Tuesday, November 20, 2007

What are the Implications of the Evolution of Malaria/HIV

What are the implications of what I previously described in man’s battle against malaria and HIV? In both malaria and HIV (Prof. Behe also examines e-coli) we see that evolution does assist a cell in fighting off man-made drugs. Evolution helps by making one or two point changes in an amino acid sequence (amino acids make up the proteins who are the workers in a cell). But from this great sample of evidence, we see that evolution does NOT make new machinery in a cell, and does not make anything new.

So what is the conclusion that we can draw as to Darwinism’s claim that beneficial small changes over time (random mutation/variation) will succeed in future generations and be added to through natural selection (the short formula used is RM + NS = Evolution). The claim is that through successive generations these small changes will result in greater changes, ultimately resulting in all that is contained within humans beings.

But does this make sense? I don’t think it does. Darwinists claim that everything starts from what was contained on early Earth: rock, water and sunshine, all of which are dead, non-living materials. So how do we get living cells from non-living things like rock and water? The Darwinists claim is that by adding something like electricity a real life “Frankenstein” can be made to come to life. I hope to discuss this more in future posts. But for now, let me say that it is FOOLISH to believe that intelligence (specifically human intelligence) can come from non-life. Not even today’s best of Designers can accomplish this, and it is foolish on its face to believe this happened through random forces in Earth’s past.

And the great benefit of Prof. Behe’s ‘Edge of Evolution’ is that it shows what are the limits of Random Mutation. So besides common sense/reason telling us we are the result of a Designed, we also see that the scientific evidence clearly shows that Darwinism cannot make progressively more complex living things. The evidence shows that larger beaks can be developed in a Galapagos finch. The evidence also shows that malaria or HIV can defeat most drugs used to fight it, through the small changes to a protein’s amino acid sequence. But that’s it – Darwinism cannot create anything as complex as a brain, a central nervous system, or sexual organs. Again, the answer seems too obvious to dwell upon.

And added to this is that the math does not add up for Darwinists. When we see 1 trillion malaria cells in an infected person, and 500 million people infected each year, we see an enormous amount of living cells going through the process of Darwinism. The number of malaria cells produced in a single year is roughly equal to 100 times the number of all the mammals that have ever lived on Earth (!!!). Let me say this again – All of the mammals that have lived on Earth does not equal even 1% of a single year’s production of malaria cells. And so, if we are going to see evolution do something before our eyes, it would be done in the cells of malaria or HIV or E-Coli. But Darwinism has done nothing.

So could we see the large diversity of mammals (I believe I read that there are 5,300 different mammal species) being created over the last 200 million years? No, of course not – think about the math: If malaria has had a two point change in its amino acid sequence to fight off the drug Chloroquine only 10 times over the past 50 years, what are the odds of any single mammal developing anything greater than a 2 point change? Science teaches us that it can’t happen.

So my conclusion is that the Darwininian process of Random Mutation/Variation is only a minor process. It is helpful in fighting off manmade drugs that are attacking it. But evolution is not a Creator, it cannot develop brains, a circulatory system, or anything this complex. And so, if life’s complexity is beyond the Edge of Evolution, this means that some sort of Designer was involved. And the Designer is not unknown to us here living in the 21st century: He is the triune God of the Bible. As Genesis 1:1 says – In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…

1 comment:

Edward Oleander said...

I find it interesting that your main argument in favor of Creationism (and yes, Virginia, YOU ARE a Creationist!), is that since you (and Evolutionary Biologists) don't yet understand how how non-life crossed the boundary into life, it CANNOT have happened, and therefore... God did it. You reject Evolutionary Theory because it can't (at this point) explain everything. Yet can you tell me how God created even the tiniest thing? Can you explain WHY creationism makes the origins of the multiverse more understandable?

I can use Evolution to explain quite a bit, but Creationism does not explain even the smallest natural process, nor how they came to be. You don't like that evolution can't explain the development of basic cellular structures, but so far Mr. Behe hasn't uncovered the smallest clue about HOW God did it.

I might understand Christians better as a whole if I understood why they reject solid scientific progressions in favor of cloudy and eternally vague explanations that explain nothing...

Evolution can show how small changes occur, and why small changes will, in some cases, be carried on in a species, and why (and how) one species divides into multiple species. Evolution then explains why one of those new species may fare better than the other new one, and how this process, carried out over time, can alter the structure of said species into totally different forms. Simply stating that God did it, then happily sitting back and smiling as though that actually explained anything is (to use your word) foolish.

In the past 10 years, the SCIENCE of evolution has advanced considerably. Many transitional species, that show evidence of a progression of traits, have been found (see various National Geographic articles I've mentioned in the past). Gaps in the fossil record are being filled in. A clear transitional line from dinosaurs to birds (COMPLETE with how and WHY the wing developed from grasping forepaws to a flapping feathered lift device) has been established. Not bad for only a mere decade.

What advances in Creation Theory have we seen? What have we seen that could supplant evolution as a science? To me, it seems the only change in the past decade is the rise of so-called Intelligent Design, which is actually a retreat from older positions, and a rather feeble attempt to disguise Creationism with a cloak of wider acceptability. Accepting Mr. Behe's ID "theories" has not changed your beliefs (correct me if I'm wrong there) one bit that I can see. If it was truly a new idea, wouldn't you hold some new outlooks?

More later on why Behe's malarial observations aren't the worth the trees that died for the paper for him to record them on...

Hope you had a great Thanksgiving!
~Ed~