Benefits of Evolution
I've been continuing to watch creation vs. evolution debates recently. What's been interesting is that for all the noise supporters of evolution make about it being a science (it's not) and how we'll go into a dark age if creationism is taught in public schools, no one has been able to give one example of a scientific benefit or development that has resulted from the theory of evolution.
One professor did attempt to do so. He gave the example of how vaccines have been developed. This was supposedto have been a benefit resulting from the theory of evolution. Others say the ability of some bacteria to develop a restistance to antibotics is an example of evolution. These two are related and neither of them are valid examples.
Both the development of vaccines and baterical resistance to antibotics are examples of what is sometimes called "micro evolution", and it's not really evolution.
First, how are these related? Bacteria do not develop a resistance to antibotics, the resistance is already in the population of bacteria. When a drug is found that kills the majority of bacteria there are typically a few that are not effected by the antibiotic. They are mutants that are missing the gentic code that grows the part of the bacteria that is attacked by the antibotic. In other words they have lost something that other bacteria had. They are not evolving "upward" they have degenerated... and that degeneration has saved them. However, they are a weaker strain than the original bacteria. For example, if the original strain is allowed to come back, the resistant bacteria starts dying off and once again becomes rare.
The is the opposite of what evolution claims... that live "evolves" upward to more complex and better forms of life. Life becoming more complex or more "advanced" has never been observed. What we observe is life becoming less complex and degenerating. The observable scientific facts do not support evolution.
The development of vaccines is not a benefit that has resulted from the theory of evolution. Yes, it has involved the study of how bacteria change. But that change never goes in a direction that supports the theory of evolution.
Don't be taken in by the religion of evolution. God has told us where everything came from. Over a period of six 24 hours days, about 6,000 years ago, God created the universe, the earth, and everything on it, including us. And it seems that with every day more evidence supporting God's truth comes out, and the rule of the theory of evolution moves closer to becoming a sad and unfortunate period of our history.
One professor did attempt to do so. He gave the example of how vaccines have been developed. This was supposedto have been a benefit resulting from the theory of evolution. Others say the ability of some bacteria to develop a restistance to antibotics is an example of evolution. These two are related and neither of them are valid examples.
Both the development of vaccines and baterical resistance to antibotics are examples of what is sometimes called "micro evolution", and it's not really evolution.
First, how are these related? Bacteria do not develop a resistance to antibotics, the resistance is already in the population of bacteria. When a drug is found that kills the majority of bacteria there are typically a few that are not effected by the antibiotic. They are mutants that are missing the gentic code that grows the part of the bacteria that is attacked by the antibotic. In other words they have lost something that other bacteria had. They are not evolving "upward" they have degenerated... and that degeneration has saved them. However, they are a weaker strain than the original bacteria. For example, if the original strain is allowed to come back, the resistant bacteria starts dying off and once again becomes rare.
The is the opposite of what evolution claims... that live "evolves" upward to more complex and better forms of life. Life becoming more complex or more "advanced" has never been observed. What we observe is life becoming less complex and degenerating. The observable scientific facts do not support evolution.
The development of vaccines is not a benefit that has resulted from the theory of evolution. Yes, it has involved the study of how bacteria change. But that change never goes in a direction that supports the theory of evolution.
Don't be taken in by the religion of evolution. God has told us where everything came from. Over a period of six 24 hours days, about 6,000 years ago, God created the universe, the earth, and everything on it, including us. And it seems that with every day more evidence supporting God's truth comes out, and the rule of the theory of evolution moves closer to becoming a sad and unfortunate period of our history.
posted by BrickBalloon
Read This Post In Our: Christianity in America Blog Archive
20 Comments:
brickballoon, I completely respect your religious beliefs, but I strongly disagree with your remarks that evolution is not science. Science involves using observations and the scientific method in order to better understand the natural world. In order for a theory to be considered "science" it needs to be able to be tested to try to disprove it. The theory of evolution has certainly been tested and scrutinized more than any other scientific theory, and it most definitely is science and far from a religious belief. Despite all the evidence to support evolution, such as the fossil record, biogeography, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, and molecular biology, you still don't have to believe in evolution by any means. You have every right to believe in Creationism and I have no right criticize you for it. However, your intolerance for science based on your religious beliefs I find very scary. Intolerance for other people's beliefs is what I'd consider to be the biggest threat to the freedom of men and women around the world, so I ask you not to change your beliefs, but to stop judging, criticizing, and degrading something you don't truly understand.
