Go ye therefore, and teach all nations - Matthew 28:19a

Back to Seven Absurdities of Evolution

Back to David's first response.

My Response to David

Hello David,

It is not unusual for people who come to my website to disagree with me; that you took the time to write a thoughtful response was. I hope our correspondence will be profitable for both of us.

When I was a young adult with a public education, if someone had told me that they believed in the Genesis account of creation, I would have believed that the person was either lying or crazy. Therefore, I think I understand your feelings as you corresponded with me. At that time, however, I was only shown evidence that supported evolution; I was never shown a single problem with it.

As I look back, another problem for me was not scientific facts, but rather philosophy. If I were to believe that the Genesis account was true, I would have had to repent of a hedonistic lifestyle. I hope for us, as we talk, that we will search for the truth at all costs.

Now let me look at your response. You start by defining microevolution as,

"... a process that results in the gradual change of a species through evolutionary processes over a very large period of time. It has been suggested by opponents of the theory of evolution that microevolution only selects from pre-existing variation in the population and that mutation is not a source for new variation in a population."

I agree both that there is a gradual change within species over a long period of time, and that one species cannot change into another species. However, I have a problem with the definition of the word species. For example, while some of Darwin's finches can interbreed and will have fertile offspring, they are classified as different species. I think we both agree that all the finches came from the same two ancestors. And I believe they were finches. Yet evolutionists classify these different types of finches as different species. While we may agree that the different species of finches come from the same two ancestors, we disagree about whether microevolution has created eyes, wings or any other complex system. This has not been demonstrated.

To begin my response, I would like to comment on the last portion of your first paragraph.

"When one extrapolates these examples over many millions of years, and especially when one considers the fossil record as science already knows it, it's not difficult to imagine macroevolutionary processes creating eyes, wings, or echolocation."

For myself, this is very hard to imagine. To explain why, I would like to use the alphabet (26 choices for each mutation) instead of using Nucleotides (4 choices for each mutation), understanding that one mutation in my alphabet equals several mutations in a living organism.

Let us examine a simple two word sentence: "make eyes". Just using lower-case letters, the odds are 1 in 26 that you would get the first letter 'm'. Using the E. coli's 20 minute reproduction rate, if we got a mutation in every cycle, it would take about 8.7 hours to get our first letter 'm'. For humans with a 20 year reproduction cycle, it would take 520 years.



Life cycles

E coli years

Humans years












5.69 x 10-5





2.19 x 10-6





8.42 x 10-8



2.37 x 108


3.24 x 10-9

3.08 x 108


6.18 x 109


1.25 x 10-10

8.03 x 109


1.60 x 1011


4.79 x 10-12

2.09 x 1011


4.17 x 1012


1.84 x 10-13

5.43 x 1012


1.09 x 1014



For random chance to get nine letters in a row right, with one mutation in each reproductive cycle, it would take 108.6 trillion human years, or about 9,000 times as long as the age of the universe. This example used only 72 bits of information. I suppose the human genome contains about a gigabyte of information.

In your response, you also cite a 23-year long experiment by Richard E. Lenski. In this experiment the E. coli reproduced every twenty minutes. In 23 years the E. coli reproduced 604,000 times. It would take about 12 million years for humans to reproduce 604,000 times.

What did the E. coli accomplish in this time? They gained an immunity to certain antibiotics. Are we to extrapolate from this data that humans evolved from a humanoid ancestor named Lucy (according to evolutionists Lucy is about 3.2 million years old) in one quarter as many reproductive cycles? Because of their short reproductive cycle, it would seem that if mutations and natural selection increased information, the E. coli would be far more advanced than we humans are.

Are E. coli a parasite? If so, don't they need a host? Is it a good example of evolution if the more evolved host (in this case, an animal with a stomach) existed before the simple bacteria did?

You call the fossil record into your evidence. There are some problems, such as the Cambrian Big Bang, with using the geologic column as evidence that natural selection increases information in the genome. There is other physical evidence, such as the parallelism of the strata and multi strata fossils, that proves these layers were laid down in a short period time and at the same time. If there was a universal flood, it would have produced the geologic column we see today.

I have a question about paragraph three, sentence four of your response:

"Furthermore, when one considers bacterial or insect resistance to antibiotics and pesticides the amount of genotypic variability that would have to be present in a population to allow it to adapt to any number of artificially created killing agents is statistically impossible."

In point 5 of my argument against evolution, I used the example of fruit flies. It took one mutation to get the first four-winged fruit fly. How many mutations does it take for a similar insect to become resistant to a pesticide?

In the case of bacteria, one creation science resource explains:

"If the bacteria have a mutation in the DNA which codes for one of those proteins, the antibiotic cannot bind to the altered protein; and the mutant bacteria survive. In the presence of antibiotics, the process of natural selection will occur, favoring the survival and reproduction of the mutant bacteria. (The mutant bacteria are better able to survive in the presence of the antibiotic and will continue to cause illness in the patient.)"
(Antibiotic Resistance of Bacteria: An Example of Evolution in Action?, Georgia Purdom Ph.D.

Since most mutations are either neutral or harmful, I am not surprised when the author continues:

"Although the mutant bacteria can survive well in the hospital environment, the change has come at a cost. The altered protein is less efficient in performing its normal function, making the bacteria less fit in an environment without antibiotics. Typically, the non-mutant bacteria are better able to compete for resources and reproduce faster than the mutant form." (ibid)

If true, this is an example of microevolution. You start with bacteria, and many life cycles later, you end with bacteria. No macroevolution happened. No new immune system or any other system was created. The mutation did not create any new proteins, it just altered an existing protein. I cannot see how this is perceived as an increase in information, and it certainly could not be perceived as a process that could create complex life forms.

Jeff Barnes


David's response.