As we begin, it is also important to note that the DVD series<\/a> builds upon itself, with key definitions presented in Episode 1 that are integral to later episodes and need to be thoroughly understood. An example is the definition of \u201cevolution\u201d in Episode 1. We believe that understanding and applying the meaning of that particular definition will address many of the primary arguments you make that dogs and peppered moths are examples of evolution in action. We will say more about this in the natural science section. Before we address the scientific issues, however, we will address the theological questions that set the entire stage for our discussion. We preserve this order intentionally, to maintain the distinction between the Queen of Sciences (theology) and the empirical (or natural) sciences.<\/p>\n During this Easter season, it is good to reflect on the fact that our whole Faith is based on the glorious Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead. As St. Paul says, \u201cIf Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain\u201d (1 Cor 15:14).<\/p>\n But why<\/em> do we believe in the Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead?<\/p>\n The Roman soldiers who presided over Our Lord\u2019s crucifixion were professional killers. They made sure that Our Lord was dead before they took Him down from the Cross. One of them even drove a lance through His side, providing one of the strongest possible confirmations that He was dead before He was taken down from the Cross. Yet on Easter Sunday, He was alive in the same body\u2014albeit in a glorified state\u2014that had been laid in the tomb. There is no natural explanation for the return to life of a crucified dead man. Therefore, the basis of our faith depends on an event that has no natural explanation.<\/p>\n So, why do we believe in the Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead?<\/p>\n It is not because we have some kind of physical proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that Our Lord rose from the dead. Nor is it because the Gospels or artifacts like the Shroud of Turin give us some kind of quantifiable certainty. We do not believe in the saving Passion, death, and Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ because the truth of that mystery is forced upon our minds like a geometrical proof. The reason why Catholics believe in the saving Passion, Death and Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ is the same today as it has been for almost two thousand years. We believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ suffered, died and rose again by His own divine power, because we accept the testimony of the witnesses appointed by Him, the Apostles and disciples who were eyewitnesses to His glorious Resurrection. In other words, we submit our intellect and will to the testimony of the Church established by Christ to teach and guide us on the way to Heaven, and we are able to do this because we have received the supernatural gift of Faith from God which gives us the power to believe ALL that God (through His Church) tells us we must believe in matters of Faith and morals.<\/p>\n In reality, every Christian who believes in the Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead believes because of the authoritative testimony of His Church. Indeed, whatever<\/em> a Christian believes regarding faith and morals, he believes on the authority of the Catholic Church, because it was the Church that identified and canonized the books of the Bible and gave them an authoritative interpretation from the earliest days of the first generation of Christians. It was the Church that from the beginning interpreted the first three chapters of Genesis as teaching that God created the first man, body and soul, instantly and immediately from the dust of the Earth, and that He created the first woman instantly and immediately from the body of the first man \u2014 one man for one woman for life from the beginning of creation. And, just as there is no natural explanation for the resurrection of the body and soul of the Last Adam, Our Lord Jesus Christ, so there is no natural explanation for the instantaneous formation of Adam\u2019s body from the elements of the Earth as God breathed into Him the breath of life at the beginning of creation.[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n We believe in the Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the \u201clast Adam,\u201d on the testimony of God\u2019s faithful witnesses, the Apostles and Evangelists, just as we believe in the Special Creation of Adam \u201cfrom the dust of the Earth\u201d on the testimony of God\u2019s faithful witness Moses. To do otherwise is to act incoherently, since it would entail accepting God\u2019s Revelation concerning the supernatural creation of the first Adam while denying it concerning the supernatural re-creation of the last Adam. Both doctrines have been proclaimed in God\u2019s Church from the beginning.<\/p>\n Let us consider one more example of an article of the Creed that all Christians profess, so that we can see how faith in this article is also grounded in the acceptance of supernatural faith rather than in the postulates of natural science.<\/p>\n All who bear the Name of Christian rejoice in the Virgin Birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God. But a Virgin\u2019s womb has no natural potency to produce a child. If a Virgin\u2019s womb could somehow be kept in being for a thousand, or a million, or a billion years, it would never produce a child. Likewise, the first prophecy of the Messiah in Genesis 3:15 tells us that \u201cthe seed\u201d of a \u201cWoman\u201d would be completely exempt from Satan\u2019s power and would bring about the downfall of Satan\u2019s kingdom. But no woman naturally produces \u201cseed.\u201d Thus, the Virgin Birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ is completely inexplicable on a natural level.<\/p>\n Why, then, do all Christians believe in the Virgin Birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ?<\/p>\n All Christians believe in the Virgin Birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ because God\u2019s Word teaches this Truth\u2014that the Son of God, the \u201clast Adam,\u201d was conceived in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Ghost, just as the \u201cfirst Adam\u201d was created by God from the \u201cvirgin earth\u201d at the beginning of time. This doctrine, too, has been proclaimed in God\u2019s Church from the beginning.<\/p>\n The \u201cvirgin earth\u201d had no natural power to produce a human body, any more than the Blessed Virgin\u2019s womb had a natural power to produce the Sacred Body of Our Lord. We believe that the \u201cfirst Adam\u201d was created body and soul from the \u201cvirgin earth\u201d because that is what God revealed to His truthful witness Moses who handed it down to us in the sacred history of Genesis. That is what the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church has believed and taught from the beginning\u2014simply because God revealed it to us as an historical fact in His inspired, inerrant Word.<\/p>\n In short, the reason Catholics have always believed that Our Lord Jesus Christ was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary is the same reason that Catholics have always believed that \u201cin six days God created the heavens, the earth, the seas and all they contain, and rested on the seventh day\u201d\u2014whether they held to the overwhelming majority view among the Church Fathers that the days were 24-hour days or held to the Augustinian minority view that creation was instantaneous. God\u2019s Word as understood in the Church from the beginning revealed that God created all of the different kinds of creatures supernaturally<\/em>, for man, <\/em>in the beginning of time, and that is why Catholics have always believed, believe now, and will always believe in this Truth\u2014without seeking or demanding any confirmation whatsoever from natural science.<\/p>\n The sobering reality is this. Anyone who does not believe ALL that the Catholic Church proposes for his belief in matters of faith and morals does not have the Faith. This is because such a person exalts his own intellect and will above the Will and Intellect of Almighty God, reserving to himself the right to determine which parts of God\u2019s Revelation he is going to accept. In short, such a person has put himself in the place of God, repeating the error that Adam and Eve committed in the beginning, when at the instigation of the devil they found fault with God\u2019s Word as it had been revealed to Adam and took it upon themselves to decide which parts of God\u2019s Revelation they would accept and obey.<\/p>\n We hope and pray that you will realize the absolute necessity of humbling yourself and submitting your will and intellect to the authority of God and His Church. Only in this way will you be able to rightly interpret and understand the evidence from the natural sciences, as it relates to the true origin of man and the universe. Please keep this theological preamble in mind, as you read the responses of our team to your criticisms of the scientific arguments presented in Foundations Restored<\/em><\/a>. The team\u2019s responses will demonstrate that your criticisms do not invalidate the arguments we have made against the molecules to man evolutionary hypothesis, but at the end of the day, you will only be able to interpret the natural science evidence correctly when your mind is illuminated by the light of Faith.<\/p>\n Our Lady, Seat of Wisdom, pray for us!<\/p>\n After your theological comments, you introduce an \u201cevolutionary side note\u201d related to dogs and evolution that was not one of the Darwinian \u201cicons\u201d presented in the series, although we should spend some time discussing this because it is characteristic of the confusion that follows in your remarks. In Episode 1, a sharp distinction was made between the concept of \u201climited variation within a kind\u201d and Darwinian evolution, which is said to account for all of life\u2019s diversity according to the molecules-to-man evolutionary model. Your position appears to be that there is no real distinction between the limited variation within a species (such as dogs) that everyone agrees occurs and is readily observed, and Darwinian evolution (or macroevolution) in which common descent is claimed for all species. Below is your statement about dogs:<\/p>\n \u201cSome evolutionists use dogs as the perfect example for evolution, as after all, there\u2019s evidence that suggests that throughout hundreds of years humans bred wolves to be tame until they became so different from wild wolves that they could not reproduce. This is claimed to be a great example that shows that a species can change greatly in a small amount of time and even become a different species, so over millions of years, macroevolution can occur.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Because of the observable extreme variation amongst the dog kind over time, dogs are indeed a very important kind of animal that needs to be carefully considered in order to evaluate evolutionary claims. There is almost no doubt that wolves, dogs, foxes, hyenas, etc. all descended from the same original type of animal, which was most probably rather wolf-like. While the vast majority of the variety of dog breeds that exist today are the result of human-controlled breeding, obviously the differentiation of foxes, hyenas, etc. from the proto-dog occurred naturally. Evolutionists are unanimous in asserting that such simple examples of variation within a kind (which can and do lead to reproductive isolation in some cases) are evidence of \u201cevolution.\u201d We completely disagree.<\/p>\n The confusion here seems to stem from the fact that \u201cevolution\u201d has been defined so broadly. In our study, we have noted that there are at least three common definitions of \u201cevolution\u201d:<\/p>\n If the above are valid definitions of evolution, then everyone involved with the Kolbe Center Is an evolutionist. But, of course, what we have here are definitions that are intentionally so broad as to leave out the core substance of the point at issue. Evolutionists have managed to redefine the word evolution to the extent that their definition is essentially undeniable, and then proceed to use the word in an altogether different sense. When an evolutionist claims that \u201cevolution is undeniable,\u201d they are generally referring to \u201cmacroevolution,\u201d defined in the New Oxford American dictionary (2010) as \u201cmajor evolutionary change. The term applies mainly to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time.\u201d When \u201cevolution\u201d is discussed and debated, the decisive point we are really contesting is not the observable change in the gene pool over time, but the hypothetical process by which one kind of creature gives rise to another, different kind of creature with new biological functions. In the three common definitions listed above, what is being defined is merely \u201cmicroevolution.\u201d No one disputes that \u201cmicroevolution\u201d occurs\u2014although we do object to the term itself since microevolution is not really \u201cevolution\u201d at all but is more correctly defined as limited variation within a created kind. Indeed, the point at issue regarding \u201cevolution\u201d is not that creatures vary and even devolve in successive generations, eventually even losing the ability to interbreed with other creatures within the same kind. but whether creatures can naturally acquire new functional genetic information over successive generations, driving an upward climb of phenotypic complexity, resulting in progressively more advanced creatures. It is simply not true that given enough time microevolution results in macroevolution, and this is perhaps the crux of the argument. Microevolution has nothing to do with the novel creation of functional genetic information within an organism that is expressed and then passed on to successive generations.<\/p>\n So-called \u201cmicroevolution\u201d works merely by the expression of variations already present in existing genetic information, or the expression of a degraded (mutated) form of this information. A philosophical axiom is that something can\u2019t give what it doesn\u2019t have, and this is applicable here. Parents cannot give to their offspring genetic information that is not contained in their reproductive cells. This presents an evolutionary problem: whence, then, does all the necessary \u201cnew\u201d genetic information for building new kinds of animals come? The only tools so-called \u201cmacroevolution\u201d has in its toolbox to create novel genetic information are genetic mutations.[2]<\/sup><\/a> Now that genomes in successive generations of creatures can be observed scientifically, mutations can be observed and tracked, and we can observe how these mutations degrade genomes over time.[3]<\/sup><\/a> Indeed, this is not unexpected; it should be obvious to all that mutations, which are random changes in the genetic code, cannot create functional genetic information. The central question, then, is not whether the genetic diversity of a population changes over time, but how mutations and natural selection acting over great periods of time could result in the diversity of life now observed when the so-called Darwinian mechanism produces only a slow destruction of any species\u2019 genome.<\/p>\n None of the textbook examples of microevolution and Darwinian \u201cicons\u201d covered in our series involve the creation of truly new genetic information\u2014there is no emergence of new organs nor any new body plans. These would truly deserve the name \u201cevolution.\u201d While evolutionists like to claim that things like antibiotic resistance or the ability to degrade nylon[4]<\/sup><\/a> are new functions, the reality is that when the change is examined at a molecular level the \u201cnew function\u201d is not the result of a gain in the molecule\u2019s ability to do something novel, but a loss in its ability to specifically do what it was originally intended to do. To truly demonstrate that a new function has arisen through mutation and natural selection, a scientist would need to show a new gene spontaneously being created through non-directed mutations in a series of successive generations; but even though tens of thousands of these generations have been observed in bacteria, nothing of the kind has ever been observed.[5]<\/sup><\/a> If it could be determined that a gene in a particular population group is not present in a different population group of the same species, the evolutionist\u2019s assumption is that the functional gene spontaneously evolved. In reality, a more plausible explanation is that the organism without the functional gene may have devolved, or, alternatively, the gene in question may have been acquired by gene transfer from a related organism.[6]<\/sup><\/a> It should also be considered disproportionate to anyone looking at this issue objectively that a minor variation within bacteria is being used to suggest that macroevolution is true, when clearly this is but another example of so-called microevolution. The following webpage gives a good overview of the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, and its almost ubiquitous obfuscation within evolutionist literature:<\/p>\n https:\/\/uncommondescent.com\/intelligent-design\/macroevolution-microevolution-and-chemistry-the-devil-is-in-the-details\/<\/a><\/p>\n From the above linked webpage, here are some statements by prominent evolutionists who candidly admit the fact that macroevolution cannot be extrapolated from microevolution (emphases added by the author of the webpage):<\/p>\n\n\t\t \u201cIf macroevolution is, as I believe, mainly a story of the differential success of certain kinds of species and, if most species change little in the phyletic mode during the course of their existence (Gould and Eldredge, 1977), then microevolutionary change within populations is not the stuff (by extrapolation) of major transformations.<\/strong>\u201d<\/p>\n \u2013 Gould, Stephen J., in Ernst Mayr and William B. Provine, The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the Unification of Biology (Harvard University Press paperback, 1998; originally published in 1980), p. 170.<\/p>\n\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\t\t \u201cA wide spectrum of researchers \u2013 ranging from geologists and paleontologists, through ecologists and population geneticists, to embryologists and molecular biologists \u2013 gathered at Chicago\u2019s Field Museum of Natural History under the simple conference title: Macroevolution. Their task was to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species and the evolutionary relationship between species\u2026 The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.<\/strong>\u201d<\/p>\n \u2013 Lewin, R. 1980 (Nov 21). Science<\/em> 210:883.<\/p>\n\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\t\t One may object that these statements are old, but this is precisely the point. It has been clear for 40 years that limited variation within a species (microevolution) does not lead to macroevolution, and yet the textbooks maintain this mirage to convince young students that Darwinism is true. We hit this point very hard in Episode 1 and kindly ask you to revisit this portion of the video, for many of your examples do not recognize the distinction between macroevolution and limited variation within a species. It is precisely the inadequacy of the processes involved in microevolution to produce macroevolution\u2014even over very long periods of time\u2014that led to the following statement in 2019 by 1000 scientists at leading universities and even in the National Academy of Sciences:<\/p>\n\n\t\t We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.[7]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\t\t Now, to address your specific example, it must be stressed that there are no \u201cupward\u201d mutations observed in the variation within the dog-kind. Instead, the variety that we see among dogs is produced by loss of genetic information. To put this in a specific context, a Great Dane does not become large because it develops new genes for a larger size, but because it loses genetic information that codes for smaller body size. Within the normal limits of the breed, you cannot keep breeding Great Danes and expect to end up with a medium-sized dog. You would have to reintroduce genes into the gene pool by crossing a Great Dane to a smaller dog in order to significantly reduce body size. And two Great Dane parents will never give rise to, say, something resembling a small horse. Again, the variation that we see within dog breeds is limited variation within a kind (\u201cmicroevolution\u201d). Note that no increase in functional genetic information has occurred; in fact, the opposite has occurred, and there is a decrease in functional genetic information. This is precisely the reason for the \u201chybrid vigor\u201d observed in mongrel dogs, as well as the inherited predispositions to certain types of health problems in purebred dogs.<\/p>\n In order to properly assess the observable processes of variation, we have to keep in mind the mechanism which is operating in all of these cases: The first step is always reproductive isolation. Isolation in this sense means that a limited number of individuals are prevented from interbreeding with the other individuals from an original population. This can happen by natural events, like a geographic separation between populations that causes two subsets of an original population to be isolated from one another, or artificially, as occurs when animal breeders breed livestock selectively for specific characteristics. Over time, the individuals who are separated will accumulate mutations in their gene pool which are different from the mutations that accumulate in the gene pool of the original population. If enough differences accumulate, the two populations will no longer be able to interbreed and would then be considered different species. The key point is that these isolated individuals are not carrying the entire genetic diversity of the original population, simply because of their small number. If the isolation process continues for many generations, then the unavoidable inbreeding further reduces the number of genes among the smaller population. If they survive this process, then the result is a new variety of animal. The new variety can have a different shape, color, or other property as a reflection of those genes which are now predominant in the new population. However, these new phenotypical characteristics, even if beneficial for survival, are not due to new genes. The underlying genes already existed in the original population, and even if they are modified by mutation, they do not represent an influx of new information. Additionally, as we showed with the Great Dane example, it is often the removal of genes from the gene pool which leads to the new phenotypes. Therefore, new populations are always genetically \u201cpoorer\u201d than the starting population. A loss of genes is not evolution; it is also misleading to even call it \u201cmicroevolution,\u201d because it is the opposite of \u201cevolution.\u201d It is \u201cdevolution.\u201d<\/p>\n But let us return to your original comment about dogs. It should also be noted that the nature, or essential character, of wolves, dogs, foxes, hyenas, etc. is the same. The opening sentence of your paragraph seems to suggest that wolves can somehow \u201cnot reproduce\u201d with dogs. This is not the case. A wolf and a dog can produce offspring. It is very sensible to assume that if two creatures can be shown to create offspring, they are of the same kind. While limited speciation does occur, the only truly universal and quantifiable way of determining what makes up a true \u201ckind\u201d of animal, which is the taxonomic category used in Genesis,[8]<\/sup><\/a> is by determining which animals can interbreed. If animals have some degree of fertility with each other, then it is reasonable to assume that they are of the same created kind, even if the animals have differentiated somewhat over time to the point where they are no longer able to produce viable or fertile offspring. In other words, if it can be shown, even in a lab, that one species\u2019 sperm can successfully fertilize another species\u2019 egg, it is plausible that these are of one created kind. But dogs and wolves can have viable offspring naturally that do survive and can continue to reproduce with either dogs or wolves. Thus, it is stretching credulity, even for an evolutionist, to suggest that variation between wolves and dogs is an example of evolution, when we have not truly observed the very first<\/em> step<\/em> of the \u201cevolutionary process\u201d via reproductive isolation.<\/p>\n Examples of interbreeding across \u201cspecies\u201d are not just limited to dogs. Horses and donkeys can interbreed to create mules, though mules are sterile. Camels and llamas can reproduce; therefore it is plausible that they came from the same originally created kind. The fundamental difference between the creation model of descent as compared to the evolution model of descent is that in the creation model the originally created kinds of creatures from which all animals are descended contained all of the genetic information needed to allow the rich cornucopia of variation that came from them, within their kinds. Mutations have had an effect on this differentiation, and mutations do cause real effects, sometimes even beneficial within a particular environment, as in the case of polar bears as will be seen below, but not because they are causing an increase in functional genetic information.<\/p>\n Episode 5 begins with a reminder to viewers that it may be helpful to review the definitions in Episode 1, which include the definitions of macroevolution\/Darwinism and limited variation within a species. This understanding is key because (as stated at the start of Episode 5) many textbook claims can easily be explained by the limited variation within a species that all sides readily admit is routinely observed. One does not need to rely upon the unobserved processes of macroevolution or Darwinism to explain the data.<\/p>\n Episode 5 reviews several icons, starting with peppered moths. Your comments on Episode 5 state concerning peppered moths:<\/p>\n Foundations Restored claims that is [sic] displaying the moths with their wings open on tree trunks in biology textbooks is an unjust representation of the natural way of resting of these moths, which is true, but then extrapolates that argument to say that all experiments regarding natural selection of peppered moths are invalid because the experiments were based on the moths resting in this particular manner on trees. This is a strawman argument because Foundations Restored is saying that today\u2019s scientists are using this first experiment as the basis of today\u2019s belief while in reality there have been many duplicate experiments done since then and the modern belief of natural selection regarding moths is based on them.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n We are glad you agree that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks. You also would presumably agree that it is therefore misleading for high school biology textbooks to display the moths resting on tree bark and to argue that the peppered moth predation on tree trunks represents a legitimate example of natural selection. Take away the moths resting on tree bark (with their wings wide open\u2014another deception, as the moths rest with their wings closed), and the story as presented in the textbooks\u2014accompanied by pictures of moths resting on tree bark\u2014quickly falls apart. Biology textbooks the world over still use Bernard Kettlewell\u2019s experiments as one of their top evidences of evolution, therefore the treatment of the peppered moths in Foundations Restored<\/em><\/a> is concerned with refuting these erroneous claims.<\/p>\n The second major point of the section on peppered moths in our DVD series<\/a> is that, at most, the peppered moths are an example of natural selection, but not an example of macroevolution. As we have already thoroughly explained our refutation of this idea, we will only point out that this important point is not made in the classroom textbooks, which cite the natural selection supposedly demonstrated in peppered moth experiments as \u201cproof\u201d of Darwinism.<\/p>\n Regarding the rest of your statement above, you conclude that the beliefs of today\u2019s evolutionists do not rest on Kettlewell\u2019s experiments but on the \u201cmany duplicate experiments done since then\u2026\u201d Unfortunately, no references to the scientific literature are provided and so we cannot comment on any specific studies to which you may be referring.<\/p>\n Further, the segment in the DVD clearly does<\/em> state that additional moth studies have been performed and some have roughly supported Kettlewell\u2019s conclusions while others have not.[9]<\/sup><\/a> So when you mention work done by Majerus that you claim supports Kettlewell\u2019s results, you fail to mention that other experiments do not support Kettlewell\u2019s conclusions.<\/p>\n You then state:<\/p>\n Also, basing oneself on the argument that moths do not normally rest with their wings open on tree trunks is almost irrelevant, as it is heavily documented that during the industrial revolution scientists noticed that there were many more dark colored moths than light colored ones, and even named this pigment \u201cindustrial melanism\u201d. So after all, what difference does it make if Bernard Kettlewell<\/a>\u2019s specific experiment uses moths with opened or closed wings on tree barks or on branches or during the day or the night, if the phenomenon he claimed to prove was widely documented by observing scientists in the industrial revolution?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Whatever accounted for the mix of dark and light-colored moths during the industrial revolution or in Kettlewell\u2019s day, we know that Kettlewell\u2019s experiments and conclusions are highly flawed. Yet Kettlewell\u2019s experiments are used in introductory biology textbooks as an example of natural selection in action and as proof of Darwinism. The representation makes for quick converts to Darwinism, but one can scarcely call this deception good science or of little consequence.<\/p>\n You then state:<\/p>\n Regarding predation, there are some fallacies in Foundations Restored\u2019s arguments. First of all, FR claims that due to Bernard Kettlewell<\/a>\u2019s release of the moths during the day, his experiment resulted in a false conclusion of natural selection, as birds ate most of the easily visible moths. This is fallacy because even if the moths were better hidden, the birds were still more likely to see the lighter moths where there was no lichen and the darker ones where there was lichen. FR says that the bird predation is practically insignificant, due to the fact that bats account for 90% of moth predation, but that is tricky to say, as that is only true when moths camouflage with their background but not so when they contrast it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n What we are saying is that the Kettlewell experiments do not represent natural conditions and therefore the results of the experiment are called into question. The failure to match naturally occurring conditions includes the resting place of the moths, the moth\u2019s wing position while at rest, and the release of the moths on tree trunks during the day, which set up a \u201cfeeding tray\u201d situation. These are all criticisms of Kettlewell\u2019s experiments found in the scientific literature<\/em>. Ted Sargent, emeritus professor of biology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, commented about Kettlewell\u2019s experiments: \u201cThose experiments in Birmingham and Dorset were just terrible! Kettlewell set the moths out in huge numbers, way above normal levels for those environments, and then acted surprised when the birds came and ate them. It was a bird feeder!\u201d[10]<\/sup><\/a> Even Kettlewell admitted to the weaknesses related to release time, which is why (as the DVD series explains) he tried to release the moths in the pre-dawn period, but found them to be so sluggish that they had to be heated over his car engine.<\/p>\n You then summarize a study by Majerus (again, a reference to the study would be helpful) and conclude that:<\/p>\n the same expert they cite to discredit Kettlewell's experiment and prove their point, doesn't agree with FR but with Kettlewell.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Actually, Majerus has been highly<\/em> critical of Kettlewell\u2019s study methods and results, as is made clear in the DVD series. Majerus is an important figure in the peppered moth story, as his book Melanism: Evolution in Action<\/em> was called a \u201cwatershed event\u201d in understanding the flaws of Kettlewell\u2019s work. Judith Hooper (author of the other comprehensive book on peppered moths called Of Moths and Men<\/em>) said of Majerus\u2019 book:<\/p>\n\n\t\t Methodically and incisively analyzing every flaw in Kettlewell\u2019s experiments and in the industrial melanism paradigm, Majerus\u2019s book left no doubt that the classic story was wrong in almost every detail<\/strong>. Peppered moths, if left to their own devices, surely do not rest on tree trunks<\/strong>; bird vision is nothing like human vision<\/strong>; Kettlewell was wrong about how peppered moths choose their resting sites<\/strong>; the high densities of moths he used may have skewed the results<\/strong>; the method of release was faulty<\/strong>, and on and on. The various predation and survey studies conducted after Kettlewell have not replicated his results particularly well<\/strong>, and other \u2018factors\u2019 kept having to be invoked to squeeze the data into the standard industrial melanism model. \u2018The findings of [scientists since Kettlewell],\u201d Majerus concluded, \u2018show that the precise description of the basic peppered moth story is wrong, inaccurate, or incomplete, with respect to most of the component parts<\/strong>.