is taught to millions of schoolchildren at taxpayer expense and destroys the faith of many. As science progresses the flaws in the theory of evolution become evermore apparent.
In this article we will examine predictions made by the theory of evolution. Every scientific theory, if it is valid, not only makes sense of data collected from past events but also must have a certain degree of predictive accuracy. For example, let’s first briefly look at a theory in astronomy that makes accurate predictions. Astronomers have long theorized that comets are composed of frozen water, carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and dust particles. This is the “dirty iceberg” theory of comet composition advanced by F.L. Whipple. This theory makes sense of data collected in the past and also predicts that since a comet passes close to the sun during part of its orbit, the comet will shrink due to evaporation of water and other components. After Whipple advanced his theory, astronomers did observe that the nuclei of comets do in fact shrink as they repeatedly orbit the sun. Comets behaved as whipple’s theory predicted and his theory is thus validated.
Evolution, if it is valid, must also make accurate predictions. The theory of evolution has long predicted that new organ systems will be observed in plants and animals in the present and future. A new organ system can be defined as a major restructuring of an organism in which new body structures are added. First, lets look at a past example of a new organ system that evolution claims evolved by random mutation of DNA. Once we understand what a new organ system is we will then understand the boldness of the prediction that such new organ systems will appear on organisms in the future.
Evolution claims that in the past, certain species of snakes obtained the ability to inflict poisonous bites by evolving new body parts. The snakes allegedly evolved retractable fangs, poison bladder, liquid poison of correct chemical composition, appropriate muscle structure to retract the fangs, etc. It was a major restructuring of the snake’s mouth which would require the addition of much new information in the form of chemical base pairs added to the DNA. This was all supposed to happen by a blind unguided process of the gradual accumulation of multitudes of favorable genetic mutations.
Remember that in this unguided process a snake is just as likely to get a mutation giving it feathers as it is to get a mutation giving it fangs! Furthermore the new organ system must mutate into the organism all at once or not at all. A partially formed organ system would likely be grotesque and disadvantageous to the point of hindering or preventing survival.
From what geneticists know of the complexity of DNA and the near impossibility of mutations to add chemical base pairs to DNA and the massive addition of base pairs required for new organ systems it seems the evolutionists have quite a task to prove evolution happened in the past before they can make any bold predictions.
Nevertheless, evolution does indeed predict the rise of nascent (new) organs and new organ systems that change an organism into a different kind. This brings us to what scientists are now observing in present day organisms as new data is gathered from around the world. Do we see these new organs forming on plants and animals? Do we see, for instance, wings abruptly appearing on a new generation of toads? To be fair do we even see the stubs of wings appearing on newly born toads? Do we see feathers appearing on deer?
Remember, evolution is an unguided process. Wings, feathers or fangs can appear anywhere at any time on any organism. Of all the millions of species from the Amazon rain forest to the tundra regions of the frozen north do researchers observe any new organs or organ systems being generated in plants or animals being born today? The answer is that micromutations such as a new color of a flower are occasionally observed but nothing that could be considered a new organ has ever been cataloged. Major mutations have been observed but these have been deformities of a disadvantageous or fatal nature.
The main evolutionist defense regarding the absence of new organs is their claim that evolution occurs too slow to be observed. Evolution, if true, would be too slow to observe in one species. There are, however, millions of species and if there were any validity to evolution, observers would expect to find substantial numbers of examples of new organ systems in this vast multitude of gene pools. Evolution’s predictions remain unfulfilled and this is but one of many evidences of its falseness.