Does DNA Debunk Evolution?

So you believe in Evolution? You and about 200 million other Americans. Does that make it right? Wrong! Evolution is a theory, just like the Big Bang and Intelligent Design. To be absolutely proven, any theory must be directly observable. None of these can be so. For the Big Bang it is obvious, no one was here when it happened. Even looking back at the far reaches of the Universe will not give the full picture. It is the laws of physics and math that show it as the best theory now known to match the evidence. And I believe it too. It is also the best theory to match the Biblical description of the Creation of the Universe. Next, with Intelligent Design, neither can it be proven. The intelligence portended by this concept is, by definition, outside of our physical reality. There is, however, a body of evidence that supports it, much of which uses the argument of Irreducible Complexity, to indirectly show how it is virtually impossible for certain systems to come about by the random chance or natural selection of Evolution. Finally Evolution can not be proven, or can it? I think it depends on your definition. What exactly do you mean by Evolution?

Evolution is generally defined as any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations. There is micro-evolution (inter-species evolution i.e. natural or artificial selection), macro-evolution (intra-species evolution - long term micro-evolution) and spontaneous evolution (spontaneous generation or abiogenesis - life coming from inorganic matter).

---

The Detailed Intricacy of DNA
Held together in multi-twisted Chromosomes
Literally screams of the Creation

---

Evolution defined as abiogenesis relies on controversial research, such as the Urey–Miller experiment, to show how life may have been created in the primitive conditions of a new world. Even if the experiments are true examples of the early primordial soup, it still is a big step (or several steps) from a few amino acids to a fully functioning amoeba. This definition of Evolution is infrequently discussed and most evolutionary debates center around Micro and Macro Evolution.

If your definition of Evolution is a Micro one, that of Natural Selection, I think this has been proven. Man, for years, has used this to domesticate and improve crops and for inbreeding of cattle and dogs. Genetic mutations and combinations result in different characteristics of the resulting population, some beneficial and others detrimental. These types of changes are primarily limited to physical characteristics (the Peppered Moth) and not to the origin of new biological systems leading to the formation of more complex organisms.

But if you extend this definition to Macro-evolution, especially where new, fundamental structures supposedly develop, I can't agree. Since by definition this process takes an extended period of time, even eons, it is difficult to prove and fossil evidence does not provide strong support for it. And in my mind, it bumps up against the second law of Thermodynamics and the argument of Irreducible Complexity - it is debunked by the logical construct of DNA.

I view Macro-evolution to be a process by which life forms of increasingly complex design come about. Although this evolution does not require a "Creator" to move from single celled protoplasm to intricate life systems such as Man, it does require a certain amount of "faith" since it has not and, in my opinion, can not be proven. The shear abundance of exquisitely designed structures within the biosphere could not have developed by the random mutation or transformation of genetic material over a long period of time.

A few amino acids in a primordial puddle does not a genome make. Proteins with their delicate folding and unfolding; DNA with its self-replicating duplicity, held together in multi-twisted chromosomes by those same proteins. Detailed intricacies in the form of enzymatic engines in mitochondria, stem cells that can form anything, retinal cones, and exoskeletons literally scream that random selections can not create them. Similarities of chemical systems and structures, namely the genetic makeup, do not necessarily signal an evolutionary process. It actually points just as strongly to that of a designer. When man creates, he uses his experience and knowledge as a foundation upon which to build the better mousetrap. As science, within its basic definition, can not support an external force outside of our space-time continuum impacting our existence, it can not recognize a Creator. That Creator, being the God of the Bible or any other conceivable entity, is specifically excluded from the discussion within the realm of scientific discovery. That exclusion does not prevent the possibility, it just limits the search for a scientific explanation. And by limiting that search, it results in a conclusion that is not scientific at all - a conjecture that has not considered all of the available data in the final analysis.

Hebrews 4:13 (NIV) - Nothing in all Creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.

Romans 8:39 (NIV) - Neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all Creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.