Why I do not accept evolution part one

[Aussie Pete]

My husband interprets the "after their kind" bit as evolution.

No. It's adaptation. Evolutionists are not able to prove it (evolution) occurs so they've redefined what does occur to mean something entirely different. Adaptation is not evolution. The fruit fly experiments produced 3,000 fruit fly variants. Not one evolved into anything different.

 

[Speedwell]

No. It's adaptation. Evolutionists are not able to prove it (evolution) occurs so they've redefined what does occur to mean something entirely different. Adaptation is not evolution. The fruit fly experiments produced 3,000 fruit fly variants. Not one evolved into anything different.

So how do you explain speciation?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. It's adaptation. Evolutionists are not able to prove it (evolution) occurs so they've redefined what does occur to mean something entirely different. Adaptation is not evolution. The fruit fly experiments produced 3,000 fruit fly variants. Not one evolved into anything different.

I don't think you understand what evolution is. A change in the gene allele frequency of a population is evolution, not adaptation. Small changes add up to big changes over time. For creationism to be true creationists should be able to find a cut off point in that sort of change. To date they have not found such a limit.

 

[Aussie Pete]

So how do you explain speciation?

Speciation is a construct of evolutionists. If speciation did take place, why has it stopped? And why can it not be demonstrated in the lab?

 

[pitabread]

If speciation did take place, why has it stopped? And why can it not be demonstrated in the lab?

It hasn't stopped and it can be demonstrated in the lab.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I don't think you understand what evolution is. A change in the gene allele frequency of a population is evolution, not adaptation. Small changes add up to big changes over time. For creationism to be true creationists should be able to find a cut off point in that sort of change. To date they have not found such a limit.

I disagree entirely. People who breed new varieties of existing plants know that there is a limit to the number of variants that can be bred.

 

[Aussie Pete]

It hasn't stopped and it can be demonstrated in the lab.

I get accused of making sweeping statements without out support. Apparently that is acceptable from my critics.

 

[pitabread]

I get accused of making sweeping statements without out support. Apparently that is acceptable from my critics.

The blue text in my post are links supporting what I wrote. Click on them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Speciation is a construct of evolutionists. If speciation did take place, why has it stopped? And why can it not be demonstrated in the lab?

What makes you think that it stopped? And it has been demonstrated in the lab.

 

[Speedwell]

I disagree entirely. People who breed new varieties of existing plants know that there is a limit to the number of variants that can be bred.

Of course there is. Evolution depends on each generation of a population producing a range of variants for selection. Forced selection depletes the information content of the gene pool faster than it can be replenished by natural means so that variation ceases and no further change can occur. The same thing can happen in nature if the environment, i.e. the selection criteria change too rapidly, frequently resulting in extinction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I get accused of making sweeping statements without out support. Apparently that is acceptable from my critics.

You could always politely ask for evidence, though once you refuse evidence after it has been given you do lose the right to demand any further evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I disagree entirely. People who breed new varieties of existing plants know that there is a limit to the number of variants that can be bred.

Then why can they not demonstrate that? Please provide evidence.

 

[NxNW]

And all those sources say not. So...........NxNW.edu seems alone in that conclusion.
Which is ok. I don't mind. I have a couple issues with no scholarly support as well.

Those sources don't say what you claim they say.

 

[SkyWriting]

Those sources don't say what you claim they say.

No educational sources say they are separate issues.

 

[NxNW]

Science makes no claims regarding macroevolution? Would you expand on what you mean by that please?

Science does not claim that an animal can give birth to a new genus, etc. All change happens at or below the speciation level. We know speciation happens, because it's been documented in nature and in the lab. Once you accept that (and you have to), evolution has all the room it needs to work. I'm just paraphrasing Dawkins here.

 

[NxNW]

Evolutionists are not able to prove it (evolution) occurs so they've redefined what does occur to mean something entirely different.

Speciation is documented, without question. That's all evolution needs.

 

[Kylie]

No. It's adaptation. Evolutionists are not able to prove it (evolution) occurs so they've redefined what does occur to mean something entirely different. Adaptation is not evolution. The fruit fly experiments produced 3,000 fruit fly variants. Not one evolved into anything different.

Do you think evolution means something like a cat giving birth to a bird?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I get accused of making sweeping statements without out support. Apparently that is acceptable from my critics.

My favorite example are the lizards from Italy that were transported to another island and changed their diets and gullets in a few decades:

Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

But the fish evolving new species in cut-off streams in South America and lakes in the African rift region. (I can't remember enough details to google them.)

 

[Kylie]

The blue text in my post are links supporting what I wrote. Click on them.

I look forward to @Aussie Pete's response to this.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No educational sources say they are separate issues.

Here's one that does - which also has an article about why creationists insist on linking them:

The period of abiogenesis is here represented by the words "First Life ?" It is not part of evolution.
darwiniana.org - a project of the International Wildlife Museum