Written by Jason Petersen
This article will give a very basic overview on a few parts of Creation Biology. Much of evolutionary biology that supposedly supports universal common descent relies on nothing more than mere conjecture and fallacies. This article will explore DNA and touch on Gregory Mendel as well as the Law of Biogenesis. I will be keeping this article short and simple.
What is Universal Common Descent?
Universal Common Descent is the part of the theory of biological evolution which says that all life forms originated from a single common ancestor.
What is DNA?
DNA(Deoxyribonucleic Acid) is a molecule that has a set of instructions for both the formation and functions of an organism. The amount of information that a single DNA molecule possesses is massive. If all of the DNA in your cells were uncoiled, connected, and stretched out, it would be about 7 feet long. If all of the DNA in your body was stretched out end to end it would stretch from the Earth to the Moon more than 500,000 times.(1) By chance?-I think not.
The Law of Biogenesis
The Law of Biogenesis says that life only comes from life. This entails that life does not come from non living matter. Now, when you bring this up the evolutionist will immediately object and say “That is abiogenesis!”(Abiogenesis is a hypothesis that says that life originated from non living matter.) but the fact that they are avoiding is that their theory of universal common descent is impossible if abiogenesis did not occur. Currently when it comes to the possibility of life, abiogenesis is the only game in town for evolution. All empirical observations are consistent with the law of abiogenesis. Claims of creating life in a lab by evolutionists are extrapolated at best.(The Miller-Urey experiment created amino acids, but that is not life.)
One Possible Objection:
1. The first self replicating molecules are not that complicated, so life coming from non life is possible.
This is a rescuing device. Notice that the statement is a retreat to the possible and offers no evidence to support that life is possible, whereas the evidence that life comes from only life is stacked quite high, because that is precisely what we observe. Supporters of evolution should learn how to tell the difference between conjecture and evidence. There are hypotheses about how this may of occurred for evolutionists, but none of them have a shred of evidence beyond just claiming that it’s possible.(There is no evidence for it even being possible.) Evolutionists and atheists state that they rely on empirical evidence, however, such weak objections appear to show otherwise.
Gregor Mendel was an Austrian-born, German-speaking Augustinian monk who is famously known as the founder of the modern study of genetics, though his work did not receive much recognition until after his death.(2) He came up with Mendel’s Genetic Laws. Mendel’s research was heavily eclipsed by Charles Darwin’s theory of Darwinian Evolution despite Gregor Mendel’s model being better supported by empirical evidence. Mendel discovered that genes merely reshuffled from one generation to another. The different combinations of order of genes produced a wide variety of life, but the changes that occurred had limits.(3)
In the end, all evidence for universal common descent mainly consists of conjecture. It is common for supporters of evolution to throw out small mutations as evidence for evolution, however, small mutations fit within the Creation model. The Creation model actually relies on mutations to explain the diversity of life that quickly arose after the worldwide flood described in Genesis. To say that small mutations support evolution and not creation is the fallacy called affirming a disjunct.(That’s when you say that only one conclusion is possible from the evidence when there are two possible conclusions.)
1. In the Beginning, by Walt Brown Ph. D