Are Sharks and People Related?

They most certainly are, but Frank Sherwin, author of the article Are Sharks and People Related?, doesn't think so. But his objections are not reality-based.

Evolutionary naturalism (as taught in American taxpayer-paid public schools) preaches that every living thing came from an unknown, unobserved common ancestor billions of years ago that—conveniently—left no fossil trace.

The common ancestor of all living things was probably some sort of microbe, so even if it was fossilized it would be pretty much impossible to tell that it was our common ancestor. I'm not sure why he thinks this is convenient, nothing would thrill scientist more than to find such a thing. Also, I'm not sure what he means by evolutionary naturalism. If he thinks that evolution mandates a philosophical naturalism he's wrong.

The best evolutionists can do is to point to studies suggesting this is so, but then insist that evolutionism is a fact and should be dogmatically taught as such.

This is simply not true. Evolution, like all of science, should be examined critically and with an open mind. The only people holding to a dogmatic view of science are the creationists. Also, evolutionism is not a word.

Recent evolution-based studies suggest that people came from marine invertebrates because we have some genes that are the same as sharks—even though these genes don't code for the same structures:

This is correct. Evolution has to work with what already exists. That's why the same genes code for different things; the process of evolution co-opts them for new uses.

The same genes that give sharks their sixth sense and allow them to detect electrical signals are also responsible for the development of head and facial features in humans, a new study suggests.

The finding supports the idea that the early sea creatures which eventually evolved into humans could also sense electricity before they emerged onto land.1

It's a miracle. It's an honest to God miracle. That number one, my friends, leads to a link. This link. And sure enough, it's true. Creationists citing sources. I think this is one of the signs of the end times. Regretfully, the rest of the article is not so grounded in fact.

On the genetic level, much regarding genes (DNA) is complex and not well understood. Particularly fascinating is how genes interact with each other to activate or deactivate other genes. For example, researchers know of sections of master regulatory genes (e.g., elements of Hox genes) that interact to direct development such as head and facial features. The Creator may very well use similar genes to operate a variety of genetic functions (just as the same switch design can turn on something as different as a motor or a light). This is true whether the genes are in people, sharks, or mice. Darwinists extrapolate, claiming that because the genetic switch is similar, therefore we have an evolutionary connection with these creatures. This is an unscientific leap of faith, but nonetheless must be made by those holding to a secular worldview.

It isn't really a leap of faith. It is a perfectly reasonable deduction to make, given the known genetic links between organisms. Genetics has provided wonderous proof for evolution. From the fusion of human chromosome two to ancient retroviral traces in both human and chimp DNA, there is genetic proof that evolution occurs. We've also seen speciation happen so we know quite a bit about the genetics of it.

Also, I've never met anyone who claims to be a Darwinist. I really don't think it's a word. And evolution has nothing to do with a secular worldview. I'm Christian, and I think evolution is great.

Creationists acknowledge the same genetic switch activating the sixth sense in sharks, and face and head development in people. But a similar switch doesn't mean common ancestry. If this were true, the fossil record should document the amusing sea-creature-to-people transition. It does not.

This is a lie.

As long as such foolishness is presented as science to the American student (and the public at large), the origins debate in school board meetings nationwide will enjoy top billet.

As long as creationists continue to deny basic scientific concepts, the origins debate in school board meetings nationiwide will enjoy top billet. But the debate in the scientific community over whether evolution occurs will not, because it was over one hundred years ago. Evolution won.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Creationists

Today we have an article from a new source, The Institute for Creation Research. This article deals not with misconceptions, but with outright lies.

What if all life evolved from a common ancestor by means of gradual changes as Darwin suggested? What evidence would we expect to find?

A wonderful question.

Certainly we would expect to find the fossilized remains of the myriads of ancestral creatures which lived and died over the millenia. At least some of the intermediate forms would have been fossilized. Remains of many varieties of present creatures have been found, including some extinct varieties, but the true in-between forms bridging gaps still elude us. Abundant soft-bodied remains have been found, so the conditions for preservation would always somewhere have existed. Why can't we find those important fossils which document evolution?

