Is. 56:10, 11, 2 Pet. 2:14, 15Natural selection, yes; evolution, no
[Natural selection, yes;
evolution, no by Dr. Gary Parker] "The definition of the
“fittest” individuals makes the notion of natural selection true based on
circular reasoning. The fittest are the ones that survive, and you can tell
which are the fittest by seeing which ones survive. (The fact that survival of
the fittest is based on circular reasoning does not necessarily mean that the
idea is false.) Fitness is controlled by many factors that allow the organism to
survive and reproduce. The fastest zebra may be deaf and have a poor sense of
smell. This combination would tend to eliminate his genes from a population. The
only way to understand fitness is to study the first generation and then track
the presence of those traits through time as successive generations are born.
Numerical values can be used to represent the fitness of individuals based on
the ratio of individuals with different traits. These numbers can explain
fitness, but they have no predictive power—you can only determine the fittest
after they survive. Mice that hold still to avoid being seen by a soaring hawk
are better able to survive, except when it is safer to run to their burrows to
avoid being eaten—each may provide an advantage. If the fact that the survivors
survived is used to prove evolution, the circular reasoning becomes a logic
problem.
Another misconception is that the fittest variety must be increasing in
number...
One shortcoming is that natural selection cannot plan ahead—an advantage one day may become a hindrance as the environment changes...
The complex system of proteins involved in the blood-clotting reaction makes up an “irreducibly complex” system. If any one of the pieces is missing, the system fails. Evolution cannot adequately explain how such systems could arise.
Adaptations are usually presented in a way that makes them seem like a natural extension of natural selection...
The presence of irreducible complexity in biological systems is another
roadblock for naturalistic theories of evolution. It is hard to imagine how you
could get to the top of the Empire State Building if you had to jump, but the
task becomes easier when you learn that there are stairs...
Darwin recognized this
limit and acknowledged it in Origin of Species. In his book Darwin’s Black Box,
Michael Behe describes the biochemical details of several systems that need all
of their parts present to function. Since removing one of the proteins involved
in blood-clotting causes catastrophic results, the system has irreducible
complexity. This irreducible complexity is not only present within living
organisms but also between them in ecological interactions. The interaction of
fish and shrimp in cleaning symbiosis is one example. A large fish allows a
small fish or shrimp to clean parasites from its mouth and then swims off
without eating the cleaner. How could this relationship, and other irreducibly
complex systems, have evolved one step at a time?
Even if Darwin’s ideas can explain the maintenance of traits and variation
within a kind, they do not address the actual origin of the traits in the first
place...
...The origin of this new information is thought by neo- Darwinists to occur by random mutation—random mutations are the raw material for evolution....[M]utations cannot explain the increase or origin of information in living systems. The creationist model—that information was created by the Supreme Designer—fits the observations much better than naturalistic evolution." Evolution Exposed, Second Ed. Natural selection, yes; evolution, no, Parker.
Response to comment [from a Catholic]: "[S]erpentdove's preferred interpretation of the Bible..."
Truth is truth independent of me. :yawn: Rome lies (Rev. 3:14–22). God does not.
Response to comment [from a Catholic]: "We'll leave the light on for you, gemara."
You've got cash, right?
Is. 56:10, 11, 2 Pet. 2:14, 15
Natural selection, yes; evolution, no