More on Darwinism: Homology and DNA

This is the third in a continuing series of posts on the evils and errors of Darwinism. My first post pointed out that the fossil record showed exactly the opposite of what Darwin had proposed – which was a single “tree of life” (Universal Common Descent) in which every living organism descended on branches from an original, single celled being (LUCA), and that we all descended from LUCA and are the product of random changes. Instead the fossil record clearly shows an orchard with many trees that have some branches and many trees that look like telephone poles because a life form often appears suddenly and then later disappears with no apparent evolutionary changes over its lifespan.

My second post dealt with the harm that Darwinism has done to mankind by providing a rationale for everything from eugenics and unlimited abortion to the starvation of Russian peasants and the slaughter of Germany’s Jews.

Today I want to discuss what the scientists call “homology” – common evolutionary origins, either major forms like arms and wings or similar eyes, or similarities at the molecular level. For years, Darwinists have liked to point out that the similarities of the bone structures and the workings of arms, wings and flippers is evidence of common descent, while skeptics replied that the structures only show that a particular design is best for a particular purpose and does not show common descent any more than an airplane is descended from an automobile because both have wheels.

Although the same can be said of similarities at the molecular level, the discovery of the DNA code and its role in the construction and assembly of the protein molecules that make up all life forms changed everything. In my opinion, the DNA code system, which is basically the same in every living being and has been found to be the same in fossils many millions of years old, is a two-edged sword. An honest skeptic of Darwinism could no longer maintain that the available evidence disproved descent with modification, it only proved that the single “tree of life” proposed by Darwin and steadfastly defended by Darwinists was in error; however the evidence that we are all somehow related, whether on a branch of trees in the orchard or connected to the telephone poles there is conclusive.

The two-edged sword situation, however, arises from the question of how evolution, which relies on the accumulation of small, random changes, can possibly explain the incredible complexity and power of the DNA code, which appears to be both universal and eternal – and which is useless except as a finished, impossibly-sophisticated, information system product. Evolution absolutely cannot account for this. The DNA code proves that there was and is a “designer” whose intelligence and goals we can never understand – but also that we are, in fact, related to the monkeys, but not necessarily through an evolutionary process.

Dr. Francis Collins, the leader of the massive project that successfully decoded the human genome, and formerly an atheist, said that in defining the human genome he had “Seen the mind of God”. He went on to write a book, "The Language of God”, in which he writes of his experience and his new faith.

We still have to examine what the subjects of embryology, natural selection and mutation, and irreducibly complex machines can tell us, but so far we have seen that Darwin was only partially correct about common descent, that similarities in anatomy seem to prove nothing, and that the DNA code (which was unknown to Darwin) has to be the product of intelligent design. More to come in future posts.