Biology & Creation

All right. Good evening, everyone. So last week we talked about the importance of this issue and how basically the only reason people want to put long ages before Adam is to justify death before sin, and that takes away from the whole gospel.

So this week we're going to be talking about, I have a new remote this week too, so hopefully it works better, biology.

So, and I'm sure I just lost a bunch of you just by saying that word, potentially, but this stuff is really interesting, and I think this is sort of where it all started with, you know,

Darwin saw his finches and different sized beaks and postulated about his theory from that.

And once you take it out of the evolutionary framework, you either have to go with aliens or some other preposterous thing creating life, or you submit to the truth of the

Bible. So as we covered last week, we need to start with scripture and science will catch up eventually.

The scripture is our authority above all, and it is, but because it is true, we do see plenty of evidence in the natural world of what

God created. So what is evolution? When I say evolution,

I'm referring to the idea that a chemical soup can turn into a single cell bacteria that can eventually acquire enough genetic information over billions of years of descendants to become a full human.

A lot of people will make the distinction between micro and macro evolution, and they're not wrong, but apart from it being a bit confusing,

I think keeping the evolution title instead of something like speciation that is clearly not, sorry, keeping that title for something like speciation that is clearly not the same concept as microbes to man evolution as I just defined it.

How evolutionists, and this is partly how evolutionists do a bait and switch with evidence, right?

So like we can see this speciation in the world today, that's evolution, so the rest of it's true.

And so this is what we want. I think it's just not helpful to keep that title because it just muddies the whole thing when people say evolution's been proven by science, and no it hasn't.

It's like, well, not microbes to man evolution, but so I just prefer to stay away from that title at all.

But when people say evolution has been observed by science, they mean that something like variations within kinds have been observed, which is true.

But they then extrapolate that the slime to man evolution is true as well.

So I prefer using words like speciation, variation within kinds, instead of keeping the evolution nomenclature.

Just because this confusion is where some of the problems lie with this issue. So speciation is observed, but it is not a mechanism to turn a frog into a prince over billions of years, and I'll explain why that is the case.

So what has actually been observed? We see variations within kinds and even new species coming about from those variations in speciation.

So isn't that evolution? Some people, this is where evolutionists would say, well, this is observed, so therefore it must be, you know, the rest of it must be true.

It's a mechanism that, you know, that's what Charles Darwin thought when he saw variations in beak sizes within finches.

But if we take a closer look, it was actually happening at a genetic level. It is a loss of genetic information, not a gain as would be needed to go from goo to ewe.

To understand this, we need to talk about mutations and natural selection.

So what are mutations? A mutation is a change in the sequence of DNA.

Despite what the movies say, mutations won't give you superpowers. Sorry.

This topic can get a bit technical, so bear with me. Can a mutation create new information, not to be able to turn a fish into a philosopher?

Why I don't say an outright no is, as some do say that, because it depends on what you mean by information.

A definition of biological information is not easy to come by, and it's hard to compare to what we would think of as traditional idea of information.

It's a bit too much to dive into here, but there are some great articles on creation .com if you want to know more about that.

By the way, if you have a specific question, there's a great page on there. It's creation .com slash QA. A bunch of common questions and answers are right there.

It's a great resource for, and there's some great articles on mutations and, and yeah.

So but either way, can mutations create the kind of information needed to produce a genome?

Absolutely not. Also, new does not necessarily imply better or even good.

When evolutionists cite examples of new information, they almost invariably citing evidence of new traits.

But these new traits are caused by the corruption of existing information. Mutations can create new varieties of old genes, as can be seen in white coated lab mice, tailless cats, and blue eyed people.

Sorry, Pop, you're a mutant. But damaging mutations cannot be used to vindicate molecules to people evolution.

Breaking things does not lead to higher function and presuppose a pre -existing function that can be broken as well.

Also, not all new traits are caused by mutation. Some come about by unscrambling, unscrambling pre -existing information.

Some from decompressing packed information, some from turning on and off certain genes.

There are no known examples of the types of information gaining mutations necessary for large scale evolutionary processes.

In fact, it looks like all examples of gain and function mutations put in light of the long term needs of upward evolutionary progress are exceptions to what is needed because every example we have seen involves something breaking.

So that was a lot and kind of complex and hard to digest. But the point is that all examples we've seen of gain and function, so any mutation that results in some sort of creature gaining an ability has been something breaking at a genetic level, not some new information that can make a pool of slime into a human.

So in fact, this not only doesn't help evolution, it greatly supports the idea of God creating a bunch of kinds with the genetic capability programmed in to adapt and become a variety of species.

For example, up to the 1920s, scientists used to classify grasshoppers and crickets as separate species, or sorry, grasshoppers and locusts as separate species.

However, researchers have since determined that grasshoppers and locusts are actually the same creature.

Under certain laboratory reproducible circumstances, they exhibit a sort of Jekyll and Hyde transformation that is truly startling.

Behavioral differences happen immediately at the transformation with physical changes appearing in subsequent generations.

The difference in behavior, grasshoppers are solitary and locusts swarm, and morphology, locusts have smaller legs, wings, and bodies but have a 30 % larger brain than grasshoppers is significant and changes neural, muscular, and exoskeletal expression.

And the transformation from grasshopper to locust can also be reversed back again, yet the

DNA of the two creatures is identical. The ability for DNA to express different programming from the same source code under different environmental conditions is actually fairly common.

The epigenetic code, a set of switches that turn genes on and off in response to environmental stimuli, is a main contributor to the ability of the finished product to vary despite the same

DNA instructions, almost like a Swiss army knife. So many would call this evolution, but as you can see, what is actually happening is pre -programmed adaptation, that there's another code that God has built into the

DNA, the genome, to turn genes on and off depending on environmental stimuli.

So it's not evolution, it's just adaptation that God built in knowing that creatures would expand across the earth and live in different conditions and speciate.

You can look at many more examples on creation .com of changes in creatures that people say is evolution, but obviously isn't.

I'll give one more example of gain -of -function mutation. Antibiotic resistance.

So this is an example that is hailed by evolutions as the nail in the coffin to prove evolution, but it's actually not if we look at what's happening.

So this is Heliobacter pylori, and it's a bacteria that lives in your stomach.

It attacks the lining of your stomach and can lead to ulcers and even stomach cancer. Now, it's treated with an antibiotic, and here's how it works.

The antibiotic is absorbed into the cell, into the cell, into the bacteria, and inside the bacteria, and there's an enzyme which reacts with the antibiotic.

If you can't see, there's an enzyme there. My great graphic design abilities, which reacts with the antibiotic and converts the antibiotic into a poison.

The poison kills the bacteria. However, there's a mutant variety of H.

pylori. The mutation causes the bacteria to lose the ability to produce the enzyme.

So the antibiotic is not converted into a poison, and the bacteria lives.

In other words, it survived because of a loss of function, devolution, not evolution.

So what about natural selection? People use this phrase synonymously with evolution many times, and so a lot of people think it's not compatible with the

Bible, but creationists were writing about it before, about the concept at least, maybe using the words natural selection, but the concept was written about by creationists before Darwin even wrote about it.

So this is observed, but it's not molecules to man evolution. Instead, it is selecting within the information already present.

Natural selection is exactly what it is titled. It is the natural process of selecting within the genetic capability of a creature because God programmed a lot of different directions genetics can go.

This produces attributes that are more ideal to certain environments and vice versa in other creatures, allowing certain species with these attributes to become dominant in certain areas over others of the same kind that might go extinct.

So let's take a look at an example to help us understand what is happening here.

Boom, graphics. The original dog wolf kind probably had the information for a wide variety of fur length.

The first animals probably had medium length fur. In this simplified example illustrated here, a single gene pair is shown under each dog as coming in two possible forms.

One form of the gene L or long carries instructions for long fur and the other

S for short fur. In row one, we start with medium furred animals,

LS, interbreeding. Each of the offspring of these dogs can get one of either gene from each parent to make up their two genes.

In row two, we see that the resultant offspring can have either short

SS, medium LS, or long LL fur.

Now imagine the climate cooling drastically as in the ice age after the flood. Only those with long fur survive to give rise to the next generation, line three.

So from then on, all dogs will be a new long furred variety.

Note that one, they are now adapted to their environment.

Two, they are now more specialized than their ancestors on row one.

And three, this has occurred through natural selection. And four, there have been no new genes added.

And five, in fact, genes have been lost from the population, i .e. there's been a loss of genetic information.

Now the population is less able to adapt to future environmental changes were the climate to become hot.

There is no genetic information for short fur and the long furred dogs, and they would probably overheat and die.

So that's natural selection. As you can see, this does not provide the volumes of genetic information that microbes to man evolution requires.

Rather, it is a loss of genetic information. The original created kinds would have been the ultimate ultimate mongrels to allow for all the species we see today.

It is important to note that God created creatures to reproduce after their kind, not species.

Some people get hung up on this. It's like, well, new species can be created. It's like, yes, that's true.

But that's just a categorization we put on it to just make sense of the biology and all this.

But it's not a threat to what we believe because God created them after their kinds.

And likewise, like the dog kind or the canine kind can't become a feline and vice versa.

There can be new species of dog or new species of cat, but they won't jump over to a new created kind.

And we'll talk more about this when we talk about how Noah fit all the animals on the ark because this is a key component.

So along this same line, people ask, well, like, how can we all be descended from Adam? You know, there's all sorts of different people across the world that don't look at all alike and their children look the same as them.

But like, how could we have all come from the same ancestor? And because that's what the

Bible teaches, not only from Adam, but from Noah's family, we all came from the same ancestors. So and yes, this is possible.

So interestingly, people criticize the

Bible's history about this, but modern science and its understanding of the human genome, which we've only scratched the surface of, by the way,

I believe it was 2021 was the time that they just fully mapped the human genome.

So that's very recent that they fully mapped the human genome and they had been working on it since the 90s.

So it's it's way more complex than we even really understand.

So but anyway, that aside is as they've grown in their understanding of it, the evolutionary view is now becoming more and more that all people probably did have or many of them did have the same common ancestor.

And this is completely ignoring the irony of criticizing the Bible for saying that all people come from Adam and Eve.

When evolutionists, when evolution says we all come from pond scum, but whatever. So basically,

Adam and Eve and consequently Noah and his family would have had mid brown skin shade.

So to allow for the variations we see today, obviously, there are more feature variations in people groups than just skin shade.

But the general genetic principle is the same. So here you can see like how one couple with both kind of similar to the dog diagram we had before, that they both have genes to go either way to go lighter or darker.

And you lose that as their offspring get more specialized. And this can be affected by environmental changes.

Why there's predominantly people of darker skin and hotter areas of the world and people with lighter skin and colder areas of the world.

Because if you don't have melanin and you get skin cancer, you're going to die. So. So remember, skin tone is determined by how much melanin we produce.

No one is actually white or black, but we are all just different shades of brown.

A great modern example of this is a set of mid brown parents had twins and this is them.

So that's a set of twins. If if this can happen with a set of twins in one generation, a lot of variation can happen after a couple hundred generations.

So you have white skin and blue eyes and then, you know, you wouldn't think that they're even related, but they're twins.

So and this isn't the only example. This has happened multiple times. So it's it's definitely possible.

They're not possible. It's what happened. Some some will ask, who did

Cain marry if he wasn't able? To set the stage for this question, let's read

Genesis four. No, the new remote. It's broken.

No, am

I not? You can't even see. All right.

So Genesis four, 16 to 17 had to get to the

Bible at some point in this presentation. Yeah, I thought this was a

Bible study. All right. It says, then Cain went out from the presence of Yahweh and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

Then Cain knew his wife and she conceived and gave birth to Enoch. And he built a city and called the name of the city

Enoch after the name of his son. So we see here, it doesn't talk about where Cain's wife came from, that he just all of a sudden has a wife.

And so people raise this problem is like, well, where where did Cain get his wife? But if you have read your

Bible much before, there aren't too many girls mentioned in genealogies. And this is because family lines were drawn through the fathers.

Excuse me. Adam and Eve would have had daughters and Cain married his sister.

I know that's nothing shocking in rural Arkansas, but in most of the world, people are surprised at this answer.

Doesn't God forbid that? Wouldn't they have flipper children?

So first, God didn't forbid that until the covenant with the people of Israel and Leviticus.

And we have other examples in Scripture prior to Leviticus of people doing this and and being considered righteous like Abraham and Sarah.

Sarah was his half sister being that was a prominent example. And Isaac and Jacob also married close relatives.

So and secondly, genetic deformities come about now when people who are closely related marry because of mutations and accumulation of copying mistakes.

Mutations is what is in each one of our genes from generations before us.

But when we marry someone more distantly related, we are less likely to have the same copying errors and can slow down the degradation of the human genome.

This wouldn't have been a problem for Cain because Adam and Eve would have had perfect genes. And Cain and his sister would have had minimal copying mistakes.

By the time you get to Moses, it was much more. Save them later.

So I'll just touch briefly on another question people have. What about ape men?

But people say, well, hasn't evolution been proven because we found apes and half half apes, half men in the fossil record?

And first off, if you find some new creature in rock that say looks like half ape and half man, that proves nothing.

For starters, all you know is that it was some creature and it died and it looks half ape and half man.

You can't prove that that creature had kids and you can't prove that those kids were drastically different or that the creature is drastically different from its parents.

It just logically doesn't follow you. It just doesn't prove anything. But people are looking for a way to support their presuppositions.

So they think that this is some sort of nail in the coffin proof. And it isn't. Even if they did find some half ape, half man, it's like, oh,

Bigfoot in the in the rock layers. But it's like it doesn't really prove anything for starters.

And basically, all ape men that have been found are either straight up fabrications in ape, a human or an amalgamation of bones from both like Lucy.

Or sometimes they find a tooth or some other just small object, small part of a skeleton like that and extrapolate from that a whole ape man of their imaginations.

And later, it turns out to be a pig tooth. And this was a true story with Nebraska man. It was a pig tooth.

They came up with a whole model for it. You can still find in textbooks today, but it was just later found out to be a pig tooth.

So don't believe everything you read. You can read all the details specifically about each one at creation .com.

Also, if evolution happened, we shouldn't be seeing just one or two fossils from transition periods between animals.

We should be drowning in them like we like thousands and thousands of fossils are found of the finished forms of each animal.

Right. But then they find like supposedly one or two transitions when it's like if this was an ongoing process happening over lots of time, we should have like thousands and thousands of them like we do the finished product.

Right. So it's like even if you did find one or two, it's like there should be if this actually happened, there should be like they say, it should be thousands and thousands.

But we don't see that. And the ones we found, like I said, are fabrication or some other explanation.

So conclusion, though, this was just an overview and we could talk about so much more on these topics like thermodynamics, like the second law of thermodynamics is that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Or that's the first one, the first or second one. And that everything is moving. And the second one is that everything's moving in to in entropy.

So if you know what that means, it's like everything's moving to chaos. It's not to order like evolution would need.

Right. So that and those are laws of science, not theories. So that and then we could also talk about embryology and Haeckel's drawings that convinced a lot of people about evolution.

But they were just a total fabrication and a lie to use to support evolution and vestigial organs.

There's actually not such a thing. How chimp DNA really isn't nearly as similar as we have been told from more recent discoveries, especially how creatures are irreducibly complex.

So that's the idea that, you know, that if supposedly we evolved, you can't just like, oh, all of a sudden you have lungs and then you have all these other organs.

You need like your heart working at the same time as your lungs and stuff. There's things you can't take away that need to be functioning at the same time.

And it just doesn't make sense if you have this gradual transformation from, say, like a fish to a human or something like that.

Right. So that's that's another thing we could talk about. And we could talk about many more.

But if you want to learn more about any of these, there are ten thousand plus articles on creation .com

available freely. Many written by Ph .D. scientists and the best edited TV show you will ever see

Creation Magazine Live. I edit that. So the

Bible is true from the very first verse, and science supports that. Anyone have any questions or comments?

I always finish earlier than I expected. Hey. Oh, sure.

Yeah. So he said, if if anyone has a question,

I'll repeat it. What is there?

What is what would they what is their theory for diversity of humanity?

Well, what would they why would they say there's different shades of color here?

Are they now you're saying they now go back to the continent? They're they're moving in that direction.

Like more and more people I've heard are moving in that direction. But the traditional view in evolution is that humanity evolved in different stages in different like in different areas of the world.

And then Charles Darwin would say that darker skinned people are less evolved than white skinned people.

So he was a he was like we could talk about that, that like he was a very racist and like he actually hired people to go hunt

Aborigines in Australia. Because for a museum. So it's it's it's a very dark side of evolution there.

That's a lot of racism. But I mean, from from the Bible, we know we are all descended from Adam and Eve.

We are all just different variations of the same people. I think

I believe that's what they would believe. So sorry, I didn't repeat the question. It was.

Yeah. But where did what did evolutionists think the skin shades came from? Any other questions or comments?

Tomatoes. I guess.