07 January, 2019

18: Animal-Kinds and Common Descent

18. Animal Kinds and Common Descent

And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. —Genesis 1:24-25

According to the ASA*, "methodological naturalism is a 'ground rule' of science today" that "requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify." (emphasis mine)

So the ASA requires that science (specifically naturalism) be observable.

Do we observe evolution? Yup!

Take the dog "kind" for example.

We observe evolution all the time with both natural selection (nature's breeding) and man-made selection (intentional breeding, such as all the new "designer dogs").

A chihuahua can evolve from a wolf (over long periods of time).

We observe a LOSS of information.

A wolf cannot evolve from a chihuahua (over any period of time).

We do not observe a GAIN of  new information.

And yet, the ASA would have you believe that observing a LOSS of information (micro-evolution) proves a GAIN of new information (macro-evolution).

In other words, because dogs can evolve into other types of dogs (micro-evolution), one species can evolve into another type of species (macro-evolution), such as a primate-type can evolve UPWARDS into man (a GAIN of information).

But this breaks the ASA's required rule of science.

What else breaks the ASA's required rule of science? A single-cell organism that adapts/mutates/evolves into amphibians and then reptiles and then birds or primate-type creatures that then adapt/mutate/evolve into human beings.

We do not observe this.


Think about that. To use observable loss of information (microevolution) to prove non-observable gain of information (macroevolution) is not scientific.

We cannot scientifically prove that one species turns into another. We cannot scientifically prove new information evolution. We can believe this happens, but by the ASA's standards, we cannot prove it.

Now, by ASA standards, we also cannot prove a first cause. We cannot prove God created individual animal kinds (such as a dog kind, a cat kind, a primate kind). But happily, creationist scientists do not adhere to a "we must scientifically prove the existence of God or He does not exist" rule. What they do adhere to is the ASA's "science must be observable" rule. Thus, they believe in micro-evolution (change within species) but do not believe in macro-evolution (change from one species to another species).

Note: Sometimes things are mislabeled a gain. Take for instance cockroaches that become resistant to a certain pesticide. It's not that the next generation gained NEW information, it's that natural selection weeded out the non-resistant cockroaches.

Further Reading:

Non-religious articles on Alternatives to Universal Common Descent / macro-evolution:

A Big Problem for Common Descent: Hundreds of "Active ‘Foreign’ Genes" Don’t Fit the Standard Evolutionary Phylogeny 

Some Problems in Proving the Existence of the Universal Common Ancestor of Life on Earth 

Creationist articles on micro-evolution:

Variety Within Created Kinds

Created Kinds (Baraminology)

*Quote is sworn testimony in court by expert witness Robert T. Pennock, an anti-Creationist and anti-Intelligent Design professor with a PhD in history and philosophy of science.

Photo Credit: Cat Kinds: Answers in Genesis / Dog Kinds: Answers in Genesis / Macro Micro Evolution Figure 4.8 (Makroevolution vs Mikroevolution) from Evolution Ein kritisches Lehrbuch. Used with permission.