Dr. Anjeanette AJ Roberts's Presentation:
"Un-Equivocating Evolution"

I too would like to thank the organization of Technics & Science Research for inviting us to Turkey. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed my visit to Turkey and it is obvious to me that Turkey’s greatest resource is her people. And so we pray often for your peace and for your welfare especially in light of recent events.

So, perhaps you’ve heard this statement, I was once asked if I believe this statement is true. ‘There is more evidence for evolution than there is that the Earth revolves around the Sun’. Well, it might be true. It depends on what you mean by the word evolution. And that’s what the rest of my talk is about.

Evolution is a word that is often equivocated. Equivocation is a process that depends on the word having more than one meaning. It involves using a word in a context where the meaning is glossed over in order to make a faulty assertion and to make it more defensible. In equivocating you're assuming one meaning but actually using the word in a different context. This is often what happens with the word evolution. Someone makes a statement like this. Is it true? Well, it can be. But it may also be false. It is critical by what you mean by evolution. The word evolution, we're going to spend the next several minutes un-equivocating this word. Trying to bring some clarity to whether or not this statement might be true. The word is used in different contexts. Actually in reference to five different categories of different types of naturalistic processes that are dependent on different underlying mechanisms to work.

These are the five categories that we will be looking at: Chemical evolution, microevolution, microbial evolution, speciation, and macro-evolution. My colleague Fazale Rana just spoke to you in some detail within 30 minutes about chemical evolution. So I will not spend too much time on this topic and I will only highlight a couple of hurdles that chemical evolution faces.

But chemical evolution as Fazale Rana said refers to the process of generating life from non-life. It is sometimes called abiogenesis. And it is synthesizing biogenic molecules from inorganic compounds. And these are the building blocks for cells. It is, at the basis of the naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. But the hurdles it faces are many. One of them are the chemistries required for the syntheses of many of the biogenic molecules. These chemistries are not compatible with one another. So if you’re trying to generate a sugar, you’ll have a different chemistry than if you’re trying to generate a fatty acid or a nucleic acid which is at the heart of the DNA and RNA. But not only are the chemistries not compatible with one another, the chemistries are not compatible with early earth conditions.

A second hurdle which I will spend a little more time on is the homo-chirality of the sugars in RNA and DNA. And also the homo-chirality of amino acids that are found in proteins. Chirality refers to the orientation of a molecule, and is sometimes referred to as the "handedness" of a molecule. If you think about your left hand and your right hand you can see that they are mirror opposites of one another. Although both have a palm, and thumbs, and four fingers you cannot superimpose one upon the other because they’re mirror opposites. This is the problem of chirality. It is true that the sugars in DNA and RNA, and the amino acids in all proteins share only one orientation. Either a right-handedness for sugars or a left-handedness for amino acids. But if you try to generate sugars or amino acids through naturalistic processes in the laboratory, you don’t get a single type of left handed molecule for amino acids or a single type of right handed molecule for sugars. You get a mixture. That’s called a racemic mixture. And a ratio is about %50 left handed and %50 right handed sugars, %50 left handed and %50 right handed amino acids. This makes it very difficult to synthesize RNA or DNA because of steric inhibition and chain termination. Yet biological processes those that occur inside the cell in stark contrast, produce only left-handed amino acids and only right-handed sugars for RNA and DNA syntheses. This is a challenge for the naturalistic explanations of the origin of life. And I think it points to a Mind behind the molecules that we find in cellular processes. So all life in summary has only right handed sugars and only left handed amino acids. And yet there is no known naturally occurring mechanism for generating, or selecting, or stably maintaining a solution of only one or other molecule.

A third hurdle is the naturalistic account, for the origin of life, is one of information, which again my colleague Fazale Rana has spoken to you at length in his thirty minutes. The DNA as he described is the molecular blueprint for all genes and all gene regulations, and by RNA intermediance for all proteins that are produced inside the cell. The information that is stored in the DNA molecule is one that is often appealed to as indicating an Intelligent Designer. And many argue that it requires an Intelligent Designer or God to produce this type of information. But it is not the information that is most difficult to explain within the cell. There is also information at the system level, which Doctor Rana also referred to. How do the cells orient different proteins in different cellular subsystems that accomplish different molecular processes? Or where does the information come for structuring these things in the right orientation and also for making them work in concert together, in a way that is highly complex integrated and almost orchestrated like a symphony. It’s not enough to just account for the information in DNA but it’s necessary to account for this higher level subsystem metabolic process information as well.

Maybe it would help if I gave you an analogy. So if you think about trying to build a car from the ground up, you need all of the parts of the car. And each one whether it’s the plastic parts or the rubber parts or the metal parts or the gasoline, requires information on how to produce those parts. But it also requires mechanisms to produce those parts not just the information. Okay so, now you need information for the mechanisms, you need information for the production of parts but that’s still not enough. You’re left now with just parts of the car. You still need information on how the car systems interact in order to generate locomotion, in order to generate combustion. And so you have to have system level information in order to put the parts together in the right way, in order to get an automobile that you can drive. But even this, I think is a poor analogy for trying to express the complexity within a human cell, within a living cell. A better analogy would be, if someone was able to account for all of the functional inner actions all of the pieces, all of the mechanisms that are involved as something complex as the city of Istanbul.

The forth hurdle which I will not spend any time on since I have four more topics to talk about is that life on earth occurred very early. And the life that occurred on earth, occurred almost as soon as life could be sustained on earth. And it occurred in a highly complex and diversified manner. This challenges, as Fazale addressed in his talk, and I have mentioned so far in my talk, leads many scientists who are committed to a naturalistic paradigm, to appeal to something called panspermia. Panspermia is a hypothesis that the biogenic molecules are perhaps even life itself did not originate on earth. But it originated somewhere else in the universe. And then it was transmitted to earth either through natural things like comets or meteorites or perhaps through advanced species. But Panspermia does not actually account for the naturalistic origin of life. It just displaces the problem to some unknown place in the universe where the biochemical and physical and chemical laws would be the same, and where the challenges are producing life from non-life have not changed. They’ve just been moved to a different location. So panspermia is not a solution to the problem of the origin of life and in conclusion we must reach this: the chemical evolution is not a logical conclusion based on scientific evidence for the origin of life on earth. It is only a naturalistic appeal to account for what we see.

So the second category is microevolution. Microevolution is the process of accruing unguided changes or mutations in the DNA sequence. The mechanism and the characteristics of microevolution are two-fold: they are unguided or random and they occur through natural selection. These two elements, unguided and natural selection are the hallmarks of Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian evolution. The mutations themselves occur due to different types of stress that are encountered by the organism. Such as UV radiation, hormone responses to stress or heat. And as a result the DNA can become damaged, it can break. But repair mechanisms exist within the cell, they can repair and rejoin the double stranded DNA ends. Mutations can then occur either through damage done to the DNA or through the repair mechanism itself. Unguided mutations in the nucleic acid sequence can also occur when the DNA is replicated by the polymerase protein. As it copies the nucleic acid sequence sometimes it makes mistakes. And it has the ability to actually correct mistakes but it is not 100% accurate in correcting mistakes. So it still makes a mistake about one in every ten million base pairs. So mutations can result from damaged or broken DNA, repair of DNA, or replication of DNA.

The main point is that according to evolutionist claims: mutations create variability and when there is variability, selection can occur through natural processes. This means when a mutation occurs that allows an organism to survive and thrive in a given environment then that organism will survive and thrive. If on the other hand it is a deleterious mutation, then the organism will not survive nor thrive.

It should be apparent and Dr. Rana also pointed this out, that natural selection is non teleological. It’s his blind watchmaker reference. It’s not goal-oriented, it’s not being driven towards a specific goal or a specific purpose. It is simply natural selection done through the blind process that cannot foresee which mutations might one day provide the ability to thrive in a different environment or in a more complex organism. This is a very important element in the Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theory: that evolution including microevolution is non teleological.

I find this to be one of the biggest and most confusing problems that people face when they talk about evolution and specifically about cellular and molecular biological processes. It actually leads them to endow the organism with the teleology of the organism’s own design. The organism becomes self directing towards some explicit goal, present or future. And others endow molecules or segments of DNA with an intention to survive and propagate. Perhaps you’ve heard of “selfish genes”. At heart, this is imaginative story telling effect to captivate an audience. At worst it is utterly nonsensical and ridiculous. Either way it is not scientific. In fact, it's counterintuitive to what we know is true about scientific mechanisms and processes. But cells and organisms are so richly endowed with complexity and adaptive capacities and variations that it is hard to describe such layers of complexity without resorting to language like this which is often wrongly employed.

So the third category of evolution is microbial evolution. Microbial evolution refers to the process of unicellular organisms such as bacteria, archaea, simple eukaryotes, yeast, etc. as they rapidly reproduce and adapt to changing environments via selection of beneficial micro evolutionary mutations and promiscuous gene swapping. So bacteria and other single cell organisms can actually gain genetic information through three different mechanisms. The first is one called conjugation. Conjugation occurs when bacteria come and contact with one another, and one bacteria transmits genetic information to a different bacteria. The second type of horizontal gene transfer or exchange of genetic information is transduction. Transduction is vector-mediated. Viruses that infect bacteria can carry genetic information into the bacteria and if it’s a temperate virus it remains in the bacteria without killing the bacteria and the bacteria can replicate having gained new genetic information from the virus. A third mechanism the bacteria or single cell organisms can use to exchange genetic information is one called transduction or sometimes transformation. And this occurs when a bacteria dies or it is lysed, it releases genetic information into the environment. At such a time it’s possible for other bacteria to come and contact with the genetic information and take it up into itself, acquiring new genetic information from the bacteria that had just lysed.

So whether it’s through horizontal gene transfer or micro-evolutionary mutations transfer of genetic material again is unguided and non teleological, and can be deleterious or beneficial or neutral. But it should be obvious that once the genetic information is taken up into a bacteria, then it can quickly spread throughout the population of subsequent progeny. Because it’s a single cell organism. So all the mutations that occur in a single cell are then reproduced in all of the progeny that result from that cell. So this mechanism is a very powerful mechanism that allows bacteria and single cell organisms to survive and thrive in changing environments.

This brings us now to our forth category which is speciation. And much like the word evolution which we’re in the process of trying to un-equivocate, species is an other world that is often equivocated, used in many different terms and meanings under different conditions. It actually has a name. It’s called the species problem. And the species problem results from a wide range of approaches in defining how species are identified and in how species function in nature. And each approach for trying to identify how species function and how they’re identified within themselves is known as a species concept. And currently, there are at least twenty six different recognized species concepts. That’s phenomenal. But the important point is that you must be very careful to know what the other person is talking about when they are going to use the word species, especially in the context of this topic of speciation.

So speciation refers to the process in which a given species becomes genetically, phenotypically, and by appearance, behaviorally distinct species, typically do to geographical isolation, that results in reproductively independent groups. During speciation, radiation events occur when a single starting species is split into various ecological niches where they encounter variable environmental pressures.

In relative isolation, organisms undergo different types of environmental stresses and pressures that effect the organism at a micro-evolutionary level and also at a genetic-drift level because now we’re talking about multicellular organisms that sexually reproduce. These variables stresses and environmental pressures can also result in epigenetic changes that can affect a species’ phenotype and behavior.

And over time, each niche will mold and support a species that will be specific to that ecological niche. So Darwin actually described a speciation event in the observation of the different types of finches on the Galapagos Islands. He identified fifteen or sixteen different types of finch that were primarily one of the homework of the different species was the size and width and thickness of the beak of the finch. But recent studies have indicated that beak morphology or the shape of the beak changes in an oscillating fashion not in a progressive fashion towards some new and novel structure. So in wet environments the beak will be thin and narrow. In dry environments the beaks will tend to be thicker and wider. So this suggests at least one level speciation results from a type of phenotypic plasticity that is adaptive to varying environmental changes. In other words, it's not unidirectional change or a progression to something utterly new. It's an oscillating change. And it’s also not allowing an organism to make giant leaps from one taxonomical level to another. All of Darwin's finches remained finches.

Evolutionists erroneously maintain that living things on different continents or in different environments develop into different species. However, the different characteristics arising in different regions are nothing more than population differences. The genetic combination of those life forms obliged to reproduce in any one region is restricted, and specific characteristics in their genes come to the fore. Yet there is no question of any new species emerging.

It’s also true for evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould’s research in snails, also on an island environment, where the snails were isolated into different geographical regions. But again, what Stephen Jay Gould described was biodiversity within snails that were well suited to particular ecological niches. But they were all snails. It wasn’t adaptive diversification within snails. More recently, red and eastern wolves, which are geographically, phenotypically, and behaviorally distinct canids have been examined at a genomic level. These canids are actually protected as endangered species in the US and in Canada. But at the genomic level, what they’ve discovered is that these different species are really just genetic hybrids of coyotes and grey wolves.

This new data is actually threatening their protected classification and status as endangered species and it highlights the species problem in regard to evolution. Much like selective breeding in dogs, wolves, coyotes seem to be the result of variations over time within an ongoing species-radiation event. No doubt populations are now isolated certainly by behavioral and geographic constraints, but the various "species" may not actually be isolated in the sense that they can no longer cross breed. So recent research also shows a connection of species within an ecological web. But yet even these examples, contrary to what papers claim, has no significance to macroevolution the change in a particular species into a different kind or different taxonomical classification.

And even if we, like the North American wolf study shows choose to call species something entirely different like wolves, coyotes or dogs it doesn’t mean that one kind, a canid is giving rise to something other than a canid. Finches remained finches, snails remained snails, plants, flies and wasps although they’re changing and co-adapting together, remained plants, flies and wasps.

Finally, if we consider the speciation in the context of humanity and what we believe as Christians, that there was a primordial human pair Adam and Eve, that were created in God’s image according to Torah: In His image, He created them male and female. If you believe the scientific data that dates mitochondrial Eve, and Y-chromosomal Adam to one hundred and fifty thousand years ago, then all of the diversity that we see in the human population today, results from an ongoing speciation event in humanity. Consider the differences of the major races and ethnicities. Compare some of the island groups of Australia to Asia or Middle Eastern or European or Native American people. Or consider a dwarf and compare it to an extremely tall human being. Nevertheless, no matter our diversity is, we are all human. We are all homo sapien sapiens.

The last category is that of macro-evolution. And be very careful here because this is where equivocation takes place most often. Macroevolution refers to a series of naturalistic processes. It’s occurring over long stretches of time, that account for all of life’s history, forms, and complexity resulting from descent with modification under pressures of natural selection, acting upon unguided changes in population genetics, in a contingent and non-teleological fashion. It is supposed that macroevolution involves multiple different mechanisms for achieving its end goals.

One mechanism is that of genome duplication. But genome duplication is simply replicating a genome that you already have, you now have twice as much that genome. And it provides no new information, just greater amounts of DNA. In current observation, genome duplication in human cells is most frequently associated with cancer. And so this type of genetic increase in information is actually deleterious. Similarly with translocation or jumping genes for some segments of DNA can be transferred and copied into new positions in the chromosome or different positions in the genome, this type of mechanism can shuffle DNA, information within a genome and replicate some portions of the DNA, it’s not providing new DNA. And in current observations these two is associated with human diseases.

Horizontal gene transfer, although it occurs by viral mediated mechanisms, it is not the same as that occurs in single cellular organisms. For horizontal gene transfer, to even take a hold in a human population, it absolutely must occur in the germ line, in the egg of the female or the sperm of the male. Two other mechanisms, co-option or symbiogenesis are often appealed to as well, to account for some of the diversity. But each of these has its own hurdle.

Generation of new organisms by these mechanisms is not evident today. It is rather an appeal to a sketchy, if not well-imagined, extrapolation of observed complex interdependence of symbiotic organisms to account for large-scale naturalistic changes in life's history. Although many mechanisms are appealed to for macroevolution, no plausible account has yet rationally and reasonably described the “muddy middle layer of mechanism”.

No credible mechanism or explanation has been offered for generating true novelty. No account can be given for the rapid appearance of most known phyla and fossils that occurred 540 million years ago in the Cambrian explosion. No true transitional species has ever been identified in the fossil record or through phylogenetic analysis. And no genetic map exists showing a clear Darwinian pathway from one order, kingdom, phyla, class or order to another.

So what do we do with the evidence? I believe the evidence concludes that we must reject chemical evolution and macroevolution as not being well evidenced in scientific data. Each of us knowingly or unknowingly interprets the data in a way that fits into our view of reality. Molecular adaptation I think is a better phrase or perhaps even molecular variation to take the place of the word evolution in our opening statement. I think it’s better to rephrase “There is more evidence for a molecular based adaptation or variation of highly complex and wildly diverse organisms than there is that the Earth revolves around the Sun”.

But I think that this view supports the view of progressive creationism: that God created life over long apex of time, according to specific kinds. And God endowed his creatures with the ability to adapt to challenging and changing environments for their continued survival. So progressive creationism is a reasonable and rational conclusion, concordant with the data, accounting for the diversity and early appearance of complex life. And it also accounts for the fine-tuning and intelligibility of the universe, which my colleague Dr. Zweerink will talk about this afternoon.

As a first century follower of Jesus puts it, "For ever since the world was created, people have seen the Earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see His invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.” (Romans, 1:20)

Or as the Psalm of David puts it:

“The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display His craftsmanship. Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make Him known. They speak without a sound or word; their voice is never heard. Yet their message has gone throughout the earth, and their words to all the world.” (Psalms, 19:1-4)

Former atheist and philosopher, Anthony Flew actually converted to theism before his death. Even though he was a major proponent of atheism prior to this. And he puts it this way near the end of his life:

"We have all the evidence we need in our immediate experience and only a deliberate refusal to 'look' is responsible for atheism of any kind.” (A. Flew, There is A God, Harper Collins, 2008, p. 163)

Francis Crick says that, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” (F. Crick, What Mad Pursuit, New York, Basic Books, 1998, p. 138) Francis Crick, co-discover of the structure of DNA was a naturalist. And the only basis for his comment is an undying dedication to a naturalistic paradigm, not a clear and open-minded examination of the evidence.

So, in conclusion I would say that a Christian paradigm or theistic paradigm is far better for science than a Darwinian, naturalistic paradigm. Because according to the Christian paradigm, theistic paradigm, natural laws allow reproducible regularities that we can examine. We must observe the world in order to know what it is like. As my colleague said in introduction, nature is a reliable revelation of God. The Scriptures tell us that God reveals Himself in nature. And He has created for us for inquiry and discovery. He wants to be known. The Scriptures also tell us that truth can be sought and obtained in the words of Jesus when we seek with all of our hearts, we will find the truth. In conclusion, God wants to be known and He has revealed himself clearly to those who have an open mind and a humble heart in nature and in scriptures and in the person of Jesus Christ. So those who seek will find that there is a Creator of all that we see.

Thanks be to God!

All mutations observed on living beings have proved to be harmful. The reason is that the DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects on this molecule will only harm the organism. The result of any change due to mutations will only result in genetic disorders, fatality or disability. On the side, there are examples of deformed living beings that were subjected to mutations.

A. DNA Damage 2. Debilitated organisms due to mutations

The Micro and Macro Evolution Errors of Darwinists

Variation does not constitute evidence for evolution because variations are but the outcomes of different combinations of already existing genetic information and they do not add any new characteristic to the genetic information. The science of genetics has revealed that the variations that Darwin imagined accounted for the origin of species in fact bear no such significance. Therefore, evolutionist biologists have been forced to distinguish between variation within species and the formation of new species, and to advance two separate concepts regarding them. Up to their claims, they gave the name micro-evolution to variation within species, and defined the formation of entirely new species as macro-evolution. The concept of macro-evolution was first used in 1927 by the Russian biologist Juri'i Filipchenko.17 The idea that micro-evolution could be used as evidence for macro-evolution was proposed by a student of Filipchenko's, Theodosius Dobzhansky, in the 1930s. In his book Genetics and The Origin of Species, one of the basic texts of Darwinism, Dobzhansky suggested that the mechanisms of micro- and macro-evolution were the one and the same.18 This view received wide acceptance from evolutionist circles and has survived down to the present day. Richard Goldschmidt, a Berkeley University geneticist during those years, expressed the erroneous nature of this view: "The facts of microevolution do not suffice for an understanding of macroevolution."19 In fact, what Goldschmidt referred to as micro-evolution was nothing more than variations within species. These two concepts have long appeared in biology textbooks, where a deceptive style is often used. The examples of variation that evolutionist biologists describe as micro-evolution actually have nothing whatsoever to do with the theory of evolution. That's because the theory of evolution maintains that living things can acquire new genetic information through the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection. But as we have already seen, variations can never give rise to any new genetic information and therefore, cannot lead to evolution. Referring to variations as micro-evolution reflects an ideological preference on the part of evolutionist biologists. The variations that Darwinists deliberately refer to as micro-evolution are a simple biological phenomenon, examples of which we encounter frequently in daily life. Think of all the varieties of cats, dogs, apples, tomatoes, plants and animals you have ever seen. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, refers to major changes such as that of a dinosaur into a bird, or a bear into a whale. In other words, there is no difference between the claims of macro-evolution and fairy tales in which a frog transforms into a prince. By using the concept of macro-evolution, evolutionist biologists seek to give the impression that is variations can give rise to brand new living species—and even genera—over the course of time. Indeed, many people who lack a sound knowledge of the subject are taken in by the superficial idea that micro-evolution can become macro-evolution in the long term. One can see many examples of this thinking. Some amateur evolutionists suggest that since the average height of human beings has increased by 2 centimeters (0.78 of an inch) over just the last century, that means that all kinds of evolution can occur over millions of years. But the fact is, as we have already seen, all variations such as increases in stature take place within specific genetic bounds and have nothing to do with evolution. We frequently see examples of biological variations in our daily lives. All such instances of variations are simply fluctuations that occur within specific genetic bounds and that have nothing at all to do with evolution. In fact, even contemporary evolutionist authorities accept that the variations described as micro-evolution cannot give rise to new living classes, or lead to macro-evolution. In a 1996 paper published in the journal Developmental Biology, the evolutionist biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz and Rudolf Raff stated that: The Modern Synthesis is a remarkable achievement. However, starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but micro-evolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out 20, "the origin of species—Darwin's problem—remains unsolved.21

Varyasyonlar günlük hayatta sık sık örneklerini gördüğümüz biyolojik bir olgudur. Tüm varyasyon örnekleri belirli genetik sınırlar içinde gerçekleşen ve evrimle ilgisi olmayan aynı türde gerçekleşen dalgalanmalardır.

That the variations falsely alleged as micro-evolution cannot account for the claim of macro-evolution, and cannot explain the origin of species, is also admitted by other evolutionist biologists. The well-known evolutionist paleontologist Roger Lewin set out his conclusion at a four-day symposium attended by 150 evolutionists at the Chicago Museum of Natural History in November 1980: The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution ... The answer can be given as a clear, No.22 The evolutionist biologists Fagerstrom, Schuster and Szathmary stated the same thing in an article published in Science magazine in 1996: Major transitions in evolution—such as the origin of life, the emergence of eukaryotic cells, and the origin of the human capacity for language, to name but a few—could not be farther away from an equilibrium. Also, they cannot be described satisfactorily by established models of microevolution.23 Other scientists, however, are aware that such a claim totally conflicts with the picture revealed by scientific findings and the fossil record. Douglas Erwin, from the American Museum of Natural History emphasized this in a paper that appeared in the journal Evolution and Development in 2000.24 According to the American biologists Douglas Erwin and James Valentine, to account for the origin of new physical characteristics with micro-evolutionary changes that are in fact nothing more than variations within species is incompatible with the available evidence.25 The fact is, macro-evolution has never been observed. There is no explanation compatible with reason, logic and science as to how this might take place. Professor of Microbiology Carl Woese expresses his view on the subject: "[T]he term ‘macroevolution' serves more to hide our ignorance than symbolize our understanding."26 Consider the subjects depicted by evolutionists as concrete and observed instances of Darwinism, which they put forward at every opportunity as fundamental proofs of evolution. The Galapagos finches, the Industrial Revolution moths, bacterial resistance to antibiotics, and insects' resistance to DDT immediately come to mind, but it is absolutely misleading to portray these as evidence of evolution. These cases are cases of variations that present no evidence for evolution.

False