Forums → WEPR → Evolution

Can you? As stated, it might be non-falsifiable, like how you can't disprove that a giant teapot is flying around Earth now, and that makes it a weak argument that people illogically follow.

But I think we can see whether or not there is one, because NASA can track the debris around the earth. Where tracking god is a little harder.

You can't really prove that he is or isn't, so it's not really a great idea to call Him names. :P

I think Mage was right, he's trolling.

In that case, just ignore him until he makes an argument.

Mage, where's that site you promised us?

Oh, and a little souvenir.

Feed ye sharks. Feed.

Remember 404? Good troll, good troll.

I apologize for what I said about Christianity. That was wrong of me.
But I still think; Go Evolution!

Sorry. Giant, invisible teapot flying around the earth. I always forget all the characteristics of that darn deit- teapot, because of all the characteristics slapped onto it.

Mage, where's that site you promised us?

Whoops! Two or more species from one kind! Isnât that evolution?

Some evolutionists certainly think so. After I participated in a creation-evolution debate at Texas A & M, a biology professor got up and told everyone about the flies on certain islands that used to interbreed but no longer do. Theyâve become separate species, and that, he said, to a fair amount of applause, proves evolution is a factâ"period!

Well, what about it? Barriers to reproduction do seem to arise among varieties that once interbred. Does that prove evolution? Or does that make it reasonable to extrapolate from such processes to real evolutionary changes from one kind to others? As I explained to the university-debate audience (also to applause), the answer is simply no, of course not. It doesnât even come close.

Any real evolution (macroevolution) requires an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes and new traits as life is supposed to move from simple beginnings to ever more varied and complex forms (âmolecules to manâ or âfish to philosopherâ). Suppose there are islands where varieties of flies that used to trade genes no longer interbreed. Is this evidence of evolution? No, exactly the opposite. Each variety resulting from reproductive isolation has a smaller gene pool than the original and a restricted ability to explore new environments with new trait combinations or to meet changes in its own environment. The long-term result? Extinction would be much more likely than evolution.

Of course, if someone insists on defining evolution as âa change in gene frequency,â then the fly example âproves evolutionââ"but it also âproves creation,â since varying the amounts of already-existing genes is what creation is all about (Fig. 22).

If evolutionists really spoke and wrote only about observable variation within kind, there would be no creation-evolution controversy. But as you know, textbooks, teachers, and television âdocudramasâ insist on extrapolating from simple variation within kind to the wildest sorts of evolutionary changes. And, of course, as long as they insist on such extrapolation, creationists will point out the limits to such change and explore creation, instead, as the more logical inference from our observations. All we have ever observed is what evolutionists themselves call âsubspeciationâ (variation within kind), never âtransspeciationâ (change from one kind to others). (Fig. 22.)

Evolutionists are often asked what they mean by âspecies,â and creationists are often asked what they mean by âkind.â Creationists would like to define âkindâ in terms of interbreeding, since the Bible describes different living things as âmultiplying after kind,â and evolutionists also use the interbreeding criterion. However, scientists recognize certain bower birds as distinct species even though they interbreed, and they canât use the interbreeding criterion at all with asexual forms. So, both creationists and evolutionists are divided into âlumpersâ and âsplitters.â âSplitters,â for example, classify cats into 28 species; âlumpersâ (creationist or evolutionist) classify them into only one!

Perhaps each created kind is a unique combination of non-unique traits. Look at people, for instance. Each of us has certain traits that we may admire (or abhor): brown hair, tall stature, or even a magnificent nose like mine. Whatever the trait, someone else has exactly the same trait, but nobody has the same combination of traits that you do or I do. Each of us is a unique combination of non-unique traits. In a sense, thatâs why itâs hard to classify people. If you break them up according to hair type, youâll come out with groups that wonât fit with the eye type, and so on. Furthermore, we recognize each person as distinct.

We see a similar pattern among other living things. Each created kind is a unique combination of traits that are individually shared with members of other groups. The platypus (Fig. 9), for example, was at first considered a hoax by evolutionists, since its âweirdâ set of traits made it difficult even to guess what it was evolving from or into. Creationists point out that each of its traits (including complex ones like its electric location mechanism, leathery egg, and milk glands) is complete, fully functional, and well-integrated into a distinctive and marvelous kind of life.

Perhaps God used a design in living things similar to the one He used in the non-living world. Only about a hundred different elements or atoms are combined in different ways to make a tremendous variety of non-living molecules or compounds. Maybe creationists will one day identify a relatively few genes and gene sets that, in unique combinations, were used to make all the different types of life we see. It would take a tremendous amount of research to validate this âmosaic or modularâ concept of a created unit, but the results would be a truly objective taxonomy that would be welcomed by all scientists, both creationists and evolutionists. We might even be able to write a âgenetic formulaâ for each created kind, as we can write a chemical formula (a unique combination of non-unique atoms) for each kind of compound.

But why should we be able to classify plants and animals into created kinds or species at all? Stephen Gould,25 eloquent evolutionist and acrimonious anti-creationist, writes that biologists have been quite successful in dividing up the living world into distinct and discrete species. Furthermore, our modern, scientific classifications often agree in minute detail with the âfolk classificationsâ of so-called primitive peoples, and the same criteria apply as well to fossils. In other words, says Gould, each type has a recognizable reality and distinct boundaries at all times and all places: âA Quahog is a Quahog,â as the title of his editorial reads.

