Genetic data, fossil record, anatomy, embryology, etc. all indicate a common ancestor.
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.
People assume it is true.
Not true.
You don't see an entire population evolve all all once.
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.
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.
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.
No we don't know how it works.
That's the problem. We guess we assume and we hypothesize but we don't know.
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.
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.
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.
But regardless of the mutation the creature. ALWAYS remains as the same type of creature.
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.
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.
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.
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?
this is sort of embarrasing. You're not arguing with any integrity here.But they were still lizards. They didn't become birds.
No you don't see that in any fossil record. You are assuming again.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?