I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
(09-29-2018, 11:12 AM)jack89 Wrote:
(09-28-2018, 07:31 PM)Paradosiakos Wrote: I don’t believe in the evolution theory where humans came from apes or fish or some single celled.organism. If we did then we should be all that exists. Evolution is supposed to be something where the lesser creature evolves into something higher and that the lesser creature would become extinct. So if we came from apes why are they still around?

Your understanding of evolution is incorrect.  Evolution is simply change in a species over time.  It's not necessarily a matter of lesser or higher creatures, it has more to do with adaptation to environment over generations, or selective breeding because of a desirable trait, or because of a slew of other factors.  Even when you have groups of the same species isolated from each other over many generations, those groups will change.  Not necessarily better, but different, and often better suited to their unique environment. 

And the theory doesn't claim we came from apes or fish, but that we share the same ancestors from millions of years ago who branched and changed in different ways.  That's why there are so many different species.

The reason that I think evolutionary theory is likely correct, to a certain degree, is that I can see with my own eyes how people are different from each other, and people in isolated areas tend to share similar traits.  But if two isolated groups come together and procreate with each other for many generations their distinctions blur and you achieve a new norm. This happens with insects and animals as well.  Imagine that dynamic over thousands or even millions of years.

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
-Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

Evolutionist will often point to adaptation, natural selection , survival of the fittest, change in gene frequency and other similar biological changes in organisms as evidence for evolution. However not one of these is evidence for Darwinian evolution that is rejected by creationist and the bible. Creationist accept and agree with all of the above. If evolutionist maintain evolution is nothing but “change” or natural selection, than me and all other creationist are evolutionist.

“The point is, however, that an organism can be modified and refined by natural selection, but that is not the way new species and new classes and new phyla originated
  -The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 2010

But we argue those changes dont have anything to do with evolution properly defined. Evolutionist are able to pull a bait and switch by defining evolution two separate ways. Because they control public education and almost all media, they can then give the kids evidence for natural selection, or adaptation, and sell that as “evolution.” they can than on a separate page, define evolution in a completely different way, yet use natural selection as evidence for the second definition of witch there is no evidence.

“… starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin points out, ‘the origins of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.’ Gilbert, Scott et al., Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology, Developmental Biology 173:357’372, 1996

Properly Defining Evolution

"If evolution is to occur . .living things must be capable of acquiring new information, or alteration of their stored information." 
—George Gaylord Simpson, "The Non-prevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143, (1964), p. 772.

“natural selection is therefore likely to be important in evolution. However, natural selection does not explain the origin of new variants, only the process of changes in their frequency....But evolution is more than merely a change in trait distributions or allele frequencies; it also includes the origin of the variation.... Natural selection only affects changes in the frequency of the variants once they appear; it cannot directly address the reasons for the existence of the variants.” 
--Endler, John A., Natural Selection in the Wild, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA, 1986

Evolutionist claim that evolution is the cause of the origin of all life and the genetic information of organisms through history. They say the original organisms were simple life forms that evolved into greater complexity over time. Originally there was no genetic information for complex systems such as wings, brains, ears etc the genetic code for these evolved over time. Evolution must than expsalin the origin of all the biological systems, all the proteins, and the genetic information to produce these. It does not have to be able to show the formation of an entire organ, but it does need a mechanism that can increase information and complexity. Yet there is not one example of increasing information or the origin of a single novel functional gene, enzyme, or any sort of biological system despite their best efforts. Evolutionist claim to exspalin origins, so origins is what they must be able to show through an evolutionary mechanism.

From the first cell that coalesced in the primordial soup to the magnificent intricacies of Homo sapiens, the evolution of life—as everyone knows—has been one long drive toward greater complexity. The only trouble with what everyone knows…is that there is no evidence it’s true
-Onward and Upward? By Lori Oliwenstein|Tuesday, June 01, 1993 Discover Magazine

"Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producing new structures for selection to work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we don’t see them. There is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme, system, or organ.
—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), pp. 67-68

Train Analogy

The evolution train’s a-comin’(Sorry, a-goin’—in the wrong direction) 

"Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business cannot make money by losing it a little at a time."
-Spetner, L. 1997. Not By Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution. Brooklyn, NY: Judaica Press, 143.

“I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change—led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence”.
-Dr. Lynn Margulis is an evolutionary biologist and professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. She was married to the well-known atheist and astronomer, Carl Sagan
Discover, April 2011, pp. 66–71.)

One analogy given was of a train. If you start on a train in Atlanta and you must go to Boston than a train heading only west no matter how long your on, will never get you to wear you need to be. The biological changes we observe always take existing information and reduce it, never do they create it.

“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No.”
-[As reported by Roger Lewin (evolutionist), “Evolutionary theory under fire,” Science, vol. 210 (4472), 21 November 1980, p. 883

"A fact that has been obvious for many years is that Mendelian mutations deal only with changes in existing characters . . No experiment has produced progeny that show entirely new functioning organs. And yet it is the appearance of new characters in organisms which mark the boundaries of the major steps in the evolutionary scale." 
—*H.G. Cannon, The Evolution of Living Things (1958), p. 87

“I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these [evolutionary] changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations.”
 -Lynn Margulis, as quoted by Charles Mann, “Lynn Margulis: Science’s Unruly Earth Mother,” Science, Vol. 252, 19 April 1991, p. 379.

"Therefore, the very strong predominance of deleterious mutations in this box [of near-neutrals] absolutely guarantees net loss of information."
Cornell University geneticist John Sanford
-Sanford, J. C. 2005. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. Lima, NY: Ivan Press, 24.

"If macroevolution really is an extrapolation of natural selection and adaptation, we would expect to see environmental change driving evolutionary change…. Is that what actually happens?
-Bennet, K. 2010. The chaos theory of evolution. New Scientist. 2782: 28-31.

“The thinking is we can no longer pretend evolution is just about Darwinian natural selection even if that’s what most biologists say it’s about and textbooks repeat it”” “Scientists agree that natural selection can occur. But the scientific community also knows that natural selection has little to do with long-term changes in populations [emphasis added, ellipsis in original]”
The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur
-North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 2010

"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."
 —*Pierre Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 88.

Messages In This Thread
RE: I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution - by Tolkien RRJ - 12-20-2018, 06:21 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)