Extrapolation, Not Evolution

“…The fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide
evidence in support of the thesis that macro evolutionary
transformations have ever occurred.” 1
Wolfgang Smith

Kaleidoscopic change in the natural world infuses rhythmic balance in a dynamic ecosystem. The sun and the moon deliver alternating shades of light and dark. Up or down shifts in temperature transforms water to steam or to ice. Seasonal climate changes trigger cycles where green leaves sprout from bare tree limbs en route to flashing a riot of colors each spring and autumn.

tangelo - cross-breed of grapefruit and tangerine

© Volosina

Mixing a grapefruit with a tangerine produces a tangelo.
Hybridization science is not Darwinian evolution.

Predictability is nature’s common denominator, and it drives a fluctuating environment. Evolutionary theory contradicts this reality by substituting chaotic accident as the norm.

Lacking evidence, propagators of the chance hypothesis resort to extrapolating change from within a genome as proof that once corrupted by mutation, an organism can modify its identity and make a “biologic transit stop” en route to some radically different body plan.

Extrapolation doesn’t change reality.

No matter how many times a pair of standard dice is tossed, the resulting number of dots will never exceed twelve. Even if repeated daily over a billion years of deep time, the odds of throwing more than a twelve-dot combination remain zero.

It would be nonsensical to extrapolate from the actual range potential of two to twelve dots as evidence that a mix of thirteen or higher is possible if given enough time. Citing a genome’s known ability to rearrange its gene mix in order to survive as evidence confirming evolution is equally absurd.

Natural selection is obvious. Change is incontrovertible—but subject to limits inherent in a gene pool. Hybrids within a genome demonstrate its versatility. Still, hybrids have no relation to Darwinian evolution. Inherent in the genetic code of each genome is the capacity to adjust to ensure survival. But without adding new genetic information, intra-genomic change does nothing to produce radically different kinds of organic life.

Hundreds of generations of mutated fruit flies remain fruit flies. Bacteria change but never evolve into a life form other than bacteria. Galapagos finches remain finches, never evolving into eagles, bears or whales. Change by accessing genetic information already present within the genome’s gene pool does not correlate with evolution’s microbe-to-man idea. Finches, bacteria and moths may exhibit variations resulting from the reshuffling of genes already present in their DNA information pools but descendants remain finches, bacteria and moths.

Bottom line reality: Intra-genomic change is not Darwin’s evolution. Do any of these statements make scientific sense?

The size and shape of finch beaks may modify over time.

Bacteria can develop immunity to antibiotics.

Mutations can alter the number of fruit fly wings and legs.

A “yes” is the correct answer to all three statements. But “Yes” answers don’t make you an evolutionist. Creationists also answer “yes.”

The kaleidoscope of life pulsates in synchronized motion. Each genomic life kind displays the capacity to adjust its size, shape, color, or chemical tolerance, expressing diversity while enhancing survivability.

Do you believe a fish is the ancestor of your own family?

A “yes” to that one locks you inside the inner sanctum of evolution’s pantheon of the make-believe. Extrapolating the reality of a genome’s versatility as proof that descendants of a “fish” or an “Old World monkey” could eventually evolve into a human is dead wrong, an intellectual scam.

This is an excerpt from a chapter of the 2016 Edition
of “Three Days Before the Sun”, now available
from leading online retailers.


Copyright © 2012 Warren L. Johns.  All Rights Reserved.  Contact: