In my studies of Creation vs. Evolution I have come across many proofs against evolution but the proof I have found the strongest and also the easiest to explain is that of mutations. Supposedly mutations is how Evolution is to have occured. Mutations are changes in the sequence of DNA and are quite real, but are they capable of evolutionary change? To make the answer short, NO! To explain: There have been no mutations observe to this day (and there have been many observed) that have ADDED information, only mutations that have LOST information. I guess that would be evolution going backwards. :)
To conclude, Evolution is impossible because there is no method by which infomation is added to the genome. Evolution: DEBUNKED.
Information gleaned from videos and articles produced or published by CMI and AIG.
Lois Johnson, avid writer, tea drinker, and reader but first and foremost, avid Christian.
To conclude, Evolution is impossible because there is no method by which infomation is added to the genome. Evolution: DEBUNKED.
Information gleaned from videos and articles produced or published by CMI and AIG.
The problem with that argument is that it assumes that evolution is always about progress, which isn't true. Evolution is simply about change. Consider flu shots. Why do you need new flu shots every year? The virus changes (the means through which the virus changes is, of course, evolution!) from year to year to such an extent that last year's vaccine becomes obsolete (the same can be said for antibiotics resistance.)
ReplyDeleteI'd encourage you to read this webpage
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB110.html
It directly addresses your argument nearly word for word and gives a much better counterargument than I can!
Also, if you're interested, here's an article about what mutations are, and how/why they occur:
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-mutation-441
Lastly, here's a page that has a list of specific beneficial mutations that scientists have witnessed in laboratories:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
Hope this helps!
I am going to try and address everything you responded to me about as best I can.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I do understand what mutations are, though I am limited in my knowledge.
I am not saying there aren't beneficial mutations; I would agree with that. Some mutations do benefit us but many more do not. In fact, there a lot of mutations that are deadly to the unborn baby. I think a misconception is that natural selection equals evolution but the thing is natural selection is taking away from the population (survival of the fittest) but evolution should be adding, which is sort of what why I said in my post that what we really have is evolution going backwards. Our human genome is going downhill, it isn't getting any better.
Since I am not a scientist I would rather refer you to an article (as you did for me) to answer the rest of your counterarguments. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/mutations
Thank you for commenting. If you have anymore questions let me know and I hope I made myself clear. :)
I am not a scientist either. I suppose I should make that a disclaimer :P
ReplyDelete"I think a misconception is that natural selection equals evolution but the thing is natural selection is taking away from the population (survival of the fittest) but evolution should be adding"
I'd like to address this point. Natural selection is a means through which evolution functions. Evolution isn't about adding or subtracting as much as it's just about changing and adapting. Let me try to explain as best I can:
Natural selection is the concept of "survival of the fittest." In a species, the ones that have the traits most suitable to their environment will continue living, while the ones that have the traits least suitable to their environment will die off. Since the ones with the traits that are least suitable to the environment die off, the genes that made them unsuitable also die off.
Similarly, the ones that have the traits most suitable to their environment will continue to pass on those traits. I think we agree there! (let me know if not)
So, for an example, I'll use antibiotics resistance (since it's both applicable to today, has been observed many times, and it demonstrates natural selection/mutations really well).
Okay, so we have "Bacteria A." Everyone that gets sick with Bacteria A is treated with "Antibiotic 1" (excuse the lack of creativity in the names haha) for a few years and it works really well. However, one day, Jane comes into the doctor. She's diagnosed with Bacteria A and is prescribed Antibiotic 1. She goes through the whole course of it, and she's still sick!
Why? Because her "Bacteria A" had a mutation that made it resistant to Antibiotic 1. Then, she accidentally gets a few friends sick. Pretty soon, her new strand of "Bacteria A" (We'll now call this "Bacteria A version 2.0") becomes way more dominant than the original Bacteria A! This is because the original bacteria A could be easily beat with Antibiotic 1, but "Bacteria A 2.0" could not, so it survives while the original Bacteria A slowly becomes less prevalent until it dies out, and the only version of Bacteria A left is Jane's antibiotics-resistant one!
That's evolution. (Which might be considered "micro-evolution," but all "macro-evolution" is, is a bunch of micro-evolutions accumulated over time to the point that "speciation" occurs (meaning the new species can no longer reproduce with the original species). Here's an article with a counterargument to "microevolution and macroevolution are not the same" http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html if you're curious)
I read your answersingenesis article. I'm totally gonna admit that I'm not well-versed enough in evolution to make a counterargument of my own and not make some mistakes, but talkorigins certainly has some! (it's like these two sites were made for each other LOL)
"Evolution requires mutations, but mutations are rare."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB100.html
"Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
"Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
Finally, here's basically the table of contents link to that website:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
It has just about every argument against evolution imaginable and a counter to it.
Also, I am so sorry for writing such a long reply! Anyway, I am a Christian. But I also believe the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that it's hard for me to deny. I think God can do all things (of course!!), and in that vein, I think that if he wanted to create his beautiful world through evolution, he was/is absolutely capable of it!
I will check into all of these different articles.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, since you are a Christian that puts a whole different spin on things. :) Have you read my article about why I believe in a literal 24-hour six day creation? If not here is the link. http://youmeandacupofteablog.blogspot.com/2011/12/literal-24-hour-six-day-creation.html
At the bottom of my blogpost are links to my sources which are much better I am sure then what I wrote.
Second, you will be surprised at how little real evidence there is for evolution once you start digging deeper. For example, all of the fossils that supposed to be proof of evolution are actually pretty much all hoaxes. Many of them are made over because evolutionist scientists will pay top bucks to get something that proves what they believe so the finders of these fossils (I believe a lot of them are from China) will do what they can to fix them up because they don't really care as long as they get paid. Whether the scientists know that they are made over or not is questionable.
There are many other problems in various different fields of science with the evolutionary hypothesis that the scientists don't really voice because they can't figure out why it doesn't fit within their evolutionary picture and are positive that they can't be right, little realizing that other scientists are coming up with problems too and also have their doubts.
I am not saying that God isn't capable of creating the world through evolution, what I am saying is that there is no way He could of because the evidence is not pointing that way. You really should look at some of the articles from Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministires International and if you feel so led buy some of their DVDs. It is through their aritcles and DVDs that I was able to garner all of my limited knowledge.
I hope that all makes sense. :) Thanks. :)