Letters to the Editor
-
LeCastor:
"did you read about that fish that they found recently that is one of the "missing links"?"
You are referring to Tiktaalik. It was simply a lobed fish, much like the Coelacanth, which is alive today. And once again, the fossil is open to interpretation, and is still no hard evidence for the supposed fish-->amphibian evolution. Of course, no Creationist scientist has been allowed access to this newly discovered fossil, so I cannot further comment on it except to say that it is still not nearly enough to redeem this flawed theory. Also keep in mind that this still is not solid evidence for fish-->amphibian evolution; no one saw it happen, and the process cannot be repeated. It is still therefore left open to interpretation.
"Or how about the moths in the british isles?"
I am very experienced in the Evolution/Creation debate (I actually have very little experience debating politics), and no learned evolutionist will dare to even mention this piece of debunked evidence anymore.
You see, evolution happens. No one disputes that. But what TYPE of evolution and to what EXTENT organisms evolve is disputed. You have to understand the nature of this evolution. Microbe-->man evolution is genetically impossible because in order for evolution to have occured on such a grand scale, there must be a constant increase in a population's genetic information. This is not what has been observed. In fact, we see the exact opposite happening: as mutations begin to pile up, the organism experiences a loss in genetic information, and as a certain variant is selected for (natural selection), the organism also loses the ability for further variation. Creationists hold that each created kind has been created with a certain amount of genetic information, and a certain amount of genetic variability. Consider to following examples:
1) There are two mechanisms by which evolution occurs. For the first mechanism of observable evolution, let's use the dog as an example. The original dog/wolf kind probably had genes that coded for a wide variety of fur lengths. Now, in Mendelian genetics, there are dominant alleles, recessive alleles, and then what are known as codominant alleles (there is also incomplete dominance, but this type of allele has no relevance to this example). For our example, let's just say that the long hair (L) alleles and the short hair alleles (S) are codominant. If the original dogs carried the genes that coded for both long and short hair, then each pair must have carried both the L and S alleles, making them medium haired individuals. When the pair breeds, they will produce individuals with 1) the L and S alleles (making them medium-haired), 2) the SS alleles (making them short-haired), or 3) the LL alleles (making them long-haired). Now, suppose the environment suddenly became much cooler (say, during the ice-age) and in certain areas of the dog's range, the individuals with longer hair were favored and selected for, whereas the others dies out, resulting in a population consiting of only long-haired dogs. This is an example of observable evolution.
However, look at what just happened: the long haired individuals LOST genetic information. They no longer carry the genes that code for medium or short haired individuals; only the pre-existing genetic material has been selected for. In other words, evolution is a conservative process, and what occurs in observable evolution (a net loss of genetic material) is the exact opposite of what is required for macroevolution: the creation of totally new genetic material.
2) For the second mechanism mentioned, let's use bacteria that has been introduced to the anti-biotic penicillin as an example. Bacteria normally produce an enzyme known as penicillase, which destroys penicillin. The amount of penicillinase is controlled by a gene. There is usually enough produced to handle any penicillin encountered in the wild, but the bacterium is overwhelmed by the amount given to patients. A mutation disabling this controlling gene results in much more penicillinase being produced. This enables the bacterium to resist the antibiotic.
Now, this is an excellent example of an organism adapting to the environment through mutations. However, here is the catch: the bacteria just lost the variation for the gene that codes for the regulation of the enzyme. Therefore, when re-introduced to it's original environment, this new strain quickly dies out and is replaced by the original strain of the bacteria. This is because the mutant strain is less fit to it's original environment, as it wastes resources by producing unnecessary penicillinase. So, having lost the gene that codes for the regulating enzyme, the new strain dies out.
I would suggest visiting answersingenesis.org for more information. It provides answers to every single evolutionist claim, and is one of the most well-known Creationist organizations. They are actually in the process of building a multi-million dollar Creation musuem, and their scientists are brilliant people.
"If you want to keep believing in the literal interpretation of the bible, why not move on to "the sun orbits around the earth" next?"
Because the Bible never says that. You find me the passage.
As for your moth example, it's simply an example of shifting gene frequencies. There is no gain or loss in genetic information. And in the end, well, it's still a moth ;-).
-
One more load of dung on the on the molehill of intellectual pomposity!
Your weeping and knashing of teeth shows the true emptiness of your inner being,
unfortunately you infect your son.
Sincerely,
Peter
-
What ignorance
in fact, it's not the fundies who write monumental pieces of literature, write beautiful music, work in the biolabs to cure cancer, work on math and physics problems.
Gee, you've never heard of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Milton, C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, to name a few?
Or how about Bach, Beethoven, Haydn, to name a few?
Or how about Francis Collins, the devoutly evangelical Christian who deciphered the human genome. Or Louis Pasteur, another devout Christian?
How about Newton or Kepler, both devout Christians? (Kepler said of his astronomical work: "I'm reading God's thoughts after him.")
LeCastor, you prove yourself an ignoramus with you simplistic arguments. You might want to recheck that peppered moth argument, too, since it's been pretty well discredited. (The experimenter put the light and dark colored moths on tree trunks, not their normal habitat, and he did not know that birds see in a different light spectrum from the human eye, so the relative lightness and darkness of the moth was irrelevant to the bird's eye.)
As for that so-called missing link, it proves nothing that it had an apparent "elbow." It's the interpretive framework you bring to looking at a "fact." If you're determined to find a missing link, you will force the evidence to fit your presuppositions. There is, by the way, no necessary dishonesty here; it's just the way the mind works.
In short, LeCaster, you need to learn a bit more about the world around you and take a basic course in both logic and epistomology.