That article hit the nail right on the head. Really good read for those that might not be familiar with evolution on a grand scale. There’s something I’d like to say regarding the bringing of faith into the argument. When discussing evolution, someone of religion almost always fires back with something along the lines of “you need just as much faith to believe life spontaneously came from a soup as you do a god”. That is true. However, that is getting into the origin of life, not the origin of species (evolution). Darwin was very clear about this in his writings, so I don’t understand why he gets so much hate from people. To not believe in evolution because you can’t agree on the origin of life is quite foolish, IMO.
Please, say it ain't so!
I’m related to Carrot Top?!!
Crap!
... because cloning and man made genetic manipulation.
Evolution should not exclude creation , but the language makes the religious look whaky and reject evolution.
It is the evolutionists who reject creation, not the creationists who reject evolution.
Even simplified it is still statistically impossible. When reading textbooks there is a good “chance” that you “may” see these too terms over and over and over.
IF one believes in the Creator God and His WORD, you cannot accept the whole concept of ‘evolution’.
Those who don’t believe are free to explore it thoroughly.
But if you believe in God and His Word, it says clearly that “death came into the world by sin (Adam’s)...”
Evolution needs many years of life and DEATH to accomplish what it does.
If there was no death before Adam’s sin, how could evolution happen?
-You’d need to remove God from the equation.
“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion–a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint–and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it–the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”
– Michael Ruse, How evolution became a religion
[1] “Genes, stored in every cell, are the body’s blueprints; they code for traits like eye color, disease susceptibility, and a bazillion other things that make you you.”
Mostly true but incomplete. Gene do not account for all aspects of personality, the “you.” See Twin studies for example.
[2]”Reproduction involves copying and recombining these blueprints, which is complicated, and errors happen.”
True statement.
[3]”Errors are passed along in the code to future generations, the way a smudge on a photocopy will exist on all subsequent copies.”
Partially true. There are errors and adaptions. Adaptions using already existing code in the DNA like Darwin’s elongated Finch beaks, City dweller nose hair density, etc. revert back when the stimulus is removed. An analogy would be like putting up a convertible top when it rains and storing it again when its sunny. This is not error nor new, but adaption.
[4]”This modified code can (but doesn’t always) produce new traits in successive generations: an extra finger, sickle-celled blood, increased tolerance for Miley Cyrus shenanigans.”
This is mostly untrue. Adaptions are not “new” but rather based on existing information that is in the DNA and activated. They revert when stimulus is removed.
[5]”When these new traits are advantageous (longer legs in gazelles), organisms survive and replicate at a higher rate than average, and when disadvantageous (brittle skulls in woodpeckers), they survive and replicate at a lower rate.”
Partially true. The traits that pass on are the ones already existing in the DNA that were been switched on by stimulus.
Example:
“We report a screen of a sample of the culturable microbiome of Lechuguilla Cave, New Mexico, in a region of the cave that has been isolated for over 4 million years. We report that, like surface microbes, these bacteria were highly resistant to antibiotics; some strains were resistant to 14 different commercially available antibiotics. Resistance was detected to a wide range of structurally different antibiotics including daptomycin, an antibiotic of last resort in the treatment of drug resistant Gram-positive pathogens.”
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0034953
As a one time believer/defender of Evolution, I have a very good understanding of that religion.
As a Christian, I not only understand my current faith but have come to realize my previous beliefs were radically wrong.
Endogenous retrovirus.
Wow, that Darwin. Who else could have thought of something so radical?
You don't believe in it
Very well, if you insist, I don't believe in evolution.
After countless generations of fruit fly breeding and experiments, the lowly fruit fly is still a fruit fly. I'm still awaiting true lab proof of macroevolution. The quoted statement is wishful thinking.
“Genes, stored in every cell, are the body’s blueprints; they code..."
Stop right there. You don't get "blueprints" or a "code" without an Architect or a Coder. There has never been a demonstrated instance of any code (a code being defined as "input alphabet 'A' = output alphabet 'B') that was not the product of a Mind. EVERY code where the source of the code is known is the product of a MIND.