Professional, peer-reviewed papers about natural selection, illustrating how it supports a recent creation within a biblical framework
The case for over-design is reviewed focusing on documented cases of normal persons that have exceptional abilities.
Critics have attempted to negate the effect of a common quote that evolution is accepted mainly because the only alternative, special creation, is unacceptable.
The history of the mutation theory as the foundation of the source of new genetic information is reviewed.
An unbridgeable gap exists between the simple urinary system used in invertebrates and the far more complex kidney system used in all vertebrates.
Grudem is making the same biblical and theological errors that theistic evolutionists make. To be biblically consistent, he must abandon his old-earth position.
This review has two goals, to document from Darwin’s writings that he believed women were inferior to men, and to document that his views greatly influenced modern academia and evolutionists.
Critical Analysis of Hugh Ross’ Progressive Day-Age Creationism Through the Framework of Young-Earth Creationism
The most important part of the debate between views on creationism is about the presuppositions of each group and their biblical hermeneutics.
My paper was criticizing what Guliuzza has publicly written in which he denies the reality of natural selection: a claim that he has never publicly retracted.
This brief examination of Jason Lisle’s paper highlights that misunderstanding about natural selection is more prevalent among creationists than he suggests.
Randy Guliuzza has made some controversial claims regarding the cause and nature of adaptation of organisms to their environment. We examine his claims.
Response to “Still No Replacement of Darwin: A Reply to Nathaniel Jeanson’s Response to My Review of Replacing Darwin—The New Origin of Species”
Frello’s recent critique is helpful progress in our discussion, and it argues for the strength of the science in Replacing Darwin.
Still No Replacement of Darwin—A Reply to Nathanial Jeanson’s Response to my Review of Replacing Darwin—The New Origin of Species
I used to think that when creationists talk about creation and evolution as a clash between worldviews, they were wrong. Jeanson has helped me change my mind.
We have been created fearfully and wonderfully by our Creator God, and the human body showcases God’s intricate design.
Ironically, Frello has actually done me a great favor; his review ends up bolstering my original claims.
Jeanson takes on a formidable task: To show that the theory of evolution is wrong, and to replace it with biblical creation. To make it short: Jeanson fails.
Why should there be such “gratuitous beauty”? The plethora of extravagant biological characteristics prominently call out for an explanation.
This paper argues that the issue with the origin of life and the origin of biodiversity is not an issue of time, though deep time is problematical.
This study shows that created heterozygosity, together with natural processes that are observable, is sufficient to account for species’ diversity.
Using Taxonomically Restricted Essential Genes to Determine Whether Two Organisms Can Belong to the Same Family Tree
How are all life forms connected? Are they linked by one giant family tree, a web, or a forest of family trees?
Challenging the BioLogos Claim that a Vitellogenin (Egg-Laying) Pseudogene Exists in the Human Genome
Interestingly, BioLogos is probably the only evolutionary group that puts such a high level of focus on this hypothesis as key evidence for evolution.
The Genesis and Emergence of Community-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA): An Example of Evolution in Action?
We have seen a changing profile from HA-MRSA to CA-MRSA. This is potentially dangerous because the new strains are more virulent and aggressive.
Documented Anomaly in Recent Versions of the BLASTN Algorithm and a Complete Reanalysis of Chimpanzee and Human Genome-Wide DNA Similarity Using Nucmer and LASTZ
Past evolutionary research in comparative DNA analysis between chimps and humans has employed a great deal of preferential and selective data analysis.
Mutational degeneration of the nef gene manifests as increased pathogenicity of HIV-1.
The molecular interaction of HIV-1 is merely cyclic fine-tuning of an existing function and illustrates the broken relationship between the virus and the host.
Information Processing Differences Between Bacteria and Eukarya—Implications for the Myth of Eukaryogenesis
Based on differences in gene sets and molecular machines between bacteria and eukarya, we continue to demonstrate that unbridgeable evolutionary chasms exist.
Information Processing Differences Between Archaea and Eukarya—Implications for Homologs and the Myth of Eukaryogenesis
In the grand evolutionary paradigm, the origin of the eukaryotic cell represents one of the great mysteries and key hypothetical transitions of life.
Natural selection is controversial among many scientists, both in evolutionary and creationary circles.
As we learn more about parasites, which don’t seem to be “good” design, we will understand better how the parasitic lifestyle resulted from the Fall.
In this three-part ~35,000-word response, Guliuzza (2014a, b, c) fails to clearly define his terms and/or use them consistently.
A Response to “Does Natural Selection Exist?”: Creatures’ Adaptation Explained by the Design-based, Organism-driven Approach: Part 3
This third installment is a continuation of my response to a recent critical paper (Jeanson 2013).
A Response to “Does Natural Selection Exist?”: Creatures’ Adaptation Explained by the Design-based, Organism-Driven Approach: Part 1
This paper responds to a 2013 Jeanson paper critical of a series of Acts & Facts articles published by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR).
A Response to “Does Natural Selection Exist?”: Creatures’ Adaptation Explained by the Design-based, Organism-driven Approach: Part 2
This second installment is a continuation of my response to a recent critical paper (Jeanson 2013) on a series of Acts & Facts articles.
Scientific Evidence Indicates Natural Selection and Brain-Based Education Conflict with Human Nature
Children have an innate, natural, intuitive, and unlearned tendency to reason about the world as biblical creationists do.
The HBBP1 gene appears to be a highly functional and cleverly integrated feature of the human genome that is intolerant of mutation.
How did the modern diversity of life arise from the created kinds of Genesis 1 and from the kinds taken on board the Ark? Did natural selection play a role?
Christians and the public at large cannot afford to accept what they are being told about themselves from the perspective of evolutionary psychology.
I reviewed both the textbooks used for life science classes at the college where I teach and those that I used in my past university course work.
This paper will show that Christian professor Daniel Brannan’s arguments are based on faulty premises regarding Adam’s constitutional nature, the nature of Adam’s perfection and Adam’s free choice.
Emergentism defies commonsense; there is also no scientific evidence that something material could produce an entity of a kind radically different from itself.
How Genomes are Sequenced and Why it Matters: Implications for Studies in Comparative Genomics of Humans and Chimpanzees
When evaluating comparisons between genomes using DNA sequence, it is important to understand the nature of how that sequence was obtained and bioinformatically manipulated before drawing conclusions.
Darwinists try to disprove the argument from design by providing examples of what they claim are poor design.
The Bible’s description of created kinds implies an information model which uses variables. The findings in this paper show that a model which uses variables forms a basis for understanding biology.
A conflict exists between modern neo-Darwinism and orthodox biblical Christianity.
Although the play was widely believed to be an accurate synopsis of the historical trial, often called the Trial of the Century, it grossly distorted the actual events of history.
A review of the history of paleoanthropology leads to the conclusion that the discipline is far less objective than that for physics, chemistry, or even biology.
Mutations are normally classified according to their proximal effect on an organism’s fitness, whether beneficial, deleterious, or neutral.
It is apparent from the knowledge gained about mitochondria ribosome structure and function since the proposal of the Serial Endosymbiosis Theory that prokaryotes are not the ancestors of eukaryotes.
Recognizing the population bottleneck which occurred in land animals at the time of the Flood, it is clear that genetic variation was once more limited than it is today.
As we seek to discover the intent of the Designer, we can enhance our stewardship of the land by using this symbiosis to re-establish polluted and disturbed landscapes and grow sustainable crops.
Some contend that Charles Darwin plagiarized his theory of evolution. Whether you agree with the man or not, however, the evidence suggests the idea is his.
Given the number of alleles within baramins, much of the diversity at this locus must have developed since the genetic bottleneck at the Flood where only a single breeding pair was preserved.
Natural Selection on Answers Research Journal
Evolutionary ideas assert that natural selection is one of the major driving forces for molecules-to-man evolution. Natural selection, or “survival of the fittest,” is the observable process by which organisms with specific characteristics survive and reproduce better in a given environment. Over billions of years, evolutionists propose that this mechanism adds novel genetic information (generated by random mutations), resulting in new structures and functions that allow one kind of organism to evolve into a different kind of organism.
The aim of these research papers in Answers Research Journal (ARJ) is to show what natural selection can achieve in the present through examples (e.g., Darwin’s finches) and how the process supports a recent creation within a biblical framework. These professional, peer-reviewed papers address issues related to natural selection and how that relates to other disciplines. Our journal considers natural selection in light of creation, evolution, biblical scholarship, genetics, baraminology, the fall, and more.
Charles Darwin popularized natural selection as a process by which evolution could be achieved. However, observable evidence clearly shows that natural selection cannot do what evolution requires. Natural selection results in a loss or reshuffling of genetic information, not the gain of information evolution requires. This process merely selects from what is already present and does not create anything new. Natural selection can result in variation and speciation within a biblical kind but not what is necessary for molecules-to-man evolution.