Genetics – Science Against Evolution

What is Theorized 
The basic philosophy of evolution is that gradual change occurs over millions of years to evolve one species into another. This mutation occurs at the genetic level. In order for evolution to be possible, new information must be added to the gene code that creates new traits and eventually changes the species into a new species. This must be done without damage to the species. All mutations must be positive mutations or they will begin to destroy the species. The burden of proof rests upon evolutionists to show with observable science that positive mutations can and do occur.

How it Works
One strand of Human DNA within each cell could stretch out 6 feet in length. It contains 3 billion pairs of DNA subsets and 46 chromosomes, and yet fits within one microscopic cell. If you covered a pinhead with DNA, the information contained in its code could fill up enough books to stack one on top of another and reach the moon 500 times. Every living organism – both plants and animals – have the blueprint of every function of their body written in this code. DNA tells every cell in your body how to build its structure, manufacture proteins and carry out its functions necessary for life to exist.

DNA is a four-letter alphabet that can create a possible 64 ‘words’. Each strand of the code is constructed like a micro-sentence. The ‘word’ is three letters long and has a code that tells the interpreting key to ‘begin here’ and ‘end here’. Each letter is represented by one of these specific proteins: adenine, thymine, guanine, or cytosine. These are labeled in diagrams simply as A, T, G, or C. Most cells in your body divide and multiply many times during your lifetime. Each time a cell multiplies, each strand of DNA must be duplicated into two exact copies. Any errors in this copy becomes a mutation in the cell. Mutations are plainly observed in science and this problem has never been in dispute. The dispute is over positive mutations which is not observed in science but is necessary for the evolution model. Howard Hughes Medical Institute gives us this explanation:

We each inherit hundreds of genetic mutations from our parents, as they did from their forebears. In addition, the DNA in our own cells undergoes an estimated 30 new mutations during our lifetime, either through mistakes during DNA copying or cell division or, more often, because of damage from the environment.

What mutations do we see in people? Cancer is a mutation. A cell becomes damaged due to toxins, radiation or other triggers and as it divides, it creates more cells that the body cannot control until the body is destroyed or the cells eradicated through medical treatment. Many mutations can also be passed on to children. Any medical questionnaire will ask if immediate members of our families have suffered from heart problems, cancer, mental illness or any number of potential health problems. The reason for these questions is that if our parents suffered from these mutations, there is a possibility that we could have inherited the tendency to contract these illnesses as well.

Each year medical research discovers more genetic related diseases. As of this writing, there are over 4,000 known genetic diseases (The National Institute of Health says there are 6,000 including rare diseases and disorders). Cystic Fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, hemophilia, leukemia, and sickle-celled anemia are examples of genetic mutations that are passed down as genetic related diseases. Each year the list grows longer. Howard Hughes Medical research makes this statement about genetic mistakes:

Considering the difficulties involved–the 6 feet of DNA in a human cell consists of 6 billion subunits, or base pairs, coiled and tightly packed into 46 chromosomes, all of which must be duplicated every time a cell divides–our general state of health is something of a miracle.

How Mutations are Passed On
Consider the evolution claims that it is only a short step from man’s closest ancestor. It is often stated that human DNA is only 2% different than our closest ‘related’ ape. Because it sounds simple, it appears to be feasible. However, when we consider that we have 3 billion pairs of DNA, that 2% becomes 60 Million new pairs of DNA that must be inserted through positive mutations. Each new rung of information must be a properly organized subunit with the stop and start codes and be clearly interpreted by the ‘key’ which is used to instruct the cell’s development. Depending on which argument you look at, man supposedly split from our common ancestors around 500-600 thousand years ago. Some argue that this common ancestor could not be farther back than 50 thousand years. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published an article by Giorgio Bertorelle (University of California, Berkley), and Bruce Rannala (Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York) which tracked the genetic disease, Cystic Fibrosis to determine trace modern populations back to a common source. Douglas J. Futuyma argues the opposite. As a die-hard evolutionists, he sticks to the strictest millions of years ideology and claims that we share a common ancestor 6 million years ago.

This means man needs 10 positive mutations per month to achieve what evolution requires if 500-600 thousand years are correct. If the 50 thousand year theory is true, that rate increases to 100 mutations per month. If Futuyma’s numbers are chosen, then we drop the mutation rate to 1 new pairs of DNA per month per month to achieve evolution’s goal. We should still see man and all other species visibly transforming and observable in science. We have already seen that negative mutations cause disease in the species, but we need positive mutations without diseased ones tagging along.

To understand this fully, let’s look at how mutations are passed along. Generally speaking, there are two types of genes – dominant and recessive. To put this in elementary terms, I have heard this illustrated like a twin engine airplane. A recessive gene is in charge of production of proteins. Like the engines of the airplane, if one fails, the other will continue to drive the craft. It will not be as efficient, but it will not crash. However, if the other engine fails, the production will fail. In the same sense, if one parent has a recessive gene defect but the other parent does not, the normal gene will keep the cell functioning without a visible defect. For a recessive gene, both parents MUST possess the same defect or it will not be passed on to the children. The figure below illustrates this:

Both parents carry a single defective gene (d) but are protected by the presence of a normal gene (N), which is generally sufficient for normal function. Two defective copies of the gene are required to produce a disorder. Each child has a 50 percent chance of being a carrier like both parents and a 25 percent risk of inheriting the disorder.

Even if the defect is present in both parents, there is only a 25% chance of a genetic change in the child and only a 50% chance of carrying this to the next generation. This presents a huge problem for evolution. In the best-case scenario both parents would have the same mutation. If it were possible to create a positive mutation in the gene code and both parents carried the exact same mutation, this still only leaves a 25-50% chance of passing the mutation on. If both parents do not have the defect, the odds of passing a mutation fall well below 25%. Even if a child carries the mutation, it will not produce a new trait on its own. It must sit in the background until another parent carrying the same gene arrives on the scene. Even so, the odds are still against evolution. Compound this problem by 60 Million mutations and the odds of us evolving from a common ancestor of ape to where we are becomes staggering.

To understand Dominate genes, let’s go back to the twin-engine airplane. If recessive genes represent the engines that drive the plane, a dominant gene represents the structure of the plane (or gene). A twin-engine airplane can remain airborne with only one functioning engine, but it cannot fly with only one wing. A dominant gene tells the cell in an organism how to build its structure. If a dominant gene is inherited, a genetic disorder will occur. Look at the illustration below:

The affected parent has a single defective gene (D), which dominates its normal counterpart (n). Each child has a 50 percent risk of inheriting the faulty gene and the disorder. Since each parent only provides half the genetic material, there is a 50% chance that the child will not inherit the defect. As we can see, even if a mutation is a dominant gene, there is still only a 50% chance that it will be passed on. Also keep in mind that these mutations must already be in effect before childbearing years. Defects later in life have zero chance of being passed on unless the tendency was already present. Geneticists estimate that our bodies mutate negatively 30 times in an average life. This is one of the reasons why birth defects are higher risks when the parents are 35 and older. Only mutations present during those childbearing years will have any chance of affecting the next generation.

What is Observed
Micro-evolution is a fact of science. Micro information is simply the rearranging of genetic information that is already present. A child may be born with blond, brown, red, or black hair. Hair could be curly, straight or a combination of the two. However, hair is still hair and no new information has been added to the genes. Micro-evolution can also be a loss of information. We often see evolutionists point to things like cave fish that have no eyes and claim this is evidence of evolution in action. However, evolution requires new information, but what is observed is a loss of information or a damaging of information. Lost information only gives evolution a greater obstacle to overcome and sends the species in the opposite direction than it should be going to fit the evolutionary model. In every case of micro-evolution that evolutionists attempt to claim for evidence, the trait is still the same trait and the species is still the same species. (For more information on micro/macro evolution, go to ).

