What is evolution? Well, that really depends on whom you ask. There are all kinds of definitions out there. Typically, when we think of evolution, we think of Darwinian evolution—the idea of all life descended from a common ancestor as one kind turns into another kind, and eventually ape-like creatures supposedly evolved into humans. But now we often hear a very different definition: those small changes within a kind are, well, evolution!
A recent article defined evolution according to a definition from famous evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins: “evolution is changed gene frequencies in populations.” The article goes on to state:
If, for some reason, a given gene in a patch of weeds, say, gets slightly more or less common from one generation to the next, evolution has happened.
The gene doesn’t have to confer a survival advantage, or be “adaptive” or make the weed “fitter”. It doesn’t have to be “selected for” or increase biological complexity. It simply has to change in frequency, maybe by chance. That is all.
They then explain that some of these changes in gene frequencies increase the organism’s chance of survival and passing along its genes. They explain:
These genes are more likely to be passed on. Gene frequency has changed, and evolution has happened. But something else has taken place too: adaptation through natural selection. This special case of evolution renders a population fitter – as in a better fit, not physically fitter – for its environment.
Their main point is that evolution has no direction, no goal, and it’s not moving toward an increase in complexity, as many people think. Therefore, they believe, many people have misconceptions about evolution.
But in their definition of evolution, they’re really equivocating. They are taking something we observe—changes in gene frequency in a population—and calling that evolution, even though no change in kind has happened—no new genetic information has been added into the genome. But the way evolutionists use the word evolution isn’t just to mean “change.” They use the word evolution for small changes and supposed molecules-to-man evolution-type changes. The small changes we observe, but the other supposed changes we don’t!
Think about it this way. In order to turn a single-celled organism into a more complex creature, you must add in a tremendous amount of brand-new genetic information. It’s this genetic information (DNA) that codes for how to build every different organism here on earth. Without genetic information, you can’t build any living thing. And yet “changes in gene frequency” aren’t adding any brand-new genetic information. It’s a loss of already-existing information, a reshuffling of information, or a preservation of information that was already there. In every case, the information is already there! Certain environmental factors simply increase or decrease the frequency of genes that are already there.
So “changes in gene frequency” can’t be the definition for how evolution works. It simply doesn’t provide the brand-new genetic information that evolution requires in order to turn a molecule into a man over long periods of time. There’s no known naturalistic method that can create brand-new genetic information. So, molecules-to-man evolution is biologically impossible!
Do we have the definition of evolution wrong? No. Evolutionists just keep changing it in order to make a failed idea (that has never been observed) appear now to have observational evidence to support it. But, as ever, molecules-to-man evolution is nothing more than a fairy tale.
Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,