|email - January 2013|
Jeff responds to evolutionists.
Last month we shared Jeff’s Sad Experience with you. He challenged evolutionists to present any valid proof for evolution; but all he got in response was a barrage of insults and personal attacks. He wrote us again to tell us that he finally got some minimal scientific response. Here’s what he told us:
Recently, I challenged some evolutionists to present ANY evidence that they considered valid evidence for evolution. Many posted evidences that had been refuted many times, in many ways, over many years. That is what happens when a person refuses to read anything contrary to their particular point of view.
Three evolutionists however, offered one word as evidence: “Atavism.” Like many from both sides, these three touted this one word as “proof” rather than correctly identifying it as “evidence.”
The dictionary defines atavism this way:
Atavism (at'eVIZeM), the appearance in an individual of a characteristic not apparent in the preceding generation. At one time it was believed that such a phenomenon was thought to be a “throwback” to a hypothetical ancestral prototype. The term is seldom used today since science has shown that such abnormal characteristics can be explained by the inheritance of a pair of recessive genes.
That certainly doesn't seem very convincing as evidence for evolution. Were these evolutionists kidding me? I then looked up examples of supposed evolutionary atavism offered by the textbooks:
The Non-Bony Tail
This “tail”, like nearly all cases of human “tails”, is not a real tail. It is not evidence of evolution. It doesn't have any bones in it, doesn't have fur like a monkey's tail, and doesn't have a nerve cord. It is a useless, non-functioning appendage. It is just skin and fatty tissue, and can easily be cut off. In addition, many of these so-called “tails” do not appear near the tailbone or backside. When they do, they are almost always off-center. As biologist Dr. Gary Parker once said about these fatty tumor tails: “So far as I know, no one claims we evolved from an animal with a fatty tumor at the end of its spine.”
The Bony Tail
The second type of “tail”, a rarer type, is one that has bone in it. (Duh) In some cases, the coccyx bone protrudes out from the spine at birth. It looks like a little tail but is actually part of the coccyx bone. Wikipedia (I know – it is a questionable source) says that the coccyx is the remnant of a vestigial tail. There is nothing vestigial about the coccyx bone. Therefore its link to a tail is a huge assumption from the evolutionary world view.
The coccyx serves as an anchor for the pelvic muscles, which support certain internal organs. If the coccyx were vestigial (that is, obsolete and worthless), why don't surgeons just go ahead and remove it when the people are in for other surgery? Why isn't removal recommended at any opportunity since it “only gets in the way” and may be broken or inflamed later? In fact, just the fact that you can break your coccyx should prove it's protecting something. What damage would have been caused if that set of bones hadn't been there?
Even if every human had a bony tail a few inches long, this would not be evidence that humans have evolved from monkeys. The existence of something is not evidence of its origin. Monkeys and humans have heads, arms, and legs in common but that only proves homology - which is NOT evolution. If anything, homology proves a common designer.
One side note: Evolutionists insist that we did not descend from monkeys; but from apes—which have no tails.
So in summary, these are the facts:
We know that, unlike reverse engineering, we can't put evolution in reverse for people or animals. By that, I simply mean that you can't take a poodle and work your way back to a wolf. Since ALL living change is the result of a loss of the DNA code, once the genetic information is lost, it's lost. You can't take an animal, SUBTRACT some genes and get a completely different kind of animal. A poodle, even though it's hardly anything like a REAL dog – is still a dog.
So the answer to the original question is NO. Not only does atavism NOT prove evolution, the scant material offered as evidence is NOT even in favor of the evolutionary model.
There isn’t anything we can add to Jeff’s explanation, so we won’t.
|Quick links to|
|Science Against Evolution
|Back issues of
of the Month