Positive mutations are not observed in science. Evolution requires up to 10 positive mutations a month to progress from our theoretical evolutionary ancestor to modern man. This mutation rate is not limited to man, but we should see the same rate in all living organisms. The mutations needed are not the rearranging of information, but the addition of new information. We do see mutations in science. Each year more genetic diseases are discovered. We have already seen that the average person will have 30 negative mutations in their lifetime and that most of these will occur later in life after the child-bearing years and will not affect our descendants. The question must be asked – where are the 10 positive mutations a month? Science does not even observe 10 negative mutations per month and zero positive mutations have been observed where new information is added to the genome. When evolution’s leading propagator, Richard Dawkins was asked to give one example of a positive mutation or evolutionary process in action as observed by science, he could not name one. Pro-evolutionary ‘Atomic Scientists’ stated:

“It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing — good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad.” (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11:331)

Even the positive mutations heralded by evolutionists are simply the rearranging of information. In every example, either there is no new information added or a smoke-and-mirrors illusion is created to imply that a positive change has occurred. A good example of this is the often-touted fruit fly mutations. Researchers damage the fly’s DNA with radiation and it sometimes produces mutated offspring. Sometimes the fly will have legs where its antenna would normally be or some other defect. One supposed break-through came when researchers produced a fruit fly with two sets of wings instead of the normal one set.

Evolutionists declared that this was proof that positive mutation was possible. What is not openly publicized is that the second set of wings is not new information, nor is it functional. The fruit fly normally has halters (or balancers) behind each wing. These halters are necessary for flight and balance. When the radiation damaged the gene, the halters were missing and in its place was another set of wings produced by scrambled DNA, which was ‘borrowed’ from the code that was already present. These wings do not have muscles, therefore they cannot aid in flying. The weight change and the absence of halters leave the fly helpless. Outside of the lab, these flies could not survive. If anything, this proves that evolution is impossible. Without fully functional wings, a fly cannot fly. Without functional antennae, the fly cannot detect scents that it must find to locate food or a mate. Crippled fruit flies do not prove evolution, but it does cast a lot of doubt on evolutionary theory.

Negative mutations are frequently observed. With each negative mutation, the species begins its descent from evolution rather then ascending to it. A cave fish with no eyes has less complexity than it did in the past. If information is becoming damaged or lost, how does this help evolution? Scientific observations prove that organisms are drifting away from the direction that evolution demands living things to rise toward.

If each year, more negative mutations occur and the observation of new genetic diseases increase, where does this leave evolution? Shouldn’t evolution be streamlining the DNA code rather than scrambling it? Does a hemophilic (inability to stop bleeding) increase or decrease the chance for survival? Does Cerebral Palsy increase or decrease the chance of passing genes to the next generation? Today, an estimated 1 in 25 descendants of North Europeans are carriers of the defect that causes Cystic Fibrosis. 1 in 12 Blacks across the globe carry the Sickle Cell Anemia genetic defect. Of course those who actually contract the disease will be much lower because it takes both parents passing on the gene before a child can contract it. My point is that the increase in the number of carriers of genetic diseases proves that we are distancing ourselves from the ideal demanded by evolution. Evolution can’t explain this dilemma, but creation can. The Bible teaches that man and all of creation were created perfect. The curse of sin is the cause of death, disease and suffering. If the Bible is true, we should see mankind drifting away from the perfect creation that we were intended to be. If evolution is true, we should see mankind perfecting and overcoming our defective past. These two worldviews are in direct contradiction to each other. Observable science confirms scripture but contradicts evolution.

Clearly, if we take an honest approach to science, what is observed points to creation and denies evolution. Genetics is just another example of this fact.

Eddie Snipes

What is a Polystrate Tree?

Talk Origins responds to this article. Click here to read their rebuttal.

Polystrate trees are trees that are found in multiple layers of strata. Creationists observe these trees as evidence for a global catastrophe such as the biblical global flood. We believe these trees are consistent with what should be expected from silt and sediment as it settled after the flood. When you observe residue in water, it settles in layers consistent with the geological column found throughout the world. As this residue settled around the tree and hardened, these trees fossilized. This poses a problem to the evolution model. A rapid deposit is not consistent with evolution because fossils are throughout the layers and supposedly represent millions of years. How can a tree stand erect for millions or even hundreds of millions of years without decay in order to be embedded in these layers? Evolution, on the other hand, claims that these trees do not hinder evolution and attempt to explain away what is observed by science.

