Hey everybody, Pastor Steven Anderson here
from Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona.
Today I'm gonna be talking about this book,
The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Wiener.
And I read the book twice, cover to cover.
I underlined a whole bunch of stuff.
And I am just gonna go through this,
everything that I've underlined,
and just show you how absurd and ridiculous this book is.
The winner of the Pulitzer Prize,
winner of the Los Angeles Times book prize,
Evolution in the Flesh, a landmark of evolutionary studies.
But this book is truly ridiculous.
This presentation I'm warning you
is not gonna be very organized
because I'm just gonna start at the beginning
and just read through what I've underlined
and talk about it.
But hang in there and I will show you
just how crazy this book really is.
So let me start out on page six of the book.
It says, the origin of the species
says very little about the origin of species.
Darwin's full title is on the origin of species
by means of natural selection
or the preservation of favored races
and the struggle for life.
Yet the book does not document the origin
of a single species or a single case of natural selection
or the preservation of one favored race
and the struggle for life.
A little bit later it says, Darwin never saw it happen.
Later it quotes Darwin on the same page.
We see nothing of these slow changes in progress
until the hand of time has marked the lapse of ages.
So here's what this book is doing.
Basically they're explaining that Darwin theorized
evolution taking place over millions of years
or even billions of years
and not as something that we could observe happening
because the process is so slow.
This book is claiming that it's happening so fast,
it's happening all around us,
we can just observe it taking place in real time.
The first part of the book is called evolution in the flesh
and it claims that actually we can see this.
Listen to this quote from page nine.
Taken together these new studies suggest
that Darwin did not know the strength of his own theory.
He vastly underestimated the power of natural selection.
Its action is neither rare nor slow.
It leads to evolution daily and hourly all around us
and we can watch.
What's so dumb about this
is that the reason that they think it's happening so fast
and that it's just happening daily and hourly
and that we can watch it happen
is because what they're talking about is not evolution.
So basically they're describing animals
adapting to their environment
and natural selection working on animals
and they're saying,
see that's evolution right happening right before our eyes
but no, it isn't.
Now, if we're gonna talk about natural selection,
let's talk about artificial selection.
Artificial selection
is when someone who's say breeding dogs or breeding horses
would choose to say,
breed the biggest dogs with each other
so that they can make the breed get bigger and bigger
or to breed the smallest dogs with one another
to make the dogs smaller and smaller.
Maybe they could take a really aggressive dog
and breed it with another aggressive dog
and make the breed more aggressive.
On and on I could give examples of what you would do
with artificial selection.
Whether you're cultivating plants or animals,
that's what you do, okay?
And of course that works.
Well, here all natural selection is,
it's just that same process taking place in the wild.
You know, and so natural selection
is just as real as artificial selection.
Obviously, yeah, natural selection is taking place every day
out in the wild, survival of the fittest is happening
and obviously these different selection pressures,
whether it be a drought or a flood,
any kind of a change in climate or landscape
is gonna drive changes in the animals and plants
due to natural selection.
Of course that's happening every day.
Of course that's real, okay?
Or for example, let's say you're talking about germs.
You know, you're talking about
some kind of a bacterial infection.
They always tell you to take all the antibiotics
because if you don't take all the antibiotics,
what could happen is you take enough antibiotics
to kill most of the bacteria
and then that little bit of bacteria that survives
is the strongest bacteria and then they multiply
and you basically are creating a stronger strain
of the bacteria in your body.
So we see viruses mutating, we see bacteria getting stronger
and more resistant to antibiotics.
But the foolish thing about this book
is that they're claiming that that's evolution.
And they even say in this book,
like how can anyone be a creationist anymore?
I mean, we see it happening everywhere.
The colossal difference between that and evolution
is that at the end of the day,
these animals adapt and natural selection works on them
but at the end of the day,
they're always still the same kind of animal.
They might be a different species
but that's because science will take the same kind of animal
and divide it up into literally like a hundred species
even though it's the same kind of animal.
They'll take animals that can mate with each other
and produce fertile young
and say that they're two different species.
They'll take two animals that are virtually identical,
one's brown and one's yellow
and they'll say these are two different species
because they live in different places
and they don't mate with each other.
They could if they wanted to but they don't
because they're so far apart.
So obviously, yeah, an animal can go from species to species
but that's only because they're dividing up kinds of animals
into so many species.
What has never been observed, what never will be observed,
what could never happen
is for an animal to go from one kind of an animal
to another.
You're not gonna go from a cat to a dog or a dog to a cat.
Yeah, you can have one kind of finch
become another kind of finch but it's still a bird,
it's still even the same type of bird, okay?
So there's a huge difference between animals adapting
and still being the same kind of animal
and what evolution is claiming.
Now, what is evolution claiming?
Evolution is claiming that every single plant
and animal on this planet came from one original life form.
There's one original living thing
that produced all the life that we see today,
that everything is related in that sense.
That's what evolution is claiming.
And evolution claims that the way this has taken place
over all the millions of years,
they're claiming that it's through random mutations, okay?
Just basically random changes in the DNA.
And here's what's going on with that.
Our bodies replicate DNA very accurately
and they have all of these safety mechanisms
and fail safes and enzymes that will correct errors.
But even with all that,
let's say approximately one in a billion times,
there's gonna be a coding error.
Now, that might not sound like a lot
but it actually is a lot because of the fact
that the human genome, for example,
has 2.9 billion base pairs, okay?
So you have these little errors taking place
or you could also have DNA get damaged.
