Evolutionists and Darwinists generally use two main arguments that supposedly prove evolution. They believe that DNA is evidence for common ancestry.
Scientific Evidence for Common Ancestry
Small Adaptations Lead to New Species (From Microevolution to Macroevolution)
Of course, this is incorrect. We observe in nature that microevolution work – development within one species, not from one species to another. Therefore, the adaptation of organisms to the environment in terms of the emergence of new subspecies of organisms cannot be evidence for macroevolution. In other words, a dog is still a dog, a cat is a cat, a horse is a horse, a bird is a bird, and so on.
Similarities in Structure and DNA are Evidence for Common Ancestry
Another argument for evolution, which we will deal with here, is the similarities in structure and DNA.
The problem is that we cannot prove macroevolution but only draw conclusions from what we observe. It is a matter of interpreting the evidence. What we observe in nature is interpreted by evolutionists as a natural cause without the influence of higher intelligence.
Richard Dawkins, a well-known atheist, and philosopher, was asked: What is your best evidence for macroevolution? Here is his answer:
“What we know for sure is that we are all connected, including bacteria, is the universality of the genetic code and other biochemical bases.”
What He Basically Said Is That We All Have DNA. That Is True, but It Does Not Prove Darwinism
DNA similarity is about 96% between monkeys and humans but also 90% between mice and humans! (Because of the complex ways in which cells use genetic information, minimal genetic changes can produce large functional differences.)
Evolutionists use the similarities in DNA as proof that we have a common ancestor. On the other hand, science tells us that we have a common genetic code. What is the best explanation for why we have a common genetic code?
DNA similarities prove a common Designer, not a common ancestor. Evolutionists say we have a common ancestor; Christians say we have a common Creator.
Similarities are not a problem for Darwinists. The problem is the differences. Huge differences between living organisms, such as bees, octopuses, Venus flytraps, molds, peacocks, porcupines, humans, etc.
How did we get so much diversity in life without supernatural intelligence? You need to have more faith in interpreting the evidence that there is no intelligence behind it all. According to Darwinists, you are associated with molds and plants, although they have no idea how we evolved from them. They never talk about plants’ evolution, but they believe that life is the result of natural processes. Naturalistic philosophy is shrouded in science.
Dawkins continues, “My philosophical commitment to materialism and reductionism is true, but I would rather consider it philosophical leading to a real explanation than have no explanation at all.”
In other words, Dawkins acknowledges that he is philosophically committed to naturalism, rejects all other possibilities, and has opted for a philosophical conclusion rather than one based on evidence.
Why don’t we just follow the evidence where it leads? And that is towards the common Creator and the book of Genesis.