Evidence For Evolution Is Lacking



The editor’s note on the letter to the editor titled Creationism and evolution once again raised the question of what is considered adaptation and what is evolution in the microbe to man sense. Cross breeding and genetic manipulation have never produced a new form (kind) of life. They have produced the appearance of different traits within a kind. These techniques can only work with existing genetic information and cannot produce the addition of new genetic information needed to begin a new form of life. This is an absolute necessity for the theory of evolution to be viable. If the mechanism for the addition of new genetic information is not a basic tenant of evolutionary thinking, it can only be because the mechanism is not yet known. Shouldn’t this mechanism be the very foundation upon which this theory is based? Yet it is MIA. There is actually no foundation upon which to promote this theory! Because of this, I maintain that evidence for evolution is lacking, regardless of what most scientists say.

In addition, the microbe to man theory of evolution violates many of the tested theories and laws within the sciences. Science has never observed an exception to the cell theory or the law of biogenesis, but evolution insists that there must be exceptions to both.

DNA is coded information necessary for the existence of life. Information codes always have an intelligent source, without exception. Evolution must make the illogical claim that this code comes from chance and random processes even though DNA is by far the most compact information storage system known to man. It far exceeds man’s best efforts, showing us that the real Creator is much more intelligent than man. For most scientists this logical conclusion seems so very hard to accept. Shouldn’t the logical conclusions be allowed in the school curriculum?

Peter Greer

Editor’s note: First a confession. I got mixed up in my response to Pete’s Tuesday letter. That letter from Pete was actually a response to a letter George Templeton wrote. My bad. Fortunately, Pete’s an amiable and patient guy (how could he not be with that name?) and says he forgives me. Above, you’ll find the letter he actually sent me, lost in the wilds of my e-mail. First, Pete says despite the measurable changes in DNA that result from genetic engineering and cross breeding, no new species have been observed. But that’s a circular semantic argument, since we humans decide when to call something a different species. We could say that Great Danes and miniature poodles are different species if we wanted. But the wild differences in dog lineages prove the mechanisms of evolution just as conclusively as the different species of finches on the Galapagos Islands, which Charles Darwin documented. We have certainly proven the link between changes in the DNA and changes in function and appearance. We have precisely measured the rate of that change and therefore can estimate the time since two species shared an ancestor. Second: the law of biogenesis says living things come only from living things, which seems to hold true in our experience and therefore raises interesting, still unanswered scientific questions about how it all started. However, no matter how life started it has proceeded through mutation and adaptation and evolution. Third: I’m not sure why Pete thinks cell theory contradicts evolution, since the operations of DNA explain everything about how cells operate. Fourth: the claim that only the direct operation of intelligence can create an information code seems circular. Isn’t an ice crystal created with an “information code”? The point remains: students should be encouraged to ask tough questions about any scientific theory. That doesn’t mean science teachers ought to teach creationism, which isn’t a scientific theory.


Dan Haapala 3 years, 9 months ago

Why should a scientific theory be given any more credence than a faith based belief?


Pete Greer 3 years, 9 months ago

I would like all readers to know that the editor was quick to respond to my questions about Tuesday's mix up. I commend him for that! Please understand that even though we differ greatly our explanation of the beginnings of life there has not been any mud slinging in either direction. I appreciate the fact that he will allow an open discussion so people can see the view from both sides and make up their own minds on where the truth lies.

That brings me to comment on the notes attached to my letter. I agree with the assessment on the arbitrary nature of deciding on new species and I would like to point out that I did not use that term even once in my letter. To clarify where the biblical kind would fit into the commonly used 7 levels of classification, think of the family level. That is equal to kind in the majority of living things. So my contention is not that no new species are formed but that we have never observed one family of organisms becoming another family.

The terms adaptation and evolution seem to be used interchangeably in your writings. This is quite misleading. I have never questioned adaptation. It is observable and all the things we can see in DNA that leads to adaptation we can now observe. You called this evolution when you referred to dogs and finches. For clarity these changes should be referred to as adaptation, or in the case of dogs, it is also selective breeding. Neither of these animals have ever been observed to give rise to a new kind of animal. I am surprised that you would use the finches since the data shows that their bills change with their food source which is believed to be driven by moisture amounts. The bills have fluctuated back and forth around the mean of bill size at a surprisingly rapid rate for the 200 years they have been observed. So there is no evolution in the microbe to man (and all other living things) sense. Also, since cross breeding and genetic manipulation both involve an outside intelligent source shouldn't they automatically be removed from the discussion of how chance and random processes have mysteriously moved life in an upward progression?


Pete Greer 3 years, 9 months ago

In your article in the 4/2/13 Roundup you expressed your belief that you and your dog have descended from a common ancestor. The only way that the time elapsed from diversifying from a common ancestor would even be attempted is if you have that belief in place. For those of us that hold to the special creation of man we simply see a difference in the DNA of the two kinds. Most of the differences were placed there by God in the beginning and some have come about by adaptation and mutation since the fall of man in the garden.

The part of the cell theory that says that cells come only from existing cells is the part evolution must contradict.

I guess you are intimating that the molecular structure of a crystal is an information code. All I can do is disagree with that statement.

The mechanism for changing one kind (family) of organisms into another is still missing, there is no explanation for the beginning of life, any tree of life that can be drawn up can only be inferred from the fossil record by a person who has faith that some day science will find an answer to the missing pieces mentioned here. In other words, those who adhere the idea that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the correct explanation for the beginnings of life and the development of life on the earth do so by faith in the unseen. This is no different from my faith in the beginning of life that is taken from the Bible. I have yet to see why they are not both religions when faith is involved in both. Factor in the fact that Darwin's theory predicts the continual development of new kinds (families) of living things while the Bible says that living things can only produce more of their own kind which is one of the most observed truths in science. This, as well as the incredible complexity seen in living things, is why so many people seem to intuitively know that Darwin's theory is false. One must over rule one of the most common observations in the natural world to believe that somehow these great changes have occurred based on the authority that scientists borrow from present accomplishments to solicit agreement about their beliefs for historical science.

I have cited the RATE PROJECT in previous letters and I cite it again as research done by PHD scientists with 1500 pages of data and conclusions. This was all based on testable assumptions by creationists, so please don't say that creationists cannot perform testable observations because this research shows that assumption is not true. They predicted, based on a literal view of scripture, that C14 would be found in diamonds. All 12 diamond samples were tested by reputable dating labs and all 12 samples did indeed contain measurable amounts of C14 which disputes the 1-2 billion years age most secular scientists have assigned to them. This is just 1 example documented in their research.


will fraser 3 years, 9 months ago

Pete, You need to write all this stuff down, submit it to a peer reviewed science journal and collect your Nobel Prize right away.:) Regards, William Fraser


Pete Greer 3 years, 9 months ago

I would stand a lot better chance if you would submit the info for me William. Seriously, you must surely recognize that I am not putting this information out there for any personal gain. This is a long and painstaking process to show people that there is another view that has credible scientific verification that should at least be reviewed. The fact that many people who have been indoctrinated in Darwin's theory will consider me in an unfavorable light is not a fun thing for me but putting out information that calls into question this unprovable theory so people can see and decide for themselves where the truth exists is what I have been led to do. So, if you haven't already, check out the findings of the Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth (RATE) research project. The findings concerning coal and diamonds are very interesting. Check out the research and see for yourself if they followed the scientific method.


Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.