Why I don't believe in evolution...

[rjs330]

Genetic data, fossil record, anatomy, embryology, etc. all indicate a common ancestor.

No it doesn't. You assume it does. But you can't prove a common ancestor. No amount of testing or experimentation can or has proven that. You may guess, believe it think it is true, but you cannot prove it true. You may assume that it is true, but you can't actually show it's true.

 

[rjs330]

Nothing living evolves. Populations evolve. Individuals do not.



Genetic data, fossil record, anatomy, embryology, etc. all indicate a common ancestor.



That's a testable assumption (and a very large dose, indeed). Let's see what a knowledgeable YE creationist has to say about that:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood The Truth About Evolution

He's right. There is evidence that evolution from a common ancestor COULD be true. But the evidence does not show that it IS true. It also could be false. That's where humanity fails. People assume it is true. There is also evidence of design. People choose what they want to believe.

 

[The Barbarian]

He's right. There is evidence that evolution from a common ancestor COULD be true.

Which as he says, is what the evidence shows us. He honestly says that he prefers his understanding of scripture to the evidence. And there's nothing dishonorable in that.

People assume it is true.

No. We accept the evidence as it is. For example, the genetic evidence, showing common descent, can be checked by looking at the genomes of organisms of known descent. This is how we know it works.

 

[The Barbarian]

Nothing living evolves. Populations evolve. Individuals do not.

Not true.

Absolutely true. You're stuck with the genes you have. And the scientific definition of biological evolution rules out such change, even if it was possible. This goes back to the point that most people who think they hate evolution, don't know what it is.

You don't see an entire population evolve all all once.

By definition, you do. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. So as soon as there's one mutation in the population, it has evolved. Remember, individuals do not evolve; populations do.

 

[rjs330]

Which as he says, is what the evidence shows us. He honestly says that he prefers his understanding of scripture to the evidence. And there's nothing dishonorable in that.



No. We accept the evidence as it is. For example, the genetic evidence, showing common descent, can be checked by looking at the genomes of organisms of known descent. This is how we know it works.

No we don't know how it works. That's the problem. We guess we assume and we hypothesize but we don't know.

The evidence we have does not show that it happened. The only thing we KNOW as believers is what God says in his word about creation. We can't experiment our way into it. We can only guess or assume it hypothetically suppose something.

Genomes only show commonality or similarity. They do not show common descent of all things from one thing.

God said he created certain creatures before others. And this creation is different than what evolution assumes. You must disbelieve the bible in order to believe in evolution from a common ancestor. You trust science, which is terribly imperfect over God who is perfect. You trust in an unprovable guess over trusting in what God says happened.

There is no getting around this. Evolution from a common ancestor is nothing more than faith in a doctrine of man. Because none of it can be shown to be true.

We have compared gene sequences common to humans frogs sea creatures, fruit flies and nematodes. The results did not show evolutionary relationships. Different genes aligned in different sequences. No tree is possible. So there is no consistent relationship.
It cannot be proven. It can only be assumed.

 

[rjs330]

Absolutely true. You're stuck with the genes you have. And the scientific definition of biological evolution rules out such change, even if it was possible. This goes back to the point that most people who think they hate evolution, don't know what it is.

I am stuck with the genes I was born with. But in order for my species to evolve from fish to human and individual creature must evolve or be born with a different genetic structure that allows to go from fins to feathers. That happens on an individual basis. It does not happen on a broad scale. That's all I'm getting at.

And we have zero evidence that this has or can occur. We have never been able to observe, test or replicate such a thing.

Genetic study always shows what a creature is. It never shows what it was way back and never shows that it is going to look and be quite different in a million years. Can't be done.

 

[rjs330]

definition, you do. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. So as soon as there's one mutation in the population, it has evolved. Remember, individuals do not evolve; populations do.

Evolution of a creature is observable, as it adapts to it's needs and environment. But it is ALWAYS what it is. A bird might grow a stronger wing. But it remains a bird. A lizard might adapt to it's surroundings in it's digestive system. But it remains a lizard and always will be. And we can know it is by it's genetic makeup.

It always starts with an individual. It doesn't start with a population.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolution of a creature is observable, as it adapts to it's needs and environment.

No. This goes back to the issue that most people who think they hate evolution, don't even know what it is. You're stuck with the genes you were born with (unless gene therapy becomes a reality).

Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. If you spend time in sun and tan, you haven't evolved. That was already in your genes.

Indivduals born with a new mutation, have not evolved. They always had it. But the population in which they were born, did evolve thereby. If this puzzles you, hit the books and learn about it, before you try to explain it to everyone else.

 

[The Barbarian]

No we don't know how it works.

