Replies

> Evolution is defined as genetic change over time,
> sometimes leading to new species, sometimes sub-species,
> sometimes breeds or races.

The definition of Evolution itself evolves to fit into whatever circumstance its proponents wish.

Neat.

Subject to change without notice.

Just like the small print in the slick sales literature.

When I was in school, they taught that Evolution meant that non-living material magically organized itself into enzymes and proteins, which magically organized themselves into RNA and DNA which then evoved into one-celled creatures which in turn changed into vastly more complex plants and animals and eventually even to man, in tiny steps over hundreds of millions of years.

Nobody explained how the same catalytic processes that were said to cause non-living molecules to so assemble themselves would not also destroy them, or where the new genetic code for the new functionalities and features of newly evolved creatures came from. Nobody explained how features that are not fully formed and would actually hinder a creature’s chances of survival could persist for thousands of generations before finally becoming useful.

Neo-Darwinists were so daunted by the logical challenges presented by such a paradigm, as well as the challenges presented by the fossil record, that they devised “Punctuated Equilibrium” and “Hopeful Monster” scenarios, both just as incredible and silly as the original Darwinist position.

What does the “hopeful monster” breed with, unless there is another “hopeful monster” with the same mutation in the same location close enough to the same time to provide a mate?

It takes a lot more faith to believe in such superstitions as it does to believe simply that God Created.