By Babu G. Ranganathan
Young people, and even adults, often wonder how all the
varieties or "races" of people could come from the same original human
ancestors. Well, in principle, that's no different than asking how children with
different color hair (i.e., blond, brunette, brown, red ) can come from the same
parents who both have black hair.
Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce
descendants with different color hair and eyes, humanity's first parents, Adam
and Eve, possessed genes to produce all the variety and races of men. You and I
today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but
humanity's first parents did possess such genes.
All varieties of humans carry genes for the same basic
traits, but not all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For
example, one person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye color
( i.e., brown, green, blue ) , but someone else may be carrying only one
variation of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown ). Thus, both will have
different abilities to affect the eye color of their offspring.
Some parents with black hair, for example, are capable of
producing children with blond hair, but their blond children (because they
inherit only recessive genes) will not have the ability to produce children with
black hair unless they mate with someone else who has black hair. If the blond
descendants only mate with other blondes then the entire line and population
will only be blond even though the original ancestor was black-haired.
In reality there is only one race - the human race - within
which exists myriad variations and permutations.
The evidence from science shows that only microevolution
(variations within a biological "kind" such as the varieties of dogs, cats,
horses, cows, etc.) is possible but not macroevolution (variations across
biological "kinds", especially from simpler kinds to more complex ones). The
only evolution that occurs in Nature is microevolution (or horizontal evolution)
but not macroevolution (vertical evolution).
The genetic ability for microevolution exists in Nature but
not the genetic ability for macroevolution. The genes (chemical and genetic
instructions or programs) for microevolution exist in every species but not the
genes for macroevolution. Unless Nature has the intelligence and ability to
perform genetic engineering (to construct entirely new genes and not just to
produce variations and new combinations of already existing genes) then
macroevolution will never be possible in Nature.
We have varieties of dogs today that we didn't have a couple
of hundred years ago. All of this is just another example of microevolution
(horizontal evolution) in Nature. No matter how many varieties of dogs come into
being they will always remain dogs and not change or evolve into some other kind
of animal. Even the formation of an entirely new species of plant or animal from
hybridization will not support Darwinian evolution since such hybridization does
not involve any production of new genetic information but merely the
recombination of already existing genes.
Modifications and new combinations of already existing genes
for already existing traits have been shown to occur in nature but never the
production of entirely new genes or new traits. This is true even with genetic
mutations. For example, mutations in the genes for human hair may change the
genes so that another type of human hair develops, but the mutations won't
change the genes for human hair so that feathers, wings, or entirely new traits
develop. Mutations may even cause duplication of already existing traits (i.e.
an extra finger, toe, etc. even in another part of the body!), but none of these
things qualify as new traits.
Evolutionists believe that, if given enough time, random or
chance mutations in the genetic code caused by random environmental forces such
as radiation will produce entirely new genes for entirely new traits which
natural selection can act upon or preserve.
However, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that
random mutations have the ability to generate entirely new genes which would
program for the development of entirely new traits in species. It would require
genetic engineering to accomplish such a feat. Random genetic mutations caused
by the environment will never qualify as genetic engineering!
Mutations are accidents in the sequential molecular structure
of the genetic code and they are almost always harmful, as would be expected
from accidents. Of course, just like some earthquakes that don't do any damage
to buildings, there are also mutations that don't do any biological harm. But,
even if a good mutation does occur for every good mutation there will be
hundreds of harmful ones with the net result over time being disastrous for the
Furthermore, only those mutations produced in the genes of
reproductive cells, such as sperm in the male and ovum (or egg cell) in the
female, are passed on to offspring. Mutations and any changes produced in other
body cells are not transmitted. For example, if a woman were to lose a finger it
would not result in her baby being born with a missing finger. Similarly, even
if an ape ever learned to walk upright, it could not pass this characteristic on
to its descendants. Thus, modern biology has disproved the once-held theory that
acquired characteristics from the environment can be transmitted into the
genetic code of offspring.
Most biological variations within a biological kind (i.e.
varieties of humans, dogs, cats, horses, mice, etc.) are the result of new
combinations of already existing genes and not because of mutations.
For those who are not read-up on their biology, a little information on genes
would be helpful here. What we call "genes" are actually segments of the DNA
molecule. DNA, or the genetic code, is composed of a molecular string of various
nucleic acids (chemical letters) which are arranged in a sequence just like the
letters found in the words and sentences of a book. It is this sequence of
nucleic acids in DNA that tells the cells of our body how to construct (or
build) various proteins, tissues, and organs such as nose, eyes, brain, etc. If
the nucleic acids in the genetic code are not in the correct sequence then
malfunctioning, or even worse, harmful proteins may form causing serious health
problems and even death.
There is no law in science that nucleic acids have to come together in a
particular sequence. Any nucleic acid can just as easily bond with any other.
The only reason for why nucleic acids are found in a particular sequence in the
DNA of the cells of our bodies is because they are directed to do so by
previously existing DNA. When new cells form in our bodies the DNA of the old
cells direct the formation of the DNA in the new cells.
The common belief among evolutionists is that, if given millions of years,
radiation and other environmental forces will cause enough random changes
(mutations) to occur in the sequential structure of the genetic code of a
species so that entirely new sequences for entirely new genes will develop which
in turn will program for the formation of entirely new biological traits,
organs, and structures that natural selection can then act upon.
Would it be rational to believe that by randomly changing the sequence of
letters in a cookbook that you will eventually get a book on astronomy? Of
course not! And if the book were a living being it would have died in the
process of such random changes.