Here is where the lies begin. We have found transitional fossils. Thousands of them. This claim is not a misunderstanding. It is not a misinterpretation of the facts. It is not an honest mistake. It is an outright lie. There are thousands of transitional fossils, showcasing the evolution of many complex characteristics. The claim that transitional fossils do not exist is one of the most blatant and persistent lies made by Creationists, and is all the more astonishing for its audacity. In saying that transitional fossils do not exist, one must deny huge amounts of evidence. I would also like to refer you to the wonderful article on transitional fossils over at the TalkOrigins archive.

We might also expect to find evolution still occurring today.

We well might.

Why does it seem to have stopped?

Here we have the second lie. Evolution has not stopped. Scientists have observed the evolution of new species. Thousands of them. Evolution is not something that only happened in the past, it is going on around us all the time. Probably the most obvious example of evolution is the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Geologists think the present time is marked by rapid change; environments are changing, so why are living things not changing?

It's important to understand something aboutr Geologists; they don't look at time like the rest of us. Geology occurs on scales of millions of years. When a geologist talks about an instant, she may well be talking about a period of ten thousand years! Of course since evolution is going on around us, this point is moot.

They are unquestionably adapting, but this is not by acquiring new genetic traits as required by evolution. Mutations frequently occur, which damage existing genes, some more than others, but nowhere do we observe new genetic information arise by random mutation.

It shouldn't suprise you to learn that this too is a lie. Just look at antibiotic resistant bacteria. Scientists create antibiotic drugs that do not exist in nature. Yet bacteria evolve resistance to them. Clearly this is new information, but the author conviently overlooks even this obvious example. The TalkOrigins article on the evolution of improved fitness describes it in far greater detail than I can here.

Evolution of any basic type into another would require millions of innovative, helpful mutations which add new information to the genome, but these are nowhere to be seen. Instead of new types, we observe misfits and extinction, the opposite of evolution. Natural selection can only select between variants, it cannot act on its own to create novel types, and certainly is not an intelligent force driving innovation.

The author is right in that evolution is not an intelligent force at all. That he thinks it is betrays only his own ignorance. Needless to say, the rest of the quote is wrong. I will again point you to the TalkOrigins article above.

We would also expect to discover a universal trend in science which leads to more complexity in nature, paving the way for an increase in genetic content.

This, at least, is not a lie. It is instead a simple misconception, which is a welcome relief at this point. Evolution does not lead to greater complexity. Evolution leads to organisms that are well adapted to their environment. It is wrong to say that a human is "more evolved" than an ape, because an ape is well suited for the environment in which it lives. No creature is more evolved than any other.

Instead we discover the universal second law of science, which invariably points toward a degradation of quality in every duplication of information, such as in reproduction, and more randomness in every unguided process.

Now he's just making things up. The "second law of science" exists only in the fevered imagination of the author. He seems to be talking about the second law of thermodynamics, which does not say what he seems to think it says.

The complexity of life forms is so unimaginably great that we must account for it, and random changes in the face of a universal law can hardly be the answer.

It's certainly a good thing that evolution through natural selection is not a random process, or evolution would be in big trouble. But it isn't. While natural selection is unguided, it is not random. Mutations, the raw material of evolution, are random, but natural selection uses them to produce evolution.

At the least we should find a mechanism for evolution firmly in place. Mutation and natural selection are often cited, but these are deteriorative and conservative, not innovative and thoughtful. A theory of everything which has no mechanism is a weak theory indeed.

Are you tired of the lies yet? I know I am. This is simply not true. The vast, overwhelming majority of scientist agree that mutation and natural selection work very well to produce evolution. Note that the author gives us no citation for his claim that mutation and natural selection are deteriorative and conservatice, so we have no way of knowing where he got that piece of information from. It almost seems like he's just making it up.

Thus we do not find the expected evidence that evolution of basic types has taken place. Surely we can be excused for looking elsewhere.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are none so blind as those who will not see. The ability to overlook such massive quantities of evidence simply astounds me. The evidence is right here, dear reader. I trust that you can make the right decision.