click here to learn more about being redeemed from sin and set free to serve God in spirit and in truth. click here to learn more about holiness click here to learn more about being changed into the same image click here to learn more about sowing and reaping click here to learn more about the free gift of righteousness. click here to learn more about how faith gives us access to grace and grace does the works. click here to learn more about faith and how it comes. click here to learn more about acknowledging Jesus click here to learn more about how God speaks Who will you listen to?  Click here to learn more. click here to learn more about the pattern of God. click here to learn more about the pattern of God for individuals, marriage, and family. click here to learn more about the pattern of God for the local church click here to learn more about the Church universal
SeekFind Logo Menu

Evolution Berkeley: Evolution 101


This page is an analysis of a very deceptive and convincing online mini-class on evolution that is offered by Berkeley.

"Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification" No one would disagree with either descent or modification. One wonders why such and obvious point would be made, and, if this is all the evolutionism is, then why the controversy? Why is it rejected by so many?

There is a reason. The word, evolution, is used in this nebulous way on purpose, for use in equivocation later. This entire course is a lesson in hypnotic pacing and leading.

The page then mentions the non-controversial fact of "the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations." Species are within kinds/families of living things. This actually can be observed.

"The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor" For this there is no evidence. None. Of course, this is the first introduction of the logical fallacy of equivocation on the word, evolution. It gets worse. Small changes we can observe in living things and in fossils are evolution. Big changes from molecules to people are things we cannot observe either in fossils or in living things. There is not one example of one family of animal or plant turning into another. This is discussed in the literature as a mystery that will eventually be solved. Despite such romantic language and hopeful prophecy, this is not science.

"Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today." There is no evidence to support this statement.

"For example, evidence discovered in the last 50 years suggests that birds are dinosaurs" This is fantasy. Words like, "suggests," are often used. They tell the lie without actually being a bold-faced lie. These kinds of words indicate that we are beginning to enter into the never-never land of story telling. Most of the time, these softer phrases are the set up. They are the hypnotic pacing and leading to be followed by absolute statements, bold-faced lies.


The Berkeley course then goes into a lot of "tree structure" for their story of the supposed evolutionary tree of life. The supposed trees only have evidence below the family level. Yet the trees contain made-up data that goes well beyond what the evidence supports. No evidence is found for transitions between the families of living things, (Actually families are probably not exactly the same as the created kinds, but they are fairly close.)

"Several times in the past, biologists have committed themselves to the erroneous idea that life can be organized on a ladder of lower to higher organisms. This idea lies at the heart of Aristotle's Great Chain of Being (see right). Similarly, it's easy to misinterpret phylogenies as implying that some organisms are more "advanced" than others; however, phylogenies don't imply this at all." The word, phylogeny, is introduced, a word which, by definition, presupposes molecules-to-man. The entire concept is not science but a dogma of the atheist religion as illustrated by their comment about the chart on the right.

Note that the tree structure assumes transitional forms. There is only imagination and no evidence to support the tree structures, but the lack of evidence is never mentioned. There are no undisputed transitional forms. At any moment, there are several claimed transitional forms. When those have to finally be discarded because they have been debunked, new ones take their place. The fact is that evolution would require billions upon billions of transitional forms and not one exists.

There is a boat load of unnecessary jargon that is used for talking about evolution, so we have included the following chart if you are interested

Word Definition Presupposition
Phylogenetics a discipline of evolutionistic biology that classifies the supposed molecules-to-man evolutionary relationships among living and non-living catagories/taxa molecules-to-man
Homology similarity (It is automatically assumed that similarities are due to shared ancestry and molecules-to-man.) molecules-to-man
Synapomorphy a trait derived by common ancestry/molecules-to-man evolution molecules-to-man
 Analogy similarities due to convergent molecules-to-man evolution, that is, the traits were not inherited from a common ancestor molecules-to-man
Convergent evolution a rescuing device to save the story of molecules-to-man so that they can still call it a theory molecules-to-man
 Taxa general term for a taxonomic group, such as species, genera, or families  
Sister taxa the most-closely related in a phylogeny. molecules-to-man
Node an ancestory in the phylogenetic tree molecules-to-man
Clade a group in a phylogenetic tree which begins with a node (ancestor) and includes all descendents of the ancestor molecules-to-man
Monophyletic a proper clade molecules-to-man
Proper clad a group that contains a common ancestor and all descendents of that ancestor, but no non-descendents molecules-to-man
Paraphyletic group a group which contains a common ancestor and some, but not all, descendents of that ancestor molecules-to-man
Phylogenetic relationships relationships based on similarities of traits molecules-to-man

