googlef87758e9b6df9bec.html A Sure Word: Ten Lies Evolutionists Tell: Part 2

Thursday, September 15, 2016

Ten Lies Evolutionists Tell: Part 2

3) Microevolution plus time equals macroevolution

We don't see dinosaurs turning into birds or any similar kind of change. We do, however, see little changes like in the size of bird beaks. The lie told by evolutionists is that the little changes we observe can accumulate over millions of years to become big changes – the kind of changes that could turn apes into men.

The most famous example of evolution published in school textbooks is the peppered moth. I won't detail the whole study but here's the gist: peppered moths can be either light or dark colored. As the moths were studied over time, it was noticed that the ratio of light to dark moths changed. It was determined that birds would tend to eat mostly dark or mostly light depending on changes in the environment. Since the frequency of dark moths changed over time, it fits the technical definition of evolution. If this trend continued for millions of years, evolutionists believe this kind of change – that is, birds eating one shade of moth – can turn the moth into something that's not a moth. Incredible!

For evolution to happen, animals have to acquire traits. To turn a dinosaur into a bird, for example, you would have to add feathers. To turn a molecule into a man, you would have to add bones, blood, skin, eyes, hair, heart, lungs, and a million other things. It's not enough that molecules might just “change”; they would have to acquire new features generation after generation in order to “evolve.” Get it? So, let me ask you: how long would birds have to eat one color of moth before new colors are added to the moth population? A hundred years? A million years? Obviously you can't add colors by continuously removing colors – no mater how long it happens!

Consider this quote from Wikidoc.org, “Critics have pointed out that the "peppered moth story" showed only microevolution, rather than the important macroevolutionary trend of speciation. Biologists agree with this point, and accept that correlation between soot on tree trunks and observed melanism in the moths is not proof of the theory of evolution as a whole. However, many do not accept the supposed distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" as being part of the modern evolutionary synthesis which equates the two, instead taking the view that the mechanisms of microevolution and macroevolution are the same, the only difference being of time and scale.”

In their own words, many biologists equate little changes (micro-) and the big changes (macro-). The only difference to them is how long it continues - “time and scale.” They give no consideration to the kind of change. To them, evolution means change – things change – therefore, things evolve.

If you want to convince me that evolution is possible, show me examples of animals acquiring novel features. Don't show me examples of animals losing traits (natural selection) and say, “just give it some time.” It's a lie.

4) Evolution is just a theory – like gravity!

Sometimes, creationists will attempt to diminish evolution by saying, “It's just a theory.” Here's an example of how some evolutionists answer that:

Evolution is still all too often (but wrongly) downplayed as "just a theory" in public discussions. This is partly due to an unfortunate misunderstanding of what a theory means in science, as opposed to its common language meaning. Evolution by natural selection is much more than just a hypothesis, and is as much a valid and well-accepted scientific theory as the theory of gravitation.

Now, I admit that calling evolution a “theory” is a weak criticism. However, I believe it's usually said out of ignorance. The response, on the other hand, is a deliberate lie. The lie rests in the obvious intent to conflate the phenomenon of gravity with the theory of gravity as though they're the same thing. Here is another response where this is a little more blatant:

In the debate between religion and science a common argument is that the theory of evolution, or the Big Bang theory, or some other scientific theory is "just a theory".... This argument shows a very common misconception about science that needs to be cleared up. Science never proves anything. Ever. Let me repeat that with different emphasis: Science never proves anything. For instance, gravity is "just a theory". Like evolution it cannot be proved correct. [bold and italics in original]

What does this person mean by “gravity” cannot be proven correct? The statement doesn't even make sense. It's like saying, “a pencil cannot be proven correct.” Gravity is a thing. We have a theory that describes how it behaves. Our theory may not be entirely correct but there is no doubt that there is the thing.

But the theory of evolution is no where near on par with the theory of gravity. We're not sure what gravity is but we are very successful in predicting how it behaves. We can measure it's force very precisely. We can calculate exactly how planets will move. We can use our theory of gravity to make predictions; before we went to the moon, for example, we could calculate how much an astronaut would “weigh” on the moon.

We're a little more fuzzy on the details of evolution. In short, scientists still aren't sure when, where, or how things evolved. They're constantly rearranging animals on the so-called, “tree of life.” Nearly every day, a new discovery is made that overturns things they were once “sure” about. Evolution also makes NO predictions (I think I'll include this as one of the ten lies – stay tuned). We certainly can't predict where evolution is leading.

Evolution is a theory and a “scientific theory” isn't the same as an unsubstantiated guess. I get it. But please stop lying and saying evolution is like gravity!


8 comments:

Steven J. said...

A week and a half ago, you stated that " We have more evidence for the historical fact of Jesus than any other person of antiquity." Now, looking over the various sorts of evidence you cite for this, I do not see how the evidence for Jesus can be greater than that for, e.g. Socrates or Confucius , never mind Julius Caesar (who after all left us not only eyewitnesses but portrait busts and coins). Shall I call this statement a "lie" merely because it seems to be obviously false? I don't think that's reasonable or polite, do you?

Okay, "traits." And "animals," I suppose, so nylon-eating bacteria (due to gene duplication and mutation of the duplicate gene) doesn't count, nor would the evolution of multicellularity in Chlorella vulgaris, a single-celled algae, in the lab. How about the emergence of cecal valves in the gut of Italian wall lizards stranded for a few decades on the island Pod Mrcaru? Such valves are found in the guts of some lizard species, but not, prior to their colonization of Pod Mrcaru, Podaris sicula. Is that a "new trait?" But no doubt you will complain that in this case the exact genetic mutations responsible are unknown. But the point is that what you ask has been observed and reported.

Aristotle did not know that gravity exists. Even Galileo did not know that. Obviously both knew, as did the various authors of the Bible, that things fall when you drop them -- but they did not know that a single rule explains why a dropped millstone falls (sometimes onto someone's head), and why the moon orbits the Earth. Gravity, as a single explanation for celestial mechanics and ballistics on Earth, is as much a theoretical construct as evolution (and, as with evolution and gravity, there is the thing itself -- branching descent with modification, or the mutual attraction of masses -- and the explanation for the thing -- natural selection of random mutations, or curved space, or whatever).

Papa Giorgio said...

Thank you. I hadn't thought of the distinction so simply. An arrow in my quiver doest thou add.

XaurreauX said...

The sole basis for denying evolution is the denier's terror that it is true.

Evolution is for grownups.

RKBentley said...

Steven J,

As usual, thanks for your comments.

You said, “A week and a half ago, you stated that " We have more evidence for the historical fact of Jesus than any other person of antiquity." Now, looking over the various sorts of evidence you cite for this, I do not see how the evidence for Jesus can be greater than that for, e.g. Socrates or Confucius , never mind Julius Caesar (who after all left us not only eyewitnesses but portrait busts and coins). Shall I call this statement a "lie" merely because it seems to be obviously false? I don't think that's reasonable or polite, do you?”

I do stand by my comment but that's a little off subject for this post. If you check that post, I'll respond to your argument there. For now, let's just say that saying, “Well, you lie too” isn't a very effective rebuttal.

You said, “Okay, "traits." And "animals," I suppose, so nylon-eating bacteria (due to gene duplication and mutation of the duplicate gene) doesn't count, nor would the evolution of multicellularity in Chlorella vulgaris, a single-celled algae, in the lab. How about the emergence of cecal valves in the gut of Italian wall lizards stranded for a few decades on the island Pod Mrcaru?”

I think I've addressed all these points at one time or another and I don't have time to rehash them all right now; I have a lot of other comments to get to. Anyway, for evolution to be possible, new traits should appear with at least some frequency. Why is it that I hear the same few examples all the time? But regardless of that, my point above remains the same: time is not the magic ingredient that turns natural selection into evolution. Again, evolution requires that animals acquire traits. Examples of animals losing traits – such as the peppered moth – will never lead to evolution no matter how long it happens. It's a lie.

You said, “Aristotle did not know that gravity exists. Even Galileo did not know that. Obviously both knew, as did the various authors of the Bible, that things fall when you drop them.”

Perhaps they took for granted that things fall. Maybe they never bothered to ask themselves why. My point is still that gravity is a thing and we have a theory that describes how it behaves. To say, “gravity is just a theory” is misleading. Even if our current understanding of how gravity behaves isn't correct, that's not the same thing as proving that evolution doesn't exist.

God bless!

RKBentley

RKBentley said...

Papa Giorgio,

You're welcome. Thank you, too, for visiting and for your comments. Be sure to check back for the rest of this series.

God bless!!

RKBentley

RKBentley said...

XaurreauX,

That's curious. If I deny evolution because I'm afraid of the truth, why do evolutionists have to tell lies about their theory? Do they lie so that maybe people will believe it? Are you saying these aren't lies? How about you comment again and actually address some of my points. Until you do, I'll consider this a non-response.

Thank you for visiting, though. God bless!!

RKBentley

Steven J. said...

My point was not that you are a liar; it is that it is rude and careless to call people "liars" because you disagree with their assertions, or don't understand their arguments (and I really don't understand how you can think that there's more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for Josephus, when you're citing Josephus as support for the existence of Jesus, but that, as you say, is another topic).

You hear the same examples all the time because they're relatively spectacular and memorable. On the one hand, who's checking every individual of every species constantly to make sure that novel traits aren't showing up? Do you want to assert that new traits aren't appearing in capybaras or pangolins merely because no one's reported any lately? On the other hand, "some frequency" doesn't have to be all that often when we're considering a timescale of millions of years.

XaurreauX said...

Not wanting to accept evolution because it threatens your beliefs does not make evolution a lie. I stand by my statement.

Have a good day.