How
many times have you heard that we “observe” evolution happening?
When I say that evolution doesn't happen, I'm ridiculed for denying
the obvious. Some say evolution occurs before our very eyes.
Really? Do you mean we can see dinosaurs changing into birds? No.
They don't mean that
kind of evolution happens before our eyes. They simply mean that
populations change.
It's all a matter of definition. Consider some of these definitions
of “evolution” given on the popular, evolutionist site,
TalkOrigins
(TO).
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
That’s
a fairly lengthy way of saying, “evolution
is change.”
When we see any change in a population, they say we are seeing “evolution.”
Note that there is no qualifier about the kind of change - that is, no
consideration is given if the change is adding any novel features to
the population. “Evolution is change; change is evolution.”
That's the sum of it. The same article goes on to say:
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
This
is, by far, the most commonly accepted definition of evolution by
secular biologists. As far as utility, it’s not a bad definition.
It’s certainly objective. The problem is that it’s still just a
clinical way of “evolution
is change.”
There is still another definition offered in the same TO article:
There is still another definition offered in the same TO article:
"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."
As
far as I'm concerned, this is more like it. When the average person
hears the word, “evolution,” he usually has something like this
in mind. In the creation v. evolution debate, this is the point of
contention that we are debating. But TO doesn’t like this
definition. In fact, they condemn it in the strongest way:
“This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring.” [bold added for emphasis]
We can see what’s going on. Evolutionists don’t like this definition because it makes it harder for them to claim evolution is still occurring. It's a glaring example of equivocation where evolutionists can point to one kind of “change” (which everyone will agree happens) and claim it's the same change that turns molecules into men (which no one has ever seen happen). They equivocate intentionally; they admit it here. They are glad for the overly broad meaning of the word because it allows them to use any example of change as evidence for their theory.
Evolutionists
engage in a game of semantics and seek to define words in their
favor. They often chide creationists for not using words the same
way they've defined them but it's only because we refuse to
participate in their lies. We seek to make the meaning of certain
terms more clear and their sole objective is to cloud the issue.
I've
read their examples of “evolution” and I agree it's “change.”
It's still not the kind of change that could turn a fish into a frog
or an ape into a man. Evolution does not occur anywhere. It's never
observed in spite of their many claims to have seen it. Their cited
examples only qualify as “evolution” because of their equivocal
use of the word.
Evolution
only happens by definition.
4 comments:
First, the Talk.Origins definition you quote first does not say "[biological] evolution is change." Under its definition, for example, changes to individuals (e.g. a child growing up) are not evolution. For another example, the U.S. population over the course of the 20th century has grown, on average, taller, though in the last generation, we have stopped growing taller and settled for growing wider. This is generally thought to not be evolution; it is the effect of changes in environments (better nutrition, mainly) rather than changes in gene frequencies.
It is blatantly false to say that "when we see any change in a population, they say we are seeing 'evolution'." Even Darwin, who didn't know that genes existed, was careful to distinguish between differences that are inheritable and those that are not.
I suppose you don't care. You want to whine that the word "evolution" isn't used only for changes too big to see in a single lifetime, and don't really care about the details of evolutionary theory. The thing is, evolutionists actually are interested in the details of the theory, and part of the theory is that the large changes that don't take place over a single lifetime are made up of the small changes that are. The "gradual process" is not something that happened only in the past, or even something that happened faster or more spectacularly in the past.
When you say that the sort of evolution that is observed could not change an ape into a man, what you mean is that the degree of evolution you see could not do so. And if you watch a marathon for a couple of seconds, the degree of running you see won't cover 26 miles, but the sort of running you see will. You call people "liars" because they arrogantly persist in knowing what they're talking about when you do not.
Steven J,
You said, “First, the Talk.Origins definition you quote first does not say "[biological] evolution is change."”
In spite of the many claims to the contrary, I am perfectly capable of reading. The quote says, “Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual.”
There is no care taken here to identify the type of change or qualify it as “trait adding.” Any change in a population is identified as evolution.
You said, “Under its definition, for example, changes to individuals (e.g. a child growing up) are not evolution.”
I never claimed that changes to an individual qualify as evolution. If you reread the post, I used the word “population” three times (not counting the times I quoted TO). Note, for example, where I said, “They simply mean that populations change.”
You said, “For another example, the U.S. population over the course of the 20th century has grown, on average, taller.... This is generally thought to not be evolution; it is the effect of changes in environments (better nutrition, mainly) rather than changes in gene frequencies.”
A change in average height could easily be the result in a change in gene frequency. Some tall men have tall sons. If women tend to be attracted to taller men, over time, average height would increase. So, if the increase in height IS the result of a change in the frequency of the “tall gene,” is it “evolution”?
You said, “It is blatantly false to say that "when we see any change in a population, they say we are seeing 'evolution'."”
Ah, so you did notice that I assigned “change” to the population and not the individual. Anyway, I again remind you that I can read the definition and there are no qualifiers as to the kind of change.
You said, “I suppose you don't care. You want to whine that the word "evolution" isn't used only for changes too big to see in a single lifetime, and don't really care about the details of evolutionary theory.”
It was TO who said that if we don't mean “change” when we talk about “evolution,” it could be debated whether “evolution” is still occurring. They are the ones who are whining when words aren't used the way they want them used.
You said, “When you say that the sort of evolution that is observed could not change an ape into a man, what you mean is that the degree of evolution you see could not do so.”
You have yet to explain to me how birds eating one color of moth could ever accumulate to make the moth evolve into something that's not a moth. I don't care if it continues 5,000,000,000 years, it can't happen! Yet this is the most famous example of “evolution”? It's absurd. You can call it “evolution” if you want to but I will continue to call it a lie.
God bless!!
RKBentley
I'm a bit late to the discussion, but Steven J., you said "part of the theory is that the large changes that don't take place over a single lifetime are made up of the small changes that are. The 'gradual process' is not something that happened only in the past, or even something that happened faster or more spectacularly in the past."
But TalkOrigins said themselves, "This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term 'gradual process' which should not be part of the definition."
Unless I'm misunderstanding, you and TalkOrigins are saying two different things. I think evolutionists like to talk about 'gradual process' as if it's a given, and then insert ad hoc theories such as punctuated equilibrium when the fossil record appears to contradict it. I agree with RK in that it simply doesn't happen.
Todd,
Thank you again for your comments. You reminded me of a funny line that I've heard Ken Ham sometimes use. Evolutionists will often say that evolution is too gradual a process to observe in a lifetime. You've correctly pointed out that they also invoke “punctuated equilibrium” to explain the lack of transitional fossils in the geological record. So they are saying on the one hand that evolution happens so slowly that we can't see it but also it happened so quickly that we missed it!
In spite of the seriousness of a lack of belief, I still sometimes have to chuckle at their theory.
Please keep visiting!!
God bless!!
RKBentley
Post a Comment