Well here we are at another February 12th - formerly celebrated as Lincoln's birthday, now many are trying to get people to think of Darwin's birthday. While some are celebrating "International Darwin Day", other's are sharing "Question Darwin Day", an initiative inspired by CMI with ongoing promotions by The Question Evolution Project. Rational Faith is obviously part of the latter group. So for this year's Question Evolution Day, our questions will be concerning the frozen frog you see in the picture above. You may think this is just an ordinary frozen frog, but I'm going to warn you up front about this - this is no ordinary frog. As Ray Comfort might say, this is an evolutionist's nightmare. This is the Alaskan wood frog. And it is able to survive the harsh sometimes 40 degrees below zero winters. How? it digs a burrow and allows itself to freeze. Solid. Like a block of ice - like you see above. Then when spring arrives, and things begin to thaw - it does too. And wakes up. And hops away - like nothing even happened.
Let's list some of the features that evolution must explain, then think about whether evolution can actually explain them:
So what mechanisms does neo-Darwinism offer to make these changes? There's only two: Natural Selection and random mutations. Natural Selection is no help here. If an ability is not already present, it's not available to be selected. For example, if we freeze a human solid, verify the heart is stopped, keep it frozen for a number of months and defrost it, we would have no expectation that the frozen body would then wake up. The individual dies, and there's nothing for natural selection to select. And even if there were one trait it could select - like increased glucose or increased urea - how could it select all the needed traits? And how would the body be programmed to shut down the organs while freezing, and then wake them up again at the proper time? That's beyond the capability of natural selection. It is, as the narrator says, a miracle - something that God does.
What about mutations? Can random mutation provide the needed changes and the needed additional information? Clearly not because as molecular geneticist Georgia Purdom explains here, mutations cannot add genetic information, they can only remove it, or change what's already there. Plus such changes are random, not designed, not applied with a purpose. How could all the needed changes take place simultaneously - the cellular changes, the system changes to allow bodily system to shut down and start backup? The ability to survive with the heart stopped?
This failure of evolution is even more striking when you consider another phenomenon described in the same episode. They report on an unexpected event at Lake Owasso, Minnesota in 2013 regarding the below frozen fish.
Though these fish are frozen in ice, they didn't die by freezing. The freezing came after they died. What killed them, climate scientist Elizabeth Burakowski tells us, is an over saturation of oxygen in the water. In normal conditions in the winter, the surface of the body of water they're in freezes over. This allows snow to cover the frozen surface, decreasing the sunlight penetrating into the water. This decrease in sunlight decreases the oxygen produced by algae. But if there's no snow cover, light streams through the ice, and oxygen production by algae continues. And with ice on the surface of the water it has no place to go, so it super-saturates the water. The fish take in the extra oxygen, which creates oxygen bubbles in their blood vessels which clogs the vessels and the fish die.
This is where two facts about evolution become readily apparent:
1. Evolution is nothing but story telling
Though they repeatedly talk about "adaptation" in the case of the frogs, they have no scientific explanation for the adaptations. This frog is a prime example of the fact that "survival of the fittest" cannot explain the arrival of the fittest. And what about the fish? Why don't we see fish adapting? When will their enhanced survival skills arise? No doubt evolution supporters will say something like, we don't have enough time to see the entire process. Or since variations are random, those aren't the type of predictions evolution makes. Which brings up the next point:
2. Evolution is not science
Evolution did not and could not predict the ability in the frogs. It can't predict whether fish will ever "adapt" an ability to be immune to super saturation of oxygen in the water. And unlike real experimental science, nothing significant about evolution can be observed.
So here are my questions for Question Evolution day 2020:
These are the questions put to evolutionists. But I'm not holding my breath for an answer. Indeed, if an evolutionist answers at all, I expect it will be the normal misdirection they typically engage in as I point out in Games Evolutionists Play.
Duane Caldwell | February 12, 2020