It is important for Christians to recognize the method of debate most evolutionists and atheist use. It is also important to recognize that they are not going to win the debate in the eyes of an atheist. Because atheism is a religion of pride – or self worship, to admit defeat is to deny self-identity. An atheist is not on a quest for truth, but on a quest for intellectual identity. They draw self-identity and self-worth from their claims of intellectualism. That is why evidence against evolution is always called religious. If they classify it as non-science, then they can justify in not answering the evidence.

When debating, you will recognize a few key methods almost all evolutionists use. They begin by intimidating critics; avoiding hard questions by machinegun fire questions to smoke screen the issue they are attempting to avoid; and establishing themselves as authoritative by declaring their position to be evolutionary. Once they have declared themselves to be ‘inside the box’ of evolution, they can then use their own quotes as facts. The reasoning is if evolution is the only authoritative position and they stand inside that box, others can then assume their opinions are fact because of that authority.

We often see the claims of evidence without having to provide the evidence. While an evolutionist requires irrefutable proof, they avoid having to prove evolution by bombarding critics with accusations and attempting to create rabbit trails for others to chase. We a creationist calls a bluff, they are either ignored or accused of misquoted evolutionists. To avoid answering opposition or explaining how evolutions leaders contradict themselves and the facts, they accuse others of dishonesty and ignorance.

I was recently given a link to an article as ‘proof’ that polystrate trees have been debunked by evolution: . This article on uses the typical evasive tactics found in almost every defense evolution attempts to establish. The prized tactic of evolution is to put critics on the defensive so that they will not bring the issues to light. Instead of cowering or being manipulated into chasing rabbits, Christians need to recognize these tactics and force the focus to remain on the issue at hand. Rabbit trails can be explored once the primary issue has been addressed. This article uses intimidation and evasion to avoid answering the objections that they fear. They also confirm creation claims and then try to twist them into evolutionary evidence.

The article begins with the typical insult to (hopefully) put creationists on the defensive. If I feel intimidated by my position, I will be less likely to challenge the facts or lack thereof.

The reason I am using Dawson (1868) rather than a more recent reference is to emphasize that many supposed “problems” with conventional geology were solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people suggesting these “problems” exist are so out of date that even 19th-century literature refutes their presentations.

Also in the 1800s evolutionist didn’t have a problem with spontaneous generation. They believed fruit flies evolved in closed jars. Right off the bat, the intended impression is that if you don’t believe in evolution, you are not even as intellectual as they were in the 1800s. Perhaps the reason he used an argument from the 1800s is because evolution still can’t come up with a reasonable explanation. However, the intent of the comment was to intimidate critics into compliance.

The most common criticism I get from atheists is that I take the quotes that show evolutionists in a bad light. I am frequently called a liar, but I provide references that are completely verifiable. Obviously, I will not quote the whole article, but at the risk of being called dishonest, I will only quote the points relevant to the argument. Anyone who wishes can read the article for themselves to verify my quotes. Dawson goes on to explain that polystrate trees begin by a rapid deposit of sediment (from a flood) and continue to build up over thousands of years. The article analyses the argument this way:

…he is simply interpolating the average depositional rates for an entire formation down to the scale of meters. This is not the correct way to do it, because individual beds can be deposited rapidly (say, sands and mud during a levee breach), and then little deposition can occur for a long time (e.g., a soil horizon),

This argument craftily avoids the issues while claiming to explain them. The issues in question are:

  • How did the tree survive during multiple catastrophes without rotting or being knocked down?
  • How can anyone reasonably believe that a tree could stand for the length of time it takes to build up the additional layers?
  • How can a tree representing a short life span (on evolution’s geological time scale) stand erect through geological layers representing millions and often hundreds of millions of years?

This is not a problem for evolution? Regardless of how you slice it, the tree had to stand erect without rotting, falling or being knocked down for millions of years. The layers of strata have fossils representing different time periods according to the evolution model. It DOES pose a huge problem for evolution. If the tree was buried rapidly as Dawson hints toward and as creationists have said all along, evolution is out the window. If all layers were deposited together, then there is no such thing as millions of years. That would mean that all fossils were laid at the same time.

If the trees were not covered rapidly, then there is no explanation as to how a tree could have embedded itself into layers of strata that accumulated over millions of years. The article does not attempt to answer any of these questions. Yet it claims (as all evolutionists do) to have the answers.

Instead of answers, the claim to intellectual thinking is made while carefully avoiding the real issues. To avoid critical thinking, the article ends by insulting those who may question the facts. This article is nothing more than manipulation through human psychology. If you put people on the defensive, they won’t think critically and the evolutionist can avoid critical analysis against his or her argument. The article claims that we see examples of polystrate trees today. Indeed we do, but they debunk evolution. Mount Saint Helens created a lake full of sediment, which created many polystrate trees. Evolutionists don’t point to this observance but creationists do. To avoid this argument, the article says:

This argument is completely fallacious, because most “fossil forests” do not occur in volcanic deposits

Who said the flood was dependent of volcanic deposits? That is a straw man. The article ends the way it began – by attempting to intimidate critics and make people who would think critically feel ignorant for not siding with evolution. The article concludes: 

…many “young Earth global flood creationists”, have no idea that even data from the 19th century, presented by a creationist geologist is enough to demolish the “polystrate fossil trees” part of their presentation. “Polystrate fossil trees” are probably one of the weakest pieces of evidence YEGF creationists can offer for their interpretation. I wish they would stop using it.

Of course he wishes we would stop using it. They cannot defend against it. The only friend to evolution is the people who blindly accept the propaganda. Critical thinking is not welcomed. While evolution clings to the 1800s, modern science continues to confirm the Bible and evolution must tap-dance around observable science.

Eddie Snipes

A Response to my article ‘Polystrate Trees’

I recently received an email from someone who claimed to be the author of the article I rebutted on Polystrate Trees found on Talk Origins website. Given the detail of the email, I don’t doubt that it is from the author, but I don’t have any way to verify the email address. I get countless critical emails that dispute various pages on my website. This one was particularly interesting, so I am going to post the letter and rebut it here. My response will be boxed in to avoid confusion. For the sake of readability, I am posting Andrew MacRae’s response at the point where he begins to address the three questions I posed.


I don’t care if critics “comply”, I would like them to
research the question more thoroughly before assuming (wrongly)
that conventional scientists “can’t come up with a reasonable
explanation”. Such a claim has been so wrong for so long, it is
amazing that it can be made so frequently as if it were true.
That scientists did provide good explanations, more than 100 years
ago, is a demonstration of how poorly the
question was researched before some people came to the erroneous
conclusion or speculation that such explanations do not exist.

(My article quoted) “Dawson goes on to explain that polystrate trees begin by a rapid
deposit of sediment (from a flood) and continue to build up
over thousands of years.”

Yes, a major river flood, like you might see on the Mississippi River
every few years. There is nothing more dramatic implied by the
evidence at Joggins.

(My article quoted these questions)
How did the tree survive during multiple catastrophes
without rotting or being knocked down?
How can anyone reasonably believe that a tree could
stand for the length of time it takes to build up the
additional layers?
How can a tree representing a short life span
(on evolution’s geological time scale) stand erect
through geological layers representing millions and
often hundreds of millions of years?”

It does explain the basic point of confusion in many “young Earth”
creationist claims about polystrate trees and other types of fossils,
but it does so rather tersely. In the FAQ, I need to
explain the source of the confusion better, and why the
supposed problem does not apply.
I will do so here, by addressing your 3 questions:

1) How did the tree survive during multiple catastrophes without
rotting or being knocked down?

Trees commonly remain upright during multiple river floods,
season after season, year after year. Some trees (such as the
modern bald cypress) are tolerant of immersion in water, and
will survive floods commonly. Even if trees are killed by immersion
during the period of a river flood (weeks or months), the tree does
not rot away or fall over as promptly as is commonly thought. Trees
often survive upright, after death, for years or decades. Some
are known to have remained upright for at least a century after death.
For example, there are trees standing upright in Reelfoot Lake
in Tennessee that were submerged by an earthquake that happened in
the 1800s. Some were killed by the water, others have survived.
There is also ample evidence in the fossil record that trees
did rot and fall down, and these are often more common than the
ones that remained upright.

The problem is that a thousand years is not enough time for these trees to be covered and fossilize. Being covered with debris is not enough. How the tree is covered is only half of the problem. The tree must be covered by multiple layers of sediment and survive through many flood events in order to fit the evolution belief. Even if you can satisfy this problem (which you cannot), you still must fossilize the fossil before it rots. Burying a tree upright or horizontally does not prevent it from rotting. The conditions for fossilization must also be present. A buried tree will rot.

I will give Andrew the argument that on rare conditions, a tree may miraculously stand 100 years after death, but that does not help the evolution position. But consider the double talk of this argument. For a dead tree to survive for 100 years without rotting, it must be a non-eventful century. Water increases decay and a flood would highly increase the chances of the tree collapsing. However, if there is not major flooding, the tree can’t be buried. In this argument is an illusion of facts. The fact that a tree can survive for 100 years after death if conditions are right is presented to prove the trees survival is possible. Then gradual sedimentation is given to show that a gradual build up is possible. Both are presented as evidence, however, only one or the other can apply. Even so, a hundred years does not fit evolution or creation arguments.

Any walk in the woods brings this argument into question. Polystrate trees have roots in place and fossilized with the tree. The top of the tree rots over a short period of time even if it stands upright. The base of the tree and roots quickly decay. Even when we find trees slowly being covered in sediment, we don’t see fossilization, but we do see decay.

2) How can anyone reasonably believe that a tree could stand for
the length of time it takes to build up the additional layers?

There are two components to this question: a) how long a
tree can stand upright while being buried (whether dead or alive),
and b) how long sedimentary layers take to build up.
A tree that remains standing for decades to centuries (whether
dead for that whole period or alive) would have ample time for meters
of sediment to accumulate on a river floodplain or a coastline, if
sedimentation conditions are suitable. A single river flood
can deposit tens of centimeters to meters of sediment. Granted,
only selected environments have sufficiently high depositional
rates to realistically bury trees to meters depth in under a
few centuries, but they are not rare, and trees are commonly found
there (e.g., river deltas and floodplains are). As mentioned above,
trees can remain upright for longer than people commonly think.

I have to disagree with the ‘rewording’ of the question. It would be better to ask if science can observe buried trees that slowly fossilize?
Do we see trees buried in flooding that do not rot?

Keep in mind that fossils in the geological column date the layers. If we shorten the time frame that these trees are buried, we also must shorten the ages of the fossils found in the layers. The crux of the argument is that the layers represent hundreds of thousands of years and up to millions of years depending on the fossils found. The trees growing through the layers disrupts the neat package that evolutionist are trying to present.

I will be more than happy to agree with Andrew that these trees survived for a thousand years while sediment built up if he and other evolutionists will be consistent and date the fossils in the same age range as the trees. If the tree is 1,000 years old, the fossils on the bottom layers can only be 1,000 years older or less than the fossils in the top layer. We know for a fact that evolutionists cannot agree with this assumption. This leaves a problem. Either the tree is millions of years old and miraculously stood through millions of years of flooding, or the fossils are not millions of years old. As you can see, both disagree with evolution. Therefore, it is necessary to craft any argument to avoid either of these to conclusions. Even so, one or the other must be true.

3) How can a tree representing a short life span (on evolution’s
geological time scale) stand erect through geological layers
representing millions and often hundreds of millions of years?”

Most commonly, the misconception develops because
it is assumed that if geologists claim a formation 1000 meters
thick took 100 million years to deposit, therefore every
meter of it (such as the meters that may be piled up around a tree)
took 100000 years to form, and every centimeter took a thousand
years. Such an assumption will be spectacularly wrong in any
environment where the depositional rate varies greatly. In the
deep ocean, it might be reasonable, but on a river floodplain,
it is wrong in the extreme. A soil horizon a few centimeters
thick may have taken thousands of years to form, a river
channel sandstone meters thick might have been deposited in a
few weeks at that spot, and the bottom of the river channel
commonly erodes away sediments that were deposited previously
(creating a gap).

I consider this to be evolutionary double-talk. When it supports evolution, they claim that each layer takes (x) number of years to form. When it contradicts evolution, then what is observed is not necessarily accurate. However, the real problem is not in how long it takes for layers of sediment to form. The problem is the ages that evolution places on the fossils in the layers of sediment. If the fossils in the lower layers are millions of years older than the fossils in the upper layers and the tree stands through each of these layers, there is no reasonable explanation. Evolutionists claim this is a ‘non-problem’, but in reality it is a big problem. The only safe position to take is to ignore the facts. Just write it off as a misunderstanding and claim the issue is resolved.

“This is not a problem for evolution? Regardless of how you slice
it, the tree had to stand erect without rotting, falling or being
knocked down for millions of years.”

Yes, it is not a “problem for evolution”. It is a “young Earth”
creationist problem to understand what normally happens in
areas of river sedimentation in modern times, and how conventional
geologists really apply that to the ancient record. As it turns out,
the 19th-century explanations are much more readable than the
present-day technical literature, which is the other reason I
recommend Dawson.

“The article claims that we see examples of polystrate trees today.”

Yes. For example, there are the upright trees being buried in Reelfoot
Lake, Tennessee, that I mentioned above. There are some really nice
examples from Washington State and Alaska that are being buried in
tidal marshes. Near Joggins, at a place called Amherst, Nova Scotia,
there are trees, several meters tall, that have been standing upright
and dead for decades to centuries, and which are currently buried
by at least 30cm of tidal muds (refer to:
Practically everywhere that trees occur and there
is significant, ongoing deposition of sediments, it is possible to
find examples of them being buried. It is harder to find the data/
necessary to figure out how long the process is taking, but there
are examples where periods of decades or centuries of burial can
be documented.

This is misleading at best. A polystrate tree is a tree that is fossilized through multiple geological layers of strata. This is a solid fossil in solid layers of rock. We do not see this today. We see living trees that have sediment built up around them, but they are not fossils. Nor will they fossilize. As I stated earlier, there is more to creating a fossil than burying a tree. Upright or laying down, the tree will rot unless there are conditions present that cause fossilization. A partially buried living tree is not a polystrate tree. A partially buried or completely buried dead tree is not a polystrate tree. These trees will rot under natural conditions.

Let’s look at the website referenced above as evidence: 

Bay of Fundy

Tidal marsh encroaching on forest, Amherst Marsh, NS.

Sea level is rising slowly causing the tidal salt marshes to build up and advance onto the land surface. Here the salt meadows are invading a forest. Dating of the trees at the base of the marsh shows that tide level is rising about 30 cm (1 foot) per century; the outermost tree is 1000 years old and is buried by 1 meter of peat.


How does this prove the evolutionary argument that polystrate trees are gradually covered and happening today? 1 meter of peat over a 1000 year period does not help the evolution argument at all. Peat is a very light soil and very organic. This is hardly suitable for fossilization. This is an amazing tree that can live for 1000 years, but once it does die, it will decay unless a catastrophic event occurs that allows the tree to fossilize. Polystrate trees are not buried in peat. A half-buried living tree is not a polystrate tree. These trees growing in peat will not become polystrate trees nor are there polystrate tree fossils found in the areas that have trees growing. Once they die, they will return to the soil as have all the other trees in these types of areas.

The bottom line is that you will believe what you want to believe. The evidence does not support evolution. Evolutionists do craft arguments that sound plausible until you actually look at what is being said. Once the facts are compared to the explanation, evolution falls short every time. However, out of a desire for evolution to be true, many will chose to believe it in spite of its lacking foundation.

Eddie Snipes

Doesn’t Junk DNA prove our evolutionary past?

Junk DNA?

One of the great errors of evolution is that evolutionists falsely assume that evolution has more answers than they actually have. If an evolutionists says it, it must be a fact. In truth, evolution is based on many assumptions and even disproved data. Ernst Haeckel’s falsified embryo development, disproved and falsified missing links, junk dna, vestigial organs and other disqualified evidence are still taught as fact in order to persuade students to buy into the evolutionary belief system. As these false assumptions are proven to be false by science, they continue to be taught by educators. Once evolutionary researchers reject an assumption, it is complete dishonesty to continue to teach these things as fact. It could have been claimed that it was a mistake based on a lack of information in the past, but once the truth is known, if evolutionist continue to claim the error as a fact, then it has become a lie.

Junk DNA is such an example. No credible scientist still claims that there is such a thing as junk DNA. It has now been proven to provide a necessary function in DNA. When scientists were unaware of the function of certain parts of the DNA they jumped to the false conclusion that it was junk, but now we know that it serves in regulating how proteins are formed and other regulatory functions. Even Wikipedia acknowledges that this was a false assumption, but dishonest educators continue to teach this to students knowing that students will never question or look at the facts on their own. Even evolution believing scientist disclaim the concept of junk DNA. Below is an article taken from the pro-evolution BBC on the science of what was once called junk DNA:

Salvage prospect for ‘junk’ DNA

By Paul Rincon
BBC News science reporter

DNA   Image: BBC

The genome may possess far more complexity than was imagined

A mathematical analysis of the human genome suggests that so-called “junk DNA” might not be so useless after all.

The term junk DNA refers to those portions of the genome which appear to have no specific purpose.

But a team from IBM has identified patterns, or “motifs”, that were found both in the junk areas of the genome and those which coded for proteins.

The presence of the motifs in junk DNA suggests these portions of the genome may have an important functional role.

The findings are reported in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal.

But they will have to be verified by experimenters in the lab, the scientists behind the work point out.

Dr Andrew McCallion, who was not an author on the new paper, commented: “Up until not so long ago, we were under the impression that the vast majority of information in the genome, if not all of it, was encoded in those stretches of DNA that encoded proteins.

“We now understand there is much more complexity involved,” Dr McCallion, from the McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, US, told the BBC News website.

Lead author Isidore Rigoutsos and colleagues from IBM’s Thomas J Watson Research Center used a mathematical tool known as pattern discovery to tease out patterns in the genome.

This technique is often used to mine useful information from very large repositories of data in the worlds of business and science.

Scrapheap challenge

They sifted through the approximate total of six billion letters in the non-coding regions of the human genome and looked for repeating sequence fragments, or motifs.

“One of the things that arises from this paper is that junk DNA may not be junk. But this needs to be verified,” Dr Rigoutsos told the BBC News website.

The researchers found millions of the motifs in non-coding DNA. But roughly 128,000 of these also occurred in the coding region of the genome. These were also over-represented in genes which are involved in specific biological processes.

These processes include the regulation of transcription – the beginning of the process that ultimately leads to the translation of the genetic code into a peptide or protein – and communication between cells.

Dr Rigoutsos said his team’s work suggested, “a connection between a vast area of the genome we didn’t think was functional with the part of the genome we knew was functional.

“The average lab does not have the resources to prove or disprove this, so it will need a lot of effort by lots of people,” he explained.


Graphic, BBC

The double-stranded DNA molecule is held together by four chemical components called bases

Adenine (A) bonds with thymine (T); cytosine(C) bonds with guanine (G)

Groupings of these “letters” form the “code of life”; there are about 2.9 billion base-pairs in the human genome wound into 24 distinct bundles, or chromosomes

Written in the DNA are about 20-25,000 genes which human cells use as starting templates to make proteins; these sophisticated molecules build and maintain our bodies

Gene silencing

The paper in PNAS suggests that the actual positioning of the motifs is associated with small RNA molecules that are involved with a process called post-transcriptional gene silencing (PTGS).

“A human embryo starts out as a single fertilized cell and rapidly divides into a widely complex series of cells that become a human being,” explained Dr McCallion.

“Every cell in that human being contains the same complement of genes and what makes each cell different is the precise way that genes are turned on and turned off.”

PTGS turns genes off after the process of transcription has taken place. One way in which this occurs is through “RNA interference”, which involves the introduction of double-stranded RNA molecules.

These trigger the degradation of another type of RNA molecule known as messenger RNA (mRNA), “down-regulating” the gene. During transcription, this molecule encodes and carries information from genes to sites of protein synthesis.

“These regions may indeed contain structure that we haven’t seen before,” said Dr Rigoutsos.

“If indeed one of them corresponds to an active element that is involved in some kind of process, then the extent of cell process regulation that actually takes place is way beyond anything we have seen in the last decade.”

Eddie Snipes