Criticism?

That's what a lot of people say. But are these claims based on facts and logic? They should be.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• creation
• delusion
• evolution
• origins
• Christianity
• facts
• reason
• logic
• ignorant
• atheist

[brianpv1]

Look up the Hawthorne fly. When apples were introduced to north america, a certain group of these flies began to feed primarily on apples. This group of flies matures faster and earlier in the season than normal Hawthorne flies, and differences have been recorded in six out of thirteen allozyme loci. These new "apple flies" will no longer interbreed with normal Hawthornes, suggesting that sympatric speciation is occuring right in front of our eyes.

[forest51690]

@brianpv1 Yes, sympatric speciation may be occuring there. But speciation is not necessarly evolution.

[gastarbeiter1]

@forest51690 How can speciation NOT be evolution?

[forest51690]

@gastarbeiter1, It's like how black ink on paper disseminates into separate colors when water is added. The colors were there in the black ink originally. Speciation is like that. But evolution would be like another color being added that was not there originally.

[gastarbeiter1]

@forest51690 What does the definition of evolution say?Basically its change over time.In the case of biological evolution it happens due to mutation and then followed by natural or sexual selection or genetic drift(mostly in small population).So by definition every speciation IS evolution.

The potential of all this(the black ink) was the first living organism(wherever you might label it life or not).It had a replicating molecule.Basically this veried to everything we know.

[forest51690]

@gastarbeiter1, change over time, yes, but in an upward, more complex direction, adding new features. All of the genetic codes were not in the first organism; they were added over time. Speciation may only be a recombination of existing genes (a mix and match kind of thing), and not the appearance of new genetic codes. So it's change, yes, but not change in the upward direction.

[gastarbeiter1]

@forest51690 The potential was there.That is all that is needed.New information has been observed.Mutations do the work(hox genes can do great changes if mutated).Also epigenetic has a big impact.Also it has been proven that in humans over 150 mutations are fixed in the genome per generation.Also upward is a bad expression here.There is no ladder.It is fitting to the environment.Nothing more.

[Misterb0z]

To use the common analogy, there is no level of study of a painting that could possibly refute the existence of the painter. Creationists like to say that scientists continually change their ideas. This only goes to show that our understanding changes over time. Had the writers of Genesis been told "God set the gravitational constant to x, and the permittivity of free space to y" there is no way the real 'truth' of the story would have been understood.  Genesis therefore uses allegory.

[Misterb0z]

@forest51690 Rightly so, and any Christian scientist would agree. It's a simplistic thing to say, even if it is true. If God created everything then there is no way that nature can take the place of God, and science aims only to describe nature. And yet creationists claim that some observations in nature cannot be true because they would refute the existence of God! How could this possibly be?!

[forest51690]

@Misterb0z

Yes there are many scientists with religious beliefs, but mainstream science has a bias against religious explanations such as "God created the earth." If anyone wrote a scientific paper on that, they would get laughed at.