Hi, since this is my first blog I just wanted to get some things out there first. I will probably writing alot about music, books, subjects in psychology, and christianity. If I write about somthing it will probably be because I know a good deal about the subject. If you comment on my blogs please be educated yourself.
So here is my first post on some research I did on Evolution after taking a class on the subject.
For a very long time, the creationist perspective was the only view that existed. Therefore, the world automatically assumed this position to explain their origin. Then, a radical scientist of the time, Charles Darwin, introduced his Theory of Evolutions. Darwin’s Theory suggests that every species evolved from a single organism through natural selection and there were no supernatural powers involved. Since then, a growing amount of evidence supporting Darwin’s theory has been found, leaving today’s population torn between creationism and evolution. Although the Evolutionary Theory is very convincing, creationists have found there to be a few major faults.
When a person speaks of evolution one of two definitions may come to mind: Darwinist Theory of Evolution, sometimes known as macroevolution, or microevolution. The Darwinist Theory of Evolution has multiple theories within itself, but scientists place the majority of their focus on these five: Evolution as such, Common descent, Multiplication of species, Gradualism, and Natural Selection. Evolution as such says that the world is constantly changing and the organisms are within it are steadily altered through time. Common descent states that all species descended from a common ancestor and origin of life. Multiplication of species explains that there are more species now, since they all descended from one, because they multiplied by dividing into daughter species, or they became geographically isolated and evolved independently, essentially remaining in their more primitive state. The theory of Gradualism says that evolution is a gradual change over many years. Natural selection says that changes come about through variation in species. The more successful variant lives to be passed on to the next generation and the less successful one eventually disappears. As a whole, these theories represent what is known as macroevolution or evolution from one species to another; whereas, the basic concepts of Evolution as such, Gradualism, and Natural Selection can be used to define microevolution or evolution within a species.
Most Creationists have no problem with the theory of microevolution. We agree that the world is dynamic, and it makes perfect sense that an organism better adapted to their environment than another one in their species would successfully reproduce more often. Therefore, it would pass more of its genes to the next generation, and gradually increase the appearance of that characteristic. Macroevolution, on the other hand, is not as believable. There are many details that are unexplained and aspects about the Theory of Common Descent that are questionable, which in turn question the legitimacy of Multiplication of Species.
The theory of common descent claims that humans and apes naturally (as opposed to supernaturally) evolved from a common Hominoid (classification of apes) ancestor, that evolved from another quadrapedal mammal, that evolved from a quadrapedal terrestrial reptile, that evolved from an amphibian, that evolved from a fish who adapted to drought conditions and so on. The problem with all of this movement between species and classes (mammal, reptile, etc.) is how they propose it is done. The explanation evolutionists give for the multiplication of species and evolutionary change is genetic mutation. DNA is the code for what a gene says. DNA is made up of proteins, which are composed of amino acids, which are composed of nucleotides, which are made up of three base pairs. Mutation is when the base pairs in DNA get copied wrong and then change what the gene says. Genetic mutations happen all the time, but a “typical gene contains over one thousand precisely arranged bases [;a] gene 999 bases in length represents one of 4999 possible nucleotide sequences; a protein of 333 amino acids is one of 20333 possibilities” (Meyer). Depending purely on chance, the probability that the mutation would be an advantageous variation is small. In other words, it is pretty unlikely that we or any other species evolved from one single organism, no matter how long it supposedly took.
Another factor that makes macroevolution questionable, is that the basis of their fossil dating system is flawed. Most of the time scientists date fossils based on where they are located in earth’s strata. Strata are the layers that are formed in earth’s crust from sediments settling, usually in a body of water. They assume newer strata are on top of old strata, fossils can be dated be where they are in the strata, and the strata can be dated by the fossils that are in them. A bone cannot be dated with the methods available; instead, scientists date things like pots. These pots and other things chemically dated are sometimes used as index fossils. This means that the scientists date two fossils in different strata, and they assume that the stratum in between them is an average of the fossil’s dates. In many instances though, the strata are notably out of order. Evolutionists will point out that sometimes the strata can be moved due to “overthrust” or rockslides on fault lines, but in numerable instances, the usual evidence is not present. “Gouge (ground rock and powder), breccia [sharp, broken rocks], slickensides [slick, smooth rock],” or “striated stone” are nowhere to be found. There are only clean lines of strata, which means that the strata probably were not laid down the way scientists would like to believe they were, throwing their entire dating system off.
How these fossils even came to be is questionable within the Theory of Evolution. Fossilization requires quick burial, but evolutionists say that it takes a long time to create strata. Without burial the remains are exposed to the elements of nature and could be carried off by an animal. Also, there have been a couple of situations where dinosaur bones were found standing at an angle through many strata. Thus, the strata must have been created quicker than evolutionists predict. The only recorded incidence that could have created the pressure and speed needed to fossilize the animals in such ways is the biblical Great Flood (Genisis 6-8).
Where did we come from? What is the real answer to the question burning in everyone’s mind? God definitely exists and He created man in His image. Some say that this is not science because it cannot be proven. In reality, "…the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). Therefore, the proof is everywhere you look. All that needs to be done “is to give the credit where credit is due, and worship Him for it” (Sharp).
Meyer, Stephen C. “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Catagories”. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 117.2 (Aug. 2004): 26 pp. 1 Dec. 2004
Sharp, Douglass B. The Revolution Against Evolution. 28 April 1997. 2 Dec. 2004. <http://www.rae.org/revevchp.html>
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
It kinda got cut off there at the end my man...
I am impressed with the rest though.
Welll thought out and factually based. I've been trying to explain the concepts of the first long paragraph or two to people on here for a while. Even if the end is a little sketchy(not necessarily wrong) I am glad to have a reference now to direct people to.
Your "proof of god's existence" is the most annoying kind of proof. The bible says god exists therefore, he does. I look around and attribute the world to nature.
Things you are correct about
(1) Evolutionary theory is a megatheory with many facets to it.
(2) Good overview of Ernst Mayr's concept of Darwinian Evolutionary Theory's five major underlying principles.
(3) Congratulations on referring to yourself as a "creationist" instead of claiming "Intelligent design" as something separate from it.
Minor nitpicks:
(1) The five theories do not just compromise "Macroevolution" (more to say on this later). They spread across all of evolutionary theory ... including "Microevolution"/
(2) DNA is not the code for what genes say. Genes do not say anything. DNA is what makes up a gene. The basic building block of DNA is NOT protein. It is nucleotides. There are four nucleotides types found in DNA: adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymidine. The vast majority of genes code for proteins whose basic building blocks are amino acids. There are 20 different naturally occurring amino acids. Each amino acid is coded for by 3 contiguous DNA nucleotides. The vast majority of proteins serve as enzymes in biochemical pathways.
(3) Pots and human-made artifacts are not index fossils. Index fossils are fossils that are found over a wide area in certain strata. Since artifacts have only been around for about a million years, they would be useless to date fossils older than that. We have a 3.5 billion year history of fossils.
Major problems:
(1) Yours (and Meyer's) calculation on the probability of producing a proteing is a straw man. While there may well be 20^333 number of possible proteins consisting of 333 amino acids, no one has ever claimed that evolution has had to search that entire number of proteins to come up with one. In fact, no one has ever claimed that evolution was ever trying to come up with any particular protein. Instead what evolution is looking for is a function, specifically one that does something ... anything ... better than with respect to the organism's natural environment than it did before it happened.
Your calculation assumes that a protein of 333 amino acids must have arisen de novo from nothing. That is not what evolutionary theory has EVER claimed so your calculation is absolutely meaningless.
(2) It is never clear what creationists mean when they use the dichotomy of Micro vs Macroevolution. In modern evolutionary theory microevolution is evolution that happens within a species. Macroevolution is evolution that leads to speciation. Both have been observed.
Here is a link to a post I did detailing some of the evidence that shows beyond reasonable doubt that humans and the great apes share a common ancestor. Most people would consider that macroevolution.
(3) Index fossils are used to identify strata. They have been used to identify strata since long before Darwin. Datings for strata is based on numerous consistent independent measurements made by different groups of geologists using a variety of techniques including several different radionuclides. There simply is no credible scientific reason to doubt the datings of strata.
(4) No geologist has ever said that in every case of overthrust there need be gouge, breccia, or slickensides present. These would have been surface phenomenon which could easily have been eroded away. What is important in an overthrust is the presence of a fault line. The presence of unconformities can add additional evidence that erosion occurred.
(5) Polystrate fossils (fossils crossing several layers) have been known, and explained, since long before Darwin as well. There are at least two potential mechanisms. Certain plant stumps can survive intact for thousands of years in peat bogs. So sediments have all the time they need to pile up and encase the stump.
Another mechanism is natural disasters. These can lay down thick sediments in a period of hours. So polystrate fossils are not now, nor have they ever been a problem for evolutionary theory.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle