According to Genesis, God created man in His image from the dust of the ground and breathed life into him, making him a living being. Evolutionists reject this account, claiming instead that humans evolved from other animals—and as a result, we have “rotten genetics.” Laurence D. Hurst, professor of evolutionary genetics, recently wrote an article to explain why.
Most people, including many evolutionists, see humans as the most advanced and successful creatures on earth. We shape our environment, cultivate the land, domesticate animals, fly through the air, explore space, and develop advanced technology. Yet Hurst and other evolutionists argue that we’re not that special—pointing to our supposed bad genes as proof.
Hurst notes that humans have an unusually high proportion of fertilized eggs with the wrong number of chromosomes, plus one of the highest rates of harmful genetic mutations. He also cites gestational diabetes and high blood pressure in pregnancy as examples of defective traits.
These problems are real—but invoking evolution as the explanation is misguided. We didn’t evolve from animals. The Bible teaches that sin is the cause. Adam’s disobedience brought God’s curse upon humanity and the entire creation (Genesis 3:16–19). To the woman, God said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children.” Our broken genetics are a direct consequence of this curse.
Hurst’s reasoning is built on evolutionary assumptions. He claims our poor genetics result from evolving human features when populations were small, and because we nourish young via a placenta. But how does he know this? He wasn’t there to observe these supposed changes. His explanation is a story that fits his worldview.
By contrast, Genesis offers an explanation written over 3,000 years ago. Adam and Eve were created without defects, and there was no death before sin. Early humans lived extraordinarily long lives—Adam 930 years, Methuselah 969, Noah 950. The turning point came about 4,000 years ago with Noah’s Flood. Humanity was reduced to eight people, creating a severe genetic bottleneck. After the Flood, lifespans dropped dramatically: Shem lived 600 years, Peleg 239, Abraham 175, and so on, eventually reaching modern spans. This fits the creationist model perfectly: a sharp population reduction leading to accumulating genetic problems.
Ironically, Hurst’s point about small populations causing poor genetics actually supports the creationist timeline better than the evolutionary one. Evolutionists require humans to endure repeated near extinction events– up to five- between 19,000- 150,000 years ago, keeping the population tiny, which is required to prevent overcrowding on earth. So this model isn’t realistic. The biblical Flood, however, provides a clear, one-time bottleneck with observable effects.
Hurst also claims certain problems, like gestational diabetes and pre-eclampsia, are unique to humans. If we truly evolved from animal ancestors, such traits should be more common in related species. Evolutionists often use similarities as proof of ancestry—yet here the differences are glaring.
He further speculates that a high rate of chromosomal errors in embryos evolved to prevent mothers from “wasting time” on pregnancies that would fail. This makes little sense, even in evolutionary terms. Evolution has no foresight to “decide” what might be efficient millions of years later. And his explanation that it redirects resources to viable offspring ignores that humans usually have single births, and that the same problem isn’t widespread in animals.
Much of Hurst’s reasoning amounts to guesswork—attempts to find benefits in what are clearly harmful conditions. For example, he tries to frame pre-eclampsia as potentially advantageous, but offers no convincing mechanism.
One statement of his is correct: DNA’s main job is to give instructions for making the proteins vital for life. But where did those instructions come from? Nature has never been observed producing complex coded information by itself. Information requires an intelligent source. The most reasonable explanation is that God designed DNA with the necessary instructions from the start.
Hurst also repeats the outdated claim that only 10% of DNA is functional “useful” code. Modern research suggests at least 80% is functional, and the figure may well approach 100%.
Evolution offers only a story built on assumptions, while creation offers a historical record grounded in eyewitness testimony from the Creator Himself. The evidence of declining lifespans, genetic bottlenecks, and the uniqueness of human ailments fits perfectly within the biblical framework—but strains under evolutionary explanations. The truth is not that humans “evolved rotten genetics,” but that we were created perfect, fell into sin, and now live under its curse. That curse is real, it’s written in our DNA, and it will remain until the day when Christ, the Author of life, removes it forever.
sixdaysblog 
Curious how DNA fails often and horribly, so your argument indicates your god is an incompetent idiot, or malicious. You will of course, try to claim the “fall” is responsible, which means that you have literally no idea what your god actually intended. You lie when you claim to see “design” in a world supposedly changed completely by the “fall”.
I’d love to challenge you to rethink your claims. You’re right that I claim that the fall is responsible for why DNA fails “often and horribly.” I made that clear in the article. So I deny your claim that God is an incompetent idiot, or malicious. And it’s interesting that you go on to claim that I’m the one who literally has no idea what God actually intended, as if you- a God denier- know the mind of God. But all I’m doing is believing and applying what God’s word actually says, and it tells me that God is a loving, compassionate God, who doesn’t want anyone to go to hell, but is patient with us and wants everyone to come to repentance through the forgiveness of sins (2 Peter 3:9).
You say I’m lying when I claim to see design in a world supposedly changed completely by the fall. But I promise you that I’m not lying. I really do believe that. With all my heart. And I hope you would sincerely look for design, because I believe, if you were to do so with openness and sincerity, you would also see design.
Your challenge is hilarious since you have nothing to change reality to make be rethink it.
Yep, you clam that the “fall” is responsible, and you can’t show that the fall happened, or your god exists. You claim yuo can see “design” and per your own myths, that is impossible. Everythign was changed and thus is not what your god supposedly “designed”.
All you are doing is making the same lies from your cult as usual. Your god is not loving or compassionate per your own bible. I’v read it and don’t need to believe the lies christians tell each other.
Per your bible, this god does want people to go to hell, since your bible says it creates “pots” that are intended to be destroyed. Shame Paul and Jesus don’t agree with your invention.
You claim yuo see design, which means you claim that your god designed a “fallen” world. That’s all you have, jonathan. Your beliefs have nothing to show that they are true.
Agian, nice attempts to lie when you insist that I am not “open” or “sincere” when I don’t believe your baseless nonsense. How sweet of you.
No need to change reality. Just change your worldview.
Of course we can demonstrate that the fall happened. It just takes a little logic and some science. Assuming Adam was created by God with perfect DNA about 6- 7,000 years ago, the amount of mutations in modern humans is consistent with what we should expect. By tracing our mutations back in time to a point where the DNA was perfect, we arrive with a timeline consistent with the Bible, about 6- 10,000 years ago. And this is a good thing. If we had millions of years of evolution, the mutation load would be catastrophically high; the genomes would be non-functional long ago.
Seriously, think about it. If our ancestors lived millions and billions of years ago, we couldn’t exist because of all the mutations we should have. Even if humans were 300,000 years old, the amount of mutations we have now doesn’t add up to the amount we should have.
But if the fall is real, it makes sense that we can trace our DNA back to a time when it would have been perfect. And then see how sin cause our DNA to mutate to the extent it is today. The data points to genetic youth.
https://sixdaysblog.com/2020/07/16/genetics-and-the-human-race/
https://sixdaysblog.com/2020/11/28/the-secret-to-human-history/
Yep, more lies and ignorance from a failed cultist.
No such thing as “perfect DNA”. No evidence for it, just your baseless assertions, and you literally have no examples of what this “perfect DNA” would look like.
You simply make up how often mutations would happen to get what you want. That’s not how science works. It’s hilarious how you cultists can’t even agree on your own lies, with thousands of years of difference in what you all make up.
It’s great how you show you have no idea how evolution works, yet again. Curoius how mutations don’t remain in the population if they are lethal, so your idiocy fails again.
I have thought about it, and you are an ignorant failure.
Truth.
I explained perfect DNA in the Squid article.
Funny that you would try to tell me how science works or doesn’t work. I’ve seen evolutionists make things up. They have to in order to evangelize and win converts to their cult. Why do you think they employ bait-and-switch tactics and play loosey goosey with terms and definitions? They can’t be consistent with what evolution is and isn’t. The term is so elastic that it can mean anything the evolutionist wants, even when contradicted by the evidence. When evolution is refuted, they just say, “See, being wrong is what makes science so great!” And then they move the goalpost and pretend that evolution has been affirmed (think dinosaur soft tissue as we have discussed).
Actually, creation scientists have used secular models to arrive at biblical timelines, and we have found that it is atheists who have altered the data to get what they want. It’s in the links I’ve sent.
Obviously you don’t understand how evolution works because you can’t explain how it works. I can. If the mutation is lethal, then it obviously doesn’t remain in the population very long.
Yep, here we go with yet more claims you can’t support. Do show where “evolutionists” have “made things up”. Surely you can, right? It’s wonderful when Christians are incompetent liars.
Where do they employ bait and switch? Where are they being loose with “terms and definitions”? I’m waiting, dear.
Unsurprisngly you can’t show where the term “evolutionary theory” is “elastic”, you simply make that up.
Curoius how no, creationists don’t use “secular models” and it’s so quaint when you can’t name any of these supposed “models”. I have repeatedly explained how evolution works,dear, but again all you have are lies so I shouldn’t expect any better from you.
Evolution is when environmental stressors select for characteristics in a population. Mutations are not inherently lethal or not, it depends on the environment. Try again, dear.
Of course I can support all my claims, as always. Evolutionists make things up all the time. In whale evolution, for instance, they assumed certain parts existed, even though they didn’t have the fossil evidence, such as portions of the skull or tale. They just made it up because to create the narrative (see link).
Evolutionists employ bait-and-switch all the time. That’s one of their favorite tactics. If anyone objects to evolution, all they do is point to bacterial resistance and say, “see that’s evolution, and it proves that dinosaurs evolved into birds!” But bacterial resistance is an entirely different process that can be explained by a basic understanding of genetics and has nothing to do with the evolution of novel body plans that would be required if a dinosaur evolved into a bird. Two very different processes, hence, the bait-and-switch. Evolution has been defined and redefined in order to come up with something others will accept. Two opposite processes are referred to as evolution. One is observed (e-coli “evolving” into e-coli due to broken regulatory switches), the other is never observed, but must be believed by faith (dinosaur to bird).
Evolution is so elastic that when it’s refuted, evolutionists, like you, just explain it away. Junk DNA and dinosaur soft tissue are two good examples. Evolutionists believed junk DNA was leftovers from our evolutionary past, while creationists believed it was there for a reason. Creationists were right, but evolutionist predictions were wrong, so evolutionists ignore the refutation of their failed evolutionary predictions. Same with dinosaur soft tissue, which shouldn’t exist according to evolutionists. So they have to come up with unverifiable explanations and hope nobody catches on.
And as usual, you have no evidence. Unsurprisngly, you have yet to show that “evolutionists make things up all of the time.” IF you could, then you would be a scientist and acatually have research that contradicts them. Where is that research, dear.
Thanks to comparative anatomy, we can easily note what parts exist and would be where we have no current evidence. We also use this in homicide investigations where we don’t have the entire body. It’s notable that you cut and pasted your post since there is no “link” to be clicked on.
It’s hilarious how you make yet more false claims that evolutionary scientists “bait and switch”. Lots of ranting, but not evidence of any occurrence. Bacterial resistance is evolution, and a basic understanding of evolution explains it. You do not have that basic understanding since you are too terrified of actually learning about what you attack. Genetics shows that evolution happens, with showing how genes exist throughout organisms.
Body plans birds and the dinosaurs that evolved into them are the same body plan. Your ignorance about what dinos evovled into birds is typical. They all didn’t.
