Here’s an article from Phys.Org steeped in evolutionary indoctrination. While the information reported has some practical value, the gist of the article promotes a false idea of evolution.

I refer to this as ‘evolutionary indoctrination’ because, despite the constant use of the word ‘evolution’, there’s no true evolution involved. Instead, evolution is assumed, and then the researchers wrongly refer to non-evolutionary processes as ‘evolution’.

The theory of evolution posits that all living organisms are related to a single common ancestor. In order for this to be true, nature must constantly be building (or ‘evolving) novel body plans that previously did not exist. At some point, non-living chemicals had to somehow accumulate enough information, then arrange it into a meaningful structure in order to function and reproduce, and then its descendants would need to develop complex genetic instructions for digestion, a nervous system, immune system, bones, eyes, scales, lungs and other organs. If, however, an organism already possesses the genetic instructions for any of these organs, then changes to them isn’t really evolution. We’re talking about two entirely different processes. In one case, if the organ doesn’t exist, then that organism must do without, or it must evolve. But if it does exist in an optimal form, then evolution is not necessary to maintain or regulate it because the system is already in place.

The article begins by using a Cheetah as an example of an evolutionary arms race, stating that cheetahs “have evolved a sleek body form that lends itself to rapid running.” Well, no, nothing evolved. Before a cheetah was a cheetah, it was still part of the cat family, and all wild felines are pretty fast (at least compared to humans). It’s not like the cheetah had to evolve legs, heart and lungs. Those body plans and physical features for fast running already existed. The sleek body and speed associated with cheetahs was the result of preexisting genetic instructions, and these instructions allowed this new kind of cat to adapt and flourish in a specific environment- the African savanna. So, the cheetah is a cheetah via speciation, not evolution. The process of evolving legs, heart and lungs (if that were possible) is different than the process of adapting them to different environments, so it’s misleading to use the same term to describe different processes. Sadly, when evolutionists refer to evolution, they often don’t distinguish between the two, but refer to them as one-in-the-same.

But the article isn’t about cheetahs. It’s really about fruit flies and understanding how cell function gets impaired, causing cancer or infertility.

Here are three key points I agree with: 1: the article recognizes the important work proteins do in a cell, 2: cells form molecular machines, and 3: regulation is vital. All this is very complex and doesn’t happen by chance. Proteins, for example, perform certain tasks, but where did the first instructions come from? It is blindly assumed that evolution did it, as if it were capable. No skepticism at all.

I like this quote from assistant professor Mia Levine: “We typically think of our genome as a cohesive community of elements that make or regulate proteins to build a fertile and viable individual. This evokes the idea of a collaboration between our genomic elements, and that’s largely true. But some of these elements, we think, actually harm us… This disquieting idea suggests that there needs to be a mechanism to keep them in check.”

Scientists have known for some time the importance of regulation in a cell and what happens when they break or get impaired. Mistakes could lead to cancer or a lack of fertility. But I’d argue that DNA contains the mechanism to maintain regulation in our genomic elements and prevent harm. Not evolution.

Another researcher, Cara Brand, says, “These findings indicate that there is antagonistic evolution between these elements that can impact these seemingly conserved and essential molecular pathways.”

I find the term ‘antagonistic evolution’ to be an interesting choice of words. Antagonistic evolution isn’t clearly defined, but implies mutually incompatible interests working between two entities. This is the evolutionary arms race they’re referring to. But keep in mind nothing is evolving; these molecular pathways have already been coded for. Brand’s remarks imply, when something goes wrong in the cell, that’s evolution. And when the genomic elements work properly, that’s evolution too. That’s the antagonism, and I find it largely meaningless. It only serves to confuse what is actually happening, leading readers to a misunderstanding of what evolution is. So, it’s not surprising these scientists refer to this as an ‘evolutionary paradox’. They’re confused.

Brand continues: “It means that, over evolutionary time, constant innovation is required to maintain the status quo.” But now what do they mean by ‘evolutionary time’? I’d take that to mean millions of years. Yet this article implies that evolution happens rapidly, from generation to generation. Which is it? It sounds like a bait-and-switch where evolution continues to be used loosely to mean anything. Further, perhaps the ‘constant innovation’ is found within the genome and doesn’t need to evolve.

Here’s another important point. The article mentions what was once referred to as ‘junk DNA’, or, Levine calls, ‘gobbledygook’ because they’re “incoherent” repeats. Now scientists recognize all this genetic information as useful for a large number of roles, including the regulation of genome integrity and structure in the nucleus. This is a huge refutation of evolution because it was a major prediction which has since been falsified. The experiments have shown just how essential the genetic material is.

Lastly, the fruit fly is still a fruit fly. Despite the many generations in the lab, and all the talk of rapid and constant evolution, the fruit fly hasn’t evolved into anything else.

Perhaps the science industry should stop all the evolutionary language and begin to recognize these changes for what they are, and that is the concept of design. God created organisms to reproduce after their kind, according to a genetic code, and this is exactly what we observe in nature. It’s great that we can learn and understand how our cells work, but let’s give God the credit due for his creation.