31-Mar-2012, 1:14 AM
This is a huge topic, not a small one. My degree is in biology, and so was my field of work, so I am not turning my back on "science".
Creationists fully accept natural selection. But, natural selection cannot create new information, which is what evolution demands. Natural selection actually decreases genetic information by eradicating certain alleles in favor of others. Mutations also do not create new information, they rearrange existing information, or remove sections of existing information.
That article James referred to uses what we call "bait and switch"
As for my understanding of genetics, I went to class under Dr. Suzuki when he was at UBC (University of British Columbia), including lab studies in gene mapping of fruit flies through induced mutations. There is a lot that scientists are only beginning to understand in the field of genetics.
Regarding the "billions of years that life has been known to exist". This is an interpretation of the evidence and not the evidence itself. The interpretation arises from the worldview. (remember worldviews?) It may be the prevailing worldview, but it is not necessarily the correct one. Truth is not a matter of who gets the most votes.
Changing topics midstream. As part of my job, I maintained a rural weather observer station for Environment Canada for 30 years. Having seen the unvarnished daily data back to the 1940's, and seeing the deliberate falsification of data by the AGW crowd (the East Anglia scandal among others), I came to reject the Al Gores of the world. If you want to know what is really happening about the global warming thing, then I suggest you follow the money.
Two good sites for the unvarnished truth:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/ and http://www.climatedepot.com/
ian
Scepticism of prevailing dogma is not a bad thing. It is good practice for developing your thinking skills.
Creationists fully accept natural selection. But, natural selection cannot create new information, which is what evolution demands. Natural selection actually decreases genetic information by eradicating certain alleles in favor of others. Mutations also do not create new information, they rearrange existing information, or remove sections of existing information.
That article James referred to uses what we call "bait and switch"
Quote:Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time."this is what is referred to as "micro-evolution". It has nothing at all to do with "changing fish to philosopher". So, having shown that micro-evolution is accepted (which everyone agrees on anyways) and calling THAT evolution, they switch the meaning of evolution midstream to macro-evolution. So when they go on to say:
Quote:Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others.they are blowing smoke rings. Not a single piece of evidence was presented. This is a logical fallacy known as "elephant hurling".
As for my understanding of genetics, I went to class under Dr. Suzuki when he was at UBC (University of British Columbia), including lab studies in gene mapping of fruit flies through induced mutations. There is a lot that scientists are only beginning to understand in the field of genetics.
Regarding the "billions of years that life has been known to exist". This is an interpretation of the evidence and not the evidence itself. The interpretation arises from the worldview. (remember worldviews?) It may be the prevailing worldview, but it is not necessarily the correct one. Truth is not a matter of who gets the most votes.
Changing topics midstream. As part of my job, I maintained a rural weather observer station for Environment Canada for 30 years. Having seen the unvarnished daily data back to the 1940's, and seeing the deliberate falsification of data by the AGW crowd (the East Anglia scandal among others), I came to reject the Al Gores of the world. If you want to know what is really happening about the global warming thing, then I suggest you follow the money.
Two good sites for the unvarnished truth:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/ and http://www.climatedepot.com/
ian
Scepticism of prevailing dogma is not a bad thing. It is good practice for developing your thinking skills.