Has evolution run its course

Hmmm. “Genetic diversity is the clay that selection pressure molds in the process of evolution." What a telling statement.

Selecting from pre-existing genetic diversity? If genetic diversity already exists prior to the evolution, then just what sort of evolution can this be? It is certainly not the sort of godless evolution they love to tout in the textbooks and museums. Or, if it is, then it is an obvious sham.

 

Mutations are bad resulting in disease such as cancer etc.

Mutations are only good in Ninja Turtles.

 

Evolution has been proven scientifically impossible.

 

Ok. References, please.

 

The references are in my signature. Search "Giving Up Darwin" by David Gelernter. Essentially there are 20 amino acids to make up a DNA strand which averages 250 molecules. So schoolboy arithmetic is 20 to the 250th power for each strand of DNA. It's mathematically impossible because everything in life has to be just so.

 

Evolution is a great lie from hell

 

The Germans thought that the English & Darwin had stumbled onto high science. Darwin thought that melanin indicated superiority/inferiority and the Germans believed him.

 

A virus is still a virus, no matter how it mutates!

 

No. I think humans came up with it.

 

yes, but no doubt influenced by that place!

 

Humans generally get plenty of help from the one who takes them captive to do his will.

 

Hello my brother. I want to say that I fully understand the zeal in making this statement and I love your zeal. However I want to just say that I think we do a terrible disservice to the cause of Christ by making such a blunt and blanket statement and I believe this is why we still have this evolution nonsense being taught as science in schools today. Many non-believers dismiss even considering coming to faith in Christ because they think, “I just can't believe in the God of the Bible because the Bible so clearly conflicts with the theory of evolution.”

And brother just give them the benefit of the doubt for a second. If what they are thinking were true, that would actually be a fair assessment on their part. But there are a couple of things about that, you may not have thought of, that I strongly urge you to consider. First and foremost, what definition for evolution are you using. You see there are two primary definitions in circulation today. There's the one used by mainstream biologists and then there's the one which has been over popularized by the media. You might be saying what's the difference? Well mainstream biologists typically define evolution as simply the observed small changes in the population of an organism over time. PERIOD. End of definition. The interesting thing is we do observe small changes happen and we observe them all the time. So, what that means is that by that definition, evolution is no longer just a theory but it is a stone-cold ironclad fact. The funny thing is that there is absolutely nothing about that definition which conflicts with the teachings of the Bible. Nothing. And all knowledgeable creationists fully accept evolution when it is defined in this way.

However, the other definition is the theory that all life has a common ancestor. The truth is that this isn't even the definition of evolution. It’s the definition for a term that scientists call Universal Common Descent. The problem is that militant atheists (and what I like to call TV scientists) love to blur the lines between the two definitions. This is how they've been so successful at keeping their lies in the classroom. By blurring the lines they're actually able to set a trap. Then all they have to do is sit back and wait for some unwitting creationist to come along and go "Evolution is false," and like the hook in the fish’s mouth all they have to do is real him in to look like a fool.

Please allow me to share with you the short and simple ABC facts of Evolution. The A in the acronym ABC stands for Adaptation. You see those changes that I mentioned a minute ago that we observe, when actually studied they are all found to only be the result of already existing genes taking over in a population. Not the formation of completely new genetic information.

The B in the acronym ABC stands for Bones. You see if Universal Common Descent were true then we would expect to find at least one example of a finely graduated chain of fossils leading between any two major forms. However, after over one hundred and fifty years of searching since the time that Darwin first wrote his Origin of Species "manifesto" we have still yet to find even one. Not even one has ever been found.

Finally, the C in the acronym ABC stands for Code. Again, if Universal Common Descent were true then we would expect to see at least on example of observed new gene increasing type of information being added to the DNA code of any multi-celled organism. At this point I usually have to stress the word "multi-celled" because some try to use single celled life as evidence. The problem is that single celled life doesn't adequately represent life on earth. The majority of life we observe is multi-celled. And again, they have never presented us with even one example.

And let me just say that I am not asking you to take my word for it. I strongly encourage you to go get on the internet and do a search for yourself. Look for just one example of a finely graduated chain between two major forms. And I am not suggesting they have to present a link from every single generation. I am merely saying there can’t be large leaps of faith between any of the links. Like a dinosaur with no back sail and suddenly the next link sports a huge sail, or a fish with no legs and suddenly the next link has fully developed legs. No logical person would think it could happen this way. Or search the web for an example new and beneficial gene increasing type information being observed being added to the DNA of any multi-celled organism. I promise you, you won’t find one. Not one that was observed while conducted under a controlled environment like in a lab.

So you might be saying, "So why do all these scientists claim there is all this evidence for evolution?" The answer is quite simple. All evidence presented is typically based solely in similarity arguments. They observe similarity between the major forms and claim this is evidence for common ancestry. But the big problem with this is that similarity can just as easily mean all life had a common creator as it could a common ancestor. But the moment someone suggests this those militant atheists step up and go, "Wait a minute, since we don't believe in a creator similarity can only mean common ancestor." My response, “Well sure, I guess if you’re willing to dismiss a possibility before you even begin your study then yeah, you can make the evidence prove whatever you want. But that's not true science, that's just stacking the deck.”

