Jackson Wheat

July 6, 2015
Evolution? Impossible!
Answers in Genesis article titled Evolution? Impossible! makes the claim that
evolution iswait for itimpossible. This idea stems from the creationist pretension that all
disagreeing ideas are easily defeatable without observation or experimentation. In fact the article
makes that very assertion, In fact, refuting evolution doesnt require complicated equations or
lab experimentsthough those do the job, too. Absolutely, look at Josh Feuerstein: he
disproved evolution in fewer than three minutes by simply stringing together words! Oh wait,
that reminds me; all of his arguments are just meaningless word salads.
The interesting thing about this article is that it has no author apparently. The AiG staff
usually enjoys marking its territory, but I suppose not this time since it is attempting to challenge
well-established scientific ideas. If I were challenging some idea that I did not understand well
by complaining about it on a creationist website instead of actually challenging the scientific
community, then I would not want to sign my name either. I cannot stand the obvious egotism
presented by creationists when they pontificate on subjects that they have little to no
understanding of. That brings me back to the articles introductory statement: Science has
proven evolution is fact. Its like a strange Darwinian chant that emanates from atheist blogs and
secular universities. Right, it is so weird that people listen to respected scientists and
universities that have proven evolution, while creationist think tanks get no recognition
whatsoever. Truly disheartening.
Moving away from AiG promoting people ignorant of scientific subjects to pontificate
upon them, the article finally makes some sense. The article says, Everything that makes up
your body requires genetic information. Correct, is the article going to make some sort of point
with this? Indeed, it does, The genetic information in humans varies from the information in
animals, plants, and so on. Seems obvious, so why point it out? Because for animal kind A to
somehow presto-change-o into animal kind B, the informations got to change. A fish doesnt
just morph into an amphibian without something changing in the genes. It would have to gain
some new information. Okay, so the article points out something everyone, including
creationists, should already know about genetics, and then says that speciation is impossible
That is odd considering other creationists, like Dr. Georgia Purdom, have no problems with
speciation. There are also many experiments that have been performed which show speciation
among bacteria and the acquisition of new traits, specifically the ability to digest citrate.
But perhaps I have missed an important piece of information; what is a kind? A year after
I first heard the word, I first heard it at the Nye-Ham debate, no creationist has given me a
definition of the word. I have pointed this out in previous essays, and the problem remains the
same. Ken Ham gave two different definitions of the same word during the debate: dog, cat, and
elephant kind. First, dogs and cats, canids and felids (respectively), are different taxonomic
families, while proboscidea, elephants, is a taxonomic order. Mr. Ham gave two definitions in
the same breath! In fact if either of the definitions Mr. Ham gave ever occurred in nature, the
theory of evolution would be disproven. Evolution relies on the fact that two organisms of the
same species give birth to a fertile offspring of that species, so two organisms of the same family
or order, but not the same species, giving birth to a fertile offspring would disprove evolution.
The next problem is that the author says information, but what is information? Does
information mean genes? I think that is what it means because of what the following sentence