\u2019[11]<\/sup><\/a> (Emphasis added)<\/p>\n\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\t\t Thus, Majerus agrees with all of our critiques of Kettlewell\u2019s experiments. You then spend some time discussing bird vision. We refer you to Majerus\u2019 book to see a more detailed discussion set forth by Majerus to support the position that bird vision is not like human vision.<\/p>\n You then comment:<\/p>\n Also, [the makers of the DVD] use a quote from Jerry A. Coyne from the last century when today he has already changed his mind and recognized his \u201cmistakes\u201d of more than 20 years ago. Coyne is a biologist known for his work on creationism but Foundations Restored does not mention that he is already an atheist today and discredits his papers from the past.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Jerry Coyne confessed that he was horrified to learn the truth about Kettlewell\u2019s experiments. This quotation (from the last century) is notable and remains highly relevant because it was made in a Nature<\/em> review of Majerus\u2019 book. Here is a paragraph from Coyne\u2019s review:<\/p>\n\n\t\t B. betularia<\/em> shows the footprint of natural selection but we have not yet seen the feet. Majerus finds some solace in his analysis, claiming that the true story is likely to be more complex and interesting, but one senses that he is making a virtue of necessity. My own reaction resembles the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of six, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve.[12]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\t\t Here we note from Coyne that Majerus still believes natural selection does play a role in the peppered moth story, but this should hardly be surprising; and it is interesting to note Coyne\u2019s comment about Majerus\u2019 position being one of necessity. In other words, no matter how flawed Kettlewell\u2019s experiments may be, Darwinists have no choice but to hold to the formula: macroevolution = mutations + natural selection + time.<\/p>\n Also, regarding Coyne, your statement that he is \u201cknown for his work on creationism\u201d suggests that you believe him to be a biologist who was a supporter of creationism but who has now seen the light since becoming an atheist. We are unaware of any evidence that Jerry Coyne was ever a creationist; he remains a secular Jew.[13]<\/sup><\/a> Regarding Coyne\u2019s view of natural selection, we clearly see a philosophical\/worldview bias, but it is the bias of someone who has assumed an anti-supernatural position. Such an individual must (of necessity) accept natural selection as part of Darwinian evolution because the subject of origins must be claimed by natural science, not historical theology. Note the following from his book Why Evolution is True<\/em> (2009):<\/p>\n\n\t\t But even if we agree that natural selection does work in nature, how much work can it really do?...can it build complexity?...how can we be sure that selection was involved? How do we know that creationists are wrong when they say that selection can make small changes in organisms but is powerless to make big ones? [\u2026] we must ask: What\u2019s the alternative theory? We know of no other natural process that can build a complex adaptation. The most commonly suggested alternative takes us into the realm of the supernatural. This, of course, is creationism\u2026[14]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\t\t This text is sufficient to see clearly that Coyne has claimed origins for natural science; it is the only explanation he will entertain, meaning that he is not willing to follow the evidence or to admit that the claimed Darwinian process of evolution is inadequate because to do so opens the door to the idea of special creation.<\/p>\n You then state:<\/p>\n Pamela Acker says that, after all, even if the experiments could be taken at face value, they still don\u2019t prove macroevolution to be true. But, in today\u2019s scientific community, no one claims that this experiment proves macroevolution, but instead use it as an example of natural selection, which is the same thing that Pamela Acker said that could be concluded from this experiment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n We repeat that our objection is not against the claim that natural selection occurs in nature, but that textbooks use misinformation about Kettlewell\u2019s experiments to claim that natural selection was not only proven by Kettlewell, but that these experiments are proof that Darwinism\/macroevolution are true. And to demonstrate that the \u201cnatural selection = evolution\u201d claim is commonly made (and is specifically being made by those who use Kettlewell\u2019s experiments as examples), we merely point to the name of Majerus\u2019 book: Melanism: Evolution in Action<\/em>.<\/p>\n Your comments on Episode 6 state:<\/p>\n Foundations Restored claims that evolutionists say that there is genetic entropy, but that is \u201cmoving the goalpost\u201d, because if there was completely [sic] genetic entropy, then life in itself would not be sustainable as there would be so many mutations that evolution could not be [sic] occur and all beings would deteriorate rapidly. Thus, that is not what evolutionists say, as they, and anyone else, can see that it does not make sense to claim that evolution occurs through entropy. What evolutionists do claim is that there isn\u2019t complete entropy but, instead, negentropy or negative entropy, which means that it goes against nature (as a side note, I had never heard this being claimed before, and I honestly have no idea how naturalists can claim that evolution goes against nature, as evolution is based on nature, but as he didn\u2019t really elaborate more on how this works, I\u2019ll just drop this and hope you guys can make some sense of it!!). So, as there is<\/em> order in life then you can\u2019t say that there is genetic entropy, so by Foundations Restored saying that evolutionists claim that there is genetic entropy, they are \u201cmoving the goalpost\u201d to be able to dismantle the evolutionists\u2019 claim more easily.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It seems that the points raised here reflect an inadequate understanding of genetic entropy, [15]<\/a><\/sup> a misunderstanding of how genetic entropy affects the theory of evolution, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the way that genetic entropy is treated in the scientific community.[16]<\/sup><\/a> Before we respond to specifics, a summary of genetic entropy is in order. Since genetic entropy is a relatively new concept and is generally unknown to most, we need to start by answering the question, \u201cWhat is genetic entropy?\u201d<\/p>\n Genetic entropy is the systematic breakdown of the internal biological information systems that make life alive. Genetic entropy results from genetic mutations, which are typographical errors in the programming of life (life\u2019s instruction manuals). Mutations systematically erode the information that encodes life\u2019s many essential functions. Biological information consists of a large set of specifications, and random mutations systematically scramble these specifications \u2013 gradually but relentlessly destroying the programming instructions essential to life.<\/p>\n Genetic entropy is most easily understood on a personal level. In our bodies there are roughly 3 new mutations (word-processing errors), every cell division. Our cells become more mutant, and more divergent from each other every day. By the time we are old, each of our cells has accumulated tens of thousands of mutations. Mutation accumulation is the primary reason we grow old and die. This level of genetic entropy is easy to understand.<\/p>\n There is another level of genetic entropy that affects us as a population. Because mutations arise in all of our cells, including our reproductive cells, we pass many of our new mutations to our children. So mutations continuously accumulate in the population \u2013 with each generation being more mutant than the last. So not only do we undergo genetic degeneration personally, we also are undergoing genetic degeneration as a population. This is essentially evolution going the wrong way. Natural selection can slow down, but cannot stop, genetic entropy on the population level.[17]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\t\t Generally speaking, entropy is simply a measure of disorder. All functional systems degenerate, consistently moving from order to disorder, unless additional order is imposed from the outside. You can simply consider your own kitchen table to know this is true! As time goes on, clutter and dust gradually accumulate, and you must expend considerable energy and time to put the situation back into some semblance of order. The same is true of all biological systems of information. Dr. Sanford writes:<\/p>\n\n\t\t Kondrashov, an evolutionist who is an expert on this subject, has advised me that virtually all the human geneticists he knows agree that man is degenerating genetically.[18]<\/sup><\/a> That paper indicates human fitness is declining at 3\u20135% per generation\u2026. we at least agree that fitness is going down, not up\u2026. There is really no debate on current human genetic degeneration\u2026.[19]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\t\t The criticism to which we are responding seems to reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of genetic entropy and what Foundations Restored<\/em><\/a> is saying about it. We are not in any way turning an existing argument from evolutionists on its head. In Genetic Entropy<\/em> (2014), Dr. John Sanford writes:<\/p>\n\n\t\t For many decades geneticists have been worried about the impact of mutations on the human population (Muller, 1950[20]<\/sup><\/a>; Crow, 1997[21]<\/sup><\/a>). When these concerns first arose, they were based upon an estimated rate of deleterious mutation of 0.12 to 0.30 mutations per person per generation<\/em> (Morton, Crow and Muller, 1956[22]<\/sup><\/a>). Since that time there have persisted serious concerns about deleterious mutation accumulation in man, leading to a high \u2018genetic load\u2019 and a generally degenerating population. There has also been a long-standing belief that if the rate of deleterious mutations approached one deleterious mutation per person per generation<\/em>, long-term genetic deterioration would be a certainty (Muller, 1950). This would be logical, since selection must eliminate mutations as fast as they are occurring. We need to prevent mutant individuals from reproducing, but we also need to leave enough remaining people to procreate and produce the next generation. By this thinking, deleterious mutations in man must actually be kept below one mutation for every three children\u2014if selection is to eliminate all the mutations and still allow the population to reproduce. This is because global fertility rates are now less than 3 children for every 2 adults, so only one child in three could theoretically be selectively eliminated. For these reasons, geneticists have been naturally very eager to discover what the human mutation rate really is![23]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n One of the most astounding recent findings in the world of genetics is that the human mutation rate (just within our reproductive cells) is in the range of 75-175 nucleotide substitutions (misspellings) per person per generation (Nachman and Crowell, 2000;[24]<\/sup><\/a> Kondrashov, 2002;[25]<\/sup><\/a> Xue et al., 2009;[26]<\/sup><\/a> Lynch, 2010;[27]<\/sup><\/a> Campbell and Eichler, 2013[28]<\/sup><\/a>). These high numbers are now widely accepted within the genetics community\u2026. When an earlier study revealed the mutation rate might be as high as 30, the highly distinguished author of that study concluded that such a number would have profound implications for evolutionary theory (Neel et al., 1986[29]<\/sup><\/a>).[...] What type of selection scheme could possibly stop this type of loss of information? As we will see, given these numbers, there is no realistic method to halt genomic degeneration. Since the portion of the genome that is recognized as being truly functional is rapidly increasing, the number of mutations recognized as being actually deleterious must also be rapidly increasing. If the genome proves to be mostly functional,[30]<\/sup><\/a> then most of these 75-175 mutations per person are actually deleterious.[31]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n[...]\n When selection is unable to counter the loss of information due to mutations, a situation arises called \u201cerror catastrophe\u201d. If not rapidly corrected, this situation leads to the eventual death of the species\u2014extinction. In its final stages, genomic degeneration leads to declining fertility, which curtails further selection (selection always requires a surplus population, some of which can then be eliminated each generation). Inbreeding and genetic drift then take over entirely, rapidly finishing off the population. The process is an irreversible downward spiral. This advanced stage of genomic degeneration is called \u201cmutational meltdown\u201d (Bernardes, 1996).[32]<\/sup><\/a> Mutation meltdown is recognized as an immediate threat to all of today\u2019s endangered species. The same process appears to potentially be a theoretical threat for mankind. What can stop it?[33]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\t\t Natural science now confirms what the Bible clearly shows[34]<\/sup><\/a> and what the Church has always taught\u2014that human evolution is going down, not up. An average of ~100 new mutations per generation is an absolute death blow to evolution theory; in fact, far fewer mutations per generation would show evolution is going in the wrong direction. It would confirm that what we observe in the real world is not evolution, but devolution. It is an unavoidable fact that we are slowly degenerating as a species. Many studies have confirmed that mutations are relentlessly accumulating in our genome, and we have no way to stop them. Interestingly, the same phenomenon is occurring in other creatures as well, and not just in humans. Since we can now measure the fact that we are all slowly mutating in a downward direction, evolution is dead in its tracks; science has proven that evolution is a failed concept and it will eventually go down in history as a laughable theory on par with spontaneous generation and other failed concepts that at one time most scientists (and laymen) believed in. Most scientists are simply ignoring this data, however, and will continue to do so because of metaphysical ramifications of this fact. One cannot reject evolution and continue to be what the majority of scientists are from a philosophical perspective: materialistic naturalists.<\/p>\n Related to mutations, you make the following comment:<\/p>\n Regarding mutations, Foundations Restored makes a great mistake by claiming that all mutations are harmful.<\/p>\n Life forms adapt to their specific environment and that adaptation is a positive mutation, but it is only positive in that specific environment. If you take it out of its environment then the mutation will no longer be beneficial, as the organism has adapted to the environment it was forced to live in.<\/p>\n For example, a polar bear has adapted to the cold and snowy climate with its white fur and body mass composition. But, if you take a polar bear out of the environment it has adapted to and take it to \u201ca typical bear environment\u201d i.e. a forest, then the polar bear won\u2019t thrive due to its lack of camouflage, temperature, food, etc. So, with that logic you can say that the mutations that allowed for polar bears to have white fur and live in very cold climates is not a beneficial mutation as it took away its natural ability to live in forests.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n When a change in the organism\u2019s fitness does arise through mutation, it is often associated with what evolutionary biologists call a \u201cfitness cost\u201d[35]<\/sup><\/a> \u2013 this cost can significantly reduce the beneficial nature of the new trait and brings into question whether mutations can truly be considered beneficial without misleading equivocation. Even leading evolutionary websites admit that beneficial mutations are not beneficial in all situations.[36]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n In discussing this section of your comments, it is helpful to define what exactly is meant by \u201charmful\u201d and \u201cbeneficial.\u201d Evolutionary biologists usually use these terms to reference changes that occur at the level of the organism and affect its fitness by either reducing or enhancing it. But this ignores a fundamental principle that is extremely important in determining whether mutations can be a possible mechanism for evolutionary change; and this is the principle that a \u201charmful\u201d or beneficial\u201d change in the fitness of the organism is \u201charmful\u201d or \u201cbeneficial\u201d does not necessarily entail that the underlying change in the genes<\/em> of the organism is \u201charmful\u201d or \u201cbeneficial.\u201d In other words, you can have a \u201cbeneficial\u201d change in the fitness of the organism that is the result of a \u201charmful\u201d change in the genes. Foundations Restored<\/em><\/a> does not claim that all mutations are \u201charmful\u201d in the sense that they all decrease fitness; on the contrary, there are a number of mutations that improve fitness in organisms. However, we do claim (in accordance with the overwhelming evidence) that mutations are truly \u201charmful\u201d in a genetic sense; that they involve a loss of genetic information, a loss of specificity in the gene product, or the loss of a gene product altogether. As we have discussed, this can be beneficial in the same way that stripping down a car for a race can help the driver push the car to fly around the track faster; but if some accident occurs in which the stripped-down material would be helpful, the driver may have cost himself the ability to win the race.<\/p>\n As shown in the footnote #5 that quotes Darwin Devolves<\/em> by Michael Behe, it is certainly possible that even a degradative mutation can be beneficial to an organism while that organism remains in a specific environment. Pertinently, in that same book, Behe writes about polar bears and how their ancestors managed to adapt to a new environment:<\/p>\n\n\t\t Only several years ago--only after laboratory techniques were invented that could reliably track changes in species at the level of genes and DNA--was the genetic heritage of the Arctic predator laid bare. The results have turned the idea of evolution topsy-turvy\u2026. 65 to 83 percent of helpful, positively selected<\/em> genes are estimated to have suffered at least one damaging mutation. It seems, then, that the magnificent Ursus maritimus<\/em> has adjusted to its harsh environment mainly by degrading genes that its ancestors already possessed. Despite its impressive abilities, rather than evolving, it has adapted predominantly by devolving.[37]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\t\t The polar bear is like the stripped-down racecar\u2014it has become highly efficient for its environment by losing<\/em> what its ancestors had, not by gaining<\/em> what they did not have. This clearly illustrates our point that it is one thing for an organism to adapt to its environment by breaking genes and devolving, and it is an entirely different thing for it to be truly evolving novel genes in the process.<\/p>\n Creatures becoming adapted to their environment through gene degradation fits within microevolution, or limited variation within a created kind\u2014limited because there are only so many degradations that can occur before extinction. Clearly a bear adapting to a different environment while remaining a bear is an example of a horizontal change (change within a kind), not vertical change (change from one kind into another). Taking into account the genetics, this change in the polar bear, if it had any verticality at all, was a move \u201cdown\u201d and not a move \u201cup.\u201d There is a major limit to what can be accomplished by simply breaking genes and even if a benefit is conferred in a specific environment, this is certainly not a mechanism that would drive any true \u201cevolutionary\u201d process. Instead, this mechanism supports the Traditional Catholic Doctrine of Creation very well, that in the beginning there were genetically perfect creatures and over time the genome degraded, resulting in different varieties that were often more specialized but no more, and usually less, advanced than their original ancestors.<\/p>\n You continue by stating:<\/p>\n Thus, saying that bacteria mutating to resist antibiotics is a negative mutation is a false interpretation, as bacteria have mutated to adapt a [sic] specific environment. Once, they [sic] are taken out of the specific environment they adapted to and moved to a different one, it is obvious that they won\u2019t thrive like the bacteria that have been adapted to that other environment. A mutation is beneficial only in the context of the organism\u2019s specific environment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This example also ignores the principle that what is positive at the level of the organism can be negative at the level of the genome. Most instances of antibiotic resistance involve a change in the structure of the bacterium which weakens its normal constitution. For example, MRSA has a change in a structural protein that causes methicillin (a common antibiotic) to be unable to bind to the resistant bacterium; but this same change means that an important structural component of the bacterial cell wall is weakened in the resistant bacteria.[38]<\/sup><\/a> Resistance to streptomycin, another antibiotic, is a result of a modification in the bacterial ribosome that keeps the antibiotic from binding to the ribosome and completely disrupting its function. But the mutation itself, which renders the bacterium resistant, causes diminished functioning of the ribosome, which is ultimately detrimental to the microbe.[39]<\/sup><\/a> What needs to be remembered here is that the mutations we are talking about, when bacteria mutate to become resistant to a certain antibiotic, are permanent changes that have broken genes and are now fixed in the genome to be propagated to all their progeny. Yet again, we have an example of what could be called microevolution, but which actually shows us a more complex genome becoming less complex. Breaking genes can convey a survival advantage in certain situations, as we have explained, but it is still merely a mechanism of adaptation and variation within a kind of creature.<\/p>\n In addition, not all antibiotic resistance arises from mutation. Many antibiotics are naturally occurring substances or derived from naturally occurring substances.[40]<\/sup><\/a> Penicillin, the first and perhaps most famous antibiotic, is a complex organic molecule produced by molds of the genus Penicillum<\/em>. New discoveries of natural antibiotic resistance are being made with surprising regularity.[41]<\/sup><\/a> These naturally occurring antibiotic resistance genes may be passed from one species to another by horizontal gene transfer. In a simple process known as conjugation, a bacterial cell can, though cell-to-cell contact, directly pass genetic material to another bacterial cell, usually in the form of a small circular piece of DNA known as a plasmid.[42]<\/sup><\/a> Bacteria can also scavenge genes from other bacterial cells that have died and ruptured in a process known as transformation[43]<\/sup><\/a>. Genes can even be transferred from viruses or eukaryotes into bacterial genomes, though the mechanism of transfer from prokaryotes to eukaryotes is not well understood.[44]<\/sup><\/a> While all of these mechanisms result in rearrangement of genes that provide \u201cnew\u201d functions in some microorganisms, it should be obvious to the impartial observer that nothing truly novel is arising genetically. So we see again that it is important to distinguish between what is happening in the organism and what is happening in the genes\u2014we can indeed see a benefit to survival while still maintaining a \u201cnet gain\u201d of no genetic information, or even observing a loss of information.<\/p>\n Finally, this segment of your comments makes clearer an error that you seem to subscribe to, and which you repeat in further statements on this topic: the idea that an organism can adapt to be better suited to a specific environment, rather than the environment simply selecting against organisms that are less well-suited to survive in it. Evolutionists have to maintain that no such thing is the case. It is not possible for the environment to drive genetic change in the organism. It is only possible for the environment to provide selective pressure (i.e. be an agent of natural selection) once a mutation spontaneously arises in the population. The way that you seem to describe adaptation does not quite do justice to this consensus view; rather, it seems to imply that the environment can drive the organism to change in some kind of specific way.