Such changes, as transforming one book into another or the DNA of one species
into the DNA of another, especially one more complex, simply cannot occur by
random or chance alterations. It would require intelligent planning and design
to change one book into another or to change the DNA of a simpler species into
the DNA of a more complex one.
Yes, it is true that the raw biological materials and chemicals to make entirely
new genes exist in every species, but the problem is that the random forces of
nature (i.e. radiation, etc.) simply have no ability to rearrange those
chemicals and biological materials into entirely new genes programming for
entirely new traits. Again, mutations only have the ability to produce
variations of already existing traits. It would require intelligent manipulation
of genetic material (genetic engineering) to turn a fish into a human being. The
random forces of the environment cannot perform such genetic engineering!
If the environment doesn't possess the ability to perform genetic engineering
and if macro-evolution really did not occur then how else can one explain the
genetic and biological similarities which exist between various species and,
indeed, all of life. Although it cannot be scientifically proven, creationists
believe that the only rational explanation for the genetic and biological
similarities between all forms of life is due to a common Designer who designed
and created similar functions for similar purposes and different functions for
different purposes in all of the various forms of life from the simplest to the
most complex. Even humans employ this principle of common design in planning the
varied architecture of buildings!
If humans must use intelligence to perform genetic engineering, to meaningfully
manipulate the genetic code, then what does that say about the origin of the
genetic code itself!
Many have confused natural selection with evolution itself. Yes, Charles Darwin
did show that natural selection occurs in nature, but what many don't understand
is that natural selection itself does not produce biological traits or
Natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are produced
and which have survival value. The real issue is what biological variations can
be naturally produced. What biological variations are naturally possible? When a
biological change or variation occurs within a species and this new variation
(such as a change in skin color, etc.) helps that species to survive in its
environment then that variation will be preserved ("selected") and be passed on
to offspring. That is called "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest".
But, neither "natural selection" nor "survival of the fittest" has anything to
do with producing biological traits and variations.
The term "natural selection" is simply a figure of
speech. Nature, of course, does not do any active or conscious
selecting. It is an entirely passive process. Darwin did not realize
what produced biological variations. Darwin simply assumed that any kind
of biological change or variation was possible in life. However, we now
know that biological traits and variations are determined by the genetic
Natural selection works with evolution but it is not
evolution itself. Again, since natural selection can only "select" from
biological variations that are possible, the real question to be asking
is what kind of biological variations are naturally possible. How much
biological variation (or how much evolution) is naturally possible in
Nature? As we have seen all biological variation or evolution is limited
to within plant and animal kinds.
Another reason for why macroevolution is not possible
in Nature is because a half-evolved and useless organ waiting millions
of years to be completed by random mutations would be a liability and
hindrance to a species - not exactly a prime candidate for natural
selection. In fact, how could species have survived over, supposedly,
millions of years while their vital (or necessary) organs were still in
the process of evolving!
How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and
reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs
were still incomplete and evolving? How were species fighting off
possibly life-threatening germs if their immune system hadn't fully
Scientist and creationist Dr. Walt Brown, in his
fantastic book "In The Beginning", makes this point by saying, "All
species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show
design. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin,
tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other
vital organs. Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are
partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of
a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad
leg long before it became a good wing."
Usually what is meant by the term "biological kind"
is a natural species but this may not always be the case. The key to
keep in mind here is that in order for evolution in nature to occur from
one biological "kind" to another biological "kind" entirely new genes
would have to be generated and not just merely modifications and/or
recombination of already existing genes. If, for example, offspring are
produced which cannot be crossed back with the original stock then there
is, indeed, a new species but if no new genes or traits developed then
there is no macro-evolution (variation across biological kinds) and the
two distinct species would continue to belong to the same "kind".
Science cannot prove we're here by creation, but
neither can science prove we're here by chance or macro-evolution. No
one has observed either. They are both accepted on faith. The issue is
which faith, Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory or creation, has better
If some astronauts from Earth discovered figures of
persons similar to Mt. Rushmore on an uninhabited planet there would be
no way to scientifically prove the carved figures originated by design
or by chance processes of erosion. Neither position is science, but
scientific arguments may be made to support one or the other.
What we believe about life's origins does influence
our philosophy and value of life as well as our view of ourselves and
others. This is no small issue!
Just because the laws of science can explain how life
and the universe operate and work doesn't mean there is no Maker. Would
it be rational to believe that there's no designer behind airplanes
because the laws of science can explain how airplanes operate and work?
Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in
life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere
undirected natural laws can never fully explain the origin of such
Of course, once there is a complete and living cell
then the genetic program and biological mechanisms exist to direct and
organize molecules to form into more cells. The question is how did life
come into being when there was no directing mechanism in Nature. An
excellent article to read by scientist and biochemist Dr. Duane T. Gish
is "A Few Reasons An
Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible" .
There is, of course, much more to be said on this
subject. Scientist, creationist, debater, writer, and lecturer, Dr. Walt
Brown covers various scientific issues ( i.e. fossils, so-called
transitional links, biological variation and diversity, the origin of
life, comparative anatomy and embryology, the issue of vestigial organs,
the age of the Earth, etc. ) at greater depth on his website at
It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent
design or creation be presented to students alongside of evolutionary
theory, especially in public schools which receive funding from
taxpayers who are on both sides of the issue. Also, no one is being
forced to believe in God or adopt a particular religion so there is no
true violation of separation of church and state.
The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, is an experienced
Christian writer. Mr. Ranganathan has his B.A. degree with
concentrations in theology and biology. As a religion and science writer
he has been recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who's Who In The
East. The author's articles have been published in various publications
including Russia's Pravda and South Korea's The Seoul Times. The
author's website may be accessed at: