In the ever-changing fantasy world of Darwinian Evolution we have the next installment in a long line of evolutionary “just so” stories. With the discovery of alleged feathered dinosaurs found in Liaoning region of China, the evolutionary faithful have begun to experiment with that much mutated specie of fruit fly known as Drosophila melanogaster. They postulated an argument that goes like this; it could be possible to reverse engineer the alleged evolutionary changes in fruit flies.

It would be like placing them in a time machine and watching them “reverse” evolve to and allegedly more primitive version of themselves. Hence, we could allegedly do the same for modern day chickens and reverse engineer them into their evolutionary predecessors, the veritable model T of all chickens, the prehistoric dino-chicken. That’s right, a chicken with scales instead of feathers, or so goes this new evolutionary “just so” story.

Think of it this way, we take our modern Ford Mustang and pull out the more modern engineering accoutrements such as power steering, power breaks, electric windows and electric seats, and replace them with mechanical parts from older, less modern car. Is your new and less improved version of the Ford Mustang closer to the original Model T Ford? Could this analogy be true? This all depends on whether or not you have been duped by this cleverly presented premise. What we will have is a reverse engineered, less modern version of a Ford Mustang. Not the original Model T Ford. Even if it did resemble the Model T Ford, it would still be a Ford automobile and not something different. But don’t confuse these evolutionary dreamers with the facts. This is so typical of the bait and switch tactics they use to confuse the public and convince them that frogs do turn into princes over millions of years.

The reason that these experiments are meaningless in the evolution vs. creation debate is because for evolution to take place, new genetic information must be generated. Taking away information from the genetic code or splicing information into the code via genetic engineering is not evidence of Darwinian evolution. It is evidence of in favor of special creation with the genetic engineers substituting for the Creator in this scenario. But wait a minute, what if the Creator has already programmed into the genetic code the ability of an organism to adapt to changes in the environment? Then what does adaptation really prove? In fact, there is no mechanism proposed in Darwinian Theory that can actually account for new genetic information being generated and new previously unknown information is a virtual necessity for the upward changes in physiology and complexity of evolving life forms proposed in Darwinian evolution. The so-called beneficial mutation in reality is a removal of information, a deletion and not the generation of new information. It therefore cannot account for the types of changes that turn fish into amphibians and amphibians into reptiles and reptiles into mammals and so on and so forth.

So, let’s go back to the original premise, the alleged great, great granddaddy of all chickens, the dino-chicken. Can we reverse engineer the changes in fruit flies from a modern to a more primitive form of what? That’s right, a fruit fly! We are being told that changes within a particular species of fruit fly are tantamount to evidence for Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Remember that Darwin’s Theory promotes the concept that all living organisms are related to one another, e.g. that all mammals, as well as every other life form, can be traced back in history to one single celled microorganism. Where does the new genetic information come from in order for these changes to take place? Does demonstrating changes within a particular species of fruit fly give us evidence of Darwinian Evolution or is it evidence of adaptation?  Does anyone want to visit the old experiments where these so-called evolutionary geniuses manipulated the fruit fly populations to produce legs where antennae should have been and called these monstrosities “evidence” for Darwinian evolution?

Creationists believe that God has genetically pre-programmed every living organism to reproduce according or after its own kind. They predict that errors in this process will lead to changes are will be generally deleterious to the organism, e.g. Down’s syndrome or Tay Sachs disease, etc. They believe that the ability of organisms to adapt to their environment is the result of the Creator’s endowing them with the genetic ability to adapt, empowering them to continue to “be fruitful and multiply” and this has been clearly demonstrated as a component of the genetics of all living organisms.

Adaptability or small micro evolutionary changes within kinds does not produce the major changes required to turn invertebrates into vertebrates or frogs into a princes. This is clearly a “bait and switch” technique practiced by the evolutionary faithful that is both disingenuous as well as scientifically flawed. The evolutionary faithful are really looking at the evidence presuppositionally, through the lens of their respective worldview. Are they willing to admit it or even allow a comparison to alternative theories? Can their worldview abide an open and honest debate? Don’t hold you breathe.

Creationists also have a worldview. We view everything through the lens of God’s Word, the Bible. We have a document that supports our worldview that has stood the test of time. We have the only credible eye-witness account in the book of Genesis, but even without that testimony, our view is not based upon, and limited by, the atheistic worldview of naturalism, a worldview that discards all things that do not conform to their materialistic presupposition. In fact, their worldview excludes any evidence that is critical of their worldview. In reality, they are not defending Darwinian tenants as much as they are defending a strict view of naturalism to the exclusion of all else. A creationist’s view is rooted in what we observe in the world around us. We welcome the comparison of different views as well as evidence pro and con concerning all theories of origins.

There is no credible evidence for Darwinian Evolution. Artificially changing and manipulating the genetic code does not proof Darwinian evolution. If anything, it actually supports the worldview of Creationism because these scientists are human beings playing God. Their manipulation of the genetic code is nothing more than additional evidence that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” This only serves to prove that life is very resilient and most organisms can take a licking at the hands of these evolutionists masquerading as mini-Creators and still keep on ticking. However, when they keep on ticking, they do so as the same organism they started out as. Manipulating the genetics of a fruit fly can never produce the precursor to the flying insect known to us today as Drosophila melanogaster. In reality, mankind can only copy, but never really improve upon the Creator’s marvelous work.

Submitted by

Steve Rowitt, Th.M., Ph.D. (c)