Where do Creationists think the Theory of Evolution comes from?

Word magic as usual from the evo side, as of course "religious beliefs" is a discredited concept while "science" has all kinds of status and panache.Biblical Creationism is based on the revelation of the true God, not some nebulous "religious beliefs," and science only has validity insofar as it is true to God's revelation. Biblical Creationists believe that evolutionism is the view of the existence and origin of life that results when humans reject the revelation of God. It is the only viable theory of how life could have occurred in a God-less universe. That some claim to believe in God while accepting the tenets of evolution simply testifies to varying degrees of the willingness of some to credit the word of man over that of God, or in other words, their weak faith and a false idea of Christian humility.The credibility of evolutionism is based on little more than the accumulated habit of interpreting everything to fit it over the last century plus, and it has snared many who have no ability to criticize it -- and who CAN criticize it effectively? Evolutionists spend all their time fending off the criticisms of Creationists, pretty ineptly for the most part it seems to me although they find themselves convincing. There are no objective standards for the theory, you see, despite all this talk of science. You cannot prove or disprove the theory so the most aggressive win the argument and it's obvious who they are at EvC. At EvC they also happen to do science in many forms, which they think qualifies them to judge the theory itself, but it's all smoke and mirrors based on authority and not on anything actually factual and provable. I believe this is because it is all about the past and you cannot prove or disprove anything in the past, it is all speculation.

Yes, natural selection and artificial selection perform the same task of VARYING the types within a species. Nobody disagrees with the fact that species may vary tremendously within their given genetic potentials.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-21-2005 01:34 PM

Yes, sorry, it's the mutation or genetic change that causes variation, but if selection of one kind or another (all the "evolutionary processes" select, not just Natural Selection) didn't happen it wouldn't come to be recognized AS a variation within the species. And yes, selection reduces genetic variability, which, if you will recall, is my argument against the very possibility of evolution. Every process that changes or "evolves" the creature reduces its genetic variability (except for recombination, and that only produces stability) and that renders "macro"evolution impossible.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-21-2005 03:11 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 11-21-2005 03:12 PM

Doesn't matter how many sources of variations you have, as long as the only way the change becomes established is through a method of selection that reduces genetic variability, and that is the case, evolution is impossible.

No it's not. Variability is the number of possible genetic expressions available -- numbers of genes, numbers of alleles, whatever. Mutation is simply one change or genetic expression, it does nothing whatever to the variability factor. The reduction process cancels out any increase in variability conferred by the addition of a mutation. You get a mutation, it changes something, it's selected and that reduces the variability by eliminating other genetic possibilities in the new subspecies. Not a formula for evolution.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-21-2005 03:46 PM

What is erroneously termed "speciation" is in fact a condition of reduced genetic variability in comparison to the population it "evolved" from. Ignore all the rest.

Yeah, Crash, I'm speaking very broadly, not from the perspective of the genetics lab and I'm sure there are many things I need correcting on, but the overall picture seems to me to hold up. How "often?" MOST of the "evolutionary processes" reduce genetic variability. How "often" does the "reverse" occur?Please don't think only of bacteria. The cheetah continues to seem to me to be THE emblem of the direction of speciation, that is, in the direction as far from any evolutionary potential as you can get. The more a particular type is selected by whatever means, whether naturally selected for its adaptable or survival-enhancing traits, or by the accidental conditions of population bottleneck, its ability to vary genetically is reduced. The cheetah's variability is almost nil, yet it is its very reduced variability that puts it in the category of a new species. This is the case with MANY supposed incidents of speciation. A frog that can no longer breed with its parent population and has extremely reduced genetic potentials is considered to be a new species. What's the problem here, something definitional or what?And again, how "often" does the "reverse" occur, Crash? Does it occur "often" enough to be the mechanism of evolution, since the usual developments of "evolutionary processes" are in the direction of reduced variability.

Sorry, you're right, we are off topic. But this is in itself a biased statement and it no doubt involves a biased definition of the terms "science" and "religion." From the perspective of a believer that God is the author of it all there can be no conflict between science and "religion," you see, it must all be consistent, and if it isn't that's science's fault as it is the product of the fallible human mind, whereas God's work is perfect.

Yeah, I know that current genetics is so open-ended you can't say anything about "given genetic potentials" any more. I'm sure we'll get back to it though. It remains true that genetic variability IS reduced by all the "mechanisms of evolution" such as natural selection, bottleneck and so on, which also happen to be the supposed routes to speciation, which in itself shows the impossibility of evolution despite mutation and any other contrary trends, and although I don't know enough about the genetics involved to argue it, somebody does and will eventually.But this is off topic for this thread.

All this emphasis on mutation seems like a brand new trick pulled out of a hat, and in saying that I'm not denying your facts. It remains true that the processes that select any trait whatever lead to reduced genetic variability. In any case I will abandon this line of inquiry until I know more.And once again, this is off topic and we should respect the thread's host.

I didn't say MUTATION was new, I said ALL THIS EMPHASIS on mutation is new. All of a sudden everything is mutation. Most of it is not beneficial, much of it is destructive but who cares, the more the better.SORRY. THIS IS OFF TOPIC TOO.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-22-2005 11:35 AM