Living light

“Those who have seen fireflies are familiar with bioluminescence— a phenomenon found throughout the biological world. The chemical reaction that produces this “living light” is found in algae, worms, insects, fungi, and genetically modified organisms. Evolutionists attempt to explain the broad array of living things that have this ability with convergent evolution. This ability, which involves at least two chemical reactions and several compounds, would have had to evolve independently at least 30 different times to explain its existence in living things. The separate lines of descent would have to have undergone the same random changes at hundreds of genetic steps—statistically impossible. The convergence of this and other traits is solid evidence for a Creator who used a common design.”  Evolution Exposed, Second Ed. Living light, Sherwin,

Response to comment [from other]:  "So are you predicting that you would find the same job done in the same way in different species because of common design?"

Adaptations have not developed through evolution.

"That is not a prediction.  Are you predicting that you would find the same job done in the same way in different species because of common design?"

I hadn't made a prediction.  I am discussing what scientists observe.  Species are suited for their environment.  Atheists have to maintain evolutionary stories like new information in genomes so as not to be responsible to a holy God. 

"If evolutionists really spoke and wrote only about observable variation within kind, there would be no creation-evolution controversy. But as you know, textbooks, teachers, and television “docudramas” insist on extrapolating from simple variation within kind to the wildest sorts of evolutionary changes. And, of course, as long as they insist on such extrapolation, creationists will point out the limits to such change and explore creation, instead, as the more logical inference from our observations. All we have ever observed is what evolutionists themselves call “subspeciation” (variation within kind), never “transspeciation” (change from one kind to others)...
 

Look at people, for instance. Each of us has certain traits that we may admire (or abhor): brown hair, tall stature, or even a magnificent nose like mine. Whatever the trait, someone else has exactly the same trait, but nobody has the same combination of traits that you do or I do. Each of us is a unique combination of non-unique traits. In a sense, that’s why it’s hard to classify people. If you break them up according to hair type, you’ll come out with groups that won’t fit with the eye type, and so on. Furthermore, we recognize each person as distinct.

We see a similar pattern among other living things. Each created kind is a unique combination of traits that are individually shared with members of other groups. The platypus (Fig. 9), for example, was at first considered a hoax by evolutionists, since its “weird” set of traits made it difficult even to guess what it was evolving from or into. Creationists point out that each of its traits (including complex ones like its electric location mechanism, leathery egg, and milk glands) is complete, fully functional, and well-integrated into a distinctive and marvelous kind of life.

Perhaps God used a design in living things similar to the one He used in the non-living world. Only about a hundred different elements or atoms are combined in different ways to make a tremendous variety of non-living molecules or compounds..." Full text:  “Species” and “kind”

Does evolution produce stasis or progress?  Why do you think "living fossils" are found that have remained the same for "millions" of years while other species have evolved relatively rapidly? 

Response to comment [from a "Christian"]:  "Tell us what the process was [it] that this designer used so that we can test whether it occurred. We need to know the physical process to test it. No physical process, nothing to test for."

By designer, do you mean God?  Information cannot be created from matter by purely natural mechanisms.  How do you think this information originated?  Can this information be gained experimentally?

Response to comment [from other]:  "Maybe we could move to a new thread..."

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain...:shocked:

Meanwhile, what direct fossil evidence is that that fish evolved into amphibians?  Could "transitional fossils" be interpreted in different ways?

Response to comment [from an atheist]:  "Evolution does not equate to atheism..."

One former atheist called evolution a doorway to atheism.  Believing in the story of evolution rather than the creation account as given in the Bible does not make you an atheist but it sure helps.

Do you think we should accept everything that is written in student's textbooks when they are constantly being changed and updated? 

Response to comment [from a Christian]:  "Sorry to have gotten off track yet again on your thread!  I wish I did know more about this topic - but I have enjoyed reading what you have posted a great deal."

Pas de probleme!

We learn as we go along. Fun.

Just remember, scientists don't always know the function of an organ that is called a vestigial (like the appendix) when most tissues are not preserved in fossils and their ancestors cannot be examined. They, like Queen Amidala, "assume too much"--so don't let them rip your innards out.

In the meantime, the firefly is neat and God is good!

Response to comment [from a Catholic]:  "How many will not consider Christianity because you make it appear evolution and Christianity are not compatible?"

You haven't accepted the gospel (Eph 2:8, Ro 1:16) in the years that Christians have attempted to share it with you? :idunno: The depth of depravity of the human heart never ceases to amaze (Jer 17:9, Mk 7:8, 9 ). 

Living light