If one bacteria has a different regulartory switch, it has evolved. It isn’t “broken”, that is a typical claim from someone who has no idea how evolution works. It’s lovely just how amazingly lazy and ignorant you are.
There is no “dinosaur soft tissue” in the way creationists claim. IT has been mineralized just like the bone. It is not fresh meat. Junk DNA was a term invented by scientists and then replaced when further research showed that it was incorrect. Creatoinists didn’t believe it was there for a reason, they believed it was there because they have to pretend their imaginary friend is perfect. The reason they came to the idea that DNA can’t be junk or repetitive is because of their ignorance beliefs.
Coming to the same conclusion but with entirely baseless nonsense isn’t the “reason” you think. Scientists didn’t think that soft tissue could mineralize since they had found none. Then they found some. Creationists didn’t think they’d find any either, and surprise, they were wrong. It is only when scientists reported their findings, that creationists decided to lie about it.
As usual, no evidence for evolution, or against God’s existence.
You asked for evidence showing where evolutionists have made thing sup, and I provided irrefutable evidence, right from the source, and all you can do is deny that which I provided like an ostrich with its head in the sand.
Comparative anatomy? Nope, circular reasoning.
Homicide investigations? You are aware that such investigations have led to innocent people being put to death, right?
Bacterial resistance? Bait-and-switch. Not evolution. Just normal genetics that can be reproduced. Evolution isn’t supposed to be predictable. Failed again.
You say, “Genetics shows that evolution happens.” No, it doesn’t. Genetics shows that genetic information from the parents are passed to the offspring. Defining this as evolution meaningless. Just words- “Trust me!” No one has ever observed novel, complex information arise in this manner (feathers from a featherless ancestor or a mammal from an amphibian).
You state, “Body plans birds and the dinosaurs that evolved into them are the same body plan.” Sorry, not observable. Not repeatable. Just wishful thinking. Not objective. Requires faith. You lose again.
Bacteria do have highly sophisticated regulatory switches. That’s a fact. It’s irrefutable. Undeniable. And stating that those switches is “broken” is using common language. Yet these regulatory switches are more “elegant” and responsive than simple, demonstrating intelligent design. So thank you for pointing this out.
In E. coli, lac operon is normally off in the absence of lactose. Lactose binds the Lacl repressor and flips the “switch” to ON. Mutations “break” that switch. The lacl mutations (repressor defective) leads to constitutive expression (always ON even without lactose). The operator constitutive mutations lead to a repressor that can’t bind and is always ON. (source: Jacob & Monod, 1961, “Genetic regulatory mechanisms in the synthesis of proteins” Journal of Molecular Biology 3:318–356 (Nobel Prize 1965). So you’re wrong again.
You state “There is no “dinosaur soft tissue” in the way creationists claim. IT has been mineralized just like the bone. It is not fresh meat.” I provided sources that refute your claims. And nobody claimed it was “fresh meat,” so you’re being dishonest, attempting to move the goalpost.
You state, “Junk DNA was a term invented by scientists and then replaced when further research showed that it was incorrect.” In other words, evolutionists were wrong and creationists were right. I love how you play the game, “Heads I win, tails you lose” and can’t provide an honest assessment of the truth.
It’s hilarious that you claim that “There is no ‘dinosaur soft tissue’ in the way creationists claim. Then you state, “Scientists didn’t think that soft tissue could mineralize since they had found none. Then they found some.” Oops! Caught you in another lie.
Finally, you state, “Creationists didn’t think they’d find any either, and surprise, they were wrong. It is only when scientists reported their findings, that creationists decided to lie about it.” Nope, you lied again. Creationists were predicting the preservation of biomolecules as early as 1974 when Henry Morris stated, “”Many fossils are not completely mineralized… There is a good possibility that some original organic material may still be present in many fossils… This would include even such fragile materials as proteins and other complex organic molecules, which could not possibly have survived for millions of years.” Scientific Creationism (Public School Edition). Institute for Creation Research, pp. 110–112. (Chapter on “The Fossil Record,” discussing vertebrate bones and amber.)
