In this article, the author tries to prove more than he can using natural selections. I will respond to a few. Now, for those that read the article, note how many times the author uses terms like, "might have, could have, it is possible, maybe"...That is, in part because the evidence does not necessarily prove everything the evolutionist hopes it does, many times they are just stories. They might be true, but please don't say the theory is FACT if you're using words like "might have, and maybe..."
I will have to continue my thoughts on this article on Sunday. I've gotta run for now.
Of the three articles posted, this is one that I could write the most in response to.
Update: It's Sunday and here is the rest of the story.
The author, Ker Than, starts by asking what evolution is and how does it work. That is a good place to start. He also mentions how Darwin speculated as to how a whale could evolve from a land mammal. He states that Darwin once thought about how a bear trying to catch fish would open its mouth and became more aquatic would produce a whale.
Scientists now know that Darwin had the right idea but the
wrong animal: Instead of looking at bears, he should have instead been looking
at cows and hippopotamuses. (emphasis
added)
Problem with this absolute statement is that macroevolution (change from one species to another) has not been observed in the natural world, but merely suggested as fact. So, it really does not matter what animal you use to link the two-one did not become the other or at the least the evidence does not seem to support that claim.
He then goes on to talk about how natural selection is one of the best substantiated theories in science. Here is how he describes natural selection:
It is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of
changes in inheritable physical or behavioral traits. Changes that allow an
organism to better adapt to its environment will help it survive and have more
offspring.
No problems so far. There cannot be too many folks that argue against this. It is seen in nature all the time.
Natural selection can change a species in small ways, causing a population to
change color or size over the course of several generations. This is called
"microevolution."
This is what we see in different breeds of dogs, the idea behind different finch beaks in the Galapogos islands, and even the peppered moths, (though the research behind this has been called into question and is considered highly suspect in some cases see here for a debate/inquiry on this topic)
But natural selection is also capable of much more. Given enough time and enough
accumulated changes, natural selection can create entirely new species. It can
turn dinosaurs into birds, apes into humans and amphibious mammals into whales.
Woo hoo. Here we go into the wild blue yonder of science fiction. This is a world that requires much faith. The World of Macroevolution. OK, this is the idea that BIG changes produced one species to another. Some studies suggest that there is not enough time in the universe to produce the changes evolutionists say happened.
For more information on this subject that is well written and is not just about what "the Bible says", but rather looking at the scientific evidense available and not necessarily accepting the Darwinian explanation for things, but also noting the reasons why it is reasonable to believe that Darwinian evolution cannot always explain everything that it says it does.
Till next time: PT 4-Magic Mutations
Derrick
No comments:
Post a Comment