Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#95578 Jul 27, 2013
http://www.garnertedarmstrong.org/pubs/evolut...

"evolutionists often tell us we are wrong to assume the younger strata are always atop older strata. Why? Because the fossils found in so-called "younger" strata are often found BENEATH so-called "older" strata. When this occurs, as it quite frequently does, evolutionists become incredibly inventive. In order to tenaciously cling to their theories, in many regions, including large areas of significant mountain ranges, they seek to explain away arrangement of millions of tons of rocks miles upon miles of rocks, where the fossils are out of proper order; sometimes "upside down." Not that they are really "upside down," please note, but that it appears "older" fossils are found in rocks above "younger" fossils, when these "older" fossils were supposedly extinct for millions of years! Yet, the layers appear undisturbed! Problem! The rocks appear to have been smoothly laid down; are conformable to each other, showing no evidence of massive faulting, overthrusts, or any other activity. What a headache! What a problem for evolutionists! If they ADMIT what their eyes plainly tell them, they would be admitting their entire scheme of the "geologic succession of strata" is WRONG; admitting that the supposed younger fossils DID NOT EVOLVE from supposed older, simpler ones!

But such an admission would be DISASTROUS to evolutionists!

Presto! Forget the evidence. Claim the rocks are "upside down!" Those rocks just have no right to be sitting there, mute, weighing billions of tons, in a ridiculous posture, containing the wrong kind of fossils! Like many a clever defense attorney, just because the defendant is standing there, holding the gun, with the smoke still issuing forth, doesn't mean he was the one who pulled the trigger!"

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#95579 Jul 27, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Part 3
Issue #2: Problem of expanding
The expanding universe theory is often compared to a balloon being blown up. As the balloon expands the amount of space available also expands. The problem of an expanding universe is that it must expand INTO something. If there's anything to expand into, that space must, as shown above, belong in the universe.
But where did all that empty space come from, and why are they forgetting that it's also part of the universe? This seems to be a case of people forgetting what the term universe really refers to.
Issue #3: Problem of time
Along with the problem of empty space, the expansion theory also runs into the problem of time.
Let's look at the empty space ahead of the light waves again. Since we have shown that the empty space ahead of the waves is a part of the universe, let us go back in time 10 seconds.
Would the same empty space still be a part of the universe 10 seconds ago? The obvious answer is yes. Well what about 10 years ago? Long before the waves reaches the empty space, it is still a part of the universe.
Taking this to it's furthest conclusion, would that same space ahead of today's light waves still be a part of this universe way back when the Big Bang happened only 1/2 second ago? The answer again is yes.
http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm...
Your source is demonstrating that he actually has no idea about the big bang. There is not an explosion of matter and energy INTO space. The space time fabric itself is expanding and there is no "outside it". Not only that but the rate of expansion was far greater than the speed of light in the first phase (the inflationary period) when the (currently observable) universe expanded to 300,000 light years across in milliseconds.

Nor is there ever a point where light gets to slow down and reverse course. That is not how the "big crunch" was supposed to work anyway. I laughed out loud. Not only that, but current measurements indicate there is no big crunch coming.

Not only that, but the rate of expansion is not determined by the speed of light anyway. Its an expansion of the fabric of spacetime itself and its accelerating at every point. The edge of the observable universe is constrained by the speed of light, but that does not make it the edge of the universe as a whole.

Your source should either take the time to understand what he is talking about (unlikely) or STFU (just as unlikely).

Same goes for the laughable smear on genomic analysis of the nested hierarchy in evolution. He is clueless, along with his shadow "evolutionist sources". Sounds more like a tabloid than a scientific blog to me, except that tabloids are more reliable.

The fact that you could take this drivel seriously enough to post is merely proves you are even more clueless than your source and have no interest in learning the actual science. Just another defender of bronze age myths that thinks any objection no matter how silly is good enough in your fight against science.

