Home » Archaeology, Biology, North America, Religion » Evolutionists claim to have found the 'common ancestor of all mammals'


Evolutionists claim to have found the 'common ancestor of all mammals'

 
 
 
 
 
submit to reddit

The ancestor of all mammals (including humans) is said to be an animal similar to a rat.

The recent media splash (originally published in The New York Times) about finding the hypothetical common ancestor of all mammals is based upon nothing more than the evolutionary argument (assumption) that DNA and biological similarities between species is evidence for common ancestry.

However, what if the DNA and biological similarities between species are because of a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in various species? Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot arise by chance, so it is more logical to believe that similarities in DNA between species are due to intelligent design.

All real evolution in nature is within limits. The genes already exist for micro-evolution (variations within a biological kind such as varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.), but the genes do not exist for macro-evolution (variations across biological kinds such as from sea sponge to human). Only variations of already existing genes and traits are possible. A dog will always be a dog no matter how many varieties come into being. The unthinking environment simply has no ability to design or program entirely new genes.

Evolution is possible only if there’s information (i.e. genes, genetic code) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature is mindless and has no ability to perform genetic engineering or to invent entirely new genes via random genetic mutations caused by random environmental forces like radiation. That’s blind evolutionary faith, not science. Read author’s Internet article, War Among Evolutionnists (2nd Edition).

We have breeds or races of dogs today that we didn’t have a few hundred years ago. The genes for these new races or breeds were always there in the dog population. They just didn’t have opportunity for expression until much later. All species of life carry both expressed and unexpressed genes. When we witness new variations within a natural species, what we’re witnessing is the expression of previously existing genes. The genes were always there. The genes themselves didn’t evolve, but when previously unexpressed genes have opportunity to express themselves, we witness micro-evolution (evolution within a natural species).

Evolutionists hope and assume that, over millions of years, random mutations (accidental changes) in the genetic code caused by radiation from the environment will produce entirely new genes for entirely new traits in species so that macro-evolution occurs. It’s much like hoping that, if given enough time, randomly changing the sequence of letters in a cook book will turn the book into a romance novel, or a book on astronomy!

Another problem for macro-evolution is the issue of survival of the fittest. How can a partially evolved species be fit for survival? A partially evolved trait or organ that is not complete and fully functioning from the start would be a liability to a species, not a survival asset. Plants and animals in the process of macro-evolution would be unfit for survival.

Imagine an evolving fish having part fins and part feet, with the fins evolving into feet. Where’s the survival advantage? It can’t use either fins or feet efficiently. There are no fossils of such fish. These fish exist only on automobile bumper stickers!

In fact, how could species have survived at all while their vital organs were supposedly evolving? Survival of the fittest (natural selection) may explain how species survive, due to minor variations and adaptations to the environment, but not how they originated. Natural selection can only “select” from biological variations that are possible. Natural selection itself does not produce any biological traits. The real issue is what biological variations are possible in nature. The scientific evidence supports that only limited evolution, or biological variations, are possible in nature.

What about “Junk” DNA? The latest science shows that “Junk DNA” isn’t junk after all! It’s we who were ignorant of how useful these segments of DNA really are. Recent scientific research published in scientific journals such as Nature and RNA has revealed that the “non-coding” segments of DNA are essential in regulating gene expression (i.e. how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body).

All the fossils that have been used to support human evolution have ultimately been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not human and non-human.

All species in the fossil record are found complete and fully-formed, which is powerful evidence that they came into existence as complete and fully-formed from the beginning. This is only possible by creation.

Some Internet articles by the author for further reading (Just search the titles to access and read):

Natural Limits of Evolution

War Among Evolutionists (2nd Edition)

How Forensic Science Refutes Atheism

Are Fossils Really Millions of Years Old?

No Half-Evolved Dinosaurs

Missing Links That Never Were

Does God Particle Explain Universe’s Origin?

The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, has his bachelor’s degree with concentrations in theology and biology and has been recognized for his writings on religion and science in the 24th edition of Marquis “Who’s Who in The East.

Source

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 1.0/5 (3 votes cast)
Evolutionists claim to have found the 'common ancestor of all mammals', 1.0 out of 5 based on 3 ratings
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  



RELATED ARTICLES

Did you like this information? Then please consider making a donation or subscribing to our Newsletter.
  • Jim

    Nice. this article on the science of evolution is not dogmatic for once.!

    “The unthinking environment simply has no ability to design or program entirely new genes” – Damn straight.

  • Luggersailor

    Babu’s babbling again =))

  • Borny

    This is so foolish that I don’t know where to begin.

    ///// However, what if the DNA and biological similarities between species are because of a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in various species? /////

    Totally wrong on several counts:

    1. Convergent Evolution.
    Whales very much resemble sharks in their habitat, body shape, adaptations & lifestyle. Yet whales are much more closely related to humans than to sharks!
    The creator must have been nuts to design an aquatic creature along the lines of a land animal.

