Thursday, August 5, 2010

Creation vs evolution

It always amuses me when an evolutionist mocks a creationist. Recently I saw this happen when a creationist asked: 'if man evolved from monkeys, what are there still monkeys'? Which I think is a legitimate question. However, for a different reason than what is normal.

Being a 'biologist', I have found that many creationists do not realize that science has changed the definition of 'evolution'. It's current definition is "a change of allele frequency in a population over time". However, scientists STILL assume a lot. They take this definition and expand it over MORE than just a population...and MORE than just a species.

I doubt any creationist will ever deny that there is variety and differences among individuals within a population and that the environment can drastically change a population's dynamics.

However, where the creationists have a problem is when science attempts to say that those changes go beyond species and "populations" (because science does not hold that individuals 'evolve') will keep changing until they are no longer the same species.

Now also scientists try to get around the "frogs from fish" or "humans from monkeys" by saying that these had a common ancestor; in other words, there was once an "organism" that had at least two offspring that were divergent from each other. Kinda like a woman who had two children, one dark haired and one light haired. Then these two 'offspring' kept diverging and diverging with each generation or every so many generations.... until one day, these 'cousins' looked so different from each other, they would be considered two different species.

However, the evidence shows that no matter how many offspring, the organisms are still the same. There was a ten year study with the E. coli bacteria and they were literally able to view thousands of generations; yet while they contend that they "saw" evolution because they found a new trait 'appear'; they still ended up with E. coli bacteria. And they have yet to show how that new trait appeared. (I jokingly say that God could have slipped it in)

Personally, I do think science needs to stick to more exact terms. Variation is simply variation. And they need to drop their faith in the word "evolution". Or redefine it clearly and then stick with that definition and do not expand it to include speculation and assumptions.

Finding that life shares many genes, does not equal evolution. Considering all life is made up of four basic nucleotides aka: building blocks, it would be expected from a creator. What a mind to conceive of using such a simple plan to build such complex organisms and such a variety of them. If 'evolution' were true, it would be expected that at least ONE of these would have 'evolved' or been discarded over the billions of years of life, especially if one was arguing that time is the reason we have so many changes and variety.

The fossil record also only shows when a specific organism lived at a specific time. Yet so many organisms have no fossil record to prior of 'transitional' forms. Also, saying that something similar looking yet complete within itself, is a transitional form, is bad science. We have MANY organisms NOW which look similar yet scientists do not claim they are 'kissing cousins' or closely related.

So science: get your act together and just keep finding facts. Quit speculating and assuming and quit applying terms to theories without evidence and quit stretching their definition beyond what it is.

and creationists; you also need to cool it! Find out exactly what science is CURRENTLY teaching before using half baked arguments that are out dated and against things science is not teaching or supporting.

Scientific knowledge keeps changing: both sides need to remember this!!!

No comments:

Post a Comment

anyone can now comment but I will still monitor them so that the site does not get a bunch of spam on it.