Are Vestigial Organs proof
for evolution?
In the textbook, Glenco Biology 1994 p.311, we are told the appendix is vestigial. But actually our appendix is part of our immune system. If it is taken out you have a greater chance of getting quite a few diseases and the immune system has to work harder. It’s true you can live without it. You can also live without your arms, legs, or your eyes, but it doesn’t prove you don’t need them.
In the textbook Glenco Biology Living Systems p.311 1998, it says whales have a vestigial pelvis and leg bone that serves no purpose. In Whales & Dolphins Eyes on Nature 1994 p.6, it says, “Just imagine whales walking around. It’s true.” The bones this is talking about are extremely small compared to the rest of the whale’s body. The textbooks say this is evidence for evolution from four legged land mammals. Actually, those bones are anchor points that special muscles attach to. And without those special bones and muscles the whales cannot reproduce. This has nothing to do with walking on land but everything to do with making baby whales.
Snakes also have little claws that that connect to muscles located at the south end of the snake. Textbooks again say that’s evidence for evolution. Those claws have nothing to do with walking on land. The snakes use these for mating because they don’t have arms to pull their woman over.
In Holt Biology, 1989 and in Heath Biology 1991 p.264 textbooks it says, “Humans have a tailbone that is of no apparent use…and thought to be the remainder of bones that once occupied the long tail of a tree-living ancestor.” But I would like to point something out. Vestigial structures are loosing something not gaining something. How can that be evidence for evolution? How did you get it to begin with? Anyway, the tailbone is not vestigial. Nine little muscles attach to the tailbone. With out which you cannot perform some valuable functions such as having a bowel movement, nor could you walk or sit upright.
Are Bacteria becoming resistant to drugs proof for evolution?
Evolutionists say mutations sometimes become resistant to antibiotics (germ-killing drugs). And so, the argument goes, “If mutations can make bacteria stronger, they must be able to do the same for other creatures.” Dr. Spetner points out that this is based on a misunderstanding, for the mutations that cause antibiotic resistance still involve information loss. For example, to destroy a bacterium, the antibiotic streptomycin attaches to a part of the bacterial cell called ribosomes. Mutations sometimes cause a structural deformity in ribosomes. Since the antibiotic cannot connect with the misshapen ribosome, the bacterium is resistant. But even though this mutation turns out to be beneficial (for the moment), it still constitutes a loss of genetic information, not a gain. No “evolution” has taken place; the bacteria are not “stronger.” In fact, under normal conditions, with no antibiotic present, they are weaker than their non-mutated cousins. (Case Against Darwin. Chapter 2) An example would be if someone is going through town hand cuffing people to hall them off to kill them and you don’t have any arms. They can’t handcuff you. So you survive the purge. Well it might be beneficial for the moment, but it’s still a loss of information. As soon as you’re back into the population with armed people your going to be at a disadvantage.
Evolutionists say beneficial mutations are the key to making macroevolution work. But the funny thing is, is that there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation. All there examples they use such as the bacteria becoming resistant, people born with sickle-cell anemia are less likely to get malaria, and cockroaches becoming resistant to pesticides is all loss of information. Having more of the same DNA is not beneficial. Having more of anything in an organism is not beneficial. It is not the amount of genetic information that makes a mutation beneficial but rather if it has created new information. “Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.” (Refuting Evolution, p.101)“Adaptation and natural selection are biological facts; amoeba-to-man evolution is not. Natural selection can only work on the genetic information present in a population of organisms—it cannot create new information. For example, since no known reptiles have genes for feathers, no amount of selection will produce a feathered reptile. Mutations in genes can only modify or eliminate existing structures, not create new ones.”
In the textbook, Glenco Biology 1994 p.311, we are told the appendix is vestigial. But actually our appendix is part of our immune system. If it is taken out you have a greater chance of getting quite a few diseases and the immune system has to work harder. It’s true you can live without it. You can also live without your arms, legs, or your eyes, but it doesn’t prove you don’t need them.
In the textbook Glenco Biology Living Systems p.311 1998, it says whales have a vestigial pelvis and leg bone that serves no purpose. In Whales & Dolphins Eyes on Nature 1994 p.6, it says, “Just imagine whales walking around. It’s true.” The bones this is talking about are extremely small compared to the rest of the whale’s body. The textbooks say this is evidence for evolution from four legged land mammals. Actually, those bones are anchor points that special muscles attach to. And without those special bones and muscles the whales cannot reproduce. This has nothing to do with walking on land but everything to do with making baby whales.
Snakes also have little claws that that connect to muscles located at the south end of the snake. Textbooks again say that’s evidence for evolution. Those claws have nothing to do with walking on land. The snakes use these for mating because they don’t have arms to pull their woman over.
In Holt Biology, 1989 and in Heath Biology 1991 p.264 textbooks it says, “Humans have a tailbone that is of no apparent use…and thought to be the remainder of bones that once occupied the long tail of a tree-living ancestor.” But I would like to point something out. Vestigial structures are loosing something not gaining something. How can that be evidence for evolution? How did you get it to begin with? Anyway, the tailbone is not vestigial. Nine little muscles attach to the tailbone. With out which you cannot perform some valuable functions such as having a bowel movement, nor could you walk or sit upright.
Are Bacteria becoming resistant to drugs proof for evolution?
Evolutionists say mutations sometimes become resistant to antibiotics (germ-killing drugs). And so, the argument goes, “If mutations can make bacteria stronger, they must be able to do the same for other creatures.” Dr. Spetner points out that this is based on a misunderstanding, for the mutations that cause antibiotic resistance still involve information loss. For example, to destroy a bacterium, the antibiotic streptomycin attaches to a part of the bacterial cell called ribosomes. Mutations sometimes cause a structural deformity in ribosomes. Since the antibiotic cannot connect with the misshapen ribosome, the bacterium is resistant. But even though this mutation turns out to be beneficial (for the moment), it still constitutes a loss of genetic information, not a gain. No “evolution” has taken place; the bacteria are not “stronger.” In fact, under normal conditions, with no antibiotic present, they are weaker than their non-mutated cousins. (Case Against Darwin. Chapter 2) An example would be if someone is going through town hand cuffing people to hall them off to kill them and you don’t have any arms. They can’t handcuff you. So you survive the purge. Well it might be beneficial for the moment, but it’s still a loss of information. As soon as you’re back into the population with armed people your going to be at a disadvantage.
Evolutionists say beneficial mutations are the key to making macroevolution work. But the funny thing is, is that there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation. All there examples they use such as the bacteria becoming resistant, people born with sickle-cell anemia are less likely to get malaria, and cockroaches becoming resistant to pesticides is all loss of information. Having more of the same DNA is not beneficial. Having more of anything in an organism is not beneficial. It is not the amount of genetic information that makes a mutation beneficial but rather if it has created new information. “Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.” (Refuting Evolution, p.101)“Adaptation and natural selection are biological facts; amoeba-to-man evolution is not. Natural selection can only work on the genetic information present in a population of organisms—it cannot create new information. For example, since no known reptiles have genes for feathers, no amount of selection will produce a feathered reptile. Mutations in genes can only modify or eliminate existing structures, not create new ones.”