    2. Nested Hierarchies
    Features unique to one group of animals are absent from other groups.
    For example: only animals that produce milk have hair – the mammals. Why don’t birds have hair? Or why isn’t there a horse with wings? The supreme creator shouldn’t have any problem in mixing & matching features from various animal groups. Yet we don’t see this ever. Nested hierarchies are seen not just in anatomical features, but down to the level of errors in the DNA.

    3. Independent Lineage Sorting
    Humans are closest to chimps in most of the their DNA, but in some DNA they’re more closely related to gorillas. Gorillas are closer to humans in 15% of their DNA, but closer to chimps in another 15% of their DNA. These patterns are best explained by the evolutionary tree obtained by common descent. Invoking a creator as an explanation fails to account for such complex inter-relationships.
    Genomics in general has clearly established common descent.

    ////Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot arise by chance, so it is more logical to believe that similarities in DNA between species are due to intelligent design.///

    Genes are nothing but chemical molecules that can react with other chemicals & the environment to produce various products. They’re not like other forms of information such as language or computer software, for instance, that can’t react or change on their own. In other words, you don’t need a miracle to happen for genetic changes.

    ////A dog will always be a dog no matter how many varieties come into being////

    Dogs are known to have evolved from wolves:

    http://phys.org/news/2013-02-agriculture-wolves-dog-evolution.html

    //// Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature is mindless and has no ability to perform genetic engineering or to invent entirely new genes via random genetic mutations ////

    What nonsense. New genes arise through chemical changes in preexisting genes. The evolutionary history of genes can be traced, just like for organisms. And they match the tree obtained by comparative anatomy.

    ////Another problem for macro-evolution is the issue of survival of the fittest. How can a partially evolved species be fit for survival?////

    My goodness, I can’t help but laugh at this stupidity. There’s no such thing as a partially evolved species. At any point in time, all species are adapted to their current environment, but they’re also evolving at the same time. Evolution doesn’t start or end at certain time points.

    ////Imagine an evolving fish having part fins and part feet, with the fins evolving into feet. Where’s the survival advantage? It can’t use either fins or feet efficiently. There are no fossils of such fish. These fish exist only on automobile bumper stickers!////

    Uh, no. We’ve discovered fish with evolving feet – the 375 million yr old Tiktaalik:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/abs/nature04637.html

    Moreover, recently scientists caused a fish’s fins to develop into legs by tweaking its genes slightly:

    http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-12/researchers-grow-fish-legs-instead-fins

    So there’s considerable evidence that our limbs evolved from fins, whether you like that or not. What advantage did evolving limbs confer? It might have helped the ancient fish move across the mud floor of a pond scouring for food.

    ////What about “Junk” DNA? The latest science shows that “Junk DNA” isn’t junk after all! It’s we who were ignorant of how useful these segments of DNA really are///

    There’s little to it other than media blitz. In fact other scientists have already attacked their lofty claims:

    http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/02/20/gbe.evt028.full.pdf+html

    Junk DNA is indeed a reality. Do you know that some plants have 50 times the DNA of a human?! If all the DNA are functional, that would mean that these plants are more complex than humans!

    ///All the fossils that have been used to support human evolution have ultimately been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not human and non-human.////

    This is another absurdity. One or two hoaxes doesn’t mean all the fossils are fake. The fossil evidence clearly shows transition from apes to man with intermediate forms that have part-ape and part-human features . Older intermediates are more ape-like (eg: Ardipithecus) whereas newer ones are more human-like (eg: Homo erects, or the recently discovered A. sediba).

    ////All species in the fossil record are found complete and fully-formed, which is powerful evidence that they came into existence as complete and fully-formed from the beginning. This is only possible by creation.////

    Then what do you expect? An incomplete fish or an incomplete monkey?! Even a 5 year old kid knows that’s not how evolution works. All species are fully formed at any give time. Otherwise they won’t even survive. But, fully formed species doesn’t mean they won’t evolve. You agree that minor changes happen in species (microevolution). Then what stops you from understanding that minor variations accumulate over long time periods to produce large-scale changes (macroevolution)? If you take one step at a time, you’ll eventually walk miles!
    Macroevolution is a fact proven by multiple lines of evidence. Why are there transitional fossil forms between land mammals & whales, between dinosaurs & birds, between apes & humans etc if macroevolution never happened? Why do animals including humans have vestigial structures that have lost their primary functions? eg: the appendix, tailbone & wisdom teeth in humans and the rudimentary limbs in whales? These structures were functional in their ancestors – clear evidence that macroevolution happened.

    You should accept the world the way it is instead of contorting & twisting facts to fit your narrow-minded ideas. Now what evidence do you have to prove a divine creator exists? Where does this creator reside? How does he zero in on the earth & create everything without leaving a trace of evidence? For what purpose does he create life? Why did he create life only on earth and leave all other planets barren? Why are there natural disasters & diseases that take millions of innocent lives every day? Why is there so much of violence & bloodshed in nature?

    Above all, if a creator exists, who created him in the first place?
    You’ve no answer to any of these fundamental questions at all. All you can do is bash evolution and then not provide a sound alternative that can explain the data. All you have are dollops of absurd imaginations.

Copyright © 2009 The European Union Times – Breaking News, Latest News. All rights reserved.