Devolution the mechanism of speciation and adaptation

Devolution

the mechanism of speciation and adaptation

April 10, 2006

Do not make copies of this document in any form without Jay Carper's written permission.

Every time an insect, plant, or strain of bacteria appears to develop an immunity to a pesticide or pollutant, the Darwinists rejoice and claim it as another proof of evolution. The really bizarre thing is that these events are actually better evidence against evolution.

Worms in Foundry Cove were exposed to high concentrations of nickel and cadmium for more than twenty years. Some of those worms had a genetic defect, which hindered normal controls on the creation of a particular protein. Those worms' growth is stunted, and they are generally less fit. Interestingly, this protein binds with the excess cadmium, preventing most of the metal's harmful effects. The defective worms were able to survive and reproduce, while the healthy worms were poisoned and almost died out. The defective worms are not more fit. They are inefficient, sickly, and weak. They did not gain any useful genetic information. In fact, they only survived because they lost information. They survived only by the destruction of a properly functioning system. When most of the pollution was removed from the cove, the healthy worms returned, and the inferior worms nearly disappeared.1

Some antibiotics work because they have a similar molecular structure to some naturally occuring molecule in the target bacteria. The bacteria mistakes the antibiotic molecule for one of its own, and the particular system that would make use of the genuine molecule malfunctions. If a mutation slightly changes the way that the molecule is recognized or used, then the antibiotic might lose its ability to fool the system. Bacteria with the mutation are resistant to the antibiotic, and so will survive and multiply as long as its competition is under attack. Once again, this isn't evolution. Such a mutation never enhances the effected system, but always reduces its native effectiveness, sometimes severely. When the antibiotic is withdrawn, any unmutated strains will begin to out-perform and out-number the mutated, resistant ones.2

Suppose there is a human disease which attacks through the cuticles on your fingers and toes. The disease is almost 100% fatal. Also suppose that there is an inheritable genetic defect which causes some people to be born without fingers and toes. They can't balance very well, and they can't hold onto anything very well, but they aren't affected by the cuticle disease, because they don't have cuticles. If the disease can be eliminated, then people with all of their fingers and toes will quickly begin to outnumber those who have none.

No evolution has occurred in these examples. No new genetic information was created, only lost. Those that survived did so only by the loss of functionality and fitness. New species and new resistances are not created by evolutionary processes. They are created by the breakdown of order and the destruction of information, devolution.

1 David Catchpoole, "Worm evolution in pollution?," Creation 26(3) at http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i3/pollution.asp.

2 Kevin Anderson, PhD, "Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change?" Creation Research Society Quarterly 41(4), 2005, at http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp.