One very impressive argument that creationists have made is that biological evolution cannot be possible extend beyond the extent of variation within a specie*; that is, a new specie cannot be formed by evolutionary processes*, but they can alter in order to adapt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Before i really post the argument, it is very important that i clarify a few misconceptions, explain a few concepts, etc, etc:
1) There are two definitions of the word "evolution":
2) There are two types of science:
It is also extremely important to distinguish from these kinds of science as well. Please always be very careful to take note of to which type of science you are referring.
3) The term "baramin" is a term of biological classification (separate from the standard classification system used by most scientist). it means:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, here's my proposition:
Natural selection and even some speciation are natural functions of nature that are shown to be true by operational science and have been observed in nature. these concepts are also Biblically sound.
When God created plants an animals, he created baramin (remember, "created kinds") which were the original creatures holding a set amount of genetic information. Over time, variating combinations of the genes came about through the offspring of the original baramin. Natural selection selected certain combinations of genes that were favorable the unfavorable combinations of genes were deselected and, in some instances lost. Eventually, the variations became so great that one variation of a baramin could not successfully breed with another variation. for example, God probably created something like a wolf as a dog-baramin, but not a poodle. Though the poodle & wolf are in the same baramin, they cannot successfully breed because the veriation is so great.
Moreover, genetic information can be lost over time. However, a baramin could never breed with another baramin because they are different kinds (eg. a lion could never naturally breed with a bear).
Evolutionists propose all species derived from other former species through evolution. Creationists and evolutionists divide divide at this point:
Creationists say that the baramin were created with the maximum amount of genetic information that will ever exist and that information had been distributed, reorganized and even lost as species adapted and natural selection took it's effect on them. Today, the varying forms of baramin are the result of the processes in the previous sentence.
Conversely, evolutionists (while still accepting the concept of distributed, reorganized and lost genetic information over time, believe that the species arose from mtm evolution.
The problem is that mtm evolution would require an INCREASE of genetic information as the first supposed life form (a kind of amoeba) was far too simplistic to be responsible the the modern biodiversity alone - it did not have all of the genes necessary for the modern biodiversity!
Evolutionists propose that new information was provided by mutations, but mutations have never been observed to cause in increase of genetic information. they have been known to cause neutral changes, to delete information, insert information, and reorganize the information in DNA sequences, but never to INCREASE information.
The argument could be made that an insertion of genes into a DNA sequence is an increase of information, but in this instant, the inserted information was pre-existing; the original amoeba-like organism wouldn't have had this opportunity.
So then where did the needed increase of information come from? This question has remained unanswered by evolutionists, for the most part, and I have yet to be impressed by the few responses I have seen.
Hence, operational science shows how the creation model (veriation evolution) makes much more sense whereas the evolutionary (mtm evolution) model has great problems with this.
Does anyone have a good argument against this?
Please try to keep everything backed up by credible sources - no I'm not saying that you have to cite what you say, but be try to make sure that your research is credible. I am looking for Biblical and scientific reasons to agree or disagree with the above argument.
Let me know if this sounds confusing, I tried my best to keep it as straight forward as i could, but I may have not been the most successful at that.
And for what it's worth, I am a 6-24 hour day, young-Earth creationist who believes in the full authority of the Bible and a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3.
*
This statement is not entirely true: new species have been OBSERVED (by operational science) to arise from other species but this is only in the circumstances that the genetic information from the original baramin ('created kinds') was been lost - still no new genetic information was added. The baramin have evolved (with variant evolution) to the point that new species have arisen.
It would have been more accurate for me to say, "... variation within a baramin; that is, a new baramin cannot be formed by evolutionary processes ... ." the reason i worded this statement this way was because it would have been very confusing using the term "baramin" right away when most of the readers are not familiar with it.
(Shew, my fingers are tired)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Before i really post the argument, it is very important that i clarify a few misconceptions, explain a few concepts, etc, etc:
1) There are two definitions of the word "evolution":
A) (The more scientific definition) 'change over time', adaptation, variation, etc.;
B) What some refer to as "molecules-to-man" evolution, that is, the idea that the entire modern biological diversity derived from a common ancestor through a long, complex series of ancestors that derived from one another through evolutionary processes.
It is gravely important to make a distinction between these two definitions of evolution (especially in this thread). Please refer to definition A as "variation evolution" and definition B as "molecules-to-man evolution" or "mtm evolution) every time you write the word "evolution" in this thread so that readers can know to which definition you are referring. This very important!B) What some refer to as "molecules-to-man" evolution, that is, the idea that the entire modern biological diversity derived from a common ancestor through a long, complex series of ancestors that derived from one another through evolutionary processes.
2) There are two types of science:
A) Operational science - that which can be observed, tested by the scientific method, and proven true/false;
B) Historical science - science that deals with the far past. This kind of science deals with things like the origin of the universe, earth, life, species, etc. This kind of science is not observable, is not always testable, and cannot be proven true/false.
Operational science is much easier to be called "fact" than historical science because it can be observed, tested and proven true/false.B) Historical science - science that deals with the far past. This kind of science deals with things like the origin of the universe, earth, life, species, etc. This kind of science is not observable, is not always testable, and cannot be proven true/false.
It is also extremely important to distinguish from these kinds of science as well. Please always be very careful to take note of to which type of science you are referring.
3) The term "baramin" is a term of biological classification (separate from the standard classification system used by most scientist). it means:
the original organisms (and their descendants) created supernaturally by God as described in Genesis 1; these organisms reproduce only their own kind within the limits of preprogrammed information, but with great variation. Note: Since the original creation, organisms of one kind cannot interbreed with a different kind, but individuals within a kind may have lost the ability (information) to interbreed due to the effects of the Curse.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/glossary
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, here's my proposition:
Natural selection and even some speciation are natural functions of nature that are shown to be true by operational science and have been observed in nature. these concepts are also Biblically sound.
When God created plants an animals, he created baramin (remember, "created kinds") which were the original creatures holding a set amount of genetic information. Over time, variating combinations of the genes came about through the offspring of the original baramin. Natural selection selected certain combinations of genes that were favorable the unfavorable combinations of genes were deselected and, in some instances lost. Eventually, the variations became so great that one variation of a baramin could not successfully breed with another variation. for example, God probably created something like a wolf as a dog-baramin, but not a poodle. Though the poodle & wolf are in the same baramin, they cannot successfully breed because the veriation is so great.
Moreover, genetic information can be lost over time. However, a baramin could never breed with another baramin because they are different kinds (eg. a lion could never naturally breed with a bear).
Evolutionists propose all species derived from other former species through evolution. Creationists and evolutionists divide divide at this point:
Creationists say that the baramin were created with the maximum amount of genetic information that will ever exist and that information had been distributed, reorganized and even lost as species adapted and natural selection took it's effect on them. Today, the varying forms of baramin are the result of the processes in the previous sentence.
Conversely, evolutionists (while still accepting the concept of distributed, reorganized and lost genetic information over time, believe that the species arose from mtm evolution.
The problem is that mtm evolution would require an INCREASE of genetic information as the first supposed life form (a kind of amoeba) was far too simplistic to be responsible the the modern biodiversity alone - it did not have all of the genes necessary for the modern biodiversity!
Evolutionists propose that new information was provided by mutations, but mutations have never been observed to cause in increase of genetic information. they have been known to cause neutral changes, to delete information, insert information, and reorganize the information in DNA sequences, but never to INCREASE information.
The argument could be made that an insertion of genes into a DNA sequence is an increase of information, but in this instant, the inserted information was pre-existing; the original amoeba-like organism wouldn't have had this opportunity.
So then where did the needed increase of information come from? This question has remained unanswered by evolutionists, for the most part, and I have yet to be impressed by the few responses I have seen.
Hence, operational science shows how the creation model (veriation evolution) makes much more sense whereas the evolutionary (mtm evolution) model has great problems with this.
Does anyone have a good argument against this?
Please try to keep everything backed up by credible sources - no I'm not saying that you have to cite what you say, but be try to make sure that your research is credible. I am looking for Biblical and scientific reasons to agree or disagree with the above argument.
Let me know if this sounds confusing, I tried my best to keep it as straight forward as i could, but I may have not been the most successful at that.
And for what it's worth, I am a 6-24 hour day, young-Earth creationist who believes in the full authority of the Bible and a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3.
*
This statement is not entirely true: new species have been OBSERVED (by operational science) to arise from other species but this is only in the circumstances that the genetic information from the original baramin ('created kinds') was been lost - still no new genetic information was added. The baramin have evolved (with variant evolution) to the point that new species have arisen.
It would have been more accurate for me to say, "... variation within a baramin; that is, a new baramin cannot be formed by evolutionary processes ... ." the reason i worded this statement this way was because it would have been very confusing using the term "baramin" right away when most of the readers are not familiar with it.
(Shew, my fingers are tired)