February 4, 2015

• More problems with the alleged evolutionary tree

  Here's a great article summarizing the fact that the morphological (fossil-based), DNA-genetic, RNA-genetic, mitochondrial-genetic, and microRNA-genetic similarity 'trees' simply don't match.  At all.  They completely contradict each other in thousands if not millions of places.

  http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/problem_6_molec091151.html

  This is especially fascinating to me because a few years ago, I was listening to an evolutionist give a lecture.  After his lecture during the Q/A time, I asked him what was, in his opinion, the strongest evidence in favor of evolution.  He said, the fact that the fossil tree and molecular genetic tree match so nicely.

  Unfortunately for him, as the science continues to develop, it continues to sweep aside that piece of evidence upon which he relied.

  In contrast, the molecular and fossil evidence we see is for a set of "bushes" (both morphologically and genetically), not a single tree - perfectly matching what the Bible says about God creating each animal after its own "kind".  Genetic and morphological variation within each kind is thus expected (Chihuahua vs Great Dane), and significant similarity between DNA (because similar or identical proteins are being used), but not necessarily a genetic "tree" from a single common ancestor... because there was no common ancestor.

  • 11:53 pm
  • Comments Off