And so random errors and damage,
evolution is claiming that random errors and damage
has led to mutations that were beneficial mutations
and then natural selection makes that beneficial mutation
continue on, okay?
Now, here's the thing.
What we're observing with dog breeders,
that's not a random mutation.
And here's the proof that it's not a random mutation
because of the fact that the results are predictable
and there's an upper limit.
Think about the big dog breeds, right?
Great Danes are the big ones.
Well, first of all, number one,
you can't go bigger than that, okay?
You can't make dogs the size of a horse.
You can't make dogs the size of a house.
You have an upper limit there, okay?
Now, not only that,
but Great Danes are not the healthiest dogs.
They have problems because they are on the large end
of what a dog can be.
They're pushing that limit and you can't go beyond that.
Okay, and then other dogs have been bred to be very tiny
like Chihuahuas,
but look at the problems that Chihuahuas have.
I mean, their eyes are bulging out of their head.
They're always like shaking and trembling.
They have all kinds of issues
because they're kind of pushing the boundary
of how small a dog can get.
Now, here's the thing.
If these type of changes were just random,
if it were just random mutations
allowing you to just keep going bigger,
you know, if the circumstances benefit bigger,
let's go bigger, then you would be able,
if it were random, then you would be able
to eventually make dogs the size of houses
and the size of cars, et cetera.
You just keep going bigger
because if nature favors a big dog,
it's just gonna keep getting bigger.
Well, artificial selection can do that
because the breeder can choose to go bigger, bigger, bigger
and feed them and take care of them and whatever,
but you still can't make it get huge
because there's an upper and a lower limit.
Okay, so here's the thing.
There's variety among dogs,
but you're never gonna breed dogs
until they turn into cats.
You're never gonna breed dogs the size of cars.
You're never gonna breed dogs
that become like cows or deer or other kinds of animals,
okay, because a dog is always going to be a dog.
It's a lot of variety amongst dogs,
but at the end of the day, a dog is a dog.
Okay, so anyway, that's the basic idea here,
but I wanna read for you a bunch of the quotes
from this book
because there's just a lot of dumb things in the book
and so forth.
Now, before I do though,
since we're back here on page eight,
here they quote a book by a creationist.
Okay, so they're quoting this guy, Duane Gish.
I'm not familiar with him,
but they quoted this guy.
He says this,
neither evolution nor creation can be tested
as a scientific theory.
So believers in evolution or creation
must accept either view by faith.
Now, I agree with that 100%.
You know, you can't prove beyond any shadow of a doubt
that biblical creation is real.
You have to believe that by faith.
You have to believe the Bible.
Okay, and neither can you believe beyond,
or excuse me,
neither can you prove beyond any shadow of a doubt
that, you know,
evolution has caused all animals and plants that we see
to come from one single ancestor.
You know, you can't prove that either.
So there's some faith required.
And then it goes on to say this,
by creation we mean the bringing into being
by a supernatural creator
of the basic kinds of plants and animals
by the process of sudden or fiat creation.
We do not know how the creator created
what processes he used,
for he used processes which are not now operating
anywhere in the natural universe.
Okay, and so again, I agree with that.
That's true.
You know, God brought into being the basic kinds
of plants and animals.
Obviously, they're constantly adapting
and changing and altering.
Yeah, random mutations are out there.
But that's a far cry from claiming
that there are enough beneficial mutations
to go from one creature to every single plant and animal
that we see today that's absurd and ridiculous, okay?
Think about it.
I mean, imagine a computer program, right?
Because DNA is like a programming language.
Instead of zeros and ones, it has four different options.
Instead of being binary, there are four different letters
that could be chosen in the code.
You know, imagine a computer program
where you just go into a computer program
that someone wrote and you just start making random changes.
I mean, do you really think that the computer program
is gonna run better because you made some random changes?
Now, if you're lucky, if you went into a really long,
complicated computer program
and made a couple of random changes,
if you're lucky, everything will just kind of stay the same
and you won't notice
because you didn't screw up anything major, right?
That's what's happening with us all the time.
You know, we all probably have some screw ups in our DNA,
but hopefully it was nothing too major and we'll be okay.
But you're certainly not gonna go in
and make random changes to a computer program.
And now the computer program's running better.
Now the computer program's getting more complicated.
It's getting more complex.
It's able to do more functions
because I just randomly change letters
and numbers here and there.
It's absurd.
All right, let's keep going here.
It says at the bottom of page eight,
they're studying the evolutionary process,
not through fossils, but directly in real time,
in the wild, evolution in the flesh.
And again, because they're looking at something
that's not evolution and claiming that it's evolution.
You know, if that's evolution,
then cultivating plants and animals is evolution.
Then dog breeders are instruments of evolution.
That's ridiculous.
Verse 16, they're watching evolution in the flesh
and evolution in the blood.
The study of evolution and action
throws light on our origin and on our history.
All right, chapter two, page 17.
There are 13 species of finches
in the Galapagos.
Some of them look so much alike during the mating season
that they find it hard to tell themselves apart.
Okay, so there's 13 species of finches.
Remember, the finches are the big thing.
That was the revelation for Darwin, right?
But this book says that the 13 species of finches
are so much alike, they can't even tell themselves apart.
Okay, what a nothing burger.
Okay, so we're supposed to be so impressed
about evolution in the flesh
because some birds changed into another bird
that looks so similar
that they came and tell each other apart
and they accidentally mate with the wrong species
from time to time.
Because species is just an arbitrary classification.
Okay, let's go to page number 23.
Every living thing is related,
whether distantly or nearly,
and every animal and plant
shares the same ancestors at the root.
So they're claiming that everything
from an eggplant to a lion is all related,
and they all came from the same original creature.
Page 24.
Okay, this is talking about a guy
who doesn't believe in evolution,
or didn't at the time, Linnaeus.
To him and to other pious naturalists of his generation,
the myriad relationships and family resemblances
that Linnaeus used to bring order to nature
did not represent anything like a genealogy of descent.
Rather, they represented the plan of God,
who created the species in a single week
as described in the first pages of the Hebrew Bible.
And God created great whales
and every winged fowl after his kind,
and God saw that it was good.
Now, notice that the stupid straw man
where they claim that God created the species
in a single week.
And remember what they mean by species, my friend.
They look at 13 finches that are very much alike
and claim that it's 13 different species.
So they're creating the straw man
that says that creationists believe
that God created every species.
I don't believe that for one second.
I believe that God just created dogs,
and then later they diversified the species.
And by the way, on Noah's Ark,
guess how many dogs there were?
Two.
I believe that every single dog breed today,
whether it's a wolf, a coyote,
all the different domestic dog breeds,
Boston terriers, pit bulls, whatever,
they all came from two dogs on Noah's Ark, two, okay?
So to sit there and claim that we believe
that God created every species
exactly the way it is right now in the creation week
is a straw man because creationists don't believe that
because that would be ridiculous.
Obviously, we know animals are changing over time.
Obviously, we know that we can breed dogs
and create new dog breeds that have never existed before
by mixing different combinations.
So this is a straw man,
and that's why the book's even called
The Origin of the Species because, yeah, okay,
species originated by selective breeding
or natural selection, so what?
It's still the same kind of animal.
And this is where the fraud of evolution
really comes down to this.
It comes down to species versus kind.
They obsess over a species,
which is a made-up arbitrary distinction,
and we would talk about the kinds of animals,
everything bringing forth after its own kind.
So that's a straw man.
And then it talks about on page 26
how Lyell, a scientist of the 19th century, said,
"'There are fixed limits beyond which the descendants
"'from common parents can never deviate
"'from a certain type.'"
And I say amen to that.
There are fixed limits, right?
A dog can only get so big,
it can only get so small, and so forth.
There's certain limits.
It's always gonna have four legs.
It's always gonna have two eyes.
It's not gonna evolve into a centipede or something, right?
All right, so I have this marked as another straw man.
On page 31, there were some who thought
that God created each kind of domestic animal
and plant separately.
They argued for every variety being an Aboriginal creation,
but Darwin knew from reading
the Breeders' Treatises that the power lay
with the breeders themselves,
as if anyone actually believes
that every single variety of domesticated animals
were created that way.
Obviously, we know that they have been cultivated.
Man has been cultivating and selectively breeding plants
and animals since the beginning of creation
for thousands of years.
That's not a new thing.
That's not part of modern science.
That's something that civilizations have done
since the very beginning.
And so that's a big straw man right there.
All right, page number 33.
These birds were so very different from one to the next,
as Darwin explained to Lyle,
that if they had been found in the wild,
they would have been classified by biologists
as belonging to separate species or separate genera even,
distinct groups of species.
Yet all these breeds have been created by nothing
more mysterious than selection.
So basically, Darwin breeding a bunch of pigeons,
and then him and his scientist buddy Lyle said,
man, if biologists would have found these in the wild,
they would have classified into them
a whole bunch of different species
or even a whole bunch of different genera,
the plural for genus,
but they were just from the same old pigeons.
It happened fast.
It's just a few generations.
It's because it's not evolution.
That's why it can so predictably happen so fast,
because it is not evolution.
It's just, I mean, that's like saying, you know,
if a family where everybody has brown hair,
has a redheaded kid,
that evolution just happened or something.
That's not evolution.
All that's telling you is that there's some redheaded
ancestor back there somewhere.
And, you know, that gene just got expressed.
Same thing with all these other animals.
Pigeons, not that humans are animals,
because of course humans aren't,
but they think that humans are animals.
We know that man is made in the image of God
and is superior to the animals.
All right, page 40.
Wherever naturalists find such a blur,
they should suspect that there's a place
where evolution is in fast action,
where species are in the act of being born.
Of course, Darwin thought even this fast action
would be too slow to watch.
Page 41, taxonomists can be classified
into splitters and lumpers.
Faced with the diversity of Darwin's finches,
some splitters recognize dozens and dozens
of species and subspecies.
Some lumpers went so far as to call them all
a single species.
So all of Darwin's finches, some biologists would just say,
this is one species, it's a finch.
Again, very arbitrary.
Page 43, in no other birds are the differences
between species so ill-defined.
Can't even tell the difference between these things.
And so that's Darwin's finches for you.
All right, chapter four on page 49.
A watch would require more explanation than a stone.
A watch, says Paley, implies a watchmaker.
Someone had to invent it, someone had to put it together.
And if that is true of a watch, Paley asks,
how much more so of the living things we find on the heath?
Even the simplest working parts of the smallest plants
and animals go so far beyond our mortal powers of artifice
that they imply an artificer of artificers,
a creator of creators, a God.
Okay.
Amen.
I mean, a watch implies a watchmaker
and every single plant and animal is way,
way more complicated than a watch.
But if you were walking along and you saw a watch
on the ground, it would be absurd to think
that that came about naturally, okay.
And that's the absurdity of evolution.
Also, if you dropped a watch from a high building
and let it hit the ground so that it would just
sustain a little bit of damage,
do you think that the watch would improve its function?
Or let's say you dropped it a million times.
What percentage of the time would the function
of the watch be improved?
I would say zero, it would never work better.
It probably worked the same, maybe it worked differently,
maybe it would work worse.
But to actually say that dropping it enough times,
eventually you'll get an improved watch is absurd.
All right, let's keep going here.
Find the next thing I underlined.
All right, page 79.
Natural selection by itself is not evolution.
It is only a mechanism that, according to Darwin,
can lead to evolution.
So notice what they're saying.
Natural selection by itself isn't evolution.
Amen, natural selection is real.
Natural selection is true, evolution isn't.
And this book proving natural selection
proves nothing about evolution.
And that's why what they just said there
is contradicting the whole book
because the whole book is claiming
that by proving natural selection among the finches
on the Galapagos that they have somehow proved evolution,
which they haven't
because those are two very different things.
Okay, we're on page number 81.
They saw evolution in action.
Not only is Darwin's process in action
among Darwin's finches, but only can natural selection,
but, excuse me.
Not only is Darwin's process in action
among Darwin's finches, not only can natural selection
lead to evolution among their flocks,
but it leads there much more swiftly
than Darwin's supposed possible.
All right, let's keep going here.
You've heard that before.
All right, page 96.
Natural selection can be swift and sure.
And then a little bit later it says this.
These hard science types often remind him
of how soft the science of evolution
is perceived to be by the outside world,
even by biologists.
I was talking with someone in vision physiology
the other day, and he told me,
wow, I had no idea that the subject was so rigorous.
I had no idea that you actually did experiments.
And then this guy Endler says,
we have a serious public relations problem.
People don't realize that this is real science.
Yet people don't think it's real science
because it isn't real science.
And it is a soft science.
Other sciences are much more rigorous.
They demand much higher levels of proof,
and they're a lot more mathematics-based.
They're a lot more quantitative
than just this made-up fairy tale
of every single animal coming from a single ancestor.
The proof for that is lacking, okay?
Look, an evolutionist can't even tell you what life is.
They can't even tell you the definition of life
or what even makes something be alive.
They can't tell you where the first life form came from.
And so it is a soft science indeed.
All right, let's keep going.
And by the way, that's why if you wanna get a degree
in biology, it requires the least math
of any science degree.
Other science degrees, you're taking calculus three,
modern differential equations, linear algebra,
mathematical methods for physics,
and all this super difficult math.
Biology requires the least math pretty much of the sciences.
All right, 111.
The closer you look at life, the more rapid and intense
the rate of evolutionary change.
The farther back in time you stand, the less you see.
And here's what they're saying.
They're saying, well, when you look at it
over the short term, man, changes are happening fast.
But when you look at it from far away, it's really slow.
That's because when you're looking at it
in a short period of time, yeah,
there's all kinds of genetic variation.
We might have kids that look a lot different than us.
But if you go 500 years in the future,
500 years in the past,
we're all still gonna kinda look similar.
We're all gonna look like people.
We're all gonna look like whatever our nationality is.
In a single year, you can find rates of change
as high as 60,000 Darwins.
That's just some weird unit of measure
that they came up with that's totally meaningless.
But in the fossil record,
the average is only a 10th of a Darwin.
The reason for the discrepancy is not far to seek.
If at any time in those millions of years,
a species changed swiftly,
but the rest of the time it changed slowly,
the start and stop motion would average
into a very sluggish movement.
So this is what they're basically claiming.
They're claiming, well, you know,
evolution just goes really, really slow
for a really long time.
And then just like, boom, there's a quick change.
Then here's what they're basically explaining.
They're explaining why the missing links aren't there.
You know, they're explaining why you have just a ton
of animals that are the same,
and then this big jump to another kind of animal,
and nothing in between.
No, it's because evolution didn't happen
from one kind to another.
It only happens from one species to another.
And one species to another is a nothing burger
because species are arbitrary designations
of the same kind of animal.
Okay, chapter nine, page 126.
Evolution happens the whole time.
Evolution is always happening,
completely contrary to Darwin's view
that very, very slowly, very intermittently life evolves.
So this book is basically even disagreeing with Darwin.
Even Darwin would disagree with this book.
Even evolutionists can't even agree on this,
even though these are so dramatically different ideas.
Does it take millions of years
or does it happen super fast that we can watch it?
Which one is it?
Geneticists will tell you
that evolution is always happening.
What they mean is that the genes of this generation
are not precisely what they were the preceding generation.
Yeah, so my kids are not gonna be clones of me and my wife.
Wow, I'm shocked.
Nor will they be precisely the same in the next,
and evolution is that change.
That's not evolution, okay?
My kids looking a little different than me
doesn't mean that every animal and plant
on this planet came from a single ancestor, okay?
That's a huge logical leap.
And it's almost a certainty, a mathematical certainty
that the genes will never be the same.
Again, totally meaningless.
All right, page number 128, what makes a new species?
How exactly does variation lead to creation?
It is one thing to demonstrate,
as the grants have done,
that natural selection leads to evolution.
It is another and much more complicated thing
to demonstrate precisely how this evolution
leads to a new species.
And despite the title of his greatest book,
Darwin himself never spells out the details.
Darwin calls the origin one long argument.
And this is the step in the argument
that many of his readers find the hardest to follow.
The step that feels like a leap of faith
from slight individual differences in one nest
or one seed bed or one family album
to the striking differences between species.
But they should say the striking differences between kinds.
A little later on page 129,
they cannot believe that the process
can create something new.
That's because the process cannot create something new.
It has never been observed to create something new.
It's just bringing out genes that were already there.
