PV Gap

Phillip Said:

Why do some christians continually misunderstand the word "theory"?

We Answered:

Evolution is not false because it is a theory, it is false because it never happened. What is confused is the difference between micro and macro evolution and random single point mutations and variation experienced through a non-random system of gene manipulation. Many people, including yourself, quote the common mantra that macro evolution is just micro evolution over a longer time. That is just not true and that is where your theory of evolution actually turns into a brainwashing mind game of bait and switch. You observe a million examples of variation. For instance you observe that some unknown common dog ancestor has been bred into hundreds of variations of dogs today. But you fail to note the limit of your observation. Because you have a philosophy, or a hypothesis of macro evolution (the first micro-organism changing into everything else) that is very important to you, you fail to note the limit of your observations. You allow subjective, grossly oversimplified, and circular interpretations dictate the though on the scope and importance of your observations because the subjective nature favors your needs. Again, the dog variation we observe has been going on since the beginning of known human history. But with dogs, and every other creature that has ever been observed, they are still producing the same basic kind of animal. Every dog variation is still fully dog. They did not produce those variations because of random single point mutations, they were produced through a manipulation of supplied population genetics. Big difference! For an even better example of this, think about the peppered moth. Both dark and light moths were there at the beginning, and both dark and light moths were in the end. But this is presented to show the power of natural selection. Which is fine and true but it is then quickly moved over to support that the first supposed self replicating molecule has evolved into every other creature in the biosphere. Think about this, just because is can jump one foot in the air, that doesn't mean that I can jump for a million billion years and reach the moon. Or, just because I can flip a coin and achieve heads 5 times in a row, that does not mean that I can flip the coin and achieve 300 heads in a row. Now I don't know how much you have studied molecular biology, but there is no possibility of natural forces, chemistry, and time of producing the complexity of life we observe. There is no evolutionary pathway to create proteins, 1, 2, or 10 amino acids at a time. There is no function in a protein until there is quite a bit of information present. And most proteins have many hundreds of amino acids in them. Some have thousands. Also, there is no life function with just one protein. It takes many proteins, in exacting complexity and specificity, working in perfect concert, in order to create on simple cellular system. It takes many hundreds of these proteins to make a slightly more complex single cellular system. But one cellular system does not good either. It takes many, many cellular systems all working in perfect concert in order to have a living cell. So think about the complexity of creating a simple one dimensional sequence, with out a mistake, out of 27 items. If you use a random method, it would take, to achieve the proper odds of hoping to get it right, 1 trillion trial per second, continuously, for about 345 million years! That is for a one dimensional sequence. The information technology in life is many magnitudes more complex than a simple sequence! So I don't disregard the Theory of evolution because it is a theory. I understand what a theory is. I disregard it because it doesn't have the evidence to back it up. All of the evidence used is grossly oversimplified, subjective, or false and misleading. Fossils don't support it. Even scientifically! Think about it. Archyopteryx may be the ancestor of every living bird today. It may not be as well. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one kind of creature may have given rise to another kind of creature and how natural selection may have favored the one kind, step, or stage over the other but this is not science, as IT CAN NOT BE PUT TO THE TEST, as science demands. So thinking that a dinosaur evolved into a humming bird and pointing to Archyopteryx for evidence is not going to cut it. A could really make this point better, and carry it over to all the other evidence you think you have supporting Neo-Darwinian Evolution, but they don't provide me with near enough room. You will have to search out this for yourself! I will provide you will a list of books and DVDs to study if you are interested.