A misunderstanding in the Creation vs. Evolution debate is that creationists deny that populations of organisms change over time. I freely admit that this has been observed. A small change over time though is not the same thing as very large changes over time.
If a bird develops a sharper beak, it’s still a bird. If a moth develops a different color scheme on its wings, it’s still a moth. Creationists do not deny change but its extent. The Darwinist is generally talking of an innumerable amount of change from the first, single living thing into all the 3,000,000+ known species of organisms on the planet. Creationists refer to this as “molecules to man” evolution. Evolutionists generally use information that suggests organisms can change slightly over time and make a giant leap to say this shows large changes will take place. There are numerous hurdles involved in this process that no one has yet explained. Most of them have to do with functional anatomy. There is no way to explain major gaps between organisms. Darwinists are often still trying to argue against the creationist in this fashion—saying that a small change in a population proves universal common descent. But creationists even before Darwin began to realize that fixity of species was not an observable thing. The Darwinian tree of ancestry doesn’t exist in real life and never has.
As I hope to show over time this year, there is little support of Darwinian evolution and several very large problems that have yet to be explained.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n1/species-changehttp://www.icr.org/article/impetus-for-biological-change/
http://creation.com/genetic-engineers-unwind-species-barrier-254
12 comments:
Your argument presupposes categories of animal. Humans categorize things (our brains are addicted to pattern-making), but nature doesn't. Nature doesn't say "this is a dog and this is a dog and this is a dog but this isn't a dog" Millions of small changes result in big change. The same way that millions of tiny steps result in a very long distance traveled.
Millions of small changes can accumulate to large changes but the problem is that we have not found evidence of millions of small changes resulting in big change... There is still a missing link between primates and human ancestors. Archeology shows huge "leaps" in what has been interpreted to be organisms "evolutionary history". As a scientist, if there is no data to support the theory, it can only be a theory. We have only accumulated data to support "micro evolution" and by philosophical extrapolation assumed that means that "macro evolution" must also be possible and have happened.
Today's Worldview Warriors Fastcast! Changes over time: Do they prove evolution? Check it!
http://worldviewwarriors.org/fastcasts/1-January/010714-ChangeOverTime.mp3
James, you are correct that there are presuppositions of categorizations. But is that not what evolution does as well? How is the Classification of life determined? By common features based on "categorization". The problem with the 'millions of small changes' is what changes are actually taking place. For every one change that can remotely be considered beneficial (and those are extremely rare) there are thousands more that are at best neutral or more often detrimental. The small changes observed have produced the variety of dog breeds and horse breeds and cat breeds, but the dog, horse, and cat ancestor all had purer genes. If the millions of changes do add up, are you saying the common ancestors had the DNA and the genes that every single life form has today? Because that is what the actual science would require.
I have a Page on Facebook called "The Question Evolution Project", and a source for our almost-daily featured articles, "Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman". This requires a great deal of reading and learning on my part. Not just science, but also theology. It's fine, I like it.
Of all the creationist material I've seen, none of them believe in "fixity of species" (everything is created as is). They affirm natural selection and variations, but those are all within genetic limits. Informed evolutionists know that natural selection does not cause macro-evolution, hence, neo-Darwinism.
Amazingly, I had to ban someone from our Page because he insisted that natural selection did not exist, it was evolution and anyone who said that natural selection existed was compromising the Bible. He refused to consider any discussion or links we had to offer.
By the way, "Question Evolution Day" is February 12, Darwin's birthday
-Cowboy Bob Sorensen
The point I'm trying to make here is simply that small changes over a period of time (regardless of its length) does not necessarily become a large change. In fact, we've not observed anything like this either in real time or the fossil record. It's also built into our DNA, like computer programming, that we cannot allow much change at all to take place in our genetic code. If we were to mutate at a level that would actually create something fundamentally different, the change itself would likely kill us. And slow change over time cannot develop a new organ or system. NS would weed that organ or system out as it would not be functional.
The analogy of walking many small steps to cover a great distance was used. However, I will suggest that this analogy is incorrect. No matter how many small steps I take, I cannot walk from LA to Tokyo. I can make small steps to walk over the cracks in a sidewalk, but there is no way to do this if the crack is too large for my steps to make it to the other side. There are essentially 3 types of change that can occur--a neutral change, a degenerative/downward change, and, finally, upward change. Creation theory allows for the 2 former types--the types we observe. Evolution from a single common ancestor requires the only type of change we've never actually seen. That's the point.
To further clarify, this blog was written to expose the fact that when evidence can be used to support 2 opposing views (universal common descent and special creation) it should not be used by either side as conclusive. The only thing I would add to that is creation actually incorporates the observed types of change we see in nature and universal common descent does not do that.
"To further clarify, this blog was written to expose the fact that when evidence can be used to support 2 opposing views (universal common descent and special creation) it should not be used by either side as conclusive. "
There is no evidence that could be against special creation. If I'm wrong, please tell me some hypothetical evidence that would be contrary to special creation but not evolution.
David, I am confident no evidence can be used against evolution from a single common ancestor. Regardless of what is found, the theory accommodates it. Creation theory is a beautiful interpretation of the data that also fits with the eye witness account of creation and the Bible. So, again, if the same evidence is accommodated by two opposing theories, the data should not be used in an attempt to verify either. Is this making sense now, David? And thank you for engaging with me/us here. It's appreciated greatly.
btw: there are many specific things spoken of in Scripture in regards to creation and the Flood. If you truly want to know them and how to refute them, read the Bible yourself. Thanks, again.
Post a Comment