<\/p>\n You continue:<\/p>\n Another example would be sickle-cell anemia, as in a specific environment where malaria is very prominent, a person with sickle-anemia would be more likely to have a longer life than someone with malaria.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The only reason sickle-cell anemia can become prominent in places with malaria is because it exists in two forms, the more severe homozygous form, and the less severe heterozygous form. It is only the heterozygous form that conveys any real statistical survival advantage to the affected individual because homozygous sickle-cell anemia drastically decreases life expectancy.[45]<\/sup><\/a> Secondly, we see yet again that this is another example of a gene being broken that happens to convey a survival advantage in a specific environment. The mutation causes the protein hemoglobin to fold incorrectly and clump together, resulting in the characteristic \u201csickle\u201d shape of the red blood cells that gives the disease its name.[46]<\/sup><\/a> Yet, again, we see no increase in functional genetic information, and instead we have a mutation causing a severe disease from which the affected individual can never recover; indeed, his progeny, if they inherit this disease, will suffer with it and will likely pass it on to their progeny.[47]<\/sup><\/a> Just as in the previous example of acquired antibiotic resistance in bacteria, here we have a more complex and more functional genome breaking down, resulting in a less complex and less functional genome. On the other hand, this type of disease makes perfect sense in light of genetic entropy.<\/p>\n You continue:<\/p>\n A third example would be natives of the North Sentinel Island. As they have not had contact with the outside world, they have not adapted to outside illnesses but have adapted to the island they live in. If you take them out of their natural habitat and place them in a \u201cnormal human habitat\u201d, let\u2019s say, a city, they wouldn\u2019t last long, as the illnesses we have long ago adapted to resist and are at most a common cold for us, would prove to be deadly or almost so to them. But, most likely, if we were to live where they have lived for so many years untouched by civilization, some of their common illnesses might result to be very deadly for us.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n With respect to the inhabitants of North Sentinel Island, an isolated island off the coast of India who have rejected contact with the outside world, even if we speculate that they would be more susceptible to diseases they have not previously been exposed to, this has nothing to do with evolution, as if people who live in the outside world are somehow more evolutionarily advanced than the islanders. If they were indeed susceptible to diseases that they had not been previously exposed to, this would be the result of their immune system not having been exposed to these particular infectious diseases and certainly not because their ancestors haven\u2019t conveyed to them some evolutionary advantage that you or I have when it comes to the ability to withstand infectious diseases.<\/p>\n You continue:<\/p>\n Also, the process of mutations is not random. Which mutation occurs is random, of course, but which ones survive isn\u2019t, as those that make the organism less fit for the environment die off. So, the book example is misleading as it gives all copying errors the equal chance of being passed on, when in reality those more adapted to the environment survive and tend to be passed down much more than those that aren't beneficial. So, the squirrel example is a misinterpretation of survival of the fittest.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The process of mutations is indeed random, as the squirrel example makes clear, and as we pointed out above when explaining that organisms cannot adapt directly and purposefully to meet the challenges of their environment. While it is true that natural selection is not random, a common fallacy that evolutionists often propagate is the idea that natural selection is close to perfect in its efficacy. In fact, natural selection can only eliminate from the population those organisms with mutations that are so harmful that they can be selected against at the level of the phenotype. One of the important points that is made in Foundations Restored<\/em><\/a> is that most genetic mutations are subtle; so subtle, in fact, that they cannot be selected for by natural selection because they are not identifiable at the level at which natural selection works.[48]<\/sup><\/a> Thus, most genetic mutation errors are able to slowly but relentlessly build up in the genome of the entire population. Certainly, if a genetic error occurs that expresses itself in a gross way phenotypically, this may be dealt with by natural selection; but it takes an egregious error for this to be the case, and sometimes even these significant errors can become fixed in a population through mechanisms that are still poorly understood.[49]<\/sup><\/a> In addition, natural selection is really only a destructive force, not a creative one; it can remove most significantly harmful mutations from the population, but it cannot provide anything new to drive macroevolution.<\/p>\n It is true that selection is not blind towards finding \u201cfitter\u201d individuals among a population. However, selection is blind towards finding the pathway to a new organ. These two are entirely different technical problems. For example, selection could favor the individual reptiles that possess the fittest limbs for walking. However, selection cannot guarantee that this mutation is also leading towards the construction of wings, which reptiles would have to have given to the birds they are supposed to have evolved into. For natural selection to drive the evolution of wings would require thousands of small leg improvements and each one of them would have to be \u2013 by pure chance! \u2013 at the same time an improvement of flight ability. Such a \u201clucky\u201d sequence is statistically impossible.<\/p>\n If such a sequence could happen, we would have to admit that a natural process with decreasing entropy could occur. Natural law, however, excludes this. Phenomena like crystal formation in so-called \u201copen systems\u201d are no real exception to this universal lawTheological Issues and Responses<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\t\t
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/kolbecenter.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/resurrection_of_christ-1024x764.jpg?resize=1024%2C764\")
\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\nScientific Issues and Responses<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\t\t
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/kolbecenter.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/dog_kind.jpg?resize=960%2C540\")
\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n
\n\t\n\n\t\t
\n\t\n\n\t\t
\n\t\n
\n\t\n\n\t\t
\n\t\nEpisode 5 Comments<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\t\t
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/kolbecenter.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/episode_5.jpg?resize=960%2C540\")
\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n
\n\t\n\n\t\t
\n\t\n
\n\t\n\n\t\t
\n\t\n
\n\t\n\n\t\t
\n\t\nEpisode 6 Comments<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\t\t
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/kolbecenter.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/episode_6-1024x576.jpg?resize=1024%2C576\")
\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/kolbecenter.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/Dr-John-Sanford-150x150.jpg?resize=150%2C150\")
Genetic entropy is a concept popularized by Dr. John Sanford, retired professor of genetics at Cornell University, who has published dozens of papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals and holds a number of patents in the field of genetics. To understand genetic entropy is to understand that all living things are undergoing genetic degeneration. In the words of one author:<\/p>\n\n\t\t
\n\t\n\n\t\t
\n\t\n
\n\t\n\n\t\t
\n\t\n
\n\t\n\n\t\t
\n\t\n
\n\t\n\n\t\t
\n\t\n