There is a curious paradox concerning the nature of life and its diversity, in that although the species are so complex and variegated they are also extremely resilient to change.  If change is what fuels the evolutionary engine why are species so stubborn in their insistence in staying a particular species?

The fruit fly, a case in point.  This poor creature has been  the victim  of every sort of genetic manipulation imaginable, the result being always a fruit fly, albeit a odd, freakish one at that.  No matter how its genes are sliced, diced or manipulated it always comes up a fly.  This points to the explanation of genetic modification as “the” means of change being an insufficient one. 

As many have pointed out the genetic code and its implementation in the cell is merely a part of the overall mechanics required for the cell’s functioning.  The cell begins as a immensely complex machine with a multitude of interdependent processes and not a strand of DNA.  More and More, as the inner workings are known by science, the inner relatedness and inner dependence of all the parts is becoming clearer. 

Of course this is exactly opposite of what a Darwinian explanation would like to see.  An Evolutionary model requires a mailable, fluid quality to life to allow for the immensity of change that is needed for the diversity of life we observe. 

The fall of man had far reaching effects.  One of those being that mankind, that was created perfect, was now fallen and imperfect.  Part of that imperfection has to be genetic and the study of “genetic irregularities” may be insightful in understanding the implications genetically of that fall. When one looks at even the most basic cell there is an amazing orchestration of processes constantly at work. The complexity and integration of these processes is still far beyond the reach of modern science. But yet in this marvelous machine occasional errors crop up, inconsistencies in the genetic replication process. Evolutionists have taken these flaws in living things (genetic copy errors) and tried to turn them into a creative force (the formulation of new living beings), a job they are not well suited for. Man will stay in this fallen state until the Lord returns and we will not be bound by this imperfect environment any longer, for we will be like Him for we shall see Him “as He is”.

Another one of the aspects of genetics that makes this so interesting is what could be called “Genetic Resiliency”, or the ability of the species to stay a species. Regardless of the genetic copying problems and the many mutations undergone, species seem to want to stay basically the same over time. As David Berlinski states in the “Icons of Evolution” video “we should have far more… plasticity” genetically if Darwin’s ideas are true.  The Creationist understands that God created life “after its kind” and would expect this resiliency. It is this impervious nature of species to change that makes the many mistakes in genetic reproduction such an interesting topic. On the one hand an imperviousness to change and on the other a partially broken mechanism.  The future of genetic research will provide some very interesting information.

Its survival of the fittest and Darwinism is not adapting well to the modern environment. Competition was not as intense 150 years ago, resources were scarce (not much was known about the complex nature of life) but there were fewer theories struggling for the limited natural resources available. Not much was known about the living cell in Darwin’s day, it was in effect, a “black box”, something that could not be looked into like we can today with our high powered microscopes and was considered simplistic to today’s standards. DNA was not discovered until 10 years after Darwin’s Origin was written and it was not until the 1950’s that a correct understanding of its function was known. Since then there has been an explosion of information about the living cell; the voluminous information stored in the DNA, cell replication and specialization, etc., etc. All of this knowledge makes it harder for Darwinism to compete as a plausible explanation for how life began. Darwinist explanations require randomness and multi-celled organisms require a front loaded plan in order for a cell to replicate and specialize to form various organs in the new living being. Evolution does not do “front loading” and so these ideas are antithetical by nature and the pressure on Darwinism just gets worse as the scientific knowledge increases, how can it possibly survive?

If the scope of Darwin’s work was to show evolution as a means of species adapting to their environment or slight genetic changes within species leading to rare genetic enhancements, there would be no issues at all, since “evolution” does a good job with those types of things.  But Darwin sought to explain the Origin of Species, and this we are finding out Darwinian Evolution can not help us with.  Mike Behe showed the “Edge of Evolution” and that genetic changes coupled with natural selection have a very limited scope in providing positive mutation withing a species.  He also demonstrated that “Irreducible Complexity” provides a wall that genetic adaptation cannot hurdle.

We are finding out that the “simplest” cell is complex beyond our wildest imaginations.  That life at the cellular level is a source of wonder and amazement, that even with 50 years of research has just begun to be tapped.  All of the “just so” stories of evolution can not begin to explain amazing machines that function withing these microscopic entities.