Bill Nye made a statement about the separation of fossils from each other in this geologic column. He said that one specific fossil was never found with this other one and if it were found, then he would give up the theory. When it is found, he would not. He would make up a story to explain it when it happens. These boundaries are becoming more fuzzy over time. Evolution scientists are finding an increasing number of fossils in the wrong place. History tells us that evolution scientists just ignore the evidence, make excuses, or finally modify the model to accommodate these fossils if the evidence is overwhelming. The theory cannot be falsified by any information, since stories are endless. Creation scientists have discovered is that when fossils are found in the wrong place, they are routinely ignored, put off to the side, not reported, or named a new name to avoid flagging the fact that they are in the wrong place.

Just a note here: any story about history cannot be falsified if two criteria are met: it can be changed and someone has the motivation to change it. Anything that falsifies the story of molecules-to-man is against Atheism, so there is ample motivation. It isn't that Atheists are so prevalent, but ungodly people are willing to do what it takes, where Christians generally are constrained. The teachings of Christ do not include coercion of message control. Theologies generally are difficult to falsify because they can be changed and adapted. Evolution's story is constantly changing and adapting as is Big Bang and Old Earth. None of these stories are science. The Bible cannot be changed and still have credibility. We have what we have. The theories of how the flood might have happened or what the introduction of sin did to change "natural" laws or not change "natural" laws, are pure speculation and can be changed. The word, natural, in the previous sentence, has been put in quotes for a purpose. When we say natural laws, we are simply referring to the way that God is working to maintain everything faithfully. Miracles are unexpected by us but fully within the nature of the God Who created and Who maintains nature. You will not that this revealed truth is the opposite of the arbitrary assumption of Naturalism that is so dogmatically held by the ungodly.

"Humans and chimpanzees are evolutionary cousins and share a recent common ancestor that was neither chimpanzee nor human." There is no evidence at all of this. It was once claimed that the DNA was nearly the same. The human-chimp DNA similarity tale is being uncovered as a story that is unraveling and untrue.

It should be noted that it is possible to line up fossils and living skeletons by similarity. It has been said that the similarities of design are caused by evolution, but a better explanation is that there was a common designer with an intent in His design. By the way, if you take any group of objects, you can line them up according to similarity. You can do this with nuts and bolts, screws, nails, lumber, houses, vehicles, or anything you like. It never proves that one evolved into the other.

"Bird and bat wings are analogous — that is, they have separate evolutionary origins, but are superficially similar because they have both experienced natural selection that shaped them to play a key role in flight." No one observed this. This a purely a made-up story.

Then there is a section on time. Time is important to evolution.

"However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps it involves, given enough time, it will almost certainly happen at least once. And for life as we know it, once may be enough. Time is the hero of the plot.... Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, and the probable becomes virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs miracles" 1954, George Wald, Scientific American concerning the origin of life on Earth.

Of course, Wald was speaking of an older definition of evolution, yet another definition, molecules-to-man, and the beginning of life in particular. But the same idea applies to the supposed changes leading to the development of families of living things. However, time doesn't actually help evolutionism (It is merely magician's patter.) because of the Laws of Universal Information and the Laws of Thermodynamics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, though developed using a theoretical close system, applies to all systems closed and open. Adding energy to a system from outside simply speeds the process along. Consider that car that is kept in the garage compared to the car that is kept in sunlight.

The Urey-Miller experiment showed that adding energy to a caustic environment could produce amino acids, but not the kind of amino acids that life is made of (Creating the correct amino acids has never been accomplished by anyone). It also proved that a special device would be needed to get any of the amino acids that were created away from the energy source since the energy source is much more efficient at destroying amino acids than creating them. Such a device is not found in nature. As a side note, it must be mentioned that an amino acid is so far from a self-replicating life form that there is no comparison.

"Life began 3.8 billion years ago, and insects diversified 290 million years ago, but the human and chimpanzee lineages diverged only five million years ago. How have scientists figured out the dates of long past evolutionary events? Here are some of the methods and evidence that scientists use to put dates on events:" It then lists Radiometric dating, Statigraphy, and Molecular Clocks, all of which depend on arbitrary assumptions. There are other problems with these methods such as cherry-picking data to make sure that they agree with the dates needed to feed the theory. These estimates are based on arbitrary assumptions, so all the millions of years are arbitrary. If you change the assumptions, the date changes. The entire idea is worthless.

"A timeline can provide additional information about life's history not visible on an evolutionary tree." So, the model is used as evidence when no evidence exists.

"Evolution is the process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient ancestors." Now, how many pages later, the equivocation triggered the bold-faced lie. Remember that evolution is merely "descent with modification." So, now the definition has changed? No. This was the intent of the first phony definition. It is a bait and switch tactic. It is equivocation.

"Evolution is responsible for both the remarkable similarities we see across all life and the amazing diversity of that life" This has no evidence to back it up. It is a story. It is an alternate story to what God says happened. God says that He created the Heavens and the Earth and everything in them in six days and the seventh day He rested, so we ought to rest on the seventh day as well.

Then, the site goes into how evolution supposedly works: Decent. Well, no one argues that there is decent. Genetic differences, with not explanation about that. The fact is that the genetic differences that have been observed are always loss of information, distortion of information, duplication of information, or rearrangement of information.

Then mutation, migration (gene flow), genetic drift, and natural selection are mentioned as the mechanisms of change. Mutation is loss of information, so that won't work. Gene flow is a factor in adaptation, but is not shown to be a mechanism to drive molecules-to-man-type evolution. Genetic drift is the loss of information, so that won't work. Natural selection simply eliminates those that won't survive. It is the elimination of those that don't make it, so that only preserves stasis. There is no evidence that any of these could produce macro-evolution, that is, evolution of one kind/family of living thing into another kind of living thing. So, molecules-to-man evolutionism is left without a method of happening or evidence that it did happen.

Genetic variation is mentioned, and no one disagrees that genetic variation happens--just that those variations don't amount to the creation of new, innovative Universal Information in any sense.

Coevolution is mentioned. It is actually a story to explain one of the problems with evolution. It proves nothing except that people can make up stories.

This is followed by a page that just does into elimination of those who don't survive. This page does nothing to prove that molecules to man evolution happened or that it even could have happened. The next page is more of the same. The next page doesn't prove anything either.

The next page is a page on mutations. It doesn't mention that mutations have never been observed to add universal information and that new, beneficial, universal information must be added for even the smallest supposed molecules-to-man step in supposed molecules-to-man evolution. It does mention that mutations can be beneficial, and they can. It can be beneficial for beetles on a small, windy island to lose the information to make wings, since flying would take them out to sea to die. DDT resistence, another loss of information by mutation, is mentioned. Two types of mutations, but neither one produces new universal information.

"It is not necessarily easy to 'see' macroevolutionary history." That is an understatement.

"Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened." Note that there is no questioning whether or not the story of evolution actually took place. That is a given. All observations must be force-fitted into the story, whether or not they make any sense.

"The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time." As pointed out previously, this is an untrue statement.

"Life on Earth has been accumulating mutations and passing them through the filter of natural selection for 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for evolutionary processes to produce its grand history." Ah. The magic ingredient of time.

"Many lineages on the tree of life exhibit stasis, which just means that they don't change much for a long time, as shown in the figure to the right." This is talking about supposed macro-evolution, but the reality is that every kind of animal exhibits stasis from a macroevolution standpoint.

"Trilobites, animals in the same clade as modern insects and crustaceans, lived over 300 million years ago." This age is determined using a combination of arbitrary assumptions and science. A thought chain is as strong as its weakest link, so this is just an assumed age.

Speciation and extinction are mentioned, neither of which is helpful to the story of molecules-to-man evolution.

"All available evidence supports the central conclusions of evolutionary theory, that life on Earth has evolved and that species share common ancestors." That statement is the logical fallacy known as Triumphalism or Declaring Victory.

This is the crux of the whole matter. The point was not proven. In fact, all the evidence is really against it.

None of the problems of the violations of the various scientific laws in mentioned. If they are ever mentioned, they are brushed away with lies or other tactic. Bill Nye gives a perfect example as he states that the Second Law of Thermodynamics only operates in a closed system. That is not true. The details of the theory were worked out with the assumption of a closed system, but if the Second Law of Thermodynamics didn't operate on the Earth because the Sun's energy comes to the Earth, then we would not see rotting or decay. Our digestive systems would not work. The Second Law kills molecules-to-man evolution. The First Law of Thermodynamics kills the Big Bang.

It is very typical of those selling the story of evolution (or big bang, or no flood) to avoid telling any of the problems. In sales, this is known as blue-skying.

Then there is some speculative writing on the pace of something (molecules-to-man) that has not been shown to have happened.


Last updated: Apr, 2014
How God Will Transform You - FREE Book  

Bread Crumbs

Home     >   Meaning     >   Christian Witness     >   Answers for Witness     >   Stories Versus Revelation     >   Creation, Flood, Etc.     >   Creation v. Evolution     >   Berkeley: Evolution 101








Toons & Vids



Is Creation science or religion? Is Evolution science or religion?

Evolution Berkeley: Evolution 101

Claim: Evolution Has Been Observed!!! Really????

Ask them for Proof that Molecules-To-Man Evolution Actually Happened

Arguments Against Evolution

Twelve Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid

The Most Amazing Thing That I Found Out About What The Schools Are Calling

The Problems with Evolution: What are the Problems with the Molecules-to-Man Evolution Fabrication

Unanswered Evolution Questions

Evolutionists Refuse To Follow The Evidence Where The Evidence Leads Because The Evidence Leads To God.

Ptolemy's Geocentric System of the Universe and Evolution

Can You Show Evidence For Creation By Almighty God From Nothing

Is the Creator Obvious? Stare at this picture for 60 seconds. A giraffe will appear.

Natural Selection And Mutation

Evolution is Flim-flam

Evolution Obviously Violates The Revealed Word Of God

What Is Wrong With Theistic Evolution?

Unproven And Unbelievable Evolution

Does the Founder Principle Support Evolution?

Birds to Dinosaurs?

Claim: Evolutionists Claim That Similar Features In Fossilized Skeletons Prove Evolution. Question: Is There Any Truth To This Claim?

If you explain that everything exists because God created it, you still have not explained anything.

The Cult, Evolutionism

Answers: Natural Selection and Mutation

Evolutionist Tactics Raise Serious Questions

How could there be a science that is based on nothing but a whim?

Why should evolutionism be called a fairytale rather than a theory?

Question & Answer: Butterfly Evolves Mouth for Bananas?

Links And Technical Information



Answer to Critic

Appeal to Possibility

Circular Reasoning

Argument to the Future

Insignificant Cause

Word Magic

Love Between a Man and Woman


Colossians 2

Righteousness & Holiness

Don't Compromise


Proof by Atheism

Scriptures About Marriage

Genuine Authority

The Reason for Rejecting Truth

Witness on the Internet

Flaky Human Reasoning

How Do You Know?


The Real Purpose of the Church

The Real Purpose of Life

From Glory to Glory

REAL Faith--What it IS & IS NOT

REAL Love--What it IS & IS NOT

How to be Led by God

How to Witness

Wisdom: Righteousness & Reality

Holiness & Mind/Soul

Redemption: Free From Sin

Real Reality

Stories Versus Revelation

Understanding Logic

Logical Fallacies

Circular Reasoning-Who is Guilty?

How Can We Know Anything?

God's Word

God's Process

God's Pattern

Mind Designed to Relate to God

Answers for the Confused

Fossil Record Says: "Creation"

Avoid These Pitfalls

Public School's Religion

Twisting Science


Public School Failures

Twisting History

How can we know anything about anything? That's the real question

more info: mouseover or click

The complexity of Gods Way understood in a single diagram
Obey your flesh and descend into darkness