says. That still does not resolve the issue because all serious biologists recognize that mutations
add genetic code or information to the organism, so is the author disregarding mutations?
Approximately 128 mutations occur per zygote, and I do not think there is an experiment in
which one could disprove the existence of mutations. To say mutations do not occur would be to
say that all humans, for one, look the exact same. That completely disregards every other
organism in existence.
Then, just for fun, the author throws out a straw man argument. The author seems to be
suggesting, and correct me if I am wrong, that a single fish metamorphosizes into an amphibian.
That is bizarre to say the least, so I will give the author a little leeway: perhaps the author is
saying that a fish gave birth to an amphibian (?). That area of evolutionary history, Romers gap,
describes how fish evolved into tetrapoidal amphibians during the late Devonian. The gap has
been intensely studied by paleobiologists, and many forms have been inserted into it: Osteolepis,
Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion, Panderichthys, Elpistostege, Tiktaalik, Elginerpeton,
Densignathus, Ventastega, Metaxygnathus, Obruchevichthys, Hynerpeton, Acanthostega,
Ichthyostega, Whatcheeria, Tulerpeton, Pederpes, Greerepton, Crassigyrinus, Pholidogaster,
Pteroplax, Baphetes, Balnerpeton, Dendrerpton, Silvanerpeton, Proteogryinus, and Eoherpeton.
But maybe to understand the problem, we must understand fish to amphibian evolution. To
begin, there are three types of fish: ray-finned, lobe-finned, and cartilaginous. Lobe-finned fish
are coelacanths and mudskippers; cartilaginous fish are sharks, skates, and rays; and ray-finned
fish are all other fish. Lobe-finned fish are called so because they have fins which resemble legs,
and it is likely that these fins evolved into legs. The evidence is the fin bone structure in fish
such as Tiktaalik; the fin has one long bone, two shorter bones, a wrist, a hand, and fingers. The
interesting thing about that configuration is that it is present in all vertebrates! It exists from
amphibians to reptiles to birds to whales to bats to humans. Besides, no one with any
background in biology would suggest that two organisms of the same species would give birth to
a fertile offspring of a different species; no human was ever born from a Homo erectus.
Now that I have finally finished with that absurd paragraph, I can move on to the next:
Heres the clincher: when we use operational sciencethe kind involving observable,
repeatable, testable resultswe have never observed, repeated, or been able to test animal kind
A turning into animal kind Bat all. Sure, theres some genetic do-si-do going on
through mutations and gene drift, but theres no way fish are going to sprout hair and opposable
thumbs. I apologize because I thought for a moment that we were past all the inanity, and I was
wrong. First problem: what on Earth is operational science? Is not all science operational? If
science does not operate, then how do we learn new things about the world? This paragraph
seems to be again suggesting that we have never observed speciation, but I would like to point to
hundreds of bacteria experiments and Darwins finches. I would again like to point out that we
still have not been told what a kind isor information for that matter. I think the author is
saying that evolution is not able to be operated upon, but I would encourage the author to ask Dr.
Neil Shubin, the paleontologist who found Tiktaalik, if he made any sort of predictions prior to
his findings. I can almost guarantee that the answer would be yes. He almost undoubtedly
predicted that the only fossils he would find in the strata where he looked would only contain
organisms less complex than amphibians. I am also disappointed because the author continually
uses straw man arguments to describe a field that he or she obviously does not understand.
Perhaps we will find actual intelligence in the next paragraph: Those are interesting
speculations, but they overlook one important rule in biology: life doesnt, cannot, and will

never come from non-life. Life comes from life. Always. Thats the lawthe Law of
Biogenesis, to be exact. All these failed experiments, like the Miller-Urey experiment, really
show is just how much intelligence is required for life to begin in the first place. (That
is, way smarter than us.) I was wrong again; I am really bad at predicting when creationists will
use sensible arguments. Anyway, those interesting speculations, how abiogenesis occurs, are
supported by evidence, while creationism is not. Scientists do not know how exactly life
appeared on our little mud ball, and they will probably never know for certain; however, that
does not mean they cannot make some hypotheses.
A prominent hypothesis involves RNA capture in a phospholipid bubble. Simple
compoundsmethane, water vapor, and cyanideform nucleotides when electrically combined.
The nucleotides adenine, cytosine, guanine, and uracil form ribonucleic acid or RNA, which has
the ability to self-replicate without enzymes. Also, lipid molecules naturally form bubbles when
they interact with water; therefore, if RNA were caught and allowed to evolve inside a lipid
bubble, the RNA would be safe and could evolve for many generations. That would likely
eventually become DNA. The Miller-Urey experiment proved the first part of the hypothesis:
those simple compounds could become nucleotides. So how did it fail?
Second, the author seems to be saying that since we have never observed abiogenesis, it
is impossible. I have used this argument before, but I will use it again. That is the same as
saying, Cancer has not yet been cured; therefore, cancer is incurable. What is funny is how I
only see the law of biogenesis on creationist websites, as if it is some problem for evolution. I
fail to understand how life generally coming from life defeats abiogenesis. Lastly, what is that
about intelligence? What does intelligence, especially with reference to us, have to do with
abiogenesis? Is the author saying that since we do not know everything about abiogenesis, it
requires a god, specifically the god of the Bible? That is both absurd and begging the question,
Where is the evidence?
The article even goes on to say, So, if evolution cant explain how humans came to be
(or any other living thing, for that matter), what can? The Bible. Wait, the article has not yet
proven how evolution cannot explain anything, and yet it is going on to say that there is an
alternative to evolution? The article continues, The Bible provides an eyewitness account of
how the universe and all life came to be. Theres no speculation or strange interpretation needed.
You can just read how God created everything in six days a few thousand years ago. Simple.
Factual. Wait a minute, the Bible does not provide an eyewitness account of creation. Genesis
was written by Moses who lived between 1200 and 1300BC, but the creationists estimate that the
Earth is about 6000 years old! So now we have moved from what are perhaps accidental
misinformation and straw man arguments to straight lies. That is typical creationism.