Dogs have all these genes that are already there,
all these different options,
all these different directions they can go
when you breed them.
But there are limits because it's not new things
that are being created.
There's nothing new under the sun.
Page 165, I look at the term species,
this is quoting Darwin.
I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given
for the sake of convenience
to a set of individuals closely resembling each other.
And yeah, that's the way I look at it too, Darwin.
And then it says on page 165,
most of the finches on the island seldom interbreed.
Well, guess what?
That means that they do interbreed.
If they seldom do it, most of them seldom do.
That means a few of them do often.
Most seldom, some often
because they're all the same kind of animal.
166, the word species comes from the Latin verb
specere, to see.
Linnaeus used the word to mean groups of animals and plants
that look distinctly different to the eye.
Okay, so if we applied that to human beings
because these people claim that animals
or the people are animals,
then okay, do black people look different
than Japanese people?
I guess according to them,
it'd be two different species, right?
It's ridiculous, it's absurd.
And by the way, if a black person
and a white person get married
and they have a child, let's say Obama, right?
And then if Obama marries a black girl and then has kids,
those kids are gonna look black
and if they marry black people after a few generations,
you would completely forget
that they ever had a white great grandma
because Obama's mom is white as snow.
But if they keep marrying black people,
you'd forget that they had that white ancestor.
Or if Obama would have married a white person
and then their kids would have married a white person,
couple generations, you'd forget that a black person
was ever in that lineage.
Why?
Because humans are not a bunch of different species.
We're all just humans, right?
We're all men made in the image of God
and it's these other animals,
it's the exact same thing.
Just because they look different
doesn't mean that they're a different kind of animal.
When the grant saw, page 176,
was the population cinching at the waist
like an amoeba in the act of dividing
and the division was just a millimeter in the birds beaks.
Wow, what a big deal.
The beak got a millimeter shorter.
Okay, 177.
The intervals between the horizontal lines in the diagram
may represent each 1,000 generations, Darwin writes,
but it would have been better
if each had represented 10,000 generations.
So Darwin's just claiming,
evolution's just gonna take tens of thousands
of generations, millions of years, billions of years.
And this book is saying, he's wrong, man,
it's happening fast, it's just rapid.
Okay, 178.
What has already emerged from these studies
is how fast divergence can happen,
how much we can actually see in real time.
We're not talking about the lapse of ages here.
Page 180.
No one has ever put this problem more forcefully
than Darwin himself in The Origin.
This is quoting Darwin.
To suppose that the eve,
with all its inimitable contrivances,
oh, I'm sorry, I underlined it
so I crossed out part of the word, so I misread it.
Let me start over.
To suppose that the eye,
with all its inimitable contrivances
for adjusting the focus to different distances,
for admitting different amounts of light
and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration
could have been formed by natural selection
seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
So Darwin is saying,
thinking that the eye actually evolved
through natural selection is absurd in the highest,
he said, I confess it seems to be absurd
in the highest degree.
You know, I agree with you, Darwin,
that is absurd in the highest degree.
Okay, page 181.
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ,
like the eye, existed,
which could not possibly have been formed
by numerous successive slight modifications,
my theory would absolutely break down.
Now, here's what's just the craziest thing
in this whole book, Beak of the Finch.
They claim that the example of the organ
that Darwin was looking for is the cross-billed beak.
This is the beak where the top and the bottom
don't line up properly.
So it's like a jagged edge thing, right?
And so they create this straw man,
like, well, Darwin said, if any complicated organ existed
that couldn't come about through natural selection,
his theory would fall apart.
Well, that'd be like the cross-billed beak.
But look, we figured out that the cross-billed beak
did arise slowly in stages.
You know what?
It just kept getting that overbite or whatever.
Folks, does anyone actually think
that a cross-billed beak is super complicated?
It's like, oh wow, the beak,
instead of going like this, it goes like this.
Oh wow.
You know, I've seen all kinds of people with crooked teeth.
In fact, every time I look in the mirror.
But that's just absurd to claim
that that's what Darwin was talking about.
When Darwin said something that's just so complicated
that it couldn't come from natural selection,
he used the eye as an example,
but it turns out everything's way more complicated
than Darwin thought because he didn't know about DNA.
He did not know about what was going on
at the cellular level because this is 1859
when his book, Origin of the Species, came out.
See, Darwin was actually contemporary with Gregor Mendel,
the father of modern genetics.
And Gregor Mendel's work was not even famous at the time.
After Mendel's death in the early 20th century,
his work was rediscovered with the discovery of DNA
and everything, it got popular and posthumously,
Gregor Mendel's work became super important in science,
but not in his lifetime.
So Darwin would not have been familiar with it
and Mendel knew nothing about DNA.
He was just barely beginning
to scratch the surface of genetics, okay?
Darwin knew nothing about DNA
or anything super complicated on the cellular level
because it hadn't been discovered yet.
So Darwin looks at a single-celled organism
and to him, it's not complicated.
Now we know that a single-celled organism
is extremely complicated
and that any single-celled organism is one of those things.
I mean, look, he says right here,
if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed,
which could not possibly have been formed
by numerous successive slight modifications,
my theory would absolutely break down.
That's every single-celled organism.
Every single cell is too complicated to have evolved
by means of random changes in natural selection.
Every cell in your body, every cell in every plant,
every single-celled organism,
every cell in every animal, plant or human, okay?
He didn't know that,
but this book just creates this straw man
of the cross-billed beak.
It would be the kind of problem
before which Darwin felt his theory
would absolutely break down.
No, it wouldn't.
It's not complicated at all.
