Evolutionists will often use the word, "micro-evolution," which is an interesting form of equivocation. This equivocation, using the word, "micro-evolution," is a deliberate attempt to deceive. The deceiving term, micro-evolution is used to try to make the student think that two unrelated processes are related. The way this is done is to use the word deceitfully in a way that encompasses both of the unrelated processes. What they are deceitfully calling micro-evolution is actually simply the designed-in but limited ability to adapt. Read "15 Questions for Evolutionists" for more on this.

In Michael Ruse's 1982 book titled, "Darwinism Defended: Guide to Evolution Controversies," very little of the book deals with Darwinism (one kind of an animal becoming another kind of animal). Every single example given in the book is an example of minor variations within a certain kind of animal, but no corn turns into something else, no fruit fly turns into something else, and no other kind of animal or plant turns into any other kind of animal or plant. There is not a single example of Darwinism in the book that is titled Darwinism defended. Instead, to book deals with minor variations which is not any part of the controversy. The Alters's 2001 book that was titled "Defending Evolution in the Classroom: A Guide to the Creation/Evolution Controversy," in like manner spends fully 99% of the books pages discussing minor adaptations--which are not any part of the controversy--and in the 1% of the book that speaks of what they call, "Macroevolution," the entire argument is rooted in circular reasoning such as the following: "Likewise, humans did not directly observe the evolution of the dinosaurs, but their evolution is nonetheless considered to be scientific fact." That is circular reasoning. Interestingly, there is not a single line about the origin of the species in Darwin's book that is titled, The Origin of the Species.

There are two unrelated processes. One of the processes is the process of variation by using the incredible amount of information in the DNA molecule, but the use of existing, inherited information is by no means evolution, nor could it possibly lead to anything new since it is inherited information from the parent that is allowing the variation. This process of variation is in no way related to the process of mutations.

The second process is the process of mutation. Mutations are almost never beneficial and they never, so far as scientific research has shown, add new innovative genetic information of the type needed for even the smallest advance in so-called molecules-to-man evolution to the cell.

The issue is not whether a mutation is ever beneficial. The issue is that time and chance CANNOT add information or organization to a DNA molecule. There is no known mutation that has ever been known to add information and organization to the DNA of any cell of any animal. Information and organization would have to have taken place if evolution were to have been anything other than a silly story, but random events never produce organization and information, just as rocks never roll up hills unless some outside force rolls them up the hill. Yet, evolutionists claim that information has been added over millions of years, and they will try to confuse variations with mutations to muddy the water. Further, they demand that everyone believe their story. They are, in fact, quite upset to find out that almost no one does accept naturalistic evolution as taught in the schools.

(Read the latest science on the subject: Without Excuse by Werner Gitt, a description of the scientific Laws of Universal Information. See also: Information Theory Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4. Here is another interesting article.) More is constantly being learned about information and about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Evolutionists tend to hide in the weeds of the unknown with an argument from ignorance: "If you can't prove, by empirical science, that evolution is impossible, then it happened." By empirical science alone, we can only prove probabilities. The probabilities show the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story to be a bazaar hypothesis, a story that is so improbable that it should not be considered. However, empirical science is not a tool that can prove anything to be true or false absolutely. For absolute proof, we have revelation. (See Basic and Concise Guide to Practical, Useful Logic and Reasoning). God says that He created everything. He is the One Who enforces the laws of nature. He is the One Who will judge all of us in the end. We know that because we know Him presonally through the indwelling Presence of Jesus Christ and the moment-by-moment instruction of the Holy Spirit.

In fact, every instance of supposed increase of information that is used by Evolution's evangelists is an example of NO increase in information.  Evolutionist's claims for adding information fall into three categories.  These are the 3 Rs of Evolution: Rearrange information, Remove information, and Ruin information.  See: Is Antibiotic Resistance Really Due to Information Gain? The 3 Rs of evolution

This diagram shows that every change is going in the wrong direction.  Evolutionists try to imply that the changes that can be observed are micro-evolution.  Creationists sometimes argue that those changes have limits, so they could never have one kind of living thing change into another kind of living thing--which is true but it misses the point.  Since the argument misses the point, it is unconvincing to an Evolutionist because it doesn't answer their story.  They have a story that says that evolution takes place so slowly that large changes cannot be seen but only small changes can be seen.  This must be answered by saying that the changes are all going in the wrong direction.  The changes are all going away from evolution.

The train analogy works well.  The evolution train is supposed to go from Missouri in central U.S. to California (evolution) on the West Coast.  However, it can never get their since the train is bound for New York (opposite of evolution) on the East Coast.  In our analogy, the West Coast would be evolution and the East Coast would be deterioration, as The Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Theory of Information, and all that we can observe of changes in living things from generation to generation would predict.  The train is going the wrong direction in the track.  It is not headed toward more information, that is, evolution.  It is headed toward a loss of information, that is, destruction and eventual extinction--the opposite of evolution.

The use of the term, micro-evolution deceptively implies that small variations add up to large variations, which is a diversion from the point. The point is not the number of variations or the size of the variations. The point is that mutations do not add information. They remove information. Evolution would require that they add the right information so that the resulting changes to the creature can be "selected" for by nature.