âBut,â says Gould, âhow could the existence of distinct species be justified by a theory [evolution] that proclaimed ceaseless change as the most fundamental fact of nature?â For an evolutionist, why should there be species at all? If all life forms have been produced by gradual expansion through selected mutations from a small beginning gene pool, organisms really should just grade into one another without distinct boundaries. Darwin also recognized the problem. He finally ended by denying the reality of species. But, as Gould points out, Darwin was quite good at classifying the species whose ultimate reality he denied. And, says Gould, Darwin could take no comfort in fossils, since he was also successful in classifying them into distinct species. He used the same criteria we use to classify plants and animals today.

In one of the most brilliantly and perceptively developed themes in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Denton26 shows how leaders in the science of classification, after a century of trying vainly to accommodate evolution, are returning to, and fleshing out, the creationist typological concepts of the pre-Darwinian era. Indeed, the study of biological classification was founded by Karl von Linneâ (Carolus Linnaeus) on the basis of his conscious and explicit Biblical belief that living things were created to multiply after kind, and that these created kinds could be rationally grouped in a hierarchical pattern reflecting themes and variations in the Creatorâs mind.

âActually,â concludes Gould,27 âthe existence of distinct species was quite consistent with creationist tenets of a pre-Darwinian era.â (Emphasis added.) I would simply like to add that the evidence is also quite consistent with the creationist tenets of the present post-neo-Darwinian era. In Darwinâs time, as well as the present, âcreationâ seems to be the more logical inference from our observations.

But what about Darwin? He tried to explain âdesign without a Designerâ on the basis of selection and the inheritance of traits acquired by use and disuse (pangenes), but Pangenesis failed. The neo-Darwinists tried to explain âdesign without a Designerâ on the basis of selection and mutation, and mutations failed. The post-neo-Darwinists are turning to âhopeful monsters,â instead of simple mutations, and to âsurvival of the luckiest,â instead of selection. These new ideas have little basis in observation or scientific principle at all, and it remains to be seen whether the evolutionistâs faith in future discoveries will also fail.

One thing is for certain: if evolutionists had to prove their case in court, evolution would be thrown out for lack of evidence. Thatâs the conclusion of two insightful lawyers, Norman MacBeth (Darwin Retried28) and Phillip Johnson (Darwin on Trial29). Neither man is arguing for the Bible; both are simply writing in their field as experts in the rules of evidence and the rules of logic. Iâve had the pleasure of hearing Phillip Johnson, Professor of Law at the University of California (Berkeley), challenge college students to weigh the so-called evidence for evolution and to consider alternatively the concept that life (and, hence, each of their lives) is instead the gift of Intelligent, Purposeful Design.

The evidence is forcing evolutionists to admit the severe inadequacy of mutation and selection, but these same processes are being picked up and used by creationists. What would Darwin say about that? Would he object to his ideas and observations being used in Biblical perspective? Darwin did muse occasionally about the role of a Creator. But, of course, weâll never know whether he would be willing to consider the Biblical framework as the more-logical inference from our present knowledge of genetics and ecology. We can be sure of this, however: a man as thoughtful and devoted to detail and observation as Darwin was, would be willing to âthink about it.â

References

25. Gould, Stephen Jay, A Quahog is a Quahog, Natural History, August/September 1979. Also published in: Species Are Not Specious, New Scientist, August 2, 1979. Return to text.
26. Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, chapters 5â"9, 1985. Return to text.
27. Gould, Stephen Jay, A Quahog is a Quahog, Natural History, August/September 1979. Also published in: Species Are Not Specious, New Scientist, August 2, 1979. Return to text.
28. MacBeth, Norman, Darwin Retried, Gambit, Boston, 1971. Return to text.
29. Johnson, Phillip, Darwin on Trial, Regnery Gateway, Washington D. C., 1991. Return to text.

I'm assuming the flaw is that micro and macro evolution are ultimately the same thing as the prefixes only relate to scale. Basically, if micro is true macro must be true given enough time.

Also, there's an appeal to "common sense" (not sure if that's a recognized fallacy or not). Basically, he points out things that make sense on a surface level but have no scientific meaning:

We see a similar pattern among other living things.

If Evolution is proved to be true, does that mean God(s) or an advanced alien race didn't create life? If an advanced alien race or God(s) didn't create life, does that mean they don't exist?


one day everyone knew the world was flat the next day everyone knew the world was round (I actually forget where I heard it before)

If Evolution is proved to be true, does that mean God(s) or an advanced alien race didn't create life? If an advanced alien race or God(s) didn't create life, does that mean they don't exist?

one day everyone knew the world was flat the next day everyone knew the world was round (I actually forget where I heard it before)

oke i went to work for 1 day and BOOM! 15 pages has passed.

and still macfan1 deny's evolution.

Evilution is false.

oke i went to work for 1 day and BOOM! 15 pages has passed.

and still macfan1 deny's evolution.

we can't help that you are such a ignorand piece of ... (brown sticky stuff )

The reason evolution being demonstrably true does not necessarily discredit the idea that God or aliens created life on this planet is because this is not what evolution deals with. Evolution deals with the change and diversification of life once it formed.

Actually it was more like alot of people suspected it was round, someone demonstrated it was and got labeled a heretic by the church and had his finding suppressed until they simply couldn't any longer.