AIG Says Evolution Is Never Observed

This is from one of the creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.

Their post is titled Feedback: Observed Evolution. The author is Harry F. Sanders, III, about whom we know nothing. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

A recent tweet directed at Ken Ham made a frequent evolutionary assertion: “Evolution has been directly observed both in the lab and in the field. If you had done any research whatsoever, you would know this.” The commenter then linked to a couple of studies, which he claimed proved his point. Unfortunately, he and other evolutionists make some serious errors in interpreting the evidence they observe due to the influence of their worldview and thus undermine their conclusions.

Harry has a couple of footnotes, one of which refers to Richard Lenski’s E. coli long-term evolution experiment. He dismisses that later in his post. Meanwhile, he says:

Evolutionists like to point to variation within kinds and claim that species are evolving. While they are not evolving in the sense that affirms Darwinism, species do change as part of a process called speciation. [But that’s not evolution.] Speciation occurs based on natural variation existing in an organism’s genome. Every species of animal has genetic variability built into its DNA. [It’s built in!] That allows the population to change in response to environmental conditions for survival. Evolutionists will cite this as evidence for their worldview. However, this change does not support evolution for several reasons.

According to Harry, every species has the built-in ability for, ah, micro-evolution, but not macro evolution. He doesn’t use those terms, but that’s what he’s saying. It’s the micro-macro mambo. We discussed that old clunker in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. Then he tells us:

Populations of organisms change in response to a number of factors, the most obvious being a change in habitat. This is what Charles Darwin and others observed in the finches of the Galapagos Islands. The birds’ beaks varied in structure and thickness depending on the conditions in which the they lived. However, this outward change was rooted in the birds’ genetics. While much of a finch population had what is considered the optimal beak for its conditions, a small portion of the population had a less than optimal beak, but not disadvantageous enough to cull them from the population. This factor kept the information for this beak in the population. When conditions changed again, the less-than-optimal beak became more optimal, and offspring with this beak began to survive more frequently. Conversely, the birds with the beak that had previously been optimal began to struggle to survive, and many died. This is illustrative of natural selection, but not evolution.

It’s natural selection, but not evolution. Got that? No? He explains:

Evolutionists often conflate natural selection with evolution, but they don’t have a scientific basis to do so. [Huh?] Natural selection selects existing information in the genome. It does not produce any new information. New information in the genome would be required to take an existing organism and turn it into a different organism.

Ah yes, it’s all about information. For more on that, see Phlogiston, Vitalism, and Information. Harry continues:

The finches on the Galapagos Islands have not evolved into mammals or even something between mammals and birds. [Gasp!] No matter their beak size, they remain birds, and, more specifically, finches. There is simply a variation in the appearance and function of the bird’s beak. However, because evolutionists have an entirely naturalistic worldview, they interpret this variation as evidence for their theory.

Obviously, evolutionists are fools! Hey, are you getting the impression that Harry’s post is nothing but one old clunker after another? You’re not wrong. It’s getting tedious, and we’re only about half-way through with it. Well, let’s read on a little longer:

The evolutionists’ insistence on variation being the same thing as evolution is not confined to birds or vertebrates. They have conducted long-running experiments with bacteria [Another reference to Lenski’s experiment], some reaching thousands of generations of bacteria. These studies have indicated that bacteria change quickly and become genetically unique from one another, rapidly producing primarily different strains. However, the bacteria remained bacteria through thousands of generations. [Wow, they’re still bacteria!] They did not evolve into multicellular organisms. In fact, they did not even change to a new kind of bacteria. This shows that even speciation is not the same as evolution, and variation in the gene pool is not evidence of evolution.

This is getting ridiculous! Here’s one more excerpt:

Ultimately how a person views the evidence is dependent upon their worldview. [Groan!] Evolutionists view the world through a secular materialistic worldview and thus interpret everything through that lens.

