Evidence for The Creator: Entropy

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Therm/entrop.html

It is the most basic, obvious, and indisputable principle in the universe:

Entropy

From Britannica:
Entropy, the measure of a system’s thermal energy per unit temperature that is unavailable for doing useful work. Because work is obtained from ordered molecular motion, the amount of entropy is also a measure of the molecular disorder, or randomness, of a system. The concept of entropy provides deep insight into the direction of spontaneous change for many everyday phenomena. Its introduction by the German physicist Rudolf Clausius in 1850 is a highlight of 19th-century physics.

Closely related to entropy, especially in the origins debate,  is the laws of thermodynamics.

The laws of thermodynamics describe the relationships between thermal energy, or heat, and other forms of energy, and how energy affects matter. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; the total quantity of energy in the universe stays the same. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is about the quality of energy. It states that as energy is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted. The Second Law also states that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state. 
https://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html

Entropy is simply the observable reality that all things tend towards randomness, unless acted upon by an intelligent,  ordered force.  Even things put into ordered complexity will decay into random disorder, if not maintained by an orderly force.

The sandcastle illustration is commonly used for entropy.  If you build a sandcastle on the beach, then go away, it will dissolve into random clumps of sand.  ALL the forces of nature attack everything,  reducing them to simpler, random forms.  NOTHING increases in complexity by natural forces in the universe.

The origin of the universe had to have an ordered, intelligent force to begin.  In a godless universe,  all matter, order, and complexity we see now would have dissipated into random equilibrium..  cold, dead,  lifeless matter, expanding eternally through infinite space and darkness.   All stars would have burnt out eons ago, and planets,  systems,  and galaxies would be drifting endlessly..  no order..  no life.. only random chaos dissipating any semblance of order.  There is NOTHING to 'arrange' the universe into galactic order, in a godless universe.

Life would be impossible,  in a godless universe of eternal entropy.  The complexity of living things, the blueprint of their design, and the visible order of the universe providing an island of ecosystem, in a harsh, lifeless universe, flies in the face of every natural law, which would have left everything cold, dark, and dissipated.  The stars, orbits, galaxies, and EVERYTHING  orderly in the universe cannot be explained by natural processes.  What, (or more precisely, Who), overcame thr universal dissipating force of entropy, and ordered this universe into a small dot of livable possibility?   The amazing complexity of life becomes absudly impossible,  without an Intelligent Designer to order these things.

Yet in spite of the overwhelming, OBVIOUS impossibility of godless naturalism,  it is taught..  INDOCTRINATED as a religious belief, into everyone in this generation. The propaganda drums pound incessantly,  until the brain dead indoctrinees fall helplessly in line, surrendering their reason..  abandoning science, skepticism, and common sense, until the absurd suggestion of atheistic naturalism seems plausible.   Not content with believing this anti-science absurdity, they have the gall to ridicule and mock those who believe in the obvious:  The Creator.

It is a lame, feeble, and transparent attempt to avoid accountability to their Creator.  Pretending to be wise, they become fools, and worship the creation,  rather than the Creator.

Evidence for The Creator: Reproductive Isolation

Reproductive isolation is where a population becomes isolated and narrows it's diversity to a homogeneous morphology.  It loses the ability to reproduce with other 'cousin' populations,  even when they are clearly descended from the same ancestral clade.

It is generally trumpeted as 'Proof of Evolution!', and declared a 'speciation event!'.  But if we examine what is really taking place,  it conflicts with the common ancestry model,  and fits better in the creation model.

Let's look at equus, as an example.   Caballus and Asinus are the horse and donkey, respectively.  They share a mitochondrial Most Recent Common Ancestor  (mt-MRCA).  This is hard evidence of ancestry, not just assumption and speculation. 

Sometime in the past, as the ancestral equid began to display it's INHERENT  diversity, the traits in the horse AND the donkey split off, and became isolated from each other, due to environmental pressures.

There is also a phenomenon in the animal kingdom of creatures choosing a mate based on morphological similarity.  They tend to gravitate to animals that look like themselves.  Bigotry is a natural phenomenon in the animal world.

Here is a good explanation of the differences and reasons that some of the equus descendants became isolated:

http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/dox/equus.html

*The hybrids are viable because their genes--housed on chromosomes that appear to have undergone major physical rearrangement (evident in the synteny of their chromosomes) during the adaptive radiation of Equus species--are largely homologous. They have all the necessary genetic information encoding normal devlopment and body function. This can be shown via chromosomal hybridization in which chromosomes from different species are allowed to pair as if during metaphase.

However, because the chromosomes have changed so much during Equus evolution, the chromosomes cannot pair properly during meiosis to allow crossing over and successful segretation of homologs into new daughter cells. Hence, the hybrids are almost always sterile, as they cannot produce viable gametes.*

The chromosomes can split (or join) at the telomere level, and sometimes the resultant populations become reproductively isolated from cousin populations from the same ancestors. 

It is ASSUMED, by believers in common ancestry,  that this is a macro evolution event, and a 'new!' Species has just formed.  Here are the flaws in that assumption:

1. The variability in the parent stock has REDUCED, as the strains settle into homogeneous morphology.  They have DEVOLVED, and have lost diversity.  Many isolated populations have gone extinct,  as they were unable to adapt to environmental conditions with their limited gene pool to draw from.

2. Not all animal groups/clades/families/kinds exhibit the phenomenon of reproductive isolation.   Felids do, but canidae and homo sapiens do not.  Lions and tigers isolated, but wolves, dogs, and coyotes have not.  Humans of all races, across the globe,  can still reproduce.   Even those with diverse morphology,  like African pygmies and tall white Russians, have not isolated reproductively. 

3. Some caballus haplogroups can still interbreed, even though their chromosome count has changed, and their morphology has narrowed.   Here is a good example of that:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/148/3668/382

*The chromosome number of the domestic horse is 2n = 64; different races have the same complement. The chromosomes of two Przewalski's horses (at Catskill Game Farm, New York), presumably ancestral wild horses from Mongolia, are identical: 2n = 66, with more acrocentric and fewer metacentric elements than the chromosomes of the domestic horse. This apparent difference in karyotype may help resolve the questions of "purity" in the relatively few remaining Przewalski's horses. Moreover, these findings are of interest in relation to the apparent fertility of hybrids between these species.*

Even though they can reproduce, they are classified as 'different species!'  But it is only cosmetic differences,  and arbitrary definitions, that differentiate them.

So, how does reproductive isolation provide evidence for creation?

1. The ancestral  groups/clades/families/kinds, had the diversity needed to produce each morphological clade, in each group's  phylogenetic tree.  
2. As the 'tree' branched out, *some* haplogroups became isolated,  and lost the ability to interbreed with its cousin clades.
3. Some diversity was lost, as traits in the ORIGINAL  group/clade/family/kind are/were (apparently) lost to extinction. Sabre toothed cats and wooly mammoths are examples of that. 
4. Reproductive isolation is a DEVOLVING process, where less diversity is observed, not increasing complexity or more diversification. 
5. The tips of the phylogenetic tree, in each  group/clade/family/kind, are dead ends, not beginnings of a 'New!' phenotype.
6. Genomic  entropy, not increasing complexity,  is the observed condition and result of reproductive isolation.  Organisms DEVOLVE, when isolated, to a homogeneous morphology., unless diversity from cousin clades can reinvigorate the depleted gene pool.

7. The gene pool at the tips is shallow and stagnant. It stinks of death and extinction, not vibrant diversity. 

This is EXACTLY  what we would expect, in the creation model,  where the parent organism started at 'full', in their gene pool, and depleted  as it branched out.  It is NOT a 'speciation!' event, but a path to extinction,  as the diversity levels lower.  They cannot be infused with 'fresh genes', from cousin clades, but are stuck in morphological monotony,  unable to produce anything but dead ends.

Reproductive Isolation is evidence of The Creator,  not godless naturalism. 

Conflicts with the Belief in Common Ancestry: Mutation

Is mutation the mechanism for gene creation, speciation, and common ancestry?

Mutation.  This is the Great White Hope, that the belief in common ancestry rides on.

The belief:
Random mutations have produced all the variety and complexity we see today, beginning with a single cell.

This phenomenon has never been observed, cannot be repeated in rigorous laboratory conditions, flies in the face of observable science, yet is pitched as 'settled science!'

Does mutation 'create' genes?

No. It alters them, some neutral, and others deleteriously.   But there is no way a mutated gene can be called a 'New!' gene.  This is like wrecking your car, and calling it a 'New Car!'

E Coli

I reviewed the groundbreaking study that allegedly 'proves!' common ancestry here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/debatecreation/comments/ei3l8x/ecoli_proves_common_ancestry_studies_reviewed/

The ability to digest citrates, and mutate, does NOT indicate speciation, nor macro evolution.  It is an adaptation that ecoli was able to do, from inherent genetic abilities.  There is no indication of 'new genes!', or structural changes in the genome.   Ecoli remained ecoli, after over 66,000 generations, only adapting to micro climate conditions.   It is not proof, or evidence of, common ancestry.

Mutation is not the engine of gene creation like so many believe.  It is a deleterious process, that creates nothing.  The complex  features in living things cannot be explained by mutation..  the leap from a single celled amoeba to even a bacteria is untraceable and unexplainable by mutation.  The eye, flight, warm blood..  and countless variety in living organisms have no indication or evidence of being *caused* by mutation. There is nothing observable or repeatable, to compel a conclusion of mutation as an engine of increasing complexity.   It is a belief, with no empirical evidence.

The unbased belief in 'Mutation!' could not be the engine for common ancestry. There is no evidence that mutation caused legs, eyes, hearing, wings, warm bloodedness, or any trait or feature in living things. That is believed, only. Observation tells us that mutations are neutral, at best, or deleterious to the organism. It is not a creative power for complexity.

The sci fi imaginations of x-men, or other mutation based themes, project the possibility of this as an explanation for complexity, but there is no evidence that it can, much less did, happen.

An adaptation, or variety, is something that is ALREADY THERE, in the parent stock, and is 'selected', by human or natural means, to survive.

A mutation only alters an existing trait, (or gene, exactly). It is not a selective process, but a deleterious one, that degrades the organism in almost every case.

Ecoli, adapting to digest citrates, is not evidence for common ancestry. It only shows the adaptability of this unique organism. It is not becoming anything else, or changing its genomic architecture.  It is still ecoli.

The belief in common ancestry completely relies on the wishful thinking of mutation,  as the engine for complexity and variability.  There is  no credible evidence of 'gene creation!' in any study to date. Mutations are not, 'new genes!' Selection, acting on existing variability, does not indicate new genes. Traits, variability, fantastically complex features.. hearing, seeing, flight, intelligence.. almost every trait known in the animal and plant kingdom have no empirical source. The belief in mutation, as a mechanism of increasing complexity has no scientific basis.   It is a religious belief, only.

Fallacies in the Origins Debate: Gish Gallop

This is a peculiar kind of fallacy,  combining poison the well, ad hominem, and red herring all together in a cutesy deflection.

It is specifically used in origins debate, to dismiss points made by crestionists. Some origins subreddits even use the term in their rules.

What is it?  It was coined by Eugenie Scott, a common ancestry defender, atheist, and vocal opponent of creationism.

From her article in the the talk.origins faq, on How to debate a creationist.

"I think they recognize that they have a lot to lose in any other than the "Gish Gallop" format. Tough luck. I can't see any reason why evolutionists should make it easier for them to rally their troops.

If after all of this, you still think you want to debate a creationist, then let me give you some suggestions. First, don't bother defending evolution. Evolution is state of the art science, taught at every decent college and university in this country, including Brigham Young, Notre Dame, and Baylor. So why should you defend it? Tell your audience that there is plenty of information on evolution in the library, in university courses, and in scores of science journals. Creation "science" is the new kid on the block. Let's see if it fits the criteria of science, and secondly, if its claims and predictions stand up to scrutiny.

And then show the audience how creation science is a bust. Don't bother trying to explain something as complicated as evolution, although during your rebuttal you can straighten the audience out on the creationist's stupider claims."

She coined the phrase to dismiss the presentations  of  Duane Gish, an early promoter of creationism from the last century.  He would list multiple points in a debate format, and the complaint is that the evolutionist was overwhelmed with points, unable to give a cogent response to any.

From wiki:

The Gish gallop is a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming an opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott and named after the creationist Duane Gish

I personally met Duane Gish, and attended several debates, when academia still allowed that sort of thing (they use censorship,  now..).  He did have a wealth of scientific material and knowledge,  and conveyed it with sound logic.  I see the 'Gish Gallop!' accusation as an unfair and demeaning deflection, with no rational basis.  Here is why:

1. The debate formats are the real complaint.  Duane Gish would present as much facts and arguments as possible, in the allotted time.  The evolutionist debater would (allegedly) feel unable to rebut so many points in the shorter rebuttal time allotment.
2. Rather than deal with the ARGUMENTS and FACTS, the evolutionist debater found it much easier to dismiss it all, as a 'Gish Gallop!'
3. The irony i see is in the hypocrisy among 'Gish Gallop!' accusers, who often employ a similar tactic of flooding a 'debate' with irrelevant cut and pastes & off topic deflections.
4. Not every point can be made in a bumper  sticker soundbite. To dismiss everything, and complain of being overwhelmed by arguments,  is an admission that the rebuttal is impotent in it's response.

Duane Gish died in 2013, at 92 years of age.  The deflective smear that bears his name is a testament to his convincing, rational, and scientific arguments,  that elicited terror and dismissal from his opponents.

A personal note:
I became a creationist after attending debates with Duane Gish and Henry Morris,  in 1974.  Coming from a diverse scientific background in physics,  chemistry, and mathematics,  i was impressed with the facts and arguments that these debaters displayed.  I continued in origins, even joining the 'debate' on talk.origins in the 90s.  When i am accused of 'Gish Gallop!' (and anyone who engages in this debate will be) , i am reminded  of the warmth, wit, humor, and crushing rationality of this great father of modern scientific creationism.

Theistic Evolution: Science or Heresy?

It is my observation that theistic evolution is the most common belief in America,  and i suspect, most of western civilization. It is an attempt to blend, or hybridize the pop belief of common ancestry,  with the inner felt sense of a universe with a Higher Power.

But it only mixes bad science with bad theology, to arrive at a flawed view of reality.

There are many things you can conclude, if you assume God used abiogenesis and common ancestry to bring man into being:

Theological 
1. Man was not created as a complete being, with a soul.
2. Death and suffering were the means God used, to 'create' man.
3. Mankind is not equal, as there would be different levels of advancement among the evolving human tribes.
4. The biblical account of man's creation and subsequent fall, bringing death into the world, is false.
5. Morality is relative.. as man evolved, so did his instincts about morals. Early man could have brutal animal instincts, but they might change.
6. God is fickle and changing.. there are no absolutes.

Social
1. The more highly evolved, among the human collective, should manage and control the lower forms.
2. Aspiring to evolve the Perfect Man is a logical step, in the evolution of man.
3. Eliminating inferior stock is a necessary step, in any selective breeding process.

Scriptural conflicts with theistic evolution: 

Acts17:24“The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; 26and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’

John1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not [a]comprehend it.

Genesis1:1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Acts4:18So they called them and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. 19But Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. 20For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” 21So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no way of punishing them, because of the people, since they all glorified God for what had been done. 22For the man was over forty years old on whom this miracle of healing had been performed. 23And being let go, they went to their own companions and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them. 24So when they heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said: “Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them

Deut32:6Is this the way you repay the Lord,

you foolish and unwise people?

Is he not your Father, your Creator,

who made you and formed you?

Rom1:25They exchanged God’s truth for a lie and worshipped and served the creation rather than the Creator

Other logical problems with theistic evolution: 

1. If you premise an All Powerful Being, able to create a universe from nothing, why limit Him to naturalistic processes, that cannot even be established as valid scientific mechanisms?   Neither abiogenesis nor common descent has any scientific evidence.  They are conflicting RELIGIOUS beliefs, that have their root in atheistic naturalism. 

2. Attempting to 'spiritualize' the biblical creation account just emasculates it, as a historical event.   Dream and allegory render any biblical or historical event as meaningless and illusory. 

3. The prophets and biblical writers bore false witness, and were liars, relaying events that did not happen. 

Theistic evolution is a lame, irrational attempt to blend State sponsored Indoctrination of atheistic naturalism,  to the inner sense of God.  It tries to hybridize bad science with bad theology, and arrives at a useless, corrupt view of both.  It denies the Ability of God, and ignores the deception and duplicity of man.  It is a deadly poison, that leads people away from their Creator,  to a man made delusion.

Angst

I've touched on the subject of angst in other articles,  but i thought perhaps this concept deserves a more thorough examination.  Angst is the common, universal, & very uniquely human condition of panic, fear, or dread about the abstract ideas of eternity, infinity, & existence. Human beings for all of history have exhibited it, explained it, rationalized it, & fled from it. It is the realization of our mortality.. coming to grips with the fact of our existence, impending death, solitude, or anything else we might imagine. We realize we are on a path that we did not make, & there is nothing we can do about it.

This might be a good place to make fun of ourselves, & angst filled, existential gloom. Existentialist philosophers have grappled a lot with angst, but it is a common concept, going back as far as we have records of man's thoughts. It is a very serious subject, but is faced better with a little self deprecating humor..



Here are some possibilities, regarding the afterlife:

1. Death is the end. No soul. No purpose other than immediate existence. A naturalistic view of the universe.
2. There is a unique soul, and eternal consequences for its words & actions. Individual accountability.
3. There is a unique soul, but no consequences for words or actions. Amoral relativity.
4. There is a life force, but no individuality. Your 'spark' returns to the pool & your individuality is gone.

I can't really think of any other possibilities, from a philosophical POV. If there is not an individual soul.. a unique spark of life that continues in some kind of afterlife, then the result of either #1 or #4 is the same. Your essence, whatever it is, will be lost, & your uniqueness will dissipate into the nether regions of eternity.

But, if there is an eternal soul, that will continue on in another dimension, then the choices we make in this life take on eternal significance.

If we got to choose the above 'reality', i'm not sure any of the choices are very comforting. I've always like Clarke's quote about the supernatural:

“Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” ~Arthur C. Clarke
Some people believe in the naturalistic/atheistic worldview. Others believe in a supernatural/theistic ideology. Many others admit to not knowing. I can't really see that any of the common beliefs has much comfort to the angst filled person, wondering what the meaning of his life is. On the one hand, there is eternal nothingness.. end of story. Life is over, & there is no memory, no future, no purpose or significance to our lives, at all. We are a cosmic accident, with no explanation, no hope, no meaning. Not much comfort there, but at least the pain only lasts a short time, while we are alive.

On the other hand, there is eternal existence. A Supernatural Being (or Beings) hold us accountable for our brief lives in this existence, & we will face consequences for our thoughts, words, & actions. There is a possibility that this Supreme Being is very strict &/or ruthless in His standards, & that the 'sins' that we might consider to be small potatoes, relative to other people, are major issues in the Presence of a Holy God. Not much comfort there, either, if there is a possibility of eternal torment, or continued pain from the actions in this life.

And then of course, there is not knowing. That is hardly comforting, either.

And the other unfortunate thing about Reality, is that we don't really get to choose it, regardless of the fantasy illusions of the left, & their identity politics, where you can choose your gender, race, self image, & eternal destiny. Actual reality is not so accommodating. It IS, & we have to live with it. So hoping that our BELIEFS about the afterlife or the soul is the one that Really Is, might lead to a rude shock.

Humans for millennia have searched for Truth. Angst is a very real thing, in the human experience, & IMO, it is the ONE clear evidence that we are here for Something More. Angst has no naturalistic explanation. But, it has been recognized by wise men & seekers of Truth throughout history.

“What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace? This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words by God himself.” - Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

And the famous quote by Augustine (354-430)
“I took a test in Existentialism. I left all the answers blank and got 100.” ~Woody Allen

So what is the conclusion? Pick the one you like best? Pretend you are at a philosophical buffet, pick & choose the things you like? That does not seem very wise, since there MIGHT be so much at stake. I submit that the words of Jesus & Jeremiah are good advice, for the human seeking clarity of Reality.

Jeremiah 29:12. Then you will call on me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.
John 8:31. “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
If there is something i note from these quotes, it is the necessity of sincerity & honesty, which stands to reason. If there is an afterlife, & eternal consequences for our words, thoughts, & actions here on earth, then a genuine search would let go of any bias or preconceived notions about God or the afterlife, and sincerely seek Reality. Truth is the goal, not validation, or comfort, or justification. The seeker of Truth must be willing to set aside all of their beliefs, opinions, notions, and indoctrinations, if they are truly seeking Truth. If there is a God, He is no fool, & will not be deceived by games or manipulations.

“To love truth for truth's sake is the principal part of human perfection in this world, and the seed-plot of all other virtues.” ~John Locke

And of course, you can just ignore it all & hope for the best. But, if there is an afterlife, and an eternal soul, & a Supreme Being, to whom we must answer for our lives, it seems to me at some point we should make a concerted effort to discover the true nature of Reality, rather than piddle our lives away with temporal distractions. What could be more important than discovering the nature of our soul & eternal welfare?

Evidence for The Creator: Extinction

Extinction is evidence of The Creator.

The wide diversity within each family/type/clade/kind reflects the parent stock being full, and then slowly losing diversity, via genomic entropy.

Felidae, for example, HAD much more diversity in the past, and the big cats are dwindling and going extinct, not increasing in diversity and traits, like common ancestry predicts.

https://m.ranker.com/list/list-of-extinct-big-cats/ranker-science

One of the biggest concerns conservationists have these days is the ever-decreasing population of big cats across the planet. Their concerns are certainly warranted as a large number of big cats have gone extinct since the animals first began appearing some two million years ago. While most people are familiar with the likes of the famed sabre-toothed cats, there are recent examples of tigers, the Barbary lion, and other familiar animals that have disappeared in the 20th century.

Starting with the most recently extinct animals, this list of extinct big cats includes many that went extinct thousands of years ago, but there are a few examples of animals that disappeared in the 1900s. Protecting the remaining lions, tigers, panthers, jaguars, and others is imperative if we want to keep lists like this one of extinct cats as short as possible.

Observation:

The variability within the felidae family has decreased, and there are fewer traits in that family than in times past. Many cat varieties have gone extinct, in the last 200 years, and more before that.

Prediction of Models:

Creationism:
The ancestral felid contained all the variability, from current and extinct cats. Over time, traits can be lost, as isolation and adaptation 'selects' the winners and losers.

Common Ancestry:
The ancestral felid would be simpler, with fewer traits, and would have increased in complexity and variability over time.

The prediction of increasing complexity, added traits, and wider diversity is not observed. There is no mechanism to do this and it has never been observed. It is a belief that scientific observation does not support.

There was MORE diversity in times past, than now. Felidae is DEVOLVING, not adding traits and increasing in complexity. We observe genetic entropy and extinction, for organisms that do not have the traits to adapt to environmental conditions.

The observable reality of MORE diversity in the various families, devolving over time.. at times to extinction.. is evidence of a creation event, and conflicts with the belief in common ancestry.