You lose.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#95580 Jul 27, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
http://www.garnertedarmstrong. org/pubs/evolution_biglie.shtm l
"evolutionists often tell us we are wrong to assume the younger strata are always atop older strata. Why? Because the fossils found in so-called "younger" strata are often found BENEATH so-called "older" strata. When this occurs, as it quite frequently does, evolutionists become incredibly inventive. In order to tenaciously cling to their theories, in many regions, including large areas of significant mountain ranges, they seek to explain away arrangement of millions of tons of rocks miles upon miles of rocks, where the fossils are out of proper order; sometimes "upside down." Not that they are really "upside down," please note, but that it appears "older" fossils are found in rocks above "younger" fossils, when these "older" fossils were supposedly extinct for millions of years! Yet, the layers appear undisturbed! Problem! The rocks appear to have been smoothly laid down; are conformable to each other, showing no evidence of massive faulting, overthrusts, or any other activity. What a headache! What a problem for evolutionists! If they ADMIT what their eyes plainly tell them, they would be admitting their entire scheme of the "geologic succession of strata" is WRONG; admitting that the supposed younger fossils DID NOT EVOLVE from supposed older, simpler ones!
But such an admission would be DISASTROUS to evolutionists!
Presto! Forget the evidence. Claim the rocks are "upside down!" Those rocks just have no right to be sitting there, mute, weighing billions of tons, in a ridiculous posture, containing the wrong kind of fossils! Like many a clever defense attorney, just because the defendant is standing there, holding the gun, with the smoke still issuing forth, doesn't mean he was the one who pulled the trigger!"
No, doofus, its not just the fossils that are "out of order". The entire stratum they are embedded in are also, clearly, folded. And its a phenomenon understood according to tectonic plate drift and the collision of continental plates. No mystery. This folding occurs precisely where we would expect it.

More tabloid "science" from your impeccable source.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#95581 Jul 27, 2013
Simple Simon wrote:
If evolution is true. Then why are'nt we actually seeing and observing the process going on continually right now? I mean would'nt there still be monkey -stepping- things- into- people, wandering around on our earth??
EVO 101

Monkeys for the most part live in trees, to which they are well adapted. There is no reason for them to start walking around like humans.

Go back around 7 million years to the climatic change occurring in East Africa at the time, with the transformation of jungle to savanna, and you might see why one particular ape (not a monkey) started to use bipedalism to get about.

Evolutionary change is a response to environmental change. And its not directed towards making humans either.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#95582 Jul 27, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
http://www.garnertedarmstrong. org/pubs/evolution_biglie.shtm

The strata are dated according to the fossils found in them. The fossils are dated according to the strata in which they are found. Does that sound rather arbitrary? It is.
And its also untrue.

The primary dating source for fossils is radiometric dating based on the layers of igneous rock that a sediment is sandwiched between.

The use of similar fossils as an index to date other rocks is a secondary method and not the actual source of the primary dating. However, thanks to the consistency of the fossil record, index dates have generally be found to be quite reliable. Don't take evilushinists' word for it. Oil and mineral geologists have a lot of money riding on getting their drilling right, and THEY use index fossils a lot as they have proven reliable. If the fossils indicate that a stratum is Carboniferous, then thats a bloody good indicator. Don't argue with scientists, ask the guys bank rolling billion dollar prospecting.

Junking the BS from your highly unreliable and poorly informed blog source is like shooting fish in a barrel. I suggest you find a better source. How about the actual science?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#95583 Jul 27, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
http://www.garnertedarmstrong.org/pubs/evolut...
"Evolutionist are fond of pointing to "MICRO-evolution," meaning the many VARIETIES within a kind, and applying it to their theory that a kind evolved from a different kind! This is utterly untrue. Whether pygmy or gigantic Swede, they are both human beings, and inter-fertile. Whether a snowshoe rabbit is white in the winter or brown in the summer, it is still a snowshoe rabbit, and is not in the process of becoming a whale, or a horse, or a monkey.
Your blogger source might find his simplistic thinking challenged by distant relatives like horse/donkey and lion/tiger. More so by Ring Species. But I suspect he has never even heard of them.

Nor does his blind insight offer any reasonable explanation for the convergence between different "kinds" that we see in the fossil record. Mammal-like reptiles showing the sequence of development of the 3-boned middle ear in mammals, 30+ dino/avian fossils that mix features of each group, not to mention tiktaalik, or Homo Erectus for that matter.

Nah, just ignore all that. Does this fool ever get anything right?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#95585 Jul 27, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And its also untrue.
The primary dating source for fossils is radiometric dating based on the layers of igneous rock that a sediment is sandwiched between.
The use of similar fossils as an index to date other rocks is a secondary method and not the actual source of the primary dating. However, thanks to the consistency of the fossil record, index dates have generally be found to be quite reliable. Don't take evilushinists' word for it. Oil and mineral geologists have a lot of money riding on getting their drilling right, and THEY use index fossils a lot as they have proven reliable. If the fossils indicate that a stratum is Carboniferous, then thats a bloody good indicator. Don't argue with scientists, ask the guys bank rolling billion dollar prospecting.
Junking the BS from your highly unreliable and poorly informed blog source is like shooting fish in a barrel. I suggest you find a better source. How about the actual science?
Kabonngg!!

(And I don't give those out often.)

Nicely done.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#95586 Jul 27, 2013
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html



Debunking Evolution:
problems between the theory and reality;
the false science of evolution

These top creationist arguments present the truth about evolution. Top creationist arguments - every one.

"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.
drinK tHE Hive

New York, NY

#95587 Jul 27, 2013
Euthanasia And Prostitution Should Be Legal And Located In The Same Building...

http://soshable.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/0...

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#95588 Jul 27, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
http://www.newgeology.us/prese ntation32.html
Debunking Evolution:
problems between the theory and reality;
the false science of evolution
These top creationist arguments present the truth about evolution. Top creationist arguments - every one.
"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.
Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.
David Bloody Coppedge?

The creationist twit who was fired by NASA/JPL for incompetence? And who subsequently sued NASA and lost?

THAT Coppedge?

Try for a more credible source, willya?

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#95589 Jul 27, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part....
Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen?
Arguing that microevolution happens but that macro doesn't is like arguing that someone can drive 1 mile but they can't drive 100 miles.

If you accept that they can travel, then the distance just requires multiple versions of the smaller travel.

Micro evolution is a change in a gene which is passed onto the next generation.

If that generation has another small change in a different gene and passes it along, then the 3rd generation has 2 changes different from the parent generation.

They keep adding up.
drink The hivE

New York, NY

#95590 Jul 27, 2013
No Kidding - Or The Etherians...

http://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/he-...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#95592 Jul 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
http://www.newgeology.us/prese ntation32.html
Debunking Evolution:
problems between the theory and reality;
the false science of evolution
These top creationist arguments present the truth about evolution. Top creationist arguments - every one.
.....blah blah blah flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.
I think its pretty clear by now that far from being the Almighty Tsar, you are merely the valet of the drunken Pretender.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#95594 Jul 28, 2013
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

"Mutation - natural selection
Here is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible. To illustrate just how hopeless it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature."

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#95595 Jul 28, 2013
drinK tHE Hive wrote:
Euthanasia And Prostitution Should Be Legal And Located In The Same Building...
http://soshable.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/0...
If you're talking about brain dead politicians and special interest payoffs, we've already got the buildings up and running.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#95596 Jul 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
http://www.newgeology.us/prese ntation32.html
"Mutation - natural selection
Here is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible. To illustrate just how hopeless it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature."
So you have no original ideas of your own and the ideas you rip off and paste here aren't any good either.

Natural selection is not the only mechanism of evolution, it is the primary mechanism. Under selective pressure, a beneficial mutation that conveys an advantage is propagated. This advantage can be passed down to the descendants of the original bearer of the mutation. If the advantage has a significant impact on fitness and selective pressure is maintained the mutation becomes fixed in the population. Not random. Over time this process repeated for other genes can lead to new species with this new information in their gene pool.

To date no trait has been found to support irreducible complexity. All the examples offered have been debunked along with the concept. You are right that natural selection does not work in the way you indicate. Only those that don't understand claim it does.

I invite you to look into the research that is investigating the ice-fixing glycoprotein in notothenioid fish. The protein evolved from mutations in a digestive enzyme that have provided a selective advantage allowing these fish to live in the frigid waters of the Antarctic. Thus mutation in an existing gene leads to a new gene for a new protein with a completely different function.

If you want to abuse animals by tying things to their tales that is a crime and it is a horribly deficient analogy natural selection and more fittingly describes intelligent design and the people that support it. I would be interested in watching such an inept person like yourself tie anything to the "wagging" tail of a dog, especially a hammer. I think justice would be served forthwith in such a scenario either through frustration of failure or the sudden impression success would make. As long as the dog isn't harmed. It might even offer the bonus of your own decreased fitness.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#95597 Jul 28, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>Arguing that microevolution happens but that macro doesn't is like arguing that someone can drive 1 mile but they can't drive 100 miles.

If you accept that they can travel, then the distance just requires multiple versions of the smaller travel.

Micro evolution is a change in a gene which is passed onto the next generation.

If that generation has another small change in a different gene and passes it along, then the 3rd generation has 2 changes different from the parent generation.

They keep adding up.
No it's like claiming you can swim but you can't swim to the moon.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#95598 Jul 28, 2013
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

"Only mutations in the reproductive (germ) cells of an animal or plant would be passed on. Mutations in the eye or skin of an animal would not matter. Mutations in DNA happen fairly often, but most are repaired or destroyed by mechanisms in animals and plants. All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal. But evolutionists are eternally optimistic. They believe that millions of beneficial mutations built every type of creature that ever existed.

Believing in beneficial mutations is like believing a short-circuit in the motherboard of your computer could improve its performance. To make any lasting change, a beneficial mutation would have to spread ("sweep") through a population and stay (become "fixed"). To evolutionists, this idea has been essential for so long that it is called a "classic sweep", "in which a new, strongly beneficial mutation increases in frequency to fixation in the population." Some evolutionist researchers went looking for classic sweeps in humans, and reported their findings in the journal Science. "To evaluate the importance of classic sweeps in shaping human diversity, we analyzed resequencing data for 179 human genomes from four populations". "In humans, the effects of sweeps are expected to persist for approximately 10,000 generations or about 250,000 years." Evolutionists had identified "more than 2000 genes as potential targets of positive selection in the human genome", and they expected that "diversity patterns in about 10% of the human genome have been affected by linkage to recent sweeps." So what did they find? "In contrast to expectation," their test detected nothing, but they could not quite bring themselves to say it. They said there was a "paucity of classic sweeps revealed by our findings". Sweeps "were too infrequent within the past 250,000 years to have had discernible effects on genomic diversity." "Classic sweeps were not a dominant mode of human adaptation over the past 250,000 years." --Hernandez, Ryan D., Joanna L. Kelley, Eyal Elyashiv, S. Cord Melton, Adam Auton, Gilean McVean, 1000 Genomes Project, Guy Sella, Molly Przeworski. 18 February 2011. Classic Selective Sweeps Were Rare in Recent Human Evolution. Science, Vol. 331, no. 6019, pp. 920-924."
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#95599 Jul 28, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>And its also untrue.

The primary dating source for fossils is radiometric dating based on the layers of igneous rock that a sediment is sandwiched between.

The use of similar fossils as an index to date other rocks is a secondary method and not the actual source of the primary dating. However, thanks to the consistency of the fossil record, index dates have generally be found to be quite reliable. Don't take evilushinists' word for it. Oil and mineral geologists have a lot of money riding on getting their drilling right, and THEY use index fossils a lot as they have proven reliable. If the fossils indicate that a stratum is Carboniferous, then thats a bloody good indicator. Don't argue with scientists, ask the guys bank rolling billion dollar prospecting.

Junking the BS from your highly unreliable and poorly informed blog source is like shooting fish in a barrel. I suggest you find a better source. How about the actual science?
Real science? Or BS science like evolution?

"A 35-year experiment by evolutionists shows how things really work. Instead of waiting for natural selection, researchers forced selection on hundreds of generations of fruit flies. They used variation to breed fruit flies that develop from egg to adult 20% faster than normal. But, as usual when breeding plants and animals, there was a down side. In this case the fruit flies weighed less, lived shorter lives, and were less resistant to starvation. There were many mutations, but none caught on, and the experiment ran into the limits of variation. They wrote that "forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations". "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles." "The probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments." --Burke, Molly K., Joseph P. Dunham, Parvin Shahrestani, Kevin R. Thornton, Michael R. Rose, Anthony D. Long. 30 September 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 587-590."

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#95600 Jul 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
http://www.newgeology.us/prese ntation32.html
Debunking Evolution:
problems between the theory and reality;
the false science of evolution
These top creationist arguments present the truth about evolution. Top creationist arguments - every one.
"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.
Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.
Evolution, unlike selective breeding by people isn't looking to optimize any trait. If it were, we would have eyes on a par with the giant squid. This is a fallacy you all keep stepping into even when you are told over and over and over about it. What you are saying is that selective breeding taken to the extreme is limited. Aside from the fact that selective breeding is able to produce organisms with outrageous traits that couldn't survive naturally, I don't disagree with you. But that doesn't destroy it as an analogy of evolution. The weakness in the analogy just provides the opportunity for deceitful people to twist it to their own agenda.

Since even uneducated, willfully ignorant people can see variation, it is easy to understand why fundamentalists accept it. It is unfortunate that you stop looking after that.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Your porn star name 3 min The Geno 4
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 5 min Trouser Cough 40,773
Dave's bar and grill,is now open. (May '13) 9 min David0407 5,386
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 25 min Mega Monster 7,862
Highs & Lows of 2014 25 min Wolftracks 13
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 33 min eleanorigby 37,802
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 1 hr mr goodwrench 138,434
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr CJ Rocker 152,928
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 2 hr -Lea- 26,057
Is it possible to....... 5 hr Old Sam 620
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 5 hr dragoon70056 3,051
More from around the web