The Evolution of the Frog

And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. - Genesis 1: 2

The frog is a marvelous little creature because of the transition that he makes while transforming himself into a frog from a fish. The fish stage is called by its scientific name, a tadpole. Yes, I am having a little fun here but letís see where this leads. Evolution says that as a fish develops into a land-based creature it slowly evolves legs and other features suited for land use while losing its gills, fins and other features needed for survival under water. As these features are being developed they must have some use to the evolving creature or there is no selective advantage. In other words, as the little nubs that will someday be legs are formed as the result of a mutation the nubs must be of some benefit to the evolving creature. Evolutionists go to great lengths in explaining how the fish uses these little nubs at all stages so that eventually, voila! - The creature crawls onto the land and continues evolving into who knows what. Eventually of course, the fish becomes a full fledged human being who can write scientific papers on how he used to be a fish.

The tadpole seems to break all of the rules. His evolving legs just dangle uselessly causing nothing but interference in his life in the pond. Of course they become extremely useful after the tadpole is a frog. Evolution had nothing to do with the transformation of the tadpole into a frog; he was designed that way from the beginning. All tadpoles eventually turn into frogs regardless of whether the transition is beneficial at the various stages. This evolution of the frog is not scientific theory that is obscured by millions of years of uncertainty. This is something that can be observed at your nearest pond. This evolution of the frog is a matter of fact. He evolves according to the design inherent in his genetic makeup. But facts like these do not fit into the modern theory of godless evolution. "Evolution" must do it on his own without any help from any designer. This is the dogma of evolution and our poor little frog just doesnít seem to fit into the story.

The changing of one species into another has always been a great hurdle for evolutionists beginning with Charles Darwin himself. The modern evolutionist has solved the problem by simply changing the story. This is kind of like changing the rules in the middle of the game when one discovers that he is losing. Everyone remembers the famous American election of 2000 where Al Goreís defense team sought to change the rules pertaining to elections when he lost the contest. But since we are talking about reality here lets not let a few rule changes distract us. If reality shows that species do actually transform themselves into others then let the rules be damned.

The rule used to be that there must be found evidence in the fossil record of a gradual transition. This means that a fish should be shown in all the stages of development until he becomes a land creature. Unfortunately no such record exists even though I have a feeling that if our evolutionist friends would visit their local pound and do a little digging they could find some record of the transition. In any case the rule was changed to fit the evidence, or should I say the lack of evidence. This was an interesting turn of events because essentially the entire theory was overturned when it became evident that the fossil record did not evolve as the theory predicted it would. The new rule is that the new evidence should show not a gradual transition but rather a sudden transition. Well low and behold, that is exactly what the evidence has confirmed! Their fossil evidence consists of thousands of creatures that are the same and thousands of other creatures of a different type that are the same. Of course this evidence was already entered into the record as evidence before it was predicted but that is a small matter when you are trying to win an election. I wonder if anyone ever considered that this was evidence that tended to disprove evolution?

What we have now proved by close examination of the fossil record is what we knew before we started; species do not change into other ones. In spite of this the theory remains albeit with the changed rules. That leads us into the next rule change. This new rule changes the definition of species or if I may use the Biblical term, "kind." Generally speaking, we can all agree that a dog is not of the same family as a duck. This is a clear division. but a frog is of the same family as a tadpole. In fact they have a very intimate connection! Anyway we are getting sidetracked again. The fact is that no one really knows for sure what a species is or is not. The different kinds of animals are defined by different people and assigned to different families according to different methods. Of course this causes confusion so I will define a few animals that are obviously not the same kind. A giraffe is not an elephant. A bird is not a rat. A human is not a monkey. A fish is not the same species as a dog. The lines are really pretty clearly drawn when we look at the obvious.

However, the evolutionist does not look at the obvious. He must look deeper in order to cause more confusion, er, I mean, to explain reality more clearly. He calls a fruit fly with long wings a different species than one with shorter wings. He calls a blue sparrow with a short beak a different species than a red one with a longer beak. These divisions are very tedious and I am not ridiculing the actual work of people who must name and categorize certain animals. But in nature it really is no big deal if a dog with short ears mates with a wolf with long ears and produces puppies with medium ears or whatever. This is no miracle of transformation such as we observed with the frog. Herein lies a great deal of confusion because I have noticed in debates on the subject that the opposing parties are often talking about two different ideas of species transforming themselves into another one. Here I am talking about the transition from a fish to, say, a horse or a similar land based creature. Or another example might be the transformation from a dinosaur to a feathered bird. I concede before we even begin here that a fruit fly has within its genetic makeup every potential of growing shorter or longer wings and the reader is welcome to call that species transformation if he wants, but I donít.

So we have the potential of seeing actual species transformation if we accept the rules of the evolutionists. Therefore when we see "evidence of species transformation" paraded by the scientific community we must understand what they are talking about. They are speaking of minor or even major changes in a specific kind of animal. This is necessary because there is no evidence of a change from a fish to a rat without presuming and speculating as to what went on for millions of years when no one was around to gather the real facts when they existed. This is what the theory of evolution is based upon. Try as he may, even with all of the modern tools at his disposal, the atheist has not been able to transform a dog into a cat. He has however, been able to bombard fruit flies with radiation until they grow mutated wings. This he calls proof of evolution.

What he is proving by these experiments is that intelligent intervention is necessary in order to effect a dramatic change from one creature to another. In other words, he must artificially change genes from one creature to another or cause unnatural mutations or use combinations of methods in order to effect a change in the natural order beyond what is already provided for in the living genome. That is not the point of this chapter though. What he is also proving is that the potential for variation exists within a specific kind of animal. The common dog obviously exemplifies this as does the common human being. Some men grow very tall and some are quite short. Is there a potential therefore for a man to grow a neck like a giraffe? Is there the potential in the finches that Darwin studied, whose beak sizes were seen to vary, to transform themselves into a cat over time? Can this great god named evolution do that? Prove it.

Amidst all of the hoopla, hype and high-sounding titles of academic achievement, there is no proof that such a thing ever occurred. That is, unless we travel again into the darkness of several hundred million years and tell a story about it how it could have happened. The fact is there is no proof where there must be. There is only darkness that is troubled by the piercing cries of those who wish it could happen while they hold in their hands the latest "missing link" that may or may not be a different kind of animal altogether. I have proved here that a fish does turn into a frog. Please prove that a rat does turn into a human being. My assertion is backed by fact. That of the evolutionist, which has far greater implications, is backed by a fantastic tale.

The frog is of course not proof of evolution. In fact our little pet tends to upset the theory. Nevertheless this little creature is remarkable because of the variation contained in his genes. The transformation of a caterpillar into a butterfly is another example that is remarkable in nature. The point is, who knows how much potential there is for change and adaptability within creation? Has a long extinct species been found that was similar to our frog? Could there have been a larger fish that crawled onto the shore just like the tadpole did? What do the fossils prove anyway? How would a paleontologist present such a finding of a half land animal and half sea creature? There is after all a distinct evolution from one to the other. There is a complete record that can very likely be found someday. Has he found an extinct creature similar to our frog? Did the transition from fish to frog occur over thousands of years or rather suddenly as it does today in the frog? The so-called evolution of one creature into another does not disprove intelligent design. And for that matter even if evolution were true it would not disprove intelligent design because the problem is at the root not the branch.

Finding a fossil that is supposedly millions of years old really proves nothing except what the interpreter wants it to prove. For example, in one case after 80 years of collecting fossils that "proved" the existence of certain types of dinosaurs, it was discovered that they were simply examples of the normal growth of the same type of dinosaur from child to adult. It is simply foolish to base oneís philosophy of life on a bunch of old bones that are supposed to prove that we evolved from pond scum that turned into a human. The socalled genetic proof, be the way, is all based upon the interpretation of these fossils. Because science is forced to believe in materialistic evolution now, the two branches of science work together each scratching the others back. If one believes that a certain skull is a transition between man and monkey then the biologist can piece together the parts of the DNA that are still available after corruption and "prove" whether or not it is a true transition. He cannot prove that he has found proof of intelligent design because he is not allowed to, and his work will not be published in scientific journals if he even hints at creation. The work of the evolutionary biologist is to prove how evolution occurred not if it occurred. Therefore how can his evidence be taken seriously if the conclusion is reached before the evidence is examined? And how can science be trusted as a vehicle for discerning reality when science is forbidden from informing us any time that reality is discovered to be the result of creation? The evolutionary scientist is like a man who examines Fords and Toyotas and is told to prove which one evolved from the other. Is he allowed to say that they are not connected at all except for a common design of the tires? No, he is not allowed to say that if he values his job.

