Creationists Explain Evolution

[KWCrazy]

However you would explain the basics of what evolutionary theory is about. And if you aren't sure exactly what to address still, just make your best guess. And no, whether or not you agree with it is not relevant, I just want you to put into your own words what you think the theory covers.

This is a silly premise; yet another evolution proponent who has convinced themselves that the only reason people reject evolution is because they don't understand it. Balderdash! It's been the staple of educational indoctrination for decades. The reason there is so much confusion stems from its proponents re-defining it every time they get stumped.

The reality is that adaptation happens. Evolutionists would jump on this and see "See, evolution is merely adaptation over time." No, it isn't. Adaptation is natural selection; the selection of advantageous traits and the extinguishing of disadvantageous traits over subsequent generations. Since it selects from available information, it is by definition a conservative process where information is lost but not acquired.

"But mutations!" you interject; as if the rare beneficial mutation could actually be the driving force for all speciation. It doesn't work that way. Mutations cannot account for the acquisition of new genetic information and the encoding of it into the reproductive system. While devolution is possible, evolution is not. The "original progenitor" would have to originate with all the genetic information needed to sire every plant or animal in existence. No such entity ever existed. In fact, increasing complexity has never been observed, has never been demonstrated, and has never been more than the wishful hoping of people desperate to believe that everything came from nothing of its own accord.

Are there similarities in biology? Sure. Wouldn't that be expected if all living things were created in one place at one time by one Creator using the same materials, the same blueprint for life? Can we use selective breeding to domesticate canines into pocket puppies? Yes, but so far nobody has been able to breed gills into a dog. If the genetic information doesn't exist in a species it will NEVER exist in a species. There are no provable exceptions. Can bacteria learn to eat nylon? Sure. I learned to eat brussel sprouts.

The bottom line is that neither creation nor evolution can be proven. Each requires an element of faith; either in the sovereignty of the Creator or in the physical laws of the creation. We know and understand this. We are well educated and very familiar with the claims made by the molecules-to-man crowd. We've heard the pompous undereducated tell us time and time that we don't understand evolution. Actually we do. We simply put our faith in a higher authority.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is a silly premise; yet another evolution proponent who has convinced themselves that the only reason people reject evolution is because they don't understand it.

That's not it at all.

The point being made is that the you don't even understand the theory you claim to reject. We have no doubt that you would also reject the real theory of evolution since you really aren't interested in the evidence anyway.

"But mutations!" you interject; as if the rare beneficial mutation could actually be the driving force for all speciation. It doesn't work that way. Mutations cannot account for the acquisition of new genetic information and the encoding of it into the reproductive system.

We see this claim all of the time, yet none of the creationists can back it up. They can't even measure the genetic information of a genetic sequence. Genetic information is not a part of the theory of evolution, so why would it need to explain it?

While devolution is possible, evolution is not.

You just said that disadvantageous mutations would be selected against. Are you changing your mind?

Are there similarities in biology? Sure. Wouldn't that be expected if all living things were created in one place at one time by one Creator using the same materials, the same blueprint for life?

You can have similarities without having a nested hierarchy. Once again, you are a creationist who doesn't understand that it is not the similarities themselves that point to evolution. It is the PATTERN of similarities, and that pattern is a nested hierarchy.

Can we use selective breeding to domesticate canines into pocket puppies? Yes, but so far nobody has been able to breed gills into a dog. If the genetic information doesn't exist in a species it will NEVER exist in a species. There are no provable exceptions.

Please show us a single genetic difference between chimps and humans that could not have been produced by the combined mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection.

The bottom line is that neither creation nor evolution can be proven.

The theory of evolution can be tested. That's the difference.

 

[EternalDragon]

That's not it at all.

The point being made is that the you don't even understand the theory you claim to reject. We have no doubt that you would also reject the real theory of evolution since you really aren't interested in the evidence anyway.

We see this claim all of the time, yet none of the creationists can back it up. They can't even measure the genetic information of a genetic sequence. Genetic information is not a part of the theory of evolution, so why would it need to explain it?

You just said that disadvantageous mutations would be selected against. Are you changing your mind?

You can have similarities without having a nested hierarchy. Once again, you are a creationist who doesn't understand that it is not the similarities themselves that point to evolution. It is the PATTERN of similarities, and that pattern is a nested hierarchy.

Please show us a single genetic difference between chimps and humans that could not have been produced by the combined mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection.

The theory of evolution can be tested. That's the difference.

False, false and false. You seem so hooked on a feeling.

Most responses here have nailed the description of evolution to
a T. You keep accusing people of not knowing the REAL theory of
evolution. Which is what exactly? That life forms can shape shift at
will?

 

[Loudmouth]

False, false and false. You seem so hooked on a feeling.

What is false?

Most responses here have nailed the description of evolution to
a T. You keep accusing people of not knowing the REAL theory of
evolution. Which is what exactly? That life forms can shape shift at
will?

You admit not knowing what the theory of evolution proposes?

 

[Dizredux]

F
Most responses here have nailed the description of evolution to
a T. You keep accusing people of not knowing the REAL theory of
evolution. Which is what exactly? That life forms can shape shift at
will?

I cannot comprehend how someone can argue against a scientific theory when they don't have the slightest clue of what is involved.

Dizredux

 

[Gracchus]

I cannot comprehend how someone can argue against a scientific theory when they don't have the slightest clue of what is involved.

Let's be accurate. Let's be fair. Some of them do have the slightest clue.

 

[EternalDragon]

What is false?

That patterns of similarities equal evolution or that there
are hierarchies. Certainly there are within species but not
everything fits in, so saying everything does is false.

You admit not knowing what the theory of evolution proposes?

No, I want you to explain where everyone is wrong in your opinion
and what this mysterious REAL theory of evolution is that you are
holding onto.

 

[Smidlee]

That patterns of similarities equal evolution or that there
are hierarchies. Certainly there are within species but not
everything fits in, so saying everything does is false.

.

Notice he asked you " Please show us a single genetic difference between chimps and humans that could not have been produced by the combined mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection."

Geneticist have known for some time the biggest differences are not due to genes. The reason they are so many mini-theories of evolution is because of the failure of Neo-Darwinism (random mutation and NS) matching what we learn about living cells. It's not matching the "real" world.

Also he using Darwin's tactic of asking the unbelievers of naturalism to provide the evidence of something that couldn't have happen or evolve.

 

[Dizredux]

Notice he asked you " Please show us a single genetic difference between chimps and humans that could not have been produced by the combined mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection."

Geneticist have known for some time the biggest differences are not due to genes.

Then what, pray tell?

Dizredux

 

[bhsmte]

I cannot comprehend how someone can argue against a scientific theory when they don't have the slightest clue of what is involved.

Dizredux

It's fear driven.

Why honestly learn about something, that could crater a long held belief?

What do you do instead, do everything you can to discredit it, even though you don't understand it.

Could be, the most common behavior we see on these boards.

 

[Loudmouth]

That patterns of similarities equal evolution or that there
are hierarchies. Certainly there are within species but not
everything fits in, so saying everything does is false.

For the purpose of this thread, at least you understand that evolution predicts a nested hierarchy.

No, I want you to explain where everyone is wrong in your opinion
and what this mysterious REAL theory of evolution is that you are
holding onto.

Look at the title of the thread.

 

[Loudmouth]

Geneticist have known for some time the biggest differences are not due to genes. The reason they are so many mini-theories of evolution is because of the failure of Neo-Darwinism (random mutation and NS) matching what we learn about living cells. It's not matching the "real" world.

What doesn't match? What are the differences you are referring to? Differences in morphology? Differences in sequence? What exactly?

Also he using Darwin's tactic of asking the unbelievers of naturalism to provide the evidence of something that couldn't have happen or evolve.

Creationists are the ones claiming that mutations could not produce the differences seen between genomes. I am simply asking for an example of one of those differences that mutations could not produce.