You have that wrong, too. We observe mutations in populations, and how they spread or die out, depending on selective value. Genetic relatedness indicates common descent, as tests on organisms of known descent show us. That's how we know it works.

That's the problem. We guess we assume and we hypothesize but we don't know.

You might do that. Scientists test and examine data. It's not a hypothesis that organisms of common descent show genetic relatedness. It's a fact. You can like it. You can hate it. You can even deny it.

Reality goes on, indifferent to our feelings. Sorry.

 

[rjs330]

No. This goes back to the issue that most people who think they hate evolution, don't even know what it is. You're stuck with the genes you were born with (unless gene therapy becomes a reality).

Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. If you spend time in sun and tan, you haven't evolved. That was already in your genes.

Indivduals born with a new mutation, have not evolved. They always had it. But the population in which they were born, did evolve thereby. If this puzzles you, hit the books and learn about it, before you try to explain it to everyone else.

No it always starts with one and then moves on.

You are stuck with the genes you are born with. A mutation comes from your genetic make up. But the strength if that gene is passed from one to another. It doesn't happen in whole populations. It starts with an individual. Then it moves on.

But regardless of the mutation the creature. ALWAYS remains as the same type of creature. Because the genetic make up says so.

 

[rjs330]

You have that wrong, too. We observe mutations in populations, and how they spread or die out, depending on selective value. Genetic relatedness indicates common descent, as tests on organisms of known descent show us. That's how we know it works.

We can only observe the mutations in same populations if known descent. Not of differing descent. Like cats or dogs etc. We can know and test these cause it's observable. We cannot know and test that Humans came from fish cause it's not known descent. Evolutionists are guessing based upon a system of belief. Guesswork cause that's what they want to believe. Even though it can't be shown to true.

 

[The Barbarian]

We can only observe the mutations in same populations if known descent.

Which is how we know that genetic relationship indicates common descent.

Not of differing descent.

But of course, by looking at known descent we can verify the method. I had to learn fire investigation, once for a company I worked for. I couldn't observe fires that had happened, but of course Fire Protection scientists could observe other fires and from that, be able to figure out the causes and events in fires they didn't see. That's how science works.

The argument that we can't learn about anything we didn't actually witness, is such a loser, I'm surprised any creationists still set themselves up for embarrassment by using it.

 

[The Barbarian]

No. This goes back to the issue that most people who think they hate evolution, don't even know what it is. You're stuck with the genes you were born with (unless gene therapy becomes a reality).

Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. If you spend time in sun and tan, you haven't evolved. That was already in your genes.

Indivduals born with a new mutation, have not evolved. They always had it. But the population in which they were born, did evolve thereby. If this puzzles you, hit the books and learn about it, before you try to explain it to everyone else.

No

Yes. You see, evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. As you just learned, populations evolve (we can easily measure the changes that are evolution) and individuals do not. If you get nothing else from this, learn that.

A mutation comes from your genetic make up.

No. It comes from a change in the egg or sperm cell of one of the parents. Please go learn about this before you decide to tell us about it.

But the strength if that gene is passed from one to another.

Show us how you distinguish a strong gene from weak one.

It doesn't happen in whole populations.

As you just learned, it does. And it's been defined that way since Darwin. Please go and learn about it first.

But regardless of the mutation the creature. ALWAYS remains as the same type of creature.

Because individuals don't evolve; populations do. This is why even many creationist organizations admit that new kinds of species, genera, and even families evolve from other kinds.

 

[rjs330]

No. This goes back to the issue that most people who think they hate evolution, don't even know what it is. You're stuck with the genes you were born with (unless gene therapy becomes a reality).

Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. If you spend time in sun and tan, you haven't evolved. That was already in your genes.

Indivduals born with a new mutation, have not evolved. They always had it. But the population in which they were born, did evolve thereby. If this puzzles you, hit the books and learn about it, before you try to explain it to everyone else.



Yes. You see, evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. As you just learned, populations evolve (we can easily measure the changes that are evolution) and individuals do not. If you get nothing else from this, learn that.



No. It comes from a change in the egg or sperm cell of one of the parents. Please go learn about this before you decide to tell us about it.



Show us how you distinguish a strong gene from weak one.



As you just learned, it does. And it's been defined that way since Darwin. Please go and learn about it first.



Because individuals don't evolve; populations do. This is why even many creationist organizations admit that new kinds of species, genera, and even families evolve from other kinds.

No this goes back to the issue that evolutionists can't actually prove their claim. And then use the ole "you dont really understand evolution" routine. It's a cop out.

The change in allele happens in an individual creature not in a whole species at once.

One creature gets an change which then is passed on to their offspring and so on and so forth until eventually gradually over time the entire species.has the alteration.

The alterations though NEVER alter it's basic type. There is no evidence that the basic type has ever changed. A bird is always a bird and a lizard always a lizard. Change has never been observed or tested or reproduced to that extent.

 

[rjs330]

Because individuals don't evolve; populations do. This is why even many creationist organizations admit that new kinds of species, genera, and even families evolve from other kinds.

Certainly but they still remain what they are. A new ant my come about, but it's still an ant. It doesn't change over time into a spider or a dog.

 

[The Barbarian]

Certainly but they still remain what they are.

Every organism remains what it is, genetically. Some are obviously of one kind, some are obviously of another kind, and as Darwin pointed out, "species" is a difficult concept,because there are so many intermediate forma that have become different, but maybe not quite different enough to be a distinct species.

If creationism were true, it would be easy to define what "species" means. But because populations evolve, it's impossible to make a neat and universal definition.

A new ant my come about, but it's still an ant. It doesn't change over time into a spider or a dog.

If that happened, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. But that doesn't happen. Hexopods don't become chelicerates or vertebrates. However, wasps did evolve into ants. We have a number of transitional wasp-ants. Would you like to learn about those?

Sphecomyrma freyi
Wilson put the fossils under the microscope and began to sketch and measure them from all sides. After several hours he picked up the telephone and called William L. Brown at Cornell University. Brown was a fellow specialist in ant classification who had for years shared his dream of finding a Mesozoic ant and thereby, perhaps, to learn the identity of the missing link to the ancestral wasps. Both men had guessed from comparisons to living species what traits the ancestral form might, or, if evolutionary theory is correct, SHOULD possess. Wilson reported that the ants were indeed as primitive as expected. They had a mosaic of anatomical features found variously in modern ants or in wasps as well as some that were intermediate between the two groups. The diagnosis of the Ur-ant was astounding: short jaws with only two teeth, like those of wasps; what appears to be the blisterlike cover of a metapleural gland the scretory organ (located at the thorax, or mid-part of the body) that defines modern ants but is unknown in wasps; the first segment of the antennae elongated to give them the elbowed look characterizing ants, yet here, in the Mesozoic fossils, only to a degree intermediate between modern ants and wasps; the remaining, outer part of the antennae long and flexible, as in wasps; the thorax with a distinct scutum and scutellum (two plates forming the middle part of the body); also a trait of wasps; and an antlike waist; yet one that is simple in form, as though it had only recently evolved.
The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: Jan. 1997

And another predicted transitional was found. The huge number of transitional forms is, as one YE creationist scientist admitted, "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory", but even more convincing is that there are no transitionals where there shouldn't be any. No insect/spiders. No bird/mammals. No shark/whales.

 

[The Barbarian]

No this goes back to the issue that evolutionists can't actually prove their claim.

See above. Even your fellow creationists admit the evidence is very good for macroevolution. Most of them now admit that new species, genera, and often families of organisms are formed from existing kinds.

And then use the ole "you dont really understand evolution" routine. It's a cop out.

Well, that's a testable belief. Tell us the four basic points of Darwnian theory. And tell us which of those have been disproven.

Show us what you've got.

The change in allele happens in an individual creature not in a whole species at once.

But a change in allele frequency happens in populations. And that's what evolution is.

One creature gets an change which then is passed on to their offspring and so on and so forth until eventually gradually over time the entire species.has the alteration.

The alterations though NEVER alter it's basic type.

No, that's false, too. In about 20 years a group of carnivorous lizards evolved a new digestive structure, changed heads and jaws, and became herbivores. Mammal-like reptiles evolved greatly modified jaws, ears, ribs, and lungs, and became mammals. We see one step at a time in the fossil record. It's impossible to draw the line precisely where reptiles end and mammals begin, so gradual is the change. It's one of the series that YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise says is very good evidence for evolution. Want to learn about that?

 

[rjs330]

No, that's false, too. In about 20 years a group of carnivorous lizards evolved a new digestive structure, changed heads and jaws, and became herbivores. Mammal-like reptiles evolved greatly modified jaws, ears, ribs, and lungs, and became mammals. We see one step at a time in the fossil record. It's impossible to draw the line precisely where reptiles end and mammals begin, so gradual is the change. It's one of the series that YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise says is very good evidence for evolution. Want to learn about that?

But they were still lizards. They didn't become birds.

No you don't see that in any fossil record. You are assuming again.

 

[Derek1111]

But they were still lizards. They didn't become birds.

No you don't see that in any fossil record. You are assuming again.

this is sort of embarrasing. You're not arguing with any integrity here.

 

[Sunshinee777]

Bible doesn’t teach evolution, true. The question is, how you can be christian and believe in evolution... I never get those people, like what is the logic there?