[…]

Since creationists accept the biblical account of the origin of life, they interpret the evidence differently. The observable variation in the natural world is a result of the variation built into the original created kinds, as it is stated in the Bible. [Where?] … Evolutionists choose to base their worldview on man’s fallible word, while creationists base their worldview on God’s infallible Word, the Bible. The battle is not over the evidence: the battle is over the worldview used to interpret the evidence.

Okay, that’s enough! Hey — look on the bright side. You got to see a huge ark-load, and you didn’t have to travel to Kentucky and pay Hambo’s admission fee. Neat deal!

Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

19 responses to “AIG Says Evolution Is Never Observed

  1. Richard Staller

    Two words for Sander’s post: Breathtakingly moronic!

  2. Once again, I point to the answer given by Herbert Spencer in 1852, in hs essay, “The Develoment Hypothesis” https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Development_Hypothesis

    “In a debate upon the development hypothesis, lately narrated to me by a friend, one of the disputants was described as arguing that, as in all our experience we know of no such phenomenon as the transmutation of species, it is unphilosophical to assume that transmutation of species ever takes place. Had I been present, I think that, passing over his assertion, which is open to criticism, I should have replied that, as in all our experience we have never known a species created, it was, by his own showing, unphilosophical to assume that any species ever had been created.”

    “Should the believers in special creations consider it unfair thus to call upon them to describe how special creations take place, I reply, that this is far less than they demand from the supporters of the development hypothesis. They are merely asked to point out a conceivable mode; on the other hand, they ask, not simply for a conceivable mode, but for the actualmode. They do not say — Show us how this may take place; but they say — Show us how this does take place. So far from its being unreasonable to ask so much of them, it would be reasonable to ask not only for a possible mode of special creation, but for an ascertained mode; seeing that this is no greater a demand than they make upon their opponents.”

  3. Michael Fugate

    Sanders has no web presence other than some columns at AiG – no bio.

    Too bad he didn’t read this interview before opening his mouth and removing all doubt he is a fool.
    https://dev.biologists.org/content/146/4/dev176016

    In my search for Sanders’ credentials, I got this site founded by our good fried David Rives:
    https://thecreationclub.com
    My favorite is an author named Cowboy Bob Sorensen who stands out among the home-schooled high schoolers and their home-schooling moms posing as scientists….
    https://thecreationclub.com/author/robertsorensen/

  4. evilution not observed but the evidence has been. When is you ahole gawd going to be observed?

  5. @L. Long
    As Herbert Spenser pointed out, no one has even described a conceivable mechanism of creation or design as an alternative to the science.
    Let alone presented an argument for it.
    The most that they can do is to try to find a difficulty for science. Never to suggest how they can deal with the supposed difficulty.

  6. Dave Luckett

    It’s the usual:

    “Nothing has ever evolved.”

    “Here’s an example of it happening.”

    That’s not an example!”

    “Here’s some more examples.”

    ;”They’re not examples either.”

    “They’re examples of change in populations, propelled by natural selection, causing increases in fitness for specific environments. That’s evolution.”

    “No it isn’t!”

    And so on. You might as well argue with an Eliza program.

  7. @Dave Luckett
    Right.
    That’s why I take the fight to them. What is your alternative? What is going on in the world of life? The human body is most like the bodies of chimps and other apes. What is there about creation or design that makes us more like chimps than octopuses or ravens or elephants?

  8. Stephen Kennedy

    Creationists simply do not understand what the TOE says. His statement about finches turning into mammals was absolutely absurd. If that happened it would not support the TOE, it would falsify it. Evolution is mathematically described by nested hierarchies and common ancestors. Mammals have already evolved during a long period in the Permian when over a period of 30 million years Therapsids (mammal like reptiles) gradually took on more mammal like characteristics and fewer reptile like characteristics. Birds appear to have had a common ancestor with some types of dinosaurs which were distinct from reptiles. So this knuckled asks why finches do not turn into mammals oblivious to the fact that birds and mammals have probably not had a common ancestor since the Carboniferous era and have been evolving away from each other since then.

