Feedback: “Evolution Is Proven by Humans Themselves.”

This is false in so many ways and is just regurgitating the propaganda from a Science News article here—a magazine whose modus operandi is to promote the religion of naturalism.

First, provability is predicated on the God of the Bible. Evolution, which is built on materialism and naturalism, is inconsistent with the immaterial concept of logical proof.

Second, since this example is based on alleged observations, it is perceived as science. But any trained scientist knows that science doesn’t prove anything; it only disproves.

Next, it is arbitrary to merely appeals to humans themselves as proof.

Finally, this argument assumes that evolution proves evolution—an affirming the consequent fallacy.

There is an extra artery running down the forearm

Everyone has one of these median arteries because they are vital to embryonic development.1 Hence, the information for it is there from the moment of fertilization and is a brilliant design by God. As that developmental stage comes and goes, people’s artery regresses, having served its primary purpose once the ulnal and radial arteries develop (i.e., demonstrable vestiges of embryological development, not evolution).

However, some people retain it, and it merely provides extra blood flow to the hand and arm, taking away from the volume to the ulnar and radial arteries, which no longer need to accommodate as much blood flow. Vestiges (losses) in embryology show great design. They really aren’t an argument for evolution, which needs alleged nascent organs (increases in new functional information) as opposed to vestiges. Nascent organs are not observed.

…about 10% born in 19th century had this extra artery. Today that number is running about 40%. By the year 2100, about 70% will have this extra artery.

Even if these numbers from the 1800s are accurate (our current is about 33%, by the way, for median artery retention), this fact is not an argument for evolution. The genomic information for the median artery is in everyone already, so it’s not an evolutionary change. For an evolutionary change, you need to add new functional information to the genome, and that new information is simply not observed here.

For instance, to propose the changes necessary for a single-celled organism like an ameba to eventually give rise to a goat, the single-celled organism needs to add information for skin, hair, lungs, a circulatory and nervous system, and so on. We do not observe nascent organs and systems evolve. Appealing to losses upon losses is not going to help.

It is thought to be supporting additional requirement of using hands for precision work.

Which takes away from the blood flow from the ulnal and radial as mentioned.

Our bones are getting lighter and more frail.

Because we are doing less strenuous work than people did in the 1800s—there were very few people sitting around playing video games for hours on end on comfortable couches in the 1800s. But this bone claim is irrelevant to the argument at hand (artery retention after embryological development)—pun intended.

Over the last 12,000 years our bones are measurably lighter, due to the shift towards agrarian society than hunter/gathering.

The earth is only about 6,000 years old based on God’s Word. The oldest human fossils to the present time have been post-flood and would not have occurred much until the death of Peleg (the first recorded person to die post-flood of old age), which was about AM 19962 or 2008 BC (per Ussher).

However, we would agree that significant changes in lifestyles have observably caused minor modifications to already-present genetic information (such as bone density), though on a much shorter timescale—even within one’s lifetime. Natural selection and mutations actually work quite quickly—and only within the bounds of the created kinds (or baramins), as we see from Genesis 1:20–25.