Thank you for your comment. You mention that the fossil record, biogeography, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, and molecular biology provide proof for evolution. Please give one one solid, scientific fact that supports evolution.
The problem with evolution is that there are none. When I became a Christian I believed in evolution. I figured that I did not understand the Bible well enough to be able to reconcile evolution vs. what the Bible says. However, as I investigated this subject I became convinced that the earth was created by God about 6,000 years ago, and that there was a world-wide flood. I came to this conclusion based on the testable, scientific evidence.
A theory can be tested by examing the predictions made based on that theory and seeing how well they match reality.
For example, you mentioned the fossil record. Evolution predicts (as Darwin said) that we should find millions of transitional forms in the fossil record. Creation predicts we should find no transitional forms, but we should see billions of dead things buried in sedimentary rock layers all over the world. What do we observe? No transitional forms and billions of dead things buried in rock layersall over the world. The observable evidence supports creation.
When a false "science" such as evolution, which is not based on fact, is forced on our children and culture, that is a problem.
I'm sorry, I'm a little confused. Maybe this should go on your religion/evolution page, but i'll talk about it here. I've been thinking really hard about science and religion and I think that they are on completely opposite tangents of reason and explanation. Science can only deal with the natural world, what can be tested, proven and unproven. Religion is about faith, the supernatural. Something science cannot touch and cannot describe. Science has no right to try to discredit religion or prove it false. But the same goes for religion, which shouldn't try to define explanations of science. For example, when Galileo first proposed that the Earth wasn't the center of the Universe, he was excommunicated from the Church because his theory based on what he had observed contradicted Christianity’s explanation of the universe (which was that the Earth was the center of the universe). Today, the Church has come to realize they were wrong, and the Earth actually does revolve around the sun. Religion couldn’t deny something that science had proven. Now, evolution is not a fact by any means. I’m not saying it is an absolute truth. But evolution is science. You asked me to give you scientific evidence of it after I already did. There are volumes and volumes of evidence to support it. And because evolution is science, it should be taught in biology class. But the beautiful thing about the freedom of our country is that the government can’t interfere with religion and you are free to believe whatever you want. And Creationism can be taught in schools, in a comparative religion class. Creationism is a religious belief, based on the Bible, not science. Every religion has their own beliefs on the creation of life, but I’m sure you don’t believe that they should be taught in a science class. I believe that Creationism is very important to our country and our culture and should be taught to children, but it is not science! Evolution doesn’t even deny the existence of
God. Most people who believe in evolution also believe in God. It doesn’t contradict the belief that God created the Earth at all, it only theorizes that life developed from simpler life forms to more complex life forms through the process of natural selection. And there most definitely is evidence to support it, and I already described just a few of these. What scientific evidence do you have to support Creationism? You tried to contradict the fossil record. Dead and rotting organic materials require absolute perfect conditions to fossilize for us to dig up today. It is no surprise then that almost every living organism that ever lived didn’t actually fossilize. But there most definitely are transitional fossils that have been discovered and more are being discovered all the time. I also want to bring up your point about the Earth only being 6,000 years old. I assume you make this assumption based on the Bible and not science because according to science, physics, and our dating methods the Earth is approximately billions of years old. So what do you base the Earth’s age on? You’re taking the literal interpretation of the Bible, correct? How about the passages in the Bible concerning how stoning is an acceptable method of execution and hitting a father or mother is a capital offense? Do you accept these as absolute truths. Listen, I’m not trying to attack religion. I’m just saying that evolution is a science and Creationism is religion. Both are important and need to be part of our culture and passed on to future generations, but they shouldn’t battle each other for what is right and what is wrong. I strongly believe that you are wrong accusing evolution as a religion when it most definitely is a science. Don’t change your beliefs necessarily, but at least try to understand the other side and accept the difference between science and religion and that evolution doesn’t have to contradict the existence of God because it most definitely does not!
Thank you again for your comments.
You have listed a number different areas of scientific inquiry, but you still have not given one single scientific fact the proves evolution. Please give me one scientific fact that proves evolution is true. Evolution is not science until there is some proof. At this point evolution is an unsupported hypothesis.
