There is good reason as to why I used the words 'perfect point'. I believe in the 6 day creation account in Genesis. I believe that those 6 days, were 6 real days in relation to time on this earth as we measure it now, and not stretched out periods of time. After the fall, creation was cursed as we read in Genesis, and thus degeneration began in the state of man and creation. Therefore from this angle, the further we go back in time from where we are now, towards the point of creation, the closer we go back to a state of perfection. However, this as you will no doubt be thinking how to the words 'perfect point' also work in an evolutionary context and timescale too? You are right to say that "evolution doesn't have a goal - to improve a species or whatever". Evolution is not about perfection, but survival, present, and future. So, why would I use the words perfect point? The answer is simple, if the cells of the creatures further back in time have more genetic information, as Richard Dawkins supposes, then in this sense they are at a more perfect point, because they have greater ability for change and adaptation.
In fact there is a nice video you can get from
http://www.answersingenesis.org called From a Frog to a Prince and it conclusively shows that there is no mechanism for evolution, and that life could only evolve by chance in fairy tales, but not in the real world of true science. In this video there are interviews with lead evolutionists (Dawkins included), who get themselves stuck in hole not being able to produce any concrete evidence for evolution. The subject of loss of genetic information in adaptations (a process accepted by both creationists and evolutionists) is also covered in this. I suggest you get hold of this video, I'm sure it could will explain things to you better than I am able to.
Further more as a point about Natural Selection.
According to the Biblical framework of history, struggle and death began when man's rebellion ruined God's perfect creation. Natural selection is just one of the processes that operates in our present corrupted world to insure that the created kinds can indeed spread throughout the earth in all its ecologic and geographic variety (often, nowadays, in spite of human pollution).
As a matter of fact, 24 years before Darwin's Origin, a Christian scientist named Edward Blyth published the concept of natural selection in the Biblical context of corrupted creation. He saw it as a process that adapted varieties of the created kinds to changing environments after sin brought death into God's world. A book reviewer once asked, rather naively, if creationists could accept the concept of natural selection. The answer is, "Of course we do accept it. We thought of it first!"
But if natural selection is such a profound idea, and Blyth published it before Darwin, then why isn't Blyth's name a household word? Perhaps because he was a creationist. It was not the scientific applications of natural selection that attracted attention in 1859; it was its presumed philosophic and religious implications.
Evolutionists were not content to treat natural selection as simply an observable ecological process. Darwin himself was a cautious scientist, painstaking in his work. But others, especially T.H. Huxley and Herbert Spencer, insisted on making natural selection the touchstone of a new religion, a "religion without revelation", as Julian Huxley later called it. For them, as for many others, the real significance of the Darwinian revolution was religious and philosophic, not scientific. These early evolutionists were basically anti-creationists who wanted to explain design without a Designer.
But in spite of what might be claimed, natural selection has been observed to produce only variation within kind, merely shifts in populations, for example, of moths to greater percentages of darker moths, of flies resistant to DDT, or of bacteria resistant to antibiotics. But evolution means more than change from moth to moth, fly to fly, or bacterium to bacterium. Any real evolution, "mega- or macro- " evolution, means change from one kind to another: "Fish to Philosopher", as the title of Homer Smith's book puts it, or "Molecules to Man", the subtitle of the government-funded BSCS "blue-version" high-school biology textbook.
Unfortunately on this forum, people seem to be arguing over what they believe evolution to be. Traditionally, and it is still the view of many scientists today, that they see adaptations in species, and they extrapolate, to say that after enough time, one kind will eventually become another kind (ape to human). They assume that there will be no limitations in one kind becoming another kind. This is now debated among evolutionists, many favouring the more recent version of the theory. Namely this, they say that after enough time, one kind will eventually have one or more descendants that become distinct kinds in their own right (e.g. hominid “fathering†ape and human). Richard Dawkins takes this latter view. It would seem that M82A1 does too. So, lets take a look at this view. There are two options within it:
1. That the original kind has a lot more genetic information than the descendants, carrying many dormant genes and chromosomes, allowing for the descendants to come without any additional genetic information.
2. That the original kind was less complex, and that the descendants gained genetic information over a period of time by “evolutional forcesâ€Â, becoming distinct kinds in their own right through natural selection and other means, even “fathering†new kinds their of their own.
When Richard Dawkins was challenged about the latter (you can watch this challenge for yourself on the video that I suggested), he was unable to provide any real evidence to suggest that it was a plausible theory (and neither has any evolutionist to date that I know of), furthermore, in the light of present evidences that show that genetic information is lost and not gained over time, Dawkins then back tracked and opted for the first option.
This however, means that the original kind must have had all the genetic information to father all kinds that we have now, and have ever had on this earth. It also means that the first cell must have been incredibly complex, and contain an incredible amount of seemingly meaningless parts or information. So this goes back to the question, where did the first cell come from? Again, scientists are unable to produce a plausible model of how the first protein naturally came about without any devine/intellegent intevention, let alone a strand of DNA!
To finish, Darwin himself was acutely aware of this evidence of creation and the problem it posed for his theory. His chapter in Origin of Species on adaptations was not titled "Evidence for the Theory" but "Difficulties With the Theory." In it, he discussed traits that depend on separately meaningless parts. Consider the human eye with the different features required to focus at different distances, to accommodate different amounts of light, and to correct for the "rainbow effect". Regarding the origin of the eye, Darwin wrote these words:
To suppose that the eye, [with so many parts all working
together] ... could have been formed by natural selection,
seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
"Absurd in the highest degree." That's Darwin's own opinion of using natural selection to explain the origin of traits that depend on many parts working together.
Modern evolutionists continue to recognize these "difficulties with the theory" of evolution. Harvard's Stephen Gould writes, for example, "What good is half a jaw or half a wing?" Gould also recognizes that many people (especially artists employed by museums and textbook publishers) have tried to present a hypothetical series of gradual changes from one kind to others. So he adds, "These tales, in the `Just- So Stories' tradition of evolutionary natural history, do not prove anything ... Concepts salvaged only by facile speculation do not appeal much to me." Even though Gould is an evolutionist, he recognizes that the classic textbook concept of gradual evolution rests on made-up stories and "facile speculation", and not on facts.
In another article, Gould points out that the perfection of complex structures has always been one of the strongest evidences of creation. After all, he says, "perfection need not have a history", no trial-and-error development over time from chance trait combinations and selection. So, Gould continues, evidence for evolution must be sought in "oddities and imperfections" that clearly show the effects of time and chance.
But creationists recognize imperfection, too. The Bible clearly indicates that "time and chance and struggle" have indeed corrupted what God originally had created in perfection. Imperfection, then, is not the issue; perfection is. And evolutionists from Darwin to Lewontin and Gould admit that "perfection of structure" has always been "the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer".
:
