Replies

I am generally conversant with the basic tenets of the Theory, and as an avid reader, was greatly amused with Darwin's almost clever novel "The Origin of the Species."

But, inasmuch as the Theory itself propounds in direct contradiction of that which I know to be true, I haven't wasted much time on pursuing it. Here's what i can tell you, from a scholarly perspective.

Our common usage of the word "evolution" conveys the idea that living things in our world have come into being through unguided naturalistic processes starting from a primeval mass of subatomic particles and radiation, over approximately 20 billion years.

A more precise understanding of the above statement divides the phantasmagoric "atoms to people" transition into four realms:

1. Cosmology is the branch of astronomy which deals with the origin and formation of the general structure of the "known" [sic!] universe.

2. Abiogenesis refers to first life - the unbidden production of living organisms from otherwise inanimate matter.

3. Micro-evolution or speciation refers to populational and species change through time. There are many published examples of speciation, if by the development of a new "species" we describe the development of a new population of individuals which will not breed with the original population to produce fertile offspring. (Micro-evolution is a scientific fact which no one, including creationists, dispute.)

4. Macro-evolution or, as it is often called, general evolution refers to the progression to more complex forms of life. The mechanisms of macro-evolution, including whether or not micro-evolution over a long enough time leads to macro-evolution, can be regarded as a "research topic."

Pure bunk, for the most part.

[... evolution summary snip ...]

You are the first Creationist I have ever seen answer that question. I appreciate it. And I commend you. Seriously.

Your #2 (abiogenesis) and #4 (macro-evolution) are generally considered separate areas of research and investigation with #2 falling to the chemists and #4 remaining in the domain of the biologists.

I would be interested in hearing what specifically you consider "pure bunk" about it, but that will have to wait until another time. I'm off to party like it's... well... oh, nevermind...

(Micro-evolution is a scientific fact which no one, including creationists, dispute.)

While I agree with you that evolution is bunk and with your other points, I do disagree that micro-evolution is a scientific fact. The two examples of it given by evoltuionists, the moths and the Darwin finches, have been disproven. The story of the moths was based on fraud. The story of the finches has been disproven by observations made some 20 years ago. First of all, the finches are not different species. These finches can and do interbreed. Not only that, but the 'mixed' breeds are more viable and produce more and stronger offspring than the unmixed ones. The change in beak size is not unidirectional as evolution would require. Instead the beak sizes change back and forth according to the amount of rainfall each season. What this show therefore is not mutation (which is what evolution requires) but adaptation of the species through inherent abilities already in their genes. This adaptability is true of all species. A simple example is our developing a suntan to protect from too much sun.