  9. If I want to reduce the ‘building upon existing material in the genome’ argument to absurdity, I would end up with something like: “Polyester, freon and stainless steel are not new materials because they are all just recombinations of the same 100 atoms. No new information is added and no new materials are ever created”.

  10. @Stephen Kennedy, good point: if the information for all life forms is present in the genome of all organisms, it should be no problem for a woolly mammoth to emerge from a pair of hummingbirds.

  11. Christine Marie Janis

    Nobody has ever been observed to grow older, either.

  12. Nothing new in Ham’s argument, same old distortions. We fundies have it right and you wicked atheist scientists have it wrong. Science can’t be trusted. Sad, frustrating.

  13. It’s fun to think about the things which AiG believe have been observed–but not recently, e.g.

    * Instant transformation of water into wine
    * Feeding of 5,000 with 5 loaves and 2 fishes
    * Walking upon a body of water without the use of any flotation devices
    * Resurrection of the dead

    &c &c

  14. @DaveL deserves congratulations for capturing the essence of creacrap. Well done!

    @However StephenK still has some work to do: “Creationists simply do not understand what the TOE says.”
    They can’t afford to understand what the ToE says. Because one of the three pillars (YECers add two more) of creacrap is that ToE is wrong, no matter how.

  15. @Megalonyx
    Worth mentioning are things which they believe in, without having any testimony:
    * ice ages
    * micro-evolution of many new species over less than a thousand years
    * a limit, somewhere around the separations of taxonomic families, to evolution
    * formation of many distinct strata, including those of the Grand Canyon, over one year

  16. Michael Fugate

    They show all the characteristics outlined in:
    The Salem Region: Two Mindsets About Science.John S. Wilkins – 2013 – In Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. pp. 397.

    Essentialist
    Conservative
    Deductivist
    Authoritarian

    A bird could never change into a non-bird or a non-bird into a bird. They highlight differences rather than similarities. Just look at the debate over immigration – rather than seeing current immigration as similar to the immigration of their parents or grandparents they can see only the differences. Europeans took generations to assimilate retaining cultures and languages. The past is always mythologized.

  17. Eric Lipps

    The finches on the Galapagos Islands have not evolved into mammals or even something between mammals and birds. [Gasp!] No matter their beak size, they remain birds, and, more specifically, finches. There is simply a variation in the appearance and function of the bird’s beak. However, because evolutionists have an entirely naturalistic worldview, they interpret this variation as evidence for their theory.

    Er . . . why, exactly, would birds evolve into mammals when the two classes have been evolving away from one another for more than a hundred million years? Evolutionary biologists have never claimed this would, or even could, happen.

    The evolutionists’ insistence on variation being the same thing as evolution is not confined to birds or vertebrates. They have conducted long-running experiments with bacteria [Another reference to Lenski’s experiment], some reaching thousands of generations of bacteria. These studies have indicated that bacteria change quickly and become genetically unique from one another, rapidly producing primarily different strains. However, the bacteria remained bacteria through thousands of generations. [Wow, they’re still bacteria!] They did not evolve into multicellular organisms. In fact, they did not even change to a new kind of bacteria.

    Aaaand here we go again: “kind.” Since creationists apply that word according to convenience, using it to include one species in the case of humans and thousands in others, it’s essentially meaningless.

    And they suggest that the failure of single-celled organisms to evolve into multicellular ones in a few years in the laboratory proves it couldn’t possibly happen even over tens or hundreds of millions of years. Meanwhile, they (or to be fair, young-earthers in particular) embrace hyper-evolution changing a handful of “kinds” preserved on Noah’s ark into the hundreds of thousands, or millions, of species in the world today I at most a few centuries.

    They should be careful. The Bible they so revere tells us God does not look kindly on hypocrisy.

  18. Michael Fugate

    New fossil showing transitions in hyoid from reptile-like to mammal-like occurred before middle ear transition
    https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6450/222

  19. @Michael Fugate
    Here is a longer description of the research in Science News
    https://www.sciencenews.org/article/flexible-bone-helps-mammals-chew-dates-back-jurassic-period