Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Gaps are Real!

Expand Messages
  • Laurie Appleton
    THE GAPS ARE REAL, AND THEY ARE A PROBLEM Notice that as we move up the chart we do see change. But notice also that the word change is not specific enough to
    Message 1 of 40 , Dec 11, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      THE GAPS ARE REAL, AND THEY ARE A PROBLEM

      Notice that as we move up the chart we do see change.
      But notice also that the word change is not specific
      enough to accurately describe what is happening. It is
      not just general or random change. As we go from a single
      cell up to man, it is a very specific type of change. It
      is a directional change involving increasing complexity.
      Any other type of change would not satisfy the
      evolutionary chart. Huxley is right. A proper definition
      of evolution must state that it is a directional change
      involving increasing complexity over time.

      Does it matter? Yes, it does! The definition of
      evolution determines the type of evidence that one must
      produce to support it. Since evolution is a very specific
      type of change involving increasing complexity through
      time, the evolutionist must demonstrate that unaided
      nature is able to produce such changes. He must also
      produce objective evidence that such changes have indeed
      taken place. The evolutionist simply cannot produce such
      evidence.

      This is why Henry Morris has emphasized the laws of
      thermodynamics so forcibly. When properly understood,
      the second law of thermodynamics is the single most
      powerful argument against evolution. It states that the
      normal, spontaneous direction of natural processes is
      toward decreasing complexity -- not increasing
      complexity. "As time goes on, order goes down," Morris
      says.

      For this reason, the evolutionist likes to bootleg into
      the argument a deficient definition of evolution. By
      defining evolution as "change or modification over time,"
      evolutionists then feel free to introduce any change in
      nature as evidence for evolution. By this definition all
      of us are evolutionists, for all of us readily admit that
      there is change in nature.

      The question to be asked is: "Could a downward change or
      a lateral change produce what we see on an evolutionary
      chart -- that amoeba-to-man scenario?" The answer is
      obviously "No!" However, if you thumb through the pages
      of any high school or college biology text, you will
      discover that all of the alleged evidences for evolution
      presented in such texts involve changes which are lateral
      rather than upward. The famous "peppered moth," used in
      virtually every evolutionary textbook as living proof of
      evolution, is really a lateral (rather than an upward)
      change.

      Creationists should be vigilant to point out these
      deficient definitions of evolution and the resulting
      defective evidences used to support it. One is really at
      a loss to explain the continual use of these faulty
      definitions. Is it possible that many evolutionists don't
      really understand the kind of evidence needed to support
      their theory? Or is it possible that they do!

      (From Fish to Gish, Marvin L. Lubenow, 1983, p.33-4)
      ========================

      Laurie.

      "The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that
      lie between species, the more they have been frustrated."
      (Newsweek, 3 November, 1980)
      ..


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Charles Palm
      Gluadys: Actually, the concepts of homology and analogy pre-date the theory of evolution. Once evolution was understood, the biological basis of homology and
      Message 40 of 40 , Jan 2, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Gluadys: Actually, the concepts of homology and analogy pre-date the
        theory of evolution. Once evolution was understood, the biological basis of
        homology and analogy was better understood. As the page you linked to
        explains, some similarities are due to inheritance from a common ancestor.
        Some have a different cause. Evolution is involved in both (in particular
        natural selection) but in different ways. It is blatant nonsense to call
        this "invented" or outdated. Neither is the case. What is the case is that
        analogies due to convergent evolution tell us nothing useful about common
        descent.

        Charles P: Homologous and analogous mean the same thing. Both words mean
        that body parts are "alike" in different living things.

        1 The body parts of a male human and a female human are "alike" but it is
        self evident that there are some important dissimilarities.

        2 The body parts of animals with the ability of echolocation are "alike"
        but it is self evident that there are some important dissimilarities.

        Homologous: http://thesaurus.com/browse/homologous?s=t homologous
        features are those that were originally the same in
        evolutionary development but have adapted differently (arms of humans,
        forelegs of cats, etc.); analogous features are those that resemble one
        another in function but are traceable back to completely different origins.

        Analogous: http://thesaurus.com/browse/analogous?s=t homologous features
        are those that were originally the same in evolutionary development but
        have adapted differently (arms of humans, forelegs ofcats, etc.); analogous
        features are those that resemble one another in function but are traceable
        back to completely different origins.

        1 The body parts of a male human and a female human are "alike" but it is
        self evident that there are some important dissimilarities. The definition
        of homologous requires a science writer to says that those dissimilarities
        are "homologous" and those dissimilarities are not "analogous". How do we
        know for sure? Because the reasoning is circular. We believe that human
        males and human females have a common ancestor, therefore the body parts
        that are alike are "homologous".

        2 The body parts of animals with the ability of echolocation are "alike"
        but it is self evident that there are some important dissimilarities. The
        definition of homologous requires a science writer to says that those
        dissimilarities are "not homologous" and those dissimilarities are
        "analogous". How do we know for sure? Because the reasoning is circular.
        We believe that the animals of different groups with the ability of
        echolocation do not have a common ancestor, therefore the body parts that
        are alike are "analogous".

        http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/similarity_hs_01 It works
        the same way in biology.

        1 The science writer believes that body parts of a male human and a female
        human are "alike" and the science writer believes that those features are
        those that were originally the same in evolutionary development but have
        adapted differently. The science writer is required to describe those body
        parts as "homologous".

        2 The science writer believes that body parts of animal echolocation are
        "alike" and the science writer believes that those features are those that
        resemble one another in function but are traceable back to completely
        different origins. The science writer is required to describe those body
        parts as "analogous".

        Charles P: Please verify this for yourselves. There is only belief in
        common ancestry and belief in convergent evolution. The only reliable
        evidence for ancestry is DNA evidence. There is no reliable evidence for
        convergent evolution.

        1 The science writers are required, by definition and because of their
        beliefs, to say that homologous body parts are evidence for common ancestry.

        2 The science writers are required, by definition and because of their
        beliefs, to say that analogous body parts are evidence for convergent
        evolution.

        Charles P: Many science writers do not understand this circular reasoning.
        We went through the same kind of circular reasoning when we discussed
        transition forms as evidence for the old Theory of Evolution. The problems
        of the circular reasoning come from not having empirical and verifiable
        evidence that can be verified by others. Common design is the best
        description for animal echolocation.

        **********************************************

        James A Shapiro: What Is the Best Way to Deal With Supernaturalists in
        Science and Evolution?

        1 Rather than accept that evolution science is always a tentative work in
        progress, conventional evolutionists make absolutist statements like "all
        the facts are on my side." Making obviously inflated and unrealistic
        assertions is hardly likely to convince anyone who has serious questions.

        2 We need to emphasize that science operates strictly within the natural
        world and treats all theories as subject to criticism, revision and
        (ultimately) replacement. Think of Newtonian ideas of space, time and
        gravity as compared to Einsteinian general relativity. There is no reason
        to believe that evolution science is in any way special in this regard.

        3 In summary, pro-evolution debaters will enjoy far more success by active
        engagement with evolution doubters. We need to demonstrate that evolution
        science is alive and well, as well as show how it is making remarkable
        progress through the application of molecular technologies -- even though
        it does not have all the answers.

        4 To the thoughtful scientist whose job is to uncover natural processes,
        this is surely a better way of advocating the scientific method than
        dogmatically asserting that we found all the scientific principles we need
        in centuries past.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.