Thus Morris predicted recoverable organics 22 years before Schweitzer’s findings became known. In 1986 he said, “If the earth is young… we should not be surprised to find even DNA or other complex molecules preserved in some fossils, including those from the time of the dinosaurs.” “The ‘Dinosaur-DNA’ Controversy.” Impact No. 162 (ICR monthly newsletter, pp. 1–3). Boom!
1996: “Dinosaurs didn’t live millions of years ago… If they died in the Flood just thousands of years back, some bones might still have bits of the original stuff inside—like blood or skin—not all turned to rock yet.” Morris, J. D. (1990). What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs? Master Books, p. 28. (Illustrated section on fossil formation.)
And yet more failure from a Christian who cannot do what his christ promises.
Again, no evidence where evolutionists made things up. It’s hilarious how you do everything you accuse me of. IT’s lovely how you can’t show how comparative anatomy is supposedly “circular reasoning”. You simply stamp your little feet and make yet more baseless claims. The same thing with homicide investigations. Unsurprisngly, you can’t show a single event in when a missing body part has led to anyone being put to death for a crime they didn’t commit.
Bacterial resistance isn’t “bait and switch”. It is evidence of evolution, and it takes a creationist and their ignorance to deny that. Genetics shows that evolution happens, so your appeal to “normal genetics” also fails. Evolution can and often is predictable. One has to know the pressures of the environment on the population.
It’s great when an idiot like yourself simply says “nuh-uh” when it comes to how genetics shows that evolution happens. We see how populations change and all you’ve done is yet again show you h ave no idea what evolutionary theory actually says. We have repeatedly observed novel and complexity arise from genetics. Feathers never appeal all at once, they evolve, dear.
Tahnks for yet again showing how only ignorance keeps someone a creationist.
Again, you show that you have no idea how dinosaurs who were upright evolved into birds. Nice to see you can’t show I’m wrong.
Yep, bacteria can have regulatory switches. Nothing says they are “sophisticated” which implies some “design”. They work, and again evolution doesn’t make sophistication, it makes what works. Your “common language” shows just how stupid you are.
I always love when creationists cut and paste actual science and have no idea what it says. That bit from ““Genetic regulatory mechanisms in the synthesis of proteins” is hilarious and doesn’t say what you evidently think it does. You might want to look at more recent research: “Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus and L. delbrueckii subsp. lactis are both used in the dairy industry as homofermentative lactic acid bacteria in the production of fermented milk products. After selective pressure for the fast fermentation of milk in the manufacture of yogurts, L. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus loses its ability to regulate lac operon expression. A series of mutations led to the constitutive expression of the lac genes. A complex of insertion sequence (IS) elements (ISL4 inside ISL5), inserted at the border of the lac promoter, induced the loss of the palindromic structure of one of the operators likely involved in the binding of regulatory factors. A lac repressor gene was discovered downstream of the β-galactosidase gene of L. delbrueckii subsp. lactis and was shown to be inactivated by several mutations in L. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus. Regulatory mechanisms of the lac gene expression of L. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus and L. delbrueckii subsp. lactis were compared by heterologous expression in Lactococcus lactis of the two lac promoters in front of a reporter gene (β-glucuronidase) in the presence or absence of the lac repressor gene. Insertion of the complex of IS elements in the lac promoter of L. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus increased the promoter’s activity but did not prevent repressor binding; rather, it increased the affinity of the repressor for the promoter. Inactivation of the lac repressor by mutations was then necessary to induce the constitutive expression of the lac genes in L. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus.” – Regulation and Adaptive Evolution of Lactose Operon Expression in Lactobacillus delbrueckii
Luciane Lapierre 1, Beat Mollet 1, Jacques-Edouard Germond 1,*
“Adaptation to novel environments is often associated with changes in gene regulation. Nevertheless, few studies have been able both to identify the genetic basis of changes in regulation and to demonstrate why these changes are beneficial. To this end, we have focused on understanding both how and why the lactose utilization network has evolved in replicate populations of Escherichia coli. We found that lac operon regulation became strikingly variable, including changes in the mode of environmental response (bimodal, graded, and constitutive), sensitivity to inducer concentration, and maximum expression level. In addition, some classes of regulatory change were enriched in specific selective environments. Sequencing of evolved clones, combined with reconstruction of individual mutations in the ancestral background, identified mutations within the lac operon that recapitulate many of the evolved regulatory changes. These mutations conferred fitness benefits in environments containing lactose, indicating that the regulatory changes are adaptive. The same mutations conferred different fitness effects when present in an evolved clone, indicating that interactions between the lac operon and other evolved mutations also contribute to fitness. Similarly, changes in lac regulation not explained by lac operon mutations also point to important interactions with other evolved mutations. Together these results underline how dynamic regulatory interactions can be, in this case evolving through mutations both within and external to the canonical lactose utilization network.” – Adaptive Evolution of the Lactose Utilization Network in Experimentally Evolved Populations of Escherichia coli
• Selwyn Quan,
• J. Christian J. Ray,
• Zakari Kwota,
• Trang Duong,
• Gábor Balázsi,
• Tim F. Cooper,
• Russell D. Monds
Again, still no soft tissue found. It has all been fossilized. Your sources showed you were lying yet again. Creatoinists repeatedly have claimed it was not fossilized, so you fail with that lie too. Again, it’s great how Christians lie.
“An obvious question arises from Schweitzer’s work: is it even remotely plausible that blood vessels, cells, and protein fragments can exist largely intact over 68 million years? While many consider such long-term preservation of tissue and cells to be very unlikely, the problem is that no human or animal remains are known with certainty to be 68 million years old. But if creationists are right, dinosaurs died off only 3,000–4,000 years ago. So would we expect the preservation of vessels, cells, and complex molecules of the type that Schweitzer reports for biological tissues historically known to be 3,000–4,000 years old?”
“We conclude that the preservation of vessels, cells, and complex molecules in dinosaurs is entirely consistent with a young-earth creationist perspective but is highly implausible with the evolutionist’s perspective about dinosaurs that died off millions of years ago.” Answers in Genesis
“Soft tissues that are essentially unaltered should not exist in fossils that are millions of years old. This is because, in accordance with the Law of Entropy, the biochemicals in such tissues spontaneously break down within only thousands of years after death.” Institute of Creation Research
Yep, junk DNA was used by scientists, and then was discarded. Again, creationists predicted and found nothing to support their claims. Creationists weren’t correct when they claimed their god created DNA at all, and that their imaginary friend doesn’st make “junk”, so your lies still fail.
Unusprirsingly, Morris was wrong since he claimed that there would only be proteins, etc found in objects that were many times younger than millions of years. Sorry, dear, you have shot yourself in the metaphorical face with that quote: “This would include even such fragile materials as proteins and other complex organic molecules, which could not possibly have survived for millions of years.” Scientific Creationism (Public School Edition). Institute for Creation Research, pp. 110–112”.
He predicted organics in very young objects. So your lies fail hilariously. We know that fossils are millions of years old, so the lies of young earth creationists fail, wonderfully since you poor dears have to now admit that these things are indeed mineralized.
Poor Jonathan, funny how you still are lying about dinos existed just a few thousand years ago and were killed in the flood you also can’t show happened.
Unsurprisingly, still no evidence for evolution, and no evidence that God doesn’t exist.
I will only comment on your one statement, “Evolution can and often is predictable.”
No, if it’s predictable, then it’s not evolution. The only time “evolution” is predictable is when it’s natural selection, speciation, adaptation, or normal genetics where the change already exists in the DNA population and is passed along to the offspring. If that is not the case, then evolution cannot and is not predictable. In the case of bacterial resistance, we can predict that a new population will experience bacterial resistance because this ability already exists in their genome. In other words, it’s not evolving bacterial resistance. Bacterial resistance is feature.
However, real evolution, like an unfeathered organism evolving feathers, is not and cannot be predictable. Regardless of environmental pressures on the population, the only thing we can predict with absolute certainty is that this organism will not evolve feathers. We cannot predict that a snake, for instance, will evolve feathers because there are no environmental factors that could possibly trigger such an evolutionary pathway.
So you fail again. This is why bacterial resistance is a bait-and-switch. But you will never acknowledge that because you’re interested only in lies. To prove me wrong all you have to do is present a featherless organism and predict that it will evolve feathers if you place it in an environment that favors feathers, and then come back and provide observational evidence that the offspring have feathers… or how about just “proto” feathers to make it easier on you.
But I can predict that you would never do such an experiment, nor would that experiment produce feathers because this kind of evolution isn’t real. It’s made-up. And requires no evidence.
Yep, still more lies from Jonathan. It’s wonderful that Jonathan is evidence his claims aren’t true.
Evolution can be predictable. If the stressors change, we can have an educated guess on what attributes will be selected for since those individuals in a population that can survive pass on their traits. Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution, so you again show your ignorance.
You still fail and you are still a fraud, dear. You have no idea what “real evolution” is since you have no idea what evolutionary theory actually says. You, like so many creationists, can’t reject natural selection since even most of you aren’t quite that stupid. But then you try to reject evolution which uses natural selection. IT’s the usual dishonesty of cultists who need to cling to their imaginary friend. Bacterial resistance is a result of evolution: environmental pressures selecting for members of a population.
The evolution of feathers is noted since they come from scales, which even by your own claims is something that existed.
As always, you are too stupid and vain to admit you have lost, dear. So sweet!
Still no evidence for evolution. Just more, “It’s true because I said so.”
Evolution isn’t supposed to be predictable. If evolution were true, then who would have predicted that dinosaurs would evolve feathers and become expert flyers? Why would anyone predict this? Is it because they lived in an environment favoring flight? Or that a hoofed mammal would become a whale? Why would anyone predict this? Is it because they spent a lot of time in the water? If evolution were true, then we should be able to put a variety of different animals in environments conducive to fight or permanent marine life. However, bacterial resistance is predictable because it’s not evolution. It occurs because the resistance is in the DNA. But this is unlike dino-to-bird evolution, or land mammal-to-whale evolution where the original DNA does not contain the elements necessary for those far distant future body plans. So, as you can see, you’re describing two very different processes as the same process… and referring to both as evolution, which demonstrates that you don’t understand evolution. In one process, the genetic information already exists. In the other process, it doesn’t. We understand the one quite well and can describe it and predict it, while the other must be assumed without providing the molecular path to a new, highly complex genetic code. Just spouting, “Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution” demonstrates your ignorance. That’s no different that waving a magic wand. It doesn’t tell us anything about how the new DNA code for feathers arose, even assuming they arose from scales, which is more fairy tale than evidence based. Again, if feathers arose from scales, then it should be simple for all scaled animals to evolve feathers, following the same evolutionary path as birds, but we don’t observe this in the real world. Sorry, you lied again.
It’s so sweet when Jonathan has to repeat what I’ve said since he can’t be original. Sorry, dear, still no nevidence for your iamginary friend, and your lies about DNA are just precious.
Bacterial resistance is evolution in action, and it’s hilariosu how you try to lie otherwise, dear. Evolution of all types is predictable, if one knows the stressors of the environment. It’s great how your lies depend on the typcial willful ignorance of a cultist.
feathers arose from scales and we can see that on any bird, dear. Their legs are scaled and we can see how the genetics works for feathers. You are a terrible liar and quite an idiot.
you fail yet again.