A Closer Look

Recently I attended a lecture that was held in honor of Charles Darwin's 200th birthday, and the 150th anniversary of the publishing of The Origin of Species. The speaker's focus was on "Neandertals" and recent biological work that is attempting to recreate the DNA of a Neandertal. What struck me first was the clear distinction made between Neandertal and Human; each is considered a different species, a separate creature, individual branches on the 'tree of life'. However, the speaker's interest was on the degrees of variation (in the DNA) between these two "species." It's thought that perhaps by finding the genetic material that Neandertals had, and that Humans lacks, we can discover how we transitioned, or "evolved." Apparently the answer to the change from Ape to Human is all in the DNA, and the way that evolution caused the re-arranging of it.

And here is where I give pause to my thought. Hold on now, I think, why is it we are studying a single foundation of life? Evolution certainly separates Neandertal and Human, but only as Dogs and Cats are separated, not as Beast and Man are (by some) separated. The whole crux of evolution is that everything is natural, is matter, is not special, nor created, nor purposed, nor distinguished. Dirt is a dog is a tree is a virus is a man. And logically, if everything evolved from a single substance, nothing should have significance.

But then, how is it that a distinction can be made between what does and does not evolve? Suppose we (as the evolutionists must do) avoid the logical impossibility of a natural substance simply existing, without cause or creation; to explain how this first substance becomes what we see around us today, it's believed that it lived and grew and developed more advanced life processes. What evolution seems to do today, is to study all the ways that one species becomes another, and to examine the DNA structure as if some progress is being made by doing this research compared to past observations. It's said "X became Y because the DNA was re-arranged and came to include characteristic A." And this is done for every species along the timeline, they all have their differences in DNA that show a story of evolution.

The problem, is that the base substance-what is said to have originally existed and evolved to create life-isn't evolving, isn't even said to have evolved. Miniscule proteins and DNA molecules as a single, unchanging entity are the only basis scientists have for studying changes in creatures, and yet it cannot be found that DNA itself changes. DNA is rearranged, sure, but that's the case even today, and is not a question of evolution, of change, but simply of diversity.

This distinction is like this: a young child takes out his building blocks and constructs a small house for himself. After a few days he gets tired of playing with the house and knocks it down, and then rearranges the blocks to build a tower. Technically, the boy's outer creation has changed; the order of the blocks has changed, the height of the structure, etc. But, he's still using building blocks. The blocks haven't evolved to become steel, which would then yield to entirely new building possibilities. So it is with DNA. The essential determinent of genetics may be rearrranged from creature to creature, but Nature is still being built by DNA.

Logically, if everything is the same natural material, as evolution must postulate, then if one living thing can evolve, anything can. In fact, nothing is 'living' aside from the fact that some matter is charged with electricity and thus moves, and through millions of years of evolving cause and effect patterns, 'life' has occurred. It's reasonable to think that if a cell can become a fish, then DNA can become a more advanced molecule. But really, if that was the case, evolution would be near impossible to study, much less prove. Instead, scientists must admit to a common Design before quickly moving on to individual branches on a tree. Therefore, we must not forget that it is a common Tree that all creatures, and Man, stem from. Common function, and common structure, lend themselves very well to common Designer.

Jason