You mention natural selection, there is no dispute about that. But, natural selection is not evolution. Evolution requires that one type of life evolve (change) into another type. That has never been observed. There is no evidence it has ever happened. You claim there are many transitional forms, please name one.
Also, please do not confuse religion with the Bible. Religions are created by men. The Bible describes the earth as being round (Isaiah 40:22) and as hanging on nothing in space (Job 26:7). At the time of Galileo, if the religious leaders had read their Bibles they would have found out Galileo was right.
I disagree that science and the Bible don't go together. Science is the tool we use to examine God's creation. It increases our knowledge of, and understanding of God's creation. Science reveals the glory of God's creation to us. The Bible does not reject science, it embraces it.
The question is, when there is a difference, which are you going to put your trust in?
Trust science... something that gives answers that continually change. That's why science texbooks need to be updated regularly.
Trust God's word... something that has never changed or ever been proven wrong. The Bible is not a science textbook, but it does mention scientific things. Not one scientific fact in the Bible has even been shown to be wrong... and the most recent of these facts was written down over 2000 years ago... long, long, long before science discovered the same facts.
God knows what He created and when we tells us about it in His book, He always gets it right.
What does it take to fossilize something? We have a lake in Oregon that, if you put a towel in it, 24 hours later it will be rock. Give it a year or two for the clothe fibers to rot away and you quickly have a fossilized towel. I've seen a fossilzed cowboy hat, fossilized pickle and a fossilzed dog. It does not take long to fosilize something.
There are billions of fossils. I own a few myself. None show any sign of being a transitional form.
Yes, I base the age of the earth as being about 6,000 years on the Bible. The Bible does not directly say this, it is a number arrived at from examining genelogies.
There is nothing in science that contradicts this. Radiometric dating methods, the "crown jewel" of evidence for an earth billions of years old, accurately measures the amount of radio decay, but determining the number of years that equates to is based on assumption after assumption. Measurements made on new rocks (rocks that have just been formed) show them to be millions of years old. Coal deposits determined to be 300 million years old based on radio dating, have a carbon 14 date on 20,000 years. The "facts" are not adding up. Something is wrong. The physical evidence of radio halos and fission tracks contradict the old ages given by the assumptions in radio dating. The most recent physics show a universe that originated in a white hole in which parts of the universe were subject to serious gravitational time dilation. Start putting the recent facts science is revealing together, and you get a picture of the universe that is totally consistent with an age of about 6,000 years.
That was a very good response. To start I’d like to ask some questions. Do you believe that there is absolutely nothing scientific about evolution? Do you believe Creationism based on the Bible should be taught in public school science classes instead of evolution? Do you believe that man lived during the same period as dinosaurs?
Clearly our strongest disagreement with each other is on the basic premise that evolution is not a science. I have not been trying to provide evidence that proves evolution is a fact. I’ve been trying to show that there is evidence in several different “inquiries” as you say, of science that provide support of the theory of evolution. I never said it was a fact. It is a theory. There isn’t “proof” necessarily, but certainly evidence to support it.
I’m no expert on evolution, but I’ll try to give you some more specific examples of evidence supporting evolution from classes I’ve taken and books I have read. And I stress, supporting evolution, don’t take it as absolute proof because if I could absolutely prove without a doubt that evolution is entirely true, I’d no longer be an anonymous…ha.
Comparative Embryology: In the developing embryos of very different species of organisms, we see the same structures developing. For example, the embryo of a human is almost identical to that of a chicken or a pig.Developing “arm” buds of each species are indistinguishable, but could develop into an arm, wing, or flipper depending on the certain genetic sequence. Evolution explains why a developing human embryo would possess a tail or gill pouches.
Comparative Anatomy: This shows the same skeletal elements in the forelimbs of humans, cats, whales, and bats, showing that all have some common ancestry. This is only one small example in this field.
Genetics: The DNA of different species can show a trail of common ancestry, in fact, humans and chimps contain 98 % of the same DNA.