My point friend is that if you want to have meaningful discussions with people which eventually lead to getting to share your faith in Christ, then you have to change your approach a little. Say “sure I believe in evolution and it doesn’t conflict at all with God’s word.” What conflicts is the kind of evolution promoted by mainstream media as fact, when it is altogether completely unsupported.

Blessings

Brad

 

Of course, you are wrong. The mathematics of the chemistry of the DNA are wrong and impossible. So it is correct to say that Darwin evolution is scientifically impossible.

 

I'm sorry friend, where on earth did you read that I said "Darwinian evolution" was possible? I said that evolution as defined as the observed small changes in a population of an organism over time is a fact. Meaning we do observe small changes happen and we observe them happen a lot. But what we never see is the kind of evolution (Darwinian evolution) in which an organisms DNA code has added new genetic information. The actual changes we observe are merely the result of ALLREADY existing genes in the population becoming predominant due to external climate changes. When Charles observed finches beaks change it was due to a change in climate that made those few who already had the hard beaks able to thrive when the others could not. consequently the existing gene trait was passed on and thrived in the new population. Pleas re-read what I wrote. Trust me, I am on your side here. I am just suggesting that by making the blanket statement that "evolution is impossible" you are shutting down people from receiving the most important message of all. It is not wrong to say that small changes occur and that many biologists define that as evolution. It just isn't the kind of evolution that normally comes to mind when you hear that word. What people normally think of is what is actually called universal common decent. That has never been observed and I don't know what the math shows because I'm no mathematician. I'm sure you are correct because God's word doesn't teach that He formed one kind and from that many other kinds evolved. It says He formed each kind to reproduce after their own kind. The observations agree with His word and I am sure you are correct that the math does too.

Blessings
Brad

 

But you see, Darwin was writing about the origin of the species and the descent of man and he was not writing about small changes. Therefore, Darwinism is now considered false. No one ever disputed about the finches (how could they) but it has now been shown that the beaks could change in a season and that was not a significant thing. The English bred dogs and had many different types of dogs but they were never able to make a dog turn into a cat. What you are talking about is sometimes called micro-evolution but what Darwinism is about is macro-evolution or that all life evolved from a single-celled animal. Darwin was very much a racist and thought that the white race was superior and that all non-white peoples would die out. He was hung up on melanin. His ideas were considered science by the Germans, who proceeded to act in what they thought was a scientific manner. In other words, there is a direct line of thought from Darwin to Hitler. Actually, the Germans perpetrated another holocaust in Africa where they caused the deaths of 75,000 people in what is now Namibia under the colonial governorship of Heinrich Goering, father of nazi war criminal Hermann Goering, who was sentenced to be hanged at Nuremberg but who committed suicide first.

The Enlightenment turned Europe into a nightmare. It spawned evolution and picked up Hinduisms notions of deep time or millions and millions of years. It glorified depraved human intellect and cast God aside. Young people who believe Darwin and deep time see that those things contradict Genesis and so they go with what their elders call science and leave the church. Youth who have heard the scientific errors of evolution and deep time tend to remain Christians.

 

Has evolution run its course?... Well it sure looks like it has, this is the first time on the BB I've seen Watermelon kitty... Brother Glen

 

Yes and again Darwinian type of evolution is actually called universal common descent by biologists today. Which there is no shred of evidence to support. Regarding "micro-evolution" I hate that word. It is so misleading. It implies that Darwinian type evolution occurs on a "micro" level. It does not. The small changes we observe take place are never the result of new genetic information being added via mutation and natural selection. The changes are all the result of already existing genes in the gene pool (albeit existing only in a small minority) taking over in the population after the natural environments change and select those genes. The genes that cause mice to be born white already exist. If food sources on an island became scarce requiring mice to go out onto the white sandy beach to find food, the white mice who blend in to the sand would be more likely to survive areal attacks from bird predators then the dark mice and their genes would get passed on. You would end up with a new population of mostly white mice, but not because of some evolutionary mutation adding new genetic information.

So please listen carefully friend. If a biologist "labels" this type of change to fit the definition of evolution then when defined in this way evolution becomes an observable fact. As Christians we can capitalize on this and use it as a place to find common ground with those we wish to reach with the gospel. But if we just get all up in their face and shout evolution is a lie we have technically misspoken and also driven away any chance of a reasonable dialog with them. That's all I am saying here.

 

I understand what you are saying and I think that anyone who calls these genetic variations within a species as evolution is misusing the word evolution. Perhaps this stems from the fact that Darwin did not know anything about genetics. Molecular biologists certainly understand that Darwin is scientifically impossible even if they do not care to admit it publicly for fear of losing their jobs and friends. I think that that group will probably spend the rest of their lives saying that Darwin is scientific, and clearly some people use Darwin as a religion. Remember that there is a direct line from Darwin to Germany.

 

Christians have no problem with micro evolution, as that would be how we got the various breeds of cats and dogs, but we would take exception to macro, which all non theistic evolutionists hold with!