All organisms are defined by their genome, the genes that are present in the DNA. These are peculiar to the type of creature, so that a human’s genes are distinct from those of an ape, even though some may have the same function in digestion, locomotion and reproduction.
Often within an organism there are several genes that do the same thing but are slightly different. They are called alleles. They enable creatures to thrive in different environments. For example, cichlid fish have many alleles in their DNA, and develop many different varieties. Evolutionists refer to this rapid evolution as micro-evolution, but the DNA of the various fish is all the same, and the process is reversible.
The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle taught that humans developed from a fish ancestry, and Darwin and Wallace in the 19th century claimed that all creatures were related in a ‘tree of life’, evolving over billions of years. This is called macro-evolution. If it occurred it would require the formation of entirely new genes. Dinosaur genes are different from bird genes, and one cannot change into the other without new genetic information being created. Information cannot arise spontaneously.
Some decades ago I was debating Creation versus Evolution at a Scottish university with a professor of evolutionary biology. He claimed that in his laboratory he had witnessed evolution take place. I asked him to give us an example, so he mentioned a Linnaean Latin double-barrelled name that meant nothing to a mere chemist like me. So I asked what sort of organism it was, and he hesitated and then said it was a sort of grass. Many of the audience laughed out loud, which made him furious. He said they were ignorant – not a wise move for a debater. I explained that variation within a kind was distinct from imagined Darwinian evolution, and that a change in the selection of alleles was not the same as the proposed creation of novel genes.
