Comments to Mikes response
In a few cases, Mike Roth's
respond is in question-form.
Here I answer some of those questions.
Here and there rather lenghtly i'm afraid. Complicated stuff calls for detailed answers.
* Evolution is a theory
universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent
evidence, but because the only alternative, special creation, is ignored and
accepted because based on it you can make predictions that can be shown to be
met by observation. That is what science is all about!
observation? Can you give examples? Evolution cannot be observed.
First you have to
consider what to expect to observe.
If ‘Evolution’ is ‘Anatomical, physiological or complicated chemical changes
with a few generations’ you should not expect to see ‘Evolution’.
But some real predictions from evolution can be observed.
1: The fossil record. The older a layer is dated to be, the more strange the
fauna in that layer is.
The most extreme cases are the Ediacaran (635-542 mio. years ago) and Cambrian
(541-485 mio. years ago) faunas.
Except for Jellyfish, Ediacaran animals mostly seem to belong to extinct phylae
(the most inclusive group of animals).
Some of the Cambrian animals are so strange that it has been quite a challenge
to work out what is up and down, front and rear (Hallucigenia). In others, just
working out which fossils came from the same animal, has been difficult
2: The nested
hierarchy of life. All of life falls into a groups within groups hierarchy.
This is exactly what you would expect from evolution. But no such thing can be
predicted from creationism.
The hierarchy originally was based on morphology, but is now more and more
based on genetics. This has led to smaller revisions (within bird e.g. Falcons
has been realized not to be as closely related to other birds of prey as
The fact that the hierarchy is highly conserved when you switch from anatomy to
genetics (even if you use genes with no relationship to anatomy) is predicted
by evolution, but not by creationism. This has been used as an argument that
even if we didn't have any fossils, we could reconstruct much of evolution
If we take an
uncontroversial example: The domesticated cat, Felis catus. (It's not a joke,
that is the scientific name)
The domesticated cat belong to the following hierarchy of groups:
Family: Felidae (Cats)
Suborder: Feliformia (Cat-like carnivores, in contrast to Caniformia, the
Order: Carnivora (Carnivores)
Level with no name, but above Carnivora: Eutheria (Placentals)
Class: Mammalia (Mammals)
Level with no name, but above Mammalia: Tetrapoda (Four-legged vertebrates)
Level with no name, but above Tetrapoda: Vertebrata (Vertebrates, Animals with
Phylum: Chordata (Chordates, Animals with a notochord)
Kingdom: Metazoa (Animals)
details respect the hierarchy.
This was actually the reason it was possible to build the hierarchy in the
The strongest predictions from this is a kind of 'negative' predictions.
There will never be found an insect with camera eyes!
There will never be found a vertebrate with Mollusk-style eyes (Retina reversed
compared to Vertebrates)
There will never be found a mammal with feathers or a bird with hair.
Continue the list yourself ad infinitum.
No such predictions can be made from creationism. There is no other reason the
creator didn't make such animals except 'He just didn't' which is no answer.
Under evolution, this is exactly what you would expect, at least as long as
fairly complicated structures are considered. The chance that such a structure
should evolve twice is neglectable.
mitochondrial genome (mtDNA)
First question: Why is there a mitochondrial genome?
The answer under evolution is that the mitochondrion is the descendent from
what was once a free-living bacterium that was engulfed but not digested by
another single celled organism.
Second Question: Why has the mtDNA its own genetic code?
The genetic code is the code that translates the information in DNA to protein.
MtDNA contains its own genetic code. It is slightly different from the
'Standard' genetic code in the nucleus. The variation follows major taxonomical
groups. That of vertebrates are slightly different from that of insects or
plants or fungi.
The mtDNA contains only protein-coding 13 genes. Therefore, a mutation that
changes the genetic code has a chance of surviving, because the change at the
protein-level is only minor.
In the nucleus, with its thousands of genes, the chance for such a mutation not
to be lethal, is so close to zero, that it has never happened (at least to my
knowledge - an example would be interesting).
Third question: Why does the mitochondrion contain the same genes in large
taxonomical groups? The reason this question is relevant, is that the function
of the mitochondrion requires proteins coded by nuclear genes. Therefore, under
a creationist point of view, there is no good reason that e.g. all vertebrates
have the same set of mitochondrial genes, while e.g. sponges (Phylum Porifera)
have a slightly different set.
From an evolutionary point of view, this is to be expected, as the transfer of
a protein-coding gene from the mtDNA to the nucleus (probably primary by
reverse transcription) became impossible shortly after the genetic code of the
The mtDNA also support the hierarchy mentioned earlier.
5: New genetic
Under evolution, you would expect new genetic information to be able to accumulate
in the genome.
This complicated topic has been described here.
* To qualify as real
scientific theory, it must be supported by events, processes, or properties,
which can be repeatedly observed in the present, not just chance. This is
impossible with evolution.
To the extent
that evolution makes predictions that can be tested in real time, it has been
E.g. the ‘nested hierarchy’ that is a group within groups pattern of biological
species, is an unavoidable result of evolution. Not an unavoidable result of
creation, merely a diversification of creatures that share common traits that
already were in their genetic makeup.
similar traits does not in any way prove evolutionary theory. Remember, as
modern evolution claims; we evolved from apes that evolved from lower life
forms, that evolved from cells, that evolved from chemicals, that came
from”¦.where again? If we evolved from apes, why do we still have apes that have
absolutely no physical appearance to man. Where are the transitional
in-betweens now living (Big Foot excluded)?
That Humans share
a number of traits with other species is exactly what evolution predicts.
And not just a random selection of anatomical, physiological and genetic
traits. A very specific pattern! Some traits only with the other Apes (e.g. no
tail). Fewer with Apes and the rest of the primates (e.g. opposable thumb).
Even fewer with the rest of the placental mammals (e.g. the placenta). Yet
fewer with the rest of the mammals, the Monotremes and the Marsupials (e.g.
milk glands and hair) and so on all the way through the hierarchy of life.
From a creationist point of view there is no reason why even the most
complicated traits (such as a placenta) could not be shared by animals as
different as Humans and Lizards.
Under evolution, it would be very hard to explain how a complicated structure
as a placenta could evolve twice.
The remark “If we evolved from apes, why do we still have apes that have
absolutely no physical appearance to man” has to be answered in two ways.
Once there was an ape species, which became the last common ancestor of Humans
and Chimps (our closest relative). One population of this species started the
line of evolution, which ended with man. Some other population started the
line, which eventually evolved into Chimpanzees.
Second: It is simply not true that Apes are very different from Humans. Chimps
have very close “physical appearance to man” given what Mike means is that
Humans and Chimps share a large number of anatomical traits. Bone by bone,
muscle by muscle, organ by organ, Humans and Chimps are very much alike. The
only pronounced exception is our mental capacities (which is of course a very
important difference) but even that is more a question of ‘more or less’ than
of ‘absent or presence’ Few mental skills (symbolic language and ”¦?) are
Did you consider the possibility that the in-betweens are extinct?
* So called “cave-men” (Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon”¦,) most likely were
descendants of Noah’s family, scattered throughout parts of Africa, Europe,
Asia, and elsewhere, as they dispersed from the site of their ancestral home.
They are believed to be descendants of post-flood man because all the remains
have been discovered in the so-called Pleistocene deposits, which are believed
to be post-flood. They are now known to have been living at the same time as
Neanderthals are genetically distinct from Modern
Proof? Didn’t think so. Actually they are identical in
genetic makeup. They had to be. They merely had different physical traits.
mitochondrial genome (mtDNA) form Neanderthals are distinct from that of modern
The most different mtDNA between two modern humans are more homologous to each
other than to any mtDNA from a Neanderthal. And vice versa.
Use e.g. GenBank number KC879692 (Neanderthal mtDNA) as a template, and find
the most homologous sequences using BLAST https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi
choose ‘Nucleotide’ and follow the instructions. A ‘Distance tree’ will show
you that Neanderthals fall in one group, while Modern humans fall in another.
teaches that a comparatively simple creature, like the one-celled amoeba, has
become a much more complicated one, like a horse. The simplest known one-celled
creatures are complex, but they clearly do not contain as much information as a
horse or a man. So to go from cell to man would require many steps, each
involving an impossible INCREASE IN INFORMATION.
Just a little
curio: Some Amoebae contain tens to hundreds of times more DNA than humans.
The ‘Increase of information’ problem is real though, and commented on above
(de novo gene formation).
thinking, can you really imagine a few chemicals, gaining information from
nothing that would cause them to evolve into more complex creatures? It has not
has been done is a question of definition. Proteins with random amino acid
sequences have been shown to contain information. This and other subjects relevant to increase
in genetic information is dealt with here. The Origin of Life is dealt with here.
As usual, you have to consider what to expect. What is relevant here is testing
the prediction of the Theory of Evolution. ToE does not predict that the
process from chemicals to cells came about within a few decades. Neither does
it predict that complex structures evolved in the same timeframe. Therefor the
question is irrelevant.
* For those who doubt that
the human race could have risen to today’s numbers from just 8 people on an
ark”¦ It’s actually a fact that today, human populations are increasing
consistently at more than 1% per year. Allowing for disease, famine, wars, and
so forth, and using a much more conservative figure of 0.5%, at this rate, it
would take only around 4,000 to 5,000 years, staring with eight people from
Noah’s Ark, to reach today’s population.
Correct, but try to calculate what growth rate is
needed to go from 8 to a reasonable number to build the tower of Babel.
How many would be needed? Have you done the
Two examples, then it’s your turn:
1: Let’s give 100 years from the flood to Babel, which seem to be the upper
limit. If we, as you suggest, assume a constant growth rate from the flood to
today (0.48% to be exact) we end up with 13 (thirteen) people to build the
tower of Babel. At the time of Jesus, there would be about 500,000, which is ridiculously
2: Let’s assume 2000 people at the time of Babel, which seem to be a lower
limit (they should not only build the tower, they should, at the same time,
sustain a life). The result is a growth rate of 5.7% per year.
Then if we assume a constant growth from Babel to now (4200 year later, 7 billion
people) we end with a growth rate of 0.36%, which is OK. But then there should
be a mere 8 million people at the time of Jesus. Which is still very low. So to
make things fit, you have to suggest a changing population growth, which
miraculously make the numbers fit.