email - February 2017
by Do-While Jones

More About MacroDEvolution

Nathan weighs in.

Nathan shared these thoughts with us regarding the email column titled, Catagorizing “Evolution”, in our December newsletter:

Mr. Pogge,

Thank you again for your work on this website. Centuries from now, when humans look back on our time and wonder how everyone was stupid enough to believe in the mythology of evolution, historians will point to your website (if these bits of electronic data are somehow preserved) as evidence that not everyone was on board with this lunacy.

Great job in answering Greg's email regarding macro and micro evolution. I have a few thoughts to add:

-Greg seemed especially interested in macroDEvolution. I would speculate that a macroDEvolution event (in this case the loss of a chromosome) may have been the genetic event that made horses and donkeys no longer able to produce viable offspring. Maybe the same sort of thing happened with lions and tigers, or wolves and coyotes. I don't know, I'm just speculating and not engaging in real science (but if I were an evolutionist I would try to get my speculations published and accepted as scientific fact:). Like you said in your email, none of these separations between species or genus have resulted in any significant new life forms, but just variations within the pre-existing "family". Which brings me to my second thought...

-People need to appreciate that the categories of lifeforms (kindom [sic], phylum, class.....) are completely arbitrary divisions based on the understanding of the people who made the categories at the time. Additionally, these categories are constantly refined to suite [sic] the purposes of the evolutionist theory. Those of us who are skeptical of evolution can argue that while new species may develop from deevolutionary or neutral evelutionary [sic] events, no new "families" of life are created. This argument is compelling and undeniable, however, the evolutionist will respond by assigning horses and donkeys to different families to "prove" how much they have evolved. [Actually, horses and donkeys have been assigned to the same family and genus, but different species; but Nathan’s point is still valid.]

-Lastly I want to say a word about neutral evolution. I worked in a medical microbiology lab, and so I was often exposed to the idea that bacteria are "evolving" resistance to antibiotics (thank God I was never exposed to the bacteria themselves;). This bacterial drug resistance is often touted as microevolution, but I want to point out that this "evolution" is only neutral and would not provide an advantage to the bacteria in an environment that lacked the selective pressure of the antibiotic. Antibiotics often work by binding to a bacterial enzyme that is crucial for bacterial growth (such as ribosome) and thereby inhibiting the enzymatic activity. Antibiotic resistance can occur because a mutation in the gene can cause a slight variation in the enzyme that will make it no longer bind to the antibacterial drug, but still carry out it's [sic] desired enzymatic function. As long as the bacteria are growing in the presence of the antibacterial drug, the "resistant" bacteria will grow and replicate faster than the susceptible (wild type) bacteria. However, the enzyme that confers resistance, will most likely not carry out it's [sic] enzymatic process as efficiently as the wild type enzyme if there is no antibiotic around to inhibit the wild type enzyme. In other words, the wild type enzyme was the way it was because in a normal environment, it out competed all of the other enzyme variations that may have developed in the past. In an environment without antibacterial drugs, it would not take long for the wild type enzyme to once again dominate the bacterial population. So we see that the apparent micro evolutionary story of antibiotic resistance, is just a neutral evolutionary event when looked at in the wider context. The same can be said of antibacterial resistance that involves enzymes that "attach" or otherwise inhibit the antibacterial drug (beta-lactamases are an example of this type of enzyme). If the bacteria are free to grow in an environment free of the antibacterial drug, the biochemical cost of continuing to replicate the beta-lactamase will make those bacteria eventually "loose [sic] out" to the bacteria that are not replicating said enzyme. Also, it is worth mentioning that the rapid spread of bacterial drug resistance is often the result of bacteria "sharing" the genes that code for things like the beta-lactamase enzyme, and not the result of new advantageous evolution in the bacteria. No new "ability" is being created by random chance, the bacteria are just sharing the enzyme that has been around for a long time already.

Thank you for reading my email. Perhaps none of my ideas are new to you, but I hope it is still enjoyable for like minds to converse.

btw, you should etch some of your newsletters into stone so that our opinion is discoverable to future generations. Let's just hope the future historians can recognize parody or we will be greatly misunderstood:)



Evolutionists like to use bacteria as an example of evolution because they can make it scary. If we don’t teach about evolution in school, they say, we won’t be able to stop the spread of disease. That’s just irrelevant fear mongering.

It is easy to do evolutionary experiments on bacteria because they reproduce so rapidly, and it is easy to manipulate them. No scientist has time to study ten generations of elephants because the scientist won’t live that long. But you can get many generations of bacteria literally overnight.

So, there have been lots of evolutionary experiments on bacteria. In those experiments, how many times has a bacteria evolved into a jellyfish, or any other kind of life other than a bacteria? Zero.

As Nathan points out bacteria change to a certain degree to adapt to their environment—but they don’t ever evolve into something else; and it isn’t because of lack of trying. Enough said.

Etched in Stone

When Nathan wrote to us, there were 692 articles on our website. By the time you read this, there will probably be more than 700 of our articles that aren’t etched in stone, but will live forever in the cloud. They are on record for all people to criticize for all time. We are proud of the fact that we haven’t had to make any major retractions. There were just a few instances when we needed to clarify something we wrote because it was misinterpreted. In those few cases we inserted the corrections into the HTML versions of the articles using a larger font.

Evolutionists, on the other hand, said there was evidence of life on the Martian meteorite, and then had to walk that back. Evolutionists said dinosaurs were slow-moving, cold-blooded reptiles. Now they say they were agile, warm-blooded birds. DNA analysis has just blown many of their previous theories to pieces.

Science tabloids (Scientific American, Discover, Science News, etc.) depend upon the fact that the “truth” about evolution keeps changing, so they can print new “truth” that contradicts their old “truth.” We depend on the same thing because it gives us new nonsense to debunk; but we don’t have to retract our old articles because we have stuck to scientific facts, and not offered wild speculation in the guise of “science.” Our criticisms remain true, even if they are sometimes outdated because evolutionists don’t believe that any more.


We could say about our parodies, “They were the best of articles—they were the worst of articles,” but we won’t because so many of our readers these days aren’t familiar with the first line of Charles Dickens’ classic story, A Tale of Two Cities. If you get the subtle reference, it conveys our meaning perfectly. If you are unfamiliar with the reference, it doesn’t make sense.

Last week, KRSF Christian Radio broadcast our Alice in Evolutionland parody 1 as a radio drama 2 on The Word With Us. The woman who played the part of Alice had never read the book, or seen the movie. She didn’t realize that when Alice recited, “You Are Old Father Darwin,” it was really “You Are Old Father William,” with just a few key words changed. In fact, most of the dialog in that parody was exactly what Lewis Carroll wrote, but applied to evolutionary nonsense instead of the nonsense of Wonderland. It highlighted the foolishness of the theory of evolution—but only if you could connect it to the original story.

I didn’t see La La Land before the Golden Globes, so the Golden Globes opening number featuring people dancing on cars stuck on a freeway didn’t make any sense to me, and seemed stupid. Now, having seen La La Land, I get it. It was funny.

So, Nathan has a good point. Parodies can be misunderstood if the song or story being twisted isn’t familiar. (But the parodies are still fun!)

Quick links to
Science Against Evolution
Home Page
Back issues of
(our newsletter)
Web Site
of the Month
Topical Index


1 Disclosure, April 2006, “Alice in Evolutionland”
2 The Word With Us, 12 February, 2017, “Alice in Evolutionland”,