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.

Sorry, but if something as unprovable as the "revelation of the true God" is not a religious belief, I don't know what is! Where is your proof of this? The Bible? That isn't strictly true. There is a branch is science called phylogeny which very much focusses on now. It's quite a hard science to describe but in essence it compares sequences of proteins conserved throughout species. From these comparisons you can draw evolutionary trees.I'd put a link to it here but I haven't found a good one. Google phylogeny should get you somewhere.This message has been edited by Whirlwind, 21-11-2005 05:37 PM

Biologists, of course. Actually most evolutionists don't do much talking with creationists. Head up to your local university, walk into the biology department, and ask around about how many of the professors and grad students spend any significant time arguing with creationists. Does that really make any sense to you? That you can't come to confident conclusions about the past?Did it occur to you that all observations are of things in the past? I mean, we don't observe the future, right? And the present doesn't last long enough - anything that happens in the present is in the past by the time we've registered it in our minds, so all observation occurs in the past.If you don't believe that science can draw confident conclusions about the past, then there's nothing science can conclude at all. Yet, still, here you are, using a computer and benefiting from the application of science.

quote:

---

The credibility of evolutionism is based on little more than the accumulated habit of interpreting everything to fit it over the last century plus,...

---

That's where you are wrong - The theory of evolution predicts that if, out of the natural variation in a population of organisms of the same species, you (rather than some blind natural force) select the individuals that best fit your need, you can substantially alter a species - and generations of animal and plant breeders have proven the scope of this method. Modern biochemist use in-vitro evolution (evolution in the test tube, in viruses and in bacteria) as a tool to produce novel proteins for medical therapy, diagnostics and research. There are literally hundreds of biotech and pharmaceutical companies worldwide that make their living using these methods. For biochemist working in the field of protein engineering, evolution is not just a theory to explain the past, but a powerful method to work towards the future.The theory of evolution was formulated at a time when virtually nothing was known about the physical mechanisms of heredity. The fact that the comparison of the genetic code of different species leads to the same phylogenetic relationships as the comparison of the morphologies (shapes) and the analysis of the fossil record is the strongest confirmation of the theory of evolution a scientist could wish for - If species had been created independent of each other, there would be no need for all living organisms to use the same code, no need for the complexity of gen duplication, diversification and pseudogene formation we observe when we analyze an organism on a molecular level.

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

That doesn't seem to be correct. Selection, of any type, contracts the variation of a species. It doesn't expand variation.Mutation causes variation. Selection reduces variation.

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

Anybody who understands evolution knows that it needs a source of new variations. And it has one in mutation. Thus your argument fails.t

Well, they're all recognized as variations within species. I'm sitting here in my wife's entomology lab, in front of six-foot stacks of Cornell drawers, and even though I could probably produce 200 specimens of one given species (say, southern corn rootworm) in about two minutes, every one of them would have individual characteristics; would represent an individual variant of that species.Variation between individuals isn't something that only happens once in a while; it's the universal condition of living things.And, what? "All evolutionary processes select?" Whatever gave you that idea? Mutation is not selective; it's random. Hence, "random mutation." No, because mutation is a source of increased genetic variability.I mean, what's the deal here? You can't understand how you can have one process that expands variation, and another that contracts it? Is that it? You simply can't understand how both of those processess could work at the same time?

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

"Established"? Once it happens, it's established.You don't have the first clue what's going on in a population's genetics, do you? No idea whatsoever, huh?

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

By definition a mutation (in the context of genes) converts one allele to another - and there is no factor limiting it to alleles already in the population. Thus mutation is a source of new variation..

Which, firstly, isn't even true - in fact the reverse is often true, that a speciated subpopulation often has more genetic variability than its parent population, because density-dependant selection pressures are non-existent and thus aren't restricting variation.Secondly, that doesn't explain why those subpopulations cease being able to breed with their parent population, but continue to be able to breed with each other.Like I said, you don't have the first clue of what goes on in the genetics of a population, do you? You might as well just admit it; you've already made it obvious.