In this round up of memes, some of the defenses employed are so far off the mark, I wonder if the author of these mistakes is merely feigning ignorance, or if he is really ignorant of the glaring mistakes he is making. I'll leave that to your judgment. Since I've subtitled this articles "Codes and Complexity", let's start with a meme that demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the code that's involved with DNA.

Meme: DNA is a code. Codes are written by an intelligence
Link to this topic: http://rationalfaith.com/2017/04/unmasking-mistakes-in-memes-of-evolution-part-3-codes-and-complexity/#DNAandCodes

Since I was a bit harsh on our evolutionist above, let's start with what he manages to get right. He is correct in this: London is not a map, London is a city. And DNA is not a code,  it is a long molecule.  Now onto what he gets wrong. To clarify, the creationist claim is not that "DNA is a code." The claim is that DNA contains information, and that information is transmitted by a code. Or put another way, DNA contains encoded information.

Now perhaps our evolutionist would like to continue to deny that DNA contains coded information. If so, he would be claiming to know more and better than the nobel prize winning Francis  Crick, co-discoverer (along with James Watson) of the double-helix structure of DNA.  Crick argued in his "Sequence Hypothesis" that the specificity of a segment of DNA "is expressed solely by the sequence of bases," and " this sequence is a (simple) code for the amino acid sequence of a particular protein."[1] (emphasis mine). Thus DNA itself is not the code, DNA is a molecule that is a repository of coded information. Stephen Meyer  - who wrote a book on the information bearing properties of DNA and the question of the information in it - likens DNA to a library of information.[2]  Of course the information in both a book and DNA is encoded - in a book, encoded by the language the book is written in; in DNA by the four character chemical bases  adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine represented by the letters in the graphic above - ACGT.

This presents a number of problems for the evolutionists, a number of which I point out in DNA and WindTalkers, with the two main ones being:

1. What is the source of the information in DNA?
2. What is the source of the Code?

The problem for evolutionists is that information and codes - are both immaterial, designed entities. And immaterial entities cannot come from the material processes of evolution. Nor can anything that is designed. Such items only come only from intelligent minds. But as pointed out above, evolution claims there is no intelligence involved anywhere in the evolutionary process. Where then, did the information and the code in DNA come from?

In passing, the evolutionist comparison of DNA to a map is ironic, because even though the comparison falls far short - DNA contains much more info than a map, the same questions come up: Where did the information on the map come from? And where did the encoding system of symbols on the map come from? And for what purpose was the whole system created? If DNA is like a map, the same questions apply.

Meme: The eye is too complex to have evolved.
Link to this topic: http://rationalfaith.com/2017/04/unmasking-mistakes-in-memes-of-
evolution-part-3-codes-and-complexity/#eye_too_complex

The eye is such a marvel of intricate design it deals a devastating blow to evolution. In response, evolutionists cannot turn to logic or science to refute the testimony the eye provides that it was clearly designed. So instead they do what they do best: tell stories.  To demonstrate how silly their story telling is, I will use their technique to show the evolution of planes, the premise being of course, they evolved without design. First we start with pictures that go from simple to complex:

Next, we provide a narration of how evolution supposedly accomplished moving from simple to complex. As the evolution of the eye diagram doesn't bother starting with the very beginning, neglecting for example, where nerve fibers or photosensitive cells come from, I likewise won't bother starting from the very beginning either and will jump right in. Thus the story of the evolution of planes goes something like this:

The Wright flyer, the earliest powered flying machine, had all the components we recognize today: fuselage, wings in a bi-plane configuration, stabilizers - horizontal (in a canard configuration - i.e. in front) and vertical (rear), an engine with (pusher) props. Natural selection quickly moved the horizontal stabilizer to the rear  and the prop to the front in the Avia B-534, yielding the more familiar bi-plane configuration. Evolutionary pressures quickly eliminated the need for the second wing yielding the familiar two seat trainer - the Cessna 152. It quickly became apparent that survival of the fittest meant survival of the  most powerful, so we see first an increasing number of engines going from 1 to 4 engines; (Bandeirante -2 engines; B-727 - 3; B-707 - 4)  with the engine itself evolving from a reciprocating engine to the more powerful jet engine. As speed increased nature swept the wings back to reduce drag as flight speeds approach that of sound. The latest stages of evolution of the plane we observe is the evolution from mere transport vehicles to planes of war - capable of destroying enemies that encroach on territory,  issuing threats or are otherwise causing problems. This is demonstrated in the advanced geometry of the swing wing, four engine, supersonic B-1 bomber. But evolution wasn't done. Speed, and weapons were not enough. So we see in the final picture one of evolution's proudest achievement: stealth. The 172 foot, flying wing B-2 bomber  which "in full stealth mode has the radar signature of a seagull."[3] Additionally its bombing is "devastatingly accurate."[4]

Reads just like an evolutionary story, right? Are you convinced? My guess is, you're not buying this story of how planes "evolved" without design. Why not? Because in addition to knowing that these planes were meticulously designed and manufactured,  you know the features that get added to make planes more complex don't just appear by random chance. Or even time plus chance.  It's obvious some intelligent process had to design them, and an equally intelligent manufacturing process had to add them. Simply putting pictures that go from simple to complex side by side does not prove anything - except you can put pictures side by side and order them. It says nothing about what happened to bring the items depicted in the pictures into existence. The same is true for sequence pictures provided by evolutionists. In addition to the problem of added features require intelligence, typically you'll find guessed at sequences tend to fall prey to sequence errors. We see this in the plane sequence above, (the four engine B-707 came before the three engine 727) just as we also see sequence errors in the stories evolutionists tell about the fossil record.[5]

The errors of oversimplication, disregarding known science and  wishful thinking (among others) applies to any sequence of pictures the evolutionist wants to show you -  claiming the members in the series "evolved" by Darwinian evolution. These errors apply whether it be the eye sequence above, or the famous ape to man sequence.  Such pictures are not science. Without detailed descriptions backed by controlled tests and verifiable processes showing how the item moved from one picture to the next without design, they are mere wishful story telling - just like my airplane evolution story above.

But that's not the only error. Evolution of the eye also suffers from another fatal blow, though most evolutionists either haven't recognized it, or won't acknowledge it. It's the same problem evolution has with DNA: where did the code come from?  Most people recognize the eye is not like a movie projector, capturing what's in front of you and projecting it on the brain. Rather, much like a computer sending a digital data stream, the eye captures the information, encodes it and transmits it to the brain, where it is then decoded and interpreted.[6] Who created the code? How did those abilities get incorporated in the brain? Here again evolution has no answer. In fact, evolutionists don't even want to acknowledge the problem, much less try to answer it.

Meme: Accepting evolution undermines morality
Link to this topic: http://rationalfaith.com/2017/04/unmasking-mistakes-in-memes-of-
evolution-part-3-codes-and-complexity/#evolution_undermines_morality

There are a number of problems with this one. Let's start with the evolutionist's selective attention. In the picture the evolutionist would prefer to present, he shows elephants protecting a female as it gives birth. That's all fine and good, but what if we chose other scenes, like the one I chose above, where one wolf appears ready for a fight in order to steal the food from another. In the animal kingdom, might makes right, so if a bear comes to your tent trying to steal your food, are you going to lecture it about it being wrong and immoral to steal food? Bigger animals have no qualms exerting their will over weaker ones. And they don't worry about the dictates of morality when they do it. (As far as we know.) Thus if morals "evolves" as the evolutionist claims it does, it's a very limited, very corrupt one.

But there's an even bigger problem: What we've been discussing are really behaviors not morals. Elephants may behave in a moral way, but that doesn't mean they're doing so because they recognize the morality in doing so. What the evolutionist doesn't realize is, in claiming moralize evolve, he's saying there are no absolute morals - there are no things that are always right or always wrong.  This leads to many problems like relative morality - where there is no morality;  or conventionalism - where one society may say murder is wrong, while another says it's okay. If you want to insist morals are not absolute and "evolve" how do you deal with morals that evolve in a manner most would consider detrimental? For instance, rape is not unknown in the animal kingdom, and evolutionists recognize it could help build populations. Is rape then "moral" because it helps build the population of the group?

I won't belabor this point because I've already written an entire article on it. for more, see my article  The Moral Argument – Revealer of Hypocrites.

Meme: The rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks
Link to this topic: http://rationalfaith.com/2017/04/unmasking-mistakes-in-memes-of-
evolution-part-3-codes-and-complexity/#fossil_circular_reasoning

First, let's get straight that this isn't a "creationist misconception."  Highly respected evolutionists acknowledge this problem of circular reasoning in the evolutionary dating process. For example, Niles Eldredge, co-author of the evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibrium acknowledges: "If we date the rocks by the fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about the patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?"[7]  In other words he saying if we date the rocks by the fossils, how can we then date the various fossils by where they're found - which is in the rocks. The problem: it's a circular argument with no basis in fact.

So we can dismiss the false contention that it's just creationist pointing out this problem. Anyone who examines the dating process carefully will necessarily reach the same conclusion about its circular nature, because that in fact, is the process.

Second, radiometric dating is known to be an inaccurate dating method. Not only is it inaccurate, the various methods don't even agree with each other, as again, even evolutionists acknowledge. Evolutionist John Whitfield: "...in the past decade it has become clear the results from different techniques and different labs don't agree."[8]

As for the inaccuracies, radiometric dating evolves three assumptions that regularly provide inaccurate results. Again, I won't belabor the point here. For details see my article, Radiometric Dating: Science or Guesswork?

Finally this is a classic example of selective attention. In addition to refusing to see the circular reasoning involved in dating fossils, evolutionist refuse to acknowledge the many problems with the geological column (depicted above) itself:

• Dust between layers
  - If the layers really took millions of years to form, why isn't there dust and debris between the layers that surely would have been laid down over that time period?
• Polystrait fossils
  - If the layers really took millions of years, how is that you find trees standing vertically between layers representing millions of years? Why weren't they destroyed and washed away long before it went through multiple layers?
• The Cambrian Explosion
  - Darwinism requires a slow process of change over millions of years involving hundreds of transitionary forms to achieve complex creatures. The Cambrian layer exhibits an "explosion" of complex life forms with no prior transitionary forms. If Darwinism is true, where are the many transitionary forms that even Darwin acknowledged[9] should be in the pre-Cambrian layers, but simply aren't?

Darwinist would rather not talk about these problems because they know they don't have a leg to stand on.

Meme: "Language can't evolve"
Link to this topic: http://rationalfaith.com/2017/04/unmasking-mistakes-in-memes-of-
evolution-part-3-codes-and-complexity/#language_cant_evolve
 

Once again I'm driven to wonder if evolutionists are feigning ignorance, or if they really think this addresses the multiple problems presented by language. Let's start with the first and most obvious mistake. The claim creationists make is not that language can't change, or "evolve" as he puts it above. Of course  language can change. The claim is the origin of language (and languages) - of which there are many - none of whose origin can be explained by the material processes of evolution.

Why not? We run again into the code issue.  So let's list a few of the problems.
1) Language is coded information. As I said above, I'll say it again: the material processes of evolution cannot develop the immaterial concepts of languages and codes. It's simply impossible.

2) Evolution can develop neither the code nor the specialized part of the brain that that handles that code that is key to encoding language (Broca's area).

3) Evolution can develop neither the code nor the specialized part of the brain that handles that intelligence that is key to decoding language (Wernicke’s area).

4) For both of these abilities to be useful, they would need to be developed simultaneously, which of course would require planning and foresight to do so. Such planning and foresight are of course elements of design, which of course is not and cannot be part of any evolutionary process.

Therefore evolution is wholly, and totally an  inadequate explanation for the origin and use of language. For further detail, see my article: Can Evolution Explain the Origin of Language?

This wraps up this round up of memes. As with all the previous memes, shortcuts to the refutation of these meme mistakes can be found here: http://rationalfaith.com/mememistakes/

1 Francis Crick, quoted by Jonathan Wells PhD, The Myth of Junk DNA, Seattle:Discovery Institute Press, 2011, Kindle ed, loc 210
Back

2. "DNA is more like a library," he [Meyer] said. "The organism accesses the information that it needs from DNA so it can build some of its critical components."
Stephen Meyer ref. from, Lee Strobel The Case For A Creator, A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God, Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan, 2004, p. 225
Back

3. Narrator, B-2: Stealth at War, Smithsonian documentary, 2013
Back

4. Dr. Rebecca Grant, Author, The B-2 Goes to War,
ref from B-2: Stealth at War, Smithsonian documentary, 2013
Back

5. For example, Gish points out that evolutionists claim ungulate hooves evolved sequentially from being 3 toed to 1 toed; but when the fossil record is examined, it shows a sequence of 2 toed and 1 toed ungulates appearing simultaneously followed by 3 toed ones. Not the sequence evolutionists were hoping for.
Duane Gish, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record, El Cajon: CA: Creation-Life Publishers, 1985, pp. 83-84

For further examples, see:
Gary Bates and Lita Cosner, "Are there out-of-sequence fossils that are problematic for evolution?" CMI, 17 April 2014, http://creation.com/fossils-out-of-order
Back

6. The eye produces discernible colors in a process very similar to the way a computer is programmed to do so:
"The computer monitors makes difference colors by taking three primary colors, red green and blue and simply adding them together in different proportions. Then by using these three colors in different proportions, a computer monitor can make more than 16 million different colors. Your eye uses almost exactly the same process. The eye has cells. And these cells respond to different colors of light. You've got cells that respond to red light, cells that respond to green light, and cells that respond to blue light. And when light hits your eye, the cells start responding in proportion to how much of each color is there. Your brain then takes the signals coming from those three cells and adds them together in their
proportion to come up with a brand new color. And that color is what you perceive. And of course the number of colors we can perceive by this process is much larger than the number of colors that a computer monitor can make."
Dr. Jay Wile, Nuclear Chemist
ref from Science Scripture and Salvation Vol 21, "The Human Body & the Creator
episode 2: The Eye and the Creator" Institute of Creation of Research, Audio Broadcast (Podcast before the term was used) accessed 2/22/2009
Back

7. Niles Eldredge, Time Frames, 1985, p. 52) ref from Geologic Time Scale, All About Creation, accessed 7/18/2011 http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale
Back

8. John Whitfield, ref from, Lita Cosner, Evolutionists Say the Oddest Things, Powder Springs, GA: Creation Book Publishers, 2015, p. 93
Back

9. Regarding the Cambrian Explosion, Darwin acknowledged: "Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian* [i.e. Cambrium] stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian[Cambrian] age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer."
Charles Darwin from Origin of Species
*Silurian overlapped the Cambium strata in the terminology of Darwin's day

Ref from Jonathan Sarfati, The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution, Atlanta, GA: Creation Book Publishers, 2010 pp. 115-116
Back

Masquerade black mask © BortN66 | Fotolia | used by permission
Geologic Column, Public Domain (National Park Service)
DNA Background, © Leigh Prather | Fotolia | used by permission
Eye Evolution, Matticus78 English Wikipedia [GFDLor CC-BY-SA-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons
The Evolution of Planes composite by Duane Caldwell © 2017
Wright Flyer, Louis P. Christman, Public Domain via www.wright-brothers.org
Avia B-534, CC0 (Public Domain) via pixabay.com
Cessna 152, CC0 (Public Domain) via pixabay.com
Embraer Bandeirante, Used by permission, www.skybrary.aero
Boeing 727, By Julien.scavini (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons
Boeing 707,  CC0 (Public Domain) via pixabay.com
Rockwell B-1 Bomber,by Dave Hahn [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Northrup B-2 Stealth Bomber, By US Government (Technical order 00-105E-9) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Grey wolves Canis lupus. Dangerous fight for food © valeriyap  | Fotolia | used by permission
Thank you, © aaabbc  | Fotolia | used by permission