Darwinís theory of evolution had really only one purpose in mind and that was to present the idea that all of the present day animals and plants evolved from a small hand-full of progenitors. Darwin suggested five or six animals might have been the starting point that resulted in the variation or evolution that we see now. And where did these first few animals come from? - God of course. Charles Darwin was a theist. He believed in creation. He just did not believe that present day nature exists now as it did then. His theory was supposed to give evidence that everything evolved from these few creatures into their present form. To all of this I can only say; so what is the big problem? His theory did not prove, nor was it intended to prove, that there was no designer behind creation. That was obvious to him just as it is now to rational people who still have the ability to reason and form logical conclusions based upon fact.

The problem we have now is really only whether he was correct in his theoretical number of five or six base animals and a few plants. We have already shown through man and the common dog that certain classes of animals have a great potential for adaptation and variation. The frog and other animals tend to prove that an astounding potential is available for change without even considering the theory of evolution as the reason for that potential. As a human embryo forms in the womb it takes on various forms of which lead to a fully formed human being. The various nubs and early formations of organs etc. contribute nothing to the fitness of the developing child in the womb. They are simply a witness to the power of the programmed instructions contained in the fetus that were derived from the programmed instructions passed down from the mother and father. All roads lead to the original programmer. That fact cannot be ignored when we are discussing the subject of atheism as we are doing. Nevertheless, lets continue where we left off with the subject of a rat turning into a human, or, according to todayís latest evolution of the theory of evolution, a common ancestor of a Chimpanzee and a human producing both a monkey and a man.

It is theoretically possible for a so-called ancestor of both a chimp and a human to have within its genetic makeup the potential to produce both a gorilla and a human. If the frog has the potential to be both a fish and a frog then who can say with certainty that an ape-like animal cannot produce a human being? The only thing that is required to produce both creatures is the preprogrammed information that allows for the proper variation to the extremes necessary. Because todayís chimpanzees are available for experimentation along with their supposed human cousins it should be no problem to prove that they are compatible. A Great Dane dog and a Mexican Chihuahua, for instance, evidently came from a common source. The only thing that prevents the two dogs from mating is that the reproductive organs do not fit. Artificial insemination is still possible, and it will produce a cross between the two breeds of dogs. Trying the same thing however between a dog and a cat will produce nothing. This proves that the two animals are not the same. My, what a revelation! Anyway we have to keep our scientists busy so we may as well let them find it out their way.

Chimpanzees and humans cannot be forced to interbreed anymore than a dog and cat can. This is called a "species barrier." This barrier is like a brick wall that prevents mad scientists from producing monsters. When nature itself produces a freak then it is usually weeded out in succeeding generations although the genetic defects can be passed down. If a dog, for instance, is bred that ends up having a weak back then that negative characteristic can be passed down. So although the potential for corruption exists there is no proof that a dog, of any breed, has the potential to evolve into a cat or a duck or whatever. The theory of evolution as it exists today says that there is that potential depending on the environment, mutations and natural selection. This is a fantastic possibility. All we need now is some proof. Thousands of years of human experimentation and observation has proved that definite barriers exist between the various kinds of animals. Where is the proof that even one cat has been interbred with a catfish successfully? The "proof" of course that is offered is that two types of flowers can be combined to produce a different type. Or that the commonly designed DNA from one creature can be spliced into another.

Using the present scientific guideline for "proof" I can "prove" a lot of things. I have proved that if I cut and water the grass on my lawn regularly that it grows faster. I have also proved that if I prune and water a fruit tree that it produces more fruit. Therefore I think that proves that if I cut off a few inches from my legs that they will grow longer. No, I am not that foolish, but todayís experts in evolutionary science are. Why the rest of the scientific community allows them to corrupt a once noble profession called scientist is beyond me. Science used to be based upon fact and experimentation. Now it is based upon what could have happened. When enough people agree that something may have happened then it is considered fact. Then the theories are built upon those supposed facts and so it goes. No one seems to consider that the whole thing is standing on a foundation of speculation. This is a disgrace, in my view, to the rest of the legitimate fields of science. What the field of evolutionary science is in reality is a faith based think tank composed of mutually supportive storytellers.

The fact is, there is no evidence that one obviously different kind of animal ever produced another completely different one regardless of the time involved. There are animals that can fly without feathers, (bats), fish that can fly or at least glide with wings (flying fish), birds that can swim (ducks), and various combinations of land, sea and air creatures that can do a lot of things. Some of these animals are the result of variation within their particular class and some are completely separate. There is no proof that they all came from one common ancestor. The number of progenitors that Darwin proposed is, in my opinion, unreasonable in light of real evidence. The number is evidently in the hundreds. To suppose that it is less is speculation that is based upon a biased interpretation of evidence. Of course it was Darwinís theory so we can expect some bias from the author. What is now unreasonable is that science itself is biased and is as a result fast losing credibility. A prosecuting attorney often has a good case but the defense must be allowed to speak as well. What we have now in the scientific community is the defenders of speculative ideas given an exclusive voice. If the debate must continue in this way, let it continue in a church so that there is no illusion that it is at all scientific.

Now in fairness to my opponents I will publish the best evidence that I can find in their favor and then we will judge it objectively. The first article is from the talk origins website.

Chimps and humans

Any two people on earth have 99.9 percent of the same genes, and they are alike - some would say they are brothers and sisters. Chimpanzees share 98.8 percent of our genes, but they look and act differently.

This has been a growing puzzle ever since the 1980s, when scientists first started looking into the genomes of different organisms and were shocked to discover that a fruit fly, for instance, has many of the same genes as a human. In fact, all living things share the same genes. Mice share 85-90 percent of their genes with us, cows 80 percent, fruit flies 61 percent and bananas 50 percent. How do these common genes make such vastly different organisms on the one hand and, on the other, why isnít the chimp more like us, with an ability to think, talk and create?

If you take a gene out of a chimp and put it into a human, it will do the same job as the human gene. Prior to genetic engineering, diabetics were kept alive with injections of pig insulin, which came from a pig gene identical to the human one. So, why arenít we monkeyís uncles?

The basic difference, says Carl Woese, a University of Illinois evolutionary biologist, is not how similar chimp genes are to human genes, but how they are organized and expressed. "Tweak some genes one way and you get a chimp," he said. "Tweak them another way and you get a human." That type of tweaking is most profound in the brain, the organ that endows us with intelligence and consciousness and makes us different from chimps and all other creatures. The way evolution tweaks a gene is by regulating when it is turned on, how long it stays on, how many proteins it makes and when it is shut off.

Humans and chimps diverged 5 million years ago from a common ancestor. Weíll never know exactly what it was, probably a chance mutation, but our line was tweaked so that human brains began to manufacture an extraordinary number of neurons, 10 times more than the chimp, creating a critical mass that produced self-awareness.

The above seems to be a well-researched article and the evidence presented is indeed convincing. Also, because he is giving a rather balanced view I think that we can assume that he is striving for objectivity. Because we are not considering a creator along with this author we will look at his evidence on his turf of materialistic evolution. The first point on the small percentage difference is the result of some very controversial techniques that basically involves boiling the DNA of a human and a chimp in the same pot. The strands of DNA from both creatures are forced open by the high temperature and other factors. While they are open one half of chimp DNA is forced to join with another half of the human DNA. The attractions would be perfect if they were identical and when the solution was cooled we would have a strand of recombined DNA exactly as we had before, even though we mixed the two.

If there was a major difference then there would be very little attraction. This process might be compared to lining up several magnets in a row and opposite of them there are several coins. Some are steel and some are copper. If they were all steel there would be a perfect attraction. If they were mostly copper there would be only a small percentage of the copper coins that would be attracted. In the DNA experiment the attractions are broken at the higher temperature regardless of the initial attraction at normal temperature. Therefore precise measurements of temperature must be taken as the mixture cools. The theory is that the percentage of difference in the two genomes is directly related to the temperature as the attractions are slowly broken by changing the temperature of the liquid and observing how much of the DNA remains together and how much is still separate. For the sake of argument however, letís assume that the figures given are accurate in spite of the tenuous nature of the comparison.

As the article explained, the brains of the two animals are vastly different. That is of course a major defining difference between the two creatures. The article also correctly points out the manipulation of the genetic material within the particular organism that we discussed earlier. We are misled however by the statement; "If you take a gene out of a chimp and put it into a human, it will do the same job as the human gene. Prior to genetic engineering, diabetics were kept alive with injections of pig insulin, which came from a pig gene identical to the human one." Here he does not tell us that the HIV virus does not affect chimps in exactly the same gene found in humans that are subjected to the virus. There is also other evidence that we will not go into here that further demonstrates that a gene taken from one animal, even though exactly the same as the one it replaces, does not necessarily perform the same when transferred. There is much more to life, as we discussed earlier, than the genome and the order it is found in.

If the exact comparisons were proof of similarity then we would have to consider certain bacteria which has exactly the same genes contained in humans as do several other various and obviously different creatures. The beginning of the article stated clearly the point I was going to bring out before I found it. That is, the differences are obviously more than one or two percent between a chimp and a human. The association in the genome is therefore an erroneous indication of similarity because it defies the obvious. Which do we believe; the hidden complication and largely unknown operation of the genome or the obvious evidence that is clearly demonstrated and observed and proved factual? Why would we throw out Occamís razor here and add further complication to a simple problem?

If however the exact operation of the genome of both creatures was known then we could gain some valuable insight as to the reasons for the differences in result even though on the surface they are very similar. The other obvious reason why similarity of genome is not proof of common descent is the basic similarity of the two creatures. They are both animals with lungs, hearts, nervous systems, two hands and two legs etc. So why wouldnít there be quite a bit of similarity in the genome as well, especially if they were the products of a common designer? If the genome were static and there was a direct correlation to its structure and the resulting organism then the comparison would be a valid proof. It clearly is not, so we are dealing with more of the association and causation errors that the theory of evolution is littered with. Now lets consider the next article which in my view is more convincing, but the author seems to be less gracious. Anyway letís just stick to the facts.

Genetic Evidence: Chimpanzees are thought to be humanityís closest living relative. They share more of our DNA than any other animal - 98.7%. Gorillas have slightly less similarity, and monkeys have slight less than that, more distant mammals have even less, reptiles have even less, and so on... just like evolution predicts. But thereís more than that. Chimpanzees also have our genetic mistakes, called psuedogenes.

Why would an intelligent designer not only copy human DNA into chimps, but the errors as well? In 1941, the author of one chemistry textbook sued another, charging that portions of his textbook had been plagiarized (Colonial Book Co, Inc. v. Amsco School Publications, Inc., New York, 1941). In 1946 the publisher of a trade directory for the construction industry made similar charges against a competing publisher (SubContractors Register, Inc. v McGovernís Contractors Manual, Inc. New York, 1946). In both cases, mere similarity between the contents of the alleged copies and the originals was not considered compelling evidence of copying. After all, both chemistry textbooks were describing the same body of chemical knowledge (the books were designed to "function similarly") and both directories listed members of the same industry, so a good deal of resemblance would be expected even if no copying had occurred. But in both cases, errors present in the "originals" appeared in the alleged copies. The courts judged that it was inconceivable that the same errors could have been made independently by each plaintiff and defendant, and ruled in both cases that copying had occurred. The principle that duplicated errors imply copying is now well established in copyright law. (In recognition of this fact, directory publishers routinely include false entries in their directories to trap potential plagiarizers.)

Can "errors" in modern species be used as evidence of "copying" from ancient ancestors? In fact, the answer to this question appears to be "yes," since recent molecular genetics investigations have uncovered some examples of the same "errors" present in the genetic material of humans and apes.

Evolution can explain this. Can creationism? Only a deceitful or incompetent creator would do such a thing. Think about it."

We will ignore his last comment for now. First notice the discrepancy between the two claims of genetic similarity. I guess the temperature was not measured accurately in one or the other. Anyway, letís not argue over trivialities. I suppose we would all have to boil our own DNA to find out the real truth but letís proceed as before on their turf. I must say on the outset that this argument is extremely convincing. His principle is quite true. The problem though is that he assumes that he has found "mistakes" in the genome where there is no proof that they are mistakes. We have already demonstrated in previous chapters that the concept of "junk" genes is being discarded as new research shows the folly of making such an initial assumption. The author of the article bases his assumptions, as usual, on the supposed fact of godless evolution and then tries to convince us that he is presenting objective evidence which obviously leads to his conclusion.

Nevertheless if his initial assumption is a fact then he has made a valid point. But if God is the "author" of life then he has shown again that there is only one God behind creation and not any more. The signature of the creator in the structure of DNA is found in all of life. The author of life is evidently one being. His analogy of authorship is correct but he does not seem to see that he has proven that life has an author! The patterns and unique characteristics of that authorís handwriting are now plainly seen in all of his creation - including the heretofore hidden genome.

Because we have already proved the necessity of a God behind intelligent life we can now add to that knowledge the fact that there must be only one God. The usual question is of course; why is that which is proved by fact and experiment and long experience forced to take a back seat and be challenged by that which is speculative? The burden of proof is again placed upon the one who is proposing the new theory that would overthrow the established reality. The only way out of this embarrassing situation for the evolutionist, who has staked his reputation on his now exposed unscientific position, is to pretend that his theory is now proven fact. The other alternative is to actually prove that a frog has the potential of continuing his evolution from a tadpole to a prince. Kissing the frog just hasnít worked thus far.

© 2003 by Raymond F. Hendrix. All rights reserved.