NOTE:  It would be good for believers to avoid the word micro-evolution completely.  When an evolutionists uses it, correct them: "Oh; you mean information LOSING processes, not micro-evolution.  Micro-evolution would be an incremental gain in information, but you are talking about observed processes, and we only observe information LOSS."  You might do well to always use the term, "information-losing processes," or "processes that rearrange, remove, or ruin genetic information."  That is not such a nice short term as, "micro-evolution," but it is not misleading either.

It should be obvious to anyone that natural selection plus mutation has no mechanism to add information to anything. It only selects from what is already available and destroys what is already there. Evolution has a very real information problem.

And even the term, selection, is a tricky word. Selection implies intelligence, so the word should never be applied to something while implying that the process is something that is not being carried out be someone or something that has intelligence.  Sometimes, Evolutionists actually try to transform Natural Selection into molecules-to-man Evolution.  They also try to confuse people into believing that small adaptations (calling this micro-evolution, which is a deceiving term.) add up to molecules-to-man Evolution.  At other times, Natural Selection is written about as if it were an intelligent all-powerful god that thinks things through and does them. A more scientifically accurate term would be "natural elimination."   It is illegitimate to use Natural Selection to support Evolution.  Natural Selection supports a young Earth and a Creator.

Topic: Evolutionism

If you have not read Stories Versus Truth, you may want to read that before reading this.   What Must One Do To Be An Evolutionist? Short Answer Those who decide to follow a career in Evolutionism, which isn\'t science, must subscribe to a different form of reasoning that allows them to filter out facts they don\'t like and make up \"facts\" that they need. They need to take New Age religion\'s attitude that...

This page is provided to answer a specific question, but don\'t get tied up in detail and forget where you are going. You get past the questions/attacks so you can proclaim the Gospel. It is the proclamation of the Gospel, not argumentation, that transforms minds. See Give Them the Gospel. If you have not read Stories Versus Truth, you may want to read that before reading this. Science has merit. Scientists...

This page is provided to answer a specific question, but don\'t get tied up in detail and forget where you are going. You get past the questions/attacks so you can proclaim the Gospel. It is the proclamation of the Gospel, not argumentation, that transforms minds. See Give Them the Gospel. Fraud is being committed repeatedly by the evolutionists. They lie about Natural Selection, claiming that Natural Selection is Evolution.  Natural Selection...

This battle is not about someone else\'s ideas versus our ideas. We need to decide what is a valid thought. This is really the basis of the difference between the two arguments. What authority will govern how we interpret facts. Evolutionists try to say that they are neutral, but they obviously are not. All science and knowledge operates in terms of the world-views and paradigms of the scientists. In other...

Evolution is not even a theory as the word, theory, is defined by evolutionists. A theory, to an evolutionist, is defined as something that has been proved. There is not a shred of proof for the fairy tale we call \"evolution.\" In fact, evolutionists can\'t even answer the \"15 Questions for Evolutionists\". Although evolutionists claim to have evidence for evolution, this claim always falls apart under scrutiny. Evolutionism is increasingly becoming a...

Evolutionism stays politically alive by using false claims, claims that are later proven false.By the time one false evolutionistic claim is proven to be false, the evolutionists have developed a new false claim to take its place. Looking back in the history of evolution, you can observe a history of one false claim after another. One of the newest false claims of evolutionism is the concept of junk DNA. If...

There is no Compelling Evidence for Evolution   While it would be faulty logic to try to prove that Evolution never happened just because of the amazing lack of evidence for such Evolution, it would also be a lie to claim that there is compelling evidence to believe in Evolution. In fact, there is real compelling scientific evidence against it, and the fact that evolutionists cannot answer the \"15 Questions for Evolutionists.\" There...

Evolution Violates What Can Easily Be Observed   Evolutionism violates many easily observed scientifically proven principles. Evolution isn\'t science. Two of the most obvious of these scientific laws that evolutionism violates are the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. There are countless additional examples. Ungodly people use simple-minded assumptions as filters to censor out any information that supports the existence of God.  They set up a web of rules to filter out God. ...

If you have not read Stories Versus Truth, you may want to read that before reading this.   Mutation Questions & Answers What is the relationship of extinction to natural selection? Natural Selection Is Not \'Nature\'s Intelligence In a world where science has degenerated into shouting slogans, we hear all types of claims, many of them false.  Natural Selection claims to include the capability for creatures to generate various traits that improve their ability...

According to old-earth theology, the abundant polonium radiohalos found in granite rocks worldwide cannot be exist.  In other words, once again, reality conflicts with evolutionism.   Polonium has a very short half life, which means that the \"millions-of-years\" assumptions of the old-earth theology could not exist.  If the \"millions-of-years\" were actually true, there would be no naturally occurring polonium.  This one fact proves the old-earth to be a fairy tale for...

Evolution and Confusing Words Have you noticed how many important words have at least two meanings. Often these meanings are exact opposites. Here are a few examples: Axiom of science Meaning #1: a principle that has been proven, by observation and experience, beyond a reasonable doubt. Examples: Second Law of Thermodynamics, Inverse Square Law of Gravity. Meaning #2: an assumption or made up story, that is, a fabrication, which is accepted on make...

Why Do Evolutionists Resist Reality and Science? Short Answer The reason that evolutionists resist reality and true science is that they are either knowingly or unknowingly being influenced in one of the New Age religions, probably Humanism, Atheism, or Agnosticism, and that influence is making it impossible for them to be objective. Evolution isn\'t science. There is no proof of evolution, and, in fact, there are a growing number of...

Why Are Rationalized Speculations False? Evolution is an alternate story to what God says happened.  God\'s story checks out scientifically if we eliminate the Atheistic assumptions of Atheistic science.  In fact, God\'s story matches what we can observe while the competing story, evolution, does not.  The evolutionists have not even been able to tell an uncheckable lie, but even if they were able to tell such a lie, that would not...

Why Resort To Post-Modernism and Chaos Theory? Short Answer The reason evolution-scientists had to resort to post-modernism and chaos theory is that it was a last-ditch effort to save the debunked hypothesis of evolution. Under post-modernism, there are no absolutes, so observation means nothing. Science is defined to mean whatever the evolution-scientists want it to mean. Under that form of lunacy, people can believe in evolution despite the obvious scientific facts. Evolution...

Evolution\'s Cultic Dogma   Here is a quick explanation of why evolution is religious dogma of many cults and it is not science. EVOLUTION IS A SERIES OF BROKEN ARGUMENTS A common tactic of Evolutionists is to stack one bogus argument on top of another and continue this process hoping to bury you in the debris. On examining each argument, you find that not one of them has any value. Since they have no...

This page is provided to answer a specific question, but don\'t get tied up in detail and forget where you are going. You get past the questions/attacks so you can proclaim the Gospel. It is the proclamation of the Gospel, not argumentation, that transforms minds. See Give Them the Gospel. If you have not read Stories Versus Truth, you may want to read that before reading this. Evolution is NOT Science Many...

If you have not read Stories Versus Truth, you may want to read that before reading this. While this page may be interesting to some people, it is really not necessary to become a scientist to know that God created everything just the way that He said He did and in the time frame that He said He did. Some people say that evolution and old-Earthism are examples of science. That...

If you have not read Stories Versus Truth, you may want to read that before reading this.   The Second Law of Theromdynamics Makes Evolution Impossible You have probably heard of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Do you understand it? It\'s not to hard to understand. If you paint a fence white, after a few years, the paint is looking pretty bad. That\'s what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is all about. The Evolutionists...

If you have not read Stories Versus Truth, you may want to read that before reading this.   The Obvious: Information, Complexity, and Order Do not Happen by Chance   Both the Bible and science agree: God created the heavens and the earth. Every single method of testing the age of the earth is based on circular reasoning. In other words, you need to know the age you want it to be before you...

If you have not read Stories Versus Truth, you may want to read that before reading this.   Spontaneous Ordering/Separating As Opposed to Complexifying or Adding Information Spontaneous ordering or separating has nothing to do with complexifying or adding information. There are many natural examples of spontaneous ordering. Adding raw energy to water can make steam separate, but that adds no complexity or information to the water. Evolutionists say that adding raw...

If you have not read Stories Versus Truth, you may want to read that before reading this.   The Theory of Evolution (it\'s really just a model, not a scientific theory) Conflicts With the Proven Law of Entropy The claim that matter goes from less complex to more complex structures directly conflicts with the observable and proven law of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics. In addition, after many millions of tax dollars spent...

If you have not read Stories Versus Truth, you may want to read that before reading this.   Neanderthal Man You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time. Every time we turn around, the scientists are changing their minds about neanderthal man. They can do this because they have changed the meaning of the word, science. Science used to mean knowledge....

Science and Logic are Limited Tools It is illogical to apply logic past its own limits and then claim that the results make sense. It is unscientific to apply science past its own limits and then claim that the results are valid. Human weakness keeps scientists and theologians from understanding because human minds are sadly lacking in the ability to perceive. The invention of instruments, such as the microscope and telescope, have...

Question: Why is it so difficult for a doctor of philosopher to believe The Holy Bible? I am about to witness to a PhD philosopher. Answer: It\'s important that you realize what your responsibility is and is not. You are responsible to be obedient to the Holy Spirit. You are not responsible to lead this PhD to Christ. The Holy Spirit does that through you if it is to happen. So, you need...

This page is provided to answer a specific question, but don\'t get tied up in detail and forget where you are going. You get past the questions/attacks so you can proclaim the Gospel. It is the proclamation of the Gospel, not argumentation, that transforms minds. See Give Them the Gospel. If you have not read Stories Versus Truth, you may want to read that before reading this.   Life has a very...

If you have not read Stories Versus Truth, you may want to read that before reading this. Has the HIV Virus Demonstrated Evolution In Any Way?     No! Many false claims have been made. Here are the facts. #1 If we had an example of new information being added by a random mutation, by random chance (though we do not have any example of new information being added by random chance, neither...