Textbooks present evolution in two different ways-small, observable changes (natural selection, speciation, adaptation) and large, unobservable changes (molecules-to-man evolution). They show evidence for the former and then conclude that this proves that the latter took place as well.
As our understanding of genetics has improved, it has become clear that mutations + time + chance do not equal evolution. All observed mutations demonstrate a loss of genetic information from the genetic code or they are neutral. Evolution claims that the process has no direction or goal. If you look at the complexity of the "first" organism, it must be accepted that a massive amount of information has been produced to explain the variety of life we see today. Mutations cannot generate new genetic information; so they cannot be used to explain how evolution has produced from a cell with less information than is present in modern cells.
Despite the claims of evolution, the appearance of new species, antibiotic resistance in bacteria, pesticide resistance and sickle-cell anemia are not evidence in favor of evolution. They do, however, demonstrate the principle of natural selection acting or existing traits-a concept that creationists and evolution agree on. The creationist model of how life spread across the globe after the Flood of Genesis uses many of the same principles of natural selection and adaptive radiation that are used in the evolution model. One of the main difference is that the biblical creation model recognizes that one kind can't change into another and that change are a result of variation within kinds- not descent from a single common ancestor. As a result of the Curse, genetic mutations, showing a loss of information, have been accumulating, but these do not cause new kinds to emerge. Accepting the idea of a single common ancestor denies the authority of the Bible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IfV5iRQbIU
No comments:
Post a Comment