It's the dumbest straw man I've ever heard.
Page 188, Connell's idea about competition past
is related to the more general idea
that evolution took place a long time ago,
that it is history.
Whereas in fact, natural selection is out there,
Dolph says with that same mellow laughter in his voice.
One can actually see it happen
within the time of a PhD thesis.
People never tried to look.
They thought you'd have to watch a population 1,000 years,
but that's what's changing now.
I mean, does this guy even understand
what evolution even teaches?
Unbelievable.
Okay, page 195.
The clear sexual isolation
and the maintenance of their separate identities in nature
warrants calling each of them a separate species.
Tyrone has some bright yellow markings,
whereas Neo-Humoralis is plain dull brown.
Okay, so what if we find a human that's brown
and a human that's yellow?
Is that two different species?
So is a Japanese person and a black person,
are they two different species?
I mean, and when you talk about sexual isolation,
Japan was isolated from the rest of the world for centuries.
There are very few people coming and going.
They were closed off to the outside world for a long time.
And even now, they are one of the more
xenophobic closed off countries.
And so for a very long time, they did their own thing.
And look, Japanese people look distinctly different
from say, white people or black people or whatever,
but they're not different species.
We're all human.
The Bible says we're all of one blood.
But I guess according to these evolutionists,
all the different races
are just different stages of evolution.
It's just different, we're all different species.
According to this logic, that's why it's a dangerous logic.
This would teach that red, yellow, black and white
are different species.
And that would mean that some are more evolved than others.
That's a racist doctrine.
That's a garbage doctrine.
So how about that?
But yet all the people who wanna accuse everyone
of being a racist
and constantly accused Christians of being racist,
they're the real racist if they believe in this stuff.
And then they admit on page 195,
that every once in a while,
a pair of them gets together anyway.
Well, every once in a while,
a Japanese person marries somebody who's not Japanese.
All right, page 198.
The total number of bird species in the world
is almost 10,000.
Almost a thousand of them, the grants write,
are known to have bred in nature with another species
and produced hybrid offspring,
roughly one out of every 10 species.
Why?
Because they're all the same kind of animal, that's why.
Okay, it says of the 161 species of ducks
and geese in the world,
67 species have been known to hybridize.
In other words, the grants note,
almost one out of every two species of ducks and geese
has been seen to interbreed in the wild.
The actual incidence is likely to be much higher.
Yeah, that's because there's one kind of animal, duck.
There's another kind of animal, goose, okay?
Page 199, not so long ago, hybridization among birds
was thought to be very rare.
Okay, so what?
People were wrong.
Give it up, let it go.
It's not true.
Page 240, there is no difference
between the largest Fortist and the smallest Magna Rustris.
Again, those are finches on the Galapagos
and they're pretty much the same exact bird.
The speed with which these finches have adapted is amazing
and it shows how fast the primo progenitors
of Darwin's finches may have adapted
when they first came to the Galapagos.
Page 251, some of the greatest opposition to evolution
comes from the farmers of the cotton belt
and that is where Taylor is seeing
one of the most dramatic cases of evolution
in action on this planet.
So they're mocking farmers in the American heartland
for not believing in evolution,
for believing in the word of God
because they're watching crops
become resistant to pesticides.
And again, this goes back to my illustration earlier
about bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics,
survival of the fittest.
All that is, again, is just cultivation,
whether it's natural selection, artificial selection,
the strong survive.
So what?
At the end of the day, that pest is still the same.
Those bugs that the farmers are dealing with
that have become resistant to pesticides,
they're still a bug.
They're still an insect
and I'm not gonna rehash that again.
And then it says in page 255,
and that cotton growers are having to deal with these pests
in the very states whose legislatures
are so hostile to the theory of evolution
because it is evolution itself
they're struggling against in their fields each season.
These people are trying to ban the teaching of evolution
while their own cotton crops
are failing because of evolution.
How can you be a creationist farmer anymore?
Heliothis can evolve resistance to pyrethroids
in the course of a single growing season.
Well, if it's so predictable
that it just happens in a single growing season
like clockwork, that's because it's not random.
That's because it's not evolution.
It's just selection.
It's just survival of the fittest,
but that's not evolution
because evolution is teaching that random changes
lead to beneficial mutations
that are then selected naturally.
Page 257, even people who think they understand Darwin
tend not to think about this
because they are schooled in Darwin's gradualism,
because again, they think it just happens super fast.
I mean, at least Darwin was smart enough to realize,
yeah, nobody can see this happening.
It must take millions of years
because I don't see it happening anywhere.
It must be millions of years.
These people are so foolish,
they actually think that it's happening super fast.
I mean, even Darwin would have to face palm
at their stupidity.
Okay, page 267, the idea that organisms evolve
was transformed during the last century
from conjecture to fact.
As the present century draws to a close,
we're experiencing another transformation.
The conjecture that the world's temperature
is gradually rising
has become widely accepted as a demonstrated fact.
So they're saying, you know,
yeah, it's sort of like global warming.
You know, the science is settled.
Shut up and believe it because I said so.
Okay, page 271.
On the other hand, it might not take Darwin's process
very long to separate the birds again.
To turn a group of Phologenosa into a Fortis
or a Fortis into a Magna Rostris,
Trevor Price has calculated
it would take about 20 selection events
as intense as the drought of 1977
to turn a Fortis into a Magna Rostris.
It's so incredibly predictable because it's not random,
because it's not evolution,
because it's just different genes being expressed,
just like when you breed dogs.
273, before the industrial revolution,
the black form of the moth
was under strong negative selection pressure
and the mutation stared rare,
except in forests with mostly black bark trees.
And this is that famous example where the moths,
when the trees turned black,
the black moths became more prevalent.
When the trees were white, the white moths were prevalent.
But again, even when the white moths were most prevalent,
there were still some black ones.
And even when the black was the most prevalent,
there were still some white ones.
So nothing new was created.
It's not a random mutation.
The black and white varieties always existed.
One of them just got more popular.
And so that's a self-defeating argument right there.
Page 274, at present rates, Carbonaria, the black one,
will be as rare as it was before the industrial revolution
by about the year 2010.
So it goes back and forth.
Sometimes the white is more prevalent,
sometimes the black, so what?
They've always been white and black.
Some genetic engineers go so far as to call their work
the generation of diversity, God.
So these scientists who are studying this stuff
are so blasphemous that they call their work
by the acronym, God, G-O-D, generation of diversity.
And by the way, let me say this.
This book quotes the Bible literally like 50 to 60 times.
Every chapter starts practically
with a quote from the Bible.
Because they're just, and they're just,
they just have it in for God.
They're anti-Bible, they hate the Lord.
That's why they dream this up.
Because the Bible says,
the fool has said in his heart there is no God.
Page 281, but anatomically, chimpanzees, orangutans,
gorillas, and humans are as closely related
as Darwin's finches.
Folks, you can't make how stupid this is up.
Did you hear what that just said?
Anatomically, chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas, and humans
are as closely related as Darwin's finches.
Do you remember a few pages ago
when they said it would take about 20 selection events
to turn one breed of Darwin's finches
into the other breed of Darwin's finches?
Okay, well, they're saying anatomically,
chimpanzees, orangutans, and humans
are as closely related as Darwin's finches.
Okay, if that's true,
then it should take 20 selection events
to turn a human into a gorilla.
Or it should take 20 selection events
to turn a gorilla into a human.
Isn't it funny how they can't do that?
They can change a fortis into a magnarostris,
they can change foliogenosa into a fortis,
but they cannot change a human into a chimpanzee
or a chimpanzee into a human
because this is the dumbest statement.
How can this, this, Pulitzer Prize,
winner of the Los Angeles Times Book Prize
saying that humans are as close to chimpanzees, orangutans
as Darwin's finches are to one another anatomically.
They say, well, it didn't say their brain.
Okay, then make me, then in 20 selection events,
we should be able to make an animal that looks like a human,
but has the brain of a chimpanzee,
or that looks like a chimpanzee with the brain of a human.
Folks, this is absurd.
How can this even get published?
Where was the editor on this sentence?
It's absurdity.
Chimpanzees appear to be our closest living relatives.
Speak for yourself.
By current estimates,
99 out of every 100 genes are identical.
Yeah, that's because we have two eyes, a nose, a mouth,
two ears, hands, feet, but you know what?
That 1% difference is a hell of a difference.
And no, you can't go back and forth
between humans and chimpanzees.
All right, page 281.
Our gift of consciousness is a mystery.
One of the greatest remaining mysteries in biology,
but it's no more of a miracle than a beak, a weather.
You just said you don't know what it is.
You just said it's a mystery.
Well, but it's not a miracle though.
It's no big deal.
It's just like a beak or a feather.
No big deal, nothing to see.
You just said you don't know what it is.
Consciousness is a mystery,
but it's not a miracle though.
How do you know?
If you don't know what it is,
how can you declare that it's not a miracle?
How can you declare it's not supernatural
when you just said you don't know what it is,
that it's a mystery to you?
If it's a mystery to you, then quit talking about it.
Then don't make these unequivocal statements about it
if you don't understand it.
It is made by the same modeling and molding
of the same living clay through the same process, Darwin's.
So consciousness comes about by Darwin's process,
but we don't know what it is.
We don't know where it came from,
but one thing we know is it didn't come from God.
It came from Darwin's process.
Folks, this is absurd.
Okay, wait till you hear this.
Okay, page 281.
One of the gifts of our heightened consciousness
is the ability to make new tools.
You have proof for that?
They're claiming that consciousness
gives us the ability to make tools.
That doesn't follow, there's no proof for that,
but here's where they're going with this.
Page 283.
Language became a tool that allowed us to teach
not only each other, but even ourselves
after we found a new use for the opposable thumb and fingers.
When you write, says Annie Dillard in the writing line,
you lay out a line of words.
The line of words is a miner's pick,
a woodcarver's gouge, a surgeon's prove.
You wield it, and it digs a path you follow.
So here's basically what they're saying.
They're saying that language is the tool.
And then they'll say animals use tools.
So basically they find an animal,
like let's say an ape or something,
picks up a rock, and he's breaking stuff with a rock.
Ugh, ugh, ugh.
Breaking things with a rock.
And they're like, see, ape use tools?
And they're like, our language is just another tool.
There's a little bit of a difference
between human language and all of its complexity.
Let's go back to the most ancient European literature,
the Iliad and the Odyssey,
or let's go back to ancient literature from the Middle East.
And it's a little more complicated
than smashing a rock against a nut
to crack a nut open, right?
It's a little bit more complicated
than smashing a rock into a coconut.
Ugh, ugh.
I think that human language is way more complicated than,
and by the way, the most ancient human languages
are the most complicated.
They're more complicated than today's languages,
which doesn't even make sense
from an evolutionary perspective,
because if evolution were true,
then the oldest languages would be like,
ooga booga, kinda me go there type language,
Tarzan language.
But yet ancient language is more complicated
than today's language,
because people started out being
just as smart as they are now.
And that's why they had a complicated language.
But to say that language is just a tool
and then talk about a chimpanzee using a rock as a tool,
it's absurd.
All right, let's see here.
Okay, here we go, page 288.
Man varies from man more than animal from animal
of different species.
Okay, well then according to that,
humans are a whole bunch of different species
and that's a racist idea, as I said earlier.
Page 284.
That of course is why our own kind
is not radiating into new species.
For us, the whole planet now is almost as small
as Cocos is for the Cocos match.
Yeah, except that's only right now.
Throughout history, there have been isolated groups
like Japan, for example,
and yet it's not a different species.
We're all human.
Okay, page number, almost done.
Oh, now I'm into the epilogue.
Okay, let's just skip the epilogue.
Well, no, we better not skip it.
I'm just afraid my phone's gonna run out of power here,
but let's see here.
Page 295.
I'm just gonna drive until the wheels fall off.
Okay, this year, a poll will show that nearly half
the citizens of the United States
do not believe in evolution.
Instead, they believe that life was created by God
in something like its present form
within the past 10,000 years.
Amen.
People talk about creationism, says Dolph Schluter.
We can actually see creation at work.
We might ask the creationist to demonstrate
similar principles at work.
Hey, Dipstick, we don't believe creation is at work.
We believe creation happened once in the past
and it's over.
And no, you're not watching creationism at work
because you're not seeing anything new created.
There were white moths and black moths.
The whites took over, the blacks took over.
Nothing new was created, Dolph.
They have the appearance of closed minds,
Peter Grant says.
John Endler, the Guppy Watcher,
does not like talking with creationists either.
I avoid it, he says.
It's really a waste of time.
I've done exactly the same thing
and never let on it was evolution,
got the exact same response.
Because they say, well, when we talk about our work
and we don't call it evolution, people like it.
And then as soon as we say it's evolution, they freak out.
That's because your work isn't evolution
and that's why people freak out.
Okay, page 301.
Biochemists can now make primitive self-replicating
molecules in computer models
and synthesize them in the laboratory.
Here and there, now and then, a few of them
begin to make the kinds of connections that again,
if favored, if selected, generation after generation
would bring them to life.
Total baloney.
No life has ever been created in the laboratory.
Nothing close to life has been created in the laboratory.
No self-replicating system has been created
in the laboratory.
This is just a total bold-faced lie.
It's why there's no footnote.
There's no study.
Because if you go and look up the actual studies
where they try to do this stuff,
they are not even to first base.
And all this junk of, oh, we made a complex molecule.
Not even close to the complexity that life requires.
Not even in the same order of magnitude.
Page 301.
But in the ocean, of course,
as fast as molecules make their first gestures
toward life, they're devoured.
Creation in the sea has never stopped,
but the niche of life is taken.
Again, they're just making this up.
They're claiming that life is originating in the sea
and that it just dies too fast.
Really, have you ever observed that?
No, they're just, they make up things.
And by the way, there's no evidence of it happening
on another planet either, or on Earth.
So they, okay, that's the last thing I've underlined.
But do you like how they claim this?
I'm gonna read that one more time.
In the ocean, of course, as fast as molecules
make their first gestures toward life, they're devoured.
Creation in the sea has never stopped,
but the niche of life is taken.
So they're claiming that in the sea right now,
in the ocean right now,
molecules start to make the first step toward life,
and then a big fish is going like, just eats it.
Really, do you have any evidence for that?
You have any proof?
You ever demonstrated that?
You ever observed that?
No.
And so anyway, I know that was just a little bit
all over the place, but I hope you enjoyed it.
That's my review of Beak of the Finch.
It's absurd.
Even if an evolutionist reads this book,
they should be face palming.
I mean, I'm surprised that evolutionists aren't coming out
and condemning this book as stupidity,
since it even contradicts everything that Darwin taught.
Okay, this is garbage.
But you know what it proved?
The fact that evolutionists are buying into this book,
even though it contradicts everything they've taught
in the past and contradicts what Darwin taught,
it just shows that as long as you're for evolution
and against God,
as long as you're mocking the word of God
and mocking creation,
you can pretty much publish whatever stupidity you want
and people are gonna like it.
People just eat this up with fork and spoon,
even though even evolutionists should be debunking this.
Because even someone who actually studies evolution
should be able to know the difference
between the claims that evolution is making
versus these type of adaptations
where you're breeding dogs into different dog breeds
or speciation of the finches or whatever.
It's not evolution, okay.
Is it natural selection?
Yeah, and look, natural selection is real.
I mean, was Darwin right about natural selection
taking place?
Of course, but he was wrong
that it could lead to new kinds of animals.
He was wrong that it could produce all the life
that we see.
No, God created the basic kinds of animals
and then natural selection has worked
on those kinds of animals
so that they've adapted and changed
and you've got people that are darker and lighter,
you've got animals that are bigger and smaller,
you've got plants that can handle a wet climate
or a dry climate and they adapted,
but at the end of the day,
they're still the same kind
and there's not one shred of evidence.
Folks, believe me,
I have sat and listened to hours of evolution
as supposedly giving evidence for evolution
and the only evidence they ever give
is this kind of stuff.
Just one species turning into a different species,
but they're like almost the exact same kind of animal.
And so, and then in the fossil world,
I could give these big jumps,
you know, these big jumps.
That's where evolution happened really fast.
No, no, no, that's just two different kinds of animals,
what that is, okay.
Anyway, I hope this was helpful to you.
I hope you enjoyed it.
God bless, have a great day.