Transitional Fossils: No matter what I say here, you’ll most likely just reply “prove it” or “show me.” I could mention evidence of transitions between trilobite species found in Pennsylvania or Lake Tureana mollusc species, but I don’t actually possess these fossils nor do I actually have the means to date them, but you’d disagree with that also. I am aware of the methods of radioactive dating and carbon dating and I am aware of the legitimate questions about these methods. I’ll take a quote from your previous comment regarding that the Earth is 6,000 years old, “There is nothing in science that contradicts this.” An overwhelmingly large majority of scientists and physicists who certainly have more expertise in this field than I do believe in their accuracy, so its pretty logical to assume that if most scientists believe the Earth is billions of years old, then there must be something in science to contradict your claim that the Earth is 6,000 years old.
Now by themselves these very simple examples of evidence of evolution might not be very convincing, but when you accumulate all the different discoveries together, evolution does have scientfic evidence to support it. That’s the only point I am trying to get across, that evolution is science. Evolution is science.
Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your takingthe time to write. I'm happy to answer your questions. Some I'll answer here. I think I may start a new post for others as they cover entire subjects.
Do I believe there is anything scientific about evolution?
Evolution is a scientific hypothesis. From that aspect it is scientific, just as any other scientific hypothesis is.
As far as there being enough scientific evidence to support evolution as a fact, or even promote it to a theory... that evidence just is not there. I've looked. I have a science and engineering background. I believed in evolution. But when the evidence is examined scientifically, it falls apart.
Both creationism and evolution need to be examined in school science classes. Evolution is such a part of our culture, that it must be included. The evidence so strongly supports creationism, that it must also be included. But then examine the facts. Historical inquires such as thus must be treated like a court case, since we can not do experiments on the past. So which does the preponderance of the evidence support?
Yes, men and dinosaurs lived at the same time. There are footprints in rock in which a man's footprints cross a dinosaur's footprints. There is a human footprint inside a dinosaur footprint. There are human bones found in the same sedimentary layers as dinosaurs bones. And now that people have started looking inside dinosaur bones, they are finding soft tissue that could not have even been preserved 1,000 years, let alone millions of years.
I don't disagree that the hypothesis that evolution was the mechanism that resulted in the world we see today is a scientific hypothesis. However, to believe that evolution is true, taking it beyond a hypothesis, is pure faith... as there is no evidence to support this.
I'll make new posts to discuss the other areas of your comments.
Brickballoon, I couldn't add anything to what you have stated in your posts. Excellent. I agree with you on your statements.
There was one place where rocks were claimed to billions of years old by scientist. They learned later that the rocks were created by a volcano that erupted only about 400 years ago, which was written in history. I have made the assumption of our earth to be between 6000 yrs. to at the most 10000 yrs old, definitly not billions of years old. The system many scientist use to try and detect the age of things is a long way from being accurate. Mans ways of detection does not work. The Bible tells us that the world is blind to reality.
Bill, thank you for your comment. You are right. I love the example in the Grand Canyon. There are two lava flows. One at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. To expose it all the rock had to be worn away, creating the Grand Canyon and exposing the lava at the bottom of the canyon. Then there is the second ava flow. It flows over the rim of the canyon and down to the bottom, flowing on top ofthe lava that was on the bottom. For it to flow over the edge ofthe canyon that lava flow must have happened after the canyon was formed. Rocks from both lava flows were dated (in a blind test). The dating revealed that the lava that flowed over the edge ofthe canyon was millions of years older than the lava at the bottom of the canyon!
We are VERY GOOD at measuring elements and radioactivity in rocks. Our measurements are very, very accurate. However, we seem to be having a problem understanding what the data is telling us.
bill, you say that man's methods of dating can't be accurate, but the Bible methods of dating can be accurate...tell me, who wrote the Bible then? Did God physically write the Bible as we see it today? Didn't man actually physically write the Bible and then translate through several different languages? Who can assure that the Bible we read today is a legitimate translation? And who actually got to decide what books would be included in the Bible? Men! The chapters in the New Testament were written independently by people who had been around Jesus, but they weren't all included in "the Bible" until long after his death. Men decided which writings or accounts of Jesus would be included in the Bible and which ones would be left out when MEN! formed the Church. I'm not questioning the teachings of Jesus, the most important of any in the history of men in my opinion or even his divinity, but the Bible was written by men and it has been abused by men also, and there are certainly some disturbing passages in the Bible as well, concerning slavery or even stoning people to death as a viable and justifiable form of punishment. Do you believe that a child who hits his father or mother should be stoned to death? If not, then you obviously don't believe EVERYTING written in the Bible so don't concern everything in there as an absolute literal truth.
