The other week I had an interesting exchange with someone on social media who was sure I couldn’t properly understand natural selection since I’ve rejected evolution. From my experience, it seems few ordinary people have any idea what biologists know: there is only one possible mechanism to introduce new information into a creature, and that is mutations.

The last interaction I had with the guy online was telling him I have no problem with change. In fact, I expect it. But, I do have a huge problem with taking what we see and assuming we will eventually see an organism to become something completely new with enough time.

Here’s an excerpt from my book manuscript talking about this:

Evolution, Dictionary Definition: Biology. Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

[Genetic drift: some perfectly good organisms don’t survive to have babies and pass on their variations, others do]

Something evolutionists have to believe is that small changes we can see would add up to big changes after a long time. But are there things stopping change from endlessly continuing? Let’s see what we find in nature:Animal-Dog-Buffon-Dog-Species-Diagram

  • Roses have been bred so some climb to over 30 ft [10 m] up. Others top out at only 3 inches [7.6 cm] high
  • Sugar beets have been pushed to produce up to 19% sugar
  • Finches and lizards surviving a drought can grow thicker beaks or heads
  • Cats have been bred to hang on to some mutations that make their ears flop or so they don’t grow any hair
  • Light colored moths can all get eaten in an area leaving only dark colored survivors
  • Fruit flies have been studied in labs for decades. They have been pushed to grow extra wings (which don’t fly), legs where the eyes should go and other weird things
  • Bacteria pushed to develop new traits can mutate so they survive

Cow Jumping analogy, Donald Batten, Ph.D.What do all these things show? You can shrink or grow things, you can encourage them to be what you want, but you can’t change them into a different kind no matter what you do to them. No one can get a rose to turn into a daffodil, or a sugar beet to become a living sugar cube. Even the most mutated fruit fly doesn’t turn into a dragonfly (or a superhero!).

Plus, if you let these creatures grow wild again, many of the changes disappear. Today’s peppered moths aren’t all dark anymore and the finches’ beaks returned to their normal varieties once more food was around. People keep the plant features they want by growing new plants from a little piece of the original plant. If they used seeds, the new plants would be back to normal.

Those examples of creatures changing they show you in textbooks as “proof” for evolution are things God had already allowed. Mutations can turn DNA off or on. They can bend things or break them, but mutations can’t get a creature to disobey God’s law to reproduce after their kind.

Extra: We aren’t even sure all these changes are caused by mutations. There is a huge amount of variability built into everything’s DNA. But, even if we go with mutations, it doesn’t help the evolutionists any!

For more info on this variability, you can check out this super-long paper from the Answers Research Journal. Maybe I should translate it for us?

* Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels is a book produced by Creation Ministries International (affiliate link)

Cheri Fields

I'm a homeschooling blogger and book writer. The gift God has given me for His kingdom is to understand complex stuff (mostly) and share it with others using everyday words. It is a joy to share God's wonders with all kinds of people and especially the next generation!


Ray Alford · at

Hi Cheri,

I wish I were smarter in the field of genetics, but it requires intense devotion, and I don’t trust the educational community to deliver truth only. They usually have an agenda to remove the Deity of Christ. But if I did understand more, I might contend with the notion that a “mutation can change a gene, or turn it on or off” I think it is likely that the gene itself is considered “changed” when it is misplaced. A mutation, I think, is the misplacing of genes so that the RNA and it’s respective DNA are still able to function, but there are coding issues, and things “don’t come out right” like the leg growing out of the eye of the fruit-fly. There is a “spell-check” type data correcting system which all life has, and it will reverse the misplaced genes in subsequent divisions.

Anyway, all this stuff is sort of Greek to me, and who would know it, unless one made it their total life’s focus. Even then, assumptions regarding “how” things work are easily wrong. God’s creation, it seems, is equally as complex and minute as the cosmos is huge! We think we know quite a bit, but I think it’s only because we don’t know much!

In Christ,
Ray Alford on Palawan

Bethany · at

Thanks. I enjoyed reading.

Erick Reinstedt · at

As always, thanks for your posts and time, Cheri. You bless many!

Cheri Fields · at

None taken. I’m just sensitive to such things because I’ve known and loved people such terms are used on.

Ernesto E. Carrasco, M.C.Ed. · at

Of course, “they” use the old bait and switch. When they say “evolution” they mean Atoms-to-Adam, molecules-to-man, particles-to-people evolution. Very tricky those evilutionists. 😉

    Cheri Fields · at

    And tricked themselves. I wonder how many teachers even understand where the “random variation” they’re so fond of has to come from. Plus, they think if we keep hybridizing for a million years we *could* have something completely new.

      Ernesto E. Carrasco, M.C.Ed. · at

      Yeah, “something completely new” – blithering idiots. Actually, we’re pretty close to that now! 😉

        Cheri Fields · at

        Please watch your language here, it’s a kids’ site. God doesn’t care about our intellect. It’s our pride and stubbornness that make us fools. Noah’s contemporaries had plenty of brains, but it didn’t do them any good.

          Ernesto E. Carrasco, M.C.Ed. · at

          Sorry Cheri. I was referring to our genetic degradation. Genetically, we are not evolving, but rather devolving. I did not mean to be offensive.

          Cheri Fields · at

          OK, but “blithering” isn’t polite even if you are just referring to our mental capacity. 😀

          Ernesto E. Carrasco, M.C.Ed. · at

          Again, I apologize. I meant no offense. I thought the word meant to talk foolishly or blather. Perhaps I erred — not like it’s never happened before. 🙂

Comments are closed.