Fish fins, Christian evolutionism, and the “things that just don’t change, come what may”

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 7, 2021

Evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

At Evolution News and Science Today, we learn that Darrel Falk is still around? Why do people care about Christian evolutionism when even the big Darwin guys like Kevin Laland are looking for non-Darwin answers? Oh well, if Darrel Falk is funded, he is around, right? And we’re not getting dinged for it. So really what?

No surprise, Falk doesn’t like Steve Meyer’s new book, The Return of the God Hypothesis. Anyway, we hear:

In his critical review of Return of the God Hypothesis for BioLogos, to which Brian Miller and I have been responding (here, here, and here), biologist Darrel Falk argued that Stephen Meyer “does not fully appreciate the power of gene duplication and mutation in generating new proteins and changing the way that gene regulatory networks function.” We saw in a previous post that Meyer discussed these topics extensively in both his latest book and his previous book, Darwin’s Doubt. He showed how they do not explain the origin of animal body plans. Falk never addresses Meyer’s specific criticisms of both processes as mechanisms of evolutionary innovation. But he does argue that one “mystery” that seems to be solvable is how fins evolved into limbs.
Casey Luskin, “Revealing Darrel Falk’s Overstatements about Limb Bones in Fish Fins” at Evolution News and Science Today

Some of us have at least a plausible hope of living long enough to hear that limbs evolved first. We shall see.

Fun:

Things that just don’t change come what may? See the best Canadian folk song: Four Strong Winds:

Comments

seversky is just a question-begging, gullible fool. There isn't any evidence that humans evolved from n on-humans. There aren't any known materialistic processes that can do such a thing. You lose.ET_{June 10, 2021
June
06
Jun
10
10
2021
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

martin_r, methinks you suffer from a lack of imagination. ;)Karen McMannus_{June 9, 2021
June
06
Jun
9
09
2021
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

to Seversky, JVL & Co. A interesting debate at a mainstream-science website (Researchgate.net): someone posted the following question: Where are all the "common ancestor species" in the fossil record? In evolutionary theory, rarely is it stated that one species is directly descended from another but rather that they share a common ancestor species from whom both are descended (one obvious example being Neanderthals and modern humans). However, I have not seen convincing evidence in the fossil record for these common ancestors. For example, the common ancestor of chimps and humans has not been identified, nor has the common ancestor of humans, chimps and gorillas, nor the common ancestor of all of the great apes. We can take this as far back as needs be, like the common ancestor of all mammals, but no fossil evidence has every emerged of the existence of such a creature even though some scientists have speculated what it might have looked like: http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/common-ancestor-of-all-mammals-revealed So, despite a wealth of fossil evidence out there, why do common ancestors remain so elusive? Is DNA inference sufficient evidence? https://www.researchgate.net/post/Where_are_all_the_common_ancestor_species_in_the_fossil_record could you guys comment on that? WHERE ARE ALL THE COMMON ANCESTORS ??????martin_r_{June 8, 2021
June
06
Jun
8
08
2021
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT}

Seversky
But living things do change over time. We are different from our ape-like ancestors from hundreds of thousands of years ago.</blockquote. What happens to your argument if it turns out we do not have Ape like ancestors? You have a starting assumption that is hard to establish given current facts.
bill cole_{June 8, 2021
June
06
Jun
8
08
2021
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

Indeed, there is much scientific evidence that has recently come forward, (such as quantum criticality), that indicates that their Darwinian narrative can't possibly be true. As the following article entitled “Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules” states, "the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015 Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say. That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.” The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,, “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?” https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552
And as this follow up article stated, "There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,,"
Quantum Critical Proteins – Stuart Lindsay – Professor of Physics and Chemistry at Arizona State University – 2018 Excerpt: The difficulty with this proposal lies in its improbability. Only an infinitesimal density of random states exists near the critical point.,, Gábor Vattay et al. recently examined a number of proteins and conducting and insulating polymers.14 The distribution for the insulators and conductors were as expected, but the functional proteins all fell on the quantum-critical distribution. Such a result cannot be a consequence of chance.,,, WHAT OF quantum criticality? Vattay et al. carried out electronic structure calculations for the very large protein used in our work. They found that the distribution of energy-level spacings fell on exactly the quantum-critical distribution, implying that this protein is also quantum critical. There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,, http://inference-review.com/article/quantum-critical-proteins Gábor Vattay et al., “Quantum Criticality at the Origin of Life,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 626 (2015); Gábor Vattay, Stuart Kauffman, and Samuli Niiranen, “Quantum Biology on the Edge of Quantum Chaos,” PLOS One 9, no. 3 (2014)
To say that finding quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules is problematic for the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution is to make a severe understatement. It is a straight-up empirical falsification of the materialistic premises that undergird Darwinian evolution. What is so devastating to Darwinian presuppositions with the finding pervasive quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement within molecular biology, is that quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement is a non-local, beyond space and time, effect that requires a beyond space and time cause in order to explain its existence. As the following paper entitled “Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory” stated, “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php
Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, simply have no beyond space and time cause that they can appeal so as to be able to explain the non-local quantum coherence and/or entanglement that is now found to be ubiquitous within biology. Whereas Christians readily do have a beyond space and time cause that they can appeal to so as to explain quantum entanglement. As Colossians 1:17 states, “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”
Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
it is also important to realize that quantum information is conserved. As the following article states, In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.
Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time - 2011 Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html
The implication of finding 'non-local', (beyond space and time), and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created nor destroyed), quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every important biomolecule in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious. That pleasant implication, of course, being the fact that we now have very strong empirical evidence suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff states in the following article, “the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it's possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
Leading Scientists Say Consciousness Cannot Die It Goes Back To The Universe - Oct. 19, 2017 - Spiritual Excerpt: “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it's possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.” - Stuart Hameroff - Quantum Entangled Consciousness - Life After Death - video (5:00 minute mark) (of note, this video is no longer available for public viewing) https://radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/10/life-after-death-soul-science-morgan-freeman/
Verses:
Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul? 1 Corinthians 2:9 However, as it is written: "What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived" -- the things God has prepared for those who love him--
bornagain77_{June 8, 2021
June
06
Jun
8
08
2021
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

Contrary to what Darwinists believe, DNA is not a 'blueprint' that dictates what form any organism may take:
"DNA cannot be seen as the 'blueprint' for life," DNA may not be life's instruction book—just a jumbled list of ingredients - Kimbra Cutlip, University of Maryland - APRIL 22, 2020 Excerpt: The common view of heredity is that all information passed down from one generation to the next is stored in an organism's DNA. But Antony Jose, associate professor of cell biology and molecular genetics at the University of Maryland, disagrees. In two new papers, Jose argues that DNA is just the ingredient list, not the set of instructions used to build and maintain a living organism.,,, ,,, "DNA cannot be seen as the 'blueprint' for life," Jose said. "It is at best an overlapping and potentially scrambled list of ingredients that is used differently by different cells at different times." ,,, In addition, scientists are unable to determine the complex shape of an organ such as an eye, or that a creature will have eyes at all, by reading the creature's DNA. These fundamental aspects of anatomy are dictated by something outside of the DNA. https://phys.org/news/2020-04-dna-life-bookjust-jumbled-ingredients.html BIO101 - From Genes To Traits: How Genotype Affects Phenotype - Bora Zivkovic - September 17, 2011 Excerpt: Exact DNA sequence of an individual is its genotype. The collection of all observable and measurable traits of that individual is phenotype. If every position and every function of every cell in our bodies was genetically determined, we would need trillions of genes to specify all that information. Yet, we have only about 26,000 genes. All of our genes are very similar to the equivalent genes of chimpanzees, yet we are obviously very different in anatomy, physiology and behavior from chimpanzees. Furthermore, we share many of the same genes with fish, insects and even plants, yet the differences in phenotypes are enormous. Thus, it follows logically that the metaphor of the genome as a blueprint for building a body is wrong. It is not which genes you have, but how those genes interact with each other during development that makes you different from another individual of the same species, or from a salmon or a cabbage. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/a-blog-around-the-clock/bio101-from-genes-to-traits-how-genotype-affects-phenotype/
So, directly contrary to what Darwinists believe with their 'selfish gene' model, it is not the genes that dictate what form an organism may take, or that differentiate one species from another species, but it is how the genes get used that differentiate one species from another species. And when we look at how genes get used in organisms, via alternative splicing patterns, we find that the genomes of species are designed to be radically different from one another.
Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012 Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,, A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species.?On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,, http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F33782%2Ftitle%2FEvolution-by-Splicing%2F
As the following article states, "As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes, collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification of products of all possible transcript isoforms"
Widespread Expansion of Protein Interaction Capabilities by Alternative Splicing - 2016 In Brief Alternatively spliced isoforms of proteins exhibit strikingly different interaction profiles and thus, in the context of global interactome networks, appear to behave as if encoded by distinct genes rather than as minor variants of each other.,,, Page 806 excerpt: As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes (Pan et al., 2008), collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification of products of all possible transcript isoforms (Smith and Kelleher, 2013). http://iakouchevalab.ucsd.edu/publications/Yang_Cell_OMIM_2016.pdf
Moreover, besides the genetic evidence falsifying Darwinian claims, the fossil record, when scrutinized in detail, also falsifies the Darwinian narrative of human evolution Just recently an article, from the American Museum of Natural History no less, stated that, “Overall, the researchers found that most stories of human origins are not compatible with the fossils that we have today.”
Most human origins stories are not compatible with known fossils - May 6, 2021 Excerpt: Overall, the researchers found that most stories of human origins are not compatible with the fossils that we have today. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/05/210506142133.htm
Ouch! I can just imagine the hostile backlash that the American Museum of Natural History received from militant Darwinists for daring to tell the truth about the fossil record being incompatible with the various stories Darwinists tell about human evolution. The fossil record, like the genetic evidence, simply does not support the grand Darwinian claim that man 'randomly' evolved from some ape-like creature.
“No known hominin species matches the expected dental morphology of the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans,” relies on fossils of approximately 1,200 molars and premolars from 13 species or types of hominins — humans and human relatives and ancestors. Fossils from the well-known Atapuerca sites have a crucial role in this research, accounting for more than 15 percent of the complete studied fossil collection.,,, They conclude with high statistical confidence that none of the hominins usually proposed as a common ancestor, such as Homo heidelbergensis, H. erectus and H. antecessor, is a satisfactory match. “None of the species that have been previously suggested as the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans has a dental morphology that is fully compatible with the expected morphology of this ancestor,” Gómez-Robles said." - Indiana University, “No Known Hominin Is Common Ancestor of Neanderthals and Modern Humans, Study Suggests” at ScienceDaily (October 21, 2013) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131021153202.htm Contested Bones: Is There Any Solid Fossil Evidence for Ape-to-Man Evolution? - Dr. John Sanford and Chris Rupe Excerpt: We have spent four years carefully examining the scientific literature on this subject. We have discovered that within this field (paleoanthropology), virtually all the famous hominin types have either been discredited or are still being hotly contested. Within this field, not one of the hominin types have been definitively established as being in the lineage from ape to man. This includes the famous fossils that have been nicknamed Lucy, Ardi, Sediba, Habilis, Naledi, Hobbit, Erectus, and Neaderthal. Well-respected people in the field openly admit that their field is in a state of disarray. It is very clear that the general public has been deceived regarding the credibility and significance of the reputed hominin fossils. We will show that the actual fossil evidence is actually most consistent with the following three points. 1) The hominin bones reveal only two basic types; ape bones (Ardi and Lucy), and human bones (Naledi, Hobbit, Erectus, and Neaderthal). 2) The ape bones and the human bones have been repeatedly found together in the same strata – therefore both lived at the same basic timeframe (the humans were apparently hunting and eating the apes). 3) Because the hominin bones were often found in mixed bone beds (with bones of many animal species in the same site), numerous hominin types represent chimeras (mixtures) of ape and human bones (i.e., Sediba, Habilis). We will also present evidence that the anomalous hominin bones that are of the human (Homo) type most likely represent isolated human populations that experienced severe inbreeding and subsequent genetic degeneration. This best explains why these Homo bones display aberrant morphologies, reduced body size, and reduced brain volume. We conclude that the hominin bones do not reveal a continuous upward progression from ape to man, but rather reveal a clear separation between the human type and the ape type. The best evidence for any type of intermediate “ape-men” derived from bones collected from mixed bone beds (containing bones of both apes and men), which led to the assembly of chimeric skeletons. Therefore, the hominin fossils do not prove human evolution at all.,,, We suggest that the field of paleoanthropology has been seriously distorted by a very strong ideological agenda and by very ambitious personalities. https://ses.edu/contested-bones-is-there-any-solid-fossil-evidence-for-ape-to-man-evolution/ “Contested Bones” reviewed by Dr. Paul Giem – video playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6ZOKj-YaHA&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNU_twNBjopIqyFOwo_bTkXm
So when the genetic and fossil evidence is scrutinized soberly and objectively, instead of with Darwinian rose-colored glasses on, we find that Darwinists are severely lacking any compelling scientific evidence that their narrative for human evolution is actually true.bornagain77_{June 8, 2021
June
06
Jun
8
08
2021
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