and to brickballoon, you can continue to deny that there is no evidence supporting evolution, but if you were correct, then scientists all over the world would be agreeing with you and all the different Supreme Court rulings on the issue would be overruled and allow Creationism back into public schools. If you are correct, then why hasn't any of that happened yet? I'm going to stick with the rest of the scientific community and accept evolution as a viable theory for the origin of species and continue to test and observe the theory to better understand it. I'm glad that you do pose questions but from what I've read and researched, there have been explanations to every one of your opposing beliefs concerning evolution. I still believe that God created life, but i do believe the Earth is much older than merely thousands of years and I believe life has developed from simpler organisms.
you question the age of the earth. okay. how about the age of the universe. Our telescopes can see other galaxies billions of light years away. That means that the light has been traveling towards Earth for billions of years and in fact, we are witnessing what this galaxy looked like billions of years ago, not how it is today. SO in a way we are looking into the past of our universe. So how old is the universe then in your opinion? OR do believe that those laws of physics are inaccurate also? since God did create the entire universe in only six, 24 hour days...
Yes, there are many scientists who are very confident in their beliefs. But, they are still beliefs, not fact. There is over $250,000 in awards offered to anyone who can present scientific proof of evolution. Not one scientist who believes in evolution has claimed the money. If there is such solid proof out there, it's easy money.
The problem is that most of the "proof" has as its basis the assumption that evolution is true. That's circular reasoning. For example, your question about the age of the universe:
General relativity will produce two different cosmologies depending on what inputs you use. The two critical inputs are:
1. Is the universe expanding or not expanding. Our observations show us the universe is expanding. So we know this input.
2. Is the universe bounded or unbounded? We do not know the answer to this question.
If you assume an unbounded universe, and run this through general relativity you get the "big bang" as the origin of the universe. This is the therory we are all familiar with, and draws a picture of universe that is very old everywhere.
If you assume a bounded universe, and run this through general relativity you get a "white hole" as the origin of the universe. No one talks about this result of general relatively because the universe it shows does not fit the the assumptions of evolution. Getting back to what I said in the second paragraph above, if a theory does not fit evolution, it is thrown out. The assumption that evolution is true trumps all else!
However, there is no scientific reason to reject an unbounded universe.
What type of universe results from option 2, an unbounded universe? One that "exploded" from a white hole. The result is a universe in which gravitational time dilation has significant effects. A white hole has an event horizon and as the universe expanded across that event horizon difference in time results in billions of years passing for parts of the universe and thousands of years passing for other parts. The amount of time that passes is relative to your location.
God has described to us what happened from our perspective on earth. From the instant the white hole was created until creation was done (the last bit of matter crossed the event horizon) took six days from our perspective. From our perspective that was about 6,000 years ago. From other reference points, however, much more time has passed with light traveling to earth during that time... taking many millions (or billions) of years.
so you are saying the reason that astronomers and astrophysicists don't talk about the "white hole" is because it contradicts evolution? That doesn't make any sense at all. Does this mean you believe there is a huge cover up in the entire scientific community that anything that contradicts evolution isn't even considered or discussed? That's ridiculous. New scientists entering the field are biting at the bit to find something or uncover something that could make them famous. Uncovering an obvious truth that would prove a mainstream theory wrong would have been exposed long ago.
You say we can't take any of the evidence for evolution or even the big bang theory because they are all based on assumptions, but isn't your own theory of this "white hole" based on assumptions as well and every other scientific theory for that matter, from gravity to the germ theory. In your sense of mind, what you consider "science" isn't any more supported or accurate than what you consider to be based solely on assumptions. You can't pick and choose what scientific evidence or observations are right and which ones are wrong just because they fit with the Bible. Doing that is going against everything that science is about. You are allowing a bias to judge science...and one more thing, this 250,000 dollars you were talking about, what organization is awarding this money for proof of evolution?
and one more thing since we are on the topic of assumptions, here's a quote from Bill's post "I have made the assumption of our earth to be between 6000 yrs. to at the most 10000 yrs old, definitly not billions of years old." That sounds very scientific doesn't it?
I'm not saying there is a huge, centrally controlled cover-up or conspiracy. But the truth avbout science is that when someone has a theory, or even solid evidence, that opposes the current accepted beliefs, they are in trouble. Here is a quote from the Jult 9th issue of Newsweek magazine. It has nothing to do with evolution. The story was about research that show our brain can change.. in effect our brain can be rewired:
"But as recently as a decade ago, proposing that an adult brain could be rewired... would have been career suicide for a neuroscientist."
In other words, if you disagree with the current majority's beliefs, your career as a scientist is over... even if you have the truth.
How did the belief about our brains change? Very slowly, a little bit at a time. And neuroscience is a field in which change can happen much easier than in origins. Why?
Here is a quote from Charles Colson:
"Consider the story of Phillip Johnson, a professor on the law faculty at the University of California at Berkely, a hotbed on 1960’s radicalism. During a 1987 sabbatical in England, Johnson bought several books about Darwinian evolution. Reading them with his sharp lawyer’s eye, he was astonished to discover how flawed the reasoning was, how flimsy the evidence. It dawned on him the Darwinism is dominant today not because of the strength of the scientific evidence but because Darwinism bolsters a worldview—one that rejects God and depicts humans as morally autonomous."
Somewhere earlier in this blog I documented a number of instances in which editors and professors lost their status, or even their jobs because they did something believers in evolution did not like.
A well-known example is Richer Sternberg. He was the editor of a scientific journal associated with the Smithsonian. He believes in evolution, but so as to present the other view he published a peer-reviewed article about intelligent design. The result was: "They took away his master key and access to research materials. They spread rumors that Sternberg was not really a scientist. He has two Ph.D.'s in biology -- from Binghamton University and Florida International University. In short, McVay found a hostile work environment based on religious and political discrimination." (NPR)
Both the Big Bang Theory and the White Hole Theory fall out of the mathematics of general relativity. The one assumption they both use concerns whether the universe is bounded or unbounded. So why favor one over the other?
Actually there is scientific evidence that would lead us to favor one of these assumptions. Science has revealed that there is not sufficient matter in the universe to result in enough gravitational attraction such that the universe will start to collapse. Even taking into account theories such as "dark matter", there still is not enough matter. Science tells us the universe will continue to expand forever... in other words the universe in unbounded. That means, based on the scientific facts, general relativity predicts that universe came from a white hole, not a big bang. It's a career ending answer, but as more scientific facts come in, it appears to be the right answer.
Concerning Bill's comment. Like most people, he appears to be neither a scientist nor theologian. It is generally accepted to say the Bible places creation in the range of 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, because even allowing for 10,000 years... a round number which is way beyond the very farthest possible extreme... that is nothing like the billions of years evolution requires.
I couldn't help but laugh when you cited that July edition of Newsweek. I actually had that copy on my desk when I read what you wrote and i have read that article. I notice that you didn't say anything about the smaller article in THE EXACT SAME ARTICLE that you cited that has pictures of fossils dating them millions of years old. Obviously that article must be incorrect since it opposes your views, but it's ok to pick out a small example from another article since it supports your view.
I am aware of Philip Johnson and i have read his book. Your quote exposes a great point about him. He is a lawyer, not a scientist. All he does is present a reasonable doubt about evolution, like any good lawyer. But he is no scientist so what kind of expertise can he have on the topic of evolution?
What i find funny is that the bible has changed.
Over many years the bible has be translated from latin to other languages.
Some even have been edited.
Who knows what have been covered up or even lost in translation.
You can get 2 different bibles of christianity and find that they are similar but yet VERY different.
With all the new branches of Christianity you would think that maybe even this Old time Religon has dispersed and have evolved into many smaller newer religons based upon the older relgions ideals but then also have their own differences.
Anonymous: Thank you for your comment. I assume you are passing on information you've read somewhere. You might want to reconsider the reliability of your source and do some research on Biblical manuscripts and translation. It's as easy as reading the notes in the front of a Bible such as the NIV or NASB translation. Note sources such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, Biblia Hebraica and the Novum Testamentum (none of these are Latin texts--they are Hebrew and ancient Greek). I'll be happy to send you an NIV Bible, free, if you'd like.
Evolution predicts that various forms of living things will be buried in different sediments, with the simplest of things being first and lonely in the more ancient sediments, and the more advanced beings in the younger sediments, and that in between the simple and advanced creature, there will be intermediates that share characteristics of more than one kind. That is exactly what we see.
Literal Creationism predicts that we should see all kingdoms, phylums, families, and species of animals, mixed hodge-podge in sediments no older than 6,000 years old. That is definitely NOT what we see.
Anyone who dares to differ with these two facts either is lying or is ignorant of what the actual facts are.
As for the "theory" that bacteria mutations which allow for resistance to antibiotics being the result of adaptations that are already present, this is hogwash. A good example is those bacteria colonies found growing on discarded PVC material in a junkyard. PVC is a man-made material. There is no reason for it to be present in a population of bacteria, yet, there it is, making food and energy from it. These new adaptations are not "degenerations" in any sense of the word. The bacteria that develpoe resistance to antibiotics and those that find ways to digest man-made substances are producing totally new enzymes. Sometimes, they do so by using an old gene in a different way. The HOX genes in humans and dogs are pretty much identical, but work differently. Others are the result of mutations. In most cases, mutations are not harmful, as falsely claimed by the Creationist frauds, but are neutral. A neutral mutation can hide, unexpressed, in a population for a while until some situation arises in which it becomes beneficial, and becomes more commonly expressed, but still, at some point, either before or after that point arrives, it had to be "new" at some time.
dtrothe, thank you for your comments.
That there is a geological column is a myth. That such a thing exists is based on the assumption that, logically, there should be a geological column if evolution is true. So if evolution requires that it must exist, then it must actually exist. The problem is, fossils have never been found arranged in a geological column.
Here is a scientific paper on the "geological column".
I suggest this article about bacteria resistance to antibotics. Antibotic resistance is not the result of an increase in information in the DNA (evolution) but a decrease. The result is a weaker organism. No new information is created, which is what evolution requires. When the antibotic environment is taken away the original strain of bacteria re-asserts itself and the resistant strain dies back into a minority.
I'm sorry, but I don't have any information that states PVC can be decomposed by bacteria. PVC is hydrogen, carbon and clorine. It is subject to decomposition at elevated temperatures. Please provide a reference that describes the decomposition mechanism due to bacteria.
Mutations in HOX genes have not caused benefitial changes, but in every case "homeotic genes cause monstrosities". See this article on Hox (homeobox) Genes.
Most mutations may not have a significant effect on the organism, but the important point is that no mutuation has ever been seen that results in an increase in gentic information. That is what evolution requires... and there has never been a mechanism observed that results in an increase in evolution.
I was thinking about making a web page about this, but I answer the question here instead. How would fossils be arranged in strata as the result of a world-wide flood?
Unlike what dtrothe said in their comment, a random distribution is not the predicted result.
First what is the mechanism that results in fossils? It takes more than something dying. It must also be rapidly buried, otherwise it will be eaten by something else. Fossils are the result of catastrophic events.
A world-wide flood, as described in the Bible would be a catastrophic event. The water came from rain and bursting from underground (the fountains of the deep). This would result in huge amounts of sediments washing downhill and into the oceans. As the rivers became swollen, those animals that could would run away from the flooding rivers. So the first types of life to be buried would be small things that could not run away. Which is exactly what we see.
Also, as huge amount of sediment broke free and poured into oceans, what type of life would we expect to find large numbers being fossilized? Fish. They can't see the mud coming and large numbers would be quickly buried. That's exactly what we see in the fossil record. There are more fish fossils than any other type of fossil.
What would land animals do as the waters rose? Go to higher ground. When they ran out of higher ground, what would happen? They would float in the water until they were drowned and eaten/decomposed. They would not form fossils. That is what we see. Fossils of land animals are very rare.
What about people? They'd also go to higher ground, until there was no higher ground to go to. Some may catch a ride on floating debris. Some may even have boats. But the world was completely covered with water for a full year. With a world wide ocean the storms must have been terrible. (Noah's ark was designed to weather major storms.) No one would have had food enough for a year. So they all died.
Wat about human fossils? Yes, there are some. They are not all found in the top strata of sediment as predicted by evolution. In fact, evolution scientist's are having some problems with the dates turning up on human fossils because that are not fitting with what is predicted by evolution. In some cases human fossils are found in the same, "300 million year old", layers as dinosaurs. This makes sense based on a world-wide flood. It does not match predictions based on evolution.
So it is evolution that is having a problem fitting the observable facts into their theory.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home