Evolutionists will frequently use the word evolution or theory of evolution to refer to two completely different concepts. The first is the adaptation of a species to changes in its environment. This can result in observable changes and is likely responsible for much of the diversity that has developed since the Genesis Flood. The second is universal common descent, which is the totally atheistic idea that all life on earth has developed from a single common ancestor after poofing into existence by processes for which there is no real theory, but all indications is that it is statistically impossible.
The problem is more than just the tendency of evolutionists to mix them up. Within the education system of many countries including the United States there is a deliberate effort to use a bait and switch to convince students of universal common descent by demonstrating simple adaptation.
Adaptive change
Adaptive change is easy to see in bacteria. In fact, it can easily be caused in a lab by manipulating the environments that bacteria are put into. Two things that are never observed in this process is the production of a radically different type of organism and the production of new complex specific information within the genomes. In fact, the examples that we can observe adaptive change tend to result in a net loss of complex specific information and not a game. A classic example of this is the fact that polar bears have lost the ability to produce pigment in their fur. This works for them fine in Arctic snow-covered regions, but they would stand out like a sore thumb in a forest.
Adaptive change is fully consistent with a creationist perspective of origins. Not only would we expect God to design built in diversity for kinds of organisms that he created, but also the ability to use that diversity to survive in different environments from the one in which they were originally created. Furthermore, what we observe operates on a loss of complex specific information and genetic deterioration which would also be expected from a creationist perspective.
One important fact that needs to be noted is that adaptive change will not make universal common descent possible regardless of how much time it is given. This is because all observed examples of it include genetic degeneration because natural selection is too broad of a process to overcome the randomness of mutations.
Universal Common Descent
Universal common descent is the concept that all life on earth originated with a single common ancestor and evolved from there by totally natural processes, into every variety of life we see on earth today including human beings. This common original ancestor is thought to have originated from simpler forms which eventually had to come into existence by totally naturalistic processes.
It totally ignores the fact the not only is there no real theory on how abiogenesis could occur, but every estimation that can be made indicates that abiogenesis is a statistical impossibility in that the odds against it occurring exceed the number of possible events in the history of the universe. You can easily get this far just by calculating the odds of getting the necessary proteins together. When you include the odds of getting them together in the right way, abiogenesis doesn't even stand a chance of occurring.
Without abiogenesis, universal common descent evolution is a non-starter. Simply put before you can have a single common ancestor that comes from a primeval first cell and evolves into everything else, we see on earth today, you have to have that first cell. Without being able to produce that first cell the entire concept is nothing but a fantasy. The simple fact is, evolutionists have no real mode forgetting this first cell, It is simply assumed to have happened. The occurrence of abiogenesis is accepted by evolutionists on 100% totally blind faith.
The simple fact of the matter is that universal common descent is primarily an atheistic paradigm. It was being talked about by atheists before Charles Darwin was even born. In fact he got the idea by reading the works of his grandfather Erasmus Darwin, who was involved in the discussion with his fellow atheists.
The great bait and switch
When teaching evolutions in schools and on science popularizer programs, active change in universal common descent will be presented as if they are the same thing. The impression is given to the student that the observed fact that species can change to adapt to changes in their environment means that given enough time any kind of change is possible is planted in their minds. They are not told about the degenerative part of the process. In fact, the teacher or presenter they are listening to probably doesn't even know about it themselves.
The whole process is a gigantic bait and switch that is intended to get people, specifically young people, to accept the entire atheist evolutionary paradigm. There is a huge effort to get people and once again particularly children to accept the entire Big Bang to man atheistic mythology and get them away from God. Part of this has to do with getting them to accept associated political thinking, but on the so-called scientific side the goal has been attacking Biblical creation and convincing people that it has been proven false.
It convinces people the universal common descent is proven fact.
This bait and switch has been so successful at convincing people that universal common descent is true, that you cannot even get most of them to question it. In fact, many of them think you are a complete idiot if you do not accept it regardless of your reasons. This brainwashing technique is amazingly successful. One of the things a lot of these people are trained to do is summarily reject anything that comes from creationists. This includes creationist material being legitimate sources of the creationist perspective on a topic.
The simple fact of the matter is, that the average person graduating from a public school, indefinitely from a secular university is so convinced that universal common descent is a proven fact, that they won't even listen to another possibility. It closes the mind so tightly that nothing can get in except from pre-approved sources. That is the key to understanding such claims as “there is no evidence for a global flood” or “there is no evidence for creation”, but “all the evidence points towards an old Earth in universal common descent.” That is they define evidence only as the interpretation that they get from sources that accept these concepts. They won't even read any material from creationist sources, they are deemed dead on arrival and unreliable because they are not from the right sources, not based on what the individual article or paper says or how it is written.
This bait and switch is so successful, precisely because they are not given an alternative. In fact, atheists have sued through the ACLU to make sure universal common descent is taught and the alternatives are not allowed. So, by legal decree we have children being fed this bait and switch operation. The result is that most of them come out convinced that they are one and the same and that adaptive change proves universal common descent despite the fact that it does not.
This is similar to the fact that you would probably get close to a 100% conviction rate, in court if the defense was never allowed to make its case. Imagine a court with a jury that only gets to hear the prosecution, and not only is it defense tied and gagged but not even allowed in the courtroom. The jury would likely be convinced of the defendant’s guilt. This is the situation we have in public schools and secular universities. Students get one side of a very important issue, and they are presented in such a way that they come out not only convinced that that side is correct, but that there is no real other side.
Why does adaptive change not necessarily lead to universal common descent.
The big misconception on which the bait and switch is based is that not only does adaptive change lead to universal common descent but that they are equivalent. However, the response when adaptive change is referred to, it is frequently claimed that given enough time that even small changes can add up to what is necessary for universal common descent to be possible.
One reason that this is not the case is that sometimes the change is reversible. These are cases where genes are switched on and off such that the change that occurs, is actually information neutral but simply a result of turning on and off different genes. This type of reversible change is often observed, and it is useless for universal common descent because the degree of change is limited to what already exists within the genome.
Furthermore, there is nothing in adaptive change that even remotely implies that all organisms on Earth have a common ancestor. It works perfectly fine when you start with distinctly created kinds that simply diversify as they adapt to different environments.
Why observed adaptive change cannot lead to universal common descent.
Ultimately observed adaptive change cannot lead to universal common descent because it does not provide the new complex specific information that is necessary for universal common descent to work. On the contrary, the change that is observed is either information neutral, or results in a loss of complex specific information within the genome.
The simple fact of the matter is that there are two specific sources of the observed changes that result in adaptation. One as mentioned before is simply the turning on and off of existing genes. The other is the accumulation of a random changes called mutations, these mutations tend to destroy complex specific information, and natural selection is too broad of a process to correct for this let alone produce new complex specific information. The only situation there has been observed where in Organism may have produced some new complex specific information, is a bacterium that developed the ability to eat nylon. This could have resulted, however, from a very specific search by the organisms themselves to find an enzyme that would allow them to use the new potential food source. This would still require a built-in search algorithm that would suggest an intelligent designer.
The point is that the change that has been observed either results in no net change in the genome, or it results in the deterioration of the genome. In other words, observed adaptation within species is actually the exact opposite of what is required for universal common descent to work. Consequently, it cannot result in universal common descent, but given sufficient time it will only lead to extinction.
Conclusion
In conclusion, adaptive change is not the same as universal common descent. People are commonly misled into thinking that they are because of how they are presented not only in public schools but in other secular forms as well. The bait and switch that is used between the two to convince students of universal common descent, is dishonest because they are not the same process and in fact, adaptive change cannot lead to universal common descent. The claim that it can is nothing but a fantasy of secular humanist atheists.
