• Oh My Aching Back!

Well, here’s one to ponder. It is believed by evolutionists that as we evolved from “lower” primates, our backs raised in elevation so that we could walk upright. But, alas, this put more strain on our backs, giving rise to pain from conditions of scoliosis and the like, as well as herniated disks resulting from twisting of the spine during walking. Furthermore, as our ancestors evolved from four-footed walking to two-footed walking, they developed conditions like flat feet and bunions. What selective advantage would this gain in a struggle for survival?
If that were not bad enough, they also believe that pain from wisdom teeth came from an increasing brain size and resultant decreasing space for these teeth to grow. They compare Neanderthals (with wisdom teeth in adulthood) to present-day Intuits (without wisdom teeth in adulthood) and conclude that genetic mutations in evolution prevented this condition from “spreading,” but what about us?
They also chime in on reproduction: “If you want to look for examples of how we're not the result of intelligent design, you don't have to go far — just look at the complicated, uncomfortable way we have babies. We mitigate these problems with midwives, obstetricians, attendants of any sort in the childbirth process.”
Also, “If an engineer were given the task to design the human body, he or she would never have done it the way humans have evolved.”
Wait a minute. Doesn’t evolution improve things, not make them worse! Doesn’t this really speak to decay rather than improvement? Does anybody remember Genesis 3:16, concerning pain in childbirth resulting from sin? Also, the supreme Engineer did design the human body and did not use evolution, so what is their argument anyway?
In fact, what we observe is exactly what we would expect in a fallen world of sin and death. Isn’t it?

• What Do You "Zinc" About This One?

Prokaryotes are organisms, like bacteria, whose cells do not have a nucleus. Eukaryotes are organisms whose cells do have a nucleus. Evolutionists believe that before 800-600 million years ago, there was less diversity in shape and function among eukaryotes than today. Why the difference? Many scientists have attributed this condition to the lack of zinc in seawater, as zinc is known to participate in gene transcription in the nucleus today. They have claimed that “it is not a stretch to blame the 1-2-billion-year delay in the diversification of eukaryotes on low bioavailability of this trace metal.” But wait. Now it is believed that zinc was plentiful in seawater, so do they question their initial assumptions of long ages and evolution itself? Of course not, because these things are non-negotiable in the creation/evolution debate. Rather, they quip: “zinc supplements were not on the shopping lists of our early eukaryotic ancestors, and so we better find another reason to explain the mysterious delay in their rise in the ocean.” “Finding” another reason translates into spending more dollars in support of their initial assumptions and discarding contradictions instead of going where the evidence leads without wearing evolutionary blinders.

• Mammals: Before or After Dinosaurs?

Evolutionary family trees are constructed from both anatomical and genetic information, but in the past, the latter has been more plentiful than the former.  From the genetic information, some scientists claimed that various placental mammals appeared 100 million years ago, (making them contemporary with dinosaurs) but no fossils of them have been found dated that old. However,  a recent study adds a great deal of anatomical information which is claimed to imply that these mammals appeared after dinosaurs became extinct, 65 million years ago. The anatomical information consisted of over 4500 physical traits examined for a selection of living and fossilized animals and the genetic information consisted of comparisons of 27 genes in the living animals. There the science ends and the speculation begins. Why? Because they then add in the assumed ages of the fossils and their assumed places in the evolutionary “tree.”  There are, in fact, evolutionist critics of this work, who point out that an extinct species might be incorrectly grouped with a living species that independently developed similar features (so-called “convergent evolution”) and not sharing a common ancestor. In the fairyland of evolution, a 35 million year discrepancy is but a drop in the proverbial ocean of time which will eventually be resolved, but creationists can legitimately ask whether things like this are mere details or a fundamental flaw in the worldview itself.