Evolutionists use adaptive or variational changes to bolster their theory
Thursday’s editorial entitle “Devolution” is just another of the Post’s many instances of writing about something they know little about. Evolution as defined by the article, small changes over long periods of time, is totally uncontroversial. Everyone believes that, even creationists. Look at all the changes an infant goes through while attaining adulthood. What is controversial is that creationists say that there is a limit to change. The infant will never grow into something other than the mature form of its species.
These “significant biological changes” the article refers to, Tasmanian Devils reaching reproductive age earlier than usual, is nothing more than adaptation within a species. The anti-evolution crowd does not have any problem with this. From start to finish, it’s still a Tasmanian Devil, no macroevolutionary change of morphological body patterns. All recent “proofs” of evolution have been nothing but adaptation or variation changes within a species. From start to finish, eye migration of the flounder, color changes of the peppered moth, bacterial resistance, all are within a species, no new information is created.
Evolutionists are so hard up to find legitimate evidence for evolution that they have to fall back on these adaptive or variational changes to help bolster their theory. Again, macroevolution occurred in the past. We observe it after the fact. Its not empirical, but forensic. All the evidence we gather is circumstantial and can not be directly tested, and so must be interpreted. There are more ways than one to interpret the evidence.
John Chaikowsky
Godfrey
Are there large warring groups going at it over this somewhere?
Given just the nature of adaptation of a species to it’s surroundings, I fail to see how one makes the jump to something just being created to function within it’s niche. Evolution is a far superior theory, and always will be, to creationism or intelligent design or whatever other psuedo-scientific names you want to label it.
Jimmy, there is no “jump to something just being created to function”, this is what we find in the fossil record. Organisms fully developed with no transitions. The oldest bat was a fully funtioning bat with no hint of process. So rather than being “far superior”, evolution is fabricated process necessitated by a particular world view. Follow the evidence, not your biases.
Look who’s talking! Another in a long line of fanatical theorists that base their entire objection on a tome written by enraptured, gullible supersticious laymen of little intellect over two-thousand years ago as interpreted by self-serving, lap-of-luxury con-men that collect money for telling their unquestioning flocks to give generously to the church lest they dare to be be different people that think for themselves and face reality without fear.
One of my favorite quotes:
What’s certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1) - Ann Coulter
I used to wonder if evolution were true and we evolved from apes,then why didn’t an occasional human be born to apes.But now days I think possibly the humans were here first and the way some of them act,think,and dress that possibly the apes eolved from humans.The culling of the herd seems to result in the worse of the species surviving while the better disapear. LS
I do not believe that we ‘evolved’ from apes. Apes would have evolved into something that takes much better care of their own than humans do.
Besides, how many apes do you think would want to claim responsbilty for the likes of Ray Vinson?
Sigh. Can we just get it straight when it comes to the ancestry of apes and humans? Please? Just this once?
Apes and Humans are distant cousins. Neither of them evolved from the other, but share a common ancestor much further back in history. So stop with the red herrings about apes giving birth to the occasional human or vice versa.
Mr. Chaikowsky,
You need to open up a current biology text and read it carefully, preferably with the help of an expert to explain things to you. There have been quite a few transitions found in the fossil record. Saying that evolution is bunk because we haven’t found transitions resembling a flip-book in the fossil record is a flawed argument and you know it. Or maybe you don’t. Normally, I wouldn’t waste time talking with someone like you, but the problem is that your kind is trying to misinform others about a scientific process that you don’t even have a grasp on. Try some advanced-intermediate reading this summer– I recommend “The Beak of the Finch”.
And can we please dispel the false notion that there are no “transitional” fossil records?
There are vast (and growing) fossil records showing gradual variations and transitions for many species and their ancestors. The problem is that the nay-sayers simply draw arbitrary lines in the transitional fossil progression. One side of the line is Species A and the other side is Species B, with the implication that the two are completely unrelated.
When another fossil shows up with features that are directly between the two species, the nay-sayers simply redraw the line and assign it to one side or the other. No matter how fine the gradation, creationists will persistently divide and subdivide the fossil record to rationalize their preconceived conclusions and deny the obvious.
Try this thought experiment: How are the numbers 3 and 4 related? There seems to be no evidence that the two are connected in any way. What about 3.5? Just another version of 3. And 3.98? Same thing. It’s even got a “3″ in it. It can’t be related to 4 in any way, it’s just another garden variety 3…
Sound disingenuous? It is.