Rather the dishonest creationist game of semantics. "Evolution" has a very specific meaning in science. Originally, it was "descent with modification." Then, with the discovery of genetics, it was "change in allele frequency in a population over time." Creationists often try to avoid the actual pheonomena, and confuse agencies of evolution (like natural selection), or consequences of evolution (like common descent) with the real thing.
Only inheritable variation is evolution.
Only inheritable adaptation is evolution.
Technically, that's what is called "macroevolution." Microevolution is evolution within a species, and macroevoltuion is the evolution of new taxa.
No, that was the one-hit joke of a 1980s pop group. There is no "de-volution." Only change. What did you think "de-volution" is?
Stuff like resistance to viruses, or change in pigmentation, or evolution of a new digestive organ, is adaptive evolution. Not all evolution is adaptive. Some is merely genetic drift or neutral changes that have little or no adaptive consequences.
Actually, all humans evolved from other pimates. There's a huge amount of genetic, fossil, and anatomical data documenting the fact. As you learned, even honest YE creationists admit that the many fossil transitionals of hominids is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."
As you learned, it's mutation and natural selection. And direct observation shows that's all that is needed.
I think if you calmed yourself, and tried to put a cogent argument together, you'd probably do better than you're doing.
So far, lots of fun. And we're just starting.
Fields. My first degree was in the area of biology. Without being specific enough to be identifying myself, I did graduate work in immunology and another degree in systems, as it applies to biological systems and human structure and capabilities.
Studied entomology, mainly systematics/parasitology/medical ent. And I completed all my pre-med courses, getting drafted and then married before deciding not to go on there.
Barbarian, regarding creationist admissions of common descent:
Or forming new ones. Or modifying old ones. Usually, breaking genes won't produce new taxa. AIG and ICR admit to new species, genera, and families descending from common ancestors, and sometimes,they go a bit beyond that. That's a load of common descent.
I’m already subscribed.
Throughout this series, the subject of evolution will be made plain. Many of its teachings will be deconstructed and the underlying assumptions exposed. You will be left with a conclusive picture about the theory of evolution. Your thinking—and understanding—about the foundation of the world will be forever changed.
You have but one task as you read: Review the evidence with an open mind. Do not allow any existing bias to blind you to this crucial understanding. The implications are much greater than you probably realize.
Most scientists believe that evolution is the foundation for many disciplines of science. Biologists, geologists, archaeologists, biochemists, etc., would state that evolution is the starting point for further study.
Why is evolution cemented in the minds of many as
fact, when it is nothing more than
theory?
How did this occur?
Certain aspects of evolution may be confusing and difficult to understand. Do not be surprised! The rationale invented to support evolution
is bewildering and complicated. It
is tiresome and boring. Certain facts are conveniently left behind, and tedious scholarly language is used to stop most people from examining the subject in detail. Left frustrated, most assume evolution to be fact.
This series will demystify the subject. You will know if evolution is science fact or science fiction. Convoluted and illogical theories will be simplified in a way never before presented. While some sections are technical, the more detail given, the better you will be able to see through the theory’s “smoke and mirrors.” Clear and simple logic always destroys ill-conceived suppositions.
Once evolution is dismantled, you will be left with many questions—and serious implications.
Conflicting Opinions
Even a cursory review of this subject demonstrates that decades of scientific study have resulted in little more than assumption, disagreement and widespread confusion. Allow the late Colin Patterson, once the world’s foremost fossil expert, to summarize: “One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff [evolution] for twenty years and there was
not one thing I knew about it.”
He addressed his concerns to both the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago, saying, “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?” Each time, he was met with weak explanations, hypotheses and theories.
The only salient comment came during the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar, in which one participant stated, “I do know one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school.”
This led Mr. Patterson to conclude, “It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.”
What are the facts about the theory of evolution? What do we actually
know? What is the basis for its near universal acceptance?
You will be amazed at what the scientific evidence reveals!
Science is Logical
No matter the discipline, when one is presented with a vast swath of empirical data, sound logic must be used to interpret it. Right conclusions can only be reached when proper logic is employed. Faulty logic—often called logical fallacies—cause error, confusion and misinterpretation. Sometimes these fallacies are used by accident; other times the motives are more sinister.
In the latter case, fallacies are meant to cause an audience to misinterpret data and reach a wrong conclusion. By creating a tangled web of confusion, the data is impossible to navigate and correct conclusions are lost.
While it should not be so, science is riddled with logical fallacies. Nowhere is this more true than with the subject of evolution. The seven fallacies below are the most commonly used to explain evolution. As the evidence unfolds, try to recognize these fallacies in the evolutionist’s arguments.
- Hasty Generalization: A small sample is used to reach a broad conclusion. Suppose your local car dealership only sells red cars; a hasty generalization is to conclude that all dealerships in your country only sell red cars.
- Begging the Question: Often referred to as “reasoning in a circle,” or circular logic. An assumption is used to prove a conclusion; in turn, that conclusion is used to prove the original assumption.
- Misuse of Authority: Pointing to a group of experts to validate a conclusion, even if those experts disagree with each other or with the conclusion. An example would be stating that dentists prefer a certain brand of toothpaste, but never actually polling them about their preference in the first place.
- Appeal to the People: Using the general public as a basis for proving a hypothesis, instead of relying on relevant evidence. Stating, “Of course, everyone accepts that as fact,” would be an example.
- Argument to Future: Stating that while a theory is not yet proven, it will be with further study and investigation.
- Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: Repeating as new a theory or hypothesis already disproven. This is akin to asserting that the earth might be flat, when evidence already demonstrates otherwise.
- Chronological Snobbery: When a theory is either refuted or proven by dating “evidence” as extremely old, making it either no longer available or impossible to verify.
One theme flows throughout all fallacies: They are false! Through dishonesty and lies, a proponent attempts to deceive. People would not be surprised if such a person was a snake oil salesman or a con artist. However, it is shocking how often scientists use such deception to promote the theory of evolution as irrefutable fact.