Seversky claims that,
But living things do change over time. We are different from our ape-like ancestors from hundreds of thousands of years ago. Who know(s) what we’ll be like hundreds of thousands of years from now,
Well since the scientific evidence itself says that man is in a state of genomic decay instead of genomic advancement, i.e. mutations are shown to be overwhelmingly detrimental,,
The Human Gene Mutation Database The Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD®) represents an attempt to collate known (published) gene lesions responsible for human inherited disease. Deleterious Mutation total (as of June 18. 2020) – 306,768 http://www.hgmd.cf.ac.uk/ac/ Human Genetic Variation Recent, Varies Among Populations - (Nov. 28, 2012) Excerpt: Nearly three-quarters of mutations in genes that code for proteins -- the workhorses of the cell -- occurred within the past 5,000 to 10,000 years,,,?"One of the most interesting points is that Europeans have more new deleterious (potentially disease-causing) mutations than Africans,",,, "Having so many of these new variants can be partially explained by the population explosion in the European population. However, variation that occur in genes that are involved in Mendelian traits and in those that affect genes essential to the proper functioning of the cell tend to be much older." (A Mendelian trait is controlled by a single gene. Mutations in that gene can have devastating effects.) The amount variation or mutation identified in protein-coding genes (the exome) in this study is very different from what would have been seen 5,000 years ago,,, The report shows that "recent" events have a potent effect on the human genome. Eighty-six percent of the genetic variation or mutations that are expected to be harmful arose in European-Americans in the last five thousand years, said the researchers. The researchers used established bioinformatics techniques to calculate the age of more than a million changes in single base pairs (the A-T, C-G of the genetic code) that are part of the exome or protein-coding portion of the genomes (human genetic blueprint) of 6,515 people of both European-American and African-American decent.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121128132259.htm
,,, since man is found to be in a state of genomic decay, then man, if things remain as they are and his genome continues to deteriorate, and if man has not gone extinct by then, will be, physically speaking, in a much sadder state than he is now,
Dr. John Sanford Lecture at NIH (National Institute for Health): Genetic Entropy – (Human Genetic Degeneration) Can Genome Degradation be Stopped? (Short answer, NO!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Mfn2upw-O8
Needless to say, if Darwinian evolution were actually true, and things stay there present course, then that is a pretty bleak and hopeless future for man. Whereas, on the other hand, within Christian Theism all hope is not lost. In Christianity It is held that man, sometime in the future, will be, "in the twinkling of an eye," radically transformed, 'imperishable'.
1 Corinthians 15: 51-55 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—in an instant, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must be clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come to pass: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” “Where, O Death, is your victory? Where, O Death, is your sting?”
Moreover, ignoring the fact that mutations are now known to be overwhelmingly detrimental, Seversky simply has no scientific evidence that it is possible to extrapolate variations witnessed within a species (micro-evolution), to the radical transformations, i.e. unlimited plasticity, he imagines (macro-evolution) in his just-so story of man evolving from some ape-like creature. As Jonathan Wells explains, Biologists can mutate (and indeed have mutated) a fruit fly embryo in every possible way, and they have invariably observed only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly.
Jonathan Wells: Far from being all-powerful, DNA does not wholly determine biological form - March 31, 2014 Excerpt: Studies using saturation mutagenesis in the embryos of fruit flies, roundworms, zebrafish and mice also provide evidence against the idea that DNA specifies the basic form of an organism. Biologists can mutate (and indeed have mutated) a fruit fly embryo in every possible way, and they have invariably observed only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jonathan-wells-far-from-being-all-powerful-dna-does-not-wholly-determine-biological-form/ Response to John Wise - October 2010 Excerpt: But there are solid empirical grounds for arguing that changes in DNA alone cannot produce new organs or body plans. A technique called “saturation mutagenesis”1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12. None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–,,, (As Jonathan Wells states),,, We can modify the DNA of a fruit fly embryo in any way we want, and there are only three possible outcomes: A normal fruit fly; A defective fruit fly; or A dead fruit fly. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html
Biological form simply is not reducible to mutations in DNA as Darwinists had falsely imagined.
"At present, the problem of biological form remains unsolved." – Linde-Medina, M. On the problem of biological form. Theory Biosci. 139, 299–308 (2020). https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/recent-paper-the-problem-of-biological-form-remains-unsolved/ “Any transition of form is pure fantasy. There is no demonstration of it.” Douglas Axe - co-author of Science & Human Origins - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxMmLakH2LQ?
bornagain77_{June 8, 2021
June
06
Jun
8
08
2021
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

Probably after mainstream science accepts the obvious truth that the DNA bases are chosen in an intelligent way, then still only the Christian evolutionists will keep going, because of having the motivation to do anything, by belief in God.mohammadnursyamsu_{June 8, 2021
June
06
Jun
8
08
2021
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

What is disliked about those who cling to evolution, are the assumptions made. Assumptions make for good fiction, but rather poor science. Science, not as those who wish to bastardize it wish for it to be, is based on what is witnessed. Remove the assumptions and evolutionists have no argument. It has never been witnessed and the results never replicated. Without witnessing and replication, it is fiction. Evolutionists most common defense is to assume facts that are not in evidence. Scientific theory, no matter how much it's bastardized, remains what is witnessed and can it be replicated. Has speciation ever been witnessed? No. Has speciation ever been replicated? No. Unless the answer to both is yes, evolution is not a valid theory.BobRyan_{June 7, 2021
June
06
Jun
7
07
2021
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT}

No that’s actually not what ID and creationists really dislike about evolution It’s when you use evolution as a tool or weapon to eliminate A belief you disagree with When evolution is used as a massive “god of gaps” argument to explain everything away and then is leveraged as an excuse to attack God and call people who believe in God stupid and ignorant That is the problem Sev I never had a problem with evolution I never questioned my belief when I learned about it and I went through all of my ap and college classes in science with no issue My first major was supposed to be micro biology and chemistry two subjects I was very excited about. However I managed to be very lucky and had not encountered the raging atheists that hated my religion It wasn’t until I got into a college course in debate that I encountered this for the first time and then I never ever stopped in countering it In fact it almost became a daily thing where I even encountered friends that I knew for years that apparently were raging atheist and suddenly had no problem telling me that I believed in a magic man in the sky even when I didn’t bring it up with them I always kept my religious opinion to myself for many years because I couldn’t stand it when Mormons would proselytize to me so I wouldn’t do it to anybody else And then I found out that people were using evolution To reduce and explain everything you do Nothing was ever truly unique to you it could all be explained by evolution nothing was just yours, it evolved, you are a puppet of evolution And then everything that made this life enjoyable had to have evolution tacked to it All the mystery and joy is wiped away with the power of evolution The corrosive acid that erodes tradition and leaves revolution!!!! What it really did was it ruined every perspective I had, made everything meaningless, and suck the joy from everything Everything is selfish to be honest with you pain is the only unselfish thing when it comes to evolution because at least pain is trying to save your life by telling you it’s in danger Evolution steals purpose away and destroys meaning The idea of evolution that creatures progress and change over time was never an issue for me and many others It’s when it’s used to reduce everything down to meaningless crap such as love and friendship, the things that make life enjoyable And then when you use it as a weapon to explain one of the most important things to these people away “God” You can’t expect them to have any different reaction to it Because for a lot of people like me, meaning stems from God first and I need meaning to exist because I don’t value my own made up crap meaning enough to give me reasons to be happy and to exist in the first place If that sums it up for you At least that’s how I view it because that’s how I experienced itAaronS1978_{June 7, 2021
June
06
Jun
7
07
2021
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT}

But living things do change over time. We are different from our ape-like ancestors from hundreds of thousands of years ago. Who know what we'll be like hundreds of thousands of years from now, assuming we're still around, of course. Is that what creationists and ID proponents most dislike about evolution, that we might change out of all recognition rather than staying as we are for all eternity?Seversky_{June 7, 